Statistically insignificant

The UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) was established in 1947 (after a 1946 resolution). Whatever the UN’s Statistics Division does is under supervision of the UNSC. In turn, UNSC feeds upwards into the UN Econo­mics and Social Council (ECOSOC). UNSC has 24 members. As with other UN bodies, there is a geographical quota and the current composition has five from Africa, four each from Asia-Pacific, East Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean, and seven from West Europe.

With that geographical composition, members are elected for four years and India has been elected, with effect from January 1, 2024. One doesn’t have to be a member or chairman to participate in UNSC discussions. After the 37th session held in 2006, in 2007 at its 60th anniversary UNSC brought out a compendium (the 54th session was held in 2023).

This compendium told us India was among the most frequent participants, having done that 37 times. There were 35 occasions when India participated as a member. However, if one tracks when India had chairmanship or was a member, one will have to go far back in history. India chaired in 1976 (V R Rao), 1956 (P C Mahalanobis) and 1954 (P C Mahalanobis); it had the position of vice-chairman in 2003 (K K Jaswal), 1997 (S Sathyam), 1983 (Kiron Chandra Seal), 1981 (Kiron Chandra Seal), 1948 (P C Maha­lanobis) and 1947 (P C Mahalanobis, there were two sessions that year); and rapporteur in 1999 (M D Asthana). To be chairman, vice-chairman or rapporteur, one has to be a member.

Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis needs no introduction. His influence and contrib­utions transcended statistics. Indian Stat­istical Institute (ISI), National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) and Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) bear his stamp. Some­times, we forget he was statistical adviser to the Cabinet in 1949. This is what UNSC had to say about Mahalanobis: “Mahala­no­bis holds an unparalleled record of attending all the sessions of the Statistical Com­mission, from the so-called nuclear session in 1946 to the 16th session in 1970. He served the commission in various capacities, namely member, rapporteur, vice-chair and finally chair in 1954 and 1956. He made ground breaking contributions to the commission during its formative years. The creation of the sub-commission on statistical sampling was his initiative. This sub-commission’s final Recommendations for the Preparation of Sample Survey Report (1947) paved the way for the application of sample surveys in various fields of official statistics.” Over the years, the number of members in UNSC increased from 12 to 24. The number of UN members also increased. Therefore, competition and lobbying to become a member increased. However, as long as Mahalanobis was around, it is fair to say that there was respect for the quality of India’s official statistics, within and without UNSC.

Mahalanobis was Mahalanobis. He didn’t belong to the Indian Statistical Service (ISS). Vakkalanka R Rao isn’t as well known as Mahalanobis. He joined ISS and some people may remember him for India’s first-ever agricultural census and the 1960 committee on panchayati raj statistics. In 1976, when he was the chairman of UNSC, in a departure from usual practice, the session was held in Delhi, at the invitation of the Indian government. There is a long list of great statisticians from India, not just Mahalanobis or C R Rao. Debabrata Basu, Jayanta Kumar Ghosh, K C Sreedharan Pillai, Raghu Raj Bahadur, take your pick. But when we mention UNSC, we have something else in mind. We have in mind statisticians who work within the government system.

It is fair to state the following. 1) India’s official statistics and “official” statisticians were greatly respected in the 1950s, all the way down to the 1980s, remembering, of course, that in something like UNSC, what is relevant is relative comparison, not absolute. We slipped, while other countries improved both. 2) Kiron Chandra Seal was also laterally inducted into ISS. Therefore, in large measure, this is about ISS. Earlier, academic statisticians joined ISS. They published even after joining ISS and were respected as statisticians. When we deplore the quality of government statistics, we often ignore this human resource angle. 3) India seems to have lost interest in UNSC after 2003. Election as member or chairman is a function of voting and lobbying. Did we contest and lose, or did we simply lose interest? The answer is unclear. 4) Now that India has become a member, there is a prospect of India becoming a chairman too, in the foreseeable future. But election isn’t only a function of lobbying. There has to be credibility, too. That credibility of official statistics and official statisticians, steadily undermined, has to be restored.

Membership of UNSC is a trigger to chart out that re­vamp. In 2001, there was an excellent report on revamping statistics (the Rangarajan report). Given the focus, it did have a chapter on human re­sources. But the emphasis was on training, promotion and cadre review, nothing substantive. It is odd that a National Stat­i­stical Commission should be set up in 2005 and, without implying causation, India should become relatively irrelevant in UNSC roughly at the same time. If we do not rectify this now, we never will. The time for comp­lacency has long passed; India’s position in the realm of statistics hangs in the balance.

Bibek Debroy is chairman, and Aditya Sinha is additional private secretary (policy and research) at the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister