text:
Fact Check: Is Punjab’s 2020-21 budget allocation to Education unprecedented?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 9, 2020
Following Punjab government’s 8% allocation of the state budget to education in 2020-21, the Congress party tweeted terming this allocation as setting a precedent for the rest of the country. Is such an allocation to education unprecedented? Here is a fact-check.
On 28 February 2020, Finance Minister of Punjab, Manpreet Singh Badal presented the annual state budget for the year 2020-21. This is the fourth budget of the government led by Captain Amarinder Singh of the Indian National Congress. Following the announcement, Congress party took to Twitter the next day, on 29 February 2020, to praise the government for prioritizing education. The tweet had a video along with the following description.
‘the Congress government in Punjab has set the precedent for the rest
of the country when it comes to prioritizing education. Captain Amarinder and
his government have ensured that every child has the right to quality
education’.
In the video, it has also been mentioned that the Punjab government has set aside 8% of the total state budget for education. But has the Punjab government really set a precedent in budget allocation for education?
In this story, we do a detailed analysis of the claim, by looking at the trend in Punjab for the last few years. Further, we compare the budget allocation for education in a few other states with that of Punjab to ascertain whether Punjab has really set a precedent for the remaining states of the country.
Claim: The Congress government in Punjab has set a precedent for the rest of the country when it comes to prioritizing education by allocating 8% of total budget to education.
Fact: While the Punjab government has allocated substantial amounts for education, it is not unprecedented in terms of the share of allocation to education. Punjab’s 8% allocation is lower than many other states which allocated more than 8% to education in 2020-21. Hence the claim is Misleading.
Punjab allocated 8% of budget for education in 2020-21
In his budget speech, the finance minister of Punjab stated that the government had allocated a total of Rs. 13,902 crores for the education sector alone. This constitutes almost  9% of the total estimated expenditure for 2020-21. Of this, for the promotion of School and Higher Education, a total of Rs. 12,488 crores have been earmarked, which amounts to 8% of the total state budget of around Rs. 1.54 Lakh crores. He further added that this is 23% higher than the budgetary allocations for the sector in 2016-17, during the previous government led by Akali Dal.  In addition to this, budget has also been allocated for the construction of classrooms, digital education, upgrading infrastructure, skill development, water harvesting in schools, and a lot more.
Budget Estimate for education includes expenses on
staff, youth services and sports as well
It has to be noted that under the budget estimate for education in Punjab, the major heads of pension and recruitment benefits, general services, general education, sports and youth services, art and culture and, social security and welfare are included. The education budget split for 2020-21 is given below.
Amount allocated and utilised by Punjab government for
education has increased
Since 2015-16, it is evident that the budget estimate, that is, amount proposed to be allocated for education sector has increased. In 2019-20 and 2020-21, the budget estimate for education was Rs. 12,236 crores and Rs. 12,488 crores respectively. The actual spending has also increased during the same period.
Allocation for education as a percentage of total
budgetary expense shows a drop
While the spending on education has increased, the percentage allocation to education compared to the total state budget expenditure has decreased over the years. While 11.6% of the budget was earmarked for education in 2015-16, this dropped to 7.7% in 2019-20 and has increased slightly to 8.1% in 2020-21. Or, in other words, from when Congress formed the government in 2017-18, the percentage allocation for education has reduced. The amounts taken into consideration are for school & higher education.
Education is allocated the lion’s share under
expenditure on human development
Allocations made towards the various sectors of education, health, and water supply and sanitation, which aim to improve the well-being of citizens and simultaneously aid in the creation of human capital are generally termed as expenditure for human development. Between 2015-16 and 2017-18, on an average, states spent about 24% of their budget on human development as per a report on state finances by PRS Legislative Research. Education was allocated the highest with around 16% followed by health (5.3%) and WASH (2.3%). While Delhi spent 43% of its budget on human development, Punjab has spent only 19% on these items.
Punjab reported an underspending of 9% in the education sector between 2015-18
As per the PRS report, during this period, states have recorded an average underspending on revenue expenditure of around 7%. However, Punjab’s underspending stood at 12% during this period. Sector-wise analysis of underspending during the same period revealed that in the education sector, there was an underspending of 9% by the Punjab government.
During the 2015-20 period, states have spent 16% of their budget on education. Revenue expenditure on education includes expenditure on schemes such as Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and Midday-meal scheme, construction and maintenance of school buildings, and payment of salary and pension to staff. Delhi spent the highest with 27% of their budget on education followed by Assam which spent 22%. Punjab spent only 14% of its budget on education. Telangana spent the least of around 10%.
Most states have allocated a substantial budget for education
The budgetary allocation for education by a few other state governments which introduced the 2020-21 budget is both, in terms of amount and percentage allocation, higher than that of Punjab. Education received a substantial share in most of the states.
AIADMK led Tamil Nadu government announced theirannual budget on 14 February 2020 in which School Education was given Rs. 34,182 crores and Higher Education was allocated almost Rs. 5052.8 crores. Together,this amounts to 13% of the total budget of the state.
Bihar, where legislative assembly elections are proposed to take place in October this year, more than one-tenth (10.1%) of the total budget has been earmarked for education by the JDU- BJP alliance. Rs. 21,264 crores have been allocated for education.
The Jharkhand government, formed in December 2019 by JMM- Congress alliance presentedits maiden budget on 03 March 2020, in which they had assigned around 15.4% ofthe budget of Rs. 86,370 crores, amounting to Rs. 13,301 crores for education.
In West Bengal, the TMC government presented the 2020-21 budget on 10 February 2020. The allocation for education in the state is Rs. 37,058.54 crores, which is 14.5% of the total budget of Rs. 2,55,677 crores.
Punjab government has announced various schemes to
improve education
Free education for all students up to class XII is one of the proposals announced in the budget. Earlier, education was free only for girls. In order to enrol more children, the government has also made allocation for free transportation to schools for primary students. A substantial amount has also been set aside for improving the infrastructure of schools. Plans are also been made to start new colleges for law, agriculture, and veterinary. To enhance the employability of graduates, the government has also made allocations for skill development programs and employment generation.
NITI Aayog’s SEQI shows Punjab’s overall performance
in school education has dropped
NITI Aayog’s School Education Quality Index evaluates the performances of states in school education sector in 2016-17 and helps in identifying the strengths and weaknesses. The report was released in 2019. Index is arrived at by taking a weighted average of 30 indicators which are broadly categorized into two categories- Outcomes and Governing processes aiding outcomes. Various parameters are taken into consideration for arriving at the index. Data is taken from the National Achievement Survey of NCERT
Punjab was ranked 9 out of 20 larger states in thisindex with respect to performance of school education in the state. Punjab has a score of 59.06 whileKerala was on top of the list with a score of 82.17.
The overall score for education is 41.14 for Punjab while Kerala topped the index with a score of 76.63. Score wise, Punjab’s overall performance lags behind five smaller states and four union territories and it ranks 18 out of the 20 larger states. However, it has to be noted that the index was based on data for 2016-17 before the current Congress government took over.
PGI Index classifies Punjab in Grade II with respect
to school education performance
Performance Grading Index 2018-19 released by the Department of School Education and Literacy,is based on the data available with UDISE, NAS, NCERT, Midday Meal Scheme, andother portals created and maintained by the same department under MHRD. Thisstudy is based on predominantly five factors including access, infrastructure and facilities, learning outcomes and quality,equity and governance process. Total weightage is calculated based on 70indicators. As per this index, Kerala and Gujarat are Grade I states with anindex score above 800. Punjab is in Grade II with a score of 753, on par withits neighbouring states of Haryana, Rajasthan, Chandigarh, and Tamil Nadu.
AISHE report showed Punjab’s GER has dropped
Further, the All India Survey on Higher Education of 2018-19 conducted by MHRD presents data on the enrolment of students in higher education in India. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is calculated as a percentage of the specific age group of population, 18- 23 years of age who are enrolled for higher education. India’s GER has been on an increasing trend since 2014-15 and reached 26.3 in 2018-19. Punjab had a GER of 29.5 in 2018-19 which is above the national average. Nevertheless, Punjab, UP, and Tripura are the only three states which have witnessed a negative change in GER in 2018-19 as compared to 2017-18. Punjab’s GER dropped from 30.3 in 2017-18 to 29.5 in 2018-19.
While allocation is substantial in Punjab, it is not
unprecedented
All the available data indicates that while theallocation to education in Punjab is substantial, it is not unprecedented.Other states have allocated a greater share of the state’s budget foreducation. Further, the percentage of budget expenditure allocated to educationin Punjab has reduced over the years.


text:
Fact Check: Did Manmohan Singh undertake more foreign visits than Narendra Modi?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 8, 2017
The BJP President Amit Shah’s statement that Manmohan Singh made more foreign trips than Narendra Modi is wrong on all counts. Here is a fact check.
Manmohan Singh made more foreign trips than Narendra Modi was the statement made by BJP President Amit Shah recently in Palampur of Himachal Pradesh.
But is Amit Shah’s statement true? Here is a fact check based on the data on the website of the Ministry of External Affairs.
Manmohan Singh’s term as Prime Minister
Between 2004 & 2014 when Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister, he made a total of 80 foreign trips spanning 303 days. He made at least 10 trips in each of the years 2005, 2009, 2011 and 2013. He made at least 5 foreign trips in every year of his tenure except in 2012 and 2014. In 2014 he made only one foreign trip before demitting office. He was abroad for at least 30 days in 2005, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013. On average, each of this foreign trip lasted around 3.8 days. He made slightly greater number of trips in his second term compared to his first term.
Narendra’s Modi term as the Prime Minister
On the other hand, Narendra Modi made a total of 54 foreign trips in the first 3 years of his tenure lasting 132 days. He made 9 foreign trips in 2014, 27 in 2015 and 18 in 2016. His trips lasted 32 days in 2014, 64 days in 2015 and 18 days in 2016. Each trip on average lasted 2.5 days. In fact, Narendra Modi made more foreign trips in his first 3 years as the Prime Minister than Manmohan Singh made either during his entire first term as PM (2004-2009) or his entire second term (2009-14).
Comparing first 3 years of Manmohan Singh & Narendra Modi
Amit Shah’s statement was wrong on all counts. Not only did Manmohan Singh make fewer trips than Narendra Modi in the first 3 years of both his terms, he was abroad for fewer days than Narendra Modi in the first 3 years of both his terms.  In fact, in his first 3 years of term 1, Manmohan Singh made fewer trips than Narendra Modi made in 2015 alone. At the current rate, Narendra Modi will make greater number of trips compared to those by Manmohan Singh in either of his terms. It has to be noted that the average duration of each trip made by Narendra Modi is less than that of Manmohan Singh.

source: news-factly

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Fact Check of claims made by Jaggi Vasudev Sadhguru on CAA
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 7, 2020
Jaggi Vasudev (Sadhguru) recently spoke about CAA and during his talk, he made a series of claims on issues related to the CAA. Here is a fact-check of some of those claims.
The Government of India has recently launched an aggressive social media campaign with the tag – #IndiaSupportsCAA to clarify and garner support for Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the wake of widespread protests across the country.
As a part of this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has on 29 December 2019, tweeted a video of Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, urging people to hear to the explanation provided. This video was originally posted on Sadhguru’s YouTube channel , where he was addressing a gathering and his explanation was in a response to one of the questions asked.
Furthermore,on 30 December 2019, Union Home Minister, Amit Shah has also tweeted this video and asked to ‘stop believing lies and half-truth on CAA’.
Inthis video, Jaggi Vasudev spoke on CAA, NRC and the protests, especially in theuniversities across the country. There were many statements made in this videoand here is a fact-check of some of those statements.
Claim 1 : During partition, 23% stayed back in West Pakistan and 30% stayed back in East Pakistan.
During his talk, Sadhguru says that after the partition in 1947, 23% non-muslims stayed back in West Pakistan and nearly 30% non-muslims stayed back in East Pakistan. He adds a caveat that there is a lot of debate of percentages, however, the numbers should be around this and it cannot be totally wrong.
There was no official census conducted in 1947, which could have provided details of non-Muslims who stayed back in Pakistan (both West and East Pakistan).
As per Bina D’Costa’s book ’Nation building, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia’ , Hindus constituted 1.6% of the population in West Pakistan and 22% in East Pakistan in 1951.
As per the information provided in Lok Sabha on 28 July 2015, approximately 89.04 lakhs migrated to India from Pakistan (West and East ) between 1947 to 1958.
Claim: During Partition, the minority population which stayed back in Pakistan was 23% and 30% in West and East Pakistan respectively.
Fact: While there is no conclusive data regarding share of minorities, Hindus who stayed back is West Pakistan as of 1951 were only 1.6% , much less than 23% quoted by Jaggi Vasudev. Even the number quoted for East Pakistan is wrong.  Hence the statement is False.
Claim 2 : Persecution of minorities during the 1971 war and 18-19 million came into India from East Pakistan.
Thecurrent day Bangladesh was part of Pakistan and was referred to as EastPakistan. While both West Pakistan and East Pakistan were Muslim dominatedregions, they were diverse in terms of ethnicity and language.
Bengali was the prominent language in East Pakistan. One of the main causes of the 1971 war was atrocities committed by Pakistan administration (dominated by West Pakistan) towards Bengali speaking East Pakistanis.
This persecution was not on the basis of religion or directed towards minorities, but was an ethnic-language based conflict, and also one demanding an equal share of power.
Furtherin the talk, Jaggi Vasudev also states that 3 million Hindus were killed inEast Pakistan prior to 1971 war. However, there is no official data on anygenocide based on religious grounds as stated in the talk.
As per the data provided by Home Ministry in response to a question in Lok Sabha on 28 July 2015, about 11,13,958 (1.11 million) people migrated from East Pakistan into India during the period 01/01/1964 and 25/03/1971.
Claim: 18-19 lakhs fled East Pakistan during 1971 war due to religious persecution.
Fact: The displacement which happened due to persecution in the build-up to and during the 1971 war was not based on religious grounds.  As per official records, the number of migrants from East Pakistan during that period was 11.13 lakhs i.e. 1.11 million which is less than the numbers quoted by Sadhguru.  Hence this statement of Sadhguru is Misleading.
Claim 3 :  Hindu marriage is not legal in Pakistan
Furtherin the talk, Sadhguru cites a personal experience of his in Baku where-in he interactedwith Hindus from Pakistan who were visiting a temple there. He narrates thestory of a particular individual and says that he was given to understand thatHindu marriages are not legal in Pakistan.
Althoughhe says that this needs to be checked, he asserts that he spoke with others andwas informed that it was true.  However,Hindu Marriages not being legal in Pakistan is not true.
Pakistanhas in March 2017 brought Hindu Marriages Act- 2017, which provides legal status for marriages donethrough Hindu rituals.
Prior to this legislation, Pakistani Hindus faced problems in obtaining passports and Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs).
Claim: Hindu Marriages are not legal in Pakistan.
Fact: There are multiple instances of atrocities on minority communities especially Hindus in respect to marriages in Pakistan. But currently a law is in place which provides legal validity to Hindu marriages. Hence the statement made by Jaggi Vasudev is Misleading
Claim
4 : Birth certificate, Aadhar, Voter ID etc and other documents as proof for
NRC
Towardsthe end of the talk, Jaggi Vasudev speaks about NRC and albeit rhetoricallycites the below being considered to be proof for being a citizen as part of NRC
Andin case none of these documents are available, statements from 3 witnesses canbe provided.
However,it has to be noted that there is no official notification for a nationwide NRCand hence no information is available on what kind of documents would be  considered as proof for such a nationwideexercise.
Theonly reference we have in respect to NRC and the specifics around it is the NRCcarried out in Assam.  Even in the caseof Assam NRC, the documents to be furnished are not as straight forward asstated by Jaggi Vasudev.
The official website of the Government of Assam provides the list of documents which the citizens are expected to provide as proof. There are two lists.
List
A – Document issued prior to 24 March 1971, containingdetails of the name of Self or ancestors.
List B –  If the document in List A is not of the citizen but of the ancestors, then one of the following documents have to be provided which proves the relationship with the ancestor.
Soclearly, it was not a case simply submitting one of the given documents. Factlyhas earlier provided answers to some FAQs  on the NRC.
As per the draft NRC published in 2019 for Assam, 19 lakh people have been left out of the NRC list, about 5% of the population of Assam.
In an interview recently, Union Home Minister,  Amit Shah did state that Aadhaar, Voter ID etc are not proofs of Citizenship.
Claim: Passport, School certificate etc. are required for NRC and the proof of citizenship is simple.
Fact: While there is no official notification on the documents which needs to be provided for NRC, the experience from Assam NRC shows that proving citizenship is not about simply submitting one of the documents as stated by Jaggi Vasudev.  Hence this statement is Misleading.
Featured Image: Sadhguru on CAA

created: January 7, 2020


text:
Fact Check of the claims about achievement & revamping of the PMFBY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 27, 2020
The Union Finance minister recently made claims about the number of insured farmers under the PMFBY. The Congress party also made claims about the recent revamping of the scheme. Here is a fact-check of both these claims.
The government on 19 February 2020, announced the revamping of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana(PMFBY). On one hand, the Budget Speech, delivered by Finance MinisterNirmala Sitharaman, hailed PMFBY for providing resilience to 6.11 croresfarmers insured under scheme. On the other hand, the recent revamping hasgarnered criticism. In a recent post, the official twitter handle of theCongress claimed that the centre’s contribution in the scheme has fallen to 25%from 50%. We take a deep dive into both these claims.
What is the number of farmers insured under
PMFBY?
Claim 1 (Point 22): PMFBY has provided resilience to 6.11 crores farmers insured under scheme.
Fact: In the lack of fully reported data for Kharif 2018 and 2019, and Rabi 2018-19, the claim remains UNVERIFIED. The last reported data from 2018-19 (without fully reported Rabi 2018-19 figures) shows that the number of farmers insured under the scheme stands at 568.12 lakh i.e. 5.68 crore.
Thestatement made during the budget speech delivered on 01 February 2020 claimsthat about 6.11 crore farmers have been insured under the PMFBY. Here is a lookat different sources that report on the number of farmers insured under thescheme.
First, Department of Agriculture,
Cooperation & Farmers Welfare’s Annual Report 2018-19 gives the coverage details underPMFBY for 2017-18. The total number of farmers insured during 2017-18 wasreported to be 520.83 lakh i.e. 5.21 crore. However, any further updates on thenumber of farmers insured is not available as the next Annual Report 2019-20 isyet to be released.
Second, is the response of the government to the Lok Sabha and RajyaSabha’s relevant questions on PMFBY. In a question answered on 07 February 2020 in Rajya
Sabha, theMinister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare furnished the following data:
Since the claims from Rabi 2018-19were not finalised, the total number of farmers insured during 2018-19 standsas 568.12 lakh i.e. 5.68 crore. There have been no further updates on thenumber of farmer applications insured under the scheme.
Third, Department of Agriculture,
Cooperation & Farmers Welfare’s Dashboard presents real-time macro data onvarious schemes. The total number of farmers insured during 2018 was reportedto be 526 lakhs i.e. 5.26 crore and during 2019 was reported to be 535 lakhi.e. 5.35 crore. The dashboard shows that the data was uploaded on 26 February2020. However, the data cited on the dashboard, which shows that it was lastupdated on 26 February 2020, is less than the data furnished by the Minister ofAgriculture and Farmers Welfare on 07 February 2020, in Rajya Sabha. This showsa discrepancy in the data updated on the department’s portal.
Overall,the most reliable and recent reported data on the total number of farmersinsured under the PMFBY comes from the Rajya Sabha answer on 07 February 2020.It reports that 5.68 crore farmers were insured under PMFBY in 2018-19 (withRabi 2018-19 not finalised). In the absence of fully reported data for Kharif2018 and 2019, and Rabi 2018-19, the claim in the budget speech cannot beverified.
Has
Central Government’s contribution reduced?
Claim 2: The Central Government’s contribution in PMFBY has fallen from 50% to 25%.
Fact: The Central Government’s contribution in PMFY has fallen to 30% for unirrigated areas/crops and 25% for irrigated areas/crops. Therefore, the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
On20 February 2020, the official handle of Congress party claimed that the centre’s contribution inthe scheme has fallen to 25% from 50%. Pradhan Mantri Fasal BimaYojana (PMFBY) has been introduced for implementation from Kharif 2016 seasonto provide full insured amount to the farmers against crop loss on account ofnatural calamities. The revamping of the scheme was announced on 19 February2020.
The Operational Guidelines for PMFBY describe the rate of insurancecharges payable by farmers as:
Theguidelines mention that the difference between actuarial premium rate and therate of insurance charges payable by farmers shall be treated as Rate of NormalPremium Subsidy, which shall be shared equally by the Centre and State. Inother words, the contribution of the centre in subsidising the insurancepremium was 50% of the normal premium subsidy beyond what the farmer pays and theremaining 50% was shared by states.
Therecent revamping of the scheme changes the subsidy sharing equationbetween the Centre and States in the following ways:
This reduction in central subsidy might substantially increase theburden on the state governments especially where the premium rates are higher.Hence the Congress party’s claim that the centre reduced its subsidy to 25% ispartly true.

created: February 27, 2020


text:
Fact Check: Are Padma Awardees accorded a 'State Funeral'?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 2, 2018
Actress Sridevi was accorded a State Funeral and the National Flag was draped around her coffin. Was she accorded the state funeral because she was a Padma awardee? Here is a fact check.
Actress Sridevi was accorded a ‘State Funeral’ and the national flag was draped around her body. Twitter was abuzz with speculation that the ‘State Funeral’ to Sridevi was because of her being a Padma Awardee. Is it true that Padma awardees are accorded a ‘State Funeral’? Here is a Fact Check.
What is a ‘State Funeral’?
A ‘State Funeral’ is one where the government will make all arrangements for a funeral along with escort, a procession etc. Detailed instructions are issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs about the individuals eligible for a state funeral, process to be followed among other things.
The main procession  will normally start from the residence of the deceased or the place where the body is lying. The body will be brought escorted by a small party in vehicles. The strength of the escort is different for different people as defined in the instructions. For all state funerals, the coffin is suitably draped by a national flag of the appropriate size. It has to be noted that draping of the national flag is only allowed in a ‘State/Military/Central Para Military Forces’ funerals. Draping of the national flag in any other private funeral is an offense.
Who is eligible for a State Funeral?
As per the rules, a ‘State Funeral’ is be accorded in the event of the death of the President, Prime Minister, a former President or a Governor. At the same time, it is the prerogative of the government to order a state funeral for any other dignitary or individual. Hence, many other individuals are accorded state funeral apart from those mentioned in the relevant rules. Detailed rules are laid down for the process to be followed in the event of death of various dignitaries holding high public offices. Rules are laid down for the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Speaker, Governor,  Chief Minister of a State etc.
Half-Masting of the National Flag
In the event of the death of a set of dignitaries, the national flag is half-masted at various places as indicated in the rules.
When Anil Madhav Dave, the then Minister for Environment, passed away in 2017, a communication was sent by the Home Ministry for half-masting the flag. Holidays are also declared to various government offices in the case of the death of a dignitary holding a high office.
Fact Check: Padma Award & State Funeral
As is clear from the rules, there is no state funeral for a Padma Awardee. It is purely a prerogative/discretion of the government. Over the years, it has become a precedent to accord the state funeral to well known individuals based on public sentiment. Even in the case of Sridevi, the state funeral is a result of such public sentiment and not because of her Padma award.


text:
Fact Check: Has the Pew research said that 85% Indians trust the government?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 18, 2017
While the survey numbers have been quoted correctly by newspapers, they did not mention any other details of the survey including the sample size.
Many newspapers in India picked up a PTI story which said that a new Pew survey indicated that 85% Indians trust their government, 55% support autocracy and 27% want a strong leader. Are these numbers put out by the Pew? What is the sample size of the survey? Here is a Fact Check.
What is this Pew Survey?
Pew Research Center is based out of the US and is known for public opinion polling on various issues. Pew has been conducting a global survey by name ‘Global Attitudes & Trends‘ that focusses on different themes each year. In 2017, the Pew survey referred to by the newspapers is a 38 nation survey about the support for democracy & its alternatives. This is a part of the Pew Research Center’s Spring 2017 Global Attitudes Survey. According to the Pew website, these surveys are conducted via telephone or face-to-face interviews, depending on the country. All the results are based on national samples.
What is the sample size for India?
According to the Pew website, India results are based on a sample size of 2464. All the interviews in India were face-to-face and were conducted in Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Gujarati, Marathi & Odia. The survey was conducted between February & March 2017.
What did the survey say about India?
Support to Democracy: In India, 8% were completely committed to democracy (do not support any other alternative form of government) while 67% were less committed to democracy (willing to support at least another non-democratic form of government). This is against a global median of 23% committed democrats & 47% less committed.
Satisfaction with Democracy: The survey found that the satisfaction levels with democracy were closely tied with what people felt about the economy. In India, 87% of those who felt economy was doing good were satisfied with democracy while only 53% of those who felt economic situation was bad were satisfied with democracy. Of all the people surveyed, 79% from India were satisfied with the way democracy was working, the highest such satisfaction level in the world along with countries like Sweden & Tanzania.Trust in the Government: The survey found that the trust in the national government was closely tied with the public satisfaction levels with democracy. In most Asian & Sub-Saharan African countries, the trust in the government was higher. In India, 39% trusted the government a lot to do what is right for the country while another 46% trusted the government somewhat to do what is right for the country. In all, 85% expressed trust in the government. Only 5 countries reported a more than 80% trust in the government including India. Four of these countries are Asian.Trust in Government linked to Economic Growth: The survey found that people in countries with high economic growth had greater trust in their governments. India, Tanzania, Philippines etc. represented this trend. Trust in the government was also closely linked to how people felt about the economy. In India, 92% of those who felt that the economic situation was good expressed trust in the government while only 55% trusted the government among those who felt the economic situation was bad.Citizens okay with both Direct & Indirect say in policy: Among those surveyed in India, the support for both direct & indirect say in policy matters found support. 75% felt that a system where elected representatives decide on law is total good while 76% also felt that a system where citizens directly vote on major national issues is total good. The survey also found 65% support in India where experts (technocrats) instead of elected representatives make policy.Support for Autocracy & Military rule: Despite overwhelming support for democracy & its functioning in India, the survey also found 55% support for autocracy in India. The survey also says that 27% back a strong leader. Further,  53% of those surveyed in India expressed support for a military rule in India, surprising considering that India is hailed as a great example of a democracy.
What about Previous surveys?
The ‘Global Attitudes & Trends’ survey has published results on various issues in the past including approval for a country’s leadership, satisfaction with the economy etc.  In 2006, Pew research indicated that 80% from India felt optimistic about country’s progress in the next 5 years. In 2009, the survey reported 67% viewed Global Warming as a serious problem and 84% felt that the environment should be protected even at the cost of growth & jobs. In the same year, 73% felt that the economy is in good shape.
The 2010 survey indicated that 75% Indians saw Lashkar-e-Taiba & Pakistan as the greatest threats while 83% wanted relations with Pakistan to improve. In 2010, 57% felt that the economy is in good shape, down from 73% in 2009. In the same year, 85% felt that the government was doing a good job in handling the economy.
In late 2013 & early 2014, the Pew survey highlighted the growing discontent with the then UPA government. The survey found that 70% were dissatisfied with the way things were going in the country, 42% felt the economy was not doing well.
The 2015 survey report highlighted 87% favourable view for Prime Minister Narendra Modi compared to 52% for Manmohan Singh in 2013. In the same year, the survey found that 74% were satisfied with the state of economy compared to 57% in 2013. The 2016 survey 81% had a favourable view of the Prime Minister compared to 87% in 2015. At the same time, satisfaction with the state of economy increased to 80% from 74% in 2015.
Claim Check: Are the newspaper reports true then?
While the newspaper reports cited the correct numbers, they did not mention other details of the survey like sample size, period & form of the survey.

created: October 18, 2017


text:
Fact Check: Rahul Gandhi’s Claims in Telangana public meeting
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 3, 2017
Rahul Gandhi visited Telangana and addressed a public meeting in which he made a lot of claims. We fact check some of his claims.
Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi visited Telangana on June 1st and addressed a public meeting in the Sangareddy district. During the course of his public address, he made allegations/claims against the ruling TRS government in Telangana & BJP government at the center. Here is a fact check on some of his claims.
Claim: TRS Government stopped the Fee-Reimbursement Scheme
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the TRS government stopped the fee reimbursement scheme that was started during the Congress government.
Fact: The fee reimbursement scheme was started in 2008 by the then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y S Rajasekhara Reddy. Far from stopping the scheme, the TRS government has continued the scheme and the highest ever release (for Telangana) in the last 6 years under this scheme was made in 2016-17 as per government data. In 2016-17, Rs 1725.88 crore was released under the ‘Reimbursement of Tuition Fee’ scheme. This is the highest release under this scheme since 2011-12.
Claim: Chilli Prices were Rs 12000 per quintal then, now is Rs 3000 to Rs 4000 per quintal
Rahul Gandhi alleged that the Chief Minister of Telangana, K Chandrasekhar Rao asked farmers to cultivate alternate crops like Chilli and that the price of Chilli which was Rs 12000 per quintal at one point of time is Rs 3000 to Rs 4000 per quintal now.
Fact: Yes, the Chilli prices are now at the Rs 3000 per quintal level. But the fluctuation in Chilli prices has been a feature since the year 2002 (the year from when the government data is available). The government’s official data shows this fluctuation. The fluctuation was seen almost every year. Even in March 2016, the maximum price for Chilli was Rs 18000 per quintal in Warangal market.
Claim: We will ensure mobiles are made in Telangana if you can’t do it
Rahul Gandhi said his dream is to ensure that mobiles and other items bear the ‘Made in India’ & ‘Made in Telangana’ mark and asked people to demand the Telangana government that new factories be setup meaning that there is no progress on that front during the current dispensation.
Fact: As per the annual reports of the Government of Telangana, at least 5 electronic manufacturing companies (including mobile) have setup their manufacturing facility in Telangana in the last 3 years. Micromax, Celkon, Smartron, Datawind & Thomson have setup their manufacturing facility in Telangana in the last 3 years.
Claim: Unemployment rate highest in the last 60 years
Rahul Gandhi claimed that the current unemployment rate in the country is the highest in the last 60 years and that the central government had given such an information in the parliament in response to a question by a MP from the Congress.
Fact: Though we could not find any such question asked in the Parliament in the recent times that pointed to a 60 year record, the data on unemployment is confusing and unreliable as noted in this article, to come to a conclusion. In February 2017, the Minister of State for Planning, Mr. Rao Inderjit Singh admitted in the Rajya Sabha that the unemployment rate in the country was increasing and was at 5%. But a SBI report that was release in March 2017 claims that the unemployment rate in the country went down from 9.5% in August 2016 to 4.8% in February 2017. Hence the data is confusing and not adequate to come to any conclusion.
Claim: Indira Gandhi provided employment to 1 lakh people in this area
Rahul Gandhi claimed that his grandmother and the former Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi developed the Medak area and provided employment to 1 lakh people.
Fact: It is true that the Medak area received a huge boost after Indira Gandhi won from the Medak Lok Sabha seat in 1980. The Patancheru Industrial Park, the Ordinance Factory in Medak were setup during her time as the Medak MP. There is no doubt that these initiatives did provide employment to a large number of people, but the claim of 1 lakh could not be verified because of lack of data.


text:
Fact-Check Team
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 24, 2024


text:
Fact Check: That Kid did not say he likes Modi the most - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 25, 2019
A video is being widely shared on Facebook where in a Kid says he likes Modi the most when President of USA, Donald Trump asks him. Here is a fact check of this claim.
Trump: “ Who do you like the most?”.  Kid: “Modi”
If one searches with the key word ‘Trump with Little Kid’ on YouTube, a video published by Fox10 news channel can be seen. The video that is going viral on Facebook is the same video, but the audio has been modified. In the original video, Trump can be seen asking the Kid if he wants to go back to his parents or stay with Trump to which the Kid answers Trump. Hence the video that is being shared on Facebook is not the original one, but the one with modified audio.
Finally, the Kid did not say Modi.

created: February 25, 2019


text:
Fact Check: The Delhi NSA Order - Routine or not?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 5, 2020
Recently, an order was issued extending certain powers under the NSA to the Delhi police. Is this a special order? Have such orders been issued before in Delhi or any other state? Here is a detailed fact-check.
The recent order of placing Delhi under National Security Act (NSA) has become a talking point in thewake of on-going protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in variousparts of the city. While the Delhi Police clarified that it is a routine order has nothing to do with the current situation, many protestors, politicians, and organisations viewed it as aclampdown on the on-going protests under the garb of a draconian law.
In this fact-check, two factors have been explored.First, whether the order of placing Delhi under NSA is consistent with theregular deployment exercise, as clarified by the Delhi Police. Second, if thesame practice is undertaken in other Indian states.
The Delhi NSA order
Claim: The order extending certain powers under the NSA to Delhi Police is made in the wake of CAA protests and to detain protestors.
Fact: The recent order is a routine order. Such orders were issued regularly in the last three years. Moreover, such orders were issued in many other states, some of them not ruled by the BJP. Hence the claim is FALSE.
On 10 January 2020, the Lieutenant governor of Delhi passed an order authorising the Commissioner of Police to place the city under the National Security Act (NSA) for three months. The order reads that, “in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section 3, read with clause (e) of Section 2 of the National Security Act, 1980, the Lt. Governor of the Nation Capital Territory of Delhi directs the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to exercise powers of detaining authority under the section (2) of the section 3 of the aforesaid Act for a period of 3 months”.
The subsection (3) of section 3, in the NSA Act, empowers the Central and State Governments to place the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police under the NSA Act for a period of three months. The duration can be extended if deemed necessary by the State Government. In other words, the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police can exercise certain powers under the NSA for that specified period.
Similar orders were issued in themonths of January and July for the past 3 years – 2019, 2018 and 2017 – to extendcertain powers under the NSA to Delhi police for a period of three months. Thenature of the order issued on 10 January 2020 is found to be standard, similarto orders in the past three years. This validates that all such orders areroutine, including the most recent one released on 10 January 2020.
What about other States?
The exercise of extending powers under the NSA is standard practice across states. We take the example of four states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Bihar, and Odisha to understand the frequency and nature of such orders in these states.
In Andhra Pradesh, the cities of Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam, have been put under NSA on a regular basis. For example, in 2019 itself, the order to put these cities under NSA was issued in January, April, July, as well as October. The case was similar for the previous years, 2018 and 2017 when multiple orders were issued throughout the year. It has to be noted that such orders were issued both during the term of the former CM Chandrababu Naidu and the current CM Jagan Mohan Reddy.
In Telangana, while there were no recentorders available in the public domain, the jurisdictions of Hyderabad andCyberabad, have been put under NSA multiple times during 2014-16. One order wasissued on October 2014, four orders in 2015, and one order on January 2016.
In Bihar, jurisdictions under allDistrict Magistrates have been placed under the NSA Act from time to time. In2019, the order to put all jurisdictions under NSA was issued in January, Apriland June. The case was similar for the precious years, 2018 and 2017, where twoorders were issued throughout the year.
In Odisha, differentjurisdictions have been placed under the NSA from time to time. Dhenkanal,Deogarh, and Angul were placed under NSA in 2014, 2013 and 2010, respectively.
What does all this mean?
In view of NSA orders in different states and Delhi’s own history of NSA orders in the previous years, it is clear that the recent order was no different than the earlier ones. Moreover, the nature of the recent order is standard and similar to previous orders, and therefore, does not signify any departures from the routine quarterly order. Hence the claims made to suggest that the order in Delhi was in the wake of the CAA protests is False.
Featured Image: Delhi NSA Order Fact Check

created: February 5, 2020


text:
Fact Check: Trump is wrong about India’s spending in Afghanistan
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 4, 2019
The U.S. President Donald Trump, during his press appearance at a cabinet meeting mocked India’s aid to Afghanistan i.e., Prime Minister Modi’s statement that India funded the construction of a library in Afghanistan. Here is a fact check of his claim.
The U.S. President Donald Trump, during his press appearance at a cabinet meeting mocked India’s aid to Afghanistan i.e., Prime Minister Modi’s statement that India funded construction of a library in Afghanistan. Trump said Modi was ‘constantly telling me he built a library in Afghanistan’. He went onto say, ‘You know what that is? That’s like five hours of what we spend.’ Trump also said that he doesn’t know who is using the library in Afghanistan.
India’s aid to Afghanistan since 2001 has been more than $2 billion
It is not quite clear as to what Trump referred to when he spoke about the library India funded in Afghanistan. But, India has been one of the largest aid donors to Afghanistan since the war broke out in 2001. As per the website of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, India has an extensive developmental assistance programme in Afghanistan, which now stands at around $2 billion. This makes India one of the leading donor nations to Afghanistan and by far the largest donor in the region. Even as per the statement of an official of the U.S. Department of State to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee, India has allocated more than $3 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since 2001 and has also signed a development partnership agreement.
Number of programs have been taken up with India’s aid money. Some of them are listed below.
Important Projects: India has funded the new Afghan Parliament building which was built at a cost of Rs. 969 crores ( ~$150 million). India has also committed assistance for construction of Executive Block for the new Afghan Parliament building. In addition, India has funded the Afghan-India Friendship Dam (Salma Dam), Doshi & Charikar substations, establishment of Afghan National Agriculture Science & Technology University, Kandahar, commitment to supply 1.1 million MT of wheat to Afghanistan. India has also committed to contribute $1 million annually over next five years to Afghan Red Crescent Society for treatment of Afghan children with Congenital Heart Disease, grant-in-aid of $1 million to Habibia High School over next 10 years. India has also committed to contribute substantially in improving transportation system in Kabul and has decided to donate 1000 buses to Afghanistan along with upgradation related infrastructure.
Infrastructure Projects: Some of the infrastructure projects include construction of a 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram for facilitating movement of goods and services to the Iranian border, construction of 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20 kV sub-station at Chimtala, upgrading of telephone exchanges in 11 provinces, expansion of national TV network by providing an uplink from Kabul and downlinks in all 34 provincial capitals for greater integration of the country.
Small Development Projects (SDP): India is also implementing the SDP scheme in the fields of agriculture, rural development, education, health, vocational training, etc. The Small Development Projects are implemented in three phases. In the first 2 phases, the total commitment is of $20 million for 132 projects. The 3rd phase of the SDP scheme was signed in November 2012 with an additional outlay of $100 million.
Skill Development: In the area of skill development, India offers training to Afghan nationals in diverse fields through 500 ITEC slots and 25 slots under TCS Colombo plan. Specialised ITEC courses are held for Afghan Government Officials on specific demand, 614 ICAR scholarships are given under India-Afghanistan Fellowship programme commenced in 2012-13 lasting up to 2020-21. India also grants ICCR scholarships to 1000 Afghans every year to pursue under graduate courses in various Indian universities in major cities across India.
The other list of projects & India’s assistance to Afghanistan are listed in various Parliament answers here, here, here, here and here.
What about the Library?
From the information available in the public domain, it seems there no specific library project in Afghanistan. But many of the projects India funded in Afghanistan have a library component. Following are some of them.
While a specific library is not built, many of the projects India funded have a library component and hence India indirectly funded construction of libraries.
What about U.S. spending in Afghanistan?
While there are no accurate estimates on how much the U.S. spent on Afghanistan, multiple reports provide us a fair idea.  Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), created by the U.S. Congress estimates that $126.30 billion has been appropriated for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction since 2002. SIGAR’s latest quarterly report puts this figure at $132.07 billion as of September 2018.
On the other hand, the U.S. State Department website mentions that approximately $29 billion has been allocated in civilian assistance for Afghanistan since 2001. This estimate does not include the military expenditure. CNN estimates the financial cost in Afghanistan at $841 billion including the military expenditure since 2001. Another report mentions that the Pentagon estimates the spending to be $45 billion each year.
How true is Trump’s claim?
Trump’s claim is way off the mark even after considering the varied estimates by different agencies about the U.S. spending in Afghanistan. With the least estimates, the 5 hour spending of U.S. comes to $1.03 million while with the highest estimates, it comes to $30 million for 5 hours. Both these estimates are less than what India has spent on various library projects in Afghanistan.
Claim: India’s spending on building a Library in Afghanistan is like 5 hours of what U.S. spends in Afghanistan.
Fact: Trump’s claim is way off the mark even after considering the varied estimates by different agencies about the U.S. spending in Afghanistan. With the least estimates, the 5 hour spending of U.S. comes to $1.03 million while with the highest estimates, it comes to $30 million for 5 hours. Both these estimates are less than what India has spent on various library projects in Afghanistan. Hence, the claim is FALSE.

created: January 4, 2019


text:
Fact Check: Was the Winter Session of Parliament postponed during UPA rule?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 22, 2017
While Sonia Gandhi accused the government of postponing the parliament session for a state election, Arun Jaitley hit back saying the Congress did the same in 2011. Is it true that the parliament session was postponed in 2011? Here is a Fact Check.
The Congress President Sonia Gandhi criticized the government for not holding the winter session of parliament when it should be held because of the Gujarat elections, during her address to the Congress Working Committee (CWC). The Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley hit back at the Congress saying that postponement of parliament sessions for an election was also done by the Congress earlier and he referred to the year 2011 when such postponement happened.
When is the Winter Session usually held?
The winter session of parliament is usually held in the months of November & December each year. The only exception to this were the years 2003, 2004, 2008 & 2013 when the session began in December as indicated in the table below.
What happened in the year 2011?
In the year 2011 that was referred to by Arun Jaitley, the winter session began on 22 November. The only set of elections held in 2011 were general elections to the assembly in the states of Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu & West Bengal. The elections in all these states were held in the months of April & May of 2011. The second part of the Budget session is usually held during this period. It is true that the the budget session in 2011 was cut short and was restricted to 23 sittings (because of these elections), about 10-12 sittings less than the average number of sittings in the budget session during other years.
Claim Check: Arun Jaitley’s statement that Congress postponed the session in 2011 is FALSE since no elections took place in 2011 during November/December and the winter session was held during the usual time. However, he is RIGHT that the Congress did cut short the budget session in 2011 though they did not postpone it.
Was a Parliament session never postponed for elections?
While it is difficult to say if parliament sessions were postponed because of an election, the winter session of parliament in the years 2003, 2008 & 2013 did not begin in November.
In each of these years, general elections were held in the states of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi & Mizoram. And strangely enough, the winter session began only after the last day of polling in each of these years. In the year 2008, the winter session started early in October, but there was a break between 24 October and 09 December probably because of the elections.
The NDA was in power in 2003 while it was the UPA  that was ruling in both 2008 & 2013. It does seem that both the parties are guilty of postponing a parliament session for state elections.

created: November 22, 2017


text:
Fact Check: What did the government do for Persons with Disabilities?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 18, 2018
How true are the government claims about number of beneficiaries of the ADIP scheme & the insurance scheme for the PwDs?
An infographic published on the 48 months portal makes four claims about how holistic development for Divyangs or Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)  is being achieved. The following article is a fact check of these claims.
Has there been an increase in government jobs reserved for disabled people?
The first claim is that reservations for Divyang persons in government jobs have been raised from 3% to 4%. The Constitution of India under article 41 provides that ‘The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want.’
According to the annual report (2017-18) of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) issued an order in January 2018 to implement 4% reservation in Central Government jobs for persons with benchmark disabilities. This has been done in accordance to the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The reservation for such class of persons was only 3% before the enactment of the new law in 2016.
Before the new act came into existence in 2016, the provisions of the previously existing The persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995 had mandated only 3% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.  The  Rights of persons with disabilities Act, 2016 now mandates 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
The act which was passed in 2016 was first introduced in the parliament by the erstwhile UPA government. What is interesting to note is that the bill introduced by the UPA in the year 2014 talks about 5% reservation while the act passed in 2016 reduces it to 4%.
Claim: Reservations for Divyang persons in government jobs have been raised from 3% to 4%.
Fact: The change in the law governing the rights of people with disabilities has led to an increase in reservation in government jobs from 3% to 4% for persons with benchmark disabilities. In that sense, the claim is PARTLY TRUE since the reservation is only for persons with benchmark disabilities. But, it has to be noted that the draft bill of the new law which was introduced in the parliament by the UPA in 2014 provided for 5% reservation.
Have camps being organized for Divyangs increased substantially?
The second claim is that there has been an unprecedented increase in camps for Divyangs under the Scheme of Assistance to Disabled Persons for Purchase/Fitting of Aids/ Appliances (ADIP). The aggregated data on the number of camps before 2013-14 is not available. The data from the annual reports of DEPwD indicates that while the number of camps did increase in 2014-15 and 2015-16, it is decreasing again starting from 2016-17. The average number of camps conducted under the scheme during the tenure of the current government is more than 1500, which is 40% more than the number of camps conducted in 2013-14, the last year of the UPA government.
Claim: Unprecedented increase in camps for Divyangs (PwDs)
Fact: There has been a 40% increase in the average number of camps conducted for PwDs under the ADIP scheme. Hence the claim is TRUE
How many disabled persons have been benefitted from how many camps?
The third claim is that over 6 lakh Divyangs  (PwDs) have benefitted from 5790 camps. As per the 2017-18 annual report of the DEPwD, the total number of camps organized under the scheme since 2014 is 6,073 and the total number of beneficiaries is 9,35,583. This is an average of 2.5 lakh beneficiaries a year. Though the total number of beneficiaries is more than what is claimed in the infographic, it has to be noted that the average number of beneficiaries under the ADIP scheme has not increased despite a substantial increase in the number of camps. Even under the UPA, the annual average number of beneficiaries was around 2.5 lakh.
Claim: Over 6 lakh Divyang people have benefitted from 5790 camps.
Fact: In the last 4 years, 6073 camps were organized which have benefitted 9.35 lakh people.  Hence, the claim is TRUE.  However, it has to be noted that the average number of beneficiaries under the ADIP scheme has not increased despite a substantial increase in the number of camps. Even under the UPA, the annual average number of beneficiaries was around 2.5 lakh.
Is health insurance cover of Rs.1 Lakh being provided to the disabled persons?
The fourth claim is that Rs 1 lakh health insurance cover is provided to people with autism, cerebral palsy and many other disabilities. As mentioned in the 2017-18 annual report of the DEPwD, ‘Niramaya Health Insurance Scheme is to provide affordable Health Insurance to persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple disabilities. The enrolled beneficiaries get a health insurance cover up to Rs.1 lakh, by paying a nominal fee.’
But as is clear from an answer in the Lok Sabha and a press release of the government, this scheme was existing even during the UPA and is not a new scheme of the current government. The Niramaya scheme is implemented by the National Trust which is a statutory body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The National Trust undertakes awareness & capacity building programs and provides shelter, care giving & empowerment for the welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities. The trust implements multiple schemes of which the ‘Niramaya’ scheme is one.
As noted in the 2014-15 annual report of the National Trust,  the Niramaya scheme was piloted in 2007, for two years in 10 selected districts of equal number of States and was subsequently extended to cover the entire country. The annual report also points out that Rs 1 lakh insurance coverage over a range of medical services was being provided. The only change during the current government is revision of the benefit chart.
Claim: Rs1 lakh rupees health insurance cover to people with autism, cerebral palsy and many disabilities is being provided
Fact: Niramaya Health Insurance Scheme provides insurance cover up to Rs 1 lakh, by paying a nominal fee. This scheme was initiated and has been running since before 2014 and cannot be attributed to the present government. Hence, the claim is MISLEADING.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 18, 2018


text:
Fact Check: Will you be penalised for 'giving lift' to unknown persons? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 26, 2018
One Mr. Nithin Nair posted on Facebook explaining how he was issued a challan and penalised for offering lift to unknown persons when it was raining heavily. We look at the relevant provisions of the MV act and fact check this claim.
A Facebook post by one Mr. Nithin Nair went viral a few days ago. In his post, he mentioned how the traffic police issued him a  challan for giving lift to unknown persons standing on the road. He also mentioned that he was booked under Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles act. Is giving lift to unknown persons really on offence? What does the MV act say? Here is a fact check.
What is Section 66 of the MV Act?
Section 66 of the MV act deals with the control of transport vehicles. The objects & reasons as specified in the act clearly explain what Section 66 is meant for.
Motor vehicles that are intended for commercial purpose (transport) have to get the necessary permit from the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). These are popularly known as the ‘Yellow Plate’ vehicles. In other words, using a vehicle for transport purpose without a valid permit and in violation of any of the conditions laid down in the permit is an offence as per the MV act.
At the same time, Section 66 also lays down certain exemptions like in the case of certain government vehicles, vehicles that have to be diverted to other states during natural calamities and emergency etc.
What is Section 192 of the MV Act?
Section 192 of the MV act prescribes penalties for violations committed under Section 66. In other words, this section talks about the penalties if anyone is found using a motor vehicle for commercial (transport) purpose without a valid permit or found violating the permit conditions. As per this section, the maximum penalty for the first offence is Rs 5000 and the minimum penalty is Rs 2000. In addition, a person can also be imprisoned for up to 3 months. Even in this section, certain exemptions like use of the vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injury etc. are defined, for which there will be no penalty.
What about the current case?
The person who was penalised explained in his Facebook post that he offered a lift when it was raining heavily. Unfortunately, heavy rain is not defined as an emergency situation in either of the sections of the MV act in question. Hence, the traffic police may have issued a challan. Strictly speaking, he is right as per the existing law because no person is allowed to carry passengers without a valid permit (yellow plate).
Fact Check: Will people be penalised for giving lift?
In practice, these sections are generally used for permit violations of commercial transport vehicles and in cases  where private vehicles are run as taxis without a valid permit. It is very rare that a challan is issued like in the case of Mr. Nithin Nair. Please note that car pooling with friends etc. will not be treated as an offence under these sections. However, it is recommended that you do you not offer lift to unknown persons on busy junctions and at public places if you do not have a valid permit.
Featured image by Biswarup Ganguly on Wikipedia


text:
Fact Checking claims on Housing related achievements of this government
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 29, 2018
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about the number of houses built in the last four years and the interest subsidy on housing loans. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about the number of houses built in the last four years and the interest subsidy on housing loans. This article is a fact check of the claims.
How many houses have been constructed?
The first claim is that 1 crore houses have been built in the last four years of this government.
In response to a question in the Rajya Sabha, the government stated that, ‘To pursue the objective of Housing for All by 2022, the Government approved re- structuring of the erstwhile rural housing scheme Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) into Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana -Gramin (PMAY-G). Under PMAY-G, the beneficiaries are to be selected from Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 list and as verified by the Gram Sabha will get enhanced unit assistance with additional assistance for toilet construction, unskilled wage labour under MGNREGS. Use of locally available construction material, increased availability of rural masons through rural mason training programme for better quality of construction, availability of house design choices etc. are other feature of PMAY-G. Under PMAY-G, it is proposed to construct one crore houses in three years from 2016-17 to 2018-19.’
In response to another question in the Rajya Sabha, the government stated a total of 94.91 lakh houses were built in the rural areas between 2015 and 2018 and 42.93 lakh houses were sanctioned to be built in urban areas during the same period. This makes the total of more than one crore houses. Hence the claim is true.
However, it has to be noted that even during the previous government, substantial number of houses were built in the rural areas. Information provided by the government in the Rajya Sabha in 2016, in the Lok Sabha in 2018, CAG report of the year 2014, annual reports of the Ministry of Rural development indicate that substantial number of houses were also built during the previous government.
As per these figures, the UPA government constructed a total of 89.65 lakh houses as part of the IAY in their last four years between 2010-11 & 2013-14. The current government on the other hand constructed a total of 111.44 lakh houses in their first four years between 2014-15 & 2017-18.
Claim: 1 crore houses have been built.
Fact: 94.91 lakh houses were built in the rural areas between 2015 and 2018 and 42.93 lakh houses were sanctioned to be built in urban areas during the same period. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that substantial number of houses were also built during the previous government.
What about interest subvention on Housing Loans?
The second claim is that loans up to Rs. 9 lakh and Rs. 12 lakh get interest subvention of 4% and 3% respectively. Interest subvention is a subsidy provided on the interest rate. It simply implies that the borrower need not pay the total interest amount on the money borrowed since part of the interest amount is borne by the government.
Interest subvention on housing loans is not a new initiative. The UPA-2 government announced & implemented a scheme of 1% interest subvention on Housing Loan up to Rs. 10 lakh with cost of the housing unit not exceeding Rs. 20 Lakh in 2009-10. This scheme was implemented through Scheduled Commercial banks (SCBs) and Housing Finance Companies (HFCs).
The scheme was extended for 2011-12 with an increase in housing loan limit up to Rs. 15 Lakh (from earlier limit of 10 Lakh) and the unit cost of house up to Rs. 25 Lakh (from earlier limit of 20 lakh). The scheme was further extended for 2012-13.
To improve the affordability of housing loans to Economically Weaker Section (EWS)/Lower Income Group (LIG) segments in urban areas, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MHUPA), implemented Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor (ISHUP) in December 2008 to provide home loan to EWS/LIG persons for construction of house. The Scheme provided a subsidy of 5% for a loan amount up to Rs. 1 lakh for the entire tenure of loan on an upfront basis. The scheme had closed in September 2013. This scheme was renamed in 2013 as Rajiv Rinn Yojana (RRY) and under RRY, the amount of loan has been revised up to Rs. 5 lakh for EWS and Rs. 8 lakh for LIG beneficiaries. However, the interest subsidy was made available for a maximum of Rs. 5 lakh for both categories of beneficiaries.
As per the website of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, the current government is implementing a demand side intervention known as the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS) under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY). Under the CLSS, the interest subsidy will be credited upfront to the loan account of beneficiaries resulting in reduced effective housing loan and EMIs. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the interest subsidy will be calculated at a discount rate of 9 %.
Under the CLSS, there are two different provisions for the EWS/LIG group and the MIG (Middle Income Group). Beneficiaries of the EWS/LIG would be eligible for an interest subsidy at the rate of 6.5% for a tenure of 20 years or during tenure of loan whichever is lower.
The newly launched CLSS for MIG covers two income segments in the MIG, that is Rs.6,00,001 to Rs.12,00,000 (MIG-I) and Rs.12,00,001 to Rs.18,00,000 (MIG-II) per annum. In the MIG-I, an interest subsidy of 4% is provided for loan amounts up to Rs. 9 lakh while in MIG-II, an interest subsidy of 3% is provided for loan amount of Rs. 12 lakh. Housing loans above Rs. 9 lakh and Rs. 12 lakh will be at non-subsidized rates.
Claim: Loans up to Rs. 9 lakh and Rs. 12 lakh get interest subvention of 4% and 3%.
Fact: Under the newly launched Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS) for the Middle Income Group (MIG), in the MIG-I (income segment Rs.6,00,001 to Rs.12,00,000), an interest subsidy of 4% is provided for loan amounts up to Rs. 9 lakh while in MIG-II (income segment Rs.12,00,001 to Rs.18,00,000), an interest subsidy of 3% is provided for loan amount of Rs.12 lakh. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, interest subvention as an initiative is now new and has been implemented during the UPA as well.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: December 29, 2018


text:
Fact Checking claims on India’s Economic Growth Vs Global Economic Growth
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 26, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. This info-graph makes three claims about India’s economic growth. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal. This info-graph makes three claims about India’s economic growth. This article is a fact check of the claims.
Is India the World’s fastest growing large economy?
The first claim is that ‘India remains the world’s fastest growing large economy’.
The Global Economic Prospects report by the World Bank from January 2019 stated that ‘India’s growth accelerated to an estimated 7.3% in FY2018/19 (April to March) as economic activity continued to recover with strong domestic demand’.
The following table from the aforementioned report shows that the percentage change of real GDP from previous year is highest in case of India when compared to any other country’s economy and also highest among the Emerging Market & Developing Economies (EMDEs) for 2018-19.
The table also shows that India is set to retain the top position for the years of 2018, 2019 and further. But that is the not case for 2016 and 2017. There has actually been a sharp increase from the year 2017 that is attributed in the report to structural changes such as demonetization and introduction of GST.
The same table from the Global Economic Prospects report of 2016 shows that India was projected to have the  greatest GDP growth rate in 2015, 2016 & 2017 as well. This did not eventually happen.
Claim: India remains the world’s fastest growing large economy.
Fact: India has been projected to have the highest rate of growth of real GDP from 2018 onwards.  In the World Bank report, India is categorized under the category of Emerging Markets and Developing Economies.  Further, the real GDP growth rate of India is highest of the large economies. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
Is India rated highly on all investment and macro-economic indicators?
The second claim is that ‘India rated highly on all investment and macro-economic indicators’.
There are a number of investment and macro-economic indicators that are considered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank for comparison across the world. It is difficult to compare all these indicators and establish if India is ranked high among all of them. A list of the macro-economic indicators considered by our country is as follows:
The gross fixed capital formation data that is published by the OECD shows visualized data that compares India’s performance to the other member countries.
The world bank also published visualizations that show the adjusted net national income (annual growth rate).  The IMF also publishes real GDP growth rate figures of various countries.
The claim remains UNVERIFIED because of the large number of macro-economic indicators and the lack globally acceptable data for each of the indicators .
Claim: India rated highly on all investment and macro-economic indicators.
Fact: The claim remains UNVERIFIED because of the large number of macro-economic indicators and the lack globally acceptable data for each of the indicators.
Did India’s GDP increase by 31% between 2013 and 2017?
The third claim is that ‘India’s GDP in current prices increased by 31% between 2013 and 2017 while the global GDP increased by 4%’.
According to the National Accounts Statistics (2018), ‘at current prices, GDP for 2016-17 is estimated to be 151.8 lakh crore’.  On the other hand, the National Account Statistics (2014) states that ‘at current prices, the advance estimate of GDP at factor cost for 2013-14 turns out to be  105.4 lakh crore’. This shows that for the period under consideration, GDP at current prices increased from 105.4 lakh crore to 151.8 lakh crores in the case of India.
Data published by the World Bank shows that the GDP of India and the world in current US dollars is:
This shows that India’s GDP increased by 40% between the two years, while world GDP increased by 4.71%. The following graph shows the GDP growth rates of the India and the World since 2000. It shows that India’s GDP growth rate has been higher than the world’s growth rates since 2001.
Claim: India’s GDP in current prices increased by 31% between 2013 and 2017 while the global GDP increased by 4%
Fact: India’s GDP increased by 40% between the 2013 and 2017, while world GDP increased by 4.71%. Since the numbers are more or less the similar, the claim is TRUE. India’s GDP grew at a higher rate during the period under consideration as compared to the number made in the claim. India’s GDP has also been growing at a greater pace than the World GDP since 2001.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact Checking claims on India’s global standing in FDI inflows
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 29, 2018
In an infographic uploaded on the 48 months’ website, the government made claims about India’s global standing in terms of FDI inflows. Here is a fact check of these claims.
In an infographic uploaded on the 48 months website, the government made claims about India’s global standing in terms of FDI inflows. Here is a fact check of these claims.
What is Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)?
As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF), FDI refers to an investment made to acquire lasting interest in enterprises operating outside of the economy of the investor. Greenfield FDI is foreign investment in new assets/projects than acquisition of existing assets.
Is India the number one in the world for attracting Greenfield FDI?
The first claim is that India is the world number one in attracting Greenfield FDI. Greenfield FDI is foreign investment in new assets/projects than acquisition of existing assets. This claim has been made on the basis of the report by fDi Intelligence which is, according to the same report,  the most comprehensive service tracking cross border Greenfield investment across all countries and sectors worldwide.  According to the fDi report 2017,  ‘For the second year running, India was the highest ranked country by capital investment, with $62bn-worth of FDI projects announced in 2016. India retained its top spot for FDI by capital investment following an increase in investment of 2% to $62.3bn.’
However, as per the fDi report 2018,  ‘In 2017, India was replaced by the US as the highest ranked country for FDI by capital investment, with $87.4bn recorded, boosted by major announcements from Foxconn and Saudi Basic Industries to invest billions in single plants.’
Claim: India is the world number one in attracting Greenfield FDI.
Fact: As per the fDi intelligence, India was the highest ranked country in attracting Greenfield FDI in 2015 & 2016. However, in 2017, India was replaced by USA for the top spot. Hence the claim is only PARTLY TRUE.
What is India’s ranking on FDI inflows?
The second claim is that India is ranked 9th on the foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows in 2016 as per the World Investment Report 2017, published by the UNCTAD. The United Nations Conference on Trade & Development (UNCTAD), a division of the UN, tracks FDI investments across economies. The Division on Investment and Enterprise of UNCTAD serves as the focal point for all matters related to FDI and multinational enterprises in the United Nations System.
The World Investment Report 2017 shows that India is indeed ranked 9th in the list for the year 2016. As per the FDI figures compiled by UNCTAD, FDI in India has been increasing over the years. The greatest increase in FDI inflows was witnessed between 2005-2008, before the global financial crisis. From $ 7.6 billion in 2005, the FDI inflows to India increased more than 6 times to $ 47.1 billion in 2008. The FDI inflows in 2008 is highest ever for India. The inflows almost halved by 2012 when the FDI inflows was $ 24.2 billion. The FDI inflows have again witnessed an increasing trend from 2012 till 2016. However, in 2017, the FDI inflows decreased to $ 39.9 billion from $ 44.5 billion in 2016. As per the World Investment Report of 2018, India is ranked 10th for the year 2017.
Claim: India ranked 9th on the foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows in 2016 – World Investment Report 2017.
Fact: It is true that India is ranked 9th in the list for 2016. However, FDI inflows decreased in the 2017 and India slipped to the 10th rank in 2017. Hence the claim is PARTLY TRUE.
What is India’s rank in the list of prospective host economies?
The third claim is that India is ranked 3rd in the list of top prospective host economies for 2016-18 in the UNCTAD World Investment Report (WIR). The World investment report 2016 says ‘MNEs’ three top prospective host countries – China, India and the United States – remain unchanged in this year’s survey.’ India is ranked third among the three countries and it remains so even according to The World Investment Report 2017. The report also claims that the renewed efforts of countries such as India, China and the United States to attract foreign direct investment could increase the absolute amounts of money flowing in. India was in the 3rd position even during the UPA, but fell to the 4th position in as per the 2014 report.
Claim: India ranked 3rd in the list of top prospective host economies for 2016-18 in the UNCTAD World Investment Report (WIR).
Fact:  India continues to be ranked 3rd in the list of prospective economies in WIR. This ranking has been more or less stable for a number of years. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
What is India’s sovereign credit rating?
The fourth claim is that Moody’s upgraded India sovereign credit rating from Baa3 to Baa2 for the first time in 14 years.  According to Moody’s website, ‘Moody’s is an essential component of the global capital markets, providing credit ratings, research, tools and analysis that contribute to transparent and integrated financial markets.’
According to Moody’s website, ‘Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has upgraded the Government of India’s local and foreign currency issuer ratings to Baa2 from Baa3 and changed the outlook on the rating to stable from positive. Moody’s has also upgraded India’s local currency senior unsecured rating to Baa2 from Baa3 and its short-term local currency rating to P-2 from P-3.’  The Press Information Bureau has said that ‘India’s rating has been upgraded after a period of 13 years. India’s sovereign credit rating was last upgraded in January 2004 to Baa3 (from Ba1).’
Claim: Moody’s upgraded India sovereign credit rating from Baa3 to Baa2 for the first time in 14 years.
Fact: Moody’s Investors Service has upgraded the Government of India’s local and foreign currency issuer ratings to Baa2 from Baa3. India’s rating has been upgraded after a period of 13 years. Hence the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 29, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Congress party’s claims about Public expenditure on Education & Health
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 3, 2018
The Congress party has made a series of claims about the budget allocation & expenditure on education and health during the UPA. The following article is a fact check of the claims made on the Congress website.
The Congress party has made a series of claims about the budget allocation & expenditure on education and health during the UPA. The following article is a fact check of the claims made on the Congress website.
What is the expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP?
One of the claims made by the Congress is that, ‘the Indian National Congress has always placed a high premium on education. Both UPA I and UPA II continued with this intense and pro-active approach to achieve maximum coverage. The share of GDP allocated for education (primary, secondary and tertiary) saw an increase from 3.29 per cent in 2004-2005 to 3.83 per cent in 2012-13.’ This claim is represented by the following infographic on its website.
The National Policy on Education, 1986 as modified in 1992 has laid down that the investment on education be gradually increased to reach a level of 6% of the National Income as early as possible. The draft National Education Policy of 2016 also reiterates the same.
The share of GDP allocated for education over the years is in the following graph. The data has been compiled from responses to Lok Sabha  & Rajya Sabha questions 2431, 1229, 4208, 1566, 40, 3563, 2314.
It can be seen from the graph that the public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP for the year 2004-05 was 3.39% and for the year 2012-13 was 4.29%. The percentage of GDP being allocated for education has risen continuously over the years. But the allocation is significantly below the 6% mark as outlined in the NPE.
Claim: The share of GDP allocated for education (primary, secondary and tertiary) saw an increase from 3.29 per cent in 2004-2005 to 3.83 per cent in 2012-13.
Fact: The public expenditure on education including technical education as percentage of GDP for the year 2004-05 was 3.39% and for the year 2012-13 was 4.29%. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But the expenditure is way less than what is mandated by the NPE 1986 & 1992.
What is the share of public expenditure on Health as a percentage of GDP?
The second claim made by the Congress is that, ‘It has been the Indian National Congress’s concerted effort to provide easy access to quality and affordable health care through government funded programmes. The share of public health expenditure to GDP of the country was doubled from a mere 0.13% in 2000-01 to 0.26% in 2010-11 respectively. For the year 2012-13, the Budget for healthcare was earmarked at a whopping Rs. 24,261 crore.’  The claim is represented on the website by the following infographic.
‘The National Health Policy of 1983 and the National Health Policy of 2002 have served well in guiding the approach for the health sector in the Five-Year Plans. Now 14 years after the last health policy, the context has changed in four major ways,’ states the National Health Policy of 2017.
While the National Health Policy of 2002 proposed to increase the health sector expenditure from 5.2% of GDP with 0.9% Government contribution to 6% of GDP with 2% from government by 2010, the National Health Policy (2017) proposes raising public health expenditure to 2.5% of GDP in a time bound manner by 2025.
Based on the data collected from World Health Organisation and Lok Sabha question number 192, the public health expenditure to GDP of the country was 0.90% in 2000-01. This number has increased to 1.35% in 2010-11. The economic survey of 2016-17 also lists down the public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
The expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the year 2012-13 is Rs. 23265 crores. The following graph shows the public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP. The graph shows a rise and fall of the health expenditure of the government as a percentage of GDP with a sharp increase in the year 2016-17 during the current government.
Claim: The share of public health expenditure to GDP of the country was doubled from a mere 0.13% in 2000-01 to 0.26% in 2010-11 respectively. For the year 2012-13, the Budget for healthcare was earmarked at a whopping Rs. 24,261 crore.
Fact: The public health expenditure as a percentage of GDP of the country was 0.9% in 2000-01. This number has increased to 1.35% in 2010-11. The expenditure of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for the year 2012-13 is Rs. 23265 crores. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
Featured Image: Featured Image By DFID – UK Department[Creative Commons 2.0]
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: December 3, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about development in Rural areas
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 22, 2018
‘Holistic development driving rural India’ is an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal.  The infographic contains claims about sanitation, service centers and optical fiber connectivity. Here is a fact check of these claims.
‘Holistic development driving rural India’ is an infographic published by the government on the 48-months portal.  The infographic contains claims about sanitation, service centers and optical fiber connectivity. Here is a fact check of these claims.
How many toilets have been built in rural areas?
The first claim is that 6.5 crore toilets were built in rural households between the years 1947-2014 and that 7.25 crore toilets have been built between 2014 and 2018.
According to the Swachh Bharat Mission dashboard (SBM), there are 15.13 crore households with toilets. It also states that since the launch of the mission, 8.87 crore individual household toilets (IHHL) have been built. This implies that 6.25 crore toilets existed before the launch of the mission (before 2014). Before the Swachh Bharat Mission, the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan provided incentives for BPL households to construct IHHLs.
The numbers on the SBM dashboard do not match with the data provided in the annual reports of the Ministry of Drinking Water & Sanitation. As per the Ministry’s 2013-14 annual report,  ‘Against a cumulative Project objective under Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC)  & Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) of 12.57 crore IHHL, States have reported on the Online Monitoring System that, sanitation facilities for 9.45 crore individual households has been achieved as on December 2013.’  In other words, the number mentioned in the annual report is far higher than what is available on the SBM dashboard and the claim made by the government. Even as per various answers provided in the Lok Sabha, the UPA government had built more than 5 crore IHHLs between 2008-09 and 2013-14.
At the same time, it has to be noted that the CAG report released in 2015 made some interesting observations regarding the NBA. The report said that as per Census 2011 (February 2011), 514.64 lakh rural households had toilet facility within the premises. However, as per records in the government, 768.07 lakh toilets were constructed up to February 2011 in rural households under the TSC/NBA scheme. The report also noted that there were wide variations in certain states. Further, report also highlighted that in 53 districts of eight States where test checks were made,  proportion of defunct toilets was found to be more than 33 per cent (24.03 lakh out of total 71.86 lakh households) due to reasons like poor quality of construction, incomplete structure, non-maintenance, etc.
It is also important to be note that the Swachh Bharat Mission is a restructuring of the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan. According to a press release of September 2014, ‘Efforts of the State Governments for promoting rural sanitation have been supplemented by the Central Government, till 1999 under the centrally sponsored Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP), from 1999 to 2012 under the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) and thereafter under the NBA.’
Claim: 6.5 crore toilets were built in rural households between the years 1947-2014. 7.25 crore toilets have been built between 2014-2018.
Fact: Since the launch of SBM, 8.87 crore IHHLs were built in rural areas as per the SBM dashboard. However, the claim of 6.25 crore toilets between 1947-2014 is not correct since there is varying data about the same. Hence the claim is MISLEADING.
What is the Sanitation coverage?
The second claim is that sanitation coverage was 38.70% in 2013-14 it is 83.71% in 2014-18. Sanitation coverage is generally defined in terms of households with toilets.
Annual report of the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation for the year 2017-18 states that, ‘At the launch of SBM(G) on 2nd October, 2014, the sanitation coverage was 38.70%. This has increased to 75.43% as on 31.12.2017. Since launch of SBM(G), there is 36.73% increase in Sanitation Coverage.’
In response to a question in the Lok Sabha, the government stated that  ‘Rural sanitation coverage has increased from 38.7% in October 2014 to 88.4% as of July 2018’.
Claim: Sanitation coverage was 38.70% in 2013-14 it is 83.71% in 2014-18.
Fact: Rural sanitation coverage has increased from 38.7% in October 2014 to 88.4% as of July 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How many common service centers are there?
The third claim is that there were 83,000 Common Service Centers (CSCs) pre 2014 and that this number has increased to 2.92 lakh post 2014.
As per the government’s official website, ‘Common Service Centres (CSC) scheme is one of the mission mode projects under the Digital India Programme. CSCs are the access points for delivery of essential public utility services, social welfare schemes, healthcare, financial, education and agriculture services, apart from host of B2C services to citizens in rural and remote areas of the country. It is a pan-India network catering to regional, geographic, linguistic and cultural diversity of the country. Common Services Centres (CSCs) are being managed by CSC e-Governance Services India Limited (known as Common Services Centre Special Purpose Vehicle- CSC –SPV)’
As per the 2013-14 annual report of the CSC e-Governance Services India Limited, there were over 1.35 lakh operational CSCs across the country.
In the answer provided in the Lok Sabha, the government stated that 2.53 lakh CSCs were established by October 2016 out of which 1.77 lakh were operational. As per another answer provided in the Rajya Sabha in March 2018, there were 1.83 lakh operational CSCs at the Gram Panchayat Level. In another answer provided in the Rajya Sabha, the government stated that there were 64259 CSCs at the Gram Panchayat level in May 2014 and that the number increased to 1.74 lakh in November 2017. The CSC registration website shows that there are 2.56 lakh active CSC IDs as on date.
In other words, the numbers as claimed in the infographic do not match. Even if they were assumed to be operational CSCs in rural areas, the numbers do not match
Claim: There were 83,000 common service centers pre 2014. This number has increased to 2.92 lakh post 2014.
Fact: There were over 1,35,000 CSCs as per the 2013-14 annual report. The number of active CSC IDs as on date is 2.56 lakh. Hence the claim is FALSE.
How many gram panchayats are connected to optical fiber?
The final claim is that gram panchayats connected by optical fiber were 59 between 2011 & 2014 and that the number connected between 2014 & 2018 is 1.15 lakh.
The Bharat Broad Band Network Limited (BBNL) was incorporated in February 2012 with the aim to carry out the business of establishment, management and operation of National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN) and to provide high speed broadband connectivity to all gram panchayats (GPs) by extending optical fiber network and to provide access to bandwidth in a non-discriminatory manner to all eligible service providers. The scheme is not renamed as ‘Bharat Net’.
The 2012-13 annual report of BBNL states that 59 gram panchayats of the pilot blocks have been provided with 100 Mbps bandwidth. This pilot project was undertaken under the UPA. The annual reports of the other years do not contain data about yearly progress of connectivity to gram panchayats. However, the Bharat Broadband Network Limited website that has been updated in November 2018 shows that 115,988 gram panchayats are service ready.
Claim: Gram panchayats connected by optical fiber were 59 in 2011-14. The number is 1.15 lakh in 2014-18.
Fact: 59 gram panchayats of the pilot blocks have been provided with 100 Mbps bandwidth in 2012-13. More than 1.15 lakh gram panchayats are service ready as of November 2018. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that the numbers during the UPA correspond to the pilot project and not a full-fledged project.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: November 22, 2018


text:
Fact Checking Government claims about Development of Ports
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 12, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims, one about the waterways in India and two about the traffic at major ports. This article is a fact check of these claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes two claims, one about the waterways in India and two about the traffic at major ports. This article is a fact check of these claims.
How many new waterways were added?
The first claim is that there were only 5 national waterways in last 30 years and that 106 were added in last 4 years.
The National Waterways Act, 2016 was notified in March 2016. The act was passed ‘to make provisions for existing national waterways and to provide for the declaration of certain inland waterways to be national waterways and also to provide for the regulation and development of the said waterways for the purposes of shipping and navigation.’
The National Waterways Bill, 2015 was introduced in Lok Sabha in May 2015.  Under Entry 24 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the central government can make laws on shipping and navigation on inland waterways which are classified as national waterways by Parliament by law.
The act passed in 2016 identifies additional 106 waterways as national waterways in addition to the five existing national waterways. The act mentions the 106 new waterways and their limits.  The government’s press release of 2016 provides further details regarding the waterways. It has to be noted that the act only designates the national waterways and their development will be taken up in a phased manner. The current status of these national waterways can be seen from the website of the ‘Inland Waterways Authority of India’. It also lists the status of the existing national waterways as well.
Claim: Only 5 National waterways in last 30 years, 106 added in last 4 years.
Fact: The national waterways act of 2016 provides for 106 new waterways over and above the existing 5. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However it has to be noted that the act only designates the national waterways and their development will be taken up in a phased manner.
Did the cargo traffic increase at the major ports?
The second claim is that cargo traffic handled at major ports was 570.32 million tonnes in 2010-11 and it has increased to 679.367 million tonnes in 2017-18.
Data is collated from responses to Lok Sabha question number 3393, question number 322, question number 3062 , Open Government Data Platform , Ministry of Shipping, year book of the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation to understand the volume of cargo handled at major Indian ports. From the data, it is clear that the cargo handled increased from 344.54 million tonnes in 2003-04 to 530.54 million tonnes in 2008-09 during the UPA-1, an increase of 54%. During the UPA-2, it increased from 530.54 million tonnes in 2008-09 to 555.49 million tonnes in 2013-14, an increase of only 5%. During the current government, it increased from 555.49 million tonnes in 2013-14 to 679.37 million tonnes in 2017-18, an increase of 22%.The amount of cargo handled has steadily increased since 2001-02 except for a dip in the years between 2011-14.
Claim: Cargo traffic at major ports was 570.32 million tonnes in 2010-11 and it has increased to 679.367 million tonnes in 2017-18
Fact: Cargo traffic at major ports was 570.09 million tonnes in 2010-11 and 679.36 in 2017-18. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, the amount of cargo handled has steadily increased since 2001-02 except for a dip in the years between 2011-14. During the UPA-1, the cargo handled increased by 54% compared to 5% during the UPA-2 and 22% during the current government.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: January 12, 2019