THERE is nothing surprising if the people of India or for that matter those anywhere, feel so chuffed about the pace of their socio-economic progress that they want to show off their shining achievements. In fact, such a feeling could accelerate their quest for overall development and a due place for their country in the comity of nations. Equally, it could also turn out to be dangerous, engendering a self-deception that might ultimately undermine the required resolve to pull the country out of the morass of poverty and deprivation and all-round underdevelopment. This is something that every informed Indian needs to ponder over.

The good performance in some macroeconomic areas of the Indian economy has given rise to such euphoria that some are tempted to speak of the impending ‘super power’ status of the country. There is no doubt that the country has steered clear of some minefields of the international neo-liberal agenda promoted by the IMF, World Bank and the WTO such as the financial crisis experienced by a number of countries, an external debt trap, high inflation and their consequential adverse effects on the economy. There is reason to be proud of the performance in external trade and balance of payments and an overall growth rate that has kept the pace of the 1980s. But the same cannot be said of overcoming absolute poverty and unemployment and a host of human development/deprivation indicators that have a bearing on the much-needed social and spatial adjustment (as opposed to structural adjustment) within the country.

This brief paper deals with some aspects of disparities across regions (states) as well as social groups, mainly women and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The intent is to remind ourselves of the enormity of the problems at hand and the distance to be covered before we can be proud of a reasonable measure of achievement vis-à-vis other countries in the developing world.

The achievement in human development in India revealed through the by now popular summary measure of Human Development Index (HDI) is certainly not something that India would like to show off – a rank of 124 out of 173 countries in the year 2000. Though somewhat better than the neighbours in the subcontinent barring the shining exception of Sri Lanka, which has a rank of 89, it pales in comparison with China and many others in Southeast Asia. While the HDI is an indicator of achievement, the Human Poverty Index (HPI) provides a measure of deprivation. Here again India’s rank of 55 out of 88 is one of the lowest, keeping company with its sub-continental neighbours and African countries. The percentage of people below the international poverty line of one dollar a day is 44% in India. It is one of the highest and its magnitude is certainly alarming. This gives India the status of having the single largest group of poor people of around 440 million out of the estimated total of 1.2 billion in the world. It is exactly double the entire population of the United States and well above the entire population of Western Europe.

 

 

These international comparisons should act as constant reminders whenever the feeling becomes ‘so good’ and the going ‘so great’. But the distance to be covered is not just international. Within India the disparities are so great that one could speak of the existence of a Southeast Asian type of situation in some parts of the country and that of a sub-Saharan African situation in others, with the rest falling in between these two well-performing and ill-performing types. Basing ourselves on a number of indicators, the five best performing states are Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the South forming one geographical block and Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Haryana forming another block in the north-west with Maharashtra in the middle-west.

The bottom five worst performing states – Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal – form one single large geographical block that demands a far more serious and concerted public and intellectual attention than it has received so far. One should note that it is not only the Bimaru states (denoting the first four) but also Bimaru plus in which Orissa occupies a prominent place. In fact, a more detailed examination reveals that Orissa is closer to Bihar in its non-performance than to Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, which seem to show some signs of positive change.

The indicators selected (see Table I) represent four basic social security concerns, i.e., food, health, education and housing. We have examined these at four different levels. The first two composite indicators together capture all the four concerns; the next seven are general but unitary indicators to examine them individually; the next seven are intended to explicitly bring in the gender dimension and the last five to examine the performance in terms of the well-being of two sections of the population, those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, who continue to be at the bottom of the social and economic ladder in Indian society. All the data refer to the 1990s or the beginning of this century.

Table I is intended to portray the extremes, which should be profoundly disturbing. The Human Development Index of Kerala in the early 1990s is closer to that of Vietnam and Indonesia (110) and at least 20 countries above that of India. The HDI of Bihar is closer to the bottom six of the total of 140 countries in 1990. In fact, there were only six countries, all in Africa, that were closer to or less than the HDI value of Bihar. The internal disparity is sharply portrayed by the fact that Bihar’s attainment is only half that of Kerala. Examining the Human Poverty Index, which is a measure of deprivation, the disparity is sharper with Kerala indicating one-fifth of its population as deprived, whereas in Bihar the proportion is more than two-and-a-half times that of Kerala.

 

A far starker picture emerges when we examine the unitary indicators that depict the basic socio-economic condition of the people. Income poverty in the worst performing state of Orissa is 12 times that of the best performing Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). In fact, the five best performing states fall in a range of 4% in J&K to 12% in Kerala whereas the figure ranges from 36% in Sikkim and 47% in Orissa with Bihar, MP and Assam coming in between. These two sets of states represent the two ends of the poverty spectrum.

 

 

Housing perhaps represents an important dimension of human dignity and the internal spatial disparity could hardly be worse. Orissa has 77% of households with kutcha housing, i.e., more than five times that of the best performing Haryana. But a more basic and pointed indicator of human dignity is the availability of a toilet. Compare the disparity between 3% of households with a toilet in Orissa with that of 68% in the North East states. Electricity, a modern basic amenity, is surely an indicator of the quality of living. Himachal Pradesh literally shines at 88% while Bihar dims at 9%, i.e., just about one-tenth of that achieved in the former.

Gender sensitivity is generally perceived to be a weak point of Indian society, especially in the countryside. But that would perhaps appear a sweeping statement to make when one looks at the spatial disparities. Women’s life expectancy in Kerala is 76 years, not only comparable to those in developed countries but also well above that of men by 4 to 5 years. Punjab is a distant second with 69 years. But the worst performing Madhya Pradesh has just 55 years, i.e., 20 years lower than that of Kerala. In fact, the worst performing states of MP, UP, Orissa, Assam and Bihar show a range of only 55 to 58 years compared to the best performing ones between 65 to 76 years.

 

 

One basic and robust indicator of social development is the ability of a society to reduce the probability of death of infants before they attain age one. The disparity between the best performing Kerala (16) and worst performing Uttar Pradesh (87) is more than five times; the latter represents one of the highest rates in the contemporary world. Here again, a far more disturbing picture emerges when we look at girl children. The worst performing Madhya Pradesh records an infant-girl death rate of 97, seven times more than that of Kerala. Similarly, the disparity in female literacy is also much higher than in overall literacy. The wide disparity in dropout rates of girl children in primary school and in the incidence of anaemia are also alarming, to say the least.

By all indications, the socio-economic status of those listed under Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC and ST) is at the bottom of the Indian society. But here again there are significant spatial variations. Based on the availability of data, we have selected two sets of indicators that emphasise the dimension of human dignity, i.e., the quality of housing and access to basic education. The disparities here are so stark that one cannot now make a sweeping statement about the condition of SC and ST population across the entire length and breadth of this country.

 

 

Hardly one per cent of SC and ST households in Orissa have a toilet while the figure is a truly remarkable 67% in the North East region. 87% of households in Orissa live in a kutcha house while only 24% do so in Haryana; the disparity is more than three-and-a-half times. In the case of electrification of houses of SC and ST population, Himachal Pradesh again shines with 84% while it is the turn of Kerala to shine in the case of literacy with 78% compared to a mere 28% in Bihar. As in the case of literacy, so in the case of school enrolment with Kerala recording a remarkable 97% compared to 45% in Bihar.

Taking all these 21 indicators, we have identified states that figure at the top five and bottom five to indicate ‘best’ and ‘worst’ performances in a comparative setting. The ranking here indicates the overall ranking (see Table II). The number of indicators in which the identified states score is given in brackets.

 

A visual representation would perhaps convey the reality more graphically (see map). This ranking, albeit preliminary and only indicative of the ‘best’ and the ‘worst’ should provoke a more nuanced investigation of the underlying causes and consequences. However, several comments come to mind.

First, the best performers constitute only about a quarter of the Indian population whereas the worst performers account for more than half of the total. Unless the latter improve rapidly in terms of basic socioeconomic development, the Indian averages will continue to be on the downside. When one examines the share of SC and ST population among the best and the worst, the picture is even more disturbing with the worst performers accounting for 58% while the best one just for 20% of the country total.

Does that mean states with a higher share of the SC and ST population perform badly? There is hardly any supporting evidence for that. Himachal Pradesh, one of the best performing states, has around 30% SC and ST population which is close to that of Rajasthan and West Bengal, two worst performing ones though less than that of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. In fact, the share of SC and ST in Punjab (28%), another best performing state, is much more than that of Uttar Pradesh (21%). Clearly the issue is not one of population share. In fact, some states in the North East region such as Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland with a very high share of ST population have a high achievement record in Human Development Index, literacy and the status of women. It is quite possible that the achievements are related to their historical access to resources along with a high degree of autonomy in affairs of state that shape public policies.

 

 

When one looks at the indicators for the SC and ST population, the best performers are the same as the overall best performers with the exception of Maharashtra. Of the five indicators, Maharashtra scores only in one whereas Haryana and Punjab score in two. Tamil Nadu scores in three and the top position goes to both Kerala and Himachal Pradesh scoring four out of five indicators.

Some comments are called for when one finds West Bengal, perhaps surprisingly, as a member of the worst performing group. A widely perceived pro-poor government has been in power for more than a quarter of a century there and it is only natural that people expect it to be one of the best performing states as far as such basic socio-economic indicators as the ones selected here are concerned. It is small consolation that its fifth rank is a distant one with a score of only seven. This number is not matched by its scores in best performance although it has four scores there placing it at a very distant eighth rank in the best performing league. Despite a long and respectable legacy of social reform as well as political mobilization of the poor, the comparative backwardness of the state merits detailed investigation.

 

 

Albeit to a lesser extent, the same may be said about Maharashtra. While it certainly ranks as a best performing state, it has three scores in the league of worst performing ones out of which two are on account of its poor performance in SC and ST indicators. Although the overall ranking of Haryana is below that of Maharashtra, it has two scores (out of the five) in best performance in SC and ST indicators compared to one for Maharashtra.

The best performing states are not without their share of blemishes. For example, Kerala has the highest rate of unemployment in the country, howsoever measured, mainly the educated unemployed. In Punjab and Haryana the record vis-à-vis gender sensitivity and literacy is not in consonance with the achievement in many other areas listed here.

The picture of socio-spatial disparities along with the absolute levels of deprivation is not one that will, or should, make any Indian feel good or proud. There is no need to be apologetic about achievements here and there and the zest to celebrate it if celebration is due. Some of these achievements are the result of cumulative efforts over a long period with active state policies and/or interventions, be it in the creation of a pool of world class computer software experts, ready availability of scientists, technologists and managerial professionals or competitiveness in pharmaceutical and steel manufacturing. The absence/inadequacy of state policies and programmes should surely count for the dismal record and disparity in eliminating hunger and deprivation and providing a modicum of socio-economic security to half the population. One can only feel so bad when one is asked to feel so good.

 

The Best Performing and the Worst Performing States in 21 Indicators of Socio-economic Development