text:
Fact Check: How true are Congress party’s claims about ODF?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 6, 2019
The
Congress party made certain claims disputing the BJP government’s declaration
that India is 100% ODF. How true are these claims? Here is a detailed
fact-check.
On 02 October2019, Congress party posted the following two infographics on its social media handles with the caption, ‘Why is the BJP govt
determined to diminish Gandhiji’s ideology of Satya. The only thing honest
about this statement is that India must continue to work on this mission
because we are not Open Defecation Free’.
Why is the BJP govt determined to diminish Gandhiji's ideology of Satya.
The only thing honest about this statement is that India must continue to work on this mission because we are not Open Defecation Free. https://t.co/1qBeI1ast0 pic.twitter.com/BdLMWkXFfI
This post wasuploaded following BJP’s
tweet on 01 October 2019, stating that onMahatma Gandhi’s 150 birth anniversary, the incredible task ofmaking India Open Defecation Free has been achieved. In this story, we factcheck Indian National Congress’s claims by verifying both the infographicsseparately.
Are 7% of the Urban households without water for use in Toilet?
Claim: Lack of water in urban households for toilet purposes has forced more people to defecate in the open. 7% of Urban households are without water for use in toilet. In Uttar Pradesh, this is at 11% and 19% in Jharkhand.
The firstinfographic on urban households claims that 7% of the urban households’ lackwater for use in toilets. In Uttar Pradesh 11% of the urban households do nothave water to be used in toilets while in Jharkhand, the same is at 19%. Thelack of access to water in toilets leads to unclean toilets thereby resultingin open defecation.
The numbers usedby Congress have been taken from the ‘Swachhta Status in India’ report releasedby the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in October 2018. This survey was undertakenby NSSO between July to December, 2017 along with other surveys and released in October2018. As per this report, 18% in Odisha, 17% in Tripura and 16% in West Bengalalso lack water in toilets.
It can also beseen that, as compared to the 72 round of NSS conducted betweenJuly 2014 and June 2015, the percentage of urban households without water intoilets has dropped from 12% to 7% in 2018. Similarly, in each of these states,there has been a reduction in the percentage of urban households without waterin toilets except in West Bengal and Odisha, where this number either increasedor remained the same.
In spite of lackof water as noted above, 99% of the urban population in India who have toilets,avail the facility according to the same report. As per this report, 4% of urbanpopulation in India were not using any kind of toilets during the period ofsurvey. The same proportion was 8% in 2014-15. Thus, a fall in the proportionof urban population not using toilets has reduced by 4% in 2 years. Wateravailability in toilets increased from 88% of households in 2014-15 to 93% in2017.
However, thelatest data on urban households without water facility for toilets is notavailable (for the year 2019). Secondly, the NSSO reports are sample surveysand for the 75 round, the survey covered 7134 units (4043 villagesand 3091 urban blocks) and 71205 households (40338 in rural areas and 30867 inurban areas) at an All-India level. Thus, the claim made by Congress remains UNVERIFIED.
Is
it true that 33% of Rural Indians do not use any type of toilet?
Claim: India is not open defecation free since 33% of rural Indians still do not use any type of toilet.
The data used bythe Congress in the second infographic is also based on the ‘Swachhta Status inIndia’ report released by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in October2018. According to this report, 33% of rural Indians did not use any type oftoilet, be it household or community toilet. Uttar Pradesh had the largestproportion of such rural population, about 58%, who didn’t use toilets. Thepercentages in Bihar and Jharkhand were 53% and 49% respectively. In Odisha,47% of rural population did not use toilets.
However, ascompared to the 72 NSSO round of 2015, the percentage of ruralpopulation that did not use toilets has come down from 52% to 33%. Even inUttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand, the percentage has dropped by 8%, 17% and32% respectively. The highest decrease in proportion of rural proportion notusing toilets was witnessed in Chhattisgarh, by 53%. Hence, the possibility offurther decrease in the numbers in second half of 2019 cannot be ruled out.
National
Annual Rural Sanitation Survey  (NARSS) conducted between November 2018 andFebruary 2019 by an independent verification agency revealed that 93.3% ofrural population had access to toilets while 96.5% of the rural people who hadaccess to toilets, used them. The survey was conducted across 6136 villages inIndia with a sample of 92,040 households.
According to the survey, 82.7% of the rural population in India used safe, functional and hygienic toilets. In Bihar, 60.1% of the rural population used toilets and 83.4% in Uttar Pradesh used toilets. In Jharkhand, 64% of people in rural areas used toilets. Since the data presented by NARSS is that of 2018-19, it is more recent unlike NSSO data which was compiled in 2017-18. As of 2019, 100% of rural population has access to toilet as per government’s Swachh Bharat website. Every household using safe technology for disposal of faeces or in other words, 100% usage of toilets is one of the criteria for a village/Gram Sabha to be declared ODF.
At the same time,there have been some independent
sample surveys which dispute thegovernment figures of 100% ODF.
To conclude, the Congress party used 2017-18 data from NSSO while the NARSS report released this year shows better numbers.  At the same time, there have been independent sample surveys which dispute the government’s 100% ODF figure. Thus, it can be concluded that the Congress party’s claim is MISLEADING.
What
is ODF (Open Defecation Free)?
The Swachh
Bharat Mission (SBM) website shows thatthe individual household latrine coverage in India has reached 100%. As per thedata on the website, more than 10 crore toilets were built in India since 2014.Moreover, in the span of five years, the number of districts which had declaredthemselves to be free of Open Defecation increased from mere 5 districts in2015-16 to 699 districts in 2019 as per the SBM website. Sanitation, being astate subject, the responsibility for implementing the mission also lies withthe State governments.
The definitionadopted by the government in June 2015 for ODF is ‘the termination of oral- faecal transmission’ definedby the following two criteria.
Being ODF does notend in gaining the title. The government has also come up with guidelines for ensuring that the practice/trend sustainsby monitoring the villages.
However, it is amatter of debate as noted above whether or not the country is actually free ofopen defecation since it is a behavioural change that takes time to manifestand cannot be concluded with mere numbers which can be easily manipulated. Some independent
sample surveys disputed thegovernment’s numbers.
Number of toiletsconstructed is not always a true reflection of usage. Accessibility to waterfor toilet purposes, maintenance of hygiene and disposal of waste should alsobe considered. The statement that India needs to work on the mission is withoutdoubt, true!

created: November 6, 2019


text:
Fact Check: How true are Government claims about credit to Micro & Small Enterprises
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 6, 2018
The BJP government published an infographic titled ‘Harnessing yuva shakti through self-employment’ on the 48-months portal. The infographic makes four claims about self-employment related schemes of Startup India and MUDRA. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic titled ‘Harnessing yuva shakti through self employment’ on the 48 months portal. The infographic makes four claims about self-employment related schemes of Startup India and MUDRA. This article is a fact check of these claims.
For how many years are start-ups provided with tax relief?
The first claim is that, ‘Under Startup India: tax relief for three consecutive years out of a block of seven years for start-ups’ is granted. As per the official website of the scheme, ‘Startup India is a flagship initiative of the Government of India, intended to build a strong ecosystem that is conducive for the growth of startup businesses, to drive sustainable economic growth and generate large scale employment opportunities. The Government through this initiative aims to empower startups to grow through innovation and design’
As per the response to a Lok Sabha question, Startup definition has been amended whereby an entity shall be considered a ‘Startup’ up to 7 years (earlier 5 years). According to another response to a Lok Sabha question, one of the salient features of the Startup India scheme is tax exemptions to startups for 3 years. As per the official website, more than 14000 startups are recognized and 170 have been funded till date.
Claim: Start up India: tax relief for three consecutive years out of a block of seven years for start-ups.
Fact: An entity shall be considered a startup for up to 7 years and is given tax exemption for 3 years. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But the actual number of startups that benefitted from the tax exemption is not available.
Are start-ups allowed to issue ESOPs to promoters working as employees?
The second claim is that, under the Startup India scheme, ‘Startups are allowed to issue ESOPs to promoters working as employees.’  ESOP stands for Employee Stock Ownership Plan wherein the whole-time directors, officers or employees of a company are provided ownership or shared in the company at no upfront cost. These are usually included as a part of the employee remuneration.
The Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014 made under the Companies Act of 2013 do not allow ESOPs being issued to promoters. These rules are applicable to all the companies that are not listed and hence are not covered by the relevant SEBI guidelines. In the year 2016, the government amended these rules to exclude startups recognized by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) from these regulations for a period of five years from the date of its incorporation or registration. Hence Startups recognized by DIPP can issue ESOPs to promoters for up to five years from the date of its incorporation or registration.
Claim: Startups are allowed to issue ESOPs to promoters working as employees.
Fact: The relevant rules under the Companies act have been amended in 2016 to allow startups recognized by the government to issue ESOPs to promoters for up to five years from the date of its incorporation or registration. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that relaxation is applicable only for startups recognized by Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP).
How many loans have been sanctioned under the MUDRA yojana?
The third claim is that, ‘12 crore mudra loans sanctioned since April 2015.’ The Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana (PMMY) is a scheme launched in 2015 for providing loans up to 10 lakh rupees to the non-corporate, non-farm small/micro enterprises. These loans are classified as MUDRA loans under PMMY. These loans are given by Commercial Banks, RRBs, Small Finance Banks, Cooperative Banks, MFIs and NBFCs. The borrower can approach any of the lending institutions mentioned above or can apply online through the portal.
As per the response provided to a Lok Sabha question, the government stated that over 13.47 crore loans amounting to more than Rs. 6.37 lakh crore have been sanctioned under PMMY as of August 2018, since inception of the scheme. The dashboard of the PMMY website also shows the number of loans and amount sanctioned each financial year.
However, it has to noted that the focus on the MSME sector is not a new phenomenon. The first NDA government launched the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for MSMEs in August 2000 to provide guarantee cover for collateral free credit facilities extended to micro and small enterprises (MSEs). During the UPA, the Government had constituted a Prime Minister’s Task Force on Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises (MSME) in September 2009, which submitted its report in January 2010. The report had made recommendations in the areas of credit, marketing, labour issues, rehabilitation and exit policy, infrastructure/technology/skill development, taxation and special measures for North-Eastern Region and Jammu & Kashmir.
The recommendations of the task force also include advice to the banks to achieve a 20% year-on-year growth in credit to MSEs and a 10% annual growth in the number of micro enterprise accounts.  The banks have also been advised that the allocation of 60% of the MSE advances to the micro enterprises is to be achieved in stages viz., 50 per cent in the year 2010-11, 55 per cent in the year 2011-12 and 60 per cent in the year 2012-13. Many other steps were also recommended and taken during the previous government. The current PMMY is a dedicated scheme for MSEs that led to the establishment of Micro Units Development & Refinance Agency Ltd (MUDRA). MUDRA bank is essentially a refinancing institution and does not directly lend loans to end customers. Rather, the loans are given by Commercial Banks, RRBs, Small Finance Banks, Cooperative Banks, MFIs and NBFCs.
Claim: 12 crore mudra loans sanctioned since April 2015.
Fact: Over 13.47 crore loans have been sanctioned under PMMY as of August 2018, since the inception of the scheme. Hence the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that focus on the MSE sector is not a new phenomenon.
Is the budget allocation increased to Rs 3 lakh crore?
The last claim is that, for the MUDRA scheme, ‘Allocation in budget 2018 raised to 3 lakh crore rupees, a rise of 20% over previous year.’ In Union Budget speech of 2018-19, the finance minister said, ‘It is proposed to set a target of 3 lakh crore for lending under MUDRA for 2018-19 after having successfully exceeded the targets in all previous years.’
It has to be noted that the 3 lakh crore is the lending target and not budget allocation by the government. This lending is to be done by various banks and other financial institutions. The actual budget allocation through equity capital to MUDRA Bank is only Rs. 900 crores. The total budget allocation including other credit guarantee is less than Rs. 2000 crore.The overall credit flow to Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) sector has been over Rs. 3 lakh crores in the past as well, as per this answer & this answer in the Lok Sabha.
Claim: Allocation in budget 2018 raised to 3 lakh crore rupees, a rise of 20% over previous year.
Fact: The Rs. 3 lakh crore is the lending target, not the budget allocation. The budget allocation to MUDRA bank is less than Rs. 2000 crore. 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

source: news-factly

created: December 6, 2018

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Fact Check: How true are Government claims about FDI flows?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 14, 2019
Recently, the government claimed that India received the highest ever FDI worth $64.37 billion in 2018-19. Here is a fact check of the claim.
The official Twitter handle of Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) had on 31 July 2019, tweeted about the record Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in 2018-19, due to the reforms of Modi government. Here is a fact check of this claim.
Claim: India received highest ever FDI worth $ 64.37 billion in FY 2018-19 because of the path breaking reforms by the Modi Government.
Fact: The provisional FDI inflow figure for 2018-19 was initially estimated at $ 64.37 billion, but later revised to $ 62 billion. While these numbers are TRUE, these present only half the picture. The increase in FDI inflows is in continuation of the increasing trend witnessed over the past decade. Also the ‘Net FDI’ flow has witnessed a negative (decreasing trend).
The FDI Inflows
into India have witnessed a broad increasing trend
As per the infographic in the tweet, the FDI received in 2018-19 was $ 64.37 billion. The infographic further states that the total FDI received over the last five years was $ 286 billion.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) publishes a quarterly report on the FDI.  As per the report published at the end of June’19 quarter , the provisional figures for FDI received in 2018-19 was $ 62 billion.  However, as per the report published for the previous quarter (Jan’19- Mar’19), the provisional FDI inflow for 2018-19 was estimated at $ 64.37 billion. In other words, the infographic quotes figures from the March report and not the latest report available for quarter ending June 2019.
Though thebroad figures in the tweet are true, it does not present the complete picture. TheFDI inflows into India have broadly followed an increasing trend with minordips in certain years. During the UPA’s 10-year tenure, the FDI inflowsincreased from $4.32 billion in 2003-04 to $36.05 billion in 2013-14, anincrease by more than 7 times. The highest ever FDI inflows during the UPA wasin 2011-12 when India was the recipient of $ 46.56 billion worth FDI. Thisincreasing trend is continued during the current government. The FDI inflowsduring the current government increased from $ 36.05 billion in 2013-14 to $ 62billion in 2018-19.
FDI includes
both inflow and Outflow, with Net FDI providing a better reflection of state of
Economy
Foreign DirectInvestment (FDI) is an investment made by a business entity belonging to onecountry into another country. FDI inflows refer to the investments received byinto the country from the foreign investors. Similarly, FDI also includes anOutflow component which refers to the Investment made by the domestic investorsinto the business entities of other countries. The Net FDI is the offsetbetween the Inflows and the Outflows, which provides a more accurate picture ofthe state of Country’s Economy.
The FDI inflowover the last five years, as indicated in the Infographic has indeed seen anincreasing trend and the annual figures recorded are the highest ever received.However, this is in continuation of increasing trend in FDI inflows over thepast decade as noted above.
Another side tothe FDI coin is the FDI outflow. This includes the Investment made by theIndian investors in business firms outside India, as well as the disinvestment i.e.the taking back of the investments made in a country by the foreign investors.
Net FDI can beunderstood by a simple formula:
Net FDI = Gross FDI
Inflows – FDI outflow – disinvestment/repatriation
The Net FDI has shown negativetrend due to the increase in the FDI outflows as per Reserve Bank of India’sdata.
Therefore, theclaim that the increase in FDI inflows alone would contribute towards the economicgrowth, is not complete unless net FDI is factored in.
Factly has earlier published two stories, on FDI  trends, one about the FDI inflow over the past decade and the other one on sources of FDI & Net FDI , which can be referred to for further reading.

created: September 14, 2019


text:
Fact Check: How true are government claims about its Health Initiatives?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 13, 2018
The Government made certain claims about its health initiatives including the Ayushman Bharat scheme. Here is a fact check of these claims
An infographic published on the 48-Month portal of the government makes multiple claims about health initiatives of the current government like the Mission Indradhanush, Jan Aushadhi Kendras and Ayushman Bharat. The following article is a fact check of these claims.
What about Mission Indradhanush?
The first claim is that ‘Mission Indradhanush’, a vaccination scheme covered 528 districts with 3.15 crore children vaccinated. Immunization Program in India was introduced in 1978 as ‘Expanded Program of Immunization’ (EPI) by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. In 1985, the program was modified as ‘Universal Immunization Program’ (UIP) to be implemented in phased manner to cover all districts in the country by 1989-90 with the one of largest health programs in the world. Despite being operational for many years, UIP has been able to fully immunize only 65% children in the first year of their life.
According to the National health portal of Government of India, to strengthen and re-energize the program and achieve full immunization coverage for all children and pregnant women at a rapid pace, the Government of India launched “Mission Indradhanush” in December 2014. As per the portal, the ultimate goal of Mission Indradhanush is to ensure full immunization with all available vaccines for children up to two years of age and pregnant women.
In an answer provided in the Lok Sabha in August 2018, it is stated that 319.282 lakh children have been immunized by August 2018. But this is not the first time that such large scale vaccination drives have taken place in India. The immunization program is one of the oldest government programs. For instance, 7.78 crore children across India were vaccinated in 109 districts for Japanese Encephalitis between 2006 & 2010. In 2013-14, 1.2 crore children were vaccinated with Measles vaccine in 45 districts in 13 States with 87.2% coverage. During Phase II, 3.6 crore children were vaccinated in 152 districts in 14 States. The Phase III of the campaign 11.8 crore children (85%) had been vaccinated in 167 districts in 5 States i.e. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bihar.
Claim: Mission Indradhanush, a mass movement in caring for children has covered 528 districts with 3.15 crore children vaccinated.
Fact: Mission Indradhanush was launched in December 2014 to ensure full immunization for children up to two years of age and pregnant women. A total of 3.19 crore (319.282 lakh) children have been immunized under the scheme till August 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that this is not the first large scale immunization program or scheme. Such programs have existed for a long time and a greater number of beneficiaries were vaccinated previously.
What about the Jan Aushadi Kendras?
The second claim is about setting up of ~3000 Jan Aushadhi Kendras (JAKs) for cheaper medicines resulting in savings of around 50%. According to the official government website, ‘Jan Aushadhi’ project was launched by Government of India in the year 2008 for providing quality medicines at affordable prices for all. The campaign was undertaken through sale of generic medicines through exclusive outlets namely ‘Pradhan Mantri Janaushadhi Kendra’ in various districts of the country.  To have an accelerated growth of the campaign, a new business plan was released in August 2013 (during the UPA government) with an ambitious target of opening 3000 such stores by the end of 2016-17 with a planned budget of Rs.148.82 crores. The plan also contained few changes in the scheme. The scheme could not take off as expected during the UPA government.
After the new Strategic Action Plan (SAP 2015), the number of such stores increased and there was also an increase in the number of drugs that are part of the product basket. The government, in the Lok Sabha, mentioned that 3771 such stores opened in 34 States/UTs between January 2015 & July 2018.  The booklet detailing the list of products & their price is available on the official website. This booklet also provides data on the maximum retail price of the medicines sold in the Jan Aushadi Kendras as compared to the rates in the outside market.  However, the exact amount of saving could not be calculated. The list of functional stores in various states can also be found online.
Claim: ~ 3000 Jan Aushadhi Kendras for cheaper medicines resulting in savings of around 50%.
Fact: Jan Aushadhi was launched by Government of India in the year 2008. 3771 ‘Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) Kendras’ opened in 34 States/Union Territories of the country during the current government. Hence, the first part of the claim is TRUE while the second part about savings remains UNVERIFIED. It has to be noted that this scheme was first launched by the UPA.
Claims about the Ayushman Bharat Scheme
The last claim is that, Ayushman Bharat, is the world’s largest health insurance program that provides for comprehensive health coverage to 10 crore poor families up to 5 lakh rupees per family per year.
The National Health Policy  (NHP) of 2017 lays out priorities in terms developing better financial protection strategies, strengthening regulation and health assurance. This is the third revision of the policy which previously 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 of the country.
Ayushman Bharat is a National Health Protection Scheme, which is meant to cover 10 crore poor and vulnerable families (approximately 50 crore beneficiaries) providing coverage up to 5 lakh rupees per family per year for secondary and tertiary care hospitalization. The eligible beneficiaries are selected using the SECC deprivation criteria.
Ayushman Bharat subsumes the on-going centrally sponsored schemes – Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and the Senior Citizen Health Insurance Scheme (SCHIS). The RSBY was launched in the year 2008. The Minister of Finance, Arun Jaitley, in the budget speech of 2018-19 said that the National Health Protection Scheme (Ayushman Bharat) will be the world’s largest government funded health care program.
The previous schemes like the RSBY enrolled around 3.5 crore families with a coverage of Rs. 30,000 per annum. States like Andhra Pradesh & Telangana have a functional health insurance scheme ‘Aarogyasri’, launched in the year 2007. These states have not joined the Ayushman Bharat since there will be a huge reduction in the number of beneficiaries who are already covered under the ‘Aarogyasri’ scheme.
Claim: Ayushman Bharat, the world’s largest health insurance program: Comprehensive health coverage to 10 crore poor families up to 5 lakh rupees per family per year.
Fact: Ayushman Bharat, is meant to cover 10 crore poor and vulnerable families providing coverage up to 5 lakh rupees per family per year for secondary and tertiary care hospitalization. This will be the world’s largest government funded health care program. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: November 13, 2018


text:
Fact Check: How true are Government claims on Air Travel & UDAN?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 20, 2018
An infographic published on the 48-Months portal of the Modi government makes certain claims about air travel and waterways. The following article is a fact check of the four claims made in this infographic.
An infographic published on the 48-Months portal of the Modi government makes certain claims about air travel and waterways. The following article is a fact check of the four claims made in this infographic.
Has the number of Domestic Air passengers crossed 100 million?
The first claim is that domestic air passengers crossed 100 million for the first time in 2017. According to an answer provided by the government in the Lok Sabha in February 2018, total domestic passengers in the year 2016-17 was 103.75 million.  The data from the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) also indicates that 1171.76 lakh or 117.17 million people were carried by domestic airlines between January and December of 2017. The following is a graph of the number of domestic passengers over the years. The growth in domestic air passenger traffic has been more than 20% in each of 2015-16 and 2016-17.
Claim: Domestic air passengers crossed 100 million for the first time.
Fact: Total domestic passengers in the year 2016-17 were 103.75 million. This was the first ever occasion when the total domestic passenger traffic crossed 100 million. The growth of domestic air traffic in each of 2015-16 & 2016-17 has been more than 20%. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Have more people travelled by Airplane than in AC trains?
The second claim is that for the first time ever in India, more people traveled in airplanes than in AC trains. To verify this claim, the passenger data provided in the annual reports of the DGCA were compared with data provided in the statistical statements of the Indian Railways. The Indian Railways publishes an annual document titled ‘Statistical Statements’ that gives a breakup of the number of passengers that were carried in that year by the class in which they travelled. This data was aggregated to find the number of people who travelled by AC class in trains between 2012-13 and 2016-17.  Total passenger traffic of the AC class is calculated by including the traffic in AC First Class, AC Sleeper Class, AC 3 Tier & AC Chair Car. Total passenger traffic of Airlines is calculated by including both domestic & international passenger traffic. The data clearly shows that the air passenger traffic (including domestic & international) has crossed the passenger traffic of AC trains.
Claim: For the first time ever in India, more people traveled in airplanes than in AC trains.
Fact: In the year 2016-17, more people (1586.2 lakh) have traveled by airplanes as compared to (1444.6 lakh) people who traveled by AC trains. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
What about the number of Operational Airports?
The third claim is that since independence, we had 75 operational airports; UDAN added 25 airports just since December 2016. The annual report of the ministry of civil aviation for the year 2017-18 says that,  ‘UDAN is a key competent of the National Civil Aviation Policy (NCAP) which was released by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in June 2016.’
According to the information available on the UDAN website, a total of 34 airports have been commenced under the scheme of which 21 are previously un-served airports and the remaining 13 are underserved airports.  However, as per the annual reports of 2014-15 as well as 2015-16 of the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the AAI owned & maintained 125 airports of which 69 are operational airports and 25 are civil enclaves (these are defence controlled airports where civilian operations are handled by the AAI). The rest of the 31 were non-operational airports. There are other airports in India which are not handled by the AAI, but through a PPP (like Delhi, Hyderabad, Mumbai etc.)
It has to be noted that not all of the 34 airports listed under UDAN were previously non-operational. More than 20 of them had civil enclaves within defence controlled airports even prior to UDAN as per an answer in the Lok Sabha of November 2016. Hence the claim that 25 of them were made operational through UDAN is misleading.
Claim: Since independence, we had 75 operational airports, UDAN added 25 airports just since December 2016.
Fact: Not all of the 34 airports listed under UDAN were previously non-operational. More than 20 of them had civil enclaves within defence controlled airports even prior to UDAN. Hence the claim that 25 of them were made operational through UDAN is MISLEADING.
What about National Waterways?
The last claim is that there were 5 national waterways before 2014 and that there are 106 national waterways since 2014. The National Waterways Act, 2016 was notified in March 2016. The act was passed ‘to make provisions for existing national waterways and to provide for the declaration of certain inland waterways to be national waterways and also to provide for the regulation and development of the said waterways for the purposes of shipping and navigation.’
The National Waterways Bill, 2015 was introduced in Lok Sabha in May 2015.  Under Entry 24 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the central government can make laws on shipping and navigation on inland waterways which are classified as national waterways by Parliament by law.
The act passed in 2016 identifies additional 106 waterways as national waterways in addition to the five existing national waterways. The act mentions the 106 new waterways and their limits.   The government’s press release of 2016 provides further details regarding the waterways. It has to be noted that the act only designates the national waterways and their development will be taken up in a phased manner. The current status of these national highways is available on the website of the ‘Inland Waterways Authority of India’.
Claim: There were 5 national waterways before 2014. There are 106 national waterways since 2014.
Fact: The national waterways act of 2016 provides for 106 new waterways over and above the existing 5. Hence, the claim is TRUE. It has to be noted that the act only designates the national waterways and their development will be taken up in a phased manner.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: November 20, 2018


text:
Fact Check: How true are Nirmala Sitharaman’s claims about FDI flows?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 15, 2020
The finance minister during the course of the budget speech for 2020-21 made claims about the FDI inflows during 2014-19 and compared that with the previous 5-year term. How true are these claims?
UnionFinance Minister, Nirmala Seetharaman presented the Union Budget on 01 February2020, and as part of her speech enlisted several achievements and policies ofthe government.
Factlyhas earlier done a
deep dive of few
of these claims made in the speech. In this story we look at claimsmade about FDI flows.
The
increase in FDI
Claim:  India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) increased to the level of US$ 284 billion during 2014- 19 from US$ 190 billion that came in during the years 2009-14.
Fact : The absolute numbers quoted by FM are TRUE. However they do not provide the holistic picture as the rate of growth of FDI inflows has come down. Further, Net FDI has also reduced due to increase in Investments leaving the country.
In her speech, the Finance Minister stated that FDI into India during the five-year period of 2014-19 was US$ 284 billion. Prior to that, India received US$ 190 billion during the five-year period 2009-14. The five-year period of 2014-19 is the first term of the Modi led BJP government.
TheReserve Bank of India’s (RBI) yearly report ‘Handbook
of Statistics on Indian Economy’, providesthe details of FDI every year.  As perthe data in this report, approximately US $ 284 billion was the FDI into India duringthe five- year period 2014-19.There has been a yearly increase in the FDI inflow for every fiscal year duringthis period. The biggest increase during the period, was in 2015-16 when FDIinflows increased by nearly 10 billion dollars. The yearly increase has beenlower in subsequent years.
What
about 2009-14?
Thetotal FDI inflows during the five-year period of 2009-14, the UPA’s 2 term, was US $ 190 billion which matches with the number quoted by the Financeminister in the budget speech.
Duringthese five years, 2011-12 stands out in terms of FDI inflows with US $ 46.55billion, an increase of over US $ 10 billion compared to the previous year.However, there was a sharp decline of over US $ 12 billion in the followingyear 2012-13 with a slight increase in the next year.
Thetotal FDI inflows i.e. receipts into India has grown from US $ 190 billionduring UPA’s second term (2009-14) to US $ 284 billion during the currentgovernment’s first term i.e. an increase by 49 %.  So, this statement is true to the extent ofthese numbers.
Has the FDI growth rate increased?
However,what one also needs to look at is the rate of growth and if the 49% growthachieved during the Modi government’s first term is substantially higher thanthe rate of growth achieved by previous governments.
DuringUPA’s 1 term i.e. from 2004-09, the total FDI inflows into India wereapproximately US $ 114 billion. This means that there was an increase in FDIinflows by 67% during UPA- II when the inflows were US$ 190 billion between2009-14.
Duringthe period 2004-2009, there has be an exponential increase in the FDI inflowsin the year 2006-07. During this year,  FDIworth US $22.8 billion flowed into India compared to the two years before that whereit was only around US $ 6 billion and US $ 9 billion respectively. Theexponential increase continued in the final two years of UPA-I’s tenure.
Duringthe period 1999-2004, where NDA government was at the Centre under theleadership of Vajpayee, the FDI inflows were around US $ 31.6 billion, of whichUS $ 12 billion were during the first year i.e. 1999-2000, with the FDI inflowstapering off during the reminder of the tenure. When compared to this period,the FDI inflows during UPA–I (2004-09) increased by 262%.
Eventhough in terms of absolute numbers, FDI inflows for the period 2014-19 ishigher than that of the earlier five-year period of 2009-14, the rate of growthof FDI inflows is less than the two earlier terms.
Whilethis is the case in terms of FDI growth, it also has to be noted that amount ofFDI inflows also depend largely on the FDI
policy and opening up of more sectors.
Net
FDI indicates a negative trend
TheFDI inflows are only one side of the overall FDI picture. FDI inflows are theFDI that are made in India by foreign investors. Apart from this, there is alsoscope for investments leaving the country i.e. FDI Outflow. Apart from thisthere is also Disinvestment/repatriation of the funds that were invested earlierin India. Hence, the Net FDI provides a more holistic picture of the state ofFDI than just the FDI inflow numbers.
In
the recent years, the net FDI has shown a negative growth especially withan increase in the FDI outflows as well as disinvestment/repatriation amount.
FDIOutflows during the period of 2009-14 was US $ 59 billion, while the outflowsduring the period 2014-19 is lesser i.e. US $ 41.25 billion. However, it needsto be noted that a major part of the FDI outflows during 2009-14 were duringthe first two years. On the other hand, FDI outflows have being increasing yearon year during the period 2014-19. In 2014-15, FDI outflows were US $ 4 billionand increased incrementally every year to reach US $ 13 billion in 2018-19. Reasonsfor FDI outflows could be varied like better investment opportunities in othercountries.
Meanwhile,the amount being disinvested/repatriated has more than doubled during thefive-year period 2014-19. During 2009-14, The total amount that left India dueto disinvestment/repatriation was around US $ 38 billion, which increased to US$ 79 billion for the period 2014-19. Apart from a slight dip in 2018-19, therehas been a consistent incremental increase over the five years in the case ofdisinvestment/repatriation.
Thisincrease in FDI Outflows and Disinvestment/repatriation has affected the netFDI as seen in the chart below.
Hence,even though the higher FDI inflow as quoted by the finance minister for thefive-year period 2014-19 is true, the rate of growth is lower when compared tothe earlier period. Furthermore, when the whole FDI scenario including outflowsand disinvestment is taken into context, the FDI situation does not indicate apositive increasing trend.

created: February 15, 2020


text:
Fact Check: How true are some of the Government’s statements on RTI?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 26, 2019
The NDA government represented by minister
Dr. Jitendra Singh made multiple claims about the RTI. Here is a fact check of
some of those claims.
The Minister of State in the Department ofPersonnel & Training (DoPT),  Dr.Jitendra Singh on 19 July, 2019, during the introduction of the  Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019,spoke at length about the NDA government’s achievements and initiatives forRTI. He made multiple claims while introducing the bill in the Lok Sabha.Similar claims were tweeted by the BJP later. In this story, we look atthree specific claims made by the minister.
The amendment is now passed by both the houses
On 19 July 2019, the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by the government. The Bill, which waslater passed on Monday, 22 July, had proposals which gave powers to the CentralGovernment to fix salaries and tenures as well as set the service conditionsfor the Information Commissioners at both the Central and State level. Thissparked a debate in both the houses of parliament since a majority of theopposition were against the bill stating that the bill was not sent forparliamentary scrutiny and that it lacked legislative competence. The bill wasalso referred to as the RTI ‘Elimination’ bill by the opposition.
During the debate, Dr. Jitendra Singh, made a few claims regarding therole of the NDA Government in upholding the objective of the Right To
Information Act of 2005 that was formulatedto empower citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the functioningof the government, contain corruption and make democracy work for the people inthe real sense.
When was the RTI Online portal launched?
One of the claims made by the minister is that the NDA governmentlaunched the RTI online portal to ensure thatcitizens can file RTIs 24 hours a day instead of it being a 10am to 5pm affair.
In order to substantiate his point stating that the NDA government hasalways been working towards the refinement of the act, the minister said thatit was the Modi-led NDA government that introduced the online web portal forRTI. But an office memorandum (OM) dated 22 April, 2013 released by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensionshad details regarding the launch of the online portal for RTI along with itslink.
In this OM,  it has been clearly statedthat ‘a Web Portal namely RTI Online with url https://rtionline.gov.in has been launched. This portal, developed by NIC, is a facility for the
Indian Citizens to online file RTI applications and first appeals and also to
make online payment of RTI fees…’ It has alsobeen mentioned that the facility was then available only for the Department ofPersonnel Training and had details regarding the plans to extend the same toother ministries.
When this memorandum was released on 22 April, 2013, the then Ministerof State of the department was V. Narayanaswamy. The UPAgovernment was in power in the year 2013.
Also, in the press release made on 17 March 2017, we can see that the Secretary, DoPT, B P Sharma mentioned that the RTI Online Portal was launched in August 2013. The Union Minister had mentioned that the government was persuading more states and departments to adopt this. The Secretary, DoPT, further added that as on 1 April, 2016, only 477 Public Authorities (PAs) were aligned with the portal. An additional 1,363 more PAs aligned with the same by 17 March, 2017. Further, 198 PAs under the Delhi Government also adopted the portal. Plans to include PAs from Puducherry and Chandigarh by the end of April 2017 have also been mentioned in the press release. From this, we can infer that the NDA Government did take initiatives to include more PAs in the portal. But, to say that the NDA government launched the portal is not true.
Claim: NDA Government launched the RTI online portal for 24/7 filing of RTI applications.
Fact: An Office Memorandum released in April 2013 clearly mentions the launch of online portal to file RTI and it was during the UPA government. The claim made by the minister ishence FALSE.
Did the NDA government let the leader of the single largest group in the
opposition in the selection committee?
The minister also claimed that since theCongress did not get the Leader of Opposition status, the NDA Government letthe leader of the single largest group in the opposition a member of theselection committee of the Information Commissioners.
While accusing the opposition for having made a clumsy RTI Act, theminister claimed that it was the NDA government that included the leader of thesingle largest group in the opposition in the selection commit though theCongress did not have the Leader of Opposition status. But a glimpse into theRTI Act, as it was passed in 2005 reveals the following.
In Section 12 of the Right To Information
Act, 2005, Paragraph 3 clearly states that ‘The Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the
recommendation of a committee consisting of—
(i) the Prime Minister,
who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;
(ii) the Leader of
Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and
(iii) a Union Cabinet
Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister ’
In order to clarify who the leader of opposition will be, there is a small explanation given after this stating that in circumstances where there is no clear recognition of the Opposition Leader in the Lok Sabha, the leader of the single largest group of the opposition of the government will be considered the Leader of Opposition.
At the State Level, Paragraph 3 of Section 15 states that ‘The State Chief Information Commissioner and
the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation
of a committee consisting of—
(i) the Chief Minister,
who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;
(ii) the Leader of
Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and
(iii) a Cabinet
Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister’
An explanation regarding the leader of the opposition to ward off doubtshas been given. Here, if the Leader of Opposition has not been recognised inthe Legislative Assembly, the Leader of the single largest group in oppositionof the Government in the Legislative Assembly will be considered the Leader ofOpposition here.
In other words, the original act itself contains the details pertainingto the selection committee and as demonstrated above, it is evident that theNDA Government had no choice but to include Mallikarjun Kharge, the leader ofthe Congress in Lok Sabha during 2014-19 in the selection committee. The NDAgovernment hasn’t done anything that is not there in the act.
Claim: Since the Congress did not get the Leader of Opposition status, the NDA Government let the leader of the single largest group in the opposition a member of the selection committee of the Information Commissioners.
Fact: It is already been mentioned in the RTI Act, 2005 that in case there is no Leader of Opposition recognised in the Lok Sabha (Legislative Assembly in case of State Level),
the leader of the single largest group in the opposition of the Government will be deemed as the Leader of Opposition. Thus, this claim is also FALSE.
Was the RTI Act passed in haste?
Another claim made by the minister isthat  the UPA government made a clumsyRTI act and  was also done in haste. Hewent onto say that the NDA government is trying to modify the same.
The RTI bill was introduced by the UPA-1 government on 23 December, 2004 in the parliament. It was then sent to the Department Related Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances , Law & Justice. The bill was referred to the standing committee on 31 December, 2004 and the committee submitted its report on 21 March, 2005. In other words, the standing committee took more than 80 days to deliberate on the bill and provide its feedback. Incidentally, the current President of India, Ramnath Kovind who was then a member of the Rajya Sabha, was also a member of this committee. The committee had also recommended that it is necessary to elevate the status of information commissioners to that of the Election Commission of India. Hence to say that the act was done in haste is false.
Claim: The UPA government made a clumsy RTI act and was also done in haste.
Fact: The RTI bill was introduced in the Parliament in December 2004 and was referred to a standing committee which then submitted its report in March 2005. Thus, the claim that the act was done in haste is FALSE.


text:
Fact Check: How true is Congress party’s claim regarding shortfall in Government earnings
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 27, 2019
Recently, Congress
Party has claimed that there is a shortfall in government earnings in 2018-19
and that 2019-20 would see further shortfall due to reduction in corporate tax.
 Here is a fact check of these claims.
The officialTwitter handle of Indian National Congress (INC) on 21 September 2019, tweeted about theshortfall in government earnings for 2018-19 and the additional burden it needsto bear in 2019-20 due to the latest corporate tax cuts. It further claimed inthe tweet that the shortage in government earnings was compensated by ‘looting’RBI. Here is a fact check of these claims.
What is the difference in Central government’s estimates & actuals of revenue receipts for 2018-19?
Claim: There was a shortfall in government earnings in 2018-19 to the tune of Rs.1.7 lakh crores and the shortfall was compensated by taking money from RBI.
Fact: There is a difference which amounted to Rs. 1.7 lakh crores between the ‘Provisional Actuals’ of revenue receipts provided in the Economic Survey of India and the ‘Revised Estimates’ of revenue receipts as reported by the government for 2018-19. Since provisional actuals (PA) may be a better estimate of the actual figures, there could well be a shortfall in government earnings for 2018-19. Hence the claim is TRUE. Further, RBI has transferred Rs. 1.76 lakh cores to the government, the purpose and utility of which the government has not been clarified. This transfer is based on recommendations of an expert committee, hence the claim of terming the transfer as a ‘loot’ is MISLEADING.
Prior to thebudget presentation for 2019-20, the Ministry of Finance has released Economic Survey
2018-19 report. In this report, the Provisional Actuals  of revenue receipts for 2018-19 stand at Rs. 15.6lakh crores. Meanwhile, the budget for 2019-20 provides the Revised
Estimate of government Revenue receipts at Rs. 17.3 lakh crores.
Revised estimates provided in budget is a projection of how much the government is expected to earn, whereas the Provisional actuals are a more accurate estimate of the government earnings during that specified period since it comes from the ‘Controller General of Accounts (CGA)’. The difference between these provisional actuals and the revised estimates for revenue receipts of the government amounts to Rs. 1.7 lakh crores which is considered to be a deficit in the government earnings, compared to the estimates. While the actual earnings for 2018-19 will only be known when the budget for 2020-21 is presented, the Provisional actuals do point to a shortfall in the government’s earnings. The Economic Survey 2018-19 cites lower Gross Tax Revenue (GTR) as the reason for the fall in revenue receipts. So the claim that there is a shortfall in government revenue receipts is TRUE.
RBI’s transfer
to government based on recommendations of Expert committee
An expert committee to review the Economic Capital Framework of RBI was constituted and headed by former RBI Governor Bimal Jalan. The extent to which RBI can maintain its reserves for future contingencies, and the surplus it transfers to the government has always been an issue of contention. The committee was supposed to give its recommendations regarding both these issues.
In addition tothe other revenue receipts, Government of India also depends on the surplustransfers from RBI to meet its public spending. Hence the government expects ahigher surplus to be transferred. RBI, on the other hand has a moreconservative approach and maintains higher reserves. In this context, an expertcommittee was setup to evaluate the provision for reserves that RBI shouldmaintain and the surplus of
profits that RBI needs to transfer to government. The committee submitted a report to the RBIGovernor with its recommendations.
In line withthe recommendations, RBI has decided
the transfer of Rs. 1.76 lakh crores to Government of India. This includes Rs. 1.23lakh crores as surplus for the year 2018-19 and Rs. 0.52 lakh crores as excessprovisions identified after the revised Economic Capital Framework.  The surplus transferred to Government of Indiaby RBI over the last 10 years is in the following chart. While it is true thatthe transfer in 2018-19 is almost twice the previous highest, it is misleadingto say that the government looted it from RBI. It was based on therecommendations of a committee. However, it remains to be seen how this surplusis going to be used by the government.
It is also true that the amount transferred to Government of India by RBI matches the difference between the Provisional Actuals and Revised estimates of revenue receipts. However, it may not be proper to say that the surplus transfer is due to the deficit. Further, with the revised Economic Capital Framework for RBI, Governments might receive a higher surplus than this in future.
The additional
burden due to Corporate tax cuts cannot be ascertained as yet
Claim: The additional burden due to Corporate tax cuts to the tune of Rs. 1.45 lakh crores for 2019-20.
Fact: The estimated loss due to Corporate tax cuts amounting to Rs.1.45 lakh crores is the government’s estimate based on previous data. Whether this shortfall can be met with increased collections is yet to be ascertained. Hence the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
The Gross Tax Revenue (GTR) for 2018-19 was estimated at Rs. 22.7 Lakh crores with 51% coming from Direct taxes and 49% from Indirect taxes. The Economic Survey Report states that, as per the Provisional Actual figures, the growth rate of GTR was lower than envisioned. It further states that  the rate of growth is higher for Direct Taxes ( thanks to increase Corporate tax revenue) than Indirect taxes which have seen a dip due to lower than expected GST revenue.
The estimated Corporate tax revenue for 2018-19 was Rs. 6.21 lakh crores, while as per Provisional Actual figures it is Rs. 6.65 lakh crores (32% of GTR).
Finance Minister, Nirmala Seetharaman has announced reduction in Corporate Tax rates as part of the stimulus to economy. As per the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2019, the Corporate tax for domestic companies is reduced to 22% and for new domestic manufacturing companies it is reduced to 15%.
Government has claimed that this would result in an overall tax relief of Rs. 1.45 lakh crores. This is based on the total revenue foregone calculations of previous years for the reduction in corporate tax rate and other relief measures. The information stated on INC’s twitter handle is true to the extent of the data released by government.
However as for the question ‘who will pay the price’, NITI Aayog is of the opinion that this shortfall would be met through the higher growth rate, the tax rate cut is expected to achieve. Hence as it stands today, both positions are conjectures and one has to wait for the actual tax collection figures to understand the impact.
Factly has earlier published stories regarding unrealised Tax revenue and revenue earned by government for 2017-18 to understand the difference between estimates & actual realization in the revenue of government of India.

created: September 27, 2019


text:
How true is Maneka Gandhi’s claim about Elephant deaths in Kerala?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 9, 2020
Following the tragic death of a pregnant elephant in Kerala, several celebrities & politicians made multiple claims about Kerala and states of elephants in Kerala. Former Union Minister & animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi in particular made a claim about elephant deaths in Kerala. Here is a fact-check of this and a few other claims.
Following the tragic death of a pregnant elephant in Kerala, there has been a huge uproar on social media with even celebrities and politicians raising the issue and demanding strict action against the culprits. The incident first came to light through a forest officer’s post on Facebook, in which he had penned an emotional farewell to the pachyderm. According to his post, the elephant was found to have consumed some fruit like pineapple with firecrackers inside which exploded in its mouth, because of which it could not eat or drink anything. The elephant was standing in Velliyar river with its face and trunk submerged in water when the forest officers saw it. The post further states that the forest department tried to rescue the elephant and treat it, but the efforts were in vain.
Meanwhile, Maneka Gandhi, BJP MP, animal activist and former Union Minister, took to Twitter and made certain statements about the incident. Her statements have sparked outrage for being communal. Reportedly, the Malappuram police has filed a case against her under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code, for ‘wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot’. There was intense scrutiny of her statements on social media. Here is a fact-check on some of her statements.
Claim 1 – Did the incident take place in Malappuram, Kerala?
Claim: The pregnant elephant was killed in Malappuram district in Kerala
Fact: The incident took place in the neighbouring Palakkad district and not Malappuram district. Hence the claim is FALSE.
Maneka Gandhi criticized Malappuram in her tweet after the incident went viral on social media. She stated that ‘Mallapuram (Malappuram has been misspelled) is known for its intense criminal activity specially with regards to animals. No action has ever been taken against a single poacher or wildlife killer, so they keep doing it.’
Even the Union Minister for Environment, Prakash Javadekar, tweeted that the Central Government has taken a serious note of the incident in ‘Mallapuram’, Kerala and serious efforts would be taken to ensure that proper investigation takes place and the culprits are nabbed.
In the tweet by Kerala’s Chief Minister, Pinarayi Vijayan on 04 June 2020, it was stated that the incident took place in Palakkad district and not Malappuram as is alleged by both Maneka Gandhi & Prakash Javadekar. He added that both police and forest department, will investigate the incident.
The State Minister for Forests, K Raju had also clarified the same with ANI. Thus, the claim by Maneka Gandhi and Prakash Javadekar that the incident took place in Malappuram, is false.
Claim 2- Does Malappuram have the highest crime rate in the country?
Claim: Malappuram is the most disturbed district in India looking at the crime rate.
Fact: NCRB’s 2018 Crimes in India data shows that Malappuram does not have the highest crime rate in the country. Therefore, the claim is FALSE.
Not only has she highlighted Malappuram to be known for intense criminal activity in her tweet, Maneka Gandhi also stated that Malappuram is the most disturbed district in India with respect to crimes, in an interview with ANI regarding the incident. She added that crimes against women and children were also high in Malappuram.
The National Crime Report Bureau’s Crimes in India report for 2018, for total of IPC crimes, SLL crimes, and Cyber-crimes across districts shows that Malappuram is at the 133 position out of 857 districts/Commissionerates. In terms of crimes against children, Malappuram stands at the 50 position whereas in terms of crimes against women, the district ranks 647. From this, it is evident that Malappuram is not the most violent district in the country. The crime rate is not the highest here. Therefore, Maneka Gandhi’s claim about crime rate in Malappuram is false.
Claim 3- Are Communal Conflicts the highest in Malappuram?
Claim: Communal conflicts in Kerala is the highest in Malappuram.
Fact: NCRB’s 2018 data on communal/ religious riots under IPC Crimes reveals that Kasargod, not Malappuram has reported the highest number of communal riots. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
Maneka Gandhi claimed that communal conflicts were the highest in Malappuram district in Kerala. NCRB provides data on communal or religious riots in the Crimes in India report under IPC Crimes. The data for 2018 reveals that Kasargod recorded 4 cases of communal riots whereas Malappuram had recorded only one. Hence this claim is also false.
Claim 4 – Are 600 elephants killed in Kerala every year?
Claim: Every year, around 600 elephants are killed in Kerala.
Fact: Data from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha show that between 373 to 491 elephants died of unnatural causes in India in a span of five years. In Kerala, a total of 42 elephants were reported to have died during the same period, clearly indicating that the claim is FALSE.
While speaking to ANI, Maneka Gandhi claimed that every year, over 600 elephants are killed in Kerala. She also stated that, every three days, one elephant death is reported in Kerala. Logically, this means that, around 122 deaths are reported in a year, which itself contradicts her previous statement.
According to the Environment Ministry’s response in the Lok Sabha on 08 February 2019, between 2015 to 2019 (up to 31 December 2018), a total of 373 elephants have died due to unnatural causes such as accidents, electrocution, poaching, and poisoning. The maximum number of deaths (105) was reported in 2017-18.
Data presented in the Rajya Sabha by Minister for Environment, Babul Supriyo on 10 February 2020 shows that between 2015 and 2019, a total of 333 elephants have died due to electrocution, 77 in train accidents, 71 due to poaching and 29 due to poisoning. The data shows that a total of 510 elephants had died in India in the past five years. State wise data shows that Kerala accounted for the death of 42 elephants in the five years for which data is available. This is lower than the numbers reported by other states such as Assam, Karnataka, Odisha, and West Bengal.
Maneka Gandhi’s claim that over 600 elephants are killed in Kerala every year is, therefore, FALSE.
Featured Image: Elephant deaths in Kerala


text:
Fact Check: In whose tenure did ‘Exports’ grow faster? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 24, 2018
The Congress party’s official twitter handle made a claim recently that compared the average annual average export growth rate between 2009-14 and 2014-18. Here is a Fact Check
The Indian National Congress Twitter page has been sharing many infographics and claims about the state of India under the NDA government. They also include comparisons of performance under NDA and UPA II governments. One of the infographics shared by the official party handle on June 30, 2018 compares the growth of exports under Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi, and claims that under the former, the average export growth was in double digits (12.3%) and under the latter it was negative (-0.4%).
Why Is Export Growth Important?
Exports and imports determine the Balance of Trade (BoT) of a nation. The BoT is calculated by the total value of Exports minus the total value of Imports. Because imports must be paid in foreign currency, exports play an important role in financing the imports. If imports exceed exports, the reserve of foreign currency gets depleted. Balance of Trade is important for stability of the domestic currency and also affects the exchange rate of the domestic currency. Apart from BoT, export growth is also good for boosting the country’s GDP.
Growth of economy was one of the main planks of the Modi campaign in 2014. The Congress claims that export growth has dramatically fallen under this government and that damages this image. Here is a fact check of this claim.
Average Annual Export Growth
Annual export data has been collated from the Department of Commerce’s Export-Import Data Bank. These figures are available in both INR (in Rs lakhs) and USD (in $ Millions). The annual growth rate is the percentage increase from the previous year. This growth has been calculated separately for the figures in INR and in USD. The data is as follows for the years 2008-09 to 2017-18.
When we compare the average of these values between the two time periods 2009-14 and 2014-18, we get the following.
If we look at the annual average of export growth in USD, we find that these are equal to the figures that the Congress has quoted in the image. Thus the claim that average annual export growth was higher under the UPA government compared to the current NDA government is true.
Claim Check: The Congress’s claim that the annual average export growth rate is higher during the UPA II compared to the current NDA government is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: September 24, 2018


text:
Fact Check: In whose tenure did ‘Exports’ grow faster? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 13, 2018
The Congress party’s official twitter handle made a claim recently that compared the average annual average export growth rate between 2009-14 and 2014-18. Here is a Fact Check
The Indian National Congress Twitter page has been sharing many infographics and claims about the state of India under the NDA government. They also include comparisons of performance under NDA and UPA II governments. One of the infographics shared by the official party handle on June 30, 2018 compares the growth of exports under Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi, and claims that under the former, the average export growth was in double digits (12.3%) and under the latter it was negative (-0.4%).
Why Is Export Growth Important?
Exports and imports determine the Balance of Trade (BoT) of a nation. The BoT is calculated by the total value of Exports minus the total value of Imports. Because imports must be paid in foreign currency, exports play an important role in financing the imports. If imports exceed exports, the reserve of foreign currency gets depleted. Balance of Trade is important for stability of the domestic currency and also affects the exchange rate of the domestic currency. Apart from BoT, export growth is also good for boosting the country’s GDP.
Growth of economy was one of the main planks of the Modi campaign in 2014. The Congress claims that export growth has dramatically fallen under this government and that damages this image. Here is a fact check of this claim.
Average Annual Export Growth
Annual export data has been collated from the Department of Commerce’s Export-Import Data Bank. These figures are available in both INR (in Rs lakhs) and USD (in $ Millions). The annual growth rate is the percentage increase from the previous year. This growth has been calculated separately for the figures in INR and in USD. The data is as follows for the years 2008-09 to 2017-18.
When we compare the average of these values between the two time periods 2009-14 and 2014-18, we get the following.
If we look at the annual average of export growth in USD, we find that these are equal to the figures that the Congress has quoted in the image. Thus the claim that average annual export growth was higher under the UPA government compared to the current NDA government is true.
Claim Check: The Congress’s claim that the annual average export growth rate is higher during the UPA II compared to the current NDA government is TRUE.


text:
Fact Check: In whose tenure did MSP increase at a greater rate?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 17, 2018
A press release issued in the name of former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on 07th May 2018 mentioned about the MSP growth rates during the UPA II and the current NDA government. We fact check the claim.
On May 7 2018, former prime minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh issued a press statement about development in India, speaking in the context of the Karnataka elections. In this statement, he contrasted the nation’s growth and performance in certain areas during the current NDA rule and that of the previous UPA government. One of the claims that he made was regarding the growth rate of MSP under the two governments. He said:
“Under the UPA II, the average annual MSP growth rate was 19.3%, under the NDA government; this has fallen to 3.6%”We have calculated the Minimum Support Price (MSP) growth for these respective periods and we find that there was a significant difference in the growth of MSP during the two governments, but not of the magnitude that Dr. Singh claims.
What is MSP?
The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the government purchases crops from farmers. Irrespective of the price being offered in the market, the farmer is assured before the sowing season that they will receive at least this minimum amount for the crops they grow. It provides a safety net to farmers, which can be useful due to the volatility of prices in the agricultural market. By claiming that under the UPA government the MSP growth rate was higher, Dr. Singh is implying that the policies of the past UPA government were more favorable to farmers than that of the current NDA government. But does data support this?
UPA II Vs NDA – Who did better?
There is no single value of MSP for a year, as it is announced for each particular crop. Data about different MSPs announced for each of the 25 crops from 2008 to 2018 was collated from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture’s website. The percentage increase from one year to the next for each crop was calculated for every year under the current NDA and UPA II governments. The average growth for each crop under the two periods was then found by averaging the values for the years 2009-2014 and 2014-2018. Similar data was also collated from the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) website. The data is given in the table below.
What about UPA I Vs UPA II Vs NDA?
Similar calculations were done using the RBI data for seven food crops. Using this data, we also see the growth during the UPA I rule, which Dr. Singh did not mention. We find that even during the UPA I rule, the MSP growth was mostly greater than that during the current NDA rule. In the case of gram, although UPA II has a higher average growth rate, UPA I does not. In the case of five(5) crops, UPA I has higher average growth rates than UPA II as well.
Claim: Under the UPA II, the average annual MSP growth rate was 19.3%, under the NDA government; this has fallen to 3.6%
Fact: From the above graph and corresponding table, we can see that under the UPA II government, the average growth for each crop (except wheat) was higher than during the current NDA government. The aggregate average growth of the MSP (all crops) during the UPA II rule was 11.28%, while that under the NDA government has been 4.91%.  These numbers were calculated by taking the average of average growth rates of all the crops during these periods. This results in a difference of 6.48 percentage points as opposed to what was claimed by Dr. Singh of 15.7 percentage points. Only in the case of Sugarcane was the difference between growth of MSP in two governments 15 percentage points.Although the magnitude of the difference is less than what is claimed, there is still a significant difference in the growth of MSP during the UPA and NDA governments. Hence the claim is PARTLY TRUE
oEmbed Link
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.
Featured Image: By Ramon (Flickr) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (Via Wikipedia Commons)]

created: September 17, 2018


text:
Fact Check: In whose tenure did MSP increase at a greater rate?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 1, 2018
A press release issued in the name of former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on 07th May 2018 mentioned about the MSP growth rates during the UPA II and the current NDA government. We fact check the claim.
On May 7 2018, former prime minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh issued a press statement about development in India, speaking in the context of the Karnataka elections. In this statement, he contrasted the nation’s growth and performance in certain areas during the current NDA rule and that of the previous UPA government. One of the claims that he made was regarding the growth rate of MSP under the two governments. He said:
“Under the UPA II, the average annual MSP growth rate was 19.3%, under the NDA government; this has fallen to 3.6%”We have calculated the Minimum Support Price (MSP) growth for these respective periods and we find that there was a significant difference in the growth of MSP during the two governments, but not of the magnitude that Dr. Singh claims.
What is MSP?
The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the price at which the government purchases crops from farmers. Irrespective of the price being offered in the market, the farmer is assured before the sowing season that they will receive at least this minimum amount for the crops they grow. It provides a safety net to farmers, which can be useful due to the volatility of prices in the agricultural market. By claiming that under the UPA government the MSP growth rate was higher, Dr. Singh is implying that the policies of the past UPA government were more favorable to farmers than that of the current NDA government. But does data support this?
UPA II Vs NDA – Who did better?
There is no single value of MSP for a year, as it is announced for each particular crop. Data about different MSPs announced for each of the 25 crops from 2008 to 2018 was collated from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture’s website. The percentage increase from one year to the next for each crop was calculated for every year under the current NDA and UPA II governments. The average growth for each crop under the two periods was then found by averaging the values for the years 2009-2014 and 2014-2018. Similar data was also collated from the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) website. The data is given in the table below.
Claim Check: From the above graph and corresponding table, we can see that under the UPA II government, the average growth for each crop (except wheat) was higher than during the current NDA government. The aggregate average growth of the MSP (all crops) during the UPA II rule was 11.28%, while that under the NDA government has been 4.91%.  These numbers were calculated by taking the average of average growth rates of all the crops during these periods. This results in a difference of 6.48 percentage points as opposed to what was claimed by Dr. Singh of 15.7 percentage points. Only in the case of Sugarcane was the difference between growth of MSP in two governments 15 percentage points.
What about UPA I Vs UPA II Vs NDA?
Similar calculations were done using the RBI data for seven food crops. Using this data, we also see the growth during the UPA I rule, which Dr. Singh did not mention. We find that even during the UPA I rule, the MSP growth was mostly greater than that during the current NDA rule. In the case of gram, although UPA II has a higher average growth rate, UPA I does not. In the case of five(5) crops, UPA I has higher average growth rates than UPA II as well.
Claim Check: Although the magnitude of the difference is less than what is claimed, there is still a significant difference in the growth of MSP during the UPA and NDA governments.
oEmbed Link
Featured Image: By Ramon (Flickr) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (Via Wikipedia Commons)]


text:
Fact Check: India’s standing in Global Indices
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 15, 2017
An infographic by the government claims that India improved its ranking on many global indices during the BJP rule. We fact check these claims.
On the occasion of the 3 anniversary of the Narendra Modi led BJP government taking charge at the center, the Central Government has launched a dedicated website to highlight the achievements of these 3 years. One such infographic highlights India’s standing in various global indices and how India’s rank has improved during the BJP rule. This is a fact check on these claims.
Claim 1: India climbed 16 spots to 39th rank in the Global Competitiveness Index
This is a yearly index published by the World Economic Forum. The WEF defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. The report also says that a more competitive economy is one that is likely to grow faster over time.
The infographic also claims that India’s jump by 16 spots is the highest leap by any country in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index 2016.
The claim that India climbed 16 spots is true. It is also true that this is the highest leap by any country in the 2016 rankings. The next biggest leap was by Albania that climbed 13 spots. Jamaica was next with a leap of 11 spots. This is also India’s best ranking in the recent years.
Claim 2: Climbed 12 spots to 40th rank in WEF’s Global Travel & Tourism Competitiveness list
The Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report was first published by WEF in 2007. Till 2009, this was a yearly report. After 2009, the list is being published once every two years. As per WEF, the index is a measurement of the factors that make it attractive to develop business in the travel and tourism industry of individual countries, rather than a measure of a country attractiveness as a tourist destination.
It is true that India climbed 12 spots to 40th rank in the 2017 rankings. India’s leap was second only to Azerbaijan that climbed by 13 spots. This is also India’s best rank ever in this list.
Claim 3: Climbed 19 spots to 35th rank in World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index 2016
The Logistics Performance Index is benchmarking tool created to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in their performance on trade logistics and what they can do to improve their performance.  The LPI consists of both qualitative and quantitative measures and helps build profiles of logistics friendliness for these countries.  The index was first published in 2007 and then is being published every 2 years since 2010.
It is true that India climbed 19 spots to 35th rank in the LPI 2016. India’s rank was 39 in 2007, 47 in 2010, 46 in 2012 and 54 in 2014. It has to be noted that India’s rank of 54 in 2014 was its worst ever rank in this list.
Claim 4: Climbed 15 spots to 66th Rank in Global Innovation Index 2016
The Global Innovation Index was launched by INSEAD in 2007 and is co-published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The index primarily deals with improving the journey towards a better way to measure and understand innovation and with identifying targeted policies and good practices that foster innovation.
While India did climb 15 spots to 66th rank in the 2016 index, India’s worst ever ranking of 81 was in 2015, also during the BJP’s rule. India is now back to its 2013 ranking of 66.
Claim 5: Improved ranking in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2016
Transparency International (TI) publishes the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) since 1996, ranking countries by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.
Contrary to what was claimed by the government, India’s rank of 79 in 2016 was worse than its rank of 76 in 2015.  India has improved its score in 2016, but not ranking.
Claim 6: Climbed 21 spots to 87th Rank in WEF Global Gender Gap report 2016
The WEF Gender Gap Index ranks countries according to calculated gender gaps. The assumption is that women are strictly disadvantaged compared to men and as such, only measures where women are traditionally disadvantaged to men are used. The index is being published since 2006.
It is true that India has climbed 21 spots to 87th rank in the 2016 index. This is only the 2nd occasion when India was ranked below 100 since 2006. In 2006, India’s ranking was 98. India continues to score poorly on the sub-indices of Economic Participation & Opportunity, Educational Attainment and Health & Survival. India’s 87th rank is thanks to its 9 rank in the Political empowerment sub-index.
Claim 7: Climbed to 8th rank in FDI Confidence Index
The Foreign Direct Investment Confidence Index is published by A.T. Kearney since 1998. It examines the overarching trends in FDI. The top 25 ranking is a forward-looking analysis of how political, economic, and regulatory changes will likely affect countries’ FDI inflows in the coming years.
While it is true that India climbed to 8th rank in the 2017 index, India worst ranking in the recent times was in 2015 (11th), also during the BJP rule. It also has to be noted that India’s best ever ranking on this index was 2nd and was achieved in 2005, 2007 and 2012. The UPA was in power on all these 3 occasions.


text:
Fact-Check: Is India exporting more Medical Equipment & importing less?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 13, 2020
During her budget speech for 2020-21, the finance minister made multiple claims related to reduced corporate tax rate & export of medical equipment. Here is a series that fact checks these claims.
The Budget Speech, delivered by FinanceMinister Nirmala Sitharaman, while presenting the Union Budget for the year2020-21 presents a summary of major achievements and future plans of thegovernment. Here’s a fact-check of the claims relating to the corporate taxrate & export of medical equipment. Part-1 of this fact-check series can beread here.
India’s
Corporate Tax Rate
Claim (Point 113): Historic decision of reducing the corporate tax rate for new companies in the manufacturing sector to an unprecedented level of 15%. Similarly, for the existing companies, the rate has also been brought down to just 22%. As a result, India’s corporate tax rates are now amongst the lowest in the world.
Fact: It is TRUE that the new corporate tax rate is among the lowest in Asia. However, India does not find a place in the top-20 countries with the lowest corporate tax rates.
Theclaim of India’s tax rate now being amongst the lowest is the world has drawnsignificant attention. While some sources have concluded itto be amongst the world’s lowest tax rate, others have concluded that itis amongst Asia’s lowest tax rate.
Avariety of organisations like KPMG, Deloitte, E&Y, and others, providean  overview of corporate taxes aroundthe world.  Let’s look at TaxFoundation’s recent publication titled ‘Corporate tax rates around the
world, 2019’,which draws from various sources including KPMG, Deloitte, and OECD, amongstothers. The report provides a database of corporate tax rate trends around theworld from 1980-2019. The foundation has published a similar ranking exercisein the previous years.
According to the report, Europe has the lowest regional average statuary corporate tax rate at 20.27%, while Asia’s average stands second at 21.32%. In the list of 20 countries with the lowest statuary corporate tax rate around the world, there are 12 European countries and 5 Asian countries amongst others. The highest statuary tax rate in this top-20 list stands at 12.5%. India’s new corporate tax rate at 15% would not place India in the list of top 20 countries with lowest statuary corporate tax rates.
Let’scheck the database to understand where canIndia be placed given the recent change in its corporate tax rate. Based on thetrends for 2019, here is a list of countries with corporate tax rates up to 15% arranged in ascending order of their statuary corporate tax rates (excludingjurisdictions with zero percent tax rate).
Impact of Make in India on Medical Equipment Exports
Claim (Point 140): Policy of Make in India has started giving dividends. India is now making world class goods and exporting such products. We have made considerable progress in medical equipment too. Till few years back we were dependent on imports for medical equipment. Now, not only we are manufacturing medical equipment but also exporting them in large quantities.
Fact: The claim is TRUE to the extent that India is now exporting medical equipment in large quantities (given the growth during 2018-19). However, the claim is partly MISLEADING as India’s dependence on imports of medical equipment has also increased instead of coming down in the backdrop of Make in India scheme.
Inorder to gain a comprehensive understanding of the export-import scenario ofmedical equipment in India, let’s look at the database maintained by Ministryof Commerce and Industry. The claim is that, with the advent of Make in Indiapolicy, the country has become less dependent on imports for medical equipmentand the export of medical equipment has increased significantly.
Inorder to gain a comprehensive view, data from two HS (Harmonised System) codesrelated to medical equipment have been collated. Data for imports & exportsof medical equipment related to these two HS codes is considered for analysis.
The patterns of export and import of medical equipment from 2010 to 2019 reveals that there has been a jump in the share of India’s export of medical equipment as well as import of medical equipment during 2018-19. In the previous years as well, the export and imports have shown significant growth. While the claim is true to the extent that India is now exporting medical equipment in large quantities, the growth in both the export and import of medical equipment during 2018-19 onwards render the claim misleading. India’s dependence on imports of medical equipment has also increased instead of coming down in the backdrop of Make in India.
Featured Image: Finance Minister Budget Speech Claims

created: February 13, 2020


text:
Fact Check: Is India’s 30 place jump in 2018 EODB rankings the best ever?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 3, 2017
India jumped 30 places to reach 100th rank in the latest EODB rankings of the World Bank. India’s jump by 30 places is the best for any country in 2018 though it is not the best ever.
Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi hailed India’s 30 place jump in the 2018 East of Doing Business (EODB) rankings of the World Bank. India’s overall rank improved from 130 in the 2017 report to 100 in the latest report. The Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley also hailed India’s 30 place jump in the rankings. During a press conference, he said, “India’s 30 point jump is the highest any country had made in the doing Business rankings itself”. It is not clear whether he meant that this jump is the best in 2018 rankings or the best ever. So, is India’s jump the best ever?
What are the EODB Rankings?
According to the World Bank EODB website, Economies are ranked on their ease of doing business, from 1–190 in the latest report.  A high ease of doing business ranking means the regulatory environment is more conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm. The 2018 rankings for all economies are benchmarked to June 2017.
For the 2018 rankings, 190 countries are benchmarked on 11 sets of indicators. The first ever rankings in 2004 included only 5 indicators and ranked 133 countries.
The eleven (11) indicators that are part of this year’s rankings are the following
Limitations of the EODB Survey
According to the methodology as given on the EODB website, there are certain limitations of the survey. It has to be noted that for most countries, the collected data refer to businesses in the largest business city (which in some countries differs from the capital) and may not be representative of regulation in other parts of the economy. The only exception to this are the 11 economies/countries like India that have more than 100 million population as of 2013. In these 11 cases, the data is also collected for the second largest business city. In India’s case, the data is collected from both Mumbai & Delhi.
The methodology also indicates that the data often focus on a specific business form—generally a limited liability company (or its legal equivalent) of a specified size—and may not be representative of the regulation on other businesses (for example, sole proprietorships).
India’s 30 place jump is the best in 2018
In the latest rankings, India jumped 30 places to reach the 100th rank out of 190 countries. India’s jump of 30 places is the best of all the countries surveyed. The next is Palestine which jumped 26 places followed by Mauritius that jumped 24 places. Twenty (20) economies improved their rankings by 10 or more in the latest rankings. Of the economies that improved their rankings by 10 or more, Mauritius (25th) and Thailand (26th)  have the best overall rank.Is India’s jump the best ever?
India’s 30 place jump is not the best ever though it is the best in the last two years. The best ever jump was by Rwanda in 2010 followed by Azerbaijan in 2009 & Georgia in 2007.

created: November 3, 2017