Premium
This is an archive article published on December 7, 2003

In Elections, the Hee Factor

REPORTERS from the field in the recent elections speak of a new factor in Indian politics: the BSP, or bijli-sadak-pani, factor. Imagine the...

.

REPORTERS from the field in the recent elections speak of a new factor in Indian politics: the BSP, or bijli-sadak-pani, factor. Imagine then, in General Elections 2004, voters in the 545 political constituencies clamouring not just for the bijli-sadak-pani factor but the HEE factor, or the health-education-employment factor. Because it is becoming clear that where you are is going to increasingly dictate how you are.

That’s why the exercise that Bibek Debroy and Laveesh Bhandari undertook in this inexplicably expensive volume becomes important. Based on various studies from the field, they have broadly surveyed the 593 districts in India and homed in on 69 “backward” districts that require the nation’s attention. Given the notorious complexity of the task of measuring backwardness, they have attempted a more nuanced approach than just relying on poverty data. They have, in fact, used the measures implicit in the eight Millennium Development Goals that the world had signed up to achieve by 2015. To that extent one could, with caution, endorse the claim made by the editors that this is the first comprehensive attempt to identify pockets of deprivation in a broad-based manner for both the general reader and specialist.

Mapping highlights but doesn’t, by itself, analyse. Numerous questions that arise out of this exercise do not find a ready answer here partly because the editors have preferred to adopt a more open-ended approach to such vexed questions as “do smaller state engender development?” There is also a reluctance to perceive “development” in sustainable terms. The simple presumption that reform inclinations boost growth rates, which the editors appear to make, must necessarily be seen against possible long-term impacts of such growth. For instance, Gujarat’s golden corridor may have created great wealth but it has also left natural resources in the region, like water, irreparably contaminated.

Story continues below this ad

But having said this, there are innumerable insights that are thrown up here which planners would do well to internalise. For instance, the editors are dead on when they state that liberalisation should not mean an abdication of the state’s responsibility in terms of social, physical infrastructure and governance. Right, too, is their observation that identification of backward regions need to go beyond state boundaries.

There is also a useful critique of the various plans to address deprivation. Take, for instance, the Local Area Development allocations to MPs over the years. Although vast sums have been earmarked for it, it did not meet with conspicuous success precisely because the approach was piecemeal and unfocused. Also, even when as-sets were created, they were not maintained and thus did not bring lasting benefits to target groups.

It is what the maps highlight that is the main value of this volume. A crucial aspect that emerges is the east-centric nature of India’s deprivation. As the editors have pointed out, over the ’90s, eastern India has systematically lost its share of the Indian economy. In fact, apart from a few districts in Madhya Pradesh and one in Karnataka, almost all backward districts of the country lie in the east.

This holds significance for India’s future, especially since little is being done at present to address this concern, in terms of infrastructure and policy-making. Even a high-profile national initiative like the Golden Quadrilateral (GQ), promoted as the prime minister’s favoured project, will not impact on this region. As the editors point out with more than a touch of irony,it is not easy to avoid the backward districts considering their high density, but the “GQ manages precisely that!”

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement