When the newspapers carried the headlines that Indian Prime Minister has been concerned about 42% malnourishment, I did not think so much about the nutritional condition of Indian children but more about the game called statistics. It is interesting how we get different figures from different sources about the same issues. If it is about the below poverty line figures different government appointed committees have given us different estimates of poverty. I wonder how come the malnourishment figures stand at only 42% if the most conservative estimates about the below poverty level population is somewhere around 48-50%.
It will be interesting to see how and why different statisticians give us different pictures for the same thing. Ya, I know it is about difference in data source, methodology, etc., but if science and statistics (the precise figures) are supposed to be objective and less biased then the result should have been same. How can there be any scope of subjectivity in calculating figures by people and disciplines whose claim to fame is objectivity and precision !!!!. It seems all the objective people are in service of the state (read capital in contemporary times) – from deciding who should head what educational institutions to themselves heading institutions and militarizing them.
I am no statistician of any sort but I believe this is one ‘objective’ science that is most manipulated to produce the most non-objective results. And more often than not, the dominant class has indiscriminately used it to entrench or perpetuate their politics. So why should such a report coming out in the most circulated daily surprise us.
By: Rama Paul on January 14, 2012
at 4:56 am