text:
What are the issues with increased MSP Procurement by the government?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 7, 2020
In an earlier story, we looked at MSP procurement numbers across different states and the related trends. Data further indicates that the average market prices for rice & wheat have fluctuated during the procurement season and are not necessarily more than MSP. But is increased MSP procurement a solution?
In the earlier story, we explored the numbers relating to MSP (Minimum Support Price) for various food grains over the years, the procurement of these food grains and the trends across states.
From the data, it is evident that, the procurement of food grains at MSP, especially of Rice and Wheat is highly skewed and most of the procurement by the government is done in only a few states.
In this story, we further explore the uneven procurement of the food grains in the country, the sale of farm produce by the farmers beyond the markets set up by AMPCs (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) and FCI’s sale of food grains etc.
Punjab & Haryana have the highest targets & achievement for Wheat procurement
The individual data of the states indicates that the procurement targets set for each of the states vary widely ultimately resulting in the varying amounts of government procurement. We spoke an official from the FCI regarding the rationale of such widely varying targets among the states and were given to understand that, prior to every marketing season (i.e. Kharif & Rabi), respective states send their proposals to the centre, with information on expected production for the year and the procurement of food grains that they can manage for the central pool.
Based on these proposals, the central government announces the procurement target for the upcoming marketing season along with the procurement targets for each of the states. This is the case for the procurement of both Rice as well as Wheat.
The data of the last three years indicates the trends to be uneven in the case of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. After a shortfall compared to the expected target in 2017-18, Madhya Pradesh has exceeded the target of 67 lakh tones for 2018-19 by procuring 73.13 lakh tons. However, after the target was increased to 75 lakh tons in 2019-20, the procurement is only 67.25 tons as on date.
Similarly, the targets for Uttar Pradesh was set higher at 50 Lakh tons for 2019-20 based on the earlier procurement performance but fell short of the target.
Rajasthan not only has lower procurement targets but also these targets are not often met.  The shortfall in targeted procurement of these states is compensated with additional procurement from Punjab and Haryana. As per the available data, Punjab and Haryana tend to have the highest procurement targets for Wheat, and in each of the last three years, the actual procurement has exceeded these targets.
Procurement target for rice is met over Kharif & Rabi Seasons for a few states
Analysis of the data for procurement of Rice from various states indicates that the each of the states have managed to procure the amounts set as targets for 2019-20.  However, there are differences in the targets itself in terms of procurement quantity, with Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Punjab accounting a large share of the procurement targets.
Unlike in the case of Wheat, the procurement of Rice happens over Rabi and Kharif seasons. In a few of the states, the procurement targets are met over both the Kharif & Rabi seasons. As is the case highlighted earlier, the target for procurement is based on the proposals sent by the respective states prior to the beginning of the marketing season.
As highlighted in the earlier story, the procurement in different states is not in proportion to the production in those states. The process and the data indicate that few states have opted to set a higher target of procurement, while few others have set a lower target.  This could either be due to the inability of the states to mobilize resources for procurement, or the presence of better sales alternatives for the farmers, then the MSP procurement by the government.
Market Prices of Paddy & Wheat are fluctuating and lower than MSP at different times in different states
The MSP for Paddy was set at Rs.1815 per quintal for 2019-20 and Rs.1868 for 2020-21. As per the data available from the different markets across the country, the price for Paddy varies across the states and fluctuated at different points of time.
Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Punjab which are among the states with highest MSP procurement by the government, also have market prices near about the declared MSP during different times in the period between October’19 and August’20.
In the earlier story, we had observed that Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, although being the highest producers of rice have very low procurement by the government. However, the market prices over the year indicate that they are not higher than the MSP. This could mean that the higher price in open market is not necessarily the reason for lower procurement by the government. This is truer in case of Uttar Pradesh.
The same holds good even in the case of Wheat. The MSP declared for 2020-21 is Rs.1925 per quintal. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan are among the states which have a higher production of wheat but comparably lower procurement by the government.
April’20-August’20 is period  when most of the wheat procurement for Rabi marketing season happens. During this period, the market price in UP markets decreased from Rs. 1927 in April’20 to around Rs. 1864.5 per quintal by August’20.
While, market price data for Bihar isn’t available, the available market prices are much lower than MSP in Rajasthan during the Rabi marketing season. The same trends can be observed in few of the other states like Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. The prices were either very close to or higher than MSP around April’20 and have subsequently fallen by the end of season.
Another trend that can be observed from the data is slightly higher market prices during the non-marketing season. This is understandable as the availability of stocks is low during the non-marketing season.
As the market price data indicates, there are fluctuations in the market prices where the farmer may get a higher price than MSP at certain times but also runs the risk of lower prices at other times. Hence MSP assumes significance because it provides the farmers with a minimum guarantee for their produce.
The lower targets and procurement from some of the states indicate that there are other factors at play rather than a better price than MSP in the open market. As seen in the case of wheat, few of the states are not even able to procure to the extent of their targets.
Problem of lower market prices compounded due to OMSS
In an earlier explainer, we discussed the role of FCI in procuring food grains and making stocks available towards the food security & other related schemes of the government. In another analysis, we had observed that the quantum of food stocks procured by FCI are beyond the requirement and that the buffer stocks currently available are more than enough to meet even the increased demand because of COVID-19 relief measures.
In an effort to off load the existing stock, FCI has introduced OMSS (Open Market Sales Scheme). As per this scheme, FCI takes up the sale of Wheat and Rice in open market at pre-determined prices. The sale happens in bulk quantities through e-auction.
Apart from reducing the overheads because of buffer stocks, the key purpose of OMSS is to regulate the market prices by ensuring supply of rice and wheat. However, the challenge with OMSS are the losses that FCI makes on sale through OMSS. Apart from the cost of procurement which involves MSP and other charges, there are other costs that FCI incurs including storage costs, distribution costs etc.
As per the information available on the FCI website, the economic cost incurred by FCI for the current season in case of Wheat is Rs. 2,683.84 per quintal and for rice it is Rs. 3,726.76 per quintal.
The pre-determined fixed price for Rice to be sold through OMSS for 2020-21 is Rs. 2250 per quintal, whereas for Wheat it is Rs. 2080 in Punjab, Haryana & Madhya Pradesh. Transportation costs and other costs for logistics would be added to this price.
This sale price through OMSS is much lower than the cost incurred by FCI to procure and store the stock, implying that FCI is selling the produce at a loss through OMSS. The produce entering in the market at a lower price during non-marketing season could impact the market prices, when the farmers might be expecting to fetch a higher price. Farmers selling their produce during the non-marketing season incur higher costs for stocking the produce over an extended period.
While MSP provides price security to farmers, the coverage is limited
The market price data for rice & wheat has shown price fluctuation over the years. In such a scenario, MSP does provide price security to the farmer against the vagaries of prices and ensures they get a guaranteed return on their produce.
Among other things, accessibility of the APMC procurement centres, cost of logistics and storage incurred by farmers especially small farmers could be the reason for farmers  to sell their produce to local traders at a lower price outside the government approved markets.
However, MSP procurement has its own set of issues. The extent of farmers availing the benefits is limited to a few states. The lower market prices indicate that the lower procurement in few of the states is more to do is the lack of infrastructure and support to sell the produce at MSP rather than a better open market price. Higher MSP procurement by the government also distorts the market because FCI is forced to sell the excess stocks through OMSS at lower prices. Further, higher MSP procurement for certain crops also forces farmers to choose some select crops like Rice & Wheat rather than diversifying the production.
While the apprehension of farmers in states like Punjab and Haryana regarding the new farm bills is valid, it has to be noted that MSP and the current role of APMCs and FCI already have their own set of challenges not brought upon by the new bills. MSP procurement is also not spread evenly across the country for it to affect farmers across the country.
At the same time, the supposed advantage of farmers because of the flexibility to sell as per their choice might not be realistically possible for many small & marginal farmers unless they are organized.  The available data also does not support the notion of better open market prices.
The need of the hour it so ensure basic income security for the farmers, especially the small & marginal farmers. The government should ensure that the farmers are in a strong position to negotiate a better deal for their produce, either through government procurement or through sale in the open markets.
Featured Image: Increased MSP Procurement by the government

created: October 7, 2020


text:
Data: What are the trends in Foreign Donations Received under FCRA?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 27, 2021
The amount of foreign contributions received under FCRA has been steadily increasing though there has been a slight dip in recent years. Over Rs. 1.73 lakh crores of foreign donations were received between 2006-07 and 2018-19. Few states have received the bulk of these donations.
In this article, we briefly look at some of the important definitions and processes under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and analyse the trends in Foreign Contribution received under the Act for the period 2006-07 to 2018-19.
The flow of foreign contribution to India is currently regulated under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 read with other notifications/orders, etc., as issued from time to time, along with the recent amendments introduced by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2020.  The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act was first enacted in 1976.
In our earlier article, we looked at the major amendments to the FCRA and the changes brought about by the amendments in 2010 and 2020. We also analysed the trend in the cancellation of FCRA registrations from 20011 to 2019.
With respect to the regulation of foreign contribution to non-profit organisations, the 1976 Act allowed non-profit organisations to receive foreign donations freely, although they were required to annually report the amount received and spent. In 1984, the law was amended to make it mandatory for non-profit organisations to register before receiving any foreign donations. In 2010, the 1976 Act was repealed and replaced by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 where FCRA registration (which was a permanent registration earlier) became valid for a period of five years and must be renewed thereafter. With respect to the renewal process every five years, the 2020 amendments also add that the Central Government can initiate a fresh inquiry into the workings of the applicant before renewing the registration.
What is Foreign Contribution?
As defined in Section 2(1)(h) of FCRA, 2010, “foreign contribution” means a donation, delivery, or transfer of any article, currency, or foreign security from any foreign source, either directly or through one or more persons.
The interest accrued on the foreign contribution deposited in any bank or any other income derived from the foreign contribution is also be deemed to be a foreign contribution. However, any amount received by any person from any foreign source in lieu of goods & services rendered during the course of business is excluded from the definition of ‘foreign contribution’. What it means is that for-profit organizations receiving foreign money for goods or services rendered need not register and are not bound by this act.
What is a Foreign Source?
As defined in Section 2(1) (j) of FCRA, 2010, a foreign source includes:
Who can receive foreign contributions?
For an entity to receive a foreign contribution, it must fulfill the following conditions:
FCRA 2010 and its subsequent amendments prohibits certain individuals and organisations from accepting any foreign contribution, which includes government employees, print or visual media outlets, and so on.
Registration, Prior Permission, Renewal and Filing of Returns under FCRA
There are two modes of obtaining permission to accept foreign contributions: i) Registration ii) Prior Permission. Under the 2010 Act, FCRA registration is valid for five years and must be renewed thereafter, whereas under the 1976 Act it was a permanent registration. Any application for a grant of registration or prior permission is to be submitted on the FCRA Online Portal. Specific instructions and the list of required documents to be uploaded are available on the portal.
For grant of registration under FCRA, the association should meet the following criteria:
As mentioned above, an organization in the formative stage is not eligible for a certificate of registration. However, such organizations can apply for a grant of prior permission for receipt of a specific amount from specific donor/donors for carrying out specific activities/projects. For this purpose, the association should meet the following criteria:
With respect to the renewal of registration, associations are to apply on the FCRA Online Portal within 6 months of the expiry of their existing registration certificate.
With respect to the filing of annual returns, associations are to file the return on the FCRA Online Portal for every financial year (01 April to 31 March) within a period of nine months from the closure of the year i.e., by 31st December each year, duly accompanied by balance sheet and statement of receipt and payment.
An association not filing annual return on time may face the following consequences:
For registration, the association is required to pay a fee of Rs. 10,000 and for prior permission, the fee is Rs. 5,000 and for renewal, the fee is Rs 5000.
For all FCRA services provided through the online portal, the Aadhar number of all its office bearers, directors, and/or key functionaries and Unique ID from  Darpan Portal are mandatory now. The Darpan Portal facilitates NGOs to obtain a system-generated Unique ID, which is now mandatory to apply for grants under various schemes of Ministries, Departments, and Governments Bodies.
Foreign Contributions under FCRA have increased over the last 13 years
With the data available on the FCRA Online Portal, we analyse the trends in Foreign Contribution received under the Act for the period 2006-07 to 2018-19.
Please note: (i) We have not included the year 2019-20 because the process of filing returns is not complete and hence, the amount of donations received is not final. (ii) The figures are based on total annual returns filed by registered organisations on the FCRA Online Portal for the given period and may not necessarily represent the total quantum of foreign donations.
The quantum of foreign contribution shows an overall rising trend over the period 2006-07 to 2019-20. The highest amount of Foreign Contribution amounting to Rs. 17,671 crores were received in 2015-16. After the year 2015-16, the amount of foreign contribution has fallen but it is still higher than the years preceding 2015-16.
From 2006-07 to 2018-19, roughly speaking, the quantum of contributions received under FCRA increased by almost half of the initial amount.
What about State-wise donations?
In order to understand the state-wise distribution of foreign contributions under FCRA, we will look at:
While a non-profit organisation might be registered in one particular state, it is possible that the scope of its work might be extended beyond that state. However, since the annual return filings only indicate the state of registration, these figures only represent the quantum of foreign contributions received by each state vis-à-vis its registered organisations under FCRA and do not bear any indication on the subsequent utilisation of the fund geographically or otherwise.
The following map shows a significant variation in the amount of foreign contribution received across the country. For the overall periods from 2006-07 to 2018-19, the following can be observed:
Let’s also take a look at the year-wise distribution of foreign contribution received by different states for the period 2006-06 to 2018-19.
In a nutshell, the quantum of foreign donations under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act has been steadily rising over the years. The majority of the foreign donations have been consistently received by registered organisations in a few particular states such as being Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh.
Featured Image: Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA)

source: news-factly

created: February 27, 2021

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
What do EPF numbers say about employment scenario in last 3 months?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 28, 2020
Almost everyone agrees that COVID-19 will have a grave impact on employment in the country. But do the numbers indicate the extent of job losses? We look at the EPF payroll data on the number of subscribers till June 2020 to find an answer.
In an attempt to control the spread of COVID-19 in India, the Central Government had imposed a nation-wide lockdown on 24 March 2020, for a period of 21 days, which was further extended thrice until 31 May 2020.
The reports and visuals of migrant workers travelling back to their native places, indicated their apprehensions about the future due to the prevailing economic & pandemic situation.  In context of the near zero economic activity during the lockdown period, there were many reports of job losses even in the formal sector.  Surveys and reports of few independent organizations also point to substantial job losses because of the prevailing situation.
As per a joint report released by ILO (International Labour Organization) & ADB (Asian Development Bank), nearly 41 lakh youth in India lost their jobs due to COVID-19. It also forecasted an increase in the youth un-employment rate to around 30% in 2020 compared to 23% in 2019.
A report by independent organization CMIE, states that around 18.9 million salaried employees lost job since April’20. These are some of the estimates that provide a picture of the employment situation in India. However, the government of India has not yet released any official employment statistics for this period. The only comprehensive data available to analyse formal employment numbers in India is the EPF numbers released by the Ministry of Labour.
In this story, we take a look at some of the official numbers available with various government departments like EPF information, data provided by RBI etc., to understand the employment situation in India, especially in the formal sector.
Major fall in net new subscribers to EPF for the month of April ’2020
The Provisional Monthly Estimate of Payroll report published by Employee Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) India, provides numbers related to EPF contributions. This information gives a fair estimate of – total payroll during a period, new contributors to the EPF, members who have exited etc. This data can be used to estimate the number of active salaried employees, number of new employees, employees who left employment etc. It has to be noted that since the EPF is a voluntary scheme for those above a certain salary level, the correlation with these  numbers may not be accurate. However, these numbers indicate a general trend.
As per the EPF payroll estimates, the monthly average net new subscribers for the period 2019-20 (April-March) was 6.54 lakhs. The total number of net new subscribers added for the entire year of 2019-20 was more than 78.58 lakhs.
It was an improvement over the previous year 2018-19, where in the total net new payroll for the year was around 61.12 lakhs i.e. the monthly average net new subscribers for that year was around 5.1 lakhs.
The EPFO  began furnishing these details from September 2017. During that financial year , the total net new payroll from September 2017 – March 2018 was 15.52 lakhs i.e. the monthly average net new subscribers was 2.21 lakhs.
The report also provides monthly payroll figures for April – June 2020. As per the available data, the net new subscribers added in April 2020 fell to 20,164.  It has improved in the next two months. May 2020 reported the net new subscribers increasing to 1.72 lakhs and June 2020 reporting the net new subscribers at pre-lockdown levels of around 6.55 lakhs.
Gradual fall in number of New EPF members with a subsequent increase in the number of re-joined members
The monthly net subscribers to the EPF is the net value of three components – New monthly subscribers, Members exited & members who re-joined EPF.
The monthly average of ‘New EPF members’ during 2017-18 was 12.08 lakhs. This has gradually decreased in the next two years, with 11.62 lakhs in 2018-19 and 9.2 lakh in 2019-20.
During the lockdown, there was a sharp decline in the number of new EPF members with 1.77 lakhs in April 2020. This has slightly improved in May 2020 and June 2020 with  3.03 lakh and 4.98 lakh new EPF subscribers respectively.
Apart from the ‘New EPF Members’, the number of EPF members exiting has also shown a downward trend. During 2017-18, an average of around 11.03 lakhs exited EPF every month , which fell to a monthly average of 10.24 lakhs and 9.16 lakhs in 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.
In April 2020, there were 4.08 lakh claims submitted to exit EPF. It increased in May 2020 to 4.45 lakh claims but fell in June 2020 to 2.96 lakhs. The exit numbers are based on the number of claims submitted by the employer and is done only after two months of non-contribution to EPF. Hence the numbers might not correlate exactly to the month of exit.
Meanwhile, there has been an increasing trend in the number of exited members re-joining EPF, prior to lockdown. Indicating mobility between the jobs. The monthly average number of exited members re-joining EPF increased from 1.17 lakhs in 2017-18  to 3.72 lakhs and 6.51 lakhs in 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.
During the lockdown period  in April 2020, around 2.5 lakh employees re-joined EPF, i.e. 40% of the monthly average during 2019-20.  This has increased in May 2020 to 3.14 lakh members and 4.53 lakhs in June 2020.
The fall in the new EPF numbers but a comparative increase in the number of exited members re-joining, possibly indicates a situation of paucity in entry-level or first-time formal jobs, while there is considerable mobility with people changing the jobs.
Decline in the number of organizations contributing EPF for the first time
Apart from the subscribers to EPF, the report also furnished details of the organizations who have contributed to the EPF for the first time. This would either mean that they are new organizations or that an organization has reached the eligibility criteria to be under the purview of EPF.
Even prior to lockdown, there has been a decreasing trend in the number of new organizations contributing towards EPF.
From September 2017 to the end of 2017-18, more than 38 thousand organizations contributed EPF for first time i.e. a monthly average of 5,480.  In the ensuing year of 2018-19, there were a total of 60.8 thousand firms which contributed to EPF for the first time, an average of 5073 per month. In 2018-19, it fell further to an average of 4394 per month, with a total of 52.7 thousand organizations making their first contribution to EPF.
As seen in the case of new EPF subscribers, even the number of organizations contributing to EPF for first time fell to 820 in April 2020. Although there was an improvement in May 2020 & June 2020 with 1802 and 2390 respectively,  it was not back to pre-lockdown levels as seen in case of EPF subscribers.
These numbers indicate a slowdown in the establishment and growth of organizations, a trend which would further impact the employment opportunities in the country.
Other information on organised employment indicates a slowdown in employment even prior to lockdown
Reserve Bank of India’s annual report for 2019-20, provides an update on the organised sector employment in the country. The reference information is drawn from EPFO, ESIC (Employees State Insurance Corporation) and National Pension System (NPS).
RBI observes that as per available information for EPF, there has been an increase in the job creation until 2019-20. This is based on the Net increase in the monthly EPF subscribers. However, as seen earlier in the story, the net increase is due to the increase in members re-joining EPF, while there is a downward trend in the number of new EPF subscribers. The indication of a fall in entry-level jobs is asserted by the decline in the ESIC numbers over the years, as most of the subscribers to ESIC are employees in the lower pay grade.
RBI also refers to other surveys, which indicate a pessimistic trend in regard to the employment in services sector, whereas the PMI survey indicates a positive upward shift during the last quarter of 2019-20.
The RBI data does not provide information on the trends during the lockdown period but does highlight the prospective challenges in employment due to COVID-19. The EPF data and other information like ESIC point towards employment contraction over the past couple of years, especially in the creation of new jobs.
While the net EPF data does point towards a movement to pre-lockdown days, it is mostly powered by former EPF members joining other jobs during the period – may be due to voluntary/involuntary job change.
A clearer picture of people who might have lost jobs and applied for EPF claims could emerge over the next few months.
Featured Image: COVID-19 impact on employment


text:
What do numbers from Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala say about COVID-19 second wave?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 4, 2021
The 2nd wave of COVID-19 has been deadlier in India, to say the least. There has been a sharp increase in the number of daily cases which in turn has increased the need for beds, oxygen & other essential medicines. We take a look at the numbers from Maharashtra, Karnataka & Kerala to understand the trajectory in more detail.
On 30April 2021, India reported more than 4 lakh new COVID-19 cases. This is the first time since the beginning of the pandemic last year, that any country has reported more than 4 lakh cases in a single day. Over the past week, India is reporting an average of more than 3.5 lakh daily cases. In spite of this number being highest across the globe, experts opine that India has not yet reached the peak of the ongoing second wave and that the daily cases would continue to increase for the next few weeks.
While the countrywide numbers of COVID-19 cases, related deaths etc. show a sharp increase, the trend is not the same across the States. Various states are at different phases of the second wave and hence have a different impact on the countrywide numbers.
In this story, we analyze the COVID-19 trends in a few of the Indian States reporting higher numbers. For the analysis, we have relied on the consolidated information available on covid19india.org, which has sourced the information from the updates of the respective State Governments. We have also considered a 7-day average for the number of cases, recoveries as well as deaths to account for variations based on the day of the week.
As per the 7-day average of daily confirmed cases, currently, Maharashtra reports the highest number of COVID-19 cases, followed by Karnataka, Kerala & Uttar Pradesh. Delhi, Tamil Nadu & West Bengal are among the other states which are currently reporting a higher number of daily COVID-19 cases.
Here is a look at the trends in a few of the key States.
Maharashtra appears to have crossed its peak with a fall in COVID-19 cases since the last week of April
Over both the first wave & second wave of the pandemic, Maharashtra has been the most affected state so far. Out of the nearly 2 crores cases reported in India so far, Maharashtra has accounted for 47.2 lakh COVID-19 cases i.e., nearly 24% of the total cases reported in India.
The upsurge in the second wave of COVID-19 cases in India can be attributed to a large extent to the number of cases reported in Maharashtra.
As for the number of deaths, there has been an increasing trend in the number of deaths being reported until recently. The highest number of single-day COVID-19 related deaths reported from Maharashtra was on 30April, when over 1000 deaths were reported. The number of daily deaths has reduced since.
At the same time, there is an increase in the number of recoveries. Since the last week of April 2021, there have been days when the number of recoveries is more than the number of new cases reported. As a 7-day average, the number of recoveries over the last few days is more than the number of new cases.
The fall in the new cases reported is despite an increase in the number of tests being conducted in the state. On 01 May 2021, 2.89 lakh tests were conducted – the second-highest in a single day for Maharashtra. The fall in new cases despite an increase in the number of tests, increase in the number of daily recoveries and the early signs of fall in the number of deaths indicate that Maharashtra may have just crossed its peak of the second wave COVID-19 infection. However, these are still early days to come to any definitive conclusion. The trend in the next 1-2 weeks would be crucial for Maharashtra.
While the number of daily cases being reported in Maharashtra has reduced in the last week, the same cannot be said about the overall numbers reported in the country.  We have observed that Maharashtra has been a major contributor to the national numbers. However, the fall in the numbers from Maharashtra has been compensated by the increase in the case numbers being reported from other states. States like Karnataka, Kerala, U.P & Delhi are reporting a higher number of COVID-19 cases with each passing day. While there is an increasing trend in the number of new cases, variances exist among these states with respect to – recoveries, deaths, tests conducted, etc.
Karnataka has an increasing trend of Positivity rate and Deaths
Currently, Karnataka is reporting the second-highest number of COVID -19 cases in the country after Maharashtra. Since the onset of the second wave in the country i.e., Mid-March’2021, there has been a consistent increase in the number of daily new cases in Karnataka.
By mid-April 2021, the CPR was around 10% which doubled by the end of the month. This roughly translates to one positive case per every 5 tests being conducted on a daily basis.
In Kerala, although number of deaths remain lower, they have doubled in the last few days
Since mid-April 2021, there has been a sharp increase in the number of new cases being reported in Kerala. Overall, Kerala has reported the second-highest number of total cases in India with 16.38 lakh cases to date.
The higher positivity rate in both Karnataka & Kerala indicates the extent of the spread of COVID-19 in these states. The increase in the number of COVID-19 cases is not necessarily due to the increase in the tests, but due to the wider spread among the population. The proportionate increase in the number of cases is higher compared to the increase in tests.
Karnataka & Kerala are among the states which traditionally have better health infrastructure compared to the other states.  The recent increase in the number of deaths even in these states points to the severity of the second wave of infection and potentially overwhelming of the existing infrastructure.
In the next story, we take a look at few more states including U.P, Bihar, West Bengal, A.P, Telangana among others to understand the trends.
Featured Image: COVID-19 second wave


text:
Data: What does a higher Crime rate in States like Delhi & Kerala mean?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 8, 2020
The NCRB’s Crime in India report for 2019 threw up some interesting statistics like every year. The overall crime rate in states like Delhi & Kerala was almost 4-5 times or even more than the crime rate in states like UP & Bihar. Does a higher crime rate indicate a higher incidence of crime & vice-versa? What does a higher crime rate in Delhi & Kerala mean? We find out.
In an earlier story, we looked at the numbers pertaining to cognizable and violent crimes registered in 2019 across different states. As observed in that story, mere numbers do not provide a clear picture of the law & order situation in a state. The NCRB report itself clearly states that the numbers will vary with population and so crime rate (measured as crime per lakh population) might be a better indicator to assess the trend. However, the report also states that a lower crime rate need not imply that the police system is more effective or that a higher crime rate means the police system is ineffective since NCRB data is purely based on the cases registered by the police.
That is, only those crimes that come to the notice of the police either suo motu or through public complaints are counted in the report. Crimes which do not come to the notice of the police, meaning crimes which are not reported & registered with the police are not counted in the report resulting in underreporting.
In this story, we look at the incidence of certain violent crimes such as murder which cannot be hidden and may have near 100% reporting and compare it with the crime rate of offences against women such as rape and assault all of which may not be reported to the police. The comparison might help get a better understanding of the variance in crime rates among states and if there is any under-reporting in some states.
Violent crimes such as murder, Dowry Deaths, attempt to murder, rioting, kidnapping are those which involve the use of force to harm or threaten the victim. Such serious crimes also have a greater probability of receiving the attention of the public & media and hence have a greater chance of being registered in police records. As seen in the earlier story, 8.1% of all crimes registered in India are violent crimes. There are 15 different types of crimes as per various sections of the Indian Penal Code that have been classified as violent crimes in the NCRB report.
One in four of the registered violent crime in 2019 is a kidnapping
Around 1.05 lakh cases were booked as kidnapping and abduction in 2019, under IPC sections 363-369 and constitute over a quarter of the violent crimes. Crimes registered as ‘Grievous hurt’ contribute to more than one-fifth (89,115) of the violent crimes recorded in India in 2019. Over 51,254 cases were booked under attempt to commit murder and 46,209 cases registered as rioting. Further, a total of 32,033 cases of rape accounting for nearly 8% of the violent crimes were registered in 2019. Robbery and Murder contributed to about 7% of the violent crimes each.
In the previous story, it was observed that the states of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, and West Bengal were among the top contributors to violent crime in the country. Despite the large number of crimes registered here, the rate of violent crimes per lakh population is low because of their large population.
In more than 94% of the rape cases, the offender was known to the victim
Among the larger states, the number of violent crimes registered per lakh population is 83.4 for Assam, almost 2.7 times the national violent crime rate. A total of 12 States/UTs had a higher violent crime rate than the national rate. Delhi, Odisha, West Bengal, Haryana, Bihar, Kerala, Maharashtra, and Jharkhand which together accounted for close to 56% of the registered violent crimes, were also among the states which recorded a violent crime rate above the national rate. Meanwhile, larger states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan which are among the top ten states by number of violent crimes, and other southern states have reported a violent crime rate less than the national rate. The crime rate was the least in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat.
Among the violent crimes, murders and dowry deaths are the most probable ones to get reported and hence there could be near 100% reporting of these crimes. Even in the case of kidnapping and abduction, the percentage of crimes being reported must be substantially higher. Such crimes which are difficult to hide may reflect the actual status of violent crimes in the states, unlike the overall violent crime numbers.
On the other hand,  the probability of reporting in the case of rape and other crimes against women is comparatively lower because of the social stigma attached to it. Hence, these crimes tend to get under-reported as victims often do not come forward to report it. The NCRB report for 2019 indicates that in case of registered instances of rape, the offender was known to the victim in more than 94% cases meaning that the offender could be a family member, friend or an acquaintance making it more difficult for the victim to report.
Rate of Murder, Dowry deaths & Kidnapping in Kerala is lower than that of UP
The crime rate for murder across states reveals that Jharkhand had the highest murder rate of 4.3 per lakh population in 2019, almost twice the national rate. Assam, which recorded the highest violent crime rate had a murder rate of 3.6. States of Bihar, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh have also recorded a murder rate above national rate. Rajasthan, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat are among the states with low murder rates. Kerala, in spite of having an overall crime rate higher than Uttar Pradesh, has a lower murder compared to Uttar Pradesh. In fact, in the case of dowry deaths, Kerala and Gujarat have reported almost a zero rate while Uttar Pradesh has recorded the highest rate of 2.2, twice the national rate. Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi are among the top ten states in terms of dowry death rate. At the same time, it is seen that in Delhi, Assam, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh, the rate of kidnapping is among the highest whereas in Gujarat, and Kerala, it is among the lowest. The national crime rate of Kidnapping in 2019 was 7.9 while Uttar Pradesh reported a rate of 7.3. Such low crime rate in the Kerala in the case of murder, dowry deaths & kidnapping could mean that the higher overall crime rate in Kerala is because of better reporting. And this could be the opposite in the case of states like Bihar & Uttar Pradesh.
UP recorded among the lowest rate of rape cases in 2019
Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan have recorded the highest number of rapes in the country and together constitute more than 28% of the rape cases in India in 2019. However, the crime rate of rapes in Uttar Pradesh is exceptionally low, half the national rate. Concomitantly, Kerala and Delhi have recorded crime rates of 11.1 and 13.5 in the case of rape, among the top three states in the country. In Bihar, the number as well as rate are low.
Under cases registered under ‘Assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty’,  Delhi and Kerala are among the top five states with high rates of crime under this section whereas Bihar has recorded the least and Uttar Pradesh falls below the national rate. A similar trend is observed in the case of crimes registered under ‘insult to the modesty of women’. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have a crime rate of close to zero under this section.
It has to be noted that the most populous states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Maharashtra have a lower overall crime rate. However, the crime rate in the case of murders, dowry deaths, and kidnappings in Uttar Pradesh is higher. Gujarat and Kerala have lower numbers of such crimes and lower rates. For instance, in the case of dowry deaths, UP reported 300 times more dowry deaths in 2019 compared to Kerala.
What this could mean is that in the case of crimes where there is a probability of under-reporting, crime rates in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are on the lower side compared to the higher rates in states like Delhi & Kerala which are more literate. It also has to be noted that the variance among different types of crimes is lower in Kerala unlike in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
Kerala and Delhi may have better reporting & registration of crimes
What is evident is that some states like Kerala and Delhi are doing better than others in reporting and registering crimes, which may be the reason behind the higher overall crime rates. While understanding the NCRB report, it is important to keep in mind that occurrence of crime, reporting, and registering are all different events and one need not necessarily lead to the other.
According to National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), India’s biggest survey of social indicators, conducted in 2015-16, about 5.2% of the 61,906 married women surveyed had experienced sexual violence in the last 12 months. An additional 22.6% had suffered physical violence and 23.7% responded to have experienced both. The spouse was the perpetrator in majority of the cases. The Mint based on the data of NFHS-4 estimated that over 99.1% of the sexual violence cases went unreported. The study also revealed that the reporting rate for states with relatively higher female literacy like Kerala, Delhi, and Assam, was higher.
A study conducted by TISS (Tata Institute of Social Sciences) and sponsored by Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD), an organization under the Ministry of Home,  titled ‘A Study on Non-Registration of Crimes: Problems & Solutions’ conducted across six states identified the following to be the reasons behind under-reporting.
All of this indicates that a higher or a lower crime rate is not at all an indicator of the functioning of the police and also does not reflect the status of the law & order in a particular state. Reporting & registration of a crime are essential for an efficient criminal justice system and steps must be taken to ensure these.
Featured Image: NCRB’s Crime in India report

created: October 8, 2020


text:
Data: What does MoSPI’s Women and Men in India (2021) report say?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 19, 2022
The Women and Men in India, 2021 report, released by MoSPI is the collection of a variety of gender-related statistics that are released by different agencies of the government. This serves as a single go-to platform to find information pertaining to gender statistics. Here is a review of some of the important indicators.
One common theme that permeates through every level of Indian society is discrimination on varied grounds. This could be in the form of caste discrimination, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, class discrimination, and so on. This pervasive phenomenon is rampant despite constitutional protection in the form of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. More than 80% of Indian legal framework has measures that promote and enforce gender equality. However, the goal of gender equality remains distant, with India standing at 140 position out of 156 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index, 2021 published by the World Economic Forum.
Indian projected population for 2021 was 136.3 crore, out of which the female population is around 48.6%. When half of the population is female, one cannot afford to keep them out of the country’s development vision. A World Bank report on the economic costs of gender inequality estimated the loss in human capital wealth to be around USD 160.2 trillion globally. Moreover, gender equality is adopted as Goal 5 under the Sustainable Development Goals.
On that note, we look at some of the crucial indicators of gender equality using the Women and Men in India, 2021 report by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) in today’s story. All the data is sourced from this report, without delving into the individual data sources.
About the report
The Women and Men in India, 2021 report, released by MoSPI is the collection of a variety of gender-related statistics that are released by different agencies of the government. This serves as a single go-to platform to find information pertaining to gender statistics. The report is divided into six chapters based on diverse aspects of gender – Health, education, participation in economy and decision making, impediments to empowerment, and population-related metrics. Looking at such diverse aspects is crucial to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to minimize gender inequality. It is important to note that this report is only the aggregation of gender statistics and does not provide the underlying reasons for under-performance or over-performance in any indicator.
Population related metrics
One of the basic metrics that can be used to gauge the extent of parity between individuals of different genders at a given time is the sex ratio. It is defined as the number of females per 1000 males in each population group. This ratio is majorly affected by the birth and death rates, the levels of migration, and so on. It also gives an idea about the relative survival potential of the genders. In India, the sex ratio had gradually fallen from 946 in 1951 to 926 in 1991, except for 934 in 1981. From 1991 onwards, there is a consistent improvement in the sex ratio. It improved from 926 in 1991 to 945 in 2021. The figures for 2021 are projections by the technical group.
If we look at the data about the annual exponential growth rate of population for males and females, the growth rate for males increased from 1.24 in 1951 to 2.27 in 1971, after which the growth rate has fallen to 1.07 in 2021. In the case of females, the growth rate rose from 1.26 in 1951 to 2.23 in 1981, with a subsequent decline to 1.10 in 2021. It is not plausible to deduce whether the latest improvements in sex ratio are due to the initiatives of the government promoting gender equality or due to these unequal growth rates.
Further, the sex ratio is not uniform across different age groups. In 2011, the sex ratio for the old age group (60+) is way higher at 1033, than the sex ratio of 908 for the 0-19 group. The sex ratio for the economically active age group (15-59) is 944, which is approximately the same as the overall sex ratio. Across the states, only Bihar and Gujarat reported negative performance, while the North-Eastern states reported a significant improvement in the 10 years from 2001 to 2011.
Health Statistics:
Infant Mortality Rates (IMR):
IMR is a critical indicator that provides a glimpse of the health and well-being of the population and the community. It is defined as the ratio of the number of deaths of infants below one year of age to 1000 live births during the same period. In India, the overall IMR has been consistently declining from 53 in 2008 to 30 in 2019. This decline is greater in females than in males. Apart from the general causes like the poor health care delivery system, socio-economic causes like malnutrition and hygienic conditions play a crucial role in determining the IMR.
Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR):
The Maternal Mortality rate (MMR), which is defined as the ratio of the number of women who died due to pregnancy complications to one lakh live births in that period, has been declining from 254 in 2004-06 to 103 during 2017-19. Anaemia in pregnant women is one of the important factors that define maternal and foetal complications. The percentage of pregnant women aged 15-49 years who are anaemic increased from 50.4 in NFHS-4 to 52.2 in NFHS-5. Such an increase in anaemic pregnant women could affect the gains achieved in the MMR. Likewise, the percentage of institutional births improved from 38.7% in NFHS-3 to 88.6% in NFHS-5, the home births conducted by skilled health personnel declined from 4.3% in NHFS-4 to 3.2% in NFHS-5.
Obesity:
Obesity, hypertension, and diabetes are the major reasons behind the growing number of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) across the world. Around 55 million people are at risk of death if enough and timely interventions are not taken to control NCDs as per WHO. In fact, India is the first country to adopt a strategy to minimize deaths due to NCDs by 25% by 2025.
Obesity in India has increased in both genders. While the percentage of men who are obese increased from 18.9 to 22.9, female obesity increased from 20.6 to 24.0 from NFHS-4 to NFHS-5.
Hospitalization:
Public health infrastructure in India is in a bad shape. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the vulnerabilities of the Indian health care system, including the lack of adequate public health infrastructure. The public health infrastructure is unable to cater to the needs of the population because of the insufficient expenditure on health infrastructure, and the poor service delivery in public health institutions among other reasons. This difference is quite evident in the proportion of people using different types of health infrastructure in rural and urban areas, as highlighted in the report.
Education:
Education is among the crucial social indicators that have a cross-cutting impact across sectors. For literacy rate, any person of 7 years and above age, who can read as well as write, with an understanding in any language is considered literate. While there has been an improvement in the literacy rates of both men and women, the improvement is not uniform across the genders. While the male literacy rate improved from 27.2% in 1951 to 84.7% in 2017, the female literacy rate grew from 8.9% to 70.3% during the same period. The efforts to educate women have gained traction in the last decade, as is evident in the 8.8% improvement in 2017 over 2011. The top 5 states with the highest gender gap in literacy are Rajasthan (23.3%), Bihar (19.2%), Uttar Pradesh (18.4%), Jharkhand (18.3%), and Jammu and Kashmir (17.7%). Only three states have this gender gap below 10% – Kerala (2.2%), West Bengal (8.7%), and Assam (8.9%).
The Gender Parity Index (GPI) which is defined as the number of female students enrolled at all levels of education to the number of male students enrolled is also rising, indicating the growing realization of the importance of education for women. If GPI is 1.0, then it can be deduced that females and males participate equally in each stage of education. GPI of 1.0 was achieved in 2009-10 for Primary (I-V), in 2012-13 for Upper Primary (VI-VIII), in 2014-15 for Secondary (IX-X), in 2015-16 for Senior Secondary (XI-XII), and in 2018-19 for Higher Education. This shows the delayed but positive steps towards ensuring literacy for all.
Teacher availability:
The availability of female teachers is an important factor for females to continue pursuing education as well as in creating an impact on gender relations in society at large. While the primary level has more female teachers than male teachers, their number declines as we move up the education levels. Higher secondary has the least number of female teachers per 100 male teachers. In 2019-20, the primary level had 125 female teachers per 100 male teachers, compared to 92 in upper primary, 82 in secondary, and 76 in the higher secondary levels. This absence of female teachers at levels of education where the girls reach the age of puberty is one of the reasons behind the higher drop-out of females.
Educational preferences:
In higher education, around 97% prefer general courses (humanities, sciences, and commerce), while the rest prefer technical/professional courses. Among these technical courses, women dominate medicine with 13.8% preference compared to 4.9% for men. Engineering is where men dominate with 41.6% choosing it, while only 28.2% of females prefer engineering. Similarly, education is dominated by women (14.6%) compared to men (5.3%), while ITI is preferred by men (20%) over women (6.4%).
Participation in Economy:
Economic empowerment of women is a key driver to achieving gender equality. It includes the ability of women to participate in existing market conditions, control and access over resources, and increased participation in economic decision making. However, the worker population ratio in India across all the age groups presents a poor picture of women’s participation. It is 53.9% for men as compared to 21.8% for women.
There is also a disparity in the percentage distribution of workers by type of employment. Under self-employed conditions, 35% of females work as a helper in the household enterprise, while only 8.5% males work in similar employment. Around 44% of men work as own-account worker, employer, only 21.3% of women work in the same status.
In terms of financial aspects, women hold up to 33% of the total accounts in the scheduled commercial banks. This translates to 18.61% of the total amount of deposits in the scheduled commercial banks.
Participation in decision making:
Representation of women across the key branches of the government setup is considered vital for progress on gender equality as well as on other issues that could potentially impact women. Ranging from policy prioritization to policy implementation, women at any level of decision-making could have a positive impact.
Legislature:
The representation of women in legislature in India is dismal. The overall percentage of women in legislatures is around 9%. This is well below the aimed representation of 33% as envisioned under the Women’s Reservation Bill- Constitution (One Hundred and Eighth Amendment) Bill, 2008. Only 9 states in India have a percentage of female legislatures above 10% but below 15%, while only Mizoram has 26% female legislatures.
Judiciary:
In Judiciary, the Supreme Court has merely 12% female judges. Indian Judiciary is still considered a ‘Man’s World’.  This pattern is also evident across the high courts of different states. Only Telangana and Sikkim high courts have more than 30% female judges, the rest of the High Courts have below 30%.  Nine High courts have less than 10% of female judges.
Impediments to women empowerment:
The safety of women is of utmost importance to ensure their participation without any hindrance. The crimes against women as a percentage of total crimes committed at all India level has remained at 7% during 2015-18, which dropped to 6% in 2020. The majority of the share of the crimes against women are reported under Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband and Relatives), Section 354 (Assault on women with intent to outrage her modesty), and Section 363 to 373 (Kidnapping & Abduction) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Nine (9) States account for more than 70% of the crimes committed against women. Uttar Pradesh tops in the crimes against women with 13.3% of the total, while West Bengal, and Rajasthan stand in second and third positions. Among cases of rape, more than 80% of the rape victims belong to 12 states, the majority belonging to Rajasthan with 19%, followed by Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh with 9.9% and 8.3% respectively.
In crimes against women as a percentage of total crimes committed in the state, Assam stands out with 21.7%, followed by Sikkim (20.7%) and Odisha (18.9%). Ironically, Uttar Pradesh, which has the highest percentage share of crimes against women among the states, has 7.5% of the crimes against women against the total crimes committed in the state. Gujarat (1.1%) and Kerala (1.8%) are the only two states with less than 2% of their total crimes committed against women.
Featured Image: Men & Women in India


text:
Data: What Does NFHS Data Say About Women Empowerment Related Indicators?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 8, 2024
The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) provides important data on indicators crucial for measuring women’s empowerment in India. On the occasion of the International Women’s Day, we look at a few important indicators and their progress between NFHS-4 and NFHS-5.
International Women’s Day is celebrated annually on 08 March to honour and recognize the achievements and contributions of women worldwide. The day is dedicated to raising awareness about gender equality and advocating for women’s rights. It provides an opportunity to reflect on progress made, acknowledge challenges, and call for continued efforts to ensure equality in all aspects of life. The theme for International Women’s Day may vary each year, reflecting the evolving priorities and concerns in the global effort towards gender equality. The theme for 2024 declared by the United Nations is “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress,” which underscores the significance of gender equality, women’s and girls’ empowerment, and their rights to healthier lives.
Observing Women’s Day serves as a reminder of the ongoing pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 5, fostering a world where gender equality prevails, and women and girls are empowered in every facet of life. It emphasizes the need to end discrimination, violence, and harmful practices based on gender. The goal aims to ensure equal opportunities, rights, and participation for women in all aspects of life, including education, employment, and decision-making processes.
NFHS captures data on Women’s Empowerment related indicators as well
The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) is instrumental in capturing comprehensive data crucial for women’s empowerment in India. Six key factors are assessed. These include ownership of physical assets like bank accounts, land and housing, and mobile phones. Participation in critical household decisions like healthcare for themselves, household purchases, and visits to family or relatives is also considered in the survey. The employment status of women over the past year and access to menstrual hygiene products have also been assessed in the survey. While not exhaustive, these indicators offer valuable insights into the status of women in India and help identify specific areas for targeted interventions and policy improvements.
In this story, we look at how states perform in some of these indicators pertaining to decision-making and ownership of physical assets as per the latest NFHS-5 (2019-21) and the progress since the previous NFHS-4 (2015-16).
The data for this analysis has been taken from Dataful. It should be noted that the specific age group for women surveyed is often defined as 15 to 49 years (considered reproductive age group), unless otherwise mentioned.
Target 5.A of SDG 5 aims to “undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance, and natural resources.” In line with this SDG, the NFHS report assesses the share of women owning a house and/or land be it alone or jointly with others.
Only one in five women owned land or house in Delhi
At the national level, only about 43% of the women-owned a house/land. The share was about 38% in urban areas and over 45% in rural areas. Huge variation is visible across states despite the equal rights to inherit property across genders and encouraging women to own property through government policies like PMAY. While nearly two-thirds of the women in states like Karnataka and Telangana owned property, the share was just around 22% in Delhi (about one-fifth). At least half the women owned property in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Punjab in contrast to less than a quarter in Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Uttarakhand.
Further, the share of women owning property has dropped in 16 states/UTs in five years between the fourth and fifth rounds of the NFHS. These include Odisha, Maharashtra, Delhi, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar.
Significant improvement in share of women holding bank accounts
Having a bank account is a tangible indication of women’s empowerment, signifying financial autonomy, access to resources, and active participation in economic decision-making. The NFHS report provides details of the share of women in the said age group holding a bank or savings account that they use.
There has been a significant improvement on this front in five years. At the national level, the share of women owning and operating a bank account was about 53% in 2015-16, which increased to 78.6% in 2019-21. The improvement was more significant in rural areas where the share increased from 48.5% to 77.4% as compared to urban areas where the share increased from 61% to 80.95% during this period. The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, Direct Benefit Transfer, and other microfinancing initiatives may have helped this increase in share. As of February 2024, over 51.9 crore bank accounts have been opened under PMJDY.
Between the two surveys, the share of women owning and operating their own bank accounts increased by more than 50 percentage points in Bihar, the state with the highest number of beneficiaries under PMJDY. Similarly, a significant increase is also seen in the states of West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, which also have a significant share of beneficiaries under the scheme.
More than 50% of the women in India owned and used mobile phones
At all Indian levels, more than half the women had mobile phones that they themselves used. The share is about 69% in urban areas and 46.6% in rural areas. The surge in mobile phone usage in the country can be attributed to a combination of factors, ranging from technological advancements and affordability to increased internet penetration and adaptation to digital means.
At the state level, the share of women having a mobile phone that they themselves use increased across all states except Haryana. While the share was more than 80% in the states like Kerala, Sikkim, and Goa, the share was below half in Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh.
More than 99% women in Nagaland were involved in decision-making in three areas
The active involvement of women in decisions related to health, major household purchases, and visiting relatives serves as a critical indicator of their autonomy, well-being, and overall progress toward gender equality within a society. In Nagaland, more than 99% of women were involved in decision-making while the lowest participation was in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh with 82.7% and 84.1% respectively.
Involvement of women in paid labour is low and hasn’t improved significantly since 2015-16
Women who worked and received cash payments in the last 12 months as an indicator suggest that women are actively participating in the workforce and receiving direct financial compensation, which can be considered a measure of economic independence and control over their financial resources. At all India level, only about one-quarter of the women had worked and received compensation. More than 40% of the women in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, and Tamil Nadu were involved in paid work in the last year. Only marginal improvement since 2015-16 was observed in this indicator.
Women continue to face challenges in earning income and owning assets
The above indicators clearly show that women continue to face challenges in generating income, and their ownership of assets, such as property or financial resources, is limited. Addressing the evident challenges in women’s income generation and asset ownership requires comprehensive strategies, including initiatives to enhance economic opportunities, promote financial literacy, and ensure equitable access to resources. Even though there are schemes and policies to promote the same, concerted efforts are necessary to ensure that the benefits reach women across the country and the SDG targets are met in the next five years.
UN has identified areas for immediate action
The UN has also identified five key areas that require immediate action:


text:
Data: What does the data related to cases of ‘Rioting’ indicate?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 7, 2022
The National Crime Records Bureau in its annual ‘Crime in India’ report provides data on cases registered under the broad head of ‘Rioting’ along with categorization of such cases into agrarian riots, sectarian riots, communal, student, industrial, etc. Data from 2014 to 2020 does not show any consistent trend across states with different states leading in different ‘rioting’ category cases.
Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the offence of rioting as ‘whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.’ The punishment for the offence of rioting is either an imprisonment for up to two years, or a penalty, or both.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is tasked with the collection and dissemination of a national database on crimes, criminals, and law enforcement agencies etc. In its annual ‘Crime in India’ (CII) report, data is collected from Police departments at the state level and compiled by the NCRB. The report presents detailed information on various types of crimes, including riots. It should be noted that the data presented in the report is the number of cases registered under each head by the police. Moreover, the report notes only the most heinous crime as per the ‘Principal Offence Rule’. For instance, if a riot has resulted in death, the case will be counted as death and not a riot.
Additional categories under ‘rioting’ have been added since 2017
The data regarding the cases of rioting is collected under Sections 147 to 151 and Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code.  While ‘riots’ was a separate section under cognizable IPC crimes under different crime heads until 2015, it was included under offences against public tranquillity in 2016.
Until 2016, riots were classified under broadly 8 categories. These were communal, industrial, political, caste conflict, agrarian, students, sectarian, and others. However, in 2017 and 2018, there were a total of 17 heads under which the cases registered for riots were classified. In addition to the heads mentioned previously, riots were also classified into vigilantism, money dispute, water dispute, land/property dispute, family disputes, enmity/rivalry, electric/power supply disputes, rioting while in Andolan/morchas, and rioting/attacks on police personnel or government servants. In 2019 and 2020, the classification under vigilantism was dropped, making it a total of 16 categories.
Cases of riots dropped by 30% in 2019 only to increase again in 2020
A total of 4.07 Lakh cases of riots have been registered in the country in the seven-year period from 2014 to 2020. The total number of cases registered each year under ‘riots’ witnessed a gradual decline by about 30% from over 66,000 cases in 2014 to 46,209 cases in 2019. However, the number of cases of riots registered increased once again in 2020 to 51,606 cases, an increase of around 12.2% as compared to 2019.
5 states account for 63% of cases of rioting registered in 7 years
Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Kerala alone accounted for 63% of the riot cases registered between 2014 and 2020. In the seven-year period, West Bengal witnessed a decline in riot cases by close to six times, while the number of cases in Assam declined to less than one-third of the cases registered in 2014. Other states which reported a constant decline in cases include Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa, and Kerala. Interestingly, Punjab has registered only one case of riot (in 2017) in the seven years under consideration and is the only state with single-digit riot cases registered. On the other hand, the number of cases registered under riots in the states of Jharkhand, Haryana, and Chhattisgarh has increased over the years.
In line with the national trend, the states of Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh have reported an increase in cases in 2020 as compared to 2019. Bihar accounted for 40% and Maharashtra for about 30% of the increase in cases in India in 2020. Delhi, where the number of cases was below 100 between 2017 and 2019, registered 689 cases in 2020.
Agrarian riots increased by 40% while communal riots almost doubled in 2020
The trend in cases registered under the seven major categories of riots for which data is available since 2014 is provided in the chart below. The number of cases registered in these seven categories accounted for about 12% of the cases registered under riots. The majority of the cases of riots fall in the ‘others’ category, despite the inclusion of additional categories in 2017.
Except in 2014, the greatest number of cases registered among these seven categories has been under the ‘agrarian’ category in each of the seven years. More than 17,200 cases have been registered under this head during the seven-year period. Agrarian riots in India increased by nearly 40% in 2020.
Though more than 1,200 cases of ‘communal’ riots were registered in 2014, the number was on a decline until 2019. In 2020, cases of communal riots more than doubled with more than 60% of these cases registered in Delhi where large scale communal violence was reported in February 2020.
An annual average of 1,635 cases have been registered under ‘political’ riots. However, there has been a gradual drop in the number of cases registered under this head for the last four years.  With respect to caste conflicts, more than 2000 such cases were registered in 2015 and 2016. Since 2017, the number has fallen below 1000. The number of cases of ‘student’ riots has dropped by nearly 59% since 2017 whereas ‘industrial’ riots have gone down by 56% since 2018.
Bihar, Kerala, UP are among the states reporting the highest share of cases across categories
The category-wise trend in cases of riots across states indicates the following.
Data only reflects the registration of cases by police
While the NCRB is releasing data on an annual basis, it should be noted that only those cases registered by police find their way into this report. Thus, merely because the cases registered in some states are low, it does not necessarily imply a better functioning law & order system compared to states with a higher incidence of such cases.
Recently, when the Home Ministry was asked in Parliament about communal riots, the Ministry responded by stating that ‘Public Order’ and ‘Police’ are State subjects as per the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and so the responsibility of maintaining law and order, registration and prosecution of crimes against all citizens, rests with the respective State Governments. It also added that the Centre issues appropriate advisories from time to time to maintain peace, public tranquillity, and communal harmony.
10 out of 34 ministers in the Union Council of Ministers with pending criminal cases had cases of riots against them
According to an analysis of the criminal background details of the 78 members of the Union Council of Ministers following cabinet expansion in July 2021, by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR),  34 (44%) out of the 78 ministers had a criminal case registered against them. 10 out of these 34 ministers had charges of riots against them. Some ministers had more than one charge related to rioting.
Featured Image: Cases of Rioting


text:
Data: What was India-USA trade been like in the last 10 years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 28, 2020
As India & USA become close strategic partners, the possible India-USA trade deal becomes all the more critical. Data indicates that the overall volume of trade between India & USA has increased substantially in the last 10 years so much so that USA has overtaken China to become India’s largest trade partner in 2018-19 & 2019-20. As the US presidential elections come closer, we take a look at the India-USA trade of the last 10 years.
As per the World Trade Statistical Review – 2020 report by World Trade Organization (WTO), USA is the World’s largest trader for the year 2019. As per the same report, India ranks 12 among the world countries in terms of the total value of trade. This includes the trade of both goods and services.
Apart from being leading traders in the world, both the countries engage in considerable amount of trade between them. While India ranks 9 among the USA’s trading partners in goods for the year 2019, USA overtook China as India’s leading trade partner in 2018-19 and continued to stay in the top position in 2019-20.
So, what has contributed towards this improved position of USA as India’s trade partner? Has there been any change in the trade policy or is there an increasing trend in the trade of specific goods? In this story, we take a look at India-USA trade numbers and analyse trends over the last few years with the current Trump administration being in the final year of the current tenure.
In 10 years, trade increased by over 200% in rupee terms and over 95% in dollar terms
As per the data available on India’s Department of Commerce’s Export-Import Data Bank, during 2010-11, the total value of trade between India and USA (both imports & exports) was Rs. 2.06 lakh crores.  In the ensuing 10 years, the value of trade increased continuously to reach Rs. 6.29 lakh crores in 2019-20 i.e. more than 3 times the value of trade in 2010-11. However, the increase in dollar terms was not on the same scale. In 2010-11, the total value of trade was USD 45.34 billion which increased to USD 88.91 billion in 2019-20.  The significant appreciation of the dollar against rupee may have also played a role in the greater increase of trade in rupee terms. During this period, the trade in dollar terms increased by around 96% compared to the over 200% increase in rupee terms.
During this 10-year period, the greatest  percentage increase in trade both in rupee & dollar terms was in 2011-12 when it increased over 34% in rupee terms & by over 28% in dollar terms compared to 2010-11. The year 2018-19 also marked a significant increase in trade with it increasing by over 28% in rupee terms and by over 18% in dollar terms compared to 2017-18.
As highlighted earlier,  2018-19 was the year when USA claimed the top spot as India’s trading partner.
Despite a fall in recent years, trade balance has increased substantially in the last 10 years
India has an overall negative trade balance i.e. the value of the goods imported is higher than the value of the goods exported. However, the case of trade with USA is different as India has a trade surplus i.e. the value of exports to USA are higher than that of imports.
In 2010-11, India had a trade surplus of Rs 23.8 thousand crores with the USA which in dollar terms was USD 5.24 billion. The trade surplus has now increased to Rs.1.22 lakh crores in 2019-20 which in dollar terms is USD 17.27 billion. The trade surplus was the highest in 2017-18 when it was Rs. 1.37 lakh crores and USD 21.27 billion. However, the trade surplus has fallen in both 2018-19 & 2019-20. The decrease in trade surplus coincides with the increase in overall trade in the last two years.
Increase in the imports resulted in the fall of trade surplus
Over the 10-year period between 2010-20, both the imports and exports have grown year on year in rupee terms (with the exception of 2013-14 & 2014-15 for imports). During this period, the total value of exports grew from Rs. 1.15 lakh crores in 2010-11 to Rs. 3.76 lakh crores 2019-20. The slow growth of overall trade during the period 2011-2016 is due to the slower growth of imports during this period.
In the case of exports, there has been a consistent year on year increase in the value of goods exported. However, the net increase has seen a declining trend during 2011-2016, which has since recovered. The highest single-year net increase was in 2018-19 where the exports were valued at Rs. 3.66 lakh crores i.e. 57 thousand crores more than the previous year 2017-18.
The year 2018-19 also saw a record increase in the value of imports. Goods worth Rs. 2.48 lakh crores were imported in 2018-19 which was Rs. 76.9 thousand crores more than the value of imports in 2017-18. However, this growth was preceded by years of low growth of imports. Especially during the two years 2013-15, there has been a negative growth in the imports.
The greater increase in the value of imports in 2018-19 compared to the exports, explains the fall in trade surplus.
Electrical Equipment, Nuclear Reactor etc. have contributed towards export growth in recent years
Pearls, Stones & other metals used in Jewellery are the major export commodity of India to USA. Although there was a fall in the value of exports of this commodity in 2019-20, it remains the largest exported commodity at Rs. 65.5 thousand crores.
Pharmaceutical Products are the other major export commodity and have shown a consistent increase in the five-year period between 2015-20, with the exception of 2017-18. Apart from these two commodities, three other commodities have recorded an increase in the value of their exports over the last three years and are also the key reason for the substantial increase in exports in 2018-19. Electrical Equipment & Machinery registered more than 40% growth in both 2018-19 and 2019-20, with the export value of this commodity increasing from Rs. 8.5 thousand crores in 2017-18 to Rs. 17.7 thousand crores in 2019-20. Similarly, export of Nuclear Reactors and other related products as well as exports of Vehicles have also recorded a significant increase over the past three years, especially in 2018-19.
The other traditionally top export commodities to USA include – Articles made out of Textiles, Apparels, Fish & Sea food, Mineral Fuels etc. Organic Chemicals is also among top exported commodity but has fallen out of top-10 export commodities in 2019-20.
Mineral Fuels, Pearls & Stones are the commodities that contributed to the recent increase in imports
During 2019-20, Mineral Fuels & Oils have emerged as the major import commodity from USA. In 2016-17, around Rs. 11 thousand crores worth of Mineral Oils and Fuels were imported from USA, which has more than doubled in the next year to Rs 25.6 thousand crores and further increased to Rs. 50.9 thousand crores in 2018-19 and to Rs. 58.7 thousand crores in 2019-20. There has been a 5-time increase in the value of import of Mineral Fuels & Oils in the last 4 years.
The import of Pearls, Stones & other metals used for Jewellery recorded a major increase in 2018-19. From Rs. 17.8 thousand crores in 2017-18, the value of imports increased to Rs. 57.4 thousand crores in 2018-19. However, this has fallen to Rs. 44.1 thousand crores in 2019-20.
These two commodities are the major contributors towards the significant increase in the value of imports in 2018-19.  The imports of Aircraft and related parts had recorded a sudden increase in 2016-17, with the imports falling back to earlier levels in subsequent years.
Nuclear reactors and other related commodities used to be the leading imported commodity prior to 2018-19 and has shown a consistent increase in the value of imports. The import of Organic Chemicals has also doubled over the five years and currently is a top-5 imported commodity.  Other major import commodities include – Optical equipment & related parts, Plastic Articles, Chemical products, Fruits & Nuts etc.
Electrical Equipment whose exports have increased to USA are also among the top-5 imported products from USA. The increase in import of Mineral Fuel from USA is in line with the increase in India’s overall demand for Mineral Oils and Fuels. In 2018-19, the total import value for this commodity was Rs 11.7 lakh crores compared to Rs. 8.5 lakh crores in 2017-18.
Meanwhile, the substantial increase in the import of Pearls, Stones etc. for Jewellery from USA compensates for the fall in import of this commodity from other countries like Russia, S.Korea etc.
A fall in the Balance of ‘Service trade’ with comparative increase in Imports from USA
As per the information provided by ‘Office of the United States Trade Representative’, India’s exports to USA in form of Services was USD 29.6 billion during 2018. During the five-year period i.e. from 2014-2018, the value of export services to USA have increased year on year. In 2014, the value of export services was USD 22.4 billion.
During the same period, the import of services also increased from USD 15.3 billion in 2014 to USD 29.6 billion in 2018.  The higher increase in the import of services from USA compared to that of exports has resulted in decrease in the services trade surplus India enjoys in the services trade.
In 2014 , the trade surplus in services was USD 7.1 billion which has reduced year on year and during 2018, the surplus in services trade was down to USD 4.4 billion.
India and USA are yet to agree on the proposed limited trade deal
Data indicates that the overall volume of trade (both commodities and services) between India and USA has been increasing over the years. This is due to an increase in both the exports as well as imports. However, the trade surplus both in commodities & services has seen a declining trend over the last few years. This increase in the imports from USA is limited to specific products influenced by other factors and not specific to a policy change.
As on date, India does not have any specific trade agreement with the USA apart from mutual understanding on different aspects related to trade. However, India and USA have been working on signing a Trade Agreement since 2018. However, these discussions have been fraught with challenges.
In May 2019, President Trump terminated Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) eligibility for India which it enjoyed since the 1970s. The U.S. GSP program provides non-reciprocal, duty-free tariff treatment to certain products imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. As per the US government, this was done since there was no assurance from India to provide equitable access to its markets in spite of the tariff benefits that India enjoys with USA.
An US Congressional document on India-US trade relations from February 2020 asserts this stand of USA, that India has not been fair in opening up the markets for US products. It further highlights the higher tariffs levied by India on imported products well as ‘Forced localization’ regarding data storage, content etc. acting as barriers for trade.
There was expectation that a deal would be finalized during the visit of President Donald Trump’s during February’2020. But no deal was materialized. Replying to a question during an interaction with the students of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT), Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal has stated that India has sent its part of the deal to USA and is waiting for USA to confirm on it. He also stated that COVID-19 in addition to the expectations from USA were the reasons for the delay.  He has further indicated that  an India-US deal could be materialized only after a new administration is constituted post the US presidential elections in November.
As India and USA become close strategic partners, the increasing volume of trade is only going to continue. The possible trade deal will important for future trade.
Featured Image: India-USA trade

created: September 28, 2020


text:
Data: What has been India’s trade with China like in the current financial year?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 7, 2020
Tensions between India & China have only increased during the current financial year of 2020-21 because of the border standoff and even COVID-19. However, this has not impacted the share of India’s trade with China in its overall trade. Here is a review of the trends of India’s trade with China for the first four months of 2020-21.
China is one of India’s leading trade partners. In fact, prior to 2018-19, India’s highest trade volume was with China, a place occupied by the USA since then.  However, in terms of the value of goods imported by India, the imports from China still form the major share. In an earlier story on Factly, we explored the nature of goods imported from China and the trends over the past few years. We had observed that the imports from China not only form a major part of India’s imports but are critical for certain sectors, forming inputs and raw materials for various industries. Unless there is input substitution where India either identifies other sources for these imports or augments domestic production, there is going to be continued reliance on China for the sustenance and growth of our economy.
China holds the status of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) with India facilitating smoother trade between the two countries. The government recently informed the Lok Sabha that there is no proposal to withdraw the MFN status to China. However, the recent border stand-off between the two countries coupled with China being seen as the reason for COVID-19 pandemic have contributed towards diplomatic tensions. Furthermore, time & again there are calls for banning of Chinese products among the general public.
But what are the recent trends in trade with China ? Is there any visible shift in the overall trends? Are there any changes in the trade of specific goods ?  We try exploring these questions with the trade data for the first four months of 2020-21 and comparing it with the same period in 2019-20.
Share of ‘Trade with China’ increased in the first four months of 2020-21
Responding to a question in Lok Sabha on 21 September 2020, the government provided the data of trade with China for the top 50 commodities for the first four months (April to July) of 2020-21.  As per this information, the total value of India’s trade during this period i.e. April-July’2020 was USD 164.66 billion. This is comparatively less that the overall value of trade during the same period of 2019-20, when it was USD 277.68 billion. This fall in 2020-21 is on expected lines due to the lockdown and its impact. This fall is also reflected in the figures for trade with China.
The total trade with China during the first four months of 2020-21 is USD 23.88 billion compared to that of USD 29.03 billion in 2019-20. In spite of the fall in value, what is significant is the increase in the share of trade with China of India’s overall trade. Trade with China during the first four months of 2020-21 constituted 14.5% of the India’s overall trade compared to 10.5% during the same period in 2019-20.
The increase in the share of trade with China to an extent can be attributed to the fact that most of India’s trading partners were also going through lockdown phases due to COVID-19 and China was one of the few countries that was opening up during this period.
China’s increased share in overall trade is contributed by both Exports & Imports
India has a negative trade balance with China i.e. the value of imports from China is higher than the value of exports to China.  Further, the share of imports from China out of the total Imports is higher than the share of exports to China out of the total Indian exports.
In the earlier story, we had observed that India’s trade balance with China has improved slightly over the past couple of years contributed by an increase in the value of exports and a fall in the value of imports. The trend is visible even during the first four months of 2020-21. While the value of India’s overall exports fell to USD 75 billion during the first four months of 2020-21 compared to USD 107.2 billion during the same period in 2019-20,  the value of exports to China has increased. During the first four months of  2020-21, the value of exports to China was USD 7.3 billion compared to USD 5.6 billion during the same period in 2019-20. This means that the share of exports to China out of India’s total exports increased from 5.2% in this period for 2019-20 to 9.7% in 2020-21.
This increase of share in the first four months could also be because the trade with most of the other countries had not opened up yet, there by resulting in larger share of exports to China.
In the case of imports, there is a fall in value of imports from China which is in line with the trend in overall imports.  However, the share of imports from China has increased in the first four months of 2020-21 compared to the same period in 2019-20. During April to July of 2019-20, imports from China accounted for 13.8% of India’s total imports, which increased to 18.5% during the same period in 2020-21.
Increase in exports to China can be attributed to export of Iron & Steel along with Iron Ore & Plastic
As observed in this story, there is a fall in the value of Imports from China during the first four months of 2020-21 compared to that of same period in 2019-20.  Few of the major import commodities from China include – Electronics Components, Telecom Instruments, Industrial Machinery , Chemicals etc. The overall value of imports for each of these items has seen a fall in the first four months of 2020-21 compared to 2019-20 with the exception of Drugs & Drug Intermediates. For each of these top import items, the value of imports from China has also come down. The trend highlighted earlier that the share of imports from China out of total imports is has increased in the first four months of 2020-21 is reflected in most of the import items, especially the top import items.
The increase in exports to China is contrary to the trend in overall exports during the first four months of 2020-21. This can be attributed to few of the top export commodities. Although there is an increase in the value of exports of few of the top export commodities,  to both China and other countries, there are few items whose increase is prominent.
Iron Ore, which is the largest export Item to China, saw its share out of India’s total exports increase from 75% in the first four months of 2019-20 to around 91% in the same period of 2020-21. Considering the volume, this is a sharp increase.
Further, the share of export to China for Iron and Steel was around 5% during the first four months of 2019-20 which increased substantially to 36% of the total exports during the first four months of 2020-21, the current financial year. A similar large-scale increase is observed in the export of Plastic materials to China.
Increase of China’s share in India’s overall trade may be due to the current limitations in global trade
The trade data for the first four months of 2020-21, as provided by the government in the Lok Sabha, indicates that there is an increase in the share of trade with China.  However, this might not be a sustainable trend.
The government has ruled out revoking the MFN status to China, which indicates that there might not be any major policy changes in trade with China in light of the ongoing situation. However, certain steps are being taken at the commodity level.
It has to be noted that China was one of the first countries to open up its economy after the COVID-19 pandemic induced lockdowns, thanks to it being the origin country of the virus. India & most of the countries it trades with like USA, Singapore, Western European countries, Gulf Countries etc. are yet to open up trade completely to the pre COVID-19 levels. Hence, it would be early to describe increase in exports to China and China’s overall trade share as a significant and persisting trend.
Data for the subsequent months and the entire financial year of 2020-21 may offer a better perspective on these emerging trends. With the USA & Western European countries experiencing a second wave of COVID-19, even data for the entire year of 2020-21 might not be enough to ascertain any sustainable trends.
Featured Image: India’s trade with China

created: November 7, 2020