UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 21 October 2025

Poverty Measurement in India – Revisiting the Rangarajan Line and the Shift to Multidimensional Poverty

October 21, 2025

Poverty Measurement in India Latest News

Fifteen years after the C. Rangarajan Committee redefined India’s poverty line, a recent study by economists from the RBI’s Department of Economic and Policy Research (DEPR) has updated the poverty estimates for 20 major states.
Done using the 2022–23 Household Consumption Expenditure Survey (HCES), the findings reveal substantial inter-state variation and highlight the transformation in India’s poverty landscape.

Background - Revisiting the Rangarajan Committee’s Methodology

The Rangarajan Committee (2014) was set up by the erstwhile Planning Commission to review poverty measurement.
It estimated the national poverty line at ₹972/month for rural areas (approx. ₹32/day), and ₹1,407/month for urban areas (~₹47/day).
This placed 29.5% of India’s population below the poverty line in 2011–12. Since then, no government-endorsed poverty line has been established.

Key Findings - RBI Economists Update (2022-23)

Major State-level trends: Odisha and Bihar emerged as big movers, showing the largest poverty reduction.
Odisha: Rural poverty (2011–12) - 47.8%; rural poverty (2022–23) - 8.6%
Bihar: Urban poverty (2011–12) - 50.8%; urban poverty (2022–23) - 9.1%
Kerala: Rural poverty (2011–12) - 7.3%; rural poverty (2022–23) - 1.4%
Himachal Pradesh: Urban poverty (2011–12) - 8.8%; urban poverty (2022–23) - 2.0%
Lowest rural poverty (2022–23): Himachal Pradesh (0.4%)
Lowest urban poverty (2022–23): Tamil Nadu (1.9%)
Highest rural and urban poverty (2022–23): Chhattisgarh (25.1% & 13.3%)

Methodological Approach

The study did not use consumer price index (CPI) inflation to adjust the 2011–12 lines, as the consumption baskets differ -
- Food weight: 57% in rural PLB vs. 54% in rural CPI
- Food weight: 47% in urban PLB vs. 36% in urban CPI
Instead, a new price index was constructed matching the Rangarajan Poverty Line Basket (PLB) weights to better reflect price changes.
This updated index was applied to derive state-specific poverty lines for 2022–23.

The Broader Debate - Measuring Poverty in India

Divergent estimates:
- SBI research (using 2023–24 HCES data): Rural poverty - 4.86%; urban poverty - 4.09%
- World Bank (2022): Poverty in India stood at 10.2% (2019).
- IMF (2022): Asserted that the poverty rate in India was a much lower 0.8% in 2019, aided by the government’s food transfers.
- These variations highlight the sensitivity of poverty estimates to methodology, data source, and welfare accounting.
The shift to multidimensional poverty:
- Based on the global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), the Indian MPI looks at poverty through three lenses—health, education, and standard of living.
- These are represented by 12 indicators including nutrition, mortality, schooling, sanitation, electricity, assets, and bank accounts.
- This shows that poverty lines are seemingly a thing of the past, and poverty estimations now goes beyond just money and consumption.
- NITI Aayog (2024) estimates: 24.82 crore people exited multidimensional poverty between 2013–14 and 2022–23, and MPI reduced from 29.17% to 11.28%.
- World Bank (2022) estimates: India’s poverty headcount ratio at 23.9% (using the $4.2/day line for lower-middle-income countries).
Analysis - Changing dynamics of poverty measurement:
- The Rangarajan line provided a monetary lens, focused on minimum consumption expenditure.
- The current MPI approach integrates human development factors, aligning with the SDGs (Goal 1: No Poverty).
- The RBI study underscores that poverty reduction is not uniform across states, reflecting disparities in growth, welfare delivery, and employment generation.
- Methodological issues—such as updating PLBs, data gaps, and regional cost differentials—remain central to India’s poverty discourse.

Way Forward

Periodic revision of poverty lines: Update the poverty line basket (PLB) to reflect changing consumption patterns and price structures.
Integration of monetary and multidimensional measures: Combine income or consumption metrics with MPI indicators for a holistic poverty assessment.
Data transparency and timely surveys: Ensure regular HCES releases to enable evidence-based policymaking.
Targeted State-level interventions: Focused policies for lagging states like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh.
Leverage digital welfare platforms: Use Aadhaar-linked DBTs and social registry databases for efficient delivery of benefits.

Conclusion

The RBI’s updated poverty estimates mark an important revival of the monetary poverty debate in India.
While the Rangarajan line remains a statistical benchmark, the policy focus has decisively shifted toward multidimensional poverty—capturing human capabilities and access to basic services.
The remarkable decline in poverty, especially in states like Odisha and Bihar, highlights the impact of growth and welfare synergy.
But persistent disparities call for region-specific and evidence-based policy frameworks to ensure inclusive and sustainable development.

Source: IE

Poverty Measurement in India FAQs

Q1: What was the key contribution of the C. Rangarajan Committee (2014) to India’s poverty estimation methodology?

Ans: It redefined the poverty line based on a new consumption basket, estimating poverty at 29.5%.

Q2: Which states have shown the sharpest decline in poverty as per the RBI economists’ updated Rangarajan line (2022–23)?

Ans: Odisha and Bihar recorded the most significant decline—rural poverty in Odisha, and urban poverty in Bihar dropped significantly.

Q3: Why did the RBI study avoid using CPI inflation to update the 2011–12 poverty lines?

Ans: Because the consumption weights of the Rangarajan Poverty Line Basket (PLB) differ from the CPI basket.

Q4: How does India’s Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) differ from traditional monetary poverty lines?

Ans: MPI measures deprivation across health, education, and living standards using 12 indicators, going beyond mere income or consumption levels.

Q5: What policy implications emerge from India’s recent poverty estimates and trends?

Ans: They highlight the need for regular data updates, integration of monetary and multidimensional measures, etc.

Delay in Carbon-Free Shipping Plan Due to Global Divide

October 21, 2025

Carbon-Free Shipping Latest News

The International Maritime Organisation has voted to delay the implementation of its global carbon-free shipping plan by one year following opposition led by the United States.

The Global Shipping Industry and Its Carbon Footprint

International shipping is the backbone of global trade, carrying around 90% of the world’s goods by volume.
However, it is also a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for nearly 2-3% of total global CO₂ emissions, equivalent to those of major industrialised nations.
Unlike land-based industries, shipping operates largely in international waters, making global regulation of its emissions complex.
To address this, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a specialised UN agency, has been leading efforts to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint through collective commitments and standards applicable to all member countries.
In 2023, the IMO adopted its revised Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy, setting ambitious goals for international shipping to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
The strategy also included a minimum 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and encouraged the large-scale adoption of zero or near-zero emission fuels by 2030.
However, the latest developments suggest that the path toward decarbonising shipping has encountered a major political setback.

News Summary

At a recent meeting in London, the IMO member states voted to delay the implementation of the global carbon-free shipping framework by one year.
This postponement came after intense diplomatic pressure from the United States, which opposed the introduction of a global carbon tax on shipping emissions.
The proposed framework, approved by an IMO sub-committee in April 2025, included two major components:
- A new global fuel standard to limit the carbon intensity of ship fuels.
- A carbon pricing mechanism to make fossil-fuel-based shipping less competitive and incentivise cleaner technologies.
Originally, the proposal was to be voted on and implemented from 2027, with 63 countries (including the EU, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and Canada) initially supporting it and 16 countries, led by the United States, voting against it.
In the days preceding the vote, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly denounced the plan on social media, calling it a “Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping”.
- He warned that the U.S. would not adhere to any such global carbon tax that could increase costs for American consumers.
Amid growing tensions, Singapore proposed delaying the decision by one year, which was seconded by Saudi Arabia. In the final vote, 57 countries supported the delay, 49 opposed it, and 21 abstained. It remains unclear which way India voted.
Climate-vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu expressed deep disappointment, calling the delay “a failure of a United Nations agency to act decisively on climate change.”

Implications of the Delay

Impact on Climate Goals
- The IMO’s 2023 GHG strategy aimed to ensure that at least 5% of the total energy used in international shipping by 2030 would come from zero or near-zero emission sources.
- The delay could push back investments in renewable fuels and technologies, threatening progress toward this interim goal.
Economic and Political Divide
- The U.S. stance exposes the widening North-South divide in global climate negotiations.
- Developing countries argue for equitable transition financing and technology transfer, while industrialised nations are reluctant to accept global taxation frameworks. The U.S. opposition also highlights domestic political resistance to global climate taxes.
India’s Role
- India, which had initially supported the framework, faces a delicate balance between economic interests and environmental commitments.
- As a growing maritime nation, India is both a key shipping hub and a developing economy, advocating for “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the principle that developing nations should not bear disproportionate climate burdens.
Environmental Consequences
- Currently, ships above 5,000 gross tonnes, which make up 85% of total shipping emissions, remain largely dependent on heavy fuel oil.
- Without stronger policy interventions, the share of global shipping emissions (1.7-2.3%) is projected to rise as global trade expands.

Way Ahead

Experts believe the delay offers both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, it risks slowing international coordination on emission cuts.
On the other hand, it gives countries additional time to develop alternative proposals that may ensure broader political consensus and financial feasibility.
The IMO is expected to revisit the proposal in October 2026, with calls growing for an equitable carbon levy system that supports small island states and developing economies.
Parallel initiatives, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) and private-sector green shipping corridors, may continue advancing decarbonisation independently of the IMO’s delay.
The global shipping industry, which has traditionally lagged behind aviation and energy sectors in decarbonisation, now faces a crucial test: whether political will can match technological potential in combating climate change.

Source: TH

India’s Elephant Population 2025: What the New WII Report Reveals

October 21, 2025

Elephant Population Latest News

The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) released its ‘Status of Elephants in India’ report, estimating 22,446 elephants across four major landscapes.
This figure appears lower than the 2017 estimate of 29,964, but the WII clarified that the new DNA-based estimation method, used for the first time, establishes a fresh scientific baseline for future population monitoring rather than serving as a direct comparison with earlier counts.

Why India Switched to a New DNA-Based Method for Counting Elephants

India’s elephant population estimates have evolved significantly since the first count in 1929 in the United Province (now Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand).
Early surveys, up to 1978, relied on direct visual counts, averaging sightings recorded at 10-day intervals.
With the launch of Project Elephant in 1992, population estimation became a five-year exercise using varied techniques such as total count, waterhole count, dung count, and transect sampling.
However, since different states used different methods, comparisons across regions and years were inconsistent.
To address this, the Synchronised Elephant Census in 2005, 2010, and 2017 introduced uniform counting methods — including total (direct) counts and line transect dung (indirect) counts. Yet, limitations like observer bias and overcounting persisted.
Recognising these challenges, India adopted the Synchronous All-India Elephant Estimation (SAIEE) for 2021–25, which employs a DNA-based approach.
This approach provides a more accurate, scientific, and comparable baseline for future elephant population monitoring.

SAIEE 2021–25: A Scientific Overhaul of India’s Elephant Census

The Synchronous All-India Elephant Estimation (SAIEE) 2021–25 marks a major methodological shift in tracking Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), which now occupy only a fraction of their historical range.
The 2017 census had estimated 29,964 elephants, but the SAIEE recorded 22,446 — a drop of 7,518.
However, experts from the WII and State Forest Departments cautioned against direct comparison.
- SAIEE introduced a new scientific framework, excluded areas like the Andaman Islands (due to budget limits), and aimed to establish a fresh baseline for future monitoring.
Under SAIEE, India was divided into 100 sq. km cells, further split into 4 sq. km grids, each uniquely coded to enable consistent spatial comparisons.
Enumerators walked 6,66,977 km, surveying 1,88,030 trails and transects, and collected 21,056 dung samples.
The process unfolded in three phases:
- Phase I: Collected field data on animal signs, dung counts, vegetation, and human disturbances.
- Phase II: Assessed habitat quality and human impacts, including forest cover and patch size.
- Phase III: Used the data for spatially explicit abundance estimation, factoring in both habitat and human influence.
The SAIEE thus represents India’s most comprehensive and scientifically rigorous elephant census, creating a uniform national baseline for long-term conservation efforts.

Western Ghats Lead as India’s Strongest Elephant Habitat

The ‘Status of Elephants in India’ study covered four major elephant-bearing landscapes, revealing that over half of India’s elephants live in the Western Ghats region.
Western Ghats (Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu)
- Home to 11,934 elephants (53.17%), this landscape supports the largest population.
- Karnataka: 6,013 elephants
- Tamil Nadu: 3,136 elephants
- Kerala: 2,785 elephants
North Eastern Hills and Brahmaputra Flood Plains (7 NE States + North Bengal)
- Account for 22.22% of India’s elephants, led by Assam with 4,159 elephants, making it the second-largest habitat zone.
Shivalik Hills and Gangetic Plains (Uttarakhand, UP, Bihar)
- Hold 9.18% of the national total, with Uttarakhand leading at 1,792 elephants.
Central India and Eastern Ghats (AP, Maharashtra, Telangana, Odisha, S. West Bengal, etc.)
- Contain 8.42% of India’s elephants, with Odisha hosting 912 elephants.
Overall, the findings underscore the Western Ghats’ pivotal role in elephant conservation, while highlighting the significant but smaller populations spread across India’s northeastern, northern, and central landscapes.

Fragmented Habitats and Rising Conflicts Threaten India’s Elephants

The study highlights severe fragmentation of elephant habitats caused by commercial plantations (coffee, tea), invasive species, farmland fencing, mining, encroachments, and development projects.
This degradation is forcing elephants to move into new areas — including regions that haven’t seen elephants for nearly two centuries — triggering frequent human-elephant conflicts.
A notable example is Andhra Pradesh, where elephants migrated from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka between 1980 and 1986, recolonising areas such as Kuppam and Palamaner in Chittoor district.
Karnataka, while hosting India’s largest elephant population, faces intense conflict in regions like Nagarhole, Bandipur, and BRT Hills, where forest fires and monoculture plantations worsen habitat loss.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu face similar pressures, with the Nilgiris–Coimbatore belt witnessing 150 human and 170 elephant deaths so far.
Experts warn that unchecked habitat fragmentation could escalate conflicts further and endanger elephant populations.
They urge community engagement, awareness drives, and coexistence campaigns in both traditional habitats and newly colonised areas to ensure long-term conservation.

Source: TH

Elephant Population FAQs

Q1: What is the current elephant population in India?

Ans: The 2025 WII report estimates 22,446 elephants across four landscapes, establishing a new DNA-based baseline for future population monitoring.

Q2: What is SAIEE 2021–25?

Ans: The Synchronous All-India Elephant Estimation (SAIEE) 2021–25 uses DNA analysis and grid-based surveys to provide accurate, comparable data on elephant populations.

Q3: Which region hosts the most elephants?

Ans: The Western Ghats lead with over 53% of India’s elephants, mainly in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, followed by Assam in the Northeast.

Q4: Why is habitat fragmentation a major concern?

Ans: Expanding plantations, encroachments, and development projects are shrinking habitats, pushing elephants into human-dominated areas and increasing conflicts.

Q5: What solutions do experts recommend?

Ans: Experts call for community sensitisation, conflict mitigation, and habitat restoration to ensure coexistence and long-term elephant conservation.

India’s Private Investment Slowdown: Why Businesses Aren’t Spending Enough

October 21, 2025

Private Investment Slowdown Latest News

Although India’s real GDP growth rates appear robust, policymakers remain cautious, signalling concerns about the underlying economic strength.
The persistent weakness in private sector investment — despite multiple policy incentives by the government — continues to be a major challenge and a key constraint on sustaining long-term economic momentum.

Declining Investment Share in GDP Highlights India’s Growth Concern

India’s GDP is driven mainly by two components — private consumption, which contributes around 60%, and investment spending, which enhances the economy’s productive capacity.
Investment spending includes private businesses building factories, government infrastructure projects, and household asset creation like housing or livestock purchases. Together, these are termed Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GFCF).
Data over the last two decades shows a steady decline in GFCF’s contribution to GDP since 2011–12.
Notably, investment has remained below 30% of GDP through most years since 2014, indicating that India’s growth is being driven more by consumption than by capacity-building investments — a trend that worries policymakers.

Significance of Private Investment for Sustained Growth

While the government has been working to boost private consumption through tax reliefs, direct cash transfers, and GST cuts, this is only a means to an end — the real goal is to trigger private investment.
Higher consumer demand is expected to encourage businesses to expand, build new factories, and invest in capacity creation.
To support this, the government has increased public spending on infrastructure — roads, ports, and power — hoping to “crowd in” private investment.
A thriving private investment environment reduces the burden on government spending. It aligns with the vision of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.”
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman recently urged industry leaders to overcome their hesitation, noting that the government has delivered on reforms and now expects the private sector to lead growth by investing and expanding production.

Private Sector’s Investment Share Continues to Decline Despite Policy Push

Investment data in India, divided among the government, households, and private sector firms, reveals a clear trend — private businesses are reducing their share of new investments.
Since 2019–20, when the government cut corporate tax rates to encourage private investment, the private sector’s contribution to total fixed asset formation has steadily fallen.
The latest available data (up to March 2024) shows this decline continuing, even as overall GDP grew by 12% in FY24.
During this period, the government’s share in total investments rose, while private sector and household shares dropped, indicating that recent growth has been driven largely by public spending, not private enterprise.
Given that overall investment share has fallen further in FY25, it is unlikely that private sector participation has improved, reinforcing concerns about its continued hesitation to invest despite fiscal and policy incentives.

Private Sector Apathy Poses Risk to India’s Growth Model

Despite strong GDP growth, corporate tax cuts, income tax reliefs, and PLI subsidies, the private sector remains reluctant to invest in fresh projects.
This persistent investment slowdown raises concerns on two fronts:
- it threatens India’s long-term growth prospects; and
- undermines the government’s development strategy, which envisions the private sector as the primary engine of job creation and economic expansion.
With businesses holding back, the burden of driving growth continues to fall on the government, limiting progress on tackling unemployment and inequality — two of India’s most pressing challenges.

Source: IE

Private Investment Slowdown FAQs

Q1: Why is private investment crucial for India’s growth?

Ans: Private investment drives capacity expansion, productivity, and jobs, reducing dependence on government spending for sustaining long-term economic growth.

Q2: How has India’s investment share changed over time?

Ans: Gross Fixed Capital Formation has declined since 2011–12, staying below 30% of GDP, showing consumption-led rather than investment-led growth.

Q3: Why are policymakers concerned despite high GDP growth?

Ans: Because growth is fuelled mainly by government expenditure, while private businesses remain hesitant to invest, limiting sustainable job creation.

Q4: What steps has the government taken to boost investment?

Ans: Tax cuts, PLI schemes, infrastructure spending, and GST reforms aim to stimulate private sector participation and crowd in investments.

Q5: What risks arise from weak private sector investment?

Ans: It threatens India’s long-term growth momentum, deepens unemployment and inequality, and undermines the goal of private-led economic expansion.