text:
Fact Checking Government claims about various Agriculture related funds
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 19, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes five claims about the budgetary allocations and outcomes of the agriculture sector. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes five claims about the budgetary allocations and outcomes of the agriculture sector. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Has farm credit target been increased?
The first claim is that ‘farm credit target raised to Rs. 11 lakh crores 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 Rs. 11 lakh crores 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 Rs. 7 lakh crores for 2013-14. The following graph shows the increase in farm credit targets in the Union budget since 2009-10. The data has been collated 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 Rs. 3.3 lakh crores rupees to Rs. 7 lakh crores (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%).
The RBI annual report for 2017-18 states that ‘the Government of India has been fixing the target for agricultural credit every year. During 2017-18, the Government set the target of 10,000 billion for agricultural credit. As on March 31, 2018, commercial banks achieved 124.6 per cent of their target whereas cooperative banks and regional rural banks (RRBs) achieved 96.4 per cent and 100.7 per cent, respectively. The Government has set an agricultural credit target of 11,000 billion for 2018-19.’
The report also points out that in 2016-17, against a target of 9000 billion rupees; the achievement has been 10,658 billion rupees. In the year 2017-18, the target was raised to 10,000 billion rupees and the achievement was 11,685 billion rupees. Hence, the target set for the following year of 2018-19 is slightly lower than the achievement of the previous year.
Claim: Farm credit target raised to 11 lakh crore rupees for 2018-19.
Fact: Farm credit target has been set at Rs. 11 lakh crores in the budget of 2018-19.  Hence the claim is TRUE.  However, this is in line with the increase that happens every year during successive governments. 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.
Has a new corpus of Rs. 10,000 crores been created for infrastructure?
The second claim is that a ‘corpus of Rs. 10,000 crores to create infrastructure in fishery, aquaculture and animal husbandry sectors’.
The 2018-19 budget speech mentions the setting up of a Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FAIDF) for fisheries sector and an Animal Husbandry Infrastructure Development Fund (AHIDF) for financing infrastructure requirement of animal husbandry sector. Total Corpus of these two new funds is Rs. 10000 crores.
A response in the Lok Sabha in December 2018 states that ‘the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India has recently created a Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) with a total fund size of Rs. 7522.48 crores for providing concessional finance to the Eligible Entities(EEs), including State Governments/UTs and State entities for development of identified fisheries infrastructure facilities’.
A press note by the department of animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries states that ‘The cabinet committee of Economic Affairs (CCEA) approved the proposal for creation of a special Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) in October 2018. The approval entails an estimated fund size of Rs. 7,522 crores comprising Rs. 5,266.40 crores to be raised by the Nodal Loaning Entities (NLEs), Rs. 1,316.6 crores being the beneficiaries contribution and Rs.  939.48 crores budgetary support from the Government of India’.
In other words, though the corpus of both these funds together is Rs. 10,000 crores, the budgetary contribution from the government is only about 15% of the total corpus. Further, the budgetary allocation for both these funds in the interim budget of 2019-20 is very meagre.
Claim: Corpus of Rs. 10,000 crores to create infrastructure in fishery, aquaculture and animal husbandry sectors.
Fact: The Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India has recently created a Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF) with a total fund size of Rs. 7522.48 crores of which the government’s budgetary support is Rs. 939.48 crores. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, the budgetary contribution from the government is only about 15% of the total corpus and the budgetary allocation for both these funds in the interim budget of 2019-20 is very meagre.
What about new tax incentives to promote post-harvest activities?
The third claim is that ‘tax incentives have been extended to promote post-harvest agricultural activities.’
The 2018-19 budget speech states that ‘in order to encourage professionalism in post-harvest value addition in agriculture, I propose to allow 100%  deduction to these companies registered as Farmer Producer Companies and having annual turnover up to Rs. 100 crores in respect of their profit derived from such activities for a period of five years from financial year 2018-19’.
A press release of the government also mentions the same. The finance bill of 2018 inserts a new section 80PA in the Income tax act for this purpose. However, no further information is available on the number of beneficiaries of these incentives.
Claim: Tax incentives to promote post-harvest agricultural activities.
Fact: There has been an announcement along with the insertion of a new section in the income tax act to provide 100% tax deduction to companies registered as Farmer Producer Companies and having annual turnover up to Rs.100 crores in respect of their profit derived from such activities for a period of five years from financial year 2018-19. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, no further information is available on the number of beneficiaries of these incentives.
What is the National Bamboo mission? What is the allocation for it?
The fourth claim is that ‘Rs. 1,290 crore allocated under national bamboo mission to help setting up small industries.”
The 2018-19 budget speech  proposes a restructured National Bamboo Mission with an outlay of Rs. 1290 crores to promote bamboo sector in a holistic manner.
The website of the mission describes it as ‘Restructured National Bamboo Mission’ approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) in April 2018. According to the mission website, ‘the mission envisages promoting holistic growth of bamboo sector by adopting area-based, regionally differentiated strategy and to increase the area under bamboo cultivation and marketing. Under the Mission, steps have been taken to increase the availability of quality planting material by supporting the setting up of new nurseries and strengthening of existing ones. To address forward integration, the Mission is taking steps to strengthen marketing of bamboo products, especially those of handicraft items’.
According to the mission website, the total release under the mission is Rs. 129.89 crores till date for 2018-19. Even the interim budget of 2019-20 mentions a revised expenditure of Rs. 146.5 crores under this mission for 2018-19.
According to a response in Lok Sabha in May 2013, ‘National Bamboo Mission (NBM) was initiated in 2006-07 for undertaking holistic development of bamboo sector in the country. Having completed basic tasks relating to creation of administrative set up etc.; significant achievements have progressively been made since 2007-08 in the establishment of nurseries (for mass production of seedlings), area expansion, improvement of existing stock, technology transfer and human resource development.’
The following graph shows the allocations under the NBM over the years, with data collated from Lok Sabha response, Department of Agricultural cooperation and farmer welfare and open data website.The graph clearly shows that the allocation for the mission in 2018-19 is not the highest and there was greater allocation for the mission during the UPA.  The cumulative allocation for the mission in both 2018-19 & 2019-20 does not add up to Rs. 1290 crores.
Claim: Rs. 1,290 crore rupees allocated under National Bamboo Mission to help setting up small industries.
Fact: While the budget speech of 2018-19 mentions an outlay of Rs. 1290 crores till the end of the 14th finance commission period, the cumulative allocation for the mission in 2018-19 and 2019-20 does not add up to Rs. 1290 crores.  Hence, the claim is FALSE.  Further, the scheme was neither initiated under the BJP government nor is the allocation highest ever.
Is there an Agri-Market infrastructure fund?
The last claim is that ‘Rs. 2000 crore rupees for agri-market infrastructure fund set up.’
The 2018-19 budget speech makes a mention of an ‘Agri-Market Infrastructure Fund’ with a corpus of Rs. 2000 crores that will be set up for developing and upgrading agricultural marketing infrastructure in the 22000 Grameen Agricultural Markets (GrAMs) and 585 APMCs.
According to a response in Lok Sabha in August 2018,  ‘in order to improve market accessibility and to facilitate the farmers to directly sell their produce to the consumer to get better price realization for their produce, the Government has announced in Union Budget 2018-19, to develop and upgrade existing 22000 rural haats into Gramin Agricultural Markets (GrAMs). In these GrAMs, physical infrastructure will be strengthened using Government Schemes such as MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act). These GrAMs are to be exempted from regulations of Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMCs) and linked to e-NAM to provide farmers with better market accessibility and facilities to sell their produce at remunerative prices’.
It is also to be noted that as per an answer in the Lok Sabha in March 2017, some of the erstwhile  schemes such as the Grameen Bhandaran Yojna (GBY), also known as Rural Godown scheme and the scheme for Strengthening/ Development of Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure, Grading & Standardization (AMIGS) have been subsumed into the Integrated Scheme of Agricultural Marketing (ISAM) since April 2014. Hence similar schemes were implemented during the UPA as well.
The cabinet approved for the Agri-Market Infrastructure fund recently in February 2019. The budgetary allocation to the fund is however not clear.
Claim: Rs. 2000 crore for agri-market infrastructure fund set up.
Fact: An Agri-Market Infrastructure Fund with a corpus of Rs. 2000 crore is targeted to be set up for developing and upgrading agricultural marketing infrastructure in the 22000 GrAMs including 585 Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs). The cabinet approved for the Agri-Market Infrastructure fund recently in February 2019. The budgetary allocation to the fund is however not clear and the Rs. 2000 crore is not the government’s budgetary support. Hence the claim is MISLEADING.
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 19, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Welfare  & Benefits to Pregnant Women
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 4, 2019
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48- months portal that makes four claims about welfare & benefits to pregnant women. 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 welfare & benefits to pregnant women. This article is a fact check of the claims.
How many antenatal check-ups have been conducted?
The first claim is that ‘more than 1.16 crore antenatal check-ups conducted at over 12,900 health facilities’.
According to the official website, ‘the Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan has been launched by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW), Government of India. The program aims to provide assured, comprehensive and quality antenatal care, free of cost, universally to all pregnant women on the 9th of every month. PMSMA guarantees a minimum package of antenatal care services to women in their 2nd/3rd trimesters of pregnancy at designated government health facilities’.
In a question answered in the Lok Sabha in July 2018, it is stated that ‘since its inception in 2016, free quality antenatal services are provided to all pregnant women visiting 13047 PMSMA sites across the country. Over 1.35 crore antenatal check-ups have been conducted under the progamme till date’. However, this is not the first ever program on antenatal care. The previous governments also had dedicated antenatal care programs.
Claim: More than 1.16 crore antenatal check-ups conducted at over 12,900 health facilities.
Fact: 1.35 crore antenatal check-ups have been conducted under the progamme. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How many pregnant women have been immunized?
The second claim is that ‘80.63 lakh pregnant women immunized’.
To increase the rate of increase of full immunization coverage, Government of India launched Mission Indradhanush in December 2014 with an aim to increase the full immunization coverage to at least 90% by 2020, which has now been pre-poned to 2018. Mission Indradhanush has completed four phases (from April 2015 to July 2017) covering 528 districts wherein 68.79 lakh pregnant females immunized.  As on 15th January, 2018, under Intensified Mission Indradhanush, the number of pregnant women vaccinated is 10.05 lakh. This implies that a total of 78.84 lakh women have been immunized during their pregnancy, under mission Indradhanush.
More recent data shows that a total of 81.780 lakh women have been immunized under this scheme. Again, immunization of pregnant women is not a new program.
Claim: 80.63 lakh pregnant women immunized.
Fact: 81.780 lakh women have been immunized under the mission Indradhanush and under the intensifies mission Indradhanush. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, immunization of pregnant women is not a new program.
How many women are expected to benefit from cash incentives?
The third claim is that ‘more than 50 lakh pregnant women expected to benefit every year with cash incentive of 6000 rupees’.
According to an answer in Lok Sabha ‘the Government has approved Pan-India implementation of Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), a new Centrally Sponsored Conditional Cash Transfer Scheme in May 2017  for implementation across the country. The maternity benefit under PMMVY is available to the eligible beneficiaries for first living child of family. Normally, the first pregnancy of a woman exposes her to new kinds of challenges and stress factors. Hence, the scheme provides support to the mother for the safe delivery and immunization of her first child. Under the scheme Rs. 5,000  are provided to the eligible beneficiary in three installments. The eligible beneficiary also receives the remaining cash incentive as per approved norms towards maternity benefit under Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) after institutional delivery so that on an average, a woman gets Rs.6,000,
While the total number of beneficiaries enrolled for the scheme are 56,29,662, the number of beneficiaries who got paid the money are 46,54,956.  A similar program existed during the UPA, known as the Indira Gandhi Matritva Sahyog Yojana (IGMSY). Another similar program called the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) was also implemented during the UPA. JSY was seen to have given positive results.
Claim: More than 50 lakh pregnant women expected to benefit every year with cash incentive of 6000 rupees.
Fact: 56 lakh beneficiaries (pregnant women) have been enrolled under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY). Out of this, only 46 lakh women have received the payment.  Hence, the claim is MISLEADING. Moreover, similar programs existed during the UPA as well.
How many high risk pregnancies have been identified?
The fourth claim is that ‘more than 6 lakh high risk pregnancies identified’.
One of the critical components of the Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan is identification and follow-up of high risk pregnancies. Since its inception in 2016, Over 7 lakh women with high risk conditions have been identified.
Claim: More than 6 lakh high risk pregnancies identified.
Fact: Since its inception in 2016, Over 7 lakh women with high risk conditions have been identified. 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

source: news-factly

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Fact Checking Government claims in Benami Transactions & Economic Offenders
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 25, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims relating to the ‘Benami Property Act’ & ‘Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill’ This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims relating to the ‘Benami Property Act’ & ‘Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill’ This article is a fact check of the claims.
What is the Benami Property act?
The first claim is that the ‘Benami Property Act is aimed at blocking a major avenue for generation and holding of black money in various forms’.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 was given assent by the President  in August 2016. This act came into existence with amendment to a 28 year old law: The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
A ‘Benami Transaction’ is one where a property is purchased in the name of an individual who has not paid for it. The person who has rendered the necessary money for the said transaction is not named in the deal. However, this property is held for immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided its payment.
The amendments passed by the BJP government seek to do the following.
The UPA in 2011 also introduced a bill to amend the 1988 act. The UPA bill sought to do the following.
Though the bill was sent to the standing committee, it could not be passed during UPA-2 and was lapsed. It has to be noted that the original 1988 bill was not notified due to legal infirmities.
A response in Lok Sabha in March 2017 stated that ‘though the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 has been on the statute book since more than 28 years, the same could not be made operational because of certain inherent defects. With a view to providing effective regime for prohibition of benami transactions, the said act was amended through the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amended Act, 2016. The amended law empowers the specified authorities to provisionally attach benami properties which can eventually be confiscated. Besides, if a person is found guilty of offence of benami transaction by the competent court, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to 25% of the fair market value of the property’.
As per a response in the Lok Sabha, till 31st December 2018, the IT department has identified more than 2000 benami transactions (including deposits in bank accounts, plots of land, flat and jewellery). The government also stated that provisional attachment of properties has been done in over 1800 cases and the value of properties under attachment is more than Rs. 6900 crores.
Claim: Benami Property act is aimed blocking a major avenue for generation and holding of black money in various forms.
Fact: The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 came into effect from1st November, 2016 during the current government. As per the latest available data, over 2000 transactions has been identified. Hence the claim is TRUE. However, the UPA also tried amending the original 1988 act to rectify the legal defects and introduced a bill in 2011. It lapsed without the Lok Sabha passing the same.
What is the Fugitive Economic Offenders bill?
The second claim is that ‘fugitive economic offenders bill introduced to empower law enforcement agencies to confiscate the assets of economic absconders’.
The Fugitive Economic Offenders bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in  March, 2018. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act was passed by the parliament in July 2018. The Bill provides for provisional attachment of properties, and subsequent confiscation if a person is declared an ‘Fugitive Economic Offender (FEO)’.
As per an analysis by PRS legislative research,  the provisions of this bill are similar to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, which also allows for attachment and confiscation of properties of absconders.  Under the CrPC, the attached properties may be returned if the absconder appears within two years.  This implies that properties will be finally confiscated only after two years of attachment.  In contrast, under the FEO act, confiscation of properties will be final once a person is declared an FEO by the Special Court. Most of the procedural aspects under the FEO act (with a few exceptions) are similar to existing laws such as the CrPC and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA).
As per a response in the Rajya Sabha from December 2018, a total of 49 businessman wanted by Enforcement Directorate (ED) & the CBI in various cases are absconding from India.
A response in Lok Sabha from December 2018 states that  ‘applications under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 have been filed against 7 individuals in the Competent Court by Enforcement Directorate. No assets have been seized under Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. However, attachment and seizure of properties/assets valued at Rs. 14,461.1 crore have been made under PMLA, 2002 in respect of aforesaid 07 individuals’.
Claim: Fugitive Economic Offenders bill introduced to empower law enforcement agencies to confiscate the assets of economic absconders.
Fact: The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act was passed by the parliament in July 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, number of procedural aspects of this act are similar to some of the existing laws. Further, no assets have been seized so far under the new law though applications have been filed against 7 out of 49 individuals absconding from India.
Will the Fugitive Economic Offender bill help banks and other financial institutions?
The next related claim is that ‘the FEO bill will help the banks and other financial institutions to achieve higher recovery from fugitive economic offenders’. The claim is only an expectation and is still unproven.
Claim: FEO act would also help the banks and other financial institutions to achieve higher recovery from fugitive economic offenders
Fact: The Act is expected to help banks and other financial institutions to achieve higher recovery but the results are yet to be realized. The claim is only an expectation and is still unproven. 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 establishment of AIIMS & addition of Medical seats
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 1, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal with claims about hospitals and doctors. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal with claims about hospitals and doctors. This article is a fact check of the claims.
What is the PMSSY?
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) states that ‘the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY) has been launched with the objective of correcting regional imbalances in the availability of affordable/reliable tertiary healthcare services and to also augment facilities for quality medical education in the country. PMSSY has two components – setting up of AIIMS like institutions and up-gradation of existing State Government Medical Colleges/ Institutions and is being taken up in phased manner. Upgradation programme broadly envisages improving health infrastructure through construction of Super Specialty Blocks/Trauma centres etc. and procurement of medical equipment for existing as well as new facilities on Central and State share basis. In first phase of PMSSY, six AIIMS one each at Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Jodhpur, Patna, Raipur and Rishikesh and up-gradation of 13 existing State Government Medical Colleges/Institutions(GMCIs) have been taken up. Under Phase-II of PMSSY, AIIMS at Rae Bareli and up-gradation of 6 is being taken up’.
The website of PMSSY states that ‘PMSSY was first launched in March 2006 with the primary objective of correcting the imbalances in availability of affordable/reliable tertiary level healthcare in the country in general and to augment facilities for quality medical education in the under-served States’.
Are 20 new super specialty hospitals being set up?
The first claim is that ‘20 new super specialty AIIMS – like hospitals being set up’.
The website of the scheme states that ‘six AIIMS-like institutions, one each in the States of Bihar (Patna), Chhattisgarh (Raipur), Madhya Pradesh (Bhopal), Orissa (Bhubaneswar), Rajasthan (Jodhpur) and Uttaranchal (Rishikesh) have been setup under the PMSSY scheme. Approved cost of each new AIIMS in first phase was 820 crores. Rs. 620 crores towards cost of construction and Rs. 200 crores for procurement of Medical Equipment and modular Operation Theatres’.
The six AIIMS mentioned above were approved by the union cabinet in 2006 and a revised cabinet approval was given in 2010, both during the UPA. As per the latest information shared in the Lok Sabha, these six institutions are more or less functional.
In addition to these, the current government has approved setting up of 15 AIIMS like institutions in the last 5 years, as per the information shared in the Lok Sabha.  Thirteen of these have received cabinet approval and are at various stages of implementation.
Claim: 20 new super specialty AIIMS – like hospitals being set up
Fact: Six AIIMS-like institutions have been setup under the PMSSY scheme and are functioning, all of which were approved during the UPA. The current government approved setting up of 15 new AIIMS like institutions in these 5 years. Hence the claim is MISLEADING.
Have 2 new AIIMS been announced?
The second claim is that ‘2 new AIIMS announced for Jharkhand and Gujarat in 2017-18’.
Phase six of the PMSSY saw the announcement of two new AIIMS, one in Gujarat and one in Jharkhand. This announcement was made in the budget speech of 2017-18. Both these have been approved by the cabinet (one in May 2018 & the other in January 2019)
Claim: 2 new AIIMS announced for Jharkhand and Gujarat in 2017-18
Fact: 2 new AIIMS in Jharkhand and Gujarat were announced in the 2017-18 budget speech. This announcement pertains to the phase VI of the PMSSY. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Are 73 government medical colleges being upgraded?
The third claim is that ‘73 government medical colleges being upgraded’.
The website  of PMSSY shows that a total of 75 government hospitals have been upgraded over the 5 phases of the scheme. More than 50 of these upgradations were approved during the UPA. Hence the claim is misleading.
Claim: 73 government medical colleges being upgraded
Fact: 75 government hospitals have been upgraded over the 5 phases of the scheme. However, more than 50 of these upgradations were approved during the UPA. Hence the claim is MISLEADING.
Have 1600 beds been added to AIIMS?
The fourth claim is that ‘1675 hospital beds added in the functional AIIMS’.
The six new functional AIIMS together have more than 4000 beds. But it is not clear as to how many of these were added during the current government.
Claim: 1675 hospital beds added in the functional AIIMS.
Fact:  The six new functional AIIMS together have more than 4000 beds. But it is not clear as to how many of these were added during the current government. Hence, the remains UNVERIFIED.
Has there been an increase in number of medical colleges and seats?
The fifth claim is that ‘total 92 medical colleges, resulted increase of 15,354 MBBS seats’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the MoHFW states that ‘at present, there are 479 medical colleges in the country, out of which 227 in Government and 252 are in private sector with annual admission capacity of 67,352 MBBS and 31415 PG’.
The annual report (2013-14) of the MoHFW states that, ‘at present, there are 387 medical colleges in the country out of which 181 are in government and 206 in private sector with annual admission capacity of about 51,979 MBBS and 24,196 Postgraduate students per year’.
In other words, during the current government, 92 new medical colleges have been setup with an addition of more than 15000 MBBS seats.
Claim: Total 92 medical colleges, resulted increase of 15,354 MBBS seats
Fact: During the current government, 92 new medical colleges have been setup with an addition of more than 15000 MBBS seats. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Have more than 12,000 PG seats been added?
The last claim is that ‘total 12,646 PG seats have been increased’
The annual report  (2017-18) of the MoHFW states that ‘at present, there are 479 medical colleges in the country, out of which 227 in Government and 252 are in private sector with annual admission capacity of 67,352 MBBS and 31415 PG’.
The annual report (2013-14) of the MoHFW states that, ‘at present, there are 387 medical colleges in the country out of which 181 are in government and 206 in private sector with annual admission capacity of about 51,979 MBBS and 24,196 Postgraduate students per year’.
Hence the total addition of PG seats during the current government (till the claim is made) is only more than 7000.
Claim: Total 12,646 PG seats have been increased.
Fact: The total addition of PG seats during the current government (till the claim is made) is only more than 7000. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
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 on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 16, 2018
The government made certain claims with respect to providing universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).  Here is a Fact Check.
What is the Accessible India campaign?
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) has launched Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan) as a nation-wide Campaign for achieving universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). This was launched in December 2015 for creating universal accessibility for PwDs in Built Environment, Transport, and Information & Communication Technology (ICT) ecosystem.
Have International and Domestic airports been provided with accessible features?
The first claim is that all 34 international airports and all 48 domestic airports have been provided with accessible features. The 2017-18  annual report of the DEPwD throws light on this matter. The report mentions that, ‘All 34 International Airports & 48 Domestic Airports, have been provided with accessibility features namely, ramps, accessible toilets, lifts with braille symbols and auditory signals’. These changes were initiated under the accessible India campaign.
Claim: All 34 international airports and all 48 domestic airports have been provided with accessible feature.
Fact: All 34 International Airports & 48 Domestic Airports, have been provided with accessibility features. The infographic says all 48 domestic airports, but the number of domestic airports in India is more than 48. Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
Have Railway Stations been provided with accessible features?
The second claim is that 644 out of the 709 railway stations have been provided with accessibility features for persons with disabilities. According to the 2017-18  annual report of the DEPwD, ‘Out of 709 A1, A & B category railway stations, 653 are made accessible in short term features. Short term features are – (1) Provision of standard ramp; (2) Earmarking two parking lots for physically challenged; (3) Provision of non-slippery walkway from parking to Station Building; (4) Provision of signages; (5) Provision of at least one disable friendly toilet; and (7) May I help you booth. Two long-term features: platform engraving on edges – in 640 stations; trolley path facility – in 597 stations is provided.’ These changes were also initiated under the accessible India campaign.
Claim: 644 out of the 709 railway stations have been provided with accessibility features for persons with disabilities.
Fact: Out of 709 A1, A & B category railway stations, 653 are made accessible in short term features. The claim does not mention that 709 is only the number of A1, A and B category stations and not all railway stations. The claim also does not mention that these stations were made accessible with short term features and a lesser number with long-term features. However, the numbers are right. Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
Are certain websites of State/UT governments made accessible through ERNET?
The third claim is that 917 identified websites of state governments/UTs will be accessible through ERNET India. ERNET (Education and Research Network) is an autonomous scientific society under Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) of the Government of India. According to the 2016-17  annual report of ERNET, ‘Under Accessibility India Campaign, one of the target is to make all Government/State Government websites accessible to all. For this, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) has funded ERNET India to make Govt. websites accessible as per GIGW and WCAG2.0 (A, AA level). ERNET has been given 917 websites across 20 states and 3 UTs of the country to make them accessible and responsive’. The 2017-18 annual report of MEITY also notes that accessibility of all these 917 identified websites will be achieved within a year.
Claim: The third claim is that 917 identified websites of state governments/UTs will be made accessible through ERNET India.
Fact: ERNET has been given 917 websites across 20 states and 3 UTs of the country to make them accessible and responsive. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that this is not yet achieved and will be done in future.
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: October 16, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on ‘Affordable Credit’ to Farmers
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 31, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims about affordable credit being provided. This is part of a larger sub-section of claims made about doubling farmers’ incomes. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims about affordable credit being provided. This is part of a larger sub-section of claims made about doubling farmers’ incomes. This article is a fact check of these claims.
What are Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) for farmers?
Joint liability groups amongst farmers were first introduced as a pilot project by NABARD (National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development) in the year 2004-05. NABARD’s annual report for the year 2004-05 notes  ‘absence of adequate security is sometimes a major hurdle in securing loans for small and marginal farmers and people from other poorer sections. The inability of this section of people to provide collateral often excludes them from the purview of credit cover. Keeping this in view, a pilot project on financing Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) was initiated for developing effective credit products for mid segment clients, which reduces risk and transaction costs for the bank and also introduces a greater degree of flexibility for the credit user to determine credit needs and priorities.’
The annual report also notes ‘a JLG is an assembly of 5-10 member clients (new or existing), informally recognized by the bank as a group. The group members offer an undertaking to the bank that enables them to jointly receive such amounts as deemed eligible by the bank for pursuing any activity – individually or jointly – as found suitable by the group. The group serves as collective guarantor for loans extended to individual members by executing joint liability agreements, making them severally and jointly liable for repayment of loans.’
How many JLGs have received loans from Banks & what is the extent of such loans?
The first claim is that 24.53 lakh joint liability groups were provided Rs. 26,848.13 crores loan by banks across the country as of 31st march, 2017.
An answer in Lok Sabha states ‘to bring small, marginal, tenant farmers, oral lessees, etc. taking up farm activities, off-farm activities and non-farm activities, into the fold of institutional credit, Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) have been promoted by banks. The announcement of Union Budget for 2014-15 for financing of 5 lakh JLGs of ‘Bhoomi Heen Kisan’ (landless farmers) has given further credence to efforts of NABARD in innovating and reaching out to the landless farmers through JLG scheme of financing.’
The same response also states ‘as on 31st March, 2017, cumulatively 24.53 lakh Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) have been provided Rs. 26,848.13 crore loan by banks across the country.’
It also has to be noted that the concept of forming JLGs and financing these JLGs is not new and was implemented during the UPA itself. As per NABARD’s 2013-14 annual report, the cumulative loan disbursement as on 31 March 2014 was Rs. 6,075.91 crores to 6.58 lakh JLGs.
Claim: 24.53 lakh joint liability groups were provided Rs. 26,848.13 crores loan by banks across the country as of 31st March, 2017.
Fact: As on 31st March, 2017, cumulatively 24.53 lakh Joint Liability Groups (JLGs) have been provided Rs. 26,848.13 crore loan by banks across the country. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that this scheme was formulated in 2004-05, during the UPA and was implemented during UPA’s tenure. As per NABARD’s 2013-14 annual report, the cumulative loan disbursement as on 31st March 2014 was Rs. 6,075.91 crores to 6.58 lakh JLGs.
What about the Interest Subvention scheme?
The second claim is ‘under the interest subvention scheme, short term crop loans up to Rs.3 lakhs were extended at an interest rate of 7% per annum for up to one year.’
According to a response in Lok Sabha, ‘NABARD & RBI raise claims with the Government under its Interest Subvention Scheme (ISS), wherein interest subvention of 2% per annum is provided to Public/Private Sector Banks (PSBs), Cooperative Banks and Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) on their own funds used for short-term crop loan up to Rs. 3 lakhs extended to farmers at a subvented interest rate of 7% per annum for a period of one year and a further 3% interest subvention to farmers provided as incentive on prompt repayment.’
NABARD’s 2010-11 annual report states that, ‘interest subvention of 1.5% per annum was available to public sector banks, co-operative banks and RRB for deploying their own funds for crop loan up to Rs.3 lakh per farmer, provided the ultimate borrower got such loans at 7% interest rate per annum. Additional subvention of 1% announced in the year 2009-10 to those farmers who repaid crop loans promptly within one year of disbursement was enhanced to 2% during 2010-11.’
While this proves that ISS schemes are not new, NABARD’s annual report of 2011-12 states that, ‘the continuance of the interest subvention scheme was announced in the Union Budget 2011-12, making interest subvention available at 2% per annum to public sector banks, co-operative banks and RRBs for deploying their own funds for crop loan up to 3 lakh per farmer, provided the ultimate borrowers were given loans at 7% interest rate per annum. Additional subvention of 3% was announced for 2012-13 to those farmers who repaid crop loans promptly within one year of disbursement.’  This further proves that the specific provisions of the ISS scheme, as it exists today have been instituted much before the BJP government and the same are being continued by the current government.
Claim: Under the interest subvention scheme, short term crop loans up to Rs. 3 lakhs were extended at an interest rate of 7% per annum for up to one year.
Fact: While the statement & numbers are true, the specific provisions of the Interest Subvention Scheme (ISS), as it exists today have been instituted much before the BJP government and the same are being continued by the current government.  Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.

created: January 31, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on Agreements & Enabling legislations to curb Corruption
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 28, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims about enabling legislations to curb corruption. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes four claims about enabling legislations to curb corruption. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Has ‘Double Taxation Avoidance agreement’ been signed with 3 new countries?
The first claim is that ‘double taxation avoidance agreement signed with Mauritius, Cyprus, Singapore’.
The double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) is basically a treaty that is signed between two countries that lets the tax payers in these countries avoid being taxed twice in both the countries. India has these agreements with a number of countries including Australia, Canada, United States of America and the United Kingdom.
The website of the Income Tax department displays all the DTAAs that India has signed. Mauritius, Cyprus and Singapore are on that list along with tens of others. As per the Income Tax website, there are about 135 such agreements of varying nature.
The agreement with Mauritius states that ‘whereas the annexed Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Mauritius for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital gains and for the encouragement of mutual trade and investment has come into force on the notification by both the Contracting States to each other on completion of the procedures required by their respective laws, as required by Article 28 of the said Convention’. This agreement was amended in August 2016 to make is more comprehensive.
The agreement with Cyprus states that ‘an agreement and protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income as set out in the Annexure to this notification, was signed at Nicosia, Cyprus on the 18th day of November, 2016’.
The agreement with Singapore states that ‘whereas the annexed agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income has entered into force on 27th May, 1994 on the notification by both the Contracting States to each other of the completion of the procedures required by their respective laws, as required by the said Agreement’. This agreement has been amended in 2005, 2011 and most recently in 2017.
It can be seen from the agreements that DTAA is not new and have been signed by previous governments also.  It is also evident that of the three countries mentioned the claim, only Cyprus is a new agreement and the other two are amendments to older agreements or protocols.
Claim: Double taxation avoidance agreement signed with Mauritius, Cyprus, Singapore
Fact: DTAA is not new and have been signed by previous governments also with a number of countries. As per the Income Tax website, there are 135 such agreements. It is also evident that, of the three countries mentioned the claim, only Cyprus is a new agreement and the other two are amendments to older agreements. Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.
Is there an agreement on real time information sharing with Switzerland?
The second claim is that ‘agreement on real time information sharing with Switzerland’.
A number of policy related MoUs have been signed with Switzerland. One of such agreements is the ‘Joint Declaration on Automatic Exchange of Information on Tax Matters – signed in November 2016’.  This agreement allows for real time information sharing of the finances related to Indian nationals with bank accounts in Switzerland. Switzerland and India are among a list of 84 countries that share such information with other countries.
Switzerland shared its information with 36 countries, while India shared it with 58 as per the 2018 OECD report on this issue. The report of the OECD committee further states that  ‘in 2014, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes (the Global Forum) adopted the Standard for Automatic Exchange of Financial Account Information in Tax Matters (the AEOI Standard), developed by the OECD working with G20 countries. To deliver a level playing field, the Global Forum launched a commitment process under which 100 jurisdictions committed to implement the AEOI Standard in time to commence exchanges in 2017 or 2018’.  It is thus clear that the real time information agreement that was signed with Switzerland is part of a larger global initiative and the adoption of the standard developed the OECD.
Claim: Agreement on real time information sharing with Switzerland
Fact: Joint Declaration on Automatic Exchange of Information on Tax Matters was signed in November 2016 with Switzerland. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, real time information agreement that was signed with Switzerland is part of a larger global initiative and the adoption of the standard developed the OECD.
Have the ‘Black Money and Imposition of tax act’ been enacted?
The third claim is that ‘black money (undisclosed foreign income and assets) and imposition of tax Act 2015 enacted’.
This act was made to deal with the problem of the Black money that is undisclosed foreign income and assets, the procedure for dealing with such income and assets and to provide for imposition of tax on any undisclosed foreign income and asset held outside India. The Act came into force from April 2016.
One of the  press releases by the government also states that ‘the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Rules 2015 have been framed and notified in July 2015. The rules specify the form and manner in which declaration of undisclosed foreign asset is to be made. Rules also provide the method of determination of fair market value of different types of assets e.g., bullion, jewellery, artistic work, shares and securities, immovable property, bank account etc’.
Claim: Black money (undisclosed foreign income and assets) and imposition of tax Act 2015 enacted.
Fact: The Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets (Imposition of Tax) Bill, 2015 has been enacted and the subsequent rules have also been issued. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Has the PMLA been amended?
The fourth claim is that ‘PMLA amended to allow confiscation of property equivalent in value of black money stashed abroad’.
A response in Lok Sabha from July 2017 provides details about the PMLA. ‘The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 was enforced in India with effect from July 2005. 2260 cases have been registered under the PMLA during the last ten years. Out of these prosecution have been filed in 370 cases and 02 persons in 02 cases have been convicted for the offence of money laundering. Amendments were carried out from time to time to widen the scope of PMLA, expand the definition of Proceeds of Crime, etc’.  The response also details the amendments made to the act are as follows:
Claim: PMLA amended to allow confiscation of property equivalent in value of black money stashed abroad
Fact: In 2015, the definition of Proceeds of Crime (POC) was further expanded to enable the Directorate to attach equivalent value of property in India of the accused, if the accused has transferred the POCs out of India. 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 on ‘Ayushman Bharat’
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 9, 2019
The BJP government
published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes certain claims
about the ‘Ayushman Bharat Scheme’. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes certain claims about the ‘Ayushman Bharat Scheme’. This article is a fact check of the claims.
What is Ayushman Bharat?
The first claim is that the scheme will ‘provide
comprehensive health coverage up to Rs. 5 lakh per family per year to around 50
crore people’.
The
National Health Policy  (NHP) of 2017 lays out priorities interms developing better financial protection strategies, strengtheningregulation and health assurance. This is the third revision of the policy whichpreviously existed in the form of National
Health Policy of 2002. The earliest iteration of the policy is the National
Health Policy of 1983. The latest NHP was formulated after a situation
analysis ofthe country.
Ayushman
Bharat is a National Health Protection Scheme, which is meant to cover10 crore poor and vulnerable families (approximately 50 crore beneficiaries)providing coverage up to 5 lakh rupees per family per year for secondary andtertiary care hospitalization. The eligible beneficiaries are selected usingthe SECC
deprivation criteria.
AyushmanBharat subsumes the on-going centrally sponsored schemes – Rashtriya
Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and the Senior
Citizen Health Insurance Scheme (SCHIS). The RSBY was launched inthe year 2008. The Minister of Finance, Arun Jaitley, in the budget speech of 2018-19 said that theNational Health Protection Scheme (Ayushman Bharat) will be the world’s largestgovernment funded health care program.
Theprevious schemes like the RSBY enrolled around 3.5 crore families with acoverage of Rs. 30,000 per annum. States like Andhra Pradesh & Telanganahave a functional health insurance scheme ‘Aarogyasri’, launched in the year2007. These states have not
joined theAyushman Bharat since there will be a huge reduction in the number ofbeneficiaries who are already covered under the ‘Aarogyasri’ scheme.
The website of the scheme states that ‘under the ambit of
Ayushman Bharat, a Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) to
reduce the financial burden on poor and vulnerable groups arising out of
catastrophic hospital episodes and ensure their access to quality health
services was conceived. PM-JAY seeks to accelerate India’s progress towards
achievement of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and Sustainable Development Goal
– 3 (SDG3). Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) will provide
financial protection (Swasthya Suraksha) to 10.74 crore poor, deprived rural
families and identified occupational categories of urban workers’ families as
per the latest Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) data (approx. 50 crore beneficiaries).
It will have offer a benefit cover of Rs. 500,000 per family per year (on a
family floater basis). PM-JAY will cover medical and hospitalization
expenses for almost all secondary care and most of tertiary care procedures.
PM-JAY has defined 1,350 medical packages covering surgery, medical and day
care treatments including medicines, diagnostics and transport’.
Ayushman Bharat Yojana comprises of twocomponents namely (i) Provision of Comprehensive Primary Healthcare (CPHC)through Health and Wellness Centers (HWCs) and (ii) Ayushman Bharat PradhanMantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY). Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan ArogyaYojana (PMJAY) provides hospitalisation coverage up to Rs.5.00 lakh per familyper year for secondary and tertiary care procedures including certain definedpre and post hospitalisation expenses to families eligible based on specifieddeprivation and occupational criteria as per Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC)database. AB-PMJAY is an entitlement-based scheme under which coverage islinked to deprivation.
As the state governments are responsiblefor the implementation of the scheme and setting up of the hospitals and healthcare centers, it is important to note that ‘as
of February 2019, 33 States/UTs have signed Memorandum of
Understanding with National Health Agency for implementing Ayushman Bharat National
Health Protection Mission (AB-NHPM)’.
As per the latest available information,  7,91,457 claims have been submittedunder the scheme out of the 11.36 crore beneficiary families covered across thecountry.
Claim: Provide comprehensive   health coverage up to Rs. 5 lakh per family per year to around 50 crore people.
Fact: Government provides   health insurance cover of up to Rs. 5,00,000 per family per year. More than 10.74 crore poor and vulnerable families (approximately 50 crore beneficiaries) covered across the country. Hence, the claim is TRUE. As of February 2019, 7.91 lakh claims   have been submitted under the scheme.
How many health and wellness centers have been
established?
The second claim is that ‘1.5 lakh sub centers and primary health
centers being transformed as health and wellness centers (HWCs) to provide
comprehensive primary healthcare services’.
Under Ayushman Bharat Programme 1.5 lakh Health Sub Centres and Primary Health Centres are to be transformed into Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs) byDecember, 2022 in order to expand access to Comprehensive Primary Health Care(CPHC). Sub Health Centres (SHCs) and Primary Health Centres (PHCs) are beingstrengthened as Health and Wellness Centres (H&WCs). The H&WCs are toprovide preventive, promotive, rehabilitative and curative care for an expandedrange of services encompassing reproductive and child health services,communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, palliative care and elderlycare, oral health, ENT care, and basic emergency care.
As per latest available government data, approvals for over21000 such HWCs were accorded in 2018-19 against the target of 15000 in thecurrent year. Out of these, 8120 Health & Wellness Centers have beenoperationalized so far.
As per a response in the Lok Sabha publichealth and hospitals being a state subject, it is for the states to decide the location of the HWCs. However, atleast two Health and Wellness centres are to be operationalised in eachAspirational district under extended Gram Swaraj Abhiyan.
Claim: 1.5 lakh sub centers   and primary health centers being transformed as health and wellness centers   (HWCs) to provide comprehensive primary healthcare services.
Fact: Under Ayushman Bharat   Programme 1.5 lakh Health Sub Centres and Primary Health Centres are to be   transformed into Health and Wellness Centres (HWCs) by December, 2022. Out of   this, 8120 Health & Wellness Centres have been operationalized so far. Since   the claim talks about a future target, 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


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on Bharatmala & Setu Bharatam
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 18, 2018
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. This infographic contains claims about the Bharatmala Pariyojana and Setu Bharatam Project. This article is a fact check of those claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. This infographic contains claims about the Bharatmala Pariyojana and Setu Bharatam Project. This article is a fact check of those claims.
What is the financial outlay for the Bharatmala Pariyojana?
The first claim is that the first phase of ‘Bharatmala Pariyojana’ has been approved with a total cost of Rs. 5,35,000 crores for expanding highways sector with multi-modal integration.
According to the response to a question in the Lok Sabha, ‘The Government of India has conceptualized an umbrella programme namely Bharatmala Pariyojana for development of highways across the country which includes development of border roads, international connectivity roads, coastal roads, port connectivity roads, ring roads, removal of choke points, logistic parks, economic corridors, inter corridors, feeder routes and expressways.’
The finance minister in his budget speech mentioned that the, ‘Ambitious Bharatmala Pariyojana has been approved for providing seamless connectivity of interior and backward areas and borders of the country to develop about 35000 kms in Phase-I at an estimated cost of 5,35,000 crore.’
It has also been stated in response to a Lok Sabha question that, ‘the Cabinet has approved the investment proposal for Bharatmala Pariyojana (BMP) Phase-I in October 2017’.
An update on the program is available from the response to a Lok Sabha question in July 2018 which says that, ‘out of the total financial outlay of Rs. 5,35,000 crores allocated for Bharatmala Pariyojana Phase-I, projects with financial implication of approximately Rs. 1,44,300 crores for a length of about 6320 kms have been awarded.’
Claim: Bharatmala Pariyojana: Phase 1: 5,35,000 crore rupees for expanding highways sector with multi-modal integration
Fact: The total financial outlay of Rs. 5,35,000 crores is for the entire Bharatmala Pariyojana. Till July 2018, projects worth Rs. 1,44,300 crores have been awarded.  The claim talks about the total outlay which is a future event. Hence is claim is PARTLY TRUE.
What is the outlay for the Setu Bharatam project?
The second claim talks about the Setu Bharatam project which is initiated for safer roads and making all national highways free of railway level crossings by 2019. The claim is that the total outlay for the project to build railway over bridges/under passes is Rs. 20,800 crores.
According to the response for a Lok Sabha question, the government mentioned that,  ‘in order to ensure safe and smooth flow of traffic, Ministry has envisaged a plan for replacement of all the Level Crossings on National Highways by ROBs/RUBs and replacement or widening or strengthening of weak and narrow bridges under a scheme Setu Bharatam’.
According to another response in Lok Sabha in March 2018,  the government mentioned that ‘under this programme, construction of 208 ROBs or RUBs on Level Crossings at an estimated cost of Rs. 20,800 crores are included originally. However, due to site requirements/constraints, construction of bypasses, National Highway entrustment to National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and corridor construction approach etc., 174 ROBs/RUBs are remaining as on date under Setu Bharatam scheme. 90 ROBs have already been sanctioned for Rs. 7101.24 crores. 40 ROBs have already been awarded & 24 ROBs have been taken for execution.’
Claim: Setu Bharatam project for safer roads. Making all national highways free of railway level crossings, by 2019, by building railway over bridges/under passes. Total outlay of 20, 800 crore rupees.
Fact: 208 ROBs or RUBs on Level Crossings at an estimated cost of Rs. 20,800 crores were initially included in the project. Out of which, 90 ROBs have already been sanctioned, 40 ROBs have already been awarded and 24 ROBs have been taken up for execution. The clam is PARTLY TRUE since it is still work in progress.
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 18, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on Direct Benefit Transfer
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 5, 2019
The BJP government has made two claims on Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government has made two claims on Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) in an infographic published on the 48-months portal. This article is a fact check of these claims.
What is PAHAL?
The annual report (2017-18) of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) states that ‘Government of India has launched Direct Benefit Transfer for LPG consumer (DBTL) scheme namely, PAHAL, in 54 districts of the country in November 2014 and as of January 2018, 19.43 Crore LPG consumers have joined the scheme. The scheme aims to rationalise subsidies based on approach to cut subsidy leakages, but not subsidies themselves. LPG consumers who join the PAHAL scheme, will get the LPG cylinders at non-subsidised price and receive LPG subsidy (as per their entitlement) directly into their bank accounts’.
In a previous annual report  (2014-15) of the MoPNG, it is stated that ‘in compliance with the vision 2015 and to spread LPG distribution network in rural areas and uncovered areas, Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitaran Yojana (RGGLVY) for establishing small size LPG distribution agencies was launched in October 2009. As on 31st December 2014, 4058 Nos. of RGGLVs have been commissioned by OMCs’.
Going back even further, the annual report  (2013-14) of the MoPNG states that, ‘effective April 2002, the Government decided to provide subsidy on sale of PDS kerosene and domestic LPG at specified flat rates under the Budget. To administer these budgetary subsidies, the Government formulated two schemes viz. ‘PDS Kerosene and Domestic LPG Subsidy Scheme 2002’ and ‘Freight Subsidy (For Far Flung Areas) Scheme 2002’. Under these schemes it was decided that subsidy on PDS Kerosene and Domestic LPG will be phased out in 3-5 years’.
According to the PAHAL website,  ‘the PAHAL (DBTL) scheme was earlier launched in June 2013 and finally covered 291 districts. It required the consumer to mandatorily have an Aadhaar number for availing LPG Subsidy. The government has comprehensively reviewed the scheme and after examining the difficulties faced by the consumer substantively modified the scheme prior to launch in 2014. The modified scheme has been re-launched in 54 districts in November 2014 in the 1st Phase and rest of the country in January 2015’.
It is thus, important to note that the scheme in its present form was launched in 2014 but LPG subsidy has existed long before that. It can also be understood that the DBT for LPG consumers (DBTL) was conceived and the pilot launched during the UPA-2.
Is PAHAL the world’s largest cash transfer program?
The first claim is that ‘PAHAL is the world’s largest cash transfer program with over 20.14 crore beneficiaries receiving 69,815 crore rupees’.
An answer in Lok Sabha in December 2018 states that ‘after implementation of PAHAL Scheme, the LPG consumers, who have joined the Scheme, purchase the LPG cylinders at non-subsidised price and receive LPG subsidy (as per their entitlement) directly in their registered bank account. As of December 2018, a total of 23.11 crore consumers have joined the Scheme in the country’.
The annual report (2017-18) of the MoPNG states that, ‘as of December 2017,  more than 19.43 crore LPG consumers have joined the PAHAL Scheme.  So far, more than Rs. 62,630 crore have been transferred into the bank accounts of consumers’. As per a recent answer in the Lok Sabha in February 2019, a total of Rs. 1.03 lakh crore have been transferred under PAHAL to a total of 23.81 crore registered LPG consumers.
The annual report also states that, ‘PAHAL has entered into Guinness book of World record being largest Direct Benefit Transfer scheme’. The website of Guinness World Records also confirms this.
Claim: PAHAL is the world’s largest cash transfer program with over 20.14 crore beneficiaries receiving 69,815 crore rupees.
Fact: PAHAL has entered the Guinness book of world records for being the largest Direct Benefit Transfer scheme. As per a recent answer in the Lok Sabha in February 2019, a total of Rs. 1.03 lakh crore have been transferred under PAHAL to a total of 23.81 crore registered LPG consumers. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that the DBT for LPG consumers (DBTL) was conceived and the pilot was launched during the UPA-2.
Have more than 3 crore rupees directly transferred to beneficiaries?
The second claim is that ‘3,65,996 crore rupees directly transferred into bank account of beneficiaries of 431 schemes’.
A response in Lok Sabha stated that ‘as of 26th December 2018, 434 schemes of 56 Ministries/Departments have been on boarded on the DBT portal. DBT schemes are not limited to the subsidy but also includes others benefits such as scholarships, pension, wages and other social benefits under various Centrally Sponsored Schemes and Central Sector Schemes’.
The same response also shows that a total of 5,63,896.8 crore rupees have been transferred to beneficiaries, out of which 4,88,680.2 crore rupees have been in cash (the rest of the amount has been in kind). Since the response was given after the claim was made, the numbers are higher. Addition of schemes could have also increased the amounts. On the other hand, the DBT portal, states that 6,30,689 Crore rupees have been transferred under the DBT scheme as on 01st March 2019.
Another response in Lok Sabha in April 2013 states that ‘the amount of funds transfer to beneficiaries for the identified schemes under DBT from 1st January to 31st March 2013 through APB was Rs. 22.9 crore and through non-APB was Rs. 57.1 crore’. This only shows that DBT for other schemes was also conceived and piloted during the UPA-2.
Claim: 3,65,996 crore rupees directly transferred into bank account of beneficiaries of 431 schemes.
Fact: As of 26th December 2018, 434 schemes of 56 Ministries/Departments have been on-boarded on the DBT portal. Rs. 4,88,680.2 crores have been transferred under the DBT scheme. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, DBT for other schemes was also conceived and piloted during the UPA-2. The current government expanded and made it more robust & comprehensive.
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 on Electrification of Villages & Homes
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 26, 2018
How true are the government claims about electrification of villages & households? Here is a fact check
In an infographic titled powering a billion aspirations, the government made two claims about electrification. The claims talk about two schemes: Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana and Saubhagya Scheme. Here is a fact check of these claims.
Has every village been electrified under the DDUGJY?
The first claim is that every village has been electrified under the Deendayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana (DDUGJY). The DDUGJY was launched by the current government replacing the  Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) which was launched by the UPA in 2005.
The definition of an electrified village has been changing with time. Prior to 1997, a village was classified as electrified if electricity is being used within its revenue area for any purpose whatsoever. After 1997, this definition was modified to the extent that if electricity is used in the inhabited locality, within the revenue boundary of the village for any purpose whatsoever, the village would be deemed electrified.
The current definition of an electrified village has been in vogue since February 2004. As per this definition, a village is considered electrified if
As per the annual reports of the Rural Electrification Corporation, the government company in charge of the electrification of villages, the current government electrified more than 18000 un-electrified villages during its term. And as per an answer provided in the Lok Sabha, all inhabited census villages have been electrified by April 2018. Rural electrification became a priority issue with the launch of the RGGVY in 2005 by the UPA government. During its term, the UPA government electrified more than a lakh villages. It also has to be noted that the current government electrified some of the most difficult villages in terms of access & terrain. During the last two years of the UPA, the number of villages electrified had reduced while it again  increased in 2015-16 and 2016-17.
One of the other goals of DDUGJY is intensive electrification of villages (providing electricity connections to more households). The progress report of the DDUGJY, released in September 2018, states that while the total scope of the intensive electrification program was 780337 villages, the achievement is 548875 villages.
Claim: Every village has been electrified under Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana.
Fact: While all inhabited villages as per the census were electrified by April 2018, this is not an achievement of the current government alone and not under the DDUGJY. Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.
What about Saubhagya Scheme?
The second claim is that Saubhagya scheme is to ensure electrification of 4 crore un-electrified homes by 31st December 2018. Government of India launched the Pradhan Mantri Sahaj Bijli Har Ghar Yojana (Saubhagya) in September 2017 with an outlay of Rs. 16,320 crore including budgetary support of Rs. 12,320 crore from Government of India. The objective of the scheme is to provide last mile connectivity and electricity connections to all households in rural and urban areas across the country.
Under the Saubhagya scheme,  free of cost electricity connections would be provided to all remaining un-electrified households with at least one deprivation criteria on the basis of Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC) data in rural areas and economically poor households in urban areas. Others would be charged a sum of Rs. 500 per household which shall be recovered by the respective State Distribution utility/Power Department in ten equal installments along with the electricity bill.
According to an answer provided by the government in Lok Sabha, 101.56 lakh households have been given electricity connections as of August 2018 since launch of Saubhagya scheme. The latest number as per the Saubhagya dashboard is 180.51 lakh households.
Claim: Saubhagya to ensure electrification of 4 crore un-electrified homes by 31st December 2018.
Fact: The scheme has been launched in 2017 with the aim of electrifying 4 crore households. Since this claim talks about a future target, we will only know in December 2018 whether 4 crore un-electrified households have been electrified. 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: October 26, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on Fertilizer Production & Price
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 25, 2019
The BJP government has published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes five claims about the access and availability of fertilizers. 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 the access and availability of fertilizers. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Has 100% neem coating happened? What have the benefits been?
The first claim is that ‘100% neem coating resulted in improvement in soil health, reduction in pest and disease attack.’
The annual report (2017-18) of the Department of Fertilizers states that ‘the Government in June 2008 had notified the policy for encouraging production and availability of fortified and coated fertilizers in the country wherein the indigenous manufacturers/producers of the subsidized fertilizers were allowed to produce fortified/coated subsidized fertilizers up to a maximum of 20% of their total production of respective subsidized fertilizers. This ceiling of production of Neem Coated Urea(NCU) was increased from the limit of 20% to a maximum of 35% of their total production in January 2011. Subsequently, in January 2015, Department of Fertilizers removed the cap/restriction to produce Neem Coated Urea and the indigenous producers of urea could produce up to maximum of their total production of subsidized urea. Subsequently in May 2015, it was made mandatory for all the indigenous producers of urea to produce 75% of their total production of subsidized urea as Neem Coated Urea and made effective from 1st April, 2015. Finally, based on the CCEA approval, Department of Fertilizers issued notification whereby it has been made mandatory for all the domestic producers of urea to produce 100% as Neem Coated Urea with an extra MRP of 5% (of Rs. 5360/- per MT) to be charged by the fertilizer manufacturing entities from farmers. Entire quantity of indigenously produced urea and imported urea is being neem coated from 1st September, 2015 and 1st December, 2015 respectively’.
A response in Lok Sabha in January 2018 states that ‘ As per a notification in May 2015, Department of Fertilizers has made it mandatory for all the indigenous producers of urea to produce 100% of their total production of subsidized urea as Neem Coated Urea (NCU). Entire quantity of indigenously produced urea and imported urea is being neem coated’.
The annual report (2017-18) of the Department of Fertilizers states also states that ‘the Neem Coated Urea has received high acceptance among the farmers considering its benefits on soil fertility/conservation, higher yield pest control’. This still does not provide any conclusive proof of whether the neem coating has had any impact on soil health, pests and disease attacks.
Claim: 100% neem coating resulted in improvement in soil health, reduction in pest and disease attack.
Fact: It is true that through a notification in May 2015, Department of Fertilizers has made it mandatory for all the indigenous producers of urea to produce 100% of their total production of subsidized urea as Neem Coated Urea (NCU). However, the impacts of this are not yet published by any government report/source. Moreover, successive governments  (starting with UPA 1) have progressively increased the limit of neem coating on subsidized urea. Hence, the 100% mandatory part is TRUE while the impacts remain UNVERIFIED.
Has there been an increase in nitrogen use efficiency and crop yield?
The second claim is that ‘there has been an increased nitrogen use efficiency and increased crop yield due to neem coated urea’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Department of Fertilizers states that ‘due to its slow release of Nitrogen, the Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) of Neem Coated Urea increases resulting in reduced consumption of NCU as compared to Normal urea’.
As is the case of the previous claim, there is no other data available in the public domain to verify the increase in crop yield or nitrogen use efficiency.
Claim: There has been an increased nitrogen use efficiency and increased crop yield due to neem coated urea
Fact: The Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) of Neem Coated Urea increases resulting in reduced consumption of NCU. However, data regarding increased crop yield because of this is not available. Hence, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
Is there a special banking arrangement to clear fertilizer subsidy dues?
The third claim is that ‘special banking arrangement of Rs. 10,000 crores to clear fertilizer subsidy dues’.
To clear outstanding subsidy claims of urea & fertilizer manufacturers, governments have followed varied methods. The UPA-1 government issued fertilizer bonds (similar to oil bonds) to clear outstanding subsidy. The current government is following the method of special banking arrangement where in short term loans are raised from PSU banks at similar interest rate as bonds. The current government has resorted to this special banking arrangement in almost every year to clear the outstanding subsidy claims. It made these arrangements for Rs. 14,500 crores in 2014-15,  for Rs. 7,000 crores in 2015-16, for Rs. 10,000 crore in 2017-18, for Rs. 7,000 crores in March 2018 for the second half of 2017-18.
The claim in the infographic refers to the Rs. 10,000 crores in 2017-18.
Claim: Special banking arrangement of Rs. 10,000 crores to clear fertilizer subsidy dues.
Fact: To clear outstanding subsidy claims of urea & fertilizer manufacturers, governments have followed varied methods. The UPA-1 government issued fertilizer bonds (similar to oil bonds) to clear outstanding subsidy. The current government has resorted to special banking arrangement in almost every year to clear the outstanding subsidy claims. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, such arrangements to clear outstanding subsidy claims are not new.
Has the new Urea Policy led to significant increase in Urea production?
The fourth claim is that ‘significant increase in urea production with new urea policy’.
An answer in Lok Sabha in August 2015 stated that ‘the New Urea Policy-2015 (NUP-2015) has been notified by the Department of Fertilizers in May 2015. NUP-2015, aims to achieve twin objectives of maximizing indigenous urea production and promoting energy efficiency in urea production while rationalizing subsidy burden on the government. It is expected to prepare the domestic urea sector to become globally competitive in terms of energy efficiency over a period of three years. It will drive urea units to select better technology and different measure to reduce energy consumption. The policy would ensure timely supply of urea to the farmers at the same Maximum retail Price with lesser financial burden on the exchequer’.
Another response in Lok Sabha in March 2017 states that ‘NUP-2015 has led to additional production of approximately 20 LMT from the existing plants against the year 2014-15 and the total production of urea during the year 2015-16 was approximately 245 LMT i.e. the highest ever urea production in the country’.
If one looks at the annual production of Urea since 2001-02, there was only 3.7% increase in the production of Urea during UPA-1, 14% increase during UPA-2 and 5.8% during the first four years of the current government. While the 244.75 LMT production in 2015-16 is the highest ever, even this represents only a 7.7% increase in production during the current government. If one were to take the highest ever production as the criteria, the production in 2012-13 and 2013-14 were the highest ever till that year.
Claim: Significant increase in urea production with new Urea policy
Fact: If one looks at the annual production of Urea since 2001-02, there was only 3.7% increase in the production of Urea during UPA-1, 14% increase during UPA-2 and 5.8% during the first four years of the current government. While the 244.75 LMT production in 2015-16 is the highest ever, even this represents only a 7.7% increase in production during the current government. Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.
Has there been a decrease in MRP of fertilizers?
The fifth claim is that ‘there has been a reduction in the MRP of DAP & MOP and complex fertilizers’.
It is true that the prices of DAP, MOP and other complex fertilizers reduced in the year 2016 as prices had come down in the international market and this reduction was purely because of market dynamics. The government or its policies had very little to do with this reduction. In fact, the prices of DAP & MOP have again increased by more than 25% and 50% respectively between December 2017 & October 2018. The increase was again because of market dynamics.
Claim: There has been a reduction in the MRP of DAP, MOP and complex fertilizers.
Fact: It is true that the prices of DAP, MOP and other complex fertilizers reduced in the year 2016 as prices had come down in the international market and this reduction was purely because of market dynamics. The government or its policies had very little to do with this reduction. In fact, the prices of DAP & MOP have again increased by more than 25% and 50% respectively between December 2017 & October 2018. The increase was again because of market dynamics. Hence the claim is FALSE.
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 25, 2019


text:
Fact Checking Government claims on GDP Growth & Inflation
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 20, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes three claims about the macroeconomic indicators of the country. 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 macroeconomic indicators of the country. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Is the economy growing at a robust rate?
The first claim is that ‘economy growing at a robust rate, with 7.4% GDP growth forecast for FY 2018-19’.
A response in the Lok Sabha from March 2018 states that ‘the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoSPI) releases and revises estimates of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) / Gross Value Added (GVA) as per the published advance release calendar’.
The Global Economic Prospects report of the World Bank states that ‘India’s GDP is forecast to grow by 7.3% in FY2018-19 and 7.5% thereafter’.
A response in Lok Sabha from December 2018 states that ‘the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at constant (2011-12) prices for India in second quarter (July-September) of 2018-19 was 7.1%, higher as compared to the growth of 6.3% recorded in the second quarter of the previous year. The growth rate of GDP in the first quarter (April-June) of 2018-19 was 8.2%. Despite higher crude oil prices and weaker rupee, the economy grew at a robust rate of 7.6% in the first half of 2018-19’.
Another response in  the Lok Sabha from 2017 shows that GDP growth rates have been steadily increasing since 2012-13 except for the drop in 2016-17.
Further, as per the first advance estimates of National Income, growth in GDP during 2018-19 is estimated at 7.2%.  As per the second advance estimates of National Income, growth in GDP during 2018-19 is estimated at 7%, down from the 7.2% estimated during the first advance estimates.
Claim: Economy growing at a robust rate, with 7.4% GDP growth forecast for FY 2018-19.
Fact: As per the first advance estimates of National Income, growth in GDP during 2018-19 is estimated at 7.2%.  As per the second advance estimates of National Income, growth in GDP during 2018-19 is estimated at 7%, down from the 7.2% estimated during the first advance estimates. Hence the claim is FALSE.
Is the overall inflation falling?
The second claim is that ‘falling overall inflation: 8.48% (2014) to 4.87% (2015) to 5.47% (2016) to 2.99% (2017) to 4.58% (2018)’.
The Consumer Price Indices warehouse says that ‘Consumer Price Indices (CPI) measure changes over time in general level of prices of goods and services that households acquire for the purpose of consumption. CPI is widely used as a macroeconomic indicator of inflation, as a tool by governments and central banks for inflation targeting and for monitoring price stability, and as deflators in the national accounts. CPI is also used for indexing dearness allowance to employees for increase in prices’.
A response in the Lok Sabha from 2017 states that  ‘the steps taken to control inflation include (i) increased budgetary allocation for Price Stabilization Fund in the budget 2017-18 to check volatility of prices of essential commodities, in particular, of pulses; (ii) created buffer stock of pulses through domestic procurement and imports; (iii) announced higher Minimum Support Prices so as to incentivize production; (iv) issued advisory to States/UTs to take strict action against hoarding and black marketing under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980; (v) imposed 20 per cent duty on export of sugar; and (vi) reduced import duty on potatoes, wheat and palm oil’.
The Global Economic Prospects report of the World Bank states that ‘there were some signs of rising inflation pressure across the region, and both India and Pakistan raised rates in 2018 to counter the effects of currency depreciation, rising energy prices, and domestic capacity constraints. Inflation is projected to rise somewhat above the midpoint of the Reserve Bank of India’s target range of 2 to 6 percent, mainly owing to energy and food prices’.
The following chart shows the inflation rates (rural and urban combined) for India, during the month of April. The data has been collated from the annual reports of the MoSPI and a response in the Lok Sabha. The Year on Year (YoY) inflation in the country has been gradually decreasing (except for an abrupt rise in 2016). It reached a lowest of 1.46% in June 2017, but has been increasing ever since. Even globally, inflation based on consumer prices has decreased starting from the year 2011.
Claim: Falling overall inflation: 8.48% (2014) to 4.87% (2015) to 5.47% (2016) to 2.99% (2017) to 4.58% (2018).
Fact: The Year on Year (YoY) inflation in the country has been gradually decreasing (except for an abrupt rise in 2016). It reached a lowest of 1.46% in June 2017, but has been increasing ever since. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it is important to also keep in mind the international trends.
Is food inflation down?
The last claim is that ‘food inflation down: 9.19% (2014) to 5.44% (2015) to 6.29% (2016) 1.29% (2017) to 3% (2018)’.
The annual report (2017-18) of  MoSPI states that ‘CSO releases Consumer Price Indices for Rural, Urban and Combined sectors also at group and sub-group levels. It is to be stated that ‘Food and beverages’ as a whole has 45.86% share, which includes 39.06% share of CFPI in CPI basket of combined sector. Therefore, food items are generally the major drivers of overall inflation rate based on CPI’.
A response in Lok Sabha from August 2016 states that, ‘the Government has undertaken the following measures to check black marketing of food items and curb inflation, in particular, food inflation:
The following graph shows the YoY food inflation (based on Consumer Food Price Index – CFPI) since 2014. The CFPI is being released since the early months of 2014.
Claim: Food inflation down: 9.19% (2014) to 5.44% (2015) to 6.29% (2016) 1.29% (2017) to 3% (2018).
Fact: While the absolute numbers are slightly off the mark, the trend in the fall in food inflation 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 on Higher Education
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 15, 2018
In an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal, there are three claims relating to education in the country. This article is a fact check of the claims.
In an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal, there are three claims relating to education in the country. This article is a fact check of the claims.
How many new educational institutions have been established?
The first claim of the government is that numerous universities, 7 IITs, 7 IIMs, 14 IIITs, 1 NIT, 103 KVs and 62 Navodaya Vidyalayas have been established and have started functioning.
The annual report of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (2016-17) states that there were only 20 universities and 500 colleges at the time of independence. These numbers have increased to 799 (as of 31 March 2016) in the case of the universities and 39,071 in the case of colleges.
In the case of IITs, establishment of 5 new IITs, one each at Jammu, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala was announced in the budget speech of 2014-15. Establishment of an IIT in Karnataka and conversion of ISM Dhanbad into an IIT was announced in the budget speech of 2015-16.
As far as IIMs is concerned, according to the MHRD website, there are 19 IIMs as on October 2018. Of the 19 institutes, 5 have been announced in the budget speech of 2014-15 and two have been announced in 2015-16. The seven new IIMS are set up in Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Odisha, Maharashtra, Jammu and Andhra Pradesh.
The annual report of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (2016-17) also points out that a scheme to establish twenty new Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs), on a non-for-profit Public Private Partnership (N-PPP) basis has been approved by the cabinet in December 2016. The ministry had already approved 19 out of 20 IIITs.
The website of the National Institute of Technology, Andhra Pradesh states that it is the 31st institution among the chain of NITs started by the Government of India. NIT Andhra Pradesh is established in the state of Andhra Pradesh recently in the academic year 2015 – 2016.
An answer is Lok Sabha states that Kendriya Vidyalayas are opened primarily to cater to the educational needs of the wards of transferable Central Government Employees including Defence personnel on receipt of a proposal from a Ministry/Department of Government of India or State Governments  or Union Territory Administration and committing availability of requisite resources for setting up a new KV.
As per the annual reports of the KV Sanghatan, 11 new KVs were opened in 2014-15, 25 in 2015-16, 14 in 2016-17. Data for 2017-18 is not yet available. Hence in the 3-year period between 2014-15 and 2016-17, 50 new KVs were opened. The annual reports also mention that many of these KVs were sanctioned during the UPA.
The Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme provides for opening of one Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV) in each district of the country. 62 new Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas have been sanctioned in the districts uncovered so far.
Claim: Numerous universities, 7 IITs, 7 IIMs, 14 IIITs, 1 NIT, 103 KVs and 62 Navodaya Vidyalayas established and have started functioning.
Fact: There has been an increase in the number of universities in India since Independence. The claim is not specific on the number of new universities setup. As far as the other institutions are concerned, it is true that 7 IITs, 7 IIMs, 19 IIITs, 1 NIT have been established in the last 4 years. Only 50 new KVs were opened in the first 3 years while 62 JNVs have been established in the last four years. Hence, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
What is the IIM bill?
The second claim of the government is that major reform in education was ensured by granting autonomy to quality institutes by passing IIM bill. The Indian Institutes of Management Bill 2017 was aimed at ‘declaring certain Institutes of management to be institutions of national importance with a view to empower these institutions to attain standards of global excellence in management, management research and allied areas of knowledge and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.’ The Rajya Sabha passed the bill in December 2017 and the act was notified in the gazette in December 2017.
This bill declared 20 of the existing IIMs as institutes of national importance and gave them the power to grant degrees as opposed to post graduate diplomas being granted till now. The bill provides a greater level of autonomy for the board of governors and reduces the role of the government. The autonomy granted to IIMs under the bill allows the institutes to have the director appointed by the governing board instead of the central government (as is the case with IITs and AIIMS).  Whether this bill leads to reform in education as claimed by the government remains to be seen.
Claim: Major reform in education ensured by granting autonomy to quality institutes by passing IIM bill.
Fact: The IIM bill was passed by the parliament and was notified in December 2017. The bill grants autonomy to IIMs. The claim is hence TRUE. However, whether this bill leads to reform in education as claimed by the government remains to be seen. Hence this part of the claim is UNVERIFIED.
What about the PM Research Fellowship?
The last claim is that talent has been recognized with the PM research fellowship that provides scholarship worth Rs. 70,000 to 80,000 per month for 5 years and Rs. 2 lakh annual grant for PhD and research.
The cabinet approved the Prime Minister’s Research Fellows (PMRF) scheme with a total outlay of Rs. 1650 crores for a seven-year period starting 2018-19.   Under the PMRF scheme, a maximum of 3000 meritorious students from IITs, IISs, IIITs, NITs and IISERs shall be selected in three batches starting from 2018-19 through a rigorous process and provided direct admission into Ph. D programmes in IITs and IISc to pursue research in frontier areas of science and technology. These fellows will be entitled to a monthly scholarship of Rs. 70,000 for the first two years, Rs. 75,000 for the third year and Rs. 80,000 for the final two years. In addition to the monthly scholarship, each fellow will be eligible for a research grant of Rs. 2 lakh per year for 5 years towards foreign travel for presenting research papers. This has been stated in the government order issued in February 2018.
It has to be noted that only Rs. 75 crores has been allocated for this purpose in the 2018-19 budget. The government also stated in Lok Sabha that a total of 135 students have been selected in the PMRF Scheme in 2018-19, including 37 from IITs, 84 from NITs, 5 from IIITs, 4 from IISERs, 3 from IIEST Shibpur and 2 from IISc Bangalore.
Similar schemes existed during the UPA where doctoral students were provided fellowships through a scheme in the PPP mode and other schemes of the Ministry of Science & Technology.
Claim: Talent is being recognized with PM research fellowship with scholarship worth 70-80,000 rupees per month for 5 years and Rs. 2 lakh rupees annual grant for PhD and research.
Fact: A new scholarship scheme that pays students doctoral students Rs.70-80,000 rupees per month for 5 years and gives a Rs. 2 lakh grant every year for foreign travel has been announced. 135 students have received this scholarship in its first year. Hence, the claim is TRUE. It also has to be noted that similar schemes existed during the UPA as well.
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 15, 2018