CHAPTER 3

POVERTY IN ORISSA AND INDIA

In this chapter an attempt is made to study poverty in India with specific reference to Orissa.

It deals with the measures of poverty and critically reflects incidence, trends, spatial

distribution and vulnerable groups. Human Development paradigm and multidimensional

indicators of poverty is also analyzed in this chapter. It further outlines the socio-economic

profile of Orissa, Poverty and Human development in the state and the trends of poverty in

Kalahandi District. Finally, it addresses the key poverty alleviation programmes in Orissa

with specific reference to Kalahandi District.

3.1 Introduction:

Poverty is "pronounced deprivation in well-being."144 The conventional view links well­

being primarily to command over commodities, so the poor are those who do not have

enough income or consumption to put them above some adequate minimum threshold. This

view sees poverty largely in monetary terms. Poverty may also be tied to a specific type of

consumption; thus someone might be house poor or food poor or health poor. These

dimensions of poverty can often be measured directly, for instance by measuring malnutrition ..

or literacy. The broadest approach to well-being and poverty focuses on the "capability" of

the individual to function in society. The poor lack key capabilities, and may have inadequate

income or education, or be in poor health, or feel powerless, or lack political freedoms (ibid.).

The broadest approach to well-being and poverty as articulated by Amartya Sen (1987), who

argues that well-being, comes from a "capability" to function in society. Thus, poverty arises

when people lack key capabilities, and so have inadequate incomes or education, or poor

health, or insecurity, or low self confidence, or a sense of powerlessness, or the absence of

rights such as freedom of speech. Viewed in this way, poverty is a multi-dimensional

phenomenon.

Poverty is related to, but distinct from, inequality and vulnerability. Inequality focuses on the

distribution of attributes, such as income or consumption, across the whole population. In the

context of poverty analysis, inequality requires examination if one believes that the welfare of

an individual depends on their economic position relative to others in society. Vulnerability is

defined as the risk of falling into poverty in the future, even if the person is not necessarily

poor now; it is often associated with the effects of "shocks" such as a drought, crop failures, a

144 World Bank Institute, 2005, Introduction to Poverty Analysis, Poverty Manual, p.8.

111

drop in farm prices, or a financial crisis. Vulnerability is a key dimension of well-being since

it affects individuals' behavior in terms of investment, production patterns, and coping

strategies and the perceptions of their own situations.

India suffers severe deprivations in education and health - especially in the Northern states,

where caste, class, and gender inequities are particularly strong. Human development cannot

be achieved without taking the role of women into account. Poverty often hits women and

women-headed households the hardest, and women have fewer economic and political

opportunities to improve their well-being and that of their families. 145

3.2 Poverty in India

3.2.1 Measurement of Poverty: Database and Methodology

There is no unanimity of opinion among either among the researchers or policy makers

relating to measurement of poverty and policy prescriptions for alleviating poverty in India.

Most policy makers prefer the simple head count ratio (HCR), or the poverty gap index

(PGI). Researchers prefer more sophisticated measures like the Sen Index, or the general

class ofFoster-Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) measures. 146

3.2.2 Planning Commission's Estimation of~()verty in l~dia

Poverty has traditionally been defined in income or expenditure terms and can be viewed in

relative or absolute terms. Absolute Poverty uses a poverty line to separate the poor from the

non-poor. 147 The idea of poverty line was coined by Indian Labour Conference in 1957. In

India, the origin of the minimum normative absolute living standards or the absolute poverty

line are based on the minimum normative food basket and calorific norm. 148 The earliest

poverty line (PL) was quantified by an expert group appointed for the seminar, in 1962, on

'Some Aspects of Planning', using a per capita total expenditure (PCTE) of Rs.20 per month

at 1960-61 prices for rural areas and Rs.25 for urban areas. This estimation was used by the

Planning Commission Division for working out the implications of ensuring a minimum

145 UNDP Annual Report 2009, Poverty Reduction: Maintaining the focus on achieving the MDGs, p.l2. 146 Dubey, Amresh and Shubhashis Gangopadhyay (1998), 'Counting the poor: WHERE ARE THE POOR IN INDIA', Sarvekshana Analytical Report, Number I, Department of Statistics, Government oflndia, p.9. 147 Mehta, Aasha Kapur, et.al. 2007, 'Inequalities and Poverty Alleviation', Lesson prepared for the Module on Economics for Rural Management for the Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Management, Commissioned and applied by Yashada in PGDRM, p. 2-12. 148 Dube and Gangopadhyay, p.l3.

112

standard of living, over a fifteen year planning horizon.149 However, the suggested

expenditure did not include the expenditure on health and education.

The absolute poverty line along the lines of the normative minimum calorie intake was

adopted by the Task force constituted by the Planning Commission in 1979.This group

accepted the calorie intake norms recommended by the Nutrition Expert Group(1968),

according to fourteen age-sex-activity categories. On the basis of this data, the Expert Group

estimated that on an average of per capita consumer expenditure of Rs. 49.09 in rural areas

will meet the minimum requirement of 2435 kcal per day and per capita consumer

expenditure of Rs. 56.64 in urban areas will meet the minimum requirement of 2095 kcal per

day in urban areas.

Dandekar and Rath (1971) re-estimated the rural poverty line on the basis of a uniform daily

calorie norm of 2250 per capita. The rural poverty line turned out to be the PCTE level of

Rs.l5 per month at 1960-61 prices. This estimation was used by Bardhan (1973) and later on

by other researchers. Chatteijee and Bhattacharya (1974) estimated that during 1963-64 the

urban price level is 20 per cent higher than the rural one. This gives an urban poverty norm of

Rs. 18 per month at 1960-61 prices.

The poverty lines have updated periodically to get them ·at current prices:· The poverty line for

the base year 1973-74 is adjusted for inflation. The poverty line for 1973-74 was updated by

utilizing the wholesale price index (WPI) which was a controversial decision as the basket for

the WPl constituted (about 30%) was constituted of the items which are not meant for private

consumption. Besides, the consumer obtains the goods from retail market and not from

wholesale market. Based on this methodology, the Planning Commission estimated the

poverty for the year 1972-73, 1977-78, 1983-84 and 1987-88.

In 1989, Planning Commission constituted an Expert Group on 'Estimation of Proportion and

Number of Poor' (Prof. Lakdawala Committee). The methodology recommended by the

Expert Group is being adopted by Planning Commission to estimate poverty at national and

state level. The Expert Group suggested that in addition to the national level poverty lines,

state-specific poverty lines be estimated using state-specific consumer price indices.

Based on the required adjustments, the poverty line for 2004-05 is Rs 356.30 per capita per

month for rural and Rs 538.60 per capita per month for urban areas.

149 Srinivasan and Bardhan (1974), p. 13 as cited in Dube and Gangopadhyay, 1998.

113

3.3 Methodology of estimation of incidence of Poverty

Planning Commission is the nodal agency and estimates poverty at both national and state

level. Planning Commission estimates the poverty line as the Head Count Ratio (HCR). The

incidence of poverty is defined as the HCR and is measured as the state specific percentage of

people living below the poverty line. The ratio is obtained by using the quinquennial

consumer expenditure survey conducted by National Sample Survey Organisation (NS~O).

Poverty at the national level is estimated as the weighted average of state specific poverty

levels. Thus, the incidence of poverty is the proportion of poor in the population and it is

measured by what is called the headcountratio. The methods used to calculate HCR is shown

below.

Head Count Ratio(HCR):

The Head Count Ratio is a measure of the percentage of population living below the poverty line and is defined as :

HCR = q/n * 100 Where q= the number of persons below a predefined poverty norm( also called poverty line)

n= total population

This ratio takes into account percentage of all the people who are below the poverty line. This is the standard measure of poverty.

According to Planning Commission estimates, 301.72 mi1lion Indians are in poverty in 2004-05, this is a head count ratio or measure of poverty or the proportion of the population with consumption expenditure less than the Poverty Line. Poverty Gap Index:

The second measures that are commonly used to measure income poverty are the Poverty Gap Ratio or Index which measures the depth of poverty and the Squared Poverty Gap which measures the severity of poverty by giving more weight to the poorest of the poor. Poverty Gap is estimated as L. [(x * -Xi) /x *]In and the summation is over all those who are below the poverty line. Where Xi= consumption of the· ith person

x * = poverty line. Higher the PGR worse the inequality SPG = l.E (x* - xi) 2 and the summation is over all those who are below the poverty line.

n x* The higher the SPG the worse the inequality. Sen's Poverty Index

A common measure of poverty in a society is the share of the population, H, with incomes

below a certain, predetermined, poverty line. But the theoretical foundation for this kind of

measure was unclear. It also ignored the degree of poverty among the poor; even a significant

boost in the income of the poorest groups in society does not affect H as long as their

114

incomes do not cross the poverty line. To remedy these deficiencies, Sen postulated five

reasonable axioms from which he derived a poverty index:

P = H · [I+ (1 - 1) · G].

Here, G is the Gini coefficient, and I is a measure (between 0 and 1) of the distribution of

income, both computed only for the individuals below the poverty line. Relying on his earlier

analysis of information about the welfare of single individuals, Sen clarified when the index

can and should be applied; comparisons can, for example, be made even when data are

problematic, which is often the case in poor countries where poverty indexes have their most

intrinsic application. Sen's poverty index has subsequently been applied extensively by

others. Three of the axioms he postulated have been used by those researchers, who have

proposed alternative indexes.

3.4 Muhammad Yunus's Definition of the Poor

The inability to reach the poorest of the poor is a problem that plagues most poverty

alleviation programs. Referring to Gresham's Law150 Yunus views, if the poor and non-poor

are combined within a single program, the non-poor will always drive out of the poor. To be

effective, the delivery system must be designed and operated exclusively for the poor. That

requires a strict definition of who the poor are - there is no room for conceptual vagueness.

Yunus used three broad definitions of the poor to describe the situation in Bangladesh.151

P1 -the bottom 20 percent of the population ("hard-core poor"/absolute poor) P2 - bottom 35 percent of the population P3 - bottom 50 percent of the population Within each category, Yunus created sub classifications on the basis of region, occupation,

religion, ethnic background, sex, age, and so on. Occupational or regional categories may not

be as quantifiable as income-asset criteria, but they help us create a multidimensional poverty

matrix. Yunus view that poverty is caused by our inadequate understanding of human

capabilities and by our failure to create enabling theoretical frameworks, concepts,

institutions and policies to support those capabilities. While elaborating he views natural

disasters do weak havoc among the poor in Bangladesh and many other developing nations

all over the world, they do not cause poverty. Abject poverty is a creation of mankind, not of

nature.

150 Gresham's Law generally refers to the tendency for people to hoard the more valuable of two types of specie( currency), letting the inferior type circulate more money. Here, it refers to the tendency of one group to "crowd out" another's ability to gain benefits from a program. 151 In 1995, the Consultative Group to Assist the Poorest (CGAP) and the Micro-credit Summit Campaign Committee formally defined a "poor" person as someone who lives below the poverty line and "poorest" as some one in the bottom half of those below the poverty line.

115

3.5 Estimates of Poverty

Poverty in India declined from 54.9% in 1973-74 to 27.5% in 2004-05 (see Table 3.1).

Despite the recently experienced high rates of growth that exceeded expectations, the pace of

poverty reduction in India has been much lower than anticipated. 301.7 million persons live

below the poverty line, 220.92 million of them in rural and 80.79 million in urban areas.

Table 3.1: Poverty: Percentage of Population and Number of People Below the Poverty Line 1973-7 4 to 2004-05 Year % Population below poverty line Number of people below poverty (in

millions)

1973-74 54.9 321.3

1977-78 51.3 328.9

1983 44.5 322.9

1987-88 38.9 307;1

1993-94 36 320.3

1999-2000 26.1 260.2

2004-05 27.5 301.7

Source: Planning Commission Draft Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) and Government of India, Poverty Estimates for 1999-2000, Press Information Bureau, 22nd February, 2001 and March 2007.

Table 3.2 State- wise Percentage of Population Below Poverty Line 1987-88 to 2004-05

States 1987-88 1993-94 1999-00 2004-05

Orissa 55.6 48.6 47.2 46.4

Bihar 52.1* 55.0* 42.6* 41.4

Jharkhand 52.1* 55.0* 42.6* 40.3

Chhattisgarh 43.1* 42.5* 37.4* 40.9

Madhya Pradesh 43.1* 42.5* 37.4* 38.3

Uttarakhand 41.5* 40.9* 31.2* 39.6

Uttar Pradesh 41.5* 40.9* 31.2* 32.8

West Bengal 44.7 35.7 27.0 24.7 A

Maharashtra 40.4 36.9 25.0 30.7

Tamil Nadu 43.4 35.0 21.1 22.5

India 38.9 36.0 26.1 27.5

Source : Planning Commission Note: Asterisk denotes data for undivided states.

Table 3.2 shows the percentage of the population below poverty line of Orissa compared to

other states. The table depicts the existence of stark poverty in the state. The proportion of

116

population below poverty line in Orissa is almost double than the national level. There is

7.0% decline in the level of poverty in the state during 1987-88 and 1993-94 and marginal

decline of 0.8% between 1999-2000 to 2004-05. Orissa has 46.4% population living below

poverty line in 2004-05 as per Planning Commission, Government of India estimation.

Table 3.3 (Ninth Plan 1997-2002) shows that between 1973-74 to 1993-94, the poverty gap

ratio declined by 3.31 per cent per year in rural areas, 2.71 per cent per year in urban areas

and 3.21 per cent per year. The corresponding estimates of decline in the SPG were 4.38 per

cent, 3.07 per cent and 4.13 per cent per year. The Ninth Plan therefore noted that "the fact

that the more distribution-sensitive measures of poverty have declined progressively faster

during these last 20 years is a cause for optimism." 152

Table 3.3: Indices of Depth and Severity of Poverty: PGI and SPG

Year Poverty Gap Index Squared Poverty Gap

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total

1973-74 16.56 13.64 15.95 6.81 5.26 6.48

1977-78 15.73 13.13 15.15 6.48 5.25 6.21

1983 12.32 10.61 11.96 4.78 4.07 4.61

1987-88 9.11 9.94 9.32 3.15 3.60 3.26

1993-94 8.45 7.88 8.30 2.78 2.82 2.79

Note: PGI and SPG are computed from the flSS consumptwn Expendzture Dzstnbutwn of the respective years and the implicit national poverty lines as per the Expert Group. Source: Government of india, Planning Commission, Ninth Plan /997-2002

More recent estimates by Dev and Ravi for the poverty gap index and squared poverty gap

for the pre- and post-reform periods show that while both PGI and SPG declined over time,

the rate of decline in these distribution sensitive measures was slower in both rural areas and

urban areas in the post-reform period as compared to the pre-reform period (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Poverty Gap, FGT and Gini for Rural and Urban Areas

1983 1993-94 2004-05

Rural

PGI 13.46 8.58 5.9

FGT(SPG) 5.27 2.55 1.47

Gini 30.79 28.55 30.45

152 Mehta, Aasha Kapur, et.al. 2007, 'Inequalities and Poverty Alleviation', Yashada Paper, p. 4.

117

Urban

PGI 11.95 8.37 5.76

FGT (SPG) 4.31 2.61 1.46

Gini 34.06 34.31 37.51

(Surveys of 30-Day Uniform Reference Period) Source: Dev and Ravi (2007) as cited in Mehta, Aasha Kapur, et.al. 2007, 'Inequalities and Poverty Alleviation', Yashada Paper, p. 5.

3.6 Spatial Distribution of Poverty

Those in poverty are unevenly distributed across the country with concentration of poverty in

some states. In 2004-05, eight states of India accounted for 64.6% of those in poverty. These

are Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Bihar Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,

Maharashtra, West Bengal and Orissa (Table 3. 4). These states have had a very high

proportion of their population in poverty over deca,des. The incidence of poverty is highest in

Orissa at 46.4%. In Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and West Bengal

persistently high levels of poverty, in excess of 30 per cent, have occlirred for several decades

(Mehta and Shah 2003; Mehta and Shepherd 2004). However, poverty has declined

significantly from 36 percent in 1993-94 to 25 per centin 2004-05 in West Bengal and 40.9

to 19.7 in Assam.153

Table 3.5: Number and Percentages of Population Below the Poverty Line by States 2004 05 (B d URP C . ) - ase on - onsumption States/UTs Percentage of Persons No. of Persons in Millions

Andhra Pradesh 15.8 12.61

Assam 19.7 5.58

Bihar 41.4 36.91

Chhattisgarh 40.9 9.10

Gujarat 16.8 9.07

Haryana 14.0 3.21

Himachal Pradesh 10.0 0.64

Jharkhand 40.3 11.64

Kama taka 25.0 13.89

Kerala 15.0 4.96

Madhya Pradesh 38.3 24.97

Maharashtra 30.7 31.74

153 Ibid. p.S.

118

Orissa 46.4 17.85

Punjab 8.4 2.16

Rajasthan 22.1 13.49

Tamil Nadu 22.5 14.56

Uttar Pradesh 32.8 59.00

West Bengal 24.7 20.84

All-India 27.5 301.72

Source: www.planmngcomrmsswn.gov.m

As per the estimates of Planning Commission, it is observed that the percentage of Scheduled

Tribe population people living below poverty line in 1993-94 were 51.94% in the rural areas

and 41.14% in the urban areas respectively. This percentage of ST population living below

the poverty line has declined to 47.2% in the rural areas and 33.3% in the urban areas in

2004-05. Thus, there is a sharp decline of 4.7% STs living below the poverty line in the rural

areas and 7.8 %in urban areas since 1993- 94 to 2004-05. Among Scheduled Caste category

the percentage of people living below the poverty line in 1993-94 were 48.11% in rural areas

and 49.48% in the urban areas. The percentage of SCs living below poverty line has declined

to 36.8% in rural areas and 39.9% in urban areas in 2004-05. Thus, there is 11.3% decline in

the percentage of SCs living below the poverty line in the rural area and 9.5% decline in the

urban areas. State-wise details are in Table No. 3.6.

At the state level in Orissa, 75% Scheduled Caste population are below poverty line in the

rural area which is almost twice than the national average; 50.2% Scheduled Caste population

are poor in the rural area which is higher in comparison to the India as a whole. 36% people

in the rural sector of Orissa are poor those who belong to Other Backward Classes and rest

23.4% population belong to the other category. As a whole 46.8% people in the rural part of

Orissa are from below poverty line. Similarly, in the urban part of Orissa, 61.8% people from

ST category are from below poverty line, which is double than the STs in the urban India;

72.6% SCs are poor in the urban pockets of Orissa, thus it can be stated that the percentage

of urban poverty among the SCs is higher in comparison to the rural SC population, further

the percentage of poverty among urban SC population in the state is higher than the all India

average( 39.9% ). 50.2% OBC population in urban part of Orissa are below poverty line and

rest 28.9% belong to other category. As a whole 44.3% population living below poverty line

in the urban pocket of Orissa. Thus, the rate of rural poverty is 2.5% higher than urban

poverty of Orissa. At the state level 46.4% population (rural & urban) are below the poverty

line as per the Planning Commission estimates of 2004-05 (Table No. 3.6.).

119

Table 3.6: State-Wise Percentage of Population Below Poverty Line by Social Groups, 2004-05

Rural Urban Rural & Urban

States/UTs ST sc OBC Others All ST sc OBC Others All Combined

Andhra

Pradesh 30.5 15.4 9.5 4.1 11.2 50.0 39.9 28.9 20.6 28 15.8

Assam 14.1 27.7 18.8 25.4 22.3 4.8 8.6 8.6 4.2 3.3 19.7

Bihar 53.3 64.0 37.8 26.6 42.1 57.2 67.2 41.4 18.3 34.6 41.4

Chhattisgarh 54.7 32.7 33.9 29.2 40.8 41.0 52.0 52.7 21.4 41.2 40.9

Gujarat 34.7 21.8 19.1 4.8 19.1 21.4 16.0 22.9 7.0 13 16.8

Haryana 0.0 26.8 13.9 4.2 13.6 4.6 33.4 22.5 5.9 15.1 14.0

Himachal

Pradesh 14.9 19.6 9.1 6.4 10.7 2.4 5.6 10.1 2.0 3.4 10.0 "" .

Jharkhand 54.2 57.9 40.2 37.1 46.3 45.1 47.2 19.1 9.2 "20.2 40.3

Karnataka 23.5 31.8 20.9 13.8 20.8 58.3 50.6 39.1 20.3 32.6 25.0

Kerala 44.3 21.6 13.7 6.6 13.2 19.2 32.5 24.3 7.8 20.2 15.0

Madhya

Pradesh 58.6 42.8 29.6 13.4 36.9 44.7 67.3 55.5 20.8 42.1 38.3

Maharashtra 56.6 44.8 23.9 18.9 29.6 40.4 43.2 35.6 26.8 32.2 30.7

Orissa 75.6 50.2 36.9 23.4 46.8 61.8 72.6 50.2 28.9 44.3 46.4

Punjab 30.7 14.6 10.6 2.2 9.1 2.1 16.1 8.4 2.9 7.1 8.4

Rajasthan 32.6 28.7 13.1 8.2 18.7 24.1 52.1 35.6 20.7 32.9 22.1

Tarnilnadu 32.1 31.2 19.8 19.1 22.8 32.5 40.2 20.9 6.5 22.2 22.5

Uttar

Pradesh 32.4 44.8 32.9 19.7 33.4 37.4 44.9 36.6 19.2 30.6 32.8

West Bengal 42.4 29.5 18.3 27.5 28.6 25.7 28.5 10.4 13.0 14.8 24.7

*All India 47.2 36.8 26.7 16.1 28.3 33.3 39.9 31.4 16.0 25.7 27.5

Poverty: All Indw (Per capita per month) Rural Rs. 356.30 All Indw (Pre Capital per month) Urban Rs. 538.60. * The poverty line (implict) at all-India level is worked out from the expenditure class-wise distribution of persons (based on URPconsumption I.e.consumtion collected from 30 day recall period for all items) and the poverty ratio at All-India level. The poverty ratio at all is obtained as the weighted average of the state-wise poverty ratio. Legend: SC = Scheduled Castes; OBC = Other Backward Castes Source: Perspective Planning Commission, New Delhi.

3.7 Human Development and Multidimensional Indicators of Poverty

Poverty has been defined in income or expenditure terms and measured in absolute or in

relative terms. Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and

between countries. Absolute poverty uses a poverty line to separate the poor from the non­

poor. On the other hand relative poverty is the condition of having fewer resources or less

120

income than others within a society or country, or compared to worldwide averages. Relative

poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context, hence relative

poverty is a measure of income inequality. A.K. Sen (1973) made a notable contribution in

the measurement of inequality in income and wealth. Relative poverty exists in all over the

world, where as absolute poverty is concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Amartya Sen, Paul Streeten, Mahbub ul Haq, and others who believed that increased incomes

should be regarded as a means to improve human welfare, not as an end in itself (Sen, 1988;

Streeten, 1994). For these economists, human welfare was the overall objective- the essence

of development. Increased incomes and national economic growth were crucial preconditions

for improvements in standards of living, but not the only preconditions. With the first Human

Development Report from 1990, prepared under the leadership of Mahbub ul Haq, UNDP

adopted the basic criticism of income measurements and presented a more comprehensive

concept of human development (UNDP, 1990). The report defined human development as a

process of enlarging people's choices. According to Mahbub ul Haq, the defining difference

between the economic growth and the human development schools is that the first focuses

exclusively on the expansion of only one choice - income - while the second embraces the

enlargement of all human choices - whether economic, social, cultural or political ( Haq

1995). It might well be argued that the expansion of income can enlarge all other choices as

well. He says there are varieties of reasons for unevenly distribution of income within

society. People who have no access to income, or enjoy only limited access, will have

constrained choices.154

Poverty in the human development approach draws the three perspectives to poverty­

the income perspective, basic needs perspective and capability perspective (Parr & Kumar,

2003). The 'income perspective explains a person as poor if his or her income level is below

the defined poverty line. The basic needs perspective views poverty as deprivation of

material requirements for minimally acceptable fulfillment of human needs, including food. It

also recognizes the need for employment and participation. The capability perspective

represents the absence of some basic capabilities to function- a person lacking the

opportunity to achieve some minimally acceptable levels of these functionings. The

functionings relevant to this analysis can vary from such physical ones as being well

nourished, being adequately clothed and sheltered, and avoiding preventable morbidity, to

154 Parr, Sakiko Fukuda et.al( ed.) (2003) "Readings in Human Development" Oxford university press , pp.l7-18

121

more complex social achievements such as partaking in the life of the community. The

capability approach reconciles the notions of absolute and relative poverty since relative

deprivation in incomes and commodities can lead to an absolute derivation in minimum

capabilities (ibid).

Human Development puts "people" at the centre and encompasses the following core values

(UNDP, 1990):

Efficiency: Efficient use of resources and increase of their availability. HD is pro­growth and productivity. Equality: Distributive justice, especially for choices and opportunities Freedom and Empowerment: of people that they can choose and participate and benefit from the development process Sustainability: Benefits and opportunities will accrue to not just the present generation but the future generations

The quantification of human development Tequired a summary measure that could be posed

as an alternative to GDP and could assess social progress along with economic progress.

Thus, was introduced the Human Development Index that tries to reflect average

achievements of a country or capture capabilities in three basic areas: longevity (life

expectancy at birth), educational attainment (adult literacy and ratios of primary, secondary

and tertiary enrolment), mean 'living standard' (GDP per capita in PPP).

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index of human development in

education, longevity or health, and in access to opportunities measured in per capita incomes,

with the present status of districts in these parameters related with certain absolute

achievement position. This index is a measure of how far a district has travelled from a

minimum level of achievement, and the path still left to travel. The Gender-related

development Index uses the same variable as the HDI. The difference is that the GDI adjust

the average achievement of each district in life expectancy, education attainment and income

in accordance with the degree of disparity in achievement between males and females. This is

based on the GDI developed by UNDP, used first in the Human Development Report in

1995.Human development is much broader than the Human Development Index (HDI), or on

any other such aggregative index. As Sen pointed out, "the real merit of the human

development is in the approach it brings to bear on developmental evaluation, not in the

aggregative measures it presents as an aid to digestion of diverse statistics." 155 India has made

some progress on the Human Development Index (HDI) value that has gone up from 0.602 in

HDR 2005 to 0.611 in HDR 2006. On HDI ranking, India is ranked at 126 this year against a

155 Mehta, et.al. op.cit. pp.8.

122

total of 177, going up one rank as compared to last year. India's HDI rank falls under the

category of 'medium human development countries'. Table 3.7 shows that India's HDI value

has been consistently increasing since 2000 although it's ranking since 2002 has more or less

remained static.

T bl 3 7 T d . HDI Val dR ki ti Idi a e . ren sm uean an ng or n a . . Year of Publication of HDI Value HDI Rank (Number of countries in parentheses) GlobaiHDR 2006 0.611 126(out of 177 countries)

2005 0.602 121(out of 177 countries)

2004 0.595 127 (out of 177 countries)

2003 0.590 127 (out of 175 countries)

2002 0.577 124 (out of 173 countries)

2001 0.571 115 (out of 162 countries)

2000 0.563 128 (out of 174 countries)

Source: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (various years), Human Development Reports. Oxford University Press, New York.

The HDI since the first HDR, has undergone several changes and variations in an attempt to

capture, gender differences, poverty measures, freedoms. The Gender Development Index

(GDI) and the Gender Empowerment Measurements were constructed in 1995 to reflect

deprivational aspect of development particular "gender inequalities" (Jehan, 2002).

3.7.1 Estimates of State level Multidimensional Indicators for India

India has a growing literature on human and gender development indicators. The Human

Development Index, Gender Development Index, Gender Empowerment Measure and

Human Poverty Index. The indices estimated by UNDP improve on income-based indicators

as measures of well being. HDI is an average of three indices representing income, longevity

and knowledge; GDI measures gender-based disparities in attainment of income, longevity

and knowledge; GEM captures the degree to which women and men participate in economic,

professional and political activity and take part in decision making and HPJ estimates

deprivation in longevity knowledge and overall economic provisioning. Estimates of these

indices at the state level are available in the literature. The rankings of the major states on the

basis of the HDI, GDI, GEM and HPJ indices estimated by different researchers in India are

given in Table 3.8 below:

123

a e . . T bl 3 8 S tate R ki an ngs: ' ' an HDI GDI GEM d HPJ

Rank HDI GDI GEM HPI

1 Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala

2 Punjab Maharashtra Maharashtra Tamil Nadu

3 Maharashtra Gujarat Himachal Punjab

4 Haryana Himachal Gujarat Maharashtra

5 Gujarat Punjab Karnataka Haryana

6 West Bengal Kama taka Haryana Gujarat

7 Himachal Tamil Nadu West Bengal Kama taka

8 Kama taka West Bengal Tamil Nadu West Bengal

9 Tamil Nadu Andhra Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh

10 Andhra Haryana Madhya Pradesh Orissa

11 Assam Assam Punjab Madhya Pradesh

12 Orissa Orissa Andhra Rajasthan

13 Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Assam

14 Bihar Rajasthan Bihar Uttar Pradesh

15 Madhya Pradesh Bihar Orissa Bihar

16 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Assam 15 States . . ..

Source: For HDI and GDI- AK Shzva Kumar, Gender Equalzty and Polztzcal Partzczpatwn: Implzcatwns for Good Health', mimeo, /996

Kerala has the highest rank on all four indices, while Maharashtra is 3rd on HOI, 2nd on GDI

and GEM and 4th on HPI. Punjab and Haryana have high scores on HDI (ranked 2nd and 4th)

and HPI (3rd and 5th) but lose out on GDI (5th and lOth) and GEM (11th and 6th). However,

Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Assam - 5 out of the 7 high income

poverty states - have the lowest ranks or perform equally poorly on HDI, GDI, GEM and

HPI. Rajasthan ranks better on income poverty but performs dismally on all four

multidimensional indicators.

3.8 Chronic Poverty: An Analytical framework

Poverty is multi-dimensional; hence many causes and numerous correlates of poverty are

identified by the social scientists while analyzing poverty. Hume, Moore and Shepherd

(2003) provide a succinct discussion of some of the key concepts in the analysis of chronic

poverty. They indentified chronic poverty in terms of combinations of adverse

incorporation, stage in life cycle, health status, position in household, position in community

or nation and lastly by the geographical location. Factors causing chronic poverty in terms of

facilitating entry and preventing exit are the structural factors such as market related,

124

political or social relationships, multiple vulnerabilities arising from various causes, low asset

status, shocks- agro-ecological, political and economic and spatial poverty traps.

Identifying or profiling poverty and the dynamics of poverty is important in developing or

designing poverty reduction interventions. A conceptual scheme for organizing the correlates

of incidence and dynamics of poverty has been developed using the discussion in Hume,

Moore and Shepherd (2003). Figure 3.1 outlines some of the many possible 'drivers', and

'maintainers' of poverty that may consign households into chronic poverty, i.e., make their

exit from poverty impossible. It also lists some possible 'interrupters' that may enable poor

households to escape poverty through asset transfers, skill formation or technological

progress that may translate into higher wage earnings. Households undergo a variety of

shocks and uncertainties over time and their ability to go through these periods without

significant reduction in income levels depends on their initial levels of assets and other

conditions affecting income which may be related directly to themselves or embedded in the

physical, social or political environment (Bhide & Mehta 2004, liP A Working Paper No.15,

p.2).

Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework to Understand Dynamics of Poverty

H Interrupters

0 D u R s E

I v

H Maintainers

0 E

L R

D

Source: Adapted from Hulme, Moore and Shepherd (2003).

3.8.1 Drivers, maintainers and interrupters of Poverty

'Drivers' of poverty represent the reasons why people become poor in the first place.

'Maintainers' are the reasons people stay poor. People are or get stuck in poverty as a result

of a number of sets of factors: structural and multidimensional disadvantages; locational and

relational. The large numbers of households entering and exiting poverty suggests that policy

125

should also be focused on the determinants of these entries and exits rather than only on the

correlates of poverty status, as in the past. This argument has been put strongly by Krishna's

study of 35 villages in Rajasthan over last 25 years: perceived reasons for decline into

poverty were high health care costs, high interest consumption debt from private money

lenders, and social expenses on deaths and marriages (Krishna 2003). Policies and /or

programmes can address most of these issues. For instance, prevention of entry into poverty

would seem to be facilitated by policies that help reduce the health care related shocks or

costs and high interest debts. A different set of measures will be needed to promote escape

from poverty, associated with diversified income sources, information and contacts.

In the context of health related shocks it needs to be noted that causal laborers can not

afford to take off from work in case of ill health and the food that they and their family

members eat, depends on the money earned from working that day. Poor quality of drinking

water can have serious health related ramifications. Data does not reflect the reality that even

where drinking water is available it is often not safe and this can lead, for instance, to high

incidence of water borne diseases such as hepatitis with long term consequences. (Mehta and

Menon 2001, Indian Express 15.7.2004). It is estimated that in India 21 per cent of all

communicable diseases (11.5 per cent of all diseases) are water related. Every year 1.5

million children less than 5 years die in India of water related diseases and the country loses

1800 million person hours (over 200 million person days) each year due to water borne

diseases. Health risks are also caused by excess fluoride, arsenic, salinity, iron and chemical

pollutants like pesticides in water (Parikh 1999).

In the NCAER panel, escape from poverty was associated with the initial literacy status of the

household head, ownership of, or access to income from physical assets such as cropland,

livestock, or a house, and increases in ownership of and therefore income from these assets.

Initial levels of income from these sources were significant determinants of exit, as was

gaining access to crop land. Living in a growing village created opportunities. Better physical

infrastructure and having a large urban population in the neighborhood were also important.

Urbanization and infrastructure development remain vital to escaping poverty. Hence, greater

emphasis need s to be placed on literacy and infrastructure development and increased

backward and forward linkages with urban areas than current orthodoxy displays.

In depth analysis of rural causal laborers (the largest occupational group characterized by

chronic poverty) shows that superior rural infrastructure accounts for regional differences in

poverty among rural causal laborers; promotes shift from low productivity causal labour in

agriculture to more productive causal labour in the non farm sector; is the key to higher

126

wages and one of the keys to improvements in literacy and school attendance. Real wage

rates are higher for causal non-farm workers, and poverty ratios are lower. Since inter-state

disparities in poverty levels are increasing, anti-chronic poverty strategies need to focus on

improvement of rural infrastructure in states where poverty ratios are persistently high

(Bhalla et. al.2004).

3.8.2 Shocks and assets

It is not always easy to differentiate between a driver and a maintainer of poverty. However,

it has been suggested that people are driven into poverty by a combination of shocks, both

idiosyncratic (affecting individuals or households) and co-variant (affecting communities,

regions, a country, a world region), and an inability to 'bounce back' following the shock.

This may be due to the severity of the shock, if it leads to severe asset depletion or disability,

for example. Obvious example would be a long and expensive illness, or the destruction of

both economic and domestic property by an environmental hazard or conflict. Less intuitive,

but still plausible examples would include the economic and social costs of social ceremonies

or substance abuse (Krishna 2003). An increase in the proportion of dependents to earners in

a household may also have a substantial impact (Bhide and Mehta 2003).

The degree to which India collectively (publicly and privately) relieves the effects of

shocks is a significant determinant of whether people become chronically poor or not. Poor

people are better protected against some shocks than others. Thus acute famine conditions

rarely lead to starvation deaths because the machinery of the state grinds relentlessly into

action. There are scandals when this does not happen effectively (e.g. the Orissa cyclone and

floods of 1999). Chronic malnutrition, on the other hand, is barely relieved; and malnutrition

statistics remain high. Public health policy has focused on preventing a limited range of

diseases; public curative health services have low outreach among the poor, and work related

insurance is virtually non-existent for most of the poor: these potential props for recovery

from shocks are largely absent.

Chronic poverty is plausibly more likely when the pre-shock asset base is not solid enough to

enable 'bounce back' from the inevitable shock. In this case, the shock may be relatively

small, but if the asset base is really poor, even a small shock can have long term poverty

impacts. The asset base includes physical, financial, human, social and even political assets.

This is where 'drivers' shade into 'maintainers', since people in such a situation are likely to

have been poor already. However, little understanding is there of which assets are the most

significant in terms of determining the scope for remaining poor, failing to recover after

127

shocks, or finding routes out of poverty. It is well known that patriarchy combines with

poverty and age to mean that a poor widow has few chances of escape: what we do not know

is whether poor widows with some education, or who manage to hold on to land resources are

less poor than others who are in good health or are part of a social movement. Policy on asset

distribution and redistribution in uneven. Land reforms, potentially really significant, have

occurred only in a few states. Credit based asset development has had limited success in

raising people sustainably above the poverty line, and implementation has also been

regionally diverse.

3.8.3 Poverty over time

Those in poverty are unevenly distributed across the country with concentration of poverty in

some states. 71.65% of India's poor and half of the population are located in six states. These

are Uttar Pradesh (including Uttarakhand), Bihar (including Jharkhand), Madhya Pradesh

(including Chhattisgarh), Maharashtra, West Bengal and Orissa. Between 50 to 66 per cent of

the population of seven states (the six mentioned above and additionally Assam) was living

below the' poverty line in 1973-74. Twenty years later 35 to 55 per cent of their population

was still in poverty. In Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Uttar Pradesh persistently

high levels of poverty, in excess of 30 per cent, have occurred for several decades (Mehta and

Shah 2003).

3.8.4 Severe Poverty over time

Of the 260 to 320 million people who are below the poverty line( depending on whether the

1993-94 or 1999-2000 estimates are used) a large subset consists of those who are

substantially or severely below the norms identified as necessary for survival. In 1993-94,

15.2% of the rural population and 14.85% of the urban population were estimated to be

earning incomes that were less than or equal to three fourths of the poverty line (severely

poor). Approximately 134 million people can be considered to be chronically below the

poverty line in the severity sense.

3.9 Structural and multidimensional poverty: State Level Analysis

Some people also simply 'find themselves in poverty', born into it, without escape routes.

They may be part of a stigmatized social group( tribe or caste) with very low capabilities,

continuing adverse, even exploitative, economic relationships, be born into families with high

levels of debts and a need to adopt 'survival strategies', such as migration for causal work,

128

which may prevent any attempts to invest out of poverty through education or land

development. It is highly plausible that multidimensional deprivation makes it much harder to

escape poverty.

Here, the spatial distribution of poverty becomes important while analyzing the

multidimensional aspects of poverty. The incidence of poverty in India has declined

continuously from 59.9 per cent to reportedly 27.5 per cent of the population and from 321.3

million to reportedly 301.7 million during the period between 1973-74 and 2004-05.

Chronic poverty in the duration, severity and multi dimensionality sense characterizes several

parts of India. Pockets of severe poverty exist at the regional level even in the more

developed states. The proportion ofthe poor who suffer long duration and intergenerationally

transmitted poverty is likely to be significantly higher in those parts of the country that suffer

greater incidence of severe poverty and multidimensional deprivation.

Table 3.9: Incidence and Concentration of Income Poverty in Selected States of India

States share of India's Poor Percentage of the Population of the state that is in

State Population Poverty

1999-2000 2001 1973-74 1993-94 1999-2000

Assam 3.63 2.59 51.21 40.86 36.09

Bihar* 16.36 10.69 61.91 54.96 42.6

Madhya Pradesh* 11.47 7.91 61.78 42.52 37.43

Maharashtra 8.76 9.42 53.24 36.86 25.02

Orissa 6.50 3.57 66.18 48.56 47.15

Uttar Pradesh* 20.36 17 57.07 40.85 31.15

West Bengal 8.20 7.81 63.43 35.66 27.02

All India 100.00 100.00 54.88 35.97 26.1

* mcluding the distncts m the newly formed states. Source: Mehta and Shah (2003) based on Government of India, Poverty Estimates for I999-2000, Press Information Bureau, 22nd February, 200I and March I997 and Government of India, 200I Provisional Population Tables.

The incidence of severe rural poverty was higher than average in 5 out of 7 income poverty

states - Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. In other words a

higher percentage of people in rural areas in these states have a level of income that is less

than three fourths of the poverty line than the all India average. (Table.3.10). Urban poverty

was also especially severe in these states and additionally in Andhra, Kamataka and Tamil

Nadu.

129

Table. 3.10: Estimates of Very Poor and Poor in Rural and Urban Areas in the States: 1993 94 (I P ta t P I ti ) - n ercen tge o opu a on States/Regions Rural Urban

Very Poor Poor Very Poor Poor

Andhra Pradesh 4.18 15.89 16.78 38.34

Assam 13.12 45.00 1.16 7.74

Bihar 27.67 58.17 14.14 34.65

Gujarat 6.67 22.29 11.18 27.93

Haryana 9.32 28.02 5.02 16.37

Kama taka 11.11 29.89 22.13 40.18

Kerala 9.42 25.68 10.08 24.50

Madhya Pradesh 17.11 40.72 25.69 48.35

Maharashtra 16.17 37.90 18.72 35.08

Orissa 21.77 49.79 22.99 41.72

Punjab 3.12 11.85 2.22 11.40

Rajasthan 8.66 26.48 12.98 30.53

Tamil Nadu 12.67 32.55 18.67 39.78

Uttar Pradesh 19.55 42.31 16.91 35.34

West Bengal 13.62 40.87 7.51 22.38

All India 15.26 37.23 14.85 32.28

Source: K.L Datta and Savita Sharma, Level of Living in India, Planning Commission, 2000.

Mehta and Bhide (2003) while examining the poverty trend in India using NCAER panel data

during 1970-71 and 1981-82 found that more than half of (52.61 %) of the households who

were poor in 1970-71 remained in poverty over a decade later. There was also considerable

movement into and out of poverty: slightly under half the poor households moved above the

poverty line, while a quarter of the non-poor in 1970-71 had become poor ten years on.

47.39% of poor households escaped from poverty. Persistent poverty defined as being poor in

both years was associated with large household size and an increase in the number of

dependent children during the period. Persistent severe poverty was associated with these

factors too, but also with belonging to a scheduled tribe. Being scheduled caste was important

in explaining the occurrence of poverty but being a scheduled caste does not increase or

decrease the possibility of moving out of poverty or persistence of poverty relative to non­

scheduled caste or tribe households (Bhide and Mehta 2004a; 2004b ). A key issue is whether

this differentiation between caste and tribe as determinants of persistent poverty has

remained. If it is the case, then policy makers would be right to give greater emphasis to the

particular factors which retain people belonging to scheduled tribes in poverty, as well as the

factors which prevent poor people in general from escaping poverty.

130

3.10 Socio-Demographic Profiles of Orissa and India

Population of a particular region refers to the number of people residing within that specified

geographical area. The population of a region is an important indicator for wide section of the

society ranging from the policy makers to the investors.

Tabl 311 G e . : row ra eo opu a on e ween th t fP I ti b t 1991 & 2001 1991-2001

States Rural Urban Total

Orissa 13.8 29.8 15.9

Bihar 28.3 29.3 28.4

Chhattisgarh 14.2 36.2 18.1

Jharkhand 21.6 29.0 23.2

Maharashtra 15.2 34.3 22.6

Punjab 12.3 37.6 19.8

Tamil Nadu -5.2 42.8 11.2

Uttarakhand 15.2 32.8 19.2

West Bengal 16.9 20.2 17.8

INDIA 17.9 31.2 21.3

Source: Census of Indw, 200/

Between 1991 and 2001 growth rate of rural population in Orissa is 13.8% and urban

population is 29.8%. Growth of population (combined) is 15.9% which is less than the states

like Bihar, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh etc.

3.10.1 Sex Ratio The sex ratio is measured as number of females per thousand males. Sex ratio is an indicator of the extent of gender biasness prevailing in a particular region and also reflects the extent of discrimination shown against a girl child.

Table 3.12 Sex Ratio, 2001 0-6 yrs Sex

State Sex Ratio Ratio

Orissa 972 953

Bihar 919 942

Chhattisgarh 989 975

Jharkhand 941 965

Maharashtra 922 913

Punjab 876 798

Tamil Nadu 987 942

Uttarakhand 962 908

INDIA 933 927 Source: Census of Jndw, 2001

131

The number of females per thousand males of Orissa is 972 and the child sex ratio between 0-

6 years is 953. This shows sex ratio in Orissa is higher than Bihar and economically better

performing states such as Maharashtra and Punjab and higher than India as a whole.

A positive aspect emerges from the fact that the sex ratio in 0-6 year's age group in Orissa is

much higher as compared to that for overall populgtion. In the 0 to 6 years age group, Orissa

performs much better than all the states under consideration except Chhattisgarh and

Jharkhand. This suggests that gender bias is comparatively less in Jharkhand than the country

as a whole. This is also an opportunity for the future economic and social development to

build upon.

3.10.2 SC and ST population The proportion of scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST) residing in a particular

region shows the proportion of backward sections in the entire population. This gives an

indication to the policy makers to take various constructive steps for the betterment of these

backward sections.

Tabl 313P e . fSC &ST ta ercen tge o pop ulf a IOn, 2001

States sc ST

Orissa 16.5 22.1

Bihar 15.7 0.9

Chhattisgarh 11.6 31.8

Jharkhand 11.8 26.3

Maharashtra 10.2 8.9

Punjab 28.9 0.0

Tamil Nadu 19.0 1.0

Uttarakhand 17.9 3.0

West Bengal 23.0 5.5

INDIA 16.2 8.2

Source: Census of Indw, 200/

Table-3.13 shows that STs constitute a considerable proportion of Orissa's population. This

proportion is more than two times that of all India. Second to the STs, 16.5% population

belong to SCs which is little higher than the all India proportion. Among the newly formed

states, Chhattisgarh has the highest proportion of tribal population followed by Jharkhand,

whereas Uttarakhand has the highest proportion of SC population. Similarly, West Bengal

has the highest proportion of SC population.

132

3.10.3 Workforce: The workforce is the percentage of the total population who are working

in return for monetary incentives. Therefore, it does not include housewives/homemakers,

working in a family business etc., which do not involve monetary incentives.

T bl 314 P a e . f k ercentage o wor . th Ttal ersm e 0 I f popu a Ion, 2001 States Main workers Marginal workers Non-workers

Orissa 26.1 12.8 61.1

Bihar 25.37 8.34 66.3

Chhattisgarh 33.86 12.6 53.54

Jharkhand 23.92 13.59 62.48

Maharashtra 35.87 6.63 57.5

Punjab 32.17 5.3 62.53

Tamil Nadu 38.07 6.6 55.33

Uttarakhand 27.36 9.56 63.08

West Bengal 28.7 8.1 63.2

INDIA 30.43 8.67 60.9 Source: Census of Indza, 200/

Table 3.14 shows that the percentage of main workers in the total population in Orissa is

considerably lower than the India average. However the percentage of marginal workers is

higher than the all India average.

3.10.4 Head Count Ratio (HCR): Table 3.15 Percentage of population below poverty line is

higher in Orissa, much higher than that of India as a whole although over the years it has

successfully reduced this percentage. Among the newly formed states_, Chhattisgarh has the

highest percentage of population below poverty line in 2004-05 followed by Jharkhand.

Table 3.15 Head Count Ratio

State 1999-00 2004-05

Orissa 47.15 40.09

Bihar 40.92 33.36

Chhattisgarh 40.54 36.46

Jharkhand 43.96 33.15

Maharashtra 25.02 25.05

Punjab 6.16 4.98

Tamil Nadu 21.12 17.17

Uttarakhand 15.20 31.67

West Bengal 27.02 20.96

India 26.10 21.76

Source: NSSO 55'hand 61" (Consumer Expendlture)round, 1999-2000 & 2004-05 & Indicus estimates.

133

3.11 Food Sufficiency

Food Sufficiency is defmed as a household where every member has had at least two square

meals a day. This measures the extent of nutritional poverty of a country. India has the largest

number of the absolutely poor. This in tum implies that the number of households not having

food sufficiency is also very high. It has been estimated that about 27.3 million people had to

suffer some degree of hunger and as many as 23 percent of the population remained

undernourished as of late 1990s.

Table 3.16 P fh ercentage o h ld 'th t fi d fficiency, 2004-05 ouse o WI ou 00 su I

% of households without State food sufficiency

Orissa 5.24

Bihar 2.69

Chhattisgarh 2.24

Jharkhand 0.57

Maharashtra 0.84

Punjab 0.65

Tamil Nadu 0.30

Uttarakhand 0.39

West Bengal 8.91

India 1.93 '·

Source: NSSO 61st (Employment & Unemployment) round.

Table 3.16 shows that the percentage of households not getting two square meals per day in

Orissa is 5.24% which is five times higher than India as a whole. Among the newly formed

states, Chhattisgarh has the maximum percentage of households who live without sufficient

food followed by Jharkhand. However, Jharkhand performs much better on this front

compared to its neighbours like West Bengal and Orissa.

3.12 Safe Drinking Water & Sanitation Facility If a household has access to piped drinking water, it is considered to have access to safe

drinking water. While every household should have the provision of safe drinking water and

basic sanitation facilities in its premises, this facility is not provided for the majority of

households in rural areas and also in many parts of urban centres. The situation is grim in

many states and well-governed states are those who would demonstrate a high proportion of

rural and urban households enjoying such facilities.

134

T bl 317 P a e • : ercentage H h ld ouse o s usmg p1pe d d "nki n er ngwat State Urban Rural

Orissa 51.7 1.9

Bihar 19.8 1.2

Chhattisgarh 55.5 6.0

Jharkhand 44.4 0

West Bengal 67.0 9.5

India 71.0 27.9 Source : NFHS-II/-2005-06.

Urban Orissa performs much better than the urban Bihar in providing their people access to

piped drinking water. However, situation in the rural Orissa is alarming with negligible

number of households having access to piped drinking water. Orissa has much lower

coverage of piped drinking water in rural areas as compared to the national average.

Table3.18 Households having access to toilet facility State Urban Rural

Orissa 58.9 11.3 Bihar 73.0 16.2

Chhattisgarh 65.5 5.6

Jharkhand 73.7 5.0

West Bengal 90.5 44.8

India 83.1 25.9 Source : NFHS-II/-2005-06.

In terms of providing access to toilet facility in urban areas Orissa performs lower

than its neighboring states and India as a whole. Similarly, the coverage of toilet

facility is abysmally low in rural areas of the state. Orissa needs to develop the poor

sanitation facilities which in tum would raise the standard of living of the people.

Table3.19 Health Parameters IMR (Number of children dying Full Immunization before 1 year for 1000 live births) (%)

States 1992-93 1998-99 2005-06 1992-94 2005-06

Orissa 112.1 81 73 36.1 51.8

Bihar 89.2* 73 60 10.7* 32.8

Jharkhand 89.2* 54.3 49 10.7* 34.2

Chhattisgarh 85.2* 90.6 61 29.2* 48.7

Madhya Pradesh 85.2* 86.1 74 29.2* 40.3

Uttarakhand 99.9* 37.6 43 19.8* 60

Uttar Pradesh 99.9* 86.7 71 19.8* 23

West Bengal 81 48.7 38 34.2 64.3

Source: National Family Health Survey I and II, 1992-93 and 1998-99, SRS Bulletin Note: Asterisk denotes data for undivided states.

Health and education parameters are examined as the main social indicators. Health and

nutrition are classified among the basic ingredients of human capital. Better provision of

135

medical facilities is quite essential for the development of any region especially in the

backward states like Orissa.

Table 3.19shows the performance of the states in various health indicators. The table shows

that though the IMR in Orissa has lower down from 112.1 in 1992-93 to 83 in 1999 and

presently it is 73 in 2004-05, children die before 1 year for 1000 live births; however the

trend is still higher compared to other states. In 2004-05, only 51.8 percent of the children in

the age group of 12 to 23 months are fully immunized against diseases.

3.13 Literacy rate The Literacy Rate is measured as a percentage of population aged seven years and above who

are able to read and write simple sentences. As per the Census, literacy is defined as the

ability to read and write the person's name and to form simple sentences. Higher literacy

levels in a state denote rising socio-economic development and universal literacy is a crucial

step towards achieving overall progress.

Table 3.20 Literacy Rate across different states, 2004-05

States Literacy Rate(%)

Orissa 64.06

Bihar 54.84

Chhattisgarh 65.60

Jharkhand 58.82

Kerala 91.82

Maharashtra 77.28

Punjab 73.40

Uttarakhand 72.64

West Bengal 72.15

India 67.30

Source: NSSO 61 st (Employment and Unemployment) Round (2004-05) & Indicus estimates.

Education is an important indicator of socio-economic development since it improves the

quality of life and by creating human capital, is an integral investment in the development

process. One of the indicators of the educational level in a region is the literacy rate, given in

Table 3.20 Though there is a rise in the level of literacy in the state Orissa, it is comparatively

low than states like Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Chattisgarh and lower than the national

average.

136

3.14 Socio Economic Profile of Orissa

According to Economic Survey-2007-08, Government Orissa, Orissa has 1, 55,707 sq. Km.

of geographical area with 58 sub-divisions and 171 Tahasils in 30 districts. There are 6234

G.Ps under 314 C.D. Blocks in the state. The population of Orissa, which was 316.60 lakh in

1991, has increased to 368.05 lakh in 2001 exhibiting a decennial growth rate of 16.25

percent as against 20.06 percent in the previous decade and 23.86 percent at the all-India

level. The density of population increased from 203 per sq. km. in 1991 to 236 per sq. km. in

2001, which is lower than the all-India average of 313 per sq. Increase in the literacy rate

from 49.10 percent in 1991 to 63.08 percent in 2001 was significant. The male and female

literacy rates have gone up to 75.35 percent and 50.51 percent respectively in 2001.

According to 2001 Census, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes population in the State

was 60.82 lakh and 81.45 lakh respectively, which is 16.5% and 22.1% of the total population

of the State as against 16.2% and 22.2% respectively in 1991 census. The decennial growth

rate of SC and ST population during 1991-2001 decade was 18.6% and 15.8% respectively.

As per 2001 Census, the sex ratio among SC and ST population was 979 and 1003

respectively as against 936 and 978 at the all-India level.

The occupational classification, based on 2001 Census shows that the total workers in the

State has been 142.76 lakh constituting 38.79% of the total population of the State. Out of

total workers accounted for 67:2%. The main workers comprise cultivators (35.8% ),

agricultural laborers (21.9%), household industries workers (4.2%) and other workers

(38.1% ). The proportion of male workers to male population and female workers to female

population in 2001 stood at 52.5% and 24.7% respectively. This shows that work

participation rate among female is generally lower.

Table 3.21: District-wise Socio-Economic Indicators of Orissa

Percentage of Percentage Percentage of sc of ST main workers

Sl. Literacy Percentage of Urban population( as population( to total No Name of the Distribution of rate(2001 Population to total per 2001 as per 2001 population(20

District population(%) Census) population Census) Census) 01 Census) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 1 Angul 3.10 68.79 13.90 17.20 11.67 26.23 2 Balasore 5.50 70.56 10.89 18.84 11.28 23.87 3 Ban~arh 3.66 63.99 7.69 19.37 19.36 28.57 4 Bhadrak 3.62 73.86 10.58 21.50 1.88 22.61 5 Bolangir 3.63 55.70 11.54 16.92 20.63 26.30 6 Boudh 1.02 57.73 4.83 21.88 12.47 28.33 7 Cuttack 6.36 76.66 27.39 19.08 3.57 26.22

137

8 Deogarh 0.74 60.36 7.33 15.37 33.60 25.48 9 Dhenkanal 2.90 69.42 8.71 18.49 12.79 24.55 10 Gajapati 1.41 41.26 10.19 7.50 50.78 34.69 11 Ganjam 8.59 60.77 17.60 18.57 2.88 25.94 12 Jagatsinghpur 2.87 79.08 9.88 21.05 0.82 23.42 13 Jaipur 4.41 71.44 4.49 22.99 7.76 21.38 14 Jharsuguda 1.38 70.65 36.47 17.07 31.34 26.12 15 Ka1ahandi 3.63 45.94 7.50 17.67 28.65 28.60 16 Kandhamal 1.76 52.68 6.80 16.89 51.96 27.17 17 Kendrapada 3.55 76.81 5.69 20.52 0.52 22.55 18 Keonjhar 4.25 59.24 13.64 11.62 44.50 25.30 19 Khurda 5.10 79.59 42.92 13.54 5.18 25.58 20 Koraput 3.21 35.72 16.81 13.04 49.62 29.93 21 Malkangiri 1.37 30.53 6.87 21.35 57.43 30.58 22 Mayurbhanj 6.04 51.91 7.00 7.68 56.60 27.82 23 Nuapara 1.44 42.00 5.66 13.62 34.71 24.79 24 Nawarangpur 2.79 33.93 5.78 14.10 55.03 25.81 25 Nayagarh 2.35 70.52 4.29 14.04 5.88 23.79 26 Puri 4.08 77.96 13.58 18.23 0.30 24.85 27 Rayagada 2.26 36.15 13.89 13.92 55.76 30.07 28 Samba! pur 2.54 67.25 27.12 17.04 34.50 30.16 29 Sonepur 1.47 62.84 7.39 23.62 9.78 27.44 30 Sundargarh 4.97 64.86 34.37 8.62 50.19 26.23

Orissa 100.00 63.08 14.99 16.53 22.13 26.05

Source: Census of India, 2001

According to Census of India, 2001, it is clear from the Table 3.21 that as per Census, 2001,

literacy rate of Orissa is 63.08 per cent as against 65 per percent of the all India literacy rate.

At the district level in Kalahandi 45.94 per cent people are literate. Percentage of urban

population to total population is 14.99 per cent in the state. Percentage of Scheduled Castes

(SCs) population to the total population at the state level is 16.53 percent and 17.67 percent

of SCs are from Kalahandi district. Percentage of Scheduled Tribe (ST) population at the

state level is 22.13 per cent and at the district level it is 28.65 percent. Finally percentage of

main workers to total population in the state is 26.05 percent and 28.60 percent of population

belong to the main workers to the total population in Kalahandi.

3.15 Poverty in Orissa Orissa is endowed with rich natural resources in the form of vast mjneral deposits, forest,

fertile land, plentiful surface and ground water resources, long coast line, and picturesque

tourist potential. But, such resources have not been exploited adequately for income

generation activities. As a result, Orissa ranks very low among the Indian states in terms of

per capita income, and it has become one of the poorest states of the country. Large

proportion of people in the state have very poor living conditions. As per an estimate, among

the fifteen major states of India, the position of Orissa with regard to living conditions or

138

standard of living is fourteen th (Behera and Mitra: 1996).156 It is in this context necessary to

examine the poverty scenario and living condition of the people of Orissa. The economy of

Orissa is still characterized by high incidence of poverty. As per the estimate of Planning

Commission, Orissa continues to be the poorest among all the major States of the country.

Orissa shows the highest head count ratio (HCR) of poverty at 46.6 per cent in 2004-05

among the states in the country. The overall percentage of poor has declined by merely 2

percentage points from 48.6 per cent 1993-94 to 46.6 per cent in 2004-05 (Fig.3.2). While

examining percentages poverty separately by rural and urban areas (Fig.3.3), the same result

emerges.

Figure 3.5 shows the number of people below the poverty line for different years of the

NSSO quinquennial surveys. The number of poor persons in Orissa was 180 lakh in 1983; it

fell to 161 lakh in 1993-94. A large reduction took place particularly over the period 1983 to

1987. But, number of poor has risen after 1993-94 to reach 179 lakh in 2004-05. Thus, the

NSSO Central sample data shows that the gains achieved in reducing the number of poor in

the decade 1983 to 1993 has been wiped out in the decade following 1993. Thus, the NSSO

data shows that inequality has indeed increased in both rural and urban Orissa during 1993-94

and 2004-05.

Figure 3. 2: Percentage of Poor in Orissa and India (Rural and Urban together)

so 70.1

70

60

so

40

30 • Orissa

20 • India

10

0

1973 -74- 1977-78 1983 1987 -88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-05

Source: Government of Orissa: Economic Survey 2006-07 and Planning Commission Draft Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) and Government of India, Poverty Estimates for 1999-2000, Press Information Bureau, 22nd February, 2001 and March 2007.

156 The Orissa State Development Report, 2001 , Government of Orissa. 245.

139

Figure 3.3: Percentage of Poor in Orissa (Rural and Urban together)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60

'iO

!lO

30

20

10

0

70. 1

1973-74 1S77-78 1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999·2::>00 2J04·05

Source: Government of Orissa: Economic Survey 2006-07

Figure 3. 4: Percentage of Poor in Orissa: Rural and Urban

1973·74 1993·94 1999-2000 2004·05

140

• R. 1 r~l

• Urban

TotJI

Figure 3.5: Number of Persons below Poverty Line (in Lakh)

185

180

17'i

170

165

160

155

150

1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000 2004-DS

3.15.1 Poverty and Human Development in Orissa

HDI and GDI are basic measures of human development and it is useful to see how Orissa

has performed in terms of these indices. Even though the inter-state disparity in the level of

hmnan development (as measured by HDI) has been declining between 1981 and 2001, Orissa's

relative position has not shown any improvement Amongst the 15 major states of India, the HDI

for Orissa was the fifth lowest in 1981, fourth lowest in 1991, and again the fifth lowest in

2001, even though the absolute value of the index has risen between 1981 and 2001 by 51.3 per

cent, albeit from a rather low level 157 (Table 3.22).

Table3.22 H : urn an D eve opment lnd ~ M . S ex or ajor tates o f India

States/Union Territories 1981 199 1 2001

0.267 Orissa (11) 0.345 (12) 0.404 (11)

Andhra Pradesh 0.298 (9) 0.377 (9) 0.416 (10) 0.272

Assam (10) 0.348 (10) 0.386 (14) 0.237

Bihar (15) 0.308 (15) 0.367 (15)

Gujarat 0.360 (4) 0.431 (6) 0.479 (6)

Haryana 0.360 (5) 0.443 (5) 0.509 (5)

Kama taka 0.346 (6) 0.412 (7) 0.478 (7)

Kerala 0.500 (1) 0.591 (1) 0.638 (1)

Madhya Pradesh 0.245 0.328 (13) 0.394 (12)

157 Orissa Human Development Report, 2004, Planning and Coordination Department Government of Orissa, p. 5-6.

141

(14)

Maharashtra 0.363 (3) 0.452 (4) 0.523 (4)

Punjab 0.411 (2) 0.475 (2) 0.537 (2) 0.256

Rajasthan (12) 0.347 (11) 0.424 (9)

Tamil Nadu 0.343 (7) 0.466 (3) 0.531 (3) 0.255

Uttar Pradesh (13) 0.314 (14) 0.388 (13)

West Bengal 0.305 (8) 0.404 (8) 0.472 (8)

All India 0.302 0.381 0.472 Source: Government of lndza (2002), National Human Development Report 2001, Planning Commission, Oxford University Press, p. 25. Note: Figures in parentheses are HDI ranks in descending order.

Table 3.23 presents the top five districts (with the highest HDI and GDI values) and the bottom five

districts (with the lowest HDI and GDI values) in Orissa. The districts with the lowest HDI

and GDI values fall in one contiguous belt in the south and southwest part of the state, where

there is a concentration of tribal population. On the other hand, the top five districts do not form

a contiguous belt but belong to the coastal pockets, north-western and central parts of the state.

This spatial pattern provides a backdrop against which the disparities in development and their

impact on human development is highlighted in the Report.

Table 3.23 Top Five and Bottom Five Districts of Orissa in terms of HDI and GDI Values

HDI Value GDI Value Orissa (0.57) Orissa (0.53) Top Five Bottom Five Top Five Bottom Five Khurda(O. 736) Malkangiri (0.370) Jharsuguda (0.687) Malkangiri (0.362) Jharsuguda (0. 722) Kandhamal (0.389) Sundargarh (0.659) Kandhamal (0.372) Cuttack (0.695) Gajapati (0.431) Deogarh (0.647) Jaipur ( 0.386) Sundargarh (0.683) Koraput (0.431) Angul (0.637) Gajapati ( 0.401) Angul (0.663) Nabarangapur( 0.436) Cuttack (0.618) Koraput (0.415) Source: F1gures m parentheses are HDI and GDI values for respective dlStncts. Source: Chapter.8, Table 8.1 and 8.3 in Orissa Human Development Report, 2004, Planning and Coordination

Department Government of Orissa.

3.15.2 Trends in the Incidence of Poverty

The long-term trends in the incidence of poverty are to be found in Orissa and in other

low-income states and all-India. It is found that there has been a steady decline in the

poverty ratio in Orissa between 1977-78 and 1993-94. In the second half of the

1990s, poverty ratio has remained almost stationary. This is quite unlike the experience

of other low-income states and all-India and is perhaps due to the poor agricultural

growth performance of Orissa. However, there is an immediate and straightforward

explanation for the stagnation of rural poverty ratio during the second half of the

142

1990s.158 This has to do with the regional trends in poverty ratio (Table 3.25). The

poverty ratio in southern and northern NSS regions of Orissa has in fact increased between

1993-94 and 1999-2000, unlike the earlier period (1987-88 to 1993-94), and since

almost 75 per cent of the state's poor belong to these regions, this has influenced the

overall poverty ratio.

3.15.3 Spatial and Social Dimensions of Poverty Two spatial aspects of poverty are noteworthy. Firstly, poverty in Orissa is overwhelmingly a

rural phenomenon. Thus, in 1987-88, the share of mban poor in the total number of poor in Orissa

was 9.7 per cent, the lowest among all the major states of India except Assam. In fact, there were as

many as seven major states in India where the incidence of mban poverty was lower than that of

Orissa (namely, 37.4 per cent), but the proportion of urban poor to total number of poor was

much higher in these states.

Second, there are very significant regional differences in the incidence of poverty within Orissa.

This is brought out by the NSS region-wise estimates of poverty. As can be seen from Table

3.24 the rural poverty ratio in the southern region is more than two and half times that of the

coastal region and the ratio in the northern region more than one and half time that of the coastal

region. These regional differences in the incidence of poverty capture differences in the degree of

economic deprivation of different ethnic groups and their spatial concentration. Thus, the

incidence of poverty among Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) population in the

southern and northern region is very high - it is in these regions that 88.56 per cent of the state's ST

population and 46.23 per cent of the state's SC population reside.

Table 3.24: Region-wise and Social Group-wise Incidence of Poverty, Rural Orissa, 1999- 2000

Region Social groups

ST sc Others All

Coastal 66.63 42.18 24.32 31.74

Southern 92.42 88.90 77.65 87.05

Northern 61.69 57.22 34.67 49.81

Orissa 73.08 52.30 33.29 48.01

Note: (D The estimates of poverty ratio of ST and SC at the level of NSS regmns are based on very small

samp1es.(D Coastal region: Balasore, Cuttack, Ganjam, Puri districts; Northern region: Dhenkanal, Keonjhar,

Mayurbhanj, Sambalpur, and Sundargarh district; Southern region: Balangir, Kalahandi, Kandhmal and Koraput

districts.

Source: Arjan de Haan and Amaresh Dubey (2003), 'Poverty in Orissa: Divergent Trends? With Some

Thoughts on Measurement Issues', mimeo, paper presented at the Workshop on Monitoring of Poverty in

Orissa', 26-2/ February, Bhubaneswar.

158 Ibid. p.20.

143

Table 3.25: NSS Region-wise Trend in Poverty Ratio (Rural), 1983-84 to 1999-2000 Region Year

1983- 1987- 1993- 1999-84 88 94 2000

Coastal 57.90 48.40 45.30 31.80

Southern 80.80 83.00 68.80 87.20

Northern 75.20 61.00 45.80 49.80

Orissa 65.29 55.58 48.56 48.01

Source: Arjan de Haan and Amaresh Dubey (2003), 'Poverty in Onssa: Dzvergent Trends? With Some Thoughts on Measurement Issues', mimeo, paper presented at the Workshop on Monitoring of Poverty in Orissa', 26-2/ February, Bhubaneswar.

Table 3.26: Region-wise Pattern of Distribution (as per cent of rural population) of R I P d N R I f t th P t L' 1993 94 ora ooran on-poor e a 1ve o e oveny Ine, -

Region Very poor Moderately Poor Lowest non- Upper non- Non-poor

(1) (2) poor(3) (4) poor(5) poor(6) (7)

Coastal 19.03 26.33 45.36 36.56 18.08 54.64

Southern 34.08 34.94 69.02 24.10 6.87 30.97

Northern 18.99 26.65 45.64 33.42 20.94 54.36

Orissa 15.26 21.97 37.23 34.19 28.56 62.77

(40.08) (59.01) (100.00) (54.96) (45.49)

ra Source. (I) Government of Indw ( I997), Sarvekshana, Vol. XXI, No.2, 13 Issue, October-December (NSS S(jh Round, I993-94), Ministry of Statistics. Planning and Programme Implementation, Department of Statistics, New Delhi; ( ii) Government of India (200I ), Census of India: Orissa, Directorate of Census operations.

144

Figure 6: Region-wise Intensity of Rural Poverty

20

:8

:6

:4

:2

:o ~

6

4

)

0

Coastal

18 .7E

Southe·n 1\lo r thern oJ rissa

• Fo•;ertv GJ::J

Note: Poverty Gap is the percentage difference between the poverty line income/consumption expenditure and

the average income/consumption expenditure of the poor. Squared Poverty Gap takes into account expenditure

of those below the poverty line.

Source: (i) Government of India (1 997), Sarvekshana, Vol. XXI, No. 2, 73rd Issue, October-December (NSS

50th Round, 1993-94 ), Ministry of Statistics, Planning and Programme Implementation, Department of

Statistics, New Delhi ; (ii) Government of India (2001 ), Census of India: Orissa, Directorate of Census

Operations cited in Human Development Report, 2004,p. 23.

Table 3.27: District-wise Poverty Ratio District 1983 1987-88 1993-94 1999-2000

Balangir 79.83 57.91 42.43 48.79

Balasore 72.15 50.88 33.37 41.39

Cuttack 56.71 43.74 48.96 27.98

Dhenkanal 81.45 54.39 34.68 47.53

Ganjam 56.34 45.22 29.57 18.18

Kalahandi 85.9 84.99 68.19 83.76

Keonjhar 78.27 65.66 62.99 61.92

Koraput 78.2 76.54 57.82 78.65

Mayurbhanj 83.45 64.44 48. 19 68.42

Kandhamal 74.57 71.92 75.59 75.42

Puri 49.47 54.99 67.66 45.21

Samba! pur 58.43 54.5 37.78 42.02

Sundargarh 78.31 53.56 45.15 36.48

Mean 71.78 59.90 50.1 8 51.98 SD 11.67 11.74 14.39 19.39 cv 16.25 19.59 28.67 37.29

Source: ArJan de Haan and Amaresh Dubey (2003), 'Poverty m Onssa: Dtvergent Trends ? With Some Thoughts on Measurement Issues', mimeo, paper presented at the Workshop on 'Monitoring of Poverty in Orissa ', 26-27 February, Bhubaneswar.

Note: (i ) SD: Standard deviation; CV: Coefficient of variation.

145

In the case of the rural ST population, the incidence of poverty in Orissa, at 71.51% ( 1993-

94), of tribal population followed by Orissa among the major states), the incidence of poverty

was 56.90%. Of particular concern is that it is only in the coastal region of the state that rural

poverty ratio has steadily and significantly declined between 1983-84 and 1999-2000. This

has happened to a lesser extent in the northern region, where as in the southern region, the

poverty ratio has been fluctuating around a high average value (Fig.6)

The main factor that may partly explain the persistence of a very high incidence of poverty in

the southern region of Orissa is the pattern of distribution of the poor and non-poor around

the poverty line. The latest available data are presented in Table 3.30, from which it can be

inferred that a little more than 40 per cent of the poor belong to the category of 'very poor',

i.e., those who are below three-fourths of the poverty line. Again, amongst the non-poor,

nearly 55 per cent are within one and half time above the poverty line. Differences in the

pattern of distribution of the poor as observed above are, therefore, reflected in differences in (

the depth, intensity, and severity of poverty as measured 6y the rural poverty gap and squared

poverty gap. Thus, the intensity of poverty in the southern region of Orissa is almost twice as

high as it is in the coastal and north~rnxegions (Fig.6).

Tabl 3 28 S M. p s · k n· fO. er 2001 e . orne ajor overty tnc en IStriCts 0 nssa as p1 . . Sl. Name of the District Population below All India poorest No. Poverty Line (%) Districts Rank 1 2 3 4 1 Rayagada 80.1 1 2 Nawarangpur 80.1 2 3 Malkangiri 80.1 3 4 Koraput 80.1 4 5 Nuapada 74.9 5 6 Kalahandi 74.9 6 7 Kandhamal 68.5 7 8 Boudh 68.5 8 9 Mayurbhanj 66.1 10 10 Keonjhar 62.8 12 11 Sonepur 49.3 50 12 Balangir 47.6 51 13 Dhenkanal 47.6 60 14 Angul 43.9 61 15 Ganjam 43.9 80 16 Gajapati 42.9 81 17 Bhadrak 42.9 94 18 Balasore 47.15 95

Orissa 47.15 1 Source: Gopal Krishnan 2006. "India: The 100 Poorest Districts, 2001, Man and Development", March, Vol. XXVIll, No.1, p.l72.

146

Out of the above table 3.28, it is quite clear that Orissa has the most backward districts in the

country. Out of 100 most backward districts of the country, in Orissa 18 districts (i.e., one

fifth of the total population) are poverty stricken and backward. A clear cut north-south

divide is to be observed while doing a regional analysis on poverty on where the poor are

largely concentrated. Southern Orissa is really reeling under abject poverty; people are not

able to meet their basic needs. The districts like Kalahandi, Nuapada also possess higher level

of poverty and occupy fifth and sixth rank in the all India ranking of poverty stricken

districts. Difference is to be observed in the ratio of poverty at district level within the state.

More than 80 per cent of population are below poverty line in the districts like Rayagada,

where as in the districts like Balasore it is 43 per cent.

Flood, cyclone in coastal belt and drought in the western belt and consequent 'transient'

hunger- occur at regular intervals in Orissa. Though, severe fold may lead to 'transient'

hunger for a short spell, sometimes, the people of coastal belt do not dislike its occurrence

since it gives a chance to get relief without work and earn through manipulation due to

leakages from relief and construction work for repairing damage. People in this belt are

politically conscious and well organized and can put pressure on the government for relief in

spite of its leakages which are shared by politicians, bureaucrats and traders-contractors

(E.P.W 1998: Samal 1998).However, the situation of western and other parts of Orissa it is

not the same.

3.16 Poverty in Kalahandi District

3.16.1 Brief History of the District

According to a popular belief, a powerful man of Rajputana named Kalahambir came to this

part and ruled for many years. After his name, this region was named as Kalahambir, which

in course of time corrupted into Kalahandi. The name Kalahandi as stated may literally mean,

"Black pot" or it may mean "Pot of Arts". According to another interpretation the name has

possibly been derived from "Gudahandi" a hill located close to Kokasara Police Station of the

district, in the caves of which are painted are historic paintings in red black colours. These

interpretation concerning the origin of the name of Kalahandi are, however conjectural.

3.16.2 Administrative set up:

The present district of Kalahandi comprising subdivisions Kalahandi ·and Dharamgarh came

into existence vide Government of Orissa notification in 1993 being carved out from

erstwhile undivided Kalahandi district along with Nuapada district. After division of

147

erstwhile Kalahandi district into Kalahandi and Nuapada districts the former is constituted

taking two Sub-divisions namely Kalahandi and Dharamgarh accommodating seven tahsils

viz. Dharamgarh, Jayapatna in Dharamgarh subdivision and Kalahandi, Kesinga, Lanjigarh,

Thuamul Rampur, Madanpur Rampur in Kalahandi sub-division. Kesinga and Madanpur

Rampur are two new Tahasils after 1991 Census. The district has further been divided in to

11 police stations, which accommodates 2,236 villages and towns. Of the four towns of the

district, Bhawanipatna Municipality is the district headquarters as against two Notified area

councils namely Junagarh and Kesinga and one census two Mukhiguda.

3.16.3 Location and Size

The district is located in south-west region of the state of Orissa. As regards geographical

region, the district is situated between 19° 3' North and 21 o 5' North latitude and 82° 30 East

and 83° 74' East longitude. The district headquarter is Bhawanipatna which is at a distance of

418 kms from the state capital of Bhubaneswar. The district is bounded on the north by

Nuapada and Balangir districts, on the east by Kandhamal and Rayagarha, on the south by

Nabarangapur and Koraput districts, on the west by Raipur (Chhatisgarh) and Nabarangapur

districts. Total geographical area of this district is 7,920 sq kms. The district ranked seven in

this state of Orissa in comparison to other districts in terms of area.

3.16.4 Cropping Pattern:

Food grains constitute the predominant crop of the district. Paddy is the most important crop

and is extensively grown in the district. During 1998-99 it covered an area of 226,628

hectares and 2,445,949 quintals of rice were produced. The average yield being 10.79

quintals (in terms of paddy) per hectare.

In some hill areas in the southern part of the district the stream beds are cultivated with

summer paddy to a very limited extent. The plain s of Dharamgarh and Jayapatna Tahasils

are agriculturally most prosperous and considered as the granary of the district. These are the

chief rice growing areas and are inhibitated by a large number of progressive farmers. Other

cereals and millets normally grown in the district include wheat, maize, bajra, minor millets

etc. Pulses like arhar, mung(green gram), biri(black gram), kulthi, field pea, etc. are also

extensively grown. Oil seeds include groundnut, sesame (til), mustard. Other commercial

crops like sugarcane, jute and mesta are grown moderately due to lack of irrigation facilities.

3.16.5 Irrigation:

Irrigation facilities are highly deficient in the district. Although its economy is largely

dependant on agriculture, no regular or systematic irrigation facilities have been developed so

148

far. The district has a satisfactory rainfall, but it is frequently affected by droughts due to

untimely rain and its uneven distribution. As hard rocks are found in the most part of the

region, tube wells for lift irrigation are neither feasible nor economical. Tanks and well are

the important sources of irrigation. Most of the tanks are in derelict condition and need repair

and renovation as the water available therein does not last beyond December. Wells which

irrigate only small plots of land somewhat on a regular basis suffer from paucity of supply

and become dry in summer, reducing the extent of their utility.

3.16.6 Forestry:

Kalahandi district is noted for its rich forests, which cover nearly 11.62 percent of its rural

geographical area. The most important forest produce is firewood, timber, bamboos and

kendu leaf. Bamboos of excellent quality are the predominant products in the forest tracts in

Lanjigarh and Bhawanipatna Tahasils. Teak, Sal, Piasal, Sisu, Sahaj, Bija, Jamun, Mohua etc.

are the main timber species found in the district with Sal predominating. Firewood, timber

and bamboos are exported in large qualities to outside the district. Kendu leaves possess a

good market both inside the country and outside. Other forest products are myrobalans,

broom-grass, lac, Mahua, tamarind, arrowroot, honey hide, horn etc.

3.16.7 Minerals and Mines

The dsistrict is comparatively poor so far as minerals and mining are concerned. However,

there are a few number of Graphite, Quartzite and Gem stone mines that are presently

working in the district.

Table 3.29 District Profile of Kalahandi Number of villages where the facility is

Not Area Details Total Number Available Available* Number of sub-districts 11 Number of inhibitated villages 2,099

Education facilities Number of primary school 1,500 1,315 784 Number of middle schools 414 401 1,698 Number of secondary schools 200 193 1,906 Number of colleges 20 20 2,079

Medical facilities Number of health centre 5 5 2,094 Number of primary health centre 49 49 2,050 Number of primary health sub-centre 198 198 1,901

Drinkin~ water facilities Tap water 3 2,096 Well water 1,449 650 Number of tank water 963 1,136

Tubewell water 0 2,099

149

Handpump 1,969 130 Canals 126 1,973 Lakes 3 2,096

Spring 258 1,841 Other drinking water sources 29 2,070 Post, Telegraph and Telephone facilities Number of post office 288 288 1,811

Number of telegraph office 0 0 2,099 Number of post and telegraph office 14 14 2,085 Number of telephone connections 118 118 1,981

Communication facilities Bus services 449 1,650 Railway services 4 2,095 Banking facilities Number of commercial bank 65 58 2,041 Number of Co-operative commercial bank 7 7 2,092

Credit societies -

Number of agricultural credit societies 57 57 2,042 Number of non agricultural credit societies 3 3 2,096 Number of other credit societies 2 2 2,097 Land use (Two decimal) in hectres Number of forest land 27,367.67 Number of government canal 32,817.61 Number of private canal 204.05 Well(Without electricity) 429.21 Well( with electricity) 576.13 Tube-well( without electricity) 67.64 Tube-well (with electicity) 107 Tank 4, 228.93 River 2,771.51 Lake 63.2 Waterfall 842.09 Others 10,823.63 Irrigated area 52,931 Unirrigated area 287,202.74

Source: Census of Onssa, 2001

3.16.8 District Profile of Kalahandi

The district profile of Kalahandi shows that the present district has 11 sub-districts and 2099

inhibitated villages. The district has 58 commercial banks and 57 agricultural societies; 3

non-agricultural societies and 2 other credit societies. However, a large number of villages

does not have these facilities. The land using pattern of the district shows that the district has

27,367.67 hectres of forest land. The area under irrigation is 52,931 hectare through well,

tube well, water tank, waterfall etc. However, 287,202.74 hectres of agricultural land is not

irrigated and still depends on rain water.

150

T bl 3 30 S . D a e . OCIO- emo hi P fil f K lab d. d. t . t ~rapl c ro 1 eo a an 1 1s nc Number of Households 320,624 Average Household Size(per Household) 4.0

Population-Total 1,335,494 Proportion of Urban Population(%) 7.5

P<>pulati on-Rural 1235275 Sex Ratio 1001

Population-Urban 100219 SexRatio(O -6 Year) 984

Population(0--6 Years) 217,889 Sex Ratio(SC) 1011

SC Population 236,019 Sex Ratio(sn 1028

ST Population 382,573 Proportion of SC(%) 18.0

Literates 513,383 Proportion of ST(%) 29.0

llliterates 822,111 Literacy Rate(%) 46.0

Total Workers 620,950 Work Participation Rate(%) 46.0

Main Worker 382,050 % of Main Workers 29.0

Marginal Worker 238,900 % of Marginal Worker 18.0

Non Worker 714,544 % of non Workers 54.0 Source: Census ofOnssa, 2001.

According to Census of Orissa 2001, Kalahandi district comprises of 320,624 households.

The total population of the district is 1,335,494 out of which 1,235275 are rural and 1,00219

are urban population as per Census of Orissa, 2001. The proportion of urban population is

7.5%. Population in the age of0-6 years is 217,889. The number of females per 1000 males is

1001 and child population in the age of 0-6 is 984. Sex ratio of Schedule Tribes to the

population is 1028 and in the case of SCs, it is 1011. The literacy rate of Kalahandi is 46%

which is lower than the state average. Similarly, the percentage of main workers to the total

population is 29% which is nearer to the state average i.e., 26.05%. Thus, it shows that the

district is lack of human development indicators especially in literacy and finally the pace of

urban growth is very low.

The Kalahandi district in Orissa has attracted the world attention due to its recurring droughts

and consequent poverty, hunger, out-migration, outbreak of serious diseases and in some

cases distress sale of children (E.P.W 1985: Mishra and Rao 1992, Pradhan 1993; Samal

1994).

It is a fact that the district of Kalahandi in Orissa is facing a serious problem of hunger,

malnutrition and abject poverty due to various man and nature made causes and prolonged

underdevelopment. Recurrence of droughts, starvations, epidemics and mass migration are

daily facts of life for majority of the inhabitants of the district. Kalahandi experienced

massive drought in the years 1954-55, 1965-66, 1974-75, 1985-87, 1992-93 and 1996-97. As

151

a result the district remains poor and bulk of the population is deprived of access to the

minimum means of livelihood (Kumar, Das and Malik 2002).159

Gail Omvedt160 conducted a survey from Kalahandi district in October, 1996 and in the

paper titled "Worst in a Hundred Years" The Kalahandi Drought", highlighted some of the

important issues emerged out of the field investigation about the draught situation in the

district. While referring to the former princely state about which Orissa's British chronicler

wrote in the early 20th century, "It has never suffered any general or serious failure of the

crops, and even in 1900 when all the neighboring country was severely affected, Kalahandi

knew only a slight scarcity." The really devastating droughts in Kalahandi in fact only began

in 1965. Rainfall is not low; the drought-stricken regions of states like Maharashtra would

yearn for its average of around 1200 mm a year. It is further maintained that the main

Kalahandi rice, the main agricultural crop of the region, is famous in Orissa for its quality.

Food grain production per capita is higher than average in Kalahandi: in 1989-90, per capita

production per year was 331.86 kg compared to 253.03 for Orissa and 203.13 for India as a

whole. Kalahandi has been from pre- Independence times a self-sufficient district in food,

and in the 1960s and 1970s it was the third largest average exporter of rice to other district of

Orissa and other states. Per capita lan.dholdings of cropped area are the highest in the state

(.592 hectare compared to .332 hectare for Orissa as a whole). Seventy-foi.i'f percent of

households (in 1980-81) held land as compared to 66 percent for Orissa as a whole. Even the

Dalits and Adivasis appear to have slightly larger average landholdings and less complete

landlessness than in most parts of India. Rainfall is often highly variable and then crop

failure occurs- but this does not explain, as activists like Jagdish Pradhan of the Paschim

Orissa Krishijibi Sanghatana point out, why people suffer so intensively after one or two bad

years. In richer areas of the world and in India itself crop failure occurs in agriculture - yet

people do not necessarily starve. Most of Maharashtra has much less rainfall than Kalahandi,

yet people in the drought-stricken regions of western India do not starve to death.

Landlessness is far higher in Punjab, yet the poor migrate into Punjab to get work in

agriculture rather than fleeing. The calamities of hunger, lack of work and income, and the

resultant misery are hitting Kalahandi, one of the richest areas of India in terms of natural

159 Kumar S.C, Nilanjan Das and B.B. Malik,(2002), 'Development in Distress: A Critique of Poverty Eradication Programmess in Kalahandi District of Orissa', Journal of Rural Development Vol. 21 (4) pp. 537-552. 1600mvedt Gail (1996), "Worst in a Hundred Years" The Kalahandi Drought, MANUSID, No.97, November­December, p.22.

152

resources. The answer to this pure and simple, i.e., is exploitation. The loot is centered on the

low prices given for paddy and forest produce and on the total neglect of Kalahandi in any

development policies. The worst effects of this fall on the landless and land-poor of tribal and

low-caste background, and mainly on the women and children among them, though nearly all

the people of the district suffer in one way or another. But before going into this, let us take a

look at the district and its men and women.

Among the important factors contributing to the perpetuation of poverty in Kalahandi are:

unequal distribution of land and other rural assets, recurrent drought, colonialization by

outsiders, depletion of forest resources and decline of rights of the population over

community resources. According to 1991 Census just 1 per cent of large farmers were found

to have possessed 8.25 per cent of landholdings. Although the number of marginal and small

farmers has increased, the share of the landholdings by the small farmers has almost

remained the same. Thus, the main reason for today's poverty and hunger in Kalahandi is its

skewed distribution of assets (Dalvai: 1993).

The incidence of drought almost in decennial cycles not only caused a large number of

unnatural deaths but also reduced the land productivity (Mishra: 1991). In the recent years

1992-93 and 1996-97 the drought situation in the district was quite severe and affected -.

mostly of the areas. This situation has been compounded further due to irregular and erratic

rainfall between 1986 and 1990. As a result the yield of rice and other major crops per acre

has declined. Moreover, the consumption of fertilizer per gross cropped area in the district is

only 5.4 kg. as against the state average of 21.7 kg.(District Statistical Hand Book:1991).

Another important reason for the present state of poverty and food insecurity in the district is

shrinking of forest land and common property resources due to the encroachment by the

outside merchants in the name of coffee plantation and afforestation programmes.

It has been estimated that 25 per cent of the total population that belongs to scheduled tribes (

and located mainly in forest based regions), account for 40 per cent of the total poor in Orissa

(Glinskaya 2003). 161 For the lOth Five Year Plan, the Ministry of Environment and Forest

has adopted an Integrated Approach for Forest Conservation and Livelihood for the Forest

Communities. This is being facilitated by converging various centrally sponsored schemes

under the Forest Development Agencies (FDA) constituted in every forest division. The

persistence of high poverty in Southern Orissa has led to a realization that restoration of

161 Glinskaya, Elena (2003), 'Poverty in Orissa: Diagnosis and Approach, (Draft Report), The World Bank, New Delhi, pp.l4).

153

ecological balance between water, soil, plants and requirements for human as well as

livestock population should form the basic consideration for developmental strategy for the

area. The Long Term Action Plan ( LTAP) for the KBK region is an off-shoot of this

approach. What is missing in this approach is that plans for forest development and

sustainable livelihood support continue to remain as separate entities; employment generation

is the link between the two.

Forest resources in Orissa constitute an important component of the non-tax revenue in

Orissa. Of late, the revenue from forest produces has declined. The total revenue (at current

prices) declined from Rs. 109 crores in 1990-91 to Rs. 84.2 crores in 2000-01 (Malik

2002).162

Uneven and erratic rainfall has resulted into the situation of chronic drought in the KBK­

region. Nearly 9 lakh hectares of cultivable land of Western-Southern Orissa faces severe

droughts in most of the years. Unplanned areas in these regions therefore should adopt low­

water intensive crops (Swain 2002)163. Plantation and pasture development may form a part

of the farming system in the region.

Despite high incidence of poverty, interstate migration in Orissa is relatively low as

compared to other states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. A part of this could be due

to the physical remoteness and access to forest resources. Within the Southern region, the

undivided Kalahandi and Phulbani districts have better connectivity as compared to Koraput,

which is isolated due to hills on both the sides. Out-migration therefore is found to be higher

in Kalahandi and Phulbani as compared to Koraput. There is however, no systematic estimate

on out-migration from districts in Orissa.

Public action in the distress situation of Kalahandi have been found to be invariably

ineffective and thus, failed to prevent the occurrences of similar situations over the years.

Even the spatial intensive efforts undertaken following the visits of the then Prime-minister

Rajiv Gandhi in 1985-87 failed to prevent the drought of 1992-93. Also the KBK special plan

could not prevent the distress situation of 1996-97 (Mohanty: 1999). The observation made

by Sen(1981) with respect to Bengal Famine of 1943 is also found to be true in Kalahandi as

people die despite availability of enough food grains in the state, due to lack of access to

entitlements. Kalahandi produces more food per capita than either Orissa or ~ndia as a whole

162 Mallik, R.M. (2002), 'Forest Resources and Forest Management Policies', in Orissa Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. 163 Swain, M. (2002), 'Performance of Agriculture in Orissa: Inter-temporal and Spatial Variations', Orissa Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

154

do. But its own inhabitants consume only 25 per cent of that food. The rest goes out of the

region through a net work of merchants and money lenders (Sainath: 1996)164•

Bob Currie (2000)165 in his major work on "The Politics of Hunger in India: A Study of

Democracy, Governance and Kalahandi's Poverty", raise a basic question i.e. - when do

hunger and famines exist and which conditions do they disappear. The prevailing consensus,

according to Bob Currie, is influenced heavily by the work of Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze

that 'famines tend not to occur in electoral democracies in which there exists a relatively free

press and a high degree of freedom of speech and association available to its citizens ...

Governments that need to seek re-election, and that face criticism can not afford to ignore

starvation or to neglect famine' (p.4).Bob Currie's study on Kalahandi district of Orissa,

highlights the recurrent droughts and food crises. The Kalahandi case according to the author

contradicts to the prevailing consensus. After all, India is a democratic country in which

regular elections are held, there is a free press which has published extensively about the

problems of poverty and alleged starvation in Kalahandi. The study sets out to explore what

kind of political processes have generated and perpetuated hunger in this region and what sort

of political institutions and political actions are best suited to combat these problems. In

short, it raises the broad question: 'to what extent does democracy matter in hunger

alleviation?"(p.5).The author tried to analyze the politics of poverty and hunger in Kalahandi

by tracing the historical roots of poverty, the principles and practices of relief administration

and the various forms of public action that exist. It highlights a number of characteristics

regarding the political process that explain why the elected government did not respond

adequately to the widely-publicized extreme distress in Kalahandi. Elections, according to

Currie, mean that people have the power 'to get rid', but not the power 'to get right'. Ruling

parties change, but without producing significant improvements. In a similar fashion, the

legal framework ensures the 'power to report', but the power to follow this up and enforce it,

is often lacking. Furthermore, subsequent governments have developed various strategies to

manage the expectation-delivery gap', such as blaming the preceding government. However,

no effort is made in this study to analyze especially the people who suffer those who belong

to the tribal groups. The fact that they don't have a voice in the political mainstream, the

ideology and discursive practices justifying this, and the institutional mechanisms

164 Sainath P (1996), 'Everybody Loves a Good Drought- Stories from India's Poorest Districts', Penguin Books, New Delhi. 165 Currie Bob (2000), 'The Politics of Hunger in India A Study of Democracy, Governance and Kalahandi's Poverty', Mac Milan Press; Chennai & London, p. 4 -5.

155

reproducing this political exclusion is not analyzed in the book- while these issues are crucial

to understand why the public action model does not hold in the case of Kalahandi.

Depletion of traditional compensatory sources of livelihood such as forest produces

traditional cottage and small-scale industry; low level of literacy and nutrition, unhygienic

and poor sanitary conditions are some of the factors which describe the pervasive nature of

poverty in Kalahandi. It manifests itself in many forms- people reeling under indebtedness,

gruesome instances of land alienation and backbreaking toil of the labourers compelled to

migrate to neighboring brick kilns and unnatural and untimely deaths in distress seasons. In

particular, the plight of the people at the lower end of the social hierarchy surpasses all

benchmarks of discrimination and injustice. The Governments, however, in different periods,

under attack from the press and opposite political parties, have not spared any effort to avoid

their moral responsibilities by explaining the ground realities. Various schemes and

programmes such as drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Area Development Approach

and others were launched to combat drought and transient hunger in the district. But these

have not been sustained and drought occurred in 1993-94 in the district. However, the whole

scenario is changing due to the rise of the public pressure and public concerns.

Devinder Sharma166 in the paper titled "Kalahandi Syndrome--Engulfing India" revealed that

in the remote Kalahandi district of Orissa, synonymous with drought, hunger and misery,

starvation exists amid plenty. As the piteous small and marginal and landless agricultural

labourers starve and wait endlessly for the rice they produce on the hands owned by absentee­

landlords, the harvest finds its way to the food reserves of the nation, much of it is either

devoured by rats or exported. Kalahandi is among Orissa's biggest contributors of foodgrains

to the FCI. India at the meanwhile faced with a Kalahandi syndrome - food stocks piling up

at a time when a third of the world's 840 million hungry and poor, living in India, do not

have the means to purchase it. In addition, the resulting damage to the resource-base, on

which were laid the strong foundations of the traditions of agriculture shows disastrous

performance. In Kalahandi with 87 per cent of the population who are below the poverty line,

attacking poverty is a difficult task. Moreover, the abundant resources, including land and

166 Devinder Sharma, 'Kalahandi Syndrome Engulfing India', in Orissa Vision - 2020: Towards Building a New and Modem Orissa (edited) , 2005, Sachidananda Satapathy, New Age Publication, New Delhi.

156

forests, are owned by the "gauntiya", the feudal lords. For the poor, human bondage and

surviving on the charities of the money-lender, is perhaps the inescapable root to move out of

poverty. The simple, illiterate tribals end up borrowing money at the time of distress only to

find themselves slipping deeper and deeper into debt trap due to high rate of interest. The

author views that if development assistance is the lone measure of economic growth,

Kalahandi has failed miserably. Not even 10 paise out of a rupee of development aid has

percolated down to the people who desperately need it. The real beneficiaries are the

government officials and NGOs in the name of promoting development for the poor.

The District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) conducts survey every five years at the block

level with a view to providing benefits to families living Below Poverty Line (BPL), under

various anti-poverty programmes implemented either by the state government or the central

government. Table 3.33 shows that the percentage of rural families below the poverty line in the

State in 1992 was 78.70. Not only is the poverty level in the State very high, but also a stark

inter-district disparity in poverty levels exists. The table shows the severity of poverty in 13

districts of the state. Districts like Kalahandi (86.65), Koraput (87 .20), Maurbhanj (90.77), and

Phulbani (89.99) show a very high level of poverty in comparison with other developed districts

like Balasore (67.32), Sambalpur (67.37), and Cuttack (70.81). Kalahandi district has as many

as 1,94,140 families living below the poverty line out of a total of 2,52,726 families as per the

1999 BPL family census. This constitutes 77 per cent of the total number of rural families

(NABARD 2000-01). Table 3.36 shows rural families below the poverty line in various blocks of

the district as they appear in the 1992 and 1997 surveys.

Table 3.31: Level of Poverty in Orissa in 1992--- A District-Level Comparison % of Rural Families BPL

Districts Balasore 67.32 Bolangir 84.54 Cuttack 70.81 Dhankanal 84.25 Ganjam 77.84 Kalahandi 86.65 Keonjhar '02.75 Koraput 87.20 Mayurbhanj 'XJ.77 Phulbani 89.99 Puri 77.64 Sambalpur 67.37 Sundargarll 80.93 Ori.<&t 78.70

Source: Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Onssa, quoted m Smnal ( 1996)

D I

The percentage of BPL families ·in rural areas of Kalahandi district reduced to 62.71 per cent in

1997 as against 85.77 per cent in 1992. Blocks like Madanpur Rampur (80.23 per cent), Kesinga

(70.01 per cent) and the two tribal blocks notified by the ITDA, i.e., Thuamula Rampur (88.76 per

cent) and Lanjigarh (75.81 per cent) show a very high percentage of rural families below the

poverty line (Table. 3.33).

3.17 Sub-dNrict Profile ofThuamul Rampur

Thuamul Rampur is the sub-district of Kalahandi district. Thuamul Rampur Block comes

under the hilly terrain, and is inhabited by Kandha tribals. Most of these tribals resort to

"slash-and-bum" cultivation and practice agriculture on stream beds. The tribal population

grow oil seeds, pulses, maize and ragi, etc on the hilly upland (bhatta land) and develop the

streambeds on low lands (bahal land) for paddy crop.Slash-and-bum cultivation and

agriculture provides livelihood (consumption) for about 8 months in a year. It is found that all

the households experience seasonal shortage of food. They also try to partially fulfill the

shortages by depending upon collecting forest produce basically non-timber for both

consumption and marketing. Collecting non-timber forest produce is significant to a tribal's

basic living condition as otherwise they have to either seek a consumption loan or seek daily

wage earning employment. It is also observed that, while dependency on collecting minor

forest produce for marketing is so significant to the very survival of tribal household, the

tribals in general and women in particular, who engage themselves with collecting and

marketing, did not even know about the basic aspects of processing, marketing and

prices(price fixation) at the policy-making level, etc.

T bl 332A a e . rea P fil fTh ro 1 eo uamu IR b d" t . t f Kal h d" di t . t ampur su - 1s nc o a an 1 s nc Number of Households 16,299 Average Household Size(per Household) 4.0

Population-Total 65,767 Proportion of Urban Population(%) 0

Population-Rural 65767 Sex Ratio 1025

Population-Urban 0 Sex Ratio(O -6 Year) 1035

Population(0-6 Years) 14,061 Sex Ratio(SC) 1005

SC Population 16,872 Sex Ratio(ST) 1041

ST Population 37,850 Proportion of SC (%) 26.0

Literates 14,507 Proportion of ST (%) 58.0

llliterates 51,260 Literacy Rate (%) 28.0

Total Workers 33,841 Work Participation Rate(%) 51.0

Main Worker 20,179 % of Main Workers 31.0

Marginal Worker 13,662 % of Marginal Worker 21.0

Non Worker 31,926 % of non Workers 49.0

Source: Census of Orissa, 2001.

158

Thuamul Rampur is a rural sub-district of Kalahandi. According to Census of Orissa 2001 estimation, total

households of Thuamul Rampt.rr is 16;299 and the total JXJPulation is 65, 767. The pen:entage of non worlcers

are 49.0% in the region which exceeds that of the main w01kers (31.0%) and marginal wOikers (21.0%).

Scheduled Tnre population (58.0%) which constitute a considerable proportion of the population of Thuamul

Ramfm. This proportion is two times higher than the triOOI population of Ka1ahandi as a whole. Scheduled

Castes oonstitute 26% of the population which is one and half times higher than the SC population of the district

as a whole. The sex rntio of the region is 1025 females per 100) males, which is higher than the sex rntio of the

district i.e. 1001 female per 1 00) males. The sex rntio in 0-6 years is 1035 which is again higher than the sex rntio

ofthedistricti.e.,984. Theregionhasaverylowliterocyrateof 28%. JXX>IJle reingliterate(fable 3.37)

Table 3.33: Percentage of Rural Families below Poverty Line in Kalahandi District across Bl k d S . E . G 1992 d 1997 oc san OCIO- cononnc roups, an

Out of the BPL

Percentage Percentage families(rural) of BPL of BPL in 1997 families in families in survey, Out of the BPL families (rural) in 1997 1992 1997 percentage of survey, percentage of

Small Marginal Rural Agricultural Blocks Rural Rural sc ST farmers farmers artisans labourers

Thuamul Rampur 93.81 88.76 29.14 55.35 19.85 21.04 1.47 40.12

Bhawani Patna 75.56 55.68 25.41 40.98 15.49 25.39 1.81 39.56

Kesinga 86.08 70.01 24.54 27.78 11.83 28.51 1.73 48.57

Karlamunda 84.85 49.51 23.83 17.90 20.17 31.60 1.87 41.73

Madan pur Rampur 86.55 80.23 20.64 43.37 21.92 27.52 1.57 44.44

Narla 83.88 54.89 14.34 18.76 10.06 19.06 0.83 20.81

Lanjigarh 87.05 75.81 28.37 46.37 19.53 17.26 0.87 44.15

Dharamgarh 86.22 64.26 23.84 19.51 24.70 30.95 1.66 36.23

Junagarh 95.40 61.38 22.02 19.36 16.48 14.38 2.95 40.00

Kalampur 87.45 51.77 17.26 27.48 16.03 8.44 2.20 57.13

Jaipatna 85.34 66.59 23.19 38.70 18.30 18.04 1.90 47.00

Koksara 90.97 38.48 22.67 35.00 29.09 22.37 1.86 39.34

Golamunda 88.43 62.77 21.21 32.72 20.83 26.46 2.03 42.33

Total 85.77 62.71 23.39 34.02 19.59 23.95 1.80 41.51

Note: The rural families below the poverty line are calculated by the DRDA on the basis of the total income of the family falling below Rs.ll,OOO a year. The blocks refer to Kalahandi district as divided in 1993. Source: District Rural Development Agency, Kalahandi, Orissa.

Table 3.38 shows that among these poor families of the district, 19.59 per cent of the families

are small farmers, 41.51 per cent were agricultural labourers, 23.83 per cent were marginal

farmers, 1.80 per cent were artisans and the remaining 13.15 per cent were of other categories.

159

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together constituted 57.41 per cent of the rural

families below the poverty line in 1997 in the district At the block leveL Thuarnul Rampur has the

highest percentage of rural families in the district who are from below poverty line according to 1997 smvey

conducted by DRDA, Kalahandi. Among these highest 55.35% of poor families are fi:om Scheduled Tnbe

category, and second to these are STs, fi:om Scheduled Caste category 29.14% families belong to the below

poverty line families in the rural areas. Among socio-economic groups 40.12% families are agricultural

laOOurers, 21.04% were marginal fanners and 1.47% are rural artisans those who belong to below poverty

families.

3.18 Key Poverty Alleviation Programmes in Orissa and Kalahandi District

In spite of possessing rich natural resources such as a variety of mineral deposits, valuable

forests, and a long coastline, Orissa still continues to be one of the poorest States in the

Country. In order to tackle this problem, a number of number of poverty alleviation

programmes have been initiated and implemented in the State to arrest the chronic and

extreme poverty through employment generation and creation of durable and productive

assets with the support of institutional credit and provision of subsidies with a view to

providing livelihood support to the needy.

3.18.1 Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)

In order to improve the economic status of the rural poor, several anti poverty

programmes/self employment programmes like Integrated Rural Development Programme

(IRDP), Development of Women and Children in Rural Area (DRCRA), Training for Rural

Youth for Self Employment (TRYSEM), Ganga Kalyan Yojana (GKY), Million Well

Schemes (MWS) etc. were in operation till end of 1998-99. These schemes were

amalgamated and a new scheme named "Swama Jayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY)"

came into being on 1st April 1999. It is a Centrally Sponsored Self Employment Programme

which aims at increasing the income level of families (Swarozgaries) above the poverty line

(with income of Rs.2000 p.m.) in three years by providing them income generating assets

through a mix bank credit and Govt. subsidy. The scheme focuses on social mobilization of

rural poor into Self Help Groups (SHGs), their capacity building, skill upgradation, training

assistance for taking up different activities, credit linkage, infrastructure technology and

marketing support. The cost of the project is shared between the Central and State Govt. in

the ratio 75:25 BPL families in rural areas are the target group. Self Help Group moment has

been encouraged by the State Govt. and has emerged as a powerful tool for socio-economic

160

empowerment of people especially women living below poverty line and for removal of

poverty.

3.18.2 Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (SGRY)

SGRY is the centrally sponsored wage employment programme came into existence with

effect from 25th September, 2001 by amalgamating two other wage employment programmes

namely, Jawahar Gram Samrudhi Yojana (JGSY) and E:rnployment Assistance Scheme

(EAS). The primary objective of the scheme is to provide additional and supplementary wage

employment and thereby providing food security and improving nutritional level in rural

areas. Creation of durable community, social and economic assets and essential infrastructure

in rural areas are the secondary objectives. The programme is being implemented on cost

sharing basis between the Centre and State in the ratio 75:25 of the cash component. 50% of

the total allocation is released in shape of food grains by Govt. of India free of cost. Wages

are paid through a mix of at least 5 kg of food grain and minimum 25% in cash.

3.18.3 National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)

The Act commenced from 2nd February 2006 in 200 districts all over the country, including

19 districts of Orissa. SGRY and NFFWP have been subsumed under NREGA in these

districts. The main objective of the act is to provide enhancement of livelihood security to the

rural households by guarantying at least 100 days of wage employment in a year to every

households whose adult member volunteer agree to do unskilled manual work. Besides, a

durable asset is to be created by implementation of the act, to strengthen the livelihood

resource base of the rural poor. During 2006-07, about 982.95 lakh man-days of wage

employment have been created through these schemes. The Gram Panchayat has a pivotal

role in its implementation. It is responsible for planning, registration, issuing job cards,

allocating employment, executing 50% of the works and its monitoring, supervision and

social audit.

3.18.4 Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP)

The DPAP was launched in 1973-74 to tackle the special problems faced by those areas that

are constantly afflicted by drought conditions. It is in operation in 8 districts of Orissa

covering 47 identified blocks. The districts covered are Balangir, Sonepur, Kalahandi,

Nuapada, Baragarh, Boudh, Dhenkanal and Kandhamal. Under the scheme, Micro Watershed

Projects are under implementation. The funds were shared on 50:50 basis between the Central

161

Government and the State governments till March 1999.With effect from ls1 April1999, the

funding is shared on 75:25 basis between the centre and state Government. Multi-pronged

activities are taken up under the programme on watershed basis, with an average of 500

hectares for restoration of ecological balance and also for drought proofing through

harmonius management of land, water, and other natural resources.

3.18.5 Special Plan for KBK Districts: The Revised Long Term Action Plan (RLT AP) has

been operated in KBK district of the state since 1998-99 to 2006-07 i.e. till the end of 1Oth

Five Year plan. During the 101h Five Year Plan Periods, a sum of Rs.1200.00 crore in shape

of Special Central Assistance (SCA) was made available under RLTAP for KBK districts.

The implementation of RL TAP has accelerated the development process in the KBK districts

and has brought several positive impacts on living conditions of the people.

Food security has been ensured to 2 lakh old, infirm and indigent persons of the KBK

districts annually under emergency Feeding Programme. No starvation related death has been

reported in KBK districts during the last 4 years. Children in the age group 0-6 years and

lactating mothers have been provided adequate nutrition under Special Nutrition Programme

every year. Women Self Help Groups have been assisted out ofRLTAP, exclusively. Mobile

Health Units have been functioning in 80 blocks of the KBK districts and providing treatment

to patients annually at their doorsteps. Residential hostels have been established and

operationalized for improving female tribal literacy in the KBKdistricts. As a result of this

and other initiatives, gross enrollment rates in primary schools in KBK districts have

increased to 110.36 in 2004-05 from 77.13 in 1996-97. Watersheds are being saturated

yielding targeted benefits, barren forest land/degraded forests have been afforested through

Van Samrakshan Samities and wage employment has been generated through it. Irrigation

potential has been increased to 33.7% in 2002-03 from 28.56% in 1998-99. Infrastructure

related works have been undertaken through it, roads and bridges are constructed through this

programme. However, the acute conditions of regional and social disparities have not been

adequately addressed. Therefore, it is felt to continue the long term development measures

during the 11th Five Year Plan Period for addressing the mass poverty and chronic

backwardness of this region. Government of India has further extended financial support

under the Special Central Assistance for Special Plan (i.e., RLTAP) for KBK districts during

the 11th Five Year Plan.

162

3.18.6 Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA) is another

component of IRDP. It was initially launched as a pilot programme in five selected districts

in 1983-84 with United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF)

assistance in order to strengthen the women's component of poverty alleviation programme.

Since then it has been expanded in a phased manner and now this programme covers all the

30 districts of the state from 1994.The objective of the programme is to raise the income

levels of women of the poor households to secure their organized participation in social

development in the direction of economic self-reliance. The primary thrust of DWCRA is the

formation of groups of 10-15 women from poor households at the village level to improve

women's access to basic social services like healthy, education, child- care, nutrition, water

and sanitation. It has also emphasized for receiving credit, skill training, cash and

infrastructural support for self-employment for the women. Linkages have been established

with activities of other departments. To provide support to DWCRA, provision has been

made for the setting up of a district supply and marketing society primarily of women

producers.

3.18.7 Mission Shakti as a campaign for holistic empowerment of women was launched in

March, 2001 with the target to form one lakh Women Self Help Groups (WSHGs) by March,

2005. The campaign period was extended up to March, 2008 with a target to fomr 2 lakh

WSHGs. The 1st phase of Mission Shakti was devoted to formation of groups and

organizational growth while the second phase targeted to capacity building, market

expansion, and convergence with different departments/agencies working for women

empowerment and to address other social issues.

3.18.8 Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) was launched in India in 1975 with

the major objectives like to improve the nutritional and health status of children below the

age group of six years and pregnant and lactating mothers; to reduce the incidence of

mortality, morbidity, mal-nutrition and school dropouts etc.

This is a centrally sponsored scheme providing a package of services i.e. supplementary

nutrition, immunization, health check up, referral services, non-formal preschool education

and nutrition and health education. The State at present has achieved universalization of the

ICDS programme by way of coverage of all the 314 blocks apart from 12 urban projects in

different urban areas through Anganwadi Centres.

163

3.18.9 Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: As per 2001 population

census, both ST and SC population constitute 38.66% of the total state population (ST

22.13% and SC 16.53%). The Government is giving highest priority for all round

development of SCs, STs, Minorities and Backward classes by empowering the target group

through educational, economic and social development in order to build their self-reliance

and self- esteem.

3.18.10 Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA) was established in mid- seventies,

functioning as nodal agencies for plan formulation, programme implementation and

operationalization of the TSP concept. The main concern of ITDAs are to minimize the gap

that exists in society, to improve socio-economic condition of tribal's and to strengthen

infrastructure in tribal area through various schemes that aims at income generation, asset

creation, administrative and legal protection from exploitation. During 2006-07, emphasis has

been given on imparting Vocational Training to the tribal youths for their income generation

through self-employment. Their training are being organized in a professional manner

through it is/Polytechnics. Besides, under income generating schemes, agriculture

implements depending on the crops grown, have been provided to Self Help Groups for their

own use and for custom hiring.

3.18.11 Janashree Bima Yojana (JBY) of L.I.C of India Ltd. Was introduced in the year

2004-05 under Central Sector Scheme for development of PTG with 100% grant..:in-aid by

Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India for insurance coverage of PTG, families of

the state.

3.18.12 Micro Projects for Development of Primitive Tribal Groups

There are 17 micro projects operating in the State covering part of 20 blocks of 12 districts

with a population of70675 as per Base Line Survey conducted in 2001 for development of 13

Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs). PTGs covered under these projects are given full subsidy for

individual and family oriented income generating schemes. Particular attention is given for

development of agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, animal husbandry, health,

education communication etc.

164

3.18.13 Orissa Tribal Empowerment and Livelihood Programme (OTELP)

After the closure of IF AD assisted Orissa Tribal Development Programme (OTDP) in

Kasipur block, Orissa Tribal Empowerment and Livelihood Programme (OTELP) came in to

existence on 2nd October, 2004. The main objective of the programme is to improve quality

of life of the poor tribal's in remote pockets through livelihood support and food security by

sustainable exploitation of the natural resources available with them. The programme is

scheduled to be implemented in 30 backward tribal blocks in 7 districts, over a period of 10

years with an outlay ofRs.430.74 crore with joint finance by IFAD- DFID-WFP. In the first

phase, the programme is being taken up in 10 blocks of 4 districts, viz - Daringbadi and

Tumdibandha of Kandhmal district, Thuamula Rampur and Lanjigarh of Kalahandi district,

Rayagada, Gumma and Nuagarh blocks of Gajapati district and Narayanpatna, Bandhugaon

and Laxmipur blocks of Koraput district. Remaining 11 blocks of Malkangiri, Nawarangpur

and Rayagada and 9 blocks of Gajapati, Kandhamal and Koraput districts will be covered

under phase- II of the programme.

3.19 Summary

Poverty is not a matter of lack of income and wealth only. It is related to health, education

employment, physical and social security, social net work with the community and decision

making process and so on. Thus, there are many dimensions of poverty. If one goes through

the official figures on poverty it seems that there is reduction of poverty in rural India. No

doubt poverty has been reduced over the years, but inequality of income and wealth has

sharply increased in the country. When the price per essential commodities has gone up over

the years, the wage payment has not increased in the same rate, hence rural poor lead a low

quality of life. The writings of Alternative Economic Survey, India, 2006-07 shows that

instead of increasing the allocations meant for poverty alleviation, their proportion has

steadily come down, for all rural development and poverty-reduction programmes by the

Union and the State governments taken together the expenditure (not surely the outcomes)

was 3.6 per cent in the Sixth Plan; now, according to the revised estimates for 2002-03, this

share has declined to mere 2.7 percent. Similarly, all programmes aiming at growth of

agriculture taken together received 37 per cent of the plan expenditure in the First Plan; it

declined to 23.9 per cent in the Sixth Plan and was at the all time low of 16.5 per cent during

the Tenth Plan.167 The report It is reported that a circular has been issued by the planners to

167 Alternative Economic Survey, India, 2006-2007, Pampering Corporates, Pauperizing Masses, Danish

Books, Delhi, p.xiv.

165

the State governments asking them not to enlist more than 10 per cent new names under the

Below Poverty Line(BPL) category in order to remain true to the supposed lofty

macroeconomic but highly tendentious partisan policy of fiscal consolidation. Ironically,

under such fiscal constrains Rs. 7,000 crore have been made available for organizing common

wealth games, a typical allocation decision of the nco-liberal dispensation(ibid.). The

marginalized groups such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes population are the major

social groups who are poverty stricken and backward from all the development indicators.

The Government of India and the state governments have designed the innovative schemes

and programme to alleviate poverty. Since 1970, the Indian government has implemented a

number of schemes and programmes which includes the Integrated Rural Development

Programme, Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, Training Rural Youth for Self Employment (TRYSEM)

later on which has been merged into a new scheme called Swarna Jayanti Gram Swarozgar

Yojana (SGSY), Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana (SGRY), Drought Prone Area

Programme (DP AP) and so on. The recent National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme

which assures 1 00 days wage employment for rural poor. There is also a Public Distribution

System, which has been somewhat effective so far. At the state level and with specific

reference to Kalahandi district Special Plan for KBK Districts which has been operational

including other programmes. However, the target groups are not benefited to that extent due

to lack of education, ignorance and lack of information about the various government

schemes and programmes. It was rightly stated by Rajiv Gandhi, the former Prime Minister

of India that when the Government sends hundred percent funds for the people, hardly 15

percent of the fund earmarked for the people reaches the ground. In case of Orissa and in

Kalahandi district, due to governance failure, the worst suffers are the weaker sections who

are underdeveloped and in abject poverty.

166