India Human Development Report 2011

India Human Development Report 2011 Team

Team Leader Santosh Mehrotra Authors Ankita Gandhi, Chandan Kumar, Partha Saha, Bimal Kishore Sahoo, and Aishna Sharma. Earlier drafts of some chapters were prepared by Anjor Bhaskar, Neha Kumra, Arvinder Sachdeva, and Sachin Sharma. Research Assistance Nupur Chaudhary, Bharati Dash, Justin George, Deboshree Ghosh, Aditya Jagati, Nikhil Joseph, Ajaya Naik, and Atika Pasha. Technical & Administrative Assistance Shagun Bhardwaj, Deepak Kumar, Deepayan Nandi, and Asha Tomar.

India Human Development Report 2011

Towards Social Inclusion

Institute of Applied Manpower Research Planning Commission Government of India

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in India by Oxford University Press YMCA Library Building, 1 Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110001, India Institute of Applied Manpower Research 2011 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2011

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

ISBN-13: 978-0-19-807758-9 ISBN-10: 0-19-807758-0

Typeset in 10.5/12.7 Adobe Garamond Pro by Excellent Laser Typesetters, Pitampura, Delhi 110 034 Printed in India at Rakmo Press Pvt Ltd., New Delhi 110 020

Contents

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes List of Appendix Tables Foreword Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1. Overview: Conceptual Framework and Key Findings Introduction Human Development Index Employment, Asset Ownership, and Poverty The Right to Food and Nutrition Health and Demography Education: Achievements and Challenges Supporting Human Development: Housing, Electricity, Telephony, and Roads Vulnerable Groups 2. Human Development Index Introduction Conceptualizing the Human Development Index Demographic Prole of India Human Development seen through Individual Indicators Gender-related Development Index Concluding Remarks State Proles 3. Employment, Asset Ownership, and Poverty Introduction Employment Asset Ownership Poverty Concluding Remarks

vii xiii xvii xix xx 1 1 2 4 6 8 11 12 14 16 16 17 19 22 31 32 33 94 94 96 104 109 118

vi CONTENTS

4. The Right to Food and Nutrition Introduction Malnutrition: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis The Status of Hunger across States Malnutrition: Anthropometric Indicators Micronutrients: Current Scenario Major Programmes to Address the Problem of Hunger and Malnutrition Concluding Remarks 5. Health and Demography Introduction Health Outcomes Reproductive and Child Health Health Inputs Demand for Healthcare Sanitation and Drinking Water Concluding Remarks 6. Education: Achievements and Challenges Introduction Literacy Aspects of School Education Physical Infrastructure Indicators Related to Teachers Expenditure on Education Concluding Remarks 7. Supporting Human Development: Housing, Electricity, Telephony, and Roads Introduction Shelter and Quality of Housing Access to Electricity Mobile Telephony Road Connectivity Concluding Remarks 8. Vulnerable Groups Introduction Child Labour The Dierently-abled The Elderly Concluding Remarks Technical Appendix Appendix Tables Data Sources Bibliography

121 121 124 130 131 134 139 143 146 146 149 157 163 169 169 176 179 179 181 185 196 198 202 206 208 208 210 214 216 220 222 224 224 225 235 241 246 249 253 404 409

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes

TABLES 1.1 Feedback Loops in the Human Development ProcessAt the Micro-economic Level 1.2 All India Incidence of Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas 1.3 All India Unemployment Rate, by Social Group, by Current Daily Status, 20045 to 200910 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 HDI Ranking for Dierent Regions and Countries across the Globe Comparison between Indicators in NHDR 2001 and IHDR 2011 Socio-economic and Demographic Prole of Eight Poor States Ranking of States according to HDI Value Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Religious Communities, 19934, 20045, and 200910 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Major Religious Community, 19934, 20045, and 200910 Distribution of Households in Rural and Urban India, by Employment Type, 19934, 20045, 20078, and 200910 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups, 20045, 20078, and 200910 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Major Religious Communities, 19934, 20045 and 200910 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Major Religious Communities, 20045, 20078, and 200910 Average Daily Wage, 20078

2 4 6 17 18 21 24 97 98 98 99 99 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 103

viii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 5.1 5.2

Gini Coecient of Asset Ownership in Rural and Urban India, 19912 and 20023 Distribution of Assets among Rural and Urban Households, 19912 and 20023 Composition of Assets in Rural and Urban India, 19912 and 20023 Distribution of Households and Assets, by Occupational Categories, 19912 and 20023 Access Index of Asset Ownership, by Occupational Categories, 19912 and 20023 Average Value of Assets, by Social Groups, 20023 Distribution of Households and of Assets, by Social Groups, 20023 Distribution of Households and Assets, by Major Religious Communities, 20023 Access Index of Households, by Social Groups among Hindus, 20023 Inequality in MPCE in Rural and Urban Areas (Gini Coecient), by URP, 19934 and 20045 Inequality in MPCE in Rural and Urban Areas (Gini Coecient), by MRP, 20045 and 20078 Share of Expenditure on Food in Rural and Urban, 1983, 19934 and 20045 Average MPCE and Proportion of MPCE Spent on Food, by Occupational Groups (Rural), 19934 and 20045 Average MPCE and Proportion of MPCE Spent on Food, by Occupational Groups (Urban), 19934 and 20045 Average MPCE and Proportion Spent on Food, by Social Groups, 20045 Average MPCE, by Social Groups, 20078 Ratio of Average MPCE for SCs, STs, OBCs as compared to Others, 20078 Incidence of Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas, 1983, 199394 and 20045 Population Below International Poverty Line of US $ 1.25 Per Day, 2005 Incidence of Poverty, by Occupational Categories (Rural), 19934 and 20045 Incidence of Poverty, by Occupational Categories (Urban), 19934 and 20045 Incidence of Poverty, by Social Groups, 19934 and 20045 Incidence of Poverty, by Social Groups, 20078 Incidence of Poverty, by Major Religious Communities, 20078 Poverty Gap, 20078 Rate of Growth of Gross Domestic Product (at Factor Cost) (at 19992000) Prices, 20034 to 200910 Nutritional Status of Children: SAARC and BRIC Countries, 20007 Per Capita Intake of Calories and Protein, 1983 to 20045 Percentage Distributions of Children and Adults by Protein-Calorie Adequacy Status, 2002 and 2006 Changes in Average Per Capita Cereal Consumption in 15 Major States in Physical Terms over 199394 to 20045 Composition of Food Consumption, Rural and Urban 19723 to 20045 Per Capita Per Diem Intake of Calories by MPCE Class, 20045 Total Calorie Consumption by Decile and Quartile of Per Capita Expenditure, Rural India, 1983 to 20045 Hunger Index of Selected Indian States, 2008 Trends in Child Malnutrition, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Children below -2SD of the Indicator by Religious Groups20056 Percentage of Children below -2SD of the Indicator by Social Groups, 20056 Classication of States by Trend in Percentage of Women with Anaemia, by Social Groups, 19989 to 20056 Anaemia among Children, 19989 and 20056 Infant Mortality Rate, 2000 and 2009 Under Five Mortality Rate

105 105 106 107 108 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 111 112 112 113 113 114 114 115 115 116 116 117 118 118 122 126 127 128 129 130 130 131 134 135 135 137 138 149 151

TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

ix

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24

Life Expectancy at Birth, 19812004 Total Fertility Rate of Religious and Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Overall Sex-Ratio, 19812011 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Religious Community, 2001 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Social Group, 2001 Percentage Distribution of Live Births by Religious Community Percentage Distribution of Live Births by Social Groups Prevalence of Contraception by Religious Communities Prevalence of Contraception by Social Groups Health Services Received by Pregnant Women by Religious Communities Health Services Received by Pregnant Women by Social Groups Health Expenditure in India, 20056 to 20089 Composition of Healthcare Expenditure, 20045 NGP Villages with Proportion of People still Defecating in the Open, 6 States, 2008 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities (Rural), 19992000 and 20078 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities (Urban), 19992000 and 20078 Ratio of Literacy Rates for SCs, STs, and Muslims to National Average, 19992000 and 20078 Gross Enrolment Ratio for School Education, by Social Groups, 20045 and 20078 Gender Parity Index at Primary Level, 2007 Net Enrolment Ratio at Primary Level, 2007 Enrolment of Girls at Primary and Upper Primary Levels, 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary and Upper Primary Levels, 19956 and 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Secondary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Higher Secondary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 Distribution of Persons Attending Dierent Types of Educational Institutions, 19956 and 20078 Out of School Children by Social Groups and Major Religious Community (6 to 17 years), 20078 Major Reasons for Discontinuation/Dropping out 20078 Mean Years of Schooling, 19992000 and 20078 Mean Years of Schooling by Social Groups and by Major Religious Communities, 20078 Distribution of Teachers, by Type of School, 20078 Proportion of Para-Teachers to Total Teachers, 20078 Proportion of Teachers with BEd or Equivalent Degree, 20078 PupilTeacher Ratio at Primary Level, 2007 Proportion of Female Teachers in School Education, 20078 Public Expenditure on Education by Central and State Governments, 20001 to 20078 Total Public Expenditure on Education as Percentage of GNP for Major Regions of the World, 2007

152 156 156 157 157 159 159 161 161 162 162 164 164 174

183 183 184 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190 191 192 192 193 195 195 199 199 200 201 201 203 203

TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

6.25 Public Expenditure on Education as a Proportion of GDP 6.26 Out-of-Pocket Expenditure Per Student (529 Years) in Higher Education, by Social Groups and Religious Communities, 20078 6.27 Distribution of Students (529 years) by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 6.28 Participation in Higher Education by Social Groups and by Major Religious Communities, 20078 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 Index of Social and Economic Infrastructure Targets under Bharat Nirman Coverage of Roads Child Workforce Participation Rate, 19934, 20045, and 20078 Aggregate Percentage of Working and Nowhere Children in India Prevalence of Disabilities in India Distribution of Dierently-abled by Broad Activity Status, JulyDecember 2002 Distribution of Dierently-abled Workers by Usual Activity Status in Broad Industrial Sectors, JulyDecember 2002 Distribution of Projected Population by Age Groups and Gender in India Percentage of Persons Aged 60 Years and Above in India Old Age Dependency Ratio in India

204 205 206 206 208 209 220 226 227 236 238 238 242 243 243

FIGURES 1.1 Feedback Loops at the Macro-economic Level 1.2 HDI across States, 19992000 and 20078 1.3 MPCE, All India and SCs (1999, 2000, and 20078) 1.4 MPCE, All India and STs (19992000 and 20078) 1.5 MPCE, All India and Muslims (19992000 and 20078) 1.6 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056) 1.7 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and STs (19989 and 20056) 1.8 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056) 1.9 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056) 1.10 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and STs (19989 and 20056) 1.11 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056) 1.12 Total Fertility Rate, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056) 1.13 Total Fertility Rate, All India and STs (19989 and 20056) 1.14 Total Fertility Rate, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056) 1.15 Literacy Rate, All India and SCs (2001 and 20078) 1.16 Literacy Rate, All India and STs (2001 and 20078) 1.17 Literacy Rate, All India and Muslims(2001 and 20078) 1.18 Percentage of Households with Electricity, All India and SCs (2002 and 20089) 1.19 Percentage of Households with Electricity, India and STs (2002 and 20089) 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Distribution of SC Population within States, 20078 Distribution of SC Population among States, 20078 Distribution of ST Population within States, 20078 Distribution of ST Population among States, 20078 Distribution of Muslim Population within States, 20078

1 3 5 5 5 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 12 12 13 13 19 19 20 20 21

TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

xi

2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Distribution of Muslim Population among States, 20078 Human Development Index across States, 20078 Indian States Ranked with respect to HDI in 20078 Percentage change in HDI between 19992000 and 20078 Income Index across States, 20078 Percentage Change in Income Index from 19992000 to 20078 Education Index across States, 20078 Percentage Change in Education Index from 19992000 to 20078 Health Index across States, 2008 Percentage Change in Health Index from 2000 to 2008 Relationship between Level and Growth of HDI, 19992000 to 20078 Relationship between HDI Growth and NSDP Growth between 19992000 and 20078 GDI across States, 2006 Feedback Loops at the Macroeconomic Level Lorenz Curve for Total Assets, All India, 20023 Incidence of Poverty by Major Religious Communities, 19934 and 20045 Conceptual Framework: Determinants of Malnutrition Percentage of Women Suering from Anaemia by Wealth Index, 20056 Synergy between Health and Standard of Living Feedback Loops in the Human Development ProcessA Focus on Health Related Inputs and Outputs Closing Rural-Urban Gap in IMR in Most States, 2000 and 2009 Infant Mortality Rate by Wealth Index, 20056 Structure of Population in India Relationship between TFR and Education Status of Women, 20056 Relationship between Duration of Education and Share of Institutional Deliveries, 20056 Place of Delivery: Distribution of Live Births by Wealth Index, 20056 Prevalence of Contraception by Wealth Index Share of Expenditure on Medical Care in Consumer Expenditure, 20078 Source of Healthcare by Wealth Index: Public v/s Private Households with Improved Sanitation, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, 2002 and 20089 Percentage of Households with Taps as a Source of Drinking Water (20089) Feedback Loops in the Human Development Process Mean Years of Schooling by Social Groups, 20078 for Population Aged 7 Years and Above Mean Years of Schooling by Religious Communities, 20078 for Population Aged 7 Years and Above RuralUrban Gap in Percentage of Households Living in Pucca Houses, 2002 and 20089 Percentage Distribution of Households Living in Pucca Houses by Socio-religious Groups, 2002 and 20089 RuralUrban Gap in Percentage of Households having Electricity for Domestic Use, 2002 and 20089 Percentage Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use by Socio-religious Groups, 2002 and 20089 Relationship between Per Capita Net State Domestic Product and Teledensity

21 22 23 23 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 32 95 105 117 125 137 146 147 150 150 153 155 160 160 162 165 170 172 175 175 180 196 197 211 212 214 215 217

xii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES

7.6 7.7 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

RuralUrban Gap in Teledensity, 1998 and 2010 Percentage Distribution of Wire-line and Wireless Subscribers, 2005 and 2010 Nowhere Children as a Percentage of Total Child Population in India, 19934 and 20078 Child Workforce Participation Rate by Social Groups Child Workforce Participation Rate by Religious Groups All India Distribution of Child Labour by Sector of Employment, based on NSSO Estimates, 20045 Distribution of Child Workers Engaged in Hazardous Occupations in India as per the Census 2001 Percentage Distribution of Dierently-abled Persons by Type of Disability in India Mismatch in the Number of Personnel for the Dierently-abled

218 218 227 229 230 230 232 236 239

BOXES 2.1 Calculating the Human Development Index 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 Occupational Diversication Reference Period Poverty Estimates Recommendations of Commissioners to the Supreme Court on Right to Food Recommendations of the National Advisory Council Recommendations of National Commission on Farmers An Assessment of the National Rural Health Mission Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (National Health Insurance Programme) Economic Implications of Inadequate Sanitation Community Participation in Promoting Sanitation Facilities Community Participation in Sanitation and Water Supply in Rajasthan Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Right to Education Providing Homes to the Homeless Gram Vikas Participatory Housing Programme Renewable Energy for Electrifying Villages: Lessons from China Application of Mobile Telephony in Rural Areas: Fisher Friend in India ILO-IPEC Jaipur Foot: A Ray of Hope for the Dierently-abled SwavalambanA pension scheme for the unorganized sector

18 100 111 119 141 142 144 168 170 172 173 177 186 197 212 213 216 219 234 240 244

List of Appendix Tables

2A.1 2A.2 2A.3 2A.4 2A.5 3A.1 3A.2 3A.3 3A.4 3A.5 3A.6 3A.7 3A.8 3A.9 3A.10 3A.11

Percentage Distribution of Population within a State by Social Groups, 20078 Percentage Distribution of Social Groups among States, 20078 Percentage Distribution of Population within a State by Major Religious Communities, 20078 Percentage Distribution of Major Religious Communities among States, 20078 Human Development Index and its Components by States, 19992000 and 20078 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups (Rural), 19934 and 20045 (per cent) Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups (Urban), 19934 and 20045 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Gender (Rural), 19934 and 20045 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Gender (Urban), 19934 and 20045 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups (Rural), 20045 and 20078 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups (Urban), 20045 and 20078 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Religious Communities (Rural), 20045 and 20078 (per cent) Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Religious Communities (Urban), 20045 and 20078 (per cent) Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure, 1983, 19934, and 20045 (Rs) Incidence of Poverty (Rural and Urban Combined), 1983, 19934, and 20045 (per cent) Distribution of Population and Incidence of Poverty, by Religious Communities, 19934 and 20045 (per cent) Percentage of Adult Population with BMI<18.5, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Women with Anaemia, 19989 and 20056

253 254 255 256 257

258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

4A.1 4A.2 4A.3 4A.4

xiv APPENDIX TABLES

4A.5 4A.6 4A.7 4A.8 4A.9

Percentage of Women with any Anaemia, by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Women with any Anaemia, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Nutritional Status of Children (05 years), 20056 Percentage of Children with any Anaemia (05 years), 20056 Percentage of Children with Anaemia, by Major Religious Communities, and by Social Groups 20056 Infant Mortality RateRural, Urban, and Combined, 2000 and 2009 Infant Mortality Rate by Gender, 2000 and 2009 Infant Mortality Rate by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056 Infant Mortality Rate by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Under-ve Mortality Rate by Gender, 19989 and 20056 Under-ve Mortality Rate by Gender, 2008 Under-ve Mortality Rate by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056 Under-ve Mortality Rate by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Death Rate by Gender, 1991, 1997, and 2009 Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender, 19926 and 2004 Projected Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender, 200610 Life Expectancy at Age 1 by Gender, 19926 and 2004 Percentage of Persons not Expected to Survive Beyond the Age of 40 Years, 1991 and 2004 Total Fertility Rate, 19902, 19957, and 2008 Total Fertility Rate (Rural), 19902, 19957, and 2008 Total Fertility Rate (Urban), 19902, 19957, and 2008 Sex-Ratio, 2001 and 2011 Sex-Ratio in the Age Group 06 years, 2001 and 2011 Sex-Ratio at Birth, by Major Religious Communities, 2001 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Social Groups, 2001 Distribution of Live Births by Place of Delivery, 20056 Distribution of Live Births (Rural) by Place of Delivery, 20056 Distribution of Live Births (Urban) by Place of Delivery, 20056 Maternal Mortality Ratio in India, 20013, 20046, and 20079 Percentage of Live Births by Place of Delivery for Population with No Education, 20056 Percentage of Live Births by Place of Delivery for Population with More than 12 Years of Education, 20056 Prevalence of Contraception, 20056 Antenatal Care, 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized (Rural and Urban), 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized, by Major Religious Community, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Percentage of Children Immunized, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056 Public Expenditure on Health, 20045 Private & Public Health Expenditure as Share of Total Expenditure, 20045 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Public Inpatient Care (Rural), 20045 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Public Inpatient Care (Urban), 20045 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Private Inpatient Care (Rural), 20045 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Private Inpatient Care (Urban), 20045

273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317

5A.1 5A.2 5A.3 5A.4 5A.5 5A.6 5A.7 5A.8 5A.9 5A.10 5A.11 5A.12 5A.13 5A.14 5A.15 5A.16 5A.17 5A.18 5A.19 5A.20 5A.21 5A.22 5A.23 5A.24 5A.25 5A.26 5A.27 5A.28 5A.29 5A.30 5A.31a 5A.31b 5A.32a 5A.32b 5A.33 5A.34 5A.35 5A.36 5A.37 5A.38

APPENDIX TABLES

xv

5A.39 5A.40 5A.41 5A.42 5A.43 5A.44 5A.45 5A.46 5A.47 5A.48a 5A.48b 5A.49 5A.50 5A.51 5A.52 5A.53 5A.54a 5A.54b 5A.55 6A.1 6A.2 6A.3 6A.4 6A.5 6A.6 6A.7 6A.8 6A.9 6A.10 6A.11 6A.12 6A.13 6A.14 6A.15 6A.16 6A.17 6A.18 6A.19 6A.20 6A.21 6A.22 6A.23

Number of Sub-Centres, PHCs and CHCs, March 2008 Number of Government Hospitals and Beds Number of Government Allopathic Doctors and Average Population Served Number of Registered Nurses, 2008 and Pharmacists, 2010 Doctors and Health Works in Government Health System Manpower (Rural), 2008 Source of Healthcare: Percentage Distribution of Households by Public and Non-public Healthcare Provision, 20056 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, 2002 and 20089 Distribution Proportion of Households by Type of Toilet Facility (Rural), 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility (Urban), 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 (STs and SCs) Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Social Groups 2002 and 20089 (OBCs and Others) Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Major Religious Communities, 2002 and 20089 Percentage Distribution of Households by Improved Source of Drinking Water, 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water (Rural), 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water (Urban), 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Major Religious Communities, 20089 Literacy Rate (Rural), 19992000 and 20078 Literacy Rate (Urban), 19992000 and 20078 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078 Literacy Rate, by Major Religious Communities (Rural), 20078 Literacy Rate, by Major Religious Communities (Urban), 20078 Gross Enrolment Ratio, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078 Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Tribes, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078 Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Castes, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078 Out of School Children (6 to 17 years), by Social Groups, 20078 Out of School Children (6 to 17 years), by Major Religious Communities, 20078 Average Flow Rates at Primary Level, 20067 Coverage of Anganwadi Centres, 20056 Average Number of Classrooms, by Type of School, 20078 Distribution of Schools with 1 Room & 2 Rooms, by Type of Management, 20078 Schools having Girls Toilet Facility, Drinking Water Facility, Electricity, Computer, 20078 Pupil Teacher Ratio at Primary and Upper Primary Levels, 20078 Female Teachers by Levels of Education, 20078 Distribution of Teachers, by Social Groups, 20078

318 319 321 322 323 324 326 327 328 329 331 333 335 336 338 340 342 344 346 348 349 350 352 354 356 358 359 360 361 363 365 367 369 371 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380

xvi APPENDIX TABLES

6A.24 6A.25 6A.26

Public Expenditure on Education, 20078 Average Annual Expenditure Per Student of age 529 Years in General Education, by Social Groups, 20078 Average Annual Expenditure Per Student of Age 529 Years in General Education, by Major Religions Communities, 20078 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, 2002 and 20089 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House (Rural), 2002 and 20089 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House (Urban), 2002 and 20089 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Major Religious Communities, 20089 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, by Major Religious Communities, 20089 Distribution of Households with Access to Telephone Coverage of Mobiles (Rural), March 2008 Road Length per 100 Square Kilometres and Per Million Population, March 2004 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, 19934, 20045, and 20078 Percentage of Nowhere Children by Gender, 19934 and 20078 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, (Rural), 19934 and 20045 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, (Urban), 19934 and 20045 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Social Groups, 20045 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Religious Communities, 20045 Sectoral Distribution of Child Labour, 20045 Percentage of Disability by Gender, 2002

381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403

7A.1 7A.2 7A.3 7A.4a 7A.4b 7A.5 7A.6 7A.7 7A.8 7A.9 7A.10 A7.11 8A.1 8A.2 8A.3 8A.4 8A.5 8A.6 8A.7 8A.8

Foreword

Planning Commission published the rst National Human Development Report (NHDR) for India in 2002. This is the second in the series. This Report shows that the Human Development Index (HDI) between 19992000 and 20078 (the latest year for which it can be estimated) has increased by 21 per cent. The major driver of improvement in HDI has been the Education Index, which has seen an improvement of over 28 per cent between 19992000 and 20078. Equally important, the Report shows that the increases in HDI in the poorest states of India have been much sharper than the national average. Hence there is convergence taking place in HDI across states. The focus of this Report is not only on inter-state disparities in indicators of well-being, but also two other types of inequalities: rst, between caste and social groups in the countryScheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Others; and second, between various religious communities of India. The 11th Five Year Plan aimed at inclusive growth. Indias development in the past decade has shown a move towards convergence in terms of several human development outcomes of the socially excluded groups.

Montek Singh Ahluwalia Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, Government of India

Acknowledgements

India Human Development Report 2011 is an outcome of immense hard work and team eort of over two years. It is the second Human Development Report for the country, the earlier one being published in the year 2002. This work was initiated in the Planning Commission (when the team leader headed Rural Development Division) and subsequently carried forward by the Institute of Applied Manpower Researchthe only research institute under the aegis of Planning Commission. The Report is a collective endeavour of a dedicated team of researchers, well supported by technical as well as administrative sta at the Institute. The entire process of preparation of the Report involved close consultation with domain experts (national as well as international) at every stage. For every chapter, feedback from external (national as well as international) experts was sought and revisions were made accordingly. The work greatly benetted from intellectual advice from Mr Anoop Satpathy, Mr Biraj Patnaik, Professor Caroline Dyer, Dr Geeta Kingdon, Dr Harsh Mander, Dr N.C. Saxena, Dr Seeta Prabhu, Mrs Shantha Sinha, and Dr T. Sundararaman on earlier drafts. Special thanks are due to Professor Sarthi Acharya, for thoroughly peer reviewing the entire Report and providing key insights, without which the work could not be in its present form. Special thanks are also extended to Dr Arvinder Sachdev and his team for the extensive data crunching and unit-level data analysis for some of the appendix tables across four chapters. Earlier drafts of these chapters were also prepared by them. In addition, the Report benetted from consultations with Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and HDR Steering Committee MembersDr Syeda Hameed, Dr Narendra Jadhav, Dr Saumitra Chaudhary, and Dr Pronab Sen, Principal Adviser, Planning Commission. However, the Report does not necessarily reect the view of the Planning Commission. We extend our gratitude to United Nations Development Programme for facilitating the editorial work on the Report and also for providing three consultants to complete it. We thank all those directly or indirectly involved in giving the Report its nal shape. However, we take the responsibility for any possible errors and omissions in the process.

Abbreviations

AAY ADB AIDIS ANC APL ASHA BMI BMVSS BOT BPL BRC BRIC CACP CHC CIP CLTS CPIAL CPIIW CPR DDRC DISE DRDA EAG EGS FAO FCI FPS

Antyodaya Anna Yojana Asian Development Bank All India Debt and Investment Survey Antenatal Care Above Poverty Line Accredited Social Health Activist Body Mass Index Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti Build, Operate and Transfer Below Poverty Line Brazil, Russia, and China Brazil, Russia, India, and China Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices Community Health Centre Central Issue Price Community Led Total Sanitation Consumer Price Index for Agricultural Labourers Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers Contraception Prevalence Rates District Disability Rehabilitation Centre District Information System for Education District Rural Development Agency Empowered Action Group Employment Guarantee Scheme Food and Agriculture Organization Food Corporation of India Fair Price Shop

ABBREVIATIONS

xxi

GDP GER GNP GP GPI GSDP HDI HDR IAY ICDS IDA IEC IGNDPS IGNOAPS IGNWPS ILO IMR INDUS Project INGCP IPEC IPHS JNNURM JSY KGBVS KMS KSY LBW LCL LFPR MDG MGNREGA MMR MNC MPCE MRP MSP MWCD NAC NACO NAR NCD NCF

Gross Domestic Product Gross Enrolment Ratio Gross National Product Gram Panchayat Gender Parity Index Gross State Domestic Product Human Development Index Human Development Report Indira Awaas Yojana Integrated Child Development Services Iron Deciency Anaemia Information Education and Communication Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme International Labour Organization Infant Mortality Rate Indo-US Child Labour Project Indian National Goitre Control Programme International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour Indian Public Health Standard Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewable Mission Janani Suraksha Yojana Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme Kharif Marketing Season Kishori Shakti Yojana Low Birth Weight Low Cost Latrines Labour Force Participation Rate Millennium Development Goal Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act Maternal Mortality Ratio Multinational Corporation Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure Mixed Reference Period Minimum Support Price Ministry of Women and Child Development National Advisory Council National AIDS Control Organisation Net Attendance Ratio Non Communicable Diseases National Commission on Farmers

xxii ABBREVIATIONS

NCLP NCPCR NER NFHS NGCP NGO NHA NHDP NHDR NHFDC NIDDCP NIJNNURM NNMB NPAG NPEGEL NPHCE NPP NPS NRHM NSAS NSDP NSS NSSO NUEPA NWC OASIS OBC OD ODF OMMAS OOP PDS PHC PMGSY RCH RCI RDI RGGVY RSBY RTE SC SCR

National Child Labour Project National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights Net Enrolment Ratio National Family and Health Survey National Goitre Control Programme Non Governmental Organisation National Health Accounts National Highways Development Project National Human Development Report National Handicapped and Finance Development Corporation National Iodine Deciency Disorders Control Programme New Improved Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau National Programme for Adolescent Girls National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementary Level National Programme for the Healthcare of the Elderly National Population Policy New Pension System National Rural Health Mission National Social Assistance Scheme Net State Domestic Product National Sample Survey National Sample Survey Organization National University of Educational Planning and Administration Nowhere Children Old Age Social and Income Security Other Backward Classes Open Defection Open Defection Free Online Management, Monitoring and Accounting System Out of Pocket Public Distribution System Primary Health Centre Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana Reproductive and Child Health Rehabilitation Council of India Recommended Dietary Intake Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana Right to Education Scheduled Caste Student-Classroom Ratio

ABBREVIATIONS

xxiii

SDP SNP SRS SSA ST TDPS TFR TSC U5MR UEE UPBEP URP VAD VEC VPT WFPR WHO

State Domestic Product Supplementary Nutrition Programme Survey Registration Scheme Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan Scheduled Tribe Targeted Public Distribution System Total Fertility Rate Total Sanitation Campaign Under ve Mortality Rate Universalisation of Elementary Education Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project Uniform Reference Period Vitamin A Deciency Village Education Committee Village Public Telephone Workforce Participation Rate World Health Organization

1
Overview
Conceptual Framework and Key Findings
INTRODUCTION
Economic Growth

In any nation, human development (HD) outcomes are a function of economic growth, social policy, and poverty reduction measures at the macro-level. These, in turn, are the result of various synergies in the form of feedback loops, operating in terms of both inputs and outputs in the development process. The expansion of human functionings in terms of health and educational attainments, reduction of income poverty, and economic growth are linked in a synergistic manner through these feedback loops. These synergies lead to improved health and educational outcomes. Poverty is likely to be reduced if there is rapid economic growth. Faster and more sustainable economic growth can be attained if, among other policy determined interventions, poverty is reduced through direct policies aimed at the income-poor, and simultaneously, if the health and educational status of the population is enhanced. There exists a two-way relationship between these interventions at the macro-economic level. For instance, investment in health and education can enhance human functioning, which can eventually alleviate income poverty (by improving employability) and further economic growth. Similarly, resources generated through income poverty reduction and economic growth can be used to enhance human functionings. This in turn gives a push to economic growth (Figure 1.1). The India Human Development Report 2011 (IHDR) argues that interventions in human capital and expansion

Human Capital Formation

Income Poverty Reduction

Figure 1.1 Feedback Loops at the Macro-economic Level

of human functionings are key requirements for economic growth to be more successful in reducing income poverty, and calls for an integration of social and economic policies. The feedback loops can be better understood from Table 1.1 which shows how various parameters can act as both inputs and outcomes in the human development process. While the rows represent the inputs, the columns represent the human development outcomes or outputs. The shaded cells show the relationship between an input and the output variable, and the arrow depicts the feedback eects from the development outcomes to the inputs. For example, education as an input can lead to better health and nutritional status of an individual, which feeds back into improved learning ability and better attendance at school. Similarly, a healthy mother giving birth to a healthy child with higher chances of survival leads to lower

2 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 1.1 Feedback Loops in the Human Development ProcessAt the Micro-economic Level
Social services inputs/processes Knowledge Human development outcomes/outputs Family size Health status Nutritional status Healthy living conditions

Education Family Planning Health Nutrition Water and Sanitation Source: Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007).

fertility and smaller family size, which in turn increases the per capita availability of resources to improve health and educational attainments. In the context of feedback loops, this Report attempts to highlight whether certain sections of Indian society suer from multiple deprivations, and hence fail to enjoy the benets of these feedback loops. A state-wise analysis is done of Indias unique socially stratied society to examine how dierent caste and religious groups fare in terms of various socio-economic indicators. It may be noted that the poorer states, namely, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and West Bengal, account for 56 per cent of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and 55 per cent of the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population of the entire country. Further, 58 per cent of the Muslim population is concentrated in these states. There is a two-way relationship here; poorer states are so because there are large proportions of the excluded social groups (who are generally poorer) living there; conversely, in the poorer states the dierent development programmes do not reach the targeted populationespecially the economically and socially deprived sections. This Report focuses especially on the question of whether the social indicators of excluded groups are converging or diverging with the rest of the population. The analysis provides interesting insights on the following. Whether dierent social groups like the SCs, STs, or Muslims, get excluded from the development process; Whether India is experiencing inclusive growth in the true sense; How are the Governments various agship programmes/schemes addressing some of these issues.

This chapter summarizes the key ndings of the report. Chapter 2 of the report estimates the Human Development Index for India and each of the states. It also presents a state-by-state human development prole. Chapter 3 examines the economic attainments of the population, especially the two major sources of income: employment and assets. Chapter 4 examines the availability, access and absorption of food, and discusses the state of hunger and malnutrition. Chapter 5 focuses on how healthy we are, and carries out a detailed analysis of health inputs, processes, and outcomes. Chapter 6 examines the achievements and challenges in the education sector. Chapter 7 analyses the state of support infrastructure (roads, electricity, housing, and telephony), which forms the basis of the human development outcomes. Finally, Chapter 8 discusses the challenges facing vulnerable sections of Indias population: the child labourers, the elderly, and the disabled. In all chapters, the social exclusion of SCs, STs, and Muslims is focused upon, wherever the data permits.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index of outcome indicators in three dimensions: a. A long and healthy life, as reected in life expectancy at birth. b. The acquisition of education and knowledge, as reected in the mean years of schooling (adjusted for out of school children) and literacy rate (age 7 years and above). c. The standard of living and command over resources, as reected in the monthly per capita expenditure adjusted for ination and inequality.

OVERVIEW

In 2010, India ranked 119 among 192 countries across the world, with a medium level HDI of 0.52, moving one notch higher as compared to 2005. According to United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) data, it is among the top 10 movers in gross domestic product (GDP) growth. However, despite this, certain sections of society remain excluded, especially in terms of improvements in human capabilities and entitlements. For historical reasons, Indian society is segregated into castes, and some of them are economically and socially deprived to a great extent. It is therefore essential to bridge the caste gaps and ultimately eliminate all forms of discriminating social barriers. Also, the tribal groups of central and eastern India in particular have remained deprived in multiple dimensions (a factor that cannot be ignored if the extremist violence in that region is to be addressed). Figure 1.2 presents data on HDI for dierent states for 19992000 and 20078. It is seen that the ranking of the states in terms of HDI has barely changed over this past decade. The generally well-performing states are Kerala, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, and Punjab, which occupy the rst ve places in both the years. On the other hand, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh appear at the bottom of the list in both the years. Thus, despite some catching-up witnessed in the states with low human

development, the progress has not been rapid enough to change the inter se ranking radically. This IHDR shows that the HDI has increased by 21 per cent between 19992000 and 20078 (the latest year for which it can be estimated). Equally importantly, it shows that the increase in HDI in the states that are among the poorest has been much faster than the national average, and hence there is a convergence taking place between states in terms of HDI. The improvement in HDI for a state could be driven by the Income Index, the Education Index, or the Health Index, or a combination of the three indices. It is the improvement of 28.5 per cent in the Education Index during the period 19992000 and 20078 that has driven Indias HDI upwards, while the change in the Income Index (which in this case is really an indicator of the change in consumption rather than income per se) is only as large as the overall change in the HDI. The good news is that the poor states, by and large, have registered a signicantly higher than average improvement in the Income Index. Similarly, the educationally backward and poorer states (Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Bihar) are the ones which have shown the greatest improvement in the Education Index. The improvement in the Education Index in the educationally backward states suggests a strong trend of convergence in educational outcomes across states.

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

NE (excluding Assam)

Himachal Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh

Kerala

Delhi

Punjab

Tamil Nadu

Jammu and Kashmir

Karnataka

Assam

Rajasthan

Orissa

Goa

Bihar

HDI 19992000

HDI 20078

Figure 1.2 HDI across States, 19992000 and 20078

Uttar Pradesh

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

Maharashtra

West Bengal

Uttarakhand

All India

Gujarat

4 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Remarkably, the improvement in the Health Index during the period 19992000 to 20078 is well below the improvement in the HDI overall. In other words, while the Income Index has improved at the same rate as the HDI for India, and the Education Index by much more than the improvement in the HDI, the Health Index has not shown any signicant change; a subject that we return to later in this chapter, while examining the outcomes in health. Next, there are states that do not necessarily have high incomes, but the authorities there have taken sucient measures to ensure better education and health for the people. Some typical examples are Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and the smaller north-eastern states. Another trend seen is that the relatively richer states have also performed well on human development indicators; for example, Delhi, Goa, and Punjab. A clear message that emerges is in regard to the relationship between the caste composition of a state and its outcomes in terms of health and education. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have a composition of social groups similar to those in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (See Table 2A.1), but have better than average health and educational status, suggesting that the social composition of a states population does not determine its destiny in terms of human development outcomes. The destiny of the population can be changed through appropriate policies that address the needs of the marginalized communities. The analysis in the India HDR 2011 makes a strong argument for all state Governments to act as agents of change to make the development process truly inclusive.
EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

Development Goal (MDG) target related to poverty reduction. Even more importantly, there has been a very sharp reduction in poverty, between 20045 and 20078 (using the mixed recall period method). In 20045 overall poverty had stood at 21.8 per cent, but by 20078 it had declined sharply to 14.9 per cent in rural and 14.5 per cent in urban areas (Table 1.2).
Table 1.2 All India Incidence of Poverty1 in Rural and Urban Areas
Year 1983 19934 20045 20078 Rural 45.7 37.3 28.3 14.9 Urban 40.8 32.4 25.7 14.5

Source: Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India for 1988 to 20045, which is based on the Uniform Recall Period. For 20078, the estimate is based on the Mixed Recall Period Method, and hence is not comparable. For the year 20045, the incidence of poverty by Mixed Recall Period Method was 21.8 per cent for the country as a whole.

Chapter 3 specically addresses the two fundamental determinants of the income levels of households, namely employment status and ownership of assets. At the outset it needs to be stated that the proportion of persons below the poverty line (using the uniform recall period method of calculating poverty) has fallen steadily in both rural and urban areas through the 1980s, 1990s, and in the new millennium. In fact, the proportion of people below the poverty line in 20045 was roughly half of that in 1983. This implies that the country is well on its way to achieving the Millennium

While it is true that the incidence of poverty has declined over time in India and more so in the more recent years, the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs, however, is much higher than the national aggregate by 8.5 (SC-rural) and 19.4 (ST-rural) percentage points. The gap across social groups in poverty has reduced somewhat over time, though it is still present. Across religious groups, the incidence of poverty among Muslims in rural areas is actually less than the aggregate. However, this community exhibits greater poverty incidence than the aggregate in urban areas. There is a high concentration of Muslims in the urban areas, as a result of which they become more visible. Finally, poverty among Christians and Sikhs is considerably lower than the aggregate. There are considerable interstate variations in the incidence of poverty; there was a very high concentration of poor people in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand) in 19934. In fact, these four territories accounted for 49 per cent of the poor of the country in 19934, which rose to

Poverty for the year 20078 has been calculated using a poverty line based on adjusting the 20045 poverty line to 20078 prices.

OVERVIEW

58 per cent by 20045. Thus, the spatial dimension of poverty remains a major concern. An equally important dimension that remains of concern is that the total number of poor (based on a uniform recall period method) in the country has barely fallen at all over a 30 year period. In 19734, the number of poor was 322 million, in 19834 it was the same, in 19934 it was 320 million, and in 20045 it was still 320 million. Recently, based on a slightly dierent methodology, the incidence of poverty in India for the year 20045 was estimated to be 37.2 per cent (Tendulkar Committee). Based on the Tendulkar Committee methodology after adjusting for ination, the incidence of poverty for the year 200910 was estimated to be 32 per cent.2 In India, the estimates of poverty are based on consumption expenditure, the estimates of which are obtained from National Sample Surveys (NSSs) on consumer expenditure. Even though over the years, there has been an increase in inequality in consumption expenditure in both rural and urban India, the disparity between states has declined. Across social groups and religious communities, it may be noted that even though the consumption expenditures for SCs, STs, and Muslims have been rising over time, the rate of increase was lower than the all India average. Further, while there has been a divergence in Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) from the national average for STs and Muslims, SC households have seen almost no change during 19992000 and 20078 (Figures 1.3 to 1.5). The analysis of employment status primarily examines changes in the labour force participation rate (LFPR), worker participation ratio (WPR), and unemployment rate during the period 19934 to 20078. If this is split into two time periods namely, period 1 (19934 to 19992000) and period 2 (19992000 to 20078), it is observed that the annual growth rate of employment increased from 1.25 per cent in period 1 to 1.4 per cent in period 2, explained by the much faster economic growth in India in the latter period. There was a decrease in unemployment rate (by current daily status) from 7.3 per cent in 19992000 to 6.6 per cent in 200910 implying that high growth translates into employment growth fast enough to pro-

1200 900 600 300 0 19992000 20078 All India SCs

Figure 1.3 MPCE, All India and SCs (1999, 2000, and 20078)
Source: NSS 55th and 64th Rounds.

1200 900 600 300 0 19992000 20078 All India STs

Figure 1.4 MPCE, All India and STs (19992000 and 20078)
Source: NSS 55th and 64th Rounds.

1200 900 600 300 0 19992000 20078 All India Muslims

Figure 1.5 MPCE, All India and Muslims (19992000 and 20078)
Source: NSS 55th and 64th Rounds.

ductively employ youth entering the labour force. This would be especially the case for those engaged in casual labourwho tend to be among the unskilled, and hence,

The poverty estimate for the year 200910 is provided by Professor Abhijit Sen (Member, Planning Commission, Government of India).

6 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

poor. Seen over a shorter time horizon20045 to 200910 there was a decline in unemployment rate by current daily status (8.3 per cent to 6.6 per cent) for the country as a whole. In 200910, unemployment rate fell to 6.6 per cent. There is also a declining trend in the unemployment rate in rural and urban areas during the period 20045 to 200910. Rural areas experienced decrease in unemployment rate probably due to shift in the pattern of occupations in favour of the non-agricultural sector. Urban India experienced a marginal decline since both the service and industrial sectors are predominantly located there. The unemployment rate among SC and ST workers decreased in both rural and urban areas. Among the Muslims as well there is a similar pattern (Table 1.3). In other words, the rising tide was lifting all boats.
Table 1.3 All India Unemployment Rate, by Social Group, by Current Daily Status, 20045 to 200910
Social Group Rural Urban 20045 20078 200910 20045 20078 200910 SCs STs OBCs Others All 12 6.5 7.7 6.6 8.2 12 7.5 7.9 6.4 8.4 9.4 6.3 6.5 5.3 6.8 11.4 7.5 8.5 7.1 8.3 10.1 10 7.7 6 7.4 7.8 7.0 6.2 4.6 5.8

India that is in sharp contrast to its otherwise low inequality in consumption expenditure. The relative deprivation of SCs, STs, and Muslims was evident in their ownership of assets as well. The Access Index of asset ownership (dened as the share of assets owned by the community divided by the communitys share of population) across social groups was the lowest for SCs, while across religious communities it was the lowest among Muslims (in 20023).
THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 20045 and 20078.

Over 20045 to 200910 there has been a decline of over 20 million women (19 million in rural areas) in Indias workforce. This is partly explained by the rising secondary school enrolment rates for girls, particularly in rural areas. Other than employment, assets are the other source of income. Asset ownership in both rural and urban India is characterized by extremely high concentrations of ownership. In 20023 (the latest year for which asset-ownership date is available), the top 5 per cent households in rural India owned 36 per cent of the total value assets, while the bottom 60 per cent of households owned only 15 per cent of the total value of assets. In urban India, ownership distribution of assets was even more unequal, with the bottom 60 per cent of households owning only 10 per cent of the total value of assets. This pattern of asset ownership reects the inequality of wealth distribution in

As shown in Table 1.1, better nutritional inputs improve learning as well as health status. There is a critical link between peoples health status and nutritional outcome; interventions to reduce hunger improve nutrition levels and promote good health. As Table 1.1 also shows, there is a feedback loop from improved knowledge and learning to better nutritional status, from small family size to better nutrition, and also better health status to improved nutritional status. On the other hand, malnutrition, caused by both micro- and macro-nutrient deciencies, often begins even before a child is born. The eect of this early damage on health and brain development is irreversible in later life, and hence reduces educability and productivity in later life. Thus, child malnutrition is not a problem just conned to childhood; a malnourished under three-year old will grow up to be a malnourished adult, and fail to realize her potential as a human being. Malnutrition is an indicator of chronic hunger. An international comparison of Indias hunger indicators presents a dismal picture. As quoted in the Nutrition Report of 2009 of the National Family and Health Survey 3 (NFHS 3), the average percentage of undernourished children under ve years for 26 Sub-Saharan African countries was 25 per cent, about half the Indian average of 46 per cent. Except for Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim, Manipur, and Mizoram, all the Indian states were either at par or worse than Sub-Saharan African countries average. Weight and height of Indians on average have not shown signicant improvement over the last 25 years. A staggering 21.5 per cent of babies in India are born with low birth weight, a problem that begins in the womb. The background to these outcome indicators has to be understood. For one, the per capita availability of cereals has declined, and second, the share of non-cereals in food consumption has not grown to compensate for the decline in cereal availability. Further, there may well be

OVERVIEW

a problem for signicant sections of the population who may be feeling the distress caused by falling per capita cereal availability, and who do not have the purchasing power to diversify their food consumption away from cereals. What is most distressing is that the average per capita calorie intake was already below the minimum nutritional level of 2,400 in rural areas and 2,100 in urban areas a quarter of a century ago (19834). Since then, there has been a decline in per capita consumption of calories, as shown by NSS data in 19934 as well as 20045. Moreover, there has also been a consistent decline in the per capita consumption of proteins since 19834. It is hardly surprising then, that nutritional outcome indicators for both children and adults are low, and have hardly improved over the past two decades. In some states, the status of hunger and malnutrition is very worrisome. In 12 of 17 major states the condition is alarming as stated in an International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report of 2009. Sixty years after Independence, nearly half of Indias children under three years of age are malnourished. In addition, India has the largest number of malnourished children in the world. A third of Indias adult population has a body mass index (BMI) of less than 18.5 (the number below which people are declared malnourished). The percentage of women having a BMI<18.5 in poorer states (except Orissa) recorded a slight improvement between 19989 and 20056. Socially marginalized castes/tribes also have a higher percentage of women with BMI<18.5. Figures 1.6 to 1.8 show how the various social and religious groups are faring compared to the national average. It is seen that SCs, STs, and Muslims are diverging from the national average in terms of female malnutrition, during 19989 and 20056. Hidden hunger indicators, or micro-nutrient deciencies show a situation that is even worse. Anaemia among women has been increasing over the years in India. In 20056, more than half of women aged 1549 years suered from anaemia (55.3 per cent), an increase of three percentage points over 19989. The incidence of anaemia among women in poor states is high compared to their richer counterparts (except Gujarat where the prevalence of women with anaemia is at par with the national average). A higher percentage of rural children suered from malnutrition as compared to those residing in urban

50 40 30 All India 20 10 0 19989 20056 SCs

Figure 1.6 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056).
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

50 40 30 20 10 0 19989 20056 All India STs

Figure 1.7 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and STs (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

40 30 20 10 0 19989 20056 All India Muslims

Figure 1.8 Percentage of Women with BMI < 18.5, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

areas. A primary reason for the high incidence of malnutrition amongst the rural poor is lower food intake, and a majority of socially marginalized (SC and ST) groups live in rural areas. Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh have child malnutrition rates well above the national average of 46 per cent.

8 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Among the major states, the lowest incidence of anaemia in the age group 05 years was recorded in Kerala (45 per cent). Incidence of anaemia was the highest for Bihar (78 per cent), followed by Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (74 per cent each). States which have recorded more than the national average are the poor states (with the exception of Gujarat). Female malnutrition among the SCs and STs is higher than the national average; it is even worse amongst both these groups in the low per capita income states (Bihar and Orissa). Further, female malnutrition among SCs and STs has been increasing over the years. The highest percentage of underweight and stunted children was recorded for STs (54.5% and 53.9% respectively) followed by SCs (47.9% and 53.9% respectively). Children belonging to the STs had the highest percentage suering from anaemia in 20056, followed by SCs. Among both SCs and STs, a high percentage of children suering from anaemia hail from states with a low per capita income, namely, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar. Across major religious communities, incidence of female malnutrition and children suering from anaemia and stunting was above the national average among Muslims. States with a high concentration of Indias Muslims registered a higher incidence of anaemia among Muslim children (for example, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar) compared to other states. Next, while female malnutrition has been reducing over time, it is increasing for Muslims (data between 19989 and 20056). The percentage of women suering from anaemia, however, increased in all communities, including Muslims, in this period. All in all, it seems that the programmes to address these problems are not having the required impact. A fundamental problem, common to many developing countries, is that hunger and nutrition require multi-sectoral interventions, and no one ministry can deal with them. Yet, the degree of coordination required to ensure multi-sectoral interventions (safe water and sanitation, functional public health services, and adequate nutritional intake of both macro- and micro-nutrients) is not yet in place, and lack of a well coordinated set of interventions has reduced their individual eectiveness. Inclusive growth, which has been a goal of the Eleventh Plan (200712), and will remain a goal of the Twelfth Five Year Plan (201217), is unachievable without hunger and malnutrition declining signicantly.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

Table 1.1 shows that health inputs impact not only health outcomes, but also knowledge and learning outcomes, family size, and nutritional status. Equally important, it also shows that greater knowledge and education positively feed back to improved health; smaller family size is an enabler for better health at household level; sanitary living conditions and hygiene improves health. These complex feedback loops are the conceptual framework for our analysis of health outcomes. Health indicators (outcome, process as well as inputs) in India have shown improvement over the decade. However, in absolute terms, the overall situation continues to be worrisome.

Outcome Indicators The Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) is high at 50 per 1,000 live births (2009), Under 5 Mortality Rate (U5MR) is 64 per 1,000 live births (2009), and Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) is 212 per 10,000 births (2008). Thus, IMR, U5MR, and MMR continue to remain well above the MDG targets despite the decline seen in recent years. Given that the nutritional status of a large section of the population is a problem, mortality is going to be high since malnutrition is considered to be the underlying cause for half of all child deaths.
Over time, these indicators for the marginalized groups like SCs/STs and Muslims are converging with the national average (Figures 1.9 to 1.11).

100 80 60 40 20 0 19989 20056 All India SCs

Figure 1.9 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

OVERVIEW

100 80 60 40 20 0 19989 20056 All India STs

3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 19989 20056 All India SCs

Figure 1.10 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and STs (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

Figure 1.12 Total Fertility Rate, All India and SCs (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

80 60 40 20 0 19989 20056 All India Muslims

3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 19989 20056 All India STs

Figure 1.11 Infant Mortality Rate, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

Figure 1.13 Total Fertility Rate, All India and STs (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

On the demographic outcome indicators, there is some good news: There has been an appreciable decline in the total fertility rate over the decade with nine of the major states reaching the replacement level of 2.1. However, while SCs and Muslims are converging with the national average, STs are seen to be diverging with respect to TFR (Figures 1.12 to 1.14). Gender discrimination, as shown in an adverse sexratio is still serious and is more pronounced in the case of non-SC/ST and Hindu households, compared to Muslims, SCs and STs. Even though the overall sexratio has improved from 933 females per 1,000 males in 2001 to 940 females per 1,000 males in 2011, there was a decline in child sex-ratio. Not only has the child sex-ratio (06 years) declined from 927 in 2001 to 914 in 2011, it is the lowest ever (Census 2011).

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 19989 20056 All India Muslims

Figure 1.14 Total Fertility Rate, All India and Muslims (19989 and 20056)
Source: NFHS 2 and 3.

Process Indicators Less than 50 per cent of Indian women had institutional deliveries in 20056 compared to more than 90 per cent in China and Sri Lanka. However, after

10 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the launch of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) around 20056, these gures have improved remarkably, with institutional deliveries as a percentage of total reported deliveries reaching 78 per cent (March 2008). Only a little over 50 per cent of the households used contraception in 20056. Since then, contraceptive prevalence has increased among all socio-religious groups and contraceptive prevalence among minorities is converging with the national average (NFHS 3). Regarding immunization of our children, not even 50 per cent children received all vaccines in 20056. However, there has been an increase in the percentage of ST and Muslim children receiving all vaccinations over the period 19989 and 20056.

Input Indicators The most worrisome aspect of Indias health system is that the share of public expenditure on healthcare remains consistently low at just over one per cent of GDP (1.3 per cent). Consequently, the share of private expenditure in total health expenditure in 2008 was 72 per cent compared to 53 per cent in China. Despite improvements in physical infrastructure and human resources in health centres due to NRHM, huge decits exist. A shortage of Primary Health Centres, Community Health Centres and Sub-Centres, and doctors and paramedics in these health centres persists. For instance, Indian hospitals have nine beds and six physicians per 1,000 population compared to 30 and 14 per 1,000 respectively, in China. In Bihar, there is one government hospital bed for more than 4,000 patients. India fares the worst in terms of sanitation. Fifty per cent of the Indian households lack access to sanitation facilities and the situation is even worse in rural areas where around two-thirds of households do not have toilet facilities. What is commendable is that the country has been successful in providing access to safe sources of drinking water to its population, both rural and urban. More than 90 per cent of households used improved sources of drinking water in 20089, even in poorer states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh.
The interstate variation in health indicators is also high. For instance, the fertility rate in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh is higher than (almost double), that in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh, due to a greater prevalence of contraception among the latter (southern) states. Similarly, the highest IMRs are found in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Bihar, whereas the southern states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh have IMRs well below the national average of 50. Further, the southern states have a greater proportion of women who deliver at a health facility and more households have access to sanitation facilities compared to those in the northern states. It is seen that certain states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, and the smaller northeastern states consistently perform well in terms of various health indicators. This is primarily due to the state governments interventions in the health systems; while on the other end of the spectrum are the relatively poorer states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, which perform well below the national average in terms of health outcomes, processes, and input indicators. As stated earlier, there is a two-way relationship here, poorer states have a larger population of excluded groups; also, since disadvantaged groups form a signicant proportion of the population, the states are poorer and have poorer health outcomes. The SCs, STs, and Muslims suer the most on account of poor health status. STs and Muslims have the highest Total Fertility Rate (TFR). Only one-third of Muslim and SC women have institutional deliveries, and ST women have even fewer. Also, only around 50 per cent of Muslim, SC, and ST women receive three or more Antenatal ANC (I), visits. The most striking shortcoming of our public health system has been the failure to reach out to the bottom of the pyramid, to the 300 million poor, who are often excluded. Given the pace of improvement on various health indicators, achieving the health related MDG targets by 2015 is unlikely. Investments in the Twelfth Plan will have to ensure that these problems are addressed. It is the relatively slow improvement between 19992000 and 20078 in the health index of the HDI that has held back the overall HDI improvement, that is, of the three component indices of HDI (income index, education index, and health index), it is the health index that has improved the slowest. Without a healthy population, it will be dicult to realize the demographic dividend. A functional public health system will be critical to stabilizing the total population and reducing the total fertility rate further to

OVERVIEW

11

replacement level (2.1) in all states of India. The Indian economy must take advantage of the demographic dividend if it is to become a high-income country by the time the demographic dividend is ending (that is around 2035). Reducing fertility further and establishing a truly functional public health system for those at the bottom of the pyramid is going to be a sine qua non for realizing the demographic dividend, and the latter is essential if India is to escape the middle-income trap that many Latin American emerging market economies have remained trapped in for decades.
EDUCATION: ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES

Within the social sector, the inuence of education is the most widespread, and education impacts all types of human development outcomes (Table 1.1). Education (especially of the girl child) is an important input as well as an outcome indicator, inuencing other development indicators like health, nutritional status, income, and family planning. In fact, unlike any of the other social service inputs, it impacts all types of human development outcomesnot only knowledge, but also family size, health status, nutritional status, and healthy living conditions. Remarkably, as Table 1.1 shows, there are feedback loops from each of these outcomes to education itself, which in turn become inputs into education. The benets of education, particularly girls education, accrue from one generation to another. Among the dierent parameters of educational attainment, literacy is the most fundamental, as it paves the way for further learning and training. India has achieved historically high levels of enrolment and has been able to retain more students at the primary levels than ever before. Programmes such as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), the Mid-day Meal programme and the tireless eorts made by civil society have all contributed to this achievement. The resulting improvement in the mean years of schooling have shown up in the fact that it is the education index that has led the HDI from the front, that is, it has increased between 19992000 and 20078 at a rate faster than the health and income index as well as the HDI. On the downside, despite considerable improvement in the literacy status, India is home to the largest number of illiterate people in the world, accounting for about one-third of all illiterates. Since the dropout rates at the primary level remain high, the number of illiterate (or

almost illiterate) could be rising. This is because children who do not complete a minimum of ve years of schooling are unlikely to retain literacy or numeracy skills in their adulthood. The problem of illiteracy was more acute in rural areas, particularly among rural females, 43 per cent of whom were illiterate in 20078. Literacy rate in India has improved from 64.8 per cent in 2001 to 74 per cent in 2011. Recently, female literacy has shown considerable improvement by nearly 50 per cent from 224 million in 2001 to 334 million in 2011. The declining trend in overall population growth can be an indirect consequence of rising female literacy level. Across social groups and religious communities, the problem of illiteracy in both rural and urban areas was most pronounced among SCs, STs, and Muslims, and relatively more pronounced among females. In rural areas, close to 60 per cent females belonging to the SCs and STs were illiterate in 20078. The literacy rate in urban areas is higher than that in rural areas; however, over the years the rural-urban literacy gap has declined from 24 percentage points in 19992000 to 17 percentage points in 20078. The good news, all the three groups (SCs, STs, and Muslims) have been converging towards the national average in terms of literacy rate (Figures 1.15 to 1.17). Even though enrolment and attendance in schools have improved over the years, their declining trends at progressively higher levels of education, which was a common feature (albeit in varying degrees) across all social groups and religious communities, suggests that quality issues remain very serious in the school education system. Further, despite attaining internationally comparable level of the Gender Parity Index, less than half of the girls belonging to Muslims and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were enrolled at primary and upper-primary levels.
80 60 40 20 0 2001 20078 All India SCs

Figure 1.15 Literacy Rate, All India and SCs (2001 and 20078)
Source: Census 2001 and NSS 64th Round.

12 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80 60 40 20 0 2001 20078 All India STs

Figure 1.16 Literacy Rate, All India and STs (2001 and 20078)
Source: Census 2001 and NSS 64th Round.

80 60 40 20 0 2001 20078 All India Muslims

Figure 1.17 Literacy Rate, All India and Muslims (2001 and 20078)
Source: Census 2001 and NSS 64th Round.

On the whole however, the gender gaps in education at all levels, which have traditionally been the bane of Indian society, are being bridged. Non-performance in government schools, plagued by various problems like teacher shortage and absenteeism and lack of infrastructural facilities, have paved the way for the establishment of private unaided institutions. The fee structure in these institutions is generally much higher than in government and local body institutions. This acts as a deterrent against participation in school education, which in turn, tends to widen the extant inequality. Not surprisingly, therefore, close to one-fth of the children in the age group 617 years were out of school (as per data pertaining to 20078), nancial constraint being an important reason. The proportion of out of school children is higher among SCs, STs, and Muslims who are the most vulnerable amongst the dierent socio-religious groups. The proportion of school teachers belonging to these

socio-religious groups is also low compared to their share in the total population. Studies have pointed out that under-representation of teachers belonging to these socioreligious groups creates a social distance between teachers and students. This is one of the reasons why many teachers have limited commitment towards the educational development of their students. An important feature of the education system in India is that, despite several programmes being implemented by the Government, public expenditure on education is still quite low at 3.2 per cent of the Gross National Product (GNP). This share is not less than 5 per cent of GDP in any Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) country, despite the fact that they universalized 12 years of schooling nearly a century ago. Unfortunately, our public expenditure is lower than that in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region known for its low human development indicators. Thus, the combination of low public expenditure on both health and education has had serious, long-lasting adverse consequences for Indias human development levels. Low public expenditure on education, along with the increasing participation of private institutions in imparting education, results in the alienation of the deprived and economically weaker sections from the education system. This issue, however, is receiving high priority with the enactment of the Right to Education (RTE) Act. The Act emphasises both access and quality, in addition to the rights component. The high incidence of poverty, and low participation in school education and higher education, feed into each other. Establishing publicly funded educational institutions and pro-active policies alone can break this vicious cycle as they can ensure greater participation from among the economically disadvantaged communities. At the same time, there is need for a large number of private institutions for higher and technical education as with growing enrolment in secondary education, there will be a growing demand for both public and private provision in higher education.
SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: HOUSING, ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONY, AND ROADS

In addition to health (which includes drinking water and sanitation) and education systems, the other critical aspects of social infrastructure are housing, electricity, roads, and telephony. Improving the quality of human

OVERVIEW

13

resources and the standard of living, electricity, roads, and proper housing, all result in providing stimulus to growth and human capability enhancement. The provision of these reinforces the states commitment towards the populace, especially in rural areas where there is limited support infrastructure. State-wise analyses of housing conditions, access to electricity, telephony, and road connectivity highlight the fact that the lack of access to such facilities in Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Rajasthan reinforces poverty and is also reected in poor health and education outcomes. In contrast, states like Kerala, Delhi, and Goa have a lower incidence of poverty and better infrastructure to the extent that even the SCs and OBCs in these states perform better than the all-India average for the general castes. For instance, a higher percentage of SC and OBC households in Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala live in pucca (permanent) houses and have better access to electricity compared to the general castes in some states. Union Territories in general fare better in terms of support infrastructure. Around two-thirds of Indian households lived in pucca houses in 20089. This implies that there is still some way to go before the unhealthy and unsustainable living conditions of people are fully taken care of. The situation is worse in rural India where 45 per cent of the households live in either kutcha (temporary) or semi-pucca houses. On the ip side, there has been an increase in the proportion of pucca houses between 2002 and 20089 for both urban as well as rural households. Poorer states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh have the lowest share of households living in pucca houses. The north-eastern states in general have a higher proportion of households living in kutcha and semi-pucca houses. One-third STs and around half of SCs reside in pucca houses, compared to 66 per cent for all India. Over time, SC and ST households, due to a slower pace in improvement, have experienced a growing divergence from the national average of households residing in pucca houses. Also, a greater proportion of Muslims compared to SCs/ STs live in pucca houses, perhaps because a higher proportion of Muslim households live in urban areas. The lack of electricity connections remains a major hurdle in the development prospects of poorer states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Assam. However, India has seen an increase in the proportion of households having electricity connections from 64 to

80 60 40 20 0 19992000 20089 All India SCs

Figure 1.18 Percentage of Households with Electricity, All India and SCs (2002 and 20089)
Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

80 60 40 20 0 19992000 20089 All India STs

Figure 1.19 Percentage of Households with Electricity, India and STs (2002 and 20089)
Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

75 per cent between 2002 to 20089. However, about one-third of the rural households still do not have access to electricity for domestic use. In terms of using electricity for domestic purposes, the SC and ST households are steadily coming closer to the all India average (Figures 1.18 and 1.19). Additionally, a higher proportion of Muslim households now have access to electricity for domestic use. There has been a remarkable improvement in teledensity in the last two to three years. Teledensity increased from 26 per cent in 2008 to 66 per cent as on December 2010. What is to be appreciated is that teledensity has increased for both rural and urban areas, from 10 per cent to 31 per cent and 66 per cent to 148 per cent, respectively, in the same period. There has been a remarkable increase even in the rural areas of the poorer states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Inadequate road connectivity continues to be a major hurdle for poor families, aecting their access to markets,

14 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

hospitals and schools, especially in rural areas. However, progress has been rapid. At the national level, the total road length per 100 square kilometres has increased consistentlyfrom about 45 kilometres in 1981 to 61 kilometres in 1991 to 81 kilometres in 2004. Kerala has the highest road length per 100 square kilometres of area. However, over 40 per cent of the roads are un-surfaced or kutcha roads, which is a serious constraint to mobility. The government initiated the Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), focussed on rural roads, to address this situation. A lot has been achieved under this programme, especially in the poorer states.
VULNERABLE GROUPS

Pradesh are two states with some of the highest child labour rates. The problem of nowhere children (NWC) is acute in the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Working children must be withdrawn from work and parents need to be given incentives to encourage them to be sent to schools. For the NWC, there is need for a variety of collaborative policies between parents and the school to encourage them to join schools.

Chapter 8 throws light on the current conditions and development in the last decade of the three main vulnerable groups, that is, child labourers, the disabled, and the elderly. From a human rights perspective, all citizens should receive adequate health, education, food and nutrition, housing, participation, equal treatment, and freedom from discrimination and violence. However, these groups are often marginalized, overlooked in the public delivery system, and also subject to multidimensional problems whose underlying factors are intertwined. When persons from these three groups belong to the excluded communities (for example, SCs or STs), they suer from double jeopardy. For example, the incidence of child labour among ST groups is twice as high as for upper caste children.

Child Labour A redeeming feature is that the magnitude of child labour has sharply dipped in the decade 200010. However, the problem of children who are shown in the records as neither working nor studying (the so-called nowhere children) is still very large; in fact, four times as large as the number of children who are working. Boys are traditionally economically more active in the labour market than girls, though girls are now entering the labour market in larger numbers. This problem is more acute among STs and in rural areas. Across religious groups, Muslims have the highest incidence of child labour, and the pace of decline in child labour is also the slowest among them. Child labour is more prevalent in rural areas than in urban areas and higher among boys than girls, but both the ruralurban gap and gender disparity have been falling in recent times. Uttar Pradesh and Andhra

The Disabled Ocial estimates of disability are low (around 2 per cent), while other estimates using more inclusive denitions suggest a higher incidence of disability (of at least 58 per cent, that is, around 5590 million individuals). Locomotor disability is the highest, followed by visual and hearing disability. Disability from accidents and non-communicable diseases has been rising of late. There is a high prevalence of disability in rural areas and among males, with variation across states. The prevalence is low among north-eastern states. Estimates show that there is a huge demand for trained personnel in handling the problems of the disabled, but the supply is scarce. Estimates also indicate the shortage of a large number of trained teachers in addition to limited facilities. The disabled population is underprivileged in terms of education and employment opportunities. In India, nearly 55 per cent of the disabled are illiterate against 35 (based on Census 2001) per cent for the general population. Similarly, the share of out of school disabled children is around ve-and-a-half times the general rate. In other words, of all the socially excluded groups in Indian society, the disabled are the most vulnerable. Only 26 per cent of the disabled persons in the working age group are employed. In the case of disabled women, this ratio is only 10 per cent. Only 3 per cent of the disabled population has regular jobs. Likewise, the share of disabled persons in public sector jobs and in multinational corporations (MNCs) is minimal (that is, 0.44 and 0.05 per cent, respectively). The Elderly India has a special window of opportunity in its development process, which is open till 2035, in terms of having the youngest population of the world, best known as the demographic dividend. Meeting the human development decit of this youthful population is one important

OVERVIEW

15

concern of this HDR. At the same time, the rapidly increasing aged population is a gently ringing alarm bell warning of an impending problem. The increasing Old Age Dependency Ratio is the indicator of the problem. India now has the second largest aged population in the world, which is increasing at a higher rate than the overall population growth in the country. The increase is relatively higher in urban areas, which has resulted in a declining ruralurban gap. Similarly, a quick jump in the proportion of the elderly female population has resulted in an increased gender gap, that is, there are more elderly females now than elderly males. In fact, there are 40 million widows in India, whose living conditions and exploitation makes them one of the most vulnerable groups of Indias population. In addition, the percentage of elderly persons working, particularly women, is declining; and a large number of elderly people are not covered under any pension scheme, which has made conditions worse for the aged population of India. In India, only about one in ten workers are covered by a formal pension scheme. Hence, the reliance of the elderly on transfer incomes, particularly on

subsidies and transfer of public money, is expected to grow. Keeping in view the upcoming challenge, the Government of India recently launched a pension scheme called Swavalamban for the workers in the unorganized sector. It is hoped that schemes such as this will be expanded, and provide succour to the people. Human development levels have historically been low in India owing to social, economic, and other inequalities that the country inherited. However, sustained eorts made in the post Independence period have gradually, though denitively, begun to show results. With higher economic growth this process has picked up speed, but the path ahead is thorny and challenging. Among the key policy initiatives now required are increased inputs in social and physical infrastructure to strengthen human attainments and empowerment, and providing a voice to the hitherto voiceless. Additionally, the country needs to provide many more job opportunities to the growing workforce, which will help income distribution across regions and classes, and also empower the populace both socially and economically.

2
Human Development Index
INTRODUCTION

The raison dtre of development is to improve the quality of peoples lives by creating an environment for them to engage in a wider range of activities, to be healthy and well nourished, to be knowledgeable, and to be able to participate in community life. Sen (1985) calls these basic functionings. However, aspects like democracy and freedom to participate in local level government decisions that impact our lives, and freedom from fear, which Sen refers to as complex functionings, are equally important dimensions of an individuals capability set. More practically, development is about removing obstacles to what a person can do in life: illiteracy, ill health, lack of access to productive (and consumptive) resources, or lack of civil and political freedoms. Following this approach, the global Human Development Reports brought out by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) since 1990 have focused on various dimensions of human development: reduction in income poverty, spreading education and primary healthcare, providing safe water to all, reducing malnutrition, raising human security (freedom from fear, freedom from want, safety from chronic threats such as hunger and disease, and repression as well as sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life), preserving human rights, sustainable development, cultural liberty, international cooperation, enabling mi-

gration, reducing water scarcity, and improving political freedom.1 These concepts are intrinsic to the formation of human capital in addition to income growth and thus economic development. Development thinking has been changing over time: it began with equating growth and development, moving on successively to the role of human capital, the functioning of markets and policies, and the critical role of institutions (UNDP 2010). However, education, health, and income have renamed the three core indicators used for dening the Human Development Index in all the reports. For a nation to achieve sustainable growth, it is essential to ensure human development because it aims at enlarging peoples choices and enhances their power to participate actively in the development process. Without capabilities a countrys population would fail to realize the benets of income. In other words, assessing only the material dimension of life while leaving out the overall quality of life that people enjoy, presents a one-dimensional measure of development. In order to have a multidimensional measure, it is important to focus on the ability of people to do or achieve certain functionings.2 Knowledge, ability to learn, and to live a long and healthy life are essential inputs that enhance human capabilities. However, this is not to negate the signicance of income, which is essential for achieving the functionings and expanding peoples freedom. Thus a

1 2

These have been some of the subjects of dierent Human Development Reports of UNDP since its inception. The word functionings has been used in the literature after the seminal work of Amartya Sen (see, Sen 1988).

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

17

measure of human development must include all the three dimensionsknowledge and ability to learn, a long and healthy life, and a decent standard of living. The Human Development Index (HDI) is one such composite outcome index which looks at achievements in outcome indicators in these three dimensions. It essentially involves constructing three indices which capture these dimensionsthe Education Index, the Health Index, and the Income Indexand then aggregating them. The global Human Development Report (HDR) categorizes and ranks countries by low, medium, and high values of the HDI. In the 2010 Report, India with an index value of 0.512, is placed 119th among 192 countries, and is categorized at medium level. The 2010 Report recognizes that India is among the top 10 movers in gross domestic product (GDP) growth. However, there are concerns that despite high growth rates, many people are being left out of Indias growth story and inequality is on the rise. According to UNDP (2010), after adjusting for inequality, the HDI value for the country falls to 0.365, implying a loss of 30 per cent in the HDI value. Further, it is disheartening to note that between 2005 and 2010, the country has moved only one notch higher in the HDI ranking (from 120 to 119). India became a low-middle-income country from being a lowincome country in 2007. However, there is still a lot to achieve on the components of human development other than aggregate income to match other middle-income countries. Indias position on the HDI scale is equivalent to the South Asian average and is better than the Sub-Saharan Africas average, where the HDI is 0.389. In South Asia, India stood third, behind Sri Lanka and Maldives. Sri Lanka had a HDI of 0.658, the highest in South Asia. The comparison with Sri Lanka and Maldives is not strictly valid, since Sri Lanka has a population smaller than a small state like Kerala, which has health and education indicators comparable to that of Sri Lanka. Among the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) India appears at the bottom on the HDI scale (Table 2.1). This is a partly due to the fact that while the rest of the BRIC group has had middle-income country level GDP per capita for some time, India became a low-middle income country only recently. In addition, Indias health and education indicators have also been historically much lower than the other BRIC countries. The concept of the HDI is dened in the next section. Then the demographic prole of India, along with

Table 2.1 HDI Ranking for Different Regions and Countries across the Globe
Region/ Country South Asia Sub-Saharan Africa India Afghanistan Bangladesh Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Brazil China Russia Source: UNDP (2010). HDI Value 0.516 0.389 0.519 0.349 0.469 0.602 0.428 0.490 0.658 0.690 0.663 0.719 119 155 129 107 138 125 91 73 89 65 HDI Rank

the rates of growth for some of the states is discussed. The states are then ranked according to human development, health, education, and income indices in the next section on. The last section highlights the performance of 22 major states on various human development indicators.
CONCEPTUALIZING THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

One purpose of this Report is to capture the progress in human development at the state level in India. In order to do this, three indices are constructedthe Health Index, the Education Index, and the Income Index. The Health Index is constructed using life expectancy at birth, which is indicative of a long and healthy life and is the most comprehensive indicator of the state of health of the population. A person with a long and healthy life span is also able to convert achievements into functionings. In addition to good health, a person must be educated in order to enhance his capabilities. To construct the Education Index, the two indicators used are adjusted mean years of schooling and literacy rate for population 7 years and above. These indicators are expected to reect peoples ability to acquire education and knowledge, which are important components of human development (Table 2.2). The global HDR of 2010, however, constructs the

18 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 2.2 Comparison between Indicators in NHDR 2001 and IHDR 2011
Index Health Education Income NHDR 2001 Life expectancy at age 1 Infant mortality rate Literacy rate (7 years and above) Intensity of formal education Inequality adjusted per capita real consumption expenditure India HDR 2011 Life expectancy at birth Literacy rate (7 years and above) Adjusted mean years of schooling Inequality adjusted per capita real consumption expenditure Global HDR 2010 Life expectancy at birth Mean years of schooling Expected years of schooling Gross National Income per capita (US$)

Source: Planning Commission (2002) and UNDP (2010).

Education Index using mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling. The third dimension, that of standard of living, determines peoples command over resources necessary to access food, shelter and clothing, and permit much broader options such as working in meaningful and rewarding activities, or spending more time with loved ones (UNDP 2010). To construct the Income Index, the mean per capita expenditure (at 19992000 prices) weighted by the Gini coecient of inequality of consumption expenditure is taken for each state. Box 2.1 below discusses in greater

detail the computation of HDI along with its three component indices. The calculation of HDI in this Report diers from that in the National Human Development Report (NHDR) 2001 and that in the global HDR 2010. Table 2.2 highlights the dierence in indicators chosen for constructing HDI in this Report, compared to NHDR 2001 and global HDR 2010. For this reason, the HDI values and ranks for states cannot be compared across the two NHDRs. The methodology for constructing the HDI is outlined in detail in the Technical Appendix.

Box 2.1 Calculating the Human Development Index

Human Development Index (HDI) is a simple average of three indices in dierent dimensions. HDI = 1/3 (Health index + Education Index + Income index) where each index is calculated as: Dimension Index of X i = Health Index The Health Index has been calculated using life expectancy at birth for the years 2000 and 2008. Data source: SRS, Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections 200126 (for projected levels of life expectancy at birth) Education Index The Education Index is a weighted simple average of literacy and adjusted mean years of schooling. Education index = 1/3 (literacy index) + 2/3 (adjusted mean years of schooling index) where Literacy Index = Literacy rate of 7+ population Adjusted mean years of schooling index = Average number of years of school education for 7+ population, adjusted for out of school children in the school going age group 617 years. Income Index Per capita consumption expenditure adjusted for ination and inequality (Gini coecient). Data Sources: NSS 19992000 and 20078. Observed Value of X i Min X i Max X i Min X i

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

19

India Human Development Report 2011 has used life expectancy at birth instead of life expectancy at age one and Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) for constructing the Health Index. Life expectancy at age one abstracts out the impact of IMR from life expectancy at birth. In addition, the correlation between life expectancy at birth and at age one is as high as 0.98. Therefore, in this Report life expectancy at birth, for which more recent data was available, was used in the construction of health index. Also, since the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) School Educational Surveys latest round was not available, mean years of schooling using National Sample Survey (NSS) data for 20078 (which provides data on level of educationprimary, secondary, and so on rather than class-wise data as provided by NCERT) has been used for calculating the Education Index for both periods.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF INDIA

A unique feature of this Report is its focus on social inequalities extant in the country. An attempt is made here

to discuss how inclusive has been Indias development process. The analysis of social groupsScheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC)deserves special mention for a country where 71 per cent of the population is classied as SCs, STs, or OBCs (Table 2A.1). Similarly, the four major religious communitiesHindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhscomprise 99 per cent of the countrys population (Table 2A.3). The Report analyses distribution of social and religious groups within and across states in 20078 (Tables 2A.1 to 2A.4). The distribution of SC population shows that within the states, SCs have the highest share (37 per cent) Punjab. In states like West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana, SCs account for one-fourth of the population. However, when looked at distribution of SC population among states, it is found that 60 per cent of the countrys SCs are concentrated in Uttar Pradesh (which accounts for 17 per cent of total

Figure 2.1 Distribution of SC Population within States, 20078 (per cent)

Source: Appendix Table 2A.1.

Figure 2.2 Distribution of SC Population among States, 20078 (per cent)

Source: Appendix Table 2A.2.

20 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

SCs in the country), Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Rajasthan (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). The distribution of ST population shows that high percentage of ST population resides within the north-eastern states. For instance, in Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh more than 70 per cent of the population is ST. However, the distribution of STs in the country shows that 76 per cent of the STs are concentrated in eight statesGujarat (which accounts for 12 per cent of countrys ST), Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). Fifty six per cent of the population in Jammu and Kashmir are Muslims and in states like West Bengal, Assam, and Kerala more than 24 per cent of the residing population are Muslims. However, 71 per cent of the countrys Muslim population is concentrated in Uttar Pradesh (which accounts for 19 per cent of all Muslims in India), West Bengal, Bihar, Maharashtra, Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala (Figures 2.5 and 2.6). Thus, it is seen that there is a geographical concentration of these social groups in some states. Almost half

of each of the three major social groups (SC, ST, and OBC) lives in eight of the poorer states, namely, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Forty-four per cent of the countrys Muslim population also lives in these states. The analysis of these states should thus include a scrutiny of the status of various social and religious groups therein. The Report tries to assess which way the relationship runs, that is, whether the poor human development outcomes of the population in the relatively poorer states can be attributed to the lack of resources and services infrastructure; or is it the high concentration of the historically excluded social groups (who are generally poorer) in these states that pulls down the average human development outcomes for these states. Table 2.3 shows the socio-economic and demographic prole of the eight poorer states as per the Planning Commissions estimates. Nearly 48 per cent of all SCs in the country live in these states as do 52 per cent of the STs and 44 per cent of the Muslims. This issue of the social composition of the states will nd place in the rest

Figure 2.3 Distribution of ST Population within States, 20078 (per cent)

Source: Appendix Table 2A.1.

Figure 2.4 Distribution of ST Population among States, 20078 (per cent)

Source: Appendix Table 2A.2.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

21

Figure 2.5 Distribution of Muslim Population within States, 20078 (per cent)
Source: Appendix Table 2A.3.

Figure 2.6 Distribution of Muslim Population among States, 20078 (per cent)
Source: Appendix Table 2A.4.

Table 2.3 Socio-economic and Demographic Profile of Eight Poor States

State SCs Bihar Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Orissa Rajasthan Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Sub-Total All-India Source: NSS 64th Round, Planning Commission (2008) and Economic Surveys 200910. Note: *at 19992000 prices. 11.7 1.6 3.8 3.9 3.4 5.6 0.9 17.0 47.8 Proportion of population across States STs 1.2 10.0 9.6 11.1 9.7 8.7 0.2 1.2 51.7 OBCs 16.6 2.3 3.0 4.3 3.1 6.5 0.4 16.3 52.4 Muslims 13.4 0.2 3.4 2.4 0.6 3.5 1.2 19.2 43.9 5.6 28.3 Per capita NSDP* compound annual Growth rate (19992000 to 20078) 4.5 6.6 4.8 1.6 6.9 4.5 7.00 2.6 Incidence of poverty (20045) 41.4 40.9 40.3 38.3 46.4 22.1 39.6 32.8

22 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

of the chapter, and especially in the State Proles, which examine how well these marginalized communities are doing on various human development indicators, relative to the overall state average for that indicator. The proles also examine how the excluded communities are doing compared to the national average on various indicators.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SEEN THROUGH INDIVIDUAL INDICATORS

As we noted in Chapter 1, human development outcomes are a function of economic growth, social policies, and poverty reduction strategies. To achieve faster economic growth, there is need to enhance human capabilities. Investments in health and education can enhance human functionings, which in turn promote economic growth and reduce (income) poverty. The states that perform better on health and education outcomes are also the states with higher HDI and thus higher per capita income. Figure 2.7 shows that most of the states that are performing low on human development outcomes are concentrated in the northern and central belt.

Figure 2.7 Human Development Index across States, 20078

Source: Appendix Table 2A.5.

The estimate of the all India HDI for the latest year for which data is available (that is, 20078) is 0.47 (if this is lower than the UNDP estimate in the global HDR 2010, it is primarily because they are using Gross National Product (GNP) per capita, which is inevitably higher than the consumption expenditure used by us to estimate the Income Index). As expected, the highest HDI (0.79) is for Kerala, followed by Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. Fourteen states and the north-eastern states (excluding Assam) have an HDI higher than the national average, that is, Andhra Pradesh, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Karnataka, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, the north-eastern states excluding Assam, Punjab, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, and Kerala, listed here in ascending order of HDI (Figure 2.8). Eight states (Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Assam), again listed in ascending order, have an HDI value below the national average of 0.47. Except for Rajasthan, these are also the states with a low Income Index (as will be seen later), reecting a lower standard of living. Figure 2.9 shows the change in HDI which has occurred between 19992000 and 20078. There has been a 21 per cent increase in the HDI value over this eight-year period. What is remarkable is that for ve of the low HDI states the improvement in HDI is considerably above the national average. These are Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Assam. Even for a poor state like Uttar Pradesh the change in HDI is similar to the change that has occurred at the all India level. Among the poorer states, only West Bengal and Rajasthan have shown an improvement in HDI below the national average during the period 19992000 to 20078. All the other states that have shown an increase lower than the national average are relatively well-o states, suggesting a base-eect phenomenon. Thus, despite low absolute levels of HDI, there is a convergence in HDI across states over time. Table 2.4 shows that the ranking of states by level of HDI has remained almost the same over the decade of the 2000s despite the huge dierentials in percentage change in HDI. In fact, the rank correlation between the ranking of states by HDI in 19992000 and in 20078 is extremely high (0.97). The top ve ranks in both the years go to the better performing states of Kerala, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, and Punjab. At the other end of

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

23

0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Andhra Pradesh

NE (excluding Assam)

Chhattisgarh

Orissa

Bihar

Rajasthan

Assam

Karnataka

Jammu and Kashmir

Tamil Nadu

Punjab

Himachal Pradesh Assam

Delhi Jharkhand

Haryana

Madhya Pradesh

All India

Jharkhand

Uttar Pradesh

Uttarakhand

West Bengal

Gujarat

Figure 2.8 Indian States Ranked with respect to HDI in 20078

Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5.
50 40 30 20 10 0

NE (excluding Assam)

Andhra Pradesh

Delhi

Maharashtra

Punjab

Rajasthan

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Kerala

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

All India

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

Gujarat

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

West Bengal

Uttar Pradesh

Orissa

Bihar

Goa

10

Figure 2.9 Percentage change in HDI between 19992000 and 20078

Source: Authors calculations.

the spectrum are the eight relatively poorer states, as mentioned earlier. What is noteworthy is that the seven north-eastern states (taken together), excluding Assam, have done remarkably well in terms of human development outcomes. Over the period of eight years, this group has climbed three rungs.

Since health and education in particular aect social outcomes, they deserve policy attention. Social policy directly impacts social outcomes and, through the feedback loops, indirectly impacts economic outcomes. Since the government formulates the social policies, it has an important role to play in ensuring that a majority of the

Uttarakhand

Kerala

Goa

24 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 2.4 Ranking of States according to HDI Value

State Kerala Delhi Himachal Pradesh Goa Punjab NE (excluding Assam) Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Haryana Jammu and Kashmir Gujarat Karnataka West Bengal Uttarakhand Andhra Pradesh Assam Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Bihar Orissa Chhattisgarh All India HDI 19992000 0.677 0.783 0.581 0.595 0.543 0.473 0.501 0.480 0.501 0.465 0.466 0.432 0.422 0.339 0.368 0.336 0.387 0.316 0.268 0.285 0.292 0.275 0.278 0.387 HDI 20078 0.790 0.750 0.652 0.617 0.605 0.573 0.572 0.570 0.552 0.529 0.527 0.519 0.492 0.490 0.473 0.444 0.434 0.380 0.376 0.375 0.367 0.362 0.358 0.467 Rank 19992000 2 1 4 3 5 9 6 8 7 11 10 12 13 16 15 17 14 18 23 20 19 22 21 Rank 20078 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Note: States are arranged according to 20078 rank. Source: Authors calculations.

population gets access to basic social services, by attaching higher priority to health and education. The performance of each state government is reected in the HDI of that state and its constituents, which can guide social policies. The impact that HDI ranking can have on policy is demonstrated by the fact that some national governments have announced their aspirations for improving their HDI ranking (Engineer et al. 2008).

Income Index A 21 per cent increase in the Income Index between 19992000 and 20078 seems low for a country that has

experienced, among the large economies of the world, the second fastest economic growth after China. However, it must be pointed out that the so called Income Index in this HDR is calculated (as with Planning Commission 2002) on the basis of consumption expenditure, and not income per se. By denition, consumption expenditure will tend to be lower than income. In fact, income growth in the 2000s has translated into a much higher than before savings to GDP ratio. However, as we note in Chapter 3, employment and wages (especially in the unorganized sector and agriculture) have not risen commensurately with the rest of the economy; hence, there

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

25

has been a corresponding constraint upon the increase in consumption. In other words, in the estimate of Income Index (and hence Indias HDI) based on the Net Domestic Product per capita, rather than consumption expenditure per capita, the HDI increases by more than 10 percentage points than the estimate we present in this chapter. The lowest standard of living as highlighted by the Income Index is evident in the poorer states like Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh (Figure 2.10). These are also the states that have high concentrations of the marginalized groups like SCs, STs, and Muslims. It is well known that these states (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand) have incomes below the national average, with Bihar having the lowest income per capita. This is also reected in the lowest monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) adjusted for ination and inequality for the state. Yet, what is worth highlighting is that these poorer states, despite low absolute incomes, have witnessed high Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) growth rates (especially Bihar,

Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Uttarakhand which had growth rates above 10 per cent per annum) during the Tenth Five Year Plan period (20027). Except for Orissa, these rates have been well above the national GDP growth rate, suggesting convergence over time in terms of economic growth. However, as noted earlier, the HDI level for these states in particular is well below the national average even though their growth rate has been faster than the national average. The change in the Income Index between 19992000 and 20078 is almost the same as the change in the HDI over the same period for India (that is, 21 per cent). The poorer statesAssam, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar (listed here in descending order of the percentage improvement over the 2000s) by and large, have registered a signicantly higher than average improvement in the Income Index. Only three relatively more auent statesTamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala have registered an improvement in the Income Index higher than the national average. A few of the poorer statesRajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengalhave experienced an improvement in the Income Index over the period, which is lower than the national average (Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.10 Income Index across States, 20078

Source: Appendix Table 2A.5.

Education Index The Education Index, dened as the arithmetic mean of adjusted mean years of schooling index and literacy rate index, has seen a very impressive improvement for all states. Figure 2.12 shows states according to their educational attainments. In fact, we have seen that the Education Index for India has improved by 28 per cent between 1999 and 2000 and 20078, that is, much more than the Income Index. This relatively good performance in the education sector is borne out by the analysis in Chapter 6. It is commendable that even in the relatively poorer states like Assam, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand the Education Index is above 0.5. The north-eastern states have been good performers despite low levels of income. This highlights the fact that income is not a necessary condition for improvement in educational outcomes. The improvement of 28.5 per cent in the Education Index (Figure 2.13) during the period 19992000 to 20078 has driven the HDI for the country upwards. Again, as with the Income Index, the improvement in the Education Index has been the greatest in the educationally backward and poorer states of IndiaUttar Pradesh,

26 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 20.0

NE (excluding Assam)

Andhra Pradesh

Delhi

Rajasthan

Chhattisgarh

Jammu and Kashmir

Punjab

Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

Haryana

Kerala

Orissa

Bihar

Goa

All India

Gujarat

Madhya Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh

Maharashtra

West Bengal

Jharkhand

40.0 60.0

Figure 2.11 Percentage Change in Income Index from 19992000 to 20078

Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5.

Rajasthan, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand listed here in ascending order of the improvement in the Education Index. The improvement in the educationally backward states suggests a strong trend of convergence across the states in terms of outputs and outcomes. The progress achieved by Madhya Pradesh is worth highlighting. Despite being a poor state and performing below the national average in terms of other indices, it has done exceptionally well in terms of the education indicators. This can be attributed, inter alia, to the Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) initiated in January 1997. Under this scheme, the state guaranteed a school within three months to any community that demanded one, provided it had more than 40 children. Thanks to this scheme, 30,000 new schools came up in Madhya Pradesh in a period of three years. A similar improvement is seen in the case of Uttarakhand, which despite low levels of income, fares better than the national average in terms of mean years of schooling and literacy rates.

Figure 2.12 Education Index across States, 20078

Source: Appendix Table 2A.5.

Health Index The Health Index is dened in terms of life expectancy at birth since a higher life expectancy at birth reects better health outcomes for an individual.

Uttarakhand

Assam

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

27

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

NE (excluding Assam)

Andhra Pradesh

Delhi

Kerala

Punjab

Assam

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

Rajasthan

Orissa

Goa

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

All India

Gujarat

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

West Bengal

Uttar Pradesh

Bihar

Uttarakhand

Figure 2.13 Percentage Change in Education Index from 19992000 to 20078

Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5.

As seen earlier, the improvement in the Health Index for India between 19992000 and 20078 was much lower than both the Income Index and the Education Index. This outcome for the Health Index is borne out by the analysis in Chapter 5, which suggests that while there have been improvements in health outcomes during the 2000s, the challenges that remain are very serious indeed. There are already well-known cases of success in building an eective public health system in several states of India (for example, Kerala and Tamil Nadu). It is no surprise that with the best public health system in the country Kerala has the highest life expectancy at birth. What is worth mentioning is that Bihar, the state that ranks the lowest in terms of almost all human development indicators, has a life expectancy at birth at par with the national average. Similarly, the relatively poorer state of Rajasthan performs marginally better than the national average. The north-eastern states, excluding Assam, have a higher life expectancy at birth compared to the national average (Figure 2.14). As argued in Chapter 5 in this Report, the improvement in the Health Index during the period 19992000 to 20078 (13 per cent) is well below the improvement in the overall HDI of the country. In other words, while the Income Index has improved at the same rate as the HDI, and the Education Index by much more than the improvement in the HDI, the Health Index has not

shown any signicant change between 19992000 and 20078. Nevertheless, as in the case of the other two component indices (Income and Education), it is the

Figure 2.14 Health Index across States, 2008

Source: Appendix Table 2A.5.

Jharkhand

28 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

states with the most serious health outcome indicators and the worst health process/input indicators, which have shown the most improvement over this period, namely, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Assam. As one might expect, the smallest percentage improvement in the Health Index has occurred in states where outcomes were relatively better at the end of the 1990sDelhi, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. The improvement in the Health Index in these states is lower presumably on account of the base eect of the indicators that were already higher than the national levels at the end of the 1990s (Figure 2.15). After looking at the pace of improvement in HDI and its component indices over time, it is pertinent to anal90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

yse the course of this transition. Figure 2.16 shows the relationship between the level of HDI in 19992000 and the change in the HDI between 19992000 and 20078, to see how the states have evolved from their initial conditions. The states with relatively low levels of HDI in 19992000 that registered a high growth in HDI between 19992000 and 20078 were Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa. These are the states that show convergence with the national average of HDI over time. Absolute value of HDI and its components for 19992000 and 20078 are reported in Table 2A.5. There were no states which not only started out with low levels but also achieved only low growthwhich is good news. However, there were states which started the decade with a medium level of HDI but managed to

Andhra Pradesh

NE (excluding Assam)

Delhi

Kerala

Himachal Pradesh

Punjab

Tamil Nadu

Karnataka

Rajasthan

Uttarakhand

Jammu and Kashmir

Orissa

Bihar

Assam

Chhattisgarh

Haryana

All India

Gujarat

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

West Bengal

Jharkhand

Figure 2.15 Percentage Change in Health Index from 2000 to 2008

Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5.

Low growth 19992000 to 20078 Low level base 19992000 Medium level base 19992000 High level base 19992000 Haryana, Rajasthan Delhi, Goa, Himachal Pradesh

Medium growth 19992000 to 20078 Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal Kerala

Uttar Pradesh

High growth 19992000 to 20078 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa Karnataka

Figure 2.16 Relationship between Level and Growth of HDI, 19992000 to 20078
Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5.

Goa

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

29

achieve only low HDI growth over the period 19992000 to 20078, namely Haryana and Rajasthan, and their pace of improvement is of some concern. However, for states like Delhi, Goa, and Himachal Pradesh, the low growth is a reection of the high base in 19992000. Finally Figure 2.17 shows a scatter diagram for the growth of NSDP per capita and the growth of HDI between 19992000 and 20078. It shows that in Assam, Andhra Pradesh, and Bihar (top left corner) the growth in NSDP per capita over this period was not as remarkable as the improvement in HDI. What is also interesting is that both Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have shown signicant improvements in NSDP per capita as well as in the HDI over the period. It is quite apparent that there is a clear divide between the states that consistently perform well on all counts, and those that appear to be at the bottom of the league in terms of human development outcomes. These are generally the poorer states, which are also home to large proportions of various marginalized groups like SCs, STs, OBCs, and Muslims. The fact that these states lack access to service infrastructure as well resources, further reinforces the deprivation for these communities, which remain excluded from the development process. This social stratication, particularly in the rural areas of these states, is one of the important causes of social inequalities. On the other hand, there are states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala with a similar distribution of social groups as

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and yet they perform very well in HDI and its component indices. These states highlight the importance of good governance and oer remarkable examples of what massive mobilization of the lower castes could potentially achieve. In fact, such is the result of these social movements that even the upper castes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are worse o than the SCs and OBCs in Tamil Nadu and Kerala (Mehrotra 2006). Fertility rates in Kerala and Tamil Nadu suggest that their Reproductive and Child Healthcare (RCH) Programmes have been successful. The demographic transition of Kerala is widely acclaimed because its mortality and fertility levels have reached those of the developed countries. This is can largely be attributed to the high literacy rates among men and women in the stateas has been discussed in the conceptual framework for IHDR 2011 (see Chapter 1). Despite relatively low levels of economic growth and per capita income in the rst four decades after Independence, Kerala achieved signicant leaps in terms of its human development indicators. These are largely a manifestation of the active role of the state government in health and education which is discernible in terms of well-functioning public health and education systems. Kerala is way ahead of the other states in terms of achieving the goal of universalizing elementary education, where the benets are equally shared by the lower castes also. As our conceptual framework predicts, in recent years Kerala has witnessed higher growth rates for NSDP per

35 30 25 Assam AP Bihar Kar Guj HP Har Goa 0 -5 -10 NSDP growth rate Delhi 5 10 15 20 25 J&K Ker Mah Pun TN Raj UP WB India MP Oris

HDI growth rate

20 15 10 5 0

Figure 2.17 Relationship between HDI Growth and NSDP Growth between 19992000 and 20078
Source: Authors calculations based on Appendix Table 2A.5 and CSO.

30 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

capita and this increase in income and income-earning capabilities is partly due to the feedback loop eect of better education, health, and nutritional status of the populace (see Chapter 1). The case of Tamil Nadu is similar where the state government has taken strong measures to ensure the eectiveness of the public health system and its health policies. The Dravidian movement, which began in Tamil Nadu, aimed at providing opportunities to all, irrespective of the caste. With the dual objective of educating all and eradicating superstition, the movement proved to be one of the biggest achievements of the state government. This was one of the main reasons for higher enrolment rates for SC and OBC children in the state. Thus, the real explanation for the better than average health, education, and nutritional status of the populace lies in the social movements and technical interventions initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Dravidian movement in the state provided socio-political and cultural space for even the deprived sections, making the process of development more inclusive (Mehrotra 2006). In the same way it has been observed in Delhi and Himachal Pradesh that indicators better than the national average are visible not only for the state as a whole, but also for the lower castes and minorities living there (For further discussion on these issues, see the section on State Proles later in this chapter). It is noteworthy that SCs and OBCs in Delhi perform even better than the upper castes in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for some of the outcome indicators. However, one thing that is quite disturbing in the case of Delhi is that it has the worst sex-ratio in the country, with only 821 women per 1,000 men in 2001 (and 866 in 2011). A similar kind of discrimination against women is evident in terms of female literacy rates in Delhi which are 72.2 per cent and 77.8 per cent, respectively, for rural and urban areas as compared to 92.6 and 91.3 per cent, respectively, for males. To address this issue, the Delhi Government introduced the Laadli Scheme in 2008. It is essentially a cash transfer with the objective of putting an end to female foeticide and promoting education of the girl child. It is worth mentioning that better governed states produce better indicators across the board, and even the backward communities benet from the process of development. Absence of social movements is manifested in the poor performance of the deprived classes. That is, despite high growth rates, there is discrimination against some social groups that end up being excluded from the

development process. This in turn reects the failure of the respective state governments. In this regard it is worth citing the progress achieved by two of the most economically backward states of the countryUttar Pradesh and Bihar. A study by Kapur et al. (2010) titled Rethinking Inequality: Dalits in the Market Reform Era nds that there has been a veritable Dalit revolution in Uttar Pradesh in the last two decades. Despite their high absolute poverty, there have been huge improvements in economic and social indicators like grooming, eating, and ceremonial consumption patterns of Dalits. This signals their higher social status backed by higher status consumption patterns. With the high GDP and per capita growth rates in recent years, even the Dalits have come to share the new prosperity. They can now be equal to the General caste category people. There have been changes in accepted behaviours between castes with rapid erosion of discriminatory practices that stigmatized Dalits. Similarly, there is a vast dierence between the Bihar of today and the Bihar of 1520 years ago (see the State Prole of Bihar later in this chapter). The state witnessed an average growth rate of NSDP of around 15 per cent per annum during the Tenth Five Year Planunprecedented not only by Bihar standards but by any global standard. The boost has been provided by the increased government spending on infrastructure, particularly road construction. The share of development expenditure in the total state expenditure has been increasing gradually since 20034. In 20078, this gure stood at 53.5 per cent of the total expenditure. Moreover, per capita social sector expenditure in Bihar has increased signicantly in the last ve years. Further, the share of expenditure on welfare of the states SCs and STs to total expenditure has almost doubled during the period 2004 (0.4 per cent) to 2008 (0.8 per cent). Despite these eorts, the lower castes in these states have social indicators lower than their counterparts in the rest of the country. What is needed therefore is income growth along with social mobilization which seeks to enhance human capabilities. Similarly, the north-eastern states, excluding Assam, are generally doing better in all development parameters, despite the high concentration of STs in the population. However, it is important to qualify here that these groups form the majority and the mainstream in the total population, unlike forest dwelling STs in states in the central and eastern belt. Thus, north-eastern state governments have

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

31

ensured that they share every benet of the development process. Any policy/scheme undertaken by the government is in eect directed towards this majority group and thus they are included in the states development achievements (Government of Nagaland 2004). To enhance human development, the state governments have taken up a plethora of initiatives in their state. For instance, Nagaland, where 97 per cent of the population are STs, had a literacy rate among STs of 91.5 per cent in 20078. In 2002, the state government enacted the Nagaland Communitisation of Public Institutions and Services Act, which called for communitizing of elementary education in the state. Under this Act, the management and development of the schools has been transferred to the community. This, coupled with Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), created a momentum to universalize elementary education among communities, which comprise largely of STs. Similarly, the state enjoys a Health Index equivalent to 0.64. This may be a consequence of communitizing health services since July 2002 whereby the management of health centres was handed over to the communities. Taking advantage of Nagalands traditional social capital, the state government has taken up the Total Sanitation Campaign in the districts. In another kind of initiative, the Nagaland State AIDS Control Society and Department of School Education are engaged in developing courses on HIV and AIDS, drug addiction, and alcoholism for school going students of standards and above. Meghalaya is another state, where 80 per cent of the population belongs to the Scheduled Tribes. Many of the better human development outcomes can be traced back to the state initiatives to set up committees at dierent levels to implement SSA. Thus, it is not surprising that rural Meghalaya has a literacy rate of 92 per cent. Also, the government initiated various health programmes universal immunization, TB control, anti-malaria, and other such programmes which have helped curb morbidity in the state. In addition, the state increased the supply and availability of medicines and consumables. Similarly in Mizoram, that became a state as late as 1986, the eorts at expanding infrastructure at the primary and secondary level are reected in high levels of literacy at 95.9 per cent. Literacy among the STs, which form almost 99 per cent of its population, is 95 per cent. In contrast, that is not the case with other states with high ST concentration like Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh,

and Madhya Pradesh. The primary reason for their poor performance is the failure of the development process to reach the STs living in remote forest areas. The state governments have consistently failed to address issues specic to such deprived sections of society. Despite rapid economic growth marginalized groups like STs have faced signicant neglect in the development process, which is partly responsible for the continuing extremist violence that characterizes many districts in these states (Expert Group to the Planning Commission 2008). As they form a dominant proportion of the total population of these states, failure to address their needs is bound to make development in these states exclusionary.
GENDERRELATED DEVELOPMENT INDEX

Inclusive development cannot be attained unless women participate equally in the development process. Developing countries like India face huge gender inequalities, which have a direct bearing on their human development. For instance, in a patriarchal set-up where gender discrimination is rampant, a female child is ignored when it comes to health or education. Females have little control over their lives and suer a great deal from intra-household discrimination. Thus, HDI dimensions, by themselves, do not portray a complete picture of human development. In order to account for such inequalities, UNDP developed the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) in 1995. GDI accounts for inequalities between men and women in the same dimensions as those of HDI. It is a gender sensitive HDIthe higher the gender inequality, the lower the GDI. The Ministry of Women and Child Development (2009) calculated the GDI for 1996 and 2006 for 35 states/UTs. The all India GDI for 2006 was 0.590 compared to 0.514 in 1996. The HDI for the same years was 0.605 and 0.530, respectively, as calculated by MWCD. This shows that the loss in HDI on account of gender inequalities (which is the dierence between HDI and GDI) has decreased over the decade, albeit only marginally. Comparing across states, Figure 2.18 shows that the GDI is low in the central and eastern states (excluding West Bengal). Goa had the highest GDI in 2006. Some of the other states doing well in terms of GDI were Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and the north-eastern states (excluding Assam). They are also the states that perform well on HDI, as seen in the earlier

32 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The states policies play a crucial role in shaping the nature of the development process. How inclusive the development process is for all the social groups residing in the state is a reection of the states commitment towards various dimensions of human welfare. Thus, the foregoing discussion makes a strong argument for state governments as agents of change. This is supported by the success of social mobilization states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and the north-eastern states, where strong state commitment resulted in the upliftment of the backward castes such that their performance in health and education indicators is even better than the upper castes in most of the other states. The proles of 22 major states which follow are an eort to highlight such state specic policies and examples to showcase the performance of the state as well as its marginalized groups compared to their counterparts in the rest of the country. A set of variables have been chosen for the analysis. These include: Average annual growth rates of NSDP and per capita NSDP, both at 19992000 prices. Demographic prole in terms of distribution of social and religious groups within and across states for the year 20078. Incidence of poverty by Uniform Recall Period, both across rural and urban areas, for 20045. Incidence of poverty by social groups, 20045. Nutritional and health indicators includemalnutrition among women measured by Body Mass Index (BMI) less than 18.5; Underweight children in the age 05 years measured by two standard deviation below the reference population; and under ve mortality rate (number of children under ve years dying per 1,000 live births) to measure the overall health status of children. Educational attainments have been measured by literacy rates of population in the age group seven years and above. As important input indicators in health and the overall development process, variables on drinking water and sanitation facilities have been incorporated. Therefore, variables like households with access to improved sources of drinking watertap, handpump/tube well, protected well, and harvested rainwater; and households with no toilet facility have been used.

Figure 2.18 GDI across States, 2006

Source: Ministry of Women and Child Development (2009).

section. The lowest GDI was registered by Bihar in both time periods. Poorer states like Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh were among the worst performers on GDI. The loss in HDI due to gender inequalities (HDIGDI) was 0.015 for India as a whole in 2006. Among the states, it was the highest in Delhi, where it has increased over the decade. This is explained by the adverse sex-ratio in the state, which is the lowest among the major states (866 females per 1,000 males in 2011). Other states where loss on account of gender inequalities was higher than the all India level were Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Goa, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan (listed here in descending order of the loss). On the other hand, the dierence between HDI and GDI was the lowest in Himachal Pradesh, followed by Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Chhattisgarh. It is heartening to know that Punjab, which has historically had adverse sex-ratios, has shown more gender-friendly human development.

State Proles

ANDHRA PRADESH

Economy and Demography The state is well endowed with a stable economic base which is to a great extent reliant on agriculture and livestock. Andhra Pradesh is doing well when compared to the all India average in terms of NSDP per capita and its growth rate (Table 1). Improvement in economic freedom and business climate has resulted in doubling the states growth rate. In the Ninth Five Year Plan period (19978 to 20012) the state had an average annual Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) growth of 5.6 per cent. But in the last ve years (20045 to 20089), GSDP growth accelerated to an average of 9.1 per cent per year, and NSDP growth rate at 7.7 per cent (for years 20001 to 20089). Growth in agriculture and industry has equally contributed to the states growth story. Agricultural growth averaged 6.8 per cent per annum in 20049, more than double the all-India average of 3.3 per cent, whereas industrial growth in the state averaged 10.8 per cent, as compared to the national average of 8.7 per cent. The state was an outperformer, consistently growing faster than India as a whole, save in the drought of 20089 (Aiyar 2011). The demographic prole of the state shows that the majority of the population (79 per cent) lives in rural areas (NSS 64th round). The SC and ST population of the state accounts for 9 per cent and 8 per cent, respectively of the total SC and ST population of India. Within the state, SCs and STs accounted for more than one-fourth of the population. Andhra Pradesh accounts for more than 9 per cent

of the total population of India at present, but this share has been declining due to the low Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the state, which is an encouraging sign. Another important point to notice is its very good sex-ratio of 992 females per 1,000 males, against all Indias sex-ratio of 940 females per 1,000 males. However, it is not very encouraging to see the child sex-ratio, which is only 943, but still better than the all-India average of 914 (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per-Capita NSDP/NNP (for India) State 7.7 6.6 All India 7.1 5.4

Source: Central Statistical Organization (CSO), as on 12.4.2010.

Table 2 Distribution of social and religious groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across states ST 7.67 SC 9.28 Muslim 5.59 ST 7.09 Within State SC 19.76 Muslim 7.70

Source: NSS 64th round.

Human Development and Social Groups Human development in Andhra Pradesh has been noteworthy, and there was some convergence with regard to the quality of human development within the state, that is, the under developed districts are catching up (Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report 2007).

34 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

The incidence of poverty in the state contradicts the general belief that there is a higher incidence of poverty in rural areas as compared to urban areas. The incidence of urban poverty (28 per cent) is signicantly higher than the incidence of rural poverty (11 per cent) within the state (Figure 1). The lower incidence of rural poverty may be partially due to Velugu a state-wide rural poverty eradication programme based on the social mobilization and empowerment of the rural poor women. The womens self-help group (SHG) movement with 0.7 million such groups has been successful in the state and has contributed towards poverty reduction in the rural areas. It should be noted that the incidence of poverty among rural STs, and urban SCs and STs, is signicantly higher than the state average, and even higher than the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs at the national level in rural areas. This suggests that these disadvantaged groups are being deprived of the recent economic prosperity of the state.
30 25 28.3 28 25.7 27.5

60.0 50.0 47.3 36.8 30.5 15.4 39.9 39.9

50.0

Percentage

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

33.3

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

Andhra Pradesh

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Andhra Pradesh Urban 11.2

15.8

Combined All India

The eective delivery of quality basic health services is hampered by demand and supply side issues, including poor health infrastructure and stang. In the case of underweight children, SCs and STs are in a signicantly better position than the all India average of these groups, but their performance is below the state average. The state government has started reforms in the health sector to improve healthcare delivery in the neglected areas. These reforms focus on preventive healthcare and enhancing the existing quality of and access to healthcare for example, strengthening of Primary Health Centres (PHCs) as 24-hour MCH centre.
50 46.6 43.6 35.2 27.6

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20045

Percentage

40 33.5 30 20 10 0

35.6

41.2 37.5

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

For health related indicators like proportion of females with BMI<18.5, under ve mortality rate (U5MR), and percentage of underweight children less than ve years of age, Andhra Pradesh has performed better than the national average. The overall better performance in these health indicators may be due to the mobilization and empowerment of women though the SHG movement in the state. However, there are regional and social dierences. The health indicators are very poor for SCs and STs, in particular for people residing in the neglected areasthe tribal areas in the north, and the drought prone districts in the south.

All

SCs Andhra Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

STATE PROFILES

35

120 100 96.1 88.1 74.3 63.2

112 95.7

80.0 70.0 60.0

72.0 63.5 63.5 63.5 60.5 57.3

72.9 67.6

Per thousand

Percentage

80 60 40 20 0

70 60

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 All SCs STs All India Muslims

All

SCs Andhra Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Andhra Pradesh

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 47.9 42.5 38.5 32.5 30 20 10 0 All SCs Andhra Pradesh STs All India Muslims 25.4 41.5 41.8

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

54.5

Percentage

40

particularly in engineering and technology. This may have magnied the intra-state inequality, and aggravated the existing problem of Maoists in some parts of the state. In terms of access to improved sources of drinking water and toilet facilities, the states performance is fairly close to the national average (Figures 7 and 8). However, only about 40 per cent of SCs and 29 per cent of STs have access to any sanitation facility. This is mainly due to the fact that there are inadequate housing, electricity, drinking water, and other basic infrastructure facilities in the interior areas.

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), 20056, Andhra Pradesh and India
Source: NFHS 3.
Percentage

94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78

93.0 91.5 91.2

92.9 90.8 87.8

92.8

The overall literacy rate in Andhra Pradesh is lower than the national average. The state has a literacy rate of 67.7 per cent, against an all India literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011 (Census 2011). As per NSS (20078), Andhra Pradesh had a literacy rate of 63.5 per cent in 20078 (Figure 6). The literacy rate for STs is lower than the state average and also lower than the national literacy rate for STs. In the case of SCs, the literacy rate is the same as the state average and the national average for SCs (Figure 6). Though the performance of the state with regard to income and health has been good in recent years, the state has performed below expectation on the literacy front. However, it has been doing better in higher education,

83.2

All

SCs Andhra Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

36 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80 70 60 60.1 47.9 49.2 65

70.9

69.1

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Andhra Pradesh STs All India Muslims 28.4 35.8

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Andhra Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

growth rate of NSDP has not kept pace with that of the country (Table 1). This trend has been noticeable since the early 1970s and has been accentuated in recent years. More than two-thirds of the population lives in rural areas (NSS 64th round). Among the social groups, OBCs account for almost half the population (49.73 per cent). The next largest group is STs at 14.02 per cent. Amongst the religious communities, Muslims account for 30.38 per cent of the population (Table 2). The high percentage of Muslim population may perhaps be due to cross-border migration. The fertility rate in Assam is close to the all India average at 2.6. According to Census (2011), Assam has a better sex-ratio of 954 females per 1,000 males, which is higher than the sex-ratio of all India (940 females per 1,000 males). It would be interesting to note that child sex-ratio (957) is even higher than the overall sex-ratio in Assam, whereas it is only 914 at all India level.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 4.7 3.2 All India 7.1 5.4

Human Development and Religious Groups Across religious groups, Muslims are quite close to the state average in terms of health indicators. However, they are still lagging behind the all India averages for Muslims. In terms of the literacy rate, Muslims are doing better than the state average and also better than the national average for their community. In the case of basic amenities, Muslims are close to the state average for accessing drinking water from improved sources, but are far better o than the other religious communities of the state and the Muslims at all India level in terms of access to toilet facilities. It has been observed that in terms of economic growth, Andhra Pradesh has performed better than the national average in the last decade. However, this is not reected in other human development indicators, particularly education and sanitation facilities. Moreover, the disadvantaged groups, particularly SCs and STs, are worse o in terms of economic as well as other human development indicators viz. health, education and sanitation. Thus these marginalized groups are further falling behind the development process in the state.
ASSAM

Percentage

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 4.02 SC 1.15 Muslim 5.85 ST 14.02 within the State SC 9.25 Muslim 30.38

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Economy and Demography Assam is one of the more economically backward states in India and has recorded low NSDP and per capita NSDP growth rates in the last decade, that were below the corresponding growth rates for the country. Although there have been periods of encouraging growth, by and large the

Human Development and Social Groups The incidence of poverty in Assam is lower than the countrys overall incidence of poverty. There is a huge ruralurban divideabout one out of ve people in rural areas is likely to be below the poverty line, while in urban areas the incidence is one in 30 (Figure 1). Income poverty for both SCs and STs is signicantly lower than their national counterparts and the state average, except for SCs in rural areas (Figure 2). Both in health and education indicators, Assams performance has been better than the countrys average (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Assams performance in the education sector, despite the low per capita income, is primarily due to the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, and the participation of village communities through Village Education

STATE PROFILES

37

30 25 22.3

28.3 25.7 19.7

27.5

140 120 110.7 85 74.3 88.1 95.7 83.2 70 114.7

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Assam Urban All India Combined 3.3

Per thousand

Percentage

100 80 60 40 20 0

All Assam

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Assam and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50.0 47.3 36.8 27.7 14.1 8.6 4.8 39.9 33.3

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Assam and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 47.9 50 42.5 36.4 43 43.6 41.8 54.5

Percentage

40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

18.2

SC Rural Assam

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

All

SCs Assam

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Assam and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 40 36.5 35.6 45.1 41.2 35.2 46.6 45.7

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Assam and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 83.8 80 72.0 63.5 60 40 20 0 60.5 79.2 86.8 74.1 67.6

Percentage

30 20.2 20 10 0 All SCs Assam STs All India Muslims

Percentage

All

SCs Assam

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Assam and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Assam and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

38 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Committees (VECs). The SCs in the state performed far better than the national average, but lower than the state average. The latest estimates of literacy rate from Census (2011) show that Assam is marginally lower than all India average for literacy rate with the value of 73.2 per cent against 74 per cent at all India. The incidence of female malnutrition among STs in Assam is slightly lower than at the national level, but higher than the state average. Scheduled Tribe children in Assam are better nourished compared to the state average and the national average for STs. The same is true for education, drinking water (Figure 7) and sanitation facilities (Figure 8) for the STs in the state, suggesting that the STs of Assam are better placed than their national counterparts and as well placed as other social groups in the state.
100 83.3 80 91.2 83.1 73.8 92.9 83.2 85.0 92.8

Human Development by Religious Communities Muslims do not stand high on development indicators. In both education and health indicators, Muslims fared not only below the state average, but also lower than the STs and SCs of the state. Given the high percentage of Muslims in the state and their poor health and education status, Assam needs to pay special attention to them if it is to improve overall human development in the state. However, their performance is as good as the state average in access to improved sources of drinking water and sanitation facilities.
BIHAR

60 40 20 0 All Assam SCs STs All India Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Assam and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
80 70 60 49.2 35.8 19.7 65 69.1

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Assam STs All India Muslims 12.1 16 8.8

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Assam and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Bihar is one of the fastest growing states of India. In recent years the growth rate of NSDP and per capita NSDP of the state is better than the corresponding national growth rate (Table 1). The increase in road connectivity and better governance has created an investment friendly environment in the state. Though Bihar is leading the growth charts amongst the Indian states, its per capita income at constant prices is still the lowest in the country. Furthermore, there is a high intra-state disparity with north Bihar lagging behind. North Bihar is predominantly agrarian and is highly prone to oods, with poor irrigation facilities resulting in low agricultural productivity. However, southern Bihar which has been growing at a faster pace accounted for a larger proportion of the SC population of the state, and the Samekit Karya Yojana has been incorporated in the seven tribal and backward districtsArwal, Aurangabad, Jehanabad, Gaya, Jamui, Nawada, and Rohtas (all are in southern Bihar)to build up infrastructure and services. Therefore, it appears that in recent years, not only has the pace of growth accelerated, it has also become more inclusive in nature (Economic Survey of Bihar 201011). Scheduled castes constitute more than one-fth of Bihars population (Table 2) and it ranks third among all states/UTs in terms of the size of the SC population. Similarly, the Muslim population accounts for a higher share in Bihar compared to other major Indian states. The problem with Bihars demographic prole is that it is one of the most populous states of India, and its share is expected to increase due to its high TFR of 3.9the highest in India. Bihar also has a very low sex-ratio with 916 females per 1,000 males, against the 940 females per 1,000 males for the overall country. However, it is a good

Percentage

Percentage

STATE PROFILES

39

sign that Bihar has a better child sex-ratio of 933, which is greater than both overall sex-ratio of the state and also all Indias child sex-ratio (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 9.0 7.0 All India 7.1 5.4
Percentage

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

42.1 34.6 28.3 25.7

41.4

27.5

Rural Bihar

Urban All India

Combined

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 1.22 SC 11.74 Muslim 13.40 Distribution within State ST 0.92 SC 22.22 Muslim 14.93
Percentage

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Bihar and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 67.2 53.3 47.3 36.8 39.9 33.3 57.2

64.0

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Percentage

Human Development and Social Groups The incidence of poverty in Bihar is signicantly higher than the national average, and it is worse for rural Bihar (Figure 1). In the case of SCs, the incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas is higher than the state average and also the corresponding national average (Figure 2). Furthermore, in terms of other human development outcome indicators in health, education, and sanitation, Bihars performance is below the national level. The literacy rate of Bihar is 63.8 per cent as compared to 74 per cent literacy of the country (Census 2011). The more serious concern is that in those indicators, SCs are falling far behind not only their national counterparts, but also within the state (Figures 3 to 6, and Figure 8). Given the large share of SC population in Bihar, this is a major bottleneck in the states development process. The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has a signicant role to play in improving the health status of Bihar. Human Development and Religious Communities Across religious communities, Muslims are one of the worst performers for health indicators like women with BMI<18.5, U5MR, and underweight children. The Muslims in the state are worse o than the Muslims for India as a whole in terms of health indicators. A similar situation has been observed for the education sector, where Muslims have lower literacy rates than the state average, and also as compared to the all India average for Muslims.

SC Rural Bihar

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Bihar and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All Bihar SCs STs All India Muslims 45.1 41.2 35.6 35.2 58.1 46.6 49.7 63.5

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Bihar and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

40 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

120 100 84.8 74.3

113.1 88.1

108.9

120 97.3 100 91.2 70 80 60 40 20 0 96.8 99.0 92.9 78.6 83.2 92.8

Per thousand

60 40 20 0 All Bihar SCs All India Muslims

Percentage

80

All Bihar

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Bihar and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
80 70 60 55.9 42.5 47.9 41.8 69.6 59.8

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Bihar and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
90 80 70 74.1 65 49.2 35.8 83.9 69.1 69.1 57.8

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20 10

SCs Bihar All India

Muslims

0 All Bihar SCs STs All India Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Bihar and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
80 70 60 58.1 47.0 51.6 72.0 63.5 60.5 50.1

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Bihar and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

67.6

50 40 30 20 10 0 All

SCs Bihar

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Bihar and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Although there has been rapid economic growth in recent years, it is not reected in other human development indicators namely, incidence of poverty, health, education and sanitation facilities, which remain poor. However, eorts have been made by the state government to reduce poverty and improve social indicators. For instance, about 4 million ration cards had been issued to the BPL population in Bihar till June 2009, and under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) about 2.4 million people were issued ration cards. The share of development expenditure in the total expenditure has been increasing gradually since 20034. Moreover, per capita social sector expenditure in Bihar has increased signicantly in the last ve years. Further, the share of expenditure on welfare of the states SCs and STs to total expenditure has almost

Percentage

STATE PROFILES

41

doubled during the period 2004 to 2008. In education, the annual upper primary enrolment rate has grown very signicantly (19.63 per cent overall, SCs, 23.24 per cent; STs, 27.87 per cent), and this is an indication of the recent initiatives made to correct the human development outcomes.
CHHATTISGARH

STs in India. SCs and STs together constitute more than 50 per cent of the states population (Table 2). The tribals of Chhattisgarh are an important part of the population and mainly inhabit the dense forests of Bastar and other districts of south Chhattisgarh. The share of Muslim population in the state and among the religious communities is low.
Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)
Across State ST 10.01 SC 1.58 Muslim 0.16 ST 37.54 Within the State SC 13.68 Muslim 0.9

Economy and Demography Chhattisgarh is a new state carved out from the state of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 2000 with great expectations of rapid development. Over the years the Naxals have been placing many hurdles in the way of Chhattisgarhs development. The state is rich in mineral resources and is a power surplus statean ideal destination for investors. The northern and southern parts of the state are hilly and the central part is plain, fertile land. The southern parts of Chhattisgarh consisting of Dantewada, Bastar, Kanker, Rajnandangaon, and Narayanpur districts are the worst aected by Naxalites. Chhattisgarh is one of the emerging states with relatively high growth rates of NSDP and per capita NSDP. The growth rates of the said parameters are above the national averages, and thus it appears that Chhattisgarh is catching up with other states in this respect (Table 1). However, Chhattisgarh still has very low levels of per capita income as compared to the other states. In absolute terms at 19992000 prices, the gap between the state per capita income and national per capita income has been decreasing.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per-Capita NSDP/NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 8.2 6.2 All India

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups The incidence of poverty in Chhattisgarh is very high but is better than Orissa and Bihar. The estimated poverty ratio in 20045 based on uniform reference period consumption was around 50 per cent, which is approximately double the all India level. The incidence of poverty in the rural and urban areas is almost the same. More than half of the rural STs and urban SCs are poor. In general, the proportion of poor SC and ST households in the state is higher than the state average and their communitys respective national averages (except for rural SC households). Given that more than 50 per cent of the states population comprises of STs and SCs, the high incidence of income poverty among them is a matter of serious

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40.8

41.2

40.9

The demographic prole shows that about 80 per cent of the total population lived in rural areas. The sex ratio in the state is one of the best in India with 991 females per 1,000 males, as is the child sex-ratio with 964 females per 1,000 males (Census 2011). Chhattisgarh has a fairly high fertility rate as compared to other states. With the exception of the hilly states of the north-east, Chhattisgarh has one of highest shares of ST population within a state, accounting for about 10 per cent of the

Percentage

7.1 5.4

28.3

25.7

27.5

Rural

Urban Chhattisgarh All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Chhattisgarh and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

42 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

60 50 36.8

54.7 47.3

52.0 39.9 41.0

60 50.5 50 43.4 35.6 38.6 41.2 46.6 35.2 29.4 30 20 10

Percentage

30 20 10 0 SC Rural Chhattisgarh All India ST SC Urban ST

Percentage

40

32.7

33.3

40

0 All SCs Chhattisgarh STs All India Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Chhattisgarh and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Chhattisgarh and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
140 120 128.5 90.3 74.3 78.1 95.7

concern in the state, and a foundational reason for the growth of extremism. This indicates that the good economic performance in recent years has not percolated to this socially deprived group, which is reected in their poor performance in human development indicators. Despite dierent health related schemes and programmes, the health indicators such as percentage of women with BMI<18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5)are poor. This may be due to the diculty in accessing the hilly areas in the state. The prevalence of female malnutrition in Chhattisgarh is higher than the national averagehalf of the ST females are malnourished. The performance of SCs is a little better than the corresponding national and state average (Figure 3). The U5MR among STs is signicantly higher than the national average. The health indicators for SCs are slightly better than the overall state average and the national average for SCs. The percentage of underweight children in Chhattisgarh is also higher than the national average, further underlining the appalling health condition of the states population. With respect to literacy, the state fared just below the national average. The recent estimates from Census (2011) also depict a similar picture with the literacy rate of 71 per cent, which is close to the all India literacy rate of 74 per cent. According to NSS (20078), the literacy rate for STs and SCs was better than the corresponding national average, and this is a positive sign (Figure 5). Among the marginalized groups, STs are at the bottom of the rankings, further emphasizing the lack of social development in the state. Bastar and Dantewada in south

Per thousand

100 80 60 40 20 0

88.1

All Chhattisgarh

SCs All India

STs

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Chhattisgarh and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 47.1 42.5 26.4 46.4 47.9 52.8 54.5 41.8

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Chhattisgarh STs All India Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Chhattisgarh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

STATE PROFILES

43

120 100 95.8 71.0 72.0 73.2 63.5 63.0 60.5 67.6

Percentage

60 40 20 0 All SCs Chhattisgarh STs All India Muslims

Percentage

80

96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76

95.0 93.2 91.2 88.2 92.9 92.3 92.8

83.2

All

SCs Chhattisgarh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Chhattisgarh and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Chhattisgarh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Chhattisgarh are the most illiterate districts and the drop out ratio is the highest among all the districts. The reason for this is the extreme poverty in rural areas. In terms of access to improved drinking water sources, at the aggregate level, Chhattisgarh fared better than the national average, and the SCs of the state performed better than the corresponding national average. Scheduled Tribes are marginally below the state average, but still better than the STs at the all India level (Figure 7). Sanitation facilities in the state are abysmally low with only about 27 per cent having toilet facilities. The STs are the most deprived section in this regard with only 18 per cent of the ST households having toilet facilities, which is lower than the all India average for STs. The SCs also have a lower proportion of households with toilet facilities as compared to the all India average. Economic growth wit out social growth would further accentuate the regional, sectoral and communal disparities, and may subsequently worsen the existing Maoist problem which the state has been ghting.

90 80 70 72.9 73.4 65 49.2

81.9 69.1

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

35.8 14.4

All

SCs Chgattisgarh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet facility, Chhattisgarh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Human Development and Religious Communities Chhattisgarh is a Hindu majority state like most others. Muslims account for only 2 per cent of the total population of the state. In terms of human development, Muslims fare better than Hindus. For instance, Muslims have better health indicators like percentage of women with BMI<18.5 or underweight children than all communities together in the state. These are also better than

the all India levels for Muslims. Similarly, Muslims have a remarkably high literacy rate in the state, which is far better than the all India literacy rate for Muslims. In the case of basic amenities, like accessing drinking water from improved sources, the indicators for the Muslims are close to the state average and the national average for Muslims. Muslims are also comparatively better o than Hindus in terms of access to toilet facilities in the state and also compared to Muslims in India as a whole. In spite of Muslims being a minority in the state, they have better human development outcomes than other communities of the state.

44 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

DELHI

Economy and Demography Delhi became a state only about a decade back. It is economically well-o since large amounts have been invested in the state over the decades. Also, as it is predominantly urban (76.2 per cent urban population), it does not carry the baggage of an agrarian structure from years past. During the period 20001 to 20078, Delhi fared better in its NSDP growth rate as compared to the national average, and its per capita NSDP was almost equal to the country average (Table 1). The reason for Delhis high population growth is the large scale in-migration. The tertiary sector accounted for about 97 per cent of NSDP, while industry contributed less than 1 per cent during 200910, indicating that there is a huge potential for growth in this sector (RBI 2010). The demographic prole shows that Delhi has a population density of 9,340 persons/km2, which is the lowest among major metropolitan cities in India. Delhi has an impressive TFR of two. One disturbing aspect of Delhis demographics is the low sex-ratio which deteriorated from 827 in 1991 to 821 per 1,000 in 2001. Equally disturbing is the sharp decline in Delhis sex-ratio among children in the age group 06 years from 915 in 1991 to 868 per 1,000 in 2001. As per the latest estimates from Census (2011), the overall sex-ratio has increased to 866 females per 1,000 males. However, child sex-ratio (age group 06 years) has declined from its 2001 level to 866 in 2011, and is well below the national average of 914.

Human Development and Social Groups Across the social groups, the share of the general category in the total population of the state is more than half (54.5 per cent), followed by SCs (27.8 per cent), whereas STs constitute less than 1 per cent of the population. Across religious communities the largest group is Hindu (about 83 per cent). Muslims account for about 12 per cent of the states population (Table 2). On the HDI scale, Delhi slipped from the rst position, which it occupied in 19992000 to the second position in 20078. Looking at the development indicators, the incidence of poverty in Delhi (14.7 per cent) was signicantly lower than the national average (27.5 per cent) in 20045. The incidence of urban poverty is much higher than that of rural poverty due to interstate inmigration, particularly from the lower per capita income states (about 46 per cent of in-migrants during 19912001 came from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and another 23 per cent from Bihar) (Delhi Human Development Report 2006). On all the three development indicators of health, namely, female malnutrition in terms of women with BMI<18.5, U5MR, and underweight children, Delhi has performed better than the national average. This holds true for the SCs and STs as well (Figures 3, 4, and 5). However, the SC population is behind the state averages in health indicators. Close to 85 per cent of Delhis population is literate, which is higher than the national average of 72 per cent (NSS, 20078). As per the latest estimates from Census (2011) for literacy rate, Delhi has a better literacy rate

Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)

(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 8.9 5.7 All India
Percentage

30 25 20

28.3

25.7

27.5

7.1 5.4

15.2 15 10 5 0 Rural Delhi Urban All India 6.9

14.7

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 0.09 SC 1.75 Muslim 1.17 ST 0.63 Distribution within State SC 27.82 Muslim 12.1

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Delhi and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Source: NSS 64th Round.

STATE PROFILES

45

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

39.9 35.8 33.3

60 50 47.9 42.5 30 31.1 41.8

Percentage

Percentage

40 30 20 10 26.1

9.4

SC Urban Delhi All India

ST

0 All Delhi SCs All India Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Delhi and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 41.2 40 35.6 23.3 18.6 14.8 34.6 35.2 46.6

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Delhi and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 89.4 79.9 72.0 63.5 60.5 74.5 67.6

85.2

Percentage

30 20 10 0 All

Percentage

SCs Delhi

STs All India

Muslims

All Delhi

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Delhi and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 88.1 74.3 51.3 70 48

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Delhi and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

46.7

All Delhi

SCs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Delhi and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

(86.3 per cent), against the all India literacy rate, which is 74 per cent in the year 2011. The literacy rate among SCs is marginally lower than the state average, but still higher than the all India average for SCs. Although Delhi fared better than the rest of the country in the overall literacy rate, female literacy is a challenge. Female literacy rates in Delhi are 72.2 per cent and 77.8 per cent for rural and urban areas, respectively, compared to the corresponding male literacy rates of 92.6 per cent and 91.3 per cent. The Ladli scheme (of 2008) mentioned earlier is expected to address this issue. In terms of basic amenities, in 20089 around 96 per cent of households had access to improved sources of drinking water (Figure 7); yet, Delhi faces a severe water crisis. Nearly ve out of six residents (84 per cent) felt that

Per thousand

46 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the water supply was inadequate in their locality (Delhi Human Development Report 2006). All the social groups have equal access to improved sources of drinking water. Delhi is approaching the target of providing toilet facilities to almost all the households. In 20089, more than 98 per cent of households had access to toilet facilities. The SCs and STs in Delhi had better performance gures than the corresponding national averages (Figure 8).

all India level. In terms of accessing basic amenities like improved sources of drinking water and toilet facilities, Muslims are at par with other communities in the state. In spite of good progress in many developmental indicators compared to the national averages, four categories of people in Delhi have been bypassed to a large extentthe aged, the disadvantaged, working and street children, and the disabled (Delhi Human Development Report 2006).
GOA

Human Development and Religious Communities On human development indicators across religious groups, Muslims to some extent lag behind the overall state performance, both in health and literacy. However, Muslims are in a fairly good position on human development indicators in the state vis--vis Muslims at the
105 100 99.2 95.6 91.2 96.7 92.9 96.2 92.8

Percentage

95 90 85 80 75 All

83.2

SCs Delhi

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Delhi and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
70 60 49.2 65

Economy and Demography Goa, on the west coast of India, is the second smallest among the 29 states in India. In terms of economic growth, the states performance was higher than the national average during the period 20023 to 20078 (Table 1). Goas growth performance is driven to a considerable extent by the tourism industry. The state is also rich in minerals and ores; and mining is the second largest industry. Goas agriculture base is insignicant, but it oers part-time employment to a sizeable population. The shing industry also provides employment to about 40,000 people. Hindus constitute three-fourths of the states population, followed by Christians who account for 14 per cent. Among the social groups, SCs and STs account for 9 per cent of the states population (Table 2). In terms of fertility rate, Goa is one of the best states, with a TFR of 1.5 in 19957, the lowest in India (all India TFR was 3.4 in 19957 and 2.6 in 2008). In terms of sex-ratio, Goa with 968 females per 1,000 males is better than all India average of 940 females per 1,000 males in 2011 (Census 2011). However, lower child sex-ratio (920) in Goa is a matter of concern, as it points towards the possible lower sex-ratio in the future.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, during 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices, 19992000) State 9.5 7.4 All India 7.9 6.4

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All Delhi SCs All India Muslims

1.7

35.8

4.2

NSDP / NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India)
1.9

Source: CSO.

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet facility, Delhi and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups The incidence of poverty was signicantly lower than the national average in 20045. The incidence of poverty in urban areas was much higher than that in rural areas (Figure 1).

STATE PROFILES

47

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 0.03 SC 0.05 Muslim 0.1 ST 1.8 Distribution within State SC 7.2 Muslim 9.8

Source: NSS 64th Round.

28.3 25.7 21.3

30 25

27.5

20 15 10 5 5.4 13.8

Even though the performance of the state in terms of literacy was better than the national average, the literacy rate among SCs was lower than the state average, even though it was similar to the national average for SCs (Figure 3). According to latest estimates of Census (2011), the literacy rate of Goa is 87.4 per cent as compared to the 74 per cent national literacy rate. In terms of basic household amenities, Goas performance was better than the national average. The proportion of households with access to improved drinking water sources is marginally higher than the all India average (Figure 4). Less than one-fourth of the households did not have access to toilet facilities, much lower than the national average (Figure 5). On both these counts, SCs and STs in Goa are far better o than SCs and STs in the rest of the country.
100 82 80 72 64 60 40 20 0 All Goa SCs All India Muslims 64 63 68

Percentage

Rural Goa

Urban All India

Total

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Goa and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

In terms of health indicators, the performance of the state was much better than the national average. The proportion of females with a BMI<18.5 (Figure 2), U5MR (20 compared to 74 for all India), and proportion of underweight children (25 compared to 42.5 for all India) were all below the national average.

Percentage

Figure 3 Literacy Rate, Goa and India, 20078 (per cent)

Source: 64th NSS Round.

50 40 35.6 27.9 41.2 38.5

46.6 41.8 35.2

100 95 91.8

95.7 91.2 92.9 88.2 83.2 92.8 88.8

Percentage

Percentage

30 20 10 0

25.7

90 85 80 75

All Goa

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

All Goa

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 2 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Goa and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 4 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Goa and India, 20089
Source: 65th NSS Round.

48 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80 65 60

69.1 55.5

Percentage

49.2 38.9 22.9

39

40 20 0 All

35.8

SCs Goa

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Goa and India, 20089
Source: 65th NSS Round.

of the states population. Across states, there is a higher concentration of STs in Gujarat (Table 2). Approximately 4 per cent of the countrys Muslim population lives in Gujarat, suggesting. that a fairly high proportion of the population belongs to marginalized groups. Gujarats TFR (2.5) is quite close to the all India TFR (2.6). However, it is still on the higher side as compared to the optimal replacement rate of 2.1. In terms of sex-ratio, Gujarat (with 918 females per 1,000 males) is well below than the national sex-ratio of 940 females per 1,000 males in 2011. By and large, the sex-ratio is below the national average in many states that have a higher than average per capita income. The problem of low sex-ratio is even more serious in the state when we look at child sex-ratio (886 females only per 1,000 males), which is far below the current overall sex-ratio of the state and also below the national child sex-ratio of 914 (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 8.8 7.0 All India 7.1 5.4

Human Development and Religious Communities Christians are better performers across health indicators and have a better literacy rate, followed by Hindus, whereas Muslims are not doing so well for both the indicators. A similar situation is also observed with regard to amenities, that is, access to improved sources of drinking water and access to toilets. Christians have the best outcomes across these indicators, while Muslims have poorer outcomes.
GUJARAT

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 12.50 SC 3.72 Muslim 4.01 ST 16.53 Distribution within State SC 11.33 Muslim 7.89

Economy and Demography Gujarat is one of the major industrialized states of India. In recent years the average annual growth rate of the NSDP and the per capita NSDP has been faster than the national average (Table 1). About 84.5 per cent of its income came from non-primary sources, which employed 47.8 per cent of the workforce. Only 15.5 per cent of income came from the primary sector and was shared by the remaining 52.2 per cent of the workforce, which caused high intra-state disparities. Further, agriculture was almost stagnant in the 1980s and demonstrated a negative growth in the 1990s. This has been a major barrier to Gujarats development (Gujarat Human Development Report 2004). However, during the period 20001 to 20078, agriculture and its allied sectors have grown at more than 10 per cent per annum who precedented in India, and as in Andhra Pradesh, been an important factor driving the overall GDP growth. The demographic composition within the state shows that STs and SCs accounted for more than one-fourth

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups The incidence of poverty in Gujarat is lower than that of India for both rural and urban areas; however, rural poverty is higher than urban poverty for all social groups in the state (Figures 1 and 2). The incidence of poverty among STs is higher than the state average, but still lower than the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs at the all India level (Figure 2). Though Gujarat has a low incidence of income poverty, it is still signicant given the high economic growth it has achieved over the years. Looking at the other human development outcome indicators, particularly health indicators, the performance of STs in Gujarat is worse than at the national level, and also worse than other social groups within the state

STATE PROFILES

49

30 25

28.3 25.7 19.1 16.8 13

27.5

70 60 50

61 42.2 36.3 35.6 46.6 41.2 37.3 35.2

Percentage

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0

40 30 20 10 0

Rural Gujarat

Urban All India

Total

All

SCs Gujarat

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Gujarat and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 40 36.8 34.7 21.8 16.0 47.3 39.9 33.3

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Gujarat and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
140 120 115.8 86.6 74.3 60.9 48 88.1 95.7 70

Percentage

30 20 10 0

21.4

Per thousand

100 80 60 40 20

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

0 All SCs Gujarat STs All India Muslims

Gujarat

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Gujarat and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Gujarat and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
70 64.5 54.5 44.6 42.5 45.9 47.9 43.2 41.8

(Figures 3 to 5). This is primarily due to the fact that they are concentrated in rural areas, where the public health facilities are not as good as the facilities available in urban areas. A similar trend is observed for underweight children. This suggests that even if Gujarat is performing better than the country vis--vis the health indicators, the marginalized groups of the state, particularly the STs are deprived of health facilities. SCs are marginally worse o than the state average and quite close to their national averages for all the health indicators. Further, in recent years, environment related health problems due to high levels of contamination of ground water in the state are becoming a cause of concern (Gujarat Human Development Report 2004).

60

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Gujarat

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Gujarat and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

50 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Gujarats literacy rate is marginally above the national average (Figure 6). However, there is a high degree of intra-state variation in education levels, with the literacy rate being low in the tribal belt. The literacy rate among STs is the lowest among all the social groups in the state. Since STs constitute about 17 per cent of the states population, their low literacy rate is a matter of serious concern (Figure 6). According to Census (2011), the literacy rate of Gujarat is 79.3 per cent in 2011, as compared to the national literacy rate of 74 per cent.
80 60 75 72 71 64 62 61 74 68

100 95 93.1 91.2 94.5 92.9 92.3

97.7 92.8

Percentage

90 85 80 75 All SCs Gujarat STs All India Muslims 83.2

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Gujarat and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Percentage

40 80 20 60 0 All SCs Gujarat STs All India Muslims 67.2 65 73.8 69.1

Percentage

49.2 43.6 34.5 35.8

40 20 0 All SCs Gujarat STs All India

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Gujarat and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

In terms of basic household amenities, the states performance is marginally better than the national average, with more than 93 per cent of the households having access to an improved source of drinking water as against the national average of 91 per cent (Figure 7). This amenity is fairly distributed across all the social groups, and their averages are quite close to the state average and greater than their corresponding national averages. Access to toilet facilities in the state is also slightly better than at the national level. Across the social groups, SCs and STs are worse o than the other social groups in the state, and also below the all India levels for SCs and STs (Figure 8). Realizing the importance of sanitation, the Government of Gujarat has introduced the Gokul Gram Yojna, and the Community Rural Sanitation Programme.

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Gujarat and India, 20089
Source: 65th NSS Round.

Human Development and Religious Communities Across religious groups, the performance of the Muslim population, which accounts for only 8 per cent of the states total population, is quite close to the state and national outcomes for Muslims in terms of health indica-

tors. A similar trend has been observed for the literacy rate where Muslims have a slightly lower literacy rate than the state literacy rate, but higher than the all India literacy rate for Muslims. However, Muslims fare far better than other communities in the state as well as Muslims across India, in terms of accessing improved sources of drinking water and toilet facilities. It is worth mentioning that Muslims are faring better than SCs and STs in the state in all the above human development outcomes. To sum up, it appears that the high growth rate achieved by the state over the years has not percolated to the marginalized sections of society, particularly STs and SCs, to help improve their human development outcomes.

STATE PROFILES

51

HARYANA

Economy and Demography Haryana is one of the wealthiest states of India and has the highest per capita income in the countrymore than 1.8 times the national per capita income. Haryana had lost its growth momentum in the 1990s, but has regained it in the new millennium. In recent years, Haryanas average annual growth rate in NSDP is more than two percentage points higher than the national NNP growth rate. Haryana surrounds Delhi on three sides, forming the northern, western, and southern borders of Delhi. Consequently, a large area of Haryana is included in the National Capital Region (NCR) and the districts in the NCR are more developed in comparison to other parts of the state. The adverse sex-ratio in Haryana is a matter of grave concern. Haryana reported one of the lowest sex-ratio (861) among the major states against the all India gure of 933 per 1,000 in 2001. The child sex-ratio is even worse at 819. However, with the help of awareness campaigns, Haryana has managed to increase marginally its sex ratio to 877 per 1,000 in 2011, which is still among the lowest sex-ratios in India. A similar improvement has been observed for the child sex-ratio in 2011 (Census 2011). Scheduled Castes constitute about one-fourth of Haryanas population while STs and Muslims account for 0.13 and 7.69 per cent, respectively. Approximately 71 per cent of the states population lives in rural areas. Around 2 per cent of the countrys population lives in Haryana and its population is one of the fastest growing in India due its high TFR (2.5 in 2008) compared to the optimal replacement rate of 2.1.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per-Capita NSDP/NNP(for India) Source: CSO. State 9.0 6.8 All India 7.1 5.4

Human Development and Social Groups In terms of HDI, Haryana slipped two places down to ninth position in 20078 from the seventh position in19992000. The incidence of poverty in Haryana is very low compared to other major states. The estimated poverty ratio in 20045 based on Uniform Reference Period (URP) consumption was only 14 per cent, which is half the all India gure. The incidence of poverty in rural Haryana is less than that in urban areas. The lower incidence of rural poverty may be partially due to sustained growth in agriculture plus a deliberate policy of income and occupational diversication in the state. The incidence of poverty among SCs is higher than the incidence of poverty in the state as a whole; however, STs have a very low incidence of poverty (Figure 2). It was found that SCs and STs in Haryana have been performing better than their national counterparts in this regard. This may be due to the relatively high wage rate prevailing in the state, particularly in the agriculture sector. Haryana has performed better than the national average in the health related indicators such as women with BMI <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5). The state has implemented various health related schemes to improve the nutrition levels of mothers and children. The health indicators of SCs and STs in the state are slightly worse than the state average, but still better than their average at the national level. Since its inception, the state of Haryana has made tremendous progress in the eld of higher education. The overall literacy rate in Haryana is marginally higher than the all India level. Across social groups, SCs and STs have

30 25

28.3 25.7

27.5

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Haryana Urban All India Total 13.6 15.1 14.0

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 0.03 SC 2.69 Muslim 1.28 ST 0.13 Distribution within State SC 24.95 Muslim 7.69

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Haryana and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Source: NSS 64th Round.

52 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

50 40 36.80 26.80

39.90 33.40 33.30

60 49.4 50 39.6 42.5 40 30 20 10 0 All Haryana SCs All India 47.9

51.2 41.8

Percentage

20 10 0 SC Rural Haryana SC Urban All India ST 4.60

Percentage

30

Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Haryana and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
60 50 47.4 46.6 41.2 35.6 31.3 30 20 36.5 35.2 47.7

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Haryana and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 80 74 72 68 60 61 59

Percentage

40

Percentage

63 64

60 40 20

10 0 0 All SCs Haryana STs All India Muslims All SCs Haryana STs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Haryana and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
120 100 95.7 88.1 74.3 52.3 73.9 62.3 86.3 70

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Haryana and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

80 60 40 20 0

All

SCs Haryana

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Haryana and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

a lower literacy rate than the state average, but the literacy rate for SCs and STs is very close to the all India literacy rate of their communities. Latest estimates from Census (2011) also show that literacy rate of Haryana is 76.6 per cent which is slightly better than all India literacy rate of 74 per cent. In terms of access to an improved source of drinking water, the states performance is better than the national average. This amenity is fairly distributed across all the social groups (Figure 7). With regard sanitation, around two-thirds of the households in the state have access to toilet facilities (Figure 8), compared to 50 per cent at the all India level. However, a major area of concern for the state is that only half of the SC households have access to toilet facilities.

Per thousand

STATE PROFILES

53

100 80

97.40 91.20

98.36 100.00 92.80 92.92 83.15 82.07

development of SCs, but for such incentives for Muslims for education and employment.
HIMACHAL PRADESH

Percentage

60 40 20 0 All SCs Haryana STs All India Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Haryana and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
100 80 69.1

65 49.2 33.7 24.2 48.5

Percentage

63.4

60 40 20 0

35.8

All

SCs Haryana

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Haryana and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Human Development and Religious Communities Muslims are not benetting from the development process as much as other communities. In the case of health indicators, Muslims lag behind the SCs and STs of the state and Muslims at the all India level on every front. A similar picture has been observed for other development indicators like literacy rate, access to improved sources of drinking water and access to toilet facilities. For all these indicators, the Muslims of the state lag behind the state averages and their respective averages at all India level. Haryana is one of the rich states, but the development process across all socio-religious groups is not the same. There are a number of schemes and policies for the

Economy and Demography Himachal Pradesh has consistently improved its position on several indicators over time. In its early years, due to geo-morphological, nancial limitations and poorly developed infrastructure, Himachal Pradesh was ranked near the bottom for per capita income across states. Gradually Himachal Pradesh increased its per capita income to a middle rank in the late 1990s (Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). In the last decade (20009), the NSDP per capita of Himachal Pradesh was higher than the national per capita income. However, the growth of NSDP per capita for the state in the last ve years was slightly less than Indias per capita income (Table 1). Its per capita NSDP growth rate has been consistently higher than that of the other hilly states like Jammu and Kashmir. There is huge regional disparity within the state. Himachal Pradesh can broadly be divided into two distinct regions based on geo-morphological and climatic features. One is characterized by high mountains and is called the High Mountain Horse Shoe (HMHS) region and it comprises seven districts. The second region has plains, wide valleys and low hills, and is known as the Low Hills and Plains (LHP) region, and it comprises ve districts. In terms of development the LHP region is well ahead of the HMHS region because of its close proximity to the relatively developed parts of Punjab and Haryana. Most foodgrain production and industrial output comes from the LHP districts (Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). The demographic prole of Himachal Pradesh shows that SCs and STs account for 28 per cent and 5 per cent of its population, respectively. The share of Muslims and OBCs in the state is comparatively lower (2 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively) than their share of the countrys population. More than 63 per cent of the states population lives in rural areas (20078). Himachal Pradesh accounts for less than 1 per cent of Indias total population. This share would further decrease in the future due to its lower population growth rate and lower TFR. Himachal Pradeshs TFR (1.9) was considerably lower than the national TFR (2.6) in 2008. The states impressive TFR may be explained by

54 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the fact that more than half of the married couples are eectively protected against unwanted pregnancies through the use of various family planning methods (Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). In terms of sex-ratio, Himachal Pradesh is one of the best performing states with 974 females per 1,000 males, against the 940 females per 1,000 males at all India level in 2011. However, its child sex-ratio is very low with 906 girls per 1,000 boys, which is a matter of serious concern (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 6.8 5.0 All India 7.1 5.4

30 25

28.3 25.7

27.5

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Urban All India Total 3.4 10.7 10.0

Himachal Pradesh

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 40 37 19.6 47 40 33

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 0.4 SC 0.9 Muslim 0.1 ST 5.3 Within State SC 28.4 Muslim 2.2

Percentage

30 20 10 0

14.9 5.6 2.4 ST Urban All India

SC

ST Rural Himachal Pradesh

SC

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups Himachal Pradesh has a very small proportion of people living below the poverty line (only 10 per cent) (Figure 1). The low incidence of poverty is the result of a prosperous rural economy, a high level of per capita government expenditure, greater womens participation in the workforce and strong local institutions, in addition to high out-migration and the consequent repatriations (Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). The urban areas are close to eradicating poverty, and this is true for all the social groups including SCs and STs. In spite of the low incidence of poverty, inequalities nevertheless exist. For instance, the incidence of rural poverty is much higher in the HMHS region as compared to the LHP region. As a result of increased per capita public expenditure on health since 19701(Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002) all the health indicators such as percentage of women with BMI <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and percentage of underweight children (Figure 5) are much better than the national average.

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 41.2 40 35.6 29.9 31.6 29.9 21.1 20 10 0 All SCs Himachal Pradesh STs All India Muslims 35.2 46.6

Percentage

30

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

STATE PROFILES

55

100 80 74.3 63.4 41.5 40 20 0

88.1

60

All Himachal Pradesh

SCs All India

respective national averages (Figure 6). Gender disparity has also fallen over time for school enrolments. The dierent geo-morphological conditions of the state make it very dicult to provide access to potable water to the masses. As a result, the HMHS districts have poorer access to drinking water from improved sources than the LHP districts; hence, are not so good health indicators. In terms of access to toilet facilities, the state averages for all social groups including SCs and STs are better than the respective national averages (Figure 8). Overall, all the communities have benetted from the development process, including SCs and STs.

Per thousand

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Human Development and Religious Communities Across the religious groups, the performance of human development indicators is mixed. In terms of health
100 80.4 80 72 64 60 40 20 76.8 65.7 61 64.9 68

60 50 47.9 42.5 36.5 25 42.9

54.5

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

Percentage

0 All SCs All India STs All SCs Himachal Pradesh STs All India Muslims

Himachal Pradesh

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Himachal Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.
100 90 91 91 93 93 83 86

87

However, health related outcome indicators are poor in the HMHS region. Across social groups, all the other health indicators, apart from U5MR for SCs, are close to the state averages. All social groups are performing well vis--vis the national averages for their respective communities, including SCs and STs. Due to the high budget allocation to the education sector, Himachal Pradesh has a very impressive literacy rate. According to latest estimates from Census (2011), Himachal Pradesh has a 83.8 per cent literacy rate as compared to the 74 per cent literacy rate at all India level. The benets of development of the education sector have spread across all social groups. As a result, all social groups have a higher literacy rate than their

80

Percentage

60 40 20 0 All SCs Himachal Pradesh STs All India Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: 65th NSS Round.

56 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

100 80 65 49.2 42.3 49.2 69.1 65.5 47 35.8

60 40 20 0

All

SCs Himachal Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Himachal Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: 65th NSS Round.

indicators like women with BMI<18.5, Muslims fare better than Hindus and Muslims in India as a whole. However, Muslims lag behind in terms of literacy. Also, Muslim households do not have equal access to improved sources of drinking water; and are even lower than their national average in terms of this indicator. In terms of households with toilet facilities, Muslims are fairly close to the rest of the states population. Summarizing the overall human development scenario, Himachal Pradesh is a good performer, but regional inequalities are a serious cause for concern. The HMHS region lags behind in all the development indicators like health outcomes, literacy rate or access to improved sources of drinking water. The issue of inadequate availability of infrastructure in these far-ung areas needs special attention for quick redress.
JAMMU & KASHMIR

bad shape. The tourism industry especially has been badly hit. The state is one of the largest recipients of grants from the Government of India. Jammu & Kashmirs average annual growth rate in NSDP and per capita NSDP lags far behind the national average growth rate in Net National Product (NNP) and per capita income (Table 1). Jammu & Kashmirs demographic pattern diers from that of rest of the country with Muslims accounting for 56 per cent of the population in 20078 (Table 2). The share of the SC and ST communities in the states population is 3.3 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively. More than 80 per cent of the population lives in rural areas, including 96 per cent of ST households. The TFR in 2008 was 2.2, which is quite close to the optimal replacement rate of 2.1. However, TFR in rural areas is quite high (2.5) as compared to urban areas (1.5). Looking at the sex-ratio in India, J&K has the second worst sex-ratio (only 883 females per 1,000 males). The situation is even worse for child sex-ratio, which is only 859 females per 1000 males compared with the all India child sex ratio of 913 females per 1,000 males in 2011 (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 5.9 4.2 All India 7.1 5.4

Percentage

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 0.3 SC 0.5 Muslim 3.5 ST 3.3 Within the State SC 11.6 Muslim 55.7

Economy and Demography Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India. According to this, no law enacted by the Parliament of India, except for those in the eld of defence, communication, and foreign policy, will be extendable in J&K unless it is ratied by the state legislature of J&K. Jammu and Kashmirs economy is dependent on agriculture, tourism, and allied activities. It is famous for its handlooms and handicraft products, particularly carpets and woollen products. Due to the problem of insurgency over many years, the economy of the state is in

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups Looking into the performance of indicators related to human development, J&K has the lowest incidence of poverty compared to all other states in the country (Figure 1). The same holds true for all the social groups including SCs and STs (Figure 2). There is a shortage of major health infrastructure in the state. While there is more than the required number of health centres and sub-centres, there is a shortage of health workers, doctors, technicians, and nurses (RHS Bulletin

STATE PROFILES

57

30 25

28.3 25.7

27.5

50 41.2 40 35.6 24.6 33.8

46.6 35.2 28.8 21

Percentage

Percentage
5.4 Total All India

20 15 10 4.6 5 0 Rural Urban Jammu & Kashmir 7.9

30 20 10 0

All

SCs Jammu & Kashmir

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 40 37 47 40 80

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 74.3 51.2 72.2 53.9 88.1 70

Percentage

30 20 10 0 SC Rural Jammu & Kashmir All India ST SC 5.2 8.8 13.7

Per thousand

60 40 20 0

Urban

All

SCs All India

Muslims

Jammu & Kashmir

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 47.9 47.7 42.5 35.7 25.6 23 54.5 41.8

2008). Despite this, the health indicators for the state are better than the all India averageswomen with BMI <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5). While the health indicators for SCs and STs are no better than their neighbours from other communities within the state, they are still better than the national averages of their respective communities. Education has been aected due to political and social disturbances. The literacy rate of J&K is only 68.7 per cent, against the national literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011 (Census 2011). Except for the SCs, Other social and religious groups in Jammu & Kashmir lag behind the national average literacy rate (NSS 20078). The dropout rate is very high. In order to reduce the dropout ratio among women and to empower them, the state government launched the Beti Anmol

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Jammu & Kashmir

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

58 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

100 80 72 67

100 80 67 65 49.2 29.7 35.8 26.2 7.8 Muslims 69.1

68

Percentage

60 40 20 0 All SCs Jammu & Kashmir 36

Percentage

64

61

68 59

60 40 20 0

STs All India

Muslims

All

SCs Jammu & Kashmir

STs All India

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Scheme. An amount of Rs 5,000 was placed in xed deposit for girl students belonging to Below Poverty Line (BPL) families in all 97 educationally backward blocks. The data for access to an improved source of drinking water are not satisfactory. The STs were the worst o as compared to all other social/religious groups. However, in the case of toilet/sanitation facilities, the percentage of households with toilet facilities is greater than the corresponding national average. Across the social groups, SCs are far below the state average and also national averages, while the access of STs to toilet facilities is higher than the state average and also the all India average for STs.
92.9 85.0 68.0 83.2 92.8 86.4

100 85.8 80

91.2

60 40 20 0

Human Development and Religious Communities In terms of health indicators, Muslims are comparatively better o than Hindus. For instance, the percentage of women with BMI<18.5 for Muslims is only 21 per cent as compared to 32 per cent for Hindus. A similar gap has been observed for underweight children. Muslims are closer to the states averages and fare better than the all India average for Muslims for all health indicators, while Hindus are below the state averages. However, Muslims lag behind both the state and Hindus on average for education indicators, that is, the literacy rate. Compared to a literacy rate of 78 per cent for Hindus and the states overall literacy rate of 68 per cent, only 60 per cent of Muslims are literate, which is lower than the all India literacy rate (68 per cent) for Muslims (20078). For basic amenities like access to safe water and toilet facilities, Muslims are close to the state and national average, but slightly lower than the all India average for Muslims accessing improved sources of drinking water. In the case of toilet/sanitation facilities, Muslims are far better than the states average and also their respective national averages. Overall, Muslims have better health and access to sanitation facilities, but lag behind in education and access to improved sources of drinking water.
JHARKHAND

Percentage

All

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Jammu & Kashmir

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Jammu & Kashmir and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Jharkhand, which came into existence in the year 2000, was earlier a part of Bihar. Jharkhand is known for its vast reserves of natural resources in terms of forests as

STATE PROFILES

59

well as minerals and it accounted for more than 70 per cent of Bihars domestic product before the state was bifurcated. However, it has not been able to capitalize on this immense potential and is still one of the most backward states in India, a status which it has inherited from Bihar. Its per capita NSDP is well below the national per capita income, and its comparatively slow growth rate (4.2 per cent) compared to the national per capita income growth rate (5.4 per cent) is further increasing the gap (Table 1). Jharkhands demographic prole shows a large share of ST, SC, and Muslim populations in the state at 21 per cent, 19 per cent, and 11 per cent, respectively. Jharkhand accounts for 10 per cent of STs, 4 per cent of SCs and 3 per cent of the Muslim population in the country (Table 2). Three-fourths of the states population lives in rural areas, including 95 per cent of STs and 91 per cent of SCs. Since these three social/religious groups are economically disadvantaged, it is evident that this disadvantage shows up in all aggregate development indicators. Jharkhand accounts for close to 4 per cent of the total population of India, but it has not contributed even 2 per cent of the countrys GDP in the last ve years. In terms of sex-ratio, Jharkhand with the ratio of 947 females per 1,000 males is slightly better than the all India ratio of 940 females per 1,000 males in 2011. With regard to child sex-ratio, Jharkhand (943) is again better than all India average (914), but still marginally lower than overall sex-ratio of the state (Census 2011). The state has one of the highest TFRs in India (at 3.2). The TFR is even higher in the rural areas, where its value was 3.5 in 2008. With a slower growth rate of NSDP per capita and a very high TFR, the economic gap between the state and the nation is going to widen further. It may also intensify the existing Naxalite problem in the state.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 5.9 4.2 All India 7.1 5.4

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 9.6 SC 3.8 Muslim 3.4 ST 20.8 Within the State SC 19.1 Muslim 11.1

Source: NSS 64th Round. Central Statistical Organization as on 12.04.2010.

and STs, with more than half of the ST and SC households living in rural areas (Figure 2). The incidence of poverty for SCs and STs in the state is higher than the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs at the all India level. It is interesting to note that the incidence of poverty among urban SCs and STs is more than double the total urban incidence of poverty in the state (Figures 1 and 2).
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 46.3 40.3 28.3 20.2

Percentage

25.7

27.5

Rural Jharkhand

Urban All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Jharkhand and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 57.9 54.2 47.3 36.8 47.2 39.9 45.1 33.3 50 40 30 20 10 0 SC Rural Jharkhand ST SC Urban All India ST

Human Development and Social Groups More than 40 per cent of Jharkhands population lives below the poverty line (Figure 1). The concentration of poor households is more in rural areas particularly for SCs

Percentage

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Jharkhand and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

60 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Three health indicators, that is, BMI of women <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5), with higher values for Jharkhand indicate the need for strengthening the public health system in the state, particularly for the SCs and STs. A higher percentage of rural children from SC and ST communities suered from malnutrition. Education is one of the fundamental requirements for better human development, and Jharkhand is lagging behind in this aspect. In 20078, its literacy rate (65 per cent) was lower than the national literacy rate (72 per cent). Moreover, SCs and STs have literacy rates even lower than the state average and also lower than the all India literacy rates for their respective communities (Figure 6). The SC and ST communities who together account for about 40 per cent of the states population need more focused attention with respect to healthcare facilities. According to Census (2011), Jharkhand has 67.6 per cent literacy rate as compared to 74 per cent literacy rate for the country in 2011. The basic amenities required for life are safe drinking water (Figure 7) and access to toilet/sanitation facilities (Figure 8), and again, Jharkhand is one of the worst performers in these. Only two-thirds of the population has access to improved sources of drinking water. While SCs and STs in the state fare better than the state average, they are worse o than the SCs and STs at the national level. In terms of access to toilet facilities, only one out of four households in the state has access, and this ratio is even lower for ST households, which is half of the all India average for STs. Scheduled castes are slightly better o than the other communities in the state, but worse o
50 40 47 46.6 41.2 39.4 35.6 35.2 47

160 140 121.3 93 74.3 88.1 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 All SCs Jharkhand

138.5

Per thousand

95.7

91.4 70

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Jharkhand and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
70 60 56.5 42.5 56 47.9 41.8 64.3 54.5 51.4

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Jharkhand

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Jharkhand and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

43

80 70 60 64.6

72.0 63.5 57.0 56.2 60.5

67.6 67.6

Percentage

Percentage
All SCs Jharkhand STs All India Muslims

30 20 10 0

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Jharkhand STs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Jharkhand and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Jharkhand and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

STATE PROFILES

61

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

91.2 84 67.4

92.9 83.2 68

92.8 76.2

All

SCs Jharkhand

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 7 Proportion of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Jharkhand and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
90 80 74.7 71.5 65 49.2 35.8 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Jharkhand STs All India Muslims 84.1 69.1 63.9

The poor performance of the state on various human development outcomes (like high proportion of poverty, slow economic growth, high TFR, and low health and education indicators) further reinforces the deprivation in the state, which puts the state in a vicious circle. To get into the virtuous circle of development (which will work through feedback loops), more welfare schemes which will cover basic needs (like health, education, and employment), are required in the state. Rural areas and disadvantaged groups need special attention in this regard. Looking at the overall picture, Jharkhand really needs to go a long way to reach even the average all India levels in terms of human development.
KARNATAKA

Percentage

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Jharkhand and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

than SCs at the national level. As described in the conceptual framework, the lack of basic amenities has an adverse impact on health outcomes, which is very evident from the poor health indicators of the state, particularly for SCs and STs.

Human Development and Religious Communities In terms of health indicators, Muslims are better o than Hindus except for women with BMI<18.5. For basic amenities like access to improved sources of drinking water and toilet facilities, Muslims are better within the state, but lag in comparison to the national average for Muslims as only 36 per cent of Muslims in the state have toilet facilities.

Economy and Demography Karnataka is doing well when compared to the all India average in terms of NSDP per capita. However, the growth rates of NSDP and NSDP per capita in this millennium are slightly lower than the corresponding national growth rates (Table 1). The increase in the share of tertiary sector during the previous decades was spectacular (34 per cent in 1981 to 48 per cent in 20012) (Karnataka Human Development Report 2005). The share of services has gone up to 54 per cent of the total SDP in 20089, which is driven partly by the Bangalore based Information Technology (IT) services. The booming IT, electronics, and biotechnology sectors account for more than 50 per cent of the states total export (Karnataka Economic Survey 2010). Information technology is one of the biggest economic success stories of the state. Karnatakas SDP contributed almost 5.5 per cent to the nations total GDP in the last ve years, while its population share is a little higher than 5 per cent. Also, Karnataka accounts for 8 per cent of all Indian enterprises, and provides employment to more than 8 per cent of Indias workforce (Karnataka Human Development Report 2005). However, dierences in economic development across districts of the state are evident. Coastal and malnad districts are front-runners, whereas the northern districts, which share borders with Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra (for example, Bidir, Bijapur, Gulbarga, Raichur) are below the state average. The demographic prole of the state shows that the share of SCs, STs, and Muslims in the population is 18 per cent, 7 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively (Table 2). Three-fourths of the states population lives in rural

Percentage

62 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

areas (20078). The population growth in Karnataka is considerably below the national population growth rate, driven by the signicant decline in the TFR from 3.1 in 19902 to 2.0 in 2008. According to Census (2011), Karnataka has one of the best sex-ratio (968 females per 1,000 males) and child sex-ratio (943 females per 1,000 males) in India.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) State 6.5 5.2 All India 7.1 5.4

35 30 28.3

32.6 25.7 20.8 25.0 27.5

Percentage

25 20 15 10 5 0

Rural Karnataka

Urban All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Karnataka and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SC ST Rural Karnataka SC Urban All India ST

Source: Central Statiscal Organisation, as on 12.04.2010.

50.6 39.9 23.5 58.3

Percentage

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 3.9 SC 4.6 Muslim 4.5 ST 6.8 Within State SC 18.4 Muslim 11.6

47.3 36.8 31.8

33.3

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups A quarter of the population still lives below the poverty line (Figure 1). Contrary to the national trend, the proportion of poor is higher in urban areas than in the rural areas. At the same time, more than half of the population belonging to SCs and STs is living below the poverty line, which is signicantly higher than the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs in the country as a whole. It is important to note that the incidence of poverty is high in urban areas, whereas socially marginalized groups are poorer in rural areas, which shows that these groups are being excluded from the development process. SCs and STs are doing much better on some health indicators than SCs and STs in India as a wholefor instance U5MR and underweight children. A similar situation can be seen for indicators such as the literacy rate. As per the latest estimates from Census (2011), Karnataka has marginally higher literacy rate (75.6 per cent) than the national literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011. According to NSS (20078), both SCs and STs in Karnataka are doing worse than SCs and STs in the country as a wholeand their literacy rates are well below the national average (Figure 6).

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Karnataka and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
60 48.6 50 41.2 35.6 35.5 26.8 40.4 46.6 35.2

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Karnataka

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Karnataka and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

STATE PROFILES

63

120 100 88.1 74.3 54.7 65.4 95.7 77.9 57.2 70

80 60 40 20 0

All

SCs Karnataka

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under 5 Mortality Rate, Karnataka and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 42.5 37.6 47.9 41.7 54.5

In terms of improved drinking water, Karnataka is doing slightly better than the rest of India (Figure 7), but more importantly, the SC and ST population is doing better than the SCs and STs in the country as a whole, and also better than the overall national average. The improved access to drinking water facilities is the result of the state governments initiatives like, Jal Nirmal Project, and proper utilization of funds under the Swajaldhara scheme provided by the central government. Unfortunately, this is not the case for toilet facilities, where only 30 per cent of the SC and ST households have access to toilet facilities in the state, which is even lower than their respective national averages. The problem of poor access to toilet facilities needs special attention for quick redress, as it has a long-term impact on other health indicators.
120 100 95.7 91.2 96.2 83.2 68 92.8

Per thousand

92.9 84

Percentage

40 30 20

Percentage

41.9

41.8 36.8

80 60 40 20

10 0 0 All SCs Karnataka STs All India Muslims All SCs Karnataka STs All India Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Karnataka and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Sources of Drinking Water, Karnataka and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
80 71.5 65 51.5 49.2 35.8 35.4

70

80 70 60

72.0 71.2

Percentage

63.5 61.1

74.2 60.5 57.4

70 67.6 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All

69.1

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Karnataka STs All India Muslims

SCs Karnataka

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Karnataka and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, 20089 in Karnataka and India
Source: NSS 65th Round.

64 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Human Development and Religious Communities Across religious groups, Muslims account for 12 per cent of the states population. In terms of human development indicators, Muslims perform relatively better than Hindus in Karnataka, as two-thirds of their population is urbanized and is using better services in urban areas. The health indicators are relatively good for Muslims in comparison to the state averages and their communitys corresponding national averages. A similar picture for Muslims has been observed for other development indicators like literacy rate (Figure 6), drinking water facilities (Figure 7), and toilet/sanitation facilities (Figure 8). Muslims are far better o than other communities in the state with respect to access to toilet facilities and also better than their national average. In other words, Karnataka has done well for its Muslim population as their health, nutritional, and educational indicators show relatively good outcomes. All aspects of human development need to be improved over time. In the case of Karnataka, apart from the income component, other components also need to get more attention with better budget allocations. Moreover, human development should be more inclusive, so that the marginalized groups can also enjoy the fruits of development.
KERALA

Economy and Demography Kerala is one of the leading states in India and its achievements in human development are well known. The state has been able to reduce the wide disparities in literacy and enrolment at all levels between the Malabar region of the erstwhile Madras Presidency and the regions covered by the former princely states of Travancore and Cochin. Kerala was also among the top ve major states in terms of NSDP per capita in 20078. The trajectory of its growth has been marked by a phase of stagnation since the early 1970s, and the second one a phase of recovery in the late 1980s, which continued in the 1990s and thereafter, and put the economy on a high growth path. The Land Reforms Act, 1969, which gave ownership rights to cultivating tenants and homestead rights to hutment dwellers, played a vital role in materializing some of Keralas positive development achievements, including higher levels of literacy and lower birth and death rates. As expected, the

largest shares of income and employment were generated in the services sector (Kerala Human Development Report 2005). During the years between 20001 and 20089, due to higher NSDP per capita growth rate (6.9 per cent) than the corresponding national growth rate (5.4 per cent), Kerala achieved higher levels of per capita income than Indias average per capita income (Table 1). Kerala, more than any other state, exemplies the feedback loops that form the conceptual backbone of India Human Development Report 2011 (presented earlier in this chapter), in the sense that even though Kerala had relatively low GSDP growth rates until the early 1990s, its achievements in health and education enabled it to bring down the TFR to replacement rates well before even the other southern states, but it also eventually resulted in GSDP per capita growth rates through the 1990s and 2000s improving faster than those for India. Kerala, which accounted for 3 per cent of the countrys population, could contribute close to 4 per cent to the nations GDP in 20078. According to National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) (20078) data, Christians and Muslims have a greater share in the population of Kerala as compared to their all India share. Across social groups, OBCs have the highest share (62 per cent) in the population of Kerala, while SCs and STs have only 10 per cent and 1 per cent share, respectively (Table 2). In terms of sex-ratio, Kerala is the best state with sex-ratio of more than 1,064 females per 1,000 males in 2011, as compared to 940 females per 1,000 males at all India level in 2011. However, its child sex-ratio (959) is not as impressive as its overall sex-ratio (1,064), but still better than all India level (914) (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20089 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: Central Statistical Organization. State 7.8 6.9 All India 7.1 5.4

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 0.4 SC 1.5 Muslim 5.5 ST 1.1 Within State SC 10.3 Muslim 24.1

Source: NSS 64th Round.

STATE PROFILES

65

Human Development and Social Groups In terms of human development, Kerala is way ahead of the other states in India. Among the major states, Kerala was placed third in the HDI ranking. The striking fact is even with a strong base eect phenomenon, Kerala showed considerable increase in the HDI from 19992000 (Chapter 2). However, contrary to the national trend, Kerala has a high proportion of poor households in urban areas (Figure 1). Inequalities across social groups can still be observed from the high incidence of poverty for rural STs (44 per cent) and SCs (22 per cent), as compared to the state average of 15 per cent (Figure 2). It certainly indicates further room for convergence within social groups. Keralas poverty has declined to one of the lowest levels in India (Figure 1). In fact, its achievements in key indicators of social development, such as literacy, infant mortality, and life expectancy compare favourably with those of several developed countries. The most important reason for this accomplishment was the social changes triggered by land reform, Gulf migration, and democratization of education, and health in the state. Also, since the health and education indicators were particularly high, Kerala is an excellent example of the feedback loops between growth, poverty reduction and human capital formation. In terms of health services, the performance of Kerala is the best in India. All the three health indicators such as BMI of women <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5) are comparatively better in Kerala than the all India averages. However, the performance of SC and ST groups is slightly lower than
30 25 20.2 28.3 27.5

50 40 36.8 21.6

47.3 44.3 39.9 32.5 33.3 19.2

Percentage

30 20 10 0

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

Kerala

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Kerala and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 46.6 41.2 35.6 41.7 35.2

Percentage

22.6 18 15.7

All

SCs Kerala

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Kerala and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
80 70 74.3

25.7

70

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Kerala Urban All India Combined 13.2 15.0

Per thousand

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All Kerala All India Muslims 16.3 18.6

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Kerala and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Kerala and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

66 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the state averages, but better than the respective national averages of their groups. Kerala has recorded the lowest incidence of anaemia in India (Chapter 4).The case of Kerala reiterates the role of state intervention in ensuring equity in various human development indicators. A striking feature in Keralas development experience is the role of education. Kerala is way ahead in achieving the goal of universalizing elementary education (Kerala Human Development Report 2005). According to Census (2011), Kerala has the highest literacy rate (93.9 per cent) in India, against the national literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011. In addition, the widespread availability of public transport and the highly subsidized transport fares have facilitated easy access for rural students. As per NSS (20078), all the social groups including SCs, STs, and
60 50 42.5 32.6 22.9 22.6 41.8

OBCs are well above the national literacy rate of their respective groups (Figure 6). A similar distribution pattern for toilet/sanitation facilities (Figure 8) has been observed in Kerala. However, the state surprisingly lags behind in providing drinking water facilities (Figure 7) to its population, which is again fairly distributed across social groups. In terms of access to improved sources of drinking water, all the social groups including SCs and STs are below the respective national averages for their communities. Even though the region has generally been regarded as having a water surplus owing to the high precipitation rate, the trends show the inability to put it to better use.
100 80 73.1 91.2 67.9 92.9 83.2 72.5 92.8

Percentage

47.9

66.6

60 40 20 0 All SCs Kerala STs All India Muslims

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All Kerala

SCs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Kerala and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Kerala and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
80

100 80

93.9 87.0 78.1 63.5 72.0 60.5

94.1

70 60 67.6

65 49.2

69.1

Percentage

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Kerala STs All India Muslims 4.3 15.5 1.4 35.8 27.9

60 40 20 0 All SCs Kerala STs All India Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Kerala and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facilities, Kerala and India, 20078
Source: NSS 65th Round.

STATE PROFILES

67

Human Development and Religious Communities As described above, development has beneted all the communities equally. However, among the three major religious groups, namely, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, the last has performed relatively better for all the health indicators. Similarly, equality in education is clearly visible as all the communities are close to the states average literacy rate. Kerala Human Development Report 2005 notes that the crucial constraints for Keralas further development are the lack of sucient economic infrastructure, problems of educated unemployment and growing gender unfreedom, which have been, and could continue to be, an impediment to the growth prospects of the states economy. According to Kerala Human Development Report 2005, the state now needs to deal with the second generation problems of human development, such as quality issues.
MADHYA PRADESH

males), whereas its child sex-ratio (913) is quite close to the national average (914).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: Central Statistical Organisation. State 3.0 1.1 All India 7.1 5.5

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 11.1 SC 3.9 Muslim 2.4 ST 22.0 Within a State SC 17.6 Muslim 7.2

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Economy and Demography Madhya Pradesh is economically one of the backward states and is lagging behind the national average growth rate (5.5 per cent) of per capita domestic product (NSDP) with 1.1 percent growth rate (Table 1). In 19992000, NSDP per capita of Madhya Pradesh was around 78 per cent of the countrys per capita income, but in 20078, it had come down to 55 per cent only, clearly showing its downtrend. Similarly, its NSDP growth rate (3 per cent) for the last eight years is also very low as compared to Indias NSDP growth rate (7.1 per cent) (Table 1) Madhya Pradesh is one of the major tribal states and its ST population constitutes more than one-fth of the total population. The demographic pattern of Madhya Pradesh shows that close to 40 per cent of the population are SCs (18 per cent) and STs (22 per cent), which is equal to 4 per cent and 11 per cent of the total SC and ST population of the country. The share of the Muslim population in the state is around 7 per cent, which accounts for 2.4 per cent of Indias total Muslim population. More than three-fourths of the population of the state lives in rural areas (20078). In 2008, Madhya Pradesh had the third highest TFR in India with a value of 3.3 as compared to the national TFR of 2. According to Census (2011), sexratio of Madhya Pradesh (930 females per 1,000 males) is lower than the national sex-ratio (940 females per 1,000

Human Development and Social Groups Thirty eight per cent of Madhya Pradeshs population is still living below the poverty line compared to the all India head-count ratio of poverty of 27 per cent (Figure 1). Close to half of the ST (57 per cent) and SC (48 per cent) population of the state are poor. Poverty is relatively high in the urban areas. In urban Madhya Pradesh, more than two-thirds of the SCs are poor (Figure 2). The proportions of poor SC and ST households in the state are quite high, vis--vis poor SC and ST households of the rest of India.
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rural Urban Combined All India Madhya Pradesh 42.1 36.9 28.3 38.3 27.5

Percentage

25.7

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

68 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SC Rural Madhya Pradesh ST 42.8 36.8 58.6

67.3 47.3 39.9 33.3 44.7

160 140 120 110.1 94.2 74.3 88.1

140.7

Percentage

Per thousand

100 80 60 40

95.7

89.3 70

SC Urban All India

ST

20 0 All SCs STs All India Muslims

Madhya Pradesh

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
80 70 60 60 42.5 62.6 54.8 47.9 41.8 71.4 59.8

The performance of health indicators in Madhya Pradesh is really poor in comparison to the all India average. The situation is worse for SCs and STs. For instance, of U5MR for STs and SCs are 141 and 110 per 1,000, respectively, while the national average is 96 and 88 for their respective communities (Figure 4). Similarly, the women with BMI<18.5 (Figure 3) and underweight children (Figure 5) indicates the poor state of health services in Madhya Pradesh. The progress in the health indicators is relatively slow, and it is even slower in the case of SCs and STs. However, the state government has taken an initiative to strengthen the public health system by decentralizing it through the Mission for Community Health and by managing hospitals through, Rogi
60 50 46.9 41.7 35.6 41.2 49 46.6 37.2 35.2

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Madhya Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Madhya Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
90 80 70 70.4 60.6 77.3 63.5 60.5 58.9 67.6

72.0

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All

Percentage
SCs Madhya Pradesh STs All India Muslims

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Madhya Pradesh STs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

STATE PROFILES

69

Kalyan Samities, (Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). The state has achieved a higher growth rate for literacy than the all India rate. One version was the two major schemes run by the state, that is, Education Guarantee Scheme (EGS) (1997) and a similar model for adult literacy (2000). According to NSS (20078), the literacy rate for SCs and STs is lower than the state average and also lower than their communitys national literacy rate (Figure 6). Compared to the other backward states of India, Madhya Pradesh is well ahead in the education sector with almost universal access to elementary education (Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report 2002). In 20056, the Net Enrolment Ratio was more than 94 per cent and the Gross Enrolment Ratio was 132 per cent at the primary level. The success of these schemes suggests that armative action is eective even in adverse environments like in Madhya Pradesh. However, the latest estimates from Census (2011) show that Madhya Pradesh has lower literacy rate (70.6 per cent) than the national literacy rate (74 per cent). Poor access to safe drinking water and inadequate sanitation facilities for SCs and STs have resulted in poor performance of health indicators in Madhya Pradesh. It was observed that only one out of the 10 ST households has access to toilet facilities in Madhya Pradesh, and for SCs this ratio is one out of six (Figure 8).

100 80 70.2

84.4 65

90.2 69.1

Percentage

60 40 20 0

49.2

39.3

35.8

All

SCs Madhya Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facilities, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20078
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Human Development and Religious Communities Madhya Pradesh is a Hindu majority state (Hindus account for 92 per cent of the population and Muslims
96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 94.4 91.2 91.1 87.3 92.9 92.8 87.6 83.2

account for only 7 per cent). Across the human development indicators, Muslims are better o than Hindus. The progress in the health indicators is relatively slow in Madhya Pradesh, though in the case of Muslims, it is slightly better. Muslims also have a better literacy rate than other communities in the state (Figure 6) and it is also well above their national literacy rate. In the case of basic amenities, Muslims are comparatively better endowed than other communities in terms of improved sources of drinking water facilities (Figure 7) and access to toilet facilities (Figure 8), and are better o than the Muslims in India as a whole. Overall, Muslims in Madhya Pradesh are worse o for health related indicators, whereas they are better for other development indicators.
MAHARASHTRA

All

SCs

STs All India

Muslims

Madhya Pradesh

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Madhya Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Maharashtra is among the more industrialized states in India. Its NSDP per capita was third among the major states in 20078, despite the fact that it grew at a pace somewhat slower than the national average during the period 19992000 to 20078 (Table 1). The state has huge contrasts, however. A thin geographic stretch in the west extending towards the south (Konkan/south Maharashtra) is highly industrialized and commercialized, and receives a large number of migrants and capital from all around the country. It is mainly due to this region that the state contributes about 13 per cent to the countrys GDP despite having just 7 per cent of its population. The centre (Marathwara) and north (Khandesh) are semi-arid,

Percentage

70 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

and the economy therein largely depends on subsistence agriculture, seasonal out-migration, and state sponsored employment programmes (the EGS). Finally, the east (Vidharba, also known as the cotton belt) is an assured irrigation zone, and also has signicant forest cover in addition to mineral deposits. The Bhil tribal community inhabits three to ve districts in this zone, though the Bhil tribes also dwell in Khandesh. These STs are among the more deprived population in the state; their lands have been encroached upon for timber and minerals for a long time, and they have stayed largely excluded from the mainstream. Maharashtra is the only state which has established statutory Regional Boards to bridge regional gaps in development. More recently, the state constituted The Maharashtra Human Development Mission in 2006 for improving human development in the states 12 most backward districts (Maharashtra Economic Survey 2010). The population composition: The share of SC, ST, and Muslim population in the state is around 13 per cent, 8.4 per cent, and 11 per cent, respectively (Table 2). Twothirds of the states population lives in rural areas. Almost 70 per cent of the Muslims, however, live in urban areas. In spite of the large regional variation, the state has done well in controlling its population. The TFR was 2 in 20078, which is close to the optimal replacement rate of 2.1. This is a healthy sign. In terms of sex-ratio, Maharashtra has 925 females per 1,000 males on an average, which is lower than the national average of 940 females of 1,000 males in 2011, whereas child sex-ratio is worse with only 883 females per 1,000 males, which is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention (Census 2011). In having a worse than average sex-ratio, Maharashtra is like other states of India with high per capita income (Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, and Gujarat).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)
(at 19992000 constant prices) NSDP Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: Central Statistical Organization. State 6.5 4.8 All India 7.1 5.5

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across States ST 7.0 SC 4.8 Muslim 6.3 ST 8.4 Within a State SC 13.1 Muslim 11.2

Source: NSS 64th Round.

However, the Index has to be interpreted with caution in view of the extant regional disparities mentioned earlier. Maharashtra is home to 32 million poor people (that is, 30 per cent of the states total population20045 data), which is close to 10 per cent of the total poor in India (Planning Commission 2008). Of greater concern is that the number of poor increased between 19934 and 20045, and it is only one of the four areas in the country where this happened. Is this a reection of increasing (intra) regional disparity, rising in-migration of the poor, the composition of growth, or a combination of these? This question requires serious examination. It especially requires examination because Maharashtra has one of the highest levels of per capita income among the states of India. Next, contrary to the general pattern in India, in Maharashtra, the proportion of the population below the poverty line is higher in urban areas than in rural areas (Figure 1). This again suggests that the poor from all over are migrating to urban areas in search of livelihoods. The proportion of poor SC and ST households is higher in rural areas, which is the same for other places.
35 29.6 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rural Maharashtra Urban All India Combined 28.3 25.7 32.2

30.7 27.5

Human Development and Social Groups On the HDI scale, Maharashtra is a relatively advanced state, ranking 5th out of 29 for HDI in 20078. This is also an improvement over its 2001 ranking.

Percentage

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Maharashtra and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

STATE PROFILES

71

More than half the rural ST households live below the poverty line and this proportion is around 10 percentage points higher than the all India gure for STs (Figure 2). The reason, as stated earlier, is closely related to the systematic deprivation of these communities, especially in the east and north. The health related indicators such as BMI of women <18.5 (Figure 3), U5MR (Figure 4), and underweight children (Figure 5), point towards less than functional healthcare services in the state, in spite of the state having the third highest NSDP per capita in the country. In fact, the expenditure on health as a proportion to total government expenditure is less than that in the poorer northern states.
56.6 44.8 36.8 47.3

120 100 88.1 74.3 46.7 50.2 28.6 69.8 95.7 70

Per thousand

80 60 40 20 0

All

SCs Maharashtra

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Maharashtra and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

60 50

60 43.2 39.9 40.4 33.3 50 47.9 42.5 37 41.7

53.2

54.5 41.8 29.1

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

Percentage
SC Rural Maharashtra ST SC Urban All India ST

40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Maharashtra

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Maharashtra and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
60 50 35.6 40.2 41.2

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Maharashtra and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

51.6 46.6 36.2 23.7 35.2

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Maharashtra

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Maharashtra and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

The ST community lags behind in health as well. For instance, one in two ST women has a BMI lower than the universally dened standard of 18.5. A similar picture is observed for this community on other indicators as well. There is a silver lining though; on measures like U5MR and underweight children, both the SCs and STs in Maharashtra have performed better than the SCs and STs at the all India level. Though Maharashtra is nearing universalization in education (85 per cent Net Enrolment Ratio at the primary level in 20078), and has achieved an impressive literacy rate (Figure 6), the ST community is at the level where the all India gure was a decade back. To address this issue, the state government has launched initiatives like the Ahilyabai Holkar Scheme, Attendance Allow-

72 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

80.9 72.0

75.4 63.5 60.5 58.4

80.4 67.6

80 70 60 65 49.2 40.6 36.4

69.1 64.1

Percentage

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10

35.8 18.1

All

SCs Maharashtra

STs All India

Muslims

All

SCs Maharashtra

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Maharashtra and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facilities, Maharashtra and India, 20078
Source: NSS 65th Round.

ance, and Shikshan Shulka Pratipurti Yojana among others, to enhance the enrolment of ST children, particularly of girls (Maharashtra Economic Survey 2010). According to latest estimates from Census (2011), the literacy rate of Maharashtra is 82.9 per cent as compared to national literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011. However, as in the case of health, Maharashtras expenditure on education in proportion to its total expenditure is lower than that in some of the poorer northern states. For potable water SCs have poorer access than their counterparts in India (Figure 7) but for toilets/sanitation (Figure 8), better access. STs have better access to water and sanitation in Maharashtra compared to STs in India.
92.9 91.2 90.3 88.3 86.9 83.2

94 92 90

Human Development and Religious Communities Households and persons belonging to the Muslim community are generally better o compared to other major groups on most indicators save a few. One reason is that up to 70 per cent Muslims live in urban areas where the infrastructure is superior. The key observation here is that location matters. Rural and remote locales are dicult to service, and the easy option is to leave them out. Seen logistically as well, setting up hospitals or schools for small scattered rural communities is arduous if not unfeasible. One possible way out: a progressive development policy (in remote areas) can oer attractive livelihood options for the poor at the block/district headquarters, so that they relocate to these places where they can avail better social services and also join the mainstream. However, service delivery in the rural areas also has to improve.
ORISSA

Percentage

88 86 84 82 80 78 All Maharashtra SCs All India

STs

Figure 7 Proportion of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Maharashtra and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Orissa, also known as Odisha, is one of the economically poorer states in India despite it being coastalcoastal areas otherwise have progressed well. However, Orissas performance during the period 20023 to 20078 has been rather impressive in terms of economic growth, almost two percentage points above the national average (Table 1). This impressive growth performance is mainly driven by the emerging tertiary sector, which is largely conned to a few urban and semi-urban coastal districts. Orissa also happens to be one of the Indian states with

STATE PROFILES

73

abundant natural resourcesa fth of Indias coal, a quarter of its iron ore, a third of its bauxite reserves, and most of the chromite. However, factors like geographical barriers (predominantly mountainous and highland regionsthe Eastern Ghats), poor infrastructure, and indierent economic governance have hindered the tapping of these resources and using them for the prosperity of the state. In spite of such problems, the growth rate of the mining and quarrying sector has been impressive over the last few decades and has played a crucial role in the process of Orissas development and growth (Orissa Human Development Report 2004). The states coastal areas are relatively better o, but the hinterland, which also inhabits vast ST populations in hilly and forest terrain, is quite backward.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 9.7 8.5 All India 7.9 6.4

per 1,000 males in 2011. Looking at the child sex-ratio, Orissa (934) is better than the national average (914) (Census 2011). It is notable that states which have a relatively high proportion of STs in their population tend to have a sex-ratio that is better than the national average.

Orissas demographic prole shows that the state has 3.6 per cent of the countrys population and 4.7 per cent of the total land area. More than 95 per cent of the population of the state is Hindu. Across social groups, the SCs and STs account for more than 40 per cent of the total population of the state, and the ST population of Orissa alone accounts for 10 per cent of the total ST population of the country (Table 2). The majority of the ST population is concentrated in the western districts of Orissa (that is, the hinterland).
Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)
Within a State ST 23.6 SC 18.9 Muslim 2.2 ST 9.7 Across States SC 3.4 Muslim 0.6

Human Development and Social Groups Looking at other development indicators, the incidence of poverty was much higher here than the national average, both in rural and urban areas (Figure 1). The extent of poverty is not evenly distributed in all the regions and among all social groups of Orissa. The incidence of poverty was particularly high among the ST and SC populations in the state. In rural areas, the incidence of poverty among STs was the highest in Orissa, while among SCs it had the fourth highest incidence of poverty after Bihar, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand (20045). In urban areas, the incidence of poverty among SCs was the highest in Orissa, while it was second highest for STs. Overall, the SCs and STs of the state have a very high incidence of poverty as compared to the SCs and STs in the country as a wholewhich partly explains their support for Naxalites (Figure 2). In terms of health indicators, the performance of the state was well below the national average. The proportion of women with BMI<18.5 (Figure. 3) and the incidence of U5MR were higher than the national average (Figure 4). However, the proportion of underweight children was lower than the national average (Figure 5). The health conditions of SCs and STs are worse than that for the other social groups in the state.
50 40 46.8 44.3 46.4

Percentage

30 20 10 0

28.3

25.7

27.5

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Against the national TFR of 2.6, Orissa had a TFR of 2.4 in 2008 against the optimal replacement rate of 2.1. This positive performance is repeated in the sex ratio, Orissa is a good performer with 978 females per 1,000 males as compared to all India 940 females

Rural Orissa

Urban All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Orissa and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

74 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

75.6

72.6 61.8

60 50 42.5 40.7 44.4 47.9

54.5 54.4

Percentage

50.2 36.8

47.3 33.3
Percentage

39.9

40 30 20 10

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST
0 All Orissa SCs All India STs

Orissa

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Orissa and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 51 41.4 35.6 41.2 35.2 51.6 46.6 64.1

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Orissa and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Orissa

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Orissa and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
160 140 120

136.3

100 80 60 40 20 0

90.6 74.3

91.8

88.1

95.7

Total Orissa

SCs All India

STs

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Orissa and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Physical access to healthcare institutions was a major concern in Orissa, with only one medical institution for every 119 sq kilometres of area (Orissa Human Development Report 2004). The report further noted that private expenditure on healthcare was higher in the backward districts and it was proportionately higher for lower income groups. Public expenditure on health as a proportion of GSDP declined, from 1.12 per cent in 19989 to 0.98 per cent in 20045. Primary health services accounted for only around 20 per cent of even this limited budget, implying that primary healthcare and rst referral services were under funded. The performance of the state in terms of literacy was lower than the national average with about 68 per cent of the population being literate. Less than half of the STs in the state were literate (Figure 6). The SCs and STs have a lower literacy rate than the state average and the all India average for SCs and STs. Even though public expenditure on education has been rising in nominal terms, the real increase was very small (Orissa Human Development Report 2004). Further, there were annual uctuations of expenditure on education as a percentage of the SDP. For the year 20078, public expenditure on education was 2.7 per cent of the SDP and the bulk (95 per cent) of this meagre amount was spent on salaries (Orissa Human Development Report 2004). However, the latest estimates from Census (2011) show that Orissa with its literacy rate of 73.5 per cent is approaching close to the national literacy rate (74 per cent). In terms of basic household amenities, the performance of the state was slightly lower than the national average,

Per thousand

STATE PROFILES

75

80 70 60

72.0 68.3 63.5 61.5 47.8 60.5

74.6 67.6

100 78.7 80

87.5

91.9

Percentage

Percentage

65 60 40 20 0 All SCs Orissa STs 49.2

69.1 56 35.8

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Orissa

STs All India

Muslims

Muslims

All India

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Orissa and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facilities, Orissa and India, 20078
Source: NSS 65th Round.

with about 85 per cent of the households having access to improved drinking water facilities. However, close to four-fths of the households do not have access to toilet facilities (Figures 7 and 8). The condition of sanitation among STs and SCs was even worse as compared to the state average and their respective national averages. Only 8 per cent of ST households have access to toilet facilities compared to 31 per cent of ST households at the all India level. There was not much dierence between SCs and STs in terms of accessing improved sources of drinking water. Sanitation and drinking water facilities are important inputs that inuence health outcomes. Among the major causes of childrens deaths, diarrhoea and gastroenteritis accounted for 14 per cent of deaths during 19982000 (Orissa Human Development Report 2004).
120 100 91.2 84.6 85.5 92.9 83.2 77.4 95.5 92.8

Human Development and Religious Communities Orissa is a predominantly Hindu state (Hindus account for more that 95 per cent of the population and Muslims account for only 2 per cent). With regard to human development indicators, Muslims are worse o for health indicators, but better o in the education sector with a literacy rate higher than the state average and also higher than the all India average for Muslims. In terms of basic amenities, Muslims have better access to improved sources of drinking water and toilet facilities than other groups in the state. In terms of accessing improved sources of drinking water, Muslims are even better o than Muslims for India as a whole, but this is not so when it comes to access to toilet facilities. Overall, the status of Muslims is no better or worse compared to Hindus, and their status of development is a reection of the general underdevelopment in the state.
PUNJAB

Percentage

80 60 40 20 0 All SCs Orissa STs All India Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Orissa and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography The state of Punjab occupies an important position in ensuring food security for the country, and Punjab was among the special focus states for the Green Revolution launched during the mid 1960s. The consolidation of landholdings and predominance of owner farmers provided the initial prerequisites for the Green Revolution. Additionally, irrigation facilities, which have historically been well developed in the state right from the colonial period (when investments were targeted towards construction of canals), provided the necessary infrastructure

76 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

for the Green Revolution. Post-Independence, public investment in irrigation continued, and by the year 19601 the net irrigated area in Punjab was already 54 per cent (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). Agriculture occupies an important position in Punjabs economy, and more than three-fourths of the states geographical area is under cultivation. Wheat is the principal crop, made possible by the availability of extensive irrigation facilities. An important feature of Punjabs economy is the high in-migration of labourers (both annual and seasonal) from the north-western states as well as from the states of central and eastern India. During the late 1990s, there were nearly 2.2 million migrant labourers in Punjab, who worked both in the agricultural and industrial sectors. By the late 1990s, the migrant labourers constituted 11 per cent of all agricultural labourers in the state (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). Punjab experienced a very high growth of NSDP till the early 1990s, after which it started declining. Inadequate investment and a sharp decline in growth of the primary sector were among the reasons for this slowdown (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). In recent years, the growth of the NSDP has been below the national average. During the period 20023 to 20078 the average annual growth rate of NSDP was 5.3 per cent, which was below the national average of 7.9 per cent. Similarly, during this period, the growth rate of per capita SDP was below the national average (Table 1).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 5.3 3.4 All India 7.9 6.4

According to Census (2011), Punjab is one of the states which has the worst sex-ratio in the country with only 893 females per 1,000 males, and even worse child sexratio of 845 females per 1,000 males, against 940 national sex-ratio and 914 national child sex-ratio in 2011. In this regard, we have seen that states of India with a relatively higher per capita income are also the states with worse than average sex-ratio.
Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)
Share of State ST 0.0 SC 4.5 Muslim 0.2 Distribution within States ST 0.1 SC 36.7 Muslim 1.2

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups In terms of human development, the relative ranking of the state as per HDI has remained unchanged at the fth position between 19992000 and 20078. Punjab has the third lowest incidence of poverty in the country, with only 8.4 per cent of its population living below the poverty line (Figure 1). The low incidence of poverty can be observed in the case of both SCs and STs as well, and is lower than the national average for SCs and STs respectively (Figure 2). The low incidence of poverty has been a long standing feature of the economy of Punjab. A long period of economic prosperity was one of the principal reasons for this (Punjab Human Development Report 2004).

30 25

28.3 25.7

27.5

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Punjab Urban All India Combined 9.2 7.1 8.4

As per Punjabs demographic prole, the state accounted for 2.4 per cent of the countrys population. Among social groups, SCs constitute 37 per cent of the population of the state, the majority of them (almost 60 per cent) being agricultural labourers. Among the cultivators, SCs accounted for only 4.3 per cent of the total (Punjab Human Development Report, 2004). Punjab has a very low TFR close to 1.9 in 2008 well below the replacement rate and well below the national TFR of 2.6.

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Punjab and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

STATE PROFILES

77

50 40 36.8 30.7

47.3 39.9 33.3

30 20 10 0 SC Rural Punjab All India ST SC Urban ST 14.6 16.1 2.1

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Punjab and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

the State Human Development Report noted that not only were the targets for government immunization programmes met, but for several years, immunization exceeded the targets. There is an increasing trend towards privatization of the healthcare system in Punjab and there is a declining trend of ailments being treated in government facilities in both rural and urban areas (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). Even though there is an elaborate system of government healthcare facilities, the fact that it caters to only one out of every twenty patients that seek nonhospitalised care in Punjab calls for a review of the system (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). Ineective monitoring of PHCs leading to their under-utilization, and the absence of a good referral system were cited as
100 88.1 74.3 61.5 60 40 20 0 All Punjab All India SCs 52

As regards health indicators, the states performance was much better than the national average. The proportion of women with BMI<18.5, U5MR and malnourishment of children are all lower than the national average (Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). Even though the SCs are worse o than the rest of the population in the state, the health indicators for SCs in Punjab was better than the national average for SCs. Sanitation and drinking water facilities are important inputs that inuence health outcomes. Better sanitation and drinking water facilities (as compared to the national average, and as depicted in Figure 7 and Figure 8) were responsible for the above average health outcomes. Based on the data published by the state government (Department of Health and Family Welfare),
45 40 35 35.6 26.7 22.1 18.9 41.2 35.2

Percentage

80

Per thousand

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Punjab and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 47.9 42.5 33.9 24.9 27 41.8

Percentage

Percentage

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40 30 20 10

All Punjab

SCs All India

Muslims

0 All Punjab SCs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Punjab and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Punjab and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

78 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

signicant drawbacks in the healthcare system in Punjab. Although there has been an increased allocation for health-care over the years (13 per cent of the state budget was allocated during the Ninth Plan period of the state), allocation for primary and secondary healthcare services is still inadequate, and hence there is a need for a sensitive health investment planning which is biased towards greater distribution of resources to underprivileged areas, places and groups (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). The states performance in terms of literacy is better than the national average. According to Census (2011), the literacy rate of Punjab is 76.7 per cent as compared to 74 per cent national literacy rate in 2011. As per NSS (20078), SCs also fare better than the national average for SCs (Figure 6). The Government of Punjab identied certain backward pockets in the state, primarily inhabited by SCs, where incentives in the form of stipends, nonformal education, and free residential schools for day scholars are provided (Punjab Human Development Report 2004). In order to monitor the implementation of SSA, the Jan Sampark Abhiyan was started, which also tried to ensure genuine community participation. The Punjab Human Development Report 2004 observed that one of the major achievements had been the provision of one primary school in every village, which increased the access to schools. However, school infrastructure and teaching quality were important areas of concern, as noted in the report. With close to 99 per cent of households having access to improved drinking water facilities, and three-fourths of households having toilet facilities, the performance of
120 100.0 100 76.1

the state in terms of basic household amenities is better than the national average (Figures 7 and 8). In terms of these two indicators the performance of STs and SCs in the state is also better than the national average for their respective groups.

Human Development and Religious Communities Sikhs are the dominant religious community in the state, constituting 60 per cent of its population (NSS 64th Round) whereas Muslims account for only 1 per cent. Across religions, Muslims are marginally better o in terms of basic amenities and health indicators as compared to the Muslims in the country as a whole. However, the literacy rate for Muslims in the state is lower than both the state average and the national average for Muslims.
120 99 100 91.2 80 60 40 20 0 All SCs Punjab STs All India Muslims 98.3 100.0 92.9 83.2 98.5 92.8

Figure 7 Proportion of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Punjab and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
80 70 60 65 49.2 39.5 31.3 24 35.8 62.6 69.1

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

80 60 40 20 0

72.0

65.8 63.5

67.6 60.5 59.0

50 40 30 20 10 0 All

SCs Punjab

STs All India

Muslims

All

SCs Punjab

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Punjab and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Punjab and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

STATE PROFILES

79

RAJASTHAN

Economy and Demography Rajasthan is among the more backward states of India. Though the NSDP growth rate in the recent years (2002 8) has been at par with the average national growth rate, the NSDP per capita growth has been slower owing to the rapid population growth in the state (Table 1). Rajasthan being a desert state (60 per cent area is desert, the rest is semi-arid) has historically been sparsely populated. However, in recent decades its TFR has been among the highest in the country3.3 in 20078. This is worrisome since both eco-sustainability and peoples well-being are at stake. Recently, many areas, particularly the prefecture of larger cities, have been declared grey zones meaning water levels have touched the danger zone. The state government is now trying to get river water from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat to meet the states requirements. The state presents a paradox: most social indicators show better values in the north, which is arid and has a harsh climate. The reason is that historically, most of northern Rajasthan has witnessed out-migration of the Marwaris, who owing to their thrift and skills have become an important business community in the country and abroad. They have regularly invested back in the state in education, health, water supply, and irrigation and this has shown results. In these areas, the TFR is also low. In the southern regions, however, where the rainfall is higher and the soil is better, have among the worst social and economic indicators in the state and country. Dungarpur (deep south) is perhaps the most underdeveloped district in India. These (southern) districts in general are forested and inhabited by people belonging to the ST (Bhil) community. The STs as a proportion of the population are among the highest in Rajasthan (13 per cent of the states population, which accounts for 8.7 per cent of the total population of STs in India). A feudal/princely ruling class earlier and a not too sensitive administration in the post-Independence period has resulted in the ST population here facing the same fate as elsewhere. Since 84 per cent of the population resides in rural areas (NSS 20078), this becomes a reason for extension services not reaching far-ung areas eectively. In terms of sexratio, Rajasthan has only 926 females per 1,000 males on an average, whereas its child sex-ratio is very low with only 883 females per 1,000 males, which is a matter of concern and requires urgent attention of policymakers (Census 2011).

Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)

(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) State 7.9 5.9 All India 7.9 6.4

Source: Central Statistical Organization, as on 12.04.2010.

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 8.7 SC 5.6 Muslim 3.5 Distribution within States ST 13.0 SC 19.2 Muslim 7.9

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups Rajasthan lags behind much of India on human developmentit ranks 20th out of 29 states. The incidence of poverty in the state is lower than the national average, because rural poverty is much lower here than in India as a whole. This is because the population density is still low and there is extensive out-migration of the poor, who appear to belong mainly to the SC groups (see Figures 1 and 2). Consequently, urban poverty is high. As V.M. Dandekar famously stated, Urban poverty is a spill over of rural poverty. The problem is compounded by the in-migration of poor workers from the eastern parts of the country who are now quite visible in the large urban centres, and a stagnant manufacturing sector. Thus, there is an abundance of urban slums. The Government of
32.9 28.3 25.7 22.1 18.7 27.5

35 30

Percentage

25 20 15 10 5 0 Rural Rajasthan Urban All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Rajasthan and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

80 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

60 50 47.3 36.8 28.7 32.6

52.1 39.9 24.1

60 50.9 50 33.3 36.7 40.7 41.2 35.6 46.6 36.1 35.2

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

Percentage

40 30 20 10

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST 0 All SCs Rajasthan STs All India Muslims

Rajasthan

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Rajasthan and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Rajasthan and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
140 120 123.1

Rajasthan is taking initiatives to address urban poverty through some recent policies like Kacchi Basti Regularization Policy (2005), and Aordable Housing Policy (2009). On health indicators, the states performance is mixed. The proportion of women with BMI<18.5 and the U5MR are higher than the national average whereas the proportion of underweight children is slightly lower (Figures 3, 4, and 5). The healthcare system favours allopathic medicines over traditional medicines. Yet, the new system has failed to reach the weaker sections for want of funds and personnel, and a dicult terrain. Therefore, the states SCs and STs exhibiting health indicators below the state average, and also below the national average for SC/STs require no explanation. The government has attempted to improve health services, but with the focus mainly on achieving greater coverage. During the mid-1990s there was a shortfall of 20 per cent of doctors in the rural areas, a situation which is unlikely to have improved. The State Human Development Report further points out that more than half the curative health needs are met by the private sector, which is mainly urban based and expensive. The states literacy rate is lower than the national average. The literacy rate of Rajasthan is 67.1 per cent, which is lower than the national literacy rate of 74 per cent (Census 2011). More than half the STs in Rajasthan are illiterate (NSS 20078). The gap between the states literacy rate and the national average for the ST population is 13 percentage points. The state government has implemented several programmes to improve the formal

113.8 88.1 95.7 77.5 70

Per thousand

100 80 60 40 20 0

85.4 74.3

All

SCs Rajasthan

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Rajasthan and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 47.9 50 39.9 42.5 44.5 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Rajasthan STs All India Muslims 46.8 41.5 54.8 41.8

Source: NFHS 3.

Percentage

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Rajasthan and India, 20056

STATE PROFILES

81

Percentage

education system. The Shiksha Karmi Projectwhich addresses the issue of teacher absenteeismis among the more successful programmes. As a result of this programme, the retention rate increased from an average of about 19 per cent in the earlier years to 65 per cent by the turn of the century (Rajasthan Human Development Report 2002). However, the set targets remain unfullled. The proportion of households with improved drinking water facilities in the state is below the national average (Figure 7). Across the social groups, the SCs are below both the state average and national average for SCs, though the same is not true for STs. Over time, Rajasthan has improved its services to supply potable drinking water. The improved water services can be attributed to

the Water Policy of Rajasthan which was introduced in 1999 and has been recommended for amendments. Access to sanitation/toilet facilities, however, remains a huge challenge: only a third of the households had toilet facilities in 20089, with the STs and SCs scoring even lower, below the all India average for SC and ST households.

100 80 63.6 60 40 20 0 All SCs Rajasthan 49.2 75.3 65

92.6 69.1 45.7 35.8

80 70 60 61.7

72.0 63.5 55.3 47.6 60.5 57.9

67.6

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Rajasthan

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Rajasthan and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
STs All India Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Rajasthan and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

94 92 90 91.2

92.9

92.8

Percentage

88.0 84 84.9 83.4 83.2

88 86 84 82 80 78 All SCs Rajasthan STs All India Muslims

Human Development and Religious Communities The health indicators for the Muslims, who account for 8 per cent of the states population, are quite close to the state averages, but are slightly lower than the averages for Muslims at the all India level. In education, the Muslims of Rajasthan lag behind the state literacy rate, and also below the literacy rate for Muslims at the all India level. Among the reasons for this is their occupation. Being a rigid caste-based society, there is little occupational mobility for most Muslims, who are stuck in their traditional jobs. Rajasthan needs to take urgent steps to reduce its TFR and other population issues, manage its water resources, and also address the issue of ST neglect.
TAMIL NADU

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Rajasthan and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Tamil Nadu is one of the better-o states of India. In terms of economic growth, the states performance was at par with the national average during the period 20023 to

82 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

20078. The average annual growth rate of NSDP during this period was 7.8 per cent, while the growth rate of per capita state domestic product (SDP) (7.0 per cent) was above the national average (Table 1). Tamil Nadu is one of the industrially more advanced states with automobile, cotton, textiles, rubber, food products, machinery, and transport equipment as the major industries (Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003). Madras Presidency was relatively more developed in the colonial times as well: post-independence, successive state administrations have built upon this advantage. Policies such as the rollback of power tari increase, free power for agriculture, a sustained positive discrimination policy, and a targeted Public Distribution System (PDS) initiated the growth process in the state. The demographic prole of Tamil Nadu indicates that the state has 6 per cent of the countrys population and 4 per cent of the total land area. Hindus constitute 90 per cent of the population of the state, whereas Muslims account for only 5 per cent (Table 2). Among the social groups, Tamil Nadu had a very high proportion of OBC population accounting for one-tenth of the OBCs in the country. In terms of fertility rate, Tamil Nadu has the lowest TFR in India with a value of 1.7, compared to the countrys TFR of 2.6, which is also signicantly lower than the optimal replacement rate and sums up the social progress the state has made. In terms of sex-ratio also, Tamil Nadu is performing very well with 995 females per 1,000 males as compared to 940 females per 1,000 males at the national levelbut only by Indias rather poor national standards. By all normal standards, there should be more women than men in the population, since biologically women live longer. Tamil Nadus child sex-ratio (945) is not as impressive as its overall sex-ratio within the state, but still better than national child sexratio (Census 2011).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 7.8 7.0 All India 7.9 6.4

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across State ST 0.5 SC 7.1 Muslim 2.4 ST 0.8 Within the States SC 22.8 Muslim 5.0

Source: NSS 64th Round.

the incidence of poverty in Tamil Nadu was lower than the national average, in both rural and urban areas (Figure 1). Among the SCs and STs the incidence of poverty was lower than the national average (Figure 2). The rate of decline in the incidence of poverty accelerated post-1983. Between 19934 and 20045, there was a 27 per cent decline in the absolute number of poor in the state. Achievements in the social sector including the broadened implementation of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and the old age pension scheme have been cited as important factors towards poverty reduction in the state (Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003). In terms of health indicators, the performance of the state was much better than the national average. Combating child hunger and malnutrition became governing priorities in Tamil Nadu well before judicial intervention triggered responses from their counterparts. They are the pioneers of the midday meal programme with a focus on rural rather than urban areas and, among the vulnerable, focusing on girl children. The proportion of women with BMI<18.5, U5MR, and malnourished children were all lower than the respective national averages (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Even though the health indicators for SCs and STs are not as good as the overall state average, but they are still
30 25 22.9 28.3 25.7 22.2 22.5 27.5

Percentage

20 15 10 5 0 Rural Tamil Nadu Urban All India Combined

Human Development and Social Groups Tamil Nadu has shown signicant advancement in human development as well. In terms of development indicators,

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Tamil Nadu and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

STATE PROFILES

83

50 40 36.8 31.2 32.1

47.3 40.2 39.9 32.5 33.3

60 50 47.9 42.5 29.8 30 20 10 15 40.2 41.8

Percentage

30 20 10 0 SC Rural Tamil Nadu All India ST SC Urban ST

Percentage

40

0 All Tamil Nadu SCs All India Muslims

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Tamil Nadu and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 50 46.6 41.2 35.6 28.4 30 20 10 0 All SCs Tamil Nadu STs All India Muslims 20.7 34.7 35.2 61.2

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Tamil Nadu and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

40

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Tamil Nadu and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 80 74.3 88.1

60 40 20 0 All Tamil Nadu 35.5

48.3

SCs All India

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Tamil Nadu and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

better than their respective national averages. Among the factors contributing to better health outcomes, the Noon Meal Programme, womens empowerment through SHGs (that enabled women to take responsible decisions about their children), and a large network of well functioning PDS outlets were the most important ones (Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003). With the private sectors increasing inuence in healthcare services, inequality in access to healthcare has increased, even though there is an overall improvement in the quality of services. The source of inequality was the prohibitive costs, which prevented a large section of the society from accessing healthcare services (Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003). The performance of the state in terms of literacy was better than the national average. Moreover, the states SCs are also doing better than the national literacy rate and also better than the all India average for SCs (NSS 20078). However, the STs lag behind the state average and also the national literacy rate for STs (Figure 6). The states improved performance in terms of literacy is the result of programmes like the Special Literacy Programme for Women (fully funded by the state government) and Project for Residual Illiteracy (PRI) for excluded women (StateCentre partnership), which especially targets the districts with below average literacy rate, along with the eective implementation of the Continuing Education Programme (Department of School Education, Government of Tamil Nadu). The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), implemented in the backward districts (with external aid) included several innovative

Per thousand

Percentage

84 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

measures such as alternative schools for dropouts, which contributed towards better educational attainments in the state. On the legislative front, the Tamil Nadu Elementary Education Act, 1994, made it mandatory for the government to provide the necessary infrastructure for ensuring elementary education. Among all the Indian states, the proportion of SDP on education was the highest (10.2 per cent) in Tamil Nadu. The latest estimates from Census (2011) also show that literacy rate of Tamil Nadu (80.3 per cent) is higher than the national literacy rate (74 per cent). In the case of basic household amenities, the performance of the state is better than the national average in terms of access to improved drinking water facilities (Figure 7) and access to toilet facilities (Figure 8). The
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 87.7 80.0 72.0 72.3 63.5 54.5 60.5 67.6

80 70 60 49.2 46.6

72.8 65 54.3

69.1

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

35.8 19.7

All

SCs Tamil Nadu

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Tamil Nadu and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Percentage

performance of STs and SCs in the state is better than the national average for their groups in terms of access to toilet facilities and access to improved sources of drinking water respectively. The positive discrimination policy has played a key role here.

All

SCs Tamil Nadu

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Tamil Nadu and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.
100 95 93.3 91.2

96.4 92.9

96.3 92.8

Human Development and Religious Communities Like most of the other states, Tamil Nadu is a Hindu majority state with only ve per cent of Muslims. Looking at the human development across the religious groups, Muslims are well ahead of the other religious groups in terms of health indicators and the literacy rate. Similarly, in terms of accessing improved sources of drinking water or access to toilet facilities, Muslims are better o than the other groups in the state and also better than the all India average for Muslims. Tamil Nadus success story emphasizes the fact that eective state government intervention can make social inclusion possible.
UTTARAKHAND

Percentage

90 85 80 75 70 All SCs Tamil Nadu STs All India Muslims 83.2 80.9

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Tamil Nadu and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography Uttarakhand, a new hilly state in the Himalayas, was earlier a part of Uttar Pradesh. It shares its border with the Tibet Autonomous Region of China, Nepal, Uttar Pradesh, H aryana, a nd Himachal Pradesh. In terms of economic growth, the states performance has been above the national average (20023 to 20078). This could be partly due to the new industrial policy of 2003, which gave hefty tax benets to investors thereby encouraging industrial investment and employment generation. The

STATE PROFILES

85

state is also ahead in terms of national per capita income growth during the same period (Table 1). The demographic prole of Uttarakhand shows that around 63 per cent of the population resides in rural areas. The growing migration from rural to urban areas (and to other parts of India) is very evident in this region. Among the reasons is the uneven distribution of resources across the state. The key challenge facing the state is increasing employment generation for sustained growth, as outmigration of the youth remains a major concern. Among social groups, the STs and SCs together account for 23 per cent of the population in the state while Muslims account for 19 per cent (Table 2). In terms of sex-ratio, Uttarakhand has a sex-ratio of 963 females per 1,000 males, which is higher than national sex-ratio in 2011. But its child sex-ratio is only 886, which is lower than both the overall sex-ratio and the national child sex-ratio (Census 2011). The services sector contributes the majority of the states share of income, followed by agriculture and the mining sectors. The tertiary sector remains the principal driving force of the states economy with tourism as one of the key components owing to Uttarakhands natural scenic beauty, thereby promoting the hospitality industry. The majority of the states population is engaged in agriculture, which continues to be the main income generating activity because of the favourable weather conditions.
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 9.1 7.3 All India 7.9 6.4

growth, the truth is that the incidence of poverty in Uttarakhand is higher than the national average. In general SCs and STs have a higher incidence of poverty than the overall state average. Forestry and mining are major activities in the state. In terms of health indicators, the performance of the state was better than the national average. NRHM has changed health service delivery in Uttarakhand. The continual process of reorganization according to local needs has helped the state to provide health services at the grass root level. The Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) programme has also been a major health revolution in the state. Within the state, the health indicators for the STs were the worst across all social groups. In terms of education indicators, Uttarakhand is slightly better than
45 40 35 40.8 36.5 28.3 25.7 39.6

Percentage

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

27.5

Rural Uttarakhand

Urban All India

Combined

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Uttarakhand and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
70 60 54.2 43.2 36.8 47.3 39.9 33.3 50 40 30 20 10 0 SC ST Rural Uttarakhand SC Urban All India ST 65.7 64.4

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Across State ST 0.2 SC 0.9 Muslim 1.2 ST 2.5 Within the States SC 20.7 Muslim 18.8

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Percentage

Human Development and Social Groups Looking at the other development indicators, though the per capita NSDP gures are indicative of fast-paced

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Uttarakhand and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

86 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

60 49 50 40 30.3 30 20 10 0 All SCs Uttarakhand STs All India Muslims 35.6 38.1 41.2 46.6

80 70 60

76.0

72.0

70.4 63.5

70.9 64.6 60.5

67.6

Percentage

Percentage

35.2 30.1

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Uttarakhand STs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Uttarakhand and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
120 97.3 100 88.1 74.3 56.8 80.9 70

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Uttarakhand and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

80 60 40 20 0 All

SCs All India

Muslims

Uttarakhand

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Uttarakhand and India, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.
60 50 42.5 38 44.5 47.9 50.4 42.4 54.5 41.8

the national average. Uttarakhand has literacy rate of 79.6 per cent, which is higher than the national literacy rate of 74 per cent in 2011 (Census 2011). In terms of basic household amenities, the performance of the state was better than the national average, with 97 per cent of the households having access to improved sources of drinking water as against the national average of 91 per cent (Figure 7). Part of the reason is the ample availability of river waters from the mountains. However, the proportion of SC households accessing drinking water from improved sources is lower than both the state average and the national average for SCs. Scheduled tribes have better access to potable water and toilet facilities, the state average for STs being better than the national average in both cases (Figures 7 and 8).
105 100 96.8 91.2 83.5 92.9 99.1 99.6 92.8

Per thousand

Percentage

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0

95 90 85 80 75 70

83.2

All

SCs Uttarakhand

STs All India

Muslims

All

SCs Uttarakhand

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Uttarakhand and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Uttarakhand and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

STATE PROFILES

87

80 70 60 65 49.2 67.8 65

69.1

50 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs Uttarakhand STs All India Muslims 35.8 28.1 21.4

Figure 8 Proportion of Households with No Toilet Facility, Uttarakhand and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Human Development and Religious Communities Looking at human development across religious groups, Muslims enjoy parity with the state (average) and also with the all India average on health indicators. Although the states performance in terms of literacy was higher than the national average, the literacy rate among Muslims was lower than the national average. In terms of basic amenities, it is notable that Muslims have better access to improved sources of drinking water and access to toilet facilities. Almost every Muslim household in Uttarakhand has access to drinking water from improved sources.
UTTAR PRADESH

The roots of regional variations in agricultural productivity between the western and eastern regions can be traced back to the dierence in the revenue settlement system and the development of canal irrigation during the colonial period. The colonial rulers enforced the permanent Zamindari settlement in the eastern region, which was characterized by high and inexible revenue levies, stratication of rural society, and near complete alienation of the cultivators from the land. In the western region it was the Bhaichara system, which was really a kind of owner-cultivator operation. This system provided tenure security for cultivators and witnessed the rise of a class of rich occupancy tenants. This class of independent tenants had a much higher incentive to invest in land and improve productivity, which was denied in the eastern parts. The western region received a large amount of public investment in canal irrigation, while the eastern region hardly had any. It was primarily because of the availability of irrigation facilities that the Green Revolution ourished in western Uttar Pradesh and it witnessed large scale agricultural development. Over the years, the gap between the per capita income of the state and the national average has grown considerably. In 19501, the per capita income of Uttar Pradesh was 7 per cent lower than the national average. This dierence had grown to 40 per cent in 20001 (Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003). In recent years (20023 to 20078), the average annual growth rate of NSDP was 5.6 per cent as against the national average of 7.9 per cent, while the growth rate of the per capita SDP was 3.6 per cent compared to the national average of 6.4 per cent (Table 1).
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate, 20023 to 20078 (per cent)
(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP/NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP/Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 5.6 3.6 All India 7.9 6.4

Economy and Demography The population density in Uttar Pradesh, a predominantly agricultural state, is one of the highest in the country (689 persons per sq. km), and the per capita availability of land was only 0.1 ha in 20012. There is large out-migration of workers from this state to other states. Seen across its four regions, the average size of landholding was the highest in the southern region (an arid, rocky region), followed by the western region (fertile, irrigated), and lowest in the eastern region, the most fertile zone. The highly productive western region is the most developed and has the highest per capita income. In contrast, eastern Uttar Pradesh has the lowest per capita income despite its fertile plains. This is due to the very high population density, low occupational diversication, and high land atomization.

Percentage

Uttar Pradesh has the highest population among Indian states and it is the fth largest state in India. Uttar Pradesh has the second highest TFR of 3.8 as compared to the all India average of 2.6. With this rate of fertility, the pressure of population on the land would be unsustainable unless immediate steps are taken. Uttar Pradesh has very low sexratio of 908 females per 1,000 males, as compared to 940

88 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

females per 1,000 males in India in 2011. Similarly, its child sex-ratio (899) is also lower than the national child sex-ratio (914) (Census 2011).
Percentage

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Rural Uttar Pradesh Urban All India Combined 33.4 28.3 30.6 25.7 32.8 27.5

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups, 20078 (per cent)

Share of State ST 1.2 SC 17.0 Muslim 19.2 ST 0.8 Distribution within State SC 25.8 Muslim 18.8

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Human Development and Social Groups Uttar Pradesh accounts for 17 per cent of the SCs and 19 per cent of Muslims in India. The population of STs was negligible (less than 1 per cent) (Table 2). On the HDI scale, among the states in India, Uttar Pradesh has a HDI ranking of 18, which has remained unchanged since 2001. The poor HDI ranking of the state was reected in the high incidence of poverty, which was higher than the national average. In fact, the absolute number of poor increased in urban areas in 20045 compared to 19934. Among the four regions, the incidence of poverty was the lowest in the western region, while it was highest in the central region (Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003). In the case of the SCs and STs, the incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas was higher than the corresponding national averages (Figures 1 and 2). Since 1973, the decline in poverty in the state was at the same pace as the national average. Despite the allocation of large funds for various poverty alleviation programmes (Integrated Rural Poverty Alleviation Programme, Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana, Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment, Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas) there has been little impact on poverty alleviation (Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003). Citing various ocial and non-ocial studies, the report further noted that the incorrect identication of beneciaries, and leakages and irregularities in the distribution of funds, were some of the factors limiting the scope and coverage of the poverty alleviation programmes. In terms of health indicators, the states performance was worse than the national average (Figures 3, 4, and 5). The proportion of women with BMI<18.5, underweight children and the U5MR are higher in the state as compared to the national average. The SCs and STs

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, Uttar Pradesh and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).
47.3 36.8 32.4 44.9 39.9 37.4 33.3

50 40

44.8

Percentage

30 20 10 0 SC Rural Uttar Pradesh ST SC Urban All India ST

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty by Social Groups, Uttar Pradesh and India , 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).

are worse o compared to the state average and their communitys respective national averages for all the health indicators. Although the state made signicant eorts in building healthcare infrastructure, it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demand. The states performance in providing health infrastructure was lower than the national average. The shortage of medical personnel and their absenteeism, particularly in the rural areas, the shortage of medicines, and lack of accountability in the public health system have seriously aected the healthcare system. There was a vast network of private health providers, who were expensive and often beyond the reach of the poor. The State Human Development Report further noted that the

STATE PROFILES

89

50 40 36 35.6

42.8

41.2

45.1

46.6 36.6 35.2

30 20 10 0 All SCs Uttar Pradesh STs All India Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, Uttar Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
160 140 135.1 96.4 74.3 101.1 88.1 70

Per thousand

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

All Uttar Pradesh

SCs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, Uttar Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
70 60 48 47.9 41.4 61.2 54.5 42.5

state had one of the lowest health expenditures in India by both Indian and international standards. Despite that, the bulk of the expenditure was allocated for the payment of salaries. The literacy rate in Uttar Pradesh was lower than the national average. According to latest estimates of Census (2011), Uttar Pradesh has a literacy rate of 70 per cent as compared to the 74 per cent national literacy rate in 2011. As per NSS (20078), all the social groups including SCs and STs have a literacy rate lower than the state average and also lower than the literacy rate of their communities at the national level (Figure 6). Among the various programmes undertaken, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP 1 and 2) initiated in select districts of the state in 1993 and 2000, respectively, and DPEP (Centrally sponsored) resulted in a notable improvement in enrolment and a decline in dropout rates in the districts where these programmes were implemented. During the period 19967 to 19992000, enrolment in UPBEP districts increased by 68 per cent as against 37 per cent in non-UPBEP districts (Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003). Poor infrastructure along with inadequate nancial allocation were the major hindrances in achieving higher educational targets. The state allocation on education increased from 0.5 per cent of the SDP in 19501 to 3.2 per cent in 20078, but it is still very low compared to the demand. In terms of basic household amenities, the performance of the state is marginally below the national average in terms of improved drinking water facilities. However, it is one of the rare states where the average for the SC and
80 70 66.2 58.9 72.0 63.5 49.0 60.5 57.2

Percentage

67.6

Percentage

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

42.4

41.8

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

All

SCs Uttar Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

All

SCs Uttar Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), Uttar Pradesh and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, Uttar Pradesh and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

90 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

ST households was better than the state average and also than the national average for their respective communities in terms of access to improved sources of drinking water (Figure 7). In the case of sanitation, the state average is slightly better than the all India average (Figure 8). However, only 16 per cent of SC households have access to toilet facilities vis--vis 35 per cent of SC households at the all India level.

Human Development and Religious Communities Across religious groups, it was observed that Muslims were fairly close to state averages for health indicators, but were still lower than the average for Muslims at the national
100 95 91.2 97.1 92.9 97.8 98.1 92.8

level. However, in the case of education, Muslims have a lower literacy rate, even lower than the national average for Muslims. In terms of basic amenities, the picture is mixed. Growth in Uttar Pradesh is hampered on multiple counts. For one, the population policy will require a radical re-look. Next, the agricultural and social development programmes have to be considerably beefedup to bridge the inter- and intra-regional development gaps.
WEST BENGAL

90 85 80 75

87.5 83.2

All

SCs Uttar Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, Uttar Pradesh and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.
84.1 73.2 65 49.2 42.5 69.1

90 80 70

Percentage

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

46.8 35.8

All

SCs Uttar Pradesh

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, Uttar Pradesh and India, 2008-9
Source: NSS 65th Round.

Economy and Demography West Bengal is one of the most populous and historically it also has been among the more industrialized states in the country. In the recent decades, though, the state suered degrees of de-industrialization owing to the political climate there. As a result, West Bengals performance has been below the national average during the period 20023 to 20078. In the services sector, however, it has performed well (Table 1). Geographically, West Bengal is situated in the extreme east stretching from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal. It is bordered by Bangladesh on its east. Due to socio-economic factors, the population is concentrated mainly in the Gangetic plains and the majority of the population (61 per cent) resides in rural areas (NSS, 64th round; 20078). The rural economy of West Bengal relies mainly on agriculture. Rice is the principal food crop and tea is an important cash crop. A very low proportion of the land is irrigated, which in turn stunts agricultural productivity. A considerable part of the state is economically underdeveloped, notably large parts of the northern districts and a few western districts. A careful observation of the demographic prole shows that West Bengal has been home to one of the largest proportions of SCs (9.2 per cent of total SCs in India) and Muslims (14.8 per cent of total Muslims in India) in the country. These gures are higher within the state (Table 2) and these groups have also been observed to be the poorest (West Bengal Human Development Report 2004). Apart from Bangladesh, West Bengal also gets migrants from Bihar, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh. According to Census (2011), West Bengal has 947 females per 1,000 males, against the national sex ratio of 940 in 2011, whereas its child sex-ratio is 950, which is good sign for future.

Percentage

STATE PROFILES

91

Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate 20023 to 20078 (per cent)

(at constant prices 19992000) NSDP / NDP (for India) Per Capita NSDP / Per Capita NNP (for India) Source: CSO. State 6.5 5.3 All India 7.9 6.4
Percentage

35 30 25 20 14.8 15 10 5 0 Rural West Bengal Urban All India Combined 28.6 28.3 25.7 27.5 24.7

Table 2 Distribution of Social and Religious Groups

Across State ST 3.8 SC 9.2 Muslim 14.8 ST 5.2 Within the State SC 29.2 Muslim 30.6

Source: NSS 64th Round.

Figure 1 Incidence of Poverty, West Bengal and India, 20045

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

Human Development and Social Groups West Bengal ranks fourth in terms of population and has the highest population density. In terms of fertility, West Bengal has been performing better than the national average. In 2008, the TFR in West Bengal was 1.9 as compared to the national average of 2.6. The incidence of poverty in rural West Bengal was marginally higher than the national average, while in the urban areas it was considerably lower than the national average. In the case of STs and SCs, the incidence of poverty in both rural and urban areas was lower than the corresponding national averages (Figures 1 and 2). It may be noted that the incidence of poverty in rural West Bengal was the highest (73.2 per cent) in 19734. In a span of 40 years, the incidence of poverty in rural West Bengal was reduced to 40 per cent of what it was in 1973. For rural India, the incidence of poverty was reduced to half during this period. The estimates of poverty for the year 19992000 revealed that poverty in West Bengal was more concentrated in the rural areas with 86 per cent of the poor residing in rural areas, as against 74 per cent for the country as a whole (West Bengal Human Development Report 2004). In terms of health indicators, the states performance was mixed. While the U5MR and malnourishment of children are lower than the national average, womens health was an area of concern (Figures 3, 4, and 5). Sanitation and drinking water facilities are important inputs that inuence health outcomes. Better sanitation and drinking water facilities (compared to the national average, and as depicted in Figures 7 and 8) partly explain the lower U5MR and the lower number of underweight children in the state. The health system in West Bengal is largely in public hands with 76 per cent of health

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

47.3 42.4 36.8 29.5 28.5 39.9 33.3 25.7

Percentage

SC Rural

ST

SC Urban All India

ST

West Bengal

Figure 2 Incidence of Poverty: Social Groups, West Bengal and India, 20045
Source: Planning Commission (2008).

institutes under the state government (as against 40 per cent elsewhere in India). The State Human Development Report has pointed to the massive shortage of funds and the inadequate number of sta as the two major shortcomings of health service delivery in the state (West Bengal Human Development Report 2004). The states performance in terms of literacy was better than the national average. According to the latest estimates from Census (2011), the literacy rate of West Bengal is 77 per cent as compared to 74 per cent national literacy rate (Census 2011). The state government prioritized the opening of new colleges in rural areas. This catered to the SCs, STs, and minorities who reside in these areas. With access to higher education they performed better than the national average for their groups. Another important

92 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

60 50 39.1 42.9 35.6 41.2

56 46.6 42.8 35.2

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All

SCs West Bengal

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, West Bengal and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
100 80 74.3 59.6 60 40 20 0 46.6 88.1 80 70

reason for the better performance of the state as compared to the national average was that the per capita real expenditure on general education more than doubled during the period 19801 to 19978. The state government has introduced an alternate school education system (Sishu Siksha Karmasuchi) with the objective of providing basic education to children aged 59 years who were unable to get enrolled in formal primary schools. With the objective of increasing the involvement of the local government and community in public health services, it was proposed that one-third of the PHCs be upgraded to referral units. Further, in order to spread basic health information, it was proposed that Community Health Workers be introduced (West Bengal Human Development Report 2004). To encourage institutional
80 70 60 75.6

72.0

70.4 63.5

66.9 60.5

70.0

67.6

Per thousand

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

All West Bengal

SCs All India

Muslims

All

SCs West Bengal

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 4 Under Five Mortality Rate, West Bengal and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
70 60 47.9 38.7 40 30 20 10 0 All SCs West Bengal STs All India Muslims 80 75 42.5 40 40.3

Figure 6 Literacy Rate, West Bengal and India, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.
100 95.8 98.3 94.3 92.9 91.2 90 85 84.4 83.2 92.8

59.7 54.5 41.8

95

Percentage

50

Percentage

All

SCs West Bengal

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 5 Percentage of Underweight Children (05 Years), West Bengal and India, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 7 Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water Facility, West Bengal and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

STATE PROFILES

93

80 70 60 65 49.2 39.1 32.4 41.4

69.1

50 40 30 20 10 0 All

41 35.8

of institutions for safe delivery by partnering with private sector facilities. The scheme has already been launched in 11 districts. Similarly, another scheme, School Health Programme has been launched in 147 blocks selected on the basis of the low female literacy rate. It aims to improve the health of school going children (Health and Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal).

Percentage

SCs West Bengal

STs All India

Muslims

Figure 8 Percentage of Households with No Toilet Facility, West Bengal and India, 20089
Source: NSS 65th Round.

deliveries, a new scheme called Ayushmati Scheme has been designed, which aims at augmenting the availability

Human Development and Religious Communities Muslims of Bengal, who had notable role before Independence, are now facing economic deprivation. Across the religious groups, Muslims have not been performing as well as other religious communities in West Bengal for health indicators. In the case of health indicators the state average for Muslims is even worse than the national average for the community. In terms of literacy rate, Muslims lag behind the state average, but doing better than the national average for Muslims.

3
Employment, Asset Ownership, and Poverty
INTRODUCTION

Economic attainment refers to access to or command over resources by households and individuals, which enhances their capabilities. At the most elementary level, the status of employment of household members and ownership of assets determine a households income, which to a very large extent determines the individuals command over resources. This chapter focuses on these two aspects of economic attainment namely, employment and ownership of assets. The most important indicator reecting lack of economic attainment is the incidence of poverty. In addition to analysing the status of employment and ownership of assets in both rural and urban India, this chapter also analyses the incidence of, and trends in, poverty. The GDP growth rate was 5.5 per cent per annum during the period 19978 to 20012, which accelerated to an average of 7.7 per cent per annum during the period 20023 to 20067 (Planning Commission 2008). However, the non-inclusive character of the growth process has been a major concern for Indian policymakers, including the Planning Commission. It stated that a major weakness in the economy is that the growth is not perceived as being suciently inclusive for many groups, especially the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and minorities. Gender inequality also remains a pervasive problem, and some of the structural changes taking place has an adverse eect on women (Planning Commission 2008: 1). In particular, the current phenomenon of
1

extraordinary growth has, to a very large extent, excluded the 300 million poor of this country who are subsisting below the poverty line. Economic growth, though an essential condition for poverty reduction, is by no means a sucient condition. Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007) have shown that an economy can grow without a reduction in income poverty and vice-versa. The interlinkage between economic growth and poverty reduction works through various social sector outcomes which complement each other. For instance, higher educational attainment has a positive impact on the status of health. In turn, health is an input for educational attainment. The synergies in the social sector work through various feedback loops, involving factors which lead to enhancement of capabilities among individuals. For economic growth to eectively reduce poverty on a sustainable basis, policy interventions for the enhancement of health and educational status are required (see discussion in Chapter 1, section on Introduction). Contrary to the orthodox paradigm where economic growth occupies a predominant position, Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007) argue that a synergy that exists at the macro level between poverty reduction, enhancement of functionings, and economic growth. Increasing the growth rate in this framework is not more important than the other two variables. Instead, it highlights the necessity for the integration of social and economic policies. The two-way synergy between the three variables can be explained in a simple diagram (Figure 3.1).1

For a detailed explanation on feedback loops, refer to the Overview of this report.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

95

Economic Growth

Human Capital Formation

Income Poverty Reduction

Figure 3.1 Feedback Loops at the Macroeconomic Level

Social exclusion creates barriers to income poverty reduction. Indian society has historically been stratied into dierent social groups, and there are certain groups (SCs and STs), which have primarily remained outside the mainstream of society and are characterized by socio-economic backwardness. Economic deprivation has historically been much more pronounced among these social groups which is examined in this chapter. The disparity in economic attainment was observed not only across social groups, but also across religious communities. While the perception of deprivation among the minorities is fairly well established, there is a dearth of empirical research on the socio-economic conditions of dierent religious groups in this country. The analysis in this chapter also brings out the disparities of economic attainment across religious communities. Among the dierent dimensions of deprivation, this chapter will specically focus on employment opportunities and ownership of assets, and on income poverty outcomes. Analyses of the other dimensions of the feedback loop like nutritional status, health, and educational attainment are dealt with in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 of this Report, respectively. This chapter attempts to determine whether the high economic growth rate has really percolated to the deprived sections of the society in terms of higher employment opportunities and improvement in their material conditions, and examine its impact on the incidence of poverty which could undermine the feedback loop. The major ndings that emerge from this analysis are as follows:

The high female labour force participation rate (LFPR) in rural areas highlighted the fact that girls of earlier generations had poorer access to education. Moreover, the participation of rural females in agricultural tasks, despite lower wages, is responsible for the higher female LFPR in rural areas. The high LFPR among STs was due to poorer access to education. Rural Muslim participation in education and the labour force were inversely correlated. There was a marginal decline in the workforce participation rate (WFPR) for all, while gender disparity continued and was sharper in urban areas. Greater participation of young women in education in urban areas, compared to their rural counterparts was one of the factors responsible for this. Also, this could be because a signicant proportion of middle-class women in urban areas prefer not to work outside the home, and are full-time housewives. The WFPR for SCs/STs declined marginally as their access to education improved slightly. In terms of occupational diversication, the rural non-farm sector was of increasing importance. Unemployment rate was increasing in rural India, while it marginally declined in urban India. The open unemployment rate (current daily status) was increasing for Muslims, and remained stable for SCs and STs. Wages for casual labour were insucient for a decent living. Skill development was necessary for realizing the benets of the demographic dividend.

Asset Ownership This section examines the distribution of assets among households, and again the analysis is disaggregated by social groups and religious communities.
High asset inequality persisted with distribution of assets across wealth deciles remaining almost unchanged. Unclear land titles along with tenancy legislations were important factors for land being a non-remunerative asset. Regular wage/salary earnings were only important in urban areas. SC and ST households were characterized by the lack of ownership of assets, while the bulk of asset ownership was concentrated within other (upper caste) households.

Employment This section deals with the key issues of labour force and workforce participation rates, unemployment rates, wages, and skills of the workforce. All analysis is disaggregated by gender, social groups, and religious communities.

96 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Among major religions, the value of the Assets Access Index was the lowest in the case of Muslims.

Poverty The situation in regard to both employment and asset distribution (described above) has contributed to a less than satisfactory outcome in respect to poverty reduction.
Though the incidence of poverty has declined over the years, the absolute number of poor was still very high at 300 million in 20045. Almost 60 per cent of the poor were concentrated in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Orissa, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand). These states accounted for 42 per cent of SCs and 43 per cent of STs in the country. However, using the mixed recall period method of estimating the consumption expenditure, the incidence of poverty declined from 22 per cent in 20045 to 15 per cent in 20078, assuming a rural poverty line of Rs 429 per capita per month and an urban poverty line of Rs 639 per capita per month. The incidence of poverty was high among agricultural labourers and casual labourers. High incidence of poverty persisted among SCs and STs across social groups, and Muslims among religious communities. One-third of the Muslims in the country were living below the poverty line. In addition to the high incidence of poverty, the severity of poverty was higher among SCs and STs. Interstate disparity in consumption expenditure has declined over time, along with rising inequality in both rural and urban India. The average monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) was lower for SCs and STs than for other social groups. A more inclusive growth strategy was necessary for poverty eradication. The analysis presented in this chapter clearly shows that SCs and STs were worse o in terms of employment, and were characterized by a lack of ownership of assets. Lack of employment opportunities and material deprivation

of SCs and STs culminated in a higher incidence of poverty, with a much higher proportion of consumption expenditure being spent on food items. The analysis in this chapter is based on data from several rounds of the National Sample Survey (NSS), which were conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). The section on Employment analyses the employment and unemployment situation in India based on the Employment and Unemployment Surveys50th, 61st, and 64th rounds). An analysis of the pattern of ownership of assets is done in the section on Asset Ownership and is based on data collected through the All India Debt and Investment Survey conducted by the NSSO (48th and 59th rounds). The incidence of poverty and trends in poverty are analysed in the section Poverty, based on data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (primarily 50th, 61st, and 64th rounds). The last section provides some concluding remarks. In each of the sections, the analysis is done on the basis of the categorization of households into socio-economic groups and religious communities.
EMPLOYMENT

Employment has a very important role to play in enhancing human capabilities. It not only ensures economic security, but also promotes general participation in society and the economy. Employment is necessary for promoting better health and education not only for those who are employed, but also for those who are dependent on them. In addition, it provides a sense of dignity to the individual. One of the biggest challenges facing the country today is to productively and gainfully employ its growing labour force, which is necessary for attaining the objective of inclusive growth.2 After a decline in the annual growth rate of employment from 2.6 per cent between 19834 and 19934 to 1.25 per cent between 19934 and 19992000, it grew again at 2.6 per cent between 19992000 and 20045. However, since the annual growth rate of the labour force between 19992000 and 20045 was higher than the annual growth rate of the workforce, there was an increase in the unemployment rate.3 The unemployment rate (current daily status) increased from 7.3 per cent in 19992000

2 Labour force is the economically active part of the population, which supplies (when employed) or does not supply but seeks to supply (when unemployed) labour for economic activities. 3 Workforce participation rate is the rate of participation among the labour force in some kind of employment (whether principal or subsidiary). Unemployment rate is the proportion of labour force that is unemployed.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

97

to 8.3 per cent in 20045 (Planning Commission 2008). According to the usual principal status, the unemployment rate in 20045 was 5.3 per cent.4 The dierence in unemployment rate by these two denitions (current daily status and usual principal status) indicates the existence of intermittent unemployment. The growth rate of employment has clearly not been commensurate with GDP growth. There was hardly any increase in the annual rate of employment growth during the period 19992000 to 20078 (the period which experienced acceleration in GDP growth) as compared to 19934 to 19992000. Growth rate of employment in urban areas increased from 2.3 per cent during the period 19934 to 19992000 to only 2.6 per cent during the period 19992000 to 20078. In rural India, the annual growth rate of employment was only 1.27 per cent during the period 19992000 to 20078 as compared to 0.66 per cent during the period 19934 to 19992000. The fact that there has not been any signicant growth in employment despite considerable acceleration in GDP growth points to a signicant fall in the elasticity of employment with respect to output (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2010). Employment elasticity of growth is vital for poverty reduction (Shepherd 2010).

gender disparity in educational attainment increased at higher levels of education, implying greater discontinuation among females at higher levels of education. This has adversely aected qualitatively better employment opportunities for females. The estimate of the labour force according to the usual principal status gives the number of persons who either worked or were looking for work for a relatively greater part of the 365 days preceding the date of survey. In both rural and urban India, LFPR had marginally declined in 200910 as compared to 19934 (Table 3.1).5 There was considerable gender disparity in both rural and urban India which has remained unchanged during the period 19934 to 200910. In rural India, the LFPR for males was almost twice that of females, while in urban India it was more than thrice. This is on account of the fact that females have much greater domestic responsibilities, which are not counted as economic activity by the NSSO Employment and Unemployment Surveys. As such, females who are only attending to domestic activities are not considered to be a part of the labour force, which brings down the female LFPR.
Table 3.1 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector Males 19934 200910 Rural Urban 87.6 80.1 82.5 76.2 Females 19934 200910 49.0 23.8 37.8 19.4 Persons 19934 200910 68.6 53.3 60.4 48.8

Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR): Higher female LFPR in rural areas highlights poorer access to education for earlier generations
Various studies (for example, Agarwal 1994) have established that inequities that depress the well-being of women can be removed if women 1. have ownership rights 2. are literate and educated participants in the decisions within and outside the family 3. nd employment outside the home, and 4. have an independent source of income. Sen (2005) further argued that even the survival disadvantage of women compared with men in developing countries seem to decrease sharplyand may even be eliminatedas progress is made in these agency aspects. In India, the educational attainment of females was much lower than that of males (Chapter 6). Further,

Source: NSS, Report Nos 409 and 515. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

Poor access to education was one of the reasons for higher LFPR in rural areas, particularly for females. In the chapter on Education (Chapter 6) of this Report, it has been shown that the gender disparity in net attendance ratio (NAR) was much greater in rural areas than in urban areas, and the ruralurban dierence increased at higher levels of education. One of the reasons that could possibly explain the relatively higher LFPR for rural females as compared to their urban counterparts was their poor access to education.6 Moreover, the participation of

4 The NSS 66th Round (200910) indicates that CDS unemployment rate has dipped from 8.2 per cent in 20045 to 6.6 per cent in 200910. Similarly unemployment measured by UPS declined from 3.1 per cent to 2.5 per cent for all age groups. 5 Similar trend was observed during 20045 to 200910, in the LFPR. Rural LFPR for 20045 was 40.1 per cent and it fell to 38.2 per cent by 200910, and urban from 36.6 per cent to 35.2 per cent for all age groups. 6 The LFPR in 200910 (NSS 66th Round) for urban females is 12.8 per cent compared to 20.8 per cent in 20045 for all age groups.

98 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

rural females in agricultural tasks, despite lower wages, is responsible for the higher female LFPR in rural areas.

LFPR across Social Groups: High LFPR among STs due to poorer access to education
Further, LFPR for both SCs and STs was higher than for All Groups. This is not surprising since they tend to be poorer, and hence must work in order to live. In fact, LFPR was higher for STs than for SCs, suggesting their more vulnerable status. In both rural and urban India, the LFPR declined in 200910 as compared to 19934 in the case of both SCs and STs (Table 3.2).7 That is probably happening because access to education in both rural and urban areas has been improving over this period. However, the more interesting fact is that the urban LFPR for All Groups, including SCs and STs, is much lower than for rural areaswhich is probably again explained by the easier access to education in urban, in contrast to rural, areas. In fact, Chapter 6 points out that the mean years of schooling of all sections of society in urban areas is much higher than in rural areas (refer to Table 6.17 in Chapter 6).
Table 3.2 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector SCs 19934 200910 Rural Urban 71.8 59.4 62.4 53.5 STs 19934 200910 81.9 59.3 69.9 51.5 All Groups 19934 200910 68.6 53.3 60.4 48.8

to states like Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat which accounted for more than 60 per cent of the countrys ST population (Table 3A.1). It is not coincidental that in terms of educational attainment, the north eastern states fare better than the states mentioned above. For instance, literacy rates among the STs in the north eastern states are in the range of 85 to 90 per cent in 20078, while for these six states the range is 50 to 60 per cent. In urban India, the decline in LFPR could be observed in majority of the states in 20045 as compared to that in 19934 (Table 3A.2).

LFPR across Religious Communities: Rural Muslim participation in education and labour force are inversely correlated
Across religious communities, LFPR remained almost unchanged between 19934 and 20045 in both rural and urban India but declined by 200910 (Table 3.3). Further, as was observed in the case of social groups, here also, LFPR in rural India was higher than that in urban India. Among Muslims, the literacy rate and attendance at higher levels of education was much lower in rural areas as compared to urban areas (Chapter 6). The much lower LFPR for Muslims, as against all other religious communities, is explained not merely by lower levels of education prevailing among them, but also by the fact that Muslim women do not access schooling on the same scale as the other communities do. The poor access of Muslims to all levels of education, including higher education (see Chapter 6 on this subject), has adversely aected employment opportunities for women. Clearly, the low level of participation in the labour market, and lower educational attainment are signicant indicators of gender discrimination in the course of a womans life.
(per cent)
Sikhs 19934 61.0 47.9 20045 67.7 49.6 200910 56.3 48.3

Source: NSS, Report Nos 425 and 516. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

Across states, LFPR among STs in rural areas was comparatively lower in the north-eastern states where they constitute a dominant share of the population as compared

Table 3.3 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Religious Communities, 19934, 20045, and 200910
Sector 19934 Rural Urban 69.8 53.5 Hindus 20045 68.9 53.3 200910 61.4 49.0 19934 58.0 52.8 Muslims 20045 57.1 51.6 200910 52.8 47.4 Christians 19934 67.8 55.6 20045 67.8 54.9

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 50th and 61st Rounds. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.
7 In the 19934 survey, the social group, Other Backward Classes (OBCs), was not considered as a separate category and was included as part of the Other social group. Only SCs and STs were considered along with all social groups.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

99

Worker Population Ratio: Marginal decline for all while womens participation remains low
The worker population ratio (WPR), according to the usual principal status, gives the proportion of the total population which worked for a relatively greater part of the 365 days preceding the date of survey. WPR as per usual principal and subsidiary status in both rural and urban areas marginally declined in 200910 as compared to 19934 (Table 3.4).8 Further, the huge gender disparity that existed in 19934 continued in 200910 in both rural and urban Indiawith womens workforce participation rates being almost half of that for men in rural areas, and less than a third in urban areas, with almost no change taking place over this decade of relatively rapid GDP growth.9 An equally important observation that can be made is that there is a remarkable dierence for womens WPR depending on whether they are living in rural or in urban areas, with the latter rate for women being less than half that for rural women. This is most probably due to the much higher participation of young women in education in urban areas, compared to their rural counterparts. Also, this could be because a signicant proportion of middleclass women in urban areas prefer not to work outside the home, and are full-time housewives.
Table 3.4 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector Males Females Persons 19934 200910 67.8 50.9 59.5 47.2

was true across social groups in both rural and urban India. What is most remarkable is the fact that, as compared to the entire population (All), the WPR is much higher for both SCs and STs, which is hardly surprising, since the latter are poorer and must work in order to survive.
Table 3.5 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector SCs 19934 200910 Rural Urban 71.1 56.8 61.4 51.8 STs 19934 200910 81.4 57.0 68.9 49.2 All Groups 19934 200910 67.8 50.9 59.5 47.2

Source: NSS, Report Nos 425 and 516. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

One reason for the decline in WPR for SCs and STs that is observable between the two points of time could well be the greater participation in education of young SCs and STs. In fact, there has been an improvement in the literacy rates among SCs and STs between 19992000 and 20078 in both rural and urban areas (Chapter 6). The improvement in literacy rate was greater in rural areas as compared to urban areas.

WPR across Religious Communities: Lower for Muslims

Among the major religions, WPR was comparable among Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. However, it was much lower in the case of Muslims (Table 3.6). The Sachar Committee (Government of India 2006) pointed out that the lower workforce participation rate (WFPR) among Muslims was essentially due to the lower participation of women in economic activities. For the prime age group of 1564 years (rural and urban India considered together), rural WFPR for Muslim women was only 25 per cent, which was much lower than the WPR for Hindu women (70 per cent) (Government of India 2006). The Sachar Committee further noted that a higher dependency rate among Muslims due to a higher share of younger population was one of the reasons for lower WFPR among Muslim women.

19934 200910 19934 200910 Rural Urban 86.4 76.8 81.2 74.0 48.7 22.3 37.2 18.3

Source: NSS, Report Nos 409 and 515. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

WPR across Social Groups: WPR among SCs/STs declined while their access to education improved slightly
Across social groups in both rural and urban India, WPR was highest in the case of STs (Table 3.5). There was a decline in WPR for both the STs and SCs in 20045. This

Initial estimates of NSS 66th Round reported similar result. WFPR (NSS 66th Round) UPS for rural female is 20.2 per cent compared to rural male WPR of 53.7 per cent. Similarly for urban area, WPR female is 11.9 per cent against WPR male 53.9 per cent.
9

100 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.6 Worker Population Ratio by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Major Religious Community, 19934, 20045, and 200910 (per cent)
Sector 19934 Rural Urban 69.0 51.0 Hindus 20045 67.9 0.9 200910 60.5 47.4 19934 56.8 50.9 Muslims 20045 55.7 49.5 200910 51.8 45.9 19934 65.2 50.8 Christians 20045 64.9 50.2 200910 59.9 49.6 19934 60.6 45.7 Sikhs 20045 65.5 47.3 200910 54.9 45.5

Source: Calculated from NSS Database (50th and 61st Rounds). Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

Occupational Diversication of the Workforce: Increasing importance of rural non-farm sector

In the employment and unemployment surveys conducted by the NSSO, households in both rural and urban areas have been categorized into dierent household types depending upon the economic activity that was the source of their major income.10 A trend analysis of the major sources of income from which households earned their livelihood is important to capture the occupational shifts that are taking place. In rural India, there was a clear decline in the proportion of the population whose major source of income was agricultural self-employment. This underlines the increasing importance of the non-agricultural sector in rural India, where the proportion of the self-employed population increased from 13.1 per cent in 19934 to 15.5 per cent in 200910 (Table 3.7). In fact, even those whose major source of income was self-employment were also involved in casual labour. During 20045, more than 11 per cent of the rural self-employed persons resort also to casual labour work in order to supplement household income (Government of India 2010b). The declining trend in workforce in agriculture was particularly noticeable in the year 200910, for which the proportion of persons employed in agriculture was reduced to 45.5 per cent as compared to 55 per cent during 20078.11 In spite of some data related problems (Government of India 2010c), there is no denying the fact that there has been a growing importance of the non-farm sector in Indias emerging economy.

Box 3.1 Occupational Diversification

The considerable occupational diversication that has been taking place in India has really highlighted the growing importance of the non-farm sector, particularly in the rural areas. One of the high growing sectors in India has been the construction sector. The growth rate of the construction sector has been 12.8 per cent (20056), 10.3 per cent (20067), 10.7 per cent (20078), 5.4 per cent (20089), and 7 per cent (200910) (Government of India 2011). Construction sector is a highly labour absorbing sector, and therefore it would not be implausible to argue that high growth rate in the construction sector had contributed to an occupational shift away from the agricultural sector.

An increasing trend towards self-employment was evident in urban India followed by a sharp decline at the end of the 2005, and a slight decline in regular wage/salaried employment. (Table 3.7).

Unemployment Rate: Increasing in rural India, while marginally declining in urban India
The unemployment rate is the proportion of persons in the labour force who are unemployed. As per the usual principal and subsidiary status, unemployment rates for rural and urban areas showed opposite trends. While rural India experienced an increase in the unemployment rate, urban India experienced a slow decline (Table 3.8). Further, gender disparity in terms of employment opportunities was very stark in urban India where female

Rural and urban households were classied into dierent occupational categories based on the NSS 61st Round of Employment and Unemployment Survey. Rural households were classied into ve occupational categories (self-employed in non-agriculture, agricultural labour, other labour, self-employed in agriculture, others), while urban households were classied into four occupational categories (self-employed, regular wage/salary earning, casual labour, others). 11 Part of the sharp decline in workforce in agriculture was attributed to lack of adequate probing skills of the Contract Investigators (Government of India 2010c).

10

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

101

Table 3.7 Distribution of Households in Rural and Urban India, by Employment Type, 19934, 20045, 20078, and 200910 (per cent)
Sector Household Type Rural Self-employed in non-agriculture Self-employed in Agricultural labour Other labour Others Urban Self-employed Regular wage/salaried Casual labour Others Source: NSS, Report No. 531. 38.8 42.8 12.9 5.5 43.3 39.6 11.8 5.2 42.6 39.0 13.1 5.3 34.7 39.7 12.2 13.1 42.4 27.5 7.5 9.5 16.7 39.8 24.1 10.6 8.8 15.2 39.0 25.1 11.3 9.4 15.5 31.9 25.6 14.8 12.2 19934 20045 20078 200910

unemployment rate increased in 20045, while male unemployment rate declined.12

Table 3.8 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector Males 19934 200910 Rural Urban 1.4 4.1 1.6 2.8 Females 19934 0.6 6.3 200910 1.6 5.7 Persons 19934 200910 1.2 4.5 1.6 3.4

by current daily status in India is much higher than that measured by usual principal status, because the former are those who are unable to nd employment for signicant periods of the year. According to current daily status, the unemployment rate for males increased from 5.6 per cent in 19934 to 8.5 per cent in 20078. For females, it increased from 5.6 per cent to 8.1 per cent during the same period.13 This unemployment rate captures not only unemployment, which in an economy like India where the vast majority of the labour force toils in the informal sector (93 per cent of it, including those in agriculture), but it also captures underemployment which is a far more serious problem than open unemployment. The poor are much too poor to be openly unemployed for a large part of the year; otherwise, they could not survive. Across major states in both rural and urban India, increase in unemployment rate (by usual principal and subsidiary status) between 19934 and 20045 was higher in Kerala and Orissa as compared to other major states (Tables 3A.3 and 3A.4).

Unemployment Rate across Social Groups: Higher for SCs in rural India and STs in urban India (by current daily status)
Between 19934 and 20045, the unemployment rate (by usual principal and subsidiary status) increased for SCs in both rural and urban India (Table 3.9).
Table 3.9 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups, 19934 and 200910 (per cent)
Sector SCs STs All Groups

Source: NSS, Report Nos 409 and 515. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

The estimate of the unemployed in 20045 varied from 10.8 million (as per usual principal status) to 35 million (as per current daily status) (Government of India 2010b). As already mentioned, the unemployment rate dened according to current daily status gives a very dierent estimate as compared to unemployment rate dened according to usual principal status. The dierence in unemployment rates by these two denitions (current daily status and usual principal status) indicates the existence of intermittent unemployment. The unemployment rate
12

19934 200910 19934 200910 19934 200910 Rural Urban 1.0 4.4 1.6 3.2 0.6 3.9 1.4 4.4 1.2 4.5 1.6 3.4

Source: NSS, Report Nos 425 and 516. \Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

As per current daily status for the country as a whole, there was a decline in the unemployment rate between

The unemployment rate of 1.7 per cent by usual principal and subsidiary status in 20045 implies that 1.7 per cent of the labour force did not obtain any employment according to major time criterion. Employment and unemployment by the current daily status is determined by the activity status of the person on each day of the reference week using a priority-cum-major time criterion. Low unemployment rate by usual principal and subsidiary status merely drives home the point that a very small fraction (1.7 per cent) of the labour force remains openly unemployed for a considerable period of time (more than six months in a year). Unemployment measured as per current daily status captures both open unemployment as well as underemployment. 13 NSS 64th Round, Employment and Unemployment Situation in India, 20078. Early estimates for 200910 shows that unemployment in rural India declined to 6.8 per cent and in urban India to 6.6 per cent.

102 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

20045 (8.3 per cent) and 20078 (8.1 per cent). However, rural and urban India showed opposite trends. While urban India experienced a decline in unemployment rate, rural India experienced a marginal increase (Table 3.10). Across social groups, the unemployment rate by current daily status was the highest for SCs in both rural (12 per cent) and urban (7 per cent) India. As against this, the unemployment rates for Others in rural and urban India were 5.3 per cent and 4.6 per cent, respectively. Further, the unemployment rate for STs increased in both rural and urban India (Table 3.10). In fact, in urban India, the unemployment rate increased only for STs. However, for all other social groups it declined, thereby causing an overall decline in unemployment rate in urban India during this period. Since urban India is at the centre of the ongoing growth phenomenon, the fact that the unemployment rate is increasing only for STs at the centre of economic growth, further highlights the fact that economic growth has not been inclusive enough. At the policy level, this calls for improving the employability of STs through capability enhancement. In this Report, dierential attainment in terms of various socio-economic indicators across social groups and religious communities has been discussed in detail in the relevant chapters, and therefore, they are not being repeated here. In a nutshell, it can be pointed out that achievements in various socio-economic indicators have not been uniform across socio-religious groups, which inuenced the non-inclusive character of the growth process. Four statesAndhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradeshtogether accounted for a signicant proportion of the ST population in the country (38 per cent in 20078). It was notable that unemployment rates (by current daily status) were much higher than the national average in these states in both rural and urban areas (Table 3A.5 and Table 3A.6).

Table 3.10 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups, 20045, 20078, and 200910 (per cent)
Social Group Rural Urban

20045 20078 200910 20045 20078 200910 SCs STs OBCs Others All 12.0 6.5 7.7 6.6 8.2 12.0 7.5 7.9 6.4 8.4 9.4 6.3 6.5 5.3 6.8 11.4 7.5 8.5 7.1 8.3 10.1 10.0 7.7 6.0 7.4 7.0 7.8 6.2 4.6 5.8

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 61st and 64th Rounds.

Similarly, among SCs, the unemployment rate (by current daily status) was one of the highest in Tamil Nadu in both rural and urban areas (Table 3A.5 and Table 3A.6). This is of signicance because in 20078, 7 per cent of the SC population in the country resided in Tamil Nadu.

Unemployment Rate across Religious Communities: Open unemployment rate was increasing for Muslims
In rural India, the unemployment rate (by usual principal and subsidiary status) increased for all major religious communities in 20045 as compared to 19934. In urban India, the unemployment rate increased only in the case of Muslims (before falling) while for all other religious communities there was a marginal decline (Table 3.11). The unemployment rate according to the current daily status, a far more sensitive indicator of the state of the labour market in India than the usual principal status indicator, increased for the two largest religious communities (Hindus and Muslims) in rural India in 20078 as compared to 20045, before falling. For all other religious communities there was a decline in the unemployment rate (Table 3.12). In urban India, however, the

Table 3.11 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Major Religious Communities, 19934, 20045, and 200910 (per cent)
Sector 19934 Rural Urban 1.1 4.7 Hindus 20045 1.5 4.4 200910 1.5 3.4 19934 2.1 3.6 Muslims 20045 2.3 4.0 200910 1.9 3.1 19934 3.8 8.6 Christians 20045 4.3 8.5 200910 3.9 2.9 19934 0.7 4.6 Sikhs 20045 3.3 4.5 200910 2.4 5.9

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 50th and 61st Rounds. Note: For population aged 15 years and above.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

103

Table 3.12 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Major Religious Communities, 20045, 20078, and 200910 (per cent)
Religious Rural Urban Community 20045 20078 200910 20045 20078 200910 Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 8.0 8.4 12.0 10.3 8.3 8.8 9.8 6.9 6.8 6.4 9.2 5.1 8.1 8.1 12.6 8.7 7.3 7.3 10.2 5.1 7.0 7.8 6.2 4.6

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 61st and 64th Round.

decline in unemployment rate was observed even in the case of Hindus and Muslims. Among the major states, West Bengal and Kerala together accounted for one-fth of the Muslims in India. The unemployment rate (by current daily status) was higher than the national average in the rural and urban areas of both these states in 20078 (Table 3A.7 and Table 3A.8). The unemployment rate among Muslims was particularly high in Kerala18 per cent in rural Kerala (as against an all India rural average of 9 per cent), and 25 per cent in urban Kerala (as against an all India urban average of 7 per cent).

Wages: Casual labour wage is insucient for decent livelihood

In addition to employment, a decent wage is essential for maintaining a minimum standard of living. The predominance of the unorganized sector is an important feature of employment in India. Job security and decent earnings are characteristics of employment in the formal sector which constituted only 6 per cent of employment in 20045. Almost 96 per cent of female employment is in the unorganized sector as against 91 per cent for males (Government of India 2011).

There were considerable dierences in wages and other work conditions across dierent types of employment. The average daily wage in salaried employment was much higher than other types of wage employment. Even within salaried employment, there was considerable dierence between urban and rural areas (Table 3.13). Wages in urban areas were higher than those in rural areas. Within the unorganized sector, casual labourers were the most vulnerable, and here too, the average wages for females were considerably lower than for males, except in the case of casual labour in public works under MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act). A vast majority of casual labourers in the unorganized sector were paid much lower wages than the stipulated minimum wages. It was estimated that 85 per cent of all casual workers in rural areas and 57 per cent in urban areas got wages below the minimum wages. Further, the physical conditions of work in the unorganized sector were quite deplorable (NCEUS 2007). Since many casual workers earned much less than the minimum wages, a signicant chunk of them were living below the poverty line. Approximately 22 per cent of casual workers were below the poverty line in 20045. It was further noted that the incidence of poverty among urban casual workers was higher than rural casual workers, ruralurban migration being an important contributory factor (Government of India 2010b). Across major states, the proportion of regular employment to total employment in 20045 was less than 10 per cent in Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh. The incidence of poverty in these states was much higher than the national average and these states also had a very high concentration of poor in the country. Employment for a longer period of time in the informal sector was positively correlated with poverty and might also have inter-generational consequences because
(Rs)
Urban Females 108 79 71 48 Males 276 NA NA 87 Females 213 NA NA 51

Table 3.13 Average Daily Wage, 20078

Type of Employment Males Salary / Regular Wage Casual Labour in Public Works under MGNREGA Casual Labour in PublicWorks other than under MGNREGA Casual Labour in Other Types of Works Source: NSS, Report No. 531. Note: NA implies Not Applicable. 175 79 76 67 Rural

104 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the children were more likely to inherit their parents poverty due to low educational achievement. Moreover, with hardly any social protection in the informal sector, the chances of old-age poverty rise with informal employment (Shepherd 2010).

Skill Development: A necessity to realize the benets of demographic dividend

In order to fully utilize the demographic dividend (increasing share of the working age population) it is important that the population in the working age group is productively employed. This is possible only if the working population is educated and acquires the requisite skills. At present, only 10 per cent of the workforce in the country has some form of skill training (2 per cent with formal training and 8 per cent with informal training). This is extremely low when compared with countries like Korea (96 per cent), Germany (75 per cent), Japan (80 per cent), and the United Kingdom (68 per cent). What is more, 80 per cent of the new entrants into the workforce do not have any opportunity for skill training (Planning Commission 2008). Lack of educational attainment is one of the important reasons for inadequate skill training in the country. In 20078, mean years of schooling in India was 4.2 years (see Chapter 6 for further discussion). One-third of the workforce of 395 million in the unorganized sector in the country is illiterate. Moreover, high training costs often prevent workers in the informal sector from participating successfully in training programmes. In addition, there are a number of structural deciencies and constraints, which have adversely aected skill development in India. Some of these are Absence of interaction between industry and training institutes Obsolete curricula and infrastructure Mismatch between training and employment requirements. This is because many trades have lost their relevance due to technological advancement. Their continuation in the curricula of industrial training institutes (ITIs) and industrial training centres (ITCs) have resulted in a huge mismatch between training and employment requirements. In order to give concrete shape to the policy structure of skill development, the Government of India set up the

Skill Development Mission in 2007 with a three-tier structure, namely, (a) the Prime Ministers National Council on Skill Development, (b) the National Skill Development Coordination Board, and (c) the National Skill Development Corporation. As an integral part of the National Skill Development Mission, the Prime Minister of India announced a fourfold increase in the skilled manpower training capacity of the country on 15 August 2007. The Government of India has taken a number of initiatives for nancing the training, for example, 1. Upgradation of 500 ITIs into Centres of Excellence with domestic as well as World Bank funding to the tune of Rs 20 billion. 2. Upgradation of 1396 government ITIs through the PublicPrivate Partnership model with Rs 35.5 billion. 3. Establishment of Skill Development Centres through the Public-Private Partnership model at a cost of Rs 1,115 billion. In order to increase employment opportunities and enhance the quality of employment for the growing working age population, adequate training of the youth, and skill formation are essential. Revitalising the vocational and technical education system in the country, therefore, is crucial in realizing the demographic dividend. This will not only improve employability and help in poverty reduction particularly for those who had to withdraw from the formal education system due to various reasons, but can also contribute substantially to the sustained economic success of the country. The experience of various East Asian countries which began from a very low base of training and skill acquisition and made spectacular progress over the years in human capital formation, bears testimony to this (NCEUS 2007).
ASSET OWNERSHIP

Occupational patterns and employment opportunities are determined to a very large extent by the ownership of physical assets and human capital. Members of the household end up in low-paying jobs as a result of lack of access to these assets. The analysis of human capital, in particular educational attainment, has been done elsewhere in this report (Chapter 6). This section will focus on the ownership of physical assets only. Assets are the most important indicators of a households material well-being, particularly in rural areas.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

105

Proportion of total assets owned

In addition to their productive potential, assets also have collateral value and can be sold in the market. Thus, ownership of assets also provides a certain degree of security against adverse economic shocks. In other words, assets act as a cushion against income vulnerability, and households can fall back on them in times of income shortfalls, either by selling them or by using them as collateral to obtain credit. Asset ownership is critical to both resilience and escaping poverty (Shepherd 2010).

Gini coefficient = 0.67 100 (5, 38.1) 80

60

(5, 14.7) (10, 17.1) (10, 10.2) (10, 6.8) (60, 12.7)

40

Asset Inequality: High asset inequality with almost unchanged distribution

In both rural and urban India there was hardly any change in the extent of inequality in the ownership of assets between 19912 and 20023 (the most recent point of time for which asset data is available) (Table 3.14).14 In India, the distribution of assets is extremely unequal, with the top 5 per cent of households owning 38 per cent of the total assets, and the bottom 60 per cent of households own only 13 per cent of the total assets (Figure 3.2).
Table 3.14 Gini Coefficient of Asset Ownership in Rural and Urban India, 19912 and 20023
Sector Rural Urban 19912 0.64 0.72 20023 0.64 0.70

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Proportion of households

Figure 3.2 Lorenz Curve for Total Assets, All India, 20023

Table 3.15 Distribution of Assets among Rural and Urban Households, 19912 and 20023 (per cent)
Proportion of Households Rural Urban

19912 20023 19912 20023 Top 5% of Households Middle 35% of Households 35.7 49.5 36.1 49.1 14.8 42.0 48.7 9.3 38.3 51.5 10.2

Bottom 60% of Households 14.8

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 48th and 59th rounds.

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 48th and 59th Rounds.

Clearly, asset ownership in both rural and urban India continued to be extremely unequal and was characterized by the high concentration of assets among the households belonging to the higher wealth deciles and lack of ownership of assets at the lower wealth deciles. In rural India, the top 5 per cent of households owned 36 per cent of total value of assets, while the bottom 60 per cent of households owned only 15 per cent of the total value of assets. In urban India, ownership distribution of assets was even more unequal with the bottom 60 per cent of households owning only 10 per cent of total value of assets (Table 3.15).

Composition of Assets: Land as a source of rural livelihood?

In terms of composition, land was by far the most important asset owned by rural households. Land along with buildings constituted more than 85 per cent of the total value of assets in rural India (Table 3.16). In urban India, the share of land in total value of assets was much lower than in rural India. In terms of composition of assets, land and buildings had very similar shares in urban India, and together they constituted 75 per cent of the total value of assets.

14 According to AIDIS, household assets represented everything that was owned by the household and had money value. Assets were broadly categorized as land, buildings, livestock, agricultural machinery and hand implements, non-farm business equipment, transport equipment, durable household goods, and nancial assets (shares, dues receivable, deposits, and the like). Assets were valued at the current market prices in their existing conditions prevailing in the locality.

106 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.16 Composition of Assets in Rural and Urban India, 19912 and 20023
Type of Asset 19912 Land Buildings Livestock Agricultural Machinery and Hand Implements Non-Farm Business Equipment Transport Equipment Household Durables Financial Assets All Assets Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 48th and 59th Rounds. 64.2 21.4 3.4 2.2 0.3 1.2 5.9 1.3 100.0 Rural 20023 63.2 23.5 2.1 2.0 0.3 1.4 5.1 2.3 100.0 19912 35.5 39.3 0.4 0.2 1.5 3.0 11.6 8.4 100.0 Urban

(per cent)

20023 38.5 37.8 0.2 0.2 1.4 3.8 8.4 9.6 100.0

Even though land was the most important asset owned by rural households, problems related to land administration have adversely aected agricultural productivity and employment generation. Unclear land titles have resulted in large number of land disputes, which in turn have adversely aected the possibility of land being used as collateral in obtaining agricultural credit from formal sources of credit. This is one of the reasons for the declining investment in agriculture (Planning Commission 2008). Reforming the land record system to improve titling and only then computerization of land records is vital, given the dominance of land in the composition of rural assets. In addition to unclear land titles, tenancy legislations have also resulted in declining agricultural investment. It may be noted that agricultural tenancies are banned in a large number of states, even though various forms of tenancy contracts exist orally. Since such tenancy contracts are not registered, the condition of the poor tenants (the majority of whom are either landless or have very little land) is precarious and they are often at the mercy of the landowners (Planning Commission 2008). Tenurial insecurity associated with the informal nature of tenancy contracts has deterred tenants from making any substantial investment in agriculture, which can be sustainable for a longer period of time. Tenancy reforms aimed at the security of tenants are important for bringing in fresh investment into agriculture. An important distinction in terms of asset composition between rural and urban India was with regard to ownership

of nancial assets. In rural India, nancial assets formed a very insignicant part of a households asset portfolio, while it constituted the third most important item in the assets owned by the urban households (Table 3.16).

Asset Ownership across Occupational Categories: Regular wage/salary earnings only important in urban areas
The largest proportion of households in rural India belonged to the category of self-employed in agriculture, followed by the category of agricultural labour. However, the proportion of households belonging to these two categories declined in 20023 as compared to 19912. This is a clear indication of the growing importance of the non-farm sector in rural India. In urban India, the proportion of casual labour households declined in 20023 as compared to 19912. The declining proportion of households depending primarily on agriculture and the growing importance of the non-farm sector in the rural economy is largely due to the fact that agriculture is not remunerative enough. Legal problems with land titles, tenancy legislations, and the associated problem of access to credit have all resulted in agriculture becoming non-remunerative. The majority of the assets in rural India were owned by households which were categorized as self-employed in agriculture (Table 3.17). On the other hand, agricultural labour households owned a much smaller share of assets compared to their numerical strength. In urban India, the proportion of assets owned by the self-employed was

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

107

larger than the proportion of self-employed households. For all other occupational categories, the share of assets owned was lower than their respective shares among all households (Table 3.17). The pattern of asset distribution across occupational categories clearly indicated an asset concentration within the self-employed in agriculture households in rural areas, and self-employed households in urban areas. This can be more clearly captured by the use of the Access Index which is dened as the ratio of the proportion of assets owned by a specic group to the proportion of households belonging to that specic group.15 In this sub-section, the specic groups are dened in terms of the occupational categories. In rural India, the value of the Access Index was greater than 1 for the households which were self-employed in agriculture. For all other

occupational categories in rural India, the value of the Access Index was less than 1. The lack of ownership of assets was most pronounced in the case of agricultural labour households (the value of Access Index was 0.29) in rural India. In urban India, the casual labour households were characterized by the lack of ownership of assets (the value of the Access Index was the lowest), while the selfemployed households had a very favourable distribution of assets (Table 3.18).

Asset Ownership across Social Groups: Lower value of Access Index for SCs and STs
In this section, the ownership of assets across social groups is analysed only for the 59th round of AIDIS (20023). In the 48th round of AIDIS (19912), OBCs
(per cent)
20023 Per cent of Assets Owned Per cent of Households Per cent of Assets Owned

Table 3.17 Distribution of Households and Assets, by Occupational Categories, 19912 and 20023
Sector Occupational Category Per cent of Households Rural Self-employed in non-agriculture Agricultural labour Other labour Self-employed in agriculture Others All rural households Urban Self-employed Regular wage / salary earnings Casual labour Others All urban households 34.0 41.0 14.5 10.4 100.0 48.8 37.5 3.5 9.9 100.0 36.1 41.9 12.0 9.8 100.0 13.0 28.4 7.8 41.5 9.1 100.0 8.4 4.8 2.5 76.6 7.5 100.0 14.4 26.1 10.8 37.3 11.3 100.0 19912

11.2 7.7 5.0 65.1 10.9 100.0

48.7 38.3 3.2 10.3 100.0

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 48th and 59th Rounds.

per cent of assets owned (can be calculated for each social group and religious community) per cent of households This Index was dened by K. Nagaraj, as cited in Ramachandran (1990). If the value of the Access Index is less than 1 for any particular group then it implies that the proportion of assets owned by that group is less than the proportion of households belonging to that specic group. In other words, the value of Access Index less than 1 implies that the distribution of assets is unfavourable for that specic group. If the value of the Access Index is greater than 1 it implies that the assets are distributed favourably for that specic group.
15

Access Index =

108 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.18 Access Index of Asset Ownership, by Occupational Categories, 19912 and 20023
Sector Occupational Category Rural Self-employed in non-agriculture Agricultural labour Other labour Self-employed in agriculture Others Urban Self-employed Regular wage/salary earnings Casual labour Others 1.44 0.91 0.24 0.96 1.30 0.90 0.27 1.04 0.64 0.17 0.32 1.85 0.82 0.78 0.29 0.47 1.74 0.96 19912 20023

social group, with a value more than thrice that of SC households, in both rural and urban India.
Table 3.19 Average Value of Assets, by Social Groups, 20023 (Rs 000)
Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Rural 126 136.6 266 429.6 265.6 Urban 182.3 240.3 334.2 560.5 417.2

Source: Calculated from NSS Database (AIDIS, 59th round).

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 48th and 59th Rounds. Note: For definition of Access Index see footnote 15.

The lack of ownership of assets among SC and ST households was reected in the values of their Access Indices. Among all the social groups in rural and urban India, the value of the Access Index was the lowest for SC households followed by ST households (Table 3.20).

were clubbed together with Other social groups and were not considered as a separate entity. Hence, comparison between the 48th round and 59th rounds of AIDIS is not possible for all the social groups. In both rural and urban India, SC households were the most disadvantaged in terms of ownership of assets. The average value of assets owned by the SC households was the lowest, both in rural and urban India (Table 3.19). The average value of assets was the highest for the Others

Asset Ownership across Religious Communities: Muslims are the most disadvantaged
As in the previous sub-section, the analysis of asset ownership across religious communities is based on the 59th round of AIDIS. In 20023, Hindus were by far the largest religious group in the country constituting 83.6 per cent of all households. Muslims came second (11 per cent of
(per cent)
Access Index

Table 3.20 Distribution of Households and of Assets, by Social Groups, 20023

Sector Rural Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Urban Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 59th Round. 14.6 2.9 34.7 47.7 6.4 1.7 27.8 64.1 22.0 10.2 41.0 26.7 10.4 5.2 41.1 43.1 Social Group Per cent of Households Per cent of Assets Owned

0.47 0.51 1.00 1.60

0.44 0.57 0.80 1.34

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

109

households) followed by Christians and Sikhs. The value of Access Indices for Hindus and Muslims was less than 1, while in the case of Christians, Sikhs, and Others it was greater than 1 (Table 3.21).
Table 3.21 Distribution of Households and Assets, by Major Religious Communities, 20023 (per cent)
Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Others Per cent of Households 83.6 11.0 2.6 1.6 1.2 Per cent of Assets Owned 81.3 8.2 3.5 5.5 1.5 Access Index 0.9 0.7 1.3 3.4 1.2

at 19734 prices) and urban (Rs 56.64 per capita per month at 19734 prices) India were obtained. Since then, the methodology as formulated by the Task Force has been used in estimating the incidence of poverty by the Planning Commission. The focus of this methodology was on the purchasing power needed to meet the specic calorie norms with some margin for non-food consumption needs. The state specic rural and urban poverty lines are updated by using the Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labourers for rural areas and Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the case of urban areas.

Consumption Expenditure: Rising inequality in both rural and urban India with declining interstate disparity
Consumer expenditure is an important indicator of the standard of living, and the estimates of consumer expenditure are obtained from NSS surveys on consumer expenditure. During the period from 19934 to 20045, there was an increase in consumption inequality in both rural and urban India, both in terms of the uniform reference period (URP) as well as the mixed reference period (MRP) (Tables 3.23 and 3.24). The dierence in the consumption expenditure between the households concentrated at the top and those located at the bottom increased in both rural and urban India. Studies have indicated that in rural India, the gap between the rural elite (moneylenders, absentee landlords) and rural poor (marginal farmers and agricultural labourers) had increased in 20045 as compared to 19934. Similarly in urban India, the distance between the elite (represented by the owners, managers, and professionals) and the poor (mostly unskilled manual workers) had increased during the same period (Vakulabharanam 2010).
Table 3.23 Inequality in MPCE in Rural and Urban Areas (Gini Coefficient), by URP, 19934 and 20045
Year 19934 20045 Rural 0.28 0.30 Urban 0.34 0.37

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 59th Round.

When households were classied simultaneously into religious communities and social groups, it was observed that the value of the Access Index varied considerably across social groups within Hindus. Within Hindus, the value of Access Index was the lowest for ST households followed by SC households (Table 3.22).
Table 3.22 Access Index of Households, by Social Groups among Hindus, 20023
Scheduled Tribes Hindus 0.43 Scheduled Castes 0.45 Other Backward Classes 0.95 Others 1.68

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, AIDIS, 59th Round.

POVERTY

Poverty reduction has been a major concern among policymakers in India and it has been reected in various policy documents including the Eleventh Five Year Plan (200712), which clearly stated that the persistence of poverty on the scale at which it still exists is not acceptable (Planning Commission 2008: 2). In India, the Planning Commission is the nodal agency for the estimation of the number and proportion of people living below the poverty line at the national and state levels, in both rural and urban areas. The estimates are based on a large sample survey of consumer expenditure conducted by the NSSO. The NSS 28th Round (19734) consumer expenditure data was used and the poverty lines for rural (Rs 49.09 per capita per month

Source: Planning Commission, Government of India. Note: Refer to Box 3.2 regarding URP.

A comparison of MPCE across states during dierent survey periods (19934, 20045) revealed that the average MPCE (by URP) in Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh

110 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.24 Inequality in MPCE in Rural and Urban Areas (Gini Coefficient), by MRP, 20045 and 20078
Year 20045 20078 Rural 0.25 0.28 Urban 0.35 0.36 Year 1983 19934 20045

Table 3.25 Share of Expenditure on Food in Rural and Urban, 1983, 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Rural 66 63 55 Urban 59 55 42

Source: For 20045, Planning Commission, Government of India. For 20078 calculated form NSS Database (64th Round, Consumer Expenditure Survey). Note: Refer to Box 3.2 regarding MRP.

Source: NSS, Report Nos 402 and 508.

have been the lowest as compared to other states, while Kerala and Punjab have consistently been on the higher end. In 20045, Kerala had the highest average MPCE for rural areas, which was 2.5 times that of Orissa (the state with the lowest average MPCE). In urban areas, among the major states, Punjab had the highest average MPCE which was 1.9 times the average MPCE for Bihar (the state with the lowest average MPCE) in 20045.16 The pattern of disparity across states can be gauged by looking at the estimates of coecient of variation. Coecient of variation of combined rural and urban MPCE across states fell from 37 per cent in 19934 to 31 per cent in 20045. It further declined to 28 per cent in 20078. Thus, across states there was a decline in coefcient of variation by about 10 percentage points from 19934 to 20078.17 Bihar remained the state with the lowest MPCE during the period 1983 to 20045, despite a four-and-a-half fold increase in average MPCE from Rs 100 to Rs 450 (Table 3A.9). In terms of the composition of consumption expenditure in both rural and urban India, the proportion of consumption expenditure on food has consistently declined over time (Table 3.25). Further, it was observed that the states with a lower average MPCE had a higher proportion of consumption expenditure on food items compared to states with a higher average MPCE. In rural India (20045), in states with the lowest average MPCE (Orissa, Bihar, and Jharkhand) food items accounted for more than 60 per cent of the consumption expenditure. In states with the highest average MPCE (Kerala, Haryana, and Punjab), less than 50 per cent of consumption expenditure was on food.
16 17

Declining share of food in overall consumption expenditure for all occupational categories The most important good news that emerges is that the share of food in total MPCE has declined for all occupational groups between 19934 and 20045. Systematically this is true in both rural and urban areas. This suggests that the increases in income consequent upon faster economic growth in the 1990s and the rst half of the 2000s (as compared to the 1980s) did show up on all sections of society diversifying their consumption expenditureaway from food. At the same time, it is clear from both the Tables 3.26 and 3.27 that the occupational group which had the lowest average MPCE spent the highest proportion on food items. Across occupational categories, the condition of labourers was the worst among all occupational categories both in rural and urban India. In rural India (20045), the lowest average MPCE (by URP) was for agricultural labourers followed by other labourers. In urban India, casual labourers had the lowest average MPCE.18 Moreover, in rural India, the highest proportion of MPCE on food items was by the agricultural labour households (Table 3.26). In urban India, this was true for casual labour households (Table 3.27). Further, the relative gaps in consumption levels between the rich and the poor widened in both rural and urban India during the post-reform period. In rural India, the average MPCE for Others was 1.5 times that of agricultural labourers in 19934, and it increased to twice in 20045. In urban India, the average MPCE for regular salary earners was 2.1 times that of casual labourers in 20045, while it was 1.9 times in 19934.

The state-wise MPCE gures were obtained from NSS Reports (Nos 402 and 508). MPCE for the year 20078 was based on MRP. 18 Source is the NSS Report No. 514. Occupational categories were dened according to the NSS 61st Round, Consumer Expenditure Survey.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

111

Box 3.2 Reference Period

MPCE estimates based on the uniform 30 days reference period (URP) are lower than MPCE estimates based on the mixed reference period (MRP) where the reference period is 365 days for the ve infrequently purchased items while for all other items including food items the reference period is 30 days. The dierence primarily arises because of the following two reasons. 1. It is possible that the household did not incur any expenditure on the ve non-food items (clothing, footwear, education, medical expenses, and durable goods) during the last 30 days prior to the date of survey, while expenditures on such items might be incurred by the household during the last 365 days prior to the date of survey. 2. Expenditure reported for the 30 days reference period gets automatically reported in the 365 days reference period. Lately, a lot of debate has been generated regarding the comparability of consumer expenditure data across the NSS Consumer Expenditure survey rounds. The 55th round of the NSS data which was used by the Planning Commission to estimate the incidence of poverty in 19992000, was subject to intense debate because of lack of comparability with data of earlier years. The non-comparability was the result of dierences in recall period for items of consumption across the survey rounds. For instance, in the 55th round, the consumption data for the ve non-food items (clothing, footwear, durable goods, education and institutional medical expenses) were collected from the 365-day recall period, while in the 50th round (19934) it was from 30-day recall period. Deaton (2003) observed that most people would have reported no such purchases over 30 days but reported some purchases over 365 days. Therefore, it was possible that the poverty estimates based on the 365-day recall period for the ve non-food items would be lower than the poverty estimates based on the 30-day recall period. Attempts were made by several authors to adjust the 55th round data so that the incidence of poverty arrived at by using the 55th round data could be made comparable with the poverty estimates based on the earlier rounds. Sen and Himanshu (2004) made NSS consumption expenditure data across dierent rounds comparable by generating comparable NSS consumer expenditure data of the large surveys of the 43rd round and 50th round with the mixed recall period (30-day for food and 365-day for the ve non-food items) as was done in the 55th round rather than the uniform 30-day recall period. The decline in poverty between the 50th round and the 55th round was only 2.8 percentage points. The authors further pointed out that this magnitude of poverty reduction was lower than that between the 43rd round and 50th round, and this coupled with the fact that the absolute number of poor did not decline in 19992000, meant that the 1990s could be termed as a relatively lost decade for poverty reduction.

Table 3.26 Average MPCE (Rs) and Proportion of MPCE Spent on Food, by Occupational Groups (Rural), 19934 and 20045
Social Group Average MPCE Self-employed in non-agriculture Agricultural labour Other labour Self-employed in agriculture Others All Occupational Groups Source: NSS, Report Nos 422 and 514. Note: MPCE based on URP. 295 217 266 309 331 282 19934 Per cent Spent on Food 62.7 66.4 63.2 61.5 64.0 63.1 Average MPCE 604 416 520 583 818 559 20045 Per cent Spent on Food 53.6 59.1 55.2 55.9 48.0 55.1

112 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.27 Average MPCE (Rs) and Proportion of MPCE Spent on Food, by Occupational Groups (Urban), 19934 and 20045
Social Group Average MPCE Self-employed Regular wage / salary earnings Casual labour Others All Occupational Groups Source: NSS, Report Nos 422 and 514. Note: MPCE based on URP. 435 534 279 510 458 19934 Per cent Spent on Food 56.3 52.1 63.4 53.9 54.6 Average MPCE 982 1213 580 1445 1052 20045 Per cent Spent on Food 43.9 40.4 53.1 38.6 42.5

MPCE across Social Groups: MPCE lower for STs and SCs than for other social groups
Across social groups in 20045, STs had the lowest average MPCE (by URP) in rural India, while in urban India SCs had the lowest average MPCE (relatively fewer STs reside in urban areas, while SCs are more numerous in urban areas). As expected, in both rural and urban India, the average MPCE was the highest for Others (in rural India it was 1.6 times that of STs, while in urban India it was 1.7 times that of SCs).19 It was observed that in rural India, the proportion of MPCE on food items was more or less similar. In urban India, the proportion of MPCE on food items was the highest for SCs, while it was the lowest for Others (Table 3.28). In addition to dierences across social groups, an important point to note from Table 3.28 is the huge

ruralurban dierences in average MPCE in the case of all social groups taken together. The average MPCE in urban India was almost twice that in rural India. This ruralurban disparity was the highest in the case of STs (average MPCE in urban India being twice that in rural India), and lowest in case of SCs and OBCs (average MPCE in urban India being 1.6 times that in rural India for both social groups). This (and the fact that STs MPCE in rural areas was lowest of all (only Rs 426)) suggests that the STs in rural areas remain the poorest of the poor, with nearly three-fths of their total consumption expenditure going to foodthe only group for which this is true. In fact, the ruralurban dierence in MPCE persisted, and in fact increased, by 20078. The average MPCE in urban India was 1.9 times that in rural India. The ruralurban disparity was the highest in case of STs in 20078 (Table 3.29).

Table 3.28 Average MPCE (Rs) and Proportion Spent on Food, by Social Groups, 20045
Social Group Average MPCE Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Source: NSS, Report No. 514. Note: MPCE based on URP.
19 Comparison of MPCE across social groups is not possible between dierent survey periods because in the 19934 survey OBCs were included as a part of Others, while in the 20045 survey OBCs were considered a separate social group.

Rural India Per cent Spent on Food 57.3 58.9 54.9 53.0 55.1 Average MPCE 758 857 871 1306 1052

Urban India Per cent Spent on Food 48.0 46.6 45.9 39.4 42.5

475 426 557 685 559

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

113

Table 3.29 Average MPCE, by Social Groups, 20078 (Rs)

Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Rural 652 617 765 964 772 Urban 1100 1221 1231 1817 1472

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 64th Round Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: MPCE based on MRP.

As expected, across social groups in both rural and urban India, the average value of MPCE was the highest for the Others in 20078. In rural India, the average MPCE for the SCs, STs, and OBCs was respectively 30 per cent, 40 per cent, and 20 per cent lower than that of Others. A similar disparity could be observed in the case of urban India (Table 3.30).
Table 3.30 Ratio of Average MPCE for SCs, STs, OBCs as compared to Others, 20078
Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Rural 0.7 0.6 0.8 Urban 0.6 0.7 0.7

Overall, it was observed that the social groups/occupational categories which had the lowest value of average MPCE spent the highest proportion on food items. In rural India, it was agricultural labour households which had the lowest value of average MPCE, and in urban India it was the casual labour households. Across social groups, SCs and STs had the lowest average MPCE in rural and urban areas, respectively. Among the states, the average MPCE for Bihar and Orissa has consistently been on the lower end. An analysis of the pattern of consumption expenditure during the post liberalization period (between 19934 and 20045) clearly suggested that the biggest gainers were the urban elite belonging to the upper castes.

Trends in Poverty: Declining but absolute number of poor still high

Reducing the poverty headcount ratio to half of the 1990 level by the year 2015 is the foremost Millennium Development Goal enshrined in the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations. In the case of India this implies that the poverty headcount ratio should come down to 18.6 per cent by the year 2015. Given the fact that the historical rate of decline in poverty during the period 1990 to 2005 was 0.8 per cent per annum, the target set for poverty reduction seems achievable (Planning Commission 2008). The incidence of poverty in India came down from 55 per cent in 19734 to 27.5 per cent (as per URP) in 20045 (Planning Commission 2008). During this period, the absolute number of people living below the poverty line declined from 320 million to 300 million. In addition, the rural-urban dierence in the incidence of poverty declined between the years 1983 and 20045 (Table 3.31). However, these numbers discussed above use the URP method of estimating the headcount ratio of the poor. We have also used the MRP method for two points of time: 20045 and 20078. Between 20045 and 20078, there was a considerable decline in the proportion of people living below the poverty line.20 The proportion of people

Source: Calculated from, 64th Round Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: MPCE based on MRP. Others refers to the upper-castes, otherwise also referred to Forward Castes.

It may be pointed out here that better health and educational attainments in urban India as compared to rural India (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6) resulted in the enhancement of human capabilities in urban India, thereby leading to higher incomes, which in turn contributed towards a higher MPCE for those residing in urban areas. The incidence of poverty in urban India (as will be seen in the following sub-section), was therefore lower than that in rural India.

20 Comparison of incidence of poverty between 20045 and 20078 is done according to consumption expenditure measured by MRP. Poverty lines for rural and urban India in 20078 are calculated by deating the 20045 poverty lines using consumer price index for agricultural labourers in case of rural areas and consumer price index for industrial workers in case of urban areas. The poverty lines thus arrived at for 20078 are Rs 429 per capita per month for rural areas and Rs 639 per capita per month for urban areas.

114 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.31 Incidence of Poverty in Rural and Urban Areas, 1983, 199394 and 20045
Year Per cent of Poor 1983 19934 20045 45.7 37.3 28.3 Rural Number of Poor (Million) 252 244 221 Per cent of Poor 40.8 32.4 25.7 Urban Number of Poor (Million) 71 76 81

Source: 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, Early calculation from NSS 64th Round, Consumer Expenditure Survey Data. Note: Poverty based on URP.

living below the poverty line (as per MRP) declined from 22 per cent in 20045 to 15 per cent in 20078.21 These numbers are obviously not comparable to the URP gures in the previous paragraph. There were considerable interstate variations in the incidence of poverty, characterized by a very high concentration in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Orissa, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand). In 20045, 60 per cent of the poor in rural India belonged to these states. These are the states where the bulk of the SCs, STs, and Muslims reside. Thus, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh together account for 40 per cent of the STs in India. Similarly, close to 30 per cent of the SCs are located in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which also account for one-third of the Muslim population in the country.22 Even though the incidence of poverty has come down in these states (following the national trend), the proportion of people living below the poverty line was much higher than the national average (Table 3A.10). The relative ranks of these four states in terms of the incidence of poverty deteriorated between 19934 and 20045, implying that the performance of these states has been much worse than the others in terms poverty reduction. Among the major states, there has been signicant reduction in poverty (in 20045 as compared to 1983) in the states of Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal (Table 3A.10). Even though the divergence in the incidence of poverty has declined over the years across states, some states, particularly Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh, have performed much worse than others in terms of poverty reduction.

Further, despite a decline in the poverty headcount ratio in the country, the incidence of poverty was still quite high when compared to international gures. In 2005, the incidence of poverty was 25 per cent for the developing countries as a whole based on the international poverty line of US $ 1.25 per person per day (Table 3.32). Applying the same standard, the incidence of poverty in India was 42 per cent higher than that for the South Asian region as a whole.
Table 3.32 Population Below International Poverty Line of US $ 1.25 Per Day, 2005 (per cent)
Region / Countries West and Central Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Eastern and Southern Africa Developing Countries India Incidence of Poverty (per cent) 53 51 49 25 42

Source: The State of the Worlds Children 2009, UNICEF.

Poverty across Occupational Categories: High incidence of poverty among agricultural labourers and casual labourers
Among occupational categories, the incidence of poverty was the highest among labour households, in both rural and urban India. In rural India, the incidence of poverty was the highest among agricultural labour households followed by other labour households, while in urban

21 Please refer to http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=26316 for incidence of poverty by MRP for the year 20045. For the year 20078, the incidence of poverty by MRP is calculated from the NSS database (64th round, consumer expenditure survey) 22 Distribution of social groups and religious communities across states were calculated from NSS Database, 64th Round.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

115

India, it was the highest among casual labour households (Tables 3.33 and 3.34).
Table 3.33 Incidence of Poverty, by Occupational Categories (Rural), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Occupational Category Self-employed in non-agriculture Agricultural labour Other labour Self-employed in agriculture Others All occupational categories Source: Calculated from NSSO database. Note: Poverty based on URP. 19934 32.2 56.8 39.7 29.2 22.7 37.2 20045 23.5 46.4 30.4 21.5 14.0 28.3

Table 3.34 Incidence of Poverty. by Occupational Categories (Urban), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Occupational Category Self-employed Regular wage/salary earnings Casual labour Others All occupational categories Source: Calculated from NSSO database. Note: Poverty based on URP. 19934 35.0 20.7 62.1 28.7 31.9 20045 27.9 15.3 57.0 16.1 25.6

decomposition rule as proposed by Huppi and Ravallion (1990). According to this rule, decline in poverty can be decomposed into the intra-occupational category eect, the population shift eect, and the interaction eect.24 This decomposition exercise was carried out separately for both rural and urban India.25 For rural India, all summations were over ve occupational categories (selfemployed in non-agriculture, agricultural labour, other labour, self-employed in agriculture, and others). In the case of urban India, all summations were over four occupational categories (self-employed, regular wage/ salary earnings, casual labour, and others). The percentage contribution of each of the occupation groups to aggregate reduction in poverty was calculated for both rural and urban India. In rural India, the drop in poverty among the selfemployed in agriculture had the largest inuence on aggregate poverty reduction (36 per cent). The next important contributor to overall poverty reduction came from the reduction in poverty within agricultural labour households (32 per cent). Given the fact that the incidence of poverty was the highest among agricultural labour households which constituted a signicant proportion of rural population, poverty alleviation among this occupational category will have a major impact on overall poverty reduction. In the case of urban India, the decline in poverty within the self-employed households made the largest contribution to overall poverty reduction (42 per cent).

The high incidence of poverty among agricultural labour and other labour households in rural India is a matter of great concern given the fact that more than onethird of the population belongs to these two categories of households.23 As compared to 19934 the incidence of poverty across all occupational categories declined in 20045. The sources of this observed reduction in aggregate poverty across occupational categories can be analysed by using a
23

Poverty across Social Groups: Concentration of poverty among SCs and STs in certain States
Across social groups, the incidence of poverty was much more pronounced among the SCs and STs. Even though the incidence of poverty among the SCs and STs declined in 20045 as compared to 19934, it was much higher than the national average (Table 3.35).

These two categories of households together constituted 35 per cent of the rural population in both 19934 and 20045. In the case of intra-occupational category, eect base period population share is controlled, and it explains the contribution of poverty change within the occupational category. The population shift eect measures the reduction in poverty as a result of the shift in population share. For further details, refer to Huppi and Ravallion, 1990. 25 Let Pi(t) denote the incidence of poverty for the i-th occupational category at time period t. Let the population share for the i-th occupational category be Ni. Then, according to the decomposition rule P200405 P199394 = S[(Pi(2) Pi(1))Ni(1)] + S[(Ni(2) Ni(1)) Pi(1)] + S[(Pi(2) Pi(1)) (Ni(2) Ni(1))] Intra-sectoral eects Population shift eects Interaction eects Time period 2 refers to 20045, and time period 1 refers to 19934.
24

116 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.35 Incidence of Poverty, by Social Groups, 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Year SC 19934 20045 48.3 36.8 Rural ST 52.0 47.7 All 37.3 28.3 SC 48.8 39.8 Urban ST 40.1 33.9 All 32.4 25.7

STs followed by SCs, both of which were much higher than those for other groups. State level disaggregation revealed that the incidence of poverty among SCs and STs was particularly high in the states of Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh. Poverty across Religious Communities: One-third of the Muslims in India were below the poverty line Hindus are the dominant religious group in India, followed by Muslims. According to Census 2001, Hindus and Muslims together constituted 94 per cent of the total population in the country. For the country as a whole, the incidence of poverty (as per URP) among Muslims was higher than Hindus (Figure 3.3). Close to 32 per cent of Muslims in the country were below the poverty line, implying that one in every three Muslims was below the poverty line. The incidence of poverty among Hindus was close to 29 per cent. In rural India, the incidence of poverty among Hindus and Muslims was more or less similar to their respective population shares. However, in urban India, the incidence of poverty among Muslims was much higher than their population share (Table 3A.11). In other words, the relative deprivation of Muslims was much higher in urban areas. Less than one-fth of urban Muslims had a spending capacity equivalent to or higher than the national average of Rs 1,050 per month (Government of India 2006). Even though there was not much of dierence in the incidence of poverty between Hindus and Muslims in the year 20045, the disparity between dierent social groups among the Hindus was quite signicant. Among the Hindus, the incidence of poverty for SCs, STs, and OBCs was 39 per cent, 52 per cent, and 28 per cent, respectively. Amongupper castes Hindusthe incidence of poverty was only 14 per cent. The relative deprivation of the Muslims in urban areas continued in 20078, with close to one-fourth of the Muslims living below the poverty line (Table 3.37). There is a strong link between poverty and educational attainment. In Chapter 6, it has been shown that in several educational parameters, the SCs, STs, and Muslims lag behind the rest of the population. For instance, the

Source: For 19934 calculated from NSS Database, 50th Round. For 20045, the figures are obtained from the 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India. Note: Poverty based on URP.

The high incidence of poverty among SCs and STs could be observed in 20078 as well, the estimates of which are based on MRP (Table 3.36).26
Table 3.36 Incidence of Poverty , by Social Groups, 20078 (per cent)
Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Rural 20.6 25.3 12.0 6.3 14.9 Urban 22.8 20.6 19.0 7.3 14.5

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 64th Round Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: Poverty based on mixed recall period. These figures are not comparable with those in Table 3.35, since those are based on uniform recall period (see Box 3.1 for details).

In rural India (20045), among SCs, the incidence of poverty was the highest in Bihar (64 per cent) followed by Jharkhand (58 per cent), Uttarakhand (54 per cent), and Orissa (50 per cent). Among STs, the incidence of poverty was the highest in Orissa (76 per cent ) followed by Madhya Pradesh (58.6 per cent) (Government of India 2008). In urban India (20045), among SCs, the incidence of poverty was the highest in Orissa (73 per cent) followed by Madhya Pradesh and Bihar (both 67 per cent). Among STs, the incidence of poverty was the highest in Uttarakhand (64 per cent) followed by Orissa (62 per cent). The above analysis of poverty across social groups clearly highlighted the extreme poverty levels among

26 It has already been pointed out in Box 3.1 that MPCE values based on MRP are higher than MPCE values based on URP, and accordingly, the incidence of poverty based on MRP is lower as compared to poverty estimates based on URP.

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

117

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Hindu 19934 20045

19934

20045

19934

Percentage

20045 19934 20045

Muslim Religion 19934

Christian

Sikh

20045

Figure 3.3 Incidence of Poverty by Major Religious Communities, 19934 and 20045

Table 3.37 Incidence of Poverty, by Major Religious Communities, 20078 (per cent)
Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Rural 14.3 13.3 8.5 2.1 Urban 13.0 23.7 6.6 3.6

Poverty Gap: Severity of poverty higher among SCs and STs

The poverty gap is a measure of the extent of poverty and is dened as the distance between the poverty line and income of the poor individual. In other words, the poverty gap in consumption expenditure indicates to what extent the consumption of the poor falls short of the poverty line. During 20078, the poverty gap in both rural and urban India was higher among SCs and STs across social groups (Table 3.38). This implies that on an average, the consumption expenditure of the poor belonging to the SCs and STs was farther below the poverty line as compared to other social groups. Among religious communities, the poverty gap was higher among Hindus and Muslims in both rural and urban India (Table 3.38). The poverty gap was higher in urban India than rural India. For urban India, the poverty gap in 20078 was 19, which implied that the average income of the urban poor was 19 per cent lower than the poverty line. An analysis of poverty (in 20078, based on MRP) revealed the dierences in the nature of poverty between rural and urban India. While the incidence of poverty was marginally lower in urban India, the poverty gap (which signies extent of poverty) was higher. This clearly points to higher consumption inequalities in urban India, which were reected in the higher value of the Gini coecient, as compared to rural India.

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 64th Round Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: Poverty based on MRP.

incidence of illiteracy in both rural and urban India was higher among these three socio-religious groups as compared to the rest of the population. Lack of educational attainment is an important factor underlying the high incidence of poverty among these groups. Higher levels of educational attainment lead to the lowering of the incidence of poverty. The incidence of poverty for STs (only Hindus) declined from 57 per cent among illiterates to 20 per cent for those completing primary education, and to 6 per cent for those graduating from universities (Thorat 2010). It has been observed that the mean years of schooling in India was below the primary level in 20078 (see Chapter 6 on Education). One of the important measures for poverty reduction would therefore be to ensure that poor children get access to several years of post-primary education.

118 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3.38 Poverty Gap, 20078

Rural By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 15 14 16 12 16 18 14 12 15

(per cent)
Urban

Table 3.39 Rate of Growth of Gross Domestic Product (at Factor Cost) (at 19992000) Prices, 20034 to 200910
Year Growth Rate of GDP (per cent) 8.5 7.5 9.5 9.7 9.0 6.7 7.2

21 21 19 19 19

20034 20045 20056 20067 20078 20089

20 19 10 10

20092010 Source: Economic Survey, Various Issues.

Source: Calculated from NSS Database, 64th Round Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: Poverty based on MRP.

Growth and Poverty: Need for more inclusive growth

The slow pace of economic growth during the initial years after Independence was one of the reasons for the insignicant change in poverty reduction. The GDP per capita grew at an annual rate of 1 per cent during the 1960s and 1970s, and it increased to 3 per cent during the 1980s (Datt and Ravallion 2010). During the last ve to six years, the country has achieved an impressive GDP growth rate (Table 3.39). However, the absolute number of poor in the country still remains quite high at 300 million (in 20045), and the incidence of poverty was much more pronounced among SCs, STs, and Muslims. The Eleventh Five Year Plan noted that the rate of decline in poverty has not accelerated along with the growth in GDP, and the incidence of poverty among certain marginalized groups, for example the STs, has hardly declined at all (Planning Commission 2008: 1). High growth, though essential, is not sucient for poverty reduction on a sustainable basis. Datt and Ravallion (2010) observed that the interaction between the growth process and the non-income dimensions, particularly human capital (education and health), are important for sustainable poverty reduction. Indias persistent

inequalities in human development were a major hindrance to more rapid poverty reduction. Therefore, despite the high rate of economic growth, poverty remains a huge problem in India. Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007) argued that poverty reduction and economic growth work in a synergistic way through several feedback loops, which involves other variables like health and education. Although economic growth is essential to generate resources for supporting health/education for the poor, translating growth into better quality of life for all citizens requires improvements in outcome indicators pertaining to these dimensions of human development for all socio-economic groups (Mehta et al. 2011). Policy intervention targeted exclusively at achieving higher economic growth is unlikely to result in signicant poverty reduction on a sustainable basis. Instead, policies aimed at achieving higher levels of human capital and direct action to reduce poverty is required, in addition to rapid economic growth. (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007).27
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Economic attainment and the well-being of individuals is crucially dependent on the status of employment and access to assets. This chapter focuses on employment and asset ownership in both rural and urban India, and also analyses of trends and incidence of poverty. The analysis is done across households belonging to dierent occupational categories, social groups, and religious communities.

27

For a detailed discussion on synergies and feedback loops, refer to Chapter 2 of this report, along with Mehrotra and Delamonica (2007).

EMPLOYMENT, ASSET OWNERSHIP, AND POVERTY

119

Box 3.3 Poverty Estimates

In India, the ocial estimates of poverty are provided by the Planning Commission on the basis of consumption expenditure data collected by the NSSO. The latest poverty estimates are available for the year 20045, which are based on 61st Round consumption expenditure data. Apart from the Planning Commissions estimate, various other poverty estimates are available. These are: 1. Planning Commission: 27.5 per cent (based on MPCE of Rs 356 for rural India, and Rs 539 for urban India) NSS 61st Round consumption expenditure data (20045) Uniform reference period of 30 days for all items of current household consumption in NSS Dierent poverty line basket for rural and urban India 2. Tendulkar Committee: 37.2 per cent (based on MPCE of Rs 447 for rural India, and Rs 579 for urban India) NSS 61st Round consumption expenditure data (20045) Mixed reference period (365 days for low frequency items, and 30 days for remaining items) Mixed reference period equivalent of urban poverty line basket was used as the poverty line basket for both rural and urban areas. Based on Tendulkar Committee methodology after adjusting for ination, the incidence of poverty for the year 200910 was estimated to be 32 per cent (Abhijit Sen 2000). 3. National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector: 77 per cent of the population was surviving with a per capita daily consumption expenditure of Rs. 20 or less and were termed as poor and vulnerable. NSS 61st Round (20045) 4. Surjit Bhalla: Poverty estimates were based on NSS 64th Round, 20078 14 per cent based on Planning Commission poverty line 27 per cent based on Tendulkar Committee poverty line Mixed reference period (365 days for low frequency items, and 30 days for remaining items). The Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, in its report pointed out several issues in the estimation of poverty which were questionable. It has been pointed out that because of climatic and topographical considerations, population structures, activity status and many other reasons, the poverty level calorie requirement varied across states. So, the poverty line calorie requirement should also be dierent across states.

The rate of unemployment in India was higher in 20045 as compared to 19992000. This was primarily the result of higher growth in the labour force as compared to the workforce. A higher LFPR and WFPR for males as compared to females was a common feature in both rural and urban India. Further, the higher female LFPR in rural areas highlighted poorer access to education for earlier generations. Among the Muslims, participation in education and labour force were inversely correlated in rural areas. The unemployment rate as measured by both usual principal and subsidiary status, and current daily status increased in rural India, which underlines the importance of public works schemes like MGNREGA, which started in 2006. There was a decline in the unemployment rate in urban India, since economic growth has been urbandriven. Across social groups and religious communities,

the problem of unemployment was most acute among STs, SCs, and the Muslim population, in that order. The problem of economic deprivation and vulnerability among STs, SCs, and Muslims was further aggravated by their lack of ownership of physical assets, which could have acted as a cushion in times of economic distress. The ownership of assets in both rural and urban India was characterized by the lack of ownership among SCs, STs, and Muslims, and the concentration of assets amongst other socio-religious groups. The value of the Access Index was lower among SCs, STs, and Muslims. The degree of concentration of assets was higher in urban India than in rural India, which was depicted by the higher value of the Gini coecient of asset ownership in urban India as compared to rural India. The acute problem of deprivation and vulnerability amongst SCs, STs, and Muslims was translated into

120 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

lower MPCE for these socio-religious groups, along with a higher proportion of MPCE on food items. As a result, the incidence of poverty was higher among these socioreligious groups. Almost one-third of Muslims in the country were living below the poverty line. Overall, although the incidence of poverty has come down signicantly since Independence, the absolute number of people living below the poverty line was still quite high at 300 million in 20045. There were considerable interstate variations in the incidence of poverty, characterized by very high concentrations in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Orissa, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand). Among the major states, there had been signicant reduction in poverty (in 20045 as compared to 1983) in the states of Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. The incidence of poverty using the mixed recall period method of estimating consumption expenditure declined from 22 per cent in 20045 to 15 per cent in 20078. For the year 20078, the poverty estimates were based on the poverty line of Rs 429 per month for rural areas and Rs 639 per month for urban areas. The incidence of poverty is much higher in case of SCs and STs in both rural and urban areas. The incidence of poverty among SCs and STs was at least thrice as compared to Others in both rural and urban India. Interstate disparity in consumption expenditure has declined over time, along with rising inequality in both rural and urban India. Almost 60 per cent of the poor are

concentrated in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Orissa, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand). These states accounted for 43 per cent of STs and 42 per cent of SCs in the country. In addition to high incidence, poverty was much more severe in the case of the SCs and STs. In rural India, the average MPCE for a poor ST was 18 per cent lower than the poverty line. For other social groups it was 12 per cent. Given the high levels of unemployment and low level of MPCE (especially among SCs, STs, and Muslims) skill training for the workforce is essential to fully utilize the demographic dividend. Given the fact that hardly 10 per cent of the workforce has some form of skill training, revitalizing the vocational and technical education system in the country becomes crucial for realizing the demographic dividend. This will not only improve employability and help in poverty reduction particularly for those who had to withdraw from the formal education system due to various reasons, but can also contribute substantially to the sustained economic success of the country. The benets of high growth are yet to reach a very large section of the Indian population, particularly those belonging to SC, ST, and Muslim communities. Clearly, more inclusive economic growth calls for greater integration of social and economic policies. This would, in turn, ensure that the synergies which operate in the social sector through various feedback loops lead to further enhancement of capabilities among individuals.

4
The Right to Food and Nutrition
INTRODUCTION

The right to food is a human right. The right to food is to ensure that all people have the capacity to feed themselves in dignity. In other words, The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child, alone and in community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.1 Inspired by this denition, the Special Rapporteur has concluded that the right to food entails.
the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of nancial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sucient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, fullling and dignied life free of fear. (A/HRC/7/5, para 17)

The above denition indicated that the right to food means that governments must not take actions that result in increasing levels of hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition. Addressing the problems of hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition has far-reaching implications for enhancing individual capabilities. Hunger is dened by the Hunger Task Force (2003) as A condition, in which people lack the basic food intake to provide them with the energy and nutrients for fully productive lives (ibid., 33). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has dened the absence of hunger as access by all people
1 2

at all times to enough nutritionally adequate and safe food for an active and healthy life (FAO 2000: 1). Access to or intake of calories and nutrients (includes micronutrients) relative to requirements that vary largely by age, sex, and activities are critical for measuring hunger. Hunger is most directly apparent in inadequate food intake and a poor diet and is directly related to malnutrition. Over time, the combination of low birth weight and high rates of infection can result in the stunted growth of children. The most extreme manifestation of continued hunger and malnutrition is mortality. In a wider context, malnutrition emanates from eating too much or eating too little, or eating an unbalanced diet that lacks necessary nutrients. Since the last two are major nutritional problems in India, this chapter focuses primarily on them. Eating too little or eating an unbalanced diet leads to undernutrition, which is dened as the failure to consume adequate energy, protein, and micronutrients to meet the basic requirements for body maintenance, growth, and development. This in turn leads to nutrition related problems characterized by low height for age (stunting), and/or low weight for height (wasting), and/or low weight for age (underweight). There are three major dimensions of hunger namely, (a) chronic or endemic hunger, (b) latent hunger, and (c) transient hunger.2 Hunger Index of India, measured by the equally weighted average of three indicators namely,

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9 General Comment 12, 1999, para 6 Chronic or endemic hunger is due to poverty-induced undernutrition, transient hunger is caused by seasonal uctuations in food availability and disruptions in communication and transport arising from natural or manmade disasters, and latent hunger, arising from micro-nutrient malnutrition, is caused by the deciency of iron, iodine, zinc, and vitamins in the diet.

122 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

percentage of undernourished population, percentage of underweight children, and mortality rate of children under the age of ve, stood at 31.7 in 1990 and came down to 24.1 by 2010, which is still alarming.3 This indicates that the reduction in hunger is very slow and achieving the rst Millennium Development Goal (MDG)the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger4appears to be dicult, at least in the near future. A comparison of Indias hunger indicators with international indicators presents a dismal picture. As compared to Brazil, Russia, and China (BRC) of the Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) nations and other South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries, Indias performance is the worst in terms of low birth weight,5 underweight children,6 and wasting.7 For instance, 43 per cent of under-ve children in India were underweight during the period 20007, which is

the worst in South Asia and worse than the worst performer in the Sub-Saharan African region. Even the least developed countries were found to have performed better than India. In stark contrast, China had only 6 per cent under-ve children who were underweight during this period and Brazil had only 4 per cent. Similarly, among SAARC countries India trails behind Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Pakistan (Table 4.1) (UNICEF 2009). As per the Nutrition Report (2009) of the National Family and Health Survey 3 (NFHS 3), the average of 26 Sub-Saharan African countries in terms of undernourished children under ve years was only 25 per cent, almost half the Indian average of 48 per cent. In fact, except for Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim, Manipur, and Mizoram, all other Indian states were either at par or below the average of Sub-Saharan African countries.

Table 4.1 Nutritional Status of Children: SAARC and BRIC Countries, 20007
Low Birth Weight BRIC India* Brazil China Russia SAARC Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka 22 15 22 21 19 22 33 41 14 39 31 23 7 16 3 13 12 13 14 54 36 40 25 43 37 14 28 8 2 6 43 4 6 19 1 38 11 4 Under Five Underweight Children (WHO Reference Population) Wasting (Moderate & Severe) (NCHS/WHO) Stunting (Moderate & Severe)(NCHS/WHO)

Source: The State of the Worlds Children Report, UNICEF 2009. Note: * Data reported in this table for India is not strictly comparable with data reported by NFHSData not available.

If the index lies in the range 20.029.9, then it is said to be alarming. For details of measurement, see IFPRI (2010) Global Hunger Indexthe Challenge of Hunger: Focus on the Crisis of Child Undernutrition. 4 For further details, see Chapter 5 on Health and Demography. 5 Percentage of infants weighing less than 2,500 grams at birth. 6 Percentage of children aged 059 months who are below minus two standard deviations from median weight for age of the WHO Child Growth Standards published in 2006. 7 Percentage of children aged 059 months who are below minus two standard deviations from median weight for height of the NCHS/WHO reference population.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

123

Some of the major ndings of this chapter are given below.

Overall Performance India is the worst performer in terms of low birth weight, underweight, and wasting among children in BRIC and SAARC countries; Nearly half of Indias children under three are malnourished; There are wide gaps between states and rural and urban areas with respect to cereal consumption; A very high percentage (21.5 per cent) of babies in India are born with low birth weight; Child malnutrition is higher in rural areas than in urban areas; There has been a signicant decline in stunted children in India (from 52 per cent in 19923 to 38.4 per cent in 20056); The prevalence of anaemia among adolescent girls is very high with severe anaemia being more prevalent among them than among pre-school children; Anaemia among children has increased over the years with rising ruralurban disparity; Among the industrial high per capita income states, Gujarat fares the worst in terms of overall hunger and malnutrition. With Respect to Interstate Disparities There are high interstate disparities with respect to overall hunger in India, with the poor states at the bottom; There is high concentration of adult malnutrition (BMI<18.5)8 among the poor states;

There is an increasing trend of malnutrition among adult women in the low income states;9 Interstate disparity has been increasing for malnutrition in adult women belonging to SCs and STs;10 Severely underweight children are concentrated in the low per capita income states;11 There has been a marginal increase in interstate disparities with respect to any anaemia among women; and A higher percentage of children suer from anaemia in states with low per capita incomes compared to rich states.

With Respect to Social Groups SCs and STs have a higher percentage of women with BMI<18.5; SCs and STs are diverging from the national average in terms of female malnutrition; There are 13 states12 for which malnutrition among SC women is diverging overtime from the national average, but there are 10 states13 for which it is converging; There are 14 states14 for which malnutrition among ST women is diverging overtime from national average; but there are only three states15 for which it is converging; Among the industrial states, Gujarat has a very high incidence of malnutrition among SC and ST women; More than 50 per cent of ST children are underweight and stunted; More than 75 per cent of ST children have anaemia; and There is an increasing trend of anaemia among women for all caste groups.

8 BMI (Body Mass Index) is dened as weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared and reects the nutritional status of adults. A cut-o point of 18.5 is used to dene thinness or undernutrition. The percentage of persons with BMI below 18.5 kg/m2 indicates the severity of malnutrition among adults. 9 Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. 10 In 20056, Bihar, Orissa Madhya Pradesh, Assam, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat had high female malnutrition for SCs; and Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Haryana, and Karnataka have female malnutrition (above the national average) among STs. 11 Example: Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh have over 40 per cent of underweight children. 12 Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. 13 Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, and West Bengal. 14 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. 15 Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, and West Bengal.

124 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

With Respect to Religious Communities There is no dierence between Hindus and Muslims in terms of malnutrition among women; Both Hindus and Muslims are diverging from the national average overtime in terms of malnutrition among women; There is no dierence between Hindu and Muslim women with respect to anaemia; Hindus recorded the highest percentage of underweight and stunted children; and States with a high concentration of Muslim population have a higher percentage of children suering from anaemia.
Given the current situation, the Government has universalized the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) programme in India to provide adequate nutrition to children below the age of ve years during the Eleventh Five Year Plan. Further, in some states it has introduced snacks in the morning and hot cooked meals at lunch time for children under ve years of age. In the 201112 budget the Government has proposed to increase the salary of Anganwadi workers and helpers in an eort to motivate ground level ICDS workers. Whether the universalization of ICDS will have the desired eect remains to be seensince the quality of the programme must improve to ensure its eectiveness. The following sections discuss conceptual and empirical dimensions of malnutrition, the Hunger Index across major Indian states, and the anthropometric indicators of malnutrition, including adult and child malnutrition in the context of anaemia, micronutrients, iodine deciency, and Vitamin A deciency. This is followed by a summary of the situation analysis and a description of some of the major government programmes that have been introduced to address the problem of malnutrition in India. The last section presents the conclusions reached.
MALNUTRITION: A CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Conceptual Issues Conceptual issues on malnutrition can be better understood through the feedback loops in the Human Devel16

opment processat the micro-economic level (Table 1.1 of Chapter 1) that shows how various parameters can act both as inputs as well as outcomes in the human development process (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). For instance, better educated people, particularly mothers, practice better sanitation and provide good nutrients to children that helps in development of the childs brain during early childhood, and hence improves his/her learning ability. Similarly, access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation facilities reduce morbidity from infectious diseases and increase nutritional status of children. Malnutrition reects an imbalance of both macro- and micro-nutrients that may be due to inappropriate intake and/or inecient biological utilization due to the internal and external environment. Poor feeding practices during infancy and early childhood, resulting in malnutrition, contribute to impaired cognitive and social development, poor school performance, and reduced productivity in later life. Malnutrition, therefore, is a major threat to social and economic development as it is among the most serious obstacles to attaining and maintaining the health of this important age group.16 There is a critical link between health and good nutrition. Interventions in health promote good nutrition, and interventions in nutrition promote good health. When poor nutrition starts in utero, it extends throughout the life cycle, particularly in girls and women. This not only amplies the risks to the individuals health, but also increases the likelihood of damage to future generations, through further foetal retardation. Poor nutrition of the mother during pregnancy leads to low birth weight (LBW) of the baby. LBW increases the risk of infant and child mortality and those infants who survive are usually undernourished, fall ill frequently, and fail to develop optimally, both physically and mentally. Further, undernourished adults are functionally impaired and unable to sustain productive physical activity throughout the day. The lack of nutritional requirements leads to sluggish recovery from illness. Malnutrition can also be linked to the growing HIV/AIDS pandemic as malnutrition makes adults more susceptible to the virus. The conceptual framework for the causes of malnutrition is presented in Figure 4.1.

Scientic evidence suggests that mental damage due to malnutrition in early childhood is irretrievable. For a detailed discussion see A.D. Berg (1968), Malnutrion and National Development, The Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, September, pp. 11624; and UNICEF (1981), The Impact of Malnutrition on the Learning Situation, May.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

125

In the light of Figure 4.1, this chapter discusses the challenges with regard to hunger removal that still remain, including, high levels of adult malnutrition aecting a third of the countrys adults, inappropriate infant feeding and caring practices, high levels of undernutrition, particularly in women and children, micronutrient undernutrition, emerging diet-related diseases, and inadequate access to healthcare. This graph suggests not only the underlying and proximate causes of malnutrition, and can explain why malnutrition is so high in India, but also within it lies the policy implications to ensure the elimination of malnutrition and adult chronic hunger. That malnutrition begins in utero suggests that in order to deal with the problem, the focus of policy must be on (a) pregnancy; and (b) the rst year after birth (since most child deaths occur during the rst year). The graph also suggests that during pregnancy and the rst year after childbirth, government policy must ensure that adequate food (and ante-natal care) is reaching (a) the pregnant woman, and (b) post-natal care for the mother and baby in the rst year at least.

Since malnutrition that sets in utero can either get exacerbated or improve during the rst two years after birth, it is critical that caring practices for mothers (just before and after childbirth) and children are optimal. This is because, if caring practices are sub-optimal, the nutritional damage will become irreversible after age threeand can never be corrected again in the life of the child as she grows into an adult. As we will argue in this chapter and the next, prevention of this damage is contingent upon having a functional primary health system. In practical terms, this requires that (a) child birth takes place under the supervision of a professionally-trained health provider or at a medical institution; (b) the new born baby is fed colustrum within the rst hour after birth, so that the infant develops the immunities that only the mothers rst breast milk (colustrum) can provide; (c) the mother and baby receive very careful post-natal care during the rst 28 days after birth, since that is the period during which infections lead to most of the infant deaths during the rst year after birth; (d) for the rst six months, the mother exclusively breastfeeds the baby, and the baby is absolutely not fed anything else; (e) after six months the mother introduces

Outcome

Malnutrition

Immediate causes

Inadequate diet

Disease

Inadequate access to food

Care for mothers and children

Inadequate health services

Unhealthy environment + unsafe drinking water

Underlying causes
Food Security Resources Income Dietary Diversity Quality of Food Food Transfer Resources for Health Availability of public health services sanitation

Inadequate education/ lack of knowledge low breast-feeding

Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework: Determinants of Malnutrition

Source: Adapted from UNICEF (1990); Jonsson (1993); Smith and Haddad (2000); and Mehrotra (2003).

126 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

solid-mushy food, alongside breastfeeds, in adequate quantity and at appropriately short timely intervals; and (f) full immunization of the baby is ensured. As we will argue in this chapter and the next, most of these conditions are not met in the case of a shockingly high proportion of the population.

knowledge, and hence worse care for children. All combine to produce a high child malnutrition rate.

Empirical Analysis
Availability of cereals and calorie consumption has been declining It is evident from Table 4.2 that the overall per capita intake of calories and protein has declined consistently over a 20-year period from 1983 to 20045, according to NSS data. Rural calorie consumption per day fell from 2,221 to 2,047, a decline of 8 per cent. Similarly, the urban calorie consumption fell by 3.3 per cent, from 2,080 to 2,020. Rural protein consumption fell by 8 per cent over the same period while urban protein consumption remained unchanged. Since this data is for households, they do not capture the impact of unequal intra-household food distribution. It is well known that the women and girls in poor households receive poorer quality food and less food in a normal patriarchal household. Further, there may well be a problem for signicant sections of the population who may be feeling the distress caused by falling per capita cereal availability, and who also do not have the purchasing power to diversify their food consumption away from cereals. The poor are consuming calories way below the recommended norm So, taken together, there are a set of overlapping problems in the country. First, the average calorie consumption in rural areas has fallen way below the calorie norm for the rural poverty line (2,400 calories). It was lower than the norm 20 years ago and it has fallen further since then. Similarly, urban consumption which was also much lower on average than the poverty line threshold of

Gender Discrimination and Child Malnutrition A fundamental reason why these conditions are not met in most of India (and much of South Asia) is that gender discrimination in India (and South Asia) is among the worst in the world. Even in 2011, adult female literacy is barely 65 per cent, or nearly 10 percentage points behind male literacy. Moreover, female labour force participation rates are among the lowest in any developing regionso outside of agriculture the labour participation rates of women remains low. Although this situation is changing among adolescent girls (see Chapter 6), but for women in the reproductive age this combination of poor education and low labour force participation outside of agriculture translates into low autonomy in the household. Worst still, married women are unlikely to have any decisionmaking authority in the presence of the mother-in-law, who normally is a member of the household, and who may herself be illiterate in rural areas and lacking in mother and child-care relevant knowledge. Thus, in the northern states of India, where literacy levels are the lowest, and child malnutrition rates the highest, systematic gender discrimination over the life-cycle has a number of eects. These are also the states with the most dysfunctional public health systems, so inadequate health services lead to greater incidence of disease for women and food absorption problems. A higher incidence of incomepoverty leads to inadequate access to food, especially in poor households, where the intra-household allocation of resources is biased against women. Finally, low literacy among reproductive-age women makes for low levels of

Table 4.2 Per Capita Intake of Calories and Protein, 1983 to 20045
Calorie (Kcal/day) Rural 1983 (NSS 38th Round) 199394 (NSS 50th Round) 19992000 (NSS 55th Round) 200405 (NSS 61st Round) Source: NSS, 20045. 2,221 2,153 2,149 2,047 Urban 2,089 2,071 2,156 2,020 Rural 62.0 60.2 59.1 57.0 Protein (gm/day) Urban 57.0 57.2 58.5 57.0

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

127

2,100 calories two decades ago has also fallen. It is obvious that the non-poor consume more calories on average than the poor. Hence, to allow for the distributional inequity that prevails in any society, calorie availability on average in the country as a whole should be at least 20 per cent higher than the per capita requirement (that is, 2,100 calories for urban areas and 2,400 calories for rural areas). Even 20 years ago, an Indians consumption of calories on average was way below the requirement. So, inevitably the poor, let alone the extremely poor, were and still are consuming far fewer calories than the norm. In addition the intra-household allocation, not just among the poor but also among those who are marginally above the poverty line, is likely to be highly skewed against women and girls. When combined with the fact that women and girls are less likely to access health services when they fall sick (as reported by various NFHSs), it is hardly surprising that the sex-ratio in India is as low as it is, and falling. No improvement in intergenerational height of mother and daughter The Eleventh Five Year Plan document suggests that the absolute weights and heights of Indians, on an average, have not shown signicant improvement over the last 25 years. A staggering 21.5 per cent of babies in India are born with low birth weight (NFHS 3),17 a problem that begins in-utero. It is therefore, not surprising that about half the children are underweight (moderate to severe undernutrition) or stunted. The mean heights and weights of children of SCs, STs, and other marginalized sections are below the national mean values. In addition, about 30 per cent of all adults (33 per cent of women and 28 per cent of men) have a BMI less than 18.5, which denes adult malnutrition. Further, there is no improvement in the heights of daughters over mothers, indicating intergenerational stagnation of height among Indian women. Hence, growth failure is transmitted across generations through the mother. The theory is that small adult women are more likely to have LBW babies, in part because maternal size has an important inuence on birth weight. LBW babies are more likely to have growth failure during childhood. Thus, girls born with a low birth weight are more likely

to become small adult women. This cycle is accentuated by high rates of teenage pregnancy, as adolescent girls are even more likely to have LBW babies. Calorie and multiple nutrient deciencies lead to the high incidence of malnutrition in India Some of the reasons for this grim picture in India are listed below. With a 500600 kilocalorie decit in energy intake (almost 40 per cent of their requirement) and multiple nutrient deciencies such as fat, calcium, iron, riboavin, vitamin C (all 50 per cent decit), and Vitamin A (70 per cent decit), it is not surprising that there is a massive inadequacy/hunger leading to malnutrition in children and adolescents. Studies by the National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNMB) reported that protein-calorie adequacy is less than 30 per cent among children and it has been decreasing for all age groups (Table 4.3). The study also reported that the consumption

Table 4.3 Percentage Distributions of Children and Adults by Protein-Calorie Adequacy Status, 2002 and 2006
Year Age (yrs) 13 46 79 % 31.8 28.2 28.1 Boys 1012 1315 1617 26.0 34.7 50.2 Girls 32.9 43.1 64.0 2002 % 30.1 23.8 24.4 Boys 22.4 29.0 45.3 Men67.9 Women80.0 61.0 59.7 Girls 21.7 38.2 61.5 2006

Adult Sedentary Men68.8 Women81.8 Pregnant Women Lactating Women 64.3 62.2

Source: NNMB Reports, 2002 and 2006. Note: NNMB Report, 2002 covers 10 states and NNMB Report, 2006 covers nine states. They cover only rural areas according to the villages covered by the NSS. Therefore, both the reports may not be strictly comparable, but they present an overview of Indias protein-calorie adequacy status.

17 It has been scientically established that a mean decit of 1.4 to 1.6 kg in weight at one year worsens to a decit of about 9 kg at 10 years and 1318 kg in adulthood. A similar trend is seen in the case of height, where a decit of 1cm at 1 year becomes 1213 cm in adulthood.

128 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

of all food items except for roots and tubers were below the recommended dietary intake (RDI) levels in all age, sex, and physiological groups. The consumption of protective foods was grossly inadequate; consequently, the intake of micronutrients such as iron, vitamin A, riboavin, and folic acid was far below the recommended levels (NNMB 2006). On further scrutiny of the diet surveys, it becomes clear that over 70 to 80 per cent of the calories consumed by children (even though inadequate) are derived from cereals and pulses. This results in two things Children cannot consume more cereals to make up for the calorie deciency because of its sheer monotony and lack of energy density. In the absence of fats, milk, eggs, and sources of iron,

children are starved. The resultant iron deciency, anaemia, further reduces their appetite. Since 19723, calorie consumption by the poor is far below recommended levels and falling Recent studies have suggested that per capita cereal consumption of India has been declining in both rural and urban areas over the past three decades (Planning Commission 2008; Dev 2004). It is evident from Table 4.4 that the decline is across all the major states and aects both rural and urban areas to a similar extent. For instance, in rural Andhra Pradesh, the per capita cereal consumption was 13.3 kilograms/month during 19934, which came down to 12.07 kilograms/month by 20045. The corresponding gures for urban Andhra Pradesh are

Table 4.4 Changes in Average Per Capita Cereal Consumption in 15 Major States in Physical Terms over 199394 to 20045
Year RURAL Monthly per capita cereal consumption (kg.) in the states of AP 19934 19992000 20045 13.3 12.65 12.07 MAH 19934 19992000 20045 Year 11.4 11.32 10.50 ASM 13.2 12.63 13.04 ORS 15.9 15.09 13.98 BHR* 14.3 13.75 13.08 PUN 10.8 10.58 9.92 GUJ 10.7 10.19 10.07 RAJ 14.9 14.19 12.68 HAR 12.9 11.37 10.66 TN 11.7 10.66 10.89 URBAN Monthly per capita cereal consumption (kg.) in the states of AP 19934 19992000 20045 11.3 10.94 10.51 MAH 19934 19992000 20045 9.4 9.35 8.39 ASM 12.1 12.26 11.92 ORS 13.4 14.51 13.11 BHR* 12.8 12.70 12.21 PUN 9.0 9.21 9.01 GUJ 9.0 8.49 8.29 RAJ 11.5 11.56 10.84 HAR 10.5 9.36 9.15 TN 10.1 9.65 9.48 KTK 10.9 10.21 9.71 UP^ 11.1 10.79 10.94 KRL 9.5 9.25 8.83 WB 11.6 11.17 10.39 MP# 11.3 11.09 10.63 IND 10.6 10.42 9.94 KTK 13.2 11.53 10.73 UP^ 13.9 13.62 12.87 KRL 10.1 9.89 9.53 WB 15.0 13.59 13.18 MP # 14.2 12.94 12.16 IND 13.4 12.72 12.12

Source: NSS 50th, 55th, and 61st Rounds. Notes: * includes Jharkhand; # includes Chhattisgarh; ^ includes Uttarakhand.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

129

11.3 kilograms/month, and 10.51 kilograms/month respectively. Rural Orissa registered the highest per capita cereal consumption among major states for both time periods, but it has witnessed a deceleration. The same was also observed for rural Kerala, the state with the lowest per capita cereal consumption. Increase in the share of non-cereals is not enough to compensate for decline in cereal consumption As suggested by Table 4.5, the share of food in total expenditure continued to fall throughout the three decades prior to 20045 in both rural and urban India. The overall fall was from 73 per cent to 55 per cent in rural areas and from 64.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent in urban areas. In urban India, not only has the share of cereals and pulses fallen, but there has been a steady fall in the share of other food groups as well; such as milk and milk products, edible oil, eggs, beverages, and sugar. In rural India, however, the share of milk and milk products, eggs, sh and meat, and fruits and nuts has increased by about one percentage point each, the share of vegetables has increased by 2.5 percentage points, and that of beverages, refreshments, and processed foods has increased by two percentage points since 19723. Apart from cereals, only the shares of sugar and pulses (the latter largely during the last decade) have declined noticeably. However, the increase in the share of non-cereals is not

enough to compensate for the 22.6 per cent decline in cereal consumption. Calorie consumption of the poorest quartile is signicantly lower than the top quartile of the population Nutritional requirements recommend a national norm of 2,400 kilo calories/day and 2,100 kilo calories/day for rural and urban areas, respectively, the dierence being attributed to the lower rates of physical activity in the urban areas. These were the norms for consumption of calories at the poverty line for rural and urban areas that were agreed in the Planning Commission while determining the poverty line in 19734. However, the poor consume much below this recommended level of calories in both rural and urban areas. In rural areas, about 81 per cent of the population do not consume the recommended levels, and for urban areas it is about 57 per cent (Table 4.6). Further, calorie consumption for the bottom 50 per cent of the population has been consistently decreasing since 1987 (Table 4.7). The calorie consumption of the poorest quartile is signicantly lower than the top quartile of the population, despite the poor needing more calories because of more manual work. On the one hand, cereal consumption is declining with no compensatory rise in non-cereal consumption, and on the other, the calorie intake is much below the required level and has also been showing a declining trend for more than 20 years for the

Table 4.5 Composition of Food Consumption, Rural and Urban 19723 to 20045
Sector Year All Food Cereals Pulses % share of major food groups in total expenditure Milk and Milk Products 7.3 8.6 9.5 8.8 8.5 9.3 9.5 9.8 8.7 7.9 Edible Oil 3.5 5.0 4.4 3.7 4.6 4.9 5.3 4.4 3.1 3.5 Eggs Fish and Meat 2.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.7 Vegeables 3.6 5.2 6.0 6.2 6.1 4.4 5.3 5.5 5.1 4.5 Fruits and Nuts 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.2 Sugar Beverages, etc. 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.5 7.6 6.8 7.2 6.4 6.2

Rural

197273 198788 19934 199900 200405

72.9 64.0 63.2 59.4 55.0 64.5 56.4 54.7 48.1 42.5

40.6 26.3 24.2 22.2 18.0 23.3 15.0 14.0 12.4 10.1

4.3 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.1

3.8 2.9 3.1 2.4 2.4 3.6 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.5

Urban 197273 198788 199394 199900 200405

Source: Planning Commission (2008).

130 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4.6 Per Capita Per Diem Intake of Calories (Kcal) by MPCE Class, 20045
Rural MPCE Class (Rs) 0235 235270 270320 320365 365410 410455 455510 510580 580690 690890 8901155 > 1155 Average Source: 61st Round of NSS. Cumulative Persons as Per Cent of the Total 2.9 5.7 12.0 19.2 27.0 34.8 44.0 54.7 67.4 81.4 90.1 100.0 Calorie Consumption 1,376 1,575 1,679 1,800 1,885 1,962 2,042 2,158 2,290 2,380 2,568 3,018 2,047 MPCE Class (Rs) 0335 335395 395485 485580 580675 675790 790930 9301,100 1,1001,380 1,3801,880 1,8802,540 > 2,540 Urban Cumulative Persons as Per Cent of the Total 5.4 10.7 21.0 31.2 40.0 48.7 57.1 65.4 75.5 87.1 93.8 100.0 Calorie Consumption 1,413 1,608 1,687 1,833 1,856 1,943 2,024 2,110 2,209 2,341 2,545 2,839 2,020

Table 4.7 Total Calorie Consumption (Kcal) by Decile and Quartile of Per Capita Expenditure, Rural India, 1983 to 20045
Bottom Decile 1983 19878 19934 19992000 20045 1,359 1,488 1,490 1,496 1,485 Bottom Quartile 1,580 1,683 1,659 1,658 1,624 Second Quartile 2,007 2,056 2,000 1,978 1,900 Third Quartile 2,328 2,334 2,251 2,250 2,143 Top Quartile 3,044 2,863 2,702 2,707 2,521

Source: 61st Round of NSS.

vast majority, thus reinforcing the magnitude and intensity of hunger in India.
THE STATUS OF HUNGER ACROSS STATES

High interstate disparities with poor states at the bottom The fundamental challenge before India is to help the states with alarming levels of malnutrition to at least reach the level of the states where the severity of the

problem is much less. This extends to other dimensions of human development as well. The state-wise Hunger Index estimated for 17 states is presented in Table 4.8.18 It is evident from Table 4.8 that there is not a single state whose Hunger Index is less than 9.9, suggesting thereby that all the states have a serious to extremely alarming situation of hunger. The best performing state is Punjab, with a Hunger Index of 13.63, categorized as having a serious problem of hunger, in spite of its fairly high per capita income. Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and

18 If the score is < 4.9 it is low, 5.09.9 is moderate, 10.019.9 is serious, 20.029.9 is alarming, more than 30, it is extremely alarming. For the detailed methodology and cut-o points, see India State Hunger Index: Comparisons of Hunger across States by Menon et al. (2009).

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

131

Table 4.8 Hunger Index of Selected Indian States, 2008

States Prevalence of Calorie Under Nourishment (per cent) 11.1 28.6 19.6 14.6 15.1 29.1 14.0 18.5 14.5 27.0 28.1 21.4 23.3 23.3 17.3 19.6 23.4 20.0 Proportion of Underweight Children Less than 5 years of Age (per cent) 24.6 22.7 32.7 36.4 39.7 30.0 40.4 38.5 42.3 36.7 37.6 40.9 44.7 47.6 56.1 57.1 59.8 42.5 Under Five Mortality Rate (Per 100) 5.2 1.6 6.3 8.5 5.2 3.5 8.5 5.9 9.6 4.7 5.5 9.1 6.1 9.0 8.5 9.3 9.4 7.4 Hunger Index (HI) Rank as Per HI

Punjab Kerala Andhra Pradesh Assam Haryana Tamil Nadu Rajasthan West Bengal Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Karnataka Orissa Gujarat Chhattisgarh Bihar Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh India Source: Menon et al. (2009).

13.63 17.63 19.53 19.83 20.00 20.87 20.97 20.97 22.13 22.80 23.73 23.80 24.70 26.63 27.30 28.67 30.87 23.30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Assam are the other three states with a serious problem of hunger. Madhya Pradesh is found to be the worst o as the hunger situation in the state is extremely alarming. The gap between the best performing state and the worst performing state is quite large, indicating that disparity in hunger across states is high. The data shows that incidence of hunger is very high in India. It is important to note that the hunger status measured by the Hunger Index for some industrial states and states with high per capita income, namely, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Gujarat is worse than some poor states.19 This suggests that economic prosperity alone cannot reduce hunger. Hence, there is a need for specic target oriented policies to improve the hunger and malnutrition situation. Inclusive economic growth and targeted
19

strategies to ensure food suciency, reduce child mortality, and improve child nutrition are urgent priorities for all states in India. Given the serious problem of hunger, some of the outcome indicators are discussed in the following section.
MALNUTRITION: ANTHROPOMETRIC INDICATORS

The caring capacity of mothers is impaired Malnutrition often begins in utero and extends to adolescent and adult life. A mothers health status is therefore intricately linked to the health status of the child and the society at large. The proximate determinant of a childs

Assam, which is believed to be a poor state, is doing better than these four so-called developed states. Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Rajasthan are performing better than Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. Orissa, which has the highest incidence of poverty according to the latest NSSO report, is doing better than Gujarat, one of the most advanced industrial states of India.

132 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

health and nutritional status is caring capacity of the mother. The caring capacity of the mother in turn depends upon her own health, her physical capacity to breastfeed for an extended period, and her status in society. In the Indian context, womens health is aected over the life span due to life cycle discrimination against women.20 For instance, in a patriarchal Indian society females often eat after males. This has a signicant bearing particularly on poor households as they do not have enough food to eat. Thus, lack of food has an adverse impact on the nutritional status of the woman, which begins in her childhood, and this in turn has serious implications for her caring capacity, both for herself as well as for the family as a whole. Therefore, womens health and nutritional status should be the foremost concern if we wish to understand child health issues (see Figure 4.1). Womens malnutrition has multiple implications for human development. Maternal malnutrition and iron deciency anaemia increase the risk of the mother dying at delivery. Maternal malnutrition impacts signicantly on aspects such as intra-uterine growth retardation and child nutrition. Low birth weight among children is the result of the mothers poor nutritional status, as malnourished mothers give birth to low weight babies. Underweight mothers giving birth to underweight children have low capacity to exclusively breastfeed them for the rst six months after the birth, which is critical for the survival of the child and for the development of the brain. Further, the lack of awareness among women, mainly due to lack of education, results in improper care of children, often leading to diarrhoea and other diseases, resulting in high infant mortality. Improper care and lack of exclusive breastfeeding are a hindrance to childrens physical and mental development. This results in poor performance in schools and high dropout rate at primary school level particularly in class one. The details on education can be found in Chapter 6 on Education.

there is no change in the percentage of women with BMI<18.5 at the national level.21 Delhi and Kerala recorded the lowest proportion (about 15 per cent and 18 per cent, respectively) of underweight women in 20056. Punjab, one of the highest per capita income states in India, has witnessed a rise in this indicator. This suggests that economic prosperity is not a sucient condition for reducing malnutrition. No dierence between Hindus and Muslims in adult female malnutrition The major religious communities, namely Hindus and Muslims, have a similar situation of adult womens malnutrition. The percentage of Hindu and Muslim women with BMI<18.5 was close to the national average but the percentage is decreasing for Hindus whereas it is increasing for Muslims. One of the highest increases was for Muslims in the state of Orissa.22 Nine states have witnessed an increasing trend of female malnutrition for Hindus as well as Muslims. In both religious communities, the highest incidence of womens malnutrition is observed to be concentrated among the low per capita income states. Bihar recorded the highest percentage of malnutrition among Hindu women, and Orissa recorded the highest for Muslim women (Table 4A.2). Socially marginalized groups are found to be at a disadvantage with respect to adult female malnutrition. Malnutrition among women is higher than the national average of 36 per cent for both the SCs (41 per cent) and STs (47 per cent). The Others, that is, the general category women, had the lowest incidence of women with BMI<18.5 (29 per cent). The state-wise data for dierent social groups for 20056 illustrates that malnutrition among Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) women is very high in the states with low per capita income. For example, in Bihar and Orissa, more than 50 per cent of the SC women are malnourished. It is evident from Table 4A.3 that economically and educationally backward states are the worst o.23 Further, interstate disparities with respect to

Adult Malnutrition The nutritional status of adults can be assessed by BMI and Iron Deciency Anaemia (IDA). It is evident from NFHS 2 (19989) and NFHS 3 (20056) data that
20

India at present ranked 122 in Gender Equality Index which is the worst among the South Asian countries excluding Afghanistan (UNDP HDR 2010). 21 It was 35.8 per cent in 19989 and 35.6 per cent in 20056. 22 Percentage of Muslim women with BMI<18.5 for Orissa was 39.1 per cent in 19989 and the gure rose to 64.1 per cent by 20056. 23 For detailed educational and economic status of social groups, see Chapter 6 on Education and Chapter 3 on Employment, Asset Ownership, and Poverty.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

133

adult female malnutrition for SCs and STs have increased from 19989 to 20056.24 However, Gujarat, one of the industrial and advanced states has performed very badly with respect to adult womens malnutrition among the socially marginalized groups. There are three other rich states, namely, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka where ST adult female malnutrition is greater than the national average, according to NFHS-3. This suggests that the economic prosperity in those states has not percolated to the socially marginalized groups. There are 13 states25 for which malnutrition among SC women is diverging from the national average; but there are 10 states26 for which it is converging. There are 14 states27 for which malnutrition among ST women malnutrition is diverging from the national average; but there are only three states28 for which it is converging. The percentage of men with BMI<18.5 is marginally lower than women and stood at 34.2 per cent during 20056. According to WHO, if 40 per cent or more of the population have a BMI less than 18.5 (which is quite close to the Indian situation), it is regarded as a state of famine. If India is not in a state of famine, it is quite clearly in a state of chronic hunger, since only such hunger can lead to a situation where a third of the countrys adults have a BMI under 18.5.29

underweight children, whereas the percentage of wasted children increased between 19989 and 20056 (Table 4.9). It is a matter of concern that the percentage of severely stunted children and severely underweight children in the country stood at 22 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, in 20056 (as per the new international reference population released by the WHO). A higher percentage of rural children suered from malnutrition as compared to those residing in urban areas. The primary reason for high malnutrition among the rural poor is low food intake and because a majority of socially marginalized groups (SCs and STs) live in rural areas malnutrition is quite high among them. For the country as a whole in 20056, 24 per cent children were severely stunted out of the 45 per cent chronically stunted children. Similarly, 6 per cent were severely wasted out of the 23 per cent who were chronically wasted. Of the 44 per cent chronically underweight, 16 per cent were severely underweight. Interstate inequality: Severely underweight children are concentrated in states with low per capita incomes A high incidence of malnutrition among children is found among poor states. However, Gujarat, with a relatively high per capita income, witnessed a higher incidence of child malnutrition. Madhya Pradesh had the maximum number of chronically wasted and underweight children, followed by Jharkhand. There are seven states where the percentage of severely underweight children is higher than the national average.31 Six of these seven states are poor,

Child Malnutrition30
Signicant decline in the percentage of stunted children There was a signicant decline in the percentage of stunted children and a minimal decline in the percentage of
24

Coecient of Variation (CV) for SCs was 27.4 per cent in 19989, which increased to 33.4 per cent by 20056. The corresponding gures for STs are 36.3 per cent and 50.4 per cent, respectively. 25 Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. 26 Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal. 27 Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. 28 Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, and West Bengal. 29 Adult male malnutrition is found to be high in the states with low per capita incomes. In fact, the states with low per capita incomes are registering male malnutrition above the national average, with the exception of Gujarat. Tripuras performance is the worst (41.7 per cent), followed by Madhya Pradesh (41.6 per cent) and Rajasthan (40.5 per cent). 30 Inadequate food intake by children often leaves them wasted (low weight for height), stunted (lower height for age), or underweight (low weight for age). If the child has an anthropometric measurement that is far (that is, between two and three standard deviations) below the average value for the reference population, the child is considered chronically undernourished. If the indicator is more than three standard deviations below the average value for the reference population, then she is considered severely undernourished. A child who is stunted (low height for age) suers from chronic undernourishment, which cannot be overcome by short-term alterations in the diet, whereas wasting (low weight for height) is a situation where undernourishment is short-term and slight alterations in the nutrient intake can help overcome it. Weight for age reects both the long-term and short-term eects of nourishment and is considered indicative of both chronic and acute undernourishment. 31 Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat.

134 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4.9 Trends in Child Malnutrition, 19989 and 20056

Measures of Nutrition Urban Stunted (Height-for-age) Percentage below 3 SD Percentage below 2 SD Wasted (Weight-for-height) Percentage below 3 SD Percentage below 2 SD Underweight (Weight-for-age) Percentage below 3 SD Percentage below 2 SD 10.6 30.1 17.4 43.7 15.8 40.4 11.3 34.1 19.6 45.3 17.6 42.7 6.8 19 8.3 24.1 7.9 22.9 5.3 16.3 7.1 20.7 6.7 19.7 16.4 37.4 23.8 47.2 22 44.9 19.7 41.1 30.2 54 27.7 51 20056 Rural Total Urban 19989 Rural Total

Source: NFHS 3 and NFHS 2. Note: In NFHS 2, the nutritional status of children was measured only for the last two children less than three years of age of ever-married women who were interviewed, whereas in NFHS-3, all children in the household under five years of age were eligible to be measured. Therefore, when comparing the nutritional indicators in the two surveys, it is necessary to restrict the calculations to the NFHS-2 criteria for eligibility.

and only one state that is, Gujarat, is economically developed. Among the major states, the maximum number of severely underweight children was observed in Madhya Pradesh, and the minimum number was observed in Kerala (Table 4A.7). The share of underweight and wasted children is higher among Hindus than among other religious groups It has been observed that the percentage of underweight and wasted children among Hindus is higher than among other religious groups. Among major religious communities, Hindus recorded the highest percentage of chronically underweight children followed by Muslims, and both of them are close to the national average. Sikhs and Jains recorded relatively lower percentages of underweight children (Table 4.10). Highest percentage of underweight and stunted children is recorded for the STs Across social groups, the highest percentage of underweight and stunted children was recorded among STs at more than 50 per cent. Among SCs and Other Backward

Classes (OBCs) the percentage was closer to the national average, though the percentage of underweight and stunted SC children was more than that of OBCs. It can be seen that the general category has the lowest percentage of children in all the three anthropometric indicators (Table 4.11). This suggests that socially marginalized groups are in a disadvantageous position, and this is a hindrance to Indias inclusive growth strategy.
MICRONUTRIENTS: CURRENT SCENARIO

The minimum loss of GDP due to vitamin and mineral deciency malnutrition per year is reportedly Rs 277,200 million (NCF, Fifth & Final Report, Vol. I). The NNMB Report of December 2006 reveals that the consumption of protective foods such as pulses, green leafy vegetables, milk and fruits, though increasing, was grossly inadequate. Consequently, the intake of micronutrients such as iron, Vitamin A, riboavin, and folic acid were far below the recommended levels in all the age groups. The data from the nutritional survey of children under ve years shows that the prevalence of signs of moderate Vitamin A deciency and B-complex deciency (angular stomatitis) was about 0.6 per cent and 0.8 per cent, respectively, among pre-school children.32 Bitot Spots were found in

32

Symptoms of Vitamin A deciency: Bitot Spots on conjunctiva in eyes.

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

135

Table 4.10 Percentage of Children below -2SD of the Indicator by Religious Groups20056
Anthropometric Indicator Underweight (Weight for age) Stunting (Height for age) Wasting (Weight for height) Source: NFHS 3. Hindus 43.2 48.0 20.3 Muslims 41.8 50.3 18.4 Christians 29.7 39.0 15.5 Sikhs 22.0 29.8 11.0 Jains 24.0 31.2 15.8 Buddhists 39.2 56.1 21.0 Others 62.7 58.5 33.6

Table 4.11 Percentage of Children below -2SD of the Indicator by Social Groups, 20056
Anthropometric Indicator Underweight (Weight for age) Stunting (Height for age) Wasting (Weight for height) Source: NFHS 3. SCs 47.9 53.9 21 STs 54.5 53.9 27.6 OBCs 43.2 48.8 20 Others 33.7 40.7 16.3

1.9 per cent of school age children, and the prevalence of B-complex deciency and dental uorosis (mottling of teeth) was 2 per cent each. Given below are some specic micronutrient deciencies that are a cause for public health concern.

Anaemia: Gender discrimination results in very high incidence of anaemia among adolescent girls
IDA is the most widespread micronutrient deciency in the world, and is associated with increased susceptibility to infections, reduction in work capacity, and poor concentration. In India, anaemia is rampant among women in the reproductive age group, children, and low socio-economic strata of the population. IDA reduces the capacity to learn and work, resulting in lower productivity and loss of wages, thereby limiting economic and social development. Anaemia in pregnant women leads to adverse pregnancy outcomes such as high maternal and neonatal mortality, low birth weight, increased risk of obstetric complications, increased morbidity, and seriously impairs the physical and mental development of the child. Anaemia remains one of the major indirect causes of maternal mortality in India (Planning Commission 2008). As per the District Level Health Survey (DLHS) (20024), the prevalence of anaemia in adolescent girls is very high (72.6 per cent) with the prevalence of severe

anaemia among them being much higher (21.1 per cent) than among pre-school children (2.1 per cent). Among adolescent girls, educational or economic status does not seem to make much dierence in terms of the prevalence of anaemia. This may be due to culturally determined and historically practised gender discrimination against girls. In India, in low income families the male child eats better quality food as compared to the girl child. Low dietary intake and poor iron and folic acid intake are major factors responsible for the high prevalence of anaemia in India. Poor bio-availability of iron in the Indian diet aggravates the situation. High levels of infection such as water and food borne infections, malaria, and hookworm infestations further aggravate the situation (Planning Commission 2008). Anaemia: Incidence of anaemia among women was over 60 per cent for low income states and has not fallen over the years The Eleventh Five Year Plan targeted reducing anaemia among women and girls by 50 per cent by 2012. During 20056, more than half (55.3 per cent) of women aged 1549 years suered from anaemia, an increase of three percentage points over 19989. Among the major states, the incidence of anaemia among women was over 60 per cent for low income states and it was observed that there was no progress in this regard.33

33

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Assam, and West Bengal.

136 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

In 20056, the incidence was the lowest in Kerala (33 per cent) followed by Punjab (38 per cent). Anaemia is more prevalent among women in rural areas as compared to women in urban areas. The above facts suggest that the incidence of anaemia among women in poor states is comparatively higher than in rich states except for Gujarat, where the prevalence of anaemia among women is at par with the national average. There is a marginal increase in interstate disparities with respect to any anaemia among women (Table 4A.4).34 No dierence between Hindus and Muslims with respect to anaemia among women Across all religious communities (except for Jains and Others), there was an increase in the incidence of women suering from anaemia between 19989 and 20056. The increase was observed to be the highest for Muslim women with about six percentage points. While the prevalence of anaemia among Hindus and Muslims was closer to the overall national average, it was lowest for Sikh and Jain women. The gure for Hindu women was greater than Muslim women in 19989; however, the trend was reversed in 20056. The state-wise percentage of women suering from anaemia for both Hindus and Muslims demonstrates that the majority of low income states have performed worse than the national average. However, the percentage of Hindu women with anaemia in Uttar Pradesh is lower than that of Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka thereby suggesting that economic prosperity alone cannot address the problem of malnutrition among women since they have been historically discriminated against. Further, it should be noted that Uttar Pradesh which has a high percentage of Muslims in the population is doing better than Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka. Gujarat is far below the national average on this indicator for both Hindu and Muslim groups.35 Anaemia among women has increased for all caste groups over the years While ST women are the worst o with regard to anaemia, the percentage of women suering from anaemia increased for all caste groups during the period 19989
34

to 20056. Across caste groups, the highest percentage of anaemic women was recorded amongst STs during both the NFHS rounds. It was closer to the national average for SCs and OBCs in 20056. The percentage of SC women with anaemia has increased over the two time periods for 14 states, whereas it has decreased for only eight states. It is found that in the majority of poor states, the percentage of women with anaemia has increased for SCs and STs (Table 4.12). There are only two states where the gure for SCs, STs, and OBCs was increasing whereas it was decreasing for the general category (Table 4A.6). Lack of awareness among women resulted in high incidence of anaemia among them It appears from Figure 4.2 that there is a negative relationship between wealth indices and the percentage of women suering from anaemia. Across India, nearly 65 per cent of women from the lowest wealth quintile were anaemic and the percentage declined for successive wealth quintiles with 46 per cent of women belonging to the highest wealth quintile being anaemic. Yet the relationship appears to be weak. Therefore, an exclusive causation from wealth to anaemia should not be drawn since a high percentage of women suering from anaemia are found to be within the highest wealth quintile. This is because anaemia is a result of various factors, an important one being the lack of a balanced diet intake. This suggests that there is a lack of awareness among women regarding the necessity of a balanced diet. Lack of awareness is a result of poor literacy among women, and that is because girl child is discriminated against when pursuing education (see Chapter 6 on Education). Anaemia among children: Increased over years with rising rural-urban disparity During the early years of life, anaemia can prove to be an obstacle in a childs physical and emotional development. Anaemia causes low scholastic skills and also triggers increased morbidity from infectious diseases. The prevalence of anaemia is very high among young children (635 months). Around 79 per cent of Indias children in the age group 05 years suered from anaemia in

Coecient of variation was 24.5 per cent in 19989 and had increased to 28.6 per cent by 20056. According to Gendering Human Development Indices: Recasting the Gender Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure for India, Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2006, Gujarat ranked 22 in the Gender Development Index and gender discrimination against women has been rising in this state.
35

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

137

Table 4.12 Classification of States by Trend in Percentage of Women with Anaemia, by Social Groups, 19989 to 20056
Social groups States with rising trend in percentage of women with anaemia SCs Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Haryana, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh West Bengal, Delhi, Orissa, Sikkim, Jharkhand, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh STs Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Assam, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh OBCs Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Bihar Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Goa, Delhi Others Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Gujarat, Haryana, Bihar, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa Rajasthan, Orissa, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Jharkhand, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh

States with declining trend in percentage of women with anaemia

Jharkhand , Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Sikkim, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu

Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Chhattisgarh

Source: Computed from NFHS 2 and NFHS 3.

20056). Around 72 per cent of urban children and 81 per cent of rural children were anaemic in 20056. Also, the overall prevalence increased from an already very high 74 per cent in 19989 to 79 per cent in 20056. In the case of moderate anaemia, the percentage of rural children has gone up over the years, while it has

remained unchanged for urban children. Further, there is an overall increase in anaemia of more than ve percentage points for rural children, while it is about two percentage points for urban children, suggesting that the disparity between rural and urban areas has increased over the years (Table 4.13).

70 60 50

64.3 60.3 56 52.2 46.1

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest

Figure 4.2 Percentage of Women Suffering from Anaemia by Wealth Index, 20056
Source: NFHS 3 (20056).

138 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4.13 Anaemia among Children, 19989 and 20056

Anaemia Status by Haemoglobin level Moderate Severe Any Anaemia Source: NFHS 2 and NFHS 3. Urban 42 4.4 72.2 20056 Rural 51.7 3.5 80.9 Total 49.4 3.9 78.9 Urban 42 5.1 70.8 19989 Rural 47.1 5.5 75.3 Total 45.9 5.4 74.3

A high percentage of children suering from anaemia belong to states with low per capita income The prevalence of anaemia is found to be higher in low income states than high income states. However, Karnataka and Gujarat, two states with relatively higher per capita incomes have an incidence of anaemia above the national average. The lowest incidence of anaemia was recorded in Kerala (45 per cent). In other words, nearly half of the children in even the best performing state are suering from anaemia. The prevalence of anaemia was the highest in Bihar (78 per cent), followed by Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (both 74 per cent). Similarly, with respect to moderate anaemia, states which have recorded an incidence higher than the national average are poor states, with the exception of Gujarat. The poor states have shown divergence from the national average over the two NFHS rounds. (Table 4A.8). It is observed that among the major states with a high concentration of Muslims in the population, the percentage of Muslim children with anaemia is higher than that of Hindu children (and also higher than the other major religious communities). The incidence of anaemia was the lowest in the case of the Jain community (58 per cent). The prevalence of anaemia was a serious problem among SC and ST children. STs had the highest percentage (77 per cent) of children suering from anaemia in 20056, followed by SCs (72 per cent). Children of the OBCs had a prevalence rate similar to the national average of 70 per cent. Further, it has been observed that amongst SCs and STs a very high percentage of children suering from anaemia belong to the states with low per capita incomes. Among the STs the maximum number of children suering from anaemia was found in West Bengal (86 per cent) (Table 4A.9).

Iodine Deciency Disorders (IDDs): Iodine deciency is the greatest cause of preventable brain damage in childhood
Iodine deciency disorders (IDDs) are a major public health problem for populations throughout the world, particularly for pregnant women and young children. The most devastating outcomes of iodine deciency are increased prenatal mortality and mental retardation. Iodine deciency is the greatest cause of preventable brain damage in childhoodanother source of diculty for children when they enter school. The main factor responsible for iodine deciency is the low dietary intake of iodine. It occurs in populations living in areas where the iodine content in the soil is very low as a result of past glaciations or the repeated leaching eects of snow, water, and heavy rainfall. Crops grown in this soil, therefore, do not contain adequate amounts of iodine (Planning Commission 2008). Goitre is the most visible manifestation of IDD. In severely endemic areas, cretinism may aect up to 515 per cent of the population. The Indian National Goitre Control Programme (NGCP) was launched in 1962 with a focus on the goitre belt in the country. However, the programme of universal iodization was introduced only in 1984, when all edible salt in the market was required to contain 30 ppm (parts per million) iodine at the production level. This was legalized through the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1988 that also banned the availability of crystalline salt (non-iodized) as an edible product. It was accepted in dierent degrees by dierent states, some putting only a partial ban and others none at all. Based on the recommendations of the Central Council of Health, the Government took a policy decision that all edible salt in the country was to be iodised by 1992. Since 1992, the National Iodine Deciency Disorders Control

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

139

Programme (NIDDCP) is the new name given to the erstwhile National Goitre Control Programme. This change has been eected with a view to covering the wide spectrum of IDDs such as mental and physical retardation, deaf-mutism, and cretinism under the programme. Due to various research reports, the central government lifted the ban on the sale of non-iodized salt in 2000. The states chose to retain or revoke the ban depending upon their own assessment. In 2005, a country-wide ban on the sale of non-iodized salt for human consumption was again imposed by the central government.

Vitamin A Deciency (VAD): India has the largest number of Vitamin A decient children in the world
Vitamin A deciency (VAD) has been recognized as a major controllable public health and nutritional problem. An estimated 5.7 per cent of children in India suer from eye signs of VAD. Of the 37 million people across the globe who are blind, about 15 million are from India. More than 320,000 children in India suer from avoidable blindness. Recent evidence suggests that even mild VAD probably increases morbidity and mortality in children, emphasizing the public health importance of this disorder. The intake of Vitamin A is grossly inadequate for all groups, particularly among children in the age group 13 years. Though the prevalence of severe forms of VAD such as corneal ulcers and softening of cornea (keratomalacia) are now rare, the incidence of Bitot Spots was found to be prevalent in varying degrees in dierent parts of the country (NNMB 2003). The prevalence was higher than the WHO cut-o level of 0.5 per cent, indicating the public health signicance of the problem of VAD. There is a huge interstate variation in the prevalence of VAD among children. Other Micronutrient Deciencies: Balanced food, including protective food, is critical for reducing latent hunger Recently, the Government of India examined the issue of the use of zinc in the management of diarrhoea among

children and recommended administering zinc as part of ORS in the management of diarrhoea for children older than three months. It is expected that this will go a long way towards reducing the infant mortality rate in the country. Apart from major macro- and micronutrients, there exist more than 300 nutrients which are vital for the body. In recent years micronutrients and phyto nutrients (nutrients in edible plants having anti-oxidant and anti-inammatory properties) have taken centre stage in the eld of nutrition. Phyto nutrients in foods have biological properties for disease prevention and health promotion. A truly nutritious diet is one that promotes health and prevents diseases. There is considerable interaction between dierent micronutrients with respect to metabolic functions. The diets of the poor and even of some rich people may be decient in a number of nutrients. Evidence based on research suggests that the consumption of balanced food including protective foods like milk, a variety of fruits, vegetables, and so on, will meet the nutritional needs of the body.
MAJOR PROGRAMMES TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION

Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS): Little consensus on success of the programme
In 1975, a committed Government introduced the ICDS programme in India, to address the immediate cause of malnutrition in the country.36 Today the ICDS is one of the largest nutrition programmes in the country. The Supreme Court, through judgments during the decade of the 2000s, has been instrumental in ensuring that all children below six years, all pregnant and lactating mothers, and adolescent girls in all rural habitations and urban slums are covered by the ICDS nutritional and health services in a phased manner latest by December 2010.37 The programme provides services through Anganwadi centres (AWC) at the community level.38

See Figure 4.1 for the immediate causes of Malnutrition. As of 31 December 2009 there were 87,531,781 beneciaries of this programme constituting of 71,845,264 children and 15,686,517 pregnant and lactating mothers (MWCD). 38 Range of of Services that the ICDS seeks to provide to Children and Women are: Health check-ups and treatment, Immunization Micronutrient, supplementation Health and Nutrition, Education Supplementary, and Nutrition Pre-school Education.
37

36

140 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Coverage of ICDS: Dramatic increase 39 Only 46 per cent of the children are covered by the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) of the ICDS, leaving more than half of the children out of this programme (Commissioners to the Supreme Court, Ninth Report, 2009). Under the ICDSs SNP the coverage of children under six increased from 58 million in 20067 to 68 million in 20078 but this is still less than 60 per cent of the under-six population in the country as identied by the Anganwadis (Commissioners to the Supreme Court, Ninth Report 2009, http://www.sccommissioners.org/ Reports/Reports/SCC9_0909.pdf). NFHS-3 reported that 81 per cent children under six years of age were living in areas served by an AWC. About 20 per cent of children were not even been covered by the Anganwadi survey and can be assumed to have been left out of any of the Anganwadi benets (Right to Food Campaign, Commissioners to the Supreme Court, Ninth Report, 2009). The situation has been improving since the Supreme Court order in December 2006 that said that the ICDS should be universalized. The number of Anganwadis has been increasing rapidly. However, as the Supreme Court Commissioners noted, SNP coverage for pregnant and lactating mothers was very low. Only 12 million pregnant and lactating women were covered under the ICDSs SNP during 20067, which increased to 14 million in 20078, constituting only about 35 per cent of the pregnant and lactating mothers in the country. This indicates that the coverage of pregnant/lactating is even lower than the coverage of children. The situation for adolescent girls is even worse than that for the pregnant and lactating mothers. The Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) has launched two programmes for adolescent girls, the Kishori Shakti Yojana (KSY) and the National Programme for Adolescent Girls (NPAG). Neither of these programmes provides for universal distribution of supplementary nutrition for adolescent girls. The KSY has been extended to cover all the blocks in the country but data

on the number of beneciaries under this scheme is not available. The NPAG covers undernourished adolescent girls in the age group 1119 years who are underweight (weight<35 kg). Each beneciary is given six kilograms of free food grains per month. The Supreme Court in various orders directed the Government of India and the state/UT (Union Territory) governments to ensure that not only every eligible child, adolescent girl and woman be covered, but also that the scheme be geographically universalizedin other words, there should be an Anganwadi centre in every habitation. Priority must be given to SC/ST hamlets and urban slums in the process of universalization. Although the Government has not been able to meet the deadline set by the Supreme Court, there has been a lot of progress since the order was passed40 The ICDS coverage of the SC and ST population could not be ascertained due to data constraints. However, the data maintained at the Anganwadi centres demonstrates gross under-reporting of severely malnourished children, probably due to the vertical institutional framework that is in operation which gives the ground level worker the incentive to report false data. For instance, as of 31st December 2009, MWCD reported that only 0.4 per cent of children are severely malnourished (Grade III and Grade IV malnutrition), and only 13.07 per cent are moderately malnourished (Grade II malnutrition). These gures are totally at variance with the NFHS-3 gures, which state that 15.8 per cent of children are severely malnourished and 40.4 per cent are moderately malnourished. The divergence may be partly due to fallacious reporting by the Aanganwadi workers (AWWs) to show good progress in the health status of children and partly because ICDS does not cover all the children in the age group 06 years. Despite 30 years of existence, there is little consensus as to the success of the ICDS programme; there have been small quasi-experimental studies that looked at the eect of ICDS on certain health behaviours but these have reported mixed results.

39 There are six major states, with low per capita income, where the coverage of SNP for children is even less than that of national average. There are two major states, Bihar and Rajasthan, with less than 40 per cent coverage of SNP and there are four major states namely, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand with more than 40 per cent coverage, but less than national average (Right to Food Campaign, Commissioners to the Supreme Court, Ninth Report, 2009). 40 There are six major states, with low per capita income, where the coverage of SNP for children is even less than the national average. There are two major states, Bihar and Rajasthan, with less than 40 per cent coverage of SNP and there are four major states, namely, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Jharkhand with more than 40 per cent coverage, but less than national average (Right to Food Campaign, Commissioners to the Supreme Court, Ninth Report, 2009).

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

141

In addition, Indias high rates of malnutrition are due to high levels of exposure to infection and inappropriate infant and child feeding practices, mostly in the rst three years of life. However, much of ICDSs work revolves around the assumption that food insecurity is the primary cause of malnutrition. Thus, the slant towards food-based interventions has failed to address other determinants of malnutrition in India. It is for this reason that public investments in ICDS should be redirected towards the younger children (03 years) and the most vulnerable population segments in those states and districts where the prevalence of under nutrition is high. Looking at the current scenario and universalization of ICDS, Commissioners to the Supreme Court has made several recommendations (see Box 4.1).

2. Access to food depends on livelihoods/purchasing power.41 3. Absorption of food is inuenced by access to clean drinking water, environmental hygiene, and primary healthcare.42 Under the draft National Food Security Act, 2010 every identied Below Poverty Line (BPL) family will be entitled to receive 25 kilograms of food grains such as rice and/or wheat every month from the Government at subsidized issue prices xed from time to time. The above poverty line (APL) families are entitled to 35 kilograms of food grains. Need for UID to get rid of bogus cards The new draft bill proposes to index prices of food grains distributed through the Public Distribution System (PDS), both for the poor and those living to the minimum support price (MSP), the oor price oered to farmers after harvest, and determine entitlement on a per capita basis. It has also proposed, with a view to avoiding leakages, that the PDS should shift towards a smart card based system which ties in with Aadhaar, the Governments programme to provide a unique identity to all residents. The argument is that since the identity is based on biometric verication, it would eliminate the problem of bogus cards.

Food and Nutrition Security and Right to Food

Subsidised food grains should be extended to majority of the countrys population A sustainable national food and nutrition security system should address the three dimensions of hunger and it must also address the three issues of availability, access, and absorption. 1. Availability of food at the household level depends upon food production and distribution.

Box 4.1 Recommendations of Commissioners to the Supreme Court on Right to Food

The Government of India must operationalize all the sanctioned AWCs at the earliest. A simple procedure for setting up of an Anganwadi on demand must be put in place so that an AWC is sanctioned and operationalized within three months of such a demand being made, in accordance with the order of the Supreme Court dated 13 December 2006. Children in the age group 36 years should be provided a hot cooked meal at the AWC every day. The SNP so provided should be age appropriate, culturally appropriate, nutritious and locally procured. Make adequate budget allocations for the ICDS programme so as to be able to provide SNP to every child under six, every pregnant and lactating mother, and every adolescent girl. The Government of India must make provision for supplementary nutrition for all adolescent girls according to the same norms as those set for SNP for pregnant and lactating mothers. Strict action must be taken at all levels against the false reporting of data that show inated gures of enrolment and deated gures of malnutrition. To check this practice, a system of independent monitoring must be put in place, so that a sample of the households is routinely checked and the data compared with that reported by the ICDS. Source: http://www.sccommissioners.org/reports, accessed on 18 March 2011.
41 As on March 2008, 10.1 lakh anganwadis were operationalised of the 10.5 sanctioned anganwadis. Further, in the end of 2008, the Government of India has sanctioned another 2.1 lakh anganwadis taking the total number of anganwadis to 14 lakh. 42 This depends upon the employability of the person, detail of which is discussed in Chapter 1 of this report.

142 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

The sixth meeting of the National Advisory Council (NAC) on 23 October 2010 made the following recommendations for strengthening the Right to Food Policy of India (see Box 4.2).

Minimum Support Price (MSP), Food Procurement Policy, and the Public Distribution System
Highly subsidized food grains are provided to the poorest families The MSPs are xed on rates recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). These rates are set mainly using the cost of cultivation. These grain stocks essentially supply the PDS of the country. Through the PDS, cereals are made available to BPL households as well as to APL householdsat dierential prices. There is a third category of beneciaries

Antyodaya, card holders. Under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), 35 kilograms of food grains are provided to the poorest of the poor families at the highly subsidized price of Rs 2 per kilogram for wheat and Rs 3 per kilogram for rice. Since 20045, the MSP of wheat has increased from Rs 630 per quintal to Rs 1,080 per quintal. Similarly the MSP bonus of paddy (common) has increased from Rs 560 per quintal to Rs 1,000 per quintal. However, the Central Issue Price (CIP) of wheat and rice for AAY, BPL, and APL families has not been raised. As a result, the gap between economic cost and CIPs has been increasing and food subsidy costs incurred by the Government have risen substantially. Food grains are procured at the MSP xed by the Government. The MSP for Common and Grade A paddy was xed at Rs 950 and Rs 980 per quintal, respectively, for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS), 200910 (October 2009September 2010). An

Box 4.2 Recommendations of the National Advisory Council

Legal entitlements to subsidized food grains should be extended to at least 75 per cent of the countrys population 90 per cent in rural areas and 50 per cent in urban areas. The priority households (46 per cent in rural areas and 28 per cent in urban areas) should have a monthly entitlement of 35 kilograms (equivalent to 7 kilograms per person) at a subsidized price of Rs 1 per kilograms for millets, Rs 2 for wheat and Rs 3 for rice. Rural coverage can be adjusted state-wise based on the Planning Commissions 20045 poverty estimates. The general category households (44 per cent in rural areas and 22 per cent in urban areas) should have a monthly entitlement of 20 kilograms (equivalent to 4 kilograms per person) at a price not exceeding 50 per cent of the current MSP for millets, wheat and rice. The minimum coverage and entitlements, as well as prices, should remain unchanged at least until the end of the twelfth Five Year Plan. The Government of India should specify the criteria for the categorization of the population into priority and general households. The NAC recommends that in the rst phase, food entitlements should be extended to 85 per cent of the rural population and 40 per cent of the urban population. Full coverage of food entitlements as enumerated above should be extended to all by 31 March 2014. Other important components of the Food Security Bill recommended by the NAC include legal entitlements for child and maternal nutrition (including nutrition programmes for pre-school children, pregnant and nursing mothers, maternity benets, and midday meals for school children) as well as community kitchens and programmes for feeding destitute and vulnerable groups. For the new components, programmes will need to be developed as soon as possible. For further advancing food and nutritional security, the NAC has recommended as enabling provisions, among other things, measures for revitalizing agriculture, diversifying the commodities available under the PDS, ensuring universal access to safe water and proper sanitation, universalizing primary healthcare, extending nutrition and health support to adolescent girls, strengthening the school health programme, the programmes for Vitamin A, iodine and iron supplementation and the National Programme for Crches. An essential aspect of the PDS reform should be to plug leakages and enhance accountability. The NAC is examining proposals for PDS reforms including: (a) decentralized procurement and storage; (b) de-privatization of PDS outlets; (c) doorstep delivery of grains to PDS outlets; (d) revision of PDS commissions; (e) application of ICT including end-to-end computerization of the PDS; (f) full transparency of records (including pro-active disclosure, transaction-based Management Information System (MIS), right of immediate inspection, and mandatory social audits); (g) use of Smart Cards and biometrics subject to successful pilots. The NAC Working Group on Food Security will draft the National Food Security Bill for consideration of the Council. Source: http://nac.nic.in/press_releases/23_october%20_2010.pdf, (Accessed on 18 March 2011).

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

143

incentive bonus of Rs 50 per quintal over and above the MSP was also given during the entire KMS, 200910. The MSP of wheat was xed at Rs 1,080 per quintal for the Rabi Marketing Season, 200910. The PDS is a major state intervention in the country aimed at ensuring food security to all people, especially the poor. The PDS operates through a large distribution network of almost half a million fair price shops (FPSs), and is supplemental in nature. Under the PDS, the central government is responsible for the procurement and transportation of food grains up to the principal distribution centres of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), while the state governments are responsible for the identication of families living below the poverty line, the issue of ration cards, and the distribution of food grains to the vulnerable sections through FPSs. The PDS seems to have failed in meeting its second objective of making food grains available to the poor. If it had, the consumption levels of cereals would not have fallen on averageas it has been over the last two decades. With a view to improving its eciency, the PDS was redesigned as the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) with eect from June 1997. Over 500 million targeted people are benetting under this scheme. Under the TPDS, higher rates of subsidies are being given to the poor and the poorest among the poor. The APL families are also being given food grains under the TPDS but with a lower subsidy. The issue of food grains under TDPS for Antyodaya cardholders was initially 10 kilograms per family per month, which has progressively increased to 35 kilograms per family per month with eect from April 2002. At present, 35 kilograms of rice or wheat, as well as sugar and kerosene are provided at subsidized rates to BPL families. The BPL families are identied by the state governments and about 40 per cent of them receive an additional subsidy under the AAY, which entitles them to the same quantity of food grains, but at roughly half the price at which it is sold to the other BPL families. The AAY scheme has been expanding since its inception (Department of Food and Public Distribution). Major deciencies of TPDS: High exclusion and inclusion errors As identied by various studies, the major deciencies of the TPDS include: (a) high exclusion and inclusion errors, (b) non-viability of fair price shops, (c) failure in

fullling the objective of price stabilization, and (d) leakages (Planning Commission 2008). Given the present scenario of hunger and malnutrition in India, there is a long road ahead to remove hunger and malnutrition. The Steering Committee of a High Level Panel of Experts on Food and Nutrition reported that India urgently needs a comprehensive coordinated approach, not piecemeal approaches, to tackling chronic, hidden and transitory hunger. However, the immediate challenge before India is to face the anticipated food crisis arising due to the possible steep rise in food prices during 2011. To meet this challenge, recommendations made by the National Commission on Farmers (NCF) need urgent and concurrent attention. Six of the recommendations are to be given top priority as pointed out by the Chairman of NCF, M.S. Swaminathan. These are presented in Box 4.3.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The situation of protein-energy malnutrition has shown little or no signs of improvement over several decades. Sixty years after Independence, nearly half of Indias children under three are malnourished. As a result, India has the largest number of malnourished children in the world. Even more signicantly, Indias rate of malnutrition is worse on average than that in Africa. With respect to other BRIC and SAARC nations, Indias performance is the worst in terms of underweight children, infant mortality and under-ve mortality. Even more worrying is the fact that there has been no signicant decline in the percentage of underweight children over the last decade-and-a-half when the economy has been growing at over 6 per cent per annum on average. Given the increase in population, the number of malnourished children is likely to have actually increased. The percentage of women with BMI<18.5 in poor states (except Orissa) recorded an increase, whereas most north-eastern states (excluding Assam and Tripura), and the rich states (excluding Punjab and Delhi), have done better over the years. In Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh child malnutrition rates are well above the national average. Some of these states have actually seen an increase in the share of malnourished children under the age of three between 19989 and 20056. The incidence of anaemia among women in poor states is comparatively higher than that in their richer counterparts except for Gujarat, where the prevalence of anaemic women is at par with the national average.

144 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Box 4.3 Recommendations of National Commission on Farmers

First, revive farmers interest in farming. Without the wholehearted involvement of farmers, particularly of young as well as women farmers, it will be impossible to implement a Food Entitlements Act in an era of increasing price volatility in the international market. Second, every state government should launch a bridge the yield gap movement, to take advantage of the vast untapped yield reservoir existing in most farming systems even with the technologies currently on the shelf. Third, the prevailing mismatch between production and post-harvest technologies should be ended. Although India is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world, one-third is wasted. Safe storage, marketing, and value addition to primary products have to be attended to at the village level. Home Science colleges can be enabled to set up Training Food Parks for building the capacity of self-help groups of women in food processing. A national grid of ultra-modern grain storage facilities must be created without further delay. Fourth, a nutrition dimension should be added to the National Horticulture and Food Security Missions. Hidden hunger caused by the deciency of micronutrients like iron, iodine, zinc, Vitamin A, and Vitamin B12 can be overcome at the village level by taking advantage of horticultural remedies for nutritional maladies. Fifth, a small farm management revolution which will confer on farmers operating one hectare or less the power and economy of scale is an urgent need. Sixth, there is need for proactive action to minimize the adverse impact of unfavourable changes in climate and monsoon behaviour and to maximize the benets of favourable weather conditions. Sources: M.S. Swaminathan, Managing the Anticipated Food Crisis, The Hindu, 19 December, 2010; and NCF Fifth Report.

Overall, there is high interstate disparity with respect to hunger in India with poor states at the bottom. Further, it is observed that socially marginalized groups (SCs and STs) have a higher percentage of women with BMI <18.5 and they have been diverging from the national average over the years. A higher percentage of children in rural areas suered from malnutrition as compared to those residing in urban areas. The primary reason for high malnutrition amongst the rural poor is inadequate food intake. Further, the majority of socially marginalized groups (STs and SCs) among whom malnutrition is quite high live in rural areas. Socially marginalized groups are in a disadvantageous position and their situation is worse in the states where their concentration is high. In the majority of states SC and ST female malnutrition has been diverging from the national average. However, in two poor states, namely, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal, female malnutrition has been converging towards the national average. It has been observed that more than 50 per cent of children from STs are underweight and stunted and above 75 per cent suer from anaemia. Among major religious communities it has been observed that there is no dierence between Hindus and Muslims in terms of womens malnutrition. Hindus recorded the highest percentage of underweight and

stunted children. Further, there is no dierence between anaemia among Hindu and Muslim women. But the worrying fact is that the states with a high concentration of Muslims in the population have a higher percentage of children suering from anaemia. The prevalence of anaemia in adolescent girls is very high in India and the prevalence of severe anaemia among them is much higher than that in pre-school children. Educational or economic status does not seem to make much dierence. This may be due to the cultural and historical gender discrimination against girls. To address the problem of hunger and malnutrition programmes such as the ICDS, MSP, and the PDS need specic improvements in programme design aimed at addressing the problems faced by socially marginalized groups. Given the seriousness of hunger and malnutrition in India, the Government has universalized the ICDS programme. To motivate the ground level ICDS workers, the Government has proposed an increase in the salary of Anganwadi workers and helpers in the present budget. Finally, the National Food Security Bill is a step in the right direction for ensuring food security. However, the fact remains that the problems that were identied early in this chapter have not been addressed. The Conceptual Framework that explains the underlying

THE RIGHT TO FOOD AND NUTRITION

145

and proximate causes of child malnutrition and chronic adult hunger (as demonstrated in the high proportion of the adult population with a BMI>18.5), shows that certain critical problems have not been addressed. As is reiterated in the next chapter (on health), there has to be a focus of attention of the health system and the anganwadis on the period of pregnancy and the rst year after birth of the entire population. Adequate food and cash transfers (through the 2011 central government maternity benet scheme piloted in 52 districts) has to be ensured. The Janani Suraksha Yojana (see Chapter 5 for detail discussion), aimed at securing institutional delivery for all pregnant women must be universalised. The public health system has to be functional enough to

ensure that (a) that colustrum feeding takes place for all newborns during the rst hour after birth; (b) the postnatal care during rst 28 days after childbirth takes place at the quality that will bring down infections and thus infant mortality. The anganwadi and the primary health system will ensure exclusive breastfeeding by all mothers of India. The same two systems of service delivery are so made functional that solid-mushy food is introduced for all infants between 69 months of the babys birth, alongside breastfeeding. And nally, full immunization for all infants and toddlers occurs in a timely manner. Without these conditions being met, there is little hope for inclusive growth becoming a reality in India.

5
Health and Demography
INTRODUCTION

Health is regarded as a vital component in the growth and development of any country. Healthy children are said to have better school attendance and learning, which later translates into better earning capacity. In other words, ill health can lead to capability deprivation and hence poverty, causing a substantial loss of nancial and human resources. Poverty caused by poor health further reinforces ill health; poverty leads to low food intake, nutritional deciencies, deprivation of basic amenities like sanitation and clean drinking water cause infections. The poor are more exposed to environmental risks (poor sanitation) and less prepared to cope with them, they are less informed about the benets of healthy lifestyles, and have less access to quality healthcare. Figure 5.1 highlights some of the synergistic relationships between health and well-being. As discussed in the Synergies model in the Overview (Chapter 1), there are feedback loops in terms of both inputs and outcomes in human development. Health and nutritional status, family size, and healthy living conditions (such as clean water and sanitation) are inputs as well as the human development outcomes (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). For instance, family planning helps in the spacing of children and benets the health status of both the mother and the child, improves child survival rates, thereby reducing infant and maternal mortality and improving life expectancy. On the other hand, healthier children learn better in school, and grater child survival in the medium-term, reduced fertility (Caldwell 1986). Lower fertility rates in turn, have positive implications for

Better health and nutritional status of mother and children

Better learning ability

Better nutritional retention and thus lower incidence of diseases

Capability enhancement and improved earning capacity

Better standard of living

Figure 5.1 Synergy between Health and Standard of Living

improving health and increasing life expectancy. In addition, fewer children imply better care for each child by the mother and greater per capita family resources for education and food intake. Thus, wealth, education, and better amenities like improved sanitation and water, directly or indirectly, contribute to the better health of the mother and her child (Figure 5.2). Against this backdrop, it was observed that over the last decade India has seen improvement in various health outcomes. Death rates, infant mortality rates (IMR) and under ve mortality rates (U5MR), as well as fertility rates have declined. These, along with other medical advances, have improved life expectancy in the country. Not only this, it is commendable that India performs better than

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

147

Social services inputs/processes Education Family Planning Health Nutrition Water and Sanitation Knowledge

Human development outcomes/outputs Family size Health status Nutritional status Healthy living conditions

Figure 5.2 Feedback Loops in the Human Development ProcessA Focus on Health Related Inputs and Outputs

Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in terms of child mortality and healthcare of mothers. However, these improvements can only be seen in a relative sense because the absolute health status of the Indian population remains poor, which partly reects supply side constraints. A comparison with other Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) economies shows that India has the highest child mortality and the proportion of women receiving antenatal care at least once is far lower compared to China and the Latin American and Caribbean nations. Despite improvements, the following key issues still confront the country. In terms of outcome indicators Infant mortality rate (IMR) and maternal mortality rate (MMR) continue to remain way above the target as set in the Eleventh Five Year Plan India has the worst sex-ratio among Asian nations and a declining child sex-ratio With respect to process indicators, Not even 50 per cent of Indian women have institutional deliveries and less than half of the children undergo all vaccinations Three or more antenatal care visits are received by only a little over half of all pregnant women in 20056 Only a little over half the population of reproductive age is using contraception The input indicators continue to remain insucient, Despite a commendable increase in human resources brought about by the National Rural Health Mission, many health centres still do not have doctors/ nurses in place

There is a shortage of Primary Health Centres (PHCs), Community Health Centres (CHCs) and Sub-Centres The expenditure incurred on healthcare is extremely low by international standards, as well as considering the unmet needs of the population Only about half the population has access to sanitation facilities, which is particularly a problem given the very high density of population (in comparison with say, Africa), especially in urban areas. How eective the services and infrastructure are depends in turn on the countrys/states commitment towards its people. There are wide variations across states, within rural and urban areas and between various social and religious communities, in terms of health and access to healthcare services. It is commonly known that the performance of northern and eastern states in terms of health indicators is worse than the states in southern India. The situation is worse for rural areas (that account for 65 per cent of the population in 2011) in general and poorer state like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradeshin particular. According to Baru et al., there are mainly three forms of inequities that persist in Indias health sectorhistorical inequalities rooted in the policies and practices of British colonial India that have been pursued even after Independence; socio-economic inequities in terms of caste, class, and gender; and inequities pertaining to availability, utilization, and aordability of healthcare. Of these, the latter two pose serious issues. The situation is worse in the case of the poor, particularly those belonging to SC and ST communities, especially in the less developed States, because they are prone to multiple deprivations.

148 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Over the years, the focus of Indias health policy has shifted from a comprehensive universal healthcare system as propagated by the 1946 Bhore Committee, to a healthcare policy that is more selective, single disease, and targeted programme-based. And in terms of the public domain it is mostly conned to family planning, immunization, select disease surveillance, and medical education and research (Gangolli et al. 2005). The most striking weakness of our public health system has been its failure to reach the bottom of the pyramid, that is, to almost 300 million poor people in the country. These people are mostly in rural areas and in urban slums and are forced to incur high costs for private healthcare. High out of pocket expenditure is one of the most important reasons why people are pushed into poverty. The case of SCs, STs, and OBCs, which account for 70 per cent of the total population, is no dierent. They are in fact, more prone to poor health outcomes, particularly due to their low socio-economic status. The inequalities across social groups are immense. The analysis shows that OBCs enjoy a better health status than SCs and STs. However, special mention must be made of the fact that SCs perform better than STs in terms of health outcomes, inputs as well as process indicators, which is partly due to the higher concentration of STs in rural and forest areas, where the inhospitable terrain is partly a reason for the restricted reach of administration (Government of India 2008). As discussed in Chapter 2 of this Report, the poor health outcomes in states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Andhra Pradesh are correlated with the fact that these states together account for almost half of the countrys ST population and 37 per cent of the SC population. However, in the case of STs as well as SCs, the improvement in various health outcomes, albeit slow, should not be ignored. The southern states success in mobilizing their poor performing lower castes underlines the state governments commitment towards improving their health status. As a consequence, SCs and OBCs in states like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu not
1

only perform better in terms of various health indicators as compared to their counterparts in other states, but sometimes they perform even better than the national average for the upper castes. For instance in Tamil Nadu, health outcomes for the SCs and OBCs were better than those for the upper castes in Uttar Pradesh (Mehrotra 2006). In terms of inter-religious inequalities, it was observed that Hindus performed the worst in terms of various health outcomes, followed by Muslims. This is surprising because Hindus are better placed in terms of various input indicators like vaccinations among children, number of institutional deliveries, and antenatal care (ANC) of mothers. Muslims registered the highest fertility rates, but enjoy a sex-ratio advantage over other major religious communities. The high fertility among Muslims is similar to that of the STs; in fact, the poor in general have high fertility rates. The above indicators and their trends across states, social and religious groups (wherever data are available),1 are analysed in the succeeding sections of this chapter. The next section discusses health outcome indicators like IMR, U5MR, death rates, life expectancy, demography, fertility rates, and sex-ratio. The following section examines the process indicators for health, such as place of delivery, prevalence of contraception, ANC, and vaccination of children. The next section provides an analysis of health inputs like health service infrastructure, human resources, healthcare expenditure, and the associated out-of-pocket expenditure. Following section discusses the demand for healthcare facilities and the sixth section examines about the access to water and sanitation, which also determines the health status of people. The last section provides some conclusions. Data for this chapter has been taken from the Census of India (1981, 1991, 2001, and 2011), National Family Health Survey 2 (NFHS 2) (19989) and NFHS 3 (20056), data on health statistics from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Sample Survey (NSS) 58th (2002) and 65th (20089) rounds.2 Further,

Caste and religion-wise data across the states are not available for life expectancy, percentage distribution of live births by place of delivery, prevalence of contraception, percentage of women who had ANC visits, percentage distribution of households by source of healthcare for treatment, state/UT-wise number of sub-centres, functioning of PHCs and CHCs, state/UT-wise number of government hospitals & beds in rural & urban areas, state/UT-wise number of government. Allopathic doctors & average population served, State/UT wise number of registered nurses and pharmacists, state/UT-wise health manpower in rural areas (government, public expenditure in health, distribution of health expenditure by the public and private sector, out-of-pocket expenditure on health, total fertility rate, death rate, percentage of persons not expected to survive beyond 40 years. 2 A two period comparison for religious communities could not be done in case of National Sample Survey (NSS) data because the 58th round does not provide data by religion.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

149

an attempt has been made to correlate some of the variables with the Wealth Index by constructing wealth quintiles.3 This exercise is done to assess whether there is a positive relation between better health status and greater wealth at hand.
HEALTH OUTCOMES

Table 5.1 Infant Mortality Rate, 2000 and 2009

2000 Urban Rural Combined 44 74 68 2009 34 55 50

Improving health outcomes is crucial to pro-poor growth. India, which is home to one third of the worlds poor, has a poor record in terms of health outcomes. The present section details the performance of some of the health outcome indicators. The mothers health status aects not just the childs nutritional status but also the childs survival prospects. Thus, indicators like IMR, U5MR, and life expectancy at birth are also linked to the mothers health status. In India, neonatal mortality (death within 28 days of birth) accounts for 60 per cent of infant mortality, due to partly delivery without medical supervision.

Source: Sample Registration System, Registrar General, India.

5A.1). Figure 5.3 shows some of the states where there was a sharp reduction in the ruralurban gap. The IMR for females was higher than for males at both points of time. This may be attributed to gender discrimination in terms of child care. The gap was greater than ve in 2009 for the states of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Goa, and Jammu and Kashmir (Table 5A.2). IMR among Muslims is less than that among SCs and STs Data on IMR for religious and social groups is available from NFHS 2 (19989) and NFHS 3 (20056). There is a decline in the all India average for 20056 over 19989 for almost all major religious communities. Hindus have the highest IMR at both points of time (77 in 19989 and 56 in 20056), followed by Muslims. Whereas other religious communities experienced a fall in IMR across states, the IMR increased for Muslims in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Delhi,4 where 45 per cent of the countrys Muslim population lives. The IMR for Hindus showed the greatest decline in the state of Haryana over the period 19989 to 20056 (Table 5A.3). IMR among SCs and STs converging with the national average, for STs at a higher pace The average IMR for India and for individual states decreased substantially for all social groups in 20056 as compared to 19989. However, during this period there was an increase in the IMR among SC children in Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh, and ST

Child Mortality: A declining trend with rural-urban convergenceyet IMR is well above the MDG target
Infant Mortality Rate refers to the number of deaths in the rst year of life per 1,000 live births. It reects the probability of a child dying before attaining age one year due to poor health of either the child or mother, or poor healthcare. About 1.5 million children die in India every year before their rst birthday (MOSPI 2009). However, the last decade has witnessed a dramatic fall in the IMR, in both rural as well as urban areas (Table 5.1). The greatest improvement was seen in the states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu. At both points of time (2000 as well as 2009), the highest IMR was observed in Madhya Pradesh and the lowest in Kerala (Table 5A.1). Even though infant mortality is higher in the rural areas, the ruralurban gap has narrowed over time (Table

3 Since NFHS 3 data does not contain information on income or expenditure, information related to household assets and durables was combined to create an index of household wealth. The Wealth Index is a composite measure of the cumulative living standard of a household. The Wealth Index is calculated using data on a households ownership of selected assets, such as televisions and bicycles, materials used for housing construction, and types of water access and sanitation facilities, based on which households were grouped into ve quintiles. Wealth quintiles are expressed in terms of quintiles of individuals in the population. 4 The greatest increase was seen for Andhra Pradesh (22.5 percentage points).

150 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

50

Infant deaths per 1,000 live births

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Orissa

Chhattisgarh

Uttarakhand

Assam

Karnataka

Tamil Nadu

Meghalaya

Madhya Pradesh

Jharkhand

Maharashtra

Rural-Urban gap 2000

Rural-Urban gap 2009

Figure 5.3 Closing Rural-Urban Gap in IMR in Most States, 2000 and 2009
Source: SRS, RGI. Note: The rural-urban gap is calculated as the excess of rural IMR over urban IMR.

children in Gujarat. ST households registered the greatest improvement over this period while SC infants had the highest risk of mortality (Table 5A.4). The Eleventh Plan target was to reduce IMR to 28 per 1,000 live births by 2012 and the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target is 26.7 per 1,000 live births by 2015. IMR was 68 in 2000 and 50 in 2009 the Survey Registration Scheme (SRS), a decrease of 18 in nine years. Given the current pace, it seems impossible that the targets will be reached in the dened time frames. One of the important determinants of infant mortality is the standard of living. The Wealth Index includes indicators like household assets and durables, which are indicative of the income level and standard of living of the people. Figure 5.4 shows that the top 20 per cent of the population has an IMR more than double that of the bottom 20 per cent of the population.

80 70 60 50

IMR

40 30 20 10 0 Lowest Second Middle Fourth Highest

Wealth index

Figure 5.4 Infant Mortality Rate by Wealth Index, 20056

Source: NFHS 3.

Under Five Mortality Rate: Under ve children in poorer States face greater risk of mortality
U5MR refers to the probability of children born in a specic period dying before reaching the age of ve years
5

and is expressed as number of deaths per 1,000 live births. U5MR indicates the level of child health. The NFHS estimates show that the ruralurban gap (with rural higher than urban U5MR) reduced from 44 during NFHS 1 to 30 during NFHS 3. U5MR, in conformity with IMR, was higher in rural areas across all time periods (Table 5.2).5

Rural areas experienced a fall of 37 from NFHS 1 to NFHS 3 whereas it was 21 for urban India during the same time period.

West Bengal

All India

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

151

Table 5.2 Under Five Mortality Rate

Place of residence Urban Rural Combined NFHS 1* 74.6 119.4 109.0 NFHS 2* 63.1 103.7 95.0 NFHS 3* 52.0 82.0 74.0 2009 41 71 64

slower improvement among the Muslim population and a faster improvement among the Hindu population, as was also evident in the discussion on IMR. U5MR is the lowest in the case of Sikhs who have better access to healthcare services (Table 5A.7). Despite huge improvement, U5MR among SCs, STs, and OBCs greater than Muslims The U5MR was higher than the national average for these social groups in 20056 and was the highest for the STs (95.7).8 It declined for the three social groups (SCs, STs and OBCs) during the period 1998 to 2006 by over 30 per thousand (Table 5A.8). However, it is interesting to note that SCs in states like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and West Bengal have a lower U5MR as compared to the national average for upper castes (Others) in all states. This is also true for OBCs in Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu, where they perform even better than the national average for upper castes. The U5MR shows the same trend as IMR when plotted against the Wealth Index quintiles, that is, U5MR declines with increase in the Wealth Index of households. The health status of the lowest 20 per cent households is deplorable as can be seen from the fact that their U5MR is way above the national average of 74.3, while for the top 20 per cent, the U5MR is 33.8.

Note: *All estimates are for the five years preceding the survey (approximately 198892 for NFHS 1, 19948 for NFHS 2, and 20015 for NFHS 3). Source: NFHS 3 and SRS (2011).

According to National Family and Health Survey (NFHS) data, U5MR declined for both males and females over the period 19989 to 20056 in all the states except for Nagaland, where there was a marginal increase. The best performing states in 20056 were Goa (20) and Kerala (16) with IMRs similar to rich countries and the two worst were Madhya Pradesh (94.2) and Uttar Pradesh (96.4) at African levels. Other states with U5MR above the all India average in both periods were Bihar, Orissa, and Rajasthan (Table 5A.5). The MDG target for U5MR is 42 per 1,000 live births by 2015. According to SRS data, U5MR in 2009 was 64 per 1,000 live births compared to 31 in China. It has fallen from 85 per 1,000 live births in 2000 U5MR for both males and females declined over the period 20002009 from 84 to 60 and 95 to 69 respectively (SRS 2011). The male-female dierentials were also higher in rural areas. In 2008, the dierential was highest in rural Himachal Pradesh. What is commendable is that in urban Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, the female U5MR is lower than that for males. The lowest recorded U5MR is for the state of Kerala where it is 14 per 1,000 live births (Table 5A.6). U5MR highest for Hindus, but HinduMuslim gap decreasing The U5MR declined for all major religious communities in 20056 compared to 19989. Though registering the highest fall in U5MR,6 Hindus performed the worst among the major religious communities. For Muslims U5MR fell from 83 in 19989 to 70 in 20056. In the case of both IMR and in U5MR the gap between Hindus and Muslims is decreasing.7 This seems to be due to the
6 7

Death Rate: Better healthcare reduces death rate

The death rate is dened as the number of deaths per 1,000 persons. It was higher for males than females in all the time periods. The death rate declined from 9.8 to 7.3 over the period 19912009. During this period, the highest death rate among states was recorded in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Other states/UTs (Union Territories) with high death rates (exceeding the all India average gure) include Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and Puducherry. Among the north-eastern states, Manipur had a death rate below six across the same time period (Table 5A.9). A declining trend in the death rate is attributed to an increase in healthcare facilities, more awareness among people about diseases, and so on.

From 107 in 19989 to 76 in 20056. The gap in 19989 was 24 percentage points, while in 20056, it came down to only 6. 8 For SCs it was 88, for STs it was 95.7, for OBCs it was 73, and for Others it stood at 59.

152 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

This has even led to a decline in the ruralurban gap with respect to death rates.

Life expectancy at birth in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, HimachalPradesh, and Haryana was in the range 658 years (Tables 5A.10). Higher expectations for the next decade Projected levels of life expectancy at birth in 200610 show that the all India average is estimated at 67 years, with the highest for Kerala, followed by Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. The north-eastern states, excluding Assam, are estimated to have a life expectancy at birth greater than the national average. In fact, Assam (62.2) has the lowest projected life expectancy at birth, followed by Madhya Pradesh (62.9) (Table 5A.11).

Life Expectancy: Increasing consistently, albeit slowly, bridging the rural-urban gap
Life expectancy is the number of years a person is expected to live, given the prevailing age specic mortality rates to which he/she belongs. Life expectancy of an individual (at any age) is closely linked to IMR and U5MR. As an input to building the HDI, life expectancy is a signicant dimension in the development of human population.

Life Expectancy at Birth: An increase of 1.3 years in a decade

Life expectancy at birth has increased over the period 19815 to 2004. It has increased more for females than males due to which the gender gap in life expectancies has increased over the period 19926 to 2004. The rural areas, normally disadvantaged, too experienced an increase in life expectancy, thus reducing the ruralurban gap (Table 5.3). Rural areas in Kerala registered exceptionally good performance across the time periods. Despite improvement over time, states like Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh fared below the national average. These states attained life expectancies at birth in the range 5862 years in 2004, levels which Kerala had attained in the 1970s. In 2004, the life expectancy at birth in Kerala was 74 years. It is interesting to note that the life expectancy for males in Kerala is 71 years, which is very close to the life expectancy of males in North America at 72 years (Arora and Nanda 2010). This is due to better awareness among people and a universally available public health system in Kerala. Punjab was also quite close to Kerala in terms of life expectancy.

Life Expectancy at Age One: An increase of one year in a decade

Life expectancy at age one is the number of years a person is expected to live at age one. The importance of this indicator is the fact that it abstracts the impact of IMR. At the national level this indicator has improved over the period 19815 to 2004 with a declining ruralurban gap over time. In general, male life expectancy was slightly higher than that of females during the period 19815. In the subsequent periods a reverse pattern was observed. However, there were exceptions. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh had higher life expectancies for males than femaleswhich is perverse, since biologically women live longer than men (Table 5A.12). One of the reasons could be the discrimination against the girl child in terms of nutrition and healthcare right from infancy, which continues through the life-cycle of women (see argument in Chapter 4). Kerala and Punjab were amongst the best performing states in terms of life expectancy at age one. Barring

Table 5.3 Life Expectancy at Birth, 19812004

19815 Male Rural Urban Combined 54.0 61.6 55.4 Female 53.6 64.1 55.7 Persons 53.7 62.8 55.5 Male 58.9 64.9 60.1 19926 Female 59.8 67.7 61.4 Persons 59.4 66.3 60.7 Male 60.1 66.0 61.3 2004 Female 61.6 69.0 63.0 Persons 60.96 67.60 62.2

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, based on SRS, Registrar General of India.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

153

Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh, all the other states were above the national average (66 years in 2004) (Tables 5A.12).

Persons not Expected to Survive beyond Age 40 Years has declined

The proportion of persons not expected to survive beyond the age of 40 years reects the deprivational aspect of longevity in the population, as it presents the proportion of population that is not likely to live to an age which is just about half the expected life span of people in the developed world. The proportion of persons not expected to survive beyond the age of 40 years has declined over the period 19812004, which is good news (Table 5A.13). However, the ruralurban gap has decreased, with life expectancy improving faster in rural than in urban areas. During the same period, proportionately more females than males were expected not to survive beyond the age of 40 years, which, as we noted earlier, is an indicator of gender discrimination over the life cycle of girls and women in India. The gender gap too has also decreased over time, which is good news. Across the states, Kerala was the best performer, where the proportion of persons not expected to survive beyond the age of 40 years in 2004 was only 5.6 per cent. In Assam and Madhya Pradesh the proportion was more than four times than that of Kerala in 2004. However,

the percentage declined in Madhya Pradesh from 1991 (Table 5A.13). Eighteen per cent of the countrys population is not expected to live beyond the age of 40 years. At the same time, on an average, an adult is expected to live for just over 60 years. The implication is that 18 percent of the population is losing 20 years of potential (work) life, which, supported by sucient resources, could drive economic growth.

Demography: An opportunity called demographic dividend

Due to declining fertility and the improvement (albeit slow) in life expectancy, India is experiencing a fall in the dependency ratio. This trend has led to the emergence of what is called the demographic dividend, which is a bulge in the working age population. The demographic dividend, if harnessed, can act as an opportunity for economic growth with increased savings and hence, increased investments. The age composition of the population (Figure 5.5) shows that almost 57 per cent of the population lies in the age group 1559 years, the age bracket of the working population. India has the youngest population in the world; its median age in 2000 was less than 24 compared to 38 for Europe and 41 for Japan. Even China had a median age

604 559 504 459 404 359 304 259 204 1519 1014 59 04 0 2 4 6 Male 8 Female 10 12 14

9%

35%

Age

56%

015 Years

1559 Years

Above 59 years

Figure 5.5 Structure of Population in India

Source: RGI 2005, as cited in High Level Committee Report on Social, Educational, and Economic Status of Muslims in India 2006.

154 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

of 30. This means that India has a unique opportunity to complement what an ageing rest of the world needs most. Indias demographic structure, in comparison to that of competing nations, would work to her advantage as the youth could acquire skills and seize global employment opportunities in the future. This involves coordination, dialogue, and discussions with the state governments, private partners, and other stakeholders to arrive at estimates of the number of skilled personnel required across the sectors, align them with the career objectives of the youth and prepare dierent sector-specic modules of varying duration (Planning Commission 2008). The characteristics of the population and its changes are strongly inuenced by health conditions. Changes in mortality and fertility rates are major determinants of the populations growth rate and its composition. India entered the second stage of demographic transition during the 1960s with a population growth rate of over 2.2 per cent per annum. India is now the second most populous country in the world, with a population of about 1.2 billion. What is commendable however is that the population growth rate has come down to 1.4 per cent per annum (estimated for 2010) though there are large interstate variations. In India, mortality is not yet very low life expectancy has crossed 60 years but is much lower than that in the developed world and the total fertility rate (TFR) is still above replacement level. India has yet to complete the process of demographic transition.

Total Fertility Rate: Nine major States have already achieved the replacement rate but poorer northern states are far behind
The TFR is dened as the number of live births a woman would expect to deliver if she were to live through her reproductive years (age 1549 years) and to bear children at each age in accordance with the prevailing age specic fertility rates. Two important demographic goals of the National Population Policy (Government of India 2000) are achieving the population replacement level (TFR of 2.1) by 2010 and a stable population by 2045. The TFR in the country declined over the period 19802008 and reached 2.6 in 2008 (Table 5A.14). The north-eastern states also experienced this decline in fertility, with the highest fall observed in Tripura. The decline was observed in both and urban areas. The ruralurban gap also declined over the same period. As

expected, it was observed that a woman in rural areas gives birth to more children than her urban counterparts. Many states like Goa, Kerala, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, and Tripura had fertility rates below the replacement level even in 19957. The year 2008 witnessed a marked improvement, with nine major states having achieved the replacement level, namely Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. In particular, Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and West Bengal saw a huge fall in fertility over the 1990s (Table 5A.15, 5A.16). In certain states however, TFR was way above the targeted rate. For instance, in 2007, TFR was four for Bihar and Uttar Pradeshalmost double the target rate. The TFR for these states marginally declined in 2008. This reects the miserable condition of health services and limited public health interventions with respect to family planning in the states. Other states recording TFRs above three include Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. These poorer states also witnessed high population growth rates of over 2.2 per cent per annum. However, all states are expecgted to achieve the replacement rate TFR of 2.1 in 1012 years. High TFRs contributing towards increasing poverty in the resource constrained states increasing their share of the countrys poor population. Lower fertility rates, especially in the poorest households, is a necessary condition of demographic transition, which in turn can be a key underlying determinant of per capita income growth; however, low fertility rates can be achieved easily only with greater gender equality in several dimensions of human well-being (Mehrotra and Kapoor 2009). TFR in the majority of northern states is worse than that in the southern states. This can be traced back partly to the dierence in the health care systems and services in the states. For instance, as would be seen later, the contraception prevalence rate in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh is much higher than that in the poor northern states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Plan also showed optimism on this frontthe TFR was 2.6 in 2008 (SRS). A plausible explanation for this falling trend is the rising education of people. An educated woman is more likely to understand the advantages of bearing a small family and the implications of family planning initiatives. This has also been depicted in the matrix showing

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

155

feedback loops at the micro-economic level at the beginning of the chapter. Figure 5.6 represents the relationship between education status and TFR. Muslims experience maximum fall in TFR (in percentage points) among social groups and religious communities It was found that with the exception of Sikhs, all other religious communities had fertility rates above the replacement level. The highest fertility rate was observed among Muslims at 3.09 with an accompanying high population growth rate of 2.9 per cent per annum, again the highest among the religious communities. This is due to the relatively high proportion of Muslim women in the reproductive age group, and also their lower use of contraception compared to other religious communities. Between 19989 and 20056 there was a decline in TFR for all major religious communities, the maximum fall being among the Muslims (Table 5.4). TFR among SCs and Muslims approaching the national average All the major social groups have TFRs above the replacement level, the highest being for STs at 3.12. Between 19989 and 20056 there was a fall in TFR for all groups except for the STs. The OBCs had a lower

fertility rate in comparison to SCs and STs in both the periods (Table 5.4). The average TFR in India is 2.6 and the TFR of the poorest groups (STs, SCs, and Muslims) is higher. However, for SCs and Muslims it is converging towards the national average over time. ST women have the highest TFR among all social and religious groups A high TFR is essentially the outcome of poverty and lack of education/awareness about contraception. The poor consider every child as a source of income. Thus, STs and Muslims have high TFRs not because of their socio-religious status, but because of their economic status.

Sex-Ratio: Female decit prevails despite an improvement over time

The sex-ratio is indicative of the composition of the population. It is dened as the number of females per 1,000 males. What is striking is that India has had a female decit for a long period of time. The overall sex-ratio declined from 934 in 1981 to 927 in 1991 then increased to 933 in 2001. However, this is still below the 1981 level (Tables 5.5, 5A.17). The partial good news is that the sex-ratio improved slightly between 2001 and 2011 from 933 to 940.

4 3.5 3 2.5

TFR

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 No Education Less than 5 years 57 years 89 years 1011 years 12 years or more

Duration of education

Figure 5.6 Relationship between TFR and Education Status of Women, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

156 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5.4 Total Fertility Rate of Religious and Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Religious Communities 19989 Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Social Groups 19989 SCs STs OBCs Others Source: NFHS 2 and NFHS 3. 3.15 3.06 2.83 2.66 2.78 3.59 2.44 2.26 Total Fertility Rates 20056 2.92 3.12 2.75 2.35 Total Fertility Rates 20056 2.65 3.09 2.35 1.96

Table 5.5 Overall Sex-Ratio, 19812011

Place of residence Rural Urban Combined Source: Census of India. 1981 952 880 934 1991 939 894 927 2001 946 901 933

Sex-ratio even worse in richer states The worst sex ratios were found in the states with high per capita income, like Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat, and Chandigarh. This is a reection of the access to technology, which helps in detecting the sex of the foetus. The high female decit in Delhi depicts the demonstration eect of Haryana and Punjab. However, even the states with a low per capita income like Bihar, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh suer from an adverse sex-ratio due to gross gender discrimination. The sex-ratio was the worst in Delhi (821) and was less than 900 in several states, including Punjab (874) and Haryana (861). Kerala is an exception, where there were more females than males. This may be a reection of the best female literacy rates, better performance in terms of health indicators, and greater autonomy to females owing to greater participation in the labour force in southern India as compared to the northern states, where females are discriminated against.

In 2001, the sex-ratio in rural areas was greater than that in urban areas. The rural areas of Chhattisgarh, Kerala, and Uttarakhand had a female surplus. Due to biological reasons, at the time of child birth the probability of male mortality is higher than that of females; and urban areas are better equipped with healthcare facilities as compared to rural areas. This causes greater male mortality in rural India and thus there are a greater number of females as compared to urban India. In addition, the higher sexratios in rural areas may also reect the migration of males to urban areas. Provisional estimates of Census 2011 show that the sex-ratio has increased from 933 females per 1,000 males in 2001 to 940 in 2011. Among the major states, Delhi still has the worst sex-ratio (866), followed by Haryana (877), Jammu and Kashmir (883), and Punjab (893). However, some of the poorer states like Chhattisgarh (991), Orissa (978), and Jharkhand (947) have higher sex-ratios. Kerala has the highest sex-ratio with 1,084 females per 1,000 males, followed by Tamil Nadu (995) and Andhra Pradesh (992). Over the decade, sex-ratio has declined in Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, and Gujarat. Despite the highest increase of 45 points, female decit is most pronounced in Delhi (Table 5A.17). Child sex-ratio in the population age group 06 years is also an important indicator of the composition of the population. In 2001, child sex-ratio was 927 females per 1,000 males. Even Kerala, which had an overall sex-ratio above 1,000, suered from female decit in the age bracket 06 years (Table 5A.18). The adverse sex-ratio in the age group 06 years reects the pervasive discrimination against girls and the high incidence of female foeticides. Provisional estimates of Census 2011 show worsening of the child sex-ratio. Over the decade it has declined to 914 females per 1,000 males. Lowest child sex-ratio is in Haryana (830), followed by Punjab. Child sex-ratios are relatively higher for the north-eastern states. All the major states except for Himachal Pradesh, Haryana Punjab, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu, experienced a decline in 2011 in child sex-ratio over 2001. The highest decline is observed for Jammu and Kashmir, followed by Maharashtra (Table 5A.18). The data on religious communities showed a similar trend. Christians performed the best amongst religious communities, in both rural as well as urban areas. Surprisingly, the Sikh households were the worst placed, with a sex-ratio at birth of only 770 (it was 769 for urban India

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

157

and 771 for rural India), whereas they perform better than the others in many other health indicators. The reason for this pattern lies in the fact that over 80 per cent of Sikh households are located in Punjab and the state has a strong preference for male children,9 leading to an increased possibility of female foeticide (Table 5A.19). Muslims have a higher sex-ratio compared to Hindus Muslims had an advantage over Hindus with respect to the sex-ratio (Table 5.6). The strong preference for sons among Hindus, has led to sex detection and selection, adversely aecting the sex-ratio at birth among Hindus (Alagarajan and Kulkarni 2008). The details are given in Table 5A.19.
Table 5.6 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Religious Community, 2001
Place of residence Rural Urban Combined Hindus 903 897 901 Muslims 930 934 931 Christians 960 972 963 Sikhs 771 769 770

Table 5.7 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Social Group, 2001

Place of residence Rural Urban Combined SCs 921 917 920 STs 940 934 940 Non SC/ST 896 901 897

Source: Calculated from Census of India (2001, Table F 10).

Source: Calculated from Census of India (2001, Table F10S).

SCs and STs have a higher sex-ratio than non-SC/ST households Interestingly, ST households had a sex-ratio at birth above the national average of 933. Not only this, STs had a greater sex-ratio than SCs as well as non-SC/ST households, in both rural and urban India (Table 5A.20). The sex-ratio was the lowest for non-SC/ST households, well below the national average (Table 5.7). Discussing the latest gures for sex-ratio in the age group 04 years and the slow improvement over time, the Mid Term Appraisal suggested that the current sexratio for 04 years does not augur well for the gender equality goal. One of the factors responsible for such high fertility rates and missing women in terms of the adverse sexratio in our country is gender discrimination against women and the girl child. Gender discrimination leads to an inter-generational transfer of ill-being from women to children, especially for the female child. Very high fertility rates are a reection of the minimal reproductive rights

a woman enjoys, more so in the poor northern states because of their low educational levels. For biological reasons, women live longer than men and so the expectation is that the womens share in the population of any country would be higher than that of men. However, the fact that India still faces a female decit is due to gender discrimination against women over the life cycle as well as sex selective abortions. Womens lack of autonomy and reproductive rights only slows down the demographic transition and hence per capita income growth and human development (Mehrotra and Kapoor 2009). What deserves a special mention here is the experience of Kerala vis--vis the northern states. The process of demographic transition began in Kerala much ahead of other states. This was the outcome of historic change which had occurred in the state. Since the early 1960s, education and employment of women has been on the increase. This has given them a purpose in life other than child bearing and child rearing and more freedom to choose their age of marriage. It is no surprise that the state achieved replacement level fertility rate in 1988 (Mitra1978; RGI 2006). In stark contrast, the northern belt has a long history of discrimination against the female child, coupled with low literacy rates and relatively lower participation of women in the workforce.
REPRODUCTIVE AND CHILD HEALTH

Reproductive and Child Health (RCH) programmes aim at ensuring safe motherhood and improved child health, in addition to raising contraception prevalence rates (CPR). The performance of the health outcome indicators like child mortality (IMR, U5MR), maternal mortality (MMR), death rate and other indicators, crucially depends on the eciency of the RCH programme. For instance, if womens deliveries took place at a medical institution, rather than at home, it would ensure better health for

9 In 20056, 18 per cent women and 13 per cent men in Punjab wanted more sons than daughters as compared to only about 2 per cent each of women and men wanting more daughters than sons.

158 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

them as well as the newborn. Similarly, the prevalence of contraception and the number of antenatal visits are indicative of the healthcare resources available to women, which would contribute to their health and empowerment. Vaccinations received by children would help reduce not only the disease burden amongst children, but also child mortality. Against this backdrop, the better-than-average performance of the southern states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu in reducing their TFR and IMR could be attributed to the success of their RCH programmes. Thus the present section dwells on such processes in healthcare.

Place of Delivery: A rise in institutional deliveries post NRHM and JSY

The place of delivery is crucial in determining the maternal health status and is a good indicator for assessing the demand for the public health system. A large proportion of Indian women, particularly in rural areas, do not go to an institution for their deliveries. This is a major reason for high maternal and neonatal mortality in rural areas. In order to address health related issues, such as institutional deliveries, existing in rural areas, the Government of India launched the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in April 2005 with a special focus on 18 states, namely, eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) states, eight north-eastern states, and the states of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh which had poor health indices. The aim of the NRHM is to provide accessible, aordable, accountable, eective, and reliable healthcare facilities in the rural areas of the entire country, especially to the poorer and vulnerable sections of the population. Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), an intervention under the purview of NRHM, aims at reducing maternal and neonatal mortality by increasing institutional deliveries for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families. Under this scheme, the beneciaries receive cash incentives immediately after the delivery. It is to be noted that during 20056, on an average only 39 per cent of deliveries in the country took place in an institution. There are 12 states which were below the national average, namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. The lowest placed was Nagaland at only 11.6 per cent while Kerala had almost 100 per cent institutional deliveries (Table 5A.21). On average, the

private sectors share of institutional deliveries was higher, but only marginally, than that of the public sector. Institutional deliveries in rural areas were lower than that in urban areas. In rural areas, the condition of women belonging to states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh was worrying. A very low proportion of women had institutional deliveries and thus there was a higher risk of maternal as well as infant mortality. Also, the rural areas of the north-eastern states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, and Nagaland fared poorly in terms of institutional deliveries (Table 5A.22 and 5A.23). However, after the introduction of NRHM in 2005, there has been an improvement in institutional deliveries in rural areas. This has been credited to the increase in human resources deployed in the public health sector, especially in rural areas. Over 31.9 million women have so far been covered under JSY (NRHM, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare). As of March 2009, institutional deliveries as a percentage of total reported deliveries stood at 78 per cent (NRHM DMU Report 2010). However, the Third Common Review of NRHM shows that after delivery mothers remain in institutions for less than half a day in most cases and the quality of care also needs to be improved. Only one-third of Muslim and Scheduled Caste women have institutional deliveries, Scheduled Tribes even fewer Across religious communities, there were signicant inter-religious disparities in the place of delivery. Most religious communities experienced an increase in the proportion of women having institutional deliveries (except for Christians, where there was a marginal fall). In 20056, only a third of the deliveries among Muslims were institutional which was below the national average of 39 per cent. Other religious communities performed relatively better. Sikh households outperformed other religious communities, registering the maximum improvement in the number of institutional deliveries (Table 5.8). Among the social groups, a signicant proportion of deliveries took place at home during both the time periods. This reects their backward status. In the case of STs, the percentage was as high as 82 in 20056, which is a matter of concern. Moreover, there was no change in this proportion over time. The reason is that most of the

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

159

Table 5.8 Percentage Distribution of Live Births by Religious Community

Place of delivery 19989 Institutional Home Source: NFHS 3. 32.9 66 Hindus 20056 39.1 60.6 19989 31.5 67.5 Muslims 20056 33 66.8 Christians 19989 54.4 45.2 20056 53.4 46.5 19989 47 52.7 Sikhs 20056 58.3 41.6

STs live in rural areas. The OBCs were relatively better placed (Table 5.9). A woman delivering at home cannot get comprehensive healthcare for the mother and the child, the primary reason for such high maternal mortality in the country. MMR fell from 301 per 100,000 live births in 20013 (SRS 20013) at an average rate of 16 per year to 254 in 20046 (SRS 20046). The highest MMR was recorded for Assam, followed by Uttar Pradesh.10 Almost all the states, except for Punjab and Haryana, experienced a fall in MMR over the period. States with a higher incidence of maternal mortality, mostly over 300 per 100,000 live births, are also the states with fewer cases of institutional deliveries. Kerala which recorded the lowest MMR has around 99 per cent of institutional deliveries. MMR further declined to 212 in 20079, a 17 per cent decline over 20046. To achieve the 11th Plan goal of MMR of 100 by 2012, a reduction of 28 per 1,00,000 per year is needed (Tables 5A.21 and 5A.24). A major factor determining the occurrence of institutional deliveries is education. It can be seen that as the number of years of education increases, more and more women choose institutional deliveries. This is because educated women are aware of the importance of hygiene during delivery, quality postnatal care, and maternal and child care. A similar trend is seen in both urban and rural areas (Figure 5.7). Thus, education has a huge

potential to turn around the status of maternal and infant care in rural areas. It can also be seen that at each level of education, urban India experiences a greater number of institutional deliveries as compared to its rural counterpart. A wide disparity is seen in the percentage of institutional deliveries between those with no education and those with 12 or more years of education. The all India average was 18.4 per cent and 86.4 per cent, respectively, for the year 20056, conrming the fact that education, along with resultant empowerment, also enables access to better healthcare services (Tables 5A.25 and 5A.26). However, it needs to be noted that poor women in remote areas have less wealth and resources to be able to gain access to institutional arrangements. Hence, the urgent need for functional health services at the bottom of the pyramid. Beside education, economic characteristics, as measured by the Wealth Index, share a positive correlation with institutional deliveries (Figure 5.8). For the lower three wealth quintiles, more than 50 per cent of the deliveries was at home. This proportion declines for the higher wealth quintiles.

Prevalence of Contraception: Across the board increase in the CPR, as also depicted by falling TFR
As discussed in the context of feedback loops, family planning and reduced family size are important processes

Table 5.9 Percentage Distribution of Live Births by Social Groups

Place of delivery Scheduled Castes 19989 Institutional Home Source: NFHS 3. 26.8 72.1 20056 33 66.8 Scheduled Tribes 19989 17.1 81.8 20056 17.7 82 Other Backward Castes 19989 36.1 62.8 20056 37.8 61.9 19989 40.1 59 Others 20056 52.6 47.3

10

It was as high as 480 per 100,000 live births in Assam and 440 in the case of Uttar Pradesh in 20046.

160 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

100

Per cent institutional deliveries

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 No. education less than 5 years 57 years 89 years 1011 years 12 or more years

Duration of women education

Urban Rural

Figure 5.7 Relationship between Duration of Education and Share of Institutional Deliveries (per cent), 20056
Source: NFHS 3.
Per cent institutional deliveries
100 80 60 40 20 0 Lowest Second Middle Wealth Index Fourth Highest

Figure 5.8 Place of Delivery: Distribution of Live Births by Wealth Index, 20056
Source: NFHS 3.

in shaping the health outcomes of a household. Spacing of children helps improve the health status of the mother and the child, which has positive implications for improving life expectancy. In addition, a smaller family size also improves the chances of a poor family being able to aord food, nutrition, and education for all the children. The success of states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu in reducing their fertility rates, reaching replacement levels

and better performance in health indicators can be attributed to their success in raising the CPR. These states have been better prepared than most others in implementing many components of the reproductive health programme that India launched in October 1997. For example, even before the Government of India announced the removal of method-specic family planning targets in major states in 1995, the Tamil Nadu government had removed targets assigned to non-health personnel in the district of North Arcot as early as 19912 (Visaria 2000). On the other hand, the health and family welfare programme in most of the other states is oriented towards either using traditional methods of family planning or sterilization, when it should be focused on increasing birth spacing through condom use. Using contraception can not only reduce the fertility rate but can also help prevent the transmission of HIV. National Family Health Survey 3 data shows that the prevalence of contraception in 20056 was 56.3 per cent at the all India level (Table 5A.27).11 Of this, 48.5 per cent constituted prevalence of modern methods of contraception. The prevalence of contraception was the highest in Himachal Pradesh followed by West Bengal, while CPR was the lowest in Meghalaya. States which were above the national average included Andhra Pradesh,

11

This was only 48 per cent in 19989 (NFHS 3).

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

161

Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttarakhand, and Delhi. Except for Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Nagaland, all the north-eastern states were above the national average. Contraception was less prevalent in rural areas as compared to urban areas, owing to ignorance and lack of autonomy in reproductive health rights for women in the rural setting. It should be noted that modern methods were more prevalent than any traditional method in rural areas also. In eight states namely Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Kerala, and West Bengal, the ruralurban gap was very narrow with regard to the prevalence of modern methods. It is interesting to note is that in states like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, and Delhi the use of modern methods in rural areas slightly exceeded that in urban areas. In the rest of the states, there is far greater prevalence of modern methods in urban areas as compared to rural areas (Table 5A.27).

Table 5.10 Prevalence of Contraception by Religious Communities (per cent)

Religious communities Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: NFHS 2 and NFHS 3. 19989 49.2 37 52.4 65.2 20056 57.8 45.7 57.7 66.5

Table 5.11 Prevalence of Contraception by Social Groups (per cent)

Social group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Source: NFHS 2 and NFHS 3. 19989 44.6 39.1 46.8 53.5 20056 55 47.9 54.2 61.9

TFR across Socio-religious Groups: Maximum fall in TFR experienced among Muslims along with a sharp rise in CPR
The prevalence of contraception increased for all major religious communities in 20056 as compared to 19989. Muslims had the lowest CPR in 19989 followed by Hindus and Christians. However, during this period, there was a commendable increase in CPR among Muslims, in fact the highest percentage improvement for any religious community (Table 5.10). It is this increase in the CPR which has led to a fall in the TFR among Muslims. However, the CPR among Muslim households in 20056 was still below that for ST households (Table 5.11). CPR among SCs, STs and Muslims converging with all India average, at the highest pace for SCs The prevalence of contraception increased among all social groups over time. Except for STs, the prevalence of contraception was above 50 per cent in 20056 (Table 5.11). However, despite improvements, SCs and OBCs are at the level that Others were in 19989. The prevalence of contraception increases with a rise in the household wealth status (Figure 5.9). This is to say that with a better standard of living, people are more aware of

the benets of contraception and thus the usage. Among the lowest two quintiles, CPR is less than the national average.

Antenatal Care: Coverage remains low

Women in India suer when they do not avail/access healthcare services during pregnancy. In 20056, while more than 70 per cent had at least one ANC visit, the proportion of pregnant women who had three or more antenatal visits was much lower. This reects insucient care provided to the pregnant woman and the unborn child. Women in Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, and Uttar Pradesh had the least access to ANC. By contrast, in states like Goa, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, more than 90 per cent of the women had three or more ANC visits (Table 5A.28). However, the Government of India (2009) found that barring these few states, the ANC coverage remains quite low and of poor quality, especially in rural areas. Not even 50 per cent Muslim, SC and ST women receive three or more ANC visits In 20056, among the religious communities, Sikh households had the highest percentage of pregnant women

162 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

80

Table 5.12 Health Services Received by Pregnant Women by Religious Communities (per cent)
Religious communities Hindus Muslims Christians At least one ANC visit 77.1 72.2 82.2 88.7 76.4 3 or more ANC visits 52.5 45.7 67.7 76 52.0

Contraception rate

60 40 20 0 Lowest Second Middle Wealth Index Fourth Highest

Sikhs All India Source: NFHS 3.

Figure 5.9 Prevalence of Contraception by Wealth Index

Source: NFHS 3.

Table 5.13 Health Services Received by Pregnant Women by Social Groups (per cent)
Social groups Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Source: NFHS 3. At least one ANC visit 73.5 69.2 74.1 83.9 3 or more ANC visits 45.7 40.1 49.9 63.5

receiving ANC services. The lowest share of Muslim women receiving ANCless than half of the Muslim women received three or more ANC visits, whereas visits by the remaining groups were above the national average (Table 5.12). Among SCs, STs, and OBCs the percentage of women who had at least one ANC visit or three or more ANC visits was below the national average. The OBC women, however, were relatively better placed than SC and ST women. The ST women suer the most on this account and this can partly be attributed to the fact that they are concentrated in rural areas (Table 5.13).

Vaccination of Children: Rise in immunization among children over time, but not even half the children are fully immunized
To assess the percentage of children receiving vaccination, the Report has focused primarily on the best case and the worst case scenarios. The percentage of children receiving all vaccinations reects the best case and the percentage of children receiving no vaccinations the worst case scenario.12 At the all India level in 20056 only 5 per cent children did not receive any vaccination, an improvement over 14 per cent in 19989 (Table 5A.29). At the same time, in 20056, not even half of the children surveyed had received all the vaccinations.

Tamil Nadu is the best performing state in terms of children receiving all vaccinations in both the periods. Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and West Bengal registered a substantial rise in the number of children receiving vaccinations over time. Mizoram faced a decline of 13 percentage points, whereas all the other north-eastern states registered an improvement (Table 5A.29). A higher proportion of children received all vaccinations in urban areas as compared to rural areas. In the rural areas, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland had over 20 per cent of children who had received no vaccinations compared to the all India average of 5.6 per cent (Table 5A.30). STs and Muslims converge with all India average with respect to children receiving all vaccinations Between 19989 and 20056 all major religious communities experienced a fall in the percentage of children

12

All vaccinations include BCG, measles, and three doses each of DPT and polio vaccine (excluding polio vaccine given at birth).

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

163

receiving no vaccination. The fall was steep amongst Muslims. There was a rise in the number of children receiving all vaccinations, except in the case of Christians and Sikhs (Table 5A.31a and b). A lower percentage of SC children receive no vaccination compared to ST and Muslim children The percentage of children receiving all vaccinations increased for STs in 20056 as compared to 19989, but decreased in the case of SC and OBC children. As in the case of religious communities, the percentage of children receiving no vaccinations declined for all social groups in 20056 compared with 19989 (Table 5A.32).
HEALTH INPUTS

expenditurepublic expenditure on health is extremely low as compared to private expenditure. In 2008, the share of public expenditure was not even one third of the total expenditure (both public and private). Public expenditure on health was only 28 per cent of the total expenditure and the remaining 72 per cent was private expenditure. The same pattern existed in South Asian countries barring Maldives and Bhutan. In Brazil, South Africa, and China public expenditure on health was more than 40 per cent of the total expenditure (WHO Statistics 2010). Share of private expenditure in total health expenditure in India is high at 72 per cent compared to 20 per cent in Bhutan, and 53 per cent in China A high share of private expenditure on health is attributed to a larger share of out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure by households in private health expenditure. The OOP expenditure for India and China was much above that in the African region as well as South Asian countries like Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. A high share of OOP expenditure in private expenditure implies very low expenditure on health insurance and expenditure towards healthcare by rms and NGOs. The National Health Accounts (Government of India 2009c) reveals that in 20045 the total health expenditure in India was only 4.25 per cent of the GDP. Of this, the share of public expenditure was 0.84 per cent, the share of private expenditure was 3.32 per cent and the remaining minimal share was external ows. Duggal (2006) conjectures that although the central governments own expenditure is increasing rapidly, the state governments spending on health is stagnant and, as a consequence, the overall public health expenditure remains below (or around) 1 per cent of GDP. Provisional estimates show that total health expenditure as a share of GDP fell from 4.23 per cent in 20056 to 4.11 per cent in 20078, but increased (though marginally) to 4.13 per cent in 20089. However, the health expenditure had increased in absolute terms during this time. At the same time, public expenditure as a share of GDP witnessed a rise of 0.14 percentage points from 20056 to 20089 (Table 5.14). The analysis of the composition of the total health expenditure shows that the private sector had a predominant share at 78.05 per cent in 20045, which decreased to 75 per cent in 2007 (Table 5.15).

The Government of Indias vision for health involves achieving good health, especially for the poor and the underprivileged and paying special attention to the needs of the marginalized. Accomplishing this task depends crucially on the circumstances and availability of health infrastructure as well as nancial and human resources.

Healthcare Expenditure
Expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP in India is below South Asia and Africa The availability of health infrastructure, its delivery, and various health outcomes hinges primarily upon the expenditure incurred on healthcare. The public expenditure on healthcare is abysmally low in India. The total expenditure (both public and private) on health as a percentage of GDP stood at only 4.1 per cent in 2007 (WHO Statistics 2010). China was in a slightly better position with a share of 4.3 per cent of GDP. The African region as a whole did better than India, with the total expenditure on health constituting 6.2 per cent of its GDP. Furthermore, except for Bangladesh and Pakistan, all South Asian countries had a greater share of GDP spent on health as compared to India. Share of public expenditure in total health expenditure remains consistently low in India at one per cent of GDP The most worrisome aspect of health expenditure in India is its distribution between public and private

164 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5.14 Health Expenditure in India (in Rs 000), 20056 to 20089

Type of Expenditure Health Expenditure as share of GDP Public Expenditure as share of GDP 20056 4.23 0.96 20067 4.12 0.98 20078 4.11 1.03 20089 4.13 1.10

Source: As cited in National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Table 5.15 Composition of Healthcare Expenditure, 20045

Type of Expenditure Public Expenditure Private Expenditure External Flow Total Health Expenditure Share of Total Health Expenditure (per cent) 19.7 78.1 2.3 100

Source: As cited in National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Private expenditure is not only inequitable as it adversely impacts the poorest people, pushing them further into poverty, but also highly inecient because there is not much improvement in health outcomes, as seen in an earlier section. This is a matter of concern. A State-wise analysis for the year 20045 shows that the share of public expenditure on health as a percentage of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) varied between 0.49 per cent and 4 per cent. It is noteworthy that in all the north-eastern states public expenditure on health as a percentage of GSDP was either touching or above 1 per cent. Even poorer states like Bihar, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh had a similar proportion which was higher than many better performing states. The ratio may be higher in these states because of lower GSDP. There is still a marked dierence between the health status of the north-eastern states and these poorer states. Looking at the per capita expenditure, it can be seen that this ratio is high in the north-eastern states because not only is their per capita public expenditure higher, but it is even higher than the per capita private expenditure. By contrast, the poorer states incurred an abysmally low per capita public expenditure on health (Table 5A.33).
13

Among the major states, the share of private expenditure was well above 80 per cent of the total health expenditure in case of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. It is for this reason that even the maximum public expenditure on health as a share of GSDP is only 4 per cent (Tables 5A.33 and 5A.34). Within the private expenditure, in 20045, 71 per cent of the total health expenditure was incurred by households, that is, OOP expenditure for availing healthcare services, followed by rms with 5.7 per cent. Social insurance funds and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (the other two categories of private expenditure) contributed 1.13 per cent and 0.07 per cent to the total health expenditure, respectively. It is to be noted that despite government policies and free hospital services in government schemes OOP expenditure is still high. This is pushing many people into poverty. Around 66 per cent of OOP expenditure was on outpatient care while inpatient care accounted for 23.5 per cent. Of the total OOP expenditure, 62 per cent was in rural households as compared to 38 per cent in urban households. A major share of the inpatient care expenditure was incurred on medicines both in public and private institutions. Rural households incurred 66.5 per cent of OOP expenditure on medicines in public institutions, which was higher than that incurred by their urban counterparts at 62 per cent. In the rural areas of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, and Rajasthan, the expenditure incurred on medicines as a proportion of expenditure incurred on inpatient care was over above 70 per cent, whereas in urban areas this pattern existed for Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa. The high share of expenditure on medicines in public institutions was explained by the non-availability of drugs in the states run institutions. The doctors fee was only a small component of OOP expenditure13 (Tables 5A.35 and 5A.36). In private institutions, the doctors fee as well as expenditure on medicines formed a major share of OOP expenditure on in-patient care. For the major states, the share of medicines was higher in rural areas (40.4 per cent) than urban areas (37.8 per cent) whereas the share of doctors fee was higher in urban areas (27.3 per cent) as compared to rural areas (25.8 per cent). Under private inpatient care, households in Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and

4.2 per cent in the rural areas of major states and 4.6 per cent in the urban areas.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

165

Uttar Pradesh incurred an expenditure of over 47 per cent on medicines in rural areas. Among the major states, urban Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh incurred an expenditure of over 47 per cent on medicines (Tables 5A.37 and 5A.38). Public and private insurance schemes cover barely 11 per cent of the population (GoI 2006) These are some of the reasons why healthcare is substantially nanced by high OOP expenditure (Baru et al. 2010), a burden which is disproportionately higher for the poor in rural areas. NSS estimates for consumer expenditure in 20078 support the fact that for households in rural areas, expenditure on medical care accounts for a large proportion of their total monthly per capita consumption expenditure (Figure 5.10), with health expenditure in the poorest decile in rural areas accounting for 11 per cent of total consumption expenditure.
12 10 8

Services Infrastructure: Dicult to sustain the growing population

The infrastructure for healthcare services in India is a three tier system based on population norms. The Sub Centre is the peripheral health unit that provides the rst link between the community and the PHC system. Each PHC acts as the referral centre for six Sub Centres and is the rst contact between the community and the Medical Ocer heading the PHC. The next tier comprises the CHCs each serving as a referral centre for four PHCs and also providing obstetric and specialist consultations. Table 5A.39 lists the number of Sub Centres, PHCs, and CHCs in all states.

Lack of Health Infrastructure in the Country: Compared to 30 hospital beds per 10,000 population in China, India has nine
Two indicators which speak of the quality of services available in hospitals are population served per government hospital and population served per bed. As per the World Banks estimates,15 the number of hospital beds per 1,000 population in India is equivalent to the South Asia average (0.9). However, many South Asian countries like Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Maldives, and Nepal are better o than India.16 That there is a severe lack of healthcare infrastructure in the country can be seen from the fact that the average population served per government hospital and population served per bed was 97,958 and 2,105, respectively, in India. In Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal the population served per government hospital was in the range of 190,000 and 300,000, highlighting the insuciency of government healthcare facilities. A very high value of this indicator implies a possibility of deterioration in the quality of service provided by hospitals. The states with a considerably high population served per bed were Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh (Table 5A.40). The governments agship programme, NRHM plays a critical role in addressing the need of health infrastructure

Percentage

6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MPCE decile class Rural Urban

Figure 5.10 Share of Expenditure on Medical Care14 in Consumer Expenditure, 20078

Source: NSS 64th Round.

High OOP expenditure severely hampers the nonmedical consumption of households, more so for rural households. In order to curb huge OOP expenses incurred by the BPL population, the Ministry of Labour and Employment launched the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) in 2007 (which will be discussed later).

14 15

Medical institutional as well as non-institutional. Time period for each country is dierent. The latest available data for each country has been taken. 16 Sri Lanka had 3.1 beds per 1,000 population; Bhutan had 1.7, Maldives 2.6, and Nepal had ve beds per 1,000 population.

166 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

(physical, nancial, as well as human resources). Since the inception of NRHM, there has been a marked upgradation in infrastructure in rural areas, with a large number of new buildings being built and renovations being done. However, certain shortages still exist. For instance, in Jammu and Kashmir, a large part of the health infrastructure is located in rented buildings. Similarly, in West Bengal, public health facilities face overcrowding and need repair and renovation. It is the same in large states like Rajasthan, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh. Moreover, it has been observed that the secondary and tertiary hospitals (both public and private) are largely skewed towards urban areas and relatively developed states, with a greater inequality in the distribution of private health services (Baru et al. 2010). The Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan shows that the inadequacy of the health infrastructure was a major reason for poor health services. The shortfall of CHCs had decreased in 2008 as compared to 2005, but the number of Sub Centres and PHCs was almost unchanged. Poor nancing and expenditure provisioning has led to inadequate public health facilities in relation to population and thus, deterioration in quality. Therefore, people resort to private health centres and incur high OOP expenditure.

Haryana has introduced a mix of incentives and simplied the recruitment process. Chhattisgarh has used the three year doctor (now called the rural medical assistant) to almost completely eliminate the large number of vacancies for medical ocers. Some of the innovative methods adopted in Sikkim for better delivery of healthcare facilities and to address the issue of professional and social isolation are building a positive workforce environment, continuous medical education (CME) programmes, and turning PHCs into social hubs (GoI 2009). However, the new posts are only contractual and regular post creation still lags behind requirement. Such a trend has only created dissatisfaction among the personnel regarding the salary and regularization prospects, hampering the quality of service provided. Not only this, despite the progress in generating manpower, India faces a shortage of skilled human resources in many states, which would severely aect its achievement of the MDGs, which aim at attaining universal coverage of institutional deliveries by skilled personnel.

Doctors: India has six physicians per 10,000 population compared to 14 in China
As per the Medical Council of India (MCI) Annual Report 2008, total number of doctors registered in the country up to 31 March 2008 is 695,254. This translates to a doctor to population ratio of 1 per 1,600 persons or 6 per 10,000 population which is signicantly lower than developed countries like Australia, Canada, UK, and US. Adjusting for those who are likely to be registered and practising, the estimate puts the doctor to population ratio to a modest 3.8 per 10,000 population (Sundararaman and Gupta 2010). However, the number of physicians in India was not only equivalent to the South Asian average and Sri Lanka,17 but greater than that in many of the South Asian countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal (World Development Indicators, World Bank 2009). The share of population served per government allopathic doctor in India was above 10,000 in the majority of the states.18 However, with time the share has fallen in some southern states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu as well as in the poorer states of

Human Resources: Despite an increase after the inception of NRHM, the shortage of doctors and paramedics persists
Manpower is an important prerequisite for the ecient functioning of health infrastructure. The primary issue in the eective functioning of the public health system is not mere availability of infrastructure, but also human resources. The biggest lacuna of our public health system has been the sheer failure to provide adequate human resources for our health infrastructure. In addition to providing physical infrastructure the NRHM addressed the issue of human resources to make the health delivery system functional and accessible in rural India. Since its launch in 2005, there has been an increase in the human resources deployed in the rural health centres. The states have introduced various incentives for attracting human resources. For instance,

17 18

Data for dierent countries pertains to the latest year for which data was available. It was as high as 23,986 in Uttar Pradesh as on January 2000 and 23,174 in Bihar as on January 2008.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

167

Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Table 5A.41). The Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) norms envisage three (allopathic) doctors plus a fourth trained in indigenous medical systems for each PHC. However, only Delhi, Gujarat, and Orissa fullled the norms in 2007. A majority of the states had less than three doctors. In Madhya Pradesh, 196 out of 1,155 PHCs are functioning without any doctors. In Uttar Pradesh, the percentage shortfall at PHCs is 79 per cent for Medical ocers.19

Paramedics: Auxiliary Nurse Midwives, Nurses, and Other Health Workers in short supply
The nurse to population ratio in India is 1:1205 as against 1:100150 in Europe while nurse to doctor ratio is about 1.3:1 as compared to ratio of 3:1 in most developed countries. NSSO and Census estimates of total health workers is around 2.2 million health workers in India, which gives a density of approximately 20 health workers per 10,000 population. This gure however has to be adjusted for the fact that both Census and NSSO include all those who self report to be medical practitioners as their main occupation. This includes a large number of unqualied persons. This is as high as 40 per cent of doctors. In addition, the number of nurses who are recorded in registers are much higher than those who are practicing. (Sundararaman et al. 2010).

The number of nurses and midwives per 1,000 population in India was better than all the South Asian countries except Sri Lanka and Maldives (WDI, World Bank). As on December 2008, there were over half a million Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) in India (Table 5A.42).20 As per IPHS norms, there should be two ANMs for each Sub Centre,21 but it was found that 116 Sub Centres (9 per cent) of 20 states/UTs were functioning without an ANM and at 992 Sub Centres (77 per cent) of 29 states/UTs the stipulated two ANMs were not posted.22 In Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Lakshadweep none of the Sub Centres had two ANMs. The Common Review Mission has also noted that in actual practice the ANM makes no house visits and

the role of the second ANM is not clear. In addition, the states which needed ANMs the most, such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh have been unable to recruit them.23 Furthermore, there was a dearth of male health workers in rural areas across all the states (Table 5A.43). A study conducted by the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (2007) reveals that nurses constitute one of the largest workforces in the country. It was found that in the states of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh nurses lacked adequate resources and facilities and had a very submissive approach. According to the study, Uttar Pradesh had a shortfall of sta nurses to the magnitude of 100 per cent. Haryana and Orissa also faced a shortage of Lady Health Visitors (LHV) and nursing sta respectively (The Third Common Review Mission 2009). The Mid-Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan also revealed a severe shortage of human resources in the healthcare sector. The overall shortfall of health workers/ANMs was relatively low at 10.9 per cent in 2005, but increased to 12.4 per cent of the total requirement in 2008. There was a large shortfall of male health workers, radiographers, lab technicians, and specialists at the CHCs. The shortfall of doctors at PHCs was 15.08 per cent. A signicant percentage of sanctioned posts were vacant at all levels. Bhandari et al. (2007) points out that absenteeism among the primary health workers is high in Indiaas high as 40 per centand much above other countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Peru, Ecuador, and Uganda. This is because poor infrastructure and the incentive structure fail to motivate the health workers to go for work. Box 5.1 gives an assessment of the NRHM with regard to the rural health infrastructure and human resources. The central government has spent millions on the NRHM, in order to ensure access to healthcare facilities for the rural populace. The allocation for NRHM increased from Rs 134.6 billion to Rs 160.56 billion in the Union Budget 201112. However, the Centres attempt to

The Third Common Review Mission (2009). 1,043,363 General Nursing and Midwives (GNM), and 51, 776 LHVs. 21 The National Rural Health Mission aimed to ensure two ANMs at 30 per cent of the Sub Centres by 2007 and 60 per cent by 2008 with the second ANM being appointed on a contract basis. 22 A survey was done by CAG for the year ended March, 2008. 23 The Third Common Review Mission (2009).
20

19

168 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Box 5.1 An Assessment of the National Rural Health Mission

The NRHM was launched in 2005. One of its objectives was to bridge the gaps in the existing infrastructure of rural healthcare. Since its inception there have been changes in the health outcomes of the poor, which directly and indirectly depend on rural health infrastructure and manpower. A review of NRHM was done in 2009 in 14 states and three UTs, which presented the achievements as well as certain lacunae in the health system that needed to be addressed. Some of the achievements/positives under the scheme are given below: 1. Every state has reported a sharp increase in human resources deployed in the public health sector, thereby breaking the 15 year stagnation. Close to 100,000 health service providers and managers have been contracted into the system across the country. 2. Many states like Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Haryana have come up with innovative measures for attracting and retaining professionals in public service in rural and remote areas states by focusing on nancial incentives for working in dicult areas. 3. Eorts have been made to further strengthen the performance of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) by providing them with training in states like Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and Chhattisgarh. 4. Under the RCH programme there have been sustained increases in institutional deliveries, improved referral transport to institutions for delivery, eective use of Village Health and Nutrition Days, and improved outreach for enhanced immunization coverage. 5. There are instances where, in order to ll in the gaps in services, the various healthcare activities have been carried out with the support of non-governmental partnerships e.g.in Gujarat, Haryana, and West Bengal. Madhya Pradesh has witnessed an improvement in health owing to the involvement of the Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) at hospitals, which comprises of local bodies, NGOs and members of the community. The poor are treated free of cost, thanks to the RKS. In another assessment of NRHM by Gill (2009) in three focus states (Bihar, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh) and one non-focus state (Andhra Pradesh), the quality and quantity of service delivery in public primary healthcare at the decentralized level was evaluated. It was found that even though the focus states were still lacking in absolute terms, they were making progress towards Andhra Pradesh, the non focus states. A commendable change which was observed was that NRHM has initiated a decentralised delivery of services, reaching the poor. However, a huge amount of money allocated to the states under NRHM still remains unspent. Addressing the acute shortage of sta faced by the states, the study recommended improvement in the training and education of para-medical and medical sta. All in all, NRHM has been instrumental in directing the focus of healthcare towards rural India, which has over 70 per cent of the countrys population. It has improved the healthcare infrastructure and delivery and assisted in the computerisation of health data. However, despite these improvements, certain challenges still remain, which can be overcome with greater support from the state governments. Almost 205 per cent of funds lie as outstanding (advances), of which only one-third has been spent. The proportion of unutilized funds was as high as 39 per cent in Uttar Pradesh, 41 per cent in Bihar, and 35 per cent in Rajasthan in 20067. There still exists a dearth of health personnel in many states. Vacancies are still impermissibly high, especially in the poorer states. For instance, in Bihar only 30 to 40 per cent of the Sub Centres had a second ANM in place. In Madhya Pradesh 196 out of 1,155 PHCs were functioning without a doctor, 153 health Sub Centres without either an ANM or a male Multi-purpose Worker (MPW). Furthermore, it has been noted that other programmes need to be in synergy with NRHM. For instance, there is no convergence of NRHM with MGNREGS, which would have helped the most vulnerable sections of population. More often than not, it has been found that the sta is not very motivated because the states will only take over the nancing of the scheme after 2012. Despite NRHM bringing about a change in the health care system of rural India, in some states the stas behaviour is still indierent. Given the greater cause which the NRHM seeks to address, it should also give due consideration to overcoming social exclusion and gender discrimination.

Source: GoI (2009); Gill (2009); and The Hindu, December 2010, http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/30/Stories/2010123055021200. htm, last accessed on January 2011.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

169

increase spending on public health by hiking allocations to its NRHM programme has failed because the state governments expenditure is stagnant or decreasing as they are facing a severe scal crisis. For example, poor health indicators in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal are a reection of stagnant/decreasing state expenditures (Duggal 2009). The CAG report on NRHM in 2009 found that many high focus states had large unused balances that resulted in a reduced annual allocation from the government. Against this backdrop, it is important to highlight that in our country, central public health interventions are focused largely on single issue programmes, which does not adequately address the need for development of public health systems to anticipate and reduce exposure to disease (Gupta et al. 2010). For instance, there are various single disease programmes like National AIDS Control Programme (NACP), Directly Observed Treatment, Short Course (DOTS), and the malaria eradication programme, which are programmes largely handled by the central government. However, what are essentially needed are comprehensive health schemes with a common objective of improving the health systems and the general health of the public. Similarly, the mere provision of safe drinking water or construction of toilets will not help to improve the health status of the populace without an integrated behaviour triggering approach.24 In addition, there are various schemes that run across ministries, but the lack of coordination between them often reduces the extent of their intended impact, as discussed in the case of ICDS in Chapter 4.
DEMAND FOR HEALTHCARE

Lower public expenditure on healthcare results in limited demand for public healthcare facilities The demand for healthcare services and the public health system depends on the quality of healthcare services provided. A very high population served per hospital and per hospital bed and the shortage of human resources coupled with poor nancing have serious implications on the quality of healthcare. Since 19989, the country has witnessed a decline in the share of households approaching the private sector

and NGOs for healthcare and a rise in the proportion of households approaching the public sector. The same pattern was observed across urban and rural areas in both the periods. In 20056, almost two-thirds of the households sought healthcare from the private sector while one-third sought medical care from the public sector and 0.4 per cent each sought care from an NGO or trust hospital and other care (Table 5A.44a and b). Public healthcare was more sought after in rural areas than in urban areas (in both 19989 and 20056) whereas private medical services were more popular in urban areas. The majority of households in all the north-eastern states approached the public sector for treatment (2005 6). In the rest of the states, except for Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Orissa, and Rajasthan, the majority of the households sought medical care from the private sector. Kerala had an almost equal share of public and private sector healthcare provision. Among households that generally did not seek healthcare from government sources, the most commonly cited reasons were the poor quality of care (58 per cent), distance to government facility (47 per cent), and long waiting time (25 per cent). It seems clear that private providers are perceived by many to provide better quality services compared to public providers (NFHS 3). In the lowest three wealth quintiles, the percentage of households seeking private medical care remains more or less the same i.e. around 60 per cent, which is quite high. The last two quintiles have an even higher percentage of people seeking private medical care. Thus, there exists a positive relationship between wealth status and the seeking of private medical care by people (Figure 5.11). To oset the high OOP expenditure which pushes more and more people into poverty, in 2007, the Government of India launched a health insurance scheme for the BPL population called RSBY. Box 5.2 gives details about this scheme. By covering the healthcare needs of the poor, it has enhanced the demand from the poor and addressed the supply side shortage (of nance).
SANITATION AND DRINKING WATER

As we noted in Table 5.1, improved water sources, sanitation, and hygienic conditions at the community level generate important positive externalities in terms of

24 A process whereby collective local action to achieve open defecation is brought about, by educating the people of a community of the health hazard of open defecation.

170 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

120 100

Percentage

80 59.9 60 40 20 0 Lowest Second Middle Wealth Index Fourth Highest 39.4 37.1 39 33.9 62.2 60.4 65.3 76.4

22.6

Public medical sector

Private medical sector

Figure 5.11 Source of Healthcare by Wealth Index: Public v/s Private (per cent)
Source: NFHS 3.

better health. Sanitation is one of the basic necessities for a hygienic and healthy life. Access to safe drinking water and sanitation reduces the incidence of waterborne diseases like diarrhoea that are a major cause of death of millions of children and adults each year. Access to toilet facilities within the home provides privacy, dignity, and a sense of security to family members especially the female members. Similarly, the presence of toilets, safe water, and hygienic conditions at schools can reduce some of the constraints on students, especially girls, in attending school. However, mere provisioning of such facilities is not enough. A great deal hinges upon the practices of people. For example, in order to ensure hygiene and healthy living, it is essential that hands are washed using soap and that the water sources are covered. Unless peoples practices are changed (by creating awareness), achieving superior health outcomes becomes dicult.

Box 5.2 Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (National Health Insurance Programme)

The Government of India launched the RSBY in October 2007, to provide social health protection against the high OOP expenditure burden of healthcare and the consequent debt trap (if any). It addresses the healthcare needs of the BPL workers in the unorganized sector and their families. The Scheme will now be extended to MGNREGA beneciaries and beedi workers (Union Budget 201112). The RSBY is implemented through a Smart Card, which entitles the insured to cashless hospitalized care in all empanelled hospitals (public or private) across the country, with a total sum insured of Rs 30,000 per annum per BPL family for only ve members: the head of the family, one spouse and three dependants. The premium is shared between the central government and state governments in the ratio 3:1. The only cost that a BPL family has to incur is the registration/renewal fees of Rs 30 per annum. The Scheme gives beneciaries the autonomy to choose between private and public hospitals. The beneciary is also paid Rs 100 as transportation cost at the time of discharge. However, the total transportation amount cannot exceed Rs 1,000, which is included in the annual cover of Rs 30,000. A unique feature of the Scheme is that it is a cashless facility, and hence convenient to all the stakeholders. It covers all pre-existing diseases, hospitalized care, and day care surgical procedures. Jutting (2003) conjectures that a health insurance scheme (for the poor) would stabilize their incomes. Not only this, it may lead to consumption smoothening (or increase) over time which would contribute to better health and overall income. By the year 2012, RSBY aims to cover an estimated 60 million BPL families (300 million persons) in about 631 districts across 35 states and centrally administered territories in India, which would necessitate an expenditure of US $880 million per year. The Union Government would increase the allocation from Rs 90 million to Rs 900 million (Union Budget 201112) Overall the Scheme has led to an increase in hospitalization rates despite dispersion in the utilization rates across the districts being covered. Whereas some states were passive in implementing the Scheme, others had adopted a proactive approach. A state which has registered commendable progress on certain fronts of the Scheme is Kerala. First and foremost, the state covered all the 14 districts within one year of implementing the Scheme. Interestingly, Kerala has the highest utilization rate. Second, since the beneciaries have the discretion to choose between private and public hospitals from a list of empanelled hospitals, a competition started between the empanelled public and private hospitals to provide quality care. This not only made the public hospitals improve their quality of services and enhance infrastructural facilities (through the revenue generated by RSBY and Arogyakeralam) but has now put them in a position where they are able to compete with the private hospitals. A testimony to this is the fact that the empanelled government hospitals generate more revenue than their private counterparts. Third, almost 100 per cent of the respondents (beneciaries) were satised with the services provided through the RSBY in the districts covered. In addition, in a unique initiative, a part of the revenue generated is given to the sta in order to incentivize and motivate them to work towards quality service provision. Source: www.rsby.gov.in, Arora and Nanda (2010), and The Research Institute (2009).

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

171

Access to improved sources of drinking water in India better than South Asia but there is a lack of sanitation facilities Comparisons across the globe show that South Asian countries, on an average, performed better than SubSaharan African countries regarding the percentage of population using improved drinking water sources and the percentage of households using improved sanitation facilities. Within South Asia, India has a larger proportion of the population using improved sources of drinking water than all South Asian countries (except for Pakistan, which is at par). At the same time India, along with Afghanistan, is the worst performing South Asian country, next only to Nepal, when we look at the percentage of population using improved sanitation facilities. India is on track for achieving the MDG target of sustainable access to improved sources of drinking water, but sanitation is still a challenge for almost half the population of the country.

Around two-thirds of rural households do not have toilets In both 20024 and 20089, the proportion of households with toilet facilities was signicantly higher in urban areas than rural areas. It should be noted that in rural India as many as 65 per cent of households were without toilets. Thus, it is not surprising that in the rural areas the population has many health problems. Except for Rajasthan, Tripura, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Assam, the rural areas of all the states showed a rise in access to sanitation facilities (Table 5A.4647). One-third Muslim households and around two-thirds of SC and ST households lack toilets The proportion of households without toilets is much above the national average of 49 per cent for all the three social groupsSCs, STs, and OBCs. However, OBC households were relatively better placed compared to SCs and STs, with around 54 per cent of OBC households without toilet facilities as against 69 per cent ST households and 65 per cent SC households (Tables 5A.48a and b). Among major religious communities, Hindus were the worst o as 50 per cent of households lacked toilet facilities, compared to 36 per cent for Muslims. The relatively higher access to toilet facilities among Muslims is probably explained by the fact that a higher proportion of Muslims (than Hindus) live in urban areas. Septic tanks and pit latrines have together been classied as improved sanitation by the NSS (20089). Going by this denition, access to improved sanitation has increased over time (Figure 5.12). Not even one-fourth of rural ST households have access to improved sanitation facilities Across social groups, there has been an increase in the proportion of households with improved sanitation facilities that is, septic tanks/ush toilets and pit toilets, during the period 2002 to 20089. In 20089, OBC households had the highest proportion of households with access to improved sanitation at 43.2 per cent. ST households were the worst with only 28 per cent households in urban areas using improved sanitation facilities. The situation is worse in the case of their rural counterparts, with only 22 per cent of rural ST households with access to improved sanitation facilities.

Sanitation: About half of Indian households still lack access to sanitation facilities
Sanitation coverage, which ought to be a way of life to safeguard health, is inadequate in India. Access to sanitation facilities is still a challengealmost 50 per cent of households have no toilets. Furthermore, the practice of open defection (OD) in India remains a major challenge for achieving the MDGs, which include reducing by half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015. Despite improvement, achieving open defecation free (ODF) status looks challenging in many states, especially the poorer ones In India, only 40 per cent of households had access to sanitation facilities in 2002, which increased to 51 per cent in 20089. In Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand over 60 per cent of households were without toilets, and thus there was a greater possibility of OD in these states. In 20089, the north-eastern states were better o than most of the remaining states in terms of access to sanitation facilities (Table 5A.45).

172 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

47.6 35.4 28.5 36.3

12.2 7.8

Septic tank/ Flush 2002

Pit Latrine 20089

Improved sanitation

Figure 5.12 Households with Improved Sanitation, 2002 and 20089 (per cent)
Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Across religious communities, Sikh and Christian households had the highest (over 70 per cent) access to improved sanitation facilities in 20089. Hindus had the least access at 45 per cent (Table A5.49). The review of NRHM has noted an improvement in the sanitation situation in rural areas, even in states like Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. However, it was far from satisfactory in the case of Bihar, West Bengal, and Chhattisgarh. A World Bank study found that poor sanitation can be a huge burden on the exchequer. Box 5.3 discusses the ndings of the study.

To address the sanitation issues faced by the country, a central government funded programme, Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC), was launched in 1999. It looks at sanitation through a holistic lens. Its objectives are to improve the quality of life in the rural areas, increase sanitation coverage, use awareness and health education to generate demand, provide all schools and Anganwadi centres in rural areas with sanitation facilities, and undertake eorts to prevent waterborne diseases. Under TSC, BPL families are provided subsidies to construct toilets with the objective of having ODF villages. Open defecation free status can be ensured only if emphasis is laid on improving attitudes and knowledge about sanitation and hygiene by conducting information, education, and communication (IEC) activitiesa major plank of TSC. IEC seeks to create awareness among, and encourage the participation of, the entire community in a village. Box 5.4 gives examples of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana where community participation is ensuring better sanitation. The example of Himachal Pradesh presents a unique experience of trying an innovative methodology to achieve greater sanitation gains in the context of the TSC with the state government providing apt and timely policy and programme support. The year 2003 witnessed an innovation in the TSC scheme, when the government introduced the Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP),25 an award which would be given to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) which achieved a 100 per cent ODF environment. Overall, Kerala is the

Percentage

Box 5.3 Economic Implications of Inadequate Sanitation

A study by the Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP), World Bank estimates that inadequate sanitation amounts to an economic loss of Rs 2.4 trillion in a year, which is approximately 6.4 per cent of Indias GDP in 2006. Of this loss, about Rs 1.1 trillion is the loss in ow of economic value in 2006, while Rs 1.3 trillion is the present value of future losses owing to human capital lost in 2006. In per capita terms, this amounts to an impact of Rs 2,180. The largest impact in the loss of Rs 2.4 trillion is accounted for by health related economic impacts (Rs 1.75 trillion), of which Rs 1.3 trillion is due to premature mortality, diarrhoea being the largest contributor. Drinking water related impacts in addition to access time (lost to access sanitation facilities) are the other major losses. As per the study, total losses for the rural households in the poorest quintile amount to Rs 204 billion, which are quite substantial compared to their urban counterparts (Rs 16 billion). Without doubt the problem of inadequate sanitation is a serious concern in rural areas. In this context, the study estimates that comprehensive sanitation and hygiene interventions can avert 45 per cent of health related economic losses and translate into a potential gain of about Rs 1.5 trillion, Rs 1,321 in per capita terms. Source: World Bank (2010).

25 Since its inception in 2005, 22,575 GPs, 158 Block Panchayats (BPs), and 10 District Panchayats have been awarded NGPs (Ministry of Rural Development 2010).

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

173

Box 5.4 Community Participation in Promoting Sanitation Facilities

Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradeshs experience represents a radical departure from the conventional approach of promoting sanitation in India. The state adopted a participatory innovative approach called Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) for creating an eective and sustainable demand for sanitation under the purview of the Government of Indias TSC. CLTS engages people in the analysis of their existing sanitation situation through a series of triggering exercises leading to collective local action to clean up and sanitize their surroundings by putting an end to OD and adopting safe solid and liquid waste management practices. CLTS is known for producing dramatic results on the ground in more than 40 countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has spread to 11 states across India and created hundreds of ODF communities Himachal Pradesh has a population of approximately seven million with more than 90 per cent of the people living in rural areas. Household toilet coverage in Himachal Pradesh was about 28 per cent in the year 2004. In 2005, the Government of Himachal Pradesh adopted a new strategy to provide an enabling environment for accelerating rural sanitation in the state. The shift in the strategy included three key decisionsdownplaying individual subsidies and promoting community incentives; generating demand for sanitation through CLTS orientations across the state, and devising appropriate mechanisms for eective monitoring and follow-up. The same year, the Government of Himachal Pradesh entered into a strategic alliance with the Water and Sanitation Programme-South Asia (WSP-SA), for accelerating rural sanitation in the state by implementing CLTS across all the districts. In 2006, WSP engaged a development support agency known as Knowledge Links, specializing in providing large-scale capacity building support for CLTS trainings and follow-up programmes in all the 12 districts of the state. The training involved triggering some 200 villages with more than 50 natural leaders emerging from the grass-root level. The recent data available on the website of the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation (www.ddws.nic.in) shows that Himachal Pradesh has achieved 100 per cent toilet coverage with 520 Gram Panchayats (GPs) winning the Nirmal Gram Puraskar (NGP) by the year 2009. It is estimated that the ODF claim of another 2272 GPs is under consideration making more than 86 per cent of Himachal Pradesh open defecation free. The state government envisages making Himachal Pradesh completely open defecation free by the year 2012. Haryana Haryana is another state where the CLTS Approach has been applied. In the rest of India, rather than using the CLTS approach, great emphasis has been laid on providing subsidies to BPL households to build toilets. To implement the TSC, the village administrators adopted the CLTS, a process that empowers local communities to end OD and to build and use latrines without the support of any external subsides. To do this, the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) worked on the capacity-building of dierent stakeholders, while also identifying village motivators. The goal was to inform at least 60 per cent of the women in each village about TSC, and inform 20 per cent of the families about the low cost options for latrines. Participatory appraisals were carried out by the village motivators in order to understand the existing situation in the village. The village motivators were assigned 300 households, where they encouraged families to build toilets, and encouraged washing of hands before meals and after defecating. Source: Knowledge Links, Gupta and Pal (2008).

best performer with 87 per cent of its GPs having won NGP awards. By contrast, only 2 per cent GPs in Bihar have won this award, reecting the state of sanitation in the region. Though NGPs have spurred competition among PRIs to build toilets, it is apparent that the rush to meet the target has compromised the quality and sustainability of achievements (Planning Commission 2011).

Toilets used for other purposes; sustainability of ODF status a concern In a study conducted by UNICEF and TARU in 2008, of 162 GPs which had received NGPs in six states (Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal), it was found that 81 per cent households had individual household toilets. Of these only 64 per cent were reported to be using them and

174 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

6 per cent were using community toilets. The remaining households (30 per cent) were going for OD. Further, many toilets were not used for the purpose of defecating but for storing, bathing, and washing purposes. Of the 162 GPs which had received NGPs, only 4 per cent (mostly from Maharashtra) had sustained the ODF status. In the remaining GPs, there were households who had gone back to defecating in the open26 (Table 5.16). The central governments expenditure on sanitation as a percentage of total Government of India releases has increased from 48 per cent in 20056 to 128 per cent in 200910 (Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation). Three-fourths of this is spent on the construction of individual household toilets (which are often put to various other uses). Expenditure on IEC, which is an important component in generating demand for sanitation, was only ve per cent. Himachal Pradesh and Haryana, among the best performing states in terms of ODF status spent close to 70 per cent of approved IEC funds. In contrast, in Bihar, Jharkhand, and Orissa less than 20 per cent of the approved IEC funds were spent.

Access to Improved Source of Drinking Water: Consistent risea move towards healthy living
During both the time periods, taps and tube-wells were the two major sources of drinking water. In addition to these,

protected wells and harvested rainwater are considered to be improved sources of drinking water. Over time there has been a rise in the proportion of households with taps as a source of drinking water, with a corresponding fall in the proportion of households using wells as a source of drinking water (Figure 5.13). In 20089 there were many states in which the proportion of households with taps as a source of drinking water was much above the national average of 43 per cent (Figure 5.14). The proportion of households with access to improved sources of drinking water in 20089 was 91 per cent.27 This proportion was over 90 per cent even in states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. This was largely because these states had over 70 per cent of their households accessing tube wells/handpumps as sources of drinking water. The north- eastern states, except for Arunachal Pradesh, were much below the national average. So too were many other poorer states like Jharkhand, Orissa, and Rajasthan. For instance, not even 50 per cent of the households in Manipur and Mizoram had access to improved sources of drinking water, whereas over 90 per cent of households in poorer states like Bihar and Chhattisgarh did. In Kerala, only 73 per cent of households had access to improved sources of drinking water. This is partly responsible for the high morbidity on account of waterborne diseases in the

Table 5.16 NGP Villages with Proportion of People still Defecating in the Open, 6 States, 2008
None Andhra Pradesh Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Total Per cent of Total 6 4 6 36 11 1 11 64 40 4 6 7 18 39 24 <20 per cent 5 2040 per cent 4 4060 per cent 1 4 6 9 6 3 29 18 5 7 5 1 2 20 12 4 2 1 1 2 6080 per cent >80 per cent Total 10 10 60 33 15 34 162 100

Source: The Action Research Unit (2008b).

26

In 32 per cent of GPs, more than 40 per cent of the people were not using the toilet built for them under TSC and were defecating in the

open.
27 As per NSS 20089, improved sources of safe drinking water consist of the sources of water, taps, tube wells/handpumps, protected wells and harvested rainwater. This cannot be compared with 2002 data because in 2002, (i) there was information available only on wells (which is an aggregate of protected and unprotected wells) and not protected wells, and, (ii) harvested rainwater was included under the category of others.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

175

2002 3

20089

4 14.3 40.5 9.3

43.1

42.3

43.7

Tap

Tube Well/ Handpump

Well

Others

Tap

Tube Well/ Handpump

Well

Others

Figure 5.13 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, 2002 and 20089 (per cent)
Source: NSS0 58th and 65th Rounds.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Percentage

Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand

Rajasthan

Punjab

Jammu & Kashmir

Sikkim

Karnataka

Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Meghalaya

Haryana

Delhi

Gujarat

Figure 5.14 Percentage of Households with Taps as a Source of Drinking Water (20089)
Source: NSSO 65th Round.

state. What needs special mention in the case of Kerala is that 70 per cent of the households had access to either taps or protected wells, whereas in Bihar and Chhattisgarh, 90 per cent and 73 per cent of households, respectively, had access to tube wells/handpumps as sources of drinking water, which when compared to taps and protected wells are worse sources of drinking water.

Maharashtra

In rural India, 90 per cent of the population had access to improved sources of drinking water. A further break-up of various sources revealed that as many as 55 per cent of households had tube wells/handpumps as sources of drinking water, the consumption of which makes the populace more vulnerable to waterborne diseases as compared to tap water (Tables 5A.50, 5A.51, 5A.52, and 5A.53).

Goa

176 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

As 97 per cent households have taps, tube wells/ handpumps or wells as major sources of drinking water, the analysis of social and religious communities is restricted to these categories only. Taps as a source of water more prevalent among Scheduled Castes than Scheduled Tribes and Muslim households Over time, all social groups experienced a rise in the proportion of households using taps and tube wells/handpumps with a corresponding fall in the proportion using wells, which are not considered safe sources of drinking water. Across social groups, OBCs have a greater proportion of households using taps compared to SCs and STs who have tube wells/handpumps as major sources of drinking water. However, SCs and STs performed much above the national average in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand in terms of the proportion of households which had taps as a source of drinking water (Table A5.54). Across religious communities, Sikhs have the highest proportion of households dependent on tap water (49 per cent) whereas in the case of Muslims the proportion is only 36 per cent. Over half the Muslim households were dependent on tube wells/handpumps. However, the fact that over three-fourths of the Muslims in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Sikkim, and Tamil Nadu have taps as a source of drinking water needs mention. In the rural areas, except for Christians, all religious communities have a greater proportion of households dependent on tube wells/handpumps for drinking water (Table A5.55). The Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan suggested that the progress in providing clean drinking water to all was behind schedule. Also there were regular regressions (that is, many covered areas fell back under uncovered areas) due to the increase in population, inadequate sources of water supply, or falling ground water levels. Even if many villages do have access to a handpump, the presence of excessive contaminants renders the water undrinkable. This means that the women and children have to walk for miles to fetch potable water. Providing clean drinking water to Indian villages has been a policy priority since the First Five Year Plan. Bharat Nirman

identied rural water supply as one of the key areas essential to further rural development. As noted above, drinking water and sanitation are crucial inputs for improved health outcomes. In this context, as seen in case of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana (Box 5.4), state governments and NGOs play a central role in mobilizing the populace. Box 5.5 highlights two examples of community participation in the state of Rajasthan.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

Health outcomes have improved with time. Maternal mortality, child mortality, and death rates have reduced. Falling TFR, coupled with slow improvement in life expectancy, has led to a reduction in the dependency ratio, with a corresponding rise in the working age population. Yet, the absolute levels of outcomes leave much to be desired. Similarly, the rates of improvement are such that the health related MDGs will not to be achieved while in the case of most other MDGs (except hunger and malnutrition) the progress suggests that the MDGs can be achieved. The poor levels of change in health outcomes can be attributed to poor process and input indicators. For instance, there is a shortage of human resources as well as an inadequate number of PHCs in many states. Not even half of our children are fully immunized. A large proportion of women still deliver at home. Public expenditure on health is quite low, which results in high OOP expenditure. All these are a reection of the inefcient public health system which has failed to reach the lower strata of society. In addition, there are other areas which require exploration and thought. Firstly, as discussed earlier, there are various single issue/disease programmes that often bypass the need for a comprehensive public health system. To implement such an approach, it is suggested that health services be monitored along with the accompanying aspects like water safety, solid waste management, and sewerage. An eort like this would help strengthen the environmental health services, which along with public health services form a basic part of a countrys developmental infrastructure. Secondly, considering the performance audit of NRHM by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, there is need for timely community health planning and monitoring, which must be actively encouraged by the states. State governments play a crucial role in transforming the health delivery system. Thus, greater commitment and intervention is called.

HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHY

177

Box 5.5 Community Participation in Sanitation and Water Supply in Rajasthan

The Bhoruka Charitable Trust (BCT) is working in about 700 villages of Churu, Pali, Dungarpur, Hanumangarh, Barmer, and Jaipur districts in Rajasthan in the elds of health, sanitation, education, women and child development, and drinking water among other integrated rural development activities. In 1984, the BCT initiated eorts in the villages of Rajgarh Block (Churu district) for the construction of 100 Low Cost Latrines (LCLs) in individual households, with 10 per cent contribution from the beneciaries. This has become a mass movement, which has led to the construction of more than 35,000 LCLs in the villages of Churu and its adjoining districts. The users contribute more than 50 per cent in the form of labour and bricks. In addition, BCT has been involved in the conservation of traditional water harvesting structures by constructing community rainwater harvesting Talabs (Johads) which can provide drinking water for consumption. BCT has implemented many rainwater harvesting projects in the villages of Churu district. Till date, BCT has constructed a total of 2,500 rooftop rain water harvesting structures, refurbished 250 community rainwater harvesting structures, and constructed 40 new community structures. Aapni Yojna is the largest centralized rural water supply scheme in Asia with a geographical spread of 20,000 square kilometres. The project is providing potable water to 900,000 individuals living in about 370 villages and two towns of Churu and Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan Establishing a community-based water distribution management system was at the core of this eort. A Water and Health Committee manages the water distribution system in each village. The community was motivated through creating awareness for water conservation, equal and fair distribution to all villages, health education measures, and sanitation measures. As women were the main beneciaries of the improved water supply and also the principal target group for health education, womens participation was a key element across all these activities. The focus of Aapni Yojna was that the community should own the water supply system within the villages. Source: Bhoruka Charitable Trust.

The third area needing attention is the severe under funding of the health sector that adversely aects the capital investment in public hospitals. In addition, the allocation of public funds is iniquitous, with urban areas and certain states (Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Goa, Delhi, and Mizoram) enjoying an advantage. Besides, the allocation of resources indicates wide disparity in spending and outcomes across states. It is therefore necessary to focus on health outcomes rather than only on health outlays, including a disaggregated examination by gender, class, caste, and such others to assess their impact on dierent groups. Also, there are wide variations across states, within rural and urban areas and within various social and religious communities in terms of health and access to healthcare services. For instance, the poor states of Assam, Bihar/Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand not only account for 47 per cent of the countrys population, but also represent the core of poor performances in major health outcomes like life expectancy, IMR, U5MR, and TFR. In addition, there are huge variations between the best performing states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu compared to the less developed states. These achievements highlight the states role in

investing in social development expenditure for healthcare and education, such that the benets are reaped equally by all the social groups in the state. The underlying cause of poor health outcomes in the less developed states is the sheer lack of public investment in healthcare resources and expenditure resulting in a dysfunctional public health system. As mentioned earlier, the poor status of health across the country is largely attributable to the poor process and input indicators. Some of the states which experience such constraints are Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. If the state governments remain reluctant to increase Plan/non-Plan fund allocations for health services, the central government may have to continue to increase its allocation. With respect to caste-based inequalities, it has been observed that the SCs and STs suer the most on account of poor access to healthcare facilities. The condition of OBCs is better as compared to SCs as well as STs. Among SCs and STs, SCs perform relatively better in terms of health indicators. Across religious communities, it was found that Muslims suer most in terms of health inputs/process indicators like vaccination of children, maternal health

178 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

care, contraception, and sanitation. This in turn could reect their poor access to medical facilities on account of their being disproportionately concentrated in states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. However, this is not the case in terms of output indicators, where Muslims are seen to be doing relatively better than Hindus. In another kind of analysis by the Prime Ministers High Level Committeethe Sachar Committee (2006) which examined the health status and the related facilities across socio-religious communities, it was found that Muslims fared better than many social and religious communities, particularly SCs/STs in terms of health. This has also been veried in the analysis of this chapter. One should not overlook the improvements made by these social and religious communities. The analysis presented in this chapter shows that over time these groups

are converging with the national averages. It is not merely that some groups in particular lack access to healthcare facilities, but that the poor are generally excluded. This is the reason why the vast majority of our poor population does not access public healthcare facilities, irrespective of the social or religious group they belong to. All this is a result of low government expenditure on health. The priority therefore should be to ensure a functional health system that is seen as credible and accessible by the poor belonging to all communities. In view of this, the government intends to raise public expenditure on health from the present 1 per cent of GDP to around 3 per cent. Though India is moving in the right direction in terms of improving the health status of its populace, the present pattern and pace would make it difcult for India to achieve its MDG targets by 2015.

6
Education
Achievements and Challenges
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high, Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and actioninto that heaven of freedom, my Father, Let my country awake. Rabindranath Tagore

INTRODUCTION

Rabindranath Tagore viewed education as a right which enables individuals and communities to act on reection. To what extent the present school education system enables students to act on reection is dicult to judge, and therefore, an analysis of Tagores view on education in contemporary India is much beyond the scope of this chapter. The primary focus of this chapter will be on conventional measures of educational attainment across socio-economic groups and religious communities. The primacy to an analysis based on objectively measurable parameters, instead of an analysis founded upon a much more philosophical paradigm, stems from the presumption that the case for a broader view of the value of education (a view which goes much beyond the employment motive

of education) does not entail a denial of the economic benets (PROBE 1999). It was observed in Chapter 1 (Overview) that within the social sector, the inuence of education is most widely spread (Figure 6.1), and education has an impact on all types of human development outcomes (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). Research, for instance, has indicated that literate women had a better knowledge of health and family planning, and were more likely to adopt preventive health measures like immunization (UNESCO 2006). Educated parents provide better nutrition and healthcare for themselves and their children. Various factors ensure this result. The general knowledge acquired at school increases understanding of modern health practices and scientic beliefs, which makes mothers (and fathers) more open to using healthcare centres. The education of the parents is also an important factor in reducing child labour (Self et al. 2008). In other words, education has a positive impact on all types of human development outcomes. The economic motive is not the only reason why education is vital for the individuals well-being. Education is important in other ways as wellsuch as improving self esteem, enhancing social status, and gaining condence while dealing with ocials. Education, especially of mothers helps to enhance the autonomy women have in household decision-making; and it also has a strong positive inuence on schooling outcomes, in particular for the girl child (Chandrasekhar and Mukhopadhyay 2006). An educated girl is likely to marry later than a girl who is

180 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Social services inputs/processes Education Family Planning Health Nutrition Water and Sanitation Knowledge

Human development outcomes/outputs Family size Health status Nutritional status Healthy living conditions

Figure 6.1 Feedback Loops in the Human Development Process

not educated. This is especially true if the girls education extends at least a few years beyond the primary level and she engages in economic activity outside the home. The benets of girls education accrue from generation to generation (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). Among all the parameters of educational attainment, literacy is the most fundamental one as it paves the way for further learning and training in the formal sector. Further, written formal communication is impossible in a state of illiteracy, and hence illiteracy acts as a hindrance to good governance. Taking stock of the literacy status in this country, therefore, forms the starting point for this chapter (Section on Literacy). An analysis of literacy among social groups and religious communities in rural and urban areas across states revealed that despite considerable improvement in the literacy rate, illiteracy remains a major problem, particularly in rural India. Other important ndings on literacy in India are as follows: Though the rate of increase in literacy was higher in rural India than urban India, more than half of the females belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in rural India were illiterate Muslims had the lowest literacy rate among all religious communities even though there was improvement in their literacy rate over the years Although literacy rates among SCs, STs, and Muslims were lower, their literacy rates were converging towards the national average Even though the north-eastern states and Kerala had much higher literacy rates as compared to other states, literacy rates across states were converging over time The illiterates among the SCs, STs, and Muslims were concentrated within a few states

Though literacy is important, it is not an end in itselfthe level of education is an important determinant of well-being for an individual, and hence, the Section on Aspects of School Education analyses dierent aspects of access to education and educational progress. The aspects covered in this section are enrolment, attendance, promotion and repetition, and dropouts. Here too, the analysis is disaggregated by social groups and religious communities across states. The major ndings of this analysis are given below. Though enrolment rates improved over the years, there was a sharp reduction in enrolment at higher levels of education for all social groups The net enrolment ratio has shown considerable improvement at the primary level and it was at par with the developed countries in the year 2007 An important feature of schooling in India was that despite attaining a high enrolment rate, attendance was much lower than enrolment, and the dierence between the two increased at higher levels of education Disparity in the net attendance ratio across social groups increased at higher levels of education In rural India, there has been over time a sharp fall in the gender gap in net attendance ratio at both primary and upper primary levels Among all religious communities net attendance ratio was the lowest in the case of Muslims at all levels of education There was a sharp increase in attendance at private unaided institutions One-fth of the children in the age group 617 years were out of school, and nancial constraint was an important reason for discontinuation of education

EDUCATION

181

Lack of pre-primary school training and child malnutrition were important determinants of learning deciency Mean years of schooling which we estimated for 20078 was only 4.2 years for the country as a whole (implying that it was below the primary level) along with signicant ruralurban disparity Provision of quality education is possible only when proper infrastructure, along with qualied teachers, is put in place. The section on Physical Infrastructure gives an insight into the existing infrastructure in schools with respect to classrooms, water and sanitation, electricity, and other facilities. The important ndings of this section are: The norm of one classroom per class for all schools as per the Right to Education (RTE) Act remains a major challenge with 9 per cent of schools in India having only one classroom. Half of the schools in India did not have separate toilet facilities for girls, though the RTE Act stipulates this. The next section (Indicators Related to Teachers) is on human capital within the school system, and discusses single-teacher schools because of the shortage of teachers, and the consequent dependence on para-teachers. The gender and social group of the teachers across states are also analysed in this section. The broad picture that emerged from the analysis is as follows: Teacher shortages posed a serious challenge to the universalization of elementary education, and the pupilteacher ratio at the primary level was much higher than the stipulated norm of 30 as per the RTE guidelines The pupilteacher ratio at the primary level was much higher than the world average and it was even worse than that of Sub-Saharan Africa Para-teachers were seen as an important instrument to overcome teacher shortage, and more than 10 per cent of the teachers in India were para-teachers

Fewer female teachers in rural areas were an important factor for low school attendance among females Under-representation of SC teachers adversely aected participation of SC students in the education system The section on Expenditure on Education analyses public expenditure on educationelementary education, secondary education, university and higher education. This section also analyses out-of-pocket expenditure on education across social groups and religious communities in India. The major ndings that emerge from the analysis are as follows: Public expenditure on education continued to be low Out-of-pocket expenditure in private unaided institutions was much higher than in government schools High out-of-pocket expenditure was a deterrent to educational attainment for the economically disadvantaged who were mostly SCs, STs, and Muslims The last section concludes. The qualitative and quantitative dimensions of the parameters of educational attainment are analysed through dierent sources of data such as various rounds of National Sample Surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), District Information System for Education (DISE) (the responsibility of which was assigned to the National University of Educational Planning and Administration [NUEPA], National Family and Health Survey (NFHS), and annual reports of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.1
LITERACY

Literacy adds value to a persons life and plays a crucial role in his/her overall development. It also adds tremendous value to society at the macro level. There is a strong correlation between lack of literacy and poverty, both in the economic sense and in the broader sense of deprivation of capabilities (UNESCO 2006). Female literacy, in particular, is of vital importance for the future of the nation, as a childs health is crucially linked to the mothers literacy.

1 The District Information System for Education (DISE) is essentially the result of the requirement for a sound information system for school education in India and was accorded priority from the beginning of the District Primary Education Programme (DISE 2010). The coverage of the schools in DISE has increased over time, and so the inter-temporal comparison might not necessarily entirely capture the real change over the same set of schools. Despite considerable increase in coverage, by its own admission DISE (2010) noted that some private unaided schools are yet to be covered.

182 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Despite considerable improvement India has the largest number of illiterate people in the world Globally, the literacy rate increased from 56 per cent in 1950 to 82 per cent during 20004 (UNESCO 2006). Despite considerable improvement in the literacy status, India is home to the largest number of illiterate people in the world. According to UNESCOs Global Monitoring Report 2006, out of 771 million illiterate people in the world, 268 million (nearly one-third) were estimated to be in India.

Literacy across Social Groups: More than half of the SC and ST females in rural India were illiterate
Across social groups, STs had the lowest literacy rate in rural India, while SCs had the lowest literacy rate in urban India in 20078. Compared to rural India, the status of literacy in urban India was much better across all social groups, and also across genders within any particular social group. The ruralurban gap in female literacy was much greater than that in male literacy (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Despite the improvement in literacy rates across all social groups, the gender gap was an over-arching problem for all social groups. The problem of persistent gender discrimination against females is a systemic problem in Indian society. In rural India, gender disparity in terms of literacy existed in all the states and Union Territories, with literacy rate among males higher than that for females. For the country as a whole, the male literacy rate was 20 percentage points higher than the female literacy rate in 20078. Among the major states, gender disparity in the literacy rate was the highest in Rajasthan, followed by Jharkhand and Bihar (Table 6A.1). As in the case of rural India, the male literacy rate was higher than the female literacy rate across all the states in urban India in 20078. Among the major states the gender disparity was the greatest in Rajasthan, where the male literacy rate was greater than the female literacy rate by 20 percentage points, followed by Bihar (Table 6A.2).

The All India Picture: Increase in literacy rate higher in rural India but literacy among rural females still very low
The literacy rate has shown considerable improvement during the period 19992000 to 20078. The improvement in literacy rate was seen across all social groups and religious communities, in both rural and urban India (Tables 6.1 and Table 6.2). The increase in literacy rate was higher in rural India (11 percentage points) than in urban India (4.5 percentage points). Despite this, for the country as a whole, 28 per cent of the population above the age of seven years was illiterate in 20078.2 The problem of illiteracy was particularly acute in rural India, especially in the case of rural females, 43 per cent of whom were illiterate. In other words, precisely that half of the nations population whose literacy matters more to society was found to be more deprived. Unfortunately, South Asia has the worst adult literacy rate (67.2 per cent) in the world, worse than Sub-Saharan Africa (69.4 per cent). This is because the Indias female literacy rate is far worse (57 per cent) than Sub-Saharan Africas (63.9 per cent). The malefemale literacy gap in rural India persisted and the 20 percentage point gap that existed in 2001 continued in 20078. So, despite the improvement in literacy rate, a considerable proportion of females remained illiterate. In recent years, the overall literacy rate in India has increased to 74 per cent in 2011.3 The female literacy rate has improved considerably by 50 per cent from 224 million in 2001 to 334 million in 2011. Overall, female literacy rate in India is 65 per cent and male literacy rate is 82 per cent in the year 2011.
2 3

Literacy across Religious Communities: Despite improvement Muslims have the lowest literacy rate
Across religious communities the literacy rate was the lowest among Muslims, both in rural and urban India in 20078 (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). In rural India only 55 per cent of Muslim females were literate (Table 6.1). The femalemale dierentials in literacy were the greatest for Hindus and Muslims, and were much lower for Sikhs and Christians. All leaders, especially religious leaders among Hindus and Muslims, can perhaps play a greater role in exhorting their communities to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills.

NSS 64th Round (Education in India, 20078: Participation and Expenditure). Census 2011.

EDUCATION

183

Table 6.1 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities (Rural), 19992000 and 20078
Males 19992000 By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 68.2 61.4 80.1 67.2 77.4 71.7 85.9 75.9 42.5 42.1 67.5 55.3 56.2 55.0 78.0 63.4 55.7 52.1 73.7 61.5 58.8 53.8 67.8 78.1 67.8 70.6 69.3 77.7 84.6 77.0 33.6 30.1 41.1 56.7 43.4 49.9 47.8 55.4 68.8 56.7 46.6 42.2 54.8 67.7 56.0 20078 Females 19992000 20078

(per cent)

Persons 19992000 20078

60.5 58.8 66.7 76.9 67.0

67.0 63.5 82.0 69.9

Source: NSS 55th Round, Report No. 473 (for 19992000) and calculated from NSS Database 64th Round (for 20078). Note: For population 7 years and above.

Table 6.2 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities (Urban), 19992000 and 20078
Males 19992000 By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 88.0 76.7 94.4 88.1 91.6 80.9 95.3 90.8 73.4 62.2 87.9 78.6 79.3 68.8 89.0 85.3 81.1 69.8 91.1 83.5 76.0 78.1 83.5 91.4 86.5 83.1 86.0 88.3 93.8 89.9 55.7 61.2 66.4 81.0 72.3 66.1 69.0 74.6 85.5 78.0 66.2 70.0 75.3 86.5 79.8 20078 Females 19992000 20078

(per cent)

Persons 19992000 20078

74.9 78.0 81.7 89.9 84.3

85.8 75.1 92.0 88.2

Source: NSS 55th Round, Report No. 473 (for 19992000) and calculated from NSS Database 64th Round (for 20078). Note: For population 7 years and above.

Convergence of literacy rates for SCs, STs, and Muslims towards the national average Over the years the literacy rates for SCs, STs, and Muslims have converged towards the national average. As

compared to 19992000, there has been an improvement in the ratio of literacy rates for SCs, STs, and Muslims with respect to the national average in both rural and urban India (Table 6.3). This convergence was most pronounced among STs in rural India.

184 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6.3 Ratio of Literacy Rates for SCs, STs, and Muslims to National Average, 19992000 and 20078
Social Group/ Religious Community SCs STs Muslims Rural 19992000 20078 0.83 0.75 0.93 0.9 0.88 0.95 Urban 19992000 20078 0.83 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.89

Source: Calculated from Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Literacy across Dierent States: Literacy rates in north-eastern States and Kerala much higher as compared to other States
There was a lot of variation in literacy rates across dierent states in rural India. The north-eastern states and Kerala had very high literacy rates (with at least 80 per cent of the people in the age group of 7 years and above being literate) in the year 20078. On the other hand, the literacy rate was less than 60 per cent in Bihar, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh (Table 6A.1). The north-eastern states and Kerala had higher literacy rates as compared to other states in the urban areas as well (Table 6A.2). Convergence in literacy rates across States The variation across states in terms of literacy rates has come down in both rural and urban India. The standard deviation across states in rural India declined from 13.6 in 19992000 to 11.1 in 20078. In the case of urban India, standard deviation declined from 6.8 in 19992000 to 5.7 in 20078. Therefore, the variation in terms of literacy rates across states declined and there was convergence across states in both rural and urban India.

Literacy among Social Groups across States: SC/ST illiterates concentrated in a few States
Five statesRajasthan, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradeshtogether accounted for 48 per cent of the STs in India in 20078 but together accounted for 55 per cent of the illiterate among STs. In case of SCs, 46 per cent of SCs in India were concentrated in Uttar

Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh, and these four states together accounted for 52 per cent of the illiterate among SCs. Across social groups, STs have remained the most marginalized, a fact reected in their having the lowest literacy rate in rural India in 20078. Among STs, the literacy rate was particularly low in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar (all below 50 per cent) (Table 6A.3). In all these states, with the exception of Rajasthan, the share of the ST population in the states total population was negligible. In Rajasthan however, STs accounted for 13 per cent of the population. So policy-makers in Rajasthan have a special responsibility to focus on literacy programmes for the ST population. In rural Rajasthan the literacy rate among the ST population increased by only 8 percentage points during the period 19992000 and 20078 (from 38 per cent in 19992000 to 46 per cent in 20078). This increase was much lower than the average for the ST population in rural India as a whole, which witnessed an increase in literacy rate of 17 percentage points (from 42 per cent in 19992000 to 59 per cent in 20078) (Table 6A.3 for 20078 and NSS Report No. 473 for 19992000). Among SCs, STs and Muslims, the three most capability-deprived groups in India, SCs are doing slightly better than STs, but worse than Muslims, in terms of literacy. In 20078, the lowest literacy rate among SCs was in Bihar (Table 6A.3) at 45 per cent. Even Uttar Pradesh, which has an equally high share of SCs in the total population, has a literacy rate of 57.8 per cent for SCs, almost 13 percentage points higher than Bihar, though this is the second lowest SC literacy rate for any state in the country. In other words, Bihar faces a major challenge in this regard, and although it has made remarkable progress in making its government schools functional by hiring a very large number of teachers within the last few years, the NSS literacy data for 20078 suggests that a special focus on literacy programmes is needed for the SC population in Bihar. Andhra Pradesh too has a high share (20 per cent) of SCs in the total population (the same as Bihar), and like Bihar it also has a relatively low literacy rate among SCs compared to the rest of the states in the country. In urban India, both male and female literacy were the lowest in the case of SCs in 20078. In the majority of the states, the literacy rate was the highest among Others, that is, among the general castes (Table 6A.4).

EDUCATION

185

Literacy among Religious Communities across States: High concentration of Muslim illiterates in Bihar, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh
As has already been noted, the literacy rate among Muslims was lower than that of other religious communities in both rural and urban India (although better than that for STs and SCs), for both males and females (Table 6.1). In rural India in 20078, the male literacy rate was higher than the female literacy rate for all religious communities across all states (with the exception of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Sikhs and Madhya Pradesh in the case of Christians). In the major states, the male advantage in literacy was particularly high in Goa, followed by Rajasthan (Table 6A.5). In urban India in 20078, the male literacy rate was higher than the female literacy rate for all religious communities across all states with the exception of Meghalaya, where the female literacy rate was higher than the male literacy rate for Muslims. As in the case of rural India, gender disparity in literacy among Muslims was particularly high in Goa (Table 6A.6). It may be noted here that in three states, namely Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, the proportion of illiterates among Muslims was much higher in comparison to the share of the Muslim population in the total population. These three states together accounted for 46 per cent of the Muslim population in the age group seven years and above, but 58 per cent of the illiterates among Muslims in India resided in these three states. This fact acquires salience since Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar have higher share of Muslims in their total population (19.2 per cent, 14.8 per cent, and 13.4 per cent, respectively) among all the states of India. Unless policymakers focus their attention on these sections of the population, there is little hope of their overall educational indicators catching up with the rest of the country. The problem of illiteracy was more acute in rural India than urban India, particularly among females. Female literacy rates were especially low among SCs, STs, and Muslims. Among the major states, Bihar and Rajasthan had the highest gender disparity (dened as the dierence

in literacy rates between males and females) in both rural and urban areas. Bihar had one of the highest concentrations of illiterates among Muslims and SCs, while Rajasthan had one of the highest concentrations of illiterates among STs.
ASPECTS OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

As already mentioned, literacy is only the rst step towards educational attainment. There are various other aspects of the school education system which determine the educational attainment of individuals. These can be classied under two broad headingsaccess to education and educational progress. The dierent measures pertaining to access to education and educational progress have been analysed in the following two sub-sections. Measures of access to education Achieving universal primary education and eliminating gender disparity at all levels of education are among the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) laid down in the Millennium Declaration of the United Nations, the time line for which has been set for 2015. Keeping this in mind, the Government of India has set a target of ensuring that all children in the age group 611 years complete a full course in primary education by 2015. The States commitment with regard to the provision of elementary education is well enshrined in the Constitution.4 Universal elementary education is not only a constitutional directive, but also a fundamental requirement for the well-being of individuals, and at the macro level, forms the basis of a well functioning democracy. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009, came into force from April 2010. The RTE Act provides for free and compulsory education to all children in the age group 614 years. With the enforcement of the RTE Act, education has become a fundamental right, and therefore, education has become an entitlement of every child. In India, education comes under the concurrent list. Universal enrolment is one of the ve guiding parameters of Universalization of Elementary Education (UEE) as laid down in the Tenth Five Year Plan. Sarva Shiksha

4 Article 21 (which basically states that education is a fundamental right which ows from the right to life), Article 21A (according to which the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children in the age group 614 years), Article 86 (emphasizing childhood care and education which shall be provided by State up to the age of six years).

186 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Abhiyan (SSA) is one of the major schemes introduced by the Government of India in the year 2002 (Box 6.1) to universalize elementary education, while maintaining a certain standard of quality. It aims at providing basic education to all children in the age group 614 years while endeavouring to bridge the social, regional, and gender gaps existing within the country, without any compromise in the quality of education. Universal enrolment is one of the specic objectives of SSA (Box 6.1).5 The two most important indicators of enrolment are gross enrolment ratio (GER) and net enrolment ratio (NER). GER is dened as the ratio of students enrolled in a particular level of education (regardless of age) to the population of ocial school age for that level of education. Since both the over-aged and under-aged population for a specic level of education are included in the calculation of GER, its value can exceed 100. NER on the other hand is the ratio of students belonging to the ocial age of enrolment (as required for a particular level of education) who are enrolled to the population of ocial school age for that level of education. The essential dierence between GER and NER is that net enrolment excludes enrolled children who fall outside the ocial age range (as specied for a certain level of education), while they are included in the calculation of GER.

Gross Enrolment Ratio: Improving but declining at higher levels of education for all social groups
Between 20045 and 20078, GER improved at all levels of education. However, it was observed that GER subsequently declined at higher levels of education, from primary to upper primary to secondary/higher secondary (Table 6.4). This was true for SCs and STs as well. For the country as a whole, GER declined from 114.6 per cent at the primary level to 45.5 per cent at the secondary/higher secondary level in 20078. Generally, across all the states (with very few exceptions), there has been an increase in GER at all levels of education between 20045 and 20078. This general trend of improvement in GER at all levels of school education between 20045 and 20078 was observed for SCs and STs as well (Tables 6A.7, 6A.8, and 6A.9). However, despite improvement in GER over the years, drop in GER at higher levels of education was a common feature across all states (with only two exceptions).6

Gender Parity Index: Comparable to international standards but considerable interstate variations
Eliminating gender disparity at all levels of education by 2015 is one of the MDGs laid down by the United

Box 6.1 Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA)

According to the 7th Educational Survey conducted by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) across India in 2002, approximately 13 per cent of all habitations had no primary school within one kilometre radius. In addition, 22 per cent had no upper primary schools within 3 kilometre radius. In the year 20045, the coverage of primary and upper primary schools increased to 96 per cent and 85 per cent of habitations, respectively. The Ministry of Human Resource Development reports that the number of out of school children declined from 32 million in 20012 to 7 million in 2007. To focus on girls education, several schemes have been incorporated within the SSA. These include the National Programme for Education of Girls at Elementary Level (NPEGEL) and Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme (KGBVS). Both these schemes focus on primary education for girls, by setting up residential schools for girls belonging to the SC/ST/minority categories under KGBVS and through model schools being built with greater community participation under NPEGEL. Despite certain drawbacks, monitoring data suggests that the SSA has shown denite progress. A study conducted by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (2006), showed that over the years, SSA has been able to reduce the social and gender gap. The enrolment ratio for SCs and STs was higher than the share of the population itself for the year 20045. The gender gap in enrolment was also found to be 4.2 per cent at the primary level and 8.8 per cent at the upper primary level. This study indicated that SSA is making slow but steady progress towards attainment of its objectives.

SSA, which was launched in 2001, schools get grants under four categories namely new classroom grant (up to Rs 200,000), school maintenance grant (Rs 10,000 per annum for schools which have more than three classrooms), school development grant, and teacher learning material grant. SSA is being merged with the REA, which came into force on 1 April 2010. 6 For Himachal Pradesh and Andaman & Nicobar Islands GER at the upper primary level was higher than at the primary level in the year 20078.

EDUCATION

187

Table 6.4 Gross Enrolment Ratio for School Education, by Social Groups, 20045 and 20078
Social Group 20045 Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes All Social Groups 115.3 121.9 107.8 Primary 20078 124.9 129.3 114.6 Upper Primary 20045 70.2 67.0 69.9 20078 76.3 74.4 77.5

(per cent)

Secondary/Higher Secondary 20045 34.7 27.7 39.9 20078 39.0 30.8 45.5

Source: Annual Reports, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

Nations. The attainment of social justice is incomplete without achieving gender equality. In a country like India, where disparity between males and females is widespread (as revealed by various studies like PROBE 1999), attaining gender equality calls for better schooling opportunities for girls. The gender parity index (GPI) at the primary level improved from 0.91 in 20045 to 0.93 in 20078 (DISE 2010).7 When subjected to international comparison, the GPI for India fares relatively well (Table 6.5). The increasing secondary, enrolment (Table 6.4) is explained by rising girls enrolment, which also underlies falling female workforce participation.

Table 6.5 Gender Parity Index at Primary Level, 2007

Country/Region World Developing Countries Developed Countries Sub-Saharan Africa Arab States Central Asia East Asia and the Pacific East Asia Pacific South and West Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Caribbean GPI 0.96 0.95 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.93

Net Enrolment Ratio: Considerable improvement at the primary level

As was observed in the case of GER, there was a general improvement in NER at the primary level between 20056 and 20078. For the country as a whole, NER increased to 96 per cent in 20078 from 84 per cent in 20056.8 This is a major achievement and NER at the primary level for India was very much at par with those in other countries/regions of the world (Table 6.6). Therefore, as per the NER, the Government of Indias target of ensuring that all children in the age group 611 years complete a full course in primary education by the year 2015 seems achievable. Despite attaining internationally comparable levels of GPI, enrolment among girls belonging to Muslims and OBCs remains a major concern. For the country as a whole, the enrolment of girls belonging to Muslim and OBC communities at the primary and upper primary levels was less than 50 per cent (Table 6.7).
7 8

Latin America North America and Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe China India

Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO 2010. Note: Source for India is State Report Cards, 20078, NUEPA.

Net Attendance Ratio: Sharp decline at upper-primary level despite narrowing gender gap
As per the NSS, current attendance refers to whether a person is currently attending any educational institution or not. Enrolment is necessary for attending any educational institution, while the reverse is not true. In other words,

GPI at the primary level is dened as the ratio of GER for females to GER for males. DISE (2010).

188 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6.6 Net Enrolment Ratio at Primary Level, 2007 (per cent)
Country/Region World Developing Countries Developed Countries Sub-Saharan Africa Arab States Central Asia East Asia and the Pacific East Asia Pacific South and West Asia Latin America and the Caribbean Caribbean Latin America North America and Western Europe Central and Eastern Europe China India NER (per cent) 87 86 96 73 84 92 94 94 84 86 93 72 94 95 92 96

factors. Enrolment rates collected from educational institutions are therefore higher than attendance rates captured by NSSO through household surveys. Information on attendance captures the true educational opportunity of students better than information on enrolment. Accordingly, the net attendance ratio (NAR) is considered as a measure of current attendance status.9 As in the case of enrolment, school attendance at the primary and upper primary level improved considerably over the years. In both rural and urban India, NAR at the primary and upper primary levels was considerably higher in 20078 as compared to 19956 (Table 6.8). In rural India there was a sharp fall in the gender gap in the NAR at both the primary and upper primary levels Despite males having higher NARs, gender disparity was much less in 20078 compared to 19956. In rural India, at the primary level, gender disparity decreased to three percentage points in 20078 as compared to 14 percentage points in 19956 (Table 6.8). In urban India, the gender gap continued to be minimal. The signicant improvement in NAR for females in rural areas is a regulation of the success of SSA. One of the important outcomes of greater participation in education is declining labour force participation rate and workforce participation rate. In rural-areas there has been a decline in female labour force participation rate by 7 percentage points (33.3 per cent in 20045 to 26.5 in 200910). While a similar decline could also be observed in case of workforce participation rate (32.7 per cent in 20045 to 26.1 per cent in 200910). This is a remarkable achievement for girls education in India. It may be noted here that gross enrolment ratio for girls increased from 34 per cent in 20034 to 41 per cent in 20078 at secondary and higher secondary level. High enrolment but lower attendance For the country as a whole, NAR during the year 20078 at the primary and upper primary levels was 82 and 60 per cent, respectively. Therefore, despite attaining a high NER (96 per cent) at the primary level, the NAR

Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO 2010. Note: Source for India is State Report Cards, 20078, NUEPA.

Table 6.7 Enrolment of Girls at Primary and Upper Primary Levels , 20078 (per cent)
Religious/Social Group Muslim OBC Source: DISE (2010). Primary 48.7 48.4 Upper Primary 49.4 46.7

while every person, who is attending an educational institution, is necessarily enrolled in that institution, it may so happen that a person, who is enrolled is not currently attending the institution (Government of India 2010). Surveys (for instance, PROBE 1999) have identied that even though children are enrolled in schools, they often do not attend school due to various socio-economic

9 As per NSSO, net attendance ratio is dened as the ratio of the number of persons in the ocial age group attending a particular standard of education to the total number of persons in the age group.

EDUCATION

189

Table 6.8 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary and Upper Primary Levels, 19956 and 20078 (per cent)
Rural 19956 Primary Level Males Females Upper-Primary Level Males Females 44.0 32.0 62.5 58.1 60.0 57.0 69.6 66.6 68.0 56.0 83.3 80.5 80.0 77.0 82.2 80.4 20078 Urban 19956 20078

Source: NSS 52nd round, Report No. 439 (for 19956), and calculated from NSS Database, 64th round (for 20078).

was much lower. Further, attendance at the upper primary level is much lower compared to the primary level.

NAR across social groups: Sharp decline in NAR for rural females from primary level to upper primary level
Among the social groups, NAR was lower for SCs and STs at both the primary and upper primary levels. There was a decline in NAR at the upper primary level as compared to the primary level, and this could be observed for all social groups in both rural and urban India. The decline was much sharper in rural India as compared to urban India, particularly for rural females, for whom NAR came down

from 80 per cent at the primary level to 58 per cent at the upper primary level (Tables 6.9 and 6.10). It was further observed that in all states, the gender disparity for females was generally greater in rural areas than urban areas, both at the primary and upper primary levels (Tables 6A.10 to 6A.13). NAR was lower among SCs and STs as compared to other social groups in the case of secondary and higher secondary education as well. In rural India, across social groups, NAR was the lowest for STs, at both secondary and higher secondary levels (Tables 6.11 and 6.12). In urban India, NAR for SCs was the lowest among social groups. Further, gender disparity in NAR was greater in rural India as compared to urban India, at both the secondary and higher secondary levels. In rural India, male NAR was higher than female NAR by 5 percentage points at both the secondary and higher secondary levels. In urban India on the other hand, male NAR was higher than female NAR by only 1 percentage point, at both the secondary and higher secondary levels. Overall, for all social groups, NAR was biased against females at all levels of education. This gender disparity was much more pronounced in rural areas. Further, NAR for SCs and STs was lower than other social groups, and the disparity across social groups intensied at higher levels of education. In other words, the declining trend in NAR at higher levels of education was sharper in the case of SCs and STs.

Table 6.9 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078 (per cent)
Rural Males By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 84.2 78.7 79.1 85.7 81.5 74.9 78.8 77.5 83.3 77.6 85.3 92.4 83.2 70.6 77.0 82.3 81.5 82.4 83.3 85.6 83.3 77.4 78.7 81.0 83.8 80.5 80.1 82.3 81.4 84.0 82.2 80.9 82.8 79.4 80.9 80.4 Females Males Urban Females

190 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6.10 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078
Rural Males By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 64.5 48.7 63.9 63.3 60.0 45.3 70.9 57.3 73.6 49.1 77.6 75.2 60.7 58.8 62.0 67.2 62.5 55.4 54.9 55.7 67.1 58.1 66.0 73.1 68.0 72.1 69.6 Females Males Urban

(per cent)

Females

60.3 72.5 63.3 72.3 66.6

70.7 50.8 71.6 78.5

Table 6.11 Net Attendance Ratio at Secondary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078
Rural Males By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 41.7 26.0 49.4 40.8 36.9 23.5 42.4 39.4 55.9 31.8 72.0 71.0 33.3 25.5 42.8 47.1 40.0 30.0 25.9 35.7 43.4 35.0 41.7 54.0 50.3 57.7 52.0 Females Males Urban

(per cent)

Females

45.4 38.8 49.9 54.3 51.0

56.3 32.1 46.4 38.6

NAR across Religious Communities: Lowest in the case of Muslims at all levels of education
Among all religious communities, Muslims had the lowest NAR at all levels of education, in both rural and urban India (Tables 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, and 6.12). In fact,

in rural India, low NAR among STs was comparable with that of the Muslims at the secondary and higher secondary levels. In urban India, NAR for Muslims was even lower than that for SCs and STs at all levels except at the higher secondary level, where they were similar.

EDUCATION

191

Table 6.12 Net Attendance Ratio at Higher Secondary Level, by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078
Rural Males By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 26.2 10.9 32.5 24.6 19.9 11.3 36.5 20.9 40.8 24.4 40.6 42.4 20.6 12.7 26.4 29.4 25.0 16.4 8.5 19.9 24.3 20.0 23.8 39.3 38.8 42.7 40.0 Females Males Urban

(per cent)

Females

24.5 35.5 36.5 44.9 39.0

42.0 25.8 61.0 41.7

In the case of Muslims, the sharpest decline in NAR was observed from the primary level to the upper primary level in rural areas. The decline was as high as 30 percentage points for both males and females in rural India. In urban India, this decline was in the range of 205 percentage points. This sharp decline at the upper primary level was, in fact, the starting point of the disparity in the NAR between Muslims and other religious communities. The government introduced the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan in March 2009, in order to enhance access to secondary education by removing all barriers gender, socio-economic, and disabilityand providing universal access to secondary education by 2017. Some of the features of this newly introduced scheme are the enhancement of infrastructural facilities (opening of 11,000 new secondary schools and construction of 80,000 additional classrooms) and improving the quality of education (for example, increasing the teacher pupil ratio to 1:30 by appointing 0.2 million additional teachers, and ensuring in-service training of teachers, focusing on Science, Mathematics, and English).

Attendance in Dierent Types of Institutions: Sharp increase in attendance at private unaided institutions
One of the important changes in the school education system in India during the past one-and-a-half decade has been the growing presence of private educational institutions. During the period 19956 to 20078, the proportion of students attending private unaided institutions increased by 8 percentage points at both the primary and upper primary levels (Table 6.13).10 The phenomenal rise of private unaided institutions is of concern since enrolment in them is biased against girls and lower castes, leaving girls, SCs, STs to mostly in government schools. This rise in the share of private unaided schools in total attendance across all types of schools can partly be explained by rising levels of disposable income, but also by the fact that government schools lack infrastructure, and are characterized by signicant teacher absenteeism and limited time-on-task by teachers even when they are present (see later discussions).

10

ASER (2011) noted that private school enrolment in rural India increased from 16 per cent in 2005 to 24 per cent in 2010.

192 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6.13 Distribution of Persons Attending Different Types of Educational Institutions, 19956 and 20078 (per cent)
Type of Institution Primary 19956 Government Local Body Private Aided Private Unaided All 69 9 10 12 100 20078 67 6 7 20 100 Upper Primary 19956 62 8 21 9 100 20078 65 5 12 17 100

Table 6.14 Out of School Children by Social Groups and Major Religious Community (6 to 17 years), 20078 (per cent)
Males By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians 15.5 26.4 8.7 15.3 20.2 31.5 10.7 20.9 17.7 28.8 9.7 17.7 21.0 21.7 16.6 12.7 16.9 25.0 28.4 22.2 16.3 21.8 22.8 24.8 19.2 14.3 19.2 Females Persons

Source: NSS Report Nos. 439 and 532.

Out of School Children: One-fth of the children in the age group 617 years are out of school
One of the important drawbacks of the school education system is the existence of a very large number of out of school children in the country.11 If we consider the age group 617 years, close to one-fth of the children have either never attended school or have attended school in the past but are currently not attending.12 In simple terms, these children can be considered as out of school children. Though the proportion of out of school children has come down from 29 per cent in 19992000 to one-fth in 20078, it poses a serious challenge to the success of SSA, which has universalization of elementary education as an important objective. Across social groups, the incidence of out of school children was the highest among STs especially among females (Table 6.14). Across religious communities, the problem of out of school children was most pronounced among Muslims (Table 6.14). Remarkably, the proportion of out of school children among Muslims was much higher in 20078 than SC, ST or OBC childrenfor girls as well as boys. Unless this dire situation is corrected very quickly, the prospects for greater upward mobility of Muslims remain bleak. We have already noted that the incidence of poverty among Muslims was one-third, which was much higher than for India as a whole (about 26 per cent). A critical explanatory factor is the high proportion of Muslim children who are out of school.

Sikhs

Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round.

For India as a whole, 19 per cent of the children in the age group 617 years are out of school. Across states, Bihar and Orissa has the highest incidence of out of school children in the country. In Bihar, more than one-third of the SC children in the age group 617 years are out of school (Table 6A.14). It may be noted here that Bihar alone accounted for 12 per cent of SCs in the country. Among STs, the highest proportion of out of school children is in Maharashtra, which accounted for 7 per cent of the STs in the country. At the other extreme, Kerala and Himachal Pradesh have the lowest proportion of out of school children in the age group of 617 years. Across religious communities, it has already been pointed out that Muslims have the highest proportion of out of school children in the country. One-third of Muslim females in the age group 617 years are identied as out of school children (Table 6A.15). In Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, more than 40 per cent of Muslim females in the age group 617 years are categorized as out of school children, which suggest that even the next generation of young Muslim women will

11 The estimate of out of school children is derived from the survey on Participation and Expenditure in Education (NSS 64th Round). It is derived by adding up the number of children who have never attended an educational institution and the number of children who have attended an educational institution in the past but are currently not attending. 12 In the calculation of NAR, the NSS 64th Round considered six years of age to correspond to grade one, and 17 years of age to correspond to grade 12.

EDUCATION

193

remain severely deprived educationally. Policymakers in these states urgently need to address this situation. As was observed in the case of literacy, regional concentration was noticeable in the case of out of school children as well. Six states, namely Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh, accounted for 64 per cent of out of school children in the country in the age group 617 years, while they accounted for 56 per cent of all children in this age group. Clearly, the SSA has its task cut out in these states. Financial constraint was an important reason for discontinuation Among the various reasons for discontinuation or dropping out, the three most important reasons identied in the survey (NSS 64th Round) are lack of interest on the part of parents, lack of interest on the part of children, and nancial constraints. These three factors together accounted for at least half of the cases of discontinuation or dropouts across all social groups and also among Hindus and Muslims in the case of religious communities (Table 6.15). By and large, nancial constraint was the most important factor for discontinuation/dropping out for all other social groups and religious communities.

It may be pointed out here that the levels of public expenditure in education are extremely low compared to incomes and needs, and it has rarely approached four per cent of GDP. So if public expenditure itself is low and there are 300 million people living below the poverty line, discontinuation due to nancial constraints will be a natural outcome.

Measures of Educational Progress Educational progress implies the rate at which children advance through dierent levels in the school education system. In order to measure the extent to which the school education system can retain children, ow rates of students can be measured using the cohort survival method, and more specically, the reconstructed cohort method.13 In very simple terms, cohort survival at the primary level (for instance) measures the proportion of children who on entering the rst grade together complete the primary level without repeating any grade. The three most important indicators for assessing the ow rate of students are promotion rate, repetition rate, and dropout rate.14 DISE uses the reconstructed cohort method to obtain average promotion, repetition and drop out rates.

Table 6.15 Major Reasons for Discontinuation/Dropping out 20078

Parents not interested in studies By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 16 18 10 9 20 27 20 22 14 12 14 20 16 20 16 13 26 17 20 20 14 14 14 14 Financial constraints

(per cent)
Child not interested in studies

For a detailed discussion on the reconstructed cohort method please refer to UNESCO (2009). The promotion rate is dened as the proportion of children (out of those enrolled) at any given grade of education who are promoted to the next grade at the end of the year. Repetition rate is dened as the proportion of students (out of those enrolled) who repeat a particular grade at the end of the year. Dropout rate at any particular grade of education is the ratio of children who did not complete the school year for that grade to the number of children who are enrolled at that grade.
14

13

194 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Promotion, Repetition, and Dropout Rate: Rajasthan had the lowest promotion rate at the primary level among the major States
For the country as a whole, the average promotion rate at the primary level in 20067 was 84.5 per cent. Among the major states, the promotion rate at the primary level in 20067 was the highest in Tamil Nadu (97.6 per cent). It may be noted that Tamil Nadu is one of the best performing states in ICDS. Early childhood development clearly has a positive impact on better learning outcomes in the state. As can be expected, Tamil Nadu had the lowest repetition and dropout rates in the country (DISE 2010). At the other extreme, Rajasthan (75.2 per cent) had the lowest promotion rates among the major states at the primary level. In Rajasthan, the low promotion rate at the primary level was accounted for by both a high repetition rate (9.4 per cent as against the national average of 6.1 per cent) and a high dropout rate (15.4 per cent as against the national average of 9.4 per cent) (Table 6A.16). Lack of pre-primary school training and child malnutrition were important determinants of learning deciency Despite considerable improvement over the years in there literacy rate, enrolment ratio, and attendance ratio, remains much to be achieved in terms of the learning ability of students at dierent levels of education. The foundation of learning ability is laid at the primary level, which in turn is a vital determinant of educational progress at subsequently higher levels of education. However, the learning ability of a very large proportion of children in India at the primary level was much below what was expected at that grade. For instance, in rural India in 2009, 47 per cent of the children in grade 5 were unable to read even a grade 2 level of text (ASER 2010). This proportion was actually higher than what it was (44 per cent) in the previous year. Incompatibility between reading ability of children and the grade in which they are enrolled remains a major concern in rural India, which in turn poses a serious challenge to imparting quality education in the country. One of the important determinants of deciency in learning ability is the lack of access to pre-primary school education. Though the ICDS has been in existence in this
15

country for over three decades, and though one of the six services to be delivered through this programme is preprimary school education, it has largely been ignored. The major concern of ICDS seems to be the provision of cooked meals or meeting the health/nutritional requirements of children. The Anganwadi workers do not have adequate training for imparting pre-primary school education to the children. Pre-primary school education, therefore, is the most neglected aspect of the six functions of the ICDS. Further, even though the coverage of ICDS has steadily increased since its inception in 1975, its eective coverage was barely one-fourth of all children under the age six until 2006 (NFHS 3). Although the coverage has improved remarkably since 2006, and the number of anganwadis has doubled since then, the quality of preschool education remains unchanged. National Family Health Survey 3 collected information on the existence of Anganwadi centres and on their utilization by children under the age of six. For the country as a whole, Anganwadi centres covered 72 per cent of the enumeration area in NFHS 3. Out of the total number of children under the age of six years residing in the enumeration area, 81 per cent were residing in areas covered by Anganwadi centres.15 However, only 28 per cent of these children had received any service from Anganwadi centres during the year preceding the year of survey (Table 6A.17). Across states, coverage of children under six years by Anganwadi centres was the highest in Orissa (60.5 per cent), while among the major states, it was the lowest in Bihar (8.8 per cent). It is true that the coverage of Anganwadi centres has increased signicantly since NFHS 3 in 20056, and that it is nearly universal (thanks to a Supreme Court judgment in December 2006). However, the fact remains that the recruitment of Anganwadi workers leaves much to be desired, and they remain too poorly trained in early childhood development techniques to provide the quality pre-school education that children of functionally illiterate parents require. The result is that a majority of children are poorly prepared to enter school and study there. Hence, dropout rates in the early classes of primary school remain very high, and learning levels remain poor even when children progress to higher grades. Dropout rates remain high and learning levels remain low for yet another fundamental reason. It was observed in

The number of Anganwadi centres in India increased from 706,872 in 20045 to 1,195,256 in 2010 (Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India).

EDUCATION

195

Chapter 4 (Right to Food and Nutrition) that malnutrition levels among the under three year olds are extremely high in India, and showed hardly any signs of reduction during the 1990s and the 2000s. One lifelong result of child malnutrition that sets in before the age of three years is that children do not develop the neural connections in their brain that would have developed had they been properly nourished (as discussed in Chapter 4). As a result, these children arrive in school ill-prepared to learn. This situation is not helped by the fact that many of them have functionally illiterate parents. Thus, the challenges to improving learning and reducing the drop out rate are not restricted to improving the training and motivation of teachers. The preparedness of poor children for learning must also be addressed through state action. Their learnability, both physical and mental, can be improved through improving the quality of early childhood interventions through ICDSbut for that ICDS itself needs reform (see Chapter 4 for this discussion). This situation is not helped by the relative neglect of pre-school education resulting from the faulty design of ICDS which sows the seeds of learning deciency in early childhood, a deciency which increases progressively. In addition to malnutrition and the lack of proper early childhood care which are responsible for low learning levels, the situation is often made worse by teacher incompetence. In rural Uttar Pradesh and Bihar during the year 20078, 80 per cent of the teachers in 160 sample schools admitted that they had problems with their students mathematics queries (Kingdon and Banerji 2009b). The study also noted that only 25 per cent of teachers in these sample schools could do a percentage problem at the grade 5 level of diculty.

years of schooling for the population has remained very low. Even though there has been some improvement in the mean years of schooling in 20078 as compared to 19992000, on an average, mean years of schooling in the country remained below the primary level (Table 6.16).16 Further, there was considerable dierence in mean years of schooling between rural and urban India.
Table 6.16 Mean Years of Schooling, 19992000 and 20078
Year 19992000 20078 Rural 2.7 3.5 Urban 5.5 6.2 Combined 3.4 4.2

Source: Calculated from NSS 55th and 64th rounds. Note: For population in the age group 7 years and above.

Across social groups, SCs and STs had lower mean years of schooling in both rural and urban India. Among major religious communities, Muslims had the lowest value for mean years of schooling in both rural and urban India (Table 6.17). This was not at all surprising given the fact that SCs, STs, and Muslims lagged behind the rest of the population in terms of several socio-economic indicators.
Table 6.17 Mean Years of Schooling by Social Groups and by Major Religious Communities, 20078
Rural By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community 2.9 2.6 3.5 4.6 3.5 4.6 5.2 5.6 7.3 6.2 3.2 2.8 3.9 5.7 4.2 Urban Combined

Mean Years of Schooling: Below primary level for the country as a whole
It has already been pointed out that in India close to one-fth of the children in the age group 617 years were out of school in 20078. The incidence of out of school children was particularly high among STs, SCs, and the Muslim population in the country. The high incidence of poverty, malnutrition, and lack of eective childhood care has all resulted in high dropout rates. Hence, the average
16

Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs

3.6 2.8 5.0 4.2

6.5 4.3 7.2 7.3

4.3 3.3 5.7 4.9

Source: Calculated from NSS 55th and 64th Rounds. Note: For population in the age group 7 years and above.

Mean years of schooling is derived from information on educational levels collected by NSSO through the employment and unemployment survey (for the year 19992000) and expenditure on education survey (for the year 20078). Educational level here refers to the highest level successfully completed. So, for instance, if the educational level for an individual was reported to be primary, it was assumed that the individual had completed ve years of schooling.

196 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

The ratio of mean years of schooling for SCs, STs, and Muslims with respect to the mean years of schooling for the country as a whole were 0.76, 0.67, and 0.78, respectively. The ratio in the case of Others was 1.35. The mean years of schooling for adults (15 years and above) in India was 5.1 years in 2007, which was lower than that of China (6.4 years). However, mean years of schooling for adults in India was higher than that of Pakistan (3.9 years), Burma (2.8 years), Bangladesh (2.6 years), and Nepal (2.4 years).17 Signicant ruralurban disparity in mean years of schooling In addition to inter-caste and inter-religion dierences in mean years of schooling in rural and urban India, there were considerable dierences within a particular caste or religion between rural and urban India. For instance, among STs, mean years of schooling in urban India was twice that in rural India. This ruralurban divide highlighted the huge disparity between rural and urban India in terms of the availability of educational infrastructure, in particular, physical infrastructure. The gender disparity was very evident in mean years of schooling across all socio-religious groups in both rural and urban India. Mean years of schooling for males was higher than that of females as is evident from Figures 6.2 and 6.3. Across social groups, mean years of schooling
9 8

was the lowest for ST females in rural India, and highest for males belonging to the Others social group in urban India. Muslim females residing in rural India had the lowest value for mean years of schooling across religious communities.
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Number of Classrooms: One classroom per class norm as per RTE will remain a major challenge
There are various indicators related to the number of classrooms to measure the quality of infrastructure available for the education system. Three such commonly used indicators have been used to examine the infrastructure issue of education. They are Average Number of Classrooms, Average StudentClassroom Ratio, and Single Classroom Schools. In 20078, the average number of classrooms for all schools in India was only 4.3. The average number of classrooms was 7.2 for private schools and 3.6 for government schools (DISE 2010). State-wise analysis conrms the gloomy situation in terms of the average number of classrooms in government schools across all states except Delhi, Kerala, and some UTs (Table 6A.28). The situation in some backward states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand is really distressing and requires immediate attention (Table 6A.18).

Mean Years of Schooling

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Male Rural ST SC Female Male Urban OBC Others All Female Male Female Combined

Figure 6.2 Mean Years of Schooling by Social Groups, 20078 for Population Aged 7 Years and Above
17

UNESCO (2010).

EDUCATION

197

8.0 7.0

Mean Years of Schooling

6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Male Rural Hindu Female Male Urban Muslim Christian Sikh Female Male Female Combined 8

Figure 6.3 Mean Years of Schooling by Religious Communities, 20078 for Population Aged 7 Years and Above

The indicator Average StudentClassroom Ratio (SCR) gives an idea as to how many students there are, on an average, in a classroom. According to DISE (2010), the average number of students in a classroom for the country as a whole was 35 in 20078. This ratio was even higher for primary classes. State-wise gures indicate high variation across states. Some states like Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, and some northeastern states have a low studentclassroom ratio. On the other hand, states like Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal have very high student-classroom ratios, with 97, 60 and 51 students per classroom respectively (DISE 2010). Nine per cent of schools in India were one-classroom schools against the norm of one classroom-one class for all schools There are still many areas where only one-classroom schools exist. Around 9 per cent of schools in India are one-classroom schools (Table 6A.19) while 23 per cent of schools had only two classrooms in 20078. In this regard the state of primary schools is even worse than upper primary schools. Close to half of all primary schools in India were run either in one or two classroom buildings (DISE 2010). The RTE Act 2009 (guaranteeing all 614 year olds the right to full elementary schooling up to class 8) (Box 6.2) aims to achieve one classroom per class (Box 6.2), but it seems that even at the primary level we are very far from that goal. The number of primary schools

having either two or less than two classrooms is quite high in some of the states, for instance, 86 per cent for Assam, 73 per cent for Goa, 66 per cent for Karnataka, and

Box 6.2 Right to Education

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act was passed in the Indian Parliament in 2009, and came into force from 1 April 2010. It accords the right to education the same legal status as the right to life, as provided by Article 21A of the Indian Constitution. Not only does this Act provide for free and compulsory education to all children in the age group 614 years, it is also seen as a tool to reduce social inequality in terms of educational attainment. The Act stipulates a pupilteacher ratio of 30 for every school at the primary level, and 35 at the upper primary level. In addition, the Act also has provision for improvements in school infrastructure (Government of India 2009b: 1213). As per the norms regarding school infrastructure, according to the Act it is necessary that there should be at least one classroom for every teacher, the school building should have separate toilet facilities for boys and girls, safe drinking water facilities should be in place, there should be a separate kitchen to cook the mid-day meals, and the school should have playgrounds and boundary walls. ASER (2010) found that over 60 per cent of the 13,000 schools visited satised the infrastructure norms specied by RTE. However, teacher shortage remains an important bottleneck even in these schools.

198 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

60 per cent for Maharashtra. The situation was slightly better for private schools (Table 6A.19).

Conditions of Classrooms: 30 per cent of primary schools required repairs

In addition to the number of rooms, the quality of the existing classrooms remained a major concern. Badly ventilated classrooms, leaking roofs, poor sanitation, and lack of materials were also signicant barriers to eective learning in many schools. In 20078, more than a quarter of the schools in India needed some kind of repaireither major or minor. In the case of primary schools, almost 30 per cent required repairs. The conditions are even worse in some states like Bihar, Orissa, and almost all the north-eastern states, where more than half to two-thirds of schools needed immediate repair. However, the developed states do not face this problem to the same extent (DISE 2010).

Water and Sanitation in Schools: Half of the schools in India did not have separate toilets for girls
Lack of adequate sources of drinking water and poor sanitation facilities (particularly for girls) were the other major concerns for school infrastructure. As far as drinking water facilities are concerned, almost 87 per cent schools have drinking water facilities. However, the north-eastern states and hilly states have comparatively low coverage of drinking water facilities (Table 6A.20). In a country like India, where girls have more social restrictions, the lack of separate toilets for girls makes parents hesitate to send their daughters to school, particularly beyond the primary classes. Only half of the schools in India have separate toilet facilities for girls. The situation was alarming in states like Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and Meghalaya; where only 10 per cent of schools had toilet facilities for girls. Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Orissa, Tripura, and West Bengal also had a lower proportion of schools with girls toilet facilities (Table 6A.20).

some states. For instance, only 3 per cent of schools in Bihar, 6.5 per cent in Jharkhand and 7 per cent in Assam had electricity connections. Only a few states and UTs like Delhi, Goa, Haryana, and Chandigarh had electricity connection in more than 90 per cent of the schools (Table 6A.20). Education in Information Technology and computer sciences can open up opportunities for employment, but in India only one out of seven schools has computer facilities. Given the fact that only 3 per cent of schools in Bihar had electricity connections, it was not surprising that less than 1 per cent of its schools had computer facilities (Table 6A.20). As per the National Building Code of India, 1983 (Clause 12.21), building a ramp for the use of the physically challenged is a special requirement for public buildings. Yet, till 20078 only one-third of the schools in India had ramps. Students with disabilities are mostly marginalized by the system and society. Getting such children into school is just the rst step. The north-eastern states are severely lacking in this regard (DISE 2010). Provision of other infrastructural facilities like playgrounds in schools is necessary for the complete development of the child. Available data for 20078 shows that half the schools in India did not have playgrounds. In some states like Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Orissa, and West Bengal, two-thirds to threefourths of schools lacked playgrounds (DISE 2010).
INDICATORS RELATED TO TEACHERS

To a very large extent, what children learn from schools is what teachers teach them. The human resource development of a nation depends on the quality of its teachers. Along with long term vision, a sucient supply of motivated teachers is crucial for the success of educational policies and reforms (UNESCO 2005). The distinction between a good school and a bad school is, to a very large extent, dependent on the commitment and initiative of the teachers. Average number of teachers much lower in rural India In India, out of 5.63 million school teachers in 20078 (DISE 2010), primary schools only accounted for 2.42 million (43.4 per cent) of school teacherswhich is a problem because 2.8 teacher per rural primary school in India means that though the number of classes in a primary school are ve, at least 2.2 teachers per school are

Electricity, Computers, Ramp and Playgrounds: All woefully inadequate

Only one-third of the schools in India had access to electricity in 20078. The situation was particularly bad in

EDUCATION

199

lacking. The number of teachers per school in urban India was twice that in rural India (Table 6.18)and nearly comparable to the numbers required as per the norm of one teacher per class. For India as a whole, the average number of teachers per school in 20078 was 4.5. In the school education system in India, there are two broad categories of teachers, namely, regular teachers and para-teachers. Regular teachers are permanent teachers, and are not appointed on a contractual basis. Parateachers on the other hand are appointed on a contractual basis, mostly by school governing bodiesin other words there are no rigorous selection criteria.18 The salaries of the para-teachers are usually much lower than that of regular teachers.

More than 10 per cent of teachers in India were para-teachers In 20078, for the country as a whole, out of 5.63 million school teachers, 0.58 million (10.5 per cent) were para-teachers. Para-teachers were much more predominant in the rural areas as compared to the urban areas and the proportion of para-teachers was much higher at the primary level than at other levels of school education (Table 6.19). The phenomenon of para-teachers emerged partly as a response to the shortage of teachers that had resulted in the 1990s with state governments lacking funds to hire teachers at regular salaries and also because regular teachers would avoid a rural school posting.

Table 6.18 Distribution of Teachers, by Type of School, 20078

Type of School Percentage of Teachers Primary Only Primary with Upper Primary Primary with Upper Primary & Secondary/Higher Secondary Upper Primary Only Upper Primary with Secondary/Higher Secondary All Levels Source: DISE (2010). 43.4 27.5 7.3 9.1 11.9 100.0 Rural 2.8 6.6 9.7 4.0 9.2 4.0 Number of Teachers Per School Urban 4.8 8.9 14.4 7.9 13.2 7.9

(per cent)

Rural + Urban 3.0 7.1 11.5 4.4 10.2 4.5

Table 6.19 Proportion of Para-Teachers to Total Teachers, 20078

Type of School Primary Only Primary with Upper Primary Primary with Upper Primary & Secondary/Higher Secondary Upper Primary Only Upper Primary with Secondary/Higher Secondary All Levels Source: DISE (2010). Rural 17.7 8.9 3.4 3.3 10.1 12.4 Urban 5.0 2.9 1.9 1.6 4.8 3.6

(per cent)
Rural + Urban 15.9 7.4 2.7 3.0 8.5 10.5

Appointment of para-teachers has been a matter of debate in India primarily on two grounds: rst, its impact on pupilteacher ratio, which the proponents argue has come down as a result of the appointment of para-teachers; and second, its impact on the quality of education, which the detractors argue has deteriorated since the professional qualications of para-teachers are lower than that of regular teachers (Kingdon and Sipahimalani 2010).

18

200 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Poorer states more dependent on para-teachers In certain states, the school education system was dependent on para-teachers to a considerable extent. In Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and Assam the proportion of schools which were entirely dependent on para-teachers in the year 20078 were 12.7 per cent, 39.1 per cent, and 18.6 per cent, respectively (DISE 2010). During the year 20067, seven states, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 68 per cent of all para-teachers in the country. It was also observed that the presence of para-teachers was negligible in the south Indian states of Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu which had relatively stable child population and less pressure to hire new teachers (Mehta 2008). In terms of the qualications of teachers, the DISE data indicated that there was not much of dierence between the academic qualications of regular teachers and para-teachers.19 However, there were considerable dierences in terms of professional qualications which were important for school teaching. In particular, the proportion of teachers with Bachelor of Education (BEd) or equivalent degrees was much lower for para-teachers as compared to regular teachers (Table 6.20). This dierence in professional qualications could be seen in both rural and urban India. Pupilteacher ratio at primary level even higher than many least developed regions of the world Teachers are the single most important education resource in any country (UNESCO 2010). In India, the shortage of teachers remains a serious concern. Various studies (cited in UNESCO 2010) found evidence of the fact that low pupilteacher ratio was usually associated

with higher learning outcomes. For the country as a whole, the pupilteacher ratio at the primary level was 34 in the year 2007 was 4.7. Except for South and West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa, all other regions of the world had a lower pupilteacher ratio than India (Table 6.21). In particular, the pupilteacher ratio at the primary level in India was almost two-and-a-half times that of China. Recognizing the huge scarcity of teachers at various levels, 1.02 million school teachers have been recruited under SSA between its inception in 2002 and December 2010. It may be mentioned here that as per RTE Act, 2009, every school in India should have a pupilteacher ratio not more than 30:1 at the primary level. Across states at the primary level, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands had a low pupilteacher ratio (below 20). At the other extreme, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Bihar, Punjab, and Haryana had a very high pupilteacher ratio (Table 6A.21). The pupil-teacher ratio at the upper primary level was lower than that at the primary level for a majority of the states. However the pupilteacher ratio was particularly high at upper primary level in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Tamil Nadu. Teacher absenteeism higher than many other developing countries In addition to the problem of teacher shortages, there is problem of teacher absenteeism which aggravates the situation. Compared to other developing countries, the problem of teacher absenteeism is more acute in India. According to Rogers and Vegas (2009), 25 per cent of teachers were missing during surprise visits to schools in India. The proportion of absent teachers was much lower for other developing countries like Peru, Bangladesh and Indonesia at 11, 16, and 19 per cent, respectively. In In(per cent)
Rural + Urban Females 37.7 25.6 Males 33.0 16.4 Females 31.3 14.0

Table 6.20 Proportion of Teachers with BEd or Equivalent Degree, 20078

Type of Teacher Males Regular Teachers Para-Teachers Source: DISE 2010. 31.7 16.0 Rural Females 27.7 12.6 Males 41.4 25.3 Urban

19 Kingdon and Sipahimalani (2010) observed that high graduate unemployment (which encouraged graduates to apply for para-teacher positions) resulted in academic qualications of para-teachers being at least at par with regular teachers.

EDUCATION

201

Table 6.21 PupilTeacher Ratio at Primary Level , 2007

Region/Country Arab States Central and Eastern Europe Central Asia East and the Pacific Caribbean Latin America North America and West Africa South and West Asia Sub-Saharan Africa World China India PupilTeacher Ratio 21 18 18 19 21 24 14 39 44 25 18 47*

Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2010. Note: *Statistics of School Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 20078, Government of India.

dia, teacher absenteeism was lower among para-teachers than among regular teachers (Kingdon and Banerji 2009a; Sankar 2008). Lower teacher absenteeism among parateachers was primarily on account of the insecure nature of contracts, which made para-teachers more cautious in absenting themselves. Teacher absenteeism reduces the quality of schooling for children. The adverse impact is much more pronounced in rural, remote, and poor areas. Fewer female teachers in rural areas is an important factor behind lower school attendance among females The presence of female teachers in schools is an inducement for the education of the girl child, and hence

is an important factor in reducing gender disparity in educational attainment. Female teachers are often considered as role models for girls and are likely to have a positive impact on female enrolment (PROBE 1999). The PROBE survey also revealed that in rural areas, female teachers have the potential to play a lead role in showcasing the fact that education helps in improving the quality of life for girls. Many parents prefer their daughters be taught by female teachers (UNESCO 2010). It was also observed that the absence of female teachers often makes the school environment gender biased. The Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO 2006) notes that female teachers were fewest in countries where overall enrolment levels were the lowest and gender disparities in favour of boys were the highest. The proportion of female teachers in the country as a whole was 43 per cent in 20078. The proportion of female teachers in rural India was much lower than that in urban India (Table 6.22). Considering all levels of school education, the proportion of female teachers in urban India was 1.8 times that in rural India. At the primary level, the proportion of female teachers in India was one of the lowest in the world, even lower than that in Sub-Saharan Africa (where female teachers constituted 44 per cent of teachers at the primary level). Considering all levels of education across the states, Tripura, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Assam had the lowest proportion of female teachers, while Chandigarh had the highest proportion of female teachers (Table 6A.22). At the primary level less than one-third of the teachers were female in Tripura, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh. These are also the states with the highest dropout rates for girls and also relatively lower enrolment/attendance rates for girls than boys.
(per cent)
Rural + Urban 42.3 45.1 55.8 35.4 37.9 42.7

Table 6.22 Proportion of Female Teachers in School Education, 20078

Type of School Primary Only Primary with Upper Primary Primary with Upper Primary & Secondary/Higher Secondary Upper Primary Only Upper Primary with Secondary/Higher Secondary All Levels Source: DISE (2010). Rural 37.7 38.3 43.9 29.8 30.9 36.5 Urban 69.6 66.6 68.6 62.5 53.6 65.2

202 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Under-representation of SC teachers adversely aected participation of SC students in the education system Not only was the proportion of male teachers higher than that of female teachers, the highest proportion of teachers belonged to the Others social group (44.6 per cent). At the all India level, the proportion of teachers belonging to SC, ST, and OBC social groups were 12, 9, and 33 per cent, respectively (Table 6A.23). The proportion of teachers belonging to SCs and OBCs was lower than their share in the total population. It may be recalled that the share of SCs in the total population was 20 per cent and that of OBCs was 42.3 per cent (NSS 64th Round). In other words, it appears from this data that these social groups are under-represented among the teachers of the country. However, in case of the STs, the share of teachers is not very dierent from the share of STs (8.6 per cent) in the total population. Across states, the proportion of SCs among teachers was much lower than the share of the SC population in the states. For instance, in Punjab, SCs constituted 37 per cent of the population of the state, but SC teachers constituted only 20 per cent of all the teachers in the state. In Uttar Pradesh, SCs constituted one-fourth of the states population, while SC teachers comprised 14 per cent of all teachers in the state. In the case of STs, the dierence between the population share and their share among teachers within a state was comparatively much less. This was primarily due to the fact that STs constituted the bulk of the population in the north-eastern states, and their share among the teachers in the respective states was also high. It may be pointed out here that STs are in the mainstream of society in the north-eastern states, which is not the case in central and eastern India. In Chhattisgarh, for instance, STs constituted 38 per cent of the states population, while the share of ST teachers in the state was only 29 per cent. Due to their poor economic condition, SC/ST students mostly attended government schools where the teachers are mostly from higher castes. The under-representation of teachers belonging to SCs and STs, created a social distance between teachers and students. The PROBE (1999) survey noted that the social distance was one of the reasons why many teachers had limited commitment towards the educational advancement of their students.

In addition to the social distance, there was considerable economic distance between the teachers and their pupils. Kingdon (2010) calculated the ratio of the teachers salary and per capita state GDP for nine states based on the NSS Employment and Unemployment Surveys for the year 20045 and the per capita state GDP gures.20 The ratio for the nine states combined was 5.1, implying that the teachers salary on an average was ve times the per capita GDP for these states. So the distance between the teachers and the pupils was both social and economic.
EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION

Investment in education has an impact on all types of human development outcomes. In chapter one we have shown that interventions in dierent social sectors complement each other, and that any intervention in one sector is enhanced by investment in another. Cross country experience clearly revealed that countries for which expenditure on primary education as a proportion of per capita income was higher, attained higher achievements in education (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). Further, high achieving countries spent relatively more on basic education as compared to higher education.

Public Expenditure on Education: Continued low public expenditure on education

Back in 1966, the Kothari Commission on education emphasised the importance of education in the social and economic development of the country. The Commission argued strongly in favour of large investment in education, and as cited in Tilak (2007b), the Kothari Commission noted that we should accord the highest priority to education and allocate the largest proportion of GNP possible to it. The Commission suggested that 6 per cent of the national income should be spent on education (i.e., what OECD countries spend). It was felt that a large investment in education was necessary in order to ensure equity in educational attainment between dierent socio-economic groups in the country. The objective of achieving a public expenditure of six per cent of national income on education has remained a distant dream in this country. In fact, the total public expenditure by the Central Government and state government on education has not crossed the 4 per cent mark during the rst decade

20 The states included in this study were Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.

EDUCATION

203

of the 21st century (Table 6.23). Education deserves to be given a much higher priority by both state and central governments.
Table 6.23 Public Expenditure on Education by Central and State Governments, 20001 to 20078 (per cent)
Year 20001 20012 20023 20034 20045 20056 20067 20078 Public Expenditure on Education as Percentage of GDP 3.9 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.4

Source: Compiled by Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, from Indian Public Finance Statistics, 20078 and various issues of Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education.

The Kothari Commissions recommendation that 6 per cent of national/state income be spent on education is not being followed by majority of states in India. While states such as Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Manipur had crossed this recommended benchmark with 10.2 per cent, 9.8 per cent, 9.1 per cent, 7.1 per cent, and 6.4 per cent, respectively, of their total state Domestic Product (SDP) being spent on education, several major states are not spending even 2 per cent of their SDP on education. For instance, Maharashtra

spent only 1.3 per cent of its SDP on education, while Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and Goa spent only 1.4 to 2.0 per cent of their total SDP on education in 20078 (Table 6A.24). Evidence from African countries like Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, and Botswana clearly show that school enrolment jumped several times as a result of measures like eliminating school fees, providing free lunches, and providing free school uniforms (Mehrotra and Delamonica 2007). When compared with the rest of the world, India was counted among the countries which spent the least on education. During the year 2007, public expenditure on education in India was 3.2 per cent of GNP, similar to that of Central Asia, which had the lowest percentage of GNP spent on education in the world (Table 6.24); however, Central Asian states have already achieved a relatively high level of secondary enrolment, while India is still to universalize elementary education. It was noteworthy that even Sub-Saharan Africa spent a higher proportion of its GNP on education. It may be noted here that East Asia achieved universalization of primary education much earlierin the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, the demographic transition was faster in these countries and the population growth rate was lower (Mehrotra and Jolly 2000). This in turn resulted in a decline in child population, and therefore, public expenditure on education was not high. In India, however, the child cohort is much larger and this makes a higher proportion of GDP on education a necessary condition for overall human development. The Kothari Commission also suggested sequencing of priorities in investment in the education sector, with

Table 6.24 Total Public Expenditure on Education as Percentage of GNP for Major Regions of the World, 2007
Region Arab States (4.0) Central and Eastern Europe (5.1) Central Asia (3.2) East Asia and the Pacific (3.6) Latin America and the Caribbean (4.8) North America and Western Europe (5.5) South and West Asia (3.8) Sub-Saharan Africa (4.5) Highest Djibouti (7.8) Republic of Maldova (7.3) Kyrgyzstan (5.4) Marshall Islands (9.5) Cuba (13.6) Denmark (8.2) Maldives (8.3) Lesotho (11.0) Lowest

(per cent)

United Arab Emirates (1.6) Romania (3.6) Georgia (2.6) Cambodia (1.7) Bermuda (1.2) Andorra (2.6) Bangladesh (2.4) Central African Republic (1.3)

Source: EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2010. Note: Figures in the brackets implies public expenditure on education as per cent of GNP.

204 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

more emphasis on school education at the beginning. With advancement in industrialization, a larger proportion of expenditure on education was to be devoted to higher education and research. However, it must be emphasized that the Commission was not in favour of increasing expenditure on primary education at the cost of higher education, and instead emphasized a balanced growth of education. Tilak (2007a) observed that the Commissions emphasis on primary education was based on the grounds of social justice, while the logic of giving due importance to higher education was premised on developmental programmes. Although elementary education has been receiving a higher share of public expenditure as compared to secondary education and higher education, public expenditure on elementary education as a percentage of GDP has remained almost stagnant over the years, particularly from 19901 onwards (Table 6.25).

Out-of-Pocket Expenditure on Education Out-of-pocket expenditure on education includes expenditure on dierent kinds of fees, purchase of stationery and books, expenses on conveyance, private coaching, and the like. The 64th Round of NSS (Participation and Expenditure on Education in India, 20078) collected information on private expenditure on education for persons in the age group 529 years who are currently attending educational institutions. For the country as a whole, 98 per cent of students in the age group 529 years received education through general courses, while technical and vocational education constituted the rest.21 Therefore, the analysis in this sub-section will focus on private expenditure on general education only.

For the country as a whole, during 20078, the average annual expenditure on general education for currently attending students in the age group 529 years was Rs 2,461, which was 2.7 times that in 19956.22 Across states, private expenditure on general education per student was the highest in Chandigarh followed by Delhi, while it was the lowest in the case of Lakshadweep and Chhattisgarh. Across social groups private expenditure on general education per student was the lowest for STsone-third that of Others in 20078. The dierence was the greatest in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. In Chhattisgarh, the average annual private expenditure per student in general education for Others was seven times that for STs, while in Madhya Pradesh it was six times (Table 6A.25). Across religious communities, average annual private expenditure per student in general education was the lowest for Muslims (Table 6A.26). Among various components of private expenditure, fees and purchase of books and stationery together accounted for 65 per cent of the total private expenditure in rural areas, while in urban areas they constituted three-fourths of the total private expenditure on education.

Out-of-Pocket Expenditure on Higher Education Higher education too requires greater public investment for ensuring greater participation from among the economically deprived socio-religious communities. For the present purpose, higher education is considered to be all diploma and certicate courses at the graduate level and

Table 6.25 Public Expenditure on Education as a Proportion of GDP

Level of Education Elementary Education Secondary Education Higher Education All three combined 19812 1.1 0.8 0.4 2.3 19901 1.6 1.1 0.4 3.1 19992000 1.6 0.9 0.5 3.0 20012 1.7 1.0 0.4 3.1 20034 1.3 0.8 0.3 2.4 20045 1.4 0.8 0.3 2.5 20056 1.6 0.9 0.7 3.2 20067 1.7 0.9 0.7 3.3 20078 (BE) 1.7 0.9 0.7 3.3

Source: Compiled by Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability, from Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education, various issues.
21 According to NSS 64th Round, general courses included school education, and university education at graduate and post-graduate level. Technical education included courses involving hands-on training in addition to theoretical classes (engineering, medicine etc.). Vocational education covered courses imparting training in specic elds through signicant hands-on exercises for acquiring necessary skills in order to create employment opportunity. 22 NSS Report No. 532.

EDUCATION

205

above. As per the NSS 64th Round, such courses include the following: Diploma or certicate courses in agriculture, engineering, medicine, crafts, and other such subjects; Graduate level degree courses in agriculture, engineering, medicine, crafts, and other such subjects; and Post-graduate and above degree courses in agriculture, engineering, medicine, crafts, and other such subjects. High out-of-pocket expenditure in private unaided institutions In India, the above mentioned courses are oered by dierent types of institutions, namely government institutions, local body institutions, private aided institutions, and private unaided institutions. The private unaided institutions are the most expensive, while government institutions are the least expensive. The average annual expenditure per student in higher education in private unaided institutions was more than thrice that in government institutions (Table 6.25). This variation in average annual out-of-pocket expenditure was considerable for all social groups and religious communities. In the case of social groups, the average annual expenditure per student in higher education was the lowest in the case of SCs and STs, while across religious communities Muslims had the lowest average

annual expenditure per student in higher education (Table 6.26). Among all social groups and religious communities, the average annual expenditure per student in higher education was the highest for Christians. This was primarily because of the fact that a very large proportion of Christians in higher education were enrolled in private unaided institutions (Table 6.26), which, as already mentioned, were much more expensive than other types of institutions. Further, it may be noted that the majority of SC and ST students were enrolled in government institutions, which was one of the reasons for the lower average annual expenditure per student in higher education (Table 6.27). High cost was a deterrent to educational attainment for the economically disadvantaged (STs, SCs, and Muslims) The high cost associated with higher education was an important deterrent to participation in higher education. This was particularly true for the SCs, STs, and Muslims, who were characterized by high incidence of poverty. The participation of STs in higher education was the lowest among all social groups followed by SCs, while Muslims had the least participation among major religious communities (Table 6.28). As compared to the Others social group, the participation of SCs, STs, and OBCs in higher education was less

Table 6.26 Out-of-Pocket Expenditure Per Student (529 Years) in Higher Education, by Social Groups and Religious Communities, 20078
Government By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 8531 7131 8244 19631 9148 5237 13394 15600 11673 12211 23004 27875 20598 42723 31681 14561 11277 23723 22268 5376 6744 7668 10526 8650 2468 1496 5118 14785 9378 11264 6406 15521 16832 15247 19390 24953 20964 36091 28322 8988 9896 13148 17898 14710 Local Body Private Aided Private Un-Aided

(Rs)
All Types of Institutions

Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round.

206 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6.27 Distribution of Students (529 years) by Social Groups and Major Religious Communities, 20078
Government By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs 48.1 48.4 27.0 58.7 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 30.3 29.8 31.2 27.9 20.3 21.3 41.3 12.9 53.4 58.4 43.4 48.6 47.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 33.0 22.5 32.2 28.6 30.3 12.7 17.9 23.1 21.6 20.8 Local Body Private Aided Private Un-Aided

(per cent)
All Types of Institutions

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round.

Table 6.28 Participation in Higher Education by Social Groups and by Major Religious Communities, 20078 (per cent)
Per cent of Students By Social Group Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups By Major Religious Community Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Source: Calculated from NSS Database 64th Round. 5.8 3.5 8.5 5.8 3.9 2.4 4.7 8.9 5.6

of poverty among SCs, STs, and Muslims, was therefore higher than other social groups. High incidence of poverty and low participation in higher education feed on each other. This vicious cycle can only be broken by establishing publicly funded institutions of higher education which can ensure greater participation from among the economically disadvantaged communities.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

than half, one-fourth, and half respectively. In the case of Muslims, the participation in higher education was only 60 per cent that of Hindus (calculated from Table 6.28). Clearly, lower participation in higher education in the case of SCs, STs, and Muslims adversely aected their employability in terms of quality of jobs. Economic vulnerability, measured in terms of the higher incidence

Despite making considerable progress during the last six decades, much remains to be achieved in the eld of education. In line with the main theme of this report, the analysis presented in this chapter covers social groups and religious communities, in both rural and urban India. The problem of illiteracy still looms large in India even six decades after Independence. Despite considerable improvement India is home to one-third of the worlds illiterates. The incidence of illiteracy for the country as a whole was 30 per cent in 20078, and according to Census 2011, it was 26 per cent. The problem of illiteracy was particularly acute in rural India, especially among rural females, 43 per cent of whom were illiterate in 20078. Across social groups and religious communities, the problem of illiteracy was much more acute among SCs, STs, and Muslims. More than half of the illiterates in the country were accounted for by SCs (25per cent), STs (12per cent), and Muslims (14per cent). In addition to the

EDUCATION

207

diversity of locations (rural and urban), the gender gap, and disparities across socio-religious groups, an important feature of literacy in India was the concentration of illiterates within specic states. Of all states, Rajasthan had one of the highest concentrations of illiterates among the STs of the country, while Bihar had one of the highest concentrations of illiterates among Muslims and SCs of the country. Among Muslims, 58 per cent of the illiterates were concentrated in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal, which together accounted for 46 per cent of the Muslim population. Even though GER and NER improved over the years, the declining enrolment ratio at successively higher levels of education remained a major concern for all the states. Similarly, a declining NAR at the upper primary level as compared to the primary level was observed for all social groups and religious communities, across all the states in India. There was considerable dierence between enrolment rate and attendance rate. At the primary level, even though NER was at par with international standards, NAR was considerably lower than NER. Lower cohort survival rate (only 72 per cent at the primary level), and the existence of a fairly high proportion of out of school children suggests that quality issues remained a major concern in the school education system. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar together accounted for 37 per cent of out of school children in the country, while they accounted for 29 per cent of all children in the age group of 617 years. Financial constraint was the single most important limitation responsible for discontinuing education/dropping out. The persistence of a considerable degree of discontinuation/dropout particularly at higher levels of education has resulted in an extremely low value of mean years schooling in the country, which was below the primary level during 20078. The discussion in this chapter compels us to rethink the prevailing circumstances of physical infrastructure within the education system in India. The indicators related to classrooms present a gloomy picture in terms of number of classrooms, condition of classrooms, sanitation facilities, and other infrastructure related indicators, which were far short of the RTE Acts guidelines. A quarter of the existing classrooms needed either minor or major repairs. Only half of the schools in India had separate girls toilets. Only one-third of the schools had access to electricity. The situation in some states was even more pitiable. For example, only 3 per cent of the schools in Bihar had

access to electricity, and less than 1 per cent had computer facilities. The shortage of trained teachers remained a major barrier to achieving the goal of Education for All, especially among marginalized groups. Around 10 per cent of all schools in India were single-teacher schools. Primary schools were most aected by teacher shortage. In India, the pupilteacher ratio at the primary level was 47, higher than that in Sub-Saharan Africa (44). The pupilteacher ratio in China was 18, while for the world as a whole it was 25 (UNESCO 2010). It may be mentioned here that as per RTE norms, the pupilteacher ratio at the primary level should not be greater than 30 for all schools. Further, one out of every seven primary schools was a single-teacher school. The appointment of para-teachers was seen as a way out of the problem of teacher shortage. In certain states, the dependence on para-teachers was extremely high. For instance, in Jharkhand, 39 per cent schools were entirely dependent on para-teachers. Given the dierences in professional training between teachers and para-teachers, para-teachers can only be a part-time solution to the problem of teacher shortage. Revamping the school education system with the objective of universalizing elementary education, and at the same time imparting quality education to the children, necessitates sucient public investment, particularly at the elementary level. However, for the last several years public expenditure on education has remained at a little over 3 per cent of GDP. Clearly, there is a case for manifold increase in public investment in elementary education in India. However, it must be noted that public expenditure is needed not only at the elementary level, but at higher levels as well to ensure greater participation from among the economically deprived socio-religious communities. In India, attendance in private unaided institutions increased signicantly, and out of pocket expenditure was higher in such institutions. The high cost acted as a deterrent to participation in higher education particularly for SCs, STs, and Muslims, for whom the incidence of poverty was higher. The participation of STs in higher education was the lowest among all social groups followed by SCs, while Muslims had the least participation among major religious communities. Greater public investment in higher education can contribute to ending the vicious cycle of poverty and lack of education (both of which feed on each other) which particularly aects a signicant proportion of the socially disadvantaged population of this country.

7
Supporting Human Development
Housing, Electricity, Telephony, and Roads
INTRODUCTION
Table 7.1 Index of Social and Economic Infrastructure
States Punjab Kerala Tamil Nadu Haryana Gujarat Maharashtra West Bengal Karnataka Andhra Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Bihar Orissa Assam Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Index of Infrastructure 187.5 178.7 149.1 137.5 124.3 112.8 111.3 104.9 103.3 101.2 81.3 81.0 77.7 76.8 75.9 Head Count Ratio of poverty 9.2 13.3 22.9 13.6 19.1 29.6 28.6 20.9 11.2 33.4 42.1 46.8 22.3 36.9 18.7

Poverty alleviation and human well-being are important goals in themselves, and should not be merely by-products of economic growth. But neither human well-being nor economic growth is possible only through the provision of economic infrastructure. It is social infrastructurehealth and educationalong with support infrastructure such as shelter, sanitation, power, telephony, and road connectivity that can give economic growth a human face. By improving the quality of human resources and enhancing capability, these indicators act as stimulants to growth.

Lack of Support Infrastructure: a concern for the poorer States

Infrastructure is a source of positive externalities in the development process. In fact, the absence of infrastructure is positively related to the incidence of poverty. Table 7.1 indicates that states which have a higher Index of Infrastructure, comprising economic, social, and administrative infrastructure indicators,1 experience a lower Head Count Ratio of poverty. Many studies have found a positive relationship between the level of economic development (measured by per capita income and other indicators), and the quality of housing and access to basic amenities like electricity,

Source: Eleventh Finance Commission Report and Poverty Estimates by Planning Commission as cited in Planning Commission 2008.

1 The infrastructure indicators were constructed by the Eleventh Finance Commission. These were: (i) agriculture, (ii) banking, (iii) electricity, (iv) transport, (v) communication, (vi) health, and (vii) civil administration.

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

209

safe drinking water, and toilets (Kundu 2009). These not only reduce the incidence of poverty, but are also enabling factors that help reduce the risk of falling into poverty (Krishna and Shari 2011). Further, the paper showed that the households located in a village which was less than ve kilometres away from the nearest city, and which had bus services, and denser telephone links, had better chances of breaking out of poverty (Ibid.). It has also been found that lack of rural infrastructure aects farm and non-farm activity, thereby aecting alleviation of rural poverty (Pradhan 2009).

Provision of Support Infrastructure: a more acute problem within rural areas

Urban areas have a comparative advantage due to the presence of better social and economic infrastructure and therefore fare better in terms of human development outcomes. Lack of support infrastructure is a more acute issue in rural areas and urban slums. Since 23 per cent of our urban population lives in slums, their needs cannot be ignored. Therefore lack of infrastructure, or for that matter progress in terms of provision of support infrastructure, can be judged in terms of narrowing ruralurban dierentials over time. The widening ruralurban gap reects greater disparities and greater exclusion of the poor in rural areas and prevents them from having an equal opportunity to improve economic and social infrastructure. Indias Five Year Plans have laid great emphasis on the development of rural India, in particular to enhance the potential of the rural populace and to ward o poverty. The Eleventh Five Year Plan outlined a comprehensive strategy for the development of both urban and rural

infrastructure. The Planning Commission estimates that out of the total projected investment of Rs 14,365.6 billion to be incurred by the centre and states in the Eleventh Five Year Plan, Rs 4,353.5 billion (30 per cent) would be spent exclusively for the improvement of rural infrastructure (Planning Commission 2008). In addition, the Government of India launched the Bharat Nirman programme in 2005 and identied six sectors where achieving rapid breakthroughs was the key to rural developmentroads, electricity, water supply, telephones, irrigation, and housing. Four of these six sectors are examined here, while the fth (water supply) has already been addressed in the previous chapter. Table 7.2 spells out the targets under Bharat Nirman for each of the six sectors. The present chapter focuses on the aspects of infrastructure that play a crucial role in supporting human developmenthousing conditions, electricity, telephony, and roads with special emphasis on Bharat Nirman schemes. Housing is a basic physical need to sustain life. For the homeless, possessing a house provides a sense of identity, security, and safety. For a majority of the rural poor and urban slum dwellers, housing is their foremost necessity. Electricity and road connectivity can help the state achieve improved social development and faster economic growth. Availability of electricity is essential for modern agriculture and its allied activities, on which the majority of the rural population is dependent. It helps children to study after sunset and is also an important part of various health processes. Similarly, the use of telecommunications and better road connectivity aid mobility and provide a boost to market-based activities. Road networks also enable easier access to health and educational centres and better work opportunities. They in turn also support other

Table 7.2 Targets under Bharat Nirman

Component Irrigation Roads Electricity Housing Drinking water Telephone connectivity Source: Planning Commission (2008). Targets to be achieved by 2009 To create 10 million ha of additional irrigation capacity To provide all-weather roads to every habitation with population 1000 and above (500 in hilly, desert and tribal areas); remaining 66,802 habitations to be covered To provide electricity to the remaining 125,000 villages and 23 million households To construct 6 million houses To provide drinking water to 55,067 uncovered habitations All habitations with failed sources and water quality problems will be addressed To connect remaining 66,822 villages with telephone by 2007

210 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

economic activities which can reinforce the establishment of better social infrastructure. All these are indicative of quality of life dierentials in terms of income, health, and education outcomes across the poor and not so poor states. A state-wise analysis shows that housing conditions, access to electricity, telephony, and road connectivity have all shown improvement over time. Further, the ruralurban gap is converging for most of the states, showing that the rural areas are catching up with their urban counterparts. However, despite signicant progress, the lack of support infrastructure is a concern for poor states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. When looking at socio-religious inequalities, it is found that compared to SCs and STs, Muslims have better housing conditions and access to electricity for domestic use, partly due to their concentration in urban areas. However, across major religious groups, Muslims fare the worst on these indicators. As noted in the Economic Survey 201011, (GoI 2011a) infrastructure has been a mixed bag of performances where some sectors like telecommunications have done remarkably well, while in others the achievement has been below targeted levels. Roads (National Highway Development Project) and power are examples of sectors where capacity addition has been below the target. However, there are also sub-sectors which have performed above or close to their targets, such as telecommunications and rural electrication under the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) and new roads construction and upgradation/renewal of roads under Pradhan Mantri Grameen Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), as well as railway line electrication and railway gauge conversion (GoI 2011a). Our analysis suggests that certain key issues that still persist in the provision of support infrastructure are as follows: Housing About 45 per cent of rural households still reside in kutcha or semi-pucca houses (or semi-permanent), as opposed to pucca houses Around half the SC households and only one-third of the ST households reside in pucca houses in rural areas

Access to electricity for domestic use About one-third of the rural households still do not have access to electricity for domestic use; however this is a remarkable improvement from the Census 2001 position when only 42 per cent of all households had electricity Access to electricity is a major challenge for poor states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh, especially in the rural areas. Telephony and road connectivity Despite the remarkable increase in teledensity, a large rural-urban gap persists There are large interstate variations in road coverage. The following sections elaborate further on the state of support infrastructure in India. The next section discusses the status of shelter and quality of housing. The following sections examine access to electricity, telephony, and road connectivity (with greater emphasis on rural roads). The last section lists the conclusions reached. The data for this chapter has been taken from dierent sources like National Sample Survey (NSS) 58th round (2002) and 65th round (20089), Census of India (2001) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2004). Wherever feasible (for example in the case of housing conditions and electricity for domestic use), a socioreligious group analysis has been made for two points of time2002 and 20089. However, data for religion was not available in NSS 58th round so that analysis is done only for 20089.
SHELTER AND QUALITY OF HOUSING

Shelter and quality of housing are important inputs for human development. Investments in shelter and housing not only expand and improve the stock of housing units, but also the working and living environments. This section describes the variations in shelter and quality of housing across Indian households by state as well as social and religious groups. NSS provides data on the quality of houses based on the material used for the construction of walls and roof separately and the houses are classied accordingly. According to NSS, a house is classied as pucca or permanent if the walls and roof are made of pucca material.2 If the walls and roof are made of kutcha

2 Burnt brick, GI sheets or other metal sheets, stones or cement concrete, tiles, slate, lime and stone, or RBC/RCC concrete (Reinforced Cement Concrete).

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

211

material,3 the house is classied as kutcha or temporary. In all other cases, the house is classied as semi-pucca or semi-permanent, that is, either the wall or the roof is made of pucca material and the other is made of kutcha material. One third of Indian households still reside in kutcha or semi-pucca houses Between 2002 and 20089, there has been an improvement in the condition of peoples housing. There was an increase in the percentage of households living in pucca houses over this time period (from 47 per cent to 66 per cent), accompanied by a fall in the proportion of households living in kutcha or semi-pucca houses. This pattern was observed in rural as well as urban areas. More than 80 per cent of households in Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Kerala reside in pucca houses. An interesting nding was that in poorer states like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh the proportion of households residing in pucca houses exceeded even the national average of 66 per cent in 20089. At the same time, in the north-eastern states (except for Mizoram) this proportion was less than the national average (Table 7A.1). However, in interpreting this data one also needs to keep in mind the local topographical and climatic conditions, as well as peoples preferences. For example, in the case of the north-eastern states, local preferences may favour the use of bamboo/wood in the construction of houses. Only around 50 per cent rural households reside in pucca houses A ruralurban classication shows that in 20089 as many as 92 per cent of urban households resided in pucca houses (an increase from 77 per cent in 2002). As expected, urban India has a greater proportion of households living in pucca houses than rural India. However, the fact that the proportion of households living in pucca houses in the rural areas of poor states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan was well above the national average during both the time periods cannot be overlooked (Tables 7A.2 and 7A.3).

Rural-urban gap converging for most States Households in rural areas in most states except Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and West Bengal, are catching up with urban areas in terms of housing conditions (Figure 7.1). However the absolute dierence remains high due to the slow pace of convergence.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2002 Rural Urban 20089

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Around half the SC households and one third of the ST households reside in pucca houses in rural areas Over time, all the social groups registered an increase in the percentage of households living in pucca houses. The rural areas too saw an improvement in the housing conditions. STs even in the poor states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh experienced a sharp increase in the percentage of households residing in pucca houses (Table 7A.4a and b). However, OBCs are better placed in terms of housing conditions than SCs and STs. SCs and STs diverging from national average for households residing in pucca houses When looked at in absolute terms, as far as housing conditions are concerned, SC and ST households are below the national average for both points of time 2002 and 20089 (Figure 7.2). In addition, in terms of the

Grass, leaves, reeds, bamboo, mud, un-burnt brick or wood, or thatch.

Percentage

Figure 7.1 RuralUrban Gap in Percentage of Households Living in Pucca Houses, 2002 and 20089

212 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

70 60 50

Percentage

40 30 20 10 0 All India SC 2002 20089 ST Muslims

Figure 7.2 Percentage Distribution of Households Living in Pucca Houses by Socio-religious Groups, 2002 and 20089
Source: NSS 58th and 65th rounds.

percentage of households residing in pucca houses, this gap is widening with respect to the national average. A greater proportion of Muslims than SCs and STs live in pucca houses Among major religious communities, around 91 per cent of Sikh households lived in pucca houses in 20089 compared to 60 per cent for the remaining three religious groups. Muslims had the lowest proportion of households residing in pucca houses among the four major religious groups. Hindus are better o than Muslims but only by a small margin (Table 7A.5). As expected, all religious

groups had better living conditions in urban areas than rural areas. It is worth noting that Indian households continue to grapple with housing shortages which stood at 14.86 million and 15.95 million houses, respectively, for 2001 and 2007 (Planning Commission 2008). In order to provide shelter to the homeless, various housing policies and programmes have been initiated by the government and NGOs. The Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), one of the governments earliest rural housing programmes has been implemented as an independent scheme since 1996. A target of constructing 15 million houses under IAY had been proposed in the Eleventh Five Year Plan. Box 7.1

Box 7.1 Providing Homes to the Homeless

In the tiny hamlet of Medu Apal in the East Garo Hills district of Meghalaya, Wanje Marak, a tribal woman, lived alone with no one to look after her and no roof over her head. Under the Indira Awaas Yojana, the local Block Selection Committee sanctioned a grant for her to construct a housea house she built with her own bare hands, without the services of a contractor. Today, she sleeps content under a roof of her own making. Wanje Maraks plighta poor, abandoned tribal woman struggling with homelessness and deprivationis one that resonates on many levels across rural India. Shelter is essential for a dignied human existence and the Bharat Nirman programme seeks to address rural housing shortages, especially with respect to historically disadvantaged communities such as SCs, STs, widows, freed bonded labourers, the physically challenged, the elderly, and the rural poor in general. The centrepiece of this housing policy is IAY, which provides nancial assistance to deserving households, with special provisions to target disadvantaged groups. The scheme mandates the sanctioning of Rs 35,000 to beneciaries living in the plains and Rs 37,500 to those in tribal and hilly areas. The funds are released in instalments linked to the progress of work. Sixty per cent of the IAY funds are earmarked for SC and STs, 3 per cent for persons with disabilities, and 15 per cent for minorities. Source: Low cost house under Songsak Development Block, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya, http://eastgarohills.nic.in/drda/ success_stories.htm#Songsakpercent20LCH

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

213

highlights the dierence that IAYs assistance has made to the lives of the poor. In addition, there are a number of other housing policies such as the National Housing Policy (1994), National Housing and Habitat Policy (1998), and National Urban and Habitat Policy (2007). The National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (2007) promotes the sustainable development of habitat in the country with a view to ensuring equitable supply of land, shelter and services at aordable prices to all sections of society. The policy lays special emphasis on vulnerable sections of society such as the SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and the urban poor, and seeks to promote a symbiotic development of rural and urban areas. It also promotes various types of publicprivate partnerships to realize its goals. Various NGOs have also been taking initiatives in this direction and coming up with innovative schemes. Box 7.2 highlights one such innovative housing scheme. In addition, to address the housing issue for the urban centres, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewable Mission (JNNURM) was launched by the Government of India in December 2005 with the aim of creating economically productive, ecient, equitable and responsive cities. The mission has three major objectives: (i) provid-

ing a major llip to the economic and social infrastructure of 63 selected cities by funding projects related to water supply and sanitation, sewerage, solid waste management, road network, urban transport, and renewal of old city areas; (ii) ensuring basic services to the urban poor including health, education, social security, and security of tenure at aordable prices; and (iii) initiating wide-ranging reforms to establish linkages between asset-creation and assetmanagement for long term sustainable urban growth.4 More recently, the High-powered Committee on Urban Infrastructure suggested a New Improved Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (NIJNNURM) to scale up the extent of the existing JNNURM from 0.1 per cent of GDP to 0.25 per cent of GDP per annum (GoI 2011b). The central governments Rajiv Awas Yojana is similar in intent and seeks to address the problem of housing in slums. It aims to reform the existing urban development systems to make cities inclusive and equitable. The preparatory phase of the Rajiv Awas Yojana commenced under the Slum-free City Planning Scheme in March 2010 and the states are being assisted to draw up their Slum-free Plans of Action to move towards the goal of Slum-free cities/states (Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty

Box 7.2 Gram Vikas Participatory Housing Programme

Gram Vikas, an NGO that has been working in Orissa since 1979, has a unique, participatory housing programme, integrating water and sanitation concerns. The programmes most signicant feature is its all or none approach, which means the programme is only implemented in a village if every household agrees to it. This is because unhygienic practices, like the practice of open defecation, by even a few non-participating families in the village can aect participating families adversely.
Gram Vikas directly reaches out to 20,000 households in 500 villages in fteen districts of rural Orissa. The focus is on adivasis, dalits and small and marginal farmers. Gram Vikas has so far supported the construction of 3,479 houses across 169 villages/ habitations. Over 11,000 families in 143 villages have also been mobilised and supported for protected piped water supply and sanitation systems. (Jayapadma 2005).

Gram Vikas caters to two of the most important needs of the rural familiesloans and technical support for construction. The programme involves setting up a village general body with all the adults of the village as members. To show their intention to build a house, each family deposits an amount of Rs 3,0005,000 and another Rs 1,000 towards a corpus fund to extend water supply and sanitation facilities to all the families in the village. Of the total estimated cost of Rs 46,500 per house (50 sq. m. in area, having two rooms, a kitchen/dining room, a front verandah, a toilet, and a bathing room), Rs 31,500 (including the initial contribution) is accessed by Gram Vikas from donor agencies and housing nance corporations (like Housing Development Finance Corporation). The remainder of the cost is met by the beneciaries themselves in the form of labour and locally available materials. A deadline of six months is set for the completion of construction, after which the loans are frozen. The entire loan is payable over 15 years at standard interest rates. Source: Jayapadma 2005, Available at ://www.gramvikas.org/
4

https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/Overview.pdf

214 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Alleviation). A sum of Rs 12.7 billion has been allocated under the scheme during the nancial year 201112 for states to prepare slum-free city plans (GoI 2011c).
ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY

Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Rajasthan have seen dramatic improvement over time (Table 7A.6). About one-third of rural households still do not have access to electricity for domestic use In urban India, 96 per cent of households have electricity for domestic use. The proportion in rural areas was 66 per cent, well below the all India average of 75 per cent. However, in majority of the states, rural areas registered a performance well above the national average (Table 7A.10). As also shown in Figure 7.3, the rural urban gap with respect to electricity for domestic use is narrowing over time. In terms of electricity for domestic use, SC and ST households are converging with the all-India average There has been an increase in the proportion of households that have electricity for domestic use across all social groups. Even poorer states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh,

In the discourse on development in India, an oft heard challenge is the provision of bijli, sadak, pani (electricity, roads, water). In this infrastructure triumvirate, electrication, particularly in rural areas, is possibly the most dicult goal to achieve; it also holds the greatest reward in terms of multiplier eects on human development. Electrication holds the key to increased productivity in agriculture and labour, improvement in the delivery of health and education, access to communications, improved lighting after sunset, the use of all sorts of machines and appliances to reduce drudgery, and increased public safety through outdoor lighting. In order to meet the aspirations of the rural population, therefore, it is essential to provide viable and reliable electricity services. Access to electricity is a major challenge that the country is facing. As per Census 2001 estimates, there has been a rise, albeit at a slow pace,5 in the percentage of households that have electricity connections. Lack of access to electricity is a more serious problem for the rural households.6 As per NSS estimates, there was a rise in the proportion of households that had electricity for domestic use in 20089 (75 per cent) from 64 per cent in 2002.7 The state averages for some of the poor states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, and Orissa, were far below the national average in both 2002 and 20089. Much of this deviation was explained by the dismal situation in the rural areas of these states. At the same time there are other poor states like Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh, which are above the national average, even in the rural areas. On the other hand, the performance of major states like Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu as well as the north-eastern states of Nagaland, Manipur, and Sikkim is commendable with over 90 per cent of their households having access to electricity. Despite lower absolute proportions, states like

120 100

Percentage

80 60 40 20 0 2002 Rural Urban 20089

Figure 7.3 RuralUrban Gap in Percentage of Households having Electricity for Domestic Use, 2002 and 20089
Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

A gap of ten years (1991to 2001) saw a rise of 14 percentage points only, an average of around 1.4 per cent per annum. In 2001, about 44 per cent of rural households and 88 per cent of urban households had access to electricity. 7 In the NSS 65th Round, the information was collected on availability of electricity to households for domestic use, whereas in the NSS 58th Round, information was collected separately on the primary source of energy for cooking and lighting. As the households primary use of electricity would be for lighting purposes, only the use of electricity as the primary source of energy for lighting by the households during NSS 49th and 58th rounds has been considered (NSS 65th Round).
6

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

215

which account for over 40 per cent of countrys SCs as well STs, experienced a huge increase in this proportion. OBC households have relatively better access to electricity as compared to SCs and STs at the all India level (Table 7A.7).8 Figure 7.4 compares how SC and ST households fare compared to Muslims as well as the national average with respect to the use of electricity. A higher proportion of Muslim households use electricity for domestic use as compared to SCs and STs In the case of major religious communities, Sikh households had the highest percentage of households with electricity connections (96 per cent), followed by Christian households and Hindu households. Christian and Sikh households perform better than the national average even in rural areas. The percentage of Muslim households with access to electricity was the lowest, even below the national average of 75 per cent (Table 7A.8).
80 70 60

In order to see the vision of an electried and vibrant India made real, the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) was launched by the Power Ministry in 2005 and subsequently brought under the ambit of the Bharat Nirman programme. The aims of this programme are threefold: (i) electrifying all villages and habitations as per the new denition of an electried village,9 (ii) providing access to electricity for all rural households, and (iii) providing electricity connections to BPL families free of charge. RGGVY subsidises the capital cost by 90 per cent through grants from the Government of India.10 Its stated objective was to electrify over 100,000 un-electried villages and to provide free electricity connections to 23.4 million rural BPL households by 2009 (out of the total 78 million households without electricity in the country). An assessment of the progress of rural electrication by the Ministry of Power shows that, as of June 2010, 84 per cent of villages in the country have been electried.

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0 All India SC 2002 20089 ST Muslims

Figure 7.4 Percentage Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use by Socio-religious Groups, 2002 and 20089
Source: NSS 58th and 65th rounds.
8 OBCs were relatively better placed with 75 per cent households having electricity in 20089, while only 66 per cent of SC households and 61 per cent ST households had electricity for domestic use. 9 As per the new denition, a village would be declared as electried, if: 1. Basic infrastructure such as Distribution Transformer and Distribution lines are provided in the inhabited locality as well as the Dalit Basti hamlet where it exists. 2. Electricity is provided to public places like Schools, Panchayat Oce, Health Centers, Dispensaries, Community centres and such other places. 3. The number of households electried should be at least 10 per cent of the total number of households in the village. (http://rggvy.gov. in/rggvy/rggvyportal/index.html) 10 http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/index.html

216 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Many states reported a remarkable performanceall the villages in Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have been electried. Jharkhand has the lowest percentage of villages (only 31 per cent) which have been electried. Other states which were below the national average of 84 per cent were Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Tripura. Up to November 2010, 87,791 villages have been electried and connections released to 13.53 million BPL households under RGGVY (GoI 2011a). Of late, harnessing renewable energy for generating electricity has caught the attention of many countries. India has also seen the wide application of wind power, small hydro, biomass, and solar power for generating electricity. There is a strong case for using electricity from o-grid sourcesfor example, micro/mini hydropower and solar powerand distributing it through localized power generating and distributing devices rather than through the grid. Box 7.3 highlights the example of China

where renewable energy generated o-grid for localised use has ensured access to rural households.
MOBILE TELEPHONY

Modern means of communication are regarded not only as a springboard to an improved standard of living, but also to information and knowledge. Communicating via telephony increases the potential for economic growth, generates political awareness, breaks the digital-divide and creates social capital resulting from social networking, which strengthens economic opportunities, and improves social ties between migrant workers and their families (Sinha 2005). In addition, telephony leads to better informed decisions and renders freedom of choice to people. It has also been found that if a country has 1 per cent more mobile subscribers than another, its GDP per capita will be about $200 higher (TRAI 2008). In another analysis, it was reported that, in a typical developing country, an increase of 10 mobile phones per 100 people boosts GDP growth by 6 per cent (Vodafone

Box 7.3 Renewable Energy for Electrifying Villages: Lessons from China

The need to increase the use of renewable energy sources for sustained energy development was recognized in the early 1970s. Since then, a great emphasis has been placed on renewable sources of energy, especially for electrifying villages. Indias aim is to electrify all un-electried villages by 2012, using renewable sources, while ensuring sustainable development. An archetype of such a strategy is China, which ensured universal access to electricity for all rural households by using o-grid renewable energy sources, by the early 1990s, passed a law in 2005 to promote the use of renewable energy. The law provides a feed-in tari for some technologies and establishes grid feed-in requirements and standard procedures. Any incremental cost has to be shared by the utility consumers. The law also supports rural uses of renewable energy. Today, China is the worlds largest manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels. China intends for wind, solar, and biomass energy to represent 8 per cent of its electricity generation capacity by 2020 in order to meet the growing demand for energy. India also has a few examples to its credit, which speak of the state governments commitment to electrifying villages through hydropower, a renewable source of energy. These examples are given below: The Indushree Power Project, a 1 MW small hydel resources initiative, in Raksat, Himachal Pradesh has brought light to 700 homes in 12 villages in and around Raksat. A Pico-Hydro Power Project is coming up to meet the energy needs of the small communities in the hilly areas of Karnataka. (Pico-Hydro projects are hydroelectric projects with a power generation capacity of up to 10 KW, which convert the energy in water owing down a gradient into electrical energy). However, in order to make the best use of renewable energy in India, particularly in rural areas, the grid system should be supplemented by distributed generation of energy as did China. Distributed generation is dened as generation located at or near the load centres using small scale renewable energy technologies like wind energy, wave energy, and hydro electric energy. Not only is distributed generation cost saving and environmental friendly, it also helps in avoiding the inconvenience associated with load shedding. Sources: http://www.energysavingnow.com/paper/dgindia/ http://www.martinot.info/china.htm#law

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

217

2005 as cited in Bhavnani et al. 2008). Figure 7.5 shows the scatter plot of per capita Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) at constant prices in 20089 with teledensity as on March 2008.11 That there is a positive relation between the two is clearly visible through the linear trend line. In an econometric analysis of the impact of mobile phones, Kathuria et al. (2009) found that
Indian States with high mobile penetration can be expected to grow faster than those States with lower mobile penetration rates, by 1.2 per cent points a year more on average for every 10 per cent increase in the penetration rate. If Bihar were to enjoy the same mobile penetration rate as Punjab then, according to our results, it would enjoy a growth rate that is about 4 per cent higher.

Access to telecommunication increases the chance to escape poverty In the Indian context, the importance of telephony stems from the fact that by reducing information asymmetry it can make the gains of development available to even the rural masses (constituting 72 per cent of the countrys population as per 2001 census). Conditions of perfect information availability rendered by telecommunication enables them to make decisions that are optimal, that is, maximize welfare.
90000 80000

Teledensity (phonesboth xed line as well as wireless, per 100 population) has increased at a very impressive pace over time, 26 per cent in 2008 to 66 per cent in December 2010. This growth has largely been led by urban teledensity (with an increase of over 80 percentage points), though the increase in rural teledensity is also commendable (over 20 percentage points) during this short span of time. Across states, it has been found that teledensity was below 10 per cent in 2010 for Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, reecting a lack of access to telephones in these relatively poorer states. On the other hand, for states like Delhi and Himachal Pradesh and metropolitan cities like Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai, teledensity was over 100 per cent in 2010 implying that individuals have more than one telephone connection (Table 7A.9). Inequality in access to telephony has led to a ruralurban divide, social as well as economic. Compared to urban areas, rural areas lag behind in telephone connections. Figure 7.6 shows that even though teledensity in rural areas has been increasing over time, the ruralurban gap is widening. A state-wise analysis also highlights this huge ruralurban gap. Kerala and Himachal Pradesh had the highest ruralurban gaps due to very high teledensity in urban areas.

NSDP per capita (20089)

70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Teledensity (March 2008)

Figure 7.5 Relationship between Per Capita Net State Domestic Product and Teledensity
Source: Data for NSDP per capita from Economic Survey 200910 and for Teledensity from TRAI (2009).

11

Number of telephone connections per 100 population.

218 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

160

Telephones per '00 population

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

March 1998

March 1999

March 2000

March 2001

March 2002

March 2003

March 2004

March 2005

March 2006

March 2007

March 2008

September 2008
86.9

Urban

Rural

Figure 7.6 RuralUrban Gap in Teledensity, 1998 and 2010

Source: TRAI (2008 and 2011).

With respect to rural teledensity, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Punjab were well above the national average. By contrast, rural areas in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Assam had a teledensity of less than 10 per cent in 2008. All these states, with the exception of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand showed signicant improvement in 2010 (Table 7A.9). In order to improve teledensity in rural areas, it was envisaged that 66,822 revenue villages without telephone connectivity be provided with Village Public Telephone (VPT) facilities under Bharat Nirman. The target of the Eleventh Plan was to achieve 25 per cent rural density by 2012. It is commendable that All India rural teledensity as on June 2010 was 26.5, which exceeded the target. Teledensity in many states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal (including Sikkim) was also above 25 per cent (GoI 2010a). The agship programme also aimed to reach a subscriber base of 600 million. During the nancial year 200910, the subscriber base exceeded this level, with the number of connections (xed as well as wireless) standing at 621.3 million (GoI 2010b).

What is to be noted is that out of this 621.3 million, the share of wireless subscribers was as high as 584.3 million that is, 94 per cent (GoI 2010b). Over time it has been observed that there is a preference for mobile telephony over xed line in the country (Figure 7.7) Due to the high costs involved in the setting up of xed lines, rural areas are witnessing a greater demand for
120 100 80 55.8 60 40 20 0 March 2005 March 2006 March 2007 44.2 29.6 70.4 80.2 91.2 94.1

Percentage

19.8

13.1 March 2008

December 2010
8.8 March 2009

5.9 March 2010

Wireline Subscribers

Wireless Subscribers

Figure 7.7 Percentage Distribution of Wire-line and Wireless Subscribers, 2005 and 2010
Source: TRAI (2010).

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

219

mobile telephony. Mobile telephony costs are one-fth that of xed line costs (Planning Commission 2008). In addition, the resulting competition among providers has led to low tari rates.
The high cost of providing wired communication facilities, coupled with relatively low levels of purchasing power, is tantamount to high levels of demand being under-served with low levels of telecommunications service. As a result, rural areas that are often ill-equipped to handle wired communication tools can benet by leapfrogging to wireless tools. Over time, a new equilibrium between communications demand and its supply is emerging, which is at prices aordable to even the poor. (Sinha 2005).

Box 7.4 Application of Mobile Telephony in Rural Areas: Fisher Friend in India

In Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, a pilot project called Fisher Friend has been launched. Qualcomms Wireless Reach Fisher Friend project is a partnership with MSSRF, Tata Teleservices and Astute. Using 3G CDMA wireless and ICT technologies, the shing communities are able to access vital information like height of waves, satellite data about sh shoals, and the like which serves the following purposes: It saves lives by providing timely weather alerts to survive danger on the high seas. It enhances livelihoods by providing real time data on sh migration and market prices. It increases knowledge base by providing updates on government schemes, policies and developments of interest to shing communities. China has a similar model in placean integrated package consisting of text-messaging services, voice services, and an Internet portal for rural areas. Farmers and shermen can access the service to get weather forecasts, price information, and employment opportunities outside the agricultural industry. Source: TRAI (2008).

It is easier for rural people who do not have a credit history, permanent address, or a stable source of income to purchase a cell phone rather than a xed line. Another factor which can support the demand for mobiles in rural India, is that the majority of the people do not have bank accounts or access to other methods of payment. Mobile banking can help make banking and payment services available to them. Thus, it also enables nancial inclusion in remote areas where it is not feasible for banks to open branches. In addition, mobile communication helps in times of medical emergencies as well as other emergencies and enables better governance. In another study by Blixt (2005) on mobile telephony in rural India, it was concluded that mobile telephony empowers the rural population. The farmers need mobile phones to contact their clients even when they are out in the eld. This cannot be done using a xed line. Similarly, shermen need mobile phones to know the supply and demand of sh in dierent markets and which market to go to when they reach land. Mobile phones also help entrepreneurs while they are establishing businesses in the countryside. Thus, mobile phones contribute to the income generation of the rural population, which can help in enhancing human capabilities in terms of better health and education. In addition, livelihoods in rural areas, especially in remote areas, can be improved through the availability of accurate and timely information regarding prices of farm/ non-farm produce, cropping patterns, crop husbandry and livestock, and o-farm and non-farm employment, minimum wages, rights of workers, and so on in areas where information from conventional sources rarely reaches. Box 7.4 shows examples of the application of mobile telephony in rural areas and how it benets the rural population.

However, despite their utility, the coverage of mobile telephony in rural India is only 69 per cent. Only three statesnamely Haryana, Kerala, and Tamil Naduhad 100 per cent village coverage. Jammu and Kashmir, the North East, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Maharashtra had very low coverage as compared to the national average (Table 7A.10). Due to limited coverage in many parts of the country, there is a strong need to increase mobile penetration. The impediments faced in the penetration of rural telecom need special attention. Given below are some constraints.
Land acquisition for towers takes a lot of time in

villages. Setting up of a cell tower costs millions of rupees. In rural areas, cell sites are not shared by operators at the same rate as in urban areas. In many villages power supply is either not available or is available for only a limited time. Service providers are reluctant to venture into interior rural areas because average revenue per user is lower than in urban areas.

220 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Thus, unless these constraints are overcome, the inclusion of the rural population in the development process would be a challenge.
ROAD CONNECTIVITY

Table 7.3 Coverage of Roads

Year 1981 1991 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Per 100 square kilometre 45.1 61.3 73.8 75.1 76.0 79.2 81.2

(in km)*
Per Million Population 21.7 23.9 23.6 24.0 24.3 25.3 26.0

An ecient road network is necessary both for national integration as well as for socio-economic development. Indias road network of 3.3 million kilometres is the second largest in the world, carrying 65 per cent of freight and 80 per cent of passenger trac. The countrys road network consists of national highways, state highways, major/district roads and village/rural roads. National highways constitute only about 2 per cent of the road network, but carry about 40 per cent of the total road trac.12 As an initiative to improve the physical infrastructure, the National Highways Development Project (NHDP), managed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, aims to upgrade, rehabilitate, and widen major highways in India. In its rst phase, the NHDP started with the Golden Quadrilaterala highway network of 5,846 kilometres, connecting the four metrosDelhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai. Divided into phases, the second phase of NHDP comprises of building the NorthSouth and EastWest Corridors (7300 kilometres in length) connecting Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Silchar to Porbandar, respectively. The government has approved various Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects on a Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) basis to upgrade the national highways and to convert single lane highways into two lanes with paved shoulders. In addition to the projects under NHDP, the NHAI is also currently responsible for about 1,000 km of highways connecting major ports. At the national level, the road length per 100 square kilometres has increased consistently over time (Table 7.3). Large interstate variations in road coverage There are wide interstate variations in road coverage. It is noteworthy that among the 20 major states, Kerala had the highest road length (369 kilometres) per 100 square kilometres in 2004, followed by Orissa (137 kilometres)
12 13

Source: Census of India, Transport Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Note: * excludes roads constructed under JRY and PMGSY.

and Tamil Nadu (131 kilometres). The road length per 100 square kilometres was less than the national average of 81 kilometres per 100 square kilometres in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,13 Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Among the north-eastern states, the road length per 100 square kilometres was less than the national average except for Assam, Tripura, and Nagaland. In general, the Union Territories, excluding Andaman & Nicobar Islands, had greater road length than the national average (Table 7A.11). The road length per million population at the all India level did not change much from 1991 to 2001 even though the population increased by 21 per cent during this period. Thereafter however, road length has risen over time (Table 7.3). It should be noted that in 2004, two north-eastern states, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, ranked the highest in this regard. Road coverage was less than the national average of 25.9 kilometres per million population in Bihar, Delhi, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand,14 Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, largely on account of the high population in these states. Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh on the other hand, despite having large populations, had better road coverage as compared to the national average. The road length per million population in all the north-eastern states as well as the

http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/overview_NH3244795788.htm It was as low as 10 kilometres per 100 square kilometres. 14 Lowest coverage at 4.4 kilometres per million population.

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

221

Union Territories was well above the national average due to low population in these areas (Table 7A.11). Rural Roads: A key to poverty reduction Rural and other roads account for the maximum share in the road network at 2.65 million kilometres. The rural road network provides a crucial link with growth, employment, education, and healthcare facilities in rural areas. For many Indian villages, it is the lack of connectivity that cripples their developmentfarmers cannot get their produce to markets on time, children cannot go to school, and health and other vital public services remain unreachable. Escaping poverty in rural areas requires developing a connection with the city (Krishna and Shari 2011). A study (Fan et al. 1999) carried out by the International Food Policy Research Institute on linkages between government expenditure and poverty in rural India has revealed that an investment of Rs 10 million in roads lifts 1,650 poor persons above the poverty line. An NCAER study for Bhiwani district in the state of Haryana shows that road connectivity results in an increase in population density, literacy levels, work participation in industry sector, irrigated area, and electrical connections mainly leading to an increase in the use of pump sets, tractors, and tube wells (Chawla et al. 1981). Similarly, another NCAER study in Assams Karbi-Anglong district indicates that the accessibility of roads contributes to low birth and death rates, high literacy trends among both sexes, higher intensity of cropping, and modernization of agriculture (Chawla et al. 1986). It is for these multiplier eects that the government has given due priority to investment in rural roads via the Bharat Nirman programme. This investment seeks to impact rural poverty through its eect on improved agricultural productivity, higher non-farm employment opportunities, and increased rural wages. Government programmes for road-building Through the earlier existing Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) scheme, the rural roads component of the Bharat Nirman programme had the ambitious target of connecting every habitation of 1,000 or more population (500 or more in hilly, tribal, and desert areas) with all-weather roads by 2009. The programme involves
15

construction of about 368,000 kilometres of new roads and upgradation/repair of 370,000 kilometres of roads. It aims to connect 66,802 habitations with all-weather roads and to construct 146,185 kilometres of new rural roads.15 In addition, a comprehensive online management, monitoring, and accounting system (OMMAS) was set up to monitor all aspects of road building and the data collected is uploaded online for public scrutiny. So far, 298,809.72 kilometres of road have been completed and new connectivity has been provided to over 73,651 habitations. As of November 2010, 38,144 habitations have been provided connectivity to all-weather roads and over 24,411 kilometres of all-weather roads have been completed under PMGSY (GoI 2011a). Other innovative strategies being implemented under PMGSY include using construction material that is commonly available in the vicinity of the planned road. For example, in an area where y ash is abundant, it is used for road construction, thus cutting construction costs. The scheme emphasizes building all-weather roads to withstand the vagaries of the monsoon and the harsh summer, thus ensuring long term gains in maintenance costs and unhindered road connectivity for the rural populace. An evaluation report by the Planning Commission in 2005 concluded that despite the slow pace of implementation in some states and only about 60 per cent of the physical targets being met on average, the PMGSY was found to have increased rural incomes and improved the accessibility of beneciary villages. The quality of the roads was also ensured by the unique three-tier quality monitoring system, the online management, monitoring and accounting system (OMMAS). In addition to these, the Government of India is also taking initiatives with the help of foreign aid. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) Board approved a $400 million loan for PMGSY under the Rural Roads Sector I Investment Project (RRSP I) in 2003 (GoI 2006). The Multi-tranche Financing Facility (MFF), a new ADB nancing modality, was used to nance investments in the PMGSY states for the construction/upgradation of up to 30,000 kilometres of rural roads connecting about 19,000 villages (ADB 2005). The $750 million assistance under RRSP II is meant for the states of Assam, Orissa, and West Bengal. In 20045, the World Bank contributed $ 399.5 million (Rs 17.6 billion) for the Rural Roads Project in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, and

http://pmgsy.nic.in/

222 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Himachal Pradesh. Additional loans of $500 million by the World Bank and $350 million by the ADB (for RRSP III) have been sought by the Ministry of Rural Development. Besides the rural areas, due consideration is also being given to roads in urban areas, in order to support burgeoning urbanization. In view of this, the Report on Urban Infrastructure and Services recommended an investment of Rs 1.7 million (almost 44 per cent of the total Rs 3.9 million investment for urban infrastructure) for urban roads (GoI 2011b).
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The present analysis highlights the existing decit in the support infrastructure in the country. The inclusive growth agenda along with the target of 9 per cent GDP growth can only be achieved if this decit is overcome. The high incidence of poverty, which is reinforced by the lack of support infrastructure, is concentrated mainly in the states of Bihar (including Jharkhand), Orissa, Madhya Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), and Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand), which accounted for 60 per cent of the rural poor in 20045 (as noted in Chapter 3). This is highlighted in the current chapter by the inadequate infrastructure in states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Jharkhand as opposed to states like Kerala, Delhi, and Goa with a lower incidence of poverty and better infrastructure. As already discussed in the context of Index of Infrastructure, the incidence of poverty can be reduced by improving the infrastructure. The state-wise analysis showed that the lowest number of households living in pucca houses was found in poor states like Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Uttar Pradesh. However, these states experienced a rise in this proportion over time. The north-eastern states in general had a higher proportion of households living in kutcha and semi-pucca houses, which is due to their topographical preferences. Over time, access to electricity for domestic use has shown signicant improvement even in the poorer states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, and Assam. This dramatic improvement has also been experienced by the SCs and STs in these states. However, in absolute terms, almost half of the households in Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Uttar Pradesh still do not have electricity for domestic use. Among socio-religious groups, it is found that OBC households are better placed in terms of quality of hous-

ing and access to electricity as compared to SCs and STs, while Sikh households fare the best among major religious communities. Muslim households, though relatively better o as compared to SCs and STs, were the worst o amongst the major religious groups in terms of quality of housing and access to electricity. There has been a remarkable increase in coverage of telephony. Urban teledensity stands at 148 per cent and rural teledensity at 31 per cent, primarily due to the high costs incurred by telephone providers for penetration in rural areas. Such constraints can be overcome with greater state involvement and partnerships with private players. While the national average of road length and road coverage has increased over time, interstate variations and gaps still exist. The rural areas of states like Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh failed to meet their targets of constructing new roads under PMGSY. The road length per 100 square kilometres was less than the national average of 81 kilometres in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, while Kerala had a road length more than four times the national average. It is noteworthy that states like Kerala, Delhi, and Goa have consistently performed better than other states in all aspects of support infrastructure. This is also reected in their superior performance in outcome indicators, particularly for health and education. This consistent performance is true for SCs and OBCs residing in these states as well. Observations like these are indicative of state specic commitments towards social mobilization of their populace, especially the lower castes. In addition the relatively poorer states are catching up with the better o states in terms of support infrastructure. This is reected in the high growth rates that these states have achieved in terms of health, education, and income indices as shown in Chapter 2 of this Report. However, the fact that the absolute levelsboth in terms of support infrastructure and human development outcome indicatorsstill remain well below the national average, should not be ignored. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state governments to increase their investments on these counts. One of the important determinants of the investment climate in states is the state of infrastructure, that is, power and transport connectivity, including port to hinterland connectivity and portrailroad interfaces.

SUPPORTING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

223

This gives a boost to the rural economy by improving market linkages. Towards this end, rural electrication through the RGGVY and rural road connectivity through the PMGSY have played a signicant role in triggering economic development and generating employment in rural areas. Though relatively better o than rural India, the deplorable state of urban infrastructure cannot be ignored. The urban population, estimated to be around 30 per cent of the total population in 2011, is expected to contribute 65 per cent to the countrys GDP. Therefore, improving their productivity is essential to achieve the high growth targets. Higher productivity in urban economic activities in turn depends upon the availability of good quality infrastructure services like transportation, power, water

supply, and telecommunications. As a part of its commitment to meet the MDGs, the Government of India aims to facilitate investments in the urban sector and strengthen the existing policies. The NIJNNURM are among the initiatives taken by the government to improve the living conditions of urban slum dwellers. As stated earlier, the inclusion of the rural populace in the development process will require the provision of better support infrastructure. This in turn requires public investments to be scaled up in the Twelfth Five Year Plan (201217), public and private investment in infrastructure will be about $1 trillion, double that planed for the Eleventh Five Year Plan. The present eorts are in the right direction, but the challenge remains great.

8
Vulnerable Groups
INTRODUCTION

Vulnerable groups are dened as those who are subject to unfair treatment or are, relative to other age groups or sections of society, more dependent on others and therefore, nd it dicult to maintain their subsistence on their own and protect their rights. Certain groups in society are also subject to discriminatory treatment and feel marginalized. They need special attention to avoid exploitation. This chapter focuses on three social groups: children (specically those in the workforce), senior citizens, and the physically and mentally challenged. These groups are considered particularly important since: 1. Children are the future of any nation, and large numbers of children in the workforce at present implies fewer educated or skilled workers in the future. A high percentage of child labour also implies loss of welfare to society, as more young children have to enter the labour market. 2. Any society will consist of those citizens who are physically and/or mentally challenged. Some of them are born so, while others are in this condition due to accidents or illness. They too require support, both to play a meaningful, albeit limited, role in society (if possible), but above all, to live with dignity. 3. Senior citizens have worked during their younger days to support their families and contribute to building society, as it exists today. Surely, society owes them a decent living in their later years. This is particularly so as joint families are splitting up and traditional

support systems to this cohort of the population are eroding. This chapter throws light on the nature and issues concerning these vulnerable groups, that is, child labour, the dierently-abled, and the elderly; and their development over the last decade. The section on child labour analyses the magnitude of the problem, and looks into the inequalities across states, dissimilarities among social groups (SCs and STs) and the variations across religious groups. The major ndings of the section are described briey below.

Child Labour Child labour has fallen sharply, but around ve million children are still working Children who are neither working nor attending schools (that is, nowhere children) are four times as many as child workers Gender disparity has declined, now fewer girls than boys are working, but girls gure more among the nowhere children Child labour among the SCs/STs has fallen, but is still higher than the national average. Child labour is higher among Muslims and the pace of decline is slow Child labour remains concentrated in four states Across sectors, child labour is predominant in agriculture followed by manufacturing.
The next section is on the dierently-abled. It discusses measurement of disability and then describes the

VULNERABLE GROUPS

225

prevalence of various kinds of disabilities. It also examines the educational and employment status of dierently-abled persons along with the status of their living conditions. Its major ndings are:

The Dierently-abled The dierently-abled have increased in absolute numbers, though the incidence remains more or less unchanged. Among the type of disabilities, the prevalence of locomotor disabilities is the highest followed by visual and hearing disabilities. Disability from accidents and non-communicable diseases is expected to increase. The dierently-abled have a low literacy rate and high unemployment rate. Employed dierently-abled are mostly self-employed or casual workers in the primary sector. There is a very large unmet need for professionals to help the dierently-abled.
The last section examines the issues and concerns of the elderly and looks at the policy initiatives taken by the Government. The major ndings of this section are:

While discussing issues of child labour, the dierentlyabled or the elderly, the biggest restriction is the availability of data. Without detailed or comprehensive data sources, the scope to deal with these issues is really very limited. In India, there are no comprehensive and updated data sets available related to these issues. Because of this, data with more than three to six years lag has been used in this chapter. Each section explains the data sources used while examining the issue.
CHILD LABOUR

A child is classied as a labourer if the child is in the age group 514 years and is economically active. As per the ILO and Census of India (2001), a person is treated as economically active or gainfully employed if he/she does work on a regular basis for which he or she receives remuneration or if such labour results in output for the market. A large proportion of the worlds child labourers live in India.

Magnitude: Child Labour Sharply Dips

There has been no comprehensive child labour survey in India to examine the depth of the problem. Although, the Census of India and NSSO capture a wide range of data such as nature of work, status and sector of employment, these estimates are mostly based on Labour Force Surveys. The major problem is that various types of work performed by children are not covered under the denition of work adopted by these surveys1 (Satpathy et al. 2010). According to the latest available estimates from NSSO (20078), around ve million children are economically active in the labour market, and account for more than two percent of the total child population of India in the age group 514 years. This proportion was more than three per cent in 20045 and more than six per cent in 19934 (Table 8.1), which was equal to nine million children in 20045. According to the Census of India, there were 5.4 per cent (11.28 million) and ve per cent (12.6 million) child workers in India in 1991 and 2001 respectively2 (Census 1991 and 2001). Thus the share of working children has been declining in all the states, and

The Elderly The share of elderly is rising and is expected to cross nine percent in 2016 and 10 per cent in 2021 from 7.5 per cent in 2001. There is an increasing gender gap: there is a escalation in female share of elderly. Very few of the elderly are covered under pension/ insurance schemes, because of having worked in the unorganized sector. Their major healthcare needs remain unmet.
The multi-dimensional problems of these groups have a weak relationship with each other, but the underlying factors are very strongly intertwined. The factors impact the vulnerable groups in dierent ways, which are discussed in their respective sections along with the policy issues and initiatives taken by the Government.
1 2

For example, a child engaged in household chores or sibling care is not considered a worker under these surveys. NSSO and Census of India deploy dierent denitions for child labour. According to NSSO, if a person works for more than 182 days in the reference year, it is considered as Usual Principal Activity Status (UPS) and if he/she works for a shorter time, it is considered as Usual Subsidiary Activity Status (USS). Combining both the activity statuses makes it UPSS. The Census denes a person as a main worker if he/she spends 180 days or more in a year engaged in economic activities, and denes a marginal worker as a person who works less than 180 days, these two together

226 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

decreased rapidly between 19934 and 20078 (Table 8A.1).

allied activities, either for an employer on a wage basis or having been tracked to faraway, unfamiliar workplaces (NCPCR 2008). Girls gure more among nowhere children According to the NSSO (20078) estimates, the proportion of NWC to total child population (in the age group 514 years) is little over 13 per cent,3 whereas the incidence of NWC was 25.6 per cent in 19934 (Figure 8.1). It has signicantly declined in recent times, which clearly indicates the achievement of the SSA programme to bring NWC into the school/education system. As opposed to gender disparity in child labour, the proportion of girls who are neither working nor going to school is higher than that for boys. This is because girls are expected to perform more household chores and also to provide seasonal labour on farms. According to the NSSO 19934 gures, the nowhere ratio for girls is higher vis--vis boys for all the states except Himachal Pradesh. The percentage of NWC has always been greater in rural areas than in urban areas. However, the incidence of child labour along with NWC has also shown a downward trend both in rural and urban India during the period 19934 to 20078 (Table 8.1). Over time, the ruralurban gap is also decreasing. Analysis across the states shows that in 20078, the percentage of NWC was highest for Bihar (28 per cent) followed by Rajasthan (17 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (17 per cent), Jharkhand (15 per cent) and Orissa (14 per cent),

Nowhere Children: There are four times as many NWC as child workers
In addition to the population of child labourers, there is also the population of Nowhere Children (NWC). Nowhere children are children in the age group 514 years, who are categorized neither as child labourers nor as students enrolled or attending schools. This comprises children who, though generally working, are not counted as part of the workforce because of the sporadic nature of their engagement in the labour market. They are usually children who do not attend school for one reason or another, but are not in the labour market either. Girls who stay at home to look after younger siblings would account for a signicant share of these children (Mehrotra and Biggeri 2002 and 2007). It is precisely for this reason that it is critical to ensure that special incentives are available to enable girls to continue their education to upper primary school and even beyond. In this context, the state of Bihar has achieved remarkable success in increasing girls enrolment as well as retention after the Government of Bihar initiated a scheme in the last few years to give a cash transfer (to enable households with school-going age girls) to buy bicycles for girls so that they could continue in school. Some of the NWC also work on the family farms. Most perspectives on child labour have signicantly left out the large numbers of children working in agriculture and

Table 8.1 Child Workforce Participation Rate (Percentage), 1993-4, 20045, and 20078
Area Boys Rural Urban Combined 6.8 3.5 6.2 19934 Girls 7.8 2.7 6.0 Children 7.3 3.1 6.2 Boys 3.5 2.6 3.3 20045 Girls 3.7 1.9 3.3 Children 3.6 2.3 3.3 Boys 3.0 1.9 2.7 20078 Girls 2.2 1.2 2.0 Children 2.6 1.6 2.4

Source: NSSO 1993-4, 20045 and 20078.

constitute all workers in a given year. In this chapter, both concepts of UPSS as dened by the NSSO, and all workers as dened by the Census have been used to dene child labour. Estimates of the work participation rate among children are, however, fairly close across the two sources for main workers. 3 It is very close to the proportion of out of school children (15 per cent) in this age group. (For further discussion, please refer to Chapter 6 on Education).

VULNERABLE GROUPS

227

40 35 30

37.4 32.3 29.4 25.6 22.6 19.8 16.7 14.2 12.0 11.9 9.7 7.9 8.8 17.5 14.5 11.1 15.1 13.0

Percentage

25 20 15 10 5 0

Male

Female Persons Rural

Male

Female Persons Urban

Male

Female Persons Total

19934

20078

Figure 8.1 Nowhere Children as a Percentage of Total Child Population in India, 19934 and 20078
Source: NSS 50th and 64th Rounds.

Table 8.2 Aggregate Percentage of Working and Nowhere Children in India

Area/Year Rural Urban Combined Source: NSSO 1993-4 and 20078. 19934 36.7 17.6 31.8 20078 16.8 10.4 15.4

states for NWC, some states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat have improved their relative positions in 20078 as compared to 19934. Child labour remains concentrated in four States There are large variations across the states in their share of child labour in absolute terms. Uttar Pradesh has the highest child labour population followed by Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra. In 20045, these four states accounted for 54 per cent of the total child labour population in India.5 Uttar Pradesh alone contributes close to one-fourth of the child workforce, while Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra contribute 13 per cent, 9 per cent, and 9 per cent, respectively. Among the major states, child labour has declined in absolute terms over time in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu. All these states have shown remarkable improvement in their school attendance rates. In the case

the states with the most dysfunctional government school system and having a high proportion of out of school children,4 and lowest for Tamil Nadu (2 per cent), Kerala (3 per cent), Himachal Pradesh (4 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (6 per cent), and Uttarakhand (7 per cent)the states with a better governed school system (Table 8A.2). The state level information for 19934 reveals that NWC account for nearly 44 per cent of the total children (close to 55 per cent for girls) in Bihar, and close to 35 per cent in Uttar Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (Table 8A.2). However, looking at the relative positions across
4 5

State-wise analysis of out of school children is given in the Chapter Education of this Report. These four states account for around 40 per cent of the child population of India (in the age group 514 years). The proportion of the child population (in the age group 514 years) for Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra are 18.65 per cent, 7 per cent, 6 per cent, and 8.5 per cent, respectively.

228 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

of Andhra Pradesh, one of the major factors for the decline in child labour was the increase in school attendance ratio by 25 per cent between 1991 and 2001, which had a feedback loop eect in reducing child labour. The highest percentage of working children in 20078 was recorded in Andhra Pradesh (4 per cent), and the lowest percentage was in Kerala (0.3 per cent) (Table 8A.1). States such as Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal have a high incidence of child labour. Unexpectedly, poor states like Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Madhya Pradesh showed a decline in the proportion of child labour (Table 8A.1). In these states, work force participation rates for adults are low, reecting low employment opportunities within the states (Satpathy et al. 2010). Gender Disparity: Less girls now working than boys In India, boys are economically more active in the labour market than girls. The gender gap for working children was apparent in 19934 (with 6.2 per cent male and 6.0 per cent female), which came down in 20045 (with 3.3 per cent male and 3.3 per cent female child workers). However, the latest estimates of the NSSO (20078) show that the gender gap is increasing again (with 2.7 per cent male and 2.0 per cent female) (Table 8.1). As regards child labour in rural and urban areas (Table 8A.3 and 8A.4), the gender gap in the child workforce participation turned against the girl child for rural India in 20045, with the percentage of working girls being higher than boys. However, the recent estimates of the NSSO (20078) present a dierent picture, where the proportion of female child labour has fallen more rapidly than male child labour between 20045 and 20078 (Table 8.1). As a result, the incidence of child labour among girls was lower than for boys in 20078. This decline was more pronounced in rural India. This is the result of various policy initiatives, like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, taken up by the central and state governments and also support from NGOs and other civil society organisations. As highlighted in the Education chapter of this Report, various incentives like providing schools within a specied distance, free bicycles, books, uniforms, and mid-day meals have impacted positively on girls

enrolment in schools. As we noted in Chapter 6, there is near complete gender parity at primary level, and girls enrolment has also increased at upper primary level. A state-wise analysis shows a mixed picture. Some states have a lower proportion of girl child labour than boy child labour, and the scenario is the opposite for the rest of the states. Kerala, Delhi, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand6 had the least proportion of girl child workers in 20045, whereas states like Andhra Pradesh (7.1 per cent), Rajasthan (6 per cent), Chhattisgarh (5.6 per cent), Karnataka (5 per cent), and Orissa (4.5 per cent) had a higher proportion of girl child labour than boy child labour. Some states have shown a divergence from the national trend of declining girl child labour. For instance, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu have seen a higher participation of the girl child in the workforce as compared to their male counterparts (Table 8A.1). SC/ST child labour drops, but is still higher than the national average The incidence of working children among SCs and STs was higher than the average for all social groups which is again a reection of the government school system is absorbing them. According to NSSO (20045 and 20078), children from STs are twice as likely to work as child labour than the children from the upper castes (Figure 8.2). However, it is important to note that the fall in child labour was faster among SCs and STs compared to OBCs and Other castes for the rst half of the decade. After that, the decline in child labour became stagnant for SCs and STs, and a very marginal dip has been observed for OBCs and Other social groups. The STs largely live in forests, and remote and hilly areas, from where it takes longer than the average time to reach schools. To see a signicant decline in child labour for the SCs and STs, there is need for concerted eorts like the Lok Sampark Abhiyan started by the Madhya Pradesh government in the late 1990s, which should be facilitated by the government and NGOs, especially for states that have a high concentration of STs and SCs.

6 The workforce participation rate in the Kerala, Delhi, Assam, and Bihar is less than one per cent for girl child labour, whereas Goa, Tamil Nadu, and Uttarakhand have a workforce participation rate of less than two per cent for girl child labour.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

229

9.0

Child workforce participation rate

8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

7.7

4.5 3.8 3.8 2.8 2.8

4.1 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.0 1.7

4.1 2.7 2.4

STs

SCs 19992000

OBCs 20045

Others 20078

All

Figure 8.2 Child Workforce Participation Rate by Social Groups

Source: Derived from NSS Unit level data of 61st Round and 64th Round.

Across states, the percentage of working boys is higher both for SCs and STs except for a few states (Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan for STs; and Haryana, Jharkhand, Orissa, and Rajasthan for SCs) in 20045 (Tables 8A.5). Child labour is higher among Muslims with a slow pace of decline Among the major religious groups, Muslims had the highest child workforce participation rate (Figure 8.3). Among Muslims, the child workforce participation rate (3 per cent) was higher than the national average (2.4 per cent) in 20078. Child labour among the Hindus declined from 4.2 per cent in 19992000 to 2.3 per cent in 20078, whereas child labour among Muslims declined from four per cent to only three per cent during the same period (Table 8A.6). This is a reection of the slower improvement in the literacy rate and net attendance rate in schools among Muslims for the same time period. Figures from Chapter 6 (on Education) clearly bring out the low literacy rate, high percentage of out of school children and very low net attendance rate, particularly for Muslim girls. The net attendance rate among Muslim girls declines very sharply after the primary level and dips to as low as 24 per cent at the secondary level for rural areas. The trend is similar for Muslim boys, which results in stagnation in the proportion of child labour among Muslims.

Technology too has an impact on child labour. Smallscale trade/industry largely uses traditional technologies. The possible reason for the slower pace of decline in child labour among Muslims is their historically larger engagement as households in industries like carpet weaving, which use traditional methods where children are in demand because of the so-called nimble ngers factor. However, modern technology has the potential to replace child labour in these trades. Similarly, in other trades/ sectors, technology can also help reduce the dependency on child labour, because it requires more skilled labour. Hence, adult skilled labour can substitute for child labour. For instance, the green revolution in India led to reduced child labour and increased school attendance. By implication, changes in technology can have a profound impact on the incidence of child labour. Parents using these technologies are more likely to appreciate the benets of education (Grootaert and Kanbua 1995). Sectoral Distribution: Agriculture predominant, followed by manufacturing A majority of the child labour in India is engaged in agriculture, which accounts for more than half of the total child labour. The manufacturing sector is the next biggest employer of child labour in India, followed by trade and hotels, community and social services, and construction. Figure 8.4 illustrates the distribution of child labour.

230 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

4.5

4.2

Child workforce participation rate

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.3 3.2

4.1

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Hindus

2.6

2.4

Muslims 19992000 20045

Others 20078

All

Figure 8.3 Child Workforce Participation Rate by Religious Groups

Source: NSS 55th, 61st, and 64th Round.

The analysis of the state-wise sectoral distribution of child labour reveals that the agriculture sector employed the majority of child labour across the states in 20045. However, there are a few states, where the sectoral distribution for child labour is dierent. For instance, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Uttar Pradesh have a large share of child labour in the manufacturing sector7 (ranging from 25 per cent to 45 per cent compared to the all India gure of 17 per cent), while Delhi and Kerala employ the majority of their child labour in the trade and hotel sector (58 per cent and 32 per cent, respectively compared to the all India gure of 9 per cent) and community and social services sector (31 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively as compared to the all India gure of 3 per cent ) (Table 8A.7). Migration from rural areas to urban areas too has had an impact on child labour. The migration of adults, particularly of males, from households results in an additional burden on the women as, apart from their normal duties like fetching water and rewood, they have to take on the duties usually performed by males. This phenomenon has led to the increasing feminization of agriculture and pressurizes women into taking the children with them to the elds. Hence, children who should be going to school, end

Community & Social Services 3.41 Trade & Hotel 8.45 Construction 1.95

Others 1.50

Manufacturing 16.55

Agriculture 68.14

Figure 8.4 All India Distribution of Child Labour by Sector of Employment, based on NSSO Estimates, 20045
Source: NSS 61st Round.

up helping the women on the farm even though schooling opportunities have grown. This is one of the major reasons why the problem of child labour is more prevalent in rural areas than in

7 In each of these states, there are few specic trades/businesses, which are concentrated/clustered in some particular areas. For instance, carpet weaving and glassware in Firozabad, locksmiths in Aligarh, and brassware in Muradabad of Uttar Pradesh; similarly jute and weaving in West Bengal and cracker manufacturing in Shivkashi of Tamil Nadu. In Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the incidence of child labour among Muslims is high vis--vis other communities.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

231

urban areas. The proportion of child labour in rural areas was 2.6 per cent in comparison to 1.6 per cent in urban areas in 20078and given that 72 per cent of Indias population lives in rural areas, the absolute number of child labourers in rural areas is quite signicant. The corresponding gures for the year 20045 were 3.6 per cent and 2.3 per cent, respectively. However, the ruralurban gap has reduced over time. Another issue of concern is the sustained inow of children from rural areas coming to urban areas in search of employment opportunities, which has resulted in a higher number of child labourers (in absolute terms) in urban India. A third of all child workers were in hazardous occupations Despite stringent legislation to stop child labour, especially in hazardous industries, children are still working in signicant numbers in these industries. The Registrar General of Census has published data on the occupationwise distribution of children in the age group 514 years working in the non-agricultural sector. The Working Group on Child Labour for the Eleventh Five Year Plan has done a tentative segregation of data into hazardous and non-hazardous occupations. However, the classication of occupations in the Census data does not exactly match the occupations listed as hazardous8 under the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act. About 3.64 million children in the age group 514 years are working in the non-agricultural sector in the country, of which 1.22

million (33.47 per cent) are working in hazardous occupations. The distribution of children in dierent hazardous occupations is given in Figure 8.5. About 53 per cent of the total number of children working in hazardous occupations is employed in the pan, bidi, and cigarette industry, and in construction and as domestic help.

Issues and Determinants of Child Labour A number of factors have been found to inuence the extent of child labour. These factors can broadly be categorized into two groups, that is, demand side and supply side. These factors aect child labour through various mechanisms/channels. Some of them are illustrated below. Demand side factors:
Labour Market Ineciencies Low paying and low quality work for adults compel households to send children out to earn, thus supporting the family. These children command lower wages. Child labour participation is inversely proportional to wage inequality between adults and child labourers, that is, the lower the dierence between adult and child wages, the less likely that children will substitute for adults (Contreras 2007). Eectively implemented minimum wages for adults can thus, in principle, deter child labour. The large share of the unorganized sector becomes a reason for drawing children into the workforce,

8 The Government has issued a notication to include children working as domestic workers and in dhabas/restaurants, hotels, and so on, in the list of hazardous occupations w.e.f. 10 October 2006. In the last decade, the number of hazardous processes listed in the Schedule of the Act has increased from 18 to 65, and hazardous occupations from 7 to 16. The list of hazardous occupations is as follows: 1. Transport of passengers, goods, or mails by railways; 2. Cinder picking, clearing of an ash pit, or building operation in the railway premises; 3. Work in a catering establishment at a railway station, involving the movement of a vendor or any other employee of the establishment from the one platform to another or in to or out of a moving train; 4. Work relating to the construction of a railway station or with any other work where such work is done in close proximity to or between the railway lines; 5. A port authority within the limits of any port; 6. Work relating to selling of crackers and reworks in shops with temporary licenses; 7. Abattoirs/slaughter Houses; 8. Automobile workshops and garages; 9. Foundries; 10. Handling of toxic or inammable substances or explosives; 11. Handloom and power loom industry; 12. Mines (underground and under water) and collieries; 13. Plastic units and bre glass workshops; 14. Domestic workers or servants; 15. Dhabas (roadside eateries), restaurants, hotels, motels, tea shops, resorts, spas, or other recreational centres; and 16. Diving.

232 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

11.1 1.1 1.5 2.7 3.1 4.1 20.7

Pan, Bidi, and Cigarettes Construction Domestic Workers Spinning/ Weaving Brick Kilns and Tiles Dhabas/ Restaurants/ Hotels/ Motels

5.8 17.1 7.0

Auto Workshop/ Vehicle Repairs Gem Cutting and Jewellery Making Carpet Making Ceramic 10.6 15.2 Agarbati, Dhoop, and Detergent Making Others

Figure 8.5 Distribution of Child Workers Engaged in Hazardous Occupations in India as per the Census 2001
Source: Report of the Working Group on Child Labour for the Eleventh Five Year Plan, Government of India, Planning Commission, New Delhi.

since exit and entry are dicult to monitor there. The unorganized sector accounts for around 93 per cent of the labour force. Poor working conditions, such as the lack of safety and unrestricted working hours, results in adults quitting some jobs, which are lled by children. Technology: Some traditional trades draw in child labour; for instance, employment of boys in mines (because the tunnels are too small for adults to crawl through). Similarly, there is the so-called requirement of nimble ngers for traditional carpet weaving (Self and Grabowski 2009 and Grootaert and Kanbur 1995). Supply side factors: Poverty: It is a compelling cause for child labour (Basu et al. 1998). High fertility rate: A household with more children is much more likely to send a child to work than a household with fewer children (Grootaert and Kanbur 1995). In cases where the household is large, older girl children have the responsibility of taking care of

the younger siblings. Some states which have a high total fertility rate9 (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh), also have a high incidence of child labour and NWC. Non-responsive education system: Schools are not able to attract and retain children in schools. As highlighted in the Education chapter, the poor quality of school infrastructure, lack of teachers, and high teacher absenteeism have resulted in high dropout rates. Also, the failure of the education system to provide enough employment opportunities has led many parents to view work as the preferred option for their children. Poor access to nancial services: Non-availability of credit for school education can adversely aect investment in children as it eectively reduces household incomes (Chakrabarty and Grote 2009, Endmonds and Sharma 2005).

Policy Issues Policies that reduce wage distortions between adult and child labour; eective minimum wage laws (which will lead to an increase in adult incomes), improved working conditions, increased parental human capital through

For further discussion on Fertility Rate in the states, please refer to Appendix table number 5A.22 of Chapter on Health and Demography.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

233

adult literacy programmes and vocational training and improved credit access will have a positive spillover eect on child development, and thus deter child labour in principle. Measures and initiatives, such as Social Labelling or Codes of Conduct, have been proposed and developed in the recent past to curb child labour (Chakrabarty and Grote 2009). Special emphasis should be given to fertility reduction the prerequisites for which were all presented in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 makes the case for reducing the costs of school attendance, along with a combination of school attendance with part-time work, which work will be more feasible for poor households to sustain themselves. Basu (2003) emphasizes that child labour should gradually be eliminated as a result of the trickle-down eect of growth, because reducing child labour by imposing a complete ban/prohibition may not increase child welfare. But much more important is the eective implementation of the Right to Education Act, as Chapter 6 in this Report rightly argues.

Policy Initiatives The Government of India has been adopting various measures to tackle the problems related to child labour. Based on the Gurupadaswamy Committees recommendations, the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act was enacted in 1986. The Act prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous occupations and processes, and regulates the working conditions in other occupations. The list of hazardous occupations10 and processes is progressively being expanded on the recommendations of the Child Labour Technical Advisory Committee constituted under the Act. Any person who employs a child in contravention of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act is liable for punishment with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three months, but which may extend to one year or with a ne, which shall not be less than Rs 10,000, but which may extend to Rs 20,000, or both. The Government of India has adopted a holistic approach to eliminate child labour from the country in a phased manner, beginning with children working in hazardous occupations and progressively covering the children working in other occupations. The governments
10 11

strategy to eliminate the problem of child labour involves the strict enforcement of the existing Act with simultaneous eorts for the rehabilitation of both parents and children through linkages with poverty eradication and income generation programmes (Government of India 2005). In India, a blanket ban on all kinds of child labour has not been enforced. This is because working children are from poor families and such a ban, without providing an alternate means of nancial support, is likely to punish parents who are already trapped in the vicious circle of poverty. In consonance with the above approach, the National Policy on Child Labour was formulated in 1987. The Policy seeks to adopt a gradual and sequential approach, with a focus on the rehabilitation of children working in hazardous occupations and processes in the rst instance. It envisages a legislative action plan, convergence of general development programmes to benet children wherever possible, and a project-base plan of action for the launching of projects for the welfare of working children in areas with a high concentration of child labour. In order to translate the above Policy into action, the government launched the National Child Labour Project (NCLP) Scheme in 1988 to rehabilitate working children, beginning with 12 child labour endemic districts of the country. NCLP has been the Government of Indias single largest project-based and action-oriented programme to eliminate child labour. Under the Scheme, working children are identied through a child labour survey, withdrawn from work and put into special bridge schools. Yet the progress so far is not satisfactory. Till date, only 4 lakh11 (that is, 0.4 million) child labourers in the country have been rehabilitated under this Project though crores12 of rupees have been spent. Many districts do not show any signs of eradicating child labour even now, so many years after the implementation of NCLP. The selection of districts has also been biased to some extent in the sense that many child labour endemic districts were covered very late under NCLP (Satpathy et al. 2010). The Supreme Court of India has taken a proactive role in addressing the problem of child labour. The programme received a major thrust with the Supreme Courts

The list of hazardous process and occupations and information related to its expansion has been discussed in Footnote 5 of this chapter. 1 Lakh = 0.1 million. 12 1 Crore = 10 million.

234 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Box 8.1 ILO-IPEC

The International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) is a global programme launched by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in December 1991. India was the rst country to join when it signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ILO in 1992. IPECs long-term objective is to contribute to the eective abolition of child labour. Its immediate objectives are: To enhance the capability of ILO constituents and NGOs to design, implement, and evaluate programmes for child labour; To identify interventions at community and national levels which could serve as models for replication; and To create awareness and social mobilization for securing the elimination of child labour. At the international level, IPEC has a Programme Steering Committee consisting of representatives of the ILO, donors, and participating countries. At the national level in India, there is a National Steering Committee and the Chairman of this Committee is the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment. This Committee is tripartite in composition with representation from NGOs as well. Currently, there are three projects in the country under this programme, namely, the INDUS Project, Andhra Pradesh Phase-II and the Karnataka Project. Source: Ministry of Labour and Employment, http://labour.nic.in/ilas/indiaandilo.htm

landmark judgment in December 1996 in the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court gave certain directions regarding the manner in which children working in hazardous occupations were to be withdrawn from work and rehabilitated, as also the manner in which the working conditions of the children employed in non-hazardous occupations were to be regulated and improved upon. The Supreme Court has since then been continuously monitoring the directions issued in this judgment. Based on the reports received from the state/UT governments, the Ministry of Labour and Employment has been regularly ling adavits to apprise the Supreme Court of the progress in this regard. A Child Labour Cell has been formed in most of the states to implement the directions of the Supreme Court. This Cell has also been instrumental in monitoring the Scheme. The progress of implementation of the NCLP Scheme is monitored in the Ministry through the prescribed periodic reports and regular visits from the ocials of the Ministry, State Government, and Audit Departments. Initially, the NCLP Scheme covered children working in the hazardous occupations/processes in the age group 514 years, but after the launch of the SSA in 20012, this Scheme was conned to children in the age group 914 years. At present, children in the age group 59 years are covered under SSA. During the Tenth Five Year Plan, this Scheme was extended over 250 districts. The Working Group on Child Labour for the Eleventh Five Year Plan stated that

There is a need to cover all children engaged in hazardous sectors across the country under the NCLP Scheme during the Eleventh Plan. The Governments approach to their rehabilitation, apart from education, should also include providing vocational skills, which could help them earn a livelihood later in their lives. Experience of implementing the INDUS Project (Indo-US Child Labour Project) has shown that there is also a great need to provide employable vocational skill training to adolescents to prepare them to enter the workforce with skills. It has also shown that providing vocational skills to this age group would also attract families with child labourers to positively change their behaviour and withdraw their young children from work and motivate them to complete their primary education and then acquire technical skills. The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) was set up in March 2007 under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, an Act of Parliament (December 2005). The Commissions mandate is to ensure that all laws, policies, programmes, and administrative mechanisms are in consonance with the child rights perspective as enshrined in the Constitution of India and also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Commission visualizes a rights-based perspective owing into national policies and programmes, along

VULNERABLE GROUPS

235

with nuanced responses at the state, District and Block levels, taking into account the specicities and strengths of each region. The Commission sees an indispensable role for the state, sound institution-building processes, respect for decentralization at the community level through local bodies and larger societal concern for children and their well-being. The Commission also recommends broadening the denition of child labour and making it more inclusive. It must consider all children in the workforce, whether the work done is paid or unpaid, part of family labour or for an outside employer, whatever the working conditions imposed on the child. From a rights-based perspective all forms of work are bad for children and there can be little scope for compromise on this issue.
THE DIFFERENTLYABLED

Nature and Magnitude: Increase in absolute numbers, while incidence remains similar
Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability in the manner, or within the range, considered normal for a human being. The measurement of the prevalence of disability has always been an issue of debate. There are two kinds of sources available to provide information on the magnitude of disability across the world, i.e. Censuses and surveys. Censuses and surveys take very dierent approaches to measuring disability. The heterogeneity of the conceptual framework and insucient recognition of the importance of indicator accuracy, the age factor and the socio-economic characteristics of the studied populations impede reliable international comparison (Mont 2007). An international comparison of the magnitude of disability for various countries based on both Censuses and surveys shows that developed countries have a higher prevalence of disability as compared to developing countries. Mont (2007) says that developing countries tend to report the lowest rates of disability. While some factors would lead to higher rates of disability in richer countries namely, more elderly people and higher survival rates for people with disabling conditions, whereas the wide range of factors operating in the opposite direction in developing countries for example, poor healthcare, poor nutrition, and unsafe living conditions makes the breadth of this gap highly questionable. Prevalence of disability in India is high but its database is poor. There are only two sources which provide data on disability i.e. the NSSO and the Registrar General of India (Census of India). So far, the NSSO has carried out three special rounds of survey in 1981, 1991, and 2002. The most recent data available is from the 2002 round. The Registrar General of India included disability for the rst time in its Census in 2001. For a detailed analysis on disability, this Report has used NSSO estimates. Apart from the magnitude of disability in India, the NSSO estimates also provide information on various other aspects of disability, i.e. educational status, information about employment

Inclusive development must include all the sections of society, particularly the vulnerable groups and weaker sections. Disability, whether mental or physical, may be either a congenital condition or because of accidents or illness. The dierently-abled require support, both to be able to contribute to society (if possible), albeit in a limited manner, but above all, because they too deserve to live with dignity. Ocial estimates of disability in India (Census 2001 and NSSO 2003)13 are low (around 2 per cent), while alternative estimates using more inclusive denitions14 suggest a higher incidence of disability (at least 58 per cent). The Government of Indias Eleventh Five Year Plan acknowledges that at least 56 per cent of the population has disabilities. WHOs estimates of Indias dierently-abled population are considerably higher. This section will present the distribution of the dierently-abled across India, followed by information on the prevalence of various kinds of disability, the educational and employment status of the dierentlyabled, as well as the status of their living conditions. Present and future human resource requirements in terms of trained personnel for the dierently-abled population have also been discussed as well as policies and preventive interventions.

The denition of disability diers in the Census of India and NSSO. If we add less severe disabilities such as delayed learning, cerebral palsy, leprosy, mild mental illness and so on, then the number of dierently-abled will increase. Various disabilities due to ageing are also not counted. Actual disability is higher than the empirical evidence available.
14

13

236 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

conditions, and time of onset of disability along with other relevant insights. As per the NSSO survey, the number of dierentlyabled persons increased from nearly 12 million in 1981 to 18.49 million in 2002.15 It increased from 1.8 per cent of the population in 1981 to 1.9 per cent in 1991, but declined to 1.8 per cent in 2002 (Tables 8.3 and 8.A.8). India has a population of approximately 2 per cent with disability, and this has barely changed in the last 20 years.
Table 8.3 Prevalence of Disabilities in India
Year Male 1981 1991 2002 2.0 2.3 2.1 Rural Female 1.6 1.7 1.6 Person 1.8 2.0 1.9 Male 1.5 1.8 1.7 Urban Female 1.3 1.4 1.3 Person 1.4 1.6 1.5

with information on persons with physical disabilities. Information on mental disability is presented for those with mental retardation and mental illness. Among the physical disabilities covered in the report are visual, hearing, speech, and locomotor disabilities. Locomotor disability refers to an individuals inability to execute distinctive activities associated with moving both self and objects from one place to another. The prevalence of locomotor disability was the highest in the country followed by visual disability and hearing disability. For the period 1981 to 2002, the prevalence of locomotor disability showed an increase between 1981 and 1991. It remained steady during the period 1991 to 2002 in the rural sector but showed a very marginal dip in the urban sector. In the case of visual and hearing disabilities, the prevalence rate showed a decrease during the period 1981 to 2002. The decrease is more marked between 1991 and 2002, along with a decreasing ruralurban gap. Though the prevalence rate of speech disability declined during the two decades in each sector, the decrease was more in the rural areas.
Urban 12

Source: NSS 36th, 47th, and 58th Rounds.

Types of Disability: Prevalence of locomotor disability is the highest, followed by visual and hearing disability
The NSSO (2003) report on disabilities contains information on mentally dierently-abled persons together
Rural 10 4 5

Locomotor Speech Hearing

4 5

10 52 4 10 5

Low Vision Blindness Mental Illness Mental Retardness Multiple

8 55 3 9 4

Figure 8.6 Percentage Distribution of Differently-abled Persons by Type of Disability in India

Source: NSS 58th Round.
15 The previous two surveys were conducted during the NSS 36th round (JulyDecember, 1981) and the NSS 47th Round (JulyDecember, 1991). The NSS 58th Round (JulyDecember, 2002) report contains for the rst time, information on mentally dierently-abled persons together with information on persons with physical disabilities, and the age restrictions (of 5+ years) for hearing and speech disability was also done away with in this round. Information on mental disability is presented for those with mental retardation and mental illness. Therefore, the results of the 58th Round are not strictly comparable with previous rounds.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

237

At the same time, about 10.63 per cent of the dierently-abled suered from more than one type of disability in 2002 (Figure 8.6). Mental and speech disability usually begins at birth Looking at the distribution of the time of onset of disability, the NSSO Report highlighted that about 84 per cent of the mentally retarded persons and 82 per cent of those with a speech disability were born with the disability. For persons with other types of disability, the disability was acquired later in life and was largely associated with older people. A decient intake of micronutrients such as iron, vitamin A, riboavin, and folic acid also lead to various kinds of disabilities. For instance, iron deciency causes anaemia and poor concentration, and iodine deciency causes mental retardation (a detailed discussion on micronutrients deciency is in the Chapter on The Right to Food and Nutrition). The elderly are more prone to disabilities like mental illness, blindness, poor vision, loss of hearing, and locomotion. The NSSO data shows that more than 6 per cent of the elderly have at least one disability, while it is only 1.5 per cent for children below the age of 15. Disability from accidents and non-communicable diseases to increase Although most dierently-abled people in India have mild to moderate disabilities, the medical causes for such disabilities are rapidly changing. It is estimated that between 1990 and 2020, half of the disabilities will be due to communicable diseases; disabilities due to injuries/ accidents will double and there will be an increase of more than 40 per cent in the share of disabilities due to noncommunicable diseases. This reects long-term trends in fertility reduction and aging, increased road congestion, poor safety practices in the workplace, stubbornly poor nutritional outcomes, and slow progress in the reduction of communicable diseases. In terms of age of onset, there is a double hump of disability onsetrst, shortly after birth and then in the 5060 year old cohort. In addition, the age prole of disability onset varies sharply by category of disability (World Bank 2009). The prevalence rate of disability varies signicantly across states. In rural areas, it ranged from 0.67 per cent in Delhi to 2.71 per cent in Himachal Pradesh while in

the urban areas, it ranged from 0.52 per cent in Delhi to 2.61 per cent in Lakshadweep. In Arunachal Pradesh, the rate was only 27 per 100,000, that is, 0.027 per cent. Disability is higher among males across all the states. Low literacy and high unemployment among dierently-abled Disability in India has been neglected for a long time. No serious eort was made by the Government of India for physical and vocational rehabilitation of the dierently-abled. In fact, there were only a few schools for educating dierently-abled children and most of them were located in urban areas (Sharma 2009). The NSSO Report (2003) also mentions the poor status of education and employment of the dierently-abled. It reported that nearly 55 per cent of the dierently-abled in India were illiterate, against 35 per cent for the general population. Illiteracy is high across all categories of disability, and extremely so for children with visual, multiples and mental disabilities (and for severely dierently-abled children of all categories). Similarly, the share of out of school dierently-abled children is around ve-and-a-half times the general rate and around four times than that of the ST population. Even the dierently-abled, who are literate, do not have a very high level of education. About 9 per cent of them have completed their education up to the secondary level and above. Out of every 1,000 dierently-abled persons, only 1535 have completed any vocational course and 7480 per cent of these were in the non-engineering stream. The current enrolment ratio per 1,000 dierentlyabled persons in the age group 518 years in ordinary school was higher in the rural areas than in the urban areas, 475 and 444, respectively. About 11 per cent of dierently-abled persons in the age group 518 years were enrolled in special schools in the urban areas as compared to less than 1 per cent in rural areas. The situation of employment among the dierentlyabled is very distressing in India. Only about 26 per cent of the dierently-abled persons were employed, despite the reservation policy of employment for dierentlyabled both in the public (3 per cent) and private (5 per cent) sectors. As on 2003, only 10 per cent of the posts in the public sector had been identied as suitable for dierently-abled. As a result, the share of dierently-abled in all posts remains negligible, at 0.44 per cent. Among multinational companies, the situation was far worse,

238 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

with only 0.05 per cent of the positions being lled by the dierently-abled (World Bank 2009). Around 37 per cent of dierently-abled persons (age 5+) were working before the onset of their disability. Out of them, 55 per cent lost their jobs and 13 per cent had to change their work. The employed dierently-abled are mostly self-employed or casual workers in the primary sector Looking at the distribution of the employed dierentlyabled as per their activity status, it is seen that the majority of dierently-abled persons are either self-employed or casual workers. Of the 26 per cent who are employed, around 15 per cent are self-employed and 8 per cent are casual workers. Only 3 per cent of the dierently-abled persons have regular jobs (Table 8.4). There are very few employment opportunities for dierently-abled women. Only 10 per cent of dierentlyabled women have jobs, where they are either mostly selfemployed or casual workers.

The sector-wise distribution of dierently-abled workers is quite dierent from the usual labour force. The majority of dierently-abled persons work in the primary sector (around 56 per cent) and more than a quarter of the employed dierently-abled work in the tertiary sector (around 27 per cent)which is not very dierent for the shares in the primary and tertiary sectors for the whole population (Table 8.5). However, the distribution in the rural areas and the urban areas is completely dierent. A large proportion of dierently-abled persons in the urban areas work in the tertiary sector, followed by the secondary sector and the primary sector, while their counterparts in rural areas are mostly employed in the primary sector. Very large unmet need for professionals to help the dierently-abled Human resource development deals with creating conditions that enable people to get the best out of themselves. Rehabilitating dierently-abled persons is a long process
(per cent)
Total Person 23.8 9.4 2.2 7.3 4.9 1.2 75.0 100.0 Male 36.4 15.9 5.8 4.3 10.5 1.1 62.5 100.0 Female 10.4 2.4 2.6 1.2 4.2 0.3 89.3 100.0 Person 25.7 10.3 4.5 3.0 7.9 0.7 73.6 100.0

Table 8.4 Distribution of Differently-abled* by Broad Activity Status, JulyDecember 2002

Activity Status Male 1. Employed (a) Self- Employed in Agriculture (b) Self-Employed in Non-Agriculture (c ) Regular Employee (d) Casual Employee 2. Unemployed 3. Not in Labour Force Total 36.9 16.3 6.5 2.6 11.5 0.8 62.3 100.0 Rural Female 10.9 2.3 3.0 0.7 4.8 0.2 88.9 100.0 Person 26.3 10.6 5.1 1.8 8.8 0.6 73.1 100.0 Male 34.7 14.4 3.0 10.5 6.7 1.8 63.5 100.0 Urban Female 8.8 2.6 1.0 2.9 2.3 0.4 90.8 100.0

Sources: NSS 58th Round, Report No. 485. Notes: * Data relates to 5 + age group.

Table 8.5 Distribution of Differently-abled Workers by Usual Activity Status in Broad Industrial Sectors, JulyDecember 2002
Industry Sector Male Primary Sector Secondary Sector Tertiary Sector Total* 667 132 193 1,000 Rural Female 730 117 146 1,000 Person 678 130 185 1,000 Male 99 303 587 1,000 Urban Female 137 323 531 1,000 Person 105 306 578 1,000 Male 548 168 276 1,000 Total Female 616 156 220 1,000 Person 560 166 266 1,000

Sources: NSS 58th Round, Report No. 485. Notes: *Includes the category not reported.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

239

and it requires early intervention, special education, vocational training, and employment. For rehabilitating the dierently-abled, a team of experts is needed to help them at dierent stages of their development. A major constraint in expanding the rehabilitation services in India was the lack of trained manpower. Training programmes in this eld were isolated and most of these were run on an ad hoc basis. Some of them were being run by the Ministry of Social Welfare and the others by the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Health. There was no uniformity in the teaching curriculum and syllabus (Sharma 2009). The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) Act, 1992 was passed by Parliament with the main objective of improving the quality of trained manpower in the eld of disability by bringing uniformity in the various training programmes being conducted in the country. At present, about 232 training institutes, including ve national institutes, apex institutes, and universities are recognized by the RCI. According to Sharma (2009) estimates, there are very few training institutes, which provide training to turn out trained personnel for handling the problems of the dierently-abled at dierent stages. This has resulted in a huge gap between demand and supply. Till 2007, this eld was suering from a shortage of about 186,565 personnel, of which about 88 per cent, that is, 163,350 are required as teachers for dierent disabilities. If the outow of training institutions remains the same, then by the end of the
250000 206152 200000 186565

Eleventh Plan, there will be a shortage of 158,598 persons, which may come down to 104,531 by the end of the Twelfth Plan (Figure 8.7).

Living Conditions of the Dierently-abled Improving the living conditions of dierently-abled persons is always an important concern for society and policymakers. About 13 per cent of the physically differently-abled were observed to be severely disabled as they could not take care of themselves even with aid/ appliances. The situation is the worst among the mentally retarded. The NSSO Report (2002) also pointed out that even though a large majority of the dierently-abled were living with their spouse and/or other family members, about 3 per cent were living alone and 5 per cent were living only with their spouse. Although the Government of India, various state governments and NGOs (Box 8.2) have made some arrangements to improve the living conditions of the differently-abled by providing them education, vocational training, aid/appliances and corrective surgery, or government jobs, nevertheless, these arrangements help only a very small proportion, and more focused policies are required for the dierently-abled in India. Policies and Preventive Interventions India has one of the more progressive disability policy frameworks in the developing world. The Government of India has enacted three legislations for persons with

202126 182343 158598

Trained personnel

150000 104531 100000 43528 19587 0 1 Available 2 Demand Shortage 3 77812

50000

Figure 8.7 Mismatch in the Number of Trained Personnel for the Differently-abled
Source: Sharma (2009).

240 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Box 8.2 Jaipur Foot: A Ray of Hope for the Differently-abled

The Jaipur Foot, also known as the Jaipur Leg, is a rubber based prosthetic leg for people with below the knee amputations. These were produced in 1969 for victims of landmine explosions under the guidance of Dr P.K. Sethi by Masterji Ram Chander. Now Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti (BMVSS), Jaipur (a formally registered society) is helping the handicapped to become mobile again by providing articial limbs, polio callipers, wheelchairs, hand-paddled tricycles, and crutches. All this assistance is provided free of charge to the beneciaries. The BMVSSs main objectives is the physical, economic and social rehabilitation of the physically challenged, particularly those who have no resources, enabling them to regain their mobility, self-respect and, dignity so that they become self-reliant, normal and productive members of the community. The Society ts about 20,000 articial limbs and about 30,000 polio callipers, and other aids and appliances every year in their centres and through mobile camps in India and abroad. Since its inception, BMVSS has helped more than 1.1 million handicapped people to become mobile again. It has also helped more than 16,000 dierently-abled persons from abroad. BMVSS is the largest organization for the handicapped in the world, in terms of tting of articial limbs and callipers and the like, for the handicapped. Source: www.jaipurfoot.org

disabilities: (i) The Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 which deals with the development of manpower for providing rehabilitation services; (ii) The Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995, which provides for education, employment, creation of a barrier free environment, social security, and the like (iii) The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disability Act, 1999 which has provisions for legal guardianship of the four categories and creation of an enabling environment for as much independent living as possible. In addition to the legal framework, extensive infrastructure has been developed. Seven national institutes16 are working for the development of manpower in dierent areas. There are ve Composite Rehabilitation Centres, four Regional Rehabilitation Centres, and 120 District Disability Rehabilitation Centres (DDRCs) providing various kinds of rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities. There are also several national institutions17 under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare working in the eld of rehabilitation. In addition, some state government institutions provide rehabilitation services. Besides all these, 250 private

institutions conduct training courses for rehabilitation professionals. The National Handicapped and Finance Development Corporation (NHFDC), through state channelizing agencies, has been providing loans to persons with disabilities on concessional terms so that they can undertake self-employment ventures. Panchayati Raj Institutions at the village, intermediary, and district level have been entrusted with the welfare of persons with disabilities. India is a signatory to the Declaration on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia Pacic Region. India is also a signatory to the Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards an inclusive, barrier, free and rights-based society. India is currently participating in negotiations on the UN Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

Policy Implementation The policy framework on disability is poorly implemented and virtually disappears at the panchayat or village level. Indias action in providing help to the

These institutes are (i) Institute for the Physically Handicapped, New Delhi; (ii) National Institute of Visually Handicapped, Dehradun; (iii) National Institute for Orthopedically Handicapped, Kolkata; (iv) National Institute for Mentally Handicapped, Secunderabad; (v) National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Mumbai; (vi) National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research, Cuttack; and (vii) National Institute for Empowerment of Persons with Multiple Disabilities, Chennai. 17 Some of these institutes are the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, Bangalore; All India Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mumbai; All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore; and Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi.

16

VULNERABLE GROUPS

241

dierently-abled has generally been weak, and there was a lack of awareness of available services among the differently-abled. Apart from the poor functioning of the current disability identication and certication system, there are three main challenges in accessing benets and services: (i) physical access problems; (ii) problems with procedures and ocials; and (iii) communication difculties in approaching providers. People with disabilities are subject to deprivation in many dimensions of their lives. Social attitudes and stigma play an important role in limiting the opportunities for dierently-abled people. Some serious limitations like low coverage, lack of funds, lack of awareness programmes, non-cooperation of local authorities, loopholes in the system of selection and certication of beneciaries, and services conned only to urban areas have also been observed at the delivery end of the services. There are substantial dierences in socio-economic outcomes and access to services by disability type, with those suering from mental illness and mental retardation being in a particularly bad situation. Around 50 per cent of households saw the cause of disability as a curse of God (World Bank 2009). However, despite the approval of a national policy for the dierently-abled in 2006, only two states out of 28, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka, have draft disability policies. The National Policy for Disabled Persons (2006) recognizes that persons with disabilities are a valuable human resource for the country and seeks to create an environment that provides them equal opportunities, protection of their rights, and full participation in society. There is need for a multi-sectoral and multifaceted approach so that the full potential of Indias dierently-abled population is realized. Improving the status and social and economic participation of people with disabilities would have a positive eect on everyone.

With better education and greater access to jobs, Indias dierently-abled people would generate higher growth and thus benet the country as a whole. Many of these points were conrmed by the World Banks Report (2009) on People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes.
THE ELDERLY

Nature and Magnitude: Slowly rising share of elderly

India began to reap the demographic dividend18 around 1980. Observed demographic trends suggest that both the size and age structure of the population (and therefore the dependency ratio19) in all countries tend to change over time, because of the nature of demographic transition.20 India is in the midst of a process where it faces a window of opportunity created by the demographic dividend. In the process, the dependency ratio has declined from 0.8 in 1991 to 0.73 in 2001, and it is expected to further decline21 sharply to 0.59 by 2011 (Government of India 2008). The trends of declining birth rate, slow improvement in life expectancy and the baby-boomers generation having now crossed the age of 20 years is resulting in the demographic bulge occurring in the age group 1529 years. Due to these trends, India has the youngest population in the world with a median age of less than 24 years in 2000 compared to 38 for Europe and 41 for Japan. Even China had a median age of 30 years.22 On the other hand, India now has the second largest aged population in the world. It is important to note that though the total dependency ratio has declined in the last two decades, the proportion of the elderly23 in the population has increased over the same period. The rate at which the size of the elderly population is increasing is

Demographic dividend is dened as a population bulge in the working age group (1564 years). Dependency ratio is dened as the proportion of working (economically active) people to non-working (non-economically active) people in a country. 20 Demographic Transition is characterized by the fact that death rates tend to decline before declines in birth rates set in. The initial fall in infant mortality and improvement in child survival results in a boom generation, with a larger number of people in the younger ages. After some time, the lagged fall in fertility rates reverses the baby boom, resulting in a bulge in the younger ages. The bulge created by the baby boom moves up the age structure resulting in the fact that at some point the population in the working age (1564 years) is much higher than it was previously and would be subsequently. Finally, the bulge enters the old age bracket. 21 Modernization and new social processes have also led to more women entering the workforce, further lowering the dependency ratio (Government of India 2008). 22 In 2010, the share of persons 65 years and above to the total population for United Kingdom, China, Japan and India were 16.2 per cent, 8.1 per cent, 22.2 per cent, and 5.2 per cent, respectively. 23 In India, the elderly are dened as persons in the age group 60 years and above.
19

18

242 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

higher than that of the general population. The percentage of elder persons has increased from 6.49 per cent in 1981 to 7.45 per cent in 2001, and the upsurge was higher between 1991 and 2001.24 As per the projections based on the Census of India (2001), the proportion of the elderly in the population is expected to be 9.2 per cent in 2016. The projected proportion of aged people in the total population will further rise to 10.7 per cent in 2021 and 12.5 per cent in 2026 (Table 8.6). The OASIS Report25 (2000) expected the number of elderly to increase by 107 per cent and projected that the number of aged persons will rise to 113 million in 2016. Based on the expected demographic prole, Nagarajan and Mitra (2005) see that the window of demographic opportunity will be open till 2035, that is, the share of the labour force is expected to increase until 2035, and after that the dependency ratio will start increasing once again. The proportion of the middle-aged group will also decline to 59.7 per cent by the end of 2050. We need to take advantage of the demographic dividend within the limited time available, and, at the same time, to eectively take care of the increasing proportion of the elderly population. The demographic pattern of the elderly population is explained below.

Table 8.6 Distribution of Projected Population by Age Groups and Gender in India
Age group (in years) 2001 Persons Males Females 2016 Persons Males Females 2021 Persons Males Females 2026 Persons Males Females 014 35.3 35.6 35.1 26.8 27.4 26.2 25.1 25.7 24.5 23.4 23.9 22.8 1559 57.2 57.3 57.1 63.9 63.8 63.9 64.0 64.1 64.4 64.3 64.4 64.1 60+ 7.5 7.1 7.8 9.2 8.7 9.8 10.7 10.2 11.3 12.5 11.8 13.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: Census of India (2001). Note: Projection is as on 1 March 2016, 2021, and 2026.

Gender Gap: Escalation in female share

A gender gap has been observed in terms of the high proportion of elderly females to elderly males. This is partly a biological phenomenon, since women live longer than men. Even though there is an adverse sex-ratio in India, with women being outnumbered by men (931 women to 1,000 men)which is the exact opposite of the situation prevailing in developed economieswomen are surviving longer, as one might expect because of their biological advantage. A steep rise in the number of elderly people was seen for both sexes (that is, male and female) in urban India. Moreover, there was a sharp escalation in the gender gap among the elderly during the period

19812001, which resulted in a higher number of elderly women than men in 200126 in India (Table 8.7). This situation is expected to continue in the future. However, the discrimination against women throughout their life-cycle results in multiple indignities for them and makes their life even more dicult in their later years, when they are more likely to be living without their spouses. Looking at the trends, the problem of lonely elderly women is likely to increase in the future.

RuralUrban Gap of Proportion of Elderly Population Although the proportion of the elderly to the total population in rural areas (7.7 per cent) is higher than in urban areas (6.7 per cent) in 2001, the ruralurban gap in terms of proportion of elderly population has declined over time due to the decline in the elderly population of rural India in 1991 as compared to 1981 and a moderate growth of

24 The most reliable and widely used data on the demographic pattern of India is the Census of India. Till date, its most recent available data is based on 2001. Most of the Ministries and the Planning Commission use Census of India data only for planning purposes and projections. However, NSSO has published a report on the health conditions of the elderly in 2006 using the data of 2004. Most of its ndings are close to the Census 2001 results. This report has used the Census 2001 as the base data and has also added the NSSO ndings wherever there is additional information. 25 This report was produced by the Dave Committee (instituted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India). 26 According to Census (2001), the sex-ratio among the aged was 1,029 (that is, 1,029 females per 1,000 males), whereas as per NSSO (2006), the ratio was 999 in 2004.

VULNERABLE GROUPS

243

Table 8.7 Percentage of Persons Aged 60 Years and Above in India27

States/UTs 1981 Rural Urban Combined 7.6 5.1 6.4 Males 1991 7.1 5.5 6.7 2001 7.4 6.3 7.1 1981 6.9 5.7 6.6 Females 1991 7.0 5.9 6.7 2001 8.1 7.2 7.8 1981 7.2 5.4 6.5 Persons 1991 7.0 5.7 6.7 2001 7.7 6.7 7.5

Source: Census of India 1981, 1991, and 2001.

elderly population of rural India between 1991 and 2001. There were two key reasons behind this change. First, the proportion of rural males has declined between 1981 and 2001, and second, the proportion of rural females has seen a sudden increase in the same time period, particularly between 1991 and 2001. Interestingly, these changes also turned the malefemale gap around in rural India. During 198191, there was a higher proportion of elderly males to elderly females in rural areas. However, this was reversed in the next decade. At the state level, the proportion of the elderly to the total population is the highest in Kerala followed by Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu, the states which also have the highest life expectancy. In general, the share of elderly in the population is higher in the southern states and relatively lower in the eastern and north-eastern states (Census 2001).

8.8). The old age dependency ratio increased during the period 1981 to 2001. This ratio is much higher in rural areas as compared to urban areas. However, the ratio is increasing both in rural and urban areas (Table 8.8). The old age dependency ratio is higher for females than for males. This indicates that women are more likely to be dependent on others, because of the lower literacy and higher incidence of widowhood among them. At the state level, Kerala has a high old age dependency ratio. Other states, which have a dependency ratio higher than the national average are Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh. It is relatively lower in the north-eastern region and the Union Territories (Census 2001).

Old Age Dependency Ratio The old age dependency ratio, dened as the number of persons in the age group 60 years and above per 100 persons in the age group 1559 years, is a useful indicator for looking at the elderly within the population (Table

Issues and Concerns: Very few elderly are covered under pension/insurance schemes
India has enjoyed a high GDP growth rate for the last decade. This has resulted in the gradual migration of the younger population to cities and towns, and erosion of

Table 8.8 Old Age Dependency Ratio in India28

States/UTs 1981 Rural Urban Combined 13.1 8.5 11.8 Males 1991 13.3 9.2 12.2 2001 13.6 9.9 12.5 1981 12.9 10.1 12.2 Females 1991 13.0 10.2 12.2 2001 14.7 11.7 13.8 1981 13.0 9.2 12.0 Persons 1991 13.2 9.7 12.2 2001 14.1 10.8 13.1

Source: Census of India 1981, 1991, and 2001. According to NSSO (2006) report, the share of elderly in the total population in the year 2004 was fairly close to the Census 2001 gures for urban areas, but was slightly lower for rural areas. 28 NSSO (2006) estimates for Old Age Dependency Ratio also illustrates similar trends as Census 2001, but NSSO estimates are marginally lower than Census results.
27

244 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

kinship systems, which have produced a decline in the traditional system of assigning responsibility in the family. Hence, there has been a decline in the care for elderly people. A majority of Indias elderly population faces issues such as nancial dependence (either pension or support from family), poor health, and impaired functional status. Moreover, only about one in 10 workers in India is covered by a formal pension scheme and state coverage levels vary widely. The percentage of elderly persons who are working is declining, particularly in the case of women. Their reliance on transfer income, particularly on subsidies and transfer of public money, is therefore expected to be higher. Factors like household income, education, and number of working adults in the household have a signicant positive eect on the probability of seeking care. Another important issue is the rapid growth in the elderly population. The developed world became rich before its people started living longer; in developing countries people are getting older before the countries have become rich. For example, while France took 120 years for the elderly population to double, it took India just 25 years. This makes the issue of pensions critical. The Dave Committee (2000), instituted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, in its report (also known as the OASIS29 Report), examined old age income security in general, but its prime focus was on the great mass of individuals who are working outside the pension provisions that presently exist in the organized sector

(Ibid.: 39). The Committee perceived a serious threat that a majority of these workers, who may not be below the poverty line in their working lives, might sink below the poverty line in their old age, simply because they have not accumulated enough savings during their years in the workforce (Ibid.: 7). The committee also notes that focus on these workers would be a huge cost.30 The OASIS Report (2000) recommends: (i) devising a new pension provision for excluded workers who are capable of saving even a modest amount during their working career, (ii) converting these modest contributions into reasonably large sums in an almost risk-free manner, and (iii) buying annuity plans upon retirement from the accumulated account. The central assumption in the committees prescription, and also in the new pension system, is that the unorganized workers can themselves contribute towards their retirement income provided they are encouraged to do so. In view of these recommendations, the Government of India recently launched a new pension scheme for the unorganized sector, named Swavalamban (Box 8.3). Major healthcare needs remain unmet For the elderly, pension is not the only issue, healthcare is equally important. The health-related quality of elderly peoples life, especially women from rural areas, is considerably lower in India when compared to other countries. The OASIS Report recognizes the link between

Box 8.3 SwavalambanA pension scheme for the unorganized sector

The Swavalamban pension scheme was announced by the Finance Minister, Government of India, in the Budget 201011 and launched on 26 September 2010. The scheme is administered by the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. LIC (Life Insurance Corporation) is the facilitator. The Swavalamban pension scheme aims to cover workers in the unorganized sector under the New Pension System (NPS) from the age of 60 years. The Scheme is open to workers in the unorganized sector aged 18 years to 55 years and will be applicable to all those who join the NPS, subject to their meeting the eligibility criteria. To be eligible, a person will have to make a minimum contribution of Rs 1,000 and maximum contribution of Rs 12,000 per annum. The central government will contribute Rs 1,000 per year to each NPS account opened in the year 201011 and for the next three years, that is, 201112, 201213 and 201314. The Scheme will be funded by grants from the Government of India, and targets over 300 million workers in the unorganised sector workers with the aim of inculcating the habit of saving among them. Source: Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Government of India 2010 (www.pfrda.org.in)

OASIS stands for Old Age Social and Income Security Project. Committee mentions that providing a Rs 100 per month old-age pension to the projected 175 million population of the elderly in 2025 would translate into an unusual outow of over Rs 21,000 crore for the government (p. 12).
30

29

VULNERABLE GROUPS

245

pension and health and notes that the problem is further compounded as the elderly have to incur heavier expenditure on health during old age, neglect of which would worsen their quality of life. Co-residence with children cannot by itself be regarded as sucient means of old age insurance. In particular, the likelihood of co-residence is lower for disadvantaged elderly persons who have no spouse and also lack health, wealth, or both. This necessitates social protection.

Policies and Interventions Income security for the aged in India is currently being implemented at the national and state levelsthe National Public Assistance Scheme by the central government, and the welfare activities funded by the states themselves. The National Social Assistance Scheme (NSAS) includes ve components out of which three31 components are for the elderly, widows, and dierently-abled, viz.
i. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme32 (IGNOAPS) ii. Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme33 (IGNWPS) iii. Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme34 (IGNDPS) These schemes are fully centrally sponsored to ensure a minimum national standard of social assistance in addition to the benets from the states. The schemes are mostly implemented through panchayats and municipal bodies with provisions to seek assistance from voluntary agencies. Other schemes initiated by the centre include subsidies provided to the aged on rail fares and air fares. Lastly, the National Policy on Older Persons has empowered the aged to seek legal redressal against personal misdemeanour or parental abuse. In 2007, the Senior Citizens Act was enacted but it did not cover senior citizens in the agricultural sector. In 2010, the Government of
31

India unveiled a health plan for the elderly called the National Programme for the Health Care of the Elderly (NPHCE), which is set to roll out in 21 states by the year 2012. This programme is designed to be preventive, curative, and rehabilitative health services for the elderly. The Government of India has also taken various steps to strengthen the public health system, which by default takes care of the aged too. Programmes like the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) (launched in 2005 with the objective of bridging the gaps in the existing capacities of rural health infrastructure) and Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) (introduced in 2007 to provide social health protection against the burden of high outof-pocket expenditure on healthcare and the consequent debt-trap) have helped to improve the services available to the elderly. A detailed discussion on health schemes is given in the chapter 5 on Health and Demography in this Report. At the state level, special schemes, in addition to the destitute pension, have been initiated to help poor widows and widowers. One such scheme is the Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Anudan Yojana by the Maharashtra government. Similar schemes are also available in Karnataka, West Bengal, and Kerala. In 20034, the Finance Minister announced a dened contribution pension system featuring individual retirement accounts, multiple product choice for account holders, professional fund managers with participation from private nancial institutions, a regulatory authority and portability through a centralized system of record keeping and administration. A new and completely dedicated Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority was also set up to regulate the functioning of the new pension system. The new pension system is very much along the lines recommended by the OASIS Committee Report, having a dened contribution scheme creating an individual retirement account. To cater to a large proportion of labour force, which is working in the unorganized sector,

The other two components of the schemes are not specically for the elderly, widows or the dierently-abled. The other two components are: (i) National Family Benet Scheme (NFBS) and (ii) Annapurna. 32 For this scheme, the age of the applicant (male or female) shall be 60 years or higher, and the applicant must be below poverty line. Earlier, the age eligibility for this scheme was 65 years. 33 For this scheme, the age of the widow shall be between 4064 years and she must belong to a household below poverty line. 34 For this scheme, the age of the applicant shall be between 1864 years and the applicant must belong to a household below poverty line. Moreover, the applicant should be suering from severe or multiple disabilities as dened in Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (PWD Act 1995) and the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (National Trust Act 1999) revised from time to time and any other guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in this regard.

246 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

the Government of India recently launched the pension scheme for the unorganized sector, Swavalamban.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

The major ndings and policy recommendations of the chapter are summarized below.

Child Labour Around ve million children are working and four times this number are neither in schools nor working (NWC). The two categories together are out of school children. The children who are working must be withdrawn from work and parents need to be given incentives to encourage them to send their children to school. In the case of NWC, there is need for a variety of collaborative policies to encourage them to go to school. However, many policies can be relevant for both categories of children. As discussed in the chapter, states that have a lower fertility rate and better schooling infrastructure have low incidence of child labour and NWC. Hence, special emphasis should be given to fertility reduction as part of the public health system through NRHM and to reducing the cost of school attendance. Emphasizing the Right to Education (RTE) through a combination of school attendance with part-time work will be a more feasible and fruitful policy to help poor households sustain themselves. If RTE norms like minimum pupilteacher ratio and adequate physical infrastructure are implemented properly, it will certainly have a positive impact on reducing both child labour and NWC on a sustainable basis. From the perspective of child rights, there is a need for broadening the denition of child labour and making it more inclusive. It should also cover children in the age group 1518 years. However, a complete ban/prohibition of child labour may not increase child welfare. The Dierently-abled Around 2 per cent (that is, 23 million) of the Indias population has some kind of disability. Locomotor disability is the most prevalent followed by visual and hearing disability. Disability due to accidents and non-communicable

diseases is expected to increase. The dierently-abled in India lack access to the fundamental facilities, which is clear from the low literacy rate and high unemployment rate. The living conditions of the dierently-abled are also a matter of serious concern. Government supported measures for the dierentlyabled cover a very meagre proportion of the dierentlyabled population; hence, more focused policies are required for the dierently-abled in India. Civil society and NGOs can also facilitate the process for providing services to this group, and the Jaipur Foot is an example of this. Some serious limitations (low coverage, lack of funds, lack of awareness programmes, non-cooperation of local authorities, loopholes in the system of selection and certication of beneciaries, and services conned only to urban areas) need to be overcome at the earliest.

The Elderly In spite of enjoying high growth and demographic dividends, India is facing an impending problem due to the growing population of the elderly (whose numbers will rise to 113 million in 2016). The issue becomes more urgent as many elderly have a low literacy rate and were working in the unorganized sector during their productive yearsand therefore are unlikely to have savings to meet even their subsistence living expenses after they stop working. However, in India only about one in 10 workers is covered by a formal pension scheme. Hence, in the future, the pension coverage of the vulnerable elderly will need to expand. The health of the elderly is another important issue of concern. The government has launched various initiatives (NRHM, NPHCE, RSBY, NSAS, NOAPS, and Swavalamban) to provide health and insurance facilities to the elderly, who have contributed to building society, as it exists today. Yet, major healthcare needs remain unmet. Inclusive development requires the government to take action targeted at these vulnerable groups of our society, which constitute roughly around 11 per cent of the population, that is, around 129 million people.

Technical Appendix

Technical Appendix

Technical Appendix

The Human Development Index is a composite representation of the status of human development in a country or a region. In theory, human development covers vast ground and as such, it might be dicult to capture all of its dimensions in a single index. While human development includes many dimensions other than human well-being like empowerment, democracy, and so on, for brevity, a composite of the following variables constitutes the HDI as per global HDRs: Per capita income for measuring the standard of living A linear geometric combination of mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling to measure the extent of human attainment (education), and Life expectancy, to measure the health status of the population (Unit less) indices for each of the above are separately computed. HDI is then calculated as a simple arithmetic mean of the three component indices. An index for a single variable is calculated from crosssectional data, pertaining to either countries or regions/provinces within a country: Dimension Index of X i = Observed Value of X i Min X i Max X i Min X i (1)

are calculated for each major state (and group of states in the North-East, excluding Assam).

Income Index
In this report, the Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) adjusted for ination and inequality, substitutes for measuring the income, keeping in view the extant reality that per capita income is not too accurate a measure of the standard of living. The Gini coecient (G) of inequality of MPCE is calculated for each state to capture inequality in income (consumption), and each of the four variables in Equation (1) above is then multiplied by corresponding equality coecient (1-G). Thus, for calculating the income index, the following formula is used: Income Index of State1 = MPCE1(1 G ) MPCEmin (1 G ) MPCEmax (1 G ) MPCEmin (1 G )

Where, the minimum (and maximum) MPCE adjusted for inequality is the average of inequality and ination adjusted observed minimum (and maximum) MPCE in 2007-8 and inequality adjusted observed minimum (and maximum) MPCE in 1999-2000.

Education Index
The education index has been measured through two variables, literacy 7+ and mean years of schooling. An index of each of these has been separately calculated as per the formula mentioned above in Equation (1). The two (unit-less) numbers are then added, with literacy having a weight of 1/3, and mean years of schooling having a weight of 2/3. In terms of denition, literacy is the (self) reported literacy for population of age 7 years and more. The mean years of schooling is the average number of years of school education of

Minimum (maximum) values for indicators are derived by scaling down (up) the observed minimum (maximum) by 25 per cent. This is done so as to avoid a value of zero or one for the State having the observed maximum and minimum value respectively. Human Development Indices are calculated for a state, country or a group entitythey are not meant to measure household/individual wellbeing. In this report, the indices

250 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

population aged 7 years and above, adjusted for out of school children in the school going age 617 years by multiplying mean years of schooling with one minus the proportion of out of school children. Mean Years of Schooling is derived from information on level of education collected by the NSSO in EmploymentUnemployment Survey (19992000) and Expenditure on Education Survey (20078). Level of Education refers to the highest level successfully completed. Years of schooling assigned to an individual dependent on his/her level of education. For instance If level of education is primary then years of schooling assigned is 5 years If level of education is upper-primary then years of schooling assigned is 8 years If level of education is below-primary then years of schooling assigned is 2 years Similarly, Out of School children have been derived by information on children in the age group 617 years who never attended school or ever attended, but currently not attending from the above mentioned NSS Rounds.

1. MPCE is calculated from the primary records of the NSS from the 55th Round (19992000) and 64th Round (20078). All calculations are made at 19992000 prices. The consumer price index for agricultural labourers (CPIAL) prepared by the Labour Bureau for each major state has been used as the price deator for rural areas. Similarly, an urban state level price series has been prepared from the Labour Bureaus series for consumer price index for industrial workers (CPIIW) for select urban centres. 2. All the three variables pertaining to education, e.g. the literacy, the number of years of education, and children out of school are calculated from the primary records of the NSS from its 55th Round (19992000) and 64th Round (20078) surveys. 3. The life expectancy gures have been calculated for 2000 and 2008 from the Survey Registration Scheme (SRS) data and the population forecast estimates produced by the Registrar General of India. Table below states the scaling norms for computing component indices for both points of time.
Table Scaling Norms for HDI Computation
Indicator Life expectancy at birth Literacy 7+ Adjusted mean yrs of schooling Per capita real consumption expenditure adjusted for inequality Minimum 50 years 0 per cent 0 Rs. 255 Maximum 80 years 100 per cent 7 Rs. 1091

Health Index
For measuring the health status, life expectancy at birth is used as the measure. Using the maximum and minimum life expectancy at birth as stated below, the health index is calculated using equation (1).

DATA SOURCES
The index has been calculated at two points of time, 1999-2000 and 20078 for temporal comparison. The unit at which calculations have been made is the State.

Appendix Tables

Appendix Tables

252 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

APPENDIX TABLES

253

Table 2A.1 Percentage Distribution of Population within a State by Social Groups, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 19.8 0.5 6.6 0.1 23.6 19.9 6.5 0.2 75.8 15.6 95.4 8.6 19.1 15.2 7.9 31.7 1.6 70.8 42.3 74.4 64.9 15.8 46.0 2.9 5.6 29.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.8 28.4 11.9 3.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 8.1 18.6 20.7 70.1 5.3 3.3 37.7 88.5 98.9 96.7 36.0 30.1 2.5 1.8 9.8 11.3 48.2 1.1 0.4 1.7 43.2 20.9 22.4 25.2 56.4 73.5 11.1 9.8 0.4 1.1 12.7 30.4 54.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 SCs 19.8 9.2 20.2 13.7 27.8 7.2 11.3 25.0 19.1 18.4 10.3 17.6 13.1 18.9 36.7 19.2 22.8 25.8 29.2 STs 7.1 14.0 0.9 37.5 0.6 1.8 16.5 0.1 20.8 6.8 1.1 22.0 8.4 23.6 0.1 13.0 0.8 0.8 5.2 OBCs 48.4 27.0 60.7 41.8 17.0 14.8 43.0 28.1 31.8 41.1 61.5 41.2 27.1 36.7 14.0 47.5 70.7 52.5 5.8 Others 24.8 49.7 18.2 7.0 54.5 76.3 29.2 46.8 28.4 33.7 27.0 19.3 51.4 20.8 49.3 20.3 5.7 20.9 59.8 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

254 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 2A.2 Percentage Distribution of Social Groups among States, 20078

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Islands Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 0.1 0.1 100.0 0.2 0.1 100.0 0.1 100.0 0.1 0.2 100.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.9 2.3 0.9 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.6 SCs 9.3 1.2 11.7 1.6 1.7 3.7 2.7 3.8 4.6 1.5 3.9 4.8 3.4 4.5 5.6 7.1 17.0 9.2 STs 7.7 4.0 1.2 10.0 0.1 12.5 9.6 3.9 0.4 11.1 7.0 9.7 8.7 0.5 1.2 3.8 OBCs 10.7 1.6 16.6 2.3 0.5 6.6 1.4 3.0 4.8 4.3 4.3 4.6 3.1 0.8 6.5 10.3 16.3 0.9 Others 7.9 4.2 7.2 0.6 2.3 0.4 6.5 3.4 3.9 5.7 2.7 2.9 12.8 2.5 4.1 4.0 1.2 9.4 12.7

APPENDIX TABLES

255

Table 2A.3 Percentage Distribution of Population within a State by Major Religious Communities, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Islands Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 69.7 81.7 97.7 89.8 3.3 83.2 82.2 8.8 4.3 1.0 7.5 95.3 11.3 12.9 21.3 0.4 1.2 2.4 1.4 5.5 2.1 0.2 13.0 1.8 21.8 95.6 42.8 51.0 6.6 0.6 2.6 65.4 87.6 79.6 1.7 2.2 55.7 8.0 5.8 0.4 0.6 1.1 9.2 18.8 25.9 0.1 0.2 37.6 79.6 88.2 96.6 3.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.4 1.4 0.7 Hindus 88.5 66.9 84.7 96.7 82.9 75.1 90.7 86.1 81.3 85.9 57.3 91.8 82.9 96.5 37.5 90.5 89.5 80.7 68.4 Muslims 7.7 30.4 14.9 0.9 12.1 9.8 7.9 7.7 11.1 11.6 24.1 7.2 11.2 2.2 1.2 7.9 5.0 18.8 30.6 Christians 1.6 2.3 0.1 2.0 0.6 14.2 0.6 0.1 3.1 1.8 18.6 0.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.1 5.4 0.1 0.7 Sikhs 0.2 0.1 0.2 3.5 5.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 59.7 1.0 0.3

256 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 2A.4 Percentage Distribution of Major Religious Communities among States, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Islands Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 0.1 0.1 100.0 0.1 100.0 0.3 0.2 100.0 0.6 100.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.1 3.5 8.5 3.4 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 Hindus 10.1 2.0 11.9 2.7 1.3 0.1 7.2 2.2 3.9 5.1 2.1 4.9 7.3 4.2 1.1 6.3 6.7 12.9 5.2 Muslims 5.6 5.8 13.4 0.2 1.2 0.1 4.0 1.3 3.4 4.5 5.5 2.4 6.3 0.6 0.2 3.5 2.4 19.2 14.8 Christians 7.2 2.6 0.5 2.2 0.4 0.9 1.9 0.1 5.9 4.2 25.8 0.4 3.9 2.1 1.6 0.2 15.6 0.5 2.0 Sikhs 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.5 0.2 7.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 80.7 3.3 2.5

APPENDIX TABLES

257

Table 2A.5 Human Development Index and its Components by States, 19992000 and 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir NE (excluding Assam) Uttarakhand All India 0.681 0.457 0.567 0.465 0.497 0.717 0.530 0.663 0.530 0.563 0.426 0.431 0.316 0.179 0.223 0.491 0.459 0.386 0.302 0.271 0.636 0.507 0.535 0.371 0.442 0.747 0.597 0.670 0.638 0.568 0.581 0.465 0.473 0.339 0.387 0.652 0.529 0.573 0.490 0.467 Health Index 2000 0.521 0.339 0.506 0.341 0.735 0.363 0.562 0.576 0.434 0.567 0.782 0.363 0.601 0.376 0.632 0.520 0.586 0.398 0.600 Health Index 2008 0.580 0.407 0.563 0.417 0.763 0.650 0.633 0.627 0.500 0.627 0.817 0.430 0.650 0.450 0.667 0.587 0.637 0.473 0.650 Income Index 19992000 0.197 0.152 0.100 0.127 0.800 0.672 0.323 0.417 0.100 0.260 0.458 0.127 0.297 0.076 0.455 0.293 0.285 0.179 0.210 Income Index 20078 0.287 0.288 0.127 0.133 0.678 0.443 0.371 0.408 0.142 0.326 0.629 0.173 0.351 0.139 0.495 0.253 0.355 0.175 0.252 Education Index 19992000 0.385 0.516 0.271 0.365 0.816 0.751 0.512 0.512 0.271 0.468 0.789 0.365 0.606 0.372 0.542 0.348 0.570 0.371 0.455 Education Index 20078 0.553 0.636 0.409 0.526 0.809 0.758 0.577 0.622 0.485 0.605 0.924 0.522 0.715 0.499 0.654 0.462 0.719 0.492 0.575 HDI 1999 2000 0.368 0.336 0.292 0.278 0.783 0.595 0.466 0.501 0.268 0.432 0.677 0.285 0.501 0.275 0.543 0.387 0.480 0.316 0.422 HDI 20078 0.473 0.444 0.367 0.358 0.750 0.617 0.527 0.552 0.376 0.519 0.790 0.375 0.572 0.362 0.605 0.434 0.570 0.380 0.492

Source: Authors computation.

258 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.1 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups (Rural), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 19934 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 73.6 61.5 66.5 0.0 54.8 58.7 71.8 0.0 45.2 0.0 19.6 100.0 69.1 69.8 88.8 0.0 88.4 71.6 51.8 0.0 81.9 50.0 50.0 79.3 64.6 56.5 0.0 79.8 0.0 67.7 72.6 54.5 100.0 65.5 67.8 77.4 56.5 64.9 63.7 100.0 66.1 65.8 63.6 61.1 89.2 59.9 0.0 59.5 61.4 93.1 79.5 68.9 50.0 33.3 50.0 0.0 52.2 53.0 82.5 74.4 68.8 53.9 82.3 0.0 0.0 57.7 52.3 78.7 66.3 86.2 82.3 73.0 83.2 66.9 53.6 59.7 59.5 73.4 78.7 68.0 66.3 83.5 75.2 78.6 65.7 54.0 79.2 69.4 77.1 59.9 58.8 79.9 68.0 76.0 64.5 51.3 65.2 72.7 80.4 74.4 54.9 81.3 62.4 36.4 60.1 50.5 71.6 76.9 59.5 54.3 70.5 62.2 65.3 69.1 50.6 74.2 86.3 58.2 66.4 51.4 66.4 71.8 63.3 78.3 68.1 78.5 78.9 71.0 59.5 78.9 81.7 69.8 62.3 20045 79.6 61.3 63.7 77.2 58.9 68.8 77.8 65.1 65.7 78.5 67.7 75.8 75.4 70.9 64.3 72.3 75.3 68.3 58.6 Scheduled Tribes 19934 90.6 58.0 71.6 100.0 54.9 81.7 79.8 74.9 68.9 87.3 85.1 85.2 72.3 87.4 79.4 65.7 80.7 20045 86.8 64.5 63.3 84.6 0.0 29.6 83.3 57.2 78.2 80.9 70.7 83.4 82.1 81.9 67.7 84.4 89.6 70.3 67.7 Other Backward Classes 19934 20045 77.4 66.6 55.1 77.3 56.7 58.3 76.7 65.5 66.4 73.7 57.0 71.6 74.7 64.3 66.7 75.3 73.6 62.8 56.5 19934 79.0 57.4 53.2 66.6 57.1 71.9 62.5 74.9 56.2 70.8 77.3 56.5 59.2 75.2 73.7 60.0 56.1 Others 20045 67.9 58.6 45.1 63.1 51.2 49.8 68.3 64.9 59.4 72.0 61.8 59.3 72.0 56.5 67.8 61.0 53.7 53.6 55.2

Source: NSS 50th and 61st Round. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

259

Table 3A.2 Labour Force Participation Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Social Groups (Urban), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 19934 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 78.5 68.0 49.0 53.5 59.4 33.3 48.5 70.0 45.0 65.8 57.1 71.0 83.5 66.7 50.5 59.3 39.8 42.9 72.0 60.7 51.9 56.7 41.2 70.8 35.4 86.7 49.9 55.7 62.5 63.9 61.5 44.8 48.9 50.4 52.2 55.5 48.5 58.2 59.8 84.6 49.5 49.4 50.0 54.8 53.2 45.9 66.2 78.9 61.5 60.3 52.3 61.2 72.6 50.0 40.9 40.9 71.4 50.0 39.0 52.5 56.5 45.2 45.6 27.9 51.6 56.6 57.2 41.0 42.5 46.5 42.6 56.0 64.1 45.2 54.7 55.2 56.2 57.2 55.3 50.1 43.7 74.2 47.1 52.5 41.5 53.7 70.9 51.0 55.8 53.2 50.7 52.0 48.5 50.1 51.3 76.5 54.0 57.9 49.6 51.0 61.3 46.7 57.7 53.3 78.4 63.9 53.4 54.2 46.3 62.6 43.2 55.3 59.9 66.6 55.1 62.7 63.8 62.3 55.9 58.0 55.3 55.7 58.0 65.2 57.0 63.5 20045 54.7 59.9 55.8 59.3 52.0 50.7 64.7 57.9 50.7 59.2 67.3 59.1 56.4 59.3 56.4 61.1 61.3 53.7 55.7 Scheduled Tribes 19934 65.0 39.6 51.9 38.8 70.4 70.3 45.6 62.6 60.7 59.7 59.2 63.3 58.4 55.3 66.6 66.1 45.5 20045 47.0 48.3 50.7 49.4 40.3 30.0 70.2 69.2 50.8 66.8 95.5 55.6 58.0 63.5 48.4 56.8 65.9 53.9 50.8 Other Backward Classes 19934 20045 60.3 46.3 46.9 55.7 54.1 57.2 55.9 52.0 48.5 56.8 56.0 57.5 55.4 53.3 57.5 54.7 57.3 54.3 54.2 19934 54.6 49.1 44.6 48.9 53.2 51.4 54.9 53.4 55.7 51.2 52.9 50.2 50.3 51.2 57.4 48.8 52.4 Others 20045 50.0 50.7 36.8 43.9 45.0 52.7 49.0 47.5 44.1 50.0 60.0 47.9 53.0 50.2 48.8 49.7 47.2 46.7 50.6

Source: NSS 50th and 61st Round. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

260 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.3 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Gender (Rural), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States 19934 Andhra Pardesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 2.5 2.7 0.8 1.5 5.8 3.4 1.4 3.6 2.5 3.1 0.2 0.7 9.3 1.6 1.8 4.5 0.8 40.7 0.6 12.4 3.4 3.6 56.4 3.3 1.8 2.2 2.9 0.8 1.1 17 2.4 1.2 6.1 2.5 3.3 0.2 7.2 7.0 1.7 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.4 1.5 2.2 0.6 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.4 0.1 0.5 2.3 2.8 9.4 2.0 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.4 6.4 0.6 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 1.4 1.6 32.3 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.8 2.5 0.9 1.8 1.6 1.1 0.3 0.3 1.9 2.4 13.1 1.3 0.8 4.5 2.0 6.9 1.2 1.6 0.9 5.4 0.7 1.2 1.7 1.3 0.3 1.8 0.8 1.8 Males 20045 1.0 2.4 1.7 0.8 2.0 9.3 0.8 2.8 2.0 0.7 5.0 0.6 1.5 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.2 0.7 2.1 19934 0.1 8.1 0.7 13.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 9.8 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.6 2.1 Females 20045 0.4 2.9 0.2 0.3 14.5 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.8 20.1 0.1 0.3 8.5 4.8 0.1 1.2 0.3 3.4 19934 0.4 5.4 1.7 9.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 7.0 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.8 1.7 Persons 20045 0.7 2.5 1.4 0.6 1.9 10.9 0.5 2.2 1.3 0.7 10.7 0.4 1.0 5.1 3.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 2.4

Source: NSS 50th and 61st Round. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

261

Table 3A.4 Unemployment Rate by Usual Principal and Subsidiary Status, by Gender (Urban), 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States 19934 Andhra Pardesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Goa Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 4.0 3.3 4.5 14.8 5.7 4.1 6.0 3.1 1.1 3.0 11.8 4.1 3.7 10.1 20.5 1.4 11.2 33.3 10.0 6.3 17.9 7.5 10.3 3.2 52.8 19.5 6.9 5.5 6.8 0.4 6.0 19.0 6.9 4.5 8.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 24.7 8.1 4.4 0.8 3.5 5.7 4.8 1.1 0.4 6.9 1.5 5.9 1.1 1.7 3.7 5.2 3.6 1.6 4.7 3.3 16.6 4.1 5.5 0.4 9.0 2.4 3.6 0.5 5.9 8.2 17.6 2.5 10.2 12.8 6.3 3.6 2.5 7.3 5.6 57.7 10.3 1.6 2.7 6.4 4.2 1.6 0.5 6.8 2.6 8.4 1.4 3.8 5.1 5.6 3.6 1.9 5.5 3.7 28.1 5.3 2.9 5.5 6.9 0.9 3.0 8.0 2.5 3.0 6.6 5.3 4.2 6.7 3.1 1.8 4.1 3.3 6.3 Males 20045 3.5 6.9 6.6 3.9 4.5 2.3 7.6 3.3 7.6 1.9 6.2 3.1 3.4 9.0 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.1 5.6 19934 3.8 27.8 9.2 6.4 4.6 15.9 3.3 5.8 18.5 3.9 4.7 6.1 5.4 0.4 6.8 0.6 15.1 Females 20045 3.8 9.3 4.1 2.4 6.4 2.9 12.1 7.6 2.4 5.8 33.4 1.6 3.7 26.9 14.1 3.0 4.8 2.7 8.8 19934 3.1 8.9 7.2 1.6 3.2 10.2 2.7 3.6 10.3 5.0 4.5 6.5 3.3 1.5 5.0 3.0 8.0 Persons 20045 3.6 7.3 6.3 3.6 4.7 2.4 8.8 4.0 6.6 2.8 15.6 2.8 3.5 13.5 4.8 2.9 3.4 3.0 6.2

Source: NSS 50th and 61st Rounds. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

262 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.5 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups (Rural), 20045 and 20078 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 13.4 36.0 12.0 4.2 28.7 11.9 7.1 25.1 6.5 8.4 17.0 7.5 22.2 7.7 22.8 7.9 13.4 6.6 11.0 6.4 13.4 3.7 6.0 1.6 22.5 27.4 8.2 10.7 5.9 6.2 1.7 16.7 25.2 8.4 8.4 2.9 8.0 15.3 6.0 8.8 5.2 10.3 19.7 11.0 1.6 3.2 3.3 0.2 0.4 0.6 3.3 2.3 16.4 3.4 4.1 10.1 3.4 1.4 0.6 7.1 3.1 18.2 5.5 8.9 3.4 2.6 17.6 2.4 5.8 5.2 5.2 4.4 16.6 9.2 0.8 4.7 5.4 1.9 6.3 1.7 15.5 4.1 0.9 6.5 6.0 3.6 13.4 4.5 18.5 8.3 1.4 5.7 5.6 1.7 0.4 0.6 3.3 2.7 16.1 4.1 2.8 6.8 5.9 4.2 1.5 0.6 7.1 4.2 18.3 8.9 17.1 9.4 10.6 12.5 19.2 5.4 10.4 5.9 9.8 35.0 12.8 17.6 11.1 14.1 9.1 22.9 5.3 12.5 20078 12.8 9.5 10.0 4.3 0.3 3.6 12.2 16.7 8.5 27.2 10.2 10.5 9.8 13.1 8.7 25.1 8.4 13.5 Scheduled Tribes 20045 12.0 4.9 11.2 4.2 4.4 6.9 4.7 36.5 3.3 11.2 6.3 2.3 26.4 8.4 14.4 20078 8.2 7.7 7.7 5.8 3.5 10.5 4.9 29.0 9.0 12.2 6.4 4.5 26.9 11.1 14.3 Other Backward Classes 20045 10.1 4.3 5.2 10.2 1.5 34.1 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.4 26.3 5.2 9.3 10.0 10.4 3.4 12.3 3.2 9.4 20078 9.7 6.9 7.0 8.2 4.8 4.6 3.4 9.2 8.9 6.1 20.2 7.2 6.9 8.4 9.0 4.0 14.1 4.6 8.7 Others 20045 7.4 7.3 5.9 8.1 2.6 17.1 3.4 3.9 7.2 5.3 18.4 2.2 4.4 16.3 5.0 3.8 3.9 2.8 10.2 20078 5.6 6.4 5.3 9.0 2.9 5.9 3.0 2.6 10.9 3.9 13.1 5.1 5.0 9.3 3.4 5.0 7.9 5.1 10.3 All Social Groups 20045 11.2 6.4 6.8 8.2 1.9 19.2 4.5 6.2 6.6 6.7 25.6 5.6 8.4 10.2 9.7 4.4 15.1 3.7 11.1 20078 9.5 7.0 7.4 6.7 3.8 4.9 3.4 6.9 11.2 6.0 19.3 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.2 5.1 17.3 5.9 11.6

Source: Calculated from NSS 61st and 64th Rounds. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

263

Table 3A.6 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Social Groups (Urban), 20045 and 20078 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 6.3 11.4 7.9 10.1 8.4 7.5 4.9 10.0 1.2 16.0 17.1 8.5 4.5 3.7 18.9 7.7 13.8 5.3 1.4 4.7 5.3 7.1 9.6 8.7 0.7 1.5 2.6 6.0 13.7 5.2 5.1 6.2 28.2 16.8 8.3 9.6 7.9 1.5 2.5 16.0 17.5 7.4 4.2 3.3 36.3 6.7 9.6 8.7 31.2 14.0 5.6 2.4 4.4 1.6 6.6 2.2 40.3 11.9 7.4 9.9 5.2 4.9 19.5 5.7 14.1 11.0 3.5 10.0 6.9 6.6 35.2 9.9 6.3 4.0 3.0 12.2 28.0 12.1 5.0 4.9 6.1 1.4 1.5 8.8 1.7 23.0 5.7 2.1 5.4 7.2 11.0 5.4 2.7 4.5 25.1 5.9 4.7 4.9 6.0 6.3 3.8 1.6 6.4 3.7 30.0 6.8 4.8 6.4 7.1 5.7 5.6 4.8 17.4 7.3 26.6 9.3 12.3 7.1 5.0 6.9 5.7 23.7 8.8 11.7 12.7 8.8 32.3 9.9 11.7 22.7 7.3 8.3 13.5 11.1 15.0 20078 10.8 11.2 6.5 11.6 4.9 0.4 6.9 8.2 15.6 12.3 15.2 9.4 11.4 6.8 4.6 6.7 19.0 10.3 6.8 Scheduled Tribes 20045 6.6 8.8 12.9 2.4 9.5 7.8 3.1 7.7 55.2 12.5 8.3 11.8 3.9 0.5 1.0 9.1 20078 13.6 13.7 19.9 33.8 6.2 13.4 4.6 33.8 12.5 4.3 24.0 7.3 14.1 0.4 8.1 Other Backward Classes 20045 8.8 10.6 10.1 7.2 5.3 19.0 4.7 6.0 7.4 5.8 25.9 6.7 8.6 14.8 7.6 5.2 8.1 5.9 9.7 20078 7.7 7.7 6.0 2.7 0.4 9.8 3.1 4.2 8.5 5.2 20.3 5.6 3.5 7.3 9.0 5.1 10.2 8.1 11.3 Others 20045 6.6 9.1 13.0 5.2 6.7 13.6 3.6 5.8 10.2 5.2 21.3 5.8 7.5 13.1 7.7 6.0 4.2 5.0 9.4 20078 5.7 11.5 5.7 7.5 2.4 7.3 3.4 2.1 9.6 3.4 13.7 7.0 5.4 8.4 3.5 4.8 6.6 7.6 9.9 All Social Groups 20045 8.5 9.0 10.0 7.1 6.2 15.2 4.7 6.9 8.8 6.0 25.2 6.8 8.4 15.0 7.5 6.1 8.6 6.2 10.5 20078 7.7 10.8 6.0 8.1 2.6 7.7 3.9 3.5 10.4 5.2 18.2 7.2 5.8 8.9 4.7 5.3 11.2 8.2 9.4

Source: Calculated from NSS 61st and 64th Rounds. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

264 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.7 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Religious Communities (Rural), 20045 and 20078 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States 19934 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 12.5 2.5 6.1 1.5 27.6 8.0 11.7 7.3 6.2 1.7 25.3 8.3 25.1 3.1 25.1 8.4 22.7 17.0 8.8 14.8 12.0 6.6 9.8 10.3 6.9 1.3 5.7 40.0 3.5 5.1 2.5 16.5 4.2 1.7 7.0 6.0 5.6 12.4 4.8 19.0 9.4 7.1 6.7 0.9 14.5 2.7 2.6 5.9 2.5 15.0 5.2 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 3.2 1.5 2.5 3.4 1.5 0.6 7.1 4.9 11.0 6.4 6.9 8.4 2.2 18.9 4.4 6.2 6.3 6.6 26.6 5.6 8.2 10.4 9.4 3.9 15.2 3.6 11.4 Hindus 20045 9.3 7.5 7.2 6.9 3.6 4.6 3.3 7.2 11.5 5.6 21.6 7.9 7.0 8.4 10.7 5.0 17.2 5.8 12.1 Muslims 19934 10.9 6.5 4.9 4.5 3.9 5.5 3.0 6.9 7.9 27.2 6.0 6.7 3.7 10.0 5.9 10.3 4.5 10.6 20045 8.5 5.5 8.8 6.8 18.6 4.6 4.3 8.6 12.9 18.0 11.9 10.0 5.2 10.6 5.5 16.6 6.3 10.7 Christians 19934 17.0 8.5 43.9 2.2 21.0 4.7 15.9 4.4 21.1 2.5 4.1 7.7 14.0 13.1 20045 8.3 10.1 15.5 0.4 5.9 2.8 12.3 3.6 13.4 29.6 6.1 18.5 18.7 8.6 19934 7.4 9.8 21.9 Sikhs 20045 5.3 7.0 16.6

Source: Calculated from NSS 61st and 64th Rounds. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

265

Table 3A.8 Unemployment Rate by Current Daily Status, by Religious Communities (Urban), 20045 and 20078 (per cent)
(As a percentage of labour force) Non Special Category States 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 11.4 4.4 5.2 6.5 8.1 8.9 8.1 1.2 2.5 7.3 21.0 8.1 23.0 7.3 12.6 10.2 14.8 15.4 8.7 10.1 9.3 5.1 3.5 4.0 8.2 6.9 2.0 6.7 4.0 30.6 7.0 2.7 6.2 4.9 5.3 6.3 3.0 4.8 27.1 11.3 16.3 12.2 4.4 3.2 6.2 9.2 8.6 8.8 3.6 2.5 6.7 5.3 10.0 19.6 17.2 5.8 18.3 0.8 3.7 8.6 8.2 10.3 7.2 5.8 14.2 4.7 6.9 9.5 5.9 26 6.9 7.7 15.4 6.9 5.2 8.4 5.9 11.1 Hindus 20078 7.3 11.0 6.2 8.5 2.8 8.1 3.7 3.3 11.1 4.9 16.5 7.3 5.2 9.2 3.9 5.5 11.4 8.3 9.6 Muslims 20045 6.6 12.4 8.6 9.6 6.8 25.0 5.6 0.2 6.0 6.2 27.1 6.5 9.8 7.9 3.8 9.9 8.8 6.8 7.4 20078 8.4 9.4 5.1 5.8 2.4 1.5 5.0 9.0 7.2 6.0 25.2 9.1 7.0 3.8 5.4 5.5 6.9 8.1 8.1 Christians 20045 11.0 18.9 2.4 12.4 8.2 1.0 9.1 20.7 2.4 15.7 13.5 7.0 12.6 20078 10.4 12.8 5.0 11.7 5.4 5.7 5.8 17.7 0.4 6.0 6.0 11.7 20045 10.8 3.4 19.4 9.3 12.0 Sikhs 20078 0.4 6.6 11.5 6.2 1.8

Source: Calculated from NSS 61st and 64th Rounds. Note: For population with age 15 years and above. Not available.

266 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.9 Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure, 1983, 19934, and 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 38th, 50th, and 61st Rounds. Not available. 187.2 132.0 125.13 608.07 975.18 253.4 463.33 515.17 396.53 328.18 158.51 134.02 133.25 142.73 343.75 386.23 406.84 305.59 390.00 472.59 454.48 321.12 367.43 1983 126.27 117.87 99.53 228.64 187.2 133.59 157.03 132.81 152.13 111.61 138.57 104.06 174.26 134.5 129.43 110.45 122.03 19934 322.28 280.42 236.78 777.01 501.4 356.87 407.67 318.47 419.08 289.83 371.54 245.94 456.59 346.6 344.31 297.62 333.36

(Rs)
20045 704.49 613.67 446.38 545.15 1047.54 1406.02 872.47 970.59 568.72 627.36 1111.06 558.89 724.16 460.68 921.91 724.27 659.23 726.02 712.19

798.76 980.2 821.62 663.5 795.57 862.78 1259.59 787.2 734.79 706.07

1275.68 1180.68 1322.13 1134.76 1356.02 929.39 700.33

APPENDIX TABLES

267

Table 3A.10 Incidence of Poverty (Rural and Urban Combined), 1983, 19934, and 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarkhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Planning Commission, Government of India. Note: Based on URP. Not available. 40.9 16.4 24.2 37.0 38.8 36.0 39.3 39.7 40.0 52.1 23.8 15.7 42.4 50.1 44.5 39.4 28.4 25.2 33.8 37.9 25.7 37.9 41.4 39.0 34.5 11.4 50.8 15.8 25.0 37.4 36.0 1983 28.9 40.5 62.2 26.2 18.9 32.8 21.4 38.2 40.4 49.8 43.4 65.3 16.2 34.5 51.7 47.1 54.9 19934 22.2 40.9 55.0 14.7 14.9 24.2 25.1 33.2 25.4 42.5 36.9 48.6 11.8 27.4 35.0 40.9 35.7

(per cent)
20045 15.8 19.7 41.4 40.9 14.7 13.8 16.8 14.0 40.3 25.0 15.0 38.3 30.7 46.4 8.4 22.1 22.5 32.8 24.7

17.6 10.0 5.4 17.3 18.5 12.6 19.0 20.1 18.9 39.6 22.6 7.1 33.2 10.5 16.0 22.4 27.5

268 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 3A.11 Distribution of Population and Incidence of Poverty, by Religious Communities, 19934 and 20045 (per cent)
Religious Groups Rural Population Hindus Muslims Christians Sikhs Buddhists Jains Other Religious Groups All Religious Groups 83.4 11.1 2.2 2.0 0.7 0.2 0.5 100.0 Poor 84.1 12.3 1.8 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.4 100.0 19934 Urban Population 76.0 17.1 2.8 1.8 1.0 1.1 0.1 100.0 Poor 70.3 25.4 1.9 0.7 1.4 0.2 0.1 100.0 Rural Population 82.3 12.0 2.1 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.8 100.0 Poor 84.1 12.4 1.2 0.3 0.9 1.0 100.0 20045 Urban Population 75.6 17.3 2.9 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.2 100.0 Poor 68.9 27.9 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.2 100.0

Source: Census, 1991 and 2001 for population share. NSS 50th and 61st Round for poverty. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

269

Table 4A.1 Percentage of Adult Population with BMI<18.5, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 10.7 29.7 26.4 18.8 25.8 25.8 22.6 18.4 11.2 35.8 16.4 29.9 24.6 14.8 14.6 14.4 17.4 11.2 36.9 30.3 33 15.2 29.7 28 16.3 14.1 9.2 14.2 12.2 41.7 28.4 34.2 37.4 27.1 39.3 12 27.1 37 25.9 38.8 18.7 38.2 39.7 48 16.9 36.1 29 35.8 43.7 Women 20056 33.5 36.5 45.1 43.4 14.8 27.9 36.3 31.3 43 35.5 18 41.7 36.2 41.4 18.9 36.7 28.4 36 39.1 Men 20056 30.8 35.6 35.3 38.5 15.7 24.6 36.1 30.9 38.6 33.9 21.5 41.6 33.5 35.7 20.6 40.5 27.1 38.3 35.2

270 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4A.2 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 36.9 36.4 34.1 35.2 24.6 23.3 16.4 17.7 30.2 37 13.4 33.1 22.2 30.4 32.1 15 23.3 9.5 21.3 12.2 36.8 30.1 28.8 18.3 30.8 21.1 21 22.6 40.9 39 32.5 25.3 48.2 30.1 8.3 15.8 12.7 11.2 14.6 16.2 11.5 32 31.2 21.6 37.6 8.9 29.4 38.5 24.6 38.7 48.4 12.1 31.1 38.2 25.7 40.9 40.2 21.6 38.6 42 48.3 17.2 35.9 30.3 35.6 42.2 Hindus 20056 34.5 33.3 44 44 14.9 29.8 36.4 31.5 41.8 36.7 20 42.3 37.8 41.2 21.3 37.1 29.3 36 38.1 Muslims 19989 24.1 32.2 43.3 17.5 28.5 38.2 36.5 44.2 33.3 17.1 32.9 27.7 39.1 9.8 40.7 15.9 38.6 47.6 20056 27.6 45.7 49.7 29.4 18.6 25.7 37.3 47.7 47 26.8 15.6 37.2 23.7 64.1 22.1 36.1 20.7 36.6 42.8 Christians 199899 36.4 30 38.1 17.8 16.4 12.4 28.2 40.3 20.8 20056 31 37.8 32.2 9.2 23.5 57 43 24.3 14.3 15.4 11.3 42.3 9.6 19.3 21.9 44.8 34.3 19989 4.5 22.3 16.9 10.7 Sikhs 20056 33.3 40 8.8 24.8 17.1 20.8 14.3 18.8 14.3 17.2 41.5 19.4 13.9

APPENDIX TABLES

271

Table 4A.3 Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 42.1 41.2 46. 46.6 35.8 35.7 30.5 29.3 36.6 43.8 15.6 35.6 33.2 31.6 33.8 14.8 21.7 11.4 28.9 9.7 43.9 38.1 43.4 4.8 12.6 29.9 28.8 12.1 12.1 14.5 16 9.5 24.3 49 37.4 32.5 8.8 57.4 22.1 35.5 31.9 15.6 20.9 17.4 11.7 39.6 28.9 24.6 22 17.7 28.6 21.3 28.2 26.9 16.6 38.6 40.7 24.1 14.9 37.1 26.2 44.8 25.7 46.7 48.8 17 35.9 45 35.4 45 44.2 27.6 39.9 38.1 54.6 26.2 43.7 38.1 41.3 49.4 SCs 20056 37.5 45.1 58.1 38.6 23.3 38.5 42.2 36.5 39.4 40.4 22.6 46.9 40.2 51 26.7 40.7 34.7 42.8 42.9 19989 44.2 19.1 41 55.2 55 40.9 49 29.4 49.2 54.8 55.5 39.6 56.1 32.6 64.2 STs 20056 43.6 20.2 63.5 50.5 34.6 41.8 61 47.4 47 48.6 41.7 49 51.6 51.6 50.9 61.2 45.1 56 19989 40.6 22.1 38.8 46 20.9 40.2 40.4 28.3 43.5 40.1 19.8 37.4 40.7 48.2 18.1 38.3 26.3 37.3 35.3 OBCs 20056 35.8 31.2 42.8 44.2 21.1 26.5 39.5 35.5 45.8 33.7 17.5 42.3 35.4 39.1 19.5 33.1 26.7 36.3 37.6 19989 26.9 31.1 32.1 27.5 8.2 25.4 23.9 21.6 30.9 32.8 15.8 27.4 36.8 37.9 11.9 31.5 12.4 31.9 39.9 Others 20056 24.5 37.2 40.1 26.7 11.5 27.8 24.7 27.8 33.3 29.5 17.7 28.6 31.7 31.9 14.4 33.6 5.3 29.6 35.4

272 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4A.4 Percentage of Women with Anaemia, 19989 and 20056

Non Special Category States Any Anaemia 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 51.8 55.3 14.8 15 1.9 1.8 62.5 40.5 58.7 28.9 63.3 48 38.4 61.1 50.6 43.3 52.1 35.7 47.2 38.6 0 60 65.1 55.2 11.3 8.4 17.6 6.3 27.5 12.1 9.6 21.4 12.5 10.5 13.1 5.1 12.6 8.8 0 16.3 14.8 13.3 0.6 0.7 1.9 0.8 2.4 0.7 1 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.6 0.5 1.8 0.7 0 1.7 1.3 1.5 49.8 69.7 63.4 40.5 36.4 46.3 47 42.4 22.7 54.3 48.5 63 41.4 48.5 56.5 48.7 62.7 20056 62.9 69.5 67.4 57.5 44.3 38 55.3 56.1 69.5 51.5 32.8 56 48.4 61.2 38 53.1 53.2 49.9 63.2 Moderate Anaemia 19989 14.9 25.6 19 9.6 8.1 14.4 14.5 13.4 2.7 15.6 14.1 16.4 12.3 14.1 15.9 13.7 15.9 20056 20.6 21.2 15.9 15.7 8.8 7.8 16.5 16.7 18.6 15.1 6.5 14.1 13.9 14.9 10.4 15.4 13.6 13.2 16.4 Severe Anaemia 19989 2.4 0.9 1.5 1.3 1 2.5 1.6 2.3 0.5 1 2.9 1.6 0.7 2.1 3.9 1.5 1.5 20056 3.3 3.4 1 1.9 0.2 0.6 2.6 1.7 1.3 2 0.6 1 1.7 1.5 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.6 1

APPENDIX TABLES

273

Table 4A.5 Percentage of Women with any Anaemia, by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 52.4 55.9 49.6 54.7 47.1 50.4 39.6 39.2 45 39.9 55.9 61.8 61.1 66.4 54.3 67.1 42.9 60.5 37.9 46.5 32 40.6 60.7 67.9 54.8 49.7 64.6 58.5 49.7 48 40.8 50.4 39 53 70.9 50 44 80 0 28.4 49.7 37.6 40.3 63.7 51.4 53.2 57.8 49.6 66.7 63.1 67.8 40.7 39.7 46.8 46.6 73.8 42.6 25.9 54.5 50.4 63.1 43.8 48.3 56.8 49.1 63.3 Hindus 20056 63.1 71.6 67.3 58 44.5 38.6 55.1 55.7 68.2 51.5 32.9 57.2 48.9 61 39.7 52.7 54 49.7 63.8 36.4 52.3 39.2 56.4 60.3 41.5 19.4 46.6 37.1 50.4 51.2 52 59.3 47.3 59.2 Muslims 19989 39.3 75.1 63.1 20056 58.1 59.2 68.1 48.1 46.6 47.4 56.5 63.4 61.8 52.2 37.9 47.7 43.1 57.6 42.4 56.3 54.2 51.5 61.3 Christians 199899 64.1 76.1 76.9 26.1 36.6 18.9 41.4 72.7 48 20056 68.5 89.7 0 49.3 42.1 31.6 69 89 45.9 21.9 17.9 42.2 73.4 49.8 25.2 42.1 33.7 75.8 46.7 39 35.1 19989 38.8 Sikhs 20056 37.5 50.1 54.7 54.2 46.5 25.5 75 36.5 91.5 32.3 71.3

274 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4A.6 Percentage of Women with any Anaemia, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 56.0 58.3 64.9 68.5 50.7 54.4 47.6 51.2 44.4 37.1 57.9 64.1 69.6 44.4 60.6 47.6 38.2 21.0 61.8 65.6 60.0 62.6 60.2 41.6 54.6 54.1 28.4 47.9 38.6 58.7 74.0 71.4 51.1 63.7 60.8 32.7 64.5 56.2 54.8 34.8 47.8 56.7 60.0 66.2 62.1 38.4 58.0 61.1 47.0 69.3 39.4 56.7 38.0 52.3 59.4 62.6 61.7 50.8 56.0 68.1 67.0 68.8 49.7 32.8 48.4 52.5 75.5 46.6 26.8 50.5 49.7 66.3 47.7 47.6 64.2 51.9 67.1 SCs 20056 65.6 71.5 71.8 51.9 49.2 42.1 56.3 60.9 72.6 52.3 37.7 56.5 52.0 64.2 42.6 54.9 58.7 53.5 66.8 19989 48.6 65.3 82.1 75.2 55.5 85.6 45.9 34.1 70.3 64.2 74.7 58.4 61.4 53.6 80.6 STs 20056 69.1 74.1 75.3 74.0 59.5 39.5 74.2 55.6 85.0 56.8 51.9 73.9 58.9 73.8 39.5 65.0 36.0 35.2 78 19989 48.5 59.9 60.9 65.1 44.0 39.8 45.0 41.9 67.8 41.9 22.3 52.2 48.6 61.3 42.1 46.6 54.2 51.0 61.7 OBCs 20056 63.6 70.4 67.4 52.0 45.1 41.6 55.3 59.0 64.3 51.0 33.4 51.1 46.8 58.6 32.8 52.4 52.0 48.8 56.6 19989 47.9 73.3 58.5 58.8 37.3 36.5 42.1 47.0 59.8 40.3 22.1 44.0 45.2 54.4 37.9 47.2 49.4 45.2 59.1 Others 20056 58.5 68.1 64.1 42.5 42.7 37.0 49.9 52.9 57.6 48.9 31.5 46.3 45.8 53.4 36.3 46.4 38.4 49.2 60.5

APPENDIX TABLES

275

Table 4A.7 Nutritional Status of Children (05 years), 20056

Non Special Category States Heightfor age Percentage below-3 SD Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. 21.7 16 14.9 13.1 29.8 17.7 19.3 17.9 14.7 23.1 23.7 43.3 38.6 35 35.6 55.1 39.8 38.8 38.3 35.7 44.4 48 6.1 5.5 4.4 2.1 19.9 3.5 5.2 3.3 8.6 5.3 6.4 15.3 19.3 14.8 9 30.7 9 13.3 9.7 24.6 18.8 19.8 11.1 11.4 8.2 4.7 27.7 5.4 7.1 4.9 15.7 15.7 15.8 32.5 36.5 25.6 22.1 48.8 19.9 25.5 19.7 39.6 38 42.5 18.7 20.9 29.1 24.8 20.4 10.2 25.5 19.4 26.8 20.5 6.5 26.3 19.1 19.6 17.3 22.7 1 32.4 17.8 Percentage below-2 SD 42.7 46.5 55.6 52.9 42.2 25.6 51.7 45.7 49.8 43.7 24.5 50 46.3 45 36.7 43.7 30.9 56.8 44.6 Weightfor height Percentage below-3 SD 3.5 4 8.3 5.6 7 5.6 5.8 5 11.8 5.9 4.1 12.6 5.2 5.2 2.1 7.3 8.9 5.1 4.5 Percentage below-2 SD 12.2 13.7 27.1 19.5 15.4 14.1 18.7 19.1 32.3 17.6 15.9 35 16.5 19.5 9.2 20.4 22.2 14.8 16.9 Weightfor age Percentage below-3 SD 9.9 11.4 24.1 16.4 8.7 6.7 16.3 14.2 26.1 12.8 4.7 27.3 11.9 13.4 8 15.3 6.4 16.4 11.1 Percentage below-2 SD 32.5 36.4 55.9 47.1 26.1 25 44.6 39.6 56.5 37.6 22.9 60 37 40.7 24.9 39.9 29.8 42.4 38.7

276 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 4A.8 Percentage of Children with any Anaemia (05 years), 20056
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. 29.1 26.8 30.4 15.2 31.7 20 29.5 34.6 30.6 40.2 0.8 2.2 2.4 0.3 1 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.3 2.9 56.9 54.7 58.6 41.1 64.4 44.2 59.2 62.9 61.4 69.5 Moderate Anaemia 43.5 38.7 46.8 45.2 30.3 17.1 41.1 42.2 39.1 38.6 20.5 43.6 39.6 34.5 38.4 40.2 34.6 45 29.4 Severe Anaemia 3.6 2.2 1.6 2 0.7 1.5 3.6 4.3 1.9 3.2 0.5 3.4 1.8 1.6 6.6 6.7 2.6 3.6 1.5 Any anaemia 70.8 69.6 78 71.2 57 38.2 69.7 72.3 70.3 70.4 44.5 74.1 63.4 65 66.4 69.7 64.2 73.9 61

APPENDIX TABLES

277

Table 4A.9 Percentage of Children with Anaemia, by Major Religious Communities, and by Social Groups 20056
Non Special Category States Hindus Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 69.8 69.7 60.4 63.9 72.4 77.2 70.4 63.8 67.6 54.3 65.7 39.5 60 33.6 0 57.8 64.8 61 64.4 50.8 56.1 51.7 66.7 66.7 0 73 46.8 71.2 49 40.5 63.6 42.5 0 61.6 100 42.2 30 59.5 74.2 53.9 66.9 49.6 46.6 34.3 0 59.6 61.8 73.5 53.5 65.4 63.4 41 65.8 44.2 0 60.1 77.1 72.3 75 65.9 59.6 46.5 42 100 0 54.5 61.4 66.6 64.9 50.2 59.8 40.4 63.1 100 0 66.4 56.5 55 71.8 68.6 76.8 72.3 57.3 39.9 70.2 71.8 68 70.6 41.2 73.7 64 65.5 69.2 70.7 64.5 73.1 60.8 Major Religious Communities Muslims 61.4 67.1 82.7 74.5 56 45.7 67.1 78.5 69.4 71.9 50.9 77.7 58.9 50.2 58 72.6 53.6 78.3 61.3 78 67 39.8 31.7 40.8 63.3 83.5 39.4 56.7 50.7 63.4 33.3 41.2 32.2 50 Christians 74.6 84 Sikhs 63.6 83.4 72.3 60 78.2 50 64.3 85.5 29.7 SCs 69.1 75.7 81.9 69 63.6 50 69.6 79 76.4 76.4 50 75.6 64.8 63.9 73.3 70.8 70.4 75.2 66 Social Groups STs 76 78.5 77.8 78.1 83.4 24.1 83.3 75.6 80.5 81.9 43.8 82.5 67.4 80.8 0 74.3 75 80.9 85.9 OBCs 71 67.5 77.5 71.6 56 39.2 71.7 72.8 66.8 69.1 44.1 70.6 62.1 59.1 65.2 70.4 60.8 73.8 49.3 Others 69.7 64.9 75.3 55.1 54.1 40 63.3 69.1 56.7 64 43.8 68.4 62.3 58.6 61.5 67.9 71.4 72.6 53.6

278 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.1 Infant Mortality RateRural, Urban, and Combined, 2000 and 2009
Non Special Category States 2000 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 27 38 62 38 25 33 74 31 25 41 21 22 28 55 10 26 14 57 29 15 44 20 25 24 30 28 19 34 23 28 58 48 27 23 68 27 25 37 24 25 22 50 45 62 51 23 61 23 NA 49 42 73 35 46 48 18 61 45 27 36 33 44 11 37 45 25 32 17 23 36 32 26 14 28 34 11 40 19 23 21 20 27 44 60 50 23 58 21 NA 49 41 50 32 45 45 16 59 36 26 34 31 41 74 78 63 95 32 24 69 69 74 68 14 93 56 99 56 82 56 87 54 Rural 2009 54 64 53 55 40 11 55 54 46 47 12 72 37 68 42 65 30 66 34 2000 36 35 53 49 32 21 45 57 48 24 14 54 33 66 38 58 38 65 37 Urban 2009 35 37 40 47 31 10 33 41 30 31 11 45 22 46 31 35 26 47 27 2000 65 75 62 79 32 23 62 67 70 57 14 87 48 95 52 79 51 83 51 Total 2009 49 61 52 54 33 11 48 51 44 41 12 67 31 65 38 59 28 63 33

Note: Infant mortality rates for smaller states and Union Territories are based on a three-year period 19982000 for the year 2000. Source: SRS Bulletin, April 2002, January 2011, Registrar General, India.

APPENDIX TABLES

279

Table 5A.2 Infant Mortality Rate by Gender, 2000 and 2009

Non Special Category States 2000 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 19.4 24 52.9 73.3 14.5 14 66.8 29 26 38 21 21 25 49 13 30.6 60.8 29 29 24.9 68.9 25 23 37 28 29 20 52 16.4 26.7 56.8 54.2 22.3 19.7 67.8 27 25 37 24 25 22 50 41.3 56.7 59.2 20.5 65.1 18.3 N.A 49.8 30.7 54 31 44 41 14 59 33 23 35 33 41 38.8 44.5 46.1 24 67.2 16.8 N.A. 44.1 38.9 42.5 34 45 51 18 59 38 28 33 30 42 40.1 51 53.1 22.2 66.2 17.5 N.A. 47 34.8 49 32 45 45 16 59 36 26 34 31 41 66.4 65.9 61.8 92.3 30.1 27.1 58.8 63 59.4 65.4 14.5 81.4 45.8 98.3 45 76.4 48.5 80.7 54.3 Males 2009 48 58 52 50 31 7 47 48 42 41 10 66 28 65 37 58 27 62 33 2000 64.2 82.9 61.4 66.1 33.8 14.7 66.8 70.9 78.8 47.3 13.3 93.2 50 92.4 61.5 81.2 53.7 86.5 47 Females 2009 50 64 52 57 34 14 48 53 46 42 13 68 33 66 39 61 29 65 33 2000 65.4 74.5 61.6 79.9 31.8 21 62.4 66.6 68.4 56.5 13.9 87 47.8 95.5 52.3 78.7 51 83.4 50.7 Persons 2009 49 61 52 54 33 11 48 51 44 41 12 67 31 65 38 59 28 63 33

Source: Sample Registration System, Registrar General, India.

280 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.3 Infant Mortality Rate by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States Hindus 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 77.1 58.5 58.8 52.4 49.2 41.7 53.3 45.6 63.1 65.6 37.2 45 22.2 59.5 32 53 58.7 63.3 46.2 59.8 46.4 48.3 74.8 50.3 48.6 35.1 47.1 75.5 57.1 76.5 49.2 68.3 61.3 65.5 22.3 94.2 58.3 57 90.5 50.1 100.2 49.8 20056 71 63.2 80.2 37.6 33.2 65.6 42.3 72.6 55 16.5 84.3 49 45.2 73.8 40.2 85.2 48.5 Muslims 19989 29.7 68.4 71.3 40.2 34 51.8 49.5 18.9 77.9 28.2 73.9 51.1 75.9 51.9 20056 52.2 72.1 43.1 40.4 58.7 61.2 45.3 17.2 59.6 25.9 67.8 76.5 59.5 Christians 199899 21.9 20056 5.8 17.1 15.2 19989 38.6 51.5 Sikhs 20056 46.6

APPENDIX TABLES

281

Table 5A.4 Infant Mortality Rate by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Delhi Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 73.8 83.0 37.4 66.4 84.2 62.1 49.9 76.0 38.5 56.6 34.4 61.8 37.4 48.9 43.7 44.3 56.4 62.6 57.4 70.2 67.6 34.3 51.2 49.3 45.8 28.9 38.0 85.7 36.9 45.3 45.9 58.1 32.3 64.0 39.1 62.3 48.7 28.2 44.7 25.8 33.8 48.7 53.4 43.8 95.4 44.8 86.3 80.1 67.5 69.9 101.5 52.6 83.9 73.7 98.9 41.8 110.0 55.4 20056 88.1 71.0 63.1 65.4 53.3 76.7 57.2 81.9 45.2 73.7 46.2 96.4 37.4 90.7 38.8 Scheduled Tribes 19989 103.6 59.3 81.9 60.3 85.0 101 73.6 98.7 94.7 83.3 85.1 20056 94.1 90.6 86.0 93.0 45.8 95.6 51.4 78.7 73.2 Other Backward Classes 19989 69.7 46.7 75.3 74.2 55.3 60.6 17.3 92.3 52.8 95.6 57.6 87.5 52.7 105.7 20056 62.8 57.2 79.4 26.3 66.5 52.1 66.9 53.0 11.5 79.0 50.6 66.0 66.9 38.2 84.1 19989 47.1 68.2 61.2 53.7 56.5 56.4 20.5 72.4 48.9 79.1 44.3 81.6 82.3 45.0 Others 20056 54.0 82.2 83.1 22.2 47.3 36.1 75.5 43.5 19.9 66.8 40.5 53.1 44.1 58.1 71.4 56.6

282 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.5 Under-five Mortality Rate (U5MR) by Gender, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Puducherry Lakshadweep All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 97.9 69.7 105.2 79.2 94.9 74.3 89.7 53.4 76.6 66.0 143.3 66.5 72.5 82.1 73.5 109.1 49.3 53.9 56.7 86.2 49.5 74.8 44.1 79.5 67.6 81.1 42.8 80.7 56.2 110.4 52.3 62.8 85.7 63.4 86.4 35.8 53.7 43.3 61.0 47.5 65.0 40.2 67.0 72.9 98.1 42.4 80.1 56.1 122.0 54.7 63.8 71.0 87.7 41.5 51.2 41.9 70.5 52.9 64.7 40.1 59.2 56.8 88.2 86.8 104.6 61.4 92.4 66.0 89.7 30.6 141.7 69.4 121.3 55.4 115.7 62.3 120.9 74.7 Males 20056 85.6 90.3 82.7 107.7 47.2 32.9 72.2 55.2 111.1 71.4 22.3 103.6 55.8 103.7 51.3 87.7 42.3 100.9 74.8 19989 94.5 71.5 116.0 53.2 89.0 94.2 76.6 21.1 148.0 70.6 109.9 87.4 134.9 66.8 144.2 67.1 Females 20056 71.1 100.3 108.3 103.3 45.5 31.4 82.5 63.0 113.7 60.6 16.6 112.7 50.7 84.4 58.9 99.4 47.9 124.7 55.7 19989 85.5 89.5 105.1 55.4 46.8 85.1 76.8 69.8 18.8 137.6 58.1 104.4 72.1 114.9 63.3 122.5 67.6 Persons 20056 63.2 85.0 84.8 90.3 46.7 20.3 60.9 52.3 93 54.7 16.3 94.2 46.7 90.6 52.0 85.4 35.5 96.4 59.6

APPENDIX TABLES

283

Table 5A.6 Under-five Mortality Rate (U5MR) by Gender, 2008

Non Special Category States Persons Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir All India 50 55 69 37 55 64 64 55 73 50 58 76 37 57 71 65 58 81 39 41 43 38 41 41 41 42 46 58 88 75 71 40 60 65 65 55 14 92 41 89 49 80 36 91 42 Total Males 55 81 69 65 38 58 60 58 54 12 90 39 87 45 72 36 83 42 Females 61 96 82 78 43 63 71 72 56 15 93 42 91 55 88 36 100 42 Persons 64 93 77 74 40 72 70 69 62 14 98 49 93 55 88 39 97 45 Rural Males 62 85 70 68 39 70 66 61 61 13 95 48 91 48 80 38 89 45 Females 67 101 84 80 40 76 75 77 64 15 101 51 95 63 97 40 106 44 Persons 40 50 56 56 41 38 50 44 40 12 62 28 59 39 49 31 63 32 Urban Males 36 50 52 49 38 38 43 41 40 8 65 26 56 38 44 33 57 30 Females 45 51 59 64 44 39 59 46 40 16 59 29 63 41 55 30 71 35

Source: Sample Registration SystemRegistrar General, India.

284 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.7 Under-five Mortality Rate (U5MR) by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States Hindus 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Puducherry Lakshadweep All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 107.0 76.0 82.7 70.0 64.9 52.1 68.0 52.8 80.8 81.1 41.8 55.2 30.1 77.9 37.0 66.4 72.4 78.4 54.9 80.9 53.9 85.0 105.1 71.1 72.8 50.6 69.8 97.1 75.6 112.2 59.9 96.2 79.9 88 27.8 148.6 76.4 71.0 126.2 64.2 137.8 68.3 20056 82.0 83.3 91.5 105 46.4 38.7 80.7 55.9 105 68.8 19.1 110.5 57.8 56.3 95.8 48.3 115.8 57.6 122.2 56.0 108.4 77.0 77.5 101.1 80.0 Muslims 19989 40.3 87.2 98.7 58.1 50.2 90.0 65.6 25.7 98.6 41.5 63.6 48.0 86.3 91.4 57.2 18.6 89.3 28.6 55.0 15.8 61.3 48.0 20056 60.0 114.7 108.9 19989 Sikhs 20056 Christians 19989 21.9 17.1 20056 10.3

APPENDIX TABLES

285

Table 5A.8 Under-five Mortality Rate (U5MR) by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 119.3 88.1 126.6 95.7 103.1 72.8 82.6 59.2 57.9 62.8 63.4 72.2 83.9 97.3 100.9 71.4 74 65.8 35.9 47.2 107.7 83.9 91 36.7 36.9 55.1 60.7 45.6 76.7 53.5 59.9 56.9 52.2 78.6 33.1 53.3 37.9 104.6 156 66.1 122.7 94.6 140.7 63.3 158.1 81.5 122.4 56.3 133.8 94.7 123 92.1 20056 96.1 110.7 113.1 78.1 51.3 86.6 73.9 121.3 65.4 110.1 50.2 91.8 61.5 123.1 48.3 135.1 46.6 94.6 120.6 179.6 92.3 138.4 155 124.5 100.1 113.8 115.8 62.3 138.5 77.9 140.7 69.8 136.3 Scheduled Tribes 19989 115.9 73.5 116.6 20056 112.0 83.2 128.5 Other Backward Classes 19989 89.5 72.4 106.8 62.4 96 74.7 78.2 24.5 139.8 69.2 113.8 72.5 123.2 63 142.2 20056 73.1 76.4 84.7 98.3 47.5 33.6 78.1 49.7 100.8 63.8 12.9 97.6 57.8 83.5 50.5 80.8 44.6 111 19989 64.7 86.9 89.3 42.1 70.3 74.8 69.8 23.9 94.8 65.9 92.9 51.4 109.3 112.1 63.4 87.7 70.4 69.9 92.7 60.4 20.7 79.9 47.4 64.2 Others 20056 63.2 100.9 108.9 109.3 43.2 29.2 55.7

286 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.9 Death Rate by Gender, 1991, 1997, and 2009

Non Special Category States 1991 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 7 4.5 12 10.2 5.3 7.5 10 6 4.5 9.7 6.8 6.4 9.3 9.2 5.3 4.7 5.5 5.2 6.3 7.9 7.8 4.4 4.7 10.9 7.8 4.1 5.7 9.7 4.1 3.9 6.7 5.1 6.1 6.7 8.6 2.9 3.0 4.1 4.9 5.4 6.1 6.7 5.8 4.6 11.5 9 4.7 6.6 9.8 5.1 4.2 8.2 5.9 6.2 8 8.9 4.1 3.9 4.8 5.1 5.8 7.0 7.3 7.6 8.1 6.5 7.4 5.7 8.9 7 9 14.2 9.8 6.1 9.3 7.3 8.4 6.3 5.3 8.8 5.1 3.7 5.9 5.7 7.0 7.5 7.1 6.4 6 5.2 8.7 4.9 8.6 12.8 8 5.4 7 4.9 6.0 5.2 4.1 7.3 4.0 3.4 5.6 4.5 6.1 7.5 7.6 6.5 6.8 5.4 8.8 5.9 8.8 13.5 8.9 5.8 8.1 6.1 7.2 5.7 4.7 8.1 4.5 3.6 5.7 5.1 6.5 9.4 6.9 13.6 8.5 13.2 8.7 10.1 9.7 11.1 8.2 8.1 7.6 11.2 7.9 11 8 9 8.8 10 8.1 6.5 8.5 8.9 8.4 5.8 8.8 7.8 8 10.4 11.6 9.4 Males 1997 9.3 9.8 9.9 2009 8.4 9.3 7.2 9.0 4.7 8.1 7.3 7.4 7.0 8.1 7.8 8.5 7.5 9.4 7.6 7.1 8.5 8.5 6.7 8.5 5.2 14 7.9 12.5 6.8 10.1 8 11.6 8.3 7 4.9 10.9 6.7 10.7 6.8 8.7 7.2 10.6 7.3 6.1 6.5 8.1 7.9 5 6.6 7.5 8 1991 9 11.3 10.3 Females 1997 7.4 9.9 10.2 2009 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.2 4.0 5.4 6.4 5.7 6.9 6.4 5.8 8.4 5.8 8.3 6.4 6.0 6.8 7.8 5.6 9 6 13.8 8.2 12.8 7.8 10.1 8.8 11.3 8.3 7.6 6.2 11 7.3 10.9 7.4 8.9 8 10.3 7.7 6.3 7.5 8.5 8.2 5.4 7.7 7.6 8 1991 9.7 11.5 9.8 Persons 1997 8.3 9.9 10 2009 7.6 8.4 7.0 8.1 4.4 6.7 6.9 6.6 7.0 7.2 6.8 8.5 6.7 8.8 7.0 6.6 7.6 8.2 6.2

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, Registrar General, India. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

287

Table 5A.10 Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender, 19926 and 2004

Non Special Category States 19926 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 60.1 62.6 61.4 64.2 60.7 63.5 66.5 67.3 67.0 60.8 56.1 60.2 60.5 63.4 61.1 70.2 55.1 63.8 56.9 66.4 58.6 62.8 57.7 61.8 Males 2004 62.9 58.6 62.2 62.9 65.9 63.6 71.4 58.1 66.0 59.5 68.4 61.5 65.0 60.3 64.1 19926 63.0 56.6 58.2 62.5 64.3 64.5 75.8 54.7 66.2 56.6 68.6 59.6 64.8 56.4 63.1 Females 2004 65.5 59.3 60.4 65.2 66.3 67.1 76.3 57.9 68.4 59.6 70.4 62.3 67.4 59.5 65.8 19926 62.0 56.2 59.4 61.4 63.8 62.9 73.1 55.2 65.2 56.9 67.4 59.5 63.7 57.2 62.4 Persons 2004 64.4 58.9 61.6 64.1 66.2 65.3 74.0 58.0 67.2 59.6 69.4 62.0 66.2 60.0 64.9

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, based on Sample Registration System, Register General India. Note: Not available.

288 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.11 Projected Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender, 200610

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Union Territories Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 65.8 68.1 69.0 66.9 69.0 69.9 68.1 69.8 65.0 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 64.0 71.8 73.3 67.0 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.8 68.0 69.9 71.5 65.9 69.9 70.0 70.0 69.9 69.8 69.9 65.9 Males 65.4 61.6 67.1 61.0 71.4 67.2 67.9 66.0 66.5 72.0 62.5 67.9 62.3 68.7 66.1 67.6 64.0 68.2 Females 69.4 62.8 66.7 64.0 74.8 71.0 69.8 64.0 71.1 76.8 63.3 71.3 64.8 71.6 69.2 70.6 64.4 70.9 Persons* 67.4 62.2 66.9 62.5 72.9 69.5 69.0 68.8 65.0 68.8 74.5 62.9 69.5 63.5 70.0 67.6 69.1 64.2 69.5

Source: Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections 200610, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Note:* Persons have been calculated by weighted average with weights, respectively, being the projected male/female population for the year 2008. : Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

289

Table 5A.12 Life Expectancy at Age 1 by Gender, 19926 and 2004

Non Special Category States 19926 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 64.3 64.9 65.6 66.8 64.9 65.9 69.1 70.0 69.6 64.3 60.6 64.0 63.9 66.9 64.9 70.3 61.5 66.8 62.6 69.2 63.7 65.1 62.5 65.2 Males 2004 66.2 62.5 64.9 65.8 69.1 66.4 71.2 62.5 67.5 63.7 70.4 65.9 66.8 64.5 66.2 19926 65.9 61.0 62.0 66.3 68.4 68.1 75.8 60.5 68.9 62.2 72.2 64.9 67.3 61.6 66.4 Females 2004 68.7 62.9 63.2 68.7 70.7 70.1 76.2 62.6 70.3 63.6 73.6 66.9 69.1 64.1 67.6 19926 65.2 60.6 63.2 65.1 67.6 66.6 73.2 61.2 68.1 62.6 70.5 64.6 66.1 62.2 65.8 Persons 2004 67.6 62.7 64.3 67.2 70.0 68.3 73.9 62.6 68.9 63.6 72.0 66.5 68.0 64.4 66.9

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, based on Sample Registration System, Register General, India. Note: Not available.

290 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.13 Percentage of Persons not Expected to Survive Beyond the Age of 40 Years, 1991 and 2004
Non Special Category States 1991 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 16.9 17.2 19.1 18.5 18.0 17.7 12.9 13.1 13.2 12.8 13.0 12.8 15.0 21.1 17.3 16.0 14.3 15.4 6.0 23.5 12.1 21.6 13.8 18.3 13.4 19.8 14.2 Males 2004 17.5 21.0 19.8 15.8 14.4 15.2 7.5 22.9 13.6 13.8 19.2 13.7 20.1 1991 14.9 22.5 22.1 17.6 16.6 16.0 4.4 27.3 12.5 23.0 13.5 21.7 13.4 25.0 15.4 Females 2004 15.6 23.9 22.7 15.7 17.7 13.9 4.2 27.1 12.0 12.2 21.0 11.8 24.1 1991 14.9 21.8 19.5 16.7 15.4 15.7 5.1 25.3 12.3 22.3 13.8 19.9 13.4 22.2 14.8 Persons 2004 16.4 22.4 20.8 15.7 15.8 14.6 5.6 24.2 12.8 13.0 19.7 12.7 21.9

Source: From Sample Registration System based Abridged Life Tables. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

291

Table 5A.14 Total Fertility Rate (TFR), 19902, 19957, and 2008
Non Special Category States 19902 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 2.5 1.5 4.5 3.7 3.9 1.8 3.7 1.9 2.1 3.5 2.5 2.8 1.8 3.4 2.6 4.1 3.0 2.5 4.1 2.3 3.0 5.9 2.8 2.5 2.4 4.0 1.5 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.2 3.0 3.4 4.6 1.6 3.2 3.9 3.1 1.8 4.7 3.0 3.3 3.1 4.5 2.2 5.2 3.2 TFR 19957 2.8 3.3 4.5 1.5 3.1 3.5 2.6 1.8 4.1 2.8 3.1 2.8 4.2 2.1 4.9 2.7 2008 1.8 2.6 3.9 3.1 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.0 1.7 3.3 2.0 2.4 1.9 3.3 1.7 3.8 1.9

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, Registrar General, India. Note: Not available.

292 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.15 Total Fertility Rate (Rural) , 19902, 19957, and 2008
Non Special Category States 19902 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 2.5 2.3 4.0 4.0 3.2 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.6 3.6 2.7 2.9 2.0 3.7 2.9 4.2 3.1 2.6 4.8 2.4 3.2 5.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 4.5 2.6 1.0 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.6 4.7 1.7 3.4 4.2 3.3 1.8 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.3 4.8 2.4 5.5 3.6 TFR 19957 3.1 3.5 4.6 1.6 3.3 3.8 2.8 1.8 4.4 3.2 3.3 3.0 4.5 2.2 5.1 3.0 2008 2.0 2.8 4.0 3.2 2.1 2.8 2.7 3.5 2.2 1.7 3.6 2.1 2.5 2.0 3.6 1.7 4.0 2.1

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, Registrar General, India. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

293

Table 5A.16 Total Fertility Rate (Urban), 19902, 19957, and 2008
Non Special Category States 19902 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 2.3 1.4 3.4 4.7 1.7 2.7 1.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.7 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.1 5.9 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 0.6 1.4 1.5 2.5 2.1 3.4 1.5 2.9 2.9 2.5 1.8 3.3 2.5 2.4 2.8 3.5 2.0 3.8 2.0 TFR 19957 2.3 2.1 3.2 1.3 2.9 2.8 2.2 1.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 3.0 1.8 3.8 1.8 2008 1.6 1.5 2.8 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 3.0 1.3

Source: Compendium of Indias Fertility and Mortality Indicators, Registrar General, India. Note: Not available.

294 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.17 Sex-Ratio, 2001 and 2011

Non Special Category States Combined 2001 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 846 773 811 709 947 1,001 933 862 620 850 585 957 990 946 815 792 691 983 936 1,006 901 878 818 775 618 946 1,038 940 901 970 900 978 975 938 909 875 950 964 915 991 927 969 972 925 932 881 948 1,007 850 797 822 1,009 985 951 809 828 962 850 920 974 883 987 986 975 931 889 961 963 978 932 921 990 821 960 921 861 941 964 1,058 920 922 972 874 922 986 898 934 Rural 2001 983 940 927 1,005 806 988 946 867 963 976 1,059 927 959 986 887 932 992 904 950 Urban 2001 965 878 869 932 822 933 880 847 870 940 1,058 899 874 895 848 890 980 879 893 Combined 2011* 992 954 916 991 866 968 918 877 968 1,084 930 925 978 893 926 995 908 947

Source: Census of India, 2001, 2011Provisional Population Totals. Note: Overall Sex-Ratio is defined as females per 1,000 males for the entire population. Census not held; data not available due to administrative reorganization. * Provisional.

APPENDIX TABLES

295

Table 5A.18 Sex-Ratio in the Age Group 06 years, 2001 and 2011
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Census of India. Note: * Provisional. Not available. 957 845 979 926 959 967 927 966 867 924 909 908 965 914 964 896 941 957 973 964 964 963 966 908 960 906 859 934 970 971 944 944 953 886 2001 961 965 942 975 868 938 883 819 946 960 932 913 953 798 909 942 916 960 2011* 943 957 933 964 866 920 886 830 943 959 912 883 934 846 883 946 899 950

296 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.19 Sex-Ratio at Birth, by Major Religious Communities, 2001

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 965 862 964 855 625 996 901 1,013 916 774 842 969 943 931 1,003 935 914 897 500 957 963 1,000 729 500 770 996 845 916 990 992 849 1,015 930 979 853 1,127 839 966 917 922 859 861 675 891 864 987 892 978 950 1,005 985 859 1,003 925 400 838 842 889 1,053 250 1,667 752 Hindus 951 952 914 928 847 897 830 778 903 935 973 902 870 926 808 864 932 898 977 Muslims 950 943 931 917 894 902 871 895 908 945 960 919 911 934 866 887 961 916 971 Christians 951 946 858 928 971 993 898 892 949 942 972 885 943 975 850 823 966 963 1,066 Sikhs 986 672 763 867 789 1,000 784 709 715 773 938 801 837 1,010 770 761 787 831 921

Source: Calculated from Census of India (2001 Table F 10). Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

297

Table 5A.20 Sex-Ratio at Birth by Social Groups, 2001

Non Special Category States SCs Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 868 877 955 920 996 963 940 845 862 837 847 998 897 966 885 952 921 1,003 1,132 940 872 929 797 813 1,500 999 896 876 960 917 934 840 817 917 850 997 901 970 931 934 946 911 876 998 996 925 960 998 988 955 948 885 914 988 941 894 941 887 950 914 932 898 844 980 927 931 941 911 864 999 994 925 959 983 990 955 966 886 917 966 935 902 943 800 962 908 910 894 845 909 959 962 960 911 969 990 920 971 1,018 975 959 1,054 969 863 936 941 940 951 961 914 839 964 931 946 921 921 844 854 884 959 973 903 911 845 882 972 975 884 635 983 935 926 979 909 979 1,005 994 917 Combined STs 948 945 904 949 Non SC/STs 948 949 910 917 921 815 772 827 924 968 889 866 967 757 849 922 950 974 982 SCs 961 932 946 916 967 847 834 886 957 975 903 913 1,090 847 886 1,006 987 973 Rural STs 945 942 904 950 920 892 933 985 936 927 978 910 966 1,006 993 961 Non SC/STs 942 946 910 920 947 826 771 824 945 970 891 852 958 747 852 919 943 963 1,002 SCs 979 923 949 942 889 839 829 847 966 964 903 909 839 860 867 901 990 Urban STs 979 1024 903 923 865 947 926 912 877 1,021 Non SC/STs 966 986 913 907 895 797 777 826 921 962 881 886 986 776 836 953 980 1,010 942

Source: Calculated from Census of India (2001 Table F 10). Note: Not available.

298 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.21 Distribution of Live Births by Place of Delivery, 20056 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Institutional Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 28.6 43.1 50.2 45.9 29.0 59.8 11.6 47.2 46.9 32.7 38.7 19.5 37.1 41.1 36.1 19.7 51.6 7.3 44.5 43.0 15.7 18.0 5.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.9 0.4 3.9 5.4 8.4 9.5 9.0 6.5 4.1 2.7 3.9 16.1 20.2 69.9 56.6 49.5 54.1 70.9 40.1 88.3 52.5 52.7 66.9 61.1 67.1 51.4 38.9 53.2 66.6 36.4 87.2 49.8 47.3 65.0 51.4 2.4 4.6 9.1 0.4 3.9 3.6 0.9 2.5 5.0 1.7 9.3 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 64.4 22.4 19.9 14.3 58.9 92.4 52.7 35.7 18.3 64.7 99.3 26.2 64.6 35.6 51.3 29.6 87.8 20.6 42.0 Health facility/institution Public Sector 24.0 13.0 3.5 6.9 30.2 43.2 13.9 13.9 3.4 34.8 35.6 18.4 26.5 28.8 12.3 19.0 48.1 6.6 31.8 NGO/ Trust 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 2.0 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 Private Sector 39.8 9.5 16.3 6.9 28.6 48.6 36.8 21.8 13.2 28.9 63.5 7.8 37.6 6.7 37.9 10.6 38.9 13.8 10.0 Home 35.2 77.5 79.7 85.7 41.1 7.6 47.0 64.3 81.1 34.8 0.6 73.5 35.1 63.8 48.6 70.3 12.1 79.3 57.7 Home Own Home 22.4 73.7 69.2 77.4 40.9 3.2 38.5 59.7 68.5 19.3 0.5 65.5 21.0 57.2 38.9 59.8 8.9 70.8 42.0 Parents Home 12.5 3.5 10.4 7.8 4.1 8.1 4.2 11.5 14.8 0.1 7.9 13.8 6.5 9.6 10.0 2.6 7.6 15.5 Other Home 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.2 Others 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

APPENDIX TABLES

299

Table 5A.22 Distribution of Live Births (Rural) by Place of Delivery, 20056 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Institutional Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 17.7 39.8 44.4 37.0 20.1 35.7 6.7 40.4 42.9 25.1 28.9 14.1 34.1 37.6 29.2 14.0 33.4 4.8 38.6 39.9 13.1 14.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.3 3.0 5.1 5.9 7.6 5.8 1.3 1.9 1.8 3.0 11.4 14.2 80.9 59.8 55.4 62.9 79.9 64.0 93.2 59.2 56.7 74.4 70.8 79.4 54.6 43.8 62.0 75.4 58.7 92.0 56.1 51.4 72.1 59.8 1.0 4.6 10.4 0.4 4.0 5.1 1.0 2.9 4.9 2.1 10.6 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 55.9 17.9 16.7 6.3 47.0 91.8 39.2 26.7 10.3 54.8 99.0 17.1 48.9 31.3 47.6 20.8 84.0 15.8 32.2 Health Facility/Institution Public Sector 21.1 10.7 2.7 3.9 31.0 50.0 10.3 10.0 1.9 33.0 35.7 12.9 21.4 26.7 11.3 14.5 49.0 5.9 26.2 NGO/ Trust 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 Private Sector 34.4 7.2 14.0 1.9 15.0 41.4 28.0 16.7 6.7 20.6 63.0 4.3 27.4 4.5 36.1 6.3 33.8 9.8 5.9 Home 43.5 82.1 82.9 93.7 53.0 8.0 60.4 73.3 89.2 44.7 0.9 82.7 50.8 68.1 52.3 79.1 15.7 84.0 67.5 Home Own Home 28.0 78.1 72.4 84.9 53.0 3.5 50.0 68.4 76.2 25.0 0.7 73.4 29.7 61.3 41.4 67.4 11.6 75.0 49.6 Parents Home 15.1 3.7 10.4 8.3 4.3 9.9 4.5 12.0 18.7 0.2 9.2 20.6 6.7 10.8 11.4 3.5 8.2 17.7 Other Home 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.1 Others 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.4

300 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.23 Distribution of Live Births (Urban) by Place of Delivery, 20056 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Institutional Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 58.5 76.2 74.0 69.2 73.6 87.3 29.2 85.3 69.9 57.1 67.5 34.5 66.7 55.2 54.3 48.1 72.5 16.5 77.2 60.9 24.4 28.6 17.4 1.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 2.4 1.0 1.6 0.9 6.6 7.9 18.4 14.4 25.2 12.4 11.7 8.1 9.0 31.1 37.9 39.9 23.8 25.3 30.8 25.8 12.7 70.7 14.7 29.3 42.5 32.4 33.3 19.1 18.8 30.0 22.4 10.9 69.8 14.2 24.1 41.9 26.6 6.2 4.8 3.6 0.1 3.1 1.9 0.8 0.5 5.3 0.6 5.3 0.4 2.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 81.5 58.0 44.0 54.5 60.1 92.8 75.7 64.0 53.4 81.8 100.0 57.2 83.3 63.1 57.9 63.7 92.4 39.5 79.7 Health Facility/institution Public Sector 30.0 30.6 9.4 22.0 30.1 38.0 20.1 26.1 9.6 37.9 35.4 37.1 32.6 42.0 14.1 36.5 47.0 9.1 53.2 NGO/ Trust 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.6 3.9 2.1 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.5 2.9 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 Private Sector 50.7 27.4 34.0 31.7 29.9 54.1 51.8 37.9 41.7 43.0 64.6 19.9 49.9 20.6 41.0 27.0 45.1 29.9 25.6 Home 18.5 42.0 55.5 45.6 39.9 7.2 24.3 36.0 46.0 17.8 42.4 16.4 36.5 42.1 36.3 7.6 60.4 20.3 Home Own Home 11.0 39.4 44.8 39.9 39.7 3.0 19.1 32.6 35.3 9.6 38.6 10.5 30.7 34.4 30.4 5.7 54.4 12.8 Parents Home 7.2 1.9 10.2 5.5 0.1 4.0 5.1 3.0 9.6 8.1 3.6 5.6 5.5 7.5 4.9 1.4 5.2 7.0 Other Home 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.5 Others 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.1

APPENDIX TABLES

301

Table 5A.24 Maternal Mortality Ratio in India, 20013, 20046, and 20079
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 301 254 212 517 440 359 MMR 20013 195 490 371 379 172 162 371 228 110 379 149 358 178 445 134 517 194 MMR 20046 154 480 312 335 160 186 312 213 95 335 130 303 192 388 111 440 141 MMR 20079 134 390 261 269 148 153 261 178 81 269 104 258 172 318 97 359 145

Source: Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (SRS Estimates). Note: Not available.

302 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.25 Percentage of Live Births by Place of Delivery for Population with No Education, 20056
Non Special Category States Institutional Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India 16.5 19.2 36.9 21.3 13.3 16.6 4.9 25.3 13.4 14.0 18.4 11.6 18.8 33.6 19.1 10.2 16.6 2.9 24.8 12.7 6.7 9.7 3.9 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 3.0 2.1 2.5 2.0 0.5 0.7 6.9 8.6 82.0 80.0 62.9 78.5 86.6 83.4 94.9 74.7 85.5 85.6 81.3 78.7 78.0 49.8 78.1 82.5 82.1 94.7 71.0 77.7 83.2 70.4 2.9 2.0 11.4 3.7 1.4 3.7 7.9 2.4 10.4 0.4 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 43.1 10.3 11.3 4.4 24.6 66.0 33.9 12.8 8.0 33.9 100.0 14.4 34.8 14.8 28.3 19.1 74.9 12.7 22.1 Health Facility/Institution Public Sector 19.1 5.9 2.0 3,0 17.2 52.5 9.8 4.5 1.7 23.9 77.8 12.2 18.3 13.1 8.2 13.4 56.3 4.4 19.4 NGO/ Trust 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 Private Sector 24.0 4.5 9.2 1.3 7.3 13.5 23.0 8.3 5.5 9.3 22.3 2.2 16.4 1.5 20.1 5.6 18.2 8.3 2.6 Home 56.5 89.5 88.3 95.6 75.4 33.4 65.8 87.2 91.3 65.2 85.4 65.0 84.9 71.5 80.9 25.2 87.1 77.5 Home Own Home 37.7 85.3 77.9 88.2 75.3 16.8 57.3 82.5 79.0 37.0 77.1 45.5 78.4 58.1 69.7 20.4 79.2 58.1 Parents Home 18.4 3.7 10.4 6.9 0.1 15.1 7.9 4.5 11.3 27.4 8.2 18.7 6.4 13.2 10.7 4.0 7.0 19.1 Other Home 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.3 Others 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4

Source: Calculated from NFHS 3 unit level data. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

303

Table 5A.26 Percentage of Live Births by Place of Delivery for Population with More than 12 Years of Education, 20056
Non Special Category States Institutional Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India 93.1 68.8 89.8 77.9 81.3 92.5 39.3 99.1 100.0 77.0 86.4 40.5 59.0 58.6 52.2 31.9 59.3 18.4 79.4 67.4 33.1 22.1 19.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 5.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 33.2 9.3 30.5 24.7 49.4 28.1 19.5 19.7 32.6 42.4 62.7 3.5 31.2 9.4 22.1 18.7 7.5 60.7 0.9 22.1 13.5 3.5 25.9 8.5 21.8 15.4 7.5 60.7 0.9 20.3 11.0 4.8 0.9 3.3 1.3 2.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 3.5 0.7 0.9 0.2 92.8 78.1 72.5 71.1 96.2 100.0 88.4 74.8 83.1 96.7 99.7 88.0 93.5 89.7 85.8 91.3 97.3 67.8 99.0 Health Facility/Institution Public Sector 18.0 26.4 5.2 21.3 34.8 15.9 11.7 21.3 11.0 23.9 20.8 28.8 14.9 49.3 19.1 38.8 27.4 13.6 34.4 NGO/ Trust 3.4 1.9 0.6 4.1 9.5 1.6 0.3 1.8 2.7 1.0 0.5 1.9 2.4 Private Sector 71.3 51.7 67.3 47.8 60.7 84.1 72.6 53.5 62.6 71.2 78.9 58.9 76.7 40.5 63.9 51.5 69.5 52.4 62.2 Home 7.2 21.9 27.5 28.9 3.8 11.6 25.2 16.9 3.3 12.1 6.5 9.2 14.2 8.7 2.7 31.7 1.0 Home Own Home 2.0 20.0 22.9 28.3 3.5 7.5 23.0 16.1 2.4 12.1 4.2 5.9 12.0 5.5 2.7 26.1 1.0 Parents Home 5.3 1.9 4.6 0.6 3.4 2.3 0.8 0.9 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.3 5.4 Other Home 0.4 0.7 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.2 Others 0.3 1.1 0.5

Source: Calculated from NFHS 3 unit level data. Note: Not available.

304 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.27 Prevalence of Contraception, 20056 (per cent)

Non Special Category States Any Method Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. 43.2 72.6 52.6 48.7 24.3 59.9 29.7 57.6 65.7 59.3 56.3 6.0 1.6 7.7 25.1 5.7 0.3 7.2 9.0 20.8 3.8 7.8 37.3 71.0 44.9 23.6 18.5 59.6 22.5 48.7 44.9 55.5 48.5 47.3 73.7 68.3 54.5 43.7 64.3 41.9 63.1 66.8 65.3 64.0 7.9 2.6 12.4 29.7 7.0 0.4 10.1 11.5 22.4 6.1 8.1 39.4 71.2 55.8 24.8 36.7 64.0 31.8 51.7 44.4 59.2 55.8 41.6 72.5 46.2 46.0 18.4 54.8 24.8 56.4 65.5 57.2 53.0 5.2 1.5 5.8 23.0 5.3 0.2 6.0 8.4 20.5 3.0 7.7 36.4 71.0 40.4 23.0 13.0 54.6 18.8 48.0 45.0 54.2 45.3 67.6 56.5 34.1 53.2 66.9 48.2 66.6 63.4 35.7 63.6 68.6 55.9 66.9 50.7 63.3 47.3 61.4 43.6 71.2 All Any Traditional Method 0.6 29.5 5.2 4.1 10.4 11.0 10.1 5.1 4.7 1.1 10.7 3.2 1.9 6.1 7.2 2.8 1.4 14.3 21.3 Any Modern Method 67.0 27.0 28.9 49.1 56.5 37.2 56.5 58.3 31.1 62.5 57.9 52.8 64.9 44.7 56.1 44.4 60.0 29.3 49.9 Any Method 67.7 66.0 50.6 65.4 67.1 51.3 67.6 66.6 60.0 60.8 68.9 61.1 66.7 59.4 61.7 65.8 60.8 56.3 75.5 Urban Any Traditional Method 0.5 28.8 9.3 6.5 10.6 12.6 9.9 6.9 10.1 1.6 10.4 4.8 2.7 9.4 10.0 3.8 1.6 13.9 25.7 Any Modern Method 67.2 37.2 41.3 58.9 56.5 38.6 57.7 59.7 49.9 59.2 58.5 56.3 64.0 50.1 51.8 62.0 59.2 42.4 49.9 Any Method 67.6 54.5 31.4 49.9 64.4 44.1 65.9 62.1 28.2 65.4 68.5 54.1 67.1 49.0 64.2 40.5 62.0 39.7 69.5 Rural Any Traditional Method 0.6 29.7 4.5 3.5 8.5 8.8 10.4 4.3 2.9 0.7 10.8 2.6 1.3 5.4 5.6 2.5 1.3 14.4 19.6 Any Modern Method 67.0 24.8 26.8 46.4 55.9 35.3 55.5 57.8 25.2 64.7 57.6 51.5 65.8 43.6 58.6 38.0 60.7 25.3 49.9

APPENDIX TABLES

305

Table 5A.28 Antenatal Care, 20056

Non Special Category States Percentage Who Had at Least One ANC Visit 94.3 70.7 34.1 88.5 88.8 97.3 86.7 88.3 58.9 89.3 94.4 79.5 90.8 88.9 74.9 98.6 66.0 91.9 Percentage Who Had Three or More ANC Visits 85.4 39.3 17.0 54.2 75.1 94.9 67.5 59.2 35.9 79.5 93.6 40.7 75.1 74.8 41.2 95.9 26.6 62.0 Percentage Who Had Received Two or More TT Injections during the Pregnancy 85.3 65.4 73.2 74.6 90.3 86.8 80.4 83.4 67.6 78.6 88.7 70.6 85.1 83.8 65.2 95.9 64.5 90.9

Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India

52.6 86.4 84.6 86.3 67.6 74.3 57.8 89.3 78.3 69.4 76.4

35.5 62.6 73.5 68.6 54.0 59.3 32.7 70.1 60.0 44.9 52.0

40.1 72.1 81.0 79.2 51.8 51.4 50.7 81.1 74.9 68.5 76.3

Source: NFHS 3. Note: TT=Tetanus toxoid, IFA=Iron, and Folic acid tablets or syrup.

306 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.29 Percentage of Children Immunized, 19989 and 20056

Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 2 and 3. Note: Not available. 42.0 20.5 83.4 56.7 42.3 14.3 59.6 14.1 47.4 28.4 74.2 66.7 46.8 32.9 46.5 21.0 69.6 49.7 60 43.5 14.4 28.7 2.8 10.4 17.2 42.3 10.5 32.7 17.6 24.1 1.9 4.5 6.5 16.5 7.0 18.4 3.2 14.7 8.7 5.1 58.7 17.0 11.0 69.8 53.0 62.7 60.0 79.7 22.4 78.4 43.7 72.1 17.3 88.8 21.2 43.8 All Vaccinations 20056 46.0 31.4 32.8 48.7 63.2 45.2 65.3 34.2 55.0 75.3 40.3 58.8 51.8 60.1 26.5 80.9 23 64.3 19989 4.5 33.2 16.8 5.1 6.6 9.9 7.7 2.2 13.9 2.0 9.4 8.7 22.5 0.3 29.5 13.6 No Vaccinations 20056 3.8 15.2 7.0 2.5 9.1 4.5 7.8 4.4 6.9 1.8 5.0 2.8 11.6 6.6 5.5 3.2 5.9

APPENDIX TABLES

307

Table 5A.30 Percentage of Children Immunized (Rural and Urban), 20056

Non Special Category States All Vaccinations Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3. Note: Not available. 51.2 80.0 73.0 59.6 33.8 57.1 36.0 85.4 67.2 57.6 25.6 3.2 7.0 12.3 1.4 7.9 2.4 10.8 3.4 21.1 73.6 64.9 42.8 32.6 36.6 17.1 66.7 47.9 57.4 38.6 23.7 2.1 4.9 6.3 17.4 12.2 21.0 3.3 15.6 8.4 5.6 51.2 29.3 45.6 74.7 63.2 83.5 54.7 82.2 51.0 59.6 87.5 68.7 68.0 52.7 64.4 44.3 77.8 33.0 70.3 Urban No Vaccinations 4.5 15.5 5.1 2.7 9.7 6.7 2.1 4.6 1.1 0.5 16.5 2.7 5.7 3.2 4.0 All Vaccinations 42.9 31.7 31.1 43.1 73.0 40.1 60.3 29.5 52.2 69.4 31.5 49.8 51.6 58.1 22.1 83.7 20.5 62.8 Rural No Vaccinations 3.4 15.1 7.2 2.5 6.9 8.2 5.0 8.2 2.7 6.2 5.0 10.7 8.4 5.4 2.6 6.4

308 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.31a Percentage of Children Immunized by Major Religious Communities, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States All vaccinations 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tami Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 42.4 44.4 13.3 4.3 32.7 36.3 21.0 7.6 63.4 42.8 60.9 40.8 73.9 79.3 66.1 36.8 66.4 7.9 14.4 2.0 2.4 3.3 5.3 1.7 13.5 7.3 52.5 33.3 60.0 60.1 32.6 5.8 66.7 20.0 42.7 12.3 9.8 26.2 22.0 5.6 14.9 57.5 21.0 12.5 70.9 87.4 53.1 62.0 85.7 20.2 79.7 75.1 18.6 88.1 22.4 51.9 20056 45.1 38.2 35.8 47.7 64 77.3 45.9 73.5 38.1 56.0 88.0 38.2 59.8 52.5 60.4 26.7 79.6 24.9 67.9 Hindus No vaccinations 19989 4.1 29.2 16.3 5.3 7.1 5.5 14.6 2.6 5.0 20.9 0.3 27.8 8.7 20056 4.1 7.1 6.9 2.6 6.0 4.7 2.8 3.6 6.5 1.0 5.5 3.3 10.1 4.0 4.4 2.3 4.2 All vaccinations 19989 72.0 12.3 4.6 60.4 48.6 46.1 67.6 42.2 71.6 4.7 95.9 14.8 24.4 20056 48.3 19.9 18.5 60.0 54.8 79.5 40.0 10.2 26.1 47.2 56.6 56.2 54.8 71.6 33.1 20.3 86.3 14.8 58.1 Muslims No vaccinations 19989 2.9 36.9 17.6 7.3 3.0 19.1 5.6 10.0 33.9 37.0 25.5 20056 3.6 24 7.5 28.8 3.3 42 7.4 7.7 3.3 0.1 2.1 28.4 10.3 15.4 4.3 8.6

Source: NFHS 2 and unit level data NFHS 3. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

309

Table 5A.31b Percentage of Children Immunized, by Major Religious Community, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States All vaccinations 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tami Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 61.1 56.4 11.0 9.3 69.5 67.3 11.1 6.4 8.6 23.4 31.0 48.3 20.3 57.5 46.1 9.5 17.3 4.0 18.5 88.8 57.4 86.8 92.9 90.6 81.6 33.3 62.7 89.3 43.3 89.2 65.7 20056 57.8 Christians No vaccinations 19989 10.4 14.3 0.0 13.2 20056 All vaccinations 19989 69.6 20056 82.4 50.0 61.4 Sikhs No vaccinations 19989 11.3 20056 8.3

Source: NFHS 2 and unit level data NFHS 3. Note: Not available.

310 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.32a Percentage of Children Immunized, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 40.2 39.7 15.1 5.4 26.4 31.3 24.2 10.9 82.5 55.4 18.8 72.3 64.6 53.0 27.7 18.2 100.0 43.3 54.1 1.8 11.0 17.2 2.8 3.1 4.4 30.6 14.5 11.5 22.4 66.7 34.7 23.3 33.1 46.8 21.3 77.3 36.9 41.9 30.0 7.7 17.3 9.1 16.9 7.8 16.6 2.7 16.9 14.5 60.7 20.4 9.5 53.1 52.8 56.4 55.2 17.9 79.8 44.5 54.6 13.4 84.2 21.7 50.9 Scheduled Castes All vaccinations 20056 44.3 31.3 23.6 46.9 68.6 58.2 51.2 66.9 25.1 56.0 75.0 40.5 59.0 59.5 47.6 35.8 72.3 15.9 61.4 No vaccinations 19989 6.5 29.0 21.5 10.7 8.9 14.7 7.0 11.7 8.6 17.6 21.9 30.8 9.7 20056 5.0 11.7 6.3 2.1 3.5 11.1 7.7 5.0 2.6 1.7 3.7 12.7 2.8 4.5 5.2 19989 14.4 4.0 40.6 31.5 11.1 62.2 26.4 10.3 14.1 Scheduled Tribes All vaccinations 20056 26.7 36.1 100.0 42.2 100.0 80.4 39.5 28.9 39.7 79.9 22.3 39.3 30.4 3.3 66.7 7.1 70.9 No vaccinations 19989 39.1 38.1 8.9 13.7 26.2 9.6 18.2 34.5 55.6 20056 12.0 30.6 4.0 13.1 3.9 10.1 7.8 14.0 22.3 6.3 16.5

Source: NFHS 2 and unit level data NFHS 3. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

311

Table 5A.32b Percentage of Children Immunized, by Social Groups, 19989 and 20056
Non Special Category States 19989 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 43.0 40.7 11.6 3.9 46.8 53.8 13.3 4.1 87.4 58.9 43.4 79.9 69.4 59.0 14.9 65.6 65.2 51.5 2.0 13.9 21.7 4.0 10.2 8.7 31.9 2.0 3.0 13.3 82.9 56.5 40.3 74.4 72.6 58.4 24.3 31.5 61.1 52.5 66.2 2.7 9.2 13.4 1.2 4.6 7.6 20.8 5.8 50.1 59.8 65.8 77.9 23.6 85.3 80.9 14.4 90.6 16.9 73.7 11.1 59.3 Other Backward Classes All vaccinations 20056 43.5 42.5 35.4 46.7 59.3 86.2 42.2 50.8 38.3 49.8 83.5 41.0 61.1 59.4 63.7 24.3 84.6 23.6 72.9 8.5 11.6 3.9 1.1 10.0 8.1 1.8 23.7 0.4 29.4 9.5 13.5 No vaccinations 19989 4.1 20056 3.9 6.9 5.4 2.3 7.9 5.7 13.5 3.7 6.3 1.4 6.7 3.1 3.9 6.0 2.1 61.6 67.7 63.2 83.5 40.1 78.5 49.3 82.3 22.8 24.7 40.4 74.2 All vaccinations 19989 62.3 18.2 15.3 20056 58.2 27.6 36.4 77.2 61.9 78.0 48.6 71.2 40.5 75.4 69.9 62.4 62.5 58.0 70.1 40.0 92.0 30.0 65.3 2.3 3.4 6.3 9.4 3.7 7.0 1.7 5.3 4.4 18.6 26.7 15.7 Others No vaccinations 19989 1.8 32.5 12.6 20056 0.1 19.4 5.6 10.7 1.0 7.7 2.4 7.3 1.7 1.5 15.9 1.7 6.2 2.3 4.9

Source: NFHS 2 and unit level data NFHS 3. Note: Not available.

312 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.33 Public Expenditure on Health, 20045

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Puducherry 2.02 1014 1639 3.46 1.74 2.26 1.32 1.75 3.28 2.49 3.82 1.32 1.11 841 630 512 294 430 867 639 1082 328 280 613 881 489 379 464 266 180 425 1158 538 Public Exp. as Share of GSDP 0.72 0.86 1.12 0.7 0.94 1.07 0.57 0.49 0.78 0.87 0.88 0.87 0.55 0.98 0.65 0.98 0.71 0.92 0.69 Per Capita Public Expenditure (in Rs) 191 162 93 146 560 861 198 203 155 233 287 145 204 183 247 186 223 128 173 Per Capita Private Expenditure (in Rs) 870 612 420 626 170 1,437 755 875 345 597 2,663 644 1,008 719 1,112 575 1,033 846 1,086

Source: National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

313

Table 5A.34 Private & Public Health Expenditure as Share of Total Expenditure, 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Himachal Pradesh 58.3 41.7 Private Expenditure as Share of Total Expenditure 82.0 79.1 81.9 79.2 81.2 71.9 90.3 81.6 83.2 79.7 81.8 75.6 82.3 86.9 86.3

(per cent)

Public Expenditure as Share of Total Expenditure 18.0 20.9 18.2 20.8 18.8 28.1 9.7 18.4 16.8 20.3 18.2 24.5 17.7 13.1 13.7

Source: National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.

314 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.35 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Public Inpatient Care (Rural), 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India Doctors Fee 7.6 9.7 2.8 37.8 0.7 2.9 4.2 12.8 4.1 2.9 5.0 5.2 7.2 1.8 5.9 12.8 1.3 4.2 Diagnostic Test 7.2 11.7 28.3 6.9 10.6 8.2 7.8 12.1 20.6 4.5 3.0 7.3 1.5 15.9 7.8 13.7 11.2 11.9 Other Services, Bed 2.3 5.0 2.3 0.7 3.4 4.2 2.2 4.7 1.8 3.9 2.3 9.1 1.4 10.6 10.6 8.2 4.4 Medicine 69.7 57.0 51.3 53.9 66.1 82.1 68.6 62.3 56.4 78.2 59.6 72.6 66.3 72.7 40.0 54.0 68.3 66.5 Blood, etc. 3.0 10.7 4.2 10.8 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.7 2.1 9.5 1.9 1.8 2.5 0.4 3.7 5.7 3.8 Food 10.3 5.9 11.1 1.4 11.1 3.1 15.1 10.0 12.6 10.5 19.0 10.7 10.1 5.8 35.3 5.2 5.4 9.3

Source: Select Health Parameters: A Comparative Analysis across the National Sample Survey Organization 42nd, 52nd, and 60th Rounds, (2007), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

315

Table 5A.36 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Public Inpatient Care (Urban), 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India Doctors Fee 11.3 3.2 9.4 1.1 3.4 0.7 4.1 1.9 3.4 0.8 17.2 2.4 2.7 10.9 2.3 4.6 Diagnostic Test 9.7 25.1 16.0 2.6 7.6 11.4 16.5 15.6 15.6 8.4 8.5 10.7 7.4 15.3 9.8 15.4 24.3 15.1 Other Services, Bed 6.3 3.4 4.6 20.1 5.5 5.3 4.2 2.5 4.7 1.0 6.6 5.4 3.9 6.0 7.8 5.8 Medicine 62.3 60.3 81.5 75.0 64.9 62.9 70.3 59.9 54.7 77.6 62.4 77.1 64.2 62.3 53.9 59.4 58.6 62.3 Blood etc. 4.5 0.2 4.6 7.1 0.4 0.2 10.7 5.5 0.4 15.0 1.1 1.5 8.4 6.3 2.9 2.7 4.6

(per cent)
Food 5.9 10.9 2.6 17.9 6.5 4.2 4.1 7.9 16.9 9.9 6.1 9.4 3.2 6.3 23.4 5.3 4.4 7.5

Source: Select Health Parameters: A Comparative Analysis across the National Sample Survey Organization 42nd , 52nd, and 60th Rounds, (2007), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Note: Not available.

316 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.37 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Private Inpatient Care (Rural), 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India Doctors Fee 29.8 25.1 21.4 17.7 40.5 20.4 25.0 28.9 15.6 23.7 30.1 27.3 20.7 19.2 27.2 21.7 31.1 25.8 Diagnostic Test 11.2 18.0 11.7 18.4 5.4 6.7 6.3 6.5 12.8 9.0 8.6 4.2 18.0 9.9 7.6 7.4 11.7 9.4 Other Services, Bed 14.5 16.7 13.3 11.8 12.2 20.2 15.5 23.3 23.1 13.9 12.0 17.8 15.3 15.3 20.5 18.7 19.1 16.6 Medicine 37.1 32.7 46.2 39.3 36.0 45.2 47.4 35.6 34.8 47.8 40.7 37.7 43.1 46.5 39.9 47.0 32.1 40.4 Blood, etc. 2.2 3.4 0.9 1.4 3.2 2.0 0.7 1.0 7.0 0.6 5.5 1.9 1.4 2.9 0.4 1.3 2.6 2.9

(per cent)
Food 5.3 4.2 6.5 11.3 2.7 5.5 5.1 4.7 6.7 5.0 3.0 11.1 1.4 6.2 4.4 3.8 3.4 4.9

Source: Select Health Parameters: A Comparative Analysis across the National Sample Survey Organization 42nd, 52nd, and 60th Rounds, (2007), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.

APPENDIX TABLES

317

Table 5A.38 Composition of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure in Private Inpatient Care (Urban), 20045
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal All India Doctors Fee 32.1 27.5 19.6 2,386.0 37.5 35.9 42.8 37.9 16.9 34.4 24.1 29.7 21.2 22.6 27.1 27.3 16.9 27.3 Diagnostic Test 11.6 29.5 12.0 5.0 8.7 11.2 3.0 10.4 14.8 9.7 11.7 7.7 7.2 10.0 11.4 5.2 13.2 10.8 Other Services, Bed 13.9 11.5 15.6 1,071.0 14.3 18.5 9.8 19.8 19.9 14.3 17.1 15.7 17.1 15.2 18.2 14.4 16.8 16.6 Medicine 36.3 30.0 43.1 57.3 36.6 27.9 39.6 27.8 43.7 37.2 36.6 30.1 49.8 44.5 32.8 47.0 45.8 37.8 Blood etc. 2.5 3.0 3.1 1.5 3.0 2.6 1.3 1.1 1.0 9.3 8.2 1.2 4.9 6.1 0.5 4014.0 4.4

(per cent)
Food 3.6 1.5 6.6 1.5 3.5 2.1 2.9 3.7 3.4 1.1 8.6 3.6 2.8 4.5 5.6 3.3 3.1

Source: Select Health Parameters: A Comparative Analysis across the National Sample Survey Organization 42nd, 52nd, and 60th Rounds, (2007), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. Note: Not available.

318 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.39 Number of Sub-Centres, PHCs and CHCs, March 2008

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category states Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 114 14 38 22 14 77 1,46,036 19 0 6 3 4 39 23,458 4 2 1 1 3 4 4,276 592 2,071 1,907 420 401 366 397 147 579 1,765 116 449 375 72 103 57 86 24 76 239 44 73 85 16 26 9 21 4 11 55 Sub-Centres 12,522 4,592 8,858 4,741 41 172 7,274 2,433 3,958 8,143 5,094 8,834 10,579 6,688 2,858 10,742 8,706 20,521 10,356 PHCs 1,570 844 1,641 721 8 19 1,073 420 330 2,195 909 1,149 1,816 1,279 484 1,503 1,215 3,690 924 CHCs 167 103 70 136 0 5 273 86 194 323 107 270 407 231 126 349 206 515 349

Source: National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health Family Welfare.

Table 5A.40 Number of Government Hospitals and Beds*

Rural Hospitals (Govt) Urban Hospitals (Govt) Total Hospitals (Govt) Projected Population as on Reference Period (in thousand ) 80,712 29,814 93,633 22,934 16,955 1,655 57,434 24,597 29,745 58,181 34,063 19,918 49,579 14,763 231 475 581 925 52,360 294 10,620 32,067 47,198 32,460 54,759 67,569 109,553 40,025 26,391 63,408 65,629 183,282 87,839 105,202 130,423 82,750 153,979 159,721 59,490 63,309 88,246 179,228 143,207 23,420 114,247 133,491 112,959 198,143 298,772 54,533 19,486 224,825 2,351 3,911 4,163 2,433 711 554 1,983 3,122 5,494 913 1,089 3,392 2,210 2,711 2,485 1,977 1,391 1,194 1,604 Average Population Served per Govt Hospital Average Population Served per Govt Hospital Bed Reference Period

Non Special Category States

No. 167 108 119 21 9 282 61 468 281 275 376 1,629 72 347 533 397 14 2,399 280 11,910 528 25,078 48 22,120 20,550 11,850 128 20,217 2,180 159 8,440 9,055 80 5,708 1709 11,280 389 38,299 765 8,179 102 11,739 377 1,375,666 105 17,529 386 8,010 451 55,731 919 63,741 31,285 500 5,414 1212 93 6,667 154 7,879 9,619 91 19,339 373 28,958 552 11 2,436 20 2,988 972 109 22,886 130 23,858 3,270 99 6,158 218 9,428 NR 1717 22,494 3,240 45 4,382 153 7,622 6,220 192 28,113 359 34,333

Beds

No.

Beds

No.

Beds 01.01.2007 01.01.2010 01.09.2008 01.01.2008 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2008 01.01.2008 01.01.2009 01.01.2010

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 146 95 61 1,820 2,646 1,356 15 47 31 862 5,315 2,125 161 142 92 2,218 7,961 3,945 1,184 6,662 11,099 5,920 4,692 120,641 533 837 2,813 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 (contd)

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Table 5A.40 (contd) Rural Hospitals (Govt) Urban Hospitals (Govt) Total Hospitals (Govt) Projected Population as on Reference Period (in thousand ) Average Population Served per Govt Hospital Average Population Served per Govt Hospital Bed Reference Period

No. 24 28 10 23 29 16 666 3,746 29 4,219 695 7,965 500 15 1,762 31 2,262 700 1 300 30 1,000 598 3,532 9,511 705 25 1,445 48 2,150 2,197 320 10 904 20 1,224 958 840 10 1,742 38 2,582 2,560 67,368 47,900 45,771 19,933 113,935 13,685 669 4 1,574 28 2,243 2,336 83,429

Beds

No.

Beds

No.

Beds 1067 991 783 1,022 598 1,561 1,194 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2007

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 7 1 1 9 6 6,281 143,069 3,115 36,9351 320 8 2,996 20 3 190 3 9 14 11,613 30 1 231 2 50 5 2,562 6 385 1 450 8 835 835 261 190 200 3,316 540,328 465 1,161 318 248 73 1,267 1,137,588 58,125 193,500 159,000 82,667 8,111 90,500 97,958 557 444 1,218 1,305 365 382 2,105 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Notes: Projected Population shown in the brackets relates to the reference period Rural and Urban bifurcation is not available in Bihar and Jharkhand Hospitals include CHCs. * Provisional. Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

321

Table 5A.41 Number of Government Allopathic Doctors and Average Population Served*
Non Special Category States No of Doctors Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Health Information of India, 2002; National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health Family Welfare. Note: Projected Population shown in the brackets relates to the reference period. Tamil Nadu, the information relates to only the allopathic doctors in PHCs Uttar Pradesh figure for 1.1.2000 includes Uttarakhand also. NA: Not available. * Provisional. 117 1414 32 31 28 606 3043 661 6250 5097 2179 1607 1.1.2001 1.1.2002 30.4.2002 1.1.2001 1.1.2001 1.1.2001 119 672 65 38 23 362 3908 1728 4892 6526 3174 3500 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 355 NA 2514 684 346 260 354 176 797 3532 NA 3956 2820 6665 3427 5014 3335 4004 31.3.2002 1.1.2000 1.1.2000 1.1.2001 1.1.1992 1.1.2001 1.1.2001 1.1.2001 1.1.2000 445 NA 2185 584 504 380 314 222 716 1135 2692 NA 5152 4048 5079 2553 6914 2694 4933 8507 01.01.2009 01.01.2000 01.01.2009 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 01.01.2009 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 4447 4004 NA 4904 3657 5019 2855 6766 11714 8057 NA 7312 6642 11252 21637 25123 1.1.2002 1.1.2000 1.1.2001 1.1.2002 1.1.2001 1.1.2000 1.1.2000 1059 2160 2002 Population Served per Doctor 64182 12128 Reference Period 1.1.1992 1.1.2000 No. of Govt. Doctors 4487 2103 3979 1171 1.1.2001 1.1.2002 1.1.2001 3629 939 2282 1836 1701 5083 3806 3662 4520 5079 3545 6285 7107 6766 8825 2008 Average Population Served/Govt Doctor 17988 13066 23174 19585 3933 1763 25168 13165 17486 11446 8950 18451 24237 7808 7256 10268 9234 23986 9953 Reference Period 01.01.2007 01.01.2004 01.01.2008 01.02.2008 01.01.2003 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2009 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2010 01.01.2009 01.04.2005 01.01.2010 01.01.2008 01.01.2000 01.01.2010

data not furnished data not furnished 853 223 NA 16158 7507 NA

data not furnished

data not furnished

data not furnished

data not furnished

322 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.42 Number of Registered Nurses, 2008 and Pharmacists, 2010

Non Special Category States ANM Andhra Pradesh Assam Bhopal Bihar* Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana* Jharkhand* Karnataka Kerala* Madhya Pradesh* Maharashtra* Orissa* Punjab* Rajasthan* Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States, Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura* Uttarakhand* Union Territories Lakshadweep Puducherry Total 557,022 1,043,363 51,776 3,082 1,716 655,801 10,152 751 1,639 987 700 8,550 1,811 1,809 940 92 491 100 11 347 2,818 269 398 1,553 257 107,986 18,266 7,501 1,900 2,020 36,216 13,727 3,405 48,174 28,378 26,438 33,158 49,170 18,152 22,239 53,904 27,279 56,302 Total No. of Registered Nurses as on 31.12.2008 GNM 109,597 13,982 8,883 2,876 22,113 87,379 17,821 1,998 109,140 85,624 95,135 90,386 54,499 45,801 37,667 179,082 19,708 48,470 LHV 2,480 511 1,352 694 137 6,838 7,897 1,069 566 238 2584 850 11,109 2,763 11,938 Total No. of Pharmacists as on 25.01.2010 43,958 2,429 1,381 4,163 22,010 466 20,948 7,249 79,208 17,634 106,220 14,312 35,290 18,214 151,973 30,276 89,630

Source: Indian Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council of India. Notes: 1 Assam = Assam+Arunachal Pradesh + Manipur + Nagaland. 2 Maharashtra = Maharashtra + Goa. 3 Punjab = Punjab + J&K. 4 Tamil Nadu = Tamil Nadu + Andaman & Nicobar Islands + Puducherry. 5 West Bengal = West Bengal + Sikkim. * Last year data for registered nurses in India. ANM: Auxiliary Nurse Midwives. GNM : General Nursing and Midwives. LHV: Lady Health Visitors.

APPENDIX TABLES

323

Table 5A.43 Doctors and Health Works in Government Health System Manpower (Rural), 2008
Non Special Category States No. of Doctors at PHCs Males Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 73 6 6 6 68 24,375 3 15 17,976 19 3 4 12 17,608 22 14 9 19 13 60,247 272 14 38 38 14 131 153,568 87 407 451 115 106 52 79 42 255 866 56 62 89 52 87 54 15 8 93 417 114 27 55 75 48 31 18 62 340 156 1,270 420 273 398 300 147 436 616 256 2,496 1,794 990 608 428 696 267 638 1,903 2,214 408 1,565 862 18 44 1,019 350 330 2,814 1,732 1,042 1,191 1,353 201 1,542 2,260 2,001 810 1,920 634 114 4 15 2,421 106 660 837 794 495 3,182 168 139 714 303 4,294 225 Health Assistants Females (LHV) 1,564 479 749 28 20 267 285 1,170 740 741 3,323 726 179 1,358 1,362 3,509 300 Males 6,127 1,074 2,514 135 4,456 2,031 1,922 3,762 2,654 4,030 9,956 3,392 1,983 2,528 3,278 2,097 4,215 Health Workers Females /ANM 1,2541 8,289 9,127 4850 82 177 7,060 2,592 5,011 8,028 5,320 8,718 12,027 6,768 2,706 12,271 10,343 21,024 6,051

Source: National Health Profile 2009, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Note: Not available.

Table 5A.44 Source of Healthcare: Percentage Distribution of Households by Public and Non-public Healthcare Provision, 20056
Urban NGO or Trust Hospital/ Clinic 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 76.4 83.2 0.3 0.7 52.1 0.3 40.3 0.0 74.7 57.6 15.0 31.7 81.0 0.5 20.2 37.3 0.4 79.0 77.1 0.5 36.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 59.9 0.5 37.1 0.1 53.5 0.6 52.1 0.6 75.7 0.7 44.6 0.7 54.5 46.8 62.7 62.7 19.9 79.5 25.2 42.1 84.6 67.8 70.8 0.7 20.7 2.2 76.2 72.4 0.3 27.9 0.0 72.1 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 81.1 0.8 35.2 3.0 61.6 0.1 71.0 0.8 31.5 0.1 67.9 0.5 71.2 0.2 37.9 0.0 62.2 0.0 29.3 29.6 27.5 27.7 22.3 36.0 50.0 37.4 29.7 76.2 19.3 70.2 53.0 15.3 28.8 72.2 0.6 38.9 0.2 60.5 0.3 36.3 88.7 0.3 6.0 0.1 93.7 0.2 6.7 49.4 0.7 69.1 0.0 30.7 0.2 65.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 73.0 0.4 25.5 0.0 74.1 0.4 25.8 0.2 73.7 34.5 92.9 63.1 70.5 69.6 69.8 72.2 74.8 63.1 49.1 61.9 69.6 22.9 80.1 29.6 46.6 84.2 70.5 Private Medical Sector Other Source Public Medical Sector NGO or Trust Hospital/ Clinic Private Medical Sector Other Source Public Medical Sector NGO or Trust Hospital/ Clinic Private Medical Sector Rural All Other Source

Non Special Category States Public Medical Sector 26.2 49.8 10.5 26.8 28.6 28.1 16.8 27.3 27.1 23.3 45.8 38.2 22.0 62.2 17.8 59.2 47.5 16.2 22.7

Andhra Pradesh

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 69.0 78.5 41.4 0.1 0.0 11.3 19.5 21.1 58.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 87.7 83.3 72.6 1.8 0.1 0.6 8.8 16.4 26.3 1.7 0.2 0.5 82.6 82.7 62.9 4.4 0.1 0.5 11.7 17.0 36.2 1.3 0.2 0.4

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur 48.7 88.1 36.9 83.4 58.8 47.1 29.6 0.5 69.5 0.4 36.8 0.3 62.6 0.3 34.4 0.4 51.7 0.8 43.4 0.2 55.2 1.3 44.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 40.5 0.5 84.5 0.0 15.0 0.5 80.0 0.1 0.0 16.2 0.4 94.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 91.8 0.0 8.1 19.5 54.2 64.8 0.5 61.8 0.9 57.8 0.7 37.7 3.8 52.1 0.7 44.2 0.9 10.6 0.4 93.6 1.9 3.6 1.0 90.6 1.4 7.4 0.4 50.8 0.1 70.5 0.3 26.5 2.7 64.9 0.3 32.8 2.0 0.7 3.0 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.4

71.7

0.0

27.4

0.8

82.4

0.2

16.8

0.5

79.0

0.1

20.3

0.6

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

All India

Source: NFHS 3.

326 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.45 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States Septic Tank/ Flush 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. 45.8 91.3 36 75.2 53.7 56.2 28.5 62.7 98.3 45.6 35.5 38.7 70 35.4 4.1 0 2.4 0 39.6 0.3 7.8 8.3 0 12.4 37.9 60.1 0.6 12.2 0 2.1 0.7 1.1 0 1.2 2.6 0 0 0 3.5 0.4 2.6 1.4 50 6.6 60.7 23.7 6.6 42.4 59.8 19.8 31.5 18.6 24.5 16 33.3 48.7 53.3 8.4 38.5 31.9 52.3 29.5 30.4 27.2 54.4 43.3 73.4 13.2 25.7 11.1 0.9 7.4 45.3 45 56.4 37.4 35.1 77.5 7.8 15.4 4 19.9 46.5 57.1 43.1 43.4 24 71.1 6.1 17 4.4 23.3 17.3 2.2 6.8 7.1 0.2 5 1 6.6 0.6 15.5 9.3 4.4 0.7 2 0.1 0.7 2.1 23.2 63.1 39 4.6 27 2 2.5 9.4 5.2 51.5 34.8 16.5 13.7 17.2 76.1 70.5 43.9 32.8 21.9 23.8 28.4 17.8 43.2 13.5 39.7 19.4 36 20.3 26.3 20089 47 26 17.2 21.2 92.2 63.9 47.2 43.3 17.3 31.7 29.4 24.2 57.3 15.1 52.4 24.7 49.6 33.7 29.9 2002 1.3 41 2.8 0.3 5.3 1.8 4.6 7.6 0.8 13.8 61.9 3.1 1.1 1.6 20.9 6.7 0.6 2.4 14.6 Pit 20089 3.4 48.7 4.8 3.6 3.5 12 8.3 20.7 6.4 15.3 65.1 3.6 4.3 2.8 21.2 10.5 1.2 22.4 31.7 2002 1.7 1.6 3.2 0.2 10.4 2.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.5 0.2 2.5 0.6 4.2 1.8 1.5 1.6 5 3.3 Service 20089 0.9 2 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.6 1 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 3

(per cent)
No Latrine 2002 61.1 12.7 78.7 82.3 6.6 21.7 50.6 58.8 75.5 60.5 8.6 76.6 54.9 79.9 37.6 72.1 61.5 72 53.6 20089 47.9 12.1 74.1 72.9 1.7 22.9 43.6 33.7 74.7 51.5 4.3 70.2 36.4 78.7 24 63.6 46.6 42.5 32.4

12.7 42.3 29.7 0.8 9.3 0.7 2.6 2.1 2.9 65

28.8 1.7 42 23.1 0.4 25.6 49.2

APPENDIX TABLES

327

Table 5A.46 Distribution Proportion of Households by Type of Toilet Facility (Rural), 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States Septic Tank/ Flush 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. 26.5 73.6 25.6 68.5 27.4 18 11.7 47.5 90 32.2 8.4 21.7 34.6 17.9 6.1 0 2.6 0 67.8 0 8.4 12.4 0 14.4 57.9 78.3 0 14 0 3.6 0.6 0.9 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 2 0 0 1.2 67.4 22.8 71.1 30.6 4.7 82 76.3 12.1 26 6.3 17.1 3.6 15.7 36.1 47.1 3 30.9 23.9 47.8 17.2 21.8 14.8 32.1 32.6 68.9 5.2 12.6 10.7 0.7 8.2 51.6 51.3 71.6 45.7 39.7 82.7 5.7 16.2 4.1 23.4 52.7 67 64.3 53.8 28.1 76.9 5.9 16.2 2.2 25.3 14.1 2.2 6.6 8.9 0.3 4.2 0.6 5.3 0.5 19.1 9.4 4.3 1.1 2.2 0.1 0.9 1.5 28.7 71 46.9 6.3 32.2 3.6 3.8 10.7 5.8 61.2 17.8 10.4 7.5 8.6 74.9 63.2 16.5 14.8 11.5 6.6 21.3 5.1 14.2 5.2 21.2 5.2 14.6 6.9 11.7 20089 29.9 18.2 11.8 11.3 84.5 40.6 26 29.6 7.3 7.4 21.7 10.5 31.6 7.3 32.1 8.2 23.7 23.2 14.8 2002 1.3 43.6 2.7 0 10.8 2.9 5.1 8.1 0.5 13 67.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 27.4 6.3 0.7 2 14.5 Pit 20089 4.3 53.5 5 4.2 8.1 22.7 6.2 24.1 7 16.3 71.7 2.7 6.3 1.9 29.8 8.9 1.5 21.7 36.9 2002 1.7 1.6 3.3 0.1 8.7 1.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 4.7 0.1 0.8 1.3 3.2 2.5 Service 20089 1 2.2 1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.3 3.4

(per cent)

No Latrine 2002 77.7 13.8 84.9 91.3 5.5 27.3 78 76.9 86.8 79.8 10.3 93.1 84.1 88.4 51.4 87.5 83.5 87.6 69.4 20089 64.3 13.5 79.8 82.3 7.5 36.2 67.3 45.3 84.1 75.2 5.3 85.3 60.7 88.2 36.2 82.1 73.5 53.5 41.7

16.2 46.5 34.9 1.1 11.4 1.2 3.1 2.5 3.4 79.2

39.9 9.6 53.2 31.9 0 65.4 65.2

328 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 5A.47 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility (Urban), 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States Septic Tank/ Flush 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. 85.9 92.9 92.9 87 73.7 76.2 70.7 93.9 99.4 87.1 986.7 62 84.8 77.3 0 0 1.6 0 18.1 0.4 6.3 0 0 6.1 0.7 32.7 0.9 8 0 2 1.6 1.4 0 1.8 4.7 0 0 0 6.3 0.9 3.7 1.6 14 5 3.8 11.7 8.2 21.7 17.9 51.6 68.6 59.3 45.6 77.7 55.8 72 92.3 33.1 65.9 61.5 87.5 71.3 51.6 79.1 82.3 70.1 98.9 48.6 72.8 13.2 1.9 4.6 27 13.2 37 21.9 7 44.5 15.3 12.5 2.7 7.8 31.1 15.3 16.7 17.5 1.1 45.7 6.5 20.3 19 16.8 26.5 2.1 7.1 4.1 0 9.8 2.3 11.6 1 3.2 9.3 5.1 0.2 1.5 0 0 4.4 0.6 10.3 12.6 0 0.9 0 0 0.7 0.8 16.5 76.8 76.2 61.3 56.2 76.4 83.1 87.5 76.2 62.8 60.2 49.1 51.4 82.7 59.2 74.5 57.7 74.4 65.4 20089 85.3 84.8 61.9 64.3 92.8 87.6 79.5 73.5 70.6 72.8 50.6 66.2 89.4 56.2 84.1 70.3 79.1 73.4 2002 1.3 15.7 3.8 1.9 3.6 0 3.9 6.6 2.3 15.8 46.1 7.7 0.7 2.2 8.6 7.7 0.6 14.9 Pit 20089 1.5 12.2 3.3 1.2 3.2 1.4 11.5 13.3 3.1 13.6 46.6 6.4 1.9 7.3 7.8 14.8 0.8 16.5 2002 1.5 1.5 1.9 0.4 10.9 4.6 1.4 1.8 3.6 3.6 0.1 7.5 1 1.1 5.2 3.4 2.3 5.4 Service 20089 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.7 1.9 0.9 1.1 0.1 1.4 1.4 3.6 2.3 0.8 1.3 2.2

(per cent)
No Latrine

2002 19.8 1.8 31 41.5 6.9 12.1 6.8 15 30.9 21 3.7 33.1 15.2 32.9 11.6 30.7 21.9 11.2

20089 11.2 0.9 27.7 31.5 1.2 9.6 7.3 8.4 24.5 11.3 1.5 24.3 5.9 29.1 5 12.6 16 5.6

0.1 8.8 11.8 0 0.2 0 1.3 0 0.9 14.2

6.1 0.6 7.1 6.4 1 9.1 11.3

Table 5A.48a Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 (STs and SCs)
Scheduled Tribes Pit 2002 0.9 0.4 0.8 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.1 56.0 5.9 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.5 4.7 0.3 29.1 1.6 17.2 1.1 21.3 0.7 45.2 70.6 80.9 84.7 1.6 0.0 5.2 94.8 0.0 17.3 9.4 2.2 5.2 86.9 91.9 62.6 92.6 54.3 73.2 41.4 0.1 0.7 0.4 4.1 3.3 29.3 87.5 64.1 0.1 8.1 94.3 90.2 0.1 0.5 41.1 31.0 9.3 27.9 1.3 11.5 0.6 14.9 84.4 70.0 0.8 4.6 8.9 76.5 84.1 17.1 13.5 66.9 1.4 3.4 2.6 22.1 11.3 0.6 3.3 32.2 19.8 82.7 24.2 24.3 1.7 18.4 85.9 73.8 4.9 44.5 55.5 2.4 5.3 2.5 0.5 2.8 0.9 0.1 0.9 13.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 6.2 98.0 6.2 0.0 2.4 1.5 13.2 0.9 11.7 91.5 81.9 3.5 1.4 21.2 89.8 55.3 26.9 26.1 9.1 14.3 16.9 13.0 53.1 6.6 36.0 11.9 24.8 11.5 22.4 24.2 84.3 69.1 0.0 3.3 0.9 9.9 53.4 0.2 15.3 16.2 16.0 50.0 0.0 25.4 1.5 0.7 26.3 74.6 70.9 0.0 2.4 0.6 35.4 81.2 17.5 91.4 81.2 10.9 4.7 53.1 74.3 90.7 79.9 21.6 87.0 66.3 84.4 55.3 74.8 83.1 88.3 66.3 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 Septic Tank/Flush No Latrine Pit Septic Tank/Flush No Latrine 20089 60.1 8.8 83.9 73.4 4.2 38.9 67.2 48.5 71.5 71.5 15.5 84.4 40.6 87.5 39.5 75.3 72.8 84.1 39.1 Scheduled Castes

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 2.4 1.7 0.6 40.1 3.7 10.6 2.4 27.1 29.9 10.7 27.9 57.6 46.6 15.2 65.5 26.2 17.3 2.4 0.7 7.0 1.3 63.5 47.8 29.4 75.9 83.3 0.0 49.2 67.0 (contd)

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Table 5A.48a (contd) Scheduled Tribes Pit 2002 0.9 5.5 1.5 0.6 1.5 74.5 14.0 33.4 21.5 28.1 0.5 11.7 0.2 7.2 12.0 3.8 0.1 73.8 28.3 0.1 69.2 9.1 2.5 31.1 0.4 0.0 44.6 1.4 42.7 2.8 2.4 56.2 43.0 0.4 54.5 2.0 0.7 27.8 0.7 58.6 0.6 25.2 32.4 10.3 83.3 16.7 72.2 38.0 67.4 9.3 20.1 22.8 3.0 74.3 49.4 4.2 25.0 12.6 0.8 40.5 15.0 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 Septic Tank/Flush No Latrine Pit Septic Tank/Flush Scheduled Castes No Latrine 20089 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.2 5.3 67.8

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 8.6 0.0 13.2 16.1 68.3 0.0 0.3 11.0 1.5 16.5 78.0 100.0 34.6 1.0 29.9 5.0 0.5 0.0 69.1 0.3 0.2 10.2 1.0 2.7 28.1 22.4 36.4 2.0 53.3 81.8 0.1 29.1 82.3 57.6 36.0 100.0 0.0 75.2 52.9 16.3 0.0 0.0 70.4 12.9 99.5 89.9 12.3 18.1 29.8 46.6 68.0 83.7 74.9 71.3 65.0 0.5 10.1 17.3

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.48b Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Social Groups 2002 and 20089 (contd)
Other Backward Classes Pit 2002 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.6 28.0 0.1 15.0 0.3 0.2 1.6 0.2 5.7 3.2 21.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.5 34.3 2.0 41.3 5.8 1.1 23.4 2.5 55.1 58.1 76.4 47.9 11.8 0.3 20.0 79.5 0.9 51.4 40.1 1.1 15.4 84.5 78.4 24.1 67.3 40.8 68.3 20.9 0.6 0.6 10.7 55.1 63.0 36.9 3.9 1.5 24.8 76.5 69.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 69.2 0.3 26.2 8.2 3.0 0.4 13.4 0.4 29.6 64.0 55.8 0.5 11.5 2.6 15.7 83.2 70.6 0.3 34.5 19.6 57.8 20.4 3.9 1.2 20.9 12.3 0.0 6.7 30.4 0.0 42.7 66.1 39.9 21.7 5.8 4.4 36.0 65.6 57.0 11.2 41.8 43.1 28.8 0.9 9.2 0.3 1.6 1.2 3.1 1.6 0.3 2.1 14.5 3.4 1.5 2.1 1.7 2.3 2.2 9.1 4.3 86.0 12.4 2.5 0.2 2.6 1.6 1.5 1.9 20.0 85.2 75.2 92.9 7.3 69.0 94.7 73.8 71.3 55.7 30.5 47.5 39.4 53.2 71.9 35.1 65.1 53.7 88.7 46.5 37.9 5.9 1.4 16.8 80.9 73.3 1.0 9.2 3.9 42.1 46.2 0.4 32.9 7.3 7.9 1.5 47.8 0.3 27.0 4.2 2.2 43.0 66.5 51.4 0.2 4.1 2.9 66.5 38.3 13.0 60.0 44.6 2.8 19.6 23.5 46.8 45.2 46.9 4.9 50.4 40.9 60.2 23.3 44.5 23.8 47.4 43.8 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 Septic No Latrine Pit Septic No Latrine 20089 27.4 13.2 41.7 21.2 0.5 16.1 15.9 19.7 31.1 30.9 2.0 38.3 22.7 54.8 12.2 32.2 5.6 42.1 25.3 Others

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 63.3 0.8 14.6 38.5 2.6 0.4 14.2 24.8 29.0 8.0 73.4 22.4 0.0 68.4 26.9 4.3 0.4 0.5 20.8 5.3 19.2 17.5 7.5 1.4 41.8 61.7 33.7 6.9 56.3 30.4 9.6 31.3 24.2 (contd)

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Table 5A.48b (contd) Other Backward Classes Pit 2002 0.2 39.8 81.0 13.5 23.2 71.1 19.5 40.9 39.8 36.1 0.4 27.2 0.1 15.3 2.1 0.5 65.0 0.7 73.5 11.9 2.3 1.4 3.0 1.7 0.3 3.4 86.5 0.0 18.0 11.2 19.0 0.0 34.8 2.7 50.2 4.3 0.0 1.9 38.3 48.0 65.2 42.4 96.7 21.9 36.0 4.5 2.8 44.2 5.9 46.5 0.1 31.3 0.9 0.8 0.4 28.6 2.0 70.5 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 0.5 Septic Tank/Flush No Latrine Pit Septic Tank/Flush Others No Latrine 20089 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 1.6 36.5

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 29.3 0.0 7.7 38.6 63.5 0.1 0.2 10.3 2.3 32.9 65.9 0.8 2.3 77.5 38.5 36.5 0.0 17.5 54.2 0.4 25.5 32.7 26.2 25.3 52.6 21.9 39.6 18.5 94.0 12.0 6.0 45.3 25.3 3.3 0.0 14.6 37.8 8.1 0.0 16.6 1.0 4.1 5.2 1.5 1.8 8.0 64.6 98.8 72.7 55.2 91.9 86.9 53.2 4.3 38.8 50.0 4.1 11.1 15.6 31.8 1.1 12.7 2.0 0.0 7.4 26.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman and Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.49 Distribution of Households by Type of Toilet Facility, by Major Religious Communities, 2002 and 20089
Hindus Pit 3.5 45.3 5.4 3.5 3.5 13.7 6.8 21.4 19.0 14.6 64.8 3.1 4.6 2.9 15.5 9.6 1.2 4.2 30.6 38.5 25.1 32.5 22.6 71.4 10.8 35.7 18.2 47.2 49.3 2.5 75.7 23.5 65.8 14.4 36.9 45.7 19.7 46.8 41.0 63.1 19.9 14.5 54.2 31.3 15.0 78.8 0.3 36.4 56.0 59.6 34.1 3.4 74.4 18.1 4.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 22.5 72.6 2.9 53.6 39.3 21.0 28.1 5.3 76.4 20.5 1.4 53.6 29.9 54.3 19.9 40.1 35.4 30.1 59.1 42.6 50.7 89.4 5.6 47.2 43.5 69.5 90.9 32.7 17.6 60.8 20.4 12.8 63.9 5.1 33.2 43.3 32.9 5.7 30.9 63.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 60.4 10.0 3.1 28.3 0.8 93.3 52.4 56.2 23.3 9.1 36.6 41.2 50.6 15.8 48.9 34.5 2.8 46.0 51.3 60.3 24.8 5.7 55.3 39.0 10.7 74.7 13.7 92.3 1.7 4.3 88.8 1.9 0.0 100.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 22.9 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 62.9 8.1 11.5 20.4 73.8 7.1 78.6 14.4 10.4 24.5 64.1 0.0 20.2 71.0 9.1 23.1 57.8 1.0 38.9 60.2 6.9 32.0 8.6 56.9 11.8 19.7 55.6 16.1 26.0 0.0 100.0 27.5 21.0 95.5 100.0 74.1 60.8 62.1 49.0 93.1 100.0 100.0 43.4 22.2 48.8 86.7 44.6 50.2 4.5 65.5 28.4 1.8 46.8 50.9 0.0 100.0 Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush Muslims Christians Sikhs No Toilet 0.0 0.0 65.7 79.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 11.4 0.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 13.4 36.5 1.8

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 24.8 3.8 1.2 32.5 63.1 51.9 42.9 40.3 9.2 11.4 2.2 31.3 33.4 50.8 27.7 10.9 47.0 7.8 11.9 0.0 32.5 25.7 90.0 16.1 8.2 10.0 0.0

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 5A.49 (contd) Hindus Pit 44.4 55.9 55.4 27.3 24.4 71.7 19.5 34.5 44.6 49.2 27.7 21.4 2.4 18.5 14.0 2.8 71.8 6.2 3.5 54.9 10.4 0.0 79.1 72.7 2.5 1.4 98.6 0.0 16.4 80.8 0.2 61.1 4.0 42.5 4.2 10.2 44.6 42.7 2.4 44.4 0.0 14.1 85.9 0.0 39.8 59.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 56.9 13.6 0.0 57.1 26.5 10.3 32.6 0.7 68.6 12.7 0.8 49.2 25.2 0.7 Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush No Toilet Pit Septic Tank/Flush Muslims Christians Sikhs No Toilet

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 10.0 0.0 10.0 40.0 11.0 0.4 10.3 34.7 52.5 21.9 35.4 68.7 27.3 7.0 81.9 9.4 35.8 89.0 0.0 68.3 29.9 0.5 32.5 24.0 2.5 85.7 4.8 15.8 100.0 0.0 27.4 46.4 43.6 61.6 38.4 0.0 78.1 98.3 1.7 0.0 92.9 7.1 0.0 55.1 34.7 2.0 97.0 1.0 4.7 77.9 100.0 0.0 68.2 0.0 80.0 46.9 17.4 0.0 21.9 16.0 0.0 14.6 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 76.8 100.0 45.9 23.2 0.0 0.0 24.7

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakhadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 65th Round. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

335

Table 5A.50 Percentage Distribution of Households by Improved Source of Drinking Water, 20089
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jammu & Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 65th Round. 87.4 97.5 89.8 100 28.3 100 90.4 98.9 100 98.5 95.2 41.1 96.5 93.9 91.2 99.7 91.8 98.3 33.5 97.6 91.4 91.7 89.2 38.9 66 20.4 64.1 67.4 76.4 84.1 97.7 91.6 76.5 110 72.1 52.5 98.2 96.9 100 93 89.5 49.1 72.2 44.4 64.4 72 80.2 87.5 Rural 92.5 82.1 97.3 92.2 80.7 92 91.4 97.8 82.5 63.4 95.1 69.8 90.3 87.9 83.3 99 80.1 96.8 96.4 94.9 Urban 89.1 92.4 97.5 97.8 96.7 91.7 95.6 96.6 96.6 88.8 96.9 82.3 93 93.4 91.3 98.9 94.7 89.2 98.4 98 Combined 91.5 83.3 97.3 93.2 95.6 91.8 93.1 97.4 85.8 67.4 95.7 73.1 91.1 90.3 84.6 99 84 93.3 96.8 96.2

Table 5A.51 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, 2002 and 20089
Tap Tube Well/ Handpump 2002 24.4 54.2 86.6 67.8 12.1 0.4 21.2 38.3 33.6 20.3 1.6 50.1 16.9 58 57.4 37.7 11.3 77.7 66.5 69.7 7.2 83.4 9.8 7.2 5.8 2.1 3.7 25.5 37.6 13.5 8 44.8 0.8 0 0 6.2 0.5 0 0.2 65.2 23.6 16.9 0.1 14.5 13.8 10.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 3.6 0.5 0 0.3 61.5 26 13.2 0.1 0.4 3 76.5 71.1 1.1 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 1.4 0 0 0 12.4 9.5 6.4 0.3 1.1 0.1 48.3 47.8 39.2 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0 0 1.5 0.1 0 0 30.4 10.7 1.9 0.9 0.4 0 0.3 21.8 6 5.4 1.1 1.1 0 0.2 0.2 0 3 0.7 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.8 0 0.7 1.2 0 0 0.2 28.5 9.8 0 0 0 0 1 10.6 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.5 0 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.1 72.8 17.5 8.3 0 0.3 0 0 1.3 0 90.9 9.3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.4 0 3.5 0.1 0 0.2 0 1.4 0.2 0 1.8 0 0 0.3 0 0.6 62.6 25.3 18.4 1.5 0.5 5.2 2.6 3.4 2.5 0.7 22.5 10.6 4.4 0.7 0.5 0.2 0 0.8 0.5 0.2 0 2.9 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.9 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 1.8 0.1 0.1 0 0.9 0 0.3 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.3 0.8 1 0.2 0.3 1.7 0 0.1 Well Tank/ Pond (Reserved for Drinking ) Other Tank /Pond River/ Canal/ Lake Spring Others

Non Special Category States

2002 61.2 9.6 4.1 13.1 86.3 66.6 71.1 50.1 14.5 68.9 18.9 22.5 66.8 12.4 41.6 40.1 79.2 12.4 25.2 24 12.2 84.6 44 54.2 15 71.1 23.4 22.6 78 10.7 66.1 68.2 86.3 85 17.5 4.1 9.8 67.4

20089

20089 4.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 4 3.7 2.5 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.9 0.9 3 0.4 0.9 4.5 5.1 0.5 0.6

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 80.7 77 64.6 38.1 36.5 71.3 15.4 7.9 79.2 8.6 81.4 3.6 9.6 7.3 14.4 9.5 2.8 5.2 2.6 3.8 3.9 3.7 0.9 3.1 0 0.4 0.2 12.3 0.1 0.4 1.2 14.1 1 0.1 0.2 10.3 0.9 0.1 0.7 5.4 1.2 0.3 4.6 14.2 1.9 0.2 1.2 16.3 3 8.5 11.8 10.6 0.9 7.1 8.8 12.6 7.3 0 0.6 2.4 1.3 2 1.5 2.5

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya 34.3 53.6 59.9 27.3 61.3 63.9 28.1 23.6 0.3 0 1.2 0.1 0 0 1 0 6 9.6 33.5 41.1 41.9 30.5 19.9 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.3 0 1.8 0 0.2 72 0.1 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 0.3 0 39.7 26.8 0.1 0.6 2.1 27.8 5.2 4.4 8.4 38 18.9 15.1 1.7 4.2 0 1.1 12.2 4.8 0 40.1 1.9 2.7 0.9 0.2 8 2.6 1.8 1.1 0.8 3.2 49.4 47.2 3 2.8 4.5 0.1 1.7 2.7

48.6

59.3

3.7

7.8

16.4

9.4

6.3

3.1

1.5

0.5

0.2

1.4

22.9

17.9

0.3

0.6

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 84.3 97 21.2 83.3 6.8 96.3 40.5 43.1 42.3 43.7 14.3 9.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.3 95.8 2.4 0.5 0.6 1.4 0 0 0 0 17.2 1.5 6.1 89.5 72.5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 68.8 12.5 29.5 2 0.9 2.2 0 0 0.1 0 42 67.5 43.4 4.7 12.1 0.4 0 0.4 1.1 5.6 0 0 0 0 0.5 97.9 3 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88.3 0 0.6 10.6 7.2 0 0 0 0 4 1.6 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.1 0 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.7 4.2 2.3 2.1

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.52 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water (Rural), 2002 and 20089
Tap Tube Well/ Handpump 2002 29.7 54.7 88.8 76.2 5.7 0.6 29.9 45 37.8 26.7 1.5 59.9 25.5 62.7 76.5 45.7 85.5 13.2 77.6 84.8 8.9 7.3 6.5 92.6 12.3 4.6 3.3 5.4 48.3 17.6 10.7 62.7 1.3 0 0 8.4 0 0.4 0.2 73.3 25.8 17.7 0.1 22.7 22.6 18.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 4.7 0 0.8 0.3 73.9 31.6 15.5 0.1 0.5 2.6 83.8 77.8 1.5 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0 2 0 0 0 17.5 12 8.9 0.5 1.6 0.1 50.9 53.6 43.7 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.7 0 0.4 0.1 0 2.1 0 0.2 0 35.3 14.9 2.7 1.3 0.5 0 0.2 28.4 9.6 8.7 1.8 1.7 0 0.3 0.3 0 3.7 1 0.2 1.1 2.6 3.3 0 1 0 1.8 0 0 35.6 15 0 0 0 0 1.6 34.3 0.4 0 0 3.2 2.6 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 1.7 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 1.8 0 1.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 81 20 10.1 0 0.4 0 0 1.5 0 93.8 10.2 4.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 5.5 0.2 0 0.2 0 1.9 0.2 0 2.1 0 0.1 0 0.5 0.7 65.4 26.6 18.2 1.7 0.6 5.8 3 3.7 2.8 0.7 26.6 13.1 5.9 1 0.7 0.2 0 1.1 0.8 0.2 0 3.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.1 0.4 0.9 0 0 0 0 1.1 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 0.2 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 0 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 0 0.8 0 Well Tank/ Pond (Reserved for Drinking ) Other Tank /Pond River/ Canal/ Lake Spring Others

Non Special Category States

2002 54.3 6.9 0.9 1.8 91.3 56.7 58.2 38.8 3.6 59.5 10.8 6.9 48.5 4.6 22 25.1 2.2 76.9 12.5 7.8 87.3 2.4 28.5 36.3 5.8 56.9 9.1 15.8 70.2 3.5 61.2 58 85 46.4 7.6 1.1 6.3 63.8

20089

20089 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.7 16.2 0 1.6 0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.8 4.6 0.3 0.5 0.3

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Uttar Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

West Bengal

Special Category States 78.7 74.1 55.7 29.4 24.7 65.5 18.7 8.3 78 9.3 79.8 2.4 11.2 7.9 16.9 10.4 3.5 5.9 3 4.8 3 4.1 1.1 3.7 0 0.4 0.3 14.4 0 0.4 1.6 14.5 1.2 0.1 0.2 10.9 1.1 0.1 0.9 6.2 1.5 0.3 5.9 15.5 2.4 0.2 1.6 21.2 3.7 9.7 15.4 14.3 1.1 8 11.4 16.7 8.8 0.1 0.8 2.1 1.3 1.3 1 2.5

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya 14.2 51.3 53.6 21.9 56.2 60.8 30.7 23.3 0.4 0 1.1 0.1 0 0 1.2 0 7.7 12.3 27.4 42 43.7 35 23.6 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.4 0 2.1 0 0.3 67.4 0.1 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0.3 0 45.9 31.3 0.1 0.7 2.7 28.6 4.3 5.2 5.1 40.7 23.9 15 1.2 3.4 0 1.2 14.2 5.3 0 14.6 0.5 4.8 1.1 0.4 7 2.7 2.4 1.2 1.4 5.6 70.1 68.5 3.2 2.2 0.5 0 1.5 3.5

40.6

50.6

4.5

9.4

19.1

11.3

7.3

3.8

1.8

0.6

0.2

1.7

26.2

22.1

0.2

0.4

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 79.5 89.9 14.8 75.3 12.2 93.3 27.5 30.1 51.3 54.7 17.6 11.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3 99.1 4.9 0.9 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 22.5 0.1 0.1 87.7 71.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 55.5 18.2 44.5 3.1 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 29.8 72.4 51.5 5 16 0.4 0 0.5 1 6.6 0 0 0 0 0.7 89.1 10.1 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.1 0 0.9 12.9 10.7 0 0 0 0 5.9 2.4 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 2.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.6 0.3 0.6 2.5 1.8 0 5.7 0 0.9

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.53 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water (Urban), 2002 and 20089
Tap Tube Well/ Handpump 2002 11.2 49.5 69.1 29.3 13.8 0 7.3 22.1 16.9 7 2 24.3 5.2 32.1 21.5 16.1 7.9 18.6 36.5 26.2 2.9 50.8 0 7.1 4.4 0.8 0.4 1.8 7.9 2.5 0.7 16.8 0 0 0 0.3 0.8 1.4 0.4 22.3 11.9 12.5 0.2 4.3 1.8 0.8 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 0.2 0 0.2 23.6 11.2 5.8 0.2 0.1 4.1 55.3 52.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 4.3 2.4 0 0.2 0 34.3 25.1 15.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 19.7 0.6 0 0 0.1 0 0.4 11.6 0.2 0.2 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.3 16.4 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 8.7 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.1 37.3 6.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 2.3 2.5 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 41.1 13 19.8 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.4 13.2 4.5 1.1 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 5.7 0.9 0 0 1.2 0 0.8 0 0 0.2 0 0.5 1.1 0 0.1 0.6 3.5 0 0.4 Well Tank/ Pond (Reserved for Drinking ) Other Tank /Pond River/ Canal/ Lake Spring Others

Non Special Category States

2002 78.3 35.5 28.5 64.4 84.9 83.6 91.7 77.3 57.7 88.5 42.6 63.7 91.7 55.4 78.4 80.5 83.3 79.8 59.5 70.4 47.3 81.4 86.6 82.1 63.6 88.9 66.8 41.6 91.3 49.1 76.9 83.8 87.7 88 60.5 29 36.6 75.4

20089

20089 10.2 2.2 0.9 1.1 3.1 7.5 4.1 3 0.7 2.3 1.8 3.1 6 1.2 1.1 4.1 10.5 1.4 1.1

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 88.9 95.7 94.4 63 65.6 90.9 4.2 6.7 88.5 4 87.2 8.4 3.8 3 5.5 7.4 0.1 0.2 1.3 1.1 7.4 0.1 0.2 1.4 0 0 0 6.2 0.3 0 0 13 0 0 0 8.6 0 0.2 0 3.4 0 0 0 10.6 0 0 0 4.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 2.5 1 0 0 3.2 1.2 8 3.4 4.7

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya 59.9 57.8 99.2 61.5 48.6 75 50.2 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.6 35.9 33.7 2.4 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 1.3 0 0.2 0 25.7 6.9 2.6 14.6 31.1 9.5 15.2 2.7 6.2 0 0.9 8.5 3.5 0 72 3.6 0.1 0.6 0 9.2 2.5 1 1 0.1 0.3 22.8 20.7 2.7 1.1 2.1 0.5 2.4 0

88.8

95.6

0.7

2.9

1.4

1.4

0.1

6.4

0.7

0.4

14.1

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 94.3 97.6 56.3 97.1 2.7 97.9 73.6 74.3 19.6 17.5 5.1 3.3 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 94.4 1.1 0.3 0.3 2 0 0 0 0 9.5 2.6 14.9 90.9 73.6 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 93.8 2.7 1.4 0.1 2.5 0 0 0 0.2 0 80.2 40.5 18.3 3.2 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.1 2.4 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98.9 0 0 5.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 2.1 0.7 1.3 1.1 0 0 2.1 2.1 3.2 4.6

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.54a Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089
Scheduled Tribe Tap 2002 27.4 2.0 6.2 6.2 93.8 100.0 25.2 38.4 3.3 62.4 23.8 8.9 40.3 9.8 34.0 15.1 58.1 11.6 20.5 21.0 53.7 15.8 60.9 79.8 59.7 73.0 8.7 7.8 9.9 53.4 76.3 29.6 26.6 27.5 21.9 38.6 66.0 61.4 4.7 52.1 68.2 24.4 59.3 25.0 18.7 27.1 17.8 22.8 0.0 11.6 13.8 4.4 9.1 9.4 60.5 67.5 27.9 19.9 38.9 1.7 6.2 74.2 35.8 19.2 22.3 63.1 7.7 35.6 44.4 74.4 6.5 20.3 73.0 32.5 14.9 4.6 9.0 61.9 4.1 42.2 57.8 46.9 33.5 13.3 19.8 19.4 80.2 42.2 0.0 48.2 65.5 7.5 72.9 30.3 18.5 65.4 11.4 48.8 44.9 88.4 5.5 21.4 27.6 60.3 58.8 11.9 10.2 80.7 54.5 46.1 0.0 53.9 95.3 93.3 11.7 39.9 39.3 31.7 0.3 50.9 21.8 69.1 63.2 35.6 15.9 82.2 69.2 92.5 3.7 0.0 91.5 83.7 6.9 7.0 69.5 77.6 22.0 13.4 10.2 12.2 70.8 10.0 77.7 68.0 16.1 15.7 1.3 4.9 87.1 90.3 80.0 13.0 0.0 36.6 31.9 71.1 17.9 1.6 61.6 21.1 71.6 49.4 35.2 6.8 90.0 70.2 4.7 6.5 11.8 45.9 6.2 78.8 25.7 13.0 17.0 0.8 11.1 7.4 11.2 10.3 3.5 51.5 56.0 29.0 26.4 4.2 16.3 53.0 52.6 37.7 53.8 38.9 13.6 21.9 58.7 64.7 29.0 25.4 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 9.9 32.7 11.6 16.3 Tube Well/ Handpump Well Tap Tube Well/ Handpump Well 20089 5.7 21.7 3.9 6.0 0.0 3.5 5.7 2.3 20.5 6.5 65.0 17.5 6.5 14.5 0.0 7.9 1.2 4.0 7.7 Scheduled Caste

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 79.6 66.1 44.2 34.3 39.4 25.3 81.6 85.8 3.1 8.7 1.8 0.9 3.5 4.3 28.5 5.2 6.9 2.5 2.7 4.4 2.7 16.0 7.2 86.9 76.2 41.0 71.5 79.6 54.8 12.9 7.8 37.2 57.8 14.5 8.0 29.5 30.3 8.5 3.4 10.7 3.3 1.6 9.1

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya 33.2 54.6 64.0 8.1 94.7 85.1 5.3 13.9 0.0 53.2 47.1 42.0 36.4 21.7 40.3 35.5 50.7 35.6 30.6 31.7 39.2 51.4 29.6 0.6 67.7 0.0 0.0 43.6 67.5 0.0 28.0 3.2 4.3 7.0 36.8 44.0 6.0 56.0 8.8 40.1 1.8 2.8 0.9 0.2 89.6 39.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 62.7 0.0 13.7 0.0

47.4

59.4

0.7

6.0

16.6

9.2

57.4

29.7

14.3

60.6

1.9

1.4

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 58.8 91.6 11.5 65.6 6.8 100.0 20.9 24.0 47.7 52.2 23.8 17.9 35.4 100.0 0.0 0.0 92.4 3.8 1.7 7.1 89.1 84.2 30.4 38.4 4.4 49.9 0.2 51.4 44.4 34.4 55.6 0.0 47.2 23.9 31.0 72.5 48.3 6.3 19.6 64.9 36.2 34.0 51.2 100.0 8.4 0.0 0.0 92.4 100.0 7.6 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 62.4 76.1 100.0 3.1 12.9 0.0 7.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.54b Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089 (continued)
Other Backward Classes Tap 2002 63.1 17.4 4.4 14.0 77.3 72.5 70.0 48.0 12.6 69.5 19.9 22.0 10.2 40.7 32.7 66.0 81.0 9.4 21.1 32.3 68.2 10.0 79.8 84.7 55.2 84.9 9.9 7.1 73.1 16.2 12.4 16.1 5.0 10.7 9.6 40.0 40.8 35.9 14.2 64.0 58.4 35.3 0.8 15.1 58.3 65.7 29.5 17.3 0.1 9.5 9.3 2.2 4.8 5.3 22.9 49.2 59.4 27.6 15.5 21.4 2.5 3.5 75.6 73.2 16.9 36.8 23.1 46.9 63.4 73.6 77.3 24.2 27.9 79.5 17.6 12.3 11.0 5.9 72.3 7.5 28.3 53.1 54.9 38.4 35.1 64.0 37.7 30.7 11.1 1.8 52.3 68.0 15.4 79.9 21.5 43.1 30.6 55.6 69.1 80.2 63.8 22.8 31.0 63.5 21.4 27.0 7.6 5.7 86.1 74.5 89.2 1.2 0.0 0.1 10.8 65.1 89.3 79.3 18.8 13.9 0.4 0.0 87.3 86.9 12.0 0.3 9.6 38.1 29.5 16.0 0.6 41.5 56.2 52.1 25.7 14.4 12.5 69.6 66.8 22.3 73.6 72.1 11.9 5.4 35.7 50.4 34.8 5.3 85.8 90.7 9.6 3.3 5.8 15.9 88.6 80.8 42.7 8.9 0.2 20.0 29.0 73.5 8.9 2.2 43.9 53.9 43.7 21.4 9.3 9.7 72.8 65.5 8.6 51.3 65.8 24.2 19.1 9.6 11.8 57.0 65.6 68.6 22.1 20.1 12.1 7.8 66.3 69.6 18.2 19.1 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 20089 2002 9.3 22.6 5.6 27.6 0.1 32.7 2.4 9.6 34.3 10.4 77.4 21.0 18.6 0.8 6.1 10.5 6.0 6.2 4.2 Tube Well/ Handpump Well Tap Tube Well/ Handpump Well 20089 2.7 14.3 1.9 4.4 0.0 5.1 1.1 1.7 10.5 6.6 71.3 10.9 11.8 0.0 3.3 6.2 2.7 3.7 1.9 Others

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 88.0 74.1 75.1 47.7 74.3 40.8 68.1 24.1 12.5 22.5 5.1 67.4 11.8 8.6 10.3 12.0 8.5 0.2 8.5 4.3 0.1 0.8 86.2 78.5 69.7 38.5 79.2 81.1 74.9 73.9 6.0 8.3 10.8 13.8 16.2 6.5 12.2 16.4 2.9 3.6 2.4 6.8 1.9 3.8 0.3 0.0

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya 11.4 40.9 53.6 36.6 41.9 63.9 55.5 35.1 1.2 0.0 68.6 68.6 16.2 16.4 42.4 44.0 40.4 18.9 12.0 35.4 41.7 41.6 41.2 21.4 71.6 0.0 0.0 66.3 97.7 0.2 0.0 69.4 36.9 0.0 8.6 16.7 45.8 21.9 18.7 5.7 23.2 26.1 75.0 0.0 0.0 61.7 65.2 4.0 0.0 0.0 57.6 0.0 13.7 0.1

27.5

68.7

0.0

72.5

18.7

57.2

60.4

20.8

23.5

12.1

10.8

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 72.0 95.0 8.2 95.8 8.2 96.9 39.4 43.3 42.1 42.5 16.1 10.5 49.6 72.9 2.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 97.4 60.1 0.6 7.4 91.2 32.4 12.6 95.5 82.5 51.6 36.9 73.6 0.6 24.5 3.6 1.4 82.5 71.9 49.9 87.3 48.0 4.5 0.0 43.8 68.0 55.5 12.2 93.6 5.0 4.6 0.0 98.2 98.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 85.3 41.9 0.0 1.8 25.9 26.2 0.0 0.0 37.7 0.8 1.8 87.4 0.5 10.8 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 6.4

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

Table 5A.55 Distribution of Households by Source of Drinking Water, by Major Religious Communities, 20089
Hindus Tap 64.9 10.8 7.2 17.0 83.8 83.4 56.8 67.6 9.3 77.6 23.0 21.4 73.8 14.9 68.7 42.1 84.6 11.2 32.8 60.3 4.7 15.9 83.4 4.9 12.5 7.2 2.1 88.6 5.9 85.3 81.6 39.3 8.3 64.4 19.3 30.3 0.0 64.2 34.3 0.0 5.3 1.8 1.4 1.8 65.1 17.1 32.5 59.7 7.9 12.9 8.4 79.4 8.3 4.8 59.5 16.6 49.8 42.5 4.3 65.1 82.7 6.1 28.5 36.7 79.5 39.8 31.2 3.2 70.8 13.1 3.3 82.9 31.8 12.7 6.5 81.2 11.5 4.1 74.4 66.0 22.9 9.7 59.6 30.1 10.1 38.8 4.1 2.1 34.9 0.5 70.0 71.5 54.2 8.6 60.2 43.1 10.4 13.3 0.0 7.4 3.2 0.0 21.3 47.2 86.7 52.8 13.3 44.1 67.9 54.9 9.6 1.9 29.6 1.6 34.3 47.8 7.6 50.9 15.1 59.3 71.8 93.4 15.4 12.8 33.7 5.5 78.8 18.0 2.0 59.7 35.1 0.3 10.3 88.5 11.5 91.8 8.2 0.1 52.8 70.1 61.9 25.3 28.1 38.1 11.2 0.0 89.2 10.0 74.1 7.7 59.3 33.0 13.7 39.0 47.3 96.4 0.7 88.4 3.4 9.1 87.7 2.5 13.5 86.5 1.5 60.3 20.9 7.7 72.0 11.4 6.9 30.0 26.5 12.2 22.8 7.6 75.6 14.3 2.6 68.0 25.8 3.0 87.8 98.2 Tube Well Well Tap Tube Well Well Tap Tube Well Well Tap Tube Well Muslims Christians Sikhs Well

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 73.7 79.1 61.9 42.4 51.9 18.1 10.3 22.3 7.4 3.8 1.0 0.8 14.1 20.3 3.2 76.0 72.9 79.0 16.7 16.8 14.7 12.7 7.4 26.6 57.2 0.7 2.0 0.9 1.9 26.1 83.9 25.6 61.3 16.1 5.2 4.5 0.0 7.2 8.5 81.8 7.2 3.3 98.5 35.9 0.7 60.8

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram 30.8 69.6 33.4 64.9 21.2 0.0 56.2 43.5 0.0 56.8 43.2 0.0 49.3 41.9 19.9 30.8 45.6 17.5 36.4 46.2 15.9 50.7 0.0 0.0 77.7 70.4 0.0 0.0 4.9 44.3 2.1 3.3 87.4 28.0 4.4 36.7

37.8

0.0

0.0

58.1

43.0

3.0

0.2

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 84.0 97.5 39.5 67.1 94.1 96.6 43.7 43.6 8.9 35.8 51.8 9.2 48.0 0.5 0.5 69.8 0.0 28.5 97.7 0.0 15.2 0.5 5.3 3.8 7.1 84.2 0.0 25.3 49.3 48.5 0.2 31.5 0.9 99.9 0.1 84.8 45.2 12.7 91.7 8.3 98.3 1.7 2.2 0.8 9.8 99.6 0.4

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakhadweep

Puduchery

All India

Source: NSS 65th Round.

348 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.1 Literacy Rate (Rural), 19992000 and 20078

Non Special Category States 19992000 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pardesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Daman & Diu Dadra & Nagar Haveli Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 86.0 70.0 88.0 71.0 95.0 82.0 68.0 89.0 85.3 95.8 85.8 99.3 87.0 77.0 77.0 54.0 68.0 43.0 83.0 64.0 43.0 77.4 72.4 84.2 47.7 86.6 69.2 56.7 82.0 65.0 80.0 59.0 89.0 73.0 56.0 57.0 82.0 77.0 75.0 79.0 91.0 89.0 81.0 84.0 70.9 87.2 75.5 88.8 93.3 94.9 93.6 88.5 80.9 84.8 45.0 65.0 50.0 62.0 72.0 90.0 75.0 66.0 70.0 58.3 72.1 53.8 73.3 90.9 91.9 86.2 77.8 70.1 63.7 51.0 73.0 63.0 69.0 76.0 91.0 82.0 74.0 77.0 56.0 76.0 55.0 98.0 90.0 75.0 72.0 67.0 93.0 64.0 78.0 66.0 69.0 65.0 74.0 65.0 71.0 Males 20078 66.8 88.2 68.3 78.2 92.6 86.3 79.7 79.7 73.5 74.0 95.5 75.4 84.2 74.2 78.1 71.7 83.9 75.5 79.2 19992000 36.0 61.0 27.0 67.0 72.0 47.0 48.0 44.0 86.0 35.0 55.0 42.0 56.0 27.0 53.0 36.0 52.0 Females 20078 48.5 76.6 42.6 57.4 72.2 73.4 56.0 57.8 46.2 55.7 91.1 53.7 65.8 57.1 65.5 40.1 65.4 51.0 64.7 19992000 46.0 69.0 42.0 85.0 81.0 62.0 61.0 56.0 89.0 50.0 67.0 54.0 63.0 47.0 64.0 51.0 62.0 Persons

(per cent)

20078 57.5 82.7 56.1 68.1 83.5 79.7 68.1 69.5 60.5 64.9 93.2 65.1 75.1 65.6 72.1 56.4 74.4 63.6 72.1

64.8 79.4 65.0 81.2 92.1 93.5 90.0 83.5 75.7 73.9

83.6 80.6 91.4 70.1 93.3 78.8 67.0

Source: NSS 55th Round, Report No. 473 (for 19992000), and calculated from NSS Database 64th Round (for 20078). Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

349

Table 6A.2 Literacy Rate (Urban), 19992000 and 20078

Non Special Category States 19992000 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 93.0 90.0 91.0 96.0 91.0 92.0 87.0 93.2 87.4 95.8 97.6 93.4 95.8 89.9 80.0 80.0 86.0 82.0 83.0 82.0 72.0 87.5 77.4 76.8 94.1 85.1 87.7 78.0 87.0 85.0 89.0 89.0 87.0 87.0 80.0 92.0 94.0 86.0 94.0 96.0 99.0 98.0 92.0 92.0 94.3 92.9 87.6 93.1 96.2 99.5 98.2 90.0 93.7 88.2 85.0 86.0 68.0 81.0 88.0 99.0 89.0 81.0 78.0 86.1 86.9 71.5 82.4 94.4 98.1 95.5 85.2 88.3 76 89.0 90.0 78.0 87.0 92.0 99.0 94.0 87.0 85.0 82.0 91.0 78.0 92.0 93.0 91.0 85.0 88.0 96.0 86.0 92.0 84.0 84.0 87.0 91.0 78.0 87.0 Males 20078 86.8 96.1 83.5 92.0 91.3 88.7 92.4 91.1 89.5 90.4 98.2 89.5 93.6 92.7 87.1 89.1 93.4 81.7 91.3 19992000 67.0 81.0 60.0 80.0 82.0 77.0 68.0 76.0 91.0 68.0 79.0 66.0 73.0 63.0 79.0 61.0 76.0 Females 20078 72.4 90.0 67.3 79.8 77.8 80.6 79.5 75.8 76.0 78.6 94.2 76.2 84.7 77.5 80.2 69.2 81.5 68.9 81.4 19992000 75.0 86.0 70.0 86.0 87.0 84.0 77.0 82.0 94.0 78.0 86.0 76.0 79.0 75.0 85.0 70.0 82.0 Persons

(per cent)

20078 79.5 93.3 76.0 86.1 85.4 84.7 86.5 84.0 83.3 84.7 96.1 83.3 89.3 85.6 83.9 79.7 87.4 75.8 86.6

90.4 90.2 79.8 88.0 95.2 98.8 96.9 87.9 91.0 82.5

90.4 83.0 88.3 95.9 89.2 91.7 84.3

Source: NSS 55th Round, Report No. 473 (for 19992000), and calculated from NSS Database 64th Round (for 20078). Note: Not available.

Table 6A.3 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078

Scheduled Castes Male 66.4 86.0 56.4 79.9 90.1 80.2 81.0 72.0 67.6 64.9 90.8 68.8 84.1 68.4 71.9 67.6 78.0 69.7 76.9 60.7 69.1 74.5 45.7 57.8 58.4 61.2 69.5 53.2 45.0 32.4 55.8 34.5 52.3 62.4 29.6 57.7 65.2 51.5 59.7 57.7 35.7 46.8 46.5 48.8 45.6 65.0 60.7 72.4 69.1 40.9 55.4 47.0 58.6 68.7 45.8 57.9 78.3 84.3 81.9 75.2 73.4 86.3 74.5 87.5 81.5 86.0 79.3 76.9 77.9 95.9 50.0 57.3 62.4 46.6 54.5 74.9 42.2 55.7 67.4 42.9 55.4 81.0 53.5 55.2 91.3 55.8 66.1 65.7 61.3 41.2 67.0 47.8 72.9 51.4 62.5 71.2 31.1 53.9 82.3 57.0 49.9 66.4 70.6 50.7 60.8 79.5 53.6 56.5 68.3 81.3 70.7 76.4 66.9 70.3 67.8 65.2 93.5 67.5 75.2 73.7 68.2 57.6 76.3 61.5 80.6 68.5 80.2 89.4 72.7 82.0 60.8 70.7 72.1 51.2 61.8 82.2 61.4 72.2 92.6 97.1 88.6 89.5 82.9 86.7 82.2 97.4 88.3 86.3 88.3 84.4 82.3 93.2 86.7 78.9 31.8 45.0 66.0 33.5 49.4 72.9 45.7 60.0 83.8 67.7 76.9 92.9 79.8 86.6 91.6 81.9 87.0 85.0 50.4 58.4 63.8 45.9 54.7 70.8 51.7 61.2 80.4 63.5 74.0 64.9 70.6 77.5 75.9 70.8 62.4 72.2 63.5 95.4 71.3 69.1 75.1 73.7 54.6 75.5 67.6 67.3 Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Person 72.0 79.7 74.8 82.0 88.7 81.9 80.7 73.4 79.7 73.0 96.4 80.2 77.8 81.6 79.3 68.6 84.9 77.2 73.2

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 95.8 85.3 76.3 86.1 100.0 86.5 76.3 53.3 66.8 76.2 65.4 81.0 92.8 90.3 93.2 70.0 77.6 51.5 87.8 92.7 59.3 53.6 19.9 71.1 90.7 64.8 65.0 35.0 79.8 91.7 70.3 88.0 68.4 89.2 100.0 81.1 76.5 48.3 75.0 85.0 74.0 81.8 59.1 82.3 93.5 72.1 88.9 77.9 93.7 97.0 52.5 75.7 56.7 75.2 91.0 62.5 82.1 67.5 83.6 94.3

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram 100.0 88.0 79.5 81.1 58.8 69.8 89.5 46.7 69.6 69.3 50.7 60.2 91.7 70.3 70.5 75.2 76.7 61.0 69.3 87.2 78.5 82.9 82.9 74.7 74.3 81.2 88.1 76.2 82.4 87.8 78.8 83.6 93.6 82.0 100.0 100.0 93.5 86.2 89.9 84.4 71.8 77.9 92.2 81.1 87.1 88.5 78.8 80.3

94.1

91.2

92.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 67.6 100.0 75.1 70.6 49.9 60.5 69.3 47.8 58.8 77.7 57.3 66.6 93.8 75.9 55.4 99.2 86.4 93.1 100.0 81.4 43.6 64.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.7 66.7 100.0 100.0 99.2 93.0 96.5 86.9 65.8 77.2 36.4 57.6 88.0 68.1 81.4 91.8 78.9 87.0 92.9 86.4 89.6 87.3 88.5 99.2 100.0 100.0 84.6 73.8 80.5 98.1 86.8 100.0 68.8 81.1 85.4 98.9 96.9 100.0 76.9

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Daman & Diu

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

Table 6A.4 Literacy Rate, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078

Scheduled Castes Male 87.5 94.2 74.7 87.9 89.6 63.0 86.8 78.6 84.2 80.3 96.5 77.5 86.5 85.6 72.4 82.2 87.2 74.5 84.3 67.0 76.0 85.8 58.2 66.9 65.1 70.3 78.6 77.0 66.1 59.4 75.3 54.6 68.9 77.4 36.0 61.4 67.6 100.0 100.0 66.0 76.4 79.5 59.2 69.3 100.0 60.0 71.8 62.0 81.1 72.4 79.7 84.6 68.2 77.1 56.0 67.4 78.8 62.0 71.2 89.5 94.7 92.3 88.1 87.8 94.2 78.0 92.3 89.3 93.0 100.0 86.6 93.2 97.9 64.4 72.9 88.2 60.8 75.4 89.7 53.3 69.4 78.8 64.1 72.3 88.1 73.4 77.6 93.5 75.4 83.7 71.1 79.3 64.9 82.5 62.8 81.6 56.1 67.9 69.0 68.9 69.0 89.3 71.5 72.3 79.9 92.7 66.1 80.4 88.2 69.3 55.6 60.3 71.3 68.5 69.8 92.2 67.5 82.3 79.3 81.2 81.5 83.9 95.6 82.8 89.6 82.3 84.0 77.1 88.3 71.0 87.8 68.7 79.8 93.4 84.9 89.4 86.8 63.4 77.5 75.3 81.8 91.2 83.0 87.2 89.4 67.7 79.2 98.4 93.4 91.7 95.6 95.3 93.0 94.3 99.5 94.8 94.3 97.0 93.9 93.9 98.0 91.9 93.6 51.0 63.9 88.7 75.7 82.8 78.2 62.5 71.0 87.5 87.0 90.8 95.8 82.7 89.0 97.4 93.4 95.6 96.3 72.5 79.8 84.9 61.0 73.2 87.0 72.0 79.7 92.0 81.5 90.8 80.3 95.7 85.7 83.5 86.8 83.1 83.7 84.5 97.3 90.1 87.6 88.2 88.3 80.7 93.0 81.5 86.6 Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Person 86.7 93.7 84.2 97.0 90.0 87.5 91.7 89.7 88.6 89.5 98.3 92.6 91.1 92.9 91.2 87.5 95.5 87.0 90.3

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 96.2 88.0 80.3 91.5 100.0 100.0 83.4 70.2 83.6 86.1 74.8 87.7 100.0 89.3 92.5 94.7 89.0 78.5 95.0 96.8 86.0 72.4 54.7 85.9 95.0 90.4 79.3 69.3 90.6 95.8 100.0 93.1 89.0 93.1 100.0 90.4 75.9 68.2 82.4 89.8 95.2 85.3 79.0 87.8 95.0 92.7 94.6 88.3 92.5 92.3 84.7 90.7 71.8 79.6 91.7 89.3 92.8 80.4 86.2 92.0

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram 92.3 81.1 80.9 86.0 63.0 74.3 92.4 91.2 91.8 78.6 64.6 72.3 94.3 84.9 77.2 79.0 100.0 99.2 99.6 96.1 87.6 92.1 95.2 89.9 80.3 80.8 82.7 89.5 85.7 92.1 82.8 87.3 97.0 86.8 84.7 89.8 98.5 95.8 97.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.8 82.4 89.3 93.2 92.6 89.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.2

97.7

98.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 82.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.6 83.1 66.1 74.9 86.0 69.0 78.0 88.3 92.8 95.2 95.1 86.0 74.6 50.0 83.7 92.4 84.9 88.4 100.0 50.0 74.1 89.7 91.2 62.9 79.4 95.7 80.0 90.4 98.5 90.5 81.7 89.8 92.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.5 85.5 89.4 66.7 75.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 78.2 70.0 74.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.6 92.3 92.5 93.1 90.8 98.8 98.3 100.0 98.9 93.8 87.0 82.3 98.1 84.5 100.0 92.5 85.5 90.1 87.1 98.5 92.6 100.0 95.3 89.9

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Daman & Diu

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

Table 6A.5 Literacy Rate, by Major Religious Communities (Rural), 20078

Hindus Male 70.7 92.9 73.2 77.4 91.9 85.3 79.8 81.3 77.5 74.1 94.9 75.1 83.1 74.2 85.5 72.2 83.7 76.9 80.4 65.5 73.2 75.2 51.8 64.6 64.4 64.6 73.9 90.6 80.2 42.5 63.6 40.5 56.8 61.1 27.4 69.6 77.9 69.6 65.6 57.1 65.6 85.3 66.1 75.6 67.8 45.3 84.9 53.6 69.4 63.4 73.4 84.0 65.6 75.1 53.0 64.6 81.9 65.0 73.4 25.0 89.6 58.6 67.4 75.1 85.2 0.0 75.7 89.3 91.9 96.0 92.6 94.2 96.9 55.4 64.8 70.1 56.7 63.2 86.7 54.5 66.5 76.7 54.2 65.9 64.4 49.6 78.3 94.5 33.3 86.8 39.1 64.9 0.0 73.2 56.1 59.2 71.0 70.2 43.0 57.8 55.6 68.1 75.4 55.4 65.7 86.1 59.7 73.1 79.0 78.7 41.2 66.0 97.3 79.5 88.7 72.1 57.3 82.9 95.7 28.6 87.9 49.9 66.1 48.1 78.8 0.0 66.5 71.7 82.9 100.0 79.7 88.4 56.7 67.3 100.0 89.1 95.8 93.3 72.5 82.8 100.0 61.0 72.4 100.0 76.0 74.3 74.7 47.6 61.2 56.8 34.8 46.2 65.2 36.7 47.7 100.0 81.7 87.5 79.8 66.3 73.4 66.6 67.2 66.9 100.0 52.5 61.6 74.0 57.8 65.6 70.8 62.8 66.7 100.0 100.0 74.6 37.9 58.5 33.3 64.2 44.7 61.0 Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Muslims Christians Sikhs

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Person 100.0 100.0 89.3 46.8 65.9 50.0 70.3 60.6 67.1

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 80.6 87.8 86.4 90.4 98.7 98.0 77.8 65.1 72.8 80.1 76.2 84.1 98.4 68.3 83.4 100.0 66.3 66.6 86.8 96.9 90.3 51.0 44.3 64.7 88.9 95.5 58.1 55.8 76.5 93.4 70.6 100.0 87.7 92.9 55.9 100.0 70.7 90.7 63.7 100.0 79.5 91.8 54.8 82.2 76.9 80.0 67.3 80.9

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram 81.5 88.2 82.0 87.5 65.6 76.1 68.8 50.1 59.3 86.5 59.8 76.5 86.0 87.8 71.3 76.8 73.9 64.1 69.0 76.1 60.6 70.3 78.1 83.4 87.7 69.2 83.5 93.0 78.3 85.6 81.2 81.4 92.5 52.8 74.1 93.6 86.2 90.0 86.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

96.9

94.9

96.0

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 88.9 87.7 85.4 95.5 86.7 77.4 56.2 67.0 71.7 55.0 63.5 85.9 68.8 78.5 100.0 95.7 97.8 72.1 15.4 78.0 99.2 86.4 93.1 100.0 100.0 83.5 90.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 48.3 82.0 46.7 69.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.9 92.9 75.8 83.5 78.0 41.7 69.3 75.7 82.5 96.9 89.7 93.2 87.7 78.2 83.8 70.2 75.9 63.7 63.4 67.0 69.9

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

Table 6A.6 Literacy Rate, by Major Religious Communities (Urban), 20078

Hindus Male 89.3 97.9 84.8 91.5 92.7 90.7 92.7 91.0 90.6 91.6 98.8 89.9 95.0 93.2 87.4 90.5 93.1 89.5 92.8 84.2 88.7 82.7 75.5 83.0 68.4 80.5 86.7 93.9 83.3 57.9 64.0 70.8 81.3 80.7 60.1 79.5 83.9 56.5 48.1 78.0 86.1 79.8 62.3 71.6 53.0 70.7 88.7 63.3 74.6 86.2 90.8 87.5 77.1 82.7 75.8 83.4 81.4 80.2 80.8 100.0 92.8 100.0 94.8 100.0 95.0 89.5 100.0 94.3 96.4 96.2 91.6 93.8 98.9 79.4 85.7 85.8 75.5 80.9 94.2 77.3 84.5 81.3 64.8 73.2 93.8 73.2 84.8 97.4 90.3 87.8 100.0 87.0 100.0 91.2 45.8 100.0 75.4 83.8 84.2 57.1 75.4 100.0 84.2 79.2 86.5 88.1 73.4 81.1 100.0 97.4 84.0 87.6 73.9 49.0 62.6 97.5 90.0 93.0 98.7 95.0 83.5 89.6 98.1 95.2 90.3 100.0 91.0 100.0 93.0 62.1 100.0 78.7 86.6 80.7 64.5 74.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.0 85.5 97.7 94.1 95.8 100.0 87.1 93.6 100.0 94.8 100.0 94.9 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 88.5 90.0 94.9 100.0 70.8 78.4 68.3 55.4 62.3 98.3 97.9 98.1 100.0 91.5 94.9 87.2 81.4 84.6 100.0 95.8 98.1 100.0 76.1 82.7 85.9 70.9 78.4 87.1 73.0 79.4 100.0 86.9 98.1 88.7 100.0 89.9 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 83.1 75.3 90.7 100.0 Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Person Male Female Muslims Christians Sikhs

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Person 100.0 94.5 99.3 91.8 100.0 92.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 85.9 83.1 93.1 100.0

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 95.7 93.8 92.4 92.5 96.8 91.6 82.9 83.3 87.3 90.8 88.1 87.7 94.3 87.6 94.4 90.3 83.3 84.4 90.8 64.9 97.2 83.8 64.3 58.7 100.0 93.1 83.5 74.5 76.7 80.8 94.8 100.0 80.8 95.5 96.7 86.6 80.0 73.7 86.2 96.0 90.5 87.5 77.5 91.2 96.3 100.0 95.0 100.0 82.6 100.0 89.6

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram 97.8 91.9 93.4 91.5 80.4 86.0 79.8 63.2 72.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.2 90.8 84.4 71.8 77.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.7 88.9 91.1 59.5 85.0 94.4 96.7 86.4 74.8 81.7 98.5 95.8 97.2 100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.2

97.8

98.5

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 92.7 86.5 95.7 98.0 100.0 94.7 91.6 79.3 85.8 80.9 68.8 75.1 95.3 87.8 91.3 100.0 85.1 92.9 98.4 90.1 89.0 100.0 100.0 92.4 84.8 88.3 100.0 100.0 95.2 96.7 94.7 84.8 90.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.5 92.0 76.8 88.2 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 76.2 82.0 71.5 9.4 56.9 100.0 66.7 80.0 87.9 90.3 95.4 88.1 92.1 93.8 80.5 86.6 100.0 97.8 90.8 100.0 92.2 85.3 100.0 95.1 88.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

358 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.7 Gross Enrolment Ratio, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078
Non Special Category States 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 108.9 74.0 134.5 136.0 58.8 131.6 107.8 101.8 96.1 173.8 135.9 60.4 144.4 114.6 106.5 68.6 79.1 116.6 58.7 108.2 69.9 102.0 81.5 98.9 105.3 54.5 112.0 77.5 49.0 54.7 39.0 69.5 46.0 76.1 39.9 123.1 108.9 83.7 151.7 147.6 127.5 87.9 143.6 131.0 117.7 143.0 111.7 103.2 173.2 191.5 167.1 92.5 148.0 147.8 119.4 75.5 108.5 60.3 94.7 76.5 81.8 55.6 66.7 78.2 88.1 94.4 114.3 66.8 104.3 103.3 87.7 60.1 76.6 87.8 72.8 42.4 131.3 35.4 48.6 33.3 44.7 21.3 33.3 38.9 58.0 96.7 105.2 83.8 131.8 94.4 110.1 118.7 82.2 94.8 107.1 93.6 132.2 110.4 129.7 77.2 121.2 118.4 107.5 112.1 Primary 20078 95.5 129.7 104.4 125.5 109.1 129.6 123.0 90.4 153.9 106.1 92.3 153.4 101.8 117.0 92.8 118.3 116.1 113.7 112.9 Upper Primary 20045 71.8 69.7 32.4 79.9 87.6 100.6 73.8 76.4 43.4 85.5 98.2 83.3 98.1 74.1 65.4 70.7 107.0 52.4 66.5 20078 77.3 75.1 46.2 89.8 99.7 88.7 78.2 75.7 57.9 90.2 100.1 100.0 86.8 80.1 69.1 81.4 112.7 67.8 71.2

(per cent)
Secondary and Higher Secondary

20045 47.7 32.2 32.2 37.3 52.3 57.8 38.6 43.6 14.8 46.4 60.2 35.7 55.6 43.4 39.6 33.1 62.1 36.3 31.4

20078 51.5 31.5 19.9 34.6 57.1 58.3 42.6 51.0 14.8 54.5 50.2 47.6 56.5 42.2 39.4 39.4 72.0 52.9 37.5

49.4 79.1 35.8 51.0 29.9 45.6 23.0 33.2 44.9 64.8

52.3 60.6 48.5 74.9 45.4 81.4 45.5

Source: Annual Reports (Years 200910, and 20056), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

APPENDIX TABLES

359

Table 6A.8 Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Tribes, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078
Non Special Category States 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 121.3 131.7 58.4 121.9 97.5 155 127.5 61.0 129.3 94.2 76.8 58.4 67.0 74.6 83.6 119.8 60.6 74.4 31.3 33.4 45.1 27.7 131.7 139.0 101.4 143.2 134.0 132.5 83.1 252.9 128.0 127.4 145.1 146.0 102.8 153.6 165.5 164.6 90.6 250.8 150.8 151.2 80.4 127.6 79.8 69.0 71.2 84.1 51.6 97.1 58.1 132.2 88.6 141.2 54.3 74.4 83.0 89.2 61.5 123.3 80.9 129.0 44.2 69.8 22.0 30.6 28.3 46.8 19.9 49.8 26.9 58.4 104.0 113.7 72.2 127.8 129.0 111.8 112.9 116.0 147.9 130.5 119.9 107.6 128.2 148.4 112.4 Primary 20078 102.3 97.8 97.3 132.8 130.7 131.7 108.1 124.0 136.4 134.3 126.2 110.0 175.1 145.4 105.1 Upper Primary 20045 66.9 95.1 21.1 69.6 64.5 45.8 81.9 98.5 72.6 80.3 41.2 70.0 120.6 57.7 56.1 20078 78.6 81.6 36.4 75.0 67.5 56.2 86.7 104.4 86.5 83.0 59.4 77.4 71.1 55.2 58.6

(per cent)

Secondary and Higher Secondary 20045 44.0 41.6 41.6 30.6 29.2 13.6 39.6 41.1 18.3 35.5 18.8 27.6 52.4 75.2 22.2 20078 50.3 40.1 16.9 25.7 34.2 14.8 44.7 61.0 25.5 35.1 22.4 32.2 56.6 69.1 26.6

46.4 88.5 22.8 31.3 34.7 47.3 23.1 57.4 32.0 61.2

54.8 36.9 46.7 46.0 30.8

Source: Annual Reports (Years 200910, and 20056), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.

360 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.9 Gross Enrolment Ratio for Scheduled Castes, by Level of Education, 20045 and 20078
Non Special Category States 20045 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Uttarakhand Tripura Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 49.8 123.8 115.3 46.1 177.5 182.1 143.3 124.9 38.9 109.6 70.2 42.7 128.4 116.1 111.5 76.3 17.1 70.9 34.7 121.7 117.5 141.5 155.4 147.3 149.3 124.5 116.6 164.7 149.2 154.6 166.2 110.7 96.7 133.9 79.0 116.5 78.9 111.6 77.9 154.3 76.8 118.8 100.6 56.9 57.3 59.3 42.2 47.0 43.8 108.0 161.6 80.2 148.6 66.5 105.8 156.9 102.1 92.2 114.9 107.1 146.9 148.6 138.6 110.5 126.7 106.2 111.3 113.4 Primary 20078 106.1 151.2 92.8 202.5 71.2 136.2 159.5 111.9 146.6 116.3 109.1 166.4 154.2 136.7 110.2 133.0 136.5 117.5 122.6 Upper Primary 20045 76.8 115.2 27.6 91.2 57.9 44.8 97.0 75.2 40.8 85.7 104.0 94.8 130.7 61.2 74.0 65.5 94.1 50.1 58.9 20078 81.7 103.9 40.7 127.7 52.9 82.8 98.7 87.1 55.1 93.0 105.2 107.9 135.1 83.7 82.1 75.0 86.4 51.7 68.9

(per cent)

Secondary and Higher Secondary 20045 55.3 62.9 62.9 43.7 22.6 33.9 41.6 31.1 12.6 44.2 57.4 35.3 73.2 29.5 32.4 25.0 52.3 23.0 26.0 20078 56.4 61.9 11.9 51.1 26.8 35.5 44.0 38.7 15.7 50.6 70.0 50.2 73.2 31.0 34.5 28.6 74.9 23.3 31.3

65.9 37.9 83.7 22.0 46.1 40.5

21.7 59.6 120.8 71.0 39.0

Source: Annual Reports, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Note: Not available.

Table 6A.10 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078
Scheduled Castes Males 86.1 95.8 70.6 95.8 90.4 86.9 85.1 75.1 79.5 82.4 85.1 86.9 82.4 87.7 82.9 77.4 83.1 84.5 83.3 84.0 83.9 79.3 81.4 78.6 88.8 80.9 86.1 81.6 100.0 67.8 76.6 83.9 62.4 76.8 82.3 73.6 90.6 83.5 82.4 80.1 81.3 81.2 77.4 79.6 83.0 85.0 70.2 65.6 68.1 84.3 85.8 90.9 86.9 86.8 85.1 90.0 82.7 83.9 84.4 82.5 83.5 92.5 75.1 79.2 82.4 88.4 81.3 78.0 78.8 71.1 76.5 73.7 76.5 77.1 76.3 87.2 84.3 89.3 77.0 82.3 84.1 83.9 81.9 64.8 70.6 74.8 76.1 75.4 80.7 81.2 82.8 84.1 88.1 80.2 79.5 83.8 85.1 83.3 84.3 83.3 82.0 82.7 84.4 80.9 76.8 78.9 90.0 84.3 87.5 83.6 84.7 85.4 84.5 85.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.3 89.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.0 55.8 86.1 92.7 82.0 82.2 79.8 92.7 86.5 82.8 85.9 88.1 90.0 88.5 83.2 87.7 92.2 91.1 84.4 87.8 97.3 92.6 95.1 100.0 63.9 67.6 77.4 73.0 75.2 76.9 71.9 74.7 82.9 83.0 90.0 95.5 83.6 91.4 86.5 90.6 88.1 83.9 84.7 76.3 100.0 83.8 78.6 86.2 87.9 79.3 79.7 69.5 94.4 86.7 91.8 87.7 89.3 100.0 82.9 81.5 87.7 86.9 89.0 90.6 89.8 85.8 86.0 85.9 87.3 84.6 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 86.0 84.2 80.1 100.0 87.7 65.1 86.1 90.7 80.7 81.0 74.8 93.5 86.6 87.4 86.6 88.6 91.1 85.9 82.4

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 88.0 98.5 93.0 96.1 87.6 87.8 69.1 72.8 61.6 69.2 93.3 24.9 69.2 81.5 38.4 41.4 100.0 91.8 100.0 95.6 89.5 70.4 97.9 90.6 69.2 87.9 92.1 72.1 96.1 96.1 70.8 92.3 94.1

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.10 (contd) Scheduled Castes Males 92.3 100.0 91.6 89.1 88.2 88.2 88.2 87.6 69.6 83.2 86.5 88.3 83.4 86.4 100.0 94.2 97.2 79.7 94.1 92.7 86.6 94.2 90.1 92.5 88.3 90.5 87.3 83.2 85.5 48.7 41.4 42.9 92.8 85.8 89.6 100.0 86.9 88.6 89.2 100.0 100.0 68.9 72.4 70.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 77.8 100.0 95.1 75.0 82.6 78.5 92.9 86.0 89.7 93.7 69.7 71.1 100.0 86.4 88.4 92.3 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 80.6 74.8 100.0 86.6 88.5 90.7

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 100.0 85.9 81.5 77.4 79.6 82.4 78.7 71.4 79.8 80.9 88.6 93.8 92.1 100.0 100.0 89.0 74.8 82.9 83.5 86.2 83.3 100.0 100.0 55.0 70.9 90.3 100.0 33.3 66.3 100.0 81.0 94.1 57.7 77.7 90.5 82.2 96.8 70.7 100.0 79.3 85.6 87.8 81.6 100.0 100.0 83.8 92.0 75.3 100.0 90.0 84.8

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

Table 6A.11 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups (Rural), 20078
Scheduled Castes Males 78.2 77.7 41.8 68.6 87.4 65.7 66.1 64.9 85.7 79.2 46.5 72.3 65.9 62.8 52.2 91.0 45.1 72.8 75.0 73.8 63.2 47.3 46.2 68.7 66.7 51.8 86.7 89.0 60.3 85.7 39.4 47.4 49.3 44.5 62.8 62.8 47.1 71.2 68.1 57.3 66.3 66.1 60.3 58.3 59.4 80.7 75.4 51.0 56.9 53.2 75.5 75.9 61.4 69.2 75.8 47.3 84.6 56.9 50.3 55.4 42.4 49.8 62.7 93.3 83.6 66.7 100.0 78.6 87.0 69.8 77.6 86.0 62.4 73.4 79.2 81.3 83.8 55.3 83.7 71.0 58.2 43.4 76.6 43.9 89.1 48.2 58.2 47.8 45.3 46.6 58.8 47.4 41.3 55.1 56.6 58.0 60.1 63.3 71.0 68.8 69.9 68.8 52.6 61.3 57.2 53.0 80.2 85.5 59.0 79.8 73.4 60.1 57.4 76.2 45.7 86.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 52.1 70.1 100.0 100.0 72.7 75.2 69.0 93.1 87.6 56.6 83.4 71.6 73.7 57.1 85.0 52.5 65.2 74.1 71.7 53.9 40.5 47.7 59.2 56.1 57.9 100.0 24.8 35.2 58.0 56.5 57.2 50.2 39.3 45.5 51.0 69.6 72.9 75.0 81.1 78.3 74.9 91.4 82.8 57.9 72.0 45.8 42.4 65.6 100.0 60.2 64.4 71.8 88.1 78.1 58.2 79.3 76.1 68.1 58.1 100.0 56.1 71.0 58.7 68.8 68.1 74.3 71.0 74.7 63.9 69.4 70.9 65.0 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 68.1 64.1 48.9 60.9 81.3 100.0 67.3 70.8 70.4 90.7 82.7 57.2 81.5 73.5 71.4 57.6 90.9 54.2 68.2

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 84.0 70.6 32.8 56.3 68.8 77.5 53.3 98.3 39.8 54.7 66.3 25.4 54.1 85.3 34.8 100.0 87.4 63.0 100.0 79.6 53.4 100.0 81.6 59.1 33.6 84.3 63.9 44.2 82.7 59.9 39.7 83.6 62.1

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.11 (contd) Scheduled Castes Males 49.3 74.4 61.7 66.7 44.9 39.0 54.9 52.5 59.8 67.9 64.3 41.2 30.4 44.3 36.7 47.7 48.5 48.1 61.0 66.5 63.9 87.1 83.7 85.6 58.9 65.3 32.1 39.9 35.6 80.6 35.3 49.1 39.8 68.4 66.4 67.6 63.2 43.6 75.7 27.9 67.0 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 51.3 77.9 43.3 66.1

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 100.0 73.1 60.7 55.4 58.3 58.8 54.9 31.3 55.4 57.0 80.5 80.6 80.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.8 69.2 72.5 59.0 61.7 62.0 62.2 80.6 66.6 54.8 54.8 100.0 100.0 55.7 54.8 74.4 75.1 59.0 78.2 74.9 67.2 86.0 67.0 67.1 81.0 70.7 67.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available.

Table 6A.12 Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078
Scheduled Castes Males 81.3 92.7 78.9 93.9 85.4 100.0 84.7 79.1 84.8 83.8 61.1 71.2 85.6 90.4 51.3 95.4 86.2 72.0 77.6 83.7 80.5 81.8 66.0 69.1 83.0 89.4 87.8 100.0 100.0 95.1 95.3 73.6 77.8 81.8 61.3 75.3 100.0 82.3 86.3 88.6 68.2 64.7 66.5 69.9 77.6 75.7 69.0 73.9 82.1 91.8 85.2 87.0 84.2 75.2 89.4 73.8 72.2 87.2 79.4 84.0 89.1 100.0 87.8 74.1 91.0 86.5 90.9 85.4 88.8 75.7 83.2 71.2 92.4 74.3 75.4 73.4 82.1 83.0 68.8 66.7 94.4 89.1 100.0 81.0 91.6 76.8 92.1 80.9 80.0 80.0 93.3 75.4 80.8 81.7 77.4 79.1 80.1 80.4 80.3 84.2 83.9 79.4 72.6 90.5 78.4 84.0 81.3 84.7 83.6 72.2 81.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.4 87.0 82.9 88.9 85.3 91.6 78.3 79.8 89.9 69.1 86.8 90.1 88.6 82.4 76.9 86.8 86.6 81.3 83.0 77.5 92.8 93.3 88.8 99.4 92.8 76.6 71.0 74.1 76.5 68.0 74.3 77.5 80.1 78.6 89.0 89.6 91.1 87.2 100.0 92.4 78.5 98.5 85.8 87.6 75.1 78.6 97.4 85.7 74.8 82.8 81.9 87.5 72.7 89.9 83.3 82.5 78.5 77.1 80.2 82.8 73.6 73.6 81.6 81.4 76.4 95.1 85.8 89.9 79.1 85.0 87.5 86.4 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 87.0 81.5 84.1 86.5 89.5 77.0 81.0 87.0 77.6 79.4 90.0 86.0 82.4 77.5 81.7 83.5 82.1 78.8 75.9

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 81.8 100.0 96.2 96.8 96.5 100.0 100.0 83.6 83.0 80.6 100.0 89.3 100.0 85.1 100.0 64.7 100.0 92.0 81.5 65.3 68.5 73.5 77.4 84.7 92.5 78.0 94.4 98.4 86.1 94.1 95.0 80.9 94.3

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.12 (contd) Scheduled Castes Males 100.0 100.0 100.0 70.7 95.2 100.0 96.0 65.7 91.7 85.8 77.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.3 97.5 95.7 77.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.4 92.2 82.7 87.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.1 89.5 89.3 62.7 87.0 70.7 84.9 79.0 81.3 87.0 100.0 91.0 87.1 100.0 100.0 89.8 95.0 92.0 94.4 95.1 94.7 85.8 91.3 78.7 100.0 99.5 90.1 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 87.8 82.1 83.1 93.4 81.2

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 76.9 96.4 80.1 80.9 80.5 82.3 82.8 71.3 83.3 82.6 78.8 80.5 79.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1 75.1 94.8 94.2 85.4 76.2 81.4 74.5 75.6 69.5 100.0 61.5 100.0 65.0 96.4 79.4 100.0 67.7 95.9 74.0 85.0 80.5 96.6 95.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.0 100.0 95.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.9 98.4 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.6

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round.

Table 6A.13 Net Attendance Ratio at Upper Primary Level, by Social Groups (Urban), 20078
Scheduled Castes Males 82.4 73.4 42.5 52.2 64.6 78.7 52.9 72.6 98.7 100.0 62.1 74.5 94.0 64.4 51.7 72.5 41.4 74.5 81.8 77.8 89.3 39.6 40.6 100.0 75.3 73.9 100.0 100.0 44.1 48.2 42.8 54.8 100.0 92.1 65.9 79.9 23.2 80.8 42.9 70.8 72.6 92.7 53.0 73.5 87.3 77.8 60.0 56.6 76.1 46.0 74.3 26.0 42.0 63.2 76.2 68.1 60.3 95.1 97.8 90.5 85.3 90.6 69.0 88.1 79.5 94.8 85.6 81.9 56.9 83.1 40.3 78.7 57.5 74.9 38.2 49.0 66.2 69.8 72.7 72.9 72.8 56.6 47.7 55.7 54.2 76.0 45.2 76.1 77.7 82.0 51.7 75.5 77.5 63.6 72.0 56.7 53.4 90.0 86.0 58.7 85.2 60.5 68.3 56.9 75.5 41.9 62.7 11.8 11.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 48.1 57.5 79.2 71.3 75.9 69.0 82.7 78.6 84.7 64.0 85.8 91.6 68.1 81.9 84.5 73.2 49.1 90.1 60.4 74.6 84.2 70.1 78.3 86.5 81.0 52.8 59.1 56.0 91.8 37.0 39.7 53.6 50.7 52.3 50.7 84.5 78.5 81.1 100.0 90.5 72.8 70.3 71.7 64.4 82.2 63.8 91.0 60.7 69.4 76.2 70.2 59.0 89.0 80.4 84.4 76.8 83.4 68.9 62.2 93.5 57.0 81.8 64.6 72.1 86.5 70.8 80.1 75.0 78.5 76.7 76.4 73.4 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 74.9 72.8 56.8 91.2 64.7 75.3 77.7 78.2 62.2 87.3 85.5 75.4 79.5 84.0 71.5 54.5 91.5 58.8 77.5

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 61.8 84.4 81.8 68.7 74.3 23.2 71.5 100.0 84.1 70.5 58.3 63.3 100.0 56.3 59.6 100.0 86.7 77.5 100.0 67.6 71.1 84.6 82.4 63.2 69.4 86.6 68.4 78.6 84.6 65.7

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.13 (contd) Scheduled Castes Males 43.8 31.3 47.0 37.2 59.0 60.4 59.1 48.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 77.9 38.1 56.1 59.8 32.0 12.9 28.2 43.3 40.3 41.3 83.6 68.9 76.4 93.0 95.5 94.0 12.2 77.8 54.9 48.6 57.4 53.7 66.6 100.0 43.4 80.0 82.0 71.6 77.9 45.3 50.6 45.1 56.9 62.8 34.8 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Others Persons 47.4 54.2 15.3 71.4 41.9

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 79.2 100.0 100.0 66.0 60.3 63.3 73.1 72.5 100.0 100.0 72.9 94.4 93.0 93.8 100.0 100.0 96.2 100.0 96.7 72.2 69.1 75.0 68.0 100.0 82.6 53.7 100.0 100.0 57.3 47.7 95.3 71.4 63.3 100.0 56.0 67.1 86.5 73.4 65.7 88.8 70.1 91.1 82.1 100.0 72.1 73.1 65.0 80.9 100.0 86.4 72.3 80.2 68.7 87.7 89.4 89.0 72.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available.

Table 6A.14 Out of School Children (6 to 17 years), by Social Groups, 20078

Scheduled Tribes Males 23.0 8.7 22.3 13.4 22.5 26.4 21.7 25.1 29.8 28.7 23.2 44.0 22.4 16.0 27.5 21.6 19.5 20.6 18.6 20.8 23.5 24.9 24.2 20.0 23.4 32.3 14.4 11.6 13.1 40.6 30.9 19.1 33.5 25.2 11.2 8.7 20.1 15.9 28.0 30.4 29.1 15.2 41.5 22.7 29.8 26.3 19.5 23.6 25.0 26.9 9.1 24.3 21.3 40.7 34.5 17.2 18.1 17.6 13.1 16.3 28.3 26.6 21.5 25.7 23.4 14.2 18.7 16.3 14.6 21.5 19.8 18.5 8.9 22.0 18.3 5.0 5.7 5.3 3.9 3.2 3.6 26.3 23.9 14.3 21.8 17.9 13.1 16.2 14.6 11.2 1.5 11.3 11.0 15.4 11.3 9.5 2.8 12.3 22.3 25.6 26.0 25.3 31.8 28.1 14.2 16.5 15.3 17.3 20.7 28.0 24.0 14.5 25.4 19.5 7.1 13.5 18.6 11.8 1.2 12.8 14.1 22.6 8.4 17.4 3.7 19.7 18.9 29.2 25.7 15.3 22.4 18.4 19.3 30.3 24.6 10.1 18.6 24.7 25.1 24.9 3.9 44.2 23.9 16.2 9.2 12.9 13.7 9.7 17.9 11.5 1.4 12.0 12.5 19.0 10.0 13.0 3.2 20.6 13.7 12.8 13.3 19.2 11.0 16.1 8.8 13.5 10.7 24.4 18.6 12.2 15.6 13.8 15.2 19.1 17.0 7.3 4.7 6.0 13.6 11.8 14.7 17.0 12.8 19.8 13.4 3.4 17.5 14.3 21.7 18.6 14.1 10.1 19.6 20.7 38.2 30.0 31.3 40.4 35.2 21.9 31.1 25.9 15.1 22.7 18.4 22.6 13.3 10.6 3.2 13.5 8.3 14.3 20.2 16.9 16.1 21.3 18.3 13.6 19.3 31.5 19.8 12.9 15.5 26.5 21.3 21.9 16.7 2.9 21.1 17.6 28.9 20.0 28.2 9.6 23.5 20.0 18.8 21.0 15.2 18.9 17.0 14.3 19.1 16.7 11.0 17.3 14.2 14.5 18.6 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Castes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Persons 16.5 16.1 26.4 16.5 12.3 15.1 21.3 16.5 20.8 15.0 3.1 19.2 15.9 25.2 19.2 20.4 9.9 21.4 20.4

(per cent)

Non Special CategoryStates

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 12.9 6.0 9.4 7.6 7.2 6.4 14.9 13.9 11.0 4.5 8.8 18.0 6.7 7.9 12.4 9.6 1.2 9.9 8.6 1.7 12.7 9.1 1.4 11.1 13.2 3.1 6.5 26.9 5.0 10.3 20.0 4.0 8.4 12.9 4.2 7.7 17.1 5.9 14.6 15.0 5.0 11.0

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.14 (contd) Scheduled Tribes Males 7.9 10.5 7.4 5.0 9.6 17.7 12.4 19.0 15.8 28.1 28.9 28.5 5.6 6.2 22.6 19.8 17.8 17.0 17.4 16.1 11.8 14.0 14.2 13.6 12.6 11.0 7.6 19.5 12.5 5.5 6.0 5.8 8.3 13.3 10.6 13.9 5.9 8.6 6.7 9.4 36.0 26.3 55.6 55.7 55.6 7.3 7.3 7.4 5.6 7.5 16.5 12.8 9.3 9.9 2.8 7.5 4.9 9.6 12.3 9.8 6.8 7.1 6.9 6.2 10.5 8.1 5.5 14.4 10.1 6.8 11.6 9.1 7.4 9.5 10.1 16.5 14.9 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Scheduled Castes Other Backward Classes Others All Social Groups Persons 8.9 9.3 7.4 7.4 8.7 16.5 13.8

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 6.3 10.1 21.7 28.4 24.8 21.0 25.0 22.8 16.6 4.7 11.2 7.7 8.1 8.4 22.2 14.5 19.6 31.6 19.2 16.7 8.2 19.2 26.3 21.9 24.6 11.1 49.9 28.0 22.4 12.1 5.0 7.3 6.2 5.3 7.2 12.7 5.5 8.2 16.3 5.4 7.5 14.3 5.3 12.3 7.6 6.1 7.0 16.9 6.8 20.4 28.2 10.3 8.6 21.8 6.1 15.5 15.6 7.7 7.7 19.2

Andaman & Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available.

Table 6A.15 Out of School Children (6 to 17 years), by Major Religious Communities, 20078
Hindus Males 14.6 12.0 20.0 13.6 10.7 15.2 16.0 11.4 18.8 13.1 4.2 17.1 13.5 21.4 21.9 12.9 10.3 16.2 16.2 17.4 16.7 29.2 18.6 17.3 33.6 41.0 24.4 9.8 10.1 11.1 10.3 27.4 19.4 27.0 37.3 17.5 20.0 15.2 35.5 24.9 31.7 10.7 37.2 26.9 28.5 32.0 43.0 37.9 15.8 14.6 20.6 29.4 24.9 21.9 17.7 19.6 46.4 5.0 6.0 21.1 18.9 22.9 22.0 22.4 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.4 2.4 16.5 14.8 17.5 19.2 18.4 2.4 22.6 18.9 16.2 100.0 6.6 20.5 20.9 19.7 23.4 28.6 25.9 23.7 24.7 18.4 14.4 26.8 46.4 36.0 25.0 20.1 28.1 44.0 35.7 18.1 7.9 12.6 24.1 2.4 22.3 18.3 17.8 65.1 5.9 14.2 15.3 15.3 20.9 37.2 26.9 10.4 10.6 23.0 28.9 25.6 10.7 16.6 24.6 6.5 19.9 16.6 25.7 8.4 16.7 13.2 18.6 15.5 29.2 23.9 36.5 44.0 39.8 21.6 11.3 16.2 17.0 14.2 17.0 21.6 18.9 0.3 39.4 22.7 20.5 21.3 42.6 23.5 18.0 16.3 15.2 26.7 21.2 18.1 13.7 15.8 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Muslims Christians Sikhs Persons 15.1 18.7 30.3 14.0

(per cent)

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 5.8 4.3 6.1 9.7 7.9 5.4 4.8 11.4 8.5 4.6 9.2 9.1 3.0 25.2 18.5 4.0 17.4 13.6 16.2 19.2 17.6

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

(contd)

Table 6A.15 (contd) Hindus Males 4.6 9.6 29.5 6.3 15.8 7.9 10.6 9.2 31.3 29.9 30.6 15.3 15.6 22.4 19.6 21.0 13.8 49.8 26.8 8.5 7.3 15.1 10.8 12.7 46.3 37.9 47.1 45.5 46.1 4.9 8.3 6.5 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.3 7.2 1.4 9.7 4.8 9.7 9.0 9.4 8.8 6.6 14.3 29.5 20.3 7.8 12.2 9.8 Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Muslims Christians Sikhs Persons

Manipur

Meghalaya

Mizoram

Nagaland

Sikkim

Tripura

Uttarakhand

Union Territories 4.9 11.4 7.9 9.6 7.4 15.5 20.2 17.7 26.4 31.5 10.0 8.5 6.1 10.0 7.7 28.8 5.4 7.1 6.2 12.6 10.8 29.0 16.1 8.7 22.8 15.8 35.4 48.4 40.2 4.5 4.7 7.7 4.9 6.4 5.5 18.2 10.7 10.5 9.7 11.8 15.3 2.1 20.9 7.6 17.7

Andaman & Nicobar

Chandigarh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Daman & Diu

Lakshadweep

Puducherry

All India

Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

373

Table 6A.16 Average Flow Rates at Primary Level, 20067

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Daman & Diu Puducherry All India Source: DISE (2010). 83.5 97.1 84.5 11.0 0.5 6.1 5.4 2.4 9.4 77.5 93.3 97.3 78.3 73.9 89.4 72.7 78.0 83.6 87.4 8.3 4.1 1.5 1.7 5.4 2.6 2.9 16.9 4.7 5.7 14.2 2.6 1.3 20.0 20.8 8.0 24.3 5.2 11.7 6.9 Promotion Rate 90.5 83.0 79.0 86.3 81.6 87.0 87.0 77.5 94.6 77.9 91.5 86.5 75.2 97.6 82.4 77.5 Repetition Rate 2.6 3.5 7.2 6.3 5.2 8.8 8.6 9.7 2.0 13.6 5.2 8.0 9.4 0.7 1.4 13.1 Dropout Rate 6.9 13.5 13.8 7.3 13.2 4.2 4.4 12.8 3.4 8.6 3.4 5.5 15.4 1.7 16.2 9.4

(per cent)
Cohort Survival Rate at Primary Level 76.7 53.4 61.7 75.9 47.9 84.2 89.6 59.9 89.7 74.8 85.2 99.0 51.1 94.9 61.0 65.6

49.2 97.1 97.3 44.4 35.7 66.9 27.6 78.0 60.6 79.4

80.0 86.7 72.0

374 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.17 Coverage of Anganwadi Centres, 20056

Non Special Category States Percentage of Enumeration Areas Covered by An AWC 74.9 77.0 75.5 68.1 34.8 77.0 80.5 69.2 86.3 92.0 87.2 64.5 57.4 71.3 64.6 65.2 96.3 62.6 72.2 Percentage of Children Under Age Six Living in Enumeration Area Covered by An AWC 86.2 88.6 87.9 78.6 45.5 74.6 84.0 73.8 91.5 92.9 90.4 9.8 74.7 80.4 64.9 65.7 97.0 76.2 88.4

(per cent)
Percentage of Children Under Age Six who Received Any Service from an AWC in the Past Year 27.5 26.8 8.8 55.2 8.4 32.3 40.5 21.2 58.6 33.5 28.7 45.8 38.0 60.5 10.5 15.9 41.6 18.6 38.0

Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand All India Source: NFHS 3, 20056.

35.4 56.6 81.4 86.7 26.8 95.3 93.0 66.7 100.0 66.3 72.4

38.7 62.4 83.2 88.9 34.7 94.6 95.8 77.6 100.0 73.3 81.1

9.6 34.7 16.6 28.0 21.9 52.7 37.9 35.4 26.6 24.5 28.4

APPENDIX TABLES

375

Table 6A.18 Average Number of Classrooms, by Type of School, 20078

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Megahlaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveri Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: DISE (2010). 7.9 23.8 3.7 6.2 12.6 9.0 3.6 11.7 33.5 10.9 9.6 16.4 7.2 8.4 27.4 4.0 6.5 12.6 11.7 4.3 3.0 3.2 3.3 4.5 2.6 3.9 5.5 7.0 5.7 3.1 8.7 8.8 10.3 8.2 3.0 6.9 11.1 6.6 11.6 6.1 3.3 3.9 4.7 5.8 2.8 4.4 7.0 6.9 6.0 3.7 Government Schools 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.7 17.8 2.8 5.2 4.7 2.5 4.0 11.0 3.0 4.3 3.5 4.3 3.7 4.7 3.9 4.2 Private Schools 9.5 2.7 4.8 5.7 20.3 9.6 8.1 9.6 6.6 8.3 12.0 6.3 9.0 4.3 12.5 7.5 9.5 5.8 1.4 All Schools 4.3 2.2 2.7 2.9 18.7 4.7 5.6 5.5 2.7 4.9 11.5 3.6 5.7 3.5 4.9 4.5 6.3 4.3 3.7

376 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.19 Distribution of Schools with 1 Room & 2 Rooms, by Type of Management, 20078
Non Special Category States Government Management 1 room Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Megahlaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: DISE (2010). Note: Not available. 2.5 2.9 1.3 2.7 9.6 2.4 26.3 0.4 3.8 2.5 4.3 1.0 1.9 8.5 31.1 6.9 11.3 2.0 22.9 1.1 0.2 2.1 0.7 2.8 1.4 1.0 0.4 1.1 20.3 1.7 0.3 1.4 0.9 29.7 6.2 9.1 1.7 21.3 1.2 0.2 1.9 0.7 2.4 29.8 59.9 5.9 4.8 21.8 3.1 2.7 2.7 10.6 0.8 4.1 7.6 5.7 3.1 3.5 0.6 7.6 Private Management 1 room 3.4 43.2 3.5 3.0 0.1 1.2 1.0 0.4 1.7 2.0 0.3 1.6 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 1 room 24.3 56.7 5.8 4.6 16.2 2.8 2.3 2.6 9.0 0.5 3.6 5.5 5.3 2.9 3.7 0.6 6.3 All Management

(per cent)

2 room 19.4 13.6 26.6 25.4 0.9 34.3 19.7 10.2 35.2 26.5 0.5 28.8 24.6 30.8 20.9 28.1 26.7 12.2 17.5

16.3 26.4 26.5 19.8 22.4 1.4 0.4 7.6 9.8 37.5

13.1 32.9 5.1 6.4 22.5

APPENDIX TABLES

377

Table 6A.20 Schools having Girls Toilet Facility, Drinking Water Facility, Electricity, Computer, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Megahlaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveri Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: DISE (2010). Note: Not available. 73.8 94.9 25.3 61.2 62.2 86.2 98.1 100 91.1 86.7 100 98.2 89.4 100 69.4 93.9 100 96.3 33.3 11.9 38.6 22 18 10.2 23.5 37 88.7 22.6 52.1 65.8 93.1 75.9 75.9 50.6 79.5 72.1 42.3 76.9 87 15.9 56.8 19.8 20.6 13.2 29.4 29.9 39.4 11.9 28.1 Girls Toilet Facility 46.7 10.5 21.6 19.9 74.1 45.4 65.3 87.3 20.7 47.2 79 47 60 28 86.1 79.3 65.6 82.4 35.1 Drinking Water Facility 90 62.2 80.6 86.7 99.5 96.5 87.2 97.4 70.7 79.6 97.6 91.9 87.5 85.6 97.7 87.7 62.3 97.7 78.8 Electricity 36.7 7.4 3 19.6 98.6 94.7 80.5 95.4 6.5 69.3 88.7 20.5 70.8 18.4 85.7 26.4 75.6 16.9 21.1

(per cent)
Computers 21.1 3.7 0.6 8.5 72.8 30.6 36.5 25.3 5.5 11.8 71.2 12.4 36.5 8 30.6 14.9 24.3 3.3 5

9.2 11.1 13 11.3 6.2 13.9 19.7 21.9 7.9 22.6

41.2 76.1 5.9 36.7 81.1 63 14.3

378 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.21 Pupil Teacher Ratio at Primary and Upper Primary Levels, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 17.0 36.0 91.0 33.0 31.0 25.0 47.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 36.0 11.0 21.0 35.0 33.0 18.0 39.0 33.0 47.0 17.0 20.0 16.0 27.0 25.0 24.0 13.0 10.0 22.0 15.0 8.0 15.0 15.0 19.0 16.0 Primary Level 32.0 38.0 68.0 43.0 46.0 25.0 30.0 53.0 73.0 23.0 28.0 41.0 34.0 42.0 53.0 43.0 44.0 76.0 51.0 Upper Primary Level 28.0 18.0 54.0 32.0 31.0 27.0 37.0 37.0 55.0 32.0 25.0 33.0 32.0 35.0 21.0 32.0 54.0 79.0 70.0

Source: Statistics of School Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 20078. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

379

Table 6A.22 Female Teachers by Levels of Education, 20078

Non Special Category States Primary Only 48.1 35.5 38.7 31.0 68.6 82.3 49.1 47.3 27.0 47.9 73.7 32.1 46.0 37.1 65.1 29.3 78.5 39.8 28.8 Primary with Upper Primary 45.1 34.2 34.4 48.4 81.5 78.2 53.5 50.0 28.3 54.0 68.7 52.4 45.0 37.4 74.5 29.8 68.7 38.0 13.8 Primary with Upper Primary & Secondary / Hr Secondary 64.3 48.8 18.0 44.4 74.7 81.7 71.2 50.8 36.4 72.9 71.4 62.0 42.1 50.2 76.5 31.6 72.6 33.9 39.1 Upper Primary Only 20.4 26.3 28.3 52.4 60.2 56.2 36.0 69.3 52.7 69.7 30.4 35.0 21.0 49.6 50.7 71.2 25.7 34.3 Upper Primary with Secondary / Hr Secondary 39.7 27.0 10.4 30.2 46.2 61.7 65.0 42.8 26.3 49.9 67.2 61.1 24.9 36.7 53.7 21.2 99.2 13.6 37.5

(per cent)
All Levels 44.9 30.2 36.5 32.9 67.5 76.5 53.4 46.3 28.3 53.2 71.6 37.3 42.8 36.7 60.9 29.3 73.9 36.3 32.4

Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Megahlaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveri Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India

37.3 45.7 41.0 41.3 51.6 48.9 42.4 45.2 20.6 54.4

37.4 63.1 41.9 41.8 61.4 52.9 44.5 41.4 20.4 58.4

30.7 60.6 52.6 43.2 68.7 53.4 54.8 48.0 30.3 54.1

34.8 24.8 55.5 35.5 38.8 27.0 26.5 50.0 63.6 31.1

22.0 32.1 25.1 48.3 49.7 35.3 33.9 48.4 23.3 23.3

35.9 42.1 43.6 42.4 51.1 42.5 42.6 45.1 24.8 46.2

56.8 78.9 44.2 72.1 40.9 62.9 42.3

59.0 84.3 57.1 47.6 42.9 61.6 45.1

55.7 80.7 75.6 66.7 41.2 59.5 55.8

72.7 92.9 41.7 45.0 12.5 35.4

55.8 84.4 60.0 43.5 37.6 45.2 37.9

57.3 81.2 55.6 63.3 40.2 61.2 42.7

Source: State Report Cards, 20078, DISE. Note: Not available.

380 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.23 Distribution of Teachers, by Social Groups, 20078

Non Special Category States Andhra Pardesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: DISE (2010). 7.2 0.2 51.1 5.8 97.6 1.4 9.1 0.4 7.9 6.2 7.9 0.2 14.2 12.3 3.6 2.3 4.2 29.0 0.2 32.8 32.8 65.5 5.8 8.3 36.2 90.0 96.2 83.7 38.9 33.4 2.8 1.8 14.4 4.9 4.2 1.7 1.1 4.2 4.0 13.6 11.3 3.5 10.4 5.8 5.8 1.2 0.8 1.9 35.3 16.5 13.7 STs 6.4 17.0 4.5 28.7 2.1 1.4 15.0 0.5 27.0 2.9 2.6 14.5 6.3 11.6 0.8 8.0 0.7 0.8 4.5 SCs 12.9 5.8 14.7 13.3 11.9 1.2 10.3 10.4 8.5 11.5 3.9 13.4 11.2 12.0 19.9 15.1 13.2 14.1 19.5 OBCs 38.5 29.6 45.0 37.7 7.9 6.6 27.1 20.6 40.2 23.7 39.7 30.7 31.3 36.6 11.5 36.7 76.7 36.5 6.7

(per cent)
Others 42.2 47.6 35.7 20.3 78.1 89.2 47.5 68.3 24.4 61.9 51.7 41.4 41.4 39.8 67.8 40.1 9.4 48.7 67.5

29.3 69.5 81.0 53.8 7.0 1.6 9.9 21.6 36.5 70.2

87.9 87.7 36.6 49.9 1.6 24.0 44.6

APPENDIX TABLES

381

Table 6A.24 Public Expenditure on Education, 20078 (per cent)

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand 7.1 4.5 3.7 6.4 4.7 9.1 9.8 4.6 4.2 Per cent of State Domestic Product (SDP) 1.9 4.1 4.7 2.2 1.4 2.0 1.7 1.7 3.1 1.9 2.6 2.4 1.3 2.7 1.8 3.0 10.2 3.2 2.2

Source: Expenditure figures from CAG 2009, and SDP figures from CSO 2010. Note: Not available.

382 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 6A.25 Average Annual Expenditure Per Student of age 529 Years in General Education, by Social Groups, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 6,591.0 1,954.0 3,045.0 1,534.0 691.0 1,536.0 8,542.0 676.0 1,203.0 4,873.0 1,459.0 1,502.0 3,640.0 1,951.0 4,052.0 2,743.0 4,310.0 3,414.0 4,511.0 4,232.0 3,021.0 4,844.0 4,255.0 2,969.0 5,427.0 2,363.0 1,323.0 1,888.0 3,542.0 2,176.0 2,899.0 6,060.0 2,226.0 1,910.0 1,970.0 4,848.0 6,052.0 4,245.0 3,235.0 2,195.0 2,531.0 3,831.0 3,435.0 4,641.0 6,922.0 3,650.0 3,874.0 Scheduled Castes 1,744.0 1,855.0 817.0 1,052.0 2,103.0 2,005.0 1,825.0 2,044.0 1,223.0 912.0 2,021.0 896.0 1,699.0 1,052.0 2,699.0 1,875.0 1,512.0 1,199.0 2,193.0 Scheduled Tribes 1,193.0 1,351.0 1,113.0 619.0 11,623.0 1,060.0 874.0 2,795.0 1,082.0 1,013.0 2,637.0 580.0 1,297.0 782.0 1,308.0 750.0 2,541.0 1,838.0 Other Backward Classes 2,134.0 2,294.0 1,239.0 974.0 4,042.0 1,483.0 1,473.0 4,061.0 1,461.0 2,227.0 3,241.0 1,586.0 2,243.0 1,663.0 3,997.0 2,343.0 2,889.0 1,558.0 3,247.0 Others 4,582.0 1,883.0 2,644.0 4,367.0 8,924.0 3,257.0 4,901.0 6,806.0 3,210.0 3,495.0 5,365.0 3,473.0 4,511.0 3,137.0 7,586.0 4,441.0 9,845.0 3,392.0 3,462.0

(Rs)
All Social Groups 2,551.0 1,921.0 1,449.0 1,082.0 6,149.0 2,895.0 2,391.0 4,880.0 1,825.0 2,339.0 3,675.0 1,645.0 3,245.0 1,670.0 5,389.0 2,593.0 2,907.0 1,862.0 2,980.0

2,064.0 4,250.0 2,354.0 2,903.0 6,040.0 2,893.0 2,951.0

3,939.0 1,757.0 3,487.0 757.0 3,505.0 2,461.0

APPENDIX TABLES

383

Table 6A.26 Average Annual Expenditure Per Student of Age 529 Years in General Education, by Major Religion Communities, 20078
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Calculated from NSS 64th Round. Note: Not available. 4,285.0 12,433.0 1,725.0 3,363.0 7,130.0 3,368.0 2,434.0 5,672.0 432.0 2,010.0 2,779.0 676.0 4,880.0 2,007.0 2,007.0 3,950.0 3,594.0 10,106.0 500.0 2,875.0 3,924.0 2,476.0 3,804.0 4,358.0 4,721.0 4,051.0 3,484.0 4,740.0 2,533.0 3,087.0 3,070.0 2,267.0 1,881.0 3,866.0 3,762.0 2,766.0 5,383.0 858.0 1,720.0 2,100.0 2,287.0 1,870.0 8,470.0 3,545.0 2,260.0 3,132.0 6,058.0 2,277.0 3,724.0 2,645.0 Hindus 2,562.0 2,258.0 1,484.0 1,043.0 5,810.0 2,330.0 2,424.0 5,020.0 1,951.0 2,183.0 3,679.0 1,565.0 3,200.0 1,707.0 6,420.0 2,609.0 2,794.0 1,862.0 3,581.0 Muslims 2,508.0 1,286.0 1,207.0 2,020.0 3,607.0 3,843.0 1,781.0 2,140.0 1,459.0 2,231.0 2,822.0 2,225.0 2,693.0 897.0 4,076.0 1,870.0 3,485.0 1,785.0 1,675.0 Christians 2,969.0 863.0 214.0 1,635.0 14,946.0 5,394.0 2,427.0 1,655.0 1,326.0 8,423.0 4,942.0 1,559.0 7,347.0 542.0 2,292.0 370.0 3,936.0 7,513.0 3,816.0

(per cent)
Sikhs 3,817.0 3,892.0 7,230.0 18,940.0 2,688.0 6,044.0 1,082.0 9,865.0 5,688.0 4,851.0 4,896.0 3,951.0 7,200.0

3,550.0 33,523.0 9,718.0 8,732.0

20,320.0 18,176.0 5,522.0

384 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.1 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. Note: Not available. 58.2 83.3 45.8 80.1 26.3 55.1 47.4 68.5 97.8 51.1 93 93.9 78.9 66.1 24.5 0.2 9.1 0.1 0.9 28.5 16.1 27 46.2 65.4 11.7 44.8 65.6 43.9 64.8 9.2 76.1 33.9 80.6 68.3 17 51.4 67.1 55.2 62.5 19.2 93.9 59.1 1.2 16.7 31.9 29.6 16.9 12.5 9.3 31.8 5.4 55.4 19.4 32.3 20.7 95.2 18.6 56.4 85.3 31.7 34.6 40.2 32.2 56.5 25.9 75.7 63 39.3 59.6 33 Pucca House 20089 77.1 27 48.3 39.4 94.7 86 75.7 94.8 43 63.5 80.3 56.9 78.9 40.3 93.4 73.8 73.5 67.8 50.3 2002 17 51 34.7 2 0.5 0.4 5 2.6 15.7 8.2 6.6 6.7 3.7 46.6 3.5 17.8 20.3 18.5 19.5 Kutcha House

(per cent)

20089 10.6 32.6 32.7 2.1 2.6 1.4 5.6 1.7 12.4 4.7 2.9 4.8 2.7 35 2.1 11.6 11.6 16.3 19

46.7 0.8 13.3 21.9 27.9 14.4 9.9 7.7 12.4 2.5

6.6 0.2 11.1 2.3 2.6 13.9 12.6

APPENDIX TABLES

385

Table 7A.2 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House (Rural), 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. 42.1 92 38.5 81.5 32 26.2 35.8 56.2 99.7 37.2 90.7 94.5 56.6 55.4 36.3 0.4 10.4 0.1 1.2 53.5 21.3 17.1 40.2 57.9 8.1 37.7 49.8 34.8 59.4 4.8 70.8 26.2 78.5 61 12.1 42.6 47 48.1 55.9 10.6 92.7 68.5 1.3 20.8 38.8 34.7 28.7 16 10.8 35.8 6.9 45.6 14.7 27.4 14.2 90.3 10.6 35.1 83.4 22.6 20.7 35.7 19.4 36.8 18.3 70.8 54.1 26.4 51.3 21.1 Pucca House 20089 70.2 20.6 44.5 30.1 98.2 77.4 62.3 92.9 34.1 48.3 77.3 46.5 65.6 32.8 90.4 65.3 61 60.5 36.3 2002 21.6 55.3 37.9 2.3 0 0.4 7.6 3.6 19.3 10.6 7.9 8.2 5.8 53 4.8 22.8 27.3 23 26 Kutcha House

(per cent)

20089 13.6 36.6 35.5 2.3 0.3 0.4 8.5 2.2 14.3 6.6 3.5 6 4.5 40.6 3.2 15.4 18.6 20.2 25.3

53.7 0.8 16.3 28.1 34.4 25.1 12.8 9 14.8 3.1

9.8 0 14.7 2.9 2.8 30 17

386 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.3 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House (Urban), 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: NSS 58th and 65th Rounds. 91.7 82.4 86.1 77.7 21.9 70.2 76.8 93.4 97.5 94.4 97.5 92.9 88.2 91.7 0.1 0.2 0 1.1 2.3 7.2 2.1 67.7 85.7 90.2 22.3 80.6 85.9 60.8 98.6 36.8 95.1 62 98 93.6 29.1 88.3 92.1 72.7 99.9 57.6 98 20.8 0.3 3.1 6.6 0.7 0.9 2.6 0 1.5 0.2 79.7 64.9 69.8 50.1 96.5 32.3 90.5 89.8 67.6 63.5 53.4 66.1 83.2 67.7 85.1 87.3 62.5 88.8 65.1 Pucca House 20089 92.8 375.5 79.4 79.9 94.4 94.6 96.1 98.8 90.4 89.3 88.7 88.6 95.5 79.8 98.2 96.9 87.7 94 90.9 2002 3.9 2.4 10.3 1.1 2.8 2.4 1 0.5 1.9 1.5 1.2 1 0.4 5.4 0.5 1.3 3.6 2.1 1.1 Kutcha House

(per cent)

20089 5.5 9.5 10.4 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.9 3.1 3 2.3 0.7 11 1.3 4.4 7.4 2.4 2.1

20.1 0.6 3.4 12.2 4.2 1.8 6.1 0 6.4 0.1

0 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.7 15.4 3.3

APPENDIX TABLES

387

Table 7A.4a Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 60.2 88.9 28.5 62.9 23.4 33.1 22.9 85.3 100 33.3 59.8 93.4 100 38.3 28.1 0 13.1 0.4 1 34.6 23.2 0 0 16.5 21.6 4 0 16.4 78.6 56.7 55 100 18 39.5 50.3 57.9 99.5 55.7 87.4 1.1 0.4 0 0 69.2 22.2 20.2 33.8 29.2 11.7 45.7 65 43.2 75 1.9 86.6 25.1 54.8 15.7 11 37.6 65.5 32 54.5 10 81 67.8 0.6 58.7 47.4 28.5 17.2 12.3 4 49.4 0 50.4 2.5 52.6 37.5 29.3 14.1 9.7 9.8 27.1 13.1 52.3 7 76.8 69 37.4 57.3 0.4 8.9 96.4 55.6 79.2 62.8 14.3 32 85.2 33.3 45.6 13.7 85.1 31 1.2 28.7 19.1 31.7 0 100 22.2 25.1 9.5 42.8 11.1 51.3 9.4 100 100 14.8 100 24 29 47.2 9.7 24.8 17.4 89.3 38 26.9 27.1 20.3 Scheduled Castes Pucca House 20089 56.8 18.1 49.3 22.4 100 89.6 45.1 79.9 20.6 55.6 73.3 36.8 54.4 25.5 73.3 41.4 71.1 53.9 28 Kutcha House 2002 29.5 60.9 34.1 4.5 0 0 19.9 0 21.7 18.1 10 8.3 10.6 45 10.7 15.9 46.4 10.5 40.8 20089 15.7 37.9 17.3 3.2 0 0 11.8 12.3 21.4 10.1 9.5 5.1 9.2 36 25.3 7.1 16.8 30.6 20.5 2002 47.8 14.6 24.1 23.9 88.5 3.8 54.5 75.6 18.3 28.3 22.9 28.7 49.8 16.3 68.9 51.9 30.9 48.8 20 Scheduled Tribes Pucca House 20089 71.1 28 51.2 32.3 89.7 67 63.9 88 28.4 56.9 67.9 46.8 77.1 32 88.5 68.4 61.7 50.4 40.7

(per cent)

Kutcha House 2002 22.9 51.9 46.3 0.7 1 6.3 4.7 5.4 14.2 11.1 15.7 10.4 4.8 57.2 5 26.6 30.9 26.3 25.1 20089 12.2 29.7 33.9 1.3 6.4 19.6 10.6 3.5 32.3 7.7 8.1 5.7 3.2 44 3.7 19.8 21.3 26.9 20.7

16.8 0.4 22.7 8.4 37.6 5.3 3.8 12.6 7.4 5.9

0.5 0 2.7 35.2 18.8

Source: Computed from NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

388 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.4b Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 81.7 87.2 68.8 37.6 59.1 44.7 38.4 95.4 58.2 94.5 67.6 85.3 66.6 100 0.6 2.4 0.3 0 23.5 17 9.4 0.7 14.8 0.8 32.4 10.2 12.4 58.1 84 86.9 89.4 9.3 85.1 61.3 52.3 97.8 89.7 100 98.6 81.2 77.9 24.3 0 0.4 0 1.9 4.3 10 49.6 40.6 70.8 11.8 28.8 86.4 40.3 53.1 11.5 77.4 18.9 61.4 58.3 15.4 57.9 20 56.3 54.4 23.5 93.8 32.1 0.8 12.1 20 20.1 13.6 20.3 14.7 24.1 10.8 76.8 1 12.7 15.7 28.6 68.3 9.4 7.6 4.7 2.8 50.6 51.6 68.1 12 46.3 78.3 51.8 71.4 15.2 75.3 39.3 87.4 72 34.9 59.6 54.3 21.9 87.5 31.2 96.3 30.6 1.4 13.2 27.3 38.7 13.5 11.8 5.8 27.2 2.4 51.9 22.6 29.6 21.3 94.3 0 44.3 82.4 30 25.1 39.3 34.9 49.9 23.8 74.3 66.6 39.3 57 38.3 Other Backward Classes Pucca House 20089 72.8 32.5 51.5 48.2 97.8 72 72.7 95.2 46.9 58 78.9 56.4 80.6 44.6 91.9 75.4 75.7 68.6 66.1 Kutcha House 2002 17.7 46.1 33.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4 3.7 15.1 7.7 6.5 6.5 2.8 48.7 6.6 19 18.2 19.5 17.4 20089 9.4 26.7 29 1.7 0.3 0.8 5.7 1.6 15.5 4.5 2.8 3.3 3.1 33 2.1 13.8 9.2 14.8 4.5 Pucca House 2002 66.4 21.7 47.4 48.1 98.1 21.2 83 91.6 56.4 45 47.4 51.6 68.1 47 81.4 77.2 69.7 75.2 40.7 20089 86.3 26.3 73.9 79.4 94.9 91.5 93 97.9 45.3 75.5 86.2 77 88.8 58.1 97.6 91.6 96.5 81.5 61.1 Others

(per cent)

Kutcha House 2002 9.2 49.8 27.1 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.7 10.2 6.1 4.1 2.4 2.4 35.9 0.7 10.2 4.1 10.5 15.1 20089 4.6 34 14.2 0.2 3.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 19.9 2.3 1.5 1.6 1.2 28.1 0.7 4.1 1 7.8 13.8

42.2 0.6 10.4 8.9 19.5 7.4 27.7 0.3 6 0.9

8.7 0 0 0 1.4 5.2 7.7

Source: Computed from NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

APPENDIX TABLES

389

Table 7A.5 Housing: Distribution of Households by Pucca and Kutcha House, by Major Religious Communities, 20089 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Pucca House Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 47.8 98.1 48.9 92.5 97.6 79.1 65.4 9.4 0.3 11.7 2.4 2.4 13.5 12.7 54.9 97.6 96 100 93.4 83.8 63.8 10.3 0 0 0 3.6 0 14.7 76.2 100 79.4 100 0 75.1 69.3 0.9 0 0 0 100 24 9.6 91.3 5.7 100 0 100 95 0 0 37.3 80 67.3 16.5 45.9 43.4 40.3 55.5 19.8 93.5 45.2 0.6 19.3 14.4 31.7 38.9 6.8 9.4 12.2 2.3 44.5 77.5 67.2 10.2 28.7 85.9 1.1 80.8 16 90.4 8.7 4.4 8.9 20.5 46.3 0 31.3 0.9 11.7 5.3 18.6 100 83.6 10.9 39.7 71.2 32.1 67.6 13.5 95.1 61.2 0 16.4 38 28.4 8.3 9.6 2.6 5.9 0 97.9 0.7 100 98.2 3.5 100 100 0 0 0 0.4 3.6 74 31.9 57 38.9 94.7 83.9 71 94.3 37.5 62 78 53 81.7 40.1 94.4 73 72.4 64.7 58.5 Hindus Kutcha House 9.8 27.5 26.4 1.7 3 2.1 6.2 1.5 23.4 5.1 4 3.8 2.8 35.2 2.5 11.4 12.3 17.7 13.2 Muslims Pucca House 84.3 12.7 51.1 76.1 88.8 87.3 87.5 90.9 39.5 70.6 79.4 74.6 87.1 56.9 84.1 83 82.7 73.6 43.3 Kutcha House 2.3 45.2 29.3 1.4 8.5 0 4 4.2 16.1 1.7 1.4 6.2 1.2 29.5 5.9 12.5 1.2 12.4 22.3 Christians Pucca House 76.4 21.2 53.8 20.2 100 89.9 47.2 100 50.2 81.6 86.2 80.6 98.6 31.7 95.4 78.2 82.7 92.8 58.2 Kutcha House 14.4 33.6 30.9 19.7 0 0.3 1.7 0 1.8 0.5 1.9 0 0.5 33 0.1 0.3 6.6 0 1.8 85.5 100 7.5 37.3 93.1 100 100 92.7 63.9 2 29.2 13.6 7.9 Pucca House 100 78.7 56 21 100 100 76.9 96.2 100 69.1 Sikhs Kutcha House 22.9 81.8 41.1 0 0 0 47.6 1.9 52.9 37.3

Source: Computed from NSS 65th Round. Note: Not available.

390 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.6 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 72.3 99.9 97.5 99.5 100 87.9 53 84.5 100 100 100 100 95.2 66 97.2 99.7 100 99.9 100 95.3 91.6 98.5 98.5 100 97.4 100 99.3 96.1 80.4 99.7 97.9 99.6 100 92.8 63.9 50.3 98.3 96.3 85.8 56.8 75.5 94.6 85.1 57.5 56.3 77.9 98.6 95.9 86.8 69.8 81.9 99 95.8 66.1 85.5 95.8 99.8 99.5 92.8 93.9 99.8 97.5 99.1 90.3 98 98.5 99.4 97.5 99.5 99.3 99.8 100 99.4 95.3 98.6 59.2 98.5 97.1 87.6 63 86.1 95.6 87 62 65.3 78.1 24.6 9.7 52.1 100 98.4 82.2 85.9 25.1 82.5 75.5 67.9 77.6 28.6 95.7 44.8 80.3 24.3 25.7 Rural 20089 93.2 40.2 24.5 81.1 96 99.5 89.7 93.4 43 94.1 92.7 81.3 81.9 44.9 96.5 63.8 92.6 37.6 49.5 2002 93.7 86.8 66 86.5 99.5 99.7 95.9 97.7 86.5 94.9 90.4 92 95.9 86.6 98 87.1 93.7 86.3 83.7 Urban 20089 97.5 94.6 79.4 96.7 98.6 97.3 99 98.3 93.9 97.9 97.9 96.9 98.5 90.1 99.3 97 97.8 89.8 93.3 2002 82.6 30.4 16.1 58.3 99.6 98.9 87.5 89.4 37.5 86.5 79.3 74.6 85.3 37.5 96.5 56.2 85.1 37.9 41.4 Combined

(per cent)

20089 94.5 46.6 30.5 84 98.4 98.4 93.4 95 51.1 95.5 94.1 85.1 89.3 52.1 97.6 72.6 95 49 60.8

82.3 98.7 96.3 90.5 75.5 89.9 99.3 96.4 71.5 88.4

89.1 98.7 100 99.1 100 98.1 75

Source: Computed from NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

APPENDIX TABLES

391

Table 7A.7 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, by Social Groups, 2002 and 20089
Non Special Category States Scheduled Castes 2002 Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 79.7 100 96.9 97.3 100 65.4 47 97.1 100 100 99.7 100 100 61.2 98.9 99.6 100 100 82.6 52.2 98.7 66.4 98.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 94.1 62.7 93.4 97.8 100 98.5 100 97.9 75.3 80.4 99.7 100 100 100 100 76.7 52.2 98.4 63.1 80.3 60.8 85.9 96.1 88.2 52.6 78.5 80.5 97.9 96.4 73.5 74.6 90.1 99.2 96.6 61.1 94.2 100 98.2 94 100 72.7 100 56 82.3 55.7 57.1 100 97.3 98.2 94.2 31.2 98.6 99.6 95.8 68.6 80.3 76 99.1 100 88.4 85.7 86.4 96.3 86.8 67 75.6 96.8 99.7 93.9 98.4 88.8 61.5 100 95.7 82.4 94.1 83.6 98.5 98.9 92.9 72.6 87.7 90.8 87.3 71 66.7 62.4 18.9 7.8 37.9 100 100 73.7 100 26.8 86.6 72.8 53.6 59.3 18.8 91.3 30.8 77.3 25 18.7 20089 72.1 34.5 26.3 72.6 100 100 85.5 100 31.2 92.5 68 67.2 75.5 21 96.2 46 86 43.9 37.3 Scheduled Tribes 2002 75.6 26.4 6.6 63.8 99.5 93.7 85.1 80.9 22.3 76.6 68.3 71.5 77.6 23.3 93.4 49.1 74.5 21.9 27.8 20089 91 48.8 27.9 89.1 98.2 76.3 92.1 89.8 36.8 90.1 87.7 85.7 85.1 44.9 95.8 63.6 92.1 31.9 55 Other Backward Classes 2002 82.2 37.2 15.8 65.5 99.4 99.8 83.6 87.7 38 83.6 77.8 77.1 85.2 41.3 96.5 54.3 87.4 34.3 47.1 20089 92.8 60 34.6 90.3 98.4 99.1 91.4 96.2 55.7 96 95.4 87.8 90.9 62.6 97.2 73.5 95.8 46.6 77.6 2002 92.2 31.9 27 84.4 99.7 98.9 96.8 94.3 62.8 92.7 85.8 92.1 93.1 63.7 99.2 78.1 96.4 60.6 50.8

(per cent)
Others 20089 97.5 44.3 58.5 95.2 98.5 100 96.9 97.7 66 98.4 95.3 95.9 96 77.6 99 92 99.7 70.4 68.4

83.2 99 96.3 98.2 89.6 92.6 100 99.7 77.8 89.1

86.6 98.9 100 100 100 99.1 84.3

Source: Computed from NSS 58th and 65th Rounds.

392 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.8 Distribution of Households with Electricity for Domestic Use, by Major Religious Communities, 20089 (per cent)
Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Computed from 65th Round. 87.2 99 100 99 100 98.3 75.2 98 90.8 100 100 100 100 67.5 92.9 100 100 100 100 95.1 86.2 96 100 76.8 100 85.3 98.6 99.4 98.2 90.6 62.4 99.8 95.5 72.9 87.3 83.6 98.7 94.4 99.2 78.3 100 100 98.6 60.4 96.5 78.1 100 100 73 73.8 96.2 99.2 98.6 63.1 100 100 100 91.9 76.6 100 100 100 Hindus 92 54.8 38.1 83.7 98.8 97.5 91.7 95 50.2 95.1 92.9 84.1 91.2 52.5 98.3 71.9 94.6 45.7 70 Muslims 96.6 27.1 38.2 92 94 100 95.1 91.1 49.6 98 97.3 92.9 95.8 68.1 84.9 79.1 99.4 56.5 47.9 Christians 93 34.9 46.5 91.3 100 99.9 90.6 100 46.6 99.1 94.1 83.5 99.5 23.6 96.7 78.2 98.8 96.5 61 55.7 88.5 100 100 100 97.5 78.6 Sikhs 100 100 34.2 100 100 100 100 98.1 100 100

APPENDIX TABLES

393

Table 7A.9 Distribution of Households with Access to Telephone

Non Special Category States/Cities Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chennai Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Kolkata Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Mumbai Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir North-East1 North-East2 All India 30.8 7.9 7.2 3.3 9.5 69.7 28 47.2 7.3 31.2 127.8 61.2 93.5 28.4 66.4 388.8 97.5 184.7 38.3 147.5 41.2 21.8 27.7 9.1 26.2 Mar2008 10.4 4.4 3.3 1.4 16.4 17.2 1.2 11.5 26.2 5.3 12.6 7.1 25.1 12.7 15.8 6.3 7.4 Rural Dec2010 31.3 22.2 25.8 2.7 43.7 47.6 2.3 32.3 51.3 26.6 41.9 26.8 53.3 36.7 46 24.8 32.6 Mar2008 75 76.3 92 14.9 60.1 58.2 11.7 75 100.8 60.2 57 55.6 82.8 59.1 58.6 52.2 57.4 Urban Dec2010 172 114.1 256.5 16.8 124.2 136.8 18.1 166.8 228.9 138.9 105.8 179.2 162.1 144 145.9 139.3 141.1 Combined Mar2008 28.3 14.7 12.6 103.9 4.4 110.1 33.6 30.4 3.6 34.5 45.3 64.2 20.3 27.4 83.5 15 47.9 23.7 35.1 16.2 14.4

(per cent)

Dec2010 70.3 35.9 50.1 159.8 5.9 208.9 76.1 77.5 6 82.3 96.7 150.7 57.7 63.9 174.8 52.3 98 62.4 93.9 49.9 47.8

104.9 46.6 80.6 14.7 66.2

Source: Annual Report 201011 and 20089, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India. Note: Not available.

394 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 7A.10 Coverage of Mobiles (Rural), March 2008

Non Special Category States Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar including Jharkhand Delhi Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Kerala including Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh including Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu including Puducherry Uttar Pradesh including Uttarakhand West Bengal including Andaman & Nicobar Islands Special Category States Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir North East All India Source: TRAI (2008). 48 47 17 69 Per Cent Rural Coverage 73 40 70 100 65 100 91 100 33 40 59 88 68 100 99 93

APPENDIX TABLES

395

Table 7A.11 Road Length per 100 Square Kilometres and Per Million Population, March 2004
Non Special Category States Per 100 Sq. Kms of Area Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Lakshadweep Puducherry All India Source: Transport Research Wing, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. Note: + Excludes Road Constructed under the JRY and PMGSY. 18.8 58.5 9.5 56.4 43.3 29.1 227.5 108.6 18 143.6 128.7 283.9 500 542.8 81.2 143.1 53.6 20.8 54.9 48.1 38.1 74.6 68.4 41.6 18.2 28.7 20.1 26.2 26.7 26 74.9 246 78.4 54.7 2010.3 276.6 73.3 64.9 14.8 104.3 368.7 53.6 88.6 23.2 124.5 137.3 90.9 42.3 131.3 101.5 101.1 Road Length (Kms)+ Per Million of Population 27.1 72.4 8.9 35.5 21.5 76 28.4 13.6 4.4 37.9 45 27.4 28.2 55.1 103.8 58.1 18.8 25.6 27.4 14.7 11.2

396 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 8A.1 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, 19934, 20045, and 20078
Non Special Category States Boys Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 6.2 4.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.6 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.0 1.1 6.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.4 1.8 13.0 0.4 2.8 2.4 1.7 0.7 1.8 1.2 12.9 0.6 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.3 1.5 13.4 0.5 2.7 2.1 1.6 0.7 1.6 2.0 3.3 3.5 1.9 2.7 2.6 2.0 1.0 2.1 14.5 3.2 4.2 1.2 0.0 3.2 2.4 11.4 0.7 7.7 4.4 7.7 3.4 8.0 7.3 5.6 5.4 19934 Girls 14.9 2.1 2.1 0.2 3.0 3.6 2.6 10.4 0.8 5.6 5.3 6.0 1.2 16.7 10.0 3.5 3.9 Children 14.7 2.7 3.3 0.8 1.5 3.4 2.5 10.9 0.7 6.8 4.8 6.8 2.4 12.0 8.6 4.6 4.7 Boys 6.1 2.6 2.0 3.5 0.3 4.2 2.7 1.4 2.3 4.4 0.3 2.4 3.2 5.2 2.2 3.8 1.2 4.4 3.8 20045 Girls 7.1 1.0 0.6 5.6 0.2 1.2 2.3 2.0 2.7 5.0 0.1 3.3 3.7 4.5 1.1 6.0 1.9 3.3 3.1 Children 6.6 1.8 1.4 4.6 0.3 2.7 2.5 1.7 2.5 4.7 0.2 2.8 3.4 4.9 1.7 4.9 1.5 3.9 3.5 2.6 1.1 1.4 2.6 0.3 1.9 1.7 3.4 1.5 4.0 0.9 2.8 3.3 20078 Children 4.1 1.5 1.4 2.4 0.5

Source: Computed from NSS 50th and 61st unit level data. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

397

Table 8A.2 Percentage of Nowhere Children by Gender, 19934 and 20078

Non Special Category States Boys Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India 19.8 32.3 25.6 13.0 4.1 7.2 6.6 12.8 20.3 35.0 17.1 16.6 11.4 6.0 24.8 10.3 23.5 14.4 20.6 8.3 25.6 21.6 19934 Girls 26.5 24.4 55.1 28.0 26.3 20.7 5.5 41.8 17.1 37.8 21.8 43.3 11.8 47.4 30.8 Children 19.7 22.1 43.8 22.2 21.2 15.9 5.8 32.6 13.5 30.4 17.8 30.8 10.1 35.3 26.0 20078 Children 5.7 10.1 27.8 12.2 11.6 9.9 10.9 15.4 8.0 2.9 13.1 8.0 13.6 9.9 17.0 2.4 16.9 12.8

Source: Computed from NSS 50th and 61st round unit level data. Note: Not available.

398 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 8A.3 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, (Rural), 19934 and 20045
Non Special Category States Boys Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 11.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 7.1 6.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 8.9 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 7.3 3.5 3.7 3.6 2.1 14.1 5.2 0.6 3.3 4.1 2.0 0.7 1.9 1.4 13.9 5.9 0.6 3.0 2.9 1.8 0.7 1.3 1.7 14.5 5.5 0.6 3.3 3.7 1.9 0.7 1.7 2.2 4.2 3.8 2.2 2.9 3.2 13.7 0.6 9.7 5.4 8.4 3.7 9.7 8.2 5.9 6.5 14.0 1.0 6.8 7.7 6.5 1.5 20.4 12.7 3.9 3.5 13.9 0.8 8.4 6.5 7.5 2.7 14.6 10.4 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.2 0.0 1.7 4.7 3.1 0.0 0.9 4.1 2.6 17.0 3.2 4.6 19934 Girls 18.3 1.8 2.3 Children 17.6 2.6 3.6 Boys 7.1 2.7 2.0 3.4 0.0 5.8 2.9 1.6 2.3 5.7 0.3 2.6 4.3 5.6 0.1 3.6 1.2 4.2 3.5 20045 Girls 8.6 0.9 0.6 6.2 0.0 1.0 2.7 2.5 2.8 6.7 0.0 3.8 5.5 5.0 1.2 7.3 1.9 3.3 2.8 Children 7.8 1.9 1.4 4.8 0.0 3.5 2.8 2.0 2.5 6.2 0.2 3.1 4.9 5.3 0.6 5.4 1.5 3.8 3.2

Source: Computed from NSS 50th and 61st unit level data. Note: Not available.

APPENDIX TABLES

399

Table 8A.4 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Gender, (Urban), 19934 and 20045
Non Special Category States Boys Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.6 0.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.1 2.6 1.9 2.3 0.0 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.7 2.9 1.7 1.3 0.0 2.4 3.2 6.4 0.9 1.3 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.6 5.7 4.5 2.6 19934 Girls 5.8 4.7 0.9 0.3 4.9 1.4 1.3 2.1 0.3 1.6 1.3 2.5 0.6 4.1 4.7 1.6 5.0 Children 6.8 3.8 1.3 0.9 2.4 2.0 2.4 4.4 0.6 1.5 2.1 2.8 1.7 3.2 5.2 3.2 3.8 Boys 3.2 0.9 1.9 4.6 0.4 0.8 2.3 1.0 2.4 1.2 0.3 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.9 4.3 1.2 5.4 5.4 20045 Girls 2.9 1.1 0.4 1.2 0.2 1.5 1.3 0.6 2.3 0.9 0.3 1.6 0.6 1.3 0.2 2.0 1.8 3.6 4.6 Children 3.3 1.0 1.2 2.9 0.3 1.2 1.8 0.9 2.3 1.0 0.3 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.1 3.1 1.5 4.5 5.0

Source: Computed from NSS 50th and 61st round unit level data. Note: Not available.

Table 8A.5 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Social Groups, 20045
Schedule Tribes Boys 9.6 5.0 3.3 5.7 4.2 1.6 3.5 3.5 5.7 11.4 6.2 15.2 3.8 3.4 3.6 2.4 0.4 2.1 5.6 1.6 0.9 2.3 2.0 13.0 8.7 5.1 5.7 3.3 0.2 5.6 8.0 3.6 4.1 3.8 2.0 5.3 1.3 4.4 2.2 12.8 7.7 3.2 1.8 2.6 7.9 4.8 2.2 0.9 1.4 2.2 3.3 3.8 2.8 3.3 1.1 4.4 2.7 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.3 9.0 5.1 7.2 2.0 3.5 3.3 1.0 1.2 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.2 1.1 5.8 0.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 5.1 3.9 2.7 2.8 1.1 2.7 3.3 2.9 0.6 0.9 3.9 4.1 3.2 0.0 2.3 2.7 4.5 3.3 0.7 1.8 4.1 0.2 2.0 2.7 3.1 3.6 3.6 1.7 3.7 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.0 3.2 0.1 0.5 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.5 0.6 6.1 1.7 1.3 3.8 4.2 1.7 2.6 1.0 0.8 1.4 0.0 3.0 4.6 0.0 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 2.2 0.3 1.6 2.5 0.7 2.9 1.8 0.9 1.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 2.5 11.2 10.1 6.6 3.7 5.6 5.6 7.3 6.2 5.6 3.3 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.0 0.5 2.5 1.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.9 2.0 Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Schedule Castes Other Backward Castes Others Children 4.9 1.2 1.7 3.0 0.4 5.0 1.3 1.7 3.0 2.9 1.2 2.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 0.4 1.8 3.2

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 2.9 7.8 5.4 2.7 0.0 1.0 3.8 8.0 4.7 1.4 3.6 3.7 2.2 0.6 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.8 1.5 7.2 3.1 0.4 2.8 2.6 1.1 5.7 2.9 2.4 1.5 2.8 5.0 1.8 1.1 3.3 1.6 2.0

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand

All India*

Source: Derived for unit level data of NSSO, 20045. Note: Not available.

Table 8A.6 Percentage of Working Children (age 5 to 14), by Religious Communities, 20045
Hindus Boys 5.3 1.8 1.3 3.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 2.4 4.1 0.2 2.1 2.4 4.6 1.2 3.3 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.1 1.7 5.9 0.9 1.8 5.7 4.2 3.6 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 4.7 4.0 5.6 1.3 0.0 0.6 7.2 0.0 3.6 3.6 0.0 5.0 4.7 3.3 4.0 2.6 0.0 1.5 3.2 2.8 2.8 1.5 2.2 1.7 0.1 2.3 4.6 0.2 3.7 2.8 2.4 2.5 1.3 2.0 0.0 6.5 3.1 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.1 4.8 4.4 3.9 0.9 2.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.1 1.9 5.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 10.2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.6 1.4 6.7 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.0 1.7 2.1 3.6 0.2 2.0 0.9 3.7 1.6 0.1 1.4 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.9 0.1 6.8 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.1 2.8 0.0 1.5 0.3 4.2 2.6 1.3 2.3 4.0 0.2 2.1 2.4 4.4 2.0 3.5 1.2 3.2 3.5 4.0 3.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 3.4 0.4 0.9 2.6 0.4 1.6 1.5 0.7 1.3 3.6 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.2 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.4 3.9 0.2 1.2 1.5 0.1 2.4 4.3 3.5 2.7 2.9 3.3 0.3 4.3 0.0 1.6 2.1 7.0 6.1 6.2 4.5 5.4 5.1 3.6 4.4 5.4 6.7 Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Children Boys Girls Muslims Others All Children 6.0 1.7 1.0 3.6 0.3 2.7 2.1 0.7 2.3 4.1 1.7 2.4 2.6 3.9 1.2 3.9 0.6 2.5 2.8

Non Special Category States

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Delhi

Goa

Gujarat

Haryana

Jharkhand

Karnataka

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Special Category States 0.3 1.9 2.6 2.4 2.5 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.7 6.6 4.3 0.2 2.6 3.6 3.5 12.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.5 7.2 1.2 1.6 0.8 2.3 2.8 1.5 0.4 2.4 1.1 1.4 2.6

Himachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand

All India*

Source: Derived from NSS 61st round unit level data. Note: Not available.

402 INDIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011

Table 8A.7 Sectoral Distribution of Child Labour, 20045 (per cent)

Non Special Category states Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Trade Hotels & Restaurants Community, Social and Personal Services 7.1 11.0 1.1 1.7 31.1 1.5 15.5 2.8 0.3 16.1 1.3 4.1 1.1 8.4 0.4 2.7 2.1 6.6 Others Total

Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Himachal Pradesh Uttarakhand All India

69.0 69.3 71.8 87.9 0.0 76.7 65.6 65.3 82.6 19.2 82.9 82.6 73.2 67.9 75.8 39.5 61.2 34.6

9.7 8.4 11.2 2.4 11.1 2.6 3.8 14.6 9.3 32.8 9. 9 5.3 17.4 12.7 9.6 44.6 25.3 43.9

3.2 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.3 7.0 4.3 1.2 0.0 1.5 1.9 3.3 1.2 2.9 5.9 0.4 3.3

9.0 7.8 15.5 7.2 57.8 17.8 8.1 12.1 5.7 32.0 4.3 5.8 3.3 7.2 7.3 5.7 9.7 9.7

2.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 2.6 4.0 1.7 1.2 2.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

87.4 80.7 68.1

0.0 4.7 16.6

0.0 5.2 2.0

6.7 9.3 8.5

4.7 0.0 3.4

1.2 0 1.5

100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Derived from 61st Round NSS unit level data.

APPENDIX TABLES

403

Table 8A.8 Percentage of Disability by Gender, 2002

Non Special Category States Male Andhra Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Special Category States Arunachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Uttarakhand Union Territories Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chandigarh Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu Lakshadweep Puducherry All India* 2.3 0.9 1.0 0.6 2.8 1.8 2.1 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.2 2.6 2.6 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 1.4 2.6 2.4 1.5 1.9 3.3 2.1 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.7 2.2 1.5 2.1 1.2 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.6 0.7 1.9 1.7 2.7 1.6 1.0 1.6 0.8 0.9 1.7 0.7 2.1 0.1 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.9 2.0 1.1 2.1 2.0 0.8 2.3 2.2 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.4 2.7 2.6 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.0 Rural Female 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.6 0.5 1.0 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 Person 1.9 1.0 1.7 1.8 0.7 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.7 Male 1.5 1.2 1.7 2.0 0.6 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.2 2.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.1 Urban Female 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.7 0.4 1.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.6 1.3 1.7 Person 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.9 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.1 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.9

Source: NSS 58th Round, Report on Disabled Persons in India, December, 2003.

Data Sources

CHAPTER 2

Census of India 1991, 2001, and 2011, Registrar General of India. Education in India: Participation and Expenditure (64th Round, 20078). Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India (Various Years). Registrar General of India, 2006. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India.
CHAPTER 3

National Family and Health Survey (19989 and 20056), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
CHAPTER 5

National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Employment and Unemployment Surveys (50th Round, 19934; 55th Round, 19992000; 61st Round, 20045; 64th Round, 20078). All India Debt and Investment Surveys (48th Round, 19912; 59th Round, 20023). Household Consumer Expenditure in India (50th Round, 19934; 55th Round, 19992000; 61st Round, 20045; 64th Round, 20078). Key Indicators of Employment and Unemployment in India, 200910.
CHAPTER 4

Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Registrar General of India, 2006. National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Housing Condition and Amenities in India (58th Round, 2002; 65th Round, 20089). National Family and Health Survey (19989 and 20056), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. National Health Accounts, 2009. Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2009. SRS Bulletin, Sample Registration System, April 2002, January 2011 and July 2011, Registrar General of India.
CHAPTER 6

Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India.

Annual Reports of Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Various Years). Annual Status of Education Report (ASER), 2009, Pratham.

DATA SOURCES

405

District Information System for Education (DISE), 2010. National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Education in India: Participation and Expenditure (64th Round, 20078). Attending an Educational Institution in India: Its Level, Nature and Costs (52nd Round, 19956). Seventh All India School Education Survey, 2002, National Council of Educational Research and Training. State Report Cards, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, 20078. Statistics of School Education, 20078, Ministry of Human Resource Development. UNESCO Global Monitoring Report, 2010. National Family and Health Survey 3, 20056. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2009. Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, 2010.

CHAPTER 7

National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Housing Condition and Amenities in India (58th Round, 2002; 65th Round, 20089). Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India.
CHAPTER 8

National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India: Employment and Unemployment Surveys (55th Round, 19992000; 61st Round, 20045; 64th Round, 20078). Census of India 1991, and 2001, Registrar General of India.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Bibliography

CHAPTER 2
Alkire, Sabrina (2010), Human Development: Denitions, Critiques and Related Concepts, Human Development Research Paper No. 2010/01, UNDP. Engineer, M., I. King, and N. Roy (2008), The Human Development Index as a Criterion for Optimal Planning, Research Paper No. 1041, Department of Economics, University of Melbourne. Census (2001), Government of India, Ministry of Home Aairs, Oce of the Registrar General, India. (2011), Government of India, Ministry of Home Aairs, Oce of the Registrar General, India. Government of Arunachal Pradesh (2005), Arunachal Pradesh Human Development Report, Department of Planning, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Government of Delhi (2006), Delhi Human Development Report 2006, Government of Delhi, OUP, New Delhi. Government of Himachal Pradesh (2002), Himachal Pradesh Human Development Report 2002, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Government of India (2010), Economic Survey: 200910, Ministry of Finance and Oxford University Press, Government of India, New Delhi. Government of Karnataka (2005), Karnataka Human Development Report 2005: Investing in Human Development, Planning and Statistics Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore. (2010), Karnataka Economic Survey 200910, Planning Programme Monitoring and Statistics Department, Government of Karnataka. Government of Kerala (2005), Kerala Human Development Report 2005, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. Government of Madhya Pradesh (2002), The Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report 2002: Using the Power of

Democracy for Development, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Government of Maharashtra (2002), Human Development Report Maharashtra 2002, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. (2011), Maharashtra Economic Survey 2010, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. Government of Nagaland (2004), State Human Development Report 2004, Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland, Kohima. Government of Orissa (2004), Orissa Human Development Report 2004, Planning and Coordination Department, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Government of Punjab (2004), Punjab Human Development Report 2004, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. Government of Rajasthan (2002), Rajasthan Human Development Report 2002, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Government of Tamil Nadu (2004), Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003, Government of Tamil Nadu. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2003), Uttar Pradesh Human Development Report 2003, Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Government of West Bengal (2004), West Bengal Human Development Report 2004, Development and Planning Department, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata. Government of Bihar (2011), Economic Survey of Bihar 201011, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar, Patna. Government of Chhattisgarh (2010), Economic Survey of Chhattisgarh 200910, Department of Finance, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Government of Haryana (2010), Economic Survey of Haryana 200910, Department of Economic and Statistical Analysis, Government of Haryana.

410 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Government of Jammu & Kashmir (2009), Economic Survey of Jammu and Kashmir 20089, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Planning and Development Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir. International Institute of Population Sciences and Macro International (2000), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 2), 199899: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. (2007), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 3), 20056: India, Vol. 1, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. Kapur, Devesh, Chandra Bhan Prasad, Lant Pritchett, and Shyam Babu (2010), Rethinking Inequality: Dalits in Uttar Pradesh in the Market Reform Era, Vol. 45, No. 35, 28 August3 September. Mahajan, Samir K. (2009), Attainment of Human Development: A Study of North-East India, Delhi Business Review X, Vol. 10, No. 2. Mehrotra, Santosh K. (2000), Integrating Economic and Social pPpolicy: Good Practices from High-achieving Countries, Innocenti Working Paper No. 80, UNICEF. (2006), Well-being and Caste in Uttar Pradesh: Why UP is Not Like Tamil Nadu,, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 40, 7 October. Ministry of Women and Child Development (2009), Gendering Human Developmemt Indices: Recasting the Gender Development Index and Gender Empowerment Measure for India, Government of India, New Delhi. National Sample Survey (NSS) (2010a), Education in India: Participation and Expenditure 20078, 64th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. (2010b), Housing Conditions and Amenities in India 20089, Report No. 535, 65th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. Oommen, T.K. (2009), Development Policy and the Nature of Society: Understanding the Kerala Model, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 13, 28 March3 April. Planning Commission (2002), National Human Development Report 2001, Government of India, New Delhi. (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. Reserve Bank of India (2010), Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy 2010, Department of Statistics and Information Management, Mumbai. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr (2003), The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sens Ideas on Capabilities, Feminist Economics, Vol. 9, Nos 23. Sen, Amartya (1988), The Concept of Development, in Behram and Strinivasan (eds). Handbook of Development Economics, vol. I, Elsevier, North-Holland. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

United Nations Development Programme (2010), Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development, UNDP.

CHAPTER 3
Agarwal, Bina (1994), A Field of Ones Own, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Chandrasekhar, C.P. and Jayati Ghosh, (2010), Employment under the New Growth Trajectory, available at http://www. macroscan.com/, last accessed on January 2011. Datt, Gaurav and Martin Ravallion (2010), Shining for the Poor Too?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 7, 13 February. Deaton, Angus (2003), Adjusted Indian Poverty Estimates for 19992000, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2531 January. Government of India (2005), The National Employment Guarantee Act, The Gazette of India, New Delhi. Government of India (2006). Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Prime Ministers High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. (2009). Millenium Development GoalsIndia Country Report 2009, Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010a), Economic Survey 200910, Economic Division, Department of Economic Aairs, Ministry of Finance and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. (2010b), Annual Report to the People on Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010c). Report on Employment-Unemployment Survey, 2010, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi. Government of India (2011), Economic Survey, 201011, Ministry of Finance and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Huppi, Monika and Martin Ravallion, (1990), The Sectoral Structure of Poverty during An Adjustment Period: Evidence for Indonesia in the Mid-1980s, Working Paper No. 529, World Bank. Institute of Applied Manpower Research [IAMR] (2010), The Challenges Facing Skill Development in India, Issue Paper, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Government of India, Delhi. (2008), All-India Report on Evaluation of NREGA: A Survey of Twenty Districts, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, Government of India, Delhi. Kannan, K.P. (1990), Kerala Economy at Crossroads?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 35, 18 September.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

411

Kumar, Rachel (1994), Development and Womens Work in Kerala: Interaction and Paradoxes, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, No. 512, 1624 December. Mazumdar, Sumit, and M. Guruswamy (2006), Female Labour Force Participation in Kerala: Problems and Prospects, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India. Meenakshi, J.V. and Brinda Viswanathan (2005), Calorie Deprivation in Rural India between 1983 and 1999/2000: Evidence from Unit Record Data, in Angus Deaton and Valerie Kozel (eds), The Great Indian Poverty Debate, Macmillan India Ltd., New Delhi. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and Enrique Delamonica (2007), Eliminating Human Poverty: Macroeconomic and Social Policies for Equitable Growth, Zed Press, London. Mehta, A.K., Andrew Shepherd, Shashankha Bhide, Amita Shah, and Anand Kumar (2011), India Chronic Poverty Report, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. Naikarran, S. (2004), A Study on the Eectiveness of Public Distribution System in Rural Tamil Nadu, Planning Commission reports, New Delhi. National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganized Sector (NCEUS) (2007), Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganized Sector, Dolphin Printo Graphics. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (2010), http:// nrega.nic.in, and http://www.sevabharatikvk.org/last accessed on 5 November 2010. National Sample Survey (Various Years), NSS Reports 402, 422, 500, 503, 508, 514, 515, 516, and 518, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. Patnaik, Utsa (2007), The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays, Three Essays Collective, New Delhi. Planning Commission (2011) http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease. aspx?relid=26316 last accessed on 5 February 2011. (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006), Report of the XI Plan Working Group on Poverty Elimination Programmes, Government of India, New Delhi. (2005), Performance Evaluation of Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS), Planning Commission reports, Government of India, New Delhi. (1993), Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. (1979), Report of the Task Force on Projections of Minimum Needs and Eective Consumption Demand, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

Radhakrishna, R. and K. Hanumantha Rao (2006), Poverty, Unemployment, and Public Intervention, India: Social Development Report, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Ramachandran, V.K. (1990), Wage Labour and Unfreedom in Agriculture: An Indian Case Study, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Sen, Abhijit (2000), Estimates of Consumer Expenditure and Its Distribution, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 51, 16 December. Sen, Abhijit and Himanshu (2004), Poverty and Inequality in India-1, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 39, 18 September. Sen, Amartya (2005), The Argumentative Indian, Penguin Books, New York. Shepherd, Andrew (2010), Tackling Chronic Poverty, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, December (http://www. chronicpoverty.org/uploads/publication_les/Tackling%20 chronic%20poverty%20webcopy.pdf) Sundaram, K. and Suresh D. Tendulkar, (2005). Poverty Outcomes in India in the 1990s, in Angus Deaton and Valerie Kozel (eds), The Great Indian Poverty Debate, Macmillan India Ltd., New Delhi. Thorat, Amit (2010), Ethnicity, Caste and Religion: Implications for Poverty Outcomes, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 51, 18 December. UNICEF (2008), The State of the Worlds Children 2009: Maternal and Newborn Health, UNICEF, New York. Vakulabharanam, V. (2010), Does Class Matter? Class Structure and Worsening Inequality in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vo. 45, No. 29, 17 July.

CHAPTER 4
A/HRC/7/5 (2008), United Nations General Assembly 2008 Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UN, Geneva. Barker, D.J.P., (1997), Prenatal Inuences on Disease in Later Life, in P.S. Shetty and K. McPherson (eds), Diet, Nutrition and Chronic Disease: Lessons from Contrasting Worlds, pp. 4158, Wiley, Chichester. (1992), Fetal and Infant Origins of Adult Disease, British Medical Journal, London. Berg, A.D. (1968), Malnutrion and National Development, The Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, pp. 11624. Dao, M.Q. (2008), Human Capital, Poverty, and Income Distribution in Developing Countries, Journal of Economic Studies, Vol. 35, No. 4. Dev, Mahendra (2004), How to Make Rural India Shine?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 40. Engle, P.L. and L. Lhotska (1999), The Role of Care in Programmatic Actions for Nutrition: Designing Programmes Involving Care, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1.

412 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Food and Agricultural Organisation (2000), Agriculture, Trade and Food Security: Issues and Options in the WTO Negotiations from the Perspective of Developing Countries, Vol. 1, Economic and Social Development Department, Rome. Gluckman, P.D., M.A. Hanson, and C. Pial, (2005), The Developmental Origins of Adult Disease, Maternal and Child Nutrition, Vol. 1 No. 3. Gragnolati, M., M. Shekar, M. Das Gupta, C. Bredenkamp, and Y. Lee (2005), Indias Undernourished Children: A Call for Reform and Action, Health, Nutrition and Population (HNP) discussion paper, World Bank, Washington DC. Grantham-McGregor, S.M., L.C. Fernald, and K. Sethuraman (1999), Eects of Health and Nutrition on Cognitive and Behavioural Development in Children in the First Three Years of Life. Part 1: Low birth-weight, Breastfeeding and Proteinenergy Malnutrition. Part 2: Infections and Micronutrient Deciencies: Iodine, Iron and Zinc, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1. Hunger Task Force (2003), Halving Hunger by 2015: A Framework for Action, Interim Report, Millennium Project, UNDP, New York. International Food Policy Research Institute, (2010), Global Hunger IndexThe Challenge of Hunger: Focus on the Crisis of Child Undernutrition, New Delhi. (2007), National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 200506: India, Vol. 1, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. (2000), National Family Health Survey (NFHS2), 199899: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. (1994), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 1), 199293: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. Jonsson, U. (1993), Integrating Political and Economic Factors within Nutrition-Related Policy Research: An Economic Perspective, in P. Pinstrup-Andersen (ed.), The Political Economy of Food and Nutrition Policies, 193205. Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore. M.S. Swaminathan, (2010), Managing the Anticipated Food Crisis, The Hindu, 19 December, New Delhi. Mehrotra, Santosh K. (2003), Child Malnutrition and Gender Discrimination in South Asia: Is the Worst Malnutrition Linked to the Worst Gender Discrimination in the World?, in R. Thakur and O. Wiggens (eds), South Asia and the World, The United Nations University. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and Enrique Delamonica (2007), Eliminating Human Poverty: Macroeconomic and Social Policies for Equitable Growth, Zed Press, London. Menon P., D. Anil, and B. Anjor (2008), India State Hunger Index Comparisons of Hunger Across States, IFPRI, New Delhi. National Commission on Farmers (2006), Serving Farmers and Saving Farming: Fifth and Final Report Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth of Farmers Welfare, New Delhi.

National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (2002), Diet and Nutritional Status of Rural Population, NNMB Technical Report No. 2, New Delhi. (2006), Diet and Nutritional Status Of Rural Population, NNMB Technical Report No. 24, New Delhi. Nelson, M. (2000), Childhood Nutrition and Poverty, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 30719. Planning Commission (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. Smith, L.C., and L. Haddad (2000), Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Analysis, Research Report No. 111: International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. Streeten, P. (1994), Human Development: Means and Ends, American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 2327. United Nations Development Programme (2010), Human Development Report 2010. The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development, UNDP. UNICEF (2009), The State of the Worlds Children: Maternal and Newborn Health, New York. (1990), Strategy for Improved Nutrition of Children and Women in Developing Countries, Policy Review Paper No. E/ICEF/1990/1.6, UNICEF, New York; JC 27/UNICEF-WHO/89.4. New York. (1981), The Impact of Malnutrition on the Learning Situation, New York. Unites Nations (2008), Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, report of the special rapporteur on the right to food, Human Rights Council Seventh Session Agenda Item 3, Geneva. (1999), Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc. nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9. Wachs, T.D. (1999), The Nature and Nurture of Child Development, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 722. Web links: www.righttofood.org http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g08/100/98/pdf/ g0810098.pdf?openelement http://nac.nic.in/press_releases/23_october%20_2010.pdf, last accessed on 18 March 2011) http://www.sccommissioners.org/reports, accessed on 18 March 2011) http://www.fcamin.nic.in/dfpd_html/index.asp

CHAPTER 5
Alagarajan, M. and P.M. Kulkarni (2008), Religious Differentials in Fertility in India: Is There a Convergence?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 48, 29 November.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

413

Arora, Dinesh and Lipika Nanda (2010), Towards Alternative HealthFinancing: the Experience of RSBY in Kerala, RSBY Working Paper No. 4. Baru, R., A. Acharya, S. Acharya, A.K.S. Kumar, and K. Nagaraj (2010), Inequities in Access to Health Services in India: Caste, Class and Region Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 38. Bhandari L. and S. Dutta (2000), Health Infrastructure in Rural India, India Infrastructure Report 2000, chapter11, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Caldwell, J.C. (1986), Routes to Low Mortality in Poor Countries, Population and Development Review, Vol. 12, No. 2. Gupta, Monika Das, B.R. Desikachari, Rajendra Shukla, T.V. Somanathan, P. Padmanaban, and K. Datta (2010), How Might Indias Public Health Systems Be Strengthened? Lessons from Tamil Nadu?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 10, 6 March. Duggal, R (2009), Sinking agships and health budget in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 33, 15 August. (2006), Is the Trend in Health Changing?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 14, 8 April. Gill, Kaveri (2009), A Primary Evaluation of Service Delivery under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM): Findings from a Study in Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan, Planning Commission of India, Government of India. Government of India (2011), Union Budget 201112, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010a), Economic Survey 2009-10, Economic Division, Department of Economic Aairs, Ministry of Finance and Oxford University Press, New Delhi. (2010b), Development Challenges in Extremist Aected Areas, Report of an Expert Group to Planning Commission of India, New Delhi. (2009a), Draft National Health Bill 2009, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (2009b), Millennium Development Goals-India Country Report-2009, Central Statistical Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2009c), National Health Accounts India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (2009d), National Rural Health Mission Third Common Review Report, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi (2009e), Nutrition in India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (200910), Performance Audit of National Rural Health Mission (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare),

Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006a), Morbidity, Health Care and the Condition of the Aged, NSS 60th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006b), Social, Economic and Educational Status of Muslim Community in India, Prime Ministers High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi. (2008), Expert Group to the Planning Commission, New Delhi. (2000), National Population Policy 2000, National Commission on Population, New Delhi. Gangolli, Leena V., Ravi Duggal, and Abhya Shukla (2005), Review of Healthcare in India, Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes, Research Centre of Anusandhan Trust. Gragnolati Michele, Meera Shekar,, Monica Das Gupta, Caryn Bredenkamp, and Yi-Kyoung Lee (2005), Health, Nutrition and Population Discussion Paper, The World Bank. Gupta, Monika Das, B.R. Desikachari, Rajendra Shukla, T.V. Somnathan, P. Padmanaban, and K. Datta (2010), How Might Indias Public Health Systems be Strengthened? Lessons from Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political Weekly, 6 March, Vol. 45, No. 10. Gupta Vikas and Mahi Pal (2008), Community Sanitation Campaign: A Study in Haryana , Economic and Political Weekly, 16 August, Vol. 43, No. 33. http://cbhidghs.nic.in/ http://dholpur.nic.in/JSY.pdf http://wcd.nic.in/ http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/30 stories/2010123055021200.htm http://www.nrhmassam.in/boatclinic.php http://www.livemint.com/2010/07/11213658/Food-billNAC-asserts- itself.html International Institute of Population Sciences and Macro International (2010), District Level Household Survey (DLHS 3), 200708: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. (2007), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 3), 200506: India, Vol 1, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. (2000), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 2), 199899: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. India Water Portal (2008), Clean Drinking Water Using Low-cost Purication Plants: A Case Study from the Work of IFMR Trust and Water Health India in Andhra Pradesh. Retrieved from: http://www.indiawaterportal. org/node/11237 Jutting, Johannes P. (2003), Do Community-based Health Insurance Schemes Improve Poor Peoples Access to Health

414 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Care? Evidence From Rural Senegal, OECD Development Centre, France. Kumar, Girish (2003), Promoting Public-Private Partnership in Health Services, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 29, 19 July. Lalvani, Mala (2010), Bharat Nirman: A Stocktaking, Economic & Political Weekly, 24 April, Vol. 45, No. 17. Levinson F. James, Jessica Barney, Lucy Bassett, and Werner Schultink (2007), Utilization of Positive Deviance Analysis in Evaluating Community-based Nutrition Programs: An Application to the Dular Program in Bihar, India, Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 3, The United Nations University. MOSPI (2009), MDG India Country Report 2009, Government of India, New Delhi. Mehrotra, Santosh K. (2003), Child Malnutrition and Gender Discrimination in South Asia: Is the Worst Malnutrition Linked to the Worst Gender Discrimination in the World?, in R. Thakur and O. Wiggen (eds), South Asia and the World, The United Nations University. (2006), Well Being and Caste in Uttar Pradesh, Why UP Is Not Like Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political Weekly, 7 October. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and Enrique Delmonica (2007), Eliminating Human Poverty: Macro Economic and Social Policies for Equitable Growth, Zed Press, London. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and S. Kapoor (2009), Capability Deprivation of Women: Are Women Holding Up Half the Sky in Asia?, Journal of Asian Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 3. Mitra, Asok (1978), Indias population: Aspects of Quality and Control, Family Planning Foundation of India, New Delhi. National Institute of Health and Family Welfare and Centre for Management of Health Service (2007), Assessment of Nursing Management Capacity in the States of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, Executive Summary. National Sample Survey (2010a), Housing Conditions and Amenities in India, Report No. 535, NSS 65th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. (2010b), Household Consumer Expenditure in India 200708, Report No. 530, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. (2004a), Housing Condition in India, 2002: Housing Stock and Construction, Report No. 488, NSS 58th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2004b), Housing Condition in India: Housing Amenities and Other Characteristics, Report No. 488, NSS 58th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. Planning Commission (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

(2011), Mid Term Appraisal Eleventh Five Year Plan 20072012, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Registrar General of India [RGI], (2006), Population Projections for India and States 20012026, Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections Constituted by the National Commission on Population, Oce of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, May, New Delhi. SRS (2011), SRS Bulletin, Sample Registration System, January and July, Registrar General of India. Selvaraj S., K. Karan, and Anup (2009), Deepening Health Insecurity in India: Evidence from National Sample Surveys since 1980s, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 40, 3 October. Shah, U. and R. Mohanty (2010), Private Sector in Indian Healthcare Delivery: Consumer Perspective and Government Policies to Promote Private Sector, L.N. Welingkar Institute of Management Development and Research, Matunga, Mumbai. Sundararaman, T. and Garima Gupta (2010), Human Resource for Health: The Crisis, the NRHM Response and the Policy Options, IAMR Policy Brief Paper. The Action Research Unit (2008a), Impact Assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats, TARU Primary Study, UNICEF. (2008b), Impact assessment of Nirmal Gram Puraskar Awarded Panchayats, TARU Primary Study, UNICEF. The Research Institute (2009), RSBYCHIS Evaluation Survey, Comprehensive Health Insurance Agency of Kerala. UNICEF (2009), State of the Worlds Children, Oxford University Press, New York. World Bank (2009), World Development Indicators 2009, World Bank, Washington DC. (2010), The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Sanitation in India, Water and Sanitation Programme, New Delhi. World Health Organization [WHO] (2010), World Health Statistics 2010, World Health Organization, Geneva. Visaria, L. (2000), Innovations in Health, Seminar, last accessed on 12 Feb 2011, May. Web Links: www.righttofood.org www.rsby.gov.in www.indiaseminar.com/2000/4

CHAPTER 6
ASER (2011), Annual Status of Education Report (Rural): 2010 (Provisional), PRATHAM, New Delhi. (2010), Annual Status of Education Report (Rural): 2009, PRATHAM, New Delhi. Centre For Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) (2009), How Did the UPA Spend Our Money?, Government of India, New Delhi.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

415

Central Statistical Organization (CSO) (2010), Statement: Gross State Domestic Product at Current Prices, Government of India, New Delhi. Chakrabarti, Anindita and Rama Joglekar (2006), Determinants of Expenditure on Education: An Empirical Analysis Using State Level Data, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 15, 15 April. Chand, V.S. and G. Amin-Choudhary, (2006), Shiksha Sangam: Innovations under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Chandrasekhar, S. and A. Mukhopadhyay (2006). Primary Education as a Fundamental Right: Cost Implications, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 35, 2 September. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) (2009), Combined Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Union and State Government in India: For the Year 200708, Vols I and III, Government of India, New Delhi. De, A., M. Samson, and C. Noronha (2007), Towards More Benets from Delhis Mid Day Meal Scheme, Collaborative Research and Dissemination (CORD), New Delhi, January. Government of India (2010), Education in India, 200708: Participation and Expenditure, NSSO, Report No. 532, New Delhi. (2009a), 10th Joint Review Mission of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Government of India (2031 July), Aide Memoire, New Delhi. (2009b), The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, New Delhi. (200910), Annual Report, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. (2008), The Report of the Steering Committee on Elementary Education & Literacy for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (200712), Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006), Annual Report, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006), Performance Audit Report on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), CAG Report No. 15 of 2006, New Delhi. (2005), Selected Educational Statistics (200405), Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. (2002), 7th All India Educational Survey (2002), National Council for Education and Research Training, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi. (1983), National Building Code of India: 1983, Bureau of Indian Standards, Government of India, New Delhi. (Selected Years), Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.

International Institute of Population Sciences and Macro International (2007), National Family Health Survey (NFHS 3), 200506: India, International Institute of Population Sciences, Mumbai. Jha, P. (2005), Withering Commitments and Weakening Progress: State and Education in the Era of Neoliberal Reforms, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 33, 13 August. Kapur, Devesh, Chandra Bhan Prasad, Lant Pritchett, and Shyam D. Babu (2010), Rethinking Inequality: Dalits in Uttar Pradesh in the Market Reform Era, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 35, August. Kingdon, G. and V. Sipahimalani, (2010), Para-Teachers in India: Status and Impact, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 45, No. 12, 20 March. Kingdon, G. and R. Banerji (2009a), School Functioning in Rural North India: Evidence from School-TELLS Survey, Institute of Education, University of London. (2009b), Addressing School Quality: Some Policy Pointers from Rural North India, Policy Brief, Research Consortium on Educational Outcomes & Poverty, September. Kingdon, Geeta (2010), The Impact of the Sixth Pay Commission on Teacher Salaries: Assessing Equity and Eciency Eects, Working Paper No. 29, Research Consortium on Educational Outcomes and Poverty, Institute of Education, University of London. Kremer, Michael, Nazmul Chaudhury, Halsey F. Rogers, Karthik Muralidharan, and Jerey Hammer (2005), Teacher Absence in India: A Snapshot Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 3, Nos 23. Marwaha, P. (2009), Right to Education Bill, 2009: Will It Help All Indians Make the Grade?, Business Line, 24 July 24. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and Enrique Delamonica, (2007), Eliminating Human Poverty: Macroeconomic and Social Policies for Equitable Growth, Zed Press, London. Mehrotra, Santosh K. (Forthcoming), The Cost and Financing of The Right to Education in India: Can We Fill the Financing Gap? International Journal of Educational Development. Mehrotra, Santosh K., P.R. Panchamukhi, Ranjana Srivastava, Ravi Srivastava (2005), Universalizing Elementary Education in India: Uncaging the Tiger Economy, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and R. Jolly (eds) (1997), Development with a Human Face: Experiences in Social Achievement and Economic Growth, Clarendon Press Oxford, New York. Mehta, Arun, C. (2008), Elementary Education in India: Progress Towards UEE: Analytical Report 200607, NUEPA, New Delhi. NUEPA, (2010), District Information System for Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, New Delhi.

416 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PROBE (1999), Public Report on Basic Education in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Rogers, F.H. and E. Vegas (2009), No More Cutting Class?: Reducing Teacher Absence and Providing Incentives for Performance, Policy Research Working Paper No. 4847, Development Research Group and Human Development Network, World Bank, February. Sankar, Deepa (2008), Unravelling Teachers Time on Task and Nature of Tasks: Evidence from Three Indian States, World Bank, New Delhi. Self, S. and R. Grabowski (2009), Agricultural Technology and Child Labor, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40. Singh, R. (2009), The Wrongs in the Right to Education, The Times of India, 6 July. , Tilak, J.B.G. (2007a), Inclusive Growth and Education: On the Approach to Eleventh Plan, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 38, 22 September. (2007b), The Kothari Commission and Financing of Education, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 10, 10 March. UNESCO (2010), Reaching the Marginalized, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris. (2009), Education Indicators Technical Guidelines, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Monireal. (2006), Literacy for Life, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris. (2005), Education for All:The Quality Imperative, EFA Global Monitoring Report, Paris.

CHAPTER 7
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (2005), $750 Million ADB Financing Facility to Help Improve Indias Rural Road Network, 23 December. http://www.adb.org/Media/ Articles/2005/9054_India._rural_road_network_poverty/ default.asp, last accessed on 15 November 2010. Bhavnani, Asheeta., Rowena Won-Wai, Chiu, Subramaniam Janakiram, and Peter Silarszky (2008), The Role of Mobile Phones in Sustainable Rural Poverty Reduction, World Bank, Washington, DC. Blixt, P. (2005), Mobile Telephony in Rural India: Adapting the Mobile Telephone to the Conditions of the Unprivileged Rural India, Department of Numerical Analysis and Computer Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Chawla S.R., et al. (1986), Socioeconomic Aspects of Rural Roads in Karbi-Anglong, Assam, NCAER, New Delhi. et al. (1981), Socioeconomic Aspects of Rural Roads in Bhiwani District, Haryana, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi. DRDA Website of the East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. http://eastgarohills.nic.in/drda/success_stories.htm# Songsakpercent20LCH, last accessed on 13.6.2010.

Fan, Shenggen, Peter B.R. Hazell, and Sukhdeo Thorat (1999), Linkages between Government Spending, Growth, and Poverty in Rural India, Research Report No. 110, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC. Government of India (2011a), Economic Survey of India 2010 11, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. (2011b), Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. (2011c), Union Budget 201112, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. (2010a), DMU Report, Bharat Nirman, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi. (2010b), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Annual Report 200910, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, New Delhi. (2006), PMGSY Brieng Book, Ministry of Rural Development, February, New Delhi. Jayapadma, R.V. (2005), Gram Vikas Housing Programme Orissa in Participatory Rural Habitat Processes; Emerging Trends, Vol 1; Development Alternatives, Building Social Housing Foundation, January. Kathuria, Rt., Mahesh Uppal, and Mamta (2009), An Econometric Analysis of the Impact of Mobile, in India: The Impact of Mobile Phones in Vodafone Policy Paper Series, No. 9, New Delhi. Krishna, Anirudh and Abusaleh Shari (2011), The Irrelevance of National Strategies? Rural Poverty Dynamics in States and Regions of India, 19932005, World Development. Vol. 39, No. 4. Kundu A. (2009), Access to Basic Amenities and Urban Security: An International Analysis with a Focus on the Social Sustainability of Cities in India Urban Poverty Report 2009, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, and UNDP, New Delhi and Washington, DC. Planning Commission (2009), Evaluation Report on Indira Awas Yojana: Jammu and Kashmir, Programme Evaluation Organization, Government of India, New Delhi; Population Research Centre, Department of Economics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, February. (2008), Eleventh Five Year Plan 200012, Government of India, New Delhi. (2005), Evaluation Study on Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY)Executive Summary, Programme Evaluation Organization, Government of India, New Delhi. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peoevalu/peo_pmgsy.pdf, last accessed on 21.6.2010. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/peoreport/peo/peo_ iay.pdf, last accessed on 15.6.2010. Pradhan, P. Rudra (2009), Rural Infrastructure is a Key to Rural Poverty: The Indian Experience, The ICFAI Journal of Infrastructure.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

417

Sinha, C. (2005), Eect of Mobile Telephony on Empowering Rural Communities in Developing Countries, International Research Foundation for Development (IRFD), Cambridge, USA. TRAI (2011), Annual Report 201011, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010), Annual Report 200910, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi. (2009), Annual Report 20089, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi. (2008), Measures to Improve Telecom Penetration in Rural IndiaThe Next 100 Million Subscribers, Paper No. 1/2008, Government of India, New Delhi. Web-links https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/Overview. pdf, last accessed on 15.9.2010. http://www.energysavingnow.com/paper/dgindia/, last acessed on 11.10.2010. http://www.martinot.info/china.htm#law, last accessed on 11.10.2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energyenvironment/31renew.html, last accessed on 11.10.2010. http://rggvy.gov.in/rggvy/rggvyportal/index.html, last accessed on 4.10.2010. http://pmgsy.nic.in/, last accessed on 18.6.2010. http://morth.nic.in/writereaddata/sublinkimages/overview_ NH3244795788.htm, last accessed on 10.6.2010. Vodafone (2005), Africa: The Impact of Mobile Phones, Vodafone Policy Paper series, No. 2. (2009), Annual Report 20089, Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi.

CHAPTER 8
Ahuja, R. (2003), Old-Age Income Security for the Poor, Economic and Political Weekly Commentary, Vol. 38, No. 37, 13 September. Alam, M. and M. Mukherjee (2003), Ageing, ADL Disabilities and Need for Public Health Initiatives, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, November. Basu, K. and P.H. Van (1998), Economics of Child Labor, American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 3, June. Basu, K. (2003), Policy Dilemmas for Controlling Child Labor, Center for Analytical Economics (CAE) Working Paper #0311, September. Braithwaite, J., R. Carroll, D. Mont, and K. Peey (2008), Disability & Development in the World Bank: FY 2000 2007, SP Discussion Paper No. 0808, World Bank, May, Washington, DC. Census of India (1981, 1991, and 2001), Ministry of Home Aairs, Government of India, New Delhi. Chakrabarty, S. and U. Grote (2009), Child Labour in Carpet Weaving: Impact of Social Labeling in India and Nepal, World Development, Vol. 37, No. 10.

Chandrasekhar, C.P., J. Ghosh, and A. Roychowdhury (2006), The Demographic Dividend and Young Indias Economic Future, Special Article, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 49, 9 December. Contreras, S. (2007), Child Labour Participation, Human Capital Accumulation, and Economic Development, Journal of Macro Economics, Vol. 30. Dave Committee (2000), The Project OASIS Report (Old Age Social and Income Security Project), Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi, January. Edmonds, E.V. and S. Sharma (2005), Investments in Children Vulnerable to Bondage, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College and NBER, March. Government of India (2008), Report of the Working Group on Child Labour for the 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. (2010), National Programme for the Health Care of the Elderly (NPHCE): An Approach towards Active and Healthy Ageing, Operational Guidelines (2010), Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi. (2006), National Policy for Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, New Delhi February. (2005), National Plan of Action for Children 2005, Department of Women and Child Development, Government of India, New Delhi. Grootaert, C. and R. Kanbur (1995), Child Labour: An Economic Perspective, International Labour Review, Vol. 134, No. 2. Guernsey, K., M. Nicoli, and A. Ninio, (2007), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Its Implementation and Relevance for the World Bank, Social Protection (SP) Discussion Paper No. 0712, World Bank, June. Gupta, I., P. Dasgupta, and M. Sawhney (2001), Health of the Elderly in India: Some Aspects of Vulnerability, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. Gupta, I. and D. Sankar (2001), Health of the Elderly in India: A Multivariate Analysis, Discussion Paper Series No. 46, Institute of Economic Growth, University Enclave, Delhi. James, K.S. (2008), Glorifying Malthus: Current Debate on Demographic Dividend in India, Special Article, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 25, June. Kumar, A. and N. Anand (2006), Poverty Target Programs for the Elderly in India: With special reference to National Old Age Pension Scheme, 1995, Background paper for the Chronic Poverty Report 20089, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, UK, February. Mehrotra, Santosh K. and M. Biggeri, (2007), Asian Informal Workers. Global Risks, Local Protection, Routledge, London, and Routledge, Delhi.

418 BIBLIOGRAPHY

(2002), The Subterranean Child Labour Force: Subcontracted Home Based Manufacturing in Asia, Innocenti Working Paper No. 96, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, Italy, November. Mont, D. (2007), Measuring Disability Prevalence, SP Discussion Paper 0706, World Bank, Washington DC, March. Nagarajan, R. and S. Mitra (2005), Making Use of the Window of Demographic Opportunity: An Economic Perspective, Special Article, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 50, 10 December. National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) (2008), Abolition of Child Labour and Making Education a Reality for Every Child as a Right, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, New Delhi. National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) (2006), Morbidity, Healthcare and the Condition of the Aged, 60th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. (2003), Dierently-abled Persons in India, Report No. 485 (58/26/1), 58th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi, December. (Various Years), 36th, 47th, 50th, 58th, 61st, and 64th Rounds, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi. Pal, S. (2006), Old age Poverty in the Indian States: An analysis of the 55th Round NSS Data, Report prepared for the World Bank, World Bank, Washington, DC, June. Palacios, R. and S. Pal, (2005), Old Age Poverty in the Indian Status: What the Household Data Can Say?, World Bank, Washington, DC, 4 May.

Palley, T.I. (2002), The Child Labour Problem and the Need for International Labour Standards, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 36, Issue No. 3, September. Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (PFRDA) (2010), Swavalamban Scheme: Operational Guidelines, Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, Government of India, New Delhi. Rajan, S.I. and A. Sabu (2007), Population Projections for India, 20012101, Centre for Development Studies. Thiruvananthapuram, Unpublished. Satpathy, A.K., H.R. Sekar, and A.K. Karan (2010), Rehabilitation of Child Labour in India: Lessons Learnt from the Evaluation of NCLPs, V.V. Giri National Labour Institute, Noida. Self, S. and R. Grabowski, R. (2009), Agricultural Technology and Child Labour, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40. Sharma, S.K. (IAMR) (2009), Projection of Human Resource Requirement in the Field of Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities, IAMR Report No. 1/2009, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Delhi, August. United Nations (2008), Mainstreaming Disability in the Development Agenda, Commission for Social Development, Economic and Social Council, United Nations, New York, February. World Health Organization (2007), World Report on Disability and Rehabilitation Working towards Inclusion, Update No. 1, World Health Organization, Geneva, April. World Bank (2009), People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes, Human Development Unit, South Asia Region, World Bank, , Washington, DC, July. (2003), Education for All: Including Children with Disabilities, Education Notes, Education, World Bank, August.