There can, of course, be variations in estimates of the current season's crop by diverse agencies, because of the difference in calculating methods, sources of information and coverage. However, no such variations in figures of actual production in the previous seasons can be justified, since they can be corrected by comparing them with the figures of actual ginning and pressing as also with figures of production and consumption of cotton maintained by the Union textile ministry.

That the Economic Division has neglected to do any such cross-checking is evident from the incredible cotton production statistics included by it in the Economic Survey.

Acomparison of the production figures given in the Economic Survey with those of output and consumption published by the textile ministry may go to prove that the statistical information given in the Economic Survey in this regard is devoid of reliability. A glance over these figures may at once show that while production figures given by the Textile Ministry are in line with those of consumption given by it, production statistics given in the Economic Survey are far lower than those of consumption and are therefore bound create serious doubts about their dependability.

For instance, if one were to accept that the figure of cotton production of 111 lakh bales in 1997-98 as given in the Economic Survey is correct, one may find it impossible to explain how, in that case, cotton consumption reached 158.58 lakh bales in that season, since imports in that season were just of the order of four lakh bales (and exports took away 3.50 lakh bales). Moreover, looking to the Economic Survey's production figures for theearlier seasons, there can be no previous seasons' carry forward stocks either.

Similar arguments can prove that the Economic Survey's cotton production figures for the earlier seasons are also equally unreliable. Unless therefore the economic division of the finance ministry can convincingly contradict the figures of cotton consumption given by the textile ministry, it can have no option, but to concede that its own production figures are doubtful and it has erred in incorporating them in the survey. This may also raise a question about reliability of production figures of other agricultural crops given in the Economic Survey. The economic division may well argue that it had received these figures from the agriculture ministry, but that may not absolve it from its own responsibility to cross-check the information coming to it from various sources. Since this is not done, totally unreliable statistics get into the survey and from there into the text books for schools as well as colleges.