 Hello and let's talk about the government's claims on COVID-19. Over the past two days, Union Health Minister Harsh Vardhan spoke in parliament on the government's handling of the pandemic. The minister's speech was a crisis manager's dream, full of details of task forces and special groups and three-tier systems and all those kind of keywords. The crux of the speech was the claim that due to the lockdown, the government had prevented approximately 14 to 29 lakh cases and 37 to 78,000 deaths. Now, this is in line with the government's narrative over the past many months, which roughly corresponds to how it could have been much worse. But does this argument really make sense, especially when we are adding between 80,000 to 90,000 cases every day and over 1,000 deaths? We talked to newsflakes Praveer Purkayastha on this issue. Thank you for joining us, Praveer. So, as we've seen, Harsh Vardhan has spoken in the last two days in both houses of parliament and he's repeated the government's claim that things could have been much worse. We are right now doing not too bad compared to the others and he's given concrete numbers also this time of the number of deaths that were avoided and the number of cases that were avoided because of the severity of the lockdown. In addition to, of course, giving a lot of information on what was done, groups of ministers and all that kind of thing. So, but to begin with, to take these numbers, both the supposed number of cases that did not happen and the supposed number of deaths that did not happen. How would you see this claim? Well, let's first talk about, as you said, avoided deaths and avoided infections. The point is, and everybody in the world agrees on this, that a lockdown, if it doesn't crush the epidemic, what it does, it plattens the curve a bit. Infection rates slows down for the period of the lockdown and therefore it postpones the infections and deaths for later because you're not going to be able to keep the lockdown forever. That's a very unlikely scenario. So, if you do a lockdown and we did a sixth down really supposedly rigorous lockdown, one of the most draconian lockdowns in the world, then we should have been able to actually not flatten the curve and bring it down. Instead of that, if you see, yes, initially the numbers were rising, we're only 600 at that point. When you say numbers were rising rapidly, yeah, they were rising by 100, 200 per day. Now we are rising by 80,000, 90,000 and you're going to quickly cross 100,000 per day. Let's understand these numbers. If these numbers hold true, we are now number two in the world in terms of total cases. We are number one for almost last 30 days for new cases. We have overtaken the US quite some time back. We have taken Brazil, all other countries quite some time back. Apart from the US and India and Brazil to some extent, all other countries daily case load is not new cases and not more than 10,000. All of them are below that. If you look at this, we are in no way in control of the epidemic and we are expected in October admittedly by even leading government figures who are looking after COVID-19 have accepted October will be number one in the world. So when you say avoiding, what at least truthfully you should have said is post home. That's that's the at least the least he could have done, but he says avoid it. Now if you are figures are rising continuously, where is the question of avoiding infections? Second point is when he says avoided deaths and is given again figures. Let's be very clear. These figures have been produced earlier by I think the health person representing health in Dr. Vinod Paul in the Niti IO. These are supposedly figures produced by Ministry of Statistics at what is that called program programs. These are supposed to be figures produced by bodily exercises, not connected by Niti IO, but supposedly done by the Ministry of Statistics and program implementation. By the way, as you know, this has been in the thick of criticism regarding various figures they have produced GDP and so on. We won't get into the credentials of this committee. The question is, we have no details how they have come out to this magic numbers of avoiding. So avoidance of deaths and infections are produced by some. Let's put it this way. This really is famous statements lies, damn lies and statistics. We have lies, damn lies, statistics and models today. So what exercises produce this we have no clue. If we take at the only thing we could have said, we have geared up our health system to take care of crisis. And therefore, we now have more capacity. The point is, yes, we have more capacity but look at the states which are now getting into distress. Like for instance, we are like for this UP. It has spread to small towns. It is spreading to villages. And when you have these kind of spreads, those districts do not have the capability to provide ventilation ventilator support. The ICU numbers are very limited. And as we had a famous line in one of the news agency reports that bugle put there was last doctor standing. So you don't have, I think only six districts in behind have the capacity to take care of intensive care unit patients. So you know the state of health in the country. It is not significantly improved because to set up a good hospital system takes time. So you may able to be able to augment the facilities in existing metros, but it doesn't really get doesn't go down. So this ability to handle deaths is again question of what is the infrastructure you have built, which there are a lot of claims have been made. I won't go into that. But the most important part of the claims of which comes to the second part of it, that how many deaths are actually taking place. And again, we have a whole bunch of issues here. One is that India's registry of deaths in a whole, the whole number of states is very poor. 17% of the deaths are registered if we are lucky. So already have a 30% leakage, but in states like you can be hard. The figures are maybe lower during COVID-19 epidemic registration, but more importantly, who are being registered as what is being registered as a cause of death. If you have a co morbidity, and now they are being labeled as non COVID deaths. So if you have been blood pressure, like, you know, in almost 80% or 60% of the people above 60 would have it. Then immediately they will say he died because of blood pressure, not because of COVID-19. So these kind of slate of hand are being used. In fact, what if we take the game behind, which came into news recently, the figures of people in terms of cause of death, if you see from the crematorium and the burial grounds is much larger than the figures that the government is giving or the federal government is giving. So there's a huge discrepancy there. And this is to be as important as other parts. The point is, India has a much younger population. Now if you just simply correct the numbers of people who out of what is called the case fatality ratio out of cases, how many people died. We have done a demographic comparison to do that, something which is 2.5% in Italy say would correspond to less than 1% here. There are claims that we have 1.45 case fatality ratio, etc. Doesn't really say anything more than that. We have a younger demography. And perhaps we are not writing down the real cause of death. We're under under reporting the cause of death, and we don't even register the cause of death in most cases. So given all of this, we should really be careful about claiming victory. And the last point I want to make, which is that you know, when you say our numbers per 100,000 are much lower than other countries, we are below the better than the world average. Well, you're doubling your rate every 30, 32 days. In one month, your number per 100,000 is going to be double what they are. It would really start putting you among the major countries in the highest bracket. So this is not by any chance a great, shall we say, statistics to crow about. It is something to worry about because a simple issue in October, we are going to overtake the United States. In October, we are going to be the number one in the world. And in October, we'll have double the number of in total cases, total cases, not new cases, total cases, and we'll also have double the number of perhaps deaths. So these are not good statistics. What is important about minister statement was a complete absence to address the surge in COVID-19 cases, and that we have no control over the epidemic, or any picture of what he proposes to do, given the fact that the pandemic now is entered a phase where India is clearly the epicenter of the global epidemic. Even if we look at Brazil and the United States, the two other countries, which we seem to be keeping company apart from our politics, is that both these countries, you will see some flattening of the curve. The both Brazilians, the both Brazil and the United States are really now about 60, 60 odd days, 50 to 60 odd days as a doubling rate. This is not a modeling exercise. Simply looking at your fingers and when they have doubled, how many days they have taken to double from current phase. If you take look at this project backwards to see your doubling rate, they're 50 to 60 days, we are 30 to 32 days. So that is the real cause for the worry that we have quote unquote beaten everybody, the speed which we are still increasing. And we have the most recorded lockdown, which did not in fact flatten the curve. It's still continued to rise, and the government seems to be completely clueless what it is supposed to do now, and now seems to be focusing on everything under the sun, except what is the COVID-19 issue. And that's real cause for concern right now. Thank you so much for talking to us. In our second segment, we continue to look at the Delhi riots probe. Over the past two days, we have brought to you the views of CPI and Journal Secretary Sitaram Yaturi and journalist Bhasah Singh, who has spoken about the political motivations behind his investigation. Today we see what a retired policeman has to say. Julio F. Ribeiro, former director general of police and bureaucrat, recently wrote to the Delhi Police Commissioner, Essence Srivastava, seeking a fair probe into the riots of February and expressing concern over true patriots being entangled in criminal cases to quote. He also wondered why BJP leaders such as Kapil Mishra, Andhra Thakur and Parvesh Verma have not been brought before the court of law. Following this, several retired IPS officers also took a similar stand. We bring you a segment of a conversation between Ribeiro and journalist Paranjay Guha Thakurtha on some of the issues around the investigation. You know, after you wrote the letter, a number of other senior officers of the central services, including senior officers of the Indian police force, the police services have endorsed your views and added to that. Let's look at some of the facts. There were Hindu Muslim riots, there were communal riots in northeastern Delhi and between the 23rd of February and the 26th of February, at least 53 people died. There was one police officer, but out of the remaining 52, 40 were Muslims. Now we saw a lot of property, especially property belonging to Muslims were destroyed. Subsequently, the police have lodged over 751st information reports. Over 100 charges sheets have been filed and over 1400 people were arrested or detained. But significantly, Mr Kapil Mishra, who made a very, very provocative speech standing next to a senior police officer. He was a deputy commissioner of police. His name was Weth Prakash Surya, Anurag Thakur, who happens to be a minister of state in the finance ministry. Parvesh Verma, another important BJP leader, they made very, very provocative, eight filled inflammatory speeches. But the police have chosen to completely ignore their provocative speeches. What does this say, sir? So when you talk about political interference in the police force and we know that the Delhi police comes directly under the ministry of home affairs, under the union home minister Mr Amit Shah, what does this mean? I've written about it. That was part of my letter, which is so blatant that these gentlemen could speak. I've heard it on television myself. These gentlemen talking in the most provocative manner. And I think that if they had any sense of fairness or justice, the Delhi police should have first taken up these gentlemen and said, look, and if the political masters had said that, look, you can't do this and do that. They said they will have to show the proof that is on the television. How are you going to explain that? And then you have to take action when people like this actually provoke the riots. They're bleeding up to the riots. It are these statements that have caused the people to get heated up. So I really am surprised that they were let off in this manner. You know, in the letter that was written by a number of senior retired officers who endorsed your letter, they pointed out how a special commissioner of police, they haven't named him, but I'm naming him Praveer Ranjan. He, in an official letter, had said there were Hindus who were resentful of investigation, who were resentful of the way the investigation into the riots went on. Now tell me, should a police officer put down these kinds of statements on the record? And the Delhi police justifies it and said, there's nothing wrong with what he said. You look very clever language, but should a police officer be making such statements? I think he was carried away probably by the fact that he had to be on the right side of the people that judge who are masters of his own destiny. I think that is what must have provoked him to do that because it is rather funny that an officer should show his true feathers. Anyway, so, but you know, the evidence that is going to be put up in court, you said some charges have already been laid out in the courts. So what is the evidence against these people? That has to be seen because once the trial starts, the evidence will all come out. Whether the same enthusiasm has been shown when prosecuting one group of people has been shown while prosecuting the others, that we would like to see. And what is the evidence against those who are going to charge for conspiracy? I mean, that is another point that also people are very eager to see because if they have evidence as they say they have, then they should show it. They should not prolong the inquiries anymore. Why was Umar Khalid, for example, not arrested much earlier? Because if you think he have got evidence against him, please prosecute him and show us what evidence you have. But to arrest people just before the three month time, you know, there is a timeline fixed for laying the charge sheet. And if you just before that, if you arrest people, then you get another three months. That's another unfortunate part of the whole thing. So this is the loophole that they exploit in order to keep people in custody without trial. That is another thing that I find being commonly used by the police, which is absolutely unfair. Let me, sir, on this issue of the law, I'm going to ask you some more questions. But do you think in today's day and age, we still need a log and sedition, which was enacted during the colonial era? Do we still need a law which many people consider draconian, which gives the police huge powers and is to be misused like the UAPA, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Do you think it's about time these laws were removed from our statute books? As far as sedition law is concerned, I think the general consensus is that it should go because it is being more often than not misused. And the balance of convenience is to totally abolish this law. And you can always have other sections of law if you think that people are provoking others to really go against the state, because most of these people have not gone against the state or they have not shown signs that they wanted to be riot or something. The people who actually provoke, those only should be charged with sedition, but nothing of that sort is done. And then, you know, it is selectively used. These laws are selectively used. And I think it is time they go. Sir, if you look at the people who have been arrested, young people, young students, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, both students of Jawaharlal Nehru University, part of the Pinchratol movement, Gul Fishta Fatima of Jamia Miliya Aslamiya, when you look at, you mentioned Umar Khaled, when you look at the people who have been picked up and put behind bars, Safura Zargar, she was pregnant when she was put behind bars. And they are the ones against whom the police are proceeding. And not only that, they haven't been charged, but they have been questioned, they have been named in the various documents that are doing the rounds. People like Harsh Mandar, Professor Apurva Nand, filmmakers Rahul Roy, Sabha Devan, they've been questioned, economics professor Jayati Ghosh. And not only that, you have the lawyers Mahut Pracha who has been representing some of the people who have been affected. And then you have political leaders like Sitaram Yachuri, like Yogendra Yadav. I mean, is there a method in the manner in which individuals, young students have been selected and put behind bars? And now escalating into academics to political leaders because of their opposition to the present regime and their opposition to laws like the CAA, the Citizenship Amendment Act. You know, in this I see a very clear political hand because I don't think, I mean with my experience of 36 years, of course I'm 30 years behind now and perhaps things that are happening today are much worse than in my time, but political leaders would have a hand in trying to decide who should be prosecuted and who should not be in such circumstances. So I'm quite sure that the police would not normally have arrested political leaders and all without consulting their political masters. This is almost certain. That's all we have time for today. We'll be back tomorrow with more news from the country and the world. Until then, keep watching NewsClick.