Congress slams Modi government after World Bank said extreme poverty in India declined; says inconvenient data brushed aside

'The Modi government is celebrating a drop in extreme poverty to 5.3% but this is based on a poverty line of $3 per day which is certainly not enough to live with dignity,' the Congress said on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) and accused the Centre of brushing aside 'inconvenient data.'
The Opposition party's assertion came after the World Bank said India's extreme poverty rate declined sharply to 5.3% over a decade from 27.1% in 2011-12.
The World Bank revised upwards its threshold poverty line to $3 per day. Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera said, "The Modi government is celebrating a drop in extreme poverty to 5.3%. But this is based on a poverty line of $3 [₹250] per day — just enough to avoid starvation, but certainly not enough to live with dignity."
'The 2022-23 Consumption Expenditure Survey, conducted after an 11-year gap, came with a revised methodology — making direct comparisons with the UPA-era data appear favourable, but statistically invalid,' Mr. Khera said. 'The 2017-18 survey was buried, likely to hide the fallout of demonetisation and GST. COVID-era poverty? Ignored,' he said.
'Meanwhile, the Modi government evaded Parliament on defining an official poverty line and ignored over 15 questions related to it,' Mr. Khera claimed.
"Their claim of lifting over 25 crore people out of poverty is based on a manipulated index. CMIE data shows 621 million Indians [44%] still live in poverty. On the Global Hunger Index, India ranks 105th, with 18.7% child wasting and 35.5% stunting," Mr. Khera said.
He pointed out that on the World Happiness Report, India sits at 118th and on the Human Development Index, India loses more than 30% of its score owing to inequality. "All this is inconvenient data. So, it is brushed aside. In the end, the poor are left to endure inflation, unemployment, a steady collapse of public services and declining quality of life while the ruling party's crony capitalist friends loot thousands of crores with absolute impunity," Mr. Khera said. "This is the story of two India: One that suffers and the other that cashes in," he added.
The World Bank, in a report, said given India's inflation rate between 2017 and 2021, a revised extreme poverty line of $3 would constitute a 15% higher threshold than $2.15 expressed in 2021 prices and result in a 5.3% poverty rate in 2022-23.
As against 34 crore people below poverty line ($3/per day) in 2011-12, the numbers have come down to 7.5 crore in 2022-23 in absolute numbers.
The World Bank has announced a major revision to global poverty estimates, raising the International Poverty Line (IPL) from $2.15/day (2017 PPP) to $3/day (2021 PPP), according to a factsheet issued by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) on the report.
"While the change led to a global increase in the count of extreme poverty by 125 million, India emerged as a statistical outlier in a positive direction. Using more refined data and updated survey methods, India not only withstood the raised threshold but also demonstrated a massive reduction in poverty," the PIB said in its factsheet details issued on Saturday (June 7, 2025).

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

18 minutes ago

• Time of India

Israel-Iran war: Congress slams Donald Trump for US strikes; urges Centre to show 'moral courage', break silence on 'Gaza genocide'

Donald Trump NEW DELHI: The Congress party on Monday criticised US President Donald Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, saying it goes against his own statements supporting continued talks with Iran. The party also criticised the Central government for not speaking out against the US bombing or Israel's actions. "President Trump's decision to unleash US air power on Iran makes a 'mockery' of his own calls for the continuation of talks with Iran," Congress general secretary in-charge communications Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X. He added, "The Indian National Congress reiterates the absolute essentiality of immediate diplomacy and dialogue with Iran. The Government of India must demonstrate greater moral courage than it has so far." — Jairam_Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) Ramesh said the Modi government "has unequivocally neither criticised nor condemned the US bombing and Israel's aggression, bombings and targeted assassinations." "It has also maintained a deafening silence on the genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinians in Gaza," he wrote on X. The statement comes after the US bombed three major nuclear sites in Iran — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — on Sunday, bringing itself directly into the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Husband Sold Son's Car After Bad Grades. Parents Turned Pale When He Did This As Revenge Beach Raider Undo Meanwhile, on Sunday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that India is "deeply concerned" about the conflict between Iran and Israel and called for immediate de-escalation through "dialogue and diplomacy." The US strike on Iran's nuclear sites has raised concerns about a wider conflict in the Middle East. Before the US bombing, Congress parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi had also spoken on the issue. In an article titled "It is still not too late for India's voice to be heard," she criticised India's silence on the situation in Gaza and Iran, calling it "not just a loss of its voice, but also a surrender of values." In the same article, Gandhi criticised US President Trump for following what she described as a "destructive path" in West Asia, after having earlier spoken against America's long military involvement in the region.

First Post

19 minutes ago

• First Post

Was Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran unconstitutional?

US President Trump's airstrikes on Iran have raised questions over presidential war powers, with lawmakers across the aisle questioning whether he violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress. While some back the strikes as necessary, others call them illegal, even impeachable read more Demonstrators hold a papier-mache head depicting US President Donald Trump, as they gather to march against the upcoming Nato leaders' summit, at The Hague, Netherlands, June 22, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump's recent airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear sites have everyone asking one question: can a US president launch offensive military action without direct approval from Congress? The question has prompted a bipartisan outcry, with lawmakers examining the constitutionality of Trump's decision and the implications for war powers delegated under US law. While some have praised the strikes as strategically necessary, others have called them a dangerous breach of executive authority that potentially defies the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Did Trump act without congressional green light? The airstrikes ordered by Trump on June 21 came amid a broader escalation following Israel's bombardment of Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Though Trump has consistently voiced reluctance to entangle the US in further conflicts in the region, he defended the decision by saying, 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.' Yet the timing and unilateral nature of the strikes have raised concerns across both political aisles. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed during a press conference that Congress was notified only after the aircraft safely exited Iranian airspace. 'They were notified after the planes were safely out. But we complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act,' Hegseth said. That admission did little to ease tensions among lawmakers who viewed the operation as constitutionally questionable. How have lawmakers objected to Trump's move? Some of the most vocal objections came from members of Trump's own party. US Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Republican known for his strict constitutionalist views, responded to the strikes by stating bluntly, 'This is not Constitutional.' Days earlier, Massie co-authored a resolution with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California aimed at preventing unauthorised military action against Iran. Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, another Republican typically aligned with Trump, added: 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' Both Davidson and Massie put a spotlight on the requirement for congressional authorisation before initiating military hostilities against a foreign nation. On the Democratic side, US Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia reiterated his longstanding commitment to reclaiming Congress's war powers. 'We're going to have the briefing this week. We'll have a vote,' he said on Fox News Sunday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously.' Kaine's resolution — privileged under Senate rules — can be fast-tracked to the floor and requires only a simple majority to pass. Other lawmakers have suggested the president's actions may warrant impeachment. US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York posted on social media: 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorisation is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.' US Representative Sean Casten of Illinois made similar arguments: 'No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense.' Casten called on Speaker Mike Johnson to protect Congress's constitutional responsibilities: 'Grow a spine.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD US Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking during a campaign event in Tulsa, called the strikes 'grossly unconstitutional' and stated, 'The only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress. The president does not have the right.' House Minority Whip Katherine Clark stated that the power to declare war 'resides solely with Congress,' calling Trump's actions 'unauthorised and unconstitutional.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed concern that Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorisation' and warned that the move could entangle the US in a potentially 'disastrous war.' Despite the criticism, Trump also received support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. US Speaker Mike Johnson said, 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune also backed the president's decision, signalling a likelihood of Republican congressional support. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Some Democrats also refrained from raising legal objections. Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey supported the strikes without questioning their constitutionality. US Senator John Fetterman offered full endorsement of the military action, stating: 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Are Trump's strikes on Iran constitutional? At the centre of the dispute lies the US Constitution. Article I gives Congress the authority to declare war, while Article II names the president as Commander-in-Chief. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was introduced to clarify this balance after repeated US military interventions without formal war declarations, most notably in Vietnam and Cambodia. The War Powers Act mandates that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US armed forces and limits unauthorised deployments to 60 or 90 days without further congressional approval. It also requires consultation with Congress 'in every possible instance' before initiating hostilities. Yet the law has often been sidestepped. Presidents have used various justifications — emergency threats, existing authorisations or interpretations of commander-in-chief powers — to engage militarily without a formal declaration of war. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Since World War II, the US has engaged in multiple conflicts — from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan — without official war declarations. One major legal instrument enabling military operations without congressional votes is the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed in 2001 and 2002 for operations related to terrorism and Iraq, these authorisations have since been invoked for unrelated operations. For instance, Trump relied on the 2003 AUMF to justify the 2020 killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. How is this legislation often side-stepped? In response to Trump's recent actions, several new legislative measures have been introduced. Kaine's resolution aims to reassert Congress's authority before further military engagement with Iran. Massie and Khanna filed a joint measure in the House based on the War Powers Act to block 'unauthorised hostilities.' Sanders introduced the No War Against Iran Act to prohibit federal funds from being used for any military force against Iran. The ongoing conflict between the legislative and executive branches over war-making powers has been a hallmark of US history. The US Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1861 during the Civil War, when it ruled that US President Lincoln's naval blockade of southern ports was constitutional in the absence of a war declaration because the executive 'may repel sudden attacks.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Still, critics argue that the War Powers Resolution lacks real enforcement mechanisms. Resolutions to end unauthorised hostilities are often subject to presidential vetoes, which require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. While the law provides a framework for transparency and reporting — over 100 such notifications have been sent to Congress since 1973 — it remains a contested tool. US Representative Ro Khanna said during an appearance on MSNBC: 'This is the first true crack in the MAGA base.' With inputs from agencies

The Hindu

19 minutes ago

• The Hindu

Odisha plans to ease forest, wildlife restrictions to boost tourism; experts call it dangerous

The Odisha government is seeking to ease environmental restrictions to promote tourism inside and around some of its most ecologically sensitive regions, including national parks, tiger reserves, coastal zones and Ramsar wetlands, according to government records. Legal and conservation experts say this move undermines forest, wildlife and biodiversity laws and tribal rights. According to minutes of a high-level meeting chaired by the Odisha Chief Secretary on May 30, the State plans to revisit and amend Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) notifications to remove clauses prohibiting construction and commercial activities. It also plans to request the Centre to allow forest land to be used for non-site-specific purposes such as hospitality infrastructure and to re-examine Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) classifications to accommodate more tourism projects along the coast. ESZs are buffer areas created around protected forests, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks to protect wildlife and biodiversity from harmful human activities such as mining, construction and polluting industries. Activities like farming, eco-tourism and the use of renewable energy are usually allowed with restrictions. The minutes note that the current "no commercial/no construction" clause in ESZ notifications "does not accurately reflect the enabling spirit" of the 2011 guidelines issued by the Centre. "ESZs notified/to be notified should be discussed with the Department of Tourism (DoT) and the tourism master plan should be taken into consideration," the MoM read. The State has decided to set up an empowered committee under the chairpersonship of the additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, with the commissioner-cum-secretary, DoT; PCCF and HoFF; PCCF (Wildlife); director, environment; CEO, Chilika Development Authority; field directors of Satkosia, Bhitarkanika and Similipal; director, Nandankanan Zoo; managing director, IDCO; chief engineer, building; managing director, Odisha Bridge and Construction Corporation as members and the director, Tourism, as the member convener. However, independent ecologists, wildlife scientists or tribal representatives are absent from the panel. The committee will meet every two months to discuss issues relating to tourism projects vis-a-vis forest clearance and ESZs. Experts say Odisha's move could allow economic interests to shape regulatory frameworks meant for ecological protection and mark a dangerous departure from India's legal and ecological commitments. "The State is the constitutional trustee of forests and wildlife, with a mandate to safeguard these natural assets," Debadityo Sinha, Lead - Climate & Ecosystems at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, said. "A directive that requires states to merely 'take into consideration' the tourism master plan while notifying Eco-Sensitive Zones raises serious concerns. It implies that economic interests may override ecological imperatives," he said. The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 prohibits commercial construction inside national parks and sanctuaries unless it directly supports conservation or is part of approved low-impact tourism. Forest land diversion for non-site-specific purposes such as resorts would require forest clearance under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, and the consent of local Gram Sabhas under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The State's proposal to remove ESZ construction restrictions is also at odds with the June 2022 directions of the Supreme Court mandating a minimum one-kilometre buffer around all protected areas to safeguard wildlife habitats. Mr. Sinha said the State's plan also contradicts the National Forest Policy, 1988, which clearly states that the derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinate to environmental stability and the maintenance of ecological balance. "The push to expand tourism infrastructure and create exemptions for commercial activities is at odds with the spirit of the National Forest Policy, 1988," he said. "It also undermines the very rationale for notifying ESZs which is to function as shock absorbers around sanctuaries and national parks and protect ecological corridors among them." The State has also asked the Odisha Coastal Zone Management Authority to re-examine CRZ classifications to support tourism in areas having "extremely high potential". However, the minutes do not mention carrying capacity assessments, environmental impact studies or consultations with wetland authorities requirements especially critical in internationally recognised sites like Chilika Lake, a designated Ramsar wetland. "The same principle applies to CRZs for coastal areas and Ramsar sites for wetlands, where the focus should remain on ecological preservation," Mr. Sinha said. "There appears to be no discussion on ecological assessments such as carrying capacity studies, strategic environmental impact assessments or any scientific evaluation of the consequences of tourism activities on natural ecosystems and wildlife." "Such vague and arbitrary administrative directions not only violate statutory mandates under forest and wildlife laws, but also risk setting a dangerous precedent. They jeopardise Odisha's rich biodiversity and undermine both national and international obligations,' Mr. Sinha added.