The range of poverty estimates available is dangerous because it allows the politicisation of poverty. Such politicisation neither helps in effective service delivery to the poor, nor does it build trust in these estimates.

Is the problem one of inadequate statistical capacity? There is reason to believe that India’s statistical capacity is not so pertinent a problem as the statistics themselves. India scored 77.8 out of 100 in the World Bank’s Statistical Capacity Indicator – a composite score assessing the capacity of a country’s statistical system based on parameters such as methodology, data sources, periodicity and timeliness of data. While there is room for improvement, it is encouraging that India performed better than comparable nations such as Brazil and China. India was able to execute the 2011 Census at a reasonable cost of USD 0.5 per person, compared to the world average of USD 4.6 per person (Chandramouli, 2011). This is impressive considering the massive challenges posed by India’s geographical and cultural diversity. Perhaps it is now time for India to turn its attention to ‘what it measures’ and ‘why it measures’ it, alongside improving its statistical capacity.

In the wake of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the 200+ indicators that member countries need to now monitor and report to the global community, this article explores whether India’s development indicators and their definitions truly align with the needs of the poor.

Development is often defined by the indicators used to measure it. I present here two statistics of interest. As of 2015,

The above statements are indeed facts. But the picture of India they paint contrasts with our observations. They are true only because the definitions used allow them to be.

Consider the first statistic. Rural electrification rate is an important indicator to measure progress towards alleviating energy poverty. A village in India would be defined as electrified by the Ministry of Power if it meets the following criteria:

Thus according to the above criteria set by the Ministry of Power, it is possible for a village to be ‘electrified’ even if 90% of the households are not. Indeed, over 90% of India’s villages are electrified according to this definition, but a little less than a third of the population still lacks access to electricity according to Census 2011.

Now consider the second statistic. About 86% of Indians have access to ‘safe drinking water’ according to official data, yet diarrhoea associated with contaminated drinking water is common across India and is the third-most-common cause of death among children under five, killing 13% of the 300,000 who die every year in this age group (Kelkar-Khambete, 2015). The definition of safe drinking water allows this paradox. The Census considers water supply from hand pumps and tubewells as safe as piped drinking water, even though these sources are known to be carriers of several water-borne diseases.

Data submitted to the Parliament in 2012 by the Ministry of Water Resources show that groundwater sources in large parts of India are contaminated by arsenic, fluoride, iron, nitrate, and salinity (Sethi, 2012). The data shows the following:

There is, therefore, no reason that groundwater should be defined as ‘safe’ by the government. It misleads the general public.

The gross enrolment ratio (GER) in elementary education (Standard I to VIII) in 2014 was 101.5, and the primary school GER was 110.2 (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2014). These are interesting statistics as they provide important insights on development that are often ignored.

GER is the ratio of the number of individuals who are actually enrolled in schools to the number of children who are of the corresponding school enrolment age. At the outset, two inferences may be drawn from the statistic.

First, it appears that most of the children in elementary school-going age are enrolled in school. This is encouraging, but it also emphasises the need to shift the focus from ‘schooling to learning’. Indeed, in the case of India, there is evidence that despite high enrolment, children in even primary schools are not mastering grade-level competencies. Of all children enrolled in Standard V in 2014, about half are unable to read a Standard II level text (Pratham Education Foundation, 2014).

Second, the GER can be greater than 100% as a result of grade repetition and entry at ages younger or older than the typical age at that grade level. This means that India is faced with the issue of grade repetition and students enrolled in classes that are inappropriate for their age. This is a serious issue that requires attention. Grade repetition is a sign that students are not learning and can create psychological stresses in children. It may even lead to dropping out in later grades. If students are not enrolled in school at the right age, it reduces their ability to learn effectively, as the coursework of each grade is best learnt at the corresponding age for that grade. Even seemingly trivial problems such as the absence of age-appropriate furniture can have an impact on mental health and creativity (Childcare Education Institute, 2009).

There is a dire need for India to shift its focus from merely enrolment to learning. A fresh set of robust indicators need to be developed for the purpose. The Indian government measures learning through its National Achievement Survey (NAS) once every few years. However this is not frequent enough. Each year is a long and crucial period in the schooling of a child while NAS itself takes 2-3 years to complete. Further, NAS is conducted in schools, automatically excluding dropouts and absentee students who tend to be in large numbers in many states.

‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics’ is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Wikipedia)

The indicators described above are important, no doubt, but do not give a holistic picture of development in their respective sectors. There is a dire need to rethink development and redefine indicators in India. Especially now that the basic infrastructure for water, electricity and education seem to exist in most villages, it is important for definitions to encompass the inclusiveness and quality of these facilities. q