Poverty can be measured well by means other than money metrics

livemint.com:

earning to non-earning periods, the overall incidence of poverty would be zero. However, given our assumption of zero savings, in any cross sectional settings 50% of the households have zero income and consumption. So the poverty measured in a consumption survey would be 50%.

However, from a household viewpoint, since they spend six months being poor, they all perceive themselves as being poor, i.e. a poverty incidence of 100%." Note that this simple example illustrates poverty being linked only to inter-temporal volatility in consumption, and the inability to save and invest. In an agrarian setting, volatility is further linked to better irrigation, integration of markets, etc.

An improved ability to make inter-temporal transfers of earnings would reduce measured poverty. However, until it improves to the point where households never fall below the minimum threshold, some poverty self-perception will remain. This example also highlights how improvements in statistical measures of poverty do not necessarily change household perceptions of deprivation.

Note that the problems were not in the act of measurement, or the application of estimation tools to the proposed measure, but in the dissonance between flow attributes and stock perceptions. Measures like the MDPI seek to address such concerns. Thus, criticisms being made in some quarters that the absence of a consumption survey implies lack of knowledge about poverty in India are uncalled for.