text:
Data: What has been the budget allocation to Sports over the years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 17, 2021
India’s best-ever medal tally at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics has created an increased interest in sports in general, going past the obsession with Cricket. Governments have also announced handsome rewards to the medal winners. But what has been the budget allocation to Sports over the years?
India recorded its best-ever performance in the Olympics at the recently concluded 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The Indian Contingent, which is also India’s largest-ever participating in the Olympics, won 7 medals. This includes 1 Gold, 2 Silver & 4 Bronze medals. They bettered the earlier performance in terms of medals won during the 2012 London Olympics, where India won 6 medals – 2 Silver & 4 Bronze.
The better performance of India at this quadrennial sporting spectacle has drawn appreciation from many. Along with it were also the news & claims of support extended by governments, institutions, etc. of sponsoring the athletes in their training & preparation. Further, there are multiple posts on social media comparing the investments in sports made by the current NDA government with that of the earlier UPA government. They claim that the current government has allocated higher funds than earlier regimes, thereby contributing to the better performance in the latest edition of the Olympics.
In this context, we look at the actual numbers relating to the Central Government’s spending on Sports and the share of allocation to sports compared to the overall budget expenditure. We also review the various sports-related schemes in the country.
No major variance in the allocation to the Ministry of Youth & Sports as a share of total expenditure
The budget allocation to the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (MoYAS) for 2021-22 is Rs. 2.5 thousand crores. This comes to around 0.07% of the total Budget expenditure for the year i.e., Rs. 34.8 lakh crores. This amount is less than the previous year’s budget estimate, which was Rs. 2.82 thousand crores. It constituted 0.09% of the total Budget Estimate expenditure. However, this has been revised to Rs. 1.8 thousand crores, or about 0.05 % of the total revised expenditure for 2020-21, i.e., around 1.02 thousand crores have been reduced in the revised estimate.
On the other hand, the actuals for 2019-20 indicate that the actual spending in that year of the MoYAS is Rs. 2.6 thousand crores which is 0.10% of the total actual expenditure for the year. This is the highest allocation both in terms of the total amount as well as a share in total expenditure, over the past 10 years.
Since the current NDA government came into power in 2014, there is a gradual increase in the overall amount allocated to the MoYAS. But this increase in amount is proportionate with the overall increase in the total government expenditure. The share of allocation to the MoYAS remained between 0.06% and 0.08% during the current NDA regime.
The share of allocation to the ministry was similar even during the last years of UPA-2.  Over the 15-year period i.e., 2007-08 to 2021-22, the highest allocation to this Ministry was during 2009-10 & 2010-11. But this was largely due to the expenditure & outlays related to the conduct of the 2010 Commonwealth Games (CWG) in Delhi. The higher share of 0.1% & O.15% in the earlier years, can also be attributed to the preparation for these games. Overall, it can be concluded that the share of allocation to the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports largely remained constant irrespective of the regimes, and there is no specific increase in the allocation during the current government, apart from the launch of the dedicated Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS).
It ought to be noted that the allocation to this Ministry is not exclusive to Sports. This also includes an allocation to various schemes related to Youth Affairs.  Hence a review of the different schemes dedicated to sports would throw more light on the trends in the government expenditure on sports.
Allocation to SAI & ‘Khelo India’ form the major share of expenditure on Sports
In response to a question in the Lok Sabha recently, the Minister for Youth Affairs & Sports provided the details of the allocation of funds under various Sports-related schemes in the country. As per this information, the allocation during 2019-20 has been considerably higher compared to both 2018-19 as well as 2020-21, with Rs. 2000 crores. Out of this Rs, 1,989.38 crores has been utilized.
Comparison of allocation to various schemes indicates that the increase during 2019-20 compared to the other years is due to the increased allocation to
Sports Authority of India (SAI): The allocation to SAI increased from Rs. 395 crores in 2018-19 to Rs. 615 crores in 2019-20. This level of allocation continued even in 2020-21 with Rs. 612.2 crores. This increase in allocation to SAI can be attributed to the 2020 Olympics.
The allocation to SAI for 2016-17 was Rs. 438 crores and in the year prior to this, it was Rs. 407 crores. Almost all the funds allocated to SAI are utilized.
Khelo India Scheme: The Government of India launched Khelo India Scheme in 2016-17 for Sports promotion & development in the country. This Scheme was introduced by merging three other Schemes intended for the same purpose – Rajiv Gandhi Khel Abhiyan, Urban Infrastructure Scheme & National Sports Talent Search.
Around Rs. 500 crores were allocated during 2018-19, of which only Rs. 342 crores were utilized. The allocation increased to Rs. 578 crores in 2019-20 of which Rs. 575 cores were utilized. In the ensuing year i.e., 2020-21, the allocation was reduced to Rs. 328.77 crores.
Assistance to NSF: Assistance to National Sports Federations (NSF) also forms a major part of the allocation.  Rs. 245 crores were allocated in 2018-19, which increased to Rs. 300 crores in 2019-20.  However, there was a steep cut in the allocation to only Rs. 132 crores in  2020-21.
This is one of the major contributors to the reduced overall allocation in 2020-21.
The underutilization of allocation to Khelo India in 2018-19, was compensated by the Rs. 125 crores utilization towards ‘CWG- SAI Stadia Renovation’ which was allocated any amount earlier.
National Centre of Sports Science and Research (NCSSR), National Sports University (NSU) in the Northeast have also seen a cut in the allocation during 2020-21 compared to the earlier year.
There is also a reduction in the allocation during 2020-21 under the categories ‘Pensions to Meritorious Sports Persons’ & ‘Special Cash Awards’. Allocation of Rs. 77.15 crores to NSDF (National Sports Development Fund) were also one of the reasons for the increase in overall allocation during 2019-20, for which the allocation during the other years was very less.
Shooting has received the highest allocation under TOPS followed by para-Sports & Athletics
Under Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS), customized training & facilities are provided to potential Olympic medal winners. As per a response provided in Lok Sabha in July 2021,  a total of 162 athletes along with the Men’s & Women’s Hockey Teams are included as part of TOPS Core Group and 254 athletes are included in TOPS Development Group.
During 2018-19, a total amount of Rs. 14.31 crores were spent on TOPS, which decreased to Rs. 12.41 crores in 2019-20.  In 2020-21, an expenditure of Rs. 15.65 crores were incurred under TOPS.
Among the different Sporting Disciplines, the highest allocation was made to Shooting with Rs. 10.01 cores over the four-year period between 2018-19 and 2021-22 (as of July 2021). A total of 15 shooters from India participated in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, the second largest group after Athletics.
Athletics received the third-highest allocation with Rs. 5.38 crores and formed the largest group among the Indian Olympic contingent with 25. India’s lone gold medal was from Athletics.
These are followed by Wrestling & Badminton where-in India fared better compared to other disciplines.
The second highest allocation under TOPS is for Para-sports. The next edition of the Paralympics would be conducted in Tokyo during the latter part of the year. Indian Para-Olympians have recorded their best medal haul during the previous Rio-2016 Paralympics with 4 medals (2 Gold, 1 Silver & 2 Bronze).
Need to increase the allocation for sports and identify specific disciplines for planned investment
As the data indicates, despite claims, there has not been any substantial increase in the allocation to sports under the current regime. The overall allocation to MoYAS is still only around 0.06 to 0.08% of the total expenditure of the government, as is the case for the last 10 odd years.
The only instance of a comparative increase was during the conduct of Commonwealth games. Even during the years where India has participated in major sporting events – Commonwealth games in 2014 & 16, and Olympics in 2016 & 2021, there has not been any substantial increase in the spending on sports.
The lower allocation to various schemes in 2020-21 could be due to COVID-19. While TOPS is focused on providing assistance to medal prospects, which has been useful to many athletes, it is limited to elite athletes and medal prospects at the Olympics and other such international events. The Rs. 1.5 lakhs assistance given to equestrians, during 2020-21, with the lone Indian participant in that discipline can be cited as an example. Golf did not see any allocation under the TOPS though India’s women golfer Aditi Ashok finished fourth and came close to winning a medal at the 2020 Olympics.
While the TOPS provides the much-needed financial assistance to elite athletes, this is only after they reach a certain level in the sport. There is a need for a much more proactive approach, where-in the encouragement to athletes starts much before they reach that level or become established names in the respective sport.
With the 2020 Olympics receiving increased viewership and interest among the general population, this is the right time for governments at both the central & state level to invest in sports infrastructure and create a support system for athletes. The private sector could also play a significant role in this endeavour.
In addition to rewards to medallists, increased investments & a proactive approach can help India become more successful on the international stage.
Featured Image: Budget allocation to Sports


text:
Data: What Has Been EPF Interest Rate Paid to Subscribers Over The Years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 31, 2023
Members of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) who have a provident fund (PF) account receive a guaranteed yield on their investment that is risk-free and tax-free. The interest rate decided by the EPFO is a dynamic process and there is no fixed/standard rate as to which should be paid. Here is a review.
The Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 was passed in an effort to give employees and their dependents a dignified life once they were no longer able to support themselves through their normal means. This is also in accordance with the recognized need for a social security cover as enumerated in the Directive Principles of State Policy of Indian Constitution.
While contributions made by employers and employees keep this fund functional, equally important role is played by the income generated by the investments made by EPFO. Members of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) who have a provident fund (PF) account receive a guaranteed yield on their investment that is risk-free and tax-free.
In today’s story, we look at the trends in EPFO interest rates and how EPFO generates income using the corpus fund to pay PF interest to EPFO subscribers.
How much money does EPFO has?
It is often misconstrued that EPF is a single scheme. However, EPFO administers three schemes with differing objectives.
The data pertaining to corpus managed by EPFO under the three Schemes EPF, EPS and EDLI excluding the Corpus managed by exempted Provident Fund Trusts is as below.
Who manages EPFO corpus fund?
The power to administer the funds constituted under the EPF & MP Act 1952 shall vest in Central Board of Trustees (CBT) constituted as per the clause 3 of the Section (5A) of the above act. The composition of the Central Board is as follows.
The Sub-Committee on Finance & Investment of the CBT is tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the investments done by the fund managers of EPFO, recommending appropriate investment guidelines to ensure optimum returns, and suggesting a rate of interest to be credited to the subscriber accounts among other things.
How are funds in EPFO corpus are invested?
The investment of funds of EPFO is done as per the investment pattern notified by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. Additionally, such investments shall be made only by keeping the benefits of subscribers in mind. Due diligence must be given to the investment pattern to ensure the diversification of investments. The guidelines require that the process of investing should be transparent, and the trustees shall be held responsible for investment decisions taken.
Additionally, any investment is made only in such securities with at least two credit rating agencies registered with Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Further, one of the two required ratings should necessarily be from any of the following four Credit Rating Agencies (CRAs) i.e., CRISIL, CARE, ICRA and India Ratings.
The latest investment pattern approved by the CBT is from 2015, with subsequent amendments based on market conditions.
The investment made should be such that the turnover ratio, defined as the ratio between the values of securities traded in the year to the average value of portfolio at the beginning and the end of the year, should not exceed two.
How much is the interest rate paid?
As per a parliamentary response, the interest rate decided by the EPFO is a dynamic process and there is no fixed/standard rate as to which should be paid. It is primarily based on the necessity of safeguards to balance both the growth and surplus funds. The data on the interest rates by EPFO indicate that the current rate of 8.15% is lowest in the last four decades. Despite the recent hike by 0.15% from 8.1% in 2021-22, the interest rate is still lower than earlier interest rates.
How has been the interest earnings on investments?
It is important for the investments to generate optimum returns to keep the EPFO corpus growing and also pass on the benefits to the subscribers. Investing in different classes of assets generates interests. The data on the interest earnings on investments made by EPFO show an increase over the past five years.
The CBT decided to invest in Exchange Traded Funds from 2015, in Nifty EFT and Sensex EFT. The year-wise trend shows an increase in the amount invested in ETFs. The gross amount invested in the ETF till 31 March 2021 is Rs.1,37,895.95 Crores. Further, the details of cost price of investment in ETF till 31 March 2022, and Notional Market Value [as per Net Asset Value (NAV)]on 31 March 2022 stands at Rs. 1,59,299.46 Crores and Rs. 2,26,919.18 Crores respectively, as answered in Parliament. The absolute return on investments in EFTs in 2016 was 7.45%, which is less than the interest rate provided by EPFO. The ETF units pertaining to Calendar year 2016 and 2017 were redeemed in 2021 generating a revenue of Rs. 3,277 Crores and Rs. 4,073 Crores respectively. However, ETFs still account for only 8.7% of the investment of corpus at face value as on 31 March 2022.
Are these EPF interest rates sustainable?  A tightrope walk in future.
Though the interest rates of EPF is at a four-decade low of 8.15%, it is still significantly better than the alternatives available in the market. Similar complementing options such as PPF, RBI’s floating Rate Bond, Senior Citizens savings schemes, Sukanya Samriddhi Yojana offer interest rates below 8% and with specific conditions attached to them.
Further, majority of investments by EPFO are in Government backed securities, whose 10-year average yield hovers around 7%. This is still lower than the interest rate provided by EPFO. With returns slowing down and quantum of pay-outs increasing, it would not be sustainable for EPF to continue with higher interest rates. The 2018 defaults by DHFL & ILFS also resulted in losses to EPFO and with reduced EPF contributions and greater withdrawals, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected the corpus.
With the global markets slowing down, and the uncertainty of the Russia-Ukraine war has put global economy in doldrums. In such a scenario, the fund should be sustainable with a guaranteed return, and this basic premise should act as a foundation for deciding on the future course of interest rates.

source: news-factly

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Data: What has been the trend in incidence of Vector-Borne Diseases in India?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 9, 2021
Lakhs of people in India are affected by vector-borne diseases every year. But what has been the trend in the incidence of these diseases over the years? Are there differences between states? Here is a review.
Globally, more than 7 lakh deaths occur annually from vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, and others. Vector-borne diseases are caused by parasites, viruses, and bacteria that are transmitted by vectors. According to WHO, tropical and subtropical areas are the most affected by such diseases and the poorest populations are the most vulnerable. Not only do vector-borne diseases claim lives but diseases such as Lymphatic Filariasis, Kala Azar, etc. can result in chronic suffering, disability, and even stigmatization.
National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme was launched in 2003-04
In India, for the prevention, control, and elimination of vector-borne diseases such as Malaria, Dengue, Kala Azar, Lymphatic Filariasis, among others, the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme (NVBDCP) is being implemented. The programme was launched in 2003-04 by merging the National anti-malaria control programme, National Filaria Control Programme and the Kala Azar Control programme. NVBDCP is also an integral component of the National Health Mission which envisages the achievement of universal access to equitable, affordable, and quality health care services that are accountable and responsive to people’s needs.
In this story, we look at the status of five vector-borne diseases (Leprosy, Kala Azar, Lymphatic Filariasis, Malaria, and Dengue) in India which continue to affect thousands of people every year.
India has highest burden of leprosy despite reducing prevalence to less than 1 case per 10,000 population
India achieved the goal set by the National Health Policy, 2002 of elimination of leprosy as a public health problem, by bringing down the prevalence of the disease to less than 1 case per 10,000 population at the National level in December 2005. In spite of this, India has the highest burden of leprosy cases.
According to a Lok Sabha response from February 2021, there were 133 endemic districts identified for leprosy elimination (less than one in ten thousand cases) in 2017-18 which reduced to 120 in 2018-19 and 107 in 2019-20. The reason for the larger number of districts in 2017-18 and 2018-19 is due to the detection of a higher number of leprosy cases through intensified active case search campaigns, as per the Lok Sabha response.
Four states accounted for more than half the cases reported in India
According to the Annual Report on Leprosy for 2019-20, by the end of March 2020, a total of 1.14 lakh cases were reported, a reduction of nearly 5% as compared to March 2019. In terms of the number of cases, Bihar and Maharashtra had reported more than 16,500 cases each in 2019-20 followed by Uttar Pradesh with more than 15,000 cases and Odisha with more than 10,000 cases. Together, these four states alone accounted for about 51% of the Leprosy cases reported in 2019-20.
Prevalence of leprosy is highest in Chhattisgarh among states
The overall prevalence rate of the disease in India is 0.57 per 10,000 population. This can be interpreted as 5 to 6 persons out of one lakh persons in India have been diagnosed with Leprosy. However, the prevalence rate per 10,000 population shows that the disease was the most prevalent in Dadra and Nagar Haveli with nearly 3 persons out of 10,000 population being diagnosed with Leprosy. Of the states, Chhattisgarh has the highest prevalence across the states with 2.08 followed by Odisha with a prevalence rate of 1.45. All the other states have a prevalence ratio below 1 per 10,000 population.
Number of reported Kala Azar cases have reduced over the years
The number of cases of Kala Azar, an infection that mainly affects visceral organs, has also dropped over the years. In 2017-18, there were a total of 54 endemic districts which dropped to 14 in 2018-19, 8 in 2019-20, and only 5 in 2020-21 (As of November 2020). Meanwhile, the overall number of cases has dropped gradually from 13,869 in 2013 to over 4,380 cases in 2018. Provisional data for 2019 shows only 3145 cases were reported and in 2020, less than 2000 cases were reported.
Cases were reported across seven states in 2013 and 2014 whereas, since 2017, the number of states reporting cases of Kala Azar dropped to 5 and further down to four states in 2018 including Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Bihar accounted for more than 78% of the cases in 2018. The number of cases of Kala Azar per 10,000 population is also highest for Bihar as compared to other states, though the number of cases has decreased even here over the years.
Lymphatic Filariasis is endemic to 16 states/UTs making over 650 million persons vulnerable
Lymphatic Filariasis (LF), also commonly known as elephantiasis, is a disfiguring disease that is usually acquired in childhood. Filariasis has been a major public health problem in India next only to malaria. India contributes to nearly 40% of Lymphatic Filariasis cases globally. The disease is endemic in 257 districts of 16 States & 5 UTs including Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Gujarat, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Pondicherry, Andaman & the Nicobar Islands, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep. About 650 million people in these States/UTs are at risk of developing it. States of Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha contribute the highest number of LF cases, as stated in a Lok Sabha response. NorthWestern and North Eastern states are considered to be free from indigenously acquired filariasis. Currently, the disease has been eliminated from about 98 districts and non-endemic districts are being re-mapped in endemic states.
Cases and deaths due to Malaria have reduced significantly in India in the last two decades
With nearly 95% of the population residing in Malaria endemic areas, Malaria has been a major public health problem in India, and in other regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, South-East Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, Western Pacific, and the Americas. India has made significant progress in tackling this disease. The number of cases of malaria has dropped from over 3 million cases in 1996 to around 0.34 million in 2019. During the same period, the number of deaths due to Malaria has also dropped from more than 1,000 cases to less than 100 each year during this period.
API continues to be within target, but ABER target is not being maintained
Annual Parasite Index (API) is the measure used to calculate the prevalence of Malaria. API is malaria positive cases per thousand population. In 2001, India’s API was 2.12 which meant that more than 2 people out of 1000 population were infected with Malaria. Since 2012, India has been maintaining the API below 1. In 2019-20, India’s API was 0.25. As per the latest state-wise data available, six states had an API greater than 1 as of 2018. Mizoram and Tripura had API greater than 3, followed by Chhattisgarh with an API of 2.63. Meghalaya, Jharkhand, and Odisha had recorded an API greater than 1 in 2018.
ABER on the other hand is the Annual Blood Smear Examination Rate calculated as the percentage of blood smears examined in a year of the total population. Under the presumption that at least 10% of the population will have a fever at any point in time in a year, the ideal ABER is considered 10% and above. But India’s overall ABER has crossed 10% only once in 2014. It has been between 8.5% to below 10% in the rest of the years. Across the states, Gujarat had the highest ABER of over 23% followed by Goa with 23% as of 2018. 15 states and UTs had ABER greater than 10%. The proportion of samples tested in Bihar was the least with an ABER of only 0.13%. Delhi also had an ABER below 1%.
Case Fatality Ratio of Dengue is being maintained below 1% across states
Dengue is a viral disease that is also mainly found in tropical and sub-tropical regions. Lakhs get infected every year. The number of cases in India has been more than 1 lakh each year between 2016 and 2019 while the number of deaths due to the disease has decreased.
Case Fatality Ratio (CFR) is the ratio of the number of deaths reported due to dengue to the total number of cases reported is calculated. The target is to sustain a CFR below 1%. At the national level, India has successfully maintained this between 2017-18 and 2019-20. Even across states, most states and UTs have managed to maintain the CFR below 1% since 2017.
Behavioural change, availability of facilities, and improved WASH are required
The causes for vector-borne diseases can be unplanned urbanization, environmental damage, and the unavailability of basic amenities for all. The outbreak of such diseases hinders development & economic activity & increases the financial burden on many vulnerable families. Behavioural changes, improved water and sanitation systems, etc. are required for the prevention of such fatal diseases. It is necessary that the fatalities and number of cases are brought down to meet the health targets under the SDGs by 2030.
Featured Image: Vector-Borne Diseases in India


text:
Data: What is behind an ‘Overall Trade Surplus’ in the first half of 2020-21?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 21, 2020
The Union Minister for Commerce & Industry recently tweeted that India recorded an overall trade surplus of USD 17.74 billion during the first half of 2020-21. Does this surplus indicate any definitive trend or is it because of contraction in trade because of COVID?
On 15October 2020, Union Minister for Commerce and Industry tweeted mentioning that there is a 9.2% growth in terms of rupee value for India’s merchandise exports in September, compared to same period last year.
He further stated that India has had a trade surplus during April-September 2020, to the tune of $17.72 Billion and attributed it to PM Narendra Modi’s call for Aatmanirbharta i.e. Self Reliance.
In September, India's merchandise exports recorded growth of 9.2% in Rupee & 6% in Dollar terms, against the same period last year
In line with PM @NarendraModi ji's call for Aatmanirbharta, our total trade surplus for April-September is $17.74 Billion
📖https://t.co/eKAYt4twxm pic.twitter.com/5eHAbwrD2V
Earlier, during July, Piyush Goyal had tweeted that India had a surplus in ‘Goods Trade’ for the first time in 18 years. We did a factcheck on the claim and observed that it was a misleading claim since the goods trade surplus during Q1 of 2020-21 was due to the contraction in the overall trade because of COVID-19 and had nothing to with the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan.
In this story, we take a look at the trade situation in the country and analyse if there is any positive trend as highlighted in his latest tweet.
Trade deficit for Goods at 20,000 crores despite increase in Exports in September 2020
As per the information provided by Department of Commerce, the total value of exports in goods for September 2020 is estimated at Rs. 2.02 lakh crores. As mentioned in tweet by Piyush Goyal, this is higher than the value of exports in goods for September 2019, when it was Rs. 1.85 lakh crores i.e. an increase of Rs. 17.05 thousand crores or by 9.2%.
In spite of an increase in the exports in goods, the total value of exports is still less than the value of imports in September 2020, which is Rs. 2.22 lakh crores. Hence the trade deficit in goods in September 2020 was Rs. 20 thousand crores. This deficit was despite the fact that the value of imports in September 2020 lower than that of September 2019 by about Rs. 46 thousand crores.
The increase in exports for September compared to that of previous year indicate an expansion in export trade, but not enough to surpass the value of imports. It ought to be noted that, as highlighted in the previous story, the fall in imports is more due to the fall in domestic demand than an increase in domestic production to replace goods.
The total volume of goods trade during first half of 2020-21 less than that of the previous year
Although the export value of goods for September 2020 is higher than that of same month last year, it isn’t the case for the overall exports until the end of second quarter i.e. Septmebr’2020.
The value of exports during the first half of 2020-21 (April-September 2020) is Rs. 9.38 lakh crores, whereas it was Rs.11.13 lakh crores during the same period in 2019-20. This is a short fall of Rs.1.75 lakh crores i.e. a fall of around 16%.
Similarly, the value of import of goods during the first half of 2020-21 (April-September 2020)  is Rs.11.14 lakh crores, less than the value of imports during same period in 2019-20, when it was Rs. 17.35 lakh crores i.e. fall of nearly 36%.
The surplus in trade of goods during the first quarter of 2020-21 has become a deficit by the end of second quarter. By the end of second quarter, the trade balance of goods showed a deficit balance of Rs. 1.76 lakh crores.  Although the deficit is less than same period last year, it indicates a contraction in economy than an expansion in trade.
The Trade surplus in June 2020 is followed by deficit in the ensuing months
In an earlier tweet, Union Minister Piyush Goyal highlighted the surplus of trade in goods during June 2020 and attributed it to the Atmanirbhar initiative of the government. In an earlier story, we had explained that this to the contraction in the economy, especially with the low import of goods due to the lockdown.
However, the trade surplus in goods in June 2020 is followed by a deficit in the ensuing months. The surplus in June 2020 has turned into deficit indicating that June’s surplus was a one-off incidence because of externalities caused by COVID than a trend due to institutional or policy changes.
All the three months of Q2 of 2020-21 recorded a deficit in trade of goods.  It has to be noted that there has been a higher corresponding increase in the value of exports in September 2020 compared to that of August 2020, bringing down the deficit by around Rs. 30 thousand crores.
The increase in September 2020 can be attributed to an increase in export value of Gems & Jewels, Engineering Goods & Petroleum Products. Whether this increase is a one-off instance, or a trend can only be ascertained in the coming months.
Lower volume of Goods trade has a bearing on the overall trade surplus
In the tweet, the Union Minister states that India has a Trade surplus of $17.74 billion USD for the period April-September’ 2020 and attributes it to Atmanirbhar initiative.  However, this surplus can be attributed to
In the case of services, the net trade for April-Sep’ 2019 was a surplus of USD 38.75 billion (Exports – USD 107.63 billion & Imports – USD 68.8 billion). For April-Sep’2020 the net trade for services was a surplus of USD 41.18 billion (Exports – USD 96.62 billion & Imports – USD 55.44 billion).  Hence, through the volume of services trade in the current year is lower than last year,  the difference is not as significant as in the case of goods trade.
In the case of the trade in goods, the deficit for April-Sep’2019 was USD 83.7 billion (Export – USD 159.57 billion & Imports – USD 243.28 billion). During the same period in the current year, the deficit is USD 23.44 billion (Exports – USD 125.25 billion & Imports – USD 148.69 billion). There is nearly a USD 95 billion difference in imports of goods from last year. The lower imports are due to a contraction in the economy, a result of the low demand on account of COVID.
Therefore, the minor difference in trade of services and a huge fall in trade of goods (which is the major contributor towards overall trade deficit), resulted in an overall trade surplus for April- Sep’ 2020. This overall trade during April-Sep’2020 is more due to the lower volume of trade than an actual increase in the exports over imports.
It is too early to identify any surplus or increase as a definitive trend
The numbers provided by the union minister in the tweet are factually correct. However, as highlighted in this story, they are misleading and do not present a complete picture.  As was the case with his earlier claim of trade surplus in June’2020, the trend did not sustain in the ensuing months. The overall trade surplus during the first half of 2020-21 (April – Sep’2020) may not sustain in the coming quarters as imports get back to their normal levels once domestic demand picks up. Hence, what we are witnessing may be a temporary trend and not a definitive one.
However, the increase in exports over previous months is a positive sign and indicates that domestic production may be getting back on its feet.
It is still early days to conclude any of these numbers as a definitive trend and more so because of any policy changes. We might have to wait a few more quarters to understand which way the wind is blowing.

created: October 21, 2020


text:
Data: What is India’s trade with Afghanistan like?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 24, 2021
The share of India’s trade with Afghanistan is still meagre. However, there has been a considerable increase in the bilateral trade over the last 20 years to the extent that India is Afghanistan’s largest export partner. On the other hand, India is also reliant on Afghanistan for import of certain products like edible fruits & nuts. Here is a review of the trade data.
The recent Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has created ambiguity & apprehension at different levels. India being a key partner in the rebuilding of Afghanistan since 2002, has major stakes in the country.  In an earlier story, we reviewed ‘India’s Investment’ in various development projects in Afghanistan. Apart from these investments, there are other areas that could have a considerable impact on India-Afghanistan relations.  One such key area is India’s trade with Afghanistan.
India has not yet clarified its official stand on the Taliban as it continues to observe the recent developments and is keenly watching how the larger international community responds. As with the other aspects, there is uncertainty on the status of the trade with Afghanistan. As per recent news reports, there is a temporary stop on the imports & exports with India. The disruptions to the trade routes have had an impact on the trade activity.  In this context, we look at the trends in India’s trade with Afghanistan over the years.
The value of India’s exports to Afghanistan increased by over 50 times over the last 20 years
As per the data available with the Ministry of Commerce & Industry’s Export Import Data Bank, there has been an exponential increase in the value of exports to Afghanistan compared to 20 years ago.  The exports to Afghanistan constitute only a minute part of India’s overall exports but there has been significant growth in the last two decades.
For 2020-21, the total value of exports to Afghanistan was Rs. 6.1 thousand crores, lower than the Rs. 7.08 thousand crores in the previous year i.e., 2019-20.  This was the first time since 2010-11 when there was a fall in the value of exports compared to the previous year. However, this needs to be viewed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While there have been minor flatulating trends over the years, the data clearly indicates the exponential increase in the value of exports over the last two decades.  In 2001-02, the value of exports to Afghanistan amounted to only Rs. 116 crores. The situation was worse during the Taliban rule prior to the turn of the century.
As highlighted, despite the exponential increase in the value of exports, it still forms only a minor portion of India’s overall exports. In 2020-21, India’s exports to Afghanistan accounted for a meagre 0.28% of India’s overall exports. This, however, is a significant improvement from 0.06% of the total exports in 2001-02.
Apparels & Pharma Products among the major commodities exported to Afghanistan
Data indicates considerable year-on-year variation in the volume of commodities being exported to Afghanistan.  Like in the case of man-made filaments, the total value exports to Afghanistan in 2019-20 was Rs. 1.74 thousand crores. This was the product with the highest value exported in that year. However, this is a singular spike in that year. Though this is one of the major export products, the value has been considerably lower in the years before and after. In 2018-19 and 2020-21, the value of exports has been almost a sixth of the 2019-20 value.
The same is the case with Sugar & Confectionery items. In 2020-21, the total value of exports was Rs. 1.34 thousand crores, which is considerably higher than the earlier years. Tobacco & its substitute products had one such spike in 2018-19.
Apart from these products which have shown a singular spike in specific years, Apparels & Pharma products rank among the products with a greater value of exports consistently over the years. Within the Apparel category, non-Knitted & crocheted products have a higher value of exports compared to the Knitted & crocheted products. Pharmaceutical products are consistently among the top products that are exported to Afghanistan.
The other top export commodities to Afghanistan include – Man-made Staple fibers, Iron & Steel articles, Coffee, Tea & spices along with Electrical Equipment & spares.
The share of imports from Afghanistan increased by 4 times in the last 20 years
As in the case of exports to Afghanistan, there is an exponential increase in the value of imports from Afghanistan over the past 20 years. Especially since 2003-04, there has been a consistent increase in the value of Imports.
In 2001-02, the total value of imports from Afghanistan was around Rs. 84 crores. This increased to Rs. 662 crores in the next 10 years by 2010-11. In the last 10 years, the value of imports has further increased with more than a five-fold increase between 2011-12 and 2020-21.
During 2020-21, the total value of imports from Afghanistan was Rs. 3.75 thousand crores. Despite this increase in the total value, the imports from Afghanistan are still only a meagre 0.13% of India’s total imports as is the case with India’s exports to Afghanistan. However, there has been a sharp increase in its share over the years.
In 2001-02, the imports from Afghanistan constituted only 0.03% of the total imports to India. By 2020-21, the value has increase 4-fold to 0.13% of India’s total imports.  The increase in the share of imports is more prominent in the last five years.
‘Edible Fruits & Nuts’ comprise the major share of imports from Afghanistan
For the year 2020-21, the imports under the category ‘Edible Fruit and Nuts, Peel or Citrus Fruits or Melons’ comprised nearly 64% of the total value of imports from Afghanistan. Over the years, there has been a consistent increase not only in the value of the total imports under this category but also in its share in the overall imports from Afghanistan.
In fact, Afghanistan ranks next only to the USA in terms of the value of imports to India under this category. Out of the total value of imports under ‘Edible Fruit and Nuts, Peel or Citrus Fruits or Melons’, imports from Afghanistan make up for 10% in 2020-21. Within this category, the major share is of Dates, Figs & other fruits (HSC 0804) along with Grapes- Fresh or Dried (HSC 0806).
The other major commodity imported from Afghanistan is ‘lac, gums, Resins & Other Vegetable Saps & Extracts’. However, over the last five years, there is a fall in the value of imports under this category. Of the total imports, the decrease in the value of lac & gums is substituted by Coffee, Tea, Oilseeds, Vegetables & roots etc.
Efforts by both the countries to increase Bilateral Trade
As the data indicates, the value of trade with Afghanistan forms only a minor part of India’s overall trade. However, in the case of Afghanistan, India is among its largest trading partners. As per World Bank’s data, exports to India constituted 47% of the total exports of Afghanistan in 2019, making India the largest export partner of Afghanistan. In the case of imports, India is the 8 largest import trading partner of Afghanistan. These numbers highlight the importance of trade with India for Afghanistan.
Even for India, while the overall trade value with Afghanistan is less, it is a key source for certain products (fruits & nuts) as highlighted earlier. Recent news reports highlight India’s reliance on Afghanistan for dry fruits and other similar products, which could affect the market here and increase the prices in the domestic market.
The increase in trade with Afghanistan over the years is a result of multiple initiatives over the last twenty years. A few of them include:
These initiatives have begun to show results in improving the bilateral trade between Indian & Afghanistan. However, with the recent developments, there are question marks over the direction of future trade relations with Afghanistan. While India is not overly reliant on Afghanistan for certain products in the short term, it could be a challenge for Afghanistan if the trade with India is affected considering that India is its major export partner.
Featured Image: India-Afghanistan Trade


text:
Data: What is India’s trade with China like?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 27, 2020
Ever since the outbreak of COVID-19 with its origin in Wuhan (China), there have been renewed demands for ban of Chinese goods and for reducing trade with China. But as data suggests, it is easier said than done. Here is why.
Internationaltrade is one of the areas that has been severely hit by COVID-19 and most ofthe countries reliant on export & import of goods & services arebearing the brunt.
As far as  India is concerned, as per a press release in June 2019 by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, India holds 2.1% share of the global exports and 2.6% share of the global imports as on 2017.  Some of the leading trade partners of Inia include – USA, China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong etc.
AsChina is the country of origin for COVID-19, there are increasing questionsover China’s reluctance to share information about the initial outbreak.Because of this, there has been a diplomaticbacklash with many countries threatening to move out their manufacturingfacilities from China. There have also been statements from global leaders torelook their trade relations with China.
Evenin India, there have been demands from certain quarters along with some publicsupport to ban trading with China. But this is easier said than done. In thisstory, we look at the extant of trade with China and India’s dependence on thesame. For the analysis, we have majorly relied on the information provided onMinistry of Commerce and Industry’s Export & Import Data Bank.
Highest
Trade Balance Deficit in last financial year over the 10-year period.
Trade balance is the difference between the total monitory value of the exports and the imports. For balance of trade, only the visible goods are considered, and the services excluded.
Whenthe value of exports exceeds the value of imports, it is referred to as TradeSurplus. Whereas if the value of imports is higher than that of the exports, itis referred to as Trade Deficit. Since independence, India generally had atrade deficit. However, the value has varied over the years.
For2018-19, the trade deficit was ₹12.86 lakh crores. This is the highest for thepreceding 10-year period (2010-19). Prior to this, the previous financial year i.e.2017-18 accounted for the highest trade deficit of ₹10.45 lakh crores. Theprevious highest can be traced back to 2012-13, when the deficit was ₹ 10.34crores. This was followed by 4 years of reduced trade deficit, of which theleast being in 2016-17 with ₹ 7.28 lakh crores.
In
2018-19, USA emerged as India’s leading trade partner, overtaking China
For2018-19, USA had a share of 10.42% of the total trade by India (including both importsand exports), an increase from the previous year’s 9.69%. This is higher thanthat of China which accounts for 10.32% of the total share of internationaltrade conducted by India.
Untilthe previous year, China had the highest share in India’s global trade. China’sshare in the previous 4 years i.e. between 2014-18 was 9.55%, 11.01%, 10.83%and 11.66% respectively. The increase in USA’s share can be attributed to anincrease in both the imports and the exports. For the year 2018-19, the shareof USA in exports was 15.88%, a marginal increase from 15.77% recorded in theprevious year. The significant increase was observed in  the share of imports which increased from5.72% in 2017-18 to 6.91% in 2018-19. Over the five-year period (2014-19),USA’s share in imports and exports has gradually increased from 4.87% and13.68% respectively in 2014-15.
Meanwhile,a significant drop in the share of China’s imports into India was observed in2018-19. In 2018-19, imports from China accounted for 13.69% of the total,significantly less than the 16.4% in 2017-18. Meanwhile, there is an increasein share of exports to China, which stood at 5.08% in 2018-19, compared to 4.4%the previous year.
Amongthe other significant trading partners, although UAE’s share in overall tradehas increased in 2018-19, compared to 2017-18, its share is still less that ofthe earlier years.
Meanwhile, over the five-year period (2014-19), the share of Saudi Arabia in overall trade has reduced from 5.16% to 4.04%. While the volume and share of imports from Saudi Arabia has increased, the same increase isn’t observed in the case for the exports to Saudi Arabia. Hong Kong, Singapore and Iraq are among the other countries which have witnessed increasing trade with India.
India
has the highest trade deficit with China and a surplus with USA & UAE
Amongthe countries which have the higher volumes of trade with India, India’s tradesurplus is with only USA and UAE during the five-year period of 2014 to 2019.
HongKong and Singapore, with who India had a trade surplus previously also recordeda trade deficit for 2018-19. One of the key reasons for having a favourabletrade balance with USA is the high value exports of semi-precious metals andpearls.  So is the case with UAE, wherethe value of exports for these commodities is high.
Meanwhile, the increase in the import of organic chemicals, plastics, mineral oils & products etc. from Hong Kong has resulted in the negative trade balance for 2018-19. Import of these products along with electrical machinery are the reasons for a trade deficit with Singapore.
Incase of the other top countries with which India trades, it has a tradedeficit. An increase in this deficit year on year with many of these countriesis observed.
WhileIndia has managed to reduce the trade deficit with China in 2018-19 compared tothe previous year, it is still very  highat ₹ 3.75 lakh crores. In the previous year i.e. 2017-18, the trade deficitwith China was ₹4.06 lakh crores.
Ashighlighted earlier, the increase in imports from Saudi Arabia is higher thanthe increase in exports, resulting in an increased trade deficit.  So is the case for other countries like Iraq& South Korea where the rate of increase in imports is higher than that ofexports.
Thetrends with these major trading partners point towards a higher rate ofincrease in imports compared to that of the exports across the board.
Marginal
fall in imports from China in 2018-19, after more than 3-fold increase over a ten-year
period
In2009-10, the total value of imports from China was ₹ 1.46 lakh which increasedsteadily to ₹ 4.922 lakh crores in 2017-18. The year 2017-18 also marked thesingle largest one-year increase in the worth of imports with an increase of ₹  0.81 lakh crores compared to the previousyear. The value of imports from China, fell only marginally i.e. by around ₹157crores in 2018-19, amounting to a total of Rs 4.92 lakh crores.
Meanwhile,the value of exports to China has crossed ₹1 lakh crore for the first time in2018-19 with ₹1.173 lakh crores. The previous highest was in the year 2013-14,where the value of exports was ₹ 90.6  thousand crores. The commodities which havecontributed towards this increase include – Organic Chemicals, Fish &Aquatic invertebrates, Coffee, Tea etc.
Thehuge deficit of trade with China, has a major impact on India’s overall tradedeficit due its sheer volume. The country with the next highest value ifimports into India in 2018-19 was USA, where the imports amounted to a totalof  ₹ 2.485 lakh crores i.e. just overhalf the volume of imports from China.
Electrical
Equipment, Nuclear Reactors, Organic Chemicals among the top imports from China
Amajor share of the imports from China include Electrical Machinery andEquipment, which includes electronic items also. In 2018-19, ₹ 144.4 thousandcrores worth of goods were imported under this category. The marginal fall inthe imports from China in 2018-19 as indicted earlier can be attributed to amajor extent to this commodity. In the previous year, the total worth ofElectrical machinery and equipment was ₹ 184.8 thousand crores.
NuclearReactors, Machinery, appliances etc. are the second most imported items byIndia from China. These imports have a year on year consistent increase. For2014-15, the worth of imports was ₹ 62.1 thousand crores which graduallyincreased to ₹ 93.6 thousand crores in 2018-19.
Organic Chemicals also form a substantial part of the imports from China and have seen an increase in their value. In 2018-19, ₹ 60.1 thousand crores of organic chemicals were imported, while five years back i.e. in 2014-15, they were worth ₹ 38.6 thousand crores. These three commodities occupy a major share of the imports compared to others. Other major imports into India from China include – Fertilizers, Plastic articles, Iron & Steel, Optical, Articles made of Iron & Steel, Vehicles (excluding railway related), Misc. Chemical products etc.
Barringa dip in the value of Iron & Steel, the worth of most of the other topimports into India has increased.
India
still hugely reliant on China for import of multiple commodities
Inthe year 2018-19, 96 different types of commodities were imported into Indiafrom China. As highlighted earlier, the fall in volume is very marginal in2018-19 compared to that of previous year. However, in terms of share of imports,the reduction is significant. In 2018-19, the total share of imports from Chinais 13.69%, compared to that of 16.4% the previous year. USA and Singapore haveincreased their share of imports into India.
Whilethere is a fall in the import of Electrical machinery and equipment from Chinain 2018-19, it has been compensated from countries like Vietnam, Hong Kong,Singapore and few European countries like Belgium & Netherlands. However,their share even for this commodity is quite low with the volume of Electricalequipment imported from China being many times higher.
Thenature of most of the top imports from China are not final consumables but areused in various commercial activities including agriculture and manufacturing. Forinstance, most of the electronic spare parts used in assembling electronicgoods in India are imported from China.
Anydisruption in these imports could adversely affect the manufacturing andagricultural sectors in India.
As it exists, any ban of imports from China could lead to more trouble unless India finds other sources of import for similar items or augment domestic availability. Finding alternates overnight will also be a challenge because of the sheer volume. Hence, despite demands for ban of trade with China or ban of Chinese goods, it may not happen without finding the right alternatives.
Featured Image: India’s trade with China


text:
Data: What is the Distribution of IIT, IIM & NIT Seats in Regions A, B & C in Terms of ‘Official Language Rules, 1976’?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 18, 2022
Media reports on the eleventh report of the Committee of Parliament on Official Languages that allegedly suggested prioritizing native or regional languages as a medium of instruction in IITs, IIMs and other central institutions has triggered a war of words. But how do the numbers stack up in terms of the Distribution of IIT, IIM & NIT Seats in Regions A, B & C in Terms of ‘Official Language Rules, 1976’.
There was criticism following media reports about the  eleventh report of the Committee of Parliament on Official Languages, headed by Home Minister, which allegedly suggested prioritizing native or regional languages over English across the nation. Critics called it ‘Linguistic Imperialism,’ accusing the government of engaging in ‘Language wars.’ While the debates over language may not be entirely new, the atmosphere and context under which the current debates are taking place are completely distinct. Things have become much polarized, for people exhibiting any resistance towards imposition are often termed as ‘linguistically intolerant’.
This article does not intend to get into the debate on the linguistic imposition but would rather examine the potential practical implications of such steps if any. It must be noted that the report of the committee in question is not available in the public domain.
The Languages recognized by the Constitution
For starters, the Eighth Schedule of Indian Constitution lists out twenty-two languages, including Hindi. There are demands for including 38 more languages to this list. The Pahwa Committee in 1996, and the Sita Kant Mohapatra Committee in 2003, failed to derive any set criteria for the inclusion of languages to the scheduled list. Inclusion of any language into this schedule is considered a guarantee of state patronage, and efforts shall be made to preserve the identity of the language.
Any debate on language imposition must not forget the context in which it operates, and the history, and socio-economic and political conditions surrounding it. The imposition of language in India dates to the independence days, and the creation of linguistically majority states. However, as mentioned above, tracing history, and elaborating it here is not appropriate, as much had been written earlier including reports official commissions.
Hindi and English in India
The 2011 Language Atlas of census estimates that Hindi speakers comprise 43.63% of the total country’s population. However, four major states, Uttar Pradesh (35.58%), Bihar (15.27%), Madhya Pradesh (12.17%), and Rajasthan (11.60%) accounted for three-fourths of the total Hindi speakers of the country.
As per 2011 census, the number of English speakers account for 0.02% of country’s total population, and Maharashtra (41.07%), Tamil Nadu (9.43%), Karnataka (8.94%), West Bengal (5.76%), Rajasthan (5.08%), Uttar Pradesh (5.04%), and Andhra Pradesh (5.03%) account for more than 80% of the total English speakers in India. The number of bilinguals (having English as first subsidiary language) and trilinguals (English as second subsidiary language) is highest among Hindi speakers, followed by Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, and Bengali speakers.
Similarly, the total number of bilinguals and trilinguals with Hindi as their first and second subsidiary language comes to around 31.5 Crore, which is approximately one-fourth of the total population. It is notable that Hindi is one of the major languages in twenty-six out of thirty-six States and Union Territories.
Are there rules governing communication between Union & State Governments?
The Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 lay down the process to be followed for central government to communicate with other governments or organizations.  In view of the diversity of languages in India, and the various official languages used by the states, a need was identified to differentiate the nature of communication. Accordingly, all the states have been categorised into 3 different regions.
Few important guidelines for communication of central government with the states in these three regions is as follows.
With Region A: All the official communication between the Central departments and the State departments of the respective states needs to be in Hindi. In case there is any official communication made in English, it ought to be accompanied by a translation in Hindi.
With Region B: The communication between the Centre and any department of the state would be in Hindi. If there is any communication in English, a translation in Hindi needs to be accompanied. In case, the communication needs to be sent in a local language, there is also a provision to send a translation in that local language along with the communication in Hindi or English.  Any communication which is sent to a person can be in Hindi or English.
With Region C: All the communication which between the Centre and the state is carried out in English. Even communication with a person in this region will also be done in English. Tamil Nadu is not included in these rules and all communication with Tamil Nadu is carried only in English
Below is the illustration of the language of communication between various entities.
You can read more about these rules in this explainer from Factly.
What about these rules in the current debate?
As noted above, though the official languages of the Union Government are Hindi & English, there are differences in the way the union government communicates with the states, especially the states in ‘Region C’ where all communication happens in English. The current language debate around medium of instruction needs to be looked at in this context. If Hindi becomes the default medium of instruction, how will it affect those from Region C states, and if the local language becomes of the medium of instruction in Region C states, how will it affect those from Region A states.
Estimating the potential consequences of teaching in native languages
For arriving at the potential consequences of turning to native language as a medium of teaching/instruction in technical and non-technical institutions, the seat share, and the region wise presence of premier institutions in India is developed.  Tamil Nadu is included in Region C for the purpose of the analysis.
Region wise share of seats in IITs
Out of the total 15031 seats, more than 63% of the seats are in states of regions A and B. Population wise also, these states account for more than 60% of the Indian population.
Region wise share of seats in NITs
The region wise seat share of NITs is as below. Out of the total seats in NITs, half of the seats are reserved for domiciles of the state. Hence, for calculation purposes, only half of the seats shall be considered. Even if half seats are considered, it would affect those that do not have a majority Hindi speaking population.
Out of the total 22431 seats, approximately 50% belong to regions A and B. As mentioned, already half of the seats go to the domicile of the state, and the local language as the medium of instruction might act as impediment for other domicile students to compete for the remaining half.
Region wise share of seats in IIMs
Similarly, the region wise share of seats in IIMs is as below.
All states do not have an IIM. There are only 20 IIMs in India. Out of the total 8750 seats throughout India, more than 60% of the seats fall in regions A and B.
Almost 60% of the seats of IIMs and IITs fall in Region A and Region B areas, which are in the Northern, Central and Western Regions of India. For students from the Southern region, and North-Eastern States, such a large seat share in Region A and Region B states might potentially make it difficult for them choose institutions in these states if the medium of instruction is only Hindi. The same would be true for students from Region A though to a lesser extent if the medium of instruction in Region C states becomes the local language.
What does this mean?
While encouraging native languages is laudable & necessary, the introduction of these as a medium of instruction at the graduation level needs deeper & comprehensive research. It is common knowledge that knowledge of English played a major role in India’s economic progress post 1991 in terms of opportunities it provided to people.
Very rarely discussed in this whole debate the idea of ‘incentive’. People tend to learn new languages if there is an incentive attached to it- either economic or social. Propagation of any language, if needed, must be followed by adequate incentives, and sufficient structural changes to the existing systems to accommodate new challenges.

created: October 18, 2022


text:
Data: What is the ‘Public Health Expenditure’ in India as a share of GDP?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 20, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the status of the public health infrastructure in the country into sharp focus. The overall government spending on health has increased in 2020-21 because of the pandemic. However, it remains to be seen if this increase is going to be sustainable.
The second wave of COVID-19 infection across the country has put an unprecedented burden on the healthcare system. Barring a few, the public health system in most of the states is facing enormous challenges in coping up with the prevailing situation. Lack of adequate testing facilities, health infrastructure including hospital beds, oxygen support, etc. are a few of the major challenges across the country. While the States with better Private health infrastructure are able to manage better in comparative terms, the financial burden on those seeking private treatment is a concern even in these states.
While the pandemic has brought great visibility to the state of health infrastructure in the country, the precarious situation of the public health sector and the need to increase government spending on public health has been highlighted by multiple experts for a long time.
So, what is the extent of government spending on healthcare in the country? What are the trends and how does India compare with other countries around the world? We explore these aspects in this story with the focus on central government spending on health.
While there has been a manifold increase in the actual spending, the share in total expenditure increased only marginally.
In the latest Union Budget for 2021-22, the Budget Estimates (BE) for the Department of Health & Family Welfare (DoHFW) under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) was Rs. 71.26 thousand crores. It is an increase of nearly 10% compared to the BE of 2020-21 and a decrease of almost 10% compared to the Revised Estimates (RE) of 2020-21.
However, it varies from a trend observed in earlier years, where-in the BE of the current year is higher than the RE of the previous year, indicating that the government has been making changes to its estimates based on the actual spending during the year. One reason for the break in the trend could be the higher RE in 2020-21 in view of the COVID-19 pandemic when there was substantial out-of-budget spending to deal with the pandemic.
The RE for 2020-21 is Rs. 78.86 thousand cores whereas the initial budget estimate was Rs. 65.01 thousand crores.  The BE for 2021-22 being less than the RE for 2020-21 could be because of the assumption that the higher expenditure in 2020-21 was a one-off case because of the pandemic. But with the second wave being more severe than the first wave, the government might incur a significantly higher expenditure even in 2021-22 compared to the BE.
Another trend that can be observed in the recent past is that the actual expenditure in a given financial year is slightly more than the BE of that year.
Data of the last 10 years does indicate that the actual allocation & spending for DoHFW has increased. The BE in 2010-11 was Rs. 23.5 thousand crores which increased by close to three times in 2019-20 when the BE for DoHFW was Rs.62.65 crores.
In terms of the actual expenditure incurred, it increased from Rs. 22.76 crores in 2010-11 to Rs. 62.39 crores in 2019-20. However, this increase is mostly due to the overall increase in the total budget expenditure than a higher share of allocation for health or the DoHFW. In 2010-11, the actual expenditure by DoHFW was 1.9% of the total actual expenditure of the entire union budget which increased only slightly to around 2.3% of the total budget expenditure in 2019-20.
Apart from the expenditure on DoHFW, the expenditure incurred by MoHFW also includes the expenditure on Health Research and other autonomous bodies.  For 2010-11, around Rs. 675 crores were spent on Health Research. This increased to Rs. 1.86 thousand crores for 2019-20.
No major change in the Government spending on Health as a percentage of GDP
Apart from the central government’s spending on health, state governments also spend on public health since ‘Public Health’ is a state subject.  As per the Economic Survey of India 2020-21, around Rs. 2.66 lakh crores are spent on Health for the year 2018-19 by both the centre & the states. This spending is known as the overall Government spending (both Centre & States).
On the other hand, the overall government spending at the beginning of the decade i.e., in 2010-11 was Rs. 1.01 lakh crores. This indicates a near threefold increase in the overall government spending on health in 2018-19 compared to 2010-11. However, as observed in the case of expenditure by DoHFW, the increase in the spending is due to the expansion in the economy & budget size in general and not necessarily due to an increase in the share of spending on health.
This is much more evident when the total spending on health is measured in proportion to GDP. In 2010-11, the overall spending on health formed 1.3% of the GDP. Since then, the overall spending on health hovered between 1.2% & 1.3% in the ensuing years until 2016-17. The spending increased to 1.4 % of the GDP in 2016-17 and remained the same for the next few years. The RE for 2019-20 and BE for 2020-21 peg the share of overall spending on health at 1.5% and 1.8% of the GDP respectively. The increase in 2020-21 is due to the extra spending because of the pandemic. Whether the increased spending sustains in the coming years remains to be seen.
India’s government health spending as a percentage of GDP lower than many of the leading countries in the world
As per WHO’s data relating to Domestic General Government Health Expenditure (GGHE-D) as a percentage of GDP in the year 2018, India’s share of GGHE-D in GDP is 0.96%. This is comparatively much lower than many of the countries that India has key international relations with.
Among the BRICS nations, India’s public health spending as a share of GDP is the lowest. In the case of Brazil, it is 3.96 %, Russia is 3.16 %, South Africa (4.46%) and China (3.02%).  Among India’s neighbours, Pakistan’s spending is 1.14% whereas Bangladesh’s spending is 0.4% of the GDP.
Among the developed countries, Japan’s GGHE-D to GDP ratio is 9.21%, U.S.A- 8.51%, U.K- 7.86% and Australia – 6.41%.
There is an urgent & sustained need for India to prioritize health sector
As observed from the data, India lags behind many other countries in terms of its expenditure as a share of GDP.  In the recent Economic Survey of India 2020-21, there is a chapter dedicated to Health. This comes in the wake of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The economic survey refers to the National Health Policy of 2017 where-in it was envisaged to increase public spending on health from 1% of GDP to 2.5 -3 % of GDP.  It further highlights the critical role of increasing the public expenditure on health in reducing the Out-of-Pocket expenditure.
The current COVID-19 pandemic further highlights the need for the Government to invest in Public Health. In a country like India where a large section of the population is poor & vulnerable, the government’s spending on health is critical to reducing their financial burden.
The examples of countries cited by the 2020-21 Economic Survey such as China, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan & Thailand validate the need to increase public spending on health. In all these countries, the out-of-pocket health expenditure of its citizens significantly decreased because of an increase in public health spending.
While the BE for 2020-21 pegs the overall government expenditure on health as a share of GDP at 1.8%, such increase in expenditure has to be sustained and increased further to reach an expenditure of 3% of GDP in the next five years or so. The increased expenditure has to be channelized to significantly improve public health infrastructure across the country.
Featured Image: Public Health Expenditure


text:
What is statewise coverage of Women PMJDY accounts under PMGKY?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 23, 2021
Under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) announced in March 2020, an amount of Rs. 500 per month was transferred to all women PM Jan Dhan account Yojana account holders for a period of three months. Here is a review of the numbers.
The Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) is a nationwide social security scheme launched by the Government of India in August 2014 to ensure the financial inclusion of every individual who does not have a bank account. The objective of the scheme is to ensure access to various financial services like availability of basic savings and deposit bank account, access to need-based credit, remittances facility, insurance and pension to the weaker sections and low-income groups, in an affordable manner.
Ex-gratia payment of Rs. 500 per month was deposited in the accounts of women PMJDY account holders during the lockdown
A few days into the nationwide lockdown to curb the spread of COVID-19, the Finance Ministry on 26 March 2020 announced the Rs.1.7 Lakh crore COVID-19 Relief Package under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY). The package included several measures to mitigate the impact of the nationwide lockdown on vulnerable and disadvantaged segments of society including women, senior citizens, disabled, and poor persons. Under PMGKY, the ministry had announced that about 20 crore women Jan Dhan account holders would be given Rs. 500 per month for the next three calendar months. That is, an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 500 per month was to be deposited in the accounts of women PMJDY account holders, during the months of April, May, and June 2020. The target was to cover around 20.4 crore women beneficiaries each month.
Rs. 30,975 crores have been credited in the accounts of over 20.65 crore Women Jan Dhan account holders under PMGKY
According to the progress report released by the Finance Ministry as of 02 June 2020, the government stated that over Rs. 10,029 crore was credited to 20.05 crore women Jan Dhan account holders as the first installment, that is, the deposit for the month of April 2020. This accounted for 98.33% of women Jan Dhan account holders. Further, Rs. 10,315 crores was credited to 20.62 crore women Jan Dhan account holders covering 100% of the women Jan Dhan account holders then, as the second installment or the deposit for the month of May 2020.
The government also mentioned that the number of women PMJDY accounts holders whose accounts had been debited by customer induced transaction under the first instalment was 8.72 crore (44%) and that under the second instalment was 9.7 crore (47%). The government stated in the parliament in March 2021 that a total of Rs. 30,975 crores have been credited in the accounts of 20.65 crore women PMJDY account holders over the three instalments.  However, the number of beneficiaries of the third instalment has not been specified separately.
Three states account for 37% of the total women beneficiaries under PMGKY
State-wise data based on Lok Sabha response from March 2021 shows that Uttar Pradesh accounted for the greatest number of beneficiaries with over 3.18 crore women whose accounts were deposited with Rs. 500 under PMGKY. Bihar had the second-highest number of beneficiaries with over 2.33 crore women followed by West Bengal with close to 1.9 crore women beneficiaries. Together, the three states account for 37% of the total number of beneficiaries in the country. These states also accounted for around 38% of all the PMJDY accounts in the country as of January 2021.
A total of six states had more than 1 crore beneficiaries each, accounting for 59.5% of the total beneficiaries. 21 states with more than 1 lakh women beneficiaries each, contributed to 98.7% of all the beneficiaries.
87% of the women Jan Dhan account holders (as of January 2021) have benefited from PMGKY
On average, about 87% of the women Jan Dhan account holders have benefited from PMGKY. It should be noted that the number of Jan Dhan account holders changes every day as new accounts get opened and existing accounts get closed. Hence the coverage has been calculated as the percentage of women Jan Dhan account holders as of January 2021. This data was shared by the government in the parliament.
According to state-wise PMJDY data as of 27 January 2021, there were over 23.12 crore women Jan Dhan Account holders. As of March 2020, there was a total of 38.33 crore Jan Dhan accounts in the country and 20.5 crores of these accounts, around 53.5%, were held by women. As of 03 March 2021, the total number of Jan Dhan accounts increased to 41.97 crores of which 23.25 crore accounts, about 55.4% were held by women. The latest PMJDY progress report as of 15 September 2021 shows that the total number of beneficiaries under PMDJY was 43.41 crores and 55.5% of them, around 24.11 crore accounts were held by women.
Among large states, coverage was the highest in Karnataka and lowest in Maharashtra
As mentioned earlier, State-wise coverage is calculated as the ratio of the number of PMGKY beneficiaries and the number of women PMJDY account holders as of January 2021. Among all the states & UTs, the coverage was more than 100% only in Andaman and Nicobar Islands. This could be because individuals could have closed their accounts after the amount under PMGKY was transferred. Karnataka and Sikkim were the only states with more than 95% coverage under PMGKY. On the other hand, Meghalaya and Himachal Pradesh recorded coverage of 78.5% and 75.6% respectively. Mizoram had the least coverage of 35.5%.
It is observed that the Southern states had greater coverage as compared to that of other regions. The coverage was above 90% in four of the southern states- Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh while Kerala had a coverage of 87%. Meanwhile, the state of Uttar Pradesh which had the greatest number of beneficiaries under PMGKY has a coverage of only 82.3%. Maharashtra is the only large state which has a coverage below that of UP, with 80.5%. This low coverage in some of these states could be because of the increase in the number of women Jan Dhan account holders post the government’s deposit scheme. (The coverage was calculated using January 2021 data while the transfer of money took place between April to June 2020).
Women Jan Dhan account holders may have increased in certain states post government’s deposit scheme
National-level data shows that the number of women Jan Dhan account holders has gone up from 20.5 crores in March 2020 to 24.11 crores as of 15 September 2021, an increase of 17.6% in 18 months. During the same period, the total number of Jan Dhan accounts have increased from 38.33 crores in March 2020 to 43.41 crore accounts as of 15 September 2021, an increase of 13.3%. On the other hand, the number of male account holders has increased from 17.83 crores in March 2020 to 19.25 crores on 15 September 2021- an increase of just 8%. In other words, the number of women accounts holders in these 18 months has grown at twice the rate of male account holders.
The coverage data indicates is that the increase in women Jan Dhan account holders may be concentrated in some states such as Mizoram, Meghalaya, HP, UP, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, West Bengal Odisha, Bihar, Punjab, etc. where the coverage was found to be low when compared with January 2021 data.

created: September 23, 2021


text:
What is the status of Assurances made during the 16th & 17th Lok Sabha?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 17, 2020
Assurances are made by the government on the floor of the Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha during the course of debates, answering questions etc. Here is a review of the status of the assurances made during the last (16th) and the current (17th) Lok Sabha.
The business conducted on the floor of both the houses of parliament is a key aspect of our democracy. Parliamentary proceedings include introduction and discussion on various bills, debates on important public issues, questions raised by the members of parliament and the responses provided by the government etc. While responding to the questions asked in the house and during debates, the government on various occasions makes assurances, undertakings, promises to consider, take action or furnish information on a later date. Such responses by the Government are termed as Assurances in parliamentary parlance.
To ensure that these assurances are implemented within a reasonable timeframe, both the Lok Sabha & the Rajya Sabha have constituted – ‘Committee on Government Assurances’.
Factly has earlier written a story on the status of Assurances made in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. This information was based on the data provided by the respective committees on Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha websites as on 26June 2019.
One year on, we take a look at the current status of these assurances along with the new assurances made in the subsequent sessions of Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha. Even for this story, we rely on the information provided in the websites of Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha.
50 New assurances added for 16th Lok Sabha after the expiry of term.
As per the information provided  on Lok Sabha’s website, the total number of assurances during 16 Lok Sabha are 5,385.  This is 50 more than number  of assurances as of 26 June 2019. This implies that the Lok Sabha’s Committee on Government Assurances has added these 50 assurances after the dissolution of 16 Lok Sabha in May’2019.
The assurances made in the Lok Sabha do not lapse even after the dissolution or expiry of the term in Lok Sabha. The work of the committee is of a continuous nature and hence a review of the assurances made earlier also fall under the ambit of the committee. Hence, if the committee feels that there needs to be a review or addition of new assurances from earlier Lok Sabha, they could do so.
Analysis of the data shows that the revision was made to the numbers of assurances across multiple ministries.  An example is of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, where-in an additional assurance is added over the past one year, taking the total number of assurances under this Ministry in 16 Lok Sabha to 4, from 3 a year ago.
A majority of the assurances were  added from the  17 Session i.e. the last session of previous Lok Sabha, with 42 additions .
Pendency of assurances for 16th Lok Sabha fell by around 9% in the last one year
As per the information available on the Lok Sabha’s website, as on 26 June 2019, pendency of assurances made in 16 Lok Sabha was nearly 33%. As on that date 3,447 assurances were marked as ‘Fully Implemented’ out of 5,335 assurances with 1,754 pending.
As highlighted earlier, the assurances do not lapse after the expiry of the term. The Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs pursue these assurances.
Hence, as per the latest information as on 15 July 2020, the number of pending assurances fell to 1,283 i.e. nearly 24%. Further 3,928 assurances from the 16 Lok Sabha were fully implemented i.e. 481 additional assurances fully implemented compared to the situation a year ago.
Apart from the fully implemented assurances, another contributor towards the reduction in pending assurances are the ‘Dropped’ assurances. As indicated in the chart, the number of dropped assurances have increased to 146  from 91 over a year ago.
The Working guidelines of the committee provide for an Assurance to be dropped, in case the government feels that it is not feasible to implement the assurance and the Committee also agrees with the facts presented by the government.
One such example is a ‘Dropped’ assurance by Ministry of External Affairs on 04 December 2019. The assurance identified by the Committee was relating to a question asked in Lok Sabha raised on 27December, 2017.
The Minister of State for External Affairs, provided an update for one of the specific questions, stating that the proposals to open Cultural Centres in certain cities are being processed. This was considered as an assurance by the Committee but dropped on a later date. The reasons for dropping were not furnished except that it was dropped at the sitting held on 04 December 2019.
19% of the Assurances made prior to 2018 in 16th Lok Sabha are still pending
It is a general trend that assurances made during the more recent Lok Sabha sessions tend to be pending, as it takes time for their fulfilment. Accordingly, the pendency rate is higher for the assurances made during the later sessions of 16 Lok Sabha. As highlighted earlier, the total pendency rate of assurances in 16 Lok Sabha currently stands at 24%. A sizable number of assurances from 14-16 sessions have been implemented resulting in the drop of pendency rates. However, around 19% of the assurances are still pending for around 2.5 years i.e. including and prior to 13 Session  (Dec 2017 – Jan 2018).
More than 50% assurances pending in 3 Ministries in 16th Lok Sabha
More than 50% of the assurances are pending for the Ministry for Minority Affairs, Ministry for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying and Ministry for Parliamentary affairs. However, the pendency rates may not reflect the true picture since a smaller number of assurances are pending in these ministries.
On the other hand, Power Ministry has 44% of its 74 Assurances pending, while Ministry of Law & Justice has 43.6% of its 275 assurances pending. Around 38% of Ministry of Labour & Employment’s 178 assurances are pending. Comparatively, MHRD did a better job of fulfilling assurances with only around 20% of 309 assurances pending.
93% pendency rate for Assurances made in the current Lok Sabha
The information of assurances provided in the current Lok Sabha i.e. 17 Lok Sabha is available only for the first session on the website of Lok Sabha. A total of 505 assurances were made out of which only 32 have been fully implemented so far. There are no ‘Dropped’ or ‘Partially Completed’ assurances as yet, with the rest of 473 pending i.e. around 93% pending rate.
Highest number of Assurances were made by Ministry of Railways with 57 out of which only 1 is fully implemented. MHRD which was a better performer in fulfilling assurances during the previous Lok Sabha, has not fulfilled any of the 31 assurances made during the current Lok Sabha.
Assurances made in Rajya Sabha during the current Lok Sabha have 82% pendency rate
Unlike Lok Sabha which has a specific tenure, Rajya Sabha is a Permanent House. After the current Lok Sabha is constituted, three sessions of Rajya Sabha were held– 249, 250 & 251.
In these three sessions, a total of 387 assurances were made out of which 68 were fully implemented. As is the trend , the pendency rate of Rajya Sabha is better than the corresponding Lok Sabha, with the pendency in these 3 sessions at 82%.
43% of the assurances made during 249 Session of Rajya Sabha i.e. the first session after the current Lok Sabha was constituted are fully implemented.
Delay in implementation of assurances continues to be a problem
As the data indicates , the pendency rate of assurances made during the previous Lok Sabha has subsequently come down during the tenure of the current Lok Sabha. However, around 51% of the assurances made since 2018 in the previous Lok Sabha are still pending.
The first session of the current Lok Sabha has a pendency rate of 93% even though it has been almost a year since the session was held.
The data indicates a continuing trend as observed in an earlier story on Factly. Beyond these absolute numbers, a case by case review of pending assurances would reveal instances where the fulfilment of that assurance could have a major impact.
For instance, there was a question asked in Lok Sabha on 04 March 2011, during UPA-2, regarding FEMA violations to the tune of Rs. 146 crores. As on date, the assurance is still pending with no information on the status of the case.
While the presence & functioning of the ‘Committee on Government Assurances’ is ensuring that the required checks & balances are in place, the long pending assurances raise questions on the accountability of the successive governments in fulfilling their bounden duty.


text:
Data: What is the status of COVID-19 vaccination in various states?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 15, 2021
India is currently facing a shortage of COVID-19 vaccine while there is huge demand for the vaccine which is now technically open to all adults of 18 years and above. But what is the status of vaccination in various states? Here is a review.
Vaccination is one of the most important strategies to combat the further spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. India has so far fully vaccinated (both doses administered) to only around 3.9 crore people, which is 3% of the entire population. Since India began the vaccination drive against COVID-19 in January 2021, as of 13 May 2021, about 13.76 crore persons have received at least one dose. This constitutes 11.4% of the country’s population, as per the 2011 Census. Around 17.83 crore doses have been administered as of 13 May 2021. It is also seen that India’s pace of vaccination has dropped from a weekly average of 2.47 crore doses in the first week of April 2021 to 1.17 crore doses in the second week of May 2021. This drop in pace comes at a time when the country is witnessing a devastating second wave of infections. In this story, we look at the status of vaccination in the country across various parameters.  All the data pertaining to vaccination is collated from the government’s CoWIN dashboard. Population figures used in the story are from the 2011 Census.
Tripura has fully vaccinated one-fifth of adult population while UP and Bihar vaccinated less than 3%
With the quick rise in infections, different states have come up with restrictions, partial to complete lockdowns to curb the spread. At the same time, vaccination of the vulnerable and adult is also considered an important step in curbing the spread. However, the proportion of the adult population (those aged 18 and above according to the 2011 Census) that has been given at least one dose of the vaccine shows a huge variation across the states- ranging from 9.87% in Tamil Nadu to 41% in Sikkim.
Among larger states, Chhattisgarh has covered 31.85% of its adult population with at least one dose. Smaller states such as Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, and Goa had administered at least the first dose of vaccine to more than 30% of the adult population. Tripura had fully vaccinated (both doses) 20.63% of the adult population, which is the highest in the country. Tripura is followed by Sikkim with 14.57%, and Uttarakhand with 10.7% of the adult population fully vaccinated. On the other side, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had fully vaccinated only less than 3% of their adult population as of 13 May 2021.
No significant difference in proportion of females and males covered by Vaccination
The proportion of male and female adults who have received at least one dose of vaccine is on par with the overall vaccine coverage in most states. In Jammu and Kashmir, the proportion of adult men who received at least one dose of vaccine was almost 7% more than the proportion of women who received at least one dose. Similarly, in Delhi, the difference was nearly 6%. In 23 states, the proportion of adult men who received at least one dose of the vaccine is more than the proportion of women who received at least one dose. Meanwhile, in Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Chhattisgarh, the proportion of women who received at least one dose is slightly higher than the proportion of men with at least one dose. However, the difference between the proportion of male & female population who received at least one dose is not significant in most states and even at the All-India level.
All adults are now eligible to get COVID-19 vaccine shots in India
India’s vaccine strategy initially focused only on registered healthcare workers (HCWs), frontline workers (FLWs), and those above the age of 45, until 30 April 2021. However, since 01 May 2021, those aged above 18 years became eligible for the vaccine. The Centre would continue to procure 50% of manufacturers’ vaccine stocks for vaccinating those aged above 45 years. Manufacturers could sell the remaining 50% of their vaccine stock to state governments and to private hospitals, as per the new policy. The 50% of the stocks bought by the states & private hospitals are to be used for the 18-44 age group.
Population in the 18-45 years age group account for 2/3rds of the Adults
Persons aged between 18 to 45 years constitute nearly two-thirds of the total adult population in the country as per the 2011 Census. However, the percentage of the population who received at least one dose of the vaccine shots in this age group is below 7% in all states except Ladakh, Delhi, and Arunachal Pradesh where 14.79%, 11.56%, and 10% of the population in the age group received at least a dose of the vaccine. Uttar Pradesh (1.95%) and Bihar (2.49%), where vaccine coverage was poor, reported the least proportion of adults in this age group, to have received at least one dose of the vaccine. It has to be noted that most of those in the 18-45 age group who have received at least one dose of the vaccine are the HCWs and FLWs.
Smaller states doing better on Vaccination to the 45+ age group
Among those aged above 45 years, Sikkim, Ladakh, Mizoram, and Himachal Pradesh reported more than 100% of the population in this age group to have received at least one dose. The more than 100% coverage is because we have considered the population as per the 2011 Census which may have increased significantly in the last 10 years and especially in this age group.
On the other hand, only about 23.84% of the 45+ population has been administered with at least one dose of the vaccine in Tamil Nadu. It is followed by Uttar Pradesh (30.46%) and Bihar (36.36%) who also reported less than 40% coverage in this age group, to have received at least one dose of the vaccine. These are also the states which reported high wastage of the vaccine.
Six states account for 48% of vaccines allocated by Centre
In terms of vaccine doses allocated for those aged more than 45 years by the Government of India (GoI), Maharashtra is at the top followed by Uttar Pradesh. More than 10% of the vaccine doses so far have been allocated to Maharashtra and 8.4% to Uttar Pradesh. Including the allocation made to Gujarat, Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Karnataka, the six states account for 48% of the vaccine doses allocated by GoI for those aged above 45 years including the HCWs and FLWs.
The criteria used by the central government for allocating the 50% vaccines it would procure are the extent of infection (number of active COVID-19 cases) and performance (speed of administration). Wastage of vaccine is also considered in the criteria and will affect the criteria negatively. The government also announced that state-wise quota would be decided and communicated to the States adequately in advance. The allocated state-wise quota for the second half of May 2021 is not yet made public by the GoI.
Covishield is more abundantly used as compared to Covaxin
So far, only three vaccines have received emergency approval in India. While Russian Sputnik V is yet to be administered, Covishield and Covaxin, both manufactured in India, are being administered in the country. In the north-eastern states and union territories, Covishield was the only vaccine to be administered. In Jharkhand, 51.5% of the vaccine doses used were Covishield and 48.5% were Covaxin. In Delhi, 68% were Covishield, and the rest 32% Covaxin. In Assam, nearly 21% of vaccine doses were of Covaxin. In the rest of the states, Covishield accounted for more than 80% of the vaccine doses used. At an All-India level, nearly 90% of the vaccine doses administered so far are Covishield and the remaining are Covaxin. This is because of the difference in production capacity of these vaccines. So far, GoI has placed an order for 26 crore doses of Covishield of which 15 crores have already been supplied. GoI has also placed orders for a total of 8 crore doses of Covaxin up to April 2021.
Vaccine shortage has slowed down the pace of vaccination
It is clear from the data that India still has a long way to go to cover the entire adult population. It is evident that the vaccines that have been allocated so far for those aged above 45 years themselves are not adequate. In fact, even if India gets the rest of the order placed with Serum Institute of India and Bharath Biotech, around 33.3 crore vaccine doses up till July 2021, and used exclusively for the 45+ age group, it would still not be sufficient to cover this age group.
The pace of vaccination has dropped owing to the supply shortage and limited production capability of the two vaccines being used in the country. Many states have reported shortage and paused vaccination drives for the first dose and those in the 18-44 age group citing shortage. In some states, vaccination is now being extended to only those who are waiting for a second dose. But with the dosing interval for Covishield increased to 12-16 from the current 6-8 weeks, even they are not able to get their second dose.
SC enquired the need for differential pricing for Centre and State
The burden of vaccinating people between 18 to 45 years of age has been placed on the states and private institutions such as hospitals, which are supposed to procure the remaining 50% (after GoI procurement of 50%) of the vaccines manufactured in India. This move will result in additional health expenses for the states as many states have announced free vaccination to this age group as well. Also, the price in private institutions has significantly increased from Rs. 250 per dose that was being charged earlier. Such an increase will make it difficult for a large section of the population to get the vaccine at a private institution.
Recently, during a hearing in the Suo Motu case concerning various aspects of COVID-19, the Supreme Court asked the Centre why it cannot acquire 100% of the vaccines and proceed on the lines of the national immunization programme.
Further, the SC also asked about the rationale behind the differential pricing for vaccine procurement by Centre and State government. The Central Government stated that, that liberty to decide prices on arm’s length basis by and between the State Government and hospitals is based on the concept of creating an incentivized demand for the private vaccine manufacturers in order to instil a competitive market, resulting in increased production of vaccines and market-driven affordable prices for the same. The Centre said it would continue to provide free vaccination for those aged above 45 years. The decision to provide free or subsidized vaccine to the 18 to 45-year-old category is up to the states.  As per the GoI, through this approach, pricing, procurement and administration of vaccines more flexible and competitive and would further ensure augmented vaccine production as well as wider availability of vaccines in the country.
Many states including Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Kerala have announced free vaccines for 18 to 45 year olds. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have called for global tenders for procuring COVID-19 vaccines.
As observed earlier, India’s poor planning and delay in vaccine procurement is what has resulted in the current shortage. The only way forward will be through ramping up production through various means and importing vaccines approved elsewhere. However, the issues of shortage are not going to be resolved in the immediate future.
Featured Image: COVID-19 vaccination in States