text:
Fact Checking Government claims about e-NAM
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 18, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about the e-NAM portal. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about the e-NAM portal. This article is a fact check of these claims.
What is e-NAM?
As per a response provided by the government in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, ‘National Agriculture Market (eNAM) is a pan-India electronic trading portal which networks the existing Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Mandis to create a unified national market for agricultural commodities.’
The government further stated that e-NAM has been deployed 551 regulated wholesale markets in 15 States and 2 UTs across the country as of March 2018. The pilot of the e-NAM was launched in 2016.
The e-NAM website also states that ‘the NAM Portal provides a single window service for all APMC related information and services. This includes commodity arrivals & prices, buy & sell trade offers, provision to respond to trade offers, among other services. While material flow (agriculture produce) continues to happen through mandis, an online market reduces transaction costs and information asymmetry.’
A response in Lok Sabha in March 2012 during the previous government states that ‘the Ministry of Agriculture prepared a model APMC Act and circulated to all States and Union Territories in 2003 for adoption. The model Act includes provisions for direct marketing and purchase of agriculture produce from farmers, contract farming, establishment of markets in private and cooperative sectors, special markets for agricultural commodities, prohibition of commission agency, rationalization of market fees, replacement of licensing system with simple registration, promotion of Public Private Partnership in development of markets, promotion of grading and standardization, etc.  So far, 16 State Governments have amended their respective APMC Acts on the lines with the model Act’.
Another important issue to be noted is that the annual report of the year 2013-14 of the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation  states that  ‘Marketing Research and Information Network (MRIN): This scheme was launched as Central Sector Scheme in March 2000 with the objective to collect and disseminate information on price, arrival and other market related data for the benefit of farmers and other market users. Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI) has been implementing the scheme in collaboration with Agricultural Marketing Boards/ Directorates, APMCs and NIC. Wholesale prices and arrivals information in respect of more than 300 commodities and 2000 varieties are being disseminated through the portal on daily basis. More than 3200 markets have been linked to the Central AGMARKNET Portal and more than 2200 markets have been reporting the data’.
In other words, the process of real-time information dissemination of prices etc. was initiated during the UPA itself. However, the e-NAM was launched by the current government.
How many regulated markets have signed up on the e-NAM portal?
The first claim is that ‘e-trading platforms, 585 regulated markets to fetch the best prices for farmers’.
The website of e-NAM lists the 585 mandis from across the country. However, it is not clear as to how many of these mandis are actively using the system for online trade. Even this 585 is just 9% of the total number of whole sale APMC markets in the country. As per volume 4 of the Dalwai committee report on ‘Doubling on Farmer’s Income’, the total number of APMC wholesale markets in the country is 6615.
Claim: e-trading platforms, 585 regulated markets to fetch the best prices for farmers.
Fact: As per the e-NAM portal, 585 APMC mandis are on the e-NAM platform. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it is not clear as to how many of these mandis are actively using the system for online trade. Even this 585 is just 9% of the total number of whole sale APMC markets in the country.
What amount has been transacted?
The second claim is that ‘164.53 lakh tones of farm commodities worth Rs. 41,591 crore rupees transacted in one e-NAM.’
According to a response in Lok Sabha in March 2018, ‘tradable parameters in respect of 90 commodities have been prepared for trading on e-NAM portal. As of March 2018, 1.63 crore ton agri-commodities with trade value of Rs. 40,946 crore have been traded on e-NAM portal’.
While the numbers are true, the quantum of commodities traded on the e-NAM portal is less than 10% of the total food grain production in the country.
Claim:164.53 lakh tones of farm commodities worth Rs. 41,591 crore rupees transacted in one e-NAM.
Fact: 1.63 crore ton agri-commodities, trade value of Rs.40,946 crore have been traded on e-NAM portal. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, the quantum of commodities traded on the e-NAM portal is less than 10% of the total food grain production in the country.
How many farmers and sellers are registered?
The third claim is that ‘more than 87.5 lakh farmers and sellers are registered’.  According to a response in Lok Sabha in March 2018, ‘ 85.41 lakh farmers, 55.4 thousand Commission Agents and 1.04 lakh Traders/Buyers have been registered on e-NAM portal’.
While these numbers are true, the number of farmers registered is less than 7% of the households engaged in farming in the country.
Claim:More than 87.5 lakh farmers and sellers are registered.
Fact: 85.41 lakh farmers, 55.4 thousand Commission Agents and 1.04 lakh Traders/Buyers have been registered on e-NAM portal.  Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, the number of farmers registered is less than 7% of the households engaged in farming.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 18, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Financial Inclusion & Jan Dhan Yojana
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 4, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims about the Jan Dhan Yojana. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims about the Jan Dhan Yojana. This article is a fact check of these claims.
What is the Jan Dhan Yojana?
According to the official website, ‘the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) is a National Mission on Financial Inclusion encompassing an integrated approach to bring about comprehensive financial inclusion of all the households in the country. The plan envisages universal access to banking facilities with at least one basic banking account for every household, financial literacy, access to credit, insurance and pension facility. In addition, the beneficiaries would get RuPay Debit card having inbuilt accident insurance cover of Rs. 1 lakh. The plan also envisages channelling all Government benefits to the beneficiaries’ accounts and pushing the Direct Benefits Transfer (DBT) scheme of the Union Government’.
A response in Lok Sabha in November 2014 stated that ‘PMJDY was formally launched in August, 2014. The Yojana envisages universal access to banking facilities with at least one basic banking account for every household, financial literacy, access to credit, insurance and pension. The beneficiaries would get a RuPay Debit Card having inbuilt accident insurance cover of Rs.1.00 Iakh. In addition, there is a life insurance cover of Rs. 30000 to those people who open their bank accounts for the first time between August 2014 & January 2015 and meet other eligibility conditions of the Yojana’.
Further, the government stated in the Lok Sabha that, ‘PMJDY is different from the earlier financial inclusion programme (Swabhimaan) as it seeks to provide universal access to banking services across the country and focuses on coverage of all households (both rural and urban) while the earlier Financial Inclusion programme was limited to providing access point to villages with population greater than 2000. Further, PMJDY focuses on interoperability of accounts which was not there earlier; has simplified KYC guidelines and involves the Districts and States for monitoring and follow-up’.
To add to this, ‘there is no requirement of maintaining any minimum balance in case of accounts opened under Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY)’.  However, it has to be noted that the concept of zero balance accounts (or no minimum balance account) is not new. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had directed all banks in the year 2005 to make available a basic banking ‘no-frills’ account either with ‘nil’ or very low minimum balances. Such an account was called ‘Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account (BSBDA)’. In fact, the RBI has now issued notifications with instructions that a BSBD account-holder of a particular Bank cannot open any other savings bank deposit account in the same bank, including the PMJDY account. In other words, a BSBD account is treated on par with a PMJDY account.
How many accounts have been opened under the scheme?
The first claim is that ‘31.52 crore Jan Dhan accounts opened’.
Responses in the Lok Sabha show that, ‘as of December 2017, a total of 30.71 crore accounts have been opened under PMJDY  and more recently, ‘as per the data sourced from banks, as of January 2019, out of the total 34.03 crore PMJDY accounts, 5.06 crore accounts were having zero balance’.
Claim: 31.52 crore Jan Dhan accounts opened.
Fact: As per data sourced from the bank, as on 23 January of 2019, there are a total of 34.03 crore PMJDY accounts. The number is higher due to the dynamic nature of the data, hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that financial inclusion as a concept is not new and about 15% of the PMJDY accounts have zero balance.
Does India account for more than half of the new bank accounts in the world between 2014-17?
The second claim is that ‘according to the World Bank Findex Report, India accounts for 55% of new bank accounts opened globally between 2014-17’.
The first Global Findex survey was completed in 2011, followed by a second round in 2014 and the latest one in 2017. Globally over those intervals, the share of adults with an account rose from 51% to 62% and then to 69%.
The report notes, ‘in India the share of adults with an account has more than doubled since 2011, to 80 percent. An important factor driving this increase was a government policy launched in 2014 to boost account ownership among unbanked adults through biometric identification cards. This policy benefited traditionally excluded groups and helped ensure inclusive growth in account ownership. Between 2014 and 2017 account ownership in India rose by more than 30 percentage points among women as well as among adults in the poorest 40% of households. Among men and among adults in the wealthiest 60% of households it increased by about 20 percentage points’.
The same report also states that ‘the share of account owners with an inactive account varies across economies, but it is especially high in many South Asian economies. In India, the share is 48%, the highest in the world and about twice the average of 25%  for developing economies. Part of the explanation might be India’s Jan Dhan Yojana scheme, developed by the government to increase account ownership. Launched in August 2014, the program had brought an additional 310 million Indians into the formal banking system by March 2018, many of whom might not yet have had an opportunity to use their new account’.
Though it is mentioned that 310 million Indians were brought into the banking system because of PMJDY, that is about a different time period.  However,  the report notes that, ‘515 million adults worldwide opened an account at a financial institution or through a mobile money provider between 2014 and 2017’. The 55% claim of the government seems to have been calculated based on the number of PMJDY accounts opened (310 million).  However, the number of savings bank deposit accounts including new accounts in scheduled commercial banks increased from 97.77 crore as of 31 March 2014 to 150.2 crore as of 31 March 2017.
Claim: According to the World Bank Findex Report, India accounts for 55% of new bank accounts opened globally between 2014-17.
Fact :Though it is mentioned that 310 million Indians were brought into the banking system because of PMJDY, that is about a different time period.  However,  the report notes that, ‘515 million adults worldwide opened an account at a financial institution or through a mobile money provider between 2014 and 2017’. The 55% claim of the government seems to have been calculated based on the number of PMJDY accounts opened (310 million).  However, the number of savings bank deposit accounts including new accounts in scheduled commercial banks increased from 97.77 crore as of 31 March 2014 to 150.2 crore as of 31 March 2017.. Hence, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
What is the Indian postal payment bank?
The last claim is that ‘India Post Payment Bank to take the banking system to the doorstep of the poor and the unbanked’.
The Cabinet in June 2016 had approved the proposal of Department of Posts for setting up of India Post Payments Bank with a direction to roll out 650 India Post Payments Bank (IPPB) branches co-located in district headquarter Post Offices and their linkage with all (approximately 1.55 lakh) Post offices across the country by September, 2017.
According to the official information, ‘IPPB aims to drive financial inclusion at the last mile, by bringing customers under formal banking channels and providing access to banking services at affordable rates. There are multiple socio-economic benefits that would be realized by the economy at large, and are mentioned below:
According to another response in Lok Sabha, ‘IPPB would be offering the payment bank services to the rural population using Door Step (Assisted) Banking along with the regular counter services through the Postmen/Gramin Dak Sewaks (GDS) and Postal Assistants’.
The latest response about the IPPB in Lok Sabha in January 2019 states that ‘India Post Payments Bank (IPPB) has rolled out 650 branches co-located in the District Headquarter Post Offices on 01st September, 2018 using its own IT platform. All the Post Offices in the District will be linked to the respective branches which will function also as Access Points of IPPB to offer IPPB services to customers. The IPPB branches will function as Controlling Office for managing the operations of Access Point of IPPB’.
Claim: Indian Postal Payment Bank to take the banking system to the doorstep of the poor and the unbanked.
Fact: The India post payments bank has been launched with the aim of providing doorstep banking to the poor and the unbanked. Since the system has become fully functional only recently and no assessments have been conducted on the same, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

source: news-factly

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Immunization
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 3, 2019
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims about vaccination. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims about vaccination. This article is a fact check of the claims.
About the Government’s Immunization Program
Immunization Program in India was introduced in 1978 as ‘Expanded Program of Immunization’ (EPI) by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. In 1985, the program was modified as ‘Universal Immunization Program’ (UIP) to be implemented in phased manner to cover all districts in the country by 1989-90 with the one of largest health programs in the world. Despite being operational for many years, UIP has been able to fully immunize only 65% children in the first year of their life.
Hence successive governments have taken up multiple immunization programs, both to align with global programs and also to fight newer threats.
How many doses of IPV were administered?
The first claim is that ‘inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) introduced in Nov 2015. Around 4 crore doses administered to children’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) states that ‘there are three types of Polio viruses namely type-1, 2 and 3 for which the vaccine was provided under Universal Immunization Programme as trivalent oral polio vaccine. Since last case of wild polio virus type-2 was reported in 1999, therefore, Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) has recommended switch from trivalent OPV to bivalent OPV (containing only type-1 & 3). The tOPV to bOPV switch happened in India on 25th April, 2016. As part of Global Polio end-game strategy, to mitigate the risk associated with tOPV to bOPV switch, MoHFW has introduced Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) in UIP in November, 2015, which was expanded across the country by June, 2016. Currently, two dose fractional schedule is being followed in the country with vaccination at 6 weeks and 14 weeks of age. Till December, 2017, around 3.45 crore doses of IPV have been administered to children across the country since its introduction’.
As per provisional reports, till June 2017, a total of 4.56 crore doses of IPV have been supplied to the States/UTs. The IPV vaccine is provided to state Government by Government of India under Universal Immunization Programme. The IPV vaccination is mainly carried out by the government hospitals and other service delivery outlets under government. It is evident from this information that while more than 4 crore doses were supplied to the state governments, slightly more than 3.4 crore doses were administered till December 2017. Since polio vaccinations are given in two doses, the number of children immunized is half the number of doses administered.
Claim: Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) introduced in Nov 2015. Around 4 crore doses administered to children.
Fact: MoHFW has introduced Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) in UIP in November, 2015, which was expanded across the country by June, 2016. 4.56 crore doses of IPV have been supplied to the state governments and 3.45 crore doses administered till December 2017. Since the claim was made in May 2018, the number might have reached the 4 crore doses. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, this shift to IPV is part of the larger global movement against Polio and as mandated by GPEI.
How many doses of Rotavirus were administered?
The second claim is that ‘Rotavirus vaccine launched in March 2016. Nearly 1.5 crore doses administered to children’.
Rota Virus Vaccine has been introduced to reduce mortality and morbidity caused by Rotavirus diarrhea. Presently, the vaccine has been introduced in 9 States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Assam, Tripura, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu & Madhya Pradesh through domestic funds. Till November, 2017, around 1.29 crore doses of Rotavirus vaccine have been administered to children in above mentioned States since its introduction. In the next phase, Rotavirus vaccine will be introduced in Jharkhand.
An answer provided in Lok Sabha from March 2018 states that ‘the Government had launched Rotavirus vaccine in the year 2016 to prevent Rotavirus Diarrhoea. Rotavirus vaccine has been administered to about 1.41 crores children across these nine states (as on February 2018)’.
While the number in the data obtained is lower than the one in the claim, it is also pertinent to note that these numbers only concern the 9 states in which the vaccination has been introduced and till February 2018. Hence the numbers might have increased by the time the claim is made in May 2018.
Claim: Rotavirus vaccine launched in March 2016. Nearly 1.5 crore doses administered to children.
Fact: The Government had launched Rotavirus vaccine in the year 2016 to prevent Rotavirus Diarrhoea. It was administered to about 1.41 crores children across nine states as on February 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How many children were covered under the measles rubella vaccination campaign?
The third claim is that ‘Measles Rubella (MR) vaccination campaign launched in Feb 2017. Around 8 crore children vaccinated’.
MR vaccine is being introduced through campaign, targeting around 41 crore children in the age group of 9 months to 15 years in a phased manner (covering ⅓ of the total population of the country), followed by 2 doses in routine immunization at 9-12 months and 16- 24 months, replacing the measles vaccine. MR campaign started in February, 2017 from 5 States/UTs (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Lakshadweep and Puducherry), where 3.34 crore children were vaccinated against the target of 3.43 crore with a coverage of 97%. The next phase started for 8 States/UTs from August, 2017 namely Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Telangana, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh & Uttara hand where around 3.21 crore children have been vaccinated by December, 2017.
An answer in Lok Sabha from July 2018 clarifies that ‘following the campaign, Measles-Rubella (MR) vaccine is introduced in Routine Immunization replacing two doses of measles vaccine. The Measles-Rubella campaign started from February 2017 and has been rolled out in 21 states/UTs by July, 2018, covering nearly 9.2 crore children’.
It has to also be noted that the government of India introduced measles vaccine across the country in 1985 under the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP). To further reduce the measles burden, a second dose of measles vaccine was introduced in the country in the year 2010.
Claim: Measles Rubella (MR) vaccination campaign launched in Feb 2017. Around 8 crore children vaccinated.
Fact: The Measles-Rubella campaign started from February 2017 and has been rolled out in 21 states/UTs by July, 2018, covering nearly 9.2 crore children. Considering that the claim was made earlier than the data collected, it is TRUE.  However, it has to be noted that the government of India introduced measles vaccine across the country in 1985 under the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP). To further reduce the measles burden, a second dose of measles vaccine was introduced in the country in the year 2010.
How many children have been vaccinated with PCV?
The last claim is that ‘Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) launched in May 2017. Around 15 lakh doses administered to children’.
PCV was launched in May, 2017 for reducing Infant mortality and morbidity caused by pneumococcal pneumonia. The vaccine has been introduced in Himachal Pradesh, 6 districts of Uttar Pradesh and 17 districts of Bihar. Till December 2017, around 11.20 lakh doses of PCV have been administered to children in the above mentioned areas.  An answer in Lok Sabha states that “As per National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) recommendation, Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) and Rotavirus vaccine (RVV) have been introduced in a phased manner in the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) as per availability of vaccine and resource’.
Claim: Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV) launched in May 2017. Around 15 lakh doses administered to children.
Fact: PCV was launched in May, 2017 for reducing Infant mortality and morbidity caused by pneumococcal pneumonia. Till December, 2017, around 11.20 lakh doses of PCV have been administered to children. More updated data on the beneficiaries is not available. Hence, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Milk Production
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 9, 2019
The BJP government has made three claims in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. These claims are related to the Rashtriya Gokul Mission & quantum of milk production. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government has made three claims in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. These claims are related to the Rashtriya Gokul Mission & quantum of milk production. This article is a fact check of these claims.
What is the new initiative under the ‘National Bovine Breeding and Dairy Development’ program?
The first claim is that ‘new initiative under the National program for Bovine Breeding and Dairy development of 500 crore rupees’.
The annual report (2017-18) of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (DAHDF) states that a restructured scheme titled ‘National Programme for Bovine Breeding and Dairy Development’ (NPBB&DD) was launched in February 2014 with budgetary provision of Rs. 1800 crores for implementation during 12th pay plan, by merging of four ongoing schemes’. Hence this scheme was launched during the UPA itself.
As per the response to a question in the Lok Sabha in July 2015, ‘Rashtriya Gokul Mission is a new initiative under National Programme for Bovine Breeding and Dairy Development launched with the aim to conserve and develop indigenous bovine breeds in a focused and scientific manner’. Hence the new initiative under the NPBB & DD is the Rashtriya Gokul Mission. Further, as per the budget documents for the year 2018-19, the allocation for Rashtriya Gokul Mission is close to Rs. 500 crores in 2017-18 & 2018-19.
Claim: New initiative under the National program for Bovine Breeding and Dairy development of 500 crore rupees
Fact: The Rashtriya Gokul Mission is the new initiative under National Programme for Bovine Breeding and Dairy Development with an allocation of Rs. 500 crores in 2017-18 and 2018-19. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, the National programme for Bovine Breeding and Dairy development was launched during the UPA itself.
How many Gokul grams have been established?
The second claim is that ‘20 Gokul Grams are being established and 41 Bull Mother farms are modernized’.
According to a release on the Press Information Bureau, ‘the Rashtriya Gokul Mission is a focussed project under National Programme for Bovine Breeding and Dairy Development, with an outlay of Rs. 500 crores during the 12th Five Year Plan’.
A response to a question in the Lok Sabha in August 2018 mentions that 20 Gokul Grams and 41 Bull Mother farms are under progress in various states.
Claim: 20 Gokul Grams are being established and 41 Bull Mother farms modernized.
Fact: 20 Gokul Grams have been sanctioned for 13 states under the scheme. As of August 2018, 20 Gokul Grams and 41 bull mother farms are under progress in various states. Hence the claim is TRUE.
Has annual Milk production increased by 12%?
The last claim is that ‘annual milk production enhanced by 12% and that it was 146.3 MT between 2011-14 and it was 163.7MT between 2014-17’.
As per the annual report (2017-18) of the DAHDF and the response to a Lok Sabha question in February 2019,  milk production increased from 146.3 MT in 2014-15 to 165.4 MT in 2016-17 and 176.4 MT in 2017-18. The increase in production during the first four years of the current government works out to around 28%. In the case of UPA, the milk production in 2009-10 was 116.4 MT and it increased to 137.7 MT in 2013-14, an increase of around 27% in the five year period.
It looks like the infographic has typos. The number 146.3 MT refers to the milk production in 2014-15 and 165.4 refers to the production in 2016-17.
Claim: Annual milk production enhanced by 12%. It was 146.3MT between 2011-14 and it was 163.7 MT between 2014-17.
Fact: Looks like the infographic has typos. The number 146.3 MT refers to the milk production in 2014-15 and 165.4 refers to the production in 2016-17.  Hence, the claim is MISLEADING. However, the increase in milk production during the first four years of the current government is 28% while it was 27% during the five years of UPA-2.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 9, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Mission Indradhanush
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 2, 2019
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes five claims about eliminating diseases & vaccination. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes five claims about eliminating diseases & vaccination. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Has India eliminated maternal and neo-natal tetanus?
The first claim is that ‘India has validated elimination of maternal and neo-natal tetanus in May 2015, before the global target of December 2015’.
A response in Lok Sabha from August 2016 stated that ‘WHO has certified Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination (MNTE) in India in May 2015, well before the global target date of December 2015. WHO has also certified India to be free from YAWS, a chronic bacterial disease, in May 2016’.
Claim: India has validated elimination of maternal and neo-natal tetanus in may 2015, before the global target of December 2015.
Fact: WHO has certified Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination (MNTE) in India in May 2015, well before the global target date of December 2015. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Have action plans for elimination of leprosy, measles and TB been implemented?
The second claim is that ‘action plans to eliminate leprosy by 2018, measles by 2020 and Tuberculosis by 2025 implemented’.
An answer given in the Lok Sabha to a similar question in December 2017, shows that target years have been set by the government to eliminate Leprosy, Measles and Tuberculosis. It states that ‘Elimination of Leprosy i.e., 1 case/ 10000 population at National level was already achieved in the year 2005. The short term target is reduction of Grade II disability cases to less than one million population, as per WHO document on Global Leprosy Strategy, 2016 – 2020’.
It also states that ‘as on 18th December 2017, more than 6.5 crore children have been vaccinated with MR vaccine (against measles) in 13 States/UTs’. It also finally points out that ‘the incidence of TB has reduced from 217 per lakh per year in 2015 to 211 per lakh per year in 2016 and mortality has reduced from 36 per lakh per year in 2015 to 32 per lakh per year in 2016’. These action plans are continuous works of various governments and they have been implementing action plans and vaccination programmes. For example, ‘Government of India introduced measles vaccine across the country in 1985 under the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP). To further reduce the measles burden, a second dose of measles vaccine was introduced in the country in the year 2010’.
Claim: Action plans to eliminate leprosy by 2018, measles by 2020 and Tuberculosis by 2025 implemented.
Fact: Actions plans have been implemented to eliminate Leprosy by 2018, measles by 202 and TB by 2025. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, these action plans are continuous works of various governments and they have been implementing action plans.
What is mission Indradhanush?
The third claim is that ‘Mission Indradhanush completed four phases covering 528 districts’
Immunization Program in India was introduced in 1978 as ‘Expanded Program of Immunization’ (EPI) by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. In 1985, the program was modified as ‘Universal Immunization Program’ (UIP) to be implemented in phased manner to cover all districts in the country by 1989-90 with the one of largest health programs in the world. Despite being operational for many years, UIP has been able to fully immunize only 65% children in the first year of their life.
According to the National health portal of Government of India, to strengthen and re-energize the program and achieve full immunization coverage for all children and pregnant women at a rapid pace, the Government of India launched ‘Mission Indradhanush’ in December 2014. As per the portal, the ultimate goal of Mission Indradhanush is to ensure full immunization with all available vaccines for children up to two years of age and pregnant women. An answer in Lok Sabha from April 2017 has stated that ‘in order to realize the objective set under Mission Indradhanush, the Government has completed three phases of Mission Indradhanush across 497 districts and the fourth phase is ongoing in 68 districts across 8 north eastern states since February’17’. Another answer is Lok Sabha from August 2018 has pointed out that ‘No separate funds are allocated for Mission Indradhanush. Funds allocated for Routine Immunization under part C of Programme Implementation Plan (PIP) are being utilized by the states to carryout activities under Mission Indradhanush’. In other words, though the program has been given a new name, it is being implemented with fund allocated for routine immunization.
Claim: Mission Indradhanush completed four phases covering 528 districts.
Fact: A total of 565 districts have been covered under the scheme. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, though the program has been given a new name, it is being implemented with fund allocated for routine immunization and no special funds have been earmarked.
Have 80 lakh pregnant women been immunized?
The fourth claim, related to the previous claim is that ‘80.63 lakh pregnant women immunized’.
According to an answer provided in Lok Sabha from August 2018, a total of 81.78 lakh pregnant women have been immunized under mission Indradhanush.
Claim: 80.63 lakh pregnant women immunized.
Fact: A total of 81.78 lakh pregnant women have been immunized under mission Indradhanush. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Have 3 crore children been vaccinated?
The last claim, also related to the earlier claim is that ‘3.15 crore children vaccinated’.
In an answer provided in the Lok Sabha in August 2018, it is stated that ‘319.28 lakh children have been immunized by August 2018’.But this is not the first time that such large scale vaccination drives have taken place in India. The immunization program is one of the oldest government programs. For instance, 7.78 crore children across India were vaccinated in 109 districts for Japanese Encephalitis between 2006 & 2010. In 2013-14, 1.2 crore children were vaccinated with Measles vaccine in 45 districts in 13 States with 87.2% coverage. During Phase II, 3.6 crore children were vaccinated in 152 districts in 14 States. The Phase III of the campaign 11.8 crore children (85%) had been vaccinated in 167 districts in 5 States i.e. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bihar.
Claim: 3.15 crore children vaccinated.
Fact: 319.282 lakh (3.19 crore) children have been immunized by August 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, this is not the first time that such a large scale immunization programme has been taken up and implemented.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 23, 2019
The BJP government has uploaded an infographic on their 48-months portal that makes five claims about the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY). This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government has uploaded an infographic on their 48-months portal that makes five claims about the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY). This article is a fact check of the claims.
What is the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)?
‘The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) was launched in July 2015 for providing end-to end solutions in irrigation supply chain, viz. water sources, distribution network and farm level application’ states a response in Lok Sabha.
According to the PMKSY website, ‘It has been conceived amalgamating ongoing schemes viz. Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP) of the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation (RD&GR), Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) of Department of Land Resources (DoLR) and the On Farm Water Management (OFWM) of Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC). The scheme will be implemented by Ministries of Agriculture, Water Resources and Rural Development. Programme architecture of PMKSY will be to adopt a ‘decentralized State level planning and projectised execution’ structure that will allow States to draw up their own irrigation development plans based on District Irrigation Plan (DIP) and State Irrigation Plan (SIP). It will be operative as convergence platform for all water sector activities including drinking water & sanitation, MGNREGA, application of science & technology etc. through comprehensive plan. State Level Sanctioning Committee (SLSC) chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State will be vested with the authority to oversee its implementation and sanction projects.’
A response in the Lok Sabha further stated that, ‘the program is composed of three components namely Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP), River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation (RD & GR), PMKSY (Per Drop More Crop, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare and (Watershed Development) PMKSY. Ministry of Agriculture is the nodal ministry for implementing PMKSY.’
What is the investment for ‘Har Khet Ko Paani’ scheme?
The first claim is that ‘50,000 crore rupees to be invested to achieve har khet ko paani (HKKP)’.
According to a response in Lok Sabha in December 2018, Rs. 9050 crores is the outlay for the HKKP years of 2015-16 to 2019-20. Another response to a question in Rajya Sabha also states the same numbers.
The website of the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation states that ‘the Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWM) has been implemented as a State Sector Scheme during the XI Five Year Plan (2008-09 to 2011-12) and initial two years of XII Plan. During XII Plan, the CADWM programme has been implemented with Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme (AIBP). The programme is being implemented under Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojna (PMKSY) – Har Khet Ko Pani from 2015-16. The ongoing CADWM programme has now been restricted to implementation of CAD works of 99 prioritized AIBP projects.’  This proves that the scheme itself has been in existence even before the BJP government and has now been subsumed under the umbrella scheme of PMKSY.
The website also states that ‘the arrangement of funds for Central share/ or central Assistance (CA) has been made by taking loan from NABARD as per year-wise requirements. The Finance Minister has created a dedicated Long Term Irrigation Fund (LTIF) in NABARD with an initial corpus of about Rs. 20,000 crores during 2016-17. The Finance Minister in his budget speech for FY 2017-18 has now enhanced the corpus up to Rs. 40,000 crores’. Hence, it can be understood that Rs. 40,000 crores is the corpus for these programs as the long term investment fund in NABARD and not allocated directly to the HKKP component of PMKSY.
Claim: 50,000 crore rupees to be invested to achieve Har Khet Ko Paani.
Fact: The Finance Minister in his budget speech for FY 2017-18 announced that the corpus of the LTIF in NABARD, from which the central assistance for the projects under Har Khet Ko Pani is drawn, has been enhanced to Rs. 40,000 crore rupees. Further, Rs. 9050 crores is the outlay for the HKKP years of 2015-16 to 2019-20. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
How much land has been covered under irrigation?
The second claim is that ‘the program aims to cover 28.5 lakh hectare area under irrigation’.
The claim is not an achievement, but the target set for the scheme. A response in Lok Sabha in March 2018 states that 28.5 lakh hectares of area is being targeted to be brought under irrigation under the different components of the PMKSY namely AIBP, HKKP and CADWM.
The seventh volume of the Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income states a number of facts about the status of irrigation in the country. It states, ‘net area under irrigation also registered an increase from 21 million hectares (Mha) in 1951-52 to 66 Mha in 2012-13, and further to 68 Mha in 2014-15. This converts into gross irrigated area of 91 Mha in 2014-15. Despite this, there remains about 72 million hectares (Mha) of net sown area (52%)that  is still completely dependent on rainfall’.
The report also points out that simply increasing the area under irrigation will not be sufficient to increase crop yield because of multiple reasons. One of the reasons being major shortcomings in the prevailing irrigation system is the wide gap between irrigation potential created (IPC) and irrigation potential utilized (IPU). As against the gross created irrigation potential of about 118 Mha, the gross irrigated area used is only 96 Mha, resulting in a gap of about 22 million ha. Another reason is that gross irrigated area in the country is about 96 Mha from nearly 650 BCM (billion cubic metre) of water which gives a delta of 0.68 metre (m) per ha. of gross irrigated area. Taking 70 per cent of the average rainfall of 1,170 mm (1.17 m) as effective for crop consumptive use, the gross water use is about 1.48 m per ha. of the gross irrigated area. This is very high as compared to water use in irrigation systems in developed countries. This overuse in the country reflects low irrigation efficiency of about 35 per cent to 45 per cent in most surface irrigation systems, and about 65 per cent in case of ground water use.
Since the claim is the target under PMKSY, the claim remains unverified.
Claim: To cover 28.5 lakh hectare area under irrigation.
Fact: A total of 28.5 lakh hectares is being targeted to be brought under irrigation under the PMKSY. Since it is a target and not an achievement, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
Is there a dedicated micro irrigation fund?
The third claim is that there is a ‘dedicated micro irrigation fund of 5000 crore rupees’.
The Press Information Bureau in release of May 2018 published that ‘the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs chaired approved an initial Corpus of Rs.5,000 crores for setting up of a dedicated Micro Irrigation Fund (MIF) with NABARD under PMKSY’.
A response in Rajya Sabha states that ‘Government has approved a dedicated Micro Irrigation Fund (MIF) with National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD) with an initial corpus of Rs.5000 crores for 2018-19 & 2019-20. The objective of the fund is to facilitate the States in mobilising the resources for expanding coverage of micro irrigation by taking up special and innovative projects and also for incentivising micro irrigation beyond the provisions available under Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana-Per Drop More Crop (PMKSY-PDMC) to encourage farmers to install micro irrigation systems.’.
The seventh volume of the Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income also points out that ‘the setting up of a Micro Irrigation Fund in NABARD with a corpus of Rs 5,000 crore would enable greater achievement of “per drop more crop” by supplementing the budgetary allocations under PMKSY’.
However, it has to be noted that, micro-irrigation projects are not new to the country. As per a response in Lok Sabha in January 2018, ‘farmers are gradually getting inclined to adopt Micro Irrigation (MI) systems. A Centrally Sponsored Scheme on MI was launched in 2005-06, and was implemented in Mission mode as National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI) from 2010-11. This was subsumed under On Farm Water Management (OFWM) component of National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) from 2014-15 and subsequently subsumed under ‘Per Drop More Crop’ component of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) from 2015-16’.
Claim: Dedicated micro irrigation fund of 5000 crore rupees.
Fact: The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved an initial Corpus of Rs. 5,000 crore for setting up of a dedicated “Micro Irrigation Fund” (MIF) with NABARD. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, emphasis and a dedicated scheme for micro irrigation is not new.
How much land is under micro irrigation?
The fourth claim is that ‘26.87 lakh hectares is brought under micro irrigation from 2014-18.’
As per a response in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, 21.65 lakh hectares of area was covered under Micro irrigation after the launch of PMKSY.
The seventh volume of the Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income  states that ‘of the 6.4 million ha of net cultivated area under irrigation in the country, the coverage under micro-irrigation (MI) by end of 2016-17 stood at about 9.5 million ha. Since the launch of PMKSY, the coverage has accelerated and the year 2016-17 recorded a high of 8.5 lakh ha of coverage’.
Claim: 26.87 lakh hectares under micro irrigation from 2014-18.
Fact: As of March 2018, 21.65 lakh hectares of area was covered under micro irrigation. The dynamic nature of the claim means that the land under micro-irrigation would have increased between the date of the Lok Sabha answer and the claim. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Is there facilitation for installing solar water pumps in field irrigation?
The fifth claim is that ‘government is facilitating farmers for installing solar water pumps in field irrigation’.
The operating guidelines of the PMSKY state that ‘efforts may be made for integration of micro irrigation with solar pumping units. A solar water pump has a mini power house at its heart and consists of a calibrated and matching solar array of modules – tuned with the equivalent power of pump for that particular application. The solar water pumping system is capable of running all types of electrical water pumps with applications varying from irrigation to household demands. Irrigation pumps such as submersible, surface or deep well can also be coupled with drip irrigation systems to enhance the returns from this configuration. A 2000 Watt Peak (WP) solar water pump is capable of drawing and pumping approximately 80,000 litres of water per day from a source that is up to 10 meters deep. This is sufficient to irrigate about 1 ha of land with regular crops’.
The exact nature of this facilitation is not clear because there is no information available in the public domain regarding the same. However, the cabinet approved Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (KUSUM) in February 2019 under which one of the components is installation of 17.50 lakh standalone Solar Powered Agriculture Pumps. As per a response provided in the Rajya Sabha in January 2019, a total of 1.71 lakh solar water pumps have been installed in the country. It is also not clear as to how many of them were supported by the government.
However, it is interesting to note that the seventh volume of the Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income  states that ‘free electricity and/or solar powered pumps allow for indiscriminate use of water, resulting in ground water depletion’.
Claim: Facilitating farmers for installing solar water pumps in field irrigation.
Fact: The operating guidelines of PMKSY state that efforts may be made for integration of micro irrigation with solar pumping units. The exact nature of this facilitation is not known. However, the cabinet approved Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (KUSUM) in February 2019 under which one of the components is installation of 17.50 lakh standalone Solar Powered Agriculture Pumps. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 23, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Reforms & Disinvestment
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 15, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. In this infographic, the government makes four claims about the reforms and setting up of institutions in the economy. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. In this infographic, the government makes four claims about the reforms and setting up of institutions in the economy. This article is a fact check of these claims.
Is the commercial Coal Mining sector open to private players now?
The first claim is that the government has ‘opened the commercial coal mining sector to private players’.
An answer in Lok Sabha from 2017 has stated that ‘the objective of commercial mining for sale of coal by private companies is to create a market place for coal with multiple producers to drive competition and adopt best practices in mining’.
A response in Lok Sabha from 2014 states that ‘in order to overcome acute shortage of coal in the country and augment its production, the Coal Mines (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 2014 was promulgated in October 2014. The Ordinance also amended the provisions of some existing Acts by inserting Section 3(A) in the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973 and by amending Section 11(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 thereby removing the restriction of end use from the eligibility to undertake coal mining, in the national interest. Under the said Ordinance, the word company shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (20) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013’.
Another response from 2014 explains that ‘as per the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 2014, a company or a joint venture company formed by two or more companies are eligible to carry on coal mining operations in India, in any form either for own consumption, sale or for any other purpose in accordance with the permit, prospecting licence or mining lease, as the case may be’.
While the government took time to deliberate on the methodology of allocating coal mines to private players, a recent response in Lok Sabha from December 2018 informed that ‘the methodology for allotment of coal mines under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, to Central/State Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) for sale of coal was approved by the Government and order in this regard was issued in January 2016. The methodology for auction of coal mines/blocks for sale of coal under the provisions of the 2015 act has been approved by the Government and Order in this regard has been in February 2018’.
As per the latest information provided by the government in the Lok Sabha in February 2019, a total of 31 coal mines have been auctioned to Private/Government companies (30 to Private companies and 1 to a Government company) under the provisions of the new act. Of these 31 mines, 6 coal mines have been cancelled. The total revenue earned in the allocation (under the provisions of this act) of Mines till January 2019 is Rs. 6438.94 crores. Out of this revenue, revenue earned with auctioning of coal mines is Rs. 3999.54 crores.
Claim: Opened the commercial coal mining sector to private players.
Fact: The Coal Mines (Special Provisions), Ordinance, 2014 was promulgated in October 2014 and the act was passed subsequently. Hence, the claim is TRUE. As per the latest information provided by the government in the Lok Sabha in February 2019, a total of 31 coal mines have been auctioned to Private/Government companies (30 to Private companies and 1 to a Government company) under the provisions of the new act. Of these 31 mines, 6 coal mines have been cancelled.
Did disinvestment cross the target set?
The second claim is that ‘disinvestment crossed target of 72,500 crore rupees’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Ministry of Finance describes that ‘the Department of Disinvestment was set up as a separate Department in 1999 and was later renamed as Ministry of Disinvestment 2001.  From May 2004, the Department of Disinvestment is one of the Departments under the Ministry of Finance. The Department of Disinvestment has been re-named as Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) with effect from April 2016’.  The report also mentions that ‘the process of strategic disinvestment was initiated after a gap of approx. 12 years. The last strategic sale was done in 2003-04’. As per the report, ‘strategic divestment involves divestment of major shareholding of the Government along with transfer of management in the Central Public Sector Enterprises(CPSEs). It involves legal and financial issues having implications for the future performance of the CPSEs undergoing strategic divestment’.
A response in Lok Sabha from April 2017 confirms that ‘the budget estimate (BE) for disinvestment during the year 2017-18 is Rs.72,500 crore. This comprises Rs. 46,500 crore from disinvestment of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) and Rs. 15,000 crore from Strategic disinvestment and Rs. 11,000 crore from listing of Insurance Companies’.
As per another response in the Lok Sabha from December 2018, the net proceeds from disinvestment in 2017-18 were Rs. 1,00,057 crores.
Claim: Disinvestment crossed target of 72,500 crore rupees.
Fact: As per available information, the net proceeds from disinvestment in 2017-18 were Rs. 1,00,057 crores. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
What is the RERA Act?
The third claim is that ‘home-buyers’ dreams and rights protected with Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA)’.
The website of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development describes the act as ‘the Real Estate Act, 2016 that is aimed at protecting the rights and interests of consumers and promotion of uniformity and standardization of business practices and transactions in the real estate sector. It attempts to balance the interests of consumers and promoters by imposing certain responsibilities on both. It seeks to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and purchaser, transparency of contractual conditions, set minimum standards of accountability and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism’.
And the annual report (2017-18) of the ministry states that ‘the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act  was notified in March 2016’. The act mandates the establishment of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA).
It has to be noted that the original bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in 2013, during the UPA. It was later referred to the standing committee which submitted its report.  Hence the conceptualization of the bill and the RERA authority was done during the UPA and the NDA improved upon the provisions of the original bill.
Below is the progress of RERA as of March 2019.
The above clearly shows that the claim is misleading in the sense that the bill was initiated and introduced in the parliament under the UPA and not the BJP government.
Claim: Home-buyers’ dreams and rights protected with Real Estate Regulation Act (RERA).
Fact: Though the act was notified in March 2016, it was originally introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the UPA government in the year 2013. The current NDA government improvised the bill.  The claim is MISLEADING as the credit for this does not just go the current government.
Is there transparent resource allocation in the coal mine allocation?
The fourth claim is that ‘transparent resource allocation with 89 coal mines allocated’.
A response in Lok Sabha from March 2018 states that ‘the allocation of coal blocks are made under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and the rules made thereunder wherein there is a process prescribed for allotment of coal blocks as per which State Government companies can apply as and when applications are invited by Ministry of Coal. Applications, if any, are considered as per the norms specified. Similarly, the allocation of 204 cancelled coal mines is made under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 (CMSP Act) and the Rules made there under’.
The annual report (2017-18) of the Ministry of Coal states that ‘the allocation of 204 coal mines de-allocated by the Supreme Court is now made under the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. Under the provisions of the said Act, 89 coal mines have so far been successfully allocated. Of these 89 coal mines, 31 have been allocated through e-auction (30 to private companies and 1 to a Government company) and 58 have been allotted to Government Companies. Sector-wise allocation of these 89 coal mines are: 50 coal mines to the regulated sector i.e. power, 26 coal mines to the non-regulated sector i.e. iron & steel, cement and captive power and 13 coal mines for sale of coal’.
The report also informs that ‘Coal Blocks Allocation Rules, 2017 were notified in July 2017 which have repealed the ACBCM Rules 2012.”
A response in the Rajya Sabha from February 2019 also confirms the number of coal blocks allocated.
Claim: Transparent resource allocation with 89 coal mines allocated
Fact: 89 coal mines have been allocated under the provisions of the coal mines (special provisions) Act, 2015. However, only 31 of these have been allocated through e-auction. Hence, the claim is only PARTLY TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about schemes for Farmers
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 19, 2018
In an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal, there are three claims related to the goal of doubling farmer’s incomes. The claims pertain to the soil health cards, e-NAM and farm credit. The following article is a fact check of these claims.
In an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal, there are three claims related to the goal of doubling farmer’s incomes. The claims pertain to the soil health cards, e-NAM and farm credit. The following article is a fact check of these claims.
How many soil health cards have been distributed?
The first claim is that 12.68 crore Soil Health Cards (SHCs) have been distributed and that this number is equal to the combined population of Germany and Spain.
The government in an answer to the Lok Sabha stated that, ‘Soil Health Card Scheme is being implemented to assist all State Governments to evaluate fertility in all farm holdings across the country and issue soil health cards to farmers regularly in a cycle of 2 years. The aim and objectives of the scheme is to issue soil health cards giving information to farmers on nutrient status of their soil along with recommendations on appropriate dosage of nutrients to be applied for improving soil health and its fertility.’
The government also stated that National Productivity Council (NPC), in their study, has reported savings of 8-10% of fertilizers and 5-6% increase in crop yield, as a result of fertilizer application as per the recommendations of soil health cards.
In another response to a question in the Lok Sabha in July 2018, the government stated that, ‘In the 1st Cycle of the scheme (2015-16 to 2016-17), against the target of distributing 10.74 crore soil health cards full target has been achieved. In the 2nd Cycle of Scheme (2017-18 to 2018-19), against the target of distributing 12.20 crore soil health cards, 4.71 crore soil health cards have been distributed to farmers.’
The above numbers imply that a total of 15.45 crore SHCs have been distributed. The Soil Health Card website, as of 18th November 2018, shows that, in the first cycle  (2015-16 & 2016-17) 10.73 crore SHCs have been dispatched whereas  6.03 crore SHCs have been dispatched in the second cycle (2017-18 & 2018-19). The total does add up to more than 16 crore SHCs. It has to be noted that this claim was made in May 2018 and hence the current numbers are more than the numbers mentioned in the claim. As per estimates of the United Nations, the combined population of Germany & Spain is 12.8 crore as of 2015.
Soil Health Cards (SHCs) were also distributed during the previous UPA government. According to an answer provided in the Rajya Sabha, the UPA government had setup 1206 Soil Testing Laboratories across the country and issued 5.69 crore SHCs by March 2013.
Claim: 12.68 crore soil health cards have been distributed. This is the combined population of Germany and Spain.
Fact: A total of 15.45 crore SHCs have been distributed till July 2018. The combined population of Germany and Spain is around 12.8 crore.  Hence, the claim is TRUE. It has to be noted that the number of SHCs issued by the current government is substantially higher than the ones issued by the previous government.
What has been the performance of e-NAM?
The second claim is that Produce worth 41,591K crore rupees has been transacted through 417 Mandis and 87.5 lakh farmers and sellers registered through the e-NAM portal. As per a response provided by the government in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, ‘National Agriculture Market (eNAM) is a pan-India electronic trading portal which networks the existing APMC Mandis to create a unified national market for agricultural commodities.’ The government further stated that e-NAM has been deployed 551 regulated wholesale markets in 15 States and 02 UTs across the country as of March 2018. The pilot of the e-NAM was launched in 2016.
The e-NAM website lists 585 Mandis in different states and UTs. In response to another question in the  Lok Sabha,  the government stated that a total of 1,11,80,475 farmers spread over 16 States and 02 Union Territories have been registered on e-NAM platform till July 2018.  The total amount of transaction remains unverified since data regarding the transaction amount is not available in the public domain.
Claim: Produce worth 41,591k crore rupees has been transacted through 417 Mandis and 87.5 lakh framers and sellers registered.
Fact: The e-NAM website shows 585 Mandis in different states and UTs. A total of 1.12 crore farmers have been registered on the platform. The amount of transaction is unverified. The first part of the claim remains UNVERIFIED but the latter two are TRUE.
What is the farm credit target?
The third claim is that farm credit target has been raised to a record high of 11 lakh crore rupees for 2018-19. The Finance minister, in his budget speech (2018-19) announced that the target for the institutional credit for the agricultural sector has been raised to 11 lakh crore rupees from 10 lakh crores in 2017-18 and from 8.5 lakh crore in 2014-15.
In the  2013-14 budget, the then Finance Minister had announced increasing the target of farm credit to 7 lakh crore rupees for 2013-14. The following graph shows the increase in farm credit targets in the Union budget since 2009-10. The data has been gathered from the union budget speeches over the years.Successive governments have increased farm credit target every year. During the 2nd term of UPA between 2009-10 to 2013-14, the farm credit target increased from 3.3 lakh crore rupees to 7 lakh crore rupees (an increase of more than 100%). On the other hand, during the current government, the farm credit target has increased from 8 lakh crore rupees in 2014-15 to 11 lakh crore rupees in 2018-19 (an increase of about 40%).
Claim: Farm credit target has been raised to a record high of 11 lakh crore rupees for 2018-19.
Fact: Farm credit target has been set at 11 lakh crores in the budget of 2018-19. Though it is a record high, this is inline with the increase that happens every year during successive governments. Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.  It also has to be noted that successive governments have increased the farm credit target and the increase during the UPA-2 was over 100%, more than the percentage increase during the current government.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: November 19, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about the Banking Sector
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 21, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims about the banking sector. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims about the banking sector. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Has the ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)’ led to significant results?
The first claim is that ‘historic insolvency and bankruptcy code implemented leading to significant results’.
The annual report  (2016-17) of the Ministry of Finance states that, ‘a Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee was set up in August 2014  for providing an entrepreneur friendly legal bankruptcy framework for India meeting global standards for improving the ease of doing business with necessary judicial capacity. The Committee submitted its Report and draft bill in November 2015. Based on this, as well as public/stakeholder consultation, a bill by name “The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015” was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2015. The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament. The Joint Committee of Parliament submitted its report in April 2016. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was passed by Parliament on in May 2016 and published in the Official Gazette in May 2016.”
The annual report  (2016-17) of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MoCA) states that ‘following the notification of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy code, 2016 (IBC), Government of India (Allocation of Business) rules, 1961 were amended and notified in August 2016 wherein MoCA  was entrusted with the responsibility to administer the Code. The Code has been framed with the object to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner’.
The report also describes that the IBC proposes a framework to ensure:
The website of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India states that ‘the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India was established in October, 2016 under the IBC. It is a key pillar of the ecosystem responsible for implementation of IBC  that consolidates and amends the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of the value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders.
It is a unique regulator: regulates a profession as well as processes. It has regulatory oversight over the Insolvency Professionals, Insolvency Professional Agencies, Insolvency Professional Entities and Information Utilities. It writes and enforces rules for processes, namely, corporate insolvency resolution, corporate liquidation, individual insolvency resolution and individual bankruptcy under the IBC. It has recently been tasked to promote the development of, and regulate, the working and practices of, insolvency professionals, insolvency professional agencies and information utilities and other institutions, in furtherance of the purposes of the IBC’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Ministry of Finance states that ‘the referring of cases under IBC to the NCLT, the recapitalization of public sector banks, and the announcement of the plan for further consolidation among the public sector banks boosted the sentiments in the market’
As per latest data shared by the government in the Rajya Sabha in February 2019, a total of 1484 cases had been admitted for resolution under IBC as on 31st December 2018. Of these, 562 cases were filed by Financial Creditors (FCs), out of which 78 cases have been resolved till 31st December 2018 and an amount of Rs. 65,796 crores realized by FCs against admitted claim amount of Rs. 1,36,128 crores.
Claim: Historic insolvency and bankruptcy code leading to significant results.
Fact: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was passed by Parliament in May 2016 and was notified in the same month. In terms of the impact, it is still early days since a significant number of cases are pending.  Hence the claim that the IBC was brought by the current government is TRUE while the impact remains UNVERIFIED.
Have PSBs been infused with 2,11,000 crore rupees?
The second claim is that ‘recapitalization of PSBs by infusion of 2,11,000 crore rupees to support credit growth and job creation’.
A response in Lok Sabha from January 2018 states that ‘Government announced Indra Dhanush plan for revamping Public Sector Banks (PSBs) in August 2015. The plan envisaged, infusion of capital in PSBs by the Government to the tune of Rs. 70,000 crores over a period of four financial years. Government has recently announced decision to further recapitalize PSBs to the tune of Rs. 2,11,000 crores, through recapitalization bonds of Rs. 1,35,000 crore and budgetary provision of Rs. 18,139 crores (the residual amount under Indra Dhanush plan) over two financial years, and the balance through capital raising by banks from the market. Government has so far infused capital of Rs. 59,435 crores in PSBs. Capital infusion is aimed at supplementing the achievement of regulatory capital norms by PSBs through their own efforts and, in addition, based on performance and potential, augmenting their growth capital. Government has announced that a differentiated approach would be followed, based on the strength of each bank’.
The annual report (2017-18) of the Ministry of Finance also states that ‘the Government thus announced its decision in October 2017 to recapitalize PSBs to essentially supplement the latter’s own efforts to adhere to the regulatory capital adequacy norms and to also enable increased credit offtake and catalyze faster economic growth. The announced recapitalization entails mobilization of capital, with maximum allocation in the current year, to the tune of Rs. 2,11,000 crores over the next two years, through budgetary provisions of Rs. 18,139 crores recapitalization bonds to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000 crores, and the balance through capital raising by banks from the market’.
Claim: Recapitalization of PSBs by infusion of 2,11,000 crore rupees to support credit growth and job creation.
Fact: The recapitalization of PSBs is planned by infusing Rs. 2,11,000 crores through budgetary provision, recapitalization bonds & raising capital from the market. Hence that part of the claim is TRUE. However, the impact of this on job creation & credit growth remains UNVERIFIED due to the lack of availability of data.
Is there an alternative mechanism to facilitate consolidation by PSBs?
The last claim is that ‘approval for PSBs to amalgamate through an alternative mechanism to facilitate consolidation’.
A response in Lok Sabha in January 2018 states that ‘the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts of 1970 and 1980 provide that the Central Government, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, may make a scheme, for the amalgamation of any nationalized bank with any other nationalized bank or any other banking institution. Consolidation in Public Sector Banks (PSBs) has been discussed by various committees and their reports, viz., Narasimham Committee (1998), Indian Banks’ Association Report (2004), Planning Commission Report (2008), Leeladhar Committee (2008) and Nayak Committee (2014). These committees recommended encouragement and promotion of consolidation within PSBs through the merger and amalgamation route. Taking note of these recommendations, with a view to facilitate consolidation among the nationalized banks to create strong and competitive banks, Government has put in place an approval framework for proposals to amalgamate nationalized banks’.
In September 2018, it was approved that Bank of Baroda, Vijaya Bank and Dena Bank may consider amalgamation of the three banks through the Alternative Mechanism (AM).
Claim: Approval of PSBs to amalgamate through an alternative mechanism to facilitate consolidation.
Fact: With a view to facilitate consolidation among the nationalized banks to create strong and competitive banks, Government has put in place an approval framework for proposals to amalgamate nationalized banks. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 25, 2018
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes certain claims about enhancing pilgrimage experience through the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna. Here is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic  on the 48-months portal that makes certain claims about enhancing pilgrimage experience through the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna. Here is a fact check of these claims.
What is the Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna?
The first claim is that ‘Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna’ was launched in 2016 to improve connectivity to the Char Dham pilgrimage centers to make journey safer, faster and more convenient.
According to the response provided by the government in the Lok Sabha, ‘Ministry of Road Transport and Highway has undertaken projects for improvement of National Highway connectivity to Chardham i.e, Yamnotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath and a part of route of Kailash Mansarover Yatra to provide all weather connectivity, safe and comfortable journey. The proposed improvement includes provisions like widening of existing narrow and geometrically deficient National Highways to 2- lane with paved shoulders standards, protection of land slide hazard zones, construction of bypasses, major bridges, tunnels, viaducts etc.’
The Press Information Bureau also mentioned that the Prime Minister laid the foundation stone of the ambitious Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna in December 2016.
Claim: The Chardham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna was launched in 2016 to improve connectivity to the CharDham pilgrimage centers to make journey safer, faster and more convenient.
Fact: Char Dham Mahamarg Vikas Pariyojna was indeed launched on 27 December, 2016 and it aims to provide all weather connectivity, safe and comfortable journey to Char Dham pilgrimage centers. While the launch is TRUE, the project is facing legal troubles since the Supreme Court stayed the NGT order that gave approval to the project as of November 2018.
What is the outlay for this project?
The second claim is that, under this scheme, the government is developing around 900 kms of national highways at an approximate cost of Rs. 12,000 crores.  According to the response provided by the government in the Lok Sabha, ‘the tentative cost of improvement of about 900 km. National Highway based on Detailed Project Report is around Rs.11,700 crore which includes civil construction cost, land acquisition, forest clearance and utility shifting cost.’
Claim: Developing around 900kms of national highways at an approximate cost of Rs 12,000 crore.
Fact: The tentative cost of improvement for about 900 km is around Rs. 11,700 crores. These are only estimates and no progress report is available to verify the work done or the expenditure incurred. Hence, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: December 25, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 6, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims about the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims about the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY). This article is a fact check of the claims.
What is the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)?
A response to a question in the Lok Sabha in March 2016 states that ‘the existing crop insurance scheme namely, National Crop Insurance Programme (NCIP) with its three component schemes viz. Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS), Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS) & Coconut Palm Insurance Scheme (CPIS) and National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) have been comprehensively reviewed and Government of India has recently approved the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) which would replace the existing schemes of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) & Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) from ensuing Kharif 2016. Government has also circulated the Operational Guidelines of the new scheme on the basis of which the scheme would be actually implemented by all the stakeholders including States/UTs, insurance companies, financial institutions etc.’In other words, the existing schemes related to crop insurance have been merged to launch one integrated scheme by the current government in 2016.
Another response in the Lok Sabha states that ‘total 18 general insurance companies including all the 5 public sector general insurance companies and 13 Private Sector general insurance companies are presently empanelled for implementation of Crop Insurance Schemes in the country.’
How many farmers have been covered under the scheme? Is it the biggest scheme till date?
The first claim is that PMFBY is the ‘biggest financial support till date in crop insurance where 4.05 crore farmers are covered’.
According to an answer in Lok Sabha in December 2018,  the total number of farmers enrolled in PMFBY in 2016-17 was 5.73 crores while it was 5.18 crores for 2017-18 (mainly Kharif 2017). The total number of beneficiaries (farmers whose claims are processed) in 2016-17 & 2017-18 is 4.65 crores.
It is not clear as to what the government means by ‘biggest financial support in crop insurance till date’. If this is about the number of farmers insured, the number has grown even during the UPA from 2.62 crore farmers insured in 2009-10 to 3.3 crores in 2012-13.
Claim: Biggest financial support till date in crop insurance where 4.05 crore farmers are covered.
Fact: The total number of farmers enrolled in PMFBY in 2016-17 was 5.73 crores while it was 5.18 crores for 2017-18 (mainly Kharif 2017). The total number of beneficiaries (farmers whose claims are processed) in 2016-17 & 2017-18 is 4.65 crores. However, it is not clear as to what the government means by ‘biggest financial support in crop insurance till date’. If this is about the number of farmers insured, the number has grown even during the UPA from 2.62 crore farmers insured in 2009-10 to 3.3 crores n 2012-13.  Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
How much land has been insured at what amount?
The second claim is that ‘379.06 lakh hectares of land is insured for a sum of Rs. 1,31,519 crores’.
This claim needs to be verified in two parts. The first part is about the extent of land (area) insured. According to an answer in Lok Sabha in July 2017, the three schemes in operation during the UPA were National Agriculture Insurance scheme (NAIS),  the modified National Agriculture Insurance scheme (MNAIS) and the Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme (WBCIS). For Kharif 2013, the total extent of land insured (area) under these three schemes was 276.7 lakh hectares whereas under the modified PMFBY, the extent of land insured for Kharif 2016 was 385.3 lakh hectares. However, the extent of land insured for Kharif 2017 has dropped to 340.5 lakh hectares, a decrease of more than 10%. If the government’s claim is about Kharif 2016, then the number if true. However, there has been more than a 10% drop in Kharif 2017.
The second part is about the total sum insured. As per the PMFBY website, the total sum insured for Kharif 2016 was Rs. 1,31,387.6 crores where as it decreased to Rs. 1,29,912.8 crores in Kharif 2017. But the sum insured has been continuously increasing during various governments. The total sum insured increased from Rs. 43,466 crores in 2009-10 to Rs. 65,340 crores in 2012-13. Even during the current government, it increased from Rs. 82,032 crores in 2014-15 to Rs. 1,91,634 crores in 2017-18.
Claim: 379.06 lakh hectares of land is insured for a sum of Rs. 1,31,519 crores
Fact: The first part of the claim is TRUE since the extent of land insured for Kharif 2016 was 385.3 lakh hectares. However, the extent of land insured for Kharif 2017 has dropped to 340.5 lakh hectares, a decrease of more than 10%. Assuming that the second part of the claim is talking about Kharif 2016, the total sum insured for Kharif 2016 was Rs. 1,31,387.6 crores. Hence the claim is TRUE. However, it has decreased to Rs. 1,29,912.8 crores in Kharif 2017.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 6, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about the Rurban Mission
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 28, 2018
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims regarding the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM). This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims regarding the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM). This article is a fact check of these claims.
What is the Rurban mission and is this a new scheme?
A response provided by the government in the Lok Sabha states the aims & objectives of the SPMRM. It states that ‘the Government proposes to develop rural clusters in the country under Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM). The Mission aims at development of 300 clusters in all States and UTs by provisioning of economic activities, developing skills & local entrepreneurship and providing infrastructure amenities. The Rurban Mission will thus develop a cluster of smart Villages. Under the SPMRM, the State Governments shall identify existing Centrally Sponsored, Central Sector or State Government schemes relevant for the development of the cluster and converge their implementation in an integrated and time bound manner’.
Another answer of the government in the Lok Sabha mentions that the Scheme has been approved in September, 2015 and an outlay of Rs. 5142.08 crore has been provided for the scheme for the period 2015-16 to 2019-20. About fourteen (14) components have been suggested as desirable for inclusion in the development of Rurban Cluster. The funding support will be up to 30% of the estimated investment for each Rurban cluster, given as Critical Gap Funding (CGF), while the remaining 70% of the funds are to be mobilized by the States through convergence with synergic State and Central programmes as well as private investment and institutional funding.
It has to be noted that the scheme is not entirely new. The SPMRM is a replacement of the Provision of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas (PURA) scheme that was implemented during the UPA’s tenure. Incidentally, the PURA scheme was first announced by the NDA-I government in August 2003. The broad objective of the PURA scheme was ‘holistic and accelerated development of compact areas around a potential growth centre in a Gram Panchayat (or a group of Gram Panchayats) through Public Private Partnership (PPP) framework for providing livelihood opportunities and urban amenities to improve the quality of life in rural areas’
The PURA scheme was implemented on a pilot basis in seven clusters for a period of three years from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Based on the study by the NIRD, Hyderabad and the recommendations of the Working Group on PURA, the scheme was restructured and approved in 2010 for implementation on a pilot basis under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) framework. Nine (9) projects were approved under the PPP framework.
How many clusters have been identified?
The first claim is that 267 clusters have been identified for development under the Rurban mission.  In an answer provided in the Lok Sabha in July 2017, it is mentioned that the ‘Ministry has allocated 300 Clusters, 100 clusters each in 3 phases in 29 States and 6 Union Territories. Out of 300 Clusters, 196 Clusters have been approved under Phase-I and Phase-II till date. Ministry has also allocated 100 clusters recently under Phase III, and the respective States are identifying clusters to be developed.’
In another answer provided in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, it is stated that, ‘till date, of the mandated 300 clusters, 267 clusters have been identified and approved across the country.”
Claim: 267 clusters are identified under the Rurban mission
Fact: Of the mandated 300 clusters, 267 clusters have been identified and approved across the country. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Are Thematic clusters being identified?
The second claim is that Agro based and thematic clusters for skilled manpower and economic opportunities are being identified.  According to an answer provided in the Lok Sabha, ‘Rs. 19,961.81 crores of investment have been estimated in the first 197 Integrated Cluster Action Plans (ICAPs). Of the total investment proposed, nearly 78% is targeted towards saturation of Economic and Basic Amenities. Various Thematic Areas have been identified for saturation of Economic Amenities, such as Agri Services and Processing, followed by Skill development to promote Small and Medium Scale Enterprises and Tourism.’ The details of the specific clusters based on various economic themes is available on the SPMRM website.
Claim: Agro based and thematic clusters for skilled manpower and economic opportunities are being identified
Fact: As per the government’s response in the Lok Sabha, thematic Areas have been identified for saturation of Economic Amenities, such as Agri Services and Processing, followed by Skill development to promote Small and Medium Scale Enterprises and Tourism. The SPMRM website also has details of these thematic clusters. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How many cluster action plans have been developed?
The third claim is that 153 integrated cluster action plans (ICAPs) for 29 states and 1 UT have been developed. As per the answer provided in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, ‘through intense engagements with the States, 197 Integrated Cluster Action Plans (ICAPs), which are the blue prints of investment for each cluster, have been approved for 29 States and 2 UTs.’
Claim: 153 integrated cluster action plans (ICAPs) for 29 states and 1 UT have been developed.
Fact: 197 Integrated Cluster Action Plans (ICAPs), which are the blue prints of investment for each cluster, have been approved for 29 States and 2 UTs as of March 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
What about Rurban clusters being ODF?
The last claim is that 300 Rurban clusters are ODF and are about green growth. The annual report of the Ministry of Rural Development (2016-17) states that,  ‘the mission outcome as per the current design will see Rs. 30,000 crores of investment in 300 clusters benefitting more than 3000 gram panchayats, across the country, saturating them with all basic, social and digital amenities. At the end if the mission period, the country will have 300 Rurban clusters which will be ODF, green, agro based and thematic clusters with skilled manpower and access to economic opportunities.’
Claim: 300 Rurban clusters are ODF and are about green growth
Fact: As per the mission objectives and at the end of the mission period, the country will have 300 Rurban clusters which will be ODF, green, agro based and thematic clusters. While the objectives are true, the claim talks about a future goal and hence it remains UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: December 28, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about State Disaster Response Fund
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 12, 2019
The BJP government has made four claims about standing with farmers in times of need ( referring to the SDRF) in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. This article is a fact check of the claims made in the infographic.
The BJP government has made four claims about standing with farmers in times of need in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. This article is a fact check of the claims made in the infographic.All of these claims refer to the revised list of items & norms of assistance from State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) applicable from 2015 to 2020. This is following the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission.  The Finance Commission in its report notes that the norms for expenditure have undergone periodic revisions and that the last revision had taken place in November 2013 before the 14th Finance Commission’s period.
Has the Crop damage criterion been reduced from 50% to 33%?
The first claim is that ‘relief to farmers in distress given in case of 33% and above damage to the crop whereas earlier it was for 50%’.
As per the website of the Disaster Management Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF), constituted under Section 48 (1) (a) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, is the primary fund available with State Governments for responses to notified disasters. The Central Government contributes 75% of SDRF allocation for general category States/UTs and 90% for special category States/UTs. The annual Central contribution is released in two equal installments as per the recommendation of the Finance Commission. SDRF shall be used only for meeting the expenditure for providing immediate relief to the victims. Disasters like Cyclone, drought, earthquake, fire, flood, tsunami, hailstorm, landslide, avalanche, cloudburst, pest attack, frost and cold waves are covered under SDRF.An answer in Lok Sabha in March 2018 states that, ‘the existing guidelines for items and norms of assistance from SDRF and NDRF were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in April 2015 and are applicable for a period of five years with effect from 2015-16 to 2019-20. As per these guidelines, assistance from SDRF/NDRF, include assistance towards input subsidy for crop loss of 33% and above, which was earlier admissible for crop loss of 50% and above’. It also states that, ‘the assistance so admissible is provided to all categories of farmers and is in the form of relief only and not by way of compensation for the loss suffered’.
It is true that the new norms provide for input subsidy in case the crop loss is 33% and above which was earlier 50% and above.
Claim: Relief to farmers in distress given in case of 33% and above damage to the crop whereas earlier it was for 50%
Fact: The guidelines released by the home ministry in 2015 include assistance towards input subsidy for loss of 33% and above, which was earlier 50% and above. Hence the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that the assistance is provided as relief only and not as compensation.
Is full Minimum Support Price being paid for food grains damaged due to excessive rainfall?
The second claim is that ‘for food grains damaged due to excessive rainfall, full minimum support price to be paid’.
As per a government’s press release, procurement quality norms are decided every year on the recommendations of a committee of experts which include Food Secretaries of States. If quality of wheat or rice is affected due to unseasonal rains or any other reason, relaxation in the norms is considered on the recommendations of states after testing samples of food grains. As per Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 relaxation in norms is allowed in the case of broken and shrinked grains and if grains have lost shine. According to the act grains having more than 14 percent moisture cannot stored and procured.
The Centre extends such relaxation in norms on a case to case basis when there are natural disasters. Such relaxation in norms is not new and happened during the UPA as well. It has to be noted that relaxation is not automatic and is considered based on the situation at hand.
Claim: For food grains damaged due to excessive rainfall, full minimum support price to be paid.
Fact: The Centre extends relaxation in norms for procurement of food grains on a case to case basis when there are natural disasters. Such relaxation in norms is not new and happened during the UPA as well. It has to be noted that relaxation is not automatic and is considered based on the situation at hand. Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.
Is assistance of Rs. 4 lakh being provided for families of deceased persons?
The third claim is that ‘families of the deceased persons to be given an assistance of 4 lakh rupees, up from 2.5 lakh rupees’.
It is true that the revised norms of assistance from the SDRF increase the assistance per deceased persons to Rs. 4 lakh from the existing Rs. 1.5 lakh per person. It has to be noted that is not for farmers alone, but for any deceased person during a notified natural disaster.
Claim: Families of the deceased persons to be given an assistance of 4 lakh rupees, up from 2.5 lakh rupees.
Fact: It is true that the revised norms of assistance from the SDRF increase the assistance per deceased persons to Rs. 4 lakh. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that is not for farmers alone, but for any deceased person during a notified natural disaster.
Has provision under SDRF increased 82%?
The fourth claim is that. ‘82% rise in provision under SDRF (State Disaster Relief Fund) during 2015-20, as compared to 2012-15. It went up to 61,220 crore rupees from 33,580.93 crore rupees’.
The provisions for SDRF are purely based on the recommendations of the respective finance commission. On the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission, the current government increased the allocation to SDRF from Rs. 33,580.93 crores during the years 2010-11 to 2014-15 (period of the 13th finance commission) to Rs. 61,220 crores for the years 2015-16 to 2019-20.
At the same time, the current government did not accept the recommendation of the 14th finance commission that all states (irrespective of their special category status) contribute 10% to the SDRF while the Centre fund the remaining 90%.
Claim: 82% rise in provision under SDRF (State Disaster Relief Fund) during 2015-20, as compared to 2012-15. It went up to 61,220 crore rupees from 33,580.93 crore rupees.
Fact The provisions for SDRF are purely based on the recommendations of the respective finance commission. On the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission, the current government increased the allocation to SDRF from Rs. 33,580.93 crores during the years 2010-11 to 2014-15 (period of the 13th finance commission) to Rs. 61,220 crores for the years 2015-16 to 2019-20.  Hence the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 12, 2019