Government has trouble in fact checking

Central to the discovery model was a rigorous method of collecting and validating data on infant morbidity and mortality in some of the study villages. This led the SEARCH team to question the official infant mortality data for Gadchiroli. Following their complaints, the District Collector of Gadchiroli conducted an inquiry in 1998 in one block (Aheri). Their report suggested that the actual infant mortality rate was 9 times the official figure and the death rate for children under five was 8 times that. As soon as this report came, the collector was transferred. Bangs didn’t give up. In 1999, they reached out to nongovernmental organizations in other parts of the state to launch a two-year study of infant and child health outcomes. The sampling was not random, but the surveyors tried to select representative habitations across Maharashtra. SEARCH was the training center for this massive survey covering more than 200,000 people, with funding from Child Relief and You (CRY) and Swiss-Aid.

The survey revealed that the Management Information System (MIS) of the health department missed more than 75% of infant deaths in the state. when the survey report Kovali Pangal (in Marathi, ‘fall of tender leaves’) Published in 2001, it created a political storm. Opposition lawmakers lambasted the government and the health minister tried to defend the MIS data, but other officials, including the state chief minister, acknowledged the need for reform.

The government appointed a committee headed by Bang to improve infant mortality data and accepted its recommendation to conduct child mortality audits in every village. Maharashtra became the first state to launch the Child Nutrition Mission in 2005. The discovery model of using community health workers to monitor and treat newborns was eventually extended to rural India (see ‘Gadchiroli’s trudging doctors spell hope,’ Peppermint17 April 2012, bit.ly/3Lq9Hpx,

Imagine if such an intervention had happened today and the opposition MPs would have created a ruckus over it. Initially, the social media trolls of the ruling regime would attack the “unscientific” findings of the “foreign funded survey”. Now imagine that Maharashtra had a state-run fact-checking unit, and it had rules similar to the Union IT ministry’s proposed fact-checking unit. such unit will immediately dismiss Kovali Pangal Reported as false because it contradicts the official “truth” from the Department of Health. Even if newspapers reported on it, social media intermediaries would be asked to block “false” content online.

It’s the dystopian future we’re living in right now. The fact-checking unit of the IT ministry can block any content about the government that it finds to be false or misleading. It is meant to fight “misinformation” against the government. Since only government officials have access to certain types of government data, they are in the best position to run the unit, the ministry claims.

Such claims are suspect. Typically, government data that is inaccessible to the public is also unreliable and invulnerable to fact-checking. For example, analysts prefer to use Periodic Labor Force Survey (PLFS) data instead of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) data to measure labor market trends. This is because, unlike the EPFO ​​database, anonymized respondent-level PLFS data is publicly available (see ‘The promise and risks of big data in India’s policy space’, Peppermint, 21 December 2021). Datasets that escape public scrutiny often contain errors. If these datasets are still used in policy making, it is either because of lack of alternatives or apathy of government officials. Since any acknowledgment of data gaps may invite public pressure to fix them, most authorities prefer to pretend that such gaps do not exist.

Some departments intentionally distort the database. As Abhay Bang found out, a complacent health department in Maharashtra encouraged under-reporting of infant deaths. At any level, if an official correctly reports the number of deaths, his performance is worse than in the past. The officer would be held accountable for the “escalation” and face reprimand, Bang wrote in 2002. Economic and Political Weekly Article. Bang argued that biased data “suits politicians” because it makes government performance look good.

Things haven’t changed much since then. As the pandemic demonstrated, the gap between official data and the truth can be wide. Nevertheless, the government-run fact-checking unit will always back the official statement, even if it is untrue. As a result, legitimate criticism of the government may be suppressed.

Unless the IT Ministry’s decision is reversed, India’s democratic credibility is likely to suffer. The Indian state’s ability to correct will undoubtedly be impaired and the country’s progress will suffer. At a time when India is trying to emerge as a viable and democratic alternative to China, we can do without such self-aims.

Pramit Bhattacharya is a journalist based in Chennai. His Twitter handle is pramit_b.