This article deals with growth inequality, poverty dynamics on the unreasonable reasons. I shall start with a quote on the unreasonable reason. According to Karl Marx, "reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form" (Letter to Arnold Ruge, from the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher September 1843). I will come back to Karl Marx again by the end of this presentation.  
The topic has an international context of intensive empirical research exercises, centred on the "poverty-growth-inequality triangle" (PGI Triangle), originally introduced in 2003 by François Bourguignon, the former Chief Economist (2003-2007) of the World Bank,  In his triangular model, inequality and growth affect each other and at the same time, both of them affect absolute poverty also. In his empirical approach, Bourguignon defines the change in poverty as a function of growth, distribution, and changes in distribution, using per capita income (GDP per capita) as the measure of growth and the Gini Index as the measure of inequality in his model. A large number of studies have since then followed using the PGI Triangle framework to study poverty in both developing countries and developed countries. It is in this context that the Economic Survey of India 2020-21 appears.
Unfortunately, inequality has never been a topic of importance in economic survey so far.  But somehow this time we have got a full chapter on inequality and growth: Chapter four, titled "Inequality and Growth: Conflict or Convergence?". This Chapter four starts with a quotation from Aristotle,  that poverty is the parent of revolution and crime; however, unfortunately, the Chapter does not give any reference to this quote, quite unlike a true research. The Chapter then continues:  "In this chapter, the Survey examines if inequality and growth conflict or converge in the Indian context …… the Survey highlights that both economic growth - as reflected in the income per capita at the state level - and inequality have similar relationships with socio-economic indicators. Thus, unlike in advanced economies, in India economic growth and inequality converge in terms of their effects on socio-economic indicators." (ES Vol. 1: Chapter 4, Page 121).
The writers of this Chapter in fact follows the method in Wilkinson and Pickett (2009). But there is no acknowledgement, no reference, except this sentence: "In the advanced economies, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), Atkinson (2014) and Piketty (2020) show that higher inequality leads to adverse socio-economic outcomes" (ES Vol. 1: Chapter 4, Page 122). But in the Reference section, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009), and Atkinson (2014) do not appear at all.
Now let us turn to Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett (2009)'s study "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger".  They consider 23 richest countries with different degrees of social inequality, and examine whether there exists any association between the level of inequality and a number of different indicators of individual wellbeing and social welfare. They measure the extent of income inequality by the ratio of income of the top 20 percent to the lower 20 percent in a society, with data from the UNDP Human Development Report. When the 23 countries are ranked by their degree of income inequality, the Scandinavian countries and Japan come out with the lowest income inequality, and the UK, Portugal, USA, and Singapore, with the highest income inequality.
As the indicators of individual wellbeing and social welfare, they consider nine social problems ("costs of inequality"): (1) community life and social relations, (2) mental health and drug use, (3) physical health and life expectancy, (4) obesity, (5) educational performance, (6) teenage pregnancies, (7) violence, (8) crime and punishment, and (9) unequal opportunities for intergenerational social mobility.
They then analyze bivariate graphs with the degree of income inequality on the x-axis and the extent (mean values) of the costs of inequality on the y-axis and identify a regression line through the cluster of points representing individual countries. The slope of this regression line is intended to indicate the correlation between income inequality and the relevant cost of inequality. A representative graph I reproduce here that shows that countries with lower income inequality have lower levels of social problems, while countries with higher income inequality, higher levels. Isn't this socially desirable?

Now let us go back to Chapter four of the Economic Survey 2020-21. We read there: "In this chapter, the Survey examines if inequality and growth conflict or converge in the Indian context. By examining the correlation of inequality and per-capita income with a range of socio-economic indicators, including health, education, life expectancy, infant mortality, birth and death rates, fertility rates, crime, drug usage and mental health, the Survey highlights that both economic growth - as reflected in the income per capita at the state level - and inequality have similar relationships with socio-economic indicators." (ES Vol. 1: Chapter 4, Page 121). And again: "Thus, unlike in advanced economies, in India economic growth and inequality converge in terms of their effects on socio-economic indicators. Furthermore, this chapter finds that economic growth has a far greater impact on poverty alleviation than inequality." (ES Vol. 1: Chapter 4, Page 122). This result they report in terms of a number of bivariate graphs, one set for the Indian States and another for advanced countries. The first graph we reproduce here: