Module 1
Article 1: P Bhattacharya
General Discussion
1757-east India abolished, replaced by British Crown
1857-first war of independence
1862-A first-of-its-kind Statistics Committee was set up to standardize forms used for
collecting official statistics, particularly related to trade and finance during British Raj
1881-The population census launched in 1867–1872 was expanded to provide a
simultaneous head count across the entire country
1948-first national industrial policy: pro private led industrialization with
involvement of major capitalists-tata and Birla (JRD Tata drafted the Bombay Plan),
influenced by Sardar Patel
1956-second national industrial policy: designed by Nehru. Led to government
controlled industrialization with government regulating private internvention.
2014-15, new political party, gdp calculation revised-GDPA-new series
2017-excessive growth in manufacturing sector was questioned.
Back-series showed higher growth during upa era.
However b/w 2004 to 2008-9, it showed slower growth leading to questioning by
UPA, who said their regime’s growth era was biased as per the back series.
NSSO-EUS survey, most recent-68th (2011-12) on unempl in india
Till 2017, no new data on employment status
Niti Aayog-PLFS survey.
PLFS is more periodic than EUS-quarterly reports for urban.
Summary
India’s official statistical system, as we know it today, began taking shape during the British
Raj (1858–1947).
Colonial efforts to develop the statistical system were driven by an im perative to track a key
market for English products; hence, trade statistics were much more well-developed
compared to statistics on domestic economic production or socioeconomic development.
It was only after India’s independence in 1947 that a serious effort was made to revamp
India’s statistical infrastructure. The globally renowned statistician P. C. Mahalanobis led this
drive and was backed by Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister. The Mahalanobis
model of data collection relied largely on random sampling and inspired similar initiatives
elsewhere in the developing world
With Mahalanobis’s death in 1972, India’s statistical system lost a powerful champion who
had ensured its relevance without compromising its autonomy. Other changes in the post-
Mahalanobis era diminished the statistical system. Growing insularity, the lack of in
vestments in computing resources, and the declining influence of the Planning Commission
(which had earlier been a pillar of support for statisticians) eroded the statistical system’s
effectiveness over time
. In early 2000, the central government appointed a high-level commission led by the former
central banker C. Rangarajan to review the statistical system and suggest ways to improve it.
Some of the commission’s recommendations were implemented but only in a half-hearted
manner
Meanwhile, the political pressures on the statistical system grew as data assumed a major
role in public discourse. A weakened statistical system failed to assert its autonomy in the
face of such pressures. The past decade has seen a number of statistical controversies even
as the statistical system struggled to reform itself.
Presently, Producers and users of official statistics have stated that the lack of a clear road
map to address this crisis worries them as much as the crisis itself.
This paper argues that a Statistical Reforms Commission should be set up to address the
roots of India’s statistical crisis. The proposed commission must outline the legal framework
that would underpin a revamped statistical authority, frame a new statistical architecture
that is able to meet the emerging needs of data users and prepare a national statistical
strategy document.
There are at least three initiatives—one from the government think tank NITI Aayog, one
from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and another from the
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI)—to standardize public
datasets and make them accessible to citizens
Yet, in many ways, this is also the worst of times for India’s data users. The uninterrupted run
of India’s population census since 1881 has been broken. The last decennial census was in
2011. The 2021 census has been postponed indefinitely. Other key datasets are badly out of
date. The last official consumer expenditure data pertains to 2011–2012; the next survey,
undertaken in 2017–2018, was junked by MoSPI ostensibly due to data quality concerns. The
lack of fresh consumption data has meant that India’s consumer price index (CPI) and official
poverty estimates continue to be pegged to outdated data. The results of the latest
economic census and several new surveys have been kept under wraps. Some of India’s core
statistics—such as the index of industrial production (IIP) and gross domestic product (GDP)
—have been the subject of controversy for several years
India’s apex statistical regulator, the National Statistical Commission (NSC), has struggled to
assert its voice on these issues. The NSC was supposed to audit statistical products on a
regular basis, providing a much-needed quality assurance mechanism for data users. But it
has failed to perform that role. While the total number of datasets is growing, the quality of
datasets remains uneven across departments and states
British Era
The ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, Arthashastra, refers to a network of village-level
accountants who would collect data on economic output. The medieval-era text, Ain-i-
Akbari, details an exhaustive apparatus to collect data on farm produce and mentions
royal attempts to standardize the system of weights and measurements
In 1858, the Indian subcontinent was brought under the direct rule of the British Crown
Four years later, the governor-general of India appointed a Statistics Committee to
standardize the collection of all official statistics in India. The committee finalized the
format of statistical forms in 1866, and the form was approved by the London-based
Secretary of State for India in 1867.
A year later, the first Statistical Abstract relating to British India (1840–1865) was
published by the India Office in London.
In 1871, the first Director-General of Statistics was appointed to consolidate the
provincial data banks after standardizing all the datasets.
Since he had a skeletal staff to assist him, it
took him roughly a decade to bring out the first edition of the Imperial Gazetteer of India
in 1881
The British Raj’s first attempt at a country-wide population census took place in the
1867–1872 period, with head counts in different provinces at different points of time.
The exercise failed to provide an all-India head count as it was not held simultaneously
across the country. This was remedied in 1881, when an all-India synchronous census
was organized.
The decennial population census enjoyed an unbroken run until 2011.
At least, three key departments of the British administration—the Home Department,
the Finance and Commerce Department, and the Revenue and Agriculture Department
— wanted to control the flow of government data. During the second half of the
nineteenth century, each of these three departments attempted to set up a central
statistical wing within its ambit.
In 1895, the statistics branch of the Finance and Commerce Department was merged
with the statistics branch of the Revenue and Agriculture Department to create a new
statistical bureau. It was expected that the statistical activities of the Home Department
would be brought under the purview of this bureau, but the Home Department refused
to cede control over the population census until the very end
After a new Department of Commerce and Industry was created in 1905, it was given
charge of statistical coordination
The statistical bureau that had been set up in 1895 was merged with the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence that year. The Directorate General of Commercial
Intelligence and Statistics remained the nodal authority for official statistics until India’s
independence in 1947
British efforts at organizing official statistics in India were primarily driven by the
imperative to track a key market for English products.
As a result, statistics on external and internal trade were more well-developed compared
to statistics on domestic production. When the statistical wing of the commercial
intelligence department suffered budget cuts in the 1920s, the series on internal trade
was discontinued, before being revived in the 1930s.3
The development of administrative statistics provided an opportunity for propaganda.
British officials used these statistics to show Indian subjects and the British Parliament
how well they were governing the country.4
Dadabhai Naoroji, a British member of Parliament of Indian origin, used official statistics
to derive his estimates of India’s per capita income. Based on these estimates, Naoroji
argued that Indians were being taxed beyond their means to fund a “despotic”
government
Naoroji’s arguments provoked a series of critiques (primarily from British authors) and
supporting arguments (primarily from Indian economists).
To resolve the unending contro versy, India’s Central Legislative Assembly recommended
that a committee of “non-officials and experts” should ascertain the economic condition
of “various classes of the people of India” and their capacity to bear the existing burden
of taxation
The Economic Inquiry Committee, headed by M. Visvesvaraya, was set up in 1925 to
examine the available economic information and to suggest ways to ascertain the living
conditions of Indians.
The committee noted major limitations in data collection, particularly on domestic
production and incomes. It argued that the existing statistical material wasn’t adequate
to form a conclusive view on the economic condition of various classes of people.
The committee recommended that a regular survey program should be launched in India
as was done in the other British dominions, an economic survey should be seen as an
“indispensable preliminary” to the formulation of economic policies
The committee also recommended the creation of a central statistical bureau to
coordinate statistical activities in India, similar to the ones created in Australia, Canada,
and South Africa.
Finally, the committee suggested the enactment of a statistical law that would pro vide a
legal basis for the operations of the central statistical bureau and enable it to demand
economic data from firms and individuals
Although the demand for statistical audits had not been made at that time, the
committee suggested periodic reviews of official datasets to assess statistical weaknesses
and to identify scope for improvements.
British officials appointed two English economists, A. L. Bowley and D. H. Robertson, to
suggest a road map. The Bowley-Robertson committee was set up in 1933 to come up
with a scheme for an economic census in India.10 It reiterated some of the concerns of
Visvesvaraya’s committee and argued for a single statistical agency that would conduct
both the population and economic censuses.
The committee recommended a similar setup in the provinces headed by what would be
called provincial statisticians.1
During this period, several other committees were set up to examine specific sectors of
the economy. These included the Royal Commission on Agricultural in India (1928), the
Royal Commission on Labour (1931), and the Indian Central Banking Enquiry Committee
(1931). These committees all noted wide gaps in data availability and recommended an
overhaul of India’s statistical machinery
British administrators accepted the logic advanced by these committees but were
unwilling to invest fresh resources to upgrade India’s statistical infrastructure. By the late
1930s, the British government’s focus was squarely on the looming world war, and the
issue of statistical reorganization was put on the back burner.
The report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture said, “the whole basis of statistics in
India urgently requires broadening. . . . It should rest not on the work of a few
government officials, however able, but on the support of the informed public, and
through them, on the recognition by the legislatures and by the general public that
modern statistical methods are in a position to make an indispensable contribution to
the successful development alike of scientific agriculture and of social administration
By the time World War II ended, the realization dawned that there was very little coor
dination on statistical issues even though the number of government datasets had
grown. An interdepartmental committee of statisticians was set up in 1946 to suggest
remedies
It reiterated some of the recommendations of the Visvesvaraya committee and the
Bowley Robertson committee and suggested that a permanent cadre of economists and
statisticians should be established.13