Why India is so poor?
Poverty in India is widespread, with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. In 2010, World Bank stated, 32.7% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day.[1] According to 2010 data from the United Nations Development Programme, an estimated 37.2% of Indians live below the country's national poverty line.[2] A 2010 report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) states that 8 Indian states have more poor people than 26 poorest African nations combined which totals to more than 410 million poor in the poorest African countries.[3][4] According to a new poverty Development Goals Report, as many as 320 million people in India and China are expected to come out of extreme poverty in the next four years, while India's poverty rate is projected to drop to 22% in 2015.[5] The report also indicates that in Southern Asia, however, only India, where the poverty rate is projected to fall from 51% in 1990 to about 22% in 2015, is on track to cut poverty in half by the 2015 target date.[5] The latest UNICEF data shows that one in three malnourished children worldwide are found In India, whilst 42 percent of the nation's children under five years of age are underweight. It also shows that a total of 58 percent of children under five surveyed were stunted. Rohini Mukherjee, of the Naadi foundation-one of the NGO's that published the report-stated India is "doing worse than sub-Saharan Africa,".[6] The 2011 Global Hunger Index (GHI) Report places India amongst the three countries where the GHI between 1996 and 2011 went up from 22.9 to 23.7, while 78 out of the 81 developing countries studied, including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kenya, Nigeria, Myanmar, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Malawi, succeeded in improving hunger condition
Is a 2.05% cut in the budget of the UN really a huge stunning victory for the US like the US government (Donald Trump) wants Americans to believe?
Tightening the operating budget of any entity is generally a good fiscal choice.Now a huge stunning victory for the US is really debatable. The US is the largest contributor to the UN but also one of its biggest beneficiaries. We have been using the UN to advance our foreign policy for 70 years. So the victory is purely in Trump’s view of an altered place on the World Stage.If we are giving up World Hegemony. It’s a win.If we are deluding ourselves that we can maintain hegemony without international consensus it’s not a win. We can’t just have a big Military and boss everyone around. Not without 6 million troops and an even more massive budget.The UN has issues but it does still serve a function, several functions in fact, and it is still relevant.Should the US withdraw from the UN it could collapse but it could also reform without the US and Russia and become a tool of either Chinese or European foreign policy. Either of those results could be bad for us. They would definitely be bad for Trump’s view of America’s role in the World.When the Non-Aligned Movement began at the UN our primacy was diminished but the body itself became much more relevant. Those nations that chose not to pick sides in the Cold War still see Real Value in the UN. I doubt they will abandon the concept should America choose to do so.Then there is China. China would happily pay to move the UN to Hong Kong or Beijing. They would gleefully fill the Role that the US has long held. In this case all of the nuisance of the UN would remain for the US with almost none of the benefit.