Human Development and Deprived Groups in India
Draft not to be quoted
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN POVERTY
Levels, Disparities and Trends and Associative Factors
among Social Groups across States in India
Sukhadeo Thorat*
S. Venkatesan**
Study Sponsored by United Nation Development Programme/Human Development
Resource Centre, India Office, New Delhi (India)
February 2005
*Professor, Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi & Director, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, **Research Associate, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, New Delhi. E-mail: svenkat@
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN POVERTY
Levels, Disparities and Trends and Associative Factors
among Social groups across states in India
Content
List of the tables,
List of Figures
List of Panels
Acknowledgement
Section I
• Introduction UNHDR and Issue of Group Inequality and Discriminated Groups
• India’s Human Development Reports and Socially Disadvantage Groups
• UNHDR Perspective on Exclusion-Induced Human Deprivation Caste and Ethnicity based Exclusion and Human Development
• The objective and Approach of the Present Study
Section II
Conceptual framework for Exclusion-Induced Human Deprivation
• Concept of Exclusion –Insights from Theoretical literature
• Conceptualization of Caste and Ethnicity-based Exclusion and Discrimination
• The Consequences of Caste-based Exclusion on Human Development
• Methodology and Data Base
Section III
Status of Human Development and Human Deprivation
(A) Status of Human development- HDI -2000
• Regional Dimensions by Social Groups
• Inter-Social Groups Variations
• Changes in levels -1983/2000
• Changes in Disparity- 1983/2000
(B) Status of Human Poverty – HPI -2000
• Variation in Level across Social Groups
• Changes in level and Disparity -1993/2000
(C) Individual dimensions-level, disparities and change
• Infant Mortality Rate
• Literacy Rate
• Per capita Consumption Expenditure
• Consumption poverty
• Nutrition
• Access to health care
Section –IV
Factors Governing human development and human Poverty
• Factors Associated with High Human Development
• Factors Associated with low Human Development of SC and ST
• Caste Discrimination as factor in Entitlement Failure
• Exclusion and Discrimination in Civil and Political spheres
Macro-Level Evidence
Evidence based on Primary surveys
• Economic and Market Discrimination
Section –V
Summary and Lessons
• Summary of the Results
• Lessons and Suggestions further Research
Tables 1.1 to 13(d)
Technical Note
Bibliography
List of Tables
Table 1.1 (a). Human Development Index - Levels and Disparity - 1980 – 2000 (All India)
Table 1.2. Human Poverty Index - Level, Disparity and Changes - 1990 - 2000, All-India
Table 1.3 (a). HDI and HPI Individual Indicators - Levels and Changes - 1990 – 2000 (All India).
Table 1.3 (b). Trends in Disparities in Individual Indicators - 1990 - 2000 (All India).
Table 2.1 (a) Human Development Index among Social Groups - Level and Disparity, State Level.
Table 2.1 ( b). Change in level and Disparity from 1980 to 2000 (State Level).
Table 3.1 (a). Human Poverty Index among Social Groups - Level and Disparity (State Level)
Table 3.1 (b). Change in level and Disparity from 1990 to 2000 (State Level)
Table 4.1 (a). Infant Mortality Rate among Social Groups - Level and Disparity, 1980-2000 (State Level)
Table 4.1 (b). Change in level and Disparity in IMR -1980 to 2000(State Level)
Table 5.1 (a). Literacy Rate among Social Groups - Level, 1981-2001 (State Level)
Table 5.1 (b). Change in level and Disparity in literacy Rate -1981 to 2001 Per Annum Rate (State Level).
Table 6.1 (a). Monthly Per capita Expenditure among Social Groups - Levels and Disparity ( State Level)
Table 6.1 (b). Change in level and Disparity in Monthly Per Capita Expenditure -1983 to 1999-00 (State Level)
Table 7.1 (a). Poverty among Social Groups - Levels and Disparity, 1983 - 1999-00 (State Level)
Table 7.1. (b). Change in level and Disparity in Poverty- 1983 to 1999-00 (State Level)
Table 8.1 (a). Percent of Under Nourished Children among Social Groups (State Level)
Table 8.1 (b). Change in level and Disparity in Under Nourished Children 1992-93 to 1998-99 (State Level)
Table 9.1 (a). Percent of Households without access to Health care among Social Groups (State Level)
Table 9.1(b). Change in level and Disparity in access to Health care services 1992-93 to 1998-99 (State Level)
Table 10. Factors Governing HDI -1999/2000: Situation in Low and High HDI States- ALL
Table 11. Situation With Respect to Factors Governing Human Development -All India 1999-2000
Table 12 (a). Factors Governing HDI - Low HDI States-1999/2000: Average of three Low HDI States
Table 12 (b). Factors Governing HDI - High HDI States-1999/2000: Average of three High HDI States
Table 13. (a). Incidences of Discriminations and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes
Table 13. (b). State wise Incidences of Crime, Discrimination and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes in India, 2000
Table 13. (c) Incidences of volition of civil rights and Atrocities against Scheduled Tribes
Table 13. (d)State wise Incidences of Crime, Violation of Civil Rights and Atrocities against Scheduled Tribes in India, 2000
List of Panels
Pane 1-India’s National and State Development Reports and Socially Disadvantage Report ( SC and ST).
Panel 2 -Expected Impact of Remedial Measures Against Discriminations and Social and Economic Empowerment of SC and ST
Panel 3-Denial of Access to Basic Public Services to Untouchables /or Scheduled caste
Panel 4- Discriminatory Treatment in use of Public Service to Untouchables /or Scheduled caste
Panel 5-Economic and Market Discrimination of Untouchables/scheduled caste
List of Figures
Figure 1. Human Development Index for Social Groups during 1980-2000, All-India
Figure 2. Human Development Index for ST, Regional Variation during 2000
Figure 3. Disparity in HPI Level during 1990-2000, All-India
Figure 4. State wise Disparity in HDI between SC&OT during 2000
Figure 5. State wise Human Development Index for Social Groups during 2000
Figure 6. State wise Disparity in HDI between ST&OT during 2000
Figure 7. State wise Human Poverty Index for SC during 2000
Figure 8. Human Poverty among Social Groups during 1990-2000, All-India
Figure 9. Human Poverty Index for ST, Regional variation during 2000
Figure 10. Disparity in HPI between SC&OT and ST & OT
Figure 11. Infant Mortality Rate among Social Groups during 1998-99, All-India
Figure 12. Literacy Rate among Social Groups, 2001, All-India
Figure 13. Average Monthly Per capita Expenditure among Social Groups during 1999-00, All-India
Figure 14.Poverty among Social Groups, 1999-00, All-India
Figure 15. Percent of children under weight for age, 1998-99, All-India
Figure 16. Percentage of households does not have access to health care services among Social Groups during 1998-99, All-India
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper is preliminary result of a study sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme/Human Development Resource Centre, India Office, New Delhi. We thank UNDP/HDRC for sponsoring this study. We, particularly thankful to Dr. Seetha Prabhu in UNDP and Dr. Rohini Nayyar in Planning Commission, Delhi for their initiative to bring the issues of socially disadvantaged groups into human development domain. We are also thankful to Prof. P.M. Kulkarni for helping us in estimating some indicators by social groups.
Our colleague at IIDS Dr. Umakant Dr. Vijay Bariak, Mr. Motilal Mahamallik and Dr. Chittranjan Senapati helped in various ways in preparation of this paper. We are thankful to them for their contribution in developing the data set and estimation of variables.
We also grateful to Mr. Prasant Nagi and Mr. Aryama for their careful editing of the paper and Pramod Dabral and Narendra Kumar for handling the word processing and formatting of the paper tirelessly.
Section -I
Introduction
For more than a decade, the United Nations Development Programme (hereafter UNDP), through global United Nations Human Development Reports (hereafter UNHDR), has been advocating for a new perspective on the notion of human development. The first UNHDR in 1990, paved the way towards a significant shift towards new perspective, in so far as it emphasized assessment to development, not only in terms of expansion of income, but also in its stipulations towards the quality of people’s well being. It recognized that though higher per capita income is a pre-requisite to human development, but income alone may not necessarily guarantee which people need most .. Therefore, it was deliberated that the focus of policies just cannot emphasize on generation of more income, but simultaneously, must address the degree to which it improves the quality of people’s lives. Defining people’s well being as the purpose of development, and treating economic growth as means, has been at the core of HDRs published since 1990. Summarizing the shift in the focus, Mahbub Haq observed in the first UNHDR that, “for long, the recurrent question was how much a nation was producing? Increasingly, the question now being asked is, how are its people fairing? Income is only one of the options- and an extremely important one- but it is not the sum-total of human life. Health, education, physical environment and freedom may be just as important” (Mahbub Haq 1995). From this point of view, human development is about expansion of human capabilities , and removing obstacles to illiteracy, ill health, lack of access to resources, and civil and political freedom etc.
With the conceptual shift in notion of human development, the UNHDRs have consistently proposed additional criterion for judging a society’s well being. The process of human development, required new sets of evaluative criterion to assess the impact of development policies. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Shiva Kumar have aptly summarized the guiding principles for the development of such new criterion. According to them, the criterion should be, “are people enjoying an expansion in their capacities- the capability to lead healthy and creative life, to be well nourished, to be secure, to be well informed and educated, to be more free, and to be equal”. Based on this framework, the Human Development Index (hereafter HDI) , as a measure of its human development was developed which include three dimensions namely, adult literacy (inclusive of combined enrolment ratio) as an indicator of knowledge; life expectancy at birth as an indicator for the standard for healthy life; and an Gross Domestic Product as an indicator for the standard of living, or command over resources needed for decent living.
One of the central concerns of human development has been on alleviation of poverty. The 1997 UNHDR therefore added an additional dimension to the above by the introduction of Human Poverty Index (hereafter HPI), in an attempt to bring together in a composite index, the different features of deprivation in the quality of life, and thereby to arrive at an aggregate and a more comprehensive judgment on the extent of poverty in a community. Issues of poverty in the developing countries involve hunger, illiteracy, epidemic, the lack of health services, and of safe drinking water etc. Given the pervasiveness of poverty, the HPI was particularly conceptualized for the same, and even the variables chosen are reflective of the fact. Therefore, HPI in developing countries concentrates on deprivations in three essential elements of human life- longevity, knowledge, and decent living standard. The dimensions of a decent standard are encapsulated by access to basic amenities. The primary epistemological shift between the HDI and HPI is that, while the former focuses on progress in a community as a whole , the latter cover in its ambit the deprivation of people in the community. 1
UNHDR and Issue of Distributive Dimensions, Group Inequality and Discriminated Groups
The first UNHDR promised that future reports would be built on the original structure, and that they would incorporate the quest for further conceptual inquiry. It further emphasized that concepts would be further refined and made more robust, and that the facets of operationalzing human development would be explored in an ever-increasing detail. Ever since the publication of first report in 1990, the many of the critiques have been made which varied from conceptual issues to the choice of dimensions, choice of indicators, and aggregative form of index neglecting the distributional aspects and disparities among groups (Kate Raworth and David Stewart 2003). The UNHDR have incorporated some of the suggestions and improved the HDI in a number of ways.. 2
One of the limitations of UNHDRs, which was recognized in the initial stages, is its silence on the distribution issue by gender, region, ethnicity, income, and occupation (Kate Raworth David Stewart 2003). The first UNHDR admitted that, “all three measures of human development suffers from a common failing: they are averages that conceal wide disparities in overall population”, it also recognized that “the case is strong for making distributional corrections in one form or another” (Ambul Sagar and Adil Najam 1998 and UNDP 1990 pg. 12). In fact, the second UNHDR constructed a distribution-adjusted HDI for selected countries, and incorporated an inequity measure into the index, but the subsequent UNHDRs have more or less dropped the preliminary calculations for a distribution-adjusted HDI. 3
The UNHDRs have however, taken a number of other initiatives, so as to, incorporate some distributional issues with respect to the human development of specific groups, namely, women, ethnic, social and religious minorities etc. The UNHDRs particularly focuses on the dimensions of their problem, identification of the indicators, and the construction of index to capture the extent of human development and deprivation, specific to these groups. Since the deprivation of women, ethnic and religious minorities generally occurs through the process of exclusion and discrimination; the efforts are directed towards the understanding the relational processes, forms of exclusions, discriminations, and their consequences on the deprivation of these groups.
Thus distributional concerns have made some progress by emphasizing on issues related to inter-group inequalities, and of the deprived and minority groups. Considerable improvements have been made in identifying the dimensions and measuring tools, particularly related to gender issues. However the UNHDR effort’s lagged some what behind in respect of developing concept and measuring tools in attempts to capture specific dimensions of ethnic, social groups and minority groups. One way to bring a group focus in the UNHDRs was to simply disaggregate the HDI and HPI within a country by ethnic or social groups. Further, the HDRs could draw attention to “inequality” between ethnic, social, and religious minorities and majority groups in a respective country. In fact limited instances of such disaggregations are to be found in the HDRs of some countries, namely, Malaysia, Gabon, Nepal and United States of America. In Malaysian HDR for instance, the HDI has been worked out separately for the Chinese, the Indian, and the Malaya races. Similarly, in Gabon, the HDR disaggregated the HDI for three ethnic groups (Obame 1993, Leng and Aziz 1993), and similar exercises have been initiated in the United States involving Africans (blacks), Native Americans (Red Indians), and Americans (whites) (Halis Akder 1994). In Nepal too, the HDI has been worked out for the low caste and the high caste groups.
Notwithstanding these attempts at disaggregating the HDI by groups, the conceptual and methodological clarity and insight on exclusion and discrimination-linked deprivation is still limited. The challenges in developing an insight towards exclusion-linked deprivation of some groups are immense. The disaggregating of HDI and HPI by ethnic groups is relatively easy. But to capture the societal process (or mechanisms) of exclusion and discrimination, the forms and spheres in which exclusion and discrimination operate (such as civil, cultural, social, political, and economic), and their consequences on deprivation of the affected groups is a gargantuan process, and possibly needs a lot more conceptual and methodological understanding.. Amartya Sen observed that such an effort requires not only a focused understanding of the relational features of exclusion, but also a concerted understanding of the casual nature of processes leading to deprivation (Amartya Sen 2000). Besides a focused clarity on conceptual issues, the measurement of social, economic, cultural and political exclusion associated with ethnicity, religion, and social institutions like caste system is an equally difficult task. Thus, to develop appropriate indicators of exclusion and discrimination, and to further aggregate them in some kind of index is a venture, which is marked with difficulties.
However, the HDR of 2000, on “Human Rights and Human Development”, and the HDR of 2004, on the “Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World”, have made a commendable beginning in this respect, and have brought considerable clarity and insights on issues related to exclusion and discrimination-linked deprivation, and have also furthered the conceptual and measurement issues.
The HDR of 2000, on “Human Right and Human Development”, brings to the fore the close link between equal human rights and human development. The HDR observed that the principle of equality in opportunity and choices in all spheres of life as one of the pillars of human development. In so far as exclusion and discrimination, involve restrictions, in its consequences it implies denial of freedom and of equal opportunity to affected groups . Deprivation of discriminated groups thus, works through exclusion, differential treatment, and unequal access, and hinder human development. Therefore, freedom from discrimination becomes a necessary pre-condition for human development.
In many countries though, non-discrimination and equality may not be under the purview of enforceable laws, but somehow may still be embedded in laws, in one form or another. For instance, it may exist in the purpose of policy, or in institutions that favor some, and marginalize others, and in the effects of policy. It may persist in societal practices, resource allocation, public provisioning of social services, in employment and wage payment, and in political participation (UNDP 2000). This is essentially, one of the primary reasons for iniquitous and differential outcomes for different social groups.
Disaggregating the HDI help to captures the essential differences between various social and ethnic groups. The HDR of 2000 in fact attempted to provide group-wise disparity based on ethnicity for some countries. It revealed disparity with respect to some indicators of human development between the deprived and advanced groups, for example in terms of life expectancy between Indians and Inuit in Canada, in enrolment ratio, expenditure per student, percentage of adult with 7 years of school between White, Indian, Coloured and African in South Africa, in under 5 mortality rate between indigenous and non-indigenous people in Guatemala, and in literacy rates between Schedule Caste (hereafter SC), Schedule Tribe (hereafter ST), and high castes in India. Among these countries however, Nepal is the only country, which has gone beyond purview of individual indicators, and has worked out HDI by social groups, and thereby discovered significant differences between the higher and lower castes. The HDR of 2000 also refers to the remedies being used against discrimination in the form of affirmative actions in countries like Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and USA, wherein ethnic minorities, indigenous, and tribal communities form a significant part of population. It also speaks of the benefits that the SCs and the STs have derived from India’s affirmative action policies, specifically, in economic and political spheres.
The HDR of 2000 (and for that matter some earlier HDRs) generally focused on the expansion of the social, political and economic opportunities in the human rights framework. The HDR of 2004, on “Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World” extended the focus to cultural liberty (or equality), and asserts that cultural liberty is central to advancing the capabilities of people, and is thereby, essential for human development. The HDR also emphasizes that such indulgences require going beyond social, political, and economic opportunities (UNDP 2004). In the context of minorities in multi-ethnic state and indigenous people, the HDR of 2004 recognized two forms of cultural exclusions, namely, (a) living mode exclusion, which denies recognition and accommodation of life style that a group would choose to have; and (b) participation exclusion (along ethnic, linguistic or religious lines) when people are discriminated against, or suffer disadvantages in social, political and economic opportunities because of their cultural identity. The HDR also observed that both types of exclusions exist on an extensive scale across every continent, and at every level of development. It further observed that living mode exclusion, is often overlaps and intertwines with social, economic, and political exclusion through discrimination, and disadvantages in employment, housing, schooling and political representation (UNDP 2004 pg. 29).
The observations of the 2004 UNHDR in this respect are largely based on findings of the study titled, “The Minorities at Risk”- a data set, which studied cultural exclusion of minority groups worldwide, and estimated that about 900 million people belong to groups that are subjected to some form of living mode or participation exclusion not faced by other groups. The significant aspect of this study was that it estimated the discrimination and disadvantage of culturally identified groups in living mode exclusion and discrimination. It also brought out data on political discrimination and economic discrimination, and on other disadvantages being suffered by culturally identified groups, thereby; highlighting the multiple exclusions faced by the members of culturally identified minority groups (UNDP HDR 2004 pg. 32).
The UNHDR of 2004, however, emphasized the need to develop and extend concepts, dimensions, indicators, cultural liberty and deprivation index to each country- where an understanding of the issues is likely to be greater. It also argued for producing data sets and cultural liberty index’s, based on definite conceptual frameworks, and indicators, which are measurable, comparable, and policy relevant.
India’s Human Development Reports and Socially Disadvantaged Groups
Following the UNHDRs, the Indian government also initiated the process of preparation of the National Human Development Reports (hereafter NHDR), and similar reports for individual states. The first NHDR was prepared in 2001, and was followed by State Human Development Reports (hereafter SHDR) for ten states, namely, Madhya Pradesh (1998 & 2002), Karnataka (1999), Maharashtra (2003), Rajasthan (2002), Tamil Nadu (2003), West Bengal (2004), Punjab (2004), Assam (2004), Sikkim (2001), and Himachal Pradesh (2002) (See Panel 1).
|Panel 1India’s National and States Human Development Report and Socially disadvantage Groups (Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes) |
| | | |
|HDRs |Special |Reference to Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe , |
| |Theme/Dimension | |
|Year | | |
| | | |
|National Human |National Human |The Planning Commission of India has prepared India’s first National Human Development Report in |
|Development Report, |Development – Level |2001. This report covers both human development and human deprivation aspects and estimates composite|
|2001 |and changes during |indices of the HDI and the HPI for major states. This report analysis level of achievement and its |
| |1980s and 2000s |changes over period (1980 to 2000). States wise individual variables relating to human development |
| | |such as Poverty level (1983/1993-94) |
| | |2. Literacy rate (1991) |
| | |3. Monthly per capita expenditure. (1983/1993-94) |
| | |5. Access to social amenities viz. housing, |
| | |6. Electricity, |
| | |7. Water and |
| | |8. Sanitation given in the statistical appendix in the report for different social groups. But there |
| | |is no attempt to estimate the composite indices of HDI and HPI separately for SCs/STs and others. |
| | | |
|Madhya Pradesh Human |General Status (HDI |Madhya Pradesh is a first state to bring out the state level human development report in India. The |
|Development Report, |& GDI) |report covers the HDI and GDI at district level. No attempt has been made to prepare these indices |
|1998 | |for SCs/STs. |
| | | |
| | |However, this report provides some data such as 1. Sex ratio 2. Urbanization, 3.Work force (total |
| | |main workers and agricultural Labourer) 4. Literacy rate and 5. Land ownership at district level (by |
| | |SC and ST). |
| | | |
|Sikkim Human |Status of Human |Sikkim state report given only literacy rate and land distribution among SC/ST in the state at |
|Development Report, |Development |district wise. |
|2001 | | |
| | | |
|Maharastra Human |Status of Human |Maharashtra Human Development Report is sixth report at state level. |
|Development Report, |Development |1. Poverty level at state level given by SCs/STs (1993-94 |
|2002 | |2. Literacy rate at district level by SCs/STs (1991) |
| | | |
| |
|Panel 1India’s National and States Human Development Report and Socially disadvantage Groups (Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes) |
|contd…. |
| | | |
| |Special |Reference to Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe , |
| |Theme/Dimension | |
|HDRs | | |
| | | |
|Year | | |
| | | |
|Rajasthan Human |Sustainable |Rajasthan State Human Development Report (HDR), focus on decentralized governance and |
|Development Report, |Livelihoods and |sustainable livelihoods in the State. It highlights the issues of income & employment |
|2002 |Human Development |generation, reduction in poverty and regional disparities, provision of basic minimum |
| | |services, people’s participation, and development of human capabilities. The report gives |
| | |the HDI and GDI at district level and there was no attempt to give the index by social |
| | |groups. |
| | |Only literacy level (1991) for social groups at state level not at district level is given |
| | |in the report. |
|Tamil Nadu Human |Status of Human |Tamil Nadu Human Development Report is the status report gives the HDI and GDI for its |
|Development Report, |Development |districts level. There is explanation of the individual dimension such as 1. Poverty level |
|2003 | |at state level by SCs/STs (1999-94) 2. Literacy rate at district level by SCs/STs (1991) by |
| | |SC/ST. But there is no attempt to construct the composite human development index for social|
| | |groups. |
| | | |
|Assam Human |Human Development |Assam has prepared the first Assam Human Development Report in 2003. Along with HDI and GDI |
|Development Report, |and Human Poverty |The Report pioneers the calculation of the district level Human Poverty Index (HPI). The |
|2003 | |report offers the population, sex ratio and literacy rate for social groups (1991) at |
| | |district level and there are no separate composite indices of HDI, HPI or GDI for social |
| | |groups. |
| | |West Bengal report is somewhat different from other reports and it focuses on both the |
|West Bengal Human |Public Policy |evaluative and the agency aspects of human development. A wide reference and analysis has |
|Development Report, |and Human |been made to bring the state policy into the centre of analysis, the report fails to spell |
|2004 |Development |out who benefited (by social groups) how much from the state intervention such land reforms |
| | |and decentralization. There are information on social groups e.g. literacy rate, share of |
| | |land and beneficiary of land reforms etc. But it fails to estimate the composite index of |
| | |HDI or GDI for social groups. |
| |
|Panel 1India’s National and States Human Development Report and Socially disadvantage Groups (Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribes) |
|contd…. |
| | | |
| |Special |Reference to Scheduled caste and scheduled tribe , |
| |Theme/Dimension | |
|HDRs | | |
| | | |
|Year | | |
| | | |
|PUNHDR |Status of Human |Punjab is the only state, which examine the human development status of Dalits in some |
| |Development |detailed. The chapter seven on Dalit exclusively deal with HD variables such as literacy |
|2004 | |level, enrollment and drop out rate on education, on livelihood pattern – data from census |
| | |1981 & 91 such as cultivators, agricultural Labour, Agriculture Allied Mining and Quarrying |
| | |Households Manufacturing Non Household Manufacturing Construction Trade and Commerce |
| | |Transport and Communication Other services has given. Other variables such as operational |
| | |holdings, total land area owned from NSS 82 & 92 and mortality rates, nutritional |
| | |conditions, access to health facilities, Child immunization Institutional delivery are also |
| | |given for 1992-93 and 1998-99. |
Given the iniquitous and hierarchal character of the Indian society, and the magnitude of discriminated and excluded groups, namely the SC, the ST, and the Other Backward Castes (hereafter OBCs), which constitute almost half of India’s population, and for whom there are specific Constitutional provisions, legal safeguards, and affirmative actions policies against discrimination and deprivation; the NHDR and SHDRs in their respective reports dealt with dimensions of human development in relation to socially marginalized social groups, particularly the SCs and the STs.
The analysis about the attainment of human development situation of such a large section of population is however, dealt with employing limited indicators, and without resorting to composite index, either for human development, or for human poverty.
The indicators used in disaggregation by social groups vary from state to state. The indicators used in disaggregating by social groups in NHDR 2001 at all India level, include composition of consumption expenditure, access to toilet facilities, safe drinking water, electricity, and literacy level. In this regard the NHDR 2001 observed that “there is a considerable difference in the level of attainments of people on various aspects of well being, depending on the social group or segment of population (i.e. SC, ST & Others) that the person belongs to”, the NHDR further observed that “the attainment levels for the SCs and the STs are lower than the Others on the available indicators” (NHDR 2001 pg. 11).
Similar methods of assessing the attainment levels of social groups by employing selective indicators have been followed by number of SHDRs as well. Most of the SHDRs employ indicator of literacy , but only a few states supplement it by utilizing poverty ratio, land ownership, and health indicators. For instance, the SHDRs of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Assam, and Punjab gives attainment rates for literacy for the SC, the ST, and Others (the Himachal Pradesh SHDR also reported enrolment ratio by social groups). Among them, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu also give poverty level by social groups, in addition to literacy rate. The SHDRs of Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim, and West Bengal also disaggregate land ownership and share of land and beneficiary of land reform by social groups. Some states like Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal also give work participation rate, unemployment rate, sex ratio, and urbanization rate by social groups. The Punjab SHDR is the only exception, as it includes a separate chapter on SCs, and provides disaggregated results by social groups by utilizing indicators like literacy rate, employment pattern including employment under reservation, and child mortality rates.
Though the results of the SHDRs, were limited in coverage, the choice of indicators clearly shows that any simple disaggregation by social groups for education (like literacy rate, enrolment ratio), health (child mortality), access to resources (land ownership, employment rate), and urbanization etc reveal that the SCs and the STs lag far too behind the other advanced sections of Indian society .
Despite the group focus assigned to groups like SCs and STs in the development policy of the central and state governments (in terms of due recognition of their specific problems, the provision of legal safeguards, and Reservation and various other affirmative action policies, with a stipulated objective of reducing the gaps in human development and human poverty between them and other advanced section of the Indian population), SHDRs generally did not deal with the issue of group disparity( that is between SC/ST and Non-sc/st ) in human development and human poverty, in more rigorous manner ,either by using a coherent set of indicators of human development (like life expectancy, literacy rate, enrolment ratio, and some measure of access to resources ), and human poverty (like illiteracy, drop-out rate, mortality rate, and access to safe drinking water, public health services & electricity), or through estimation of a composite index of human development and human poverty. Also there is no relevant discussion of the effects and outcomes of the government policies directed towards the empowerment of the deprived groups and in reducing the gaps between them and the advanced sections of the Indian society. But more importantly, there has been no attempt to conceptualize caste and ethnicity based exclusion and discrimination, the contemporary societal processes and institutions of discrimination, forms of economic, social, and political exclusion and discrimination, and their consequences. Similarly, there has been no attempt to develop the indicators of exclusion and discrimination, and impact variables in any of the SHDRs.
Besides, most of the SHDRs ignored the analysis of attainment of civil, political and economic rights to the SCs and the STs. The analysis with respect to caste and untouchability based exclusion and discrimination of the SCs, and the geographical and cultural exclusion of the STs was therefore extremely limited. Consequently, the impacts of government measures in ensuring human rights through Anti-untouchability Act of 1955 (later named as the Civil Rights Act in 1979), and Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 1989, and other anti-discriminatory and positive measures such as the reservation policy are less known.
In other words, the whole issue of caste and untouchability-based exclusion and discrimination, and its linkages with human development and human poverty received a passing treatment. The National and the State HDRs also did not recognize the need to prepare the HDI and HPI, with exclusion and discrimination as their components. The only SHDR, which expressed the need to address this issue, was the Madhya Pradesh SHDR 2002. The SHDR observed that,
“There is a need to look inward, within the country to identify groups that fare poorly in human development as against spatially in terms of how districts fare or sector fare. Deprivation in India has an obvious face of exclusion, the Schedule Castes due to social exclusion, and the Schedule Tribes due to geographical and cultural exclusion. The Schedule Castes suffer from deprivation on account of the residual power of a discriminatory caste system, which though made illegal, continues to sway as a social force, whereas the Scheduled Tribes see their predicament as victims of the state, which denies them property rights to their habitat. A Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe development index needs to be developed by professionals to capture their deprivations, so as to goad the state policy to address them. A broad attainment index, does not effectively address the roots of these very important deprivations in the Indian context. The process of democracy is at work drawing these people in the mainstream and seeking to address their specific concerns. How well this is being done needs to be assessed through the development of Scheduled Caste-Schedule Tribe development index. This is a task we are identifying for our next Human Development Report by which time relevant Census information will be available” (Madhya Pradesh State Development Report 2002, pg. 9).
Caste and Ethnicity based Exclusion and Human Development- The objective and Approach of the Present Study
The present study is built upon the insights gained from the efforts of UNHDRs, the Indian NHDR, and the SHDRs of the respective states on the group-disparity dimensions of human development and human deprivation, and also the insights from other literature on “exclusion-linked deprivation”. The study attempted to map the status of human development and human poverty of socially marginalized groups particularly the former untouchables (or Scheduled caste ), and adivasis (Scheduled tribe), whose deprivation in human development is closely linked with the societal processes of caste and ethnicity- based exclusion and discrimination in multiple spheres. Thus, the focus of the study is on the attainment of the indicators of human development and human poverty at aggregate and disaggregate levels by caste and ethnic groups. In the process, the study brings out the relative changes in the level of human development and human poverty, and also highlights the disparities in attainment between the former untouchables, adivasis, and rest of the sections in the Indian society between the early 1980’s and early 1990’s.
The study also tries to address the conceptual issues related to “exclusion-linked deprivation of the discriminated groups” in general and the caste and ethnicity-based exclusion and discrimination, in particular .It discusses the societal processes and institutions that are causative of exclusion, discrimination, and deprivation in their historical and contemporary context .
The study also discussed the nature of the government policies developed for economic and social empowerment of the socially marginalized groups , and assesses its impact on the dimensions of human development of the SCs and the STs in a more general way.
The presentation is divided in few sections. The section second presents the conceptual background of the study in the context of human development, and outlines the objectives, the data base, the indicators of human development and human poverty, and the methodology used for the study. The third section presents the status of SCs, the STs, and the Non-sc/st in comparative framework. with respect to human development and human poverty and their individual component.. Section fourth delve on the factors ,including caste based exclusion and discrimination on the lower attainment of human development of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe compare with the Non-sc/st and the last section summarizes the main conclusions.
Section -II
Conceptual framework for Exclusion-Induced Human Deprivation
The central purpose of the study is to analyze the status of socially marginalized groups of SCs, the STs, and the other section with respect to disparity in the attainment of human development, and human poverty. Since the deprivation of these groups is closely linked with the processes of caste and ethnicity-based exclusion and discrimination, the paper examines the forms, and the societal processes (particularly the caste and untouchability-based exclusions and discrimination), which are seen as causative factors for the deprivation of these groups.
Concept of Exclusion –Insights from Theoretical literature
In this context, it is necessary at the outset to delve into the insights on conceptual issues related to caste or untouchability and ethnicity-based exclusion and discrimination on one hand, and their predicted consequences for the deprivation of SCs, and the STs on the other. In this section, we elucidate on the concept of caste or untouchability-based and ethnicity-based exclusion and discrimination, and also concentrate on the societal processes, and the institutions through which deprivation is induced for these groups. However before the concept of caste based exclusion is discussed we first take a look at the meaning of concept “Social Exclusion” as it developed in social science literature . In literature pertaining to development, social exclusion has been defined as “the process through which individuals or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in which they live” (Arjan De Hann 1997). This definition focuses on the processes responsible for deprivation, in relation to the means that exist within a society- it is close to the notion of relative deprivation, through not merely a descriptive notion of outcomes, but with an emphasis on their causes and process that sustain deprivation. Two defining characteristics of exclusion are particularly relevant, namely, the deprivation caused through exclusion in multiples spheres and more importantly, the societal relations, the institutions, and the processes that cause deprivation. It is therefore, important to recognize the diverse ways in which social exclusion can cause deprivation and poverty. Consequences of exclusion thus, depend crucially on how the institutions function, and how exclusionary and discriminatory they are in their orientation.
Amartya Sen draws attention to the various meanings and manifestations of the concept of social exclusion (Sen 2000). Sen draws a clear distinction between the situation where some people are being kept out (at least left out), and where some people are being included (may even be forced to be included)- in deeply unfavorable terms, and described the two situations as “unfavorable exclusion” and “unfavorable inclusion.” The “unfavorable inclusion”, with unequal treatment may carry the same adverse effects as “unfavorable exclusion”.
Sen also differentiated between “active and passive exclusion”. For the casual analysis, and policy response, “it is important to distinguish between “active exclusion” fostering of exclusion- through the deliberate policy intervention by the government, or by any other willful agents (to exclude some people from some opportunity), and “passive exclusion”, which works through the social process in which there are no deliberate attempts to exclude, but nevertheless, may results in exclusion from a set of circumstances.”
Sen further distinguishes the “constitutive relevance” of exclusion, from that of “instrumental importance”. In the former, exclusion or deprivation have an intrinsic importance of their own. For instance, not bring able to relate to others and to take part in the life of the community can directly impoverish a person’s life, in addition to the further deprivation it may generate. This is different from social exclusion of “instrumental importance”, in which the exclusion in itself, is not impoverishing, but can lead to impoverishment of human life. 2
Further elaboration of the concepts of exclusion or discrimination has come from the mainstream economics in the context of race and gender. The mainstream economic literature throws more light on discrimination that works through markets, and has developed the concept of market discrimination with some analytical clarity. The initial research focused mainly on the gender and race contexts of discrimination in hiring and wages, but later the concept was extended to cover other markets or non-market transactions as well. In the market discrimination framework, exclusion may operate without restrictions on the entry in market, and/or through “selective inclusion”, but with an unequal treatment in market and non-market transactions (this is close to the Sen’s concept of unfavorable inclusion- inclusion under unfavorable terms and conditions).
These developments in social science literature have indeed contributed immensely to comprehend the various meanings and manifestations of the concept of social exclusion, and its applicability to caste and ethnicity-based exclusion in India. The manner in which it has been developed in social science literature, the concept of social exclusion, thus, essentially refers to the processes through which individuals or groups are wholly, or partially, excluded from full participation in the society in which they live. It emphasizes on two crucial dimensions involving the notion of exclusion, namely the “institutions” (of exclusion), and their “outcome” (in terms of deprivation). In order to understand the dimensions of exclusion, it is necessary to understand the societal processes and institutions, which lead to exclusion of certain groups and their consequences. The exclusion-induced deprivation may operate in multiple spheres- civil, cultural, political, and economic. Thus, for a broader understanding of the concept of exclusion, the insights in to the societal process, and institutions of exclusions are as important as the their outcome in terms of deprivation for certain groups.
The exclusion could also manifest itself in diverse ways in terms of “causes and outcomes”. Sen therefore refers to various meanings and manifestations of social exclusion, particularly, with respect to the causes or the processes of discrimination and deprivation in a given society. Exclusion could occur through direct exclusion, violating fair norms of exclusion (that is unfavorable exclusion), or through inclusion, but under unfavorable conditions, again violating fair norms of inclusion (that is unfavorable inclusion), or through deliberate government policies (that is active exclusion), and through unintended attempts and circumstances (passive exclusion), or exclusion caused through inability of some persons to relates (or include) to other persons (constitutive relevance). The mainstream economists have further elaborated, and attempted to define the concept of discrimination that operates particularly through markets.
Conceptualization of Caste/Untouchability and Ethnicity-based Exclusion and Discrimination
In India, exclusion revolves around the societal processes and institutions that exclude, discriminate, isolate, and deprive some groups on the basis of group’s identities like caste and ethnicity. The nature of exclusion revolving around the caste system, particularly needs to be understood and conceptualized. It is the caste-based discrimination, which has formed the basis for various anti-discriminatory policies in India. Historically, the caste system has regulated the social and economic life of the people in India. Social scientists, particularly sociologists, and lately, the economists (Akerlof 1976, Scoville 1991, Romer 1984, Lal 1988, Ambedkar 1936 and 1987), have tried to comprehend the essential features of the caste system and institution of untouchability and exclusion involved in the system .
All theoretical formulations by economists recognize that in its essential form, caste as a system of social and economic governance or organization (of production and distribution) is governed by certain customary rules and norms, which are unique and distinct. In general, the caste based society and economy is one in which occupations (or property rights) are hereditary, compulsory and endogamous. (Akerlof 1976, Scoville 1991, Lal 1988, Ambedkar 1936 and 1987)The organizational scheme of the caste system is based on the division of people in social groups (or castes) in which the civil, cultural, and economic rights of each individual caste are pre-determined or ascribed by birth and made hereditary. The assignment of civil, cultural, and economic rights is therefore, unequal and hierarchal. In the economic sphere for instance, the division of occupations and property rights across castes is unequal and hierarchal. The most important feature of the caste system, however is that it provides for a regulatory mechanism to enforce the social and economic organization through the instruments of social ostracism (or what is described as system of social and economic penalties), and reinforces it further with the justification and support from the philosophical elements in the Hindu religion (Lal 1988, Ambedkar 1936 and 1987). It is such an intertwining, which makes the caste system the most stubborn institution for change.
The caste system’s fundamental characteristics of fixed civil, cultural, and economic rights for each caste, with restrictions for change implies “forced exclusion” of one caste from the rights of other caste, or from undertaking the occupations of other castes. Exclusion and discrimination in civil, cultural, and particularly in economic spheres such as occupation and labour employment, is therefore, internal to the system, and a necessary outcome of its underlying principles . In the market economy framework, the occupational immobility would operate through restrictions in various markets such as land, labour, credit, other inputs, and services necessary for any economic activity. Labour being an integral part of the production process of any economic activity, would obviously become a part of market discrimination. Labour market exclusion would thus, manifest itself in the exclusion in employment from another castes occupation, and/or what Sen would call “unfavorable inclusion”, that is, access to employment in another caste’s occupation, but with unequal treatment in terms of wage payment and the conditions of work.
This theorization implies that the caste system involves the negation of not only equality and freedom, but also of the basic human rights, particularly of the low castes- the denial of such rights is an impediment and a pre-condition for the existence of discrimination and deprivation in any society. The pertinent question that surfaces therefore is, why are the principles of equality and freedom ignored by the caste system? This is because the underlying principles of the caste system assume particular notions of "human rights”. Unlike many other human societies, the caste system does not recognize that the individual and his/her distinctiveness are the center of the social purpose. In fact, for the purpose of rights and duties, the unit of the Hindu society is not an individual (even the family is not regarded as a unit in the Hindu society, except for the purposes of marriages and inheritance). The primary unit in the Hindu society is caste, and hence, the rights and privileges (or the lack of them) of individual are on account of him/her being a member of a particular caste (Ambedkar first published in 1987). Also, due to differential ranking, and the hierarchical nature of the caste system, the entitlements to various rights become narrower and narrower as one goes down ladder in the caste system. Various castes get artfully interlined and coupled with each other (in their rights and duties), in a manner such that the rights and privileges of the higher castes become the causative reasons for the disadvantage and disability for the lower castes, particularly the untouchables. In this sense, as Ambedkar observed, a caste does not exist in a single number, but only in plural. Castes exist as a system of endogenous groups, which are interlinked with each other in unequal measure of rights and relations in all walks of life. Castes at the top of the order enjoy more rights, at the expense of those located at the bottom. Therefore, the untouchables located at the bottom of the caste hierarchy have much less economic and social rights. This perspective is also governed by a particular notion of “human hood”, under which the untouchables are considered as “inferior human beings”, and therefore, are not entitled to any individual rights, be it social, religious, political, and economic.. It is also to be recognized that in the Hindu social order there is no difference between legal philosophy (or law), and moral philosophy (morality), thereby, the lack of such a distinction further perpetuates the practice of the caste system, and the two more or less get intertwined with one another- the legal become moral, and thus, morality based on inequality and hierarchy becomes a governing order of the society (Ambedkar first published in 1987, Thorat 2000).
Since the civil, cultural, and economic rights (particularly with respect to occupation and property rights) of each caste are ascribed, and are compulsory, the institution of caste necessarily involves forced exclusion of one caste from rights of another. In economic spheres, it involves the exclusion of one caste from the property rights and occupational rights of another. The occupations thus, become exclusive, and segmented. It is therefore, necessary to recognize and emphasize that an unequal and hierarchal assignment of economic rights and occupational rights by ascription, obviously restricts the freedom of occupation and the human development. It needs to be mentioned that an unequal and hierarchal assignment of economic rights and occupation by birth obviously restrict the freedom of occupation and lead to inter -caste inequality but it may not necessarily lead to deprivation and poverty, if every caste persons have access to reasonable sources of livelihood in their respective assigned occupation . However, in the case of the lower castes, particularly the untouchables, exclusion leads to deprivations and poverty, in so far as they are denied access to all sources of livelihood, except manual labour (and some other occupations considered to be polluting and inferior), and service to castes above them. Their exclusion is multiple, and comprehensive, and results in severe deprivation. Besides, untouchables also suffer from social, and residential separation and isolation due to the practice of untouchability which brings an additional dimension to their discrimination and exclusion. In this context Ambedkar observed, “classes or social groups are common to all societies, but as long as the classes or social groups do not practice isolation and exclusiveness they are only non-social in their relations towards one another. ‘Isolation and exclusiveness’ makes them anti-social and inimical to one another” (Ambedkar 1987).
The practice of caste-based exclusion and discrimination thus, necessarily involves failure of access and entitlements, not only to economic rights, but also to civil, cultural and political rights. It involves what has been described as “living mode exclusion”, exclusion in political participation, and exclusion and disadvantage in social and economic opportunities (Minorities at Risk, UNDP HDR 2004).
In the light of the above, the caste and untouchability-based exclusion and discrimination can be categorized in the economic , civil, cultural, and political spheres as follows:
1) The exclusion and the denial of equal opportunity in economic spheres would necessarily operate through markets and non- market transactions and exchange.
Firstly, exclusion can be practiced through the denial in labour market in hiring for jobs; in capital market through the denial of access to capital; in agriculture land market through the denial in sale and purchase or leasing of land; in input market through the denial in sale and purchase of factor inputs; and in consumer market through the denial in sale and purchase of commodities and consumer goods;
Secondly, discrimination can occur through what Amartya Sen would describe as “unfavorable inclusion”, namely through differential treatment in terms and condition of contract, one of them would reflect in discrimination in the prices charged and received by discriminated groups. This can be inclusive of the price of factor inputs, and consumers goods, price of factors of productions such as wages for labour, price of land or rent on land, interest on capital, rent on residential houses, charges or fees on services such as water, and electricity. Discriminated groups can get lower prices for the goods that they sell, and could pay higher prices for the goods that they buy, as compared with the market price or the price paid by other groups;
Thirdly, exclusion and discrimination can occur in terms of access to social needs supplied by the government or public institutions, or by private institutions in education, housing, and health, including common property resources like water bodies, grazing land, and other land of common use; and
Fourthly, some groups (particularly the untouchables) may face exclusion and discrimination from participation in certain categories of jobs (the sweeper being excluded from inside household jobs such as cooking or others), because of the notion of purity and pollution of occupations, and their engagements in so-called unclean occupations.
2) In the civil and cultural spheres, the untouchables may face discrimination and exclusion in the use of public services like public roads, temples, water bodies, and institutions delivering services like education, health and other public services.
3) In the political spheres, the untouchables can face discrimination in use of political rights, and in participation in decision- making process.
4) Due to the physical (or residential) segregation, and social exclusion on account of the notion of untouchability (or touch-me-not-sum), they can suffer from a general societal exclusion.
5) Since there is societal mechanism to regulate and enforce the customary norms and rules of the caste system, the untouchables generally can face opposition in the form of social and economic boycott, violence, and act as a general deterrent to their right to development.
After having brought some clarity with regards to the concept of caste-based discrimination, from which the untouchables suffer the most, we now turn towards another from of exclusion from which the groups like adivasis suffer. This type of exclusion is linked with the ethnic identity of a group. Historically, the adivasis have suffered from isolation, exclusion, and underdevelopment due to they being ethnically different from the mainstream Indian society, and due to them having a distinct culture, language, social organization, and economy (they generally practicing hunting, food gathering, shifting cultivation, and generally inhabited river valleys, and forest regions). The historical nature of their isolation and deprivation has resulted in them being considerably deprived, and the incidence of poverty too, is high among them. In their case, exclusion can take several forms, such as the denial of right to resources around which they live, unintended and intended consequences of policies of government and societal processes what Amartya Sen would call “active and passive exclusion” (the “active” fostering of an exclusion- through the deliberate policy intervention of the government, or by any other willful agents to exclude some people from some opportunity), and “passive exclusion” and deprivation, which operates through social process in which there is no deliberate attempt to exclude, but nevertheless, may result in the exclusion of a particular social group from a set of circumstances. The adivasis can further suffer from what Amartya Sen would call the “constitutive relevance” of exclusion, which arises due to their inability to relate to others, to take part in the life of the community, and thus, can directly impoverish the members of these groups.
The Consequences of Caste-based Exclusion on Human Development
The consequences of caste-based exclusion on the access to income earning assets, education, employment, social needs, and ultimately on poverty of the excluded and discriminated groups are far more serious. Since property rights under the caste system are assigned unequally across the castes; income distribution is generally skewed along the caste lines. The unequal and hierarchical assignment of occupational and property rights among castes implies that although every caste, excepting those at the top of caste order, suffer in a varying magnitude from an unequal division of the social and economic rights, the former untouchables, who are located at the bottom of the caste hierarchy, suffer most as they face “exclusion and discrimination” from access to all economic rights, including right to property, and education, except the manual labour or service to the castes above them. The institution of “untouchability” adds an additional dimension to their economic discrimination and exclusion, as they are prohibited from social intercourse, and participation in several economic activities due to the stigma of pollution associated with their castes. The economic and the social impact on “low-caste untouchables”, is therefore, far more negative than for any other social group in the Hindu society.
Besides, the general negative impact on the income distribution, the labour immobility across occupations also has adverse consequences on employment. Ambedkar and Akerlof in different contexts, argued that by putting restrictions on the mobility of labour across caste lines, and thereby, not permitting readjustment of employment; caste becomes a direct cause of much of the ‘involuntary unemployment” for the lower castes. Restrictions to take other castes occupation, compels them to remain involuntarily unemployed (Ambedkar 1936).
Thus, the insights from the theories of caste imply that caste and untouchability-based economic discrimination has a serious consequences on access to fixed income earning, education, and employment , particularly for the low caste untouchables. This historical exclusion results in lower incidences of ownership of agricultural land and non- land capital assets, lower employment, lower access to education, and other social needs, all of which cumulatively have poverty-inducing consequences.
This overview of the development of the concept of the “exclusion” in general, and that of caste-untouchability and ethnicity-based exclusion and discrimination in particular, brings out various dimensions of the concept in terms of its nature, forms, and consequences. The caste and untouchability-based exclusion and discrimination, essentially is “structural in nature”, and therefore, comprehensive and multiple in coverage, as a result involve denial of equal opportunities, particularly to the excluded groups like former untouchables . The deprivation has therefore led to a lack of access to resources, lower human resource development, lack of civil and cultural rights, and lack of access to political participation for both the deprived and discriminated groups. In the case of Adiwasi it is not systemic in nature and therefore the process of exclusion is of different nature although in its outcome in some respects ,if not all it similar to that of untouchables .
Methodology and Data Base
As mentioned earlier the main objectives of this paper is to assess the status of the human development and human poverty; at an aggregate level and disaggregate level by three social groups, namely the SCs, the STs, and the Others (Non SC/ST). The focus is primarily on the relative situation of the SCs and the STs. Both these social groups together account for approximately 250 million according to the Census of India 2002. Among the two most deprived groups the SCs constitute the largest social group accounting for about 17 percent (equivalent to 167 millions) of the total Indian population, and the adivasis constitute about 8 percent (equivalent to about 86 millions) of the total Indian population.
The paper evaluate the relative attainment of human development and human poverty among the SCs, the STs, and the Other sections in the Indian society using the UNDP human development framework, indicators, and composite indices of well being. Besides the assessment of the overall achievement in terms of the composite index of human development and human poverty, the paper also assess the changes and disparities among the three social groups on the basis of selected individual indicators, reflecting an access to resources or income earning assets, education and other social needs. These indicators mainly capture the status of the social groups with respect to ownership of agricultural land, and other capital assets, access to employment, access to social needs like education, health and basic amenities. It is important to recognize here that the SCs were historically denied the right to ownership of agricultural land, or to undertake business (other than few occupations, which are considered inferior and polluting), and to education (Ambedkar 1987, Thorat 1999). Therefore, the government policy since the last fifty years or so has been geared towards improving their access to agricultural land, non-land capital assets, and improving their levels of education. Hence, the analysis at the level of individual indicators will focus on the relative improvement of social groups in terms of access to agricultural land, non-land capital assets, employment (other than wage labour), and education.
More importantly, the papers also assess the situation of the SCs with respect to caste and untouchability-based discrimination in civil, political, and economic spheres, and the extent of denial and opposition to the efforts towards self-development- opposition being reflected in societal violence against them- which they face in their attempt to secure the human rights under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act 1979 (originally designated in 1955 as Anti-untouchability Act), and the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act of 1989. In this process, and to the extent possible, we try to encapsulate in a descriptive manner, the consequences of caste and untouchability-based exclusion, discrimination, and violence on the deprivation of the SCs.
The objective is also to capture, in a general way, the impact of the government policies in improving the levels of human development, and in reducing the disparities in the attainment of human development and alleviation of human poverty between the SCs, the STs, and the Other sections of the population.
Data base
The starting point for this study has been the preparation of an extensive database covering several indicators, in all cases, in terms of social groups. The entire data set has been compiled for, two points time for human development aspect, namely 1983/84 and 1999-2000. This has prompted an extensive search and use of data sets such Census of India, the National Sample Survey, National Family Health Surveys, Report on Differential in Mortality in India (Vital Statistics), Reports on Crime in India and other official surveys and some independent sources have also been used.
Basic indicators we used to estimate the composite index of human development are infant mortality rate (reciprocal value has been used to get the achievement value), literacy rate and average monthly per capita expenditure (at 1993-94 prices). The infant mortality indicator have been developed from two sets of sources namely Morality Differentials in India, Vital states Division for the period early 1980s and the National Family Health Survey I and II for the period early 1990s and for recent period 1999-2000. In case of literacy rate, population census has been used for all the three period. The literacy rate is measured as the proportion of literate population in age groups of 7 years and above to the total population of those age groups for 1991 and 2001. For 1981, the literacy rate is for the population aged of 5 years and above. The third indicators which we used for composite index is average monthly per capita expenditure (at 1993-94 prices). This has been drawn from the unit level data on consumption expenditure survey obtained from the National Sample Survey Organisation for the period of 1983 and 1999-2000.
On the other hand, several deprivation indicators have been used to estimate the human poverty index. Again here we have taken the IMR variable as directly to have the deprivation in health dimension. Illiteracy rate is taken to capture educational deprivation and proportion of people living below poverty line is taken to capture economic deprivation. Other dimensions of human poverty such as lack of access to public provisions viz. health and nutrition, the indicators of proportion of non-institutional deliveries, proportion of non-vaccinated children and proportion of children who are underweight for age are used respectively. These indicators are derived from the National Family Health Survey II and I.
The data on other human development related indicators on access to land and capital, status of employment and unemployment and occupational structure, wages and earnings and human rights and political participation are collected from various sources .These include population census, NSS employment surveys, NSS decennial land holding surveys, NSS consumption expenditure surveys, Rural labour Enquiry Reports, and Reports on Crime in India and other reports such as National Commission for SC/ST and National Human Rights Commission Report. In the case of Non - SC.ST groups (that is net of SC/ST), some variables like employment/unemployment rate, percentage of self employed in agriculture and self employed in non agriculture, variables related to ownership of land are given separately for non sc/st (designated as other in NSS terminology), but for other variables like urban population, non farm and farm worker, cultivator, literate and those under different level of education are not given separately for non sc/st and hence had to be worked out by deducting sc/st numbers from general figures to derive at non-sc/st category .Yet in case of some variables this method could not be used as the data are available in ratio form (and not in absolute number) .In the case of these variables we had no choice except to use them in their general form for non sc/st. These variables however are only few in number and relates to farm and non farm wages in rural area, and Rural wage labour, and agriculture wage labour. These data, which comes from the Rural Labour Inquiry, reports do not report separately for non-sc/st, while it give data for SC and ST. (see Technical note, Appendix I)
Section -III
Status of Human Development: Social Groups- 2000
The achievements by different sections of population in different spheres of their life are summarized, and given in terms of HDI. As mention above, the HDI is a composite index of three indicators, namely infant mortality rate, literacy rate, and monthly per-capita consumption expenditure. The HDI takes values between 0 and 1, such that a higher development for a group means a value closer to 1. In this case, it would imply that the entire population of the group has achieved of minimal attainment on each of the dimensions considered. The table 1.1 gives the values of the HDI by social groups for the most recent year that is, 2000.
Regional Dimensions by Social Groups
In 2000, at over all level, the value of HDI was 0.366.The HDI’s values vary for the social groups, namely the SCs, the STs, and Non SC/STs. The HDI for these respective groups was 0.270, 0.303, and 0.393 respectively. The HDI values for the SCs, and the STs are thus, lower when compared with Non SC/ST population (See Table 1.1).
For each of the respective groups, the HDI differs among the states too. In the case of the SCS, the HDI varies from 0.195 in Bihar, to 0.661 in Kerala. Among all the states in India, the first five in order of ranking were Kerala (0.661), Himachal Pradesh (0.450), Assam (0.407), Maharashtra (0.416), and Tamil Nadu (0.411). The states of Bihar (0.195), Uttar Pradesh (0.250), Orissa (0.289), Madhya Pradesh (294), Rajasthan (0.291), and Andhra Pradesh (0.283) were the ones, wherein the HDI values for the SCs were low in that order. The medium level ranking states were West Bengal (0.359), Gujarat (0.371), Punjab (0.343), Haryana (0.340), and Karnataka (0.308) (See table 2.1(a))
Figure : 1
[pic]
In case of the STs, the HDI value was .271 at an all India level. Among the predominantly tribal populated states, the HDI value was the highest for the states of Assam, followed by Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka respectively. The states of Bihar (0.201), Orissa (0.207), Andhra Pradesh (0.221), Madhya Pradesh (0.226), and Uttar Pradesh (245), were the ones wherein the HDI was relatively low. The moderately performing states were Karnataka (0.275), Rajasthan (0.262), and West Bengal (0.253) in that order.
Figure 2
[pic]
Finally, in the case of the Non SC/STs, the HDI varies considerably among the states. Its values fluctuate from about 0.301 in Bihar, to 0.755 in Kerala. The states, which fared better, and were highly developed with respect to human development, were Kerala (0.755), Himachal Pradesh (0.524), Maharashtra (0.480), Tamil Nadu (0.461), and West Bengal (0.452) respectively. The states of Rajasthan (0.365), Orissa (0.364), Assam (358), Uttar Pradesh (0.323), and Bihar (0.301) were the ones, wherein the HDI values for Others were lower. The rest of the states had HDI values, which were around the national average for Others (that is .390), and this category of states includes Punjab (0.446), Gujarat (0.433), Haryana (0.419), Karnataka (0.417), Andhra Pradesh (0.382), and Madhya Pradesh (0.368) respectively.
The regional pattern of HDI by social groups is indicative of the fact that there exist a common group of states, where in human development is relatively low for all the three groups, and this includes the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh in that order. Correspondingly, a common set of states comprising of Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu in that order was also analytic of a high level of human development for the SCs, and the Non SC/STs. Given the commonality of states with low values of HDI, in the case of SCS, the STS, and the Non -SCS/STS (which include Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh), it is important to examine, firstly, the factors for such low levels of HDI, and secondly, to ascertain whether similar factor are causative of lower levels of human development for all the three social groups or not.
Inter-Social Groups Variation in HDI
After having identified regions with high and low human development for each of the social groups, in this section we look at the disparity levels in human development across social groups. Table 1.1 present the values of HDI for the three social groups, and the disparity ratios between the SCs and the Others, and the STs and the Others for 2000 at All India and state levels (see appendix for state level0. Herein again, any value of disparity ratio less than 1 means less attainment in human development for the SCS, and the STS as compared to the Others or Non SCS/STS.
Table 1.1.Human Development Index - Levels and Disparity - 1980 - 2000
|Index |Social Groups |
|1. HDI Levels |SC |ST |Others |ALL |
|1980 |0.162 |0.150 |0.285 |0.241 |
|2000 |0.303 |0.270 |0.393 |0.366 |
|2. Difference in HDI |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1980 |0.124 |0.136 | | |
|2000 |0.091 |0.123 | | |
|3. Change in HDI (1980/2000) |3.55 |3.34 |1.80 |2.35 |
| (Percent per annum) | | | | |
|4. Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1980 |0.57 |0.52 | | |
|2000 |0.77 |0.69 | | |
|5. Change in Disparity Ratio | | | | |
|Net diff. (1980/2000) |0.20 |0.16 | | |
|Change (per annum rate) |1.72 |1.52 | | |
Firstly, we encapsulate the disparity between the SCs, and the Others. The statistical inferences bring to the fore the apparent differences in the human development between SCs and Others. In 2000, the HDI for the SCs was about .301, as compared to .393 for the Others. The disparity index works out to 0.77, indicating that when compared with the others, the human development achievement by the SCs was less that about 23 percent ( table 1.1).
Figure 3
[pic]
In all the states, the HDI was lower for the SCs. Among the states, the disparity level was relatively higher in Bihar (0.65), Andhra Pradesh (0.74), Karnataka (0.74), Punjab (0.77), and UP (0.77), which means that the attainment level of human development was about 35 percent less among the SCs, as compared with Others in Bihar, and about 30 percent less in Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. .( table 2.1(a)The disparity was relatively less in the states of Kerala (0.89), Tamil Nadu (0.88), Maharashtra (0.87), Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh (0.86), as the values of disparity ratio tend to be closer to 1. These states with lower disparity ratios also happen to be the regions with a high human development. Lower disparity levels seem to be hand in hand with the high level of human development among the SCs. In case of the STs, the gap between them and the Non SC/STs was higher as compared with the SCs.
At the national level in 2000, the HDI for the STS was .270, as compared with .393 for the Non SC/STs. The disparity ratio was 0.69, indicating a 31 percent less HDI. The disparity ratio was less 1 in all the states except in Assam. The disparity level was relatively high ranging from 0.56 to 0.67 in about seven states (which include West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Bihar). In these states, as compared with the Others, the HDI was less by a margin of about 33 to 44 percent. The disparity level was also relatively lower in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu.
Figure 4
[pic]
Changes in the Level of Human Development Index by Social Groups
In this section we look at the changes in the human development between 1983 and 2000 by social groups. Though the human development index has improved in the case of all the three social groups (See graph 1), however, there are significant differences among the social groups in terms of rate of change. Given the lower base of human development for the SCs, and the STs, the per annum rate was relatively higher for them as compared with the Non SCS/STs. The per annum rates were 3.55%, 3.34 %, and 1.89 % for SCs, the STs, and Non SC/STs respectively.(table 1.1)
There are however, differences in the rate of change for the individual states between each of the social groups. (table 2.1 (b) Figure 5
[pic]
In the case of the SCs, the HDI had increased at a higher rate for the states of Assam, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal (varying from 3.8 percent in 1983 to 7.1 percent in s2000 ), and at a relatively lower rate in Punjab, Kerala, Gujarat, Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh (varying from 2.1 percent in 1983 to 3.5 percent in 2000). In the rest of the states, the rate of change was less than the national average for SCs (2.0 percent in 1983 to -3.0 percent in 2000).
In the case of the STs, as against overall per annum rate of 3.3%, the HDI had increased in the range of 3.71 percent to 5 percent in the states of Assam (5 percent), Rajasthan (4.81 percent), and Gujarat (3.72 percent), followed by Maharashtra (3.54 percent), and Madhya Pradesh (3.3 percent). The change was lower in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu (1-2 percent). In the remaining states, the rate varied between 2-3 percent.
Lastly, among the Non SC/STs, the HDI increased by about 2 percent per annum. The rate of increase was incidentally higher than the national average in Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, but lower in Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka and Bihar. In the remaining states, the per annum rate was close to the national average of 2 percent for the Non SC/STs.
Changes in Disparity- 1983-2000
During the period 1983-2000, the HDI improved for all the social groups at over all level, and also for all the states. Given the lower base of HDI in 1983 for the SCs, and the STs, the rate of change among them was higher as compared to the Non SC/STs. Since the HDI improved at a faster rate between the SCs, and the STs, it is expected that the gaps in the HDI between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs would be further reduced.
The HDI for the SCs was 0.162 in 1983, as compared with 0.285 for the Non SC/STs. Thus, the net difference between the two groups was 0.123. In 1999-2000, this difference reduced to .09. This further reflected itself in the improvement in disparity ratios. The disparity ratio between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs, improved from .57 in 1983, to .77 (by 0.20) in 2000- thereby approximating more to the equality value of 1. But since the base level of HDI of the SCs itself was low, the disparity in HDI, between them and the Non SC/STs remained at higher levels. In 2000, as compared with the Non SCS/STs, the HDI of the SCs continued to be less by a margin of 25 percentage points. (see table 1.2 (b)).
The decline in disparity in the HDI between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs was fairly wide spread across the states, as all the states showed improvement in HDI and decline in disparity between 1983-2000.
Figure 6
[pic]
Similar trends were visible in the case of STs as well, but with a difference. The HDI for STs was 0.150 in 1983-84, as compared with 0.285 for Non SC/STs, the net difference being 0.135. In 2000, this difference was 0.123- showing a marginal improvement. The disparity ratio between STs and Non SC/STs had improved from .52 in 1983 to .69 (by 0.17) in 2000- reaching more closer to the equality value of 1, but not adequate enough to reduce the net difference by a reasonable margin. In 2000, the HDI of STs was lower by about one-thirds.
The features that emerge quite clearly from this discussion on human development of the social groups in 2000 are:
Firstly, the level of HDI among the SCs, and the STs was lower, as compared with the Non SC/ST groups. During the period 1983-2000, the HDI had improved for all the social groups at over all levels, as well as in all states. Given the lower base of HDI in 1983 for the SCs, and the STs, the rate of change among them was higher, as compared with Non SC/STs.
Secondly, between 1983-2000, the gap in HDI between the SCs, the STs, and Non SC/STs was reduced to an extent. The rate of improvement nevertheless, was much lower for STs. In general, the rate of improvement in HDI for the SCs, and the STs, had not been fast enough to reduce the gaps between them and the Others. In 2000, the level of HDI of the SCs, and the STs was less by a margin of about 25 percentage points and 30 percentage points respectively.
Finally, there was a common group of states, wherein the human development was found to be relatively low for all the three groups, and this includes the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh. This was also true for a common set of states comprising of Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu in that order.
Status of Human Poverty - 2000
The HPI not only measures deprivation in basic human developments in the dimensions, which are included in HDI, but also includes additional aspects related to the social needs like access to health and nutritional status etc. For the purpose of estimating HDI, variables such as Infant Mortality Rate, Illiteracy Rate, Poverty Ratio (Head Count Ratio), health status (which include variables that capture access to public health services, like percentage of children not vaccinated, and the percentage of non-institutional deliveries ) and nutritional status, in term of under weight children’s etc). Together these variables capture deprivation of social groups in the essential spheres.
Table 1.2 (a) presents the values of HPI for 1993-94, and 1999-2000. The values of HPI are taken for two years due to the problem of comparability.
Variation in the Level across Social Groups
In 2000, the HPI, at All India level was 34.38, but its values varied across the three social groups. The HPI was higher for the SCs, and the STs, as compared with the Non SC/STs at over all levels indicating higher level of deprivation. The values of HPI were 41.47, 47.79, and 34.38 for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs respectively.(table 1.2)
This inter-social group differences between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs were reflected in the disparity ratio as given in Table 1.2. The net difference in HPI between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs was by 10 points. The disparity worked out to be 1.32, indicating that among the SCs; the HPI was higher by about one-thirds, compared with the Non SC/STs. The disparity ratio among the SCs was higher than the Non SC/STs for all the states .
Table 1.2. Human Poverty Index - Level, Disparity and
Changes - 1990 - 2000, All-India
|Index |SC |ST |Others |ALL |
|1.HPI |54.36 |60.32 |42.09 |43.65 |
|1990 | | | | |
|2000 |41.47 |47.79 |31.34 |33.63 |
| | | | | |
|2. Net difference in HPI |SC-OT |ST-OT | | |
|1990 |-12.27 |-18.23 | | |
|2000 |-10.13 |-16.45 | | |
|3. Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1990 |1.29 |1.43 | | |
|2000 |1.32 |1.52 | | |
|4. Change in HPI (1990/2000 per annum) |-3.79 |-3.27 |-4.13 |-3.66 |
| | | | | |
|5. Change in Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|Net change |0.03 |0.09 | | |
|% change per annum |0.34 |0.89 | | |
Similarly, the HPI for the STs was 47.79, and was higher by about 16 points than the Non SC/STs. The disparity ratio being 1.52, the HPI among the STs was about fifty percent higher than the Non SC/STs in 2000. Correspondingly, the disparity ratio was also higher than Non SC/STs for all the tribal populated states.
At the state level with the exception of one or two states, a similar group of states comprising of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan have a propensity to show higher level of HPI for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs.( table 3.1(a)
For instance, the HPI for the SCs in states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh was higher, the HPI values in these states varied from 43.68 to 59.36. The HPI was lower in Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh. In the case of the STs, the HPI was higher in states like Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, in the case of the Non SC/STs, the HPI was high in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, and lower in the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka.
Figure 7
[pic]
Changes in the Level of HPI and Disparity- 1993-2000
Unlike HDI, we do not have a comparable data for 1983, and therefore the changes in HPI are analyzed for 1993. During 1993-2000, the HPI declined for all social groups. For instance in 1995, the HPI declined from 54.36, 60.32, and 42.09 for the SCs, the STs, and Non SC/STs respectively to 41.47, 47.79, and 31.34 in 2000. (table 1.2)
At over all levels, it declined at per annum rate of 3.66 percent, but the decline was at a lower per annum rate for the SCs (3.79 percent), and the STs (3.27 percent), as compared to the Non SC/STs (4.13 percent).
Figure 8
[pic]
At the state level, the HPI declined at higher rate than the national average of 3.27 percent per annum for SCs in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu. Conversely, the HPI declined at much slower rate in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarat.
In the case of STs, a relatively high rate of decline was confined to only two states, namely, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The decline was quite slow in Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Bihar, which incidentally also happen to be demonstrative of high human poverty regions.(Table 3.1(b)
We now discuss the changes in inter-social group disparities in HPI. The decrease in the gaps in the HPI between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs, both in terms of net change, and in terms of percentage change between 1993-2000 was minimal. The gap in terms of net-difference in the HPI between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs on one hand, and the STs, and the Non -SC/STs on the other, in 1993 was 12.27 and 18.23 respectively, which had reduced marginally to 10.13 and 16.45 in 2000.
Figure 9
[pic]
Due to the minimal decline in the net-difference in HDI, the disparity ratios showed no improvement in reducing the gaps in HPI between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs in 2000 from its levels during 1993. On the contrary, the gaps had in fact widened. In the case of SCs, the disparity ratio had increased from 1.29 in 1990 to 1.32, at a per annum rate of 0.34 percent. Similarly, for the STs, the HPI disparity ratio had increased from 1.43 in 1993 to 1.52 in 2000, at a per annum rate of 0.89. The increase in the disparity ratio of HPI between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs during the 1990’s seem to be closely associated with a slower decline in the level of HPI during 1990-2000 for all the three social groups. We have also seen in the preceding section above that the HPI had declined at slower rate among the SCs, and the STs, as compared with the disparity ratios of the Non SC/STs.
It is important here to recognize that the decline in the disparity between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs at over all levels during 1990-2000, was limited to about ten states. In the remaining six, though the disparity ratios had increased, but the increase was in varying degrees. These states included Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.
In the case of STs too, as many as eight states indicated an increase in HPI, the decline on the other hand, was confined to only two tribal populated states
This discussion condenses some of the features related to the status of human poverty during 2000, and changes in the level and disparity across social group between 1993-2000. In 2000, the HPI was higher for the SCs, and the STs as compared to the Non SC/STs at over all levels. The inter-social group differences between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs were reflected, both in terms of the net-difference and the disparity ratios. The net difference in HPI between the SC/STs, and the Non SC/STs was 10 and 16 points respectively. The disparity level for the SCs worked out to about 1.32, indicating that the prevalence of human poverty among the SCs was higher by about one- third margin, as compared with the Non SC/STs. In the case of the STs, the disparity ratio was 1.52, indicting that the propensity of human poverty among the STs was higher by more than fifty percent.
During 1993-2000, the HPI declined for all the social groups, but it is pertinent here to mention that it declined at lower per annum rates for the SCs, and the STs, as compared with the Non SC/STs.
The disparity between the SC/STs, and the Non SC/STs in terms of net-difference declined only marginally. Due to the minimal decline in the net-difference in the HDI, the disparity ratios indicated no improvement in reducing the gap in the HPI between SC/STs, and the Non SC/STs in 2000 from its level in 1993, on the contrary the gap in fact widened.
Figure 10
[pic]
At the state level, with an exception of one or two states, a similar group of states comprising of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan indicated a higher level of HPI for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs respectively.
Individual Dimensions of Human Development- Level, Disparity and Changes
Since the composite indexes of HDI and HPI capture the overall achievements of human well being, they are known to conceal individual indicators of performance. In order to make the analysis more insightful with regards to such individual indicators, we now examine the attainment levels for selected dimensions of HDI and HPI. These individual dimensions include Infant Mortality Rate, Literacy Rate Per Capita, Consumption Expenditure, Incidence of Poverty, access to Health Services, and Nutritional Status. This kind of a desegregated analysis enables to target policy efforts on the specific public investments for social groups.
Infant Mortality Rate- 2000
The infants or newborn baby’s survival, or its successful completion of one year without any crucial disease, or evasion from a pre-mature death is considered to be an important indicator of the health status of a given society. The IMR is calculated on the basis of the number of children per 1000 children dying before their first year of birth. Though, we have chosen this indicator, and used its reciprocal value to construct the HDI, but in this section, we present the actual value of IMR for different social groups in 2000, and the respective changes in IMR during 1983-2000.
To begin with, the IMR for the SCs at All India level was around 83, which was considerably higher than for the Non SC/STs (68 per thousand). The IMR among the SCs was the highest when compared with the Non SC/STs in all the states (See Table 1.3 (a) ).
Figure 11
[pic]
Among the states, the IMR varied from a much higher level of about 110 per 1000 for Uttar Pradesh, to only 20 per 1000 in Kerala. The levels of IMR were particularly high in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. As we have seen in the preceding sections, these also happen to be the states with low human development indexes.
Conversely, the IMR was relatively low for the states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam, and Himachal Pradesh; these states are again high HDI states. In the remaining states, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, and West Bengal, the IMR for the SCs was around the national average of 83 per 1000. (table 4.1(a)
In case of STs, the IMR was around 84 per 1000, which is almost the same as the SCs, but much higher than that for the Non SC/STs. At the state level, the IMR was relatively higher in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. On the contrary, it was relatively low for the states of Assam, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. These states were again the states with higher HDI in 2000.
In the case of Non SC/STs also, the IMR varies quite significantly across the states. The IMR was about 68 per 1000- much lower than that for SCs, and the STs, and was also lower than the national average of 73 per 1000.The IMR was relatively lower in states of Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and West Bengal, and relatively higher in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh.
The results therefore, indicate that the SCs, and the STs lag too far behind the Non SC/STs as far as the national average with respect to IMR is concerned, needless to mention that the IMR is an important indicator of human development. The IMR for the SCs, and the STs was about 83 to 84 per thousand, as against 68 for the Non SC/STs. The disparity ratio works out to be roughly between 1.22 for the SCs and the Others, and about 1.24 for the STs and the Others respectively. This implies that among the SCs, and the STs, the IMR was higher by about 25 percentage points as compared to the Non SC/STs (See Table 3.1). In most of the states, the disparity ratios were more than one (except in three cases, and therein too, the problem seems to be related to the data), indicating higher IMR for the SCs, and the STs. The disparity ratios were particularly high for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Himachal Pradesh.
Table 4.1(b) presents the changes in the levels, and in disparity ratios in IMR between 1983-2000. It is evident from the tables that the levels of IMR improved at national level for all the three social groups. At national level, the IMR declined at a per annum rate of 2.19 percent- a rate more or less similar to the SCs (2.31 percent), and the Non SC/STs (2.07 percent) respectively. The analysis also brought to the fore that the IMR declined at much lower rate in case of STs, i.e. by 1.02 percent per annum.
The decline in IMR was also reflected in the decline in net-differences in IMR during 1983-2000 for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/Sts by 44, 17, 31 points respectively. The disparity ratio for the IMR, however, did not show much improvement. The disparity ratio between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs declined only by 0.06 points, i.e. from 1.28 in 1983, to 1.22 in 2000, and this further works out to a decline at per annum rate of 2.5 percent during 1983-2000. In the case of the STs, and the Non SC/STs, the disparity ratio increased by 0.22 points- at a per annum rate of 1.28 percent during 1983-2000.
This indicates that although, the IMR declined in absolute terms for the SCs, the rate of decline was not high enough to reduce the gap between them and the Non SC/STs. Therefore, the result was that the IMR level in 2000 were close to the ones in 1983-84.
In the case of STs, the rate of decline in IMR was much lower- compared with the Non SC/STs, and as a result in the period between 1984-84, the disparity ratios between both the social groups increased.
Now to summarize the discussion, we find that in 2000, at All India level, the IMR was much higher among the SCs, and the STs as compared with the Non SC/STs. During 1983-2000 the IMR however, improved at the national level for all the three social groups. The IMR for SCs declined at a rate similar to that for Non SC/STs, the decline was however, much less for the STs. The decline in IMR also led to a net decline in differences in IMR between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs. However, the rate of decline in IMR was not high enough to bring substantial decline in the disparity ratios between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs. The resultant was that the disparity ratios for SCs in 2000 were only little less than those for the Non SC/STs, and in the case of STs, in fact, the disparity ratio increased in 2000.
Literacy Rate- 2001
The literacy rate is defined as the proportion of population aged 7 years and above, who can both, read and write with an understanding in any language. Such a proportion of population is treated as literate. The literacy rates are indicative of one of the means of capacity and capability building, which enable individual’s to overcome constraints, and in the process, enlarge their choices to attain better human development.
In 2001, the literacy rates for both the SCs, and were lower as compared to the Non SC/STs. In 2001, literacy rates for the country as a whole were 65 percent, whereas for the SCs, STs, and the Non SC/STs they stood at 55 percent, 47 percent, and 69 percent respectively. (1.3(a)
Figure 12
[pic]
The literacy rates among the SCs were lower than the Non SC/STs by about 14 percentage points. The disparity ratio worked out to .79, indicating about 21 percent less literacy among the SCs as compared to the Non SC/STs.
In the case of STs, the percentage point difference in the literacy rates between them and Non SC/STs was about 22. The disparity ratio worked out to 0.68, indicating about 32 percent lower literacy among the tribal (table 1.3 (a).
Changes in Level and Disparity- 1983-2000
Between the period 1983 and 2001, the literacy rates improved for all the three social groups in India. The literacy rate improved at higher rate of about 5 percent per annum in the case of SCs, and the STs (from 24.49 percent in 1981 to 55.22 percent in 2001), as compared to 2.13 percent in the case of the Non SC/STs (from 18.79 percent in 1981 to 47 percent in 2001). At the overall level, the literacy rates increased at the per annum rate of 2.52 percent. It is also important to mention here that the increase in literacy rate was experienced by all states for the given period.
The improvement in the literacy rate was faster among the SCs, and the STs. This has to a considerable extent reduced the gap in literacy rates between them and Non SC/STs. The disparity ratios improved from .52 in 1983 to .79 in 2000 in the case of SC, and from .40 to .68 in case of the STs. The rate of improvement was higher in the case of STs (3.04 % per annum), as compared with the SCs (2.38 % per annum).(table 5.1(b)
The disparity ratios for the SCs, and the STs too, improved for all the states. The exceptions being the state of Kerala, in the case of SCs, and the states of Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh in the case of STS.
Thus, during 1983-2000, the literacy rates improved for all the social groups. Given the low base in 1983, the literacy rates improved at a higher rate of for SCs, and the STs, this further enabled the to reduce the gap in literacy rates between them and the Non SC/STs. But the despite this improvement in 2001, the literacy rates for both SCs, and the STs continue to be lower when compared with the Non SC/STs. In 2001, the literacy rates among SCs, and the STs were lower by 14 and 21 percentage points as compared with Non SC/STs respectively.
Per Capita Expenditure- 2000
Separate data on household income, which is an over all measure of well being of the population were not available separately for the social groups, and therefore, we have utilized the monthly per capita expenditure as a proxy variable for income in HDI. The Average Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (hereafter MPCE) is in real terms (at 1992-93-94 prices).
Figure 13
[pic]
In 2000, at the all India level, the average expenditure for SCs, and the STs was Indian Rupees (hereafter Rs.) 285, and Rs 260 respectively, this was much lower than the Non SC/STs (Rs. 393) at the All India level. Inter-group disparities in monthly per capita expenditure between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs, and between the STs, and the Non SC/STs in terms of disparity ratios were clearly visible in 2000. The value of disparity ratio between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs was 0.73, indicating about 33 percent less consumption expenditure by the SCs.(table 1.3(a)
The disparity was relatively high in states of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Karnataka, and Haryana wherein the MPCE of SCs was less by about 40 percent margin. The disparity was relatively low in Assam, Bihar, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. In the case of the STs, the disparity between them and the Non SC/STs was 0.66, which was higher than the one between the SCs, and Non SC/STs. Thus, as compared with the Non SC/STs, the MPCE of the STs was lower by 36 percent (being at about one-thirds in the a case of the SCs). The disparity level was higher than the national average in three tribal states, namely, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. It was also relatively lower in Orissa, Assam, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh.( table 6.1(a)
The level of MPCE for the SCs, and the STs varies significantly across states. The MPCE for the SCs ranges between Rs. 215 in Bihar to Rs. 403 in Kerala. For a number of states, MPCE for the SCs was less than the national average of Rs. 285. The larger states that fall in this category include, Bihar (Rs. 215), Orissa (Rs. 223), Madhya Pradesh (Rs. 256), Andhra Pradesh (Rs. 262), and Uttar Pradesh (Rs. 265). By comparison, the MPCE in states like Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, and Haryana was much higher. The other states wherein the MPCE was in medium range were Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
The MPCE for STs too, varies significantly across the states. For instance, the MPCE for the STs ranges between Rs.180 to Rs. 456. Among the tribal populated states, the MPCE was the lowest in Orissa with Rs 180, followed by Madhya Pradesh (Rs. 213), Bihar (Rs. 227), and West Bengal (Rs. 246). By comparison, the MPCE was relatively higher in the tribal populated states of Himachal Pradesh (Rs. 426), Uttar Pradesh (Rs. 317), Rajasthan (Rs. 298), and Gujarat (Rs 290). In rest of the states, the MPCE was closer to the national average for the STs at Rs. 260.
In case of the Non SC/STs, there are significantly regional variations. The MPCE was relatively higher in Punjab, Haryana, Kerala, and Himachal Pradesh in that order. At the other end, the MPCE was much lower in states of Bihar, Orissa, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
Changes in Level and Disparity- 1983-2000
The MPCE in real terms indicated an increase during 1983-2000 at All India level. (table 1.3(a))This was also true for all the three social groups. The net increase in MPCE in real terms at the national level was Rs. 70. The net increase in the MPCE was lowest for the SCs, and the STs, as compared with the Non SC/STs. The increase in MPCE in real terms for the SCs, and the STs was about Rs. 53 and Rs. 80 respectively. The rate of increase however, was marginally lower for the SCs (1.14 percent per annum), as compared to the STs (1.29 percent per annum), and the Non SC/STs (1.27 percent per annum).
Among the states, for the SCs, the MPCE increased at a relatively higher rate in Kerala (2.44 percent), Tamil Nadu (2.37 percent), West Bengal (1.76 percent), and Maharashtra (1.70 percent). The per annum rate of increase was also close to the national average for SCs in Bihar, and Orissa at 1.53 percent respectively. In the rest of the states, the per annum rate was less than 1 percent. In the case of the STs, the MPCE increased at higher rate in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and West Bengal. In the rest of the states, the per annum rate was relatively low.T table 6.1(b)
For the Non SC/STs, the states, which experienced a higher increase in their MPCE, were Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, and Orissa. What is important is that during the period 1983-2000, a group of similar states namely Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal showed a relatively higher increase in MPCE in real terms for all the three social groups. There were however, a few exceptions. The state of Gujarat, while indicating a higher increase in the case of STs, and the Non SC/STs, indicated a low rate of increase for SCs. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh also indicated a lower per annum change in MPCE for the SCs as compared to the STs, and the Non SC/STs (although the difference was not as large, as in the case of Gujarat). Similarly, while in Maharashtra, the per annum rate was relatively higher for the SCs, and the Non SC/STs, it was low for the STs.
Despite the improvement in MPCE for the SCs, and the STs, the disparity in MPCE between them, and the Non SC/STs did not reduce during 1983-2000. The relative increase in MPCE for the SCs, and the STs was not correspondingly high enough to reduce the gap between the SCs, and the STs, and the Non SC/STs. The disparity ratios for the SCs, and the STs in 1983 were 0.74 and .66 respectively, and the same remained at 0.73 and 0.66 level in 2000. There were however, large-scale interstate variations in the change in disparity in MPCE between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs. In the case of SCs, the disparities between them and the Non SC/STs worsened in about seven states. In the remaining states however in 1983-2000, there was a considerable improvement in reducing the gap in MPCE between the SCs, and the Non SC/STs. Similarly, in the case of STs, although the disparities between the STs, and the Non SC/STs at overall level remained constant, they worsened in about five states and improved in the remaining states. Thus, in 2000 at the All India level, the MPCE for the SCs, and the STs was lower than Non SC/STs. During 1983-2000, the MPCE of all social groups seems to have increased, but despite this increase, in 2000, the MPCE of the SCs, and the STs was less by about 25 and 34 percentage points respectively, as compared to the MPCE of the Non SC/STs.
Consumption Poverty - 2000
The MPCE is an aggregate measure of the well being of people. The incidence of poverty in terms of head count ratio however, goes a step ahead, and estimates the proportion of persons not meeting a minimum level of consumption expenditure with regards to the calories intake. We therefore, assess the situation of the three social groups with respect to the incidence of poverty by social groups for 2000, and their respective changes during 1983 and 2000.
Figure 14
[pic]
In 2000, in the rural areas about 45 percent of the SCs, and 37 percent of the STs are poor as compared with 21 percent among the Non SC/STs. Compared with the Non SC/STs, the incidence of aggregate poverty was seventy percent, and about hundred percent higher among the SCs, and the STs respectively- the disparity ratio being 1.73 for SCs and Others, and 2.12 for STs and the Others.( table 1.3 (a)
The disparity in the aggregate poverty between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs was far more glaring in some states. In the case of the SCs, the gap was particularly high in Punjab, Haryana Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh with poverty disparity ratio of 4.30, 4.20, 2.24, 2.16, and 2.77 respectively (See table 1.3 (a)). Thus, poverty among the SCs was more than four times higher among the SCs in Punjab and Haryana, and more than two and a half times higher in the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh. The disparities were relatively lower in the states of Assam, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh.
In the case of STs, the gap in aggregate poverty between them and the Non SC/STs was equally high. At All India level, the poverty among the STs was about two times higher than the Non SC/STs- the disparity ratio being 2.12. At the state level, the poverty gap between the STs, and the Non SC/STs was relatively higher in Gujarat and Orissa- the poverty among STs being more than two times higher as compared to the Non SC/STs.
The incidence of poverty was consistently higher among the SCs, and the STs as compared to the Non SC/STs in all the states. However, we observed a pocket of states with incidences of high poverty for the respective social groups. In the case of SCs, the poverty was higher in Bihar, Orrisa, and Assam, whereas for the STs the states of Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal constitute the high poverty states. In the case of the Non SC/STs Bihar, Orrisa, Madhya Pradesh, and Assam are the high poverty states. Thus, a group of six states comprising of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam turn out to be the pockets of high poverty in 2000. (table7.1 (a)
Changes in Level and Disparity- 1983 -2000
During 1983-2000, aggregate poverty declined at over all levels, and also among all the social groups. At over all level, the incidence of poverty declined at a per annum rate of 3 percent (by 18 percentage points). Poverty declined at a slower rate among the SCs, and the STs as compared to the Non SC/STs. While poverty declined at a per annum rate of 3.35 percent for the Non SC/STs, the rate of decline was 2.63 percent for the SCs, and only 1.93 percent per annum for the STs. The decline in aggregate poverty among the STs occurred at much lower rate. (table 1.3(a)
At the state level, poverty level declined at fester rate in Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Kerala, and Himachal Pradesh, followed by Gujarat, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh. In the case of the STs, the rate of decline in poverty occurred at a relatively high rate in the states of Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Gujarat.(table 7.1(b)
The trends in disparity levels for poverty among social groups show mixed results. While there was a considerable decline in the inter-group disparity levels with regards to poverty (in terms of percentage point difference), but in terms of disparity ratios, the poverty gap has, in fact increased between 1983-2000. For instance, in 1983, the gap in poverty of the SCs, and the Non SC/STs was 20 percentage points, reduced to 15 percentage points in 2000. In the case of STs, the percentage point’s gap, which was 18 percent in 1983, remained at the same level in 2000. But the disparity ratio for the SCs, and the Non SC/STs which stood at 1.53 in 1980, increased to 1.73 in 2000. Similarly, the disparity ratios for the STs, and the Non SC/STs increased from 1.65 in1983, to 2.12 in 2000. Thus, in relative terms (that is in relation to the Non SCs/STs), the poverty gap between the SCs, the STs, and Non SC/STs increased between 1983 and 2000.
Out of major sixteen states, it is only in four states that disparity ratios seem to have reduced during 1983-2000. Similarly, in the case of the STs, and the Non SC/STs, only two states indicate reduced disparity ratios.
Thus, the central features that clearly emerge from an analysis of poverty among the social groups are as mentioned below. Compared with the Non SC/STs, the incidence of aggregate poverty was seventy percent higher for the SCs, and about hundred percent higher among the respectively. Between 1983-2000, the incidence of poverty, in terms of head count ratio declined for all the social groups, but simultaneously, the rate of decline was lower among the SCs, and the STs, as compared to the Non SC/STs. Further, the poverty gap between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs increased during 1983-2000- at least in relative terms (if not in terms of percentage points), mainly due to the slower decline in poverty for the social groups.
Nutrition Status
The deprivation in nutrition status is measured by the percentage of under weight children in 2000. At over all levels, about 47 percent children were under-nourished. The percentage of such children was 54 percent for the SCs, 56 percent for STs, and 44 percent for the Non SC/STs. Thus, the level of under-nourishment was relatively higher among the SCs, and the STs, as compared to Non SC/STs. The disparity ratio worked out to 1.23 and 1.27 for SCs, and the STs respectively, indicating about 23 percent and 27 percent higher under-nourished children among the SCs and the STs, as compared with the Non SC/STs in 2000. (table 1.3 (a)
Figure 15
[pic]
At the state levels, the disparity between the SCs and the Non SC/STs is particularly high for the SCs in Kerala and Punjab, and for the STs and the Non SC/STs in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Between 1990 and 2000, the health index indicated an overall improvement for the three social groups, but by a low margin for the SCs, and the STs. For instance, during 1990-2000, the nutrition index reduced from 58 percent to 54 percent for the SCs, and from 57 percent to 56 percent for the STs. Similarly, the reduction for the Non SC/Sts was 52 to 44 percentage points respectively. In terms of percentage points, the decline for the Non SC/STs was higher than for the SCs, and the STs- the net decline being 8 percent, 4 percent and 1 percent for the Non SC/STs, the SCs, and the STs respectively. Thus, the decline in nutrition deprivation occurred at much lower rates in the case of the SCs (1.02 percent per annum), and the STs (0.24 percent per annum), as compared with the Non SC/STs (2.36 percent per annum) during the 1990’s.(table 8.1(a) and table 8.1(b)
Thus, the levels of under-nourishment were relatively higher among the SCs, and the STs, as compared to the Non SC/STs. Between 1990 and 2000, though, the access of all the three social groups improved, but by a low margin for the SCs, and the STs.
Access to Public Health Services
The index of access to public health services is estimated by taking the indicators of percentage of children not vaccinated, and the percentage of non-institutional delivery. This index thus, measures the extent of lack of access to public health to the three social groups in 2000. In 2000, at an over all level, an average of about 40 percent persons/households did not have access to public services. As is clear from the table ---1.3 (a), the percentage of such persons/households was comparatively higher among the SCs, and the STs, as compared with the Non SC/STs
The percentages for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs were 44.15, 53.55, and 37.15 respectively. Thus, persons not having access to public health services were less than 7 percentage points, and 16.4 percentage points for the SCs, and the STs respectively. The disparity ratios worked out to be 1.19 for the SCs, and 1.44 the STs, which meant that the SCs, and the STs had 23 percent, and 44 percent less access to public health service, as compared to the Non SC/STs. The disadvantage of the SCs with regards to access to health services was greater. At the state level, the disparity ratios were higher in Punjab, Gujarat, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh for the SCs. In the case of STs, the disadvantage was relatively higher in the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Orissa. Between 1990 and 2000, the health index improved at over all levels from 52 to 40, with an improvement for all the three social groups.(table 9.1(a)
Figure 16
[pic]
The health index reduced from 60 percent, 76 percent, and 49 percent in 1990, to 44 percent, 53 percent, and 37 percent in 2000 respectively, for the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs. The per annum rate of decline was around 4 percent for all the three social groups. The disparity ratios between the SCs and the Non SC/STs, and the STs and the Non SC/STs also declined, but only marginally. The disparities declined at per annum rate of only 0.50 percent for the SCs, and 1.11 percent for STs, and therefore the gaps in access to health between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs were not significantly different from theirs level in 1990. In fact, at state levels, about eight states for the SCs, and nine for the STs indicated either no change or decrease in access to public health services. This discussion indicates that the access of the SCs, and the STs was less, as compared with the Non SC/STs. Between 1990 and 2000, the access improved at over all levels, and for all the three social groups, however, the rate of decline was less, as result, the gaps between them and the Non SC/STs in terms of access to public health services continued in 2000. (table 9.1(b)
Summary- Improved Level, Declining Disparity and Persistent Inequality
In the preceding sections we have discussed the attainment of human development, and the human deprivation of the socially marginalized sections of the Indian society, namely the SCs, and the STs during 2000, and also studied the changes in the levels and disparities in HDI, and HPI (and individual components), between the socially marginalized groups and rest of the sections of Indian population during 1983-2000 in a comparative framework.
Three features regarding the status of human development and human poverty of the socially marginalized groups comes out quite clearly from this discussion.
First feature is that during 1983-2000, there has been an improvement in the HDI, and also in the indicators of human development and human poverty at over all levels, and for all groups, namely the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs. Similarly, with some exceptions, the disparities between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs in terms of HDI, HPI, and in terms of individual components have reduced between 1983-2000, although, the rate of decline was more for some indicators, and less for others. Overall, there has been a declining trend in disparity between the SCs, the STs and the Non SC/STs.
Second feature is that notwithstanding the positive improvement in the attainment of human development indicators, and subsequent narrowing down of gaps in the attainment rates between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs, the rate of improvement between 1983-2000 (or in some cases 1990-2000), was not high enough to bridge the gap, and to bring the SCs, the STs, at par with the Non SC/STs, which indeed has been the focus and objective of the government policies towards these sections. Therefore, in 2000, in spite of the improved levels of human development, the disparities between socially marginalized groups of the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs still persists.
For instance, in case of HDI, the disparity ratio between SCs and Non-SC/STs improved from .57 in 1983 to .77 in 2000- coming more nearer to the equality value of 1. But since the base level of HDI of the SCs, and the STs itself was low, the disparity in HDI between them, and the Non SC/STs was of a high order.
The HPI also improved for all the three social groups, but at lower per annum rate for the SCs, and the STs. The differences between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs in terms of net-difference declined only marginally, and therefore the disparity ratio indicated no improvement in reducing the gap in the HPI between SCs/STs and Non SCs/STs in 2000 from its level in 1993, on the contrary the gap has been widen.
Exceptions apart the various individual components of HDI and HPI also show the same trend. The IMR has improved for all the three social groups during 1983-2000. The rate of decline in IMR has not been high enough to bring significant decline in the disparity ratio between SCs/STs and Non SCs/STs. As a result the disparity ratio for SC in 2000 was only little less than in 1983 and in the case of ST, in fact the disparity ratio increased in 2000.
In the case of literacy during 1983-2000, the literacy rate has improved for all the groups. The literacy rate has improved at higher rate of for SC and ST and this helped to reduce the gap in literacy rate between them and Non SC/ST.
Monthly per capita consumption expenditure has increased for all social groups, but the relative increase in the MPCE of SC and ST has not been high enough to reduce the gap between the SC/ST and the Non ST/SCs. The disparity ratio for the SCs and STs in 1983 was 0.74 and 0.66 respectively, which have remained at 0.73 and 0.66 level in 2000 respectively for SC and ST.
The incidence of poverty also declined for all social groups, but at lower rate among the SC and ST. The poverty gap between the SC/ST and Non SC/STs in fact increased during 1983/2000, at least in relative term, mainly due to slower decline in poverty for social groups.
Same is the case for trend in nutritional level. Between 1990 and 2000 the nutritional Status of all three social groups improved, but by a low margin for the SC and ST. The access to public health has improved at over all level and for all the three social groups; however, the rate of decline is less, as result the gap between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs in access to public health services continued in 2000.
Third feature in fact emerged from the first and second. Although, there has been an improvement in the HDI, HPI and its various components, but since the relative improvement in the case of SCs and STs has been by and large, lower as compared with Non SC/STs (or in some cases the improvement was low for all social groups), the disparity between SC/ST and other has not been reduced substantially enough so as to bridge the gap to reasonable minimum. As result of this the socially marginalized groups of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribe lag behind the other section of Indian population with respect to attainment level in human development.
For instance in 2000, compared with Non SC/STs the HDI of the SCs and STs was less by a margin of about 23 percent and 31 percent respectively. Conversely these groups suffer from high degree of human deprivation Compared with Non-SC/STs the HPI is higher between the SC and ST by about one third and more than fifty percent margin respectively.
The Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribe suffers from high degree of deprivation with respect to five components of HDI and HPI namely, infant mortality, poverty, under –nutrition, lower access to public health services and low level of literacy rate and low monthly per-capita expenditure.
The disparities between the SCs, the STs, and the Non SC/STs however, vary for each individual indicator. For instance, in 2000 among the SC/ST the IMR is higher by about 25 percent compared with Non SC/STs. Compared with Non-SC/STs the literacy rate between the SC and ST was lower by 14 percent and 21 percent. The SCs and STs monthly per-capita expenditure is less by about 25 percent and 34 percent compared with consumption expenditure of Non-SC/STs. Again compared with Non SC/STs the incidence of aggregate poverty is seventy percent and about hundred percent higher among the SCs and STs respectively. The percentage of under–nourished children among the SC and ST was higher by 23 percent and 27 percent respectively. Finally the SCs and STs access to public health services is less by 23 percent and 44 percent less, compared with Non SC/STs.
Section - IV
Factors Governing Human Development and Human Poverty
In this section we look in to the factors for limited progress in human development among the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and continuing inequalities between them and other sections of society in human development, that emerged through our analysis in the preceding sections. We try to study the status of SC and ST in terms of access to resources, particularly the agricultural land, non land assets, employment in general and public employment in particular, education and other related spheres, which have been the focus of government’s general pro-poor policies and Affirmative action policies targeted towards the socially marginalized group of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribe.
We try to get insight in to the status of Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribe in comparison with Non SCs/STs with respect to sources of wellbeing, for most recent year 2000. What are the specific factors that cause low human development among the SC/ST when compared with Non SCs/STs and to see whether these are group specific?
Depending on the availability of data, we have selected a set of indicators, which are given in table 10 and 11. These have been classified in to indicators indicating (a) access to ownership of income earning capital assets-agriculture land and Non land (b) occupation /job diversification – captured through level of urbanization, and share of worker in non- agricultural sector, (c) employment and unemployment rate (d) wages in farm and non farm sector and (e) education level, in term of literacy rate and level of education. Table –gives the values of these indicators for Scheduled castes, scheduled tribe and Non-SCs/STs for 2000 at all India level.
Factors Associated with Relatively High Human Development
Before we discuss the factors which are associated with low human development of the socially marginally group of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe , we first look at the factors that are associated with relatively high level of human development in India in terms of HDI during the period under study at over all level and see as to how the SC and ST perform poorly with respect to those indicators .,which matter most from the point of improving the human development .Table provide an interesting comparison of states with least HDI and those with highest HDI for 2000.Table 10 provide the average values for important factors indicating access to resource, employment, education and other aspect like level of urbanization and job diversification. It gives the average of the three states with least HDI (namely Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa) and average of three states with highest HDI (namely include Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra)
It is interesting to note that in 2000 in the high HDI states, on average the ownership of capital assets per household is high as compared with Low HDI states .The value of capital assets per households for high HDI states was Rs 88291,as against Rs.70189 for low HDI states .The level of urbanization and job diversification in favor of non farm jobs, particularly the regular salaried was also high among the high HDI states .
The employment rate for all statuses (except the usual principle status) in rural area and under all statues in urban area were higher in urban area for high HDI states. The agricultural and non agricultural wages were invariably high among the states with high HDI. Further more the literacy rate and share of literate in primary/middle, high school and secondary was also high in high HDI state by substantially margin. For instance the rural and urban literacy rate in high HDI states were 66% and 86% as compared with 51 % and 72% in low HDI state in 2001.
Thus greater access to capital assets, higher degree of urbanization and shift in employment in favor of non farm sector ,high employment and wages rate in (farm and non –farm sector),and high level of literacy and educational level seems to be closely associated with high level of human development in states which had high level of human development in terms HDI .
Factors Associated with low Human Development among the SC and ST
Having got some insight in to the factors that induced higher human development ,we now look at the situation with respect to some of these indicators for SC and ST whose perform much poorly in term of human development in 2000.We particularly focus on the factors such as access to resources or capital assets , employment and wages, urbanization, employment diversification and education –the actors which emerged as important in promoting human development in high HDI states .(table 11)
Caste based Discrimination as factors in failure of Entitlement and in high Deprivation of SC and ST
Thus empirical evidence shows that the disparities in the HDI and HPI and their individual components between SC/ST and Non SC/ST are closely linked with the lower access of these socially marginalized groups of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe to sources of income and human resource capabilities, that is to lower access to capital assets like agricultural land and Non land assets (and/or low productivity of those assets ), lower urbanization and employment diversification away from agriculture, exceptionally high dependence on casual wage labour, high under employment, lower daily wages particularly in Non farm activities, and low level of literacy and level of education ,compared with Non SC/ST groups in Indian society.
However, the question remains as to why the SC/ST have poor access to all resources which directly and indirectly determine the level of income and capabilities to secure other sources of income? Why the ownership of agricultural land and Non land capital assets is low compared with Non SC/ST? Why are the unemployment rates high particularly among the SC compared with Non SC/ST? Why is the daily wage earnings of SC/ST in non farm activities low compared with Non SC/ST? Why the literacy rate and education level are much lower when compared with Non SC/ST.
It is rather difficult to answer these questions empirically. The persisting inequality in command over resources and human capabilities could be result of a number of factors, such as continuing process of exclusion and discrimination of SC/ST, limited impact of the pro-poor and anti-discrimination government policies. In this section, we try to provide some empirical evidence to show the negative role of discrimination and exclusion in the human development particularly among the scheduled caste . Due to constrain of the data, we confine our empirical evidence to scheduled caste. While there is some systematic evidence on the caste and untouchability based discrimination in social, cultural and political spheres, the evidence on economic discrimination is limited. The professional economists in India, have by and large neglected the study of economic and market discriminations and therefore, our understanding about the forms, processes of market discrimination and their consequences is rather limited. We therefore draw from diverse sources to provide empirical evidence about the nature of economic and market discrimination.
The presentation of empirical evidence with regard to caste discrimination is based on official data and selected primary studies by social scientists. We first present the evidence on the discrimination in civil, cultural and political spheres based on official data and four regional studies and one all India study. The studies based on the village survey bring out the actual magnitude of the practice of the untouchability and atrocities against SC. From the massive literature on the practice of untouchability and atrocities, only four regional studies are presented here. These include a all India study conducted by Action Aid in 2000, study on Karnataka (1973-74 and 1991), Andhra Pradesh (1977), Orissa (1987-88) and Gujarat ( 1996). The all India study present the evidence from ten states .The study from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh present the evidence from southern India, Orissa from eastern India and Gujarat from western India.
Exclusion and Discrimination in Public spheres -Civil and political
Macro Level Evidence:
Table 13.(a) presents the number of cases registered by untouchables under ant-untouchability Act of 1955 and Prevention of SC and ST Atrocities Act . These include restrictions on untouchables in public domain to use public water bodies such as well, tape, temple, Tea stall, Restaurant, community bath, road, and other services. Table-- gives year average for 1999-2001 at the all-India level. During 1999-2001 ,an average of 28016 cases of discrimination and untouchability were registered annually by the untouchables. This comes to about 3 cases per lakh of population. The ratio of such cases was highest in Rajasthan ( 9.3 ), followed by M.P.( 7.7) ,followed by U .P.. The ratio was about 3 cases per lakh of population in Orissa, Karnataka, Gujrat and A.P.
The break-up of the crime against for the year 2000 include 526 cases of murder, 3497 of grievous hurt, 290cases of arson and 1000 cases of sexual assault , and 11587 cases of other offences. Table ((b) shows that during nine year period between 1992 and 2000 a total of 252,370 cases of crime ,including the cases of discrimination and atrocities were registered by untouchables .In the case of scheduled tribe an average of 4952 cases of crime were registered. Most of these cases were confined to M.P.Rajastan Gujarat and A.P.
Evidence based on primary surveys
We now present the evidence from the studies based on primary survey..
All India study
We now present the results of the most comprehensive study based on an intensive survey of 555 villages in eleven states across India. In this section we consider the practice of untouchability in the “secular public sphere”, the phrase standing for that area of public life, which is neither directly associated with the state, nor with purely individual aspects of community life. Thus, the sphere includes access to water sources, public thoroughfares, transport, and other village level services and amenities like tea shops, barbers’ or watermen’s services, and so on.
Panal 3 provides an overview of the different forms of untouchability that deny the SCs access to basic public services. He indicates that out of the total villages surveyed, complicit denial to the SC persons was observed in little less than half of villages. 48.4 percent in terms of access to public water/drinking places, 36 percent in terms of access to shops, 26 percent in terms of the use of restaurants/hotel, 21 percent in terms of entry to health centres/clinics, 9.2 percent in terms of public transport, and 3.2 percent in terms of entry to cinema halls/recreation facilities etc. In the case of services provided by individual services providers also, the denial was most apparent. Out of the total villages surveyed where such services were provided, denial was reported in access to the services of Barbers in 46 percent of villages, in access to washer person’s services in 46 percent of villages, carpenter’s services in 26 percent of the villages, and of potters in about 20 percent of the villages.( Panel 4)
|Panal 3 Denial of Access to Basic Public Services |
|(Forms/Sites arranged in decreasing order of incidence; pooled data from 11 states) |
| Public spheres |Percentage of |Percent |Total |
| |Villages where |Villages Not|Surveyed |
| |Form is |Practiced |Villages |
| |Practiced | | |
| Denial of water facilities |48.4 |(255) |43.5 |527 |
| Barbers’ services |46.6 |(229) |41.3 |491 |
| Waterman’s services |45.8 |(194) |43.2 |424 |
|Carpenters’ services |25.7 |(117) |68.1 |455 |
|Potter will not sell pots |20.5 |(75) |68.2 |365 |
| No entry in t village shops |35.8 |(186) |57.0 |519 |
| | | | | |
| Restaurants/hotels |25.6 |(92) |64.9 |359 |
|Private/Public health centre/clinic |21.3 |(74) |72.4 |348 |
|Entry to public transport |9.2 |(41) |87.0 |447 |
| Entry / seating in Cinema Halls |3.2 |(6) |93.0 |187 |
| Figures in brackets are number of villages where form is practiced. Villages where status of practice |
|is ambiguous are excluded from both ‘practiced’ and ‘not practiced’ categories. Total surveyed villages |
|exclude villages where relevant institution/site is absent.-Source –Action Aid study ,2000 |
|Panal 4----: Discriminatory Treatment in Public Services |
|(Forms/Sites arranged in decreasing order of incidence; pooled data from 11 states) |
|Denial and /or discriminatory treatment |Percentage of |Percent |Total |
| |Villages where |Villages Not|Surveyed |
| |Form is |Practiced |Villages |
| |Practiced | | |
|Separate seating in restaurants/hotels |32.7 |(144) |58.0 |441 |
|Separate utensils in restaurants/hotels |32.3 |(145) |58.1 |449 |
|Tailor will not take measurements |20.8 |(96) |70.1 |462 |
|Untouchability during transactions in shops |18.5 |(87) |73.8 |470 |
|No seating / last entry in public transport |12.8 |(57) |82.9 |444 |
|Discriminatory treatment in private clinics |8.7 |(24) |83.7 |276 |
| Figures in brackets are number of villages where form is practiced. Villages where status of practice|
|is ambiguous are excluded from both ‘practiced’ and ‘not practiced’ categories. Total surveyed |
|villages exclude villages where relevant institution/site is absent. Action Aid study 2000 |
| |
While complete denial of access to particular water sources (well, tank, tube well etc.), village shops, health clinics, transport used for public purposes, services offered by washer person, carpenter, tailor, and potter etc are the most clear form of social exclusion, what is even more common is the imposition of deferential treatment in access to these, and other public services, which takes various forms. Panel---4 observed that in about one-thirds of the villages such discrimination was followed by making separate seating arrangements, or by giving separate cups to the untouchables. Similar forms of discriminatory were observed in purchases from shops, entry into public transport, and treatment in private health clinics etc.
Karnataka Study
The Karnataka study for 1973-74 is based on a fairly large sample of 76 villages, 38 urban centers and 3330 households. Of the total households 73 per cent are untouchables (Parvathamma 1984). Little more than half of the untouchable respondents were not allowed to draw water from the public well in the village. The magnitude of the problem was less severe in urban centers, but even in urban areas 15 per cent of the respondents reported restrictions on use of public water bodies. The practice of untouchability was more widespread in terms of access to the village temple and in access to high-caste houses. In both cases more than 60 % of the untouchables were not allowed entrance to the village temple. An even more overwhelming majority did not give of 70 %. When it comes to the public sphere, like the teashop, which is sharing of an environment with caste groups higher up in the hierarchy while drinking or eating, it is not far behind the discrimination attached with respect to the prohibitions to enter the village temple. A little less than half of the former untouchables were not allowed free access to the local village teashop. In the urban areas the discrimination is much less (only 6 % find themselves discriminated against).
In essential services, the practice of untouchability was widespread. Little more than half of the respondents did not receive the services of a barber and washer man in the village. In urban areas the access had improved considerably. Most of the respondents, however, had non discriminatory access to the service of tailors.
In public services like post-office, health and education, for example the practice of untouchability was much less. Almost all had access to postal services, but half of the respondents faced some kind of discrimination, in so far as the postmen avoided to enter into the residential areas of former untouchables, opting to hand over the mail to a formerly untouchable person of the locality for distribution. Generally, discrimination in the service rendered by the government doctors and nurses and the village school was less.
Still in the early 1970s one out of ten persons among scheduled was not allowed inside the village shops. One out of ten persons among scheduled castes could not wear clothes of their own choice or ornaments, without being harassed.
Nearly twenty years later another study was conducted in Karnataka by taking 941 respondents from 52 villages and from most of the districts (Khan 1995), (Table 3 & 4).
In the political sphere (i.e. sitting together or taking tea in the village panchayat office) the discrimination was much less. Otherwise, not much had happened during the two decades since the former study was carried out. About three out of four respondents were denied entry into the village temple and also denied to participate in religious processions. Social mixing or relations across caste barriers were also not allowed. Most people among the untouchables did not have free access to the water taps of the high-castes, and three-fourth of them had no access to the village tank.
Comparing this study with the one carried out two decades earlier, it could be seen that some change has occurred. The practice of untouchability was relatively less in the political sphere but its magnitude was still very high in access to the village temple, religious community events, public water taps, and public water tanks and in interpersonal social relations.
Andhra Pradesh Study
This Andhra study was conducted in 1977 and covered a sample of 396 respondents (of which 196 were formerly untouchable) from six villages (Venkateswarlu 1990). The temples were still barred to most of the untouchables. Marriage procession through the public village road by untouchables was prohibited on one pretext or another. There was no access to public drinking water source. The well or tap is located in the high-caste locality and attempts by the former untouchables invites objection and physical obstruction.
The majority of the untouchable respondents reported being beaten by the upper castes, in the event of former demanding equal rights, such incidents happened quite frequent or in some areas were a rare case. Raids on untouchable hamlets or houses, sometimes followed by looting, were reported. Violence was also perpetrated in the form of kidnapping, insults, rape, physical torture and threat or attempt to murder.
Many untouchable respondents were prevented from exercising their franchise in elections. In some cases they were also prevented from participating in political activities like organizing meetings in the village or taking an independent position on political issues, or contesting elections.
Orissa Study
The Orissa study covered 65 untouchable respondents from two villages (one small and one large) for 1987-88 (Tripathy 1994). In both villages the settlements of untouchables were separated from that of the upper castes. An overwhelming majority, i.e. 80 per cent of respondents in the small village and 70 per cent in the large village were prohibited from drinking water from the public well and public tube well. In the large village there were separate pulleys in wells for the untouchables. 3 per cent of respondents in the large village and 90 per cent in the small village observed that while locating public wells/tube wells the untouchables' convenience was not taken into account.
In village community feasts and marriages in both the villages, the former untouchables were treated unequally. The same is the case with regard to temple worship, barber service, washer man services, priest services, etc. 64 per cent in the large village and all in the small village were treated unequally in the village meeting. 80 per cent of the respondents in both villages did not have access to teashops; 70 per cent in the large village and 80 per cent in the small village faced unequal treatment or discrimination in getting services from the grocery shops. About 80 per cent in the small village and all in the large village faced discrimination in village cultural events (i.e. drama) and village festivals.
Their small number, poverty and fear (in the small village) discouraged the untouchables from contesting elections. Most of the former untouchables have free access to school and hospitals in both villages.
Gujarat Study
The Gujarat study was conducted in 69 villages in 1996 to see changes in practice of untouchability (Shah 1998). The study looks into the practice of untouchability in seventeen spheres of village life, which include the private and public domain.
The practice of untouchability in sitting arrangement of the students in village schools was negligible and non SC students intermingled in the school freely. Non SC teachers do not discriminate against SC students, but they are not easily accessible to SC students outside the school boundary. Not all the schools have the facility of drinking water for students. Where it exists, all students take water from the common vessel.
Nearly 10 per cent of the village schools have teachers belonging to SCs. None of them complained that their colleagues discriminate against them in school. However, except in south Gujarat, these teachers do not get accommodation in the high-caste locality of the village. They either commute from their village or from the nearby town or they rent a house in the SC locality.
Almost all villages are covered by state transport. Except in 7 per cent of the villages, untouchability is not observed while boarding and sitting in the bus. Crude discrimination against SC is observed in one per cent of the villages, where untouchables are almost denied the right to sit with an upper-caste person. In the remaining 6 per cent of the villages, untouchability is practiced in a nebulous form. That is, a member of the SC is expected to stand up and offer seat to a high caste passenger; or the latter is allowed to board the bus first.
The SCs encounter some restrictions on their movement in 23 per cent of the villages. As such there is no ban on the SCs using certain village roads. But they do become victims of wrath varying from abuse to even physical assault, if they enter the streets of the upper castes. They have to stop and give way to members of the upper castes, particularly Brahmins and Rajputs in general and elderly persons of the dominant upper castes in particular.
Most of the village post-offices and postmen do not practice untouchability, while giving stamps and taking money as well as delivering mail. But postal employees observe untouchability in 8 to 9 per cent villages. They do not give postal stationery and mail in the hand of the SC addressee.
Open or subtle untouchability is practiced in panchayat meetings in 30 per cent of the villages. The sitting arrangement in panchayat offices is common for all the members, but there is a tacit convention, whereby certain seats are marked for SC members. Though tea and snacks are served to everyone, separate plates and cups are reserved for SC members, and stored separately. In most village temples, 75 per cent SCs are not allowed to enter beyond the threshold, though they may worship from a distance. One temple may be open for the SCs and another temple restricted from their entry. The SCs in many villages, where their numbers are large have constructed temples in their localities to avoid confrontation.
In 46 villages, SC has separate water facility near their localities. Untouchability is not experienced in normal times, but when water is scarce, the SCs experience difficulty and discrimination in taking water from high-caste localities. In the remaining 23 villages in which the untouchables take water from the common source, untouchability is practiced in 61 per cent of the villages. In most of such villages where discrimination is practiced SC women take water after the upper-caste women, or their tap or position on the well is separately marked. In seven villages (11 per cent of the sample villages) the SC women are not allowed to fetch water from the well. They have to wait till the upper caste women pour water into their pots. The upper-caste women, shout at them constantly and humiliate the SC women: "Keep distance, do not pollute us!"
In about 30 percent of the villages, SC members were barred from entering shops. Similarly the practice of untouchability in giving things and receiving money was observed in 28 per cent of the sample. The status of being formerly untouchable comes in the way of potential SC entrepreneur. They fear that upper-caste members would not buy from their shop or would harass them. In a village, in Ahmadabad a SC auto rickshaw driver, who asked for fare from a sarpanch belonging to a middle caste was severely beaten. This is not a rare case, and such upper-caste attitude inhibits SC enterprise.
Most tailors do not practice untouchability. However, in most cases they do not repair used clothes of the SCs. Nearly one-third of the potters observe untouchability, while selling pots to SC clients. Most of the barbers (nearly 70 per cent) refuse their service to SC males. The extent of untouchability has remained almost intact in the sphere of house entry. Except a few villages, SC members of villages do not get entry beyond the outer room of the high caste. Even in villages, where the young folk do not believe in physical untouchability, and who serve tea to SC guests in their houses, entry in the dining room is not encouraged.
The practice of untouchability has been considerably reduced in some of the public spheres, which are directly managed by the state laws and which have a relatively, non traditional character like school, postal services and elected panchayats. The practice of untouchability on public roads, restricting free movement of the SCs has considerably declined, but it is too early to say that the untouchable is not discriminated against in the public sphere. As many as 30 per cent of the village panchayats, still observe open or subtle discrimination with respect to their elected members belonging to SCs.
Economic, Market Exclusion and discrimination
The studies on caste-based market and non market discrimination in economic spheres are very limited. However we present some evidence based on the primary studies ,firstly from the all India study by Action Aid conducted in 2000 and then present some evidence from the studies on individual states discussed above
All India study
We first present the results of the most comprehensive study based on an intensive survey of 555 villages in eleven states across India. In this section we consider the practice of untouchability in the “secular public sphere”, the phrase standing for that area of public life, which is neither directly associated with the state, nor with purely individual aspects of community life. Thus, the sphere includes access to water sources, public thoroughfares, transport, and other village level services and amenities like tea shops, barbers’ or watermen’s services, and so on.
The Action Aid study found that the discrimination in labour markets operates through exclusion in hiring, and lower wages. In about 36 percent of the villages, the SCs were denied casual employment in agriculture. In about 25 percent villages, the SCs faced discrimination in terms of wage payments. The SC wage labour thus, received daily wage at a rate, which was less than the market wage rate, or wages paid to the non-SC workers. Belief in the concept of purity and pollution also come into effect in hiring of SC labourers in house construction- in about one-thirds of the villages, the SCs were excluded from employment in construction of houses (Panal-5--).
In the case of other markets, the study observed discriminatory treatment of SC persons in access to irrigation water, public and private services. In little more than one-thirds of the villages, the SCs were denied access to irrigation water for agriculture. In case of agricultural land, the selective evidence from some states brings out the restrictions puts by the high castes towards the SCs in the purchase of private agriculture land, and use of public land for agriculture use and housing. In the case of access to the Common Property Resources like grazing land, fishing pond, and other resources, the SCs faced exclusion in about one-fifth of the sample villages (21 %).
The continuing faith in the notion of pollution and purity by the higher castes- associated with untouchability was particularly reflected in exclusionary and discriminatory behavior of higher castes in the consumer markets- that is in the sale and purchase of consumable goods, particularly eatables like milk, vegetables, and other goods. In 35 percent of the villages, the SCs were not allowed to sell any kind of goods at village level markets, wherein the identity of the SC person was known. In about 47 percent of the villages (out of a total of 347 villages surveyed), the SCs were not allowed to sell milk to village cooperatives, and to private buyers. The survey data also reveals some isolated evidence on the practice of exclusion and discrimination in the sale and purchase consumer goods such as bakery products, and vegetables etc.
Restrictions on the sale of a number of consumer items such as milk, and milk products, products manufactured in the bakeries owned by the SCs, vegetables, and other items in the village market where the caste identity of the seller was visible, pushed the SC seller to go to small towns, and other market places where the caste identity was not so obvious, and remained hidden.
Exclusion in hiring of the SC labourer in general, and particularly in house construction; discrimination in wage payments (paying lower wages than the prevailing market wages), and selective restrictions on the sale of various consumer items had obvious impacts on the earnings of the SC households, and hence, the same was reflected in the incidence of high poverty among the SCs. The exclusion in employment and lower wages reduced the wage earnings of the SC households in the rural areas. Restrictions on the sale of milk, and other consumer items further reduced the sale, and thereby, the income. Obviously, the reduced income of the SC households had poverty aggravating consequences. The linkages of exclusion and discrimination, low income, poverty, and low human development are thus, obvious.
|Panel 5 Market Discrimination — Access to Work & Resources |
|(Forms/Sites pooled data from 11 states) |
|Form / Site of Untouchability Practice |Percentage of |Percent |Total |
| |Villages where |Villages Not|Surveyed |
| |Form is |Practiced |Villages |
| |Practiced | | |
|(a) Labour Market | | | | |
|Denied work as agricultural labour |35.5 |(158) |60.0 |445 |
|No touching when paying wages |37.1 |(174) |59.7 |469 |
|Paid lower wages for the same work |24.5 |(119) |70.8 |486 |
|SC not employed in house construction |28.7 |(152) |62.0 |529 |
|(b ) Input Market | | | | |
|Denied access to irrigation facilities |32.6 |(152) |59.4 |466 |
|(c) Common Properties Resources | | | | |
|Denied access to grazing/fishing grounds |20.9 |(76) |71.7 |364 |
|(d) Consumer Market – Sale & Purchase | | | | |
|Not allowed to sell milk to cooperatives |46.7 |(162) |48.1 |347 |
|Prevented from selling in local markets |35.4 |(165) |54.9 |466 |
|Not allowed to buy from milk cooperatives |27.8 |(100) |59.2 |360 |
| Figures in brackets are number of villages where form is practiced. Villages where status of practice|
|is ambiguous are excluded from both ‘practiced’ and ‘not practiced’ categories. Total surveyed |
|villages exclude villages where relevant institution/site is absent. |
Micro level studies such as those from Andhra Pradesh (Venketeswarlu, 1990) and Karnataka (Khan, 1995) presented above provide some evidence on economic discrimination in occupation, employment, wages, and the credit market as well as in other economic spheres. The Andhra Pradesh study observed that Scheduled Castes faced restrictions in efforts to change their occupation. Similarly, the Karnataka study revealed that nearly 85 per cent of the SC respondents continue to be engaged in their traditional occupations, whereas only 15 per cent were able to make a switchover. The Orissa study (Tripathy, 1994) observed discrimination in land lease, credit and labour markets in rural areas. Nearly 96 per cent of untouchable respondents in one village and all untouchable respondents in the second village were discriminated against in wage payment, with 28 per cent in one village and 20 per cent in another facing discrimination in payment of rent.
For urban area Banergee and Knight (1991) observed that: ‘there is indeed discrimination by caste, particularly job discrimination’ and that ‘discrimination appears to operate at least in part through traditional mechanism, with untouchables disproportionately represented in poorly-paid dead-end jobs... Even if, discrimination is no longer practiced, the effects of past discrimination could carry over to the present. This may help to explain, why discrimination is greatest in operative jobs, in which contacts are more important for recruitment, and not in white-collar jobs in which recruitment involves formal methods. The economic function which the system performs for favored castes, suggests that taste for discrimination is based, consciously, or unconsciously, on economic interest, so making prejudice more difficult to eradicate’.
This empirical over view based on macro level official data and micro level primary evidence , revealed the extent of discrimination faced by the members of untouchable community in civil, cultural, political and economic spheres. Given the qualitative nature of data, generalization about the magnitude and trend are always risky. Notwithstanding, this limitation it is reasonable to say that the untouchables persons face considerable caste related restrictions, which reduce their capacity to use civil, political and economic rights and opportunities. The failure of entitlement due to caste-based exclusion is of high order, which results in lack of access to resources, opportunities for employment, education, and other social needs and participation in public institutions. The restriction assumes various forms, ranging from social and economic boycott to physical violence. About the reasons for the discrimination and atrocities on the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe the official Report of the Commission of the SC/ST 1998 observed,
“Some of the major causes of atrocities and other offences against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are related to issues of land and property, access to water, wage payments, indebtedness and bonded or forced labour. Issues of human dignity, including compulsion to perform distasteful tasks traditionally forced on Scheduled Castes, and molestation and exploitation of dalit women are also involved. Caste related tension is exacerbated by economic factors, which contribute to violence. It is the assertion of their rights, be they economic, social or political, by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and their development, which often invite the wrath of the vested interests. Disputes during elections, animosity due to reservation, jealousy due to increasing economic prosperity, violence related to the process of taking possession and retaining Government allotted land, tension due to refusal of SCs to perform tasks such as disposal of dead cattle or cutting umbilical cord, are manifestations of the resentment of the high caste against increasing awareness among Scheduled Castes, assertion and prosperity among the SCs. Land and water is another sensitive issue. Accessibility of drinking water and water for irrigation and disposal of water removed from water logged areas become issues that can trigger off atrocities on SCs. Caste fervor during religious and social ceremonies, disputes arising during sowing and harvesting operations, and removal of crops from the granary after harvesting, have also been known to cause tension. Increasing awareness and empowerment of SCs, manifested in resistance to suppression, also result in clashes”.
Section V
Summary, Lessons and Suggestions
The main objectives of this study centered on the assessment of the relative attainment in human development and human poverty reduction of the scheduled caste, and schedule tribe by using the UNDP human development framework and indicators of well being. The paper also assessed the changes in the level and disparities among the three social groups namely scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and a residual category of Non SC/ST in selected individual indicators, reflecting access to resources or income earning assets like agriculture land and non land capital assets, employment, education and other social needs like health services. More importantly the paper, also assess the extent and nature of caste and untouchability based exclusion and discrimination in economic, civil, cultural and political spheres. It also discussed the extent of denial and opposition, which the scheduled caste faced in their attempt to secure the rights under the ant-discriminatory laws in the country. The paper also reviewed the government policy against discrimination and of social and economic empowerment for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, since 1950 and make a general assessment of its impact on their human development and on ownership of resources, employment and education of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in comparison with other section of the Indian population at all India and state level.. The study covers the period between 1983 and 2000. In this section, we present the main results of the analysis and indicate its implications .
Summary of the Results
The analysis related to the attainment of human development and the human deprivation of socially marginalized section of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in 2000, and the changes in level and disparities in HDI, HPI and its individual components during 1983 and 2000 bring out the following trends. Some features about the status of human development and human poverty of socially marginalized groups come out quite clearly from these trends.
First, we observed a positive improvement in HDI and human poverty situation (in term of HPI) and individual components of human development and human poverty at over all level and for all groups, namely the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and Non SC/ST during 1983/2000 at all India level. Similarly with some exceptions, the disparities between the SC/ST and Non SC/ST in HDI, HPI and in each individual components of these two index have also been reduced between 1983-2000, although the rate of decline is more in some indicators and less in others. Over all, there has been a declining trend in disparity between SC/ST and Non SC/ST.
Second feature is that notwithstanding, the positive improvement in the attainment of composite index of HDI and HPI and individual indicators and subsequent narrowing down of gap in the attainment rate between Scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and Non SC/ST, the rate of improvement between1983-2000 is not high enough to bridge the gap and to bring the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe sections on par with Non SC/ST, which indeed, has been the declared objective of the government policy towards these sections. Therefore in 2000, even at improved level of human development, the disparities between socially marginalized group of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and the advance section of population still persists in significant degree.
In the case of HDI the disparity ratio between SC and Non SC/ST has improved from 0.57 in 1983 to 0.77 in 2000, coming more nearer to equality value of 1. But since the base level of HDI of SC/ST in 1983 was low, the disparity in HDI between them and Non SC/ST persists in 2000 with large gaps between them.
The HPI also improved for all social groups, but at lower per annum rate for the SC and ST. The differences between SC/ST and Non SC/ST in term of net difference has declined, only marginally and therefore, the disparity ratio has showed no improvement in reducing the gap in the HPI between SC/ST and Non SC/ST in 2000, from its level in 1983, on the contrary the gap has been widen.
Thirdly exceptions apart the various individual components of HDI and HPI also showed the same trend of persisting disparity between SC and ST and Non SC/ST members.
The Infant Mortality Rate has improved, for all the three social groups during 1983-2000. The rate of decline in IMR however, has not been high enough to bring significant decline in the disparity ratio between SC/ST and Non SC/ST. As a result the disparity ratio for SC in 2000, was only little less than in 1983, and in the case of ST, in fact the disparity ratio increased in 2000.
In the case of literacy rate, during 1983-2000,it has improved for all the groups. The literacy rates have improved at higher rate for SC and ST and this helped to reduce the gap in literacy rate between them and Non SC/ST but the gap still persist in 2000.
Monthly per capita consumption expenditure has increased, for all social groups but the relative increase in the MPCE of SC and ST has not been high enough to reduce the gap between SC/ST and Non SC/ST. The disparity ratio for the SC and ST in 1983 was 0.74 and 0.66 respectively, which have remained at 0.73 and 0.66 level in 2000 respectively for SC and ST.
The incidence of poverty also declined for all social groups, but again at lower rate among the SC and ST. The poverty gap between the SC/ST and Non SC/ST, in fact, increased during 1983/2000, at least in relative term, mainly due to slower decline in poverty for these social groups.
Same is the case for trend in nutritional level. Between 1990 and 2000 the nutritional status of all three social groups improved, but by a lower margin for the SC and ST.
The access to public health has improved, at over all level and for all the three social groups, however the rate of decline is less for SC and ST and as result, the gap between SC/ST and others in access to public health services continued in 2000.
Fourth feature is that although, there has been an improvement in the HDI, HPI and its various components, but as we have seen above ,since the relative improvement in the case of SC and ST is generally lower as compared with Non SC/ST, (or lower than the rate, which is require to bridge the gap between SC/ST and Non SC/ST section) the disparity between SC/ST and Non SC/ST has not been reduced substantially enough, so as to bridge the gap to reasonable minimum. Consequently the socially marginalized groups of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe lag behind the Non SC/ST section of Indian population with respect to attainment level in human development in 2000.
In 2000, compared with Non SC/ST, the HDI of the SCs and STs was less by a margin of about 23 percent and 31 percent respectively. Conversely, these groups suffer from high degree of human deprivation compared with Non SC/ST, the HPI is higher among the SC and ST by about one third and more than fifty percent margin respectively.
The scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, suffers from high degree of deprivation with respect to each of the five components of HDI and HPI namely, infant mortality, poverty, under nutrition, access to public health services, literacy rate and monthly per-capita expenditure in 2000.The disparities between SC/ST and others however, vary for each individual indicator.
For instance, in 2000 the IMR is higher among the SC/ST by about 25 percent compared with Non SC/ST. Compared with Non SC/ST the literacy rate among SC and ST is lower by 14 percent and 21 percent respectively.
The SCs and STs monthly per-capita expenditure is less by about 25 percent and 34 percent respectively as compared with consumption expenditure of Non SC/ST. Again compared with Non SC/ST, the incidence of aggregate poverty is seventy percent and about hundred percent higher among the SC and ST respectively. The percentage of under–nourished children among the SC and ST is higher by 23 percent and 27 percent respectively. Finally, the SC’s and ST’s access to public health services is less by 23 percent and 44 percent less, compared with Non SC/ST
Thus despite an improvement in the level of HDI and HPI and their individual components among all social groups and subsequent reduction in disparities in HDI and HPI ( and also most of their components, if not all) between Scheduled caste /scheduled tribe and Non SC/ST during 1983/2000, compared with the Non SC/ST, the level of HDI among the SC and ST, in 2000 is relatively lower and hence, the human poverty is relatively high. Similar disparities prevailed in different components of HDI and HPI.
Fifthly the results shows that the disparities in the achievement level in HDI and HPI and their individual components between SC/ST and Non SC/ST are closely linked with the lower access of these socially marginalized groups of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe to sources of income and human resource capabilities, that is, lower access to capital assets like agricultural land and non land assets (and/or low productivity of those assets ), lower urbanization and employment diversification away from agriculture, exceptionally high dependence on casual wage labour, accompanied by higher under employment, lower daily wages particularly in non farm activities, and low level of literacy and level of education, compared with Non SC/ST groups.
Sixthly the empirical evidence also shows that lower access of these socially marginalized group of scheduled caste to resources like agricultural land and non land capital assets (and/or low productivity of those assets ), higher underemployment, lower daily wages particularly in non farm activities, compared with Non SC/ST groups in Indian society, is closely linked with the processes of exclusion and discriminations, partly carried forward as residual impact of denial of right to property ,and education in the past but also exclusion and discrimination faced by the untouchable community in economic, civil and political spheres in the present . In economic spheres the empirical evidence indicate the exclusion and differential treatment in various markets namely agricultural land, capital, employment, market in consumer goods, as well as the transactions conducted through the non market channels. Discrimination is also experienced by untouchable community in access to public services related to education, health, public water sources, post-offices and participation in village political institutions. The untouchables also faced violence and atrocities in their attempts to secure human rights and lawful entitlements. The restriction assumes various forms, ranging from social and economic boycott to physical violence
The societal discrimination and exclusion and violent opposition faced by untouchable community in multiple spheres thus reduce their freedom and capacity to use civil, political and economic rights and opportunities. The failure of entitlement due to caste based exclusion is of significant magnitude , which results in lack of access to resources, opportunities for employment, education, and other social needs and participation in public institutions.
Lessons and suggestions for further Research
The results of this study have important implications towards understanding the problems of lower human development of socially marginalized groups like the SCs, and the STs in India. This study clearly brings out the lower levels of human development, and correspondingly higher deprivation status of these two socially marginalized groups- measured by an aggregate index of human development, HPI, and individual component developed for studying these two groups. It also become apparent that the caste-based/untouchability, exclusion, and discrimination of the SCs, in the past, and its continuation in the present (through its residual consequences) in terms of gaining access to sources of income, development of capabilities, i.e. exclusion in access to income earning capital assets, employment, education, and social needs like health, drinking water, to civil and cultural rights, and lack of access in participation of political institutions, all put together involve the denial of right to development for the untouchable community or the SCs.
Notwithstanding the relevance of exclusion in deprivation for the SCs, the analysis had to based on a descriptive material without a proper index for exclusion for the SCs, and the STs.(although of exclusion and discrimination in terms of number of cases of caste discrimination and atrocities ). In fact, in the case of the STs, due to the lack of data, even such descriptive analysis was not attempted.
The stratified, iniquitous and exclusionary character of India society is fairly well known. Therefore, in order to really understand the exclusionary and discriminatory processes in the society, and to know their consequences on human development and deprivation of the SCs, the STs, be the OBCs, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribe, de-notified tribes (that is so called criminal tribes), other minorities, which have been the target of government policies, it is necessary, to develop proper conceptual framework,methodology and data bases.
In fact, the HDR 2004, titled, “Cultural Liberty in Today’s World”, expressed the need to take initiatives on a number of fronts. It observed that:
“There are demands, not only to produce statistics on the issue of culture, but to go further and procure a cultural liberty index. A lesson from the human development index and other composite indicators is that such measures need to be grounded in conceptual framework, and must be policy relevant, as well as measurable and comparable. The Report acknowledged that data on cultural liberty is extremely limited, and the conceptual and methodological challenges are enormous for capturing issues such as discriminatory policies, and the social practice and extent of historical neglect that groups face- the challenges in dealing with cultural exclusion are diverse” (UNDP HDR 2004 pg. 31).
In view of the above, initiatives are necessary to make a pertinent beginning in this direction, to capture the whole gamete of issues related to caste and ethnicity-based exclusions, and to establish their linkages with deprivations of a large section of the discriminated groups in the Indian society. Firstly, it is necessary to develop theoretical and conceptual frameworks on the issue, and equally important is the development of concepts on caste, untouchability, ethnicity-based exclusions and discriminations, and also on other forms of exclusions. The idea should be to develop the indicators of caste and ethnicity-based exclusions, and an Index of Exclusion. Secondly, it is necessary to develop the statistical tools for the measurement and indexing of exclusion itself. Thirdly, a database on the various dimensions of caste and ethnicity-based exclusions and discriminations is also required, and fourthly, there is a need to prepare a Social Equity/justice Report at an All India level and for each of the individual states, so as to estimate the human development aspects of socially marginalized groups. Such an endeavor can open a whole avenue for strengthening the policy interventions of the Central and state governments.
Footnotes
1. The indicators selected include the percentage of people expected to die before attaining the age of 40 (for deprivation related to survival), percentage of illiterate (for lack of knowledge), for decent standard of living –a composite of three variables –the percentage of people with access to health services and to safe water, and percentage of malnourished children under the age of five. In HPI, for developed countries human poverty is different- arising through forms such as social exclusion, homelessness, insecurity, inadequate skills, and unemployment etc.
2. For instance, relative maximum and minimum values have been changed to fixed levels. As a supplementary indicator combined gross enrolment ratios have been added to the indicators denoting literacy for knowledge dimensions. To account for diminishing returns over the full range of income, the HDI was reverted from Atkinson formula to log GDPpc. HDR 1997 on Poverty, introduced a Human Poverty Index (HPI) for the developing countries that focused on deprivations in the same dimensions as were used in HDI, this was further, supplemented in Human Poverty Index for the industrialized countries (HPI 2), which included a fourth dimension- that of social exclusion.
3. The essential elements of calculating a distribution-adjusted HDI were laid down in the very first Report (UNDP 1990). The second Report (UNDP 1991), actually calculated the distribution adjusted HDI for 53 countries for which data was available. Until the 1994 Report, these calculations were still available for probing in the technical notes section (UNDP 1994). However, these calculations have been omitted in more recent Reports (UNDP, 1995, 1996, 1997) (Ambul Sagar and Adil Najam 1998).
Table 1.1.Human Development Index - Levels and Disparity - 1980 – 2000 (All India)
|Index |Social Groups |
|1. HDI Levels |SC |ST |Others |ALL |
|1980 |0.162 |0.150 |0.285 |0.241 |
|2000 |0.303 |0.270 |0.393 |0.366 |
|2. Difference in HDI |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1980 |0.124 |0.136 | | |
|2000 |0.091 |0.123 | | |
|3. Change in HDI (1980/2000) |3.55 |3.34 |1.80 |2.35 |
| (Percent for annum) | | | | |
|4. Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1980 |0.57 |0.52 | | |
|2000 |0.77 |0.69 | | |
|5. Change in Disparity Ratio | | | | |
|Net diff. (1980/2000) |0.20 |0.16 | | |
|Change (per annum rate) |1.72 |1.52 | | |
Table 1.2. Human Poverty Index - Level, Disparity and Changes - 1990 - 2000, (All-India)
|Index |SC |ST |Others |ALL |
|1.HPI |54.36 |60.32 |42.09 |43.65 |
|1990 | | | | |
|2000 |41.47 |47.79 |31.34 |33.63 |
| | | | | |
|2. Net difference in HPI |SC-OT |ST-OT | | |
|1990 |-12.27 |-18.23 | | |
|2000 |-10.13 |-16.45 | | |
|3. Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|1990 |1.29 |1.43 | | |
|2000 |1.32 |1.52 | | |
|4. Change in HPI (1990/2000 per annum) |-3.79 |-3.27 |-4.13 |-3.66 |
| | | | | |
|5. Change in Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT | | |
|Net change |0.03 |0.09 | | |
|% change per annum |0.34 |0.89 | | |
Table 1.3 (a). HDI and HPI Individual Indicators-
Levels and Changes - 1990 - 2000
|1. Infant Mortality Rate |SC |ST |Others |ALL |
|1980 |127 |101 |99 |109 |
|2000 |83 |84 |68 |73 |
|Net change |-44 |-17 |-31 |-36 |
|% change per annum |-2.31 |-1.02 |-2.07 |-2.19 |
|2. Literacy Rate | | | | |
|1980 |24 |19 |47 |41 |
|2000 |55 |47 |69 |65 |
|Net change |30 |28 |22 |23 |
|% change per annum |4.56 |5.24 |2.13 |2.52 |
|3. AMPCE (1993-94 base) | | | | |
|1980 |233 |207 |313 |291 |
|2000 |285 |260 |393 |361 |
|Net change |53 |54 |80 |70 |
|% change per annum |1.14 |1.29 |1.27 |1.21 |
|4. Poverty Rate | | | | |
|1990 |51.26 |48.45 |31.05 |36.15 |
|2000 |36.67 |44.80 |21.17 |26.26 |
|Net change |-15 |-4 |-10 |-10 |
|% change per annum |-4.67 |-1.12 |-5.33 |-4.46 |
|5. Under-nurished children | | | | |
|1990 |58 |57 |52 |53 |
|2000 |54 |56 |44 |47 |
|Net change |-4 |-1 |-8 |-6 |
|% change per annum |-1.02 |-0.25 |-2.36 |-1.70 |
|6. Lack of access to health | | | | |
|1990 |60.45 |76.55 |49.1 |52.00 |
|2000 |44.15 |53.55 |37.15 |40.00 |
|Net change |-16 |-23 |-12 |-12 |
|% change per annum |-4.39 |-4.98 |-3.91 |-3.68 |
Table 1.3 (b). Trends in Disparities in Individual Indicators - 1990 - 2000
|Indicators |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1. IMR Disparity Ratio | | |
|1980 |1.28 |1.02 |
|2000 |1.22 |1.24 |
|Net difference |-0.06 |0.22 |
|% change per annum |-2.44 |-1.28 |
|2. Literacy - Disparity Ratio | | |
|1980 |0.52 |0.40 |
|2000 |0.79 |0.68 |
|Net difference |0.27 |0.29 |
|% change per annum |2.38 |3.04 |
|3. AMPCE - Disparity Ratio | | |
|1980 |0.74 |0.66 |
|2000 |0.73 |0.66 |
|Net difference |-0.02 |0.00 |
|% change per annum |-0.13 |0.02 |
|4. Poverty - Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1990 |1.53 |1.65 |
|2000 |1.73 |2.12 |
|Net change |0.21 |0.46 |
|% change per annum |0.70 |1.38 |
|5. Undernurished - Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1990 |1.12 |1.10 |
|2000 |1.23 |1.27 |
|Net change |0.11 |0.18 |
|% change per annum |1.38 |2.16 |
|6. Lack of Health care - Disparity Ratio |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1990 |1.23 |1.56 |
|2000 |1.19 |1.44 |
|Net change |-0.04 |-0.12 |
|% change per annum |-0.50 |-1.11 |
Table 2.1 (a) Human Development Index among Social Groups - Level and Disparity (State Level)
|S.No |States |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | |1980 |2000 |1980 |2000 |
| | |SC |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |3.10 |1.07 |2.11 |2.15 |0.97 |-1.02 |
|2 |Assam |7.15 |5.02 |4.34 |5.27 |2.69 |-0.20 |
|3 |Bihar |2.78 |0.93 |1.97 |1.92 |0.79 |-1.01 |
|4 |Gujarat |2.17 |3.72 |2.00 |2.19 |0.17 |1.69 |
|5 |Haryana |3.51 |Na |1.96 |2.60 |1.53 |Na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |3.86 |Na |2.34 |3.18 |1.48 |Na |
|7 |Karnataka |2.89 |3.24 |1.68 |2.20 |1.19 |1.54 |
|8 |Kerala |2.19 |1.56 |1.63 |1.58 |0.55 |-0.07 |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |3.70 |3.30 |2.23 |2.58 |1.44 |1.05 |
|10 |Maharashtra |3.41 |3.54 |1.89 |2.42 |1.49 |1.62 |
|11 |Orissa |3.90 |2.87 |2.33 |2.55 |1.54 |0.54 |
|12 |Punjab |2.18 |Na |0.95 |1.64 |1.21 |Na |
|13 |Rajasthan |3.99 |4.81 |2.60 |3.09 |1.35 |2.15 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |4.58 |-0.64 |1.98 |1.92 |2.55 |-2.57 |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |4.11 |2.44 |2.64 |2.89 |1.43 |-0.19 |
|16 |West Bengal |3.80 |3.23 |2.15 |2.48 |1.62 |1.06 |
| |India |3.55 |3.34 |1.80 |2.35 |1.72 |1.52 |
Table 3.1 (a). Human Poverty Index among Social Groups - Level and Disparity (State Level)
|S.No. |States |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | |1990 |2000 |1990 |2000 |
| | |SC |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |-4.79 |-3.69 |-5.06 |-4.97 |0.29 |1.44 |
|2 |Assam |-3.55 |-3.05 |-2.53 |-2.38 |-1.04 |-0.54 |
|3 |Bihar |-2.03 |-1.21 |-3.24 |-3.01 |1.26 |2.10 |
|4 |Gujarat |-3.09 |-1.63 |-2.77 |-2.84 |-0.32 |1.18 |
|5 |Haryana |-3.51 |Na |-0.91 |-3.15 |-2.62 |na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |-5.78 |Na |-2.59 |-2.78 |-3.27 |na |
|7 |Karnataka |-3.52 |-3.11 |-4.44 |-4.22 |0.96 |1.39 |
|8 |Kerala |-3.96 |-7.51 |-6.00 |-7.00 |2.18 |-1.60 |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |-3.74 |-1.75 |-3.10 |-3.32 |-0.66 |1.39 |
|10 |Maharashtra |-4.66 |-4.12 |-3.09 |-3.73 |-1.62 |-1.06 |
|11 |Orissa |-3.47 |-0.12 |-2.69 |-2.13 |-0.80 |2.65 |
|12 |Punjab |-3.68 |Na |-0.81 |-5.38 |-2.89 |na |
|13 |Rajasthan |-4.01 |-2.98 |-3.24 |-3.80 |-0.79 |0.26 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |-4.04 |-3.31 |-4.96 |-5.11 |0.96 |1.74 |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |-2.18 |0.05 |-2.34 |-2.99 |0.17 |2.45 |
|16 |West Bengal |-4.99 |-2.34 |-2.99 |-3.39 |-2.06 |0.68 |
| |India |-3.79 |-3.27 |-4.13 |-3.66 |0.34 |0.89 |
Table 4.1 (a). Infant Mortality Rate among Social Groups - Level and Disparity, 1980-2000 (State Level)
| | |Levels |Disparity Index |
|S.No.|States | | |
| | |1983-84 |1998-99 |1983-84 |1998-99 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC |ST |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |-0.12 |2.22 |-1.23 |-0.71 |-3.90 |-2.64 |
|2 |Assam |-6.47 |-2.89 |-1.94 |-3.31 |-0.82 |-0.07 |
|3 |Bihar |-0.89 |0.57 |-1.66 |-0.96 |-1.34 |0.65 |
|4 |Gujarat |-2.00 |-3.64 |-2.82 |-3.03 |-2.15 |-0.67 |
|5 |Haryana |-2.78 |Na |-3.06 |-3.18 |-1.85 |na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |-5.55 |Na |-3.35 |-5.98 |-3.58 |na |
|7 |Karnataka |-1.26 |-1.99 |-0.87 |-2.23 |-2.27 |-5.06 |
|8 |Kerala |-3.52 |-0.50 |-2.13 |-2.02 |-2.51 |0.54 |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |-0.90 |0.17 |-2.14 |-1.17 |-0.63 |0.55 |
|10 |Maharashtra |-3.83 |-2.60 |-1.77 |-3.38 |-2.72 |-5.07 |
|11 |Orissa |-2.68 |-0.11 |-2.59 |-1.87 |0.42 |1.21 |
|12 |Punjab |-0.22 |Na |-1.44 |-1.06 |-3.74 |na |
|13 |Rajasthan |-1.79 |-2.51 |-1.68 |-2.30 |-1.92 |-2.18 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |-4.65 |4.28 |-1.84 |-1.39 |-0.32 |6.68 |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |-2.76 |-3.05 |-2.63 |-2.79 |-2.22 |0.59 |
|16 |West Bengal |-3.16 |-0.13 |-2.87 |-2.92 |-2.50 |-4.19 |
| |India |-2.31 |-1.02 |-2.07 |-2.19 |-2.44 |-1.28 |
Table 5.1 (a). Literacy Rate among Social Groups – Level & Disparity, 1981-2001 (State Level)
| | |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | | | |
|S.No. |States | | |
| | |1981 |2001 |1981 |2001 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |5.58 |3.84 |2.83 |3.24 |2.67 |0.98 |
|2 |Assam |5.58 |3.84 |2.83 |3.24 |Na |na |
|3 |Bihar |4.88 |2.08 |2.10 |2.48 |2.73 |-0.01 |
|4 |Gujarat |2.43 |3.81 |1.60 |1.83 |0.82 |2.18 |
|5 |Haryana |4.88 |na |1.55 |2.75 |3.28 |na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |3.74 |2.04 |2.23 |2.53 |1.48 |-0.18 |
|7 |Karnataka |4.52 |4.14 |2.09 |2.34 |2.37 |2.01 |
|8 |Kerala |0.60 |3.22 |0.78 |0.79 |-0.17 |2.43 |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |5.58 |6.91 |2.58 |3.48 |2.92 |4.23 |
|10 |Maharashtra |3.22 |4.35 |1.82 |2.03 |1.37 |2.48 |
|11 |Orissa |4.44 |4.90 |2.17 |2.73 |2.22 |2.67 |
|12 |Punjab |4.03 |na |0.48 |2.29 |3.54 |na |
|13 |Rajasthan |6.64 |7.54 |3.67 |4.29 |2.87 |3.73 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |4.28 |4.33 |1.68 |1.87 |2.56 |2.60 |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |5.61 |2.18 |2.91 |3.30 |2.62 |-0.71 |
|16 |West Bengal |4.23 |6.07 |1.71 |2.21 |2.47 |4.28 |
| |India |4.56 |5.24 |2.13 |2.52 |2.38 |3.04 |
Table 6.1 (a). Monthly Per capita Expenditure among Social Groups
- Levels and Disparity (State Level)
| | |Levels |Disparity |
|S.No. | | | |
| |States | | |
| | |1983 |1999-00 |1983 |1999-00 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |0.66 |0.86 |0.92 |0.83 |-0.27 |-0.07 |
|2 |Assam |0.21 |0.58 |0.45 |0.43 |-0.24 |0.13 |
|3 |Bihar |1.18 |1.20 |1.10 |1.08 |0.09 |0.10 |
|4 |Gujarat |0.82 |1.66 |1.47 |1.44 |-0.65 |0.18 |
|5 |Haryana |0.83 |1.05 |1.16 |1.09 |-0.33 |na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |0.73 |0.39 |0.69 |0.71 |0.04 |-0.30 |
|7 |Karnataka |0.65 |1.25 |1.16 |1.01 |-0.50 |0.10 |
|8 |Kerala |2.44 |1.65 |1.99 |2.05 |0.44 |-0.34 |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |0.93 |0.69 |0.58 |0.74 |0.35 |0.10 |
|10 |Maharashtra |1.70 |1.02 |1.57 |1.44 |0.13 |-0.54 |
|11 |Orissa |1.53 |1.34 |1.42 |1.34 |0.11 |-0.08 |
|12 |Punjab |0.71 |0.36 |0.94 |0.72 |-0.23 |na |
|13 |Rajasthan |0.67 |1.32 |0.65 |0.65 |0.02 |0.67 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |2.37 |2.66 |2.19 |2.09 |0.17 |0.46 |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |0.78 |1.16 |1.03 |0.95 |-0.24 |0.13 |
|16 |West Bengal |1.76 |1.53 |1.33 |1.43 |0.42 |0.19 |
| |India |1.14 |1.29 |1.27 |1.21 |-0.13 |0.02 |
Table 7.1 (a). Poverty among Social Groups - Levels and Disparity, 1983 to 1999-00 (State Level)
|S.No. |States |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | |1983 |1999-00 |1983 |1999-00 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |Andhra Pradesh |-3.34 |-1.43 |-2.70 |-3.58 |-0.66 |1.31 |
|2 |Assam |-0.21 |-1.32 |-0.36 |-0.34 |0.16 |-0.96 |
|3 |Bihar |-1.57 |-1.46 |-2.58 |-1.95 |1.04 |1.15 |
|4 |Gujarat |-3.56 |-3.61 |-5.62 |-4.80 |2.19 |2.14 |
|5 |Haryana |-3.30 |na |-6.50 |-4.89 |3.43 |Na |
|6 |Himachal Pradesh |-3.99 |na |-4.12 |-4.05 |0.14 |Na |
|7 |Karnataka |-3.04 |-3.54 |-3.23 |-3.48 |0.19 |-0.32 |
|8 |Kerala |-7.11 |na |-5.53 |-6.50 |-1.67 |Na |
|9 |Madhya Pradesh |-1.80 |-0.87 |-1.69 |-1.61 |-0.11 |0.84 |
|10 |Maharashtra |-2.99 |-1.97 |-3.39 |-2.94 |0.41 |1.47 |
|11 |Orissa |-1.76 |-0.83 |-2.49 |-1.62 |0.76 |1.71 |
|12 |Punjab |-4.80 |na |-7.74 |-5.38 |3.19 |Na |
|13 |Rajasthan |-2.69 |-4.88 |-5.37 |-4.61 |2.82 |0.52 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |-3.67 |na |-7.45 |-4.73 |4.09 |Na |
|15 |Uttar Pradesh |-1.47 |na |-2.67 |-2.30 |1.23 |na |
|16 |West Bengal |-3.68 |-2.45 |-3.28 |-3.32 |-0.41 |0.86 |
| |India |-2.49 |-1.83 |-3.17 |-2.88 |0.70 |1.38 |
Table 8.1 (a). Percent of Under Nourished Children among Social Groups (State Level)
|S.No. |States |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | |1992-93 |1998-99 |1992-93 |1998-99 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |A.P |-2.41 |-2.26 |-4.41 |-3.57 |2.10 |2.25 |
|2 |Assam |-7.45 |-9.43 |-3.27 |-4.58 |-4.32 |-6.37 |
|3 |Bihar |-1.59 |-0.47 |-2.22 |-2.18 |0.64 |1.79 |
|4 |Gujarat |-3.80 |0.78 |0.00 |-1.49 |-3.80 |0.78 |
|5 |Haryana |-1.98 |na |-0.84 |-1.17 |-1.15 |Na |
|6 |H.P |-0.27 |na |-1.00 |-0.94 |0.74 |Na |
|7 |Karnataka |-1.76 |-2.53 |-3.60 |-2.88 |1.91 |1.11 |
|8 |Kerala |4.31 |-4.65 |-1.61 |-1.02 |6.01 |-3.09 |
|9 |M.P |0.25 |0.68 |-1.33 |-0.51 |1.60 |2.03 |
|10 |Maharashtra |-1.58 |0.45 |-1.16 |-1.09 |-0.42 |1.63 |
|11 |Orissa |-0.48 |-0.48 |0.28 |0.27 |-0.76 |-0.76 |
|12 |Punjab |-4.79 |na |-8.24 |-6.38 |3.76 |Na |
|13 |Rajasthan |2.85 |3.95 |2.70 |2.81 |0.14 |1.21 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |-1.41 |-1.41 |-2.76 |-3.65 |1.39 |1.39 |
|15 |U.P |2.07 |5.71 |-0.29 |-1.79 |2.36 |6.01 |
|16 |West Bengal |-1.21 |-1.86 |-3.08 |-2.14 |1.92 |1.26 |
| |India |-1.02 |-0.25 |-2.36 |-1.70 |1.38 |2.16 |
Table 9.1 (a). Percent of Households without access to Health care among Social Groups – 1992-93 & 1998-99 (State Level)
|S.No. |States |Levels |Disparity Index |
| | |1992-93 |1998-99 |1992-93 |1998-99 |
| | |SC |ST |
| | |SC |ST |Others |All |SC/OT |ST/OT |
|1 |A.P |-4.18 |-4.18 |-7.22 |-6.03 |3.28 |3.28 |
|2 |Assam |-2.98 |0.69 |-1.66 |-2.06 |-1.34 |2.39 |
|3 |Bihar |-4.14 |-1.96 |-5.16 |-4.61 |1.08 |3.38 |
|4 |Gujarat |-0.50 |2.15 |-5.31 |-1.75 |5.07 |7.88 |
|5 |Haryana |-1.68 |na |-2.02 |-1.95 |0.35 |na |
|6 |H.P |-3.58 |na |-2.73 |-1.59 |-0.88 |na |
|7 |Karnataka |-4.27 |-1.51 |-5.35 |-4.21 |1.14 |4.05 |
|8 |Kerala |-12.65 |-31.89 |-12.65 |-12.65 |0.00 |-22.02 |
|9 |M.P |-4.20 |-1.17 |-3.71 |-3.20 |-0.51 |2.64 |
|10 |Maharashtra |-6.10 |-9.59 |-3.56 |-3.74 |-2.63 |-6.26 |
|11 |Orissa |-3.63 |-1.43 |-4.97 |-3.95 |1.41 |3.73 |
|12 |Punjab |-1.36 |na |-2.87 |-3.59 |1.56 |na |
|13 |Rajasthan |-4.24 |0.67 |-4.07 |-4.26 |-0.19 |4.93 |
|14 |Tamilnadu |-9.37 |-9.37 |-3.16 |-5.12 |-6.41 |-6.41 |
|15 |U.P |-2.93 |1.55 |-2.08 |-1.93 |-0.87 |3.71 |
|16 |West Bengal |-6.27 |-2.76 |-2.41 |-2.76 |-3.96 |-0.35 |
| |India |-4.39 |-4.98 |-3.91 |-3.68 |-0.50 |-1.11 |
|Table 10. Factors Governing HDI -1999/2000: Situation in Low and High HDI States- ALL |
|(Figures are in Percentage) |
| |Variables | |Average of Three |Average of Three |
| | | |LOW HDI States* |HIGH HDI States* |
|Capital Assets | | | | |
|1Aggragate Capital Assets |Ownership of Capital Assets -1991 (Rs. Per Household) | |70189 |88291 |
|2 Access to Land |Percentage of Land Less | |5.92 |7.90 |
| |Percentage of Land Less + Near Land Less (Less than 1 acre) | |57.79 |64.07 |
| |Percentage of Cultivator (census) | |43.81 |40.31 |
| |Percentage of Self Employed in Agriculture | |32.40 |27.79 |
|3 Access to Non-Land Assets |Percentage of Self –employed in Non-Agriculture (Rural) | |10.15 |9.14 |
| |Percentage of Self-employed in (Urban) | |29.56 |23.53 |
|Occupation Diversification |Percentage of Urban population | |12.22 |19.24 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (Census) | |22.24 |28.11 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (NSS) | |27.82 |36.31 |
| |Percentage of other worker (Rural) (NSS) | |11.91 |14.12 |
| |Percentage of Regular Salaried (Urban) | |35.17 |42.35 |
|Employment Rate (Rural) |Usual Principal Status |M |52.09 |52.77 |
| | |F |21.45 |30.15 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |52.79 |54.65 |
| | |F |28.65 |39.05 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |50.67 |51.82 |
| | |F |23.71 |33.37 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |46.40 |47.23 |
| | |F |16.69 |26.52 |
|Employment Rate (Urban) |Usual Principal Status |M |46.12 |52.30 |
| | |F |22.89 |17.33 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |46.61 |53.04 |
| | |F |15.72 |21.63 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |44.95 |51.10 |
| | |F |13.47 |19.81 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |43.22 |48.04 |
| | |F |11.58 |16.31 |
|Unemployment Rate (Rural) |Usual Principal Status |M |1.06 |2.06 |
| | |F |0.18 |1.33 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |0.93 |1.58 |
| | |F |0.18 |1.10 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |1.98 |2.83 |
| | |F |0.63 |1.82 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |3.56 |5.19 |
| | |F |0.95 |2.75 |
|Table 10. contd….. | | | | |
|Unemployment Rate (Urban) |Usual Principal Status |M |2.97 |2.46 |
| | |F |0.51 |1.20 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |2.88 |2.90 |
| | |F |0.51 |2.81 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |3.37 |4.27 |
| | |F |0.69 |2.06 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |4.23 |5.87 |
| | |F |0.77 |10.50 |
|Depended on Wages Labour and |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (Census) | |27.94 |17.06 |
|Wage Earnings | | | | |
| |Percentage of Rural Wage Labour (RLE) | |45.14 |47.82 |
| |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |42.48 |32.36 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |16.28 |24.12 |
| |Percentage of Casual Labour (Urban) | |22.48 |21.23 |
|Wages |Agriculture |M |32.33 |49.12 |
| | |F |27.23 |35.93 |
| |Non-Agriculture |M |43.04 |70.73 |
| | |F |31.13 |43.21 |
|Education Level (Rural) |Literacy Rate |M |51.11 |66.41 |
| | |F |22.30 |51.83 |
| |Percentage of in Primary/Middle |M |22.91 |38.41 |
| | |F |12.95 |29.99 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |21.63 |37.29 |
| | |F |10.68 |24.50 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |2.82 |2.73 |
| | |F |0.48 |1.44 |
|Education Level (Urban) |Literacy Rate |M |71.79 |86.73 |
| | |F |46.13 |73.45 |
| |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |34.38 |41.37 |
| | |F |33.84 |31.95 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |34.98 |44.16 |
| | |F |35.88 |35.07 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |13.60 |8.36 |
| | |F |5.79 |5.08 |
Notes: HDI=Human Development Index
*Low HDI States: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa *High HDI States: Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Maharastra
RLE: Rural Labour Enquiry Report
Table 11. Situation With Respect to Factors Affecting Human Development - All India 1999-2000
|Variables | |SC |ST |OT |ALL |
|Capital Assets | | | | | |
|1Aggragate Capital |Ownership of Capital Assets –1991 (Rs. Per Household) | |49189 |52660 |134500 |78783 |
|Assets | | | | | | |
|2-Access to Land |Percentage of Land Less | |10 |7.2 |6.2 |7.80 |
| |Percentage of Land Less + Near Land Less (Less than 1 acre) | |75 |46.3 |54.3 |58.53 |
| |Percentage of Cultivator (census) | |26.78 |54.32 |46.9 |42.67 |
| |Percentage of Self Employed in Agriculture | |16.4 |36.2 |37.9 |30.17 |
|3-Access to Non-Land |Percentage of Self –employed in Non-Agriculture (Rural) | |12 |5.2 |15.2 |10.80 |
|Assets | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Self-employed in (Urban) | |27.3 |21.6 |36.55 |28.48 |
|Occupation Diversification | | | | | |
|1 |Percentage of Urban population | |20.18 |8.29 |31.57 |20.01 |
|2 |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (Census) | |27.07 |15.8 |32.15 |25.01 |
|3 |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (NSS) | |32.2 |24.2 |37.95 |31.45 |
|4 |Percentage of other worker (Rural) (NSS) | |10.2 |10.1 |15.7 |12.00 |
|5 |Percentage of Regular Salaried (Urban) | |37.6 |38 |41.4 |39.00 |
|Employment Rate (Rural) | | | | | |
|1 |Usual Principal Status |M |52.4 |55.3 |51.6 |53.10 |
| | |F |25.2 |37.7 |19.6 |27.50 |
|2 |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |53.1 |55.8 |52.6 |53.83 |
| | |F |32.5 |43.8 |26.3 |34.20 |
|3 |Current Weakly Status |M |50.5 |53.9 |50.8 |51.73 |
| | |F |27 |38.1 |22.3 |29.13 |
|4 |Current Daily Status |M |46.2 |50.5 |48 |48.23 |
| | |F |21.2 |32.2 |18 |23.80 |
|Employment Rate (Urban) | | | | | |
|1 |Usual Principal Status |M |49.8 |47.4 |52 |49.73 |
| | |F |15.2 |18.3 |11.3 |14.93 |
|2 |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |50.3 |48 |52.4 |50.23 |
| | |F |18.5 |20.4 |13.4 |17.43 |
|3 |Current Weakly Status |M |48.6 |47.5 |52 |49.37 |
| | |F |16.7 |19 |12.3 |16.00 |
|4 |Current Daily Status |M |45.8 |45.1 |49.7 |46.87 |
| | |F |14 |16.6 |10.8 |13.80 |
|Unemployment Rate (Rural) | | | | | |
|1 |Usual Principal Status |M |1.2 |0.7 |1.2 |1.03 |
| | |F |0.3 |0.2 |0.4 |0.30 |
|2 |Usual Principal excluding Subsidiaries Status |M |1 |0.6 |1 |0.87 |
| | |F |0.2 |0.2 |0.4 |0.27 |
|3 |Current Weakly Status |M |2.5 |1.5 |2.1 |2.03 |
| | |F |1 |0.8 |1 |0.93 |
|4 |Current Daily Status |M |5 |3 |3.4 |3.80 |
Table 11. contd….
| | |F |2.1 |1.5 |1.4 |1.67 |
|Unemployment Rate (Urban) | | | | | |
|1 |Usual Principal Status |M |2.8 |2.3 |2.5 |2.53 |
| | |F |0.6 |0.6 |1 |0.73 |
|2 |Usual Principal excluding Subsidiaries Status |M |2.7 |2.2 |2.4 |2.43 |
| | |F |0.6 |0.6 |0.9 |0.70 |
|3 |Current Weakly Status |M |3.7 |2.7 |2.9 |3.10 |
| | |F |0.7 |0.9 |1.1 |0.90 |
|4 |Current Daily Status |M |5.2 |3.7 |3.8 |4.23 |
| | |F |1.2 |1.1 |1.2 |1.17 |
|Depended on Wages Labour and Wage Earnings | | | | | |
|1 |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (Census) | |51.4 |39.7 |24.1 |38.40 |
|2 |Percentage of Rural (Wage) Labour (RLE) | |61.4 |48.6 |31.2 |47.07 |
|3 |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |51.4 |39.7 |24.1 |38.40 |
|4 |Percentage of Non-Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |10.2 |10.1 |15.7 |12.00 |
|5 |Percentage of Casual Labour (Urban) | |26.5 |25.6 |12.4 |21.50 |
|Wages | | | | | |
|1 |Agriculture |M |41.89 |33.2 |40.6 |38.56 |
| | |F |29.6 |26.4 |28.6 |28.20 |
|2 |Non-Agriculture |M |61.06 |54.38 |64.9 |60.11 |
| | |F |36.82 |34.5 |56.1 |42.47 |
|Education Level (Rural) | | | | | |
|1 |Literacy Rate |M |52.5 |47.7 |69.3 |56.50 |
| | |F |24.5 |22.9 |40.95 |29.45 |
|2 |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |27.1 |23.8 |33.45 |28.12 |
| | |F |13.6 |11.7 |21.65 |15.65 |
|3 |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |22.1 |18.9 |32.4 |24.47 |
| | |F |9.5 |7.8 |17.75 |11.68 |
|4 |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |2 |1.5 |4.15 |2.55 |
| | |F |0.4 |0.3 |1.2 |0.63 |
|1 |Percentage of SC/ST Teacher (Rural + Urban) | |8.99 |5.74 |25.78 |13.50 |
|2 |Percentage of SC, ST Habitation with School (Rural + Urban) | |64.27 |na |na |na |
|Education Level (Urban) | | | | | |
|1 |Literacy Rate |M |73.7 |76.7 |86.6 |79.00 |
| | |F |47.9 |54.5 |70.05 |57.48 |
|2 |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |35.4 |29.9 |30.85 |32.05 |
| | |F |24.6 |22.9 |27.7 |25.07 |
|3 |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |35.1 |36.1 |39 |36.73 |
| | |F |21.8 |26 |30.75 |26.18 |
|4 |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |6.3 |11.3 |15.75 |11.12 |
| | |F |2.7 |6.4 |10.1 |6.40 |
Notes: SC= Sheduled Caste ; St= Sheduled Tribe; OT= Others (Non SC/ST) RLE: Rural Labour Enquiry Report
Table 12 (a). Factors Affecting HDI - Low HDI States-1999/2000 :
Average of three Low HDI States*
(Figures are in Percentage)
| |Variables | |SC |ST |OT |ALL |
|Capital Assets | | | | | | |
|1Aggragate Capital Assets |Ownership of Capital Assets -1991 (Rs. Per Household) | |41771 |52543 |116254 |70189 |
|2 Access to Land |Percentage of Land Less | |10.17 |3.17 |4.42 |5.92 |
| |Percentage of Land Less + Near Land Less (Less than 1 acre) | |77.07 |41.23 |55.08 |57.79 |
| |Percentage of Cultivator (census) | |27.26 |57.33 |46.83 |43.81 |
| |Percentage of Self Employed in Agriculture | |16.87 |38.87 |41.45 |32.40 |
|3 Access to Non-Land |Percentage of Self –employed in Non-Agriculture (Rural) | |13.2 |3.27 |13.98 |10.15 |
|Assets | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Self-employed in (Urban) | |32 |15.6 |41.08 |29.56 |
|Occupation Diversification|Percentage of Urban population | |11.05 |6.51 |19.1 |12.22 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (Census) | |24.73 |14.32 |27.67 |22.24 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (NSS) | |30.77 |17.27 |35.42 |27.82 |
| |Percentage of other worker (Rural) (NSS) | |10.2 |7.87 |17.65 |11.91 |
| |Percentage of Regular Salaried (Urban) | |32.77 |37.23 |35.5 |35.17 |
|Employment Rate (Rural) |Usual Principal Status |M |50.63 |57.13 |48.5 |52.09 |
| | |F |19.27 |34.87 |10.2 |21.45 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |51.53 |57.33 |49.5 |52.79 |
| | |F |28.13 |41.53 |16.3 |28.65 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |49.17 |54.83 |48 |50.67 |
| | |F |22.4 |35.43 |13.3 |23.71 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |45.37 |48.33 |45.5 |46.40 |
| | |F |17.13 |22.73 |10.2 |16.69 |
|Employment Rate (Urban) |Usual Principal Status |M |50 |42.47 |45.9 |46.12 |
| | |F |46.07 |16.6 |6 |22.89 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |50.33 |43.2 |46.3 |46.61 |
| | |F |19.97 |19 |8.2 |15.72 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |47.87 |41.37 |45.6 |44.95 |
| | |F |17.07 |16.13 |7.2 |13.47 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |45.53 |39.43 |44.7 |43.22 |
| | |F |13.73 |14.7 |6.3 |11.58 |
|Unemployment Rate (Rural) |Usual Principal Status |M |0.93 |0.77 |1.47 |1.06 |
| | |F |0.13 |0.13 |0.27 |0.18 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |0.87 |0.63 |1.3 |0.93 |
| | |F |0.13 |0.13 |0.27 |0.18 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |1.87 |2.13 |1.95 |1.98 |
| | |F |0.5 |0.8 |0.58 |0.63 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |3.97 |3.6 |3.1 |3.56 |
| | |F |1.23 |1.03 |0.6 |0.95 |
|Table 12(a)Contd… | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|Unemployment Rate (Urban) |Usual Principal Status |M |2.2 |3.43 |3.27 |2.97 |
| | |F |0.23 |0.73 |0.57 |0.51 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |2.17 |3.3 |3.18 |2.88 |
| | |F |0.23 |0.73 |0.57 |0.51 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |3.13 |3.5 |3.47 |3.37 |
| | |F |0.43 |0.87 |0.78 |0.69 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |4.27 |4.5 |3.92 |4.23 |
| | |F |0.63 |0.9 |0.77 |0.77 |
| |Variables | |SC |ST |OT |ALL |
|Depended on Wages Labour |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (Census) | |48.01 |28.35 |26.67 |27.94 |
|and Wage Earnings | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Rural Wage Labour (RLE) | |59.60 |49.00 |26.83 |45.14 |
| |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |52.23 |42.87 |32.34 |42.48 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |30.77 |14.32 |3.75 |16.28 |
| |Percentage of Casual Labour (Urban) | |28 |30.3 |9.15 |22.48 |
|Wages |Agriculture |M |33.32 |29.64 |34.03 |32.33 |
| | |F |27.71 |26.53 |27.44 |27.23 |
| |Non-Agriculture |M |45.54 |38.15 |45.44 |43.04 |
| | |F |33.43 |28.1 |31.87 |31.13 |
|Education Level (Rural) |Literacy Rate |M |44.87 |41.1 |67.35 |51.11 |
| | |F |14.53 |16.1 |36.27 |22.30 |
| |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |20.83 |19.5 |28.39 |22.91 |
| | |F |7.23 |14.93 |16.68 |12.95 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |18.97 |14.9 |31.03 |21.63 |
| | |F |5.57 |11.3 |15.17 |10.68 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |2.07 |1.2 |5.18 |2.82 |
| | |F |0.3 |0.1 |1.05 |0.48 |
|Education Level (Urban) |Literacy Rate |M |61.17 |71.57 |82.62 |71.79 |
| | |F |33 |43.23 |62.15 |46.13 |
| |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |41.23 |28.1 |33.82 |34.38 |
| | |F |33.9 |26.23 |41.38 |33.84 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |34.73 |34.83 |35.38 |34.98 |
| | |F |34.13 |27.37 |46.15 |35.88 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |10.8 |10.33 |19.67 |13.60 |
| | |F |2.57 |5.13 |9.67 |5.79 |
Notes: SC= Scheduled Caste ; St= Scheduled Tribe; OT= Others (Non SC/ST) ; HDI=Human Development Index *For SC: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa *For ST: Bihar;Orissa and Madhya Pradesh
RLE: Rural Labour Enquiry Report
Table 12 (b). Factors Affecting HDI - High HDI States-1999/2000:
Average of three High HDI States*
(Figures are in Percentage)
| |Variables | |SC |ST |OT |ALL |
|Capital Assets | | | | | | |
|1Aggragate Capital |Ownership of Capital Assets -1991 (Rs. Per Household) | |56045 |54638 |154190 |88291 |
|Assets | | | | | | |
|2 Access to Land |Percentage of Land Less | |7.27 |10.4 |6.03 |7.90 |
| |Percentage of Land Less + Near Land Less (Less than 1 acre) | |78.2 |48.9 |65.1 |64.07 |
| |Percentage of Cultivator (census) | |28.21 |52.2 |40.51 |40.31 |
| |Percentage of Self Employed in Agriculture | |15.23 |37.8 |30.35 |27.79 |
|3 Access to No-Land |Percentage of Self –employed in Non-Agriculture (Rural) | |9.03 |5.1 |13.3 |9.14 |
|Assets | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Self-employed in (Urban) | |20.47 |19.5 |30.62 |23.53 |
|Occupation |Percentage of Urban population | |21.06 |8.5 |28.16 |19.24 |
|Diversification | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (Census) | |40.05 |16.6 |27.69 |28.11 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agriculture worker (NSS) | |42.57 |25.1 |41.27 |36.31 |
| |Percentage of other worker (Rural) (NSS) | |12.83 |11 |18.52 |14.12 |
| |Percentage of Regular Salaried (Urban) | |45.07 |42.2 |39.78 |42.35 |
|Employment Rate |Usual Principal Status |M |52.77 |53.93 |51.6 |52.77 |
|(Rural) | | | | | | |
| | |F |31.23 |31.03 |28.2 |30.15 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |54.43 |55.33 |54.2 |54.65 |
| | |F |40.33 |38.93 |37.9 |39.05 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |50.67 |53.7 |51.1 |51.82 |
| | |F |34.57 |32.73 |32.8 |33.37 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |44.73 |49.67 |47.3 |47.23 |
| | |F |26.63 |26.53 |26.4 |26.52 |
|Employment Rate |Usual Principal Status |M |52.47 |51.93 |52.5 |52.30 |
|(Urban) | | | | | | |
| | |F |17.9 |20.8 |13.3 |17.33 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |53.2 |52.33 |53.6 |53.04 |
| | |F |20.2 |27 |17.7 |21.63 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |49.5 |51.7 |52.1 |51.10 |
| | |F |18.13 |26 |15.3 |19.81 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |45.9 |48.73 |49.5 |48.04 |
| | |F |15.83 |20.4 |12.7 |16.31 |
|Unemployment Rate |Usual Principal Status |M |2.4 |1.17 |2.62 |2.06 |
|(Rural) | | | | | | |
| | |F |1.77 |0.33 |1.88 |1.33 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |2 |0.73 |2 |1.58 |
| | |F |1.6 |0.17 |1.53 |1.10 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |3.93 |1.53 |3.03 |2.83 |
| | |F |2.87 |0.67 |1.92 |1.82 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |7.33 |3.2 |5.03 |5.19 |
| | |F |4.4 |1.5 |2.35 |2.75 |
|Table 12 (b). contd.. | | | | | | |
|Unemployment Rate |Usual Principal Status |M |2.37 |1.8 |3.22 |2.46 |
|(Urban) | | | | | | |
| | |F |0.67 |0.3 |2.63 |1.20 |
| |Usual Principal and Subsidiaries Status |M |3.97 |1.8 |2.92 |2.90 |
| | |F |3.17 |3 |2.25 |2.81 |
| |Current Weakly Status |M |6.67 |2.33 |3.82 |4.27 |
| | |F |3.03 |0.47 |2.67 |2.06 |
| |Current Daily Status |M |8.77 |3.83 |5.02 |5.87 |
| | |F |3.7 |0.8 |27 |10.50 |
|Depended on Wages |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (Census) | |31.74 |39.29 |12 |17.06 |
|Labour and Wage | | | | | | |
|Earnings | | | | | | |
| |Percentage of Rural Wage Labour (RLE) | |62.83 |46.20 |34.47 |47.82 |
| |Percentage of Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |42.13 |37.07 |17.88 |32.36 |
| |Percentage of Non-Agricultural Labour (RLE) | |42.57 |16.56 |13.24 |24.12 |
| |Percentage of Casual Labour (Urban) | |26.5 |22.77 |14.43 |21.23 |
|Wages |Agriculture |M |63.92 |37.52 |45.91 |49.12 |
| | |F |41.99 |29.38 |36.41 |35.93 |
| |Non-Agriculture |M |82.98 |61.51 |67.71 |70.73 |
| | |F |56.89 |28.83 |43.91 |43.21 |
|Education Level |Literacy Rate |M |77.07 |60.83 |61.32 |66.41 |
|(Rural) | | | | | | |
| | |F |52.63 |36.5 |66.35 |51.83 |
| |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |41.5 |32.57 |41.17 |38.41 |
| | |F |31.8 |22.23 |35.93 |29.99 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |38.2 |28.03 |45.63 |37.29 |
| | |F |25.17 |15.17 |33.17 |24.50 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |2.07 |1.8 |4.32 |2.73 |
| | |F |0.77 |1.13 |2.43 |1.44 |
|Education Level |Literacy Rate |M |86.23 |82.07 |91.9 |86.73 |
|(Urban) | | | | | | |
| | |F |71.13 |67.73 |81.48 |73.45 |
| |Percentage in Primary/Middle |M |45.9 |40.27 |37.95 |41.37 |
| | |F |33.27 |29.8 |32.77 |31.95 |
| |Percentage in High and Secondary |M |38.33 |47.13 |47.02 |44.16 |
| | |F |30.1 |35.2 |39.9 |35.07 |
| |Percentage in Graduate and above |M |3.9 |9.43 |11.75 |8.36 |
| | |F |2.73 |5.47 |7.03 |5.08 |
Notes: SC= Scheduled Caste ; St= Scheduled Tribe; OT= Others (Non SC/ST) ; HDI=Human Development Index
*For SC: Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Maharastra *For ST: Assam, Gujarat and Maharastra
RLE: Rural Labour Enquiry Report
Table 13(a) Incidences of Caste discrimination and Atrocities against Scheduled Castes
| | |Incidence of Total Crime |% of crime |Rate |Rank |
|S.No |States/India | | | | |
| | |1999 |2000 |2001 |average of|
| | | | | |3 year |
|S.No |States/India |1999 |
|1. Infant Mortality Rate |20 per 1000 |--- |
|2. Literacy rate for 7 + years | | |
| |0 |100 |
|3. Average Consumption Expenditure (per | | |
|capita per month) |Rs.125 |Rs.1500 |
The Human Development Index
The methodology for computing the HDI, first an index needs to be created for each of above three dimensions. Individual dimension index is defined as:
actual value – minimum value
Dimension Index =
maximum value – minimum value
The HDI is then calculated as a simple average of the dimension indices. To construct composite indices for different social groups e.g. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other community separately, the formula can be: the HDI value of the jth group (Ij) for the ith variable is defined as the average of these variables.
Ij = ∑Iij/3 i = 1, 2, 3
J = SC, ST and Others
Therefore, the HDI value e.g. for SC = (health index value + education index value + consumption index value)/3.
2. Methodology for computation of Human Poverty Index
While the HDI measures average achievement, the HPI measures deprivations in the three basic dimensions of human development captured in the HDI:
Calculating the HPI is more straightforward than calculating the HDI. The indicators used to measure the deprivations are already normalized between 0 and 100 (because they are expressed as percentages), so there is no need to create dimension indices as for the HDI. Infant mortality rate, illiteracy rate, poverty (head count ratio), lack of access to health care and under-nutrition are the key indicators which have been used to estimate the human poverty index.
The formula for calculating the HPI is as follows:
HPI = (1/3(P1(+P2(+P3())1/3
Where:
P1 = infant mortality rate in percent
P2 = illiteracy rate (for age 7 years and above population) and
P3= composite indicator on economic and social deprivation.
Thus P3 defined as P3 = ¼ * ∑i ( P3i ), where i goes from 1 to 4, such that:
P31: Proportion of population below the poverty line (HCR)
P32: Proportion of non-institutional deliveries,
P33: Percent of non-vaccination children and
P34: Percentage of children under weight for age.
Why ( = 3 in calculating the HPI
The value of ( has in important impact on the value of the HPI. If (=1, the HPI is the average of its dimensions. As ( rises, greater weight is given to the dimension in which there is the most deprivation. Thus as ( increases towards infinity, the HPI will tend towards the value of the dimension in which deprivation is greatest
Bibliography
Action Aid (2000) ‘Untouchability in Rural India ( by Ghanshyam Saha.,Satish Deshpande,Sukhadeo Thorat,Harsh Mander and Amita Baviskar and Research and other Regional Staff) Delhi ( on going study )
Alkire, Sabina (2002), ‘Dimensions of Human Development’, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Ambul, Sagar and Najam Adil (1998), ‘The human development index: A critical review’, Ecological Economics 25, p.p 249-264.
Appasamy et.al (1995), Social Exclusion from a Welfare Rights Perspective: The Case of India, Madras Institute of Development Studies: Chennai.
Akerlof, George (1976) "The Economic of Caste and of Rat Race and Other Woeful Tales" Quarterly Journal of Economic, XC.4. Nov. 1976
Akerlof, George (1980) "The Theory of Social Customs, of which Unemployment may be one consequences, "Quarterly Journal of Economics" XCIV-4, June 1980
Ambedkar B.R. (first Published 1987), "Philosophy of Hindism" Vasant Moon (Edit) "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches" Vol.3 Page 1-94
Ambedkar B.R. (first published 1987), "The Hindu Social Order - Its Essential Features" in Vasant Moon (Edit), "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writing and Speeches", Vol.3, Page 95-115, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay
Ambedkar, B.R. (first published 1987) "The Hindu Social Order- Its Unique Features" in Vasant Moon (Edit) "Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches" Vol.3, Page 116-129, Deptt. of Education, Govt. of Maharashtra
Banerjee, Biswjit and Knight J.B. (1985) "Caste Discrimination in Indian Urban Labour Market" Journal of Developing Economics
Banerjee, Abhijit and Rohini Somanathan (2001), ‘Caste, Community and Collective Action: The Political Economy of Public Good Provision in India’, Department of Economics, MIT, and Department of Economics, University of Michigan.
Besley, Timothy and Burgess Robin (2000), ‘Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and Growth: Evidence from India’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2000.
Betancourt’ Roger and Suzanne Gleason (2000), ‘The Allocation of Publicly-Provided Goods to Rural Households in India: On Some Consequences of Caste, Religion and Democracy’, World Development Vol. 28, No. 12, pp. 2169-2182.
Bramley, Glen and Tania Ford (1999), ‘Social Exclusion and Lack of Access to Services: Evidence from the 1999 PSE survey of Britain’.
Chakrabarty, G and P.K Gosh (2000), ‘Human Development Profile of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Rural India: A Bench Mark Survey’, National Council of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi.
Chakraborty, Achin ( 2000), ‘Human Rights and Human Development’, Economic Political Weekly, 30 Sept 2000.
----------------------(2002), ‘Issues in Social Indicators, Composite Indices and Inequality’, Economic Political Weekly, 30 March.
Chelliah, R.J. and K.R. Shanmugam (2002), ‘Some Aspects of Inter District Disparities in Tamil Nadu’, Chennai: Madras School Economics, Working Paper No.1.
-------------------and R. Sudarshan (eds.) (1999), Income Poverty and Beyond: Human Development in India, (New Delhi: Social Science Press).
Dreze Jean ad Amartya Sen, (1995), India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
------------------- with Amartya Sen, (2002), India: Development and Participation, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
David Romer (1984) "The Theory of Social Custom :A Modification and some Extension" in Quarterly Journal of Economics
Deshi, A.K. and Singh H. (1995) " Education, Labour Market Distortions and Relative Earning of Different Religious - Caste Categories in India", Canadian Journal of Development of Studies, December 21
Foster, James E., F. Lopez-Calva Luis and Miguel Szekely (), ‘Measuring the Distribution of Human Development: Methodology and an Application to Mexico’.
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko (2002), ‘Operationalising Amartya Sen’s ideas on capabilities development, freedom and human rights – the shifting policy focus of the human development approach’.
--------------- with Sakiko and Shiva Kumar, A.K. (2003), Reading in Human Development: Concepts Measures and Policies for a Development Paradigm, Published by Human Development Report Office, United Nations Development Programme, New York: Oxford University Press.
Government of Assam, (2004), Assam Human Development Report 2003, Published by Government of Assam.
Government of Madhya Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh Human Development Report 1995, 1998 and 2002 Published by Government of Madhya Pradesh.
Government of Maharashtra, (2002), Human Development Report Maharashtra, Published by Government of Maharashtra.
Government of Punjab, (2004), Punjab Human Development Report 2004, Published by Government of Punjab.
Government of Rajasthan, (2002), Rajasthan Human Development Report 2002, (Government of Rajasthan Publication).
Government of Tamil Nadu (2003), Tamil Nadu Human Development Report 2003, Published by Government of Tamil Nadu in Association with Social Science Press, Delhi.
Government of West Bengal (2004), West Bengal Human Development Report 2004, Published by Development & Planning Department, Government of West Bengal,
Haan, Arjan (1997), ‘Poverty and Social Exclusion: A Comparison of Debates on Deprivation’ Working Paper No. 2, Poverty Research Unit, Sussex University Brighton.
Halis, Akder (1994), ‘A Means to Closing Gaps: Disaggregated Human Development Index, UNDP Occasional Paper
Harriss-White, Barbara (2002), Working Paper Number 86: ‘A Note on Destitution, Queen Elizabeth House’, University of Oxford.
Harry Holzer, (August 1999), “Assessing Affirmative Action”, NBER Working Paper, No. 7323.
International Institute of Population Cencus (IIPS) (1995-1999) National Family Health Survey , I &II (Various States) Mumbai
John Edwards, (1995), “Affirmative Action in a Sectarian Society: Fair Employment Policy in Northern Ireland”, Holloway University of London.
Jamaluding, Faridah, “ A Study of the Malaysian Economy: The New Economic Policy (1971-2000) and National Development Policy (1991-2000)” Journal of Social Science and History, Fall 1988.
Jayaraman, Rajshri and Lanjouw Peter (1999), ‘The Evolution of Poverty and Inequality in Indian Villages’, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 14, pp. 1-30.
Khan, Mumtaz Ali, 1995, “Human Rights and the Dalits”, Uppal Publishers, Delhi.
Kenneth J. Arrow, (1998), “What has Economics to Say about Racial Discrimination? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No.2, 91-100.
Lal Deepak (1984) "Hindu Equalibrium", Cultural Stability and Economic Stagnation, Vol. I Carendor, 1988 Oxford
Myers, Jr. Samuel L. (1997), (Edited), “Civil Rights and Race Relations in the Post Reagan-Bush Era”, Praeger, London.
Marks, P. Stephen (2003), ‘The Right to Development: A Primer’, Published by Centre for Development and Human Rights, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Meenakshi’ J.V. and Ranjan Ray (2002), ‘Impact of household size and family composition on Poverty in Rural India’, Journal of Policy Modeling.
Moses, C. Brindavan (1995), ‘Struggle for Panchama Lands Dalit Assertion in Tamil Nadu’, Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February.
National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India (for the years 1999, 2000 & 2001), Ministry of Home Affaires, Government of India, New Delhi.
National Sample Survey Report on Employment and Unemployment situation among social groups in India, 38th, 50th 55th Round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation, Government of India.
National Sample Survey Report on Land and Livestock Holding Survey, 37th (1982 and 1992) 48th Rounds, Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation, Government of India.
National Sample Survey Reports on Differences in level of consumption among socio –economic group, NSS 38th, 50th & 55th Rounds, Ministry of Statistics and Programme implementation, Government of India.
Nayak, Vijay and Prasad Shailaja (1984), ‘On Levels of Living of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes’, EPW. Vol. 19 (30).
Noorbakhsh, Farhad ( ), ‘Human Development and Regional Disparities in India’, Centre for Development Studies, Department of Economics, University of Glasgow.
Nancy Birdsall and Richard Sabot (1991) "Unfair Advantage - Labour Market Discrimination in Developing Countries" World Bank Studies
Nesiah, D (1997), “Discrimination with Reason? The Role of Reservation in USA, India and Malaysia”, Oxford Delhi.
Peiris, G.H. (1999), Poverty, ‘Development and Conflict in South Asia’, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Kandy, Sri Lanka.
Planning Commission, Government of India (2002), National Human Development Report 2001, New Delhi : Government of India,
Radhakrishna, R. and C. Ravi (2004), ‘Malnutrition in India Trends and Determinants’, Economic and Political Weekly.
Radhakrishnan, P (2002), ‘Sensitising Officials on Dalits and Reservations’, Economic and Political Weekly, 16 February.
Roy, T.K., Sumati Kulkarni and Y.Vaidehi (2004), ‘Social Inequalities in Health and Nutrition in Selected States’, Economic and Political Weekly, 14 February.
S. Jomo, K. (2003), ‘Ethnic Discrimination: A Critical Survey of Economic Explanations’, department of Applied Economics, University of Malaya, 50630., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sen, A (1987), The Standard of Living, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
---------- (2000), ‘Social Exclusion: Concept, Application, and Scrutiny’, Asian Development Bank Working Paper No.
----------(1985), Commodities and Capabilities (Amsterdom: North-Holland).
Stewart, Frances (2000), ‘Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development: Wider Annual Lectures 5’, Helsinki: UNU World Institute of Development Economics Research (UNU/WIDER).
Stewart, Frances (2003), ‘Conflict and the Millennium Development Goals’, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, November 2003.
Streeten, Paul (2000), ‘Looking Ahead: areas of future research in human development’, Journal of Human Development, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Scoville, James G.L. (1996) "Labour Market Under Pinnings of a Caste Economy-Failing the Caste Theoream" in "The American Journal of Economics and Sociology" Vol.55, No.4, Oct. 1996
----------------------- (1991) "Towards a Model of Caste Economy" in James G. Scoville, (Editor) "Status Influences in Third World Labour Markets, Caste, Gender and Custom, (Berlin and New York, 1991)
Shah, Ghanshyam (1998), “Caste and Untouchability : Theory and Practice”, Paper presented at seminar “Ambedkar in Restrospect “, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi
Thorat, Sukhadeo (1999), ‘Social Security in Unorganised Sector, How Secure are the Scheduled Caste? Special Issue’, Indian Journal of Labour Economic, September.
------------------(2002), Oppression and Denial –Dalit Discrimination in1990’s Economic and Political Weekly, February.
-------------------(2004) On Reservation Policy for Private Sector ,EPW Vol XXXIX No. 25 June 19, 2004.
-------------------(2003), Caste, Ethnicity, and Religion: An Overview Paper on Exclusion/Discrimination and Deprivation” Concept Paper for DFID, Delhi. May.
------------------ (2003), Caste, Exclusion/Discrimination and Deprivation: The Situation of Dalits in India, Concept Paper for DFID, Delhi. May.
------------- (2004), Persistence of Poverty: Why is Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Stay Chronically Poor? ( sponsored study by IIPA for Centre for Studies on Chronic Poverty 2004
--------------- (2004), Remedies Against Economic Discrimination – International Experience of Reservation Policy in Private Sector in Bibek Debroy and Shyam Babu (2004)“The Dalit Question-Reforms and Social Justice, Globus Delhi
---------------(1996) "Ambedkar on Economics of Hindu Social Order : Understanding Its Orthodoxy and Legacy" in Walter Fernandes "The Emerging Dalit Identity" Indian Social Institute, Delhi.
---------------- ( 2001) “Caste and Untouchability based Economic and market Discrimination –Theory ,Concept and Consequences “ Artha Vidhyan , Vol.XLIII, Nos 1-2, Journal of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics .
----------------- (2000), ‘Isolation and Deprivations: Economic Situation of Tribals in India, in Development Issue in India, Edited, Department of Economics, Dr. Babashaheeb Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Maharashtra..
------------------(2003) WithPrakash Louis ,Overview paper, Exclusion and Poverty in India: Schedule castes, Tribal and Muslim , DFID, Delhi.
----------------- and S. Venkatesan (2004), ‘Caste Conflict, Poverty and Human Development in India’, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies.
------------------and R.S. Deshpande (1999), ‘Caste and Labour Market Discrimination’ Indian Journal of Labour Economic, Conference Issue, November.
Thurow, Lester C. (1969), “Poverty and Discrimination”, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Tripathy, R.B. (1994) : Dalits : A Sub- Human Society , Ashish, Delhi
UNDP (1996), Human Development Report 1996, Published by United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi : Oxford University Press.
UNDP (2000), Human Rights and Human Development, Human Development Report 2000, Published by United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi : Oxford University Press.
---------(2002), ‘Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World’ (2002), Human Development Report 2002, Published by United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi : Oxford University Press.
---------- (2004), ‘Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World’, Human Development Report 2004, Published by United Nations Development Programme, New Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Venkateswarlu, D (1990) Harijan – Upper Class Conflict, Discovery, Delhi.
William Darity Jr. (Edit) "Economics and Discrimination Vol. I, An Elgar Reference Collection (U.S.)
------------------- (1997), “Reparations” in Samuel L. Myers, Jr. (Edited), “Civil Rights and Race Relations in the Post Reagan-Bush Era”, Praeger, London.
------------- with Steven Shulman, (1989), “Question of Discrimination – Racial inequality in the U.S. labour market ”, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- web site table of contents oxford university press
- miami beach senior high school overview
- our material world
- the un human development index hdi
- ch 17 people quiz
- list of abbreviations the world bank
- chapter ending questions
- human development and deprived groups in india
- daily fact sheet for aphug unit v 1 anderson
Related searches
- theories of human development and lifespan
- human growth and development theories
- human development theories and models
- human growth and development notes
- human growth and development pdf
- human growth and development powerpoint
- human growth and development worksheets
- human growth and development test quizlet
- human growth and development lessons
- human growth and development quiz
- human growth and development study guide
- human development and lifespan