&w=3840&q=100)
India's social security coverage rises to 64.3% from 19% in 10 years
As per the International Labour Organization (ILO), India now ranks second in the world in terms of beneficiary count, providing social protection to around 940 million citizens.
"The increase marks the fastest expansion in social protection coverage worldwide, reflecting the government's unwavering commitment to 'Antyodaya' i.e., empowering the last mile and fulfilling the promise of leaving no one behind," said Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya who was in Geneva to attend the 113th session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) of the ILO.
According to an official statement, ILO has acknowledged India's achievement and officially published on its dashboard that 64.3 per cent of India's population, i.e. over 940 million people, are now covered under at least one social protection benefit.
It is an unprecedented 45 percentage point surge over the past decade, the global body has said.
India is also the first country globally to update its 2025 social protection coverage data in the ILOSTAT database.
DG ILO Gilbert F Houngbo has praised India's focused welfare policies for the poor and labour class under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership, the Ministry of Labour & Employment statement said.
ILO's criteria for scheme consideration for each country include that the scheme should be legislatively backed, in cash and be active, and verified time series data of last three years has to be provided, the ministry said.
"It is important to note that the present figure reflects only Phase I of the data pooling exercise. This phase focused on beneficiary data of central sector schemes and women-centric schemes in selected 8 states," the ministry said.
It said that with the phase II and further consolidation underway, it is expected that India's total social protection coverage will soon surpass the 100-crore mark upon verification of additional schemes by the ILO.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
Mandaviya namedrops Pakistan as National Sports Governance Bill puts restrictions on international participation: 'Safeguard for extraordinary circumstances'
Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya cited the example of Indian cricket teams not touring Pakistan since 2008, adding that the National Sports Governance Bill, which cleared both houses of the Parliament earlier this week, empowers the government to 'act decisively and lawfully in such situations'. Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya expects the National Sports Governance Bill to be implemented in the next six months. PTI The National Sports Governance Bill 2025 was passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday nearly three weeks after it was introduced in the Lower House of the Parliament, with Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya hailing the landmark moment as the 'single biggest reform in Indian sports since independence'. The National Anti-Doping Amendment Bill (2025) was also passed by the Lok Sabha at the same time, and the two Sports Bills cleared the Rajya Sabha, the upper house, on the following day. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The implementation of a National Sports Board and a National Sports Tribunal as well as the BCCI's exemption from the RTI Act are among the key takeaways from the Bill, which is set to replace the existing National Sports Development Code of India that was introduced in 2011. Another key provision in the Bill grants the government the ability to 'impose reasonable restrictions' under 'extraordinary circumstances' on the international participation of Indian teams and athletes. The provision appears to be aimed towards Pakistan, India's neighbour to the west that has largely shared hostile relations with New Delhi since the two nations gained independence in 1947. While the sporting relations between the two nations has had its share of ups and downs over the years, it has undergone sharp decline since the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai in 2008. More recently, the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam in April followed by a four-day military conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations has further hit Indo-Pak sporting ties. 'Act formalises the government's ability to act decisively and lawfully' Mandaviya, however, insists that the provision in the NSG Bill does not target 'any particular country', and that it's a 'standard safeguard' against situations that cover national security threats, diplomatic boycotts and other exceptional circumstances. 'The provision empowering the government to stop international participation is a standard safeguard seen in sports laws globally, intended for use in extraordinary circumstances. It covers situations such as national security threats, diplomatic boycotts, or global emergencies, and is not directed against any particular country,' Mandaviya told PTI in his first interview since the two bills cleared both houses of the Parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'In practice, decisions regarding sporting engagements with Pakistan have been shaped by broader government policy and security assessments, particularly after major incidents affecting bilateral relations,' he added. The BCCI had refused to send the Indian cricket team to Pakistan for the ICC Champions Trophy earlier this year, forcing their games to be relocated to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Reuters Mandaviya cited the example of Indian cricket teams refusing to tour Pakistan since the 26/11 attacks as a case in point. '…full senior men's cricket tours to Pakistan have not taken place since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and high-profile matches have often been moved to neutral venues. Such decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the Ministry of External Affairs and security agencies. 'The Act formalises the government's ability to act decisively and lawfully in such situations, while ensuring that any decision remains consistent with India's commitments under the Olympic Charter and the statutes of relevant international sporting bodies. 'This reflects the Modi government's clarity in protecting national interest while upholding global sporting obligations,' Mandaviya added. NSG Bill likely to be fully implemented in six months: Mandaviya Mandaviya, who also serves as the Minister of Labour and Employment, added that the Bill is likely to achieve full implementation in the next six months. 'This bill will be implemented as soon as possible. Within the next six months, all procedures will be completed to ensure 100 percent implementation,' Mandaviya continued. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Creation of posts and other administrative approvals will follow established procedures of the Department of Personnel and Training and the Department of Expenditure. 'The aim is to ensure that both institutions (NSB and NST) are fully functional at the earliest possible date consistent with statutory and procedural requirements,' he added, while reiterating that the bill is 'the single biggest reform in sports since independence,' he added.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Why Pakistan's Independence Day Is Before India's: Story Behind The Dates
India is not the only country that celebrates its independence from British rule in August. While India commemorates independence on August 15, Pakistan, born out of the 1947 Partition, celebrates its Independence Day on August 14. History and circumstances are the reasons for the difference. The date of the Independence Day celebration was not always set in stone. Early in 1947, the Labour government of Britain appointed Lord Louis Mountbatten as the last Viceroy of India. He was charged with the responsibility of overseeing the transfer of power from British control to Indian hands. The transition was initially fixed for not later than June 1948. But increasing communal violence and worsening law and order compelled Mountbatten to advance the date to August 1947 with a view to hastening the British withdrawal. The British Parliament legislated on July 4, 1947, the Indian Independence Act, and it ordered that British rule would end on August 15, 1947. Two new nations, India and Pakistan, were born on this day. However, the exact borders between these two countries were not disclosed until August 17 to avoid unrest. Mountbatten later revealed that he selected August 15 in part simply because it happened to be the second anniversary of Japan's surrender at the end of World War II, a date which represented the conclusion of imperial conflict and not nationalist jubilation. Why, then, does Pakistan hold its celebrations on August 14? Pakistan's official papers and its founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, originally used the date August 15 to refer to the day of independence. But by 1948, Pakistan had moved its celebrations to August 14 for practical and symbolic reasons. The primary reason was based on the timing of the formal transfer of power ceremonies. In Karachi, the transfer occurred during the day on August 14, 1947. Mountbatten officiated the ceremony there before proceeding to New Delhi to officiate over the midnight ritual commemorating India's independence on August 15. Another rationale is that August 14, 1947, also coincided with the 27th day of Ramadan, a holy time in the Islamic calendar, and thus gave religious importance to Pakistan's selection. Pakistan has since celebrated August 14 as its Independence Day, though India retains August 15 as the date of freedom.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Visiting London? You should pay a tourist tax
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Taxes have always been as inevitable as death. In Rachel Reeves' Britain, it's looking like tax increases are now as unavoidable as the grim reaper. The chancellor must find billions of pounds to fill a black hole in the public finances before the autumn budget. So far, she has proven unable to cut public spending thanks to a series of rebellions by Labour MPs. And Keir Starmer's 'defining mission' of making the sums add up by turbocharging growth has also been stymied, partly by Reeves' move to hike national insurance for employers in her last budget. GDP figures out Thursday are expected to show an anemic 0.1% increase for the second quarter of leaves taxes and, having ruled out increasing the burden on 'working people,' Reeves and her team are spending the summer eying other sources of cash. One idea being pushed by some in Westminster is a tourist tax. It's worth taking seriously, both for the potential to raise some much-needed revenue and as a driver of growth.A stroll around the center of London on a warm August day this week confirms there's plenty of scope. Crowds were 10 deep outside Buckingham Palace and, inside, visitors of various ages and nationalities were glued to audio guides as they gawped at the King's riches before stopping off for a cream tea in the was the third most popular destination in the world in terms of international arrivals last year and third for tourist dollars spent in 2023. An estimated 43 million foreign visitors are expected this year and are anticipated to collectively spend £33.7 billion ($45.7 billion), according to VisitBritain. That's not including business travelers and domestic visitors, who may or may not be caught by a potential tax, depending on how it's the most world's most popular tourist destinations, London is rare in not already levying a tax on hotel stays. From Tokyo to Barcelona, New York to Amsterdam, the additional nightly charge is a familiar, if mildly irritating, sight on hotel bills. As Sadiq Khan, London's mayor who favors a tourist tax, put it, most travelers: 'don't really mind paying the few extra euros' when they visit cities such as Paris and is said to disagree, reportedly squashing proposals by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to introduce measures in the Devolution Bill, currently going through Parliament, that would allow local authorities to impose a tourist tax. She should are different ways of imposing levies on tourism, but the most common is a nightly charge, often with varying rates depending on the standard of the hotel or as a percentage of the final bill. Assuming a stay at a 4-star accommodation, analysis by the Telegraph suggests the most expensive popular European tourist destination is Amsterdam, at the equivalent of £16 a night, down to £3.40 for Lisbon, with Venice, Paris and Rome coming in at just over £ the sums I saw being handed over for Buckingham Palace-branded merch, including a £10 jar of honey and £17 socks, a similar tax in London seems unlikely to break the bank of the average overseas fear for a hospitality industry with fresh memories of Covid is that any tax would inhibit visitor numbers and make alternative, cheaper destinations more given most major cities already have a tax, that argument doesn't stack up. In any case, a recent report by the House of Commons Library into the potential impact of a tourist tax pointed out that currency fluctuations and the strength of the pound appear to have little impact on arrival numbers, suggesting that so long as the rate is set at a comparable figure to other cities, it's unlike to put travelers about the effect on destinations that may prove less of a lure for visitors? England's beleaguered seaside resorts would be particularly loathe to adopt any measure that would further put off holiday makers. The solution to that is to make a tax optional, with local authorities choosing whether one might suit their particular local the model favored by mayors including Manchester's Andy Burnham, who I discussed tourist taxes with recently, as well as Khan and Steve Rotheram in Liverpool. Local councils across London are supportive, along with the Institute for Government and the County Councils Network, although the trade body UK Hospitality described such a move as 'deeply misguided,' pointing out that Britain charges a higher rate of VAT than most countries, which is included in hotel so. But Manchester and Liverpool have already taken advantage of a loophole in the law to introduce hotel charges as part of scheme allowing hotels to band together in 'Business Improvement Districts' to raise levies, without any impact on visitor numbers, according to analysis by the journal Tourism Management. Manchester's £1 nightly fee is estimated to have raised around £2.8 million in its first year, but the scheme is voluntary for hotels and limited in geographical scope and the mayors want to go further. Scotland has adopted similar powers and Wales is expected to follow suit next how skewed international travel is toward the capital, which attracts more than half of all visitors to the UK, a tourist tax would have to be be introduced in London to have a significant impact on the nation's seems fair. Londoners love tourists — but visitors shouldn't get a free ride. As protests in cities around the world highlight, locals suffer from the impact of tourism, in terms of congestion and the added strain on services. Buckingham Palace's coffers may benefit, but Londoners go uncompensated for tourists drinking their water supply, walking their well-lit streets, leaving litter or slowing down their commute. A recent YouGov poll found 45% of Londoners would support a tourist tax compared with 37% who opposed — this feels more tolerant than the Barceloni, who have taken to shooting visitors with water taxes, including those in Manchester, are designed to be reinvested in the tourist industry, making them a potential driver of the precious growth Reeves is seeking. A broad definition of what constitutes the industry, such as allowing spending on transport that tourists also utilize, would free the chancellor up to divert money here's another idea. Unusually for a global city, most of London's leading tourist attractions (although not Buckingham Palace) are free. That means tourists get to glory in the treasures of the British Museum, the National Gallery, the National History Museum and the rest without paying a penny. How about introducing fees for non-residents, as New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art does, with locals allowed to 'pay as you wish' (they must produce a credit card with a New York billing address to qualify)? The savings could be pocketed by the Treasury in terms of reduced grants to the nation's cultural institutions — the British Museum alone received £43.2 million in government funding last is right to be leery of imposing any more pain on a hospitality industry already struggling with the national insurance and minimum wage increases. But by being smart about how a levy is introduced — limiting it to areas such as London and the wealthy tourists who can afford it — estimates are that she could raise £500 million a year (on a nightly bed tax of £12). That won't fill her budgetary black hole — but it would be a start.(The views of the author are personal)
