Not in the sense that one billion people have no money or make no purchases. Blume Ventures’ 2025 startup-industry report is described as estimating that roughly one billion Indians lack the income for discretionary goods—optional purchases beyond essential spending. That is a claim about limited spending capacity, not a poverty count or a verified census classification.
What is the one-billion estimate?
Scroll.in reported on 26 February 2025 that Blume Ventures’ Indus Valley Annual Report 2025 estimated India’s consumer groups at around 140 million people in a “consuming class,” about 300 million “aspirant” consumers, and roughly one billion people without enough income to spend on discretionary goods. The report was published on 22 February 2025, according to Blume Ventures’ report page. The figures and descriptions here are estimates attributed to Blume by Scroll, not independently verified population counts.
The report’s linked file was not accessible, so its definitions, income thresholds, data sources, population denominator, and estimation method cannot be confirmed from the available material. That matters: without those details, readers cannot tell exactly how Blume assigned people to each category or assess the estimate’s uncertainty.
What “purchasing power” means in this claim
In this context, “lack purchasing power” is shorthand for having limited income available for discretionary purchases. It does not mean having no income, no money, or no spending. Households with constrained discretionary budgets still pay for necessities such as food, housing, education, healthcare, and transportation.
#1 Best Overall
The distinction is also reflected in a February 2025 The Daily Jagran article, which quotes Dr Pritam Banerjee, Head of the Center for WTO Studies at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, saying: “Not having the capacity for discretionary spending does not mean having no money at all. Essential spending on food, housing, education, healthcare, and transportation continues. It is incorrect to claim that one billion Indians lack money to spend.” This is the article’s reproduction of his statement, not an independently verified interview transcript.
How the reported consumer groups compare
| Group in Scroll’s account of Blume’s report | Reported estimate | What can be said |
|---|---|---|
| Consuming class | Around 140 million people across 30 million households | About 10% of the population, according to Scroll’s account. Blume’s underlying definition and calculation are not available for verification. |
| Aspirant class | Around 300 million people | Scroll describes this group as “heavy consumers and reluctant payers,” with spending gradually increasing alongside UPI and AutoPay use. The underlying definition and evidence cannot be checked against the inaccessible report. |
| People with limited discretionary spending capacity | Around one billion people | Described as lacking income for discretionary goods—not as making no purchases or having no money. |
Scroll identifies media streaming, gaming, educational technology, and lending as sectors relevant to aspirant consumers. These are the article’s characterizations; the accessible primary report page does not provide the underlying category definitions or analysis.
Why this is not the same as a poverty estimate
A discretionary-spending category asks whether people have income left for optional goods after essential needs. A poverty measure uses a defined threshold and methodology to classify people by income, consumption, or another standard of deprivation. The available account of Blume’s report does not establish that its one-billion estimate is a poverty headcount, and it should not be presented as one.
Nor does a constrained optional-spending budget imply that a household spends nothing. Total expenditure can rise while some people remain unable to afford non-essential purchases; average or aggregate growth does not show that purchasing capacity is equal across groups. The Daily Jagran counterpoint reports household-expenditure survey figures and argues that expenditure has risen, including at constant prices, but those secondary-source figures do not resolve Blume’s categories or establish how discretionary capacity is distributed.
Rank #3
Keep the inequality figures separate
Scroll also cites figures from the World Inequality Report 2018. They concern shares of national income or wealth, not Blume’s consumer classes or a direct count of people unable to afford discretionary goods.
| Measure | Figure reported by Scroll | Attribution and qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Income share of the top 10% | 57.7%, compared with 34% in 1990 | Attributed by Scroll to the World Inequality Report 2018. |
| Income share of the bottom 50% | 15%, compared with 22.2% | Attributed by Scroll to the World Inequality Report 2018. |
| Wealth share of the richest 1% | 40.1% | Attributed by Scroll to the World Inequality Report 2018. |
| Wealth share of the bottom 50% | 6% | Attributed by Scroll to the World Inequality Report 2018. |
These are figures attributed to a 2018 report, not current-year estimates established by the available sources. Income and wealth are also distinct: income is a flow over time, while wealth is accumulated assets minus liabilities. Neither measure can be substituted directly for Blume’s estimate of discretionary consumer capacity.
Quick Recap
Best Value
How to read the headline responsibly
- Describe the one-billion figure as an estimate attributed to Blume Ventures by Scroll, not as a verified count.
- Use “limited income for discretionary goods” rather than “no money” or “no purchasing power at all.”
- Do not equate the estimate with a poverty headcount, total household spending, or an income- or wealth-share statistic.
- Bear in mind that the underlying report’s operational definitions and methodology could not be checked in the accessible materials.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
