What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

EDITORIAL 1: Two unequal

Context

The facts are clear and unambiguous — consumption inequality in India, as measured by the Gini index, was the lowest (most equal) in the world in 2022-23.

Not an idle armchair criticism

• However, the debate on this is messy and bordering on sordid. This is not idle armchair criticism.
• World Bank stated that India is not merely the world’s fourth-largest economy; it is also the world’s fourth most equal society.
• Unfortunately, this is false on both counts. India will not be the fourth-largest economy at least until March 2027; and India today is the most equal society — not fourth most equal — but only in terms of consumption.
• Its rank in terms of an income Gini is not known since India, to date, has not conducted an official income distribution survey.

The equality status

• The government shared a report claiming that India is one of the most equal societies in the world. This was based on a study that looked at consumption inequality — how equally people spend money — and found India to be the most equal in that category.
• However, this led to confusion. Critics pointed out that the report mixed up different types of data: consumption inequality and income inequality.
• These are two very different ways to measure inequality, and comparing them directly is like comparing apples and oranges.
• Some critics made this point well, stating that a fair comparison should involve comparing India’s consumption inequality with other countries’ consumption inequality — or comparing income inequality with income inequality.
• But then, they also made a mistake by using a third kind of data — synthetic estimates from a private database.These estimates aren’t based on actual surveys, but on models and assumptions.
• Many researchers have raised doubts about how accurate these synthetic numbers are, especially for countries like the U.S.

The World Bank’s role and Poverty Inequality Platform (PIP)

• The World Bank has laboured to construct the popular and respected Poverty Inequality Platform (PIP), which provides data for all the official consumption and income surveys in the world.
• PIP reports data on 167 countries, 2,258 distributions for years 1963 to 2024. These data are the only “official” source of comparable income and consumption distributions.
• The PIP data does not contain any information on income distribution for India or South Africa — for good reason, because no official income survey exists for either of these countries.
• According to PIP, the most unequal (consumption) country in the world, at least for the last 25 years, is South Africawith a Gini of 63.0. The most equal is India with a Gini of 25.5 in 2022.
• Despite having no official income data, the World Bank’s April 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief for India noted that the consumption-based Gini index improved from 28.8 in 2011–12 to 25.5 in 2022–23, but added that inequality may be underestimated due to data limitations.
• In contrast, the World Inequality Database shows income inequality rising from a Gini of 52 in 2004 to 62 in 2023.
• The briefs report summary data for 130 developing countries, but only for India does the World Bank quote WID synthetic results on income distribution.
• To add insult to statistical injury, the World Bank believes that official surveys have data limitations but WID synthetic distributions have no data limitations.
• The World Bank has been a pioneer in the collection and verification of consumption and income distribution data since its creation.
• The PIP database is testimony to its intellectual honesty and expertise. However, the World Bank states that India has the lowest consumption inequality in the world; in the same breath it states that India has the highest income inequality.
• Such a paradoxical result has heretofore not been documented by any organisation in the world, let alone by a well-known and internationally renowned NGO. One of these estimates is clearly in huge error.

Conclusion

The whole world is watching, and awaiting, a meaningful response from sister organisations on this important credibility question.

 

EDITORIAL 2: It doesn’t stop in Bihar

Context

While the relief signalled by the Supreme Court in its hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar can only be welcomed, it carries a serious risk of distracting us from the real issue.

Not limited to Bihar

• The SIR is not limited to Bihar. Bihar is just a pilot.
• The ECI has directed that preparations for the exercise begin in the rest of the country, even as the Supreme Court is examining its legality.
• This is not a revision of the voters’ list — it is a de novo compilation of the list. It is, in fact, a rewriting of the rules, procedures and protocols of how the voter list is to be created.
• At stake here is the foundational principle of universal adult franchise.No matter what relief we obtain in Bihar, unless the entire exercise is annulled, we stand to lose the universality of the franchise.

Universal adult franchise

• Universal adult franchise was among the core principles of our freedom struggle, formulated in the Motilal Nehru Committee Report of 1928and reiterated in the declaration of Purna Swaraj in 1929 and thereafter.
• The Constitution of India incorporated the principle of “adult suffrage” in Article 326 by stipulating that “every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than twenty-one years of age … shall be entitled to be registered as a voter”.
• Article 5 specifies that Indian citizenship shall be based on birth and residence(not on descent or ethnicity etc).
• Article 10 protects a citizen against loss of citizenship status by providing for presumption of continuity: “Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India” continues to be so.

Issues in SIR

• In the first 75 years, the Republic of India followed the “logic of encompassment”in realising this constitutional promise.
• The SIR seeks to reverse the logic of encompassment. It seeks to formalise the logic of closure that would result in graded inequality of citizenship.
• While it pretends to implement Article 326 of the Constitution, it twists the constitutional intent by disregarding the presumption of continuing citizenship.
• The SIR reverses the practices that have ensured the operationalisation of universal adult franchise in India.
• First, the onus of being on the voters’ list has been shifted to the eligible voters. For the first time, all potential voters, with no exception, have been asked to fill out an enumeration form.
• Second, the presumption of citizenship has been overturned. Now you need to prove that you are not an illegal resident.
• For the first time, everyone carries the burden of offering documents (either a copy of the 2003 voters’ list or proof of birth and residence) that have never been provided to them, and that a majority has no reason to possess.
• Finally, it seeks to legalise arbitrariness through the absurd provision of an “indicative’’  list of documents, which can be changed at the discretion of any local official.

Conclusion

In the past few days, the media has finally taken note of the chaos, the tragedy and the farce that the SIR is unfolding in Bihar. Powerful and relevant as these stories are, they must not distract us from the basic design underlying the exercise.