14.86 per cent of population in Aurangabad is still poor

Niti Ayog: 22nd poorest district in the state

Aurangabad, Dec 28:

Compared to other districts in the state, the capital of Marathwada is lagging behind in terms of happy lifestyle. According to the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) report of the Niti Ayog, Aurangabad has a poverty index of 22 and 14.86 per cent of the urban and rural population is still poor. The report concludes that people are far behind from the basic necessities of life.

In two years, corona and unemployment caused many social challenges, leading to a sharp decline in rural and urban lifestyles. In rural areas, 38.24 per cent of the population gets good food. Good family health 18.96 per cent, mortality 2.60 per cent, property 29 per cent, bank account 9.5 per cent, school attendance 3.80 per cent, cooking utensils 44.60 per cent, toilets 52.2 per cent, household 23.87 per cent, drinking water is 15.41 per cent and electricity connection is available to 2.87 per cent population.

Ten poor districts

The top ten poorest districts in the state include Nandurbar, Dhule, Jalna, Hingoli, Nanded, Yavatmal, Parbhani, Beed, Washim and Gadchiroli. Jalna and Hingoli have the highest poverty index in Marathwada. It is followed by Nanded, Parbhani, Beed, Latur, Osmanabad and Aurangabad.

This increased poverty

The demonetization of 2016 had many adverse effects. Corona then ended the means of income. Unemployment is also a major reason for the rise in the poverty index.

Way of lifestyle in the city

Diet: 38.24 per cent, Family health: 34.41 per cent, mortality: 2.21 per cent, property: 12.29 per cent, bank account: 12.8 per cent, school attendance: 2.86 per cent, cooking equipment: 52 per cent, toilets: 37.43 per cent, houses : 8.10 per cent, drinking water: 6.22 per cent and electricity connection: 3 per cent

Consequences of lack of permanent employment

Migration was rapid during the corona period. Employment problems also arose in rural areas. Rural population didn't get enough work. Employment in the city also reduced. The migration from urban to rural and again from rural to urban still continues. Per capita income has also been affected. Poverty will be reduced if permanent employment is provided by the government, said Ram Baheti, sociologist.