Srinagar: Srinagar has emerged as the richest district in Jammu and Kashmir, while Ramban has been declared the poorest.
According to Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) by NITI Aayog, only 1.51 per cent of population in Srinagar is poor.
Around 35.26% population in Ramban is poor, according to report.
Around 12.58 per cent of population is multidimensional poor in Jammu and Kashmir.
The report said the financial situation of people in J&K is better than Maharashtra (14.85%), West Bengal(21.43%), Gujarat(18.6%), Rajasthan (29.46%) and others.
Bihar with 51.91 per cent is the poorest in the country followed by Jharkhand (42.16%) and Uttar Pradesh (36.65%).
As per the report, the second leading district with financial stability is Pulwama (3.97%). Shopian(6.51%) and Budgam (6.84%) ranks third and fourth respectively.
Jammu Baramulla, Kulgam and Ganderbal have 6.97%, 7.06%, 7.43%, 7.82% poor population respectively.
Similarly, Samba, Bandipora, Kathua, and Kupwara, as per the report, have 9.67% 11.07% 13.08% 16.08% poor population.
The report claimed that Reasi, Poonch , Kishtwar and Udhampur have 21.92%, 24.27%, 24.29% and 26.83% poor population respectively.
Rajouri and Doda,according to the report, have 27.52% and 28.92 % poor population.
The multidimensional poor index has taken into consideration various factors which include the percentage of population deprived of nutrition, maternal health and school education.
As per report, the Cabinet Secretariat identified 29 global indices to monitor, analyse and evaluate with the aim of improving India’s position in global rankings.
Under this mandate, also known as the Global Indices for Reforms and Growth (GIRG) mandate, NITI Aayog was identified as the nodal agency for the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI).
The report said that India’s national MPI measure uses the globally accepted and robust methodology developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), which have been key partners in ensuring the public policy utility and technical rigor of the Index.
Importantly, as a measure of multidimensional poverty, it captures multiple and simultaneous deprivation faced by households.
