IN the past decade a number of studies and surveys have
analysed the deprivation of the marginalised sections in India. If these
analyses have highlighted one thing it is that the question of population and
development cannot be addressed in isolation and must include issues relating
to social inequities and discrimination. A singular feature of all these
studies is the finding that historical deprivation of segments of the
population belonging to the minorities, the Scheduled Castes (S.C.) and the
Scheduled Tribes (S.T.) has continued apace. Indeed, the minority Muslim
community was identified as a group that required special attention. The latest
of such studies is the “District Development and Diversity Index Report for
India and Major States” (DDDIx) prepared by the United States-India Policy
Institute and Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy and
published in January 2015 .
In its approach and orientation, the DDDIx adopted tools to
assess grass-roots level realities of development by creating indices for easy
comparison at the district level. The report studied the development indices of
all the 599 districts (2001 Census) of the country using 17 variables to
measure development and livelihood and sought to arrange them in the order of
the percentage of deprived communities. It also sought to evolve an agenda on
the basis of a number of development parameters and objectives focussing
primarily on overall economic situation, material well-being, health and
education.
The report identified the two most important issues
confronting the communities at the district level: “To begin with financial allocations
are inadequate; yet huge proportions of the development funds earmarked for
annual expenditures on essential programmes such as mass primary and elementary
education, women and child development services, public health care and the
employment guarantee scheme are never appropriated and spent.” Underlining this
major operational deficiency, the report pointed out that another major
component of inequity and deprivation was social and political discrimination.
It stated: “The inequity at the level of the district is a serious issue; there
are many versions to it such as based on occupation, education level and also
social identities expressed in terms of religious and caste affiliation. The
last dimension is important at the local level in the distribution of welfare
benefits; they have become contentious at the national-political level leading
to promotion of discrimination at the grass-roots.”
In fact, all the other major studies that have emerged in
the past decade, including the Justice Rajinder Sachar Committee report of
2006, which went into the socio-economic condition of the Muslim community,
have talked about the political and social discrimination faced by Muslims, the
S.Cs and the S.Ts. The Sachar Committee report even recorded that in terms of
several development parameters the Muslim community lagged behind even the S.Cs
and the S.Ts. These included education, income, work participation, health,
access to infrastructure and so on at the national and State levels. The report
also suggested measures to address these issues.
Studies and committee reports that followed the Sachar
report, including important ones such as the Diversity Index report and the
Equal Opportunity Commission report, both of 2008, and the Sachar evaluation
committee report of 2014, went on to state that the inequities, deprivations
and discrimination continue to hold sway over the administrative and
development mechanisms despite their recommendations and the seemingly positive
responses from successive governments.
Thus, when the DDDIx completed the task of arranging all 599
districts in the order of percentage of deprived communities, especially the
S.Cs/S.Ts and Muslims, it became a repetition of the story of unimplemented proposals
and promises and the multiple discriminations that were the reason for the
non-implementation. The listing of the least developed districts in categories
such as economic situation, education, health and material well-being only
reaffirmed this situation. The least developed 15 districts in terms of the
economic index were Mandla, Balaghat, Umaria, Betul and Dindori in Madhya
Pradesh; Jamui, Munger, Sitamarhi and Sheohar in Bihar; Basti and Fatehpur in
Uttar Pradesh; and Mayurbhanj, Malkangiri, Kalahandi and Baudh in Odisha. The
top 15 districts as per economic parameters are the six districts of Delhi and
Gautam Budh Nagar and Gurgaon in the National Capital Region, Daman, Bangalore,
Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, Pune and Bhopal. The urban-rural divergence in
terms of population and economic well-being is exemplified by this
categorisation.
All the studies that looked at population, development and
deprivation also pointed out that the Muslim population lived predominantly in
rural areas compared with the total population and even the S.C./S.T.
population. The economic analyst Amirullaha Khan, who took an active role in
bringing out both the Diversity Index report of 2008 and the DDDIx, points out
that the percentage increase of Muslims in the urban population is very low.
“This reflects social factors constraining their mobility, particularly into
smaller urban centres. Their share in metro cities is slightly higher than in
the smaller cities and towns, as the social discrimination may be less there
because of anonymity in larger urban settlements,” he said. In terms of poverty
measured through monthly consumption, in urban areas Muslims figure at the
bottom. The increase in income of Muslims is 40 per cent for those moving to
urban areas and 70 per cent for those moving to metro cities against the
national average of 90 per cent and 140 per cent respectively. In the category
“employer”, the number of Muslims as a share of the workforce is lower than in
all other religious groups, even fewer than Hindus belonging to Other Backward
Classes (OBCs). Furthermore, Muslims form the smallest percentage of urban males
who are regular salaried workers. As high as 18 per cent of the educated
non-OBC Muslim youth report unemployment. The percentage of boys who neither
attend educational institutions nor are in the labour force, described as
“nowhere children”, is very high for Muslim boys, said Amirullaha Khan.
In all this analysis, however, there was a surprise in
health indicators, he said and referred to it as the “Muslim mortality puzzle”.
“Simply put, the Muslim population in India fares better on child mortality than
Hindu populations which are financially better off and more literate.
Paradoxically, Muslims, in general, lack access to health-care facilities, live
in areas that are denied public services of any kind and have considerably
lower incomes than their counterparts in all socio-economic groups. However, by
age five, mortality among Muslims is nearly 18 per cent lower than among
Hindus. What this means is that among Muslims, an additional 1.7 children
survive up to the age of five years among every 100 children.”
The public health activist Bobby John, who was actively
involved in initiatives that led to the putting together and propagation of the
DDDIx, told Frontline that the most important fact that all
these studies have highlighted is that discussions that seek to look at
population growth and development cannot be meaningful if the categories of
inequity and discrimination are also not factored in.
Indeed, all the studies and reports on inequity and
deprivation that have emerged over the past decade have been efforts, albeit
limited, to move towards a level playing field. As the track record of the past
decade has shown, the removal of deprivation and inequities will happen not
just by the creation of studies and reports but by resolute action from the
administrative and governance system. But there is no concrete movement in this
direction even as partisan discussions on population growth and development
abound at the levels of politics, media and academics.
No comments:
Post a Comment