Dr. Devendra Kothari
Population and Development Analyst,
Forum
for Population Action
As per the Rajan Panel
Report around 50% of total population of India is residing in the least
developed States after 60 years of the planned development. So what kind of
achievement did we achieve?
A
panel headed by Raghuram Rajan, an economist respected not
just in India but across the (financial) world especially for his work on
recession, has recommended a new index of backwardness to determine
which States need special assistance.[1]
It has
developed an index of backwardness composed of 10 equally weighted indicators
for monthly per capita consumption expenditure, education, health, household
amenities, poverty rate, level of female literacy, percentage of the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe population, urbanization rate, financial inclusion and
physical connectivity. The 10 States that score above 0.6 (out of 1) on the
composite index have been classified as “Least Developed,” the 11 States that
scored from 0.4 to 0.6 are “Less Developed” and the seven States that scored
less than 0.4 are “Relatively Developed”. The panel reco0mmended that less
developed states rank higher on the index and would get larger allocations
based on the need criteria.
The least developed states include, apart from Odisha
and Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam,
Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The relatively developed states
according to the index are Haryana, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Kerala
and Goa, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Three tier ranking of States
of India
|
||
Category
|
States
|
% of total population
|
Least Developed States (10)
|
Odisha, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Arunachal, Assam, Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan
|
48.0
|
Less
Developed States (11)
|
Manipur, West Bengal, Nagaland,
Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Mizoram, Gujarat, Tripura, Karnataka,
Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh
|
27.0
|
Relatively Developed States (7)
|
Haryana, Uttarakhand, Kerala,
Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Goa
|
23.0
|
Union Territories (7)
|
-
|
2.0
|
Total
|
100.0
|
|
The table indicates that 50% of total population of
India was enumerated in the Least Developed States even after 60 years of the
planned development. So what kind of
achievement did we achieve? In the battle that is more backward, the post discusses the Rajan panel report and its
implications.
The panel was set up after persistent
demand from Bihar Chief Minister who insisted a “special category” status to get
more funds for its development. This sparked off a demand from several other States
such Odisha and West Bengal for a special category status. While the proposed index
will ensure more funds for such States from the central kitty, it has stopped
short of conferring the "special category" tag on the States.
There may be some disagreement with the
panel’s decision to use certain indicators.[2] In
its report, the panel, however, defended its choice of indicators: “Since we
are interested in measuring the State population’s well-being”. Further, rejecting
the Raghuram Rajan Committee report for "skewed" allocation formula,
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister in a letter to Prime Minister said that it was a "thinly
disguised attempt to provide an intellectual justification to deliver resources
to a potential political ally." It is also argued that the skewed
allocation formula which the committee has recommended severely penalizes States
which have consistently worked towards national goals of development and
welfare, like population stabilization and higher level of literacy and women empowerment.
It pushes resource allocation to populous States which have historically
underperformed.It is not as
if the
Least Developed States like UP and Bihar are not getting anything from
the Centre right
now. These
states are getting more funds than other deserving States
like Maharashtra. What has this led to in the last 3-4 decades?
However, it is a reasonably good report, reflecting the
prevailing situation. For example, it recognizes that Bihar (Jharkand), Madhya
Pradesh (Chhattisgarh), Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan are among the most backward States of
India. In eighties, Prof. Ashish Bose called them “Bimaru” (Hindi for sick) States because of their
poor reproductive health indicators like high fertility, high maternal and
infant mortality, low contraceptive prevalence, low female literacy and a poor
sex ratio amid poor socio economic development. The term - “Bimaru”-, however, is a derogatory one;
it's come to mean chronic backwardness and sickness. Such connotation can only
demoralize people in the places it refers to. Why not give the nametag a timely
burial? No doubt, these Four Large North Indian (FLNI) States are still far behind
and needs special attention.[3] But
simply providing the fund is not going to solve the problem. Reasons being backwardness in the LD States should be
studied as well as the progressiveness of Relative Developed States of Kerala
and Tamil Nadu.
What is holding back growth
story of the Least Developed States? The human development related variables
are very crucial[4],
which are not given due importance in the development planning of these States. These States are growing slowing not
because of low per capita consumption expenditure, high level of poverty, low
level of urbanization and poor connectivity, but mainly due to failure to give
importance to human resource development variables in the development planning like
reproductive health; literacy especially female literacy; household amenities
among others. And that explain why some States should grow faster than others,
as shown in Table 2.Population Stabilization and female education were
given more importance by the Relatively Developed States. Investment on
education by families is higher in these states. Public health system is always
affordable to common man.
Table 2: Human Development indicators and level of
development, some selected States, 2011.
|
||||||||
Indicators
|
Relatively Developed States
|
Least Developed States
|
||||||
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
TN
|
Punjab
|
M’sthra
|
Kerala
|
Bihar
|
MP
|
UP
|
Raj.
|
|
A.
Reproductive health:
|
||||||||
·
Decadal
population growth (%) 2001-11
|
15.6
|
13.7
|
16.0
|
04.9
|
25.1
|
20.3
|
20.1
|
21.4
|
·
Total
Fertility Rate
|
1.7
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
3.6
|
3.1
|
3.4
|
3.0
|
·
Unwanted
births per
woman (2005-06)
|
0.4
|
0.5
|
0.4
|
0.1
|
1.6
|
1.0
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
·
Infant
Mortality Rate
|
22
|
30
|
25
|
12
|
44
|
59
|
57
|
52
|
·
Maternal
Mortality Rate (2007-08)
|
97
|
172
|
104
|
81
|
261
|
269
|
359
|
318
|
B.
Literacy level
|
||||||||
·
Female literacy (%)
|
74
|
71
|
76
|
92
|
53
|
60
|
59
|
53
|
·
Male
literacy (%)
|
87
|
82
|
90
|
96
|
73
|
80
|
79
|
80
|
·
% of
school compiling pupil-teacher ratio
|
53
|
40
|
63
|
94
|
5
|
21
|
16
|
4
|
C. Household with amenities like:
|
||||||||
·
Tap water
|
80
|
51
|
70
|
77
|
04
|
23
|
27
|
41
|
·
Flush latrine
|
42
|
59
|
43
|
65
|
20
|
26
|
30
|
28
|
·
No latrine
|
52
|
21
|
47
|
5
|
77
|
71
|
64
|
65
|
·
Electricity
|
93
|
97
|
84
|
94
|
16
|
67
|
37
|
67
|
·
LPG as cooking
fuel
|
48
|
54
|
43
|
36
|
08
|
18
|
20
|
23
|
Source:
Census of India 2011 – Tables on Houses, Household Amenities and Assets
and SRS Bulletin, Registrar
General & Census Commissioner, India’ and National Family Health
Survey-3, Mumbai, IIPS, 2007.
|
||||||||
The
main reason of slow pace of development in the Less Developed States is high
rate of population growth mainly fueled by unwanted fertility, as shown in
Table 2. Total Fertility Rate (TFR)
indicates the average number of children expected to be born per woman during
her entire span of reproductive period. On an average, a woman in India
produces 2.4 children during her lifetime; however, there is a wide diversity
of fertility levels among States. It ranges from 1.7 in Tamil Nadu to 3.6 in
Bihar, as per the SRS-2011. The replacement level
fertility of 2.1 children per woman, required to initiate the
process of population stabilization, has already been attained by the Relatively
Developed States of Tamil Nadu (1.7),
Punjab (1.8), Kerala (1.8) and Maharashtra (1.8). On the other hand, the least
developed States of Bihar (3.6), Uttar Pradesh (3.4), Madhya Pradesh (TFR
3.1) and Rajasthan (3.0) have a long way to go before they achieve this
level. At the same time total unwanted
fertility was the highest in Bihar and lowest in Kerala. The total unwanted
fertility ranges from 0.1 children per women in Kerala to 1.6 children in
Bihar. Aside from Bihar, the difference is one child or more in Uttar Pradesh
(1.5), and Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan (1.0 each). What are the implications of such scenario?
The emerging demographic peculiarity could have major
ramifications as India attempts to continue its high growth rate over the
coming decades and future development of the Least Developed States. The level of unwanted
fertility is an indicator of imperfect control over the reproductive process. Thus, in order
to bring Least Developed States into main stream, one has to improve the
availability of reproductive health services looking to the needs of clients.[5]
Another issue which
needs equal attention is quality of education, especially female education.
Unless education is rescued from quagmire of mediocrity, all talk about
developing a skilled human resource pool and realizing the country`s
demographic dividend will be without substance; and the country would be
inching closer to demographic disaster.[6] Living conditions are equally important in
producing an enabling environment for development, as shown in Table 2. Any improvement in access to toilet
facilities, water, electricity and LPG is likely to result in a considerable
reduction in domestic drudgery especially for girls/women, freeing up their
time for other activities including schooling. [7]
In conclusion, the Rajan
Panel Report
better captures the stage of development in a State, how backward it is or how
relatively less backward it is and is a good measure for planning and
devolution of funds. But simply providing the fund is not going to solve the
problem, unless it is linked with the performance of certain
variables, as shown in Table 2. Maximum focus in improving the human
resources will bring highest dividends in terms of all round development.
[1] Refer: Government of India, Report of
the Committee for evolving a composite index of States, Ministry of Finance, Government
of India, September, 2013.
[2] Refer article by, “Rajan panel report: A quickie and it
shows”, Times of India, October 23, 2013.
[3] “Emerging
demographic divide: A dilemma for India”,
Blog Entries by Devendra K Kothari at kotharionindia.blogspot.com, posted February
29, 2012.
[4] “India: Why pace of
development is slow?” Blog Entries by Devendra K Kothari at
kotharionindia.blogspot.com, posted September 25, 2013..
[5] Kothari,
Devendra and Sudha Tewari. 2009. Slowing
Population Growth in India: Challenges, Opportunities and the Way Forward. MIPD
Policy Brief No. 2, Management Institute of Population and Development,
(Parivar Seva Sanstha, New Delhi).
[6] “How India is managing its ‘Demographic
Dividend”,
Blog Entries by Devendra K Kothari at kotharionindia.blogspot.com, posted June
26, 2011.
[7] “Quality of life and living environment in India”, Blog Entries by Devendra K Kothari
at kotharionindia.blogspot.com, posted September 9, 2012.
