Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
CHAPTER 4<br />
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN KERALA: SPATIAL AND HORIZONTAL INEQUALITIES<br />
65<br />
Table 4.6: Distribution <strong>of</strong> Households by Social Groups and Household Type, 1999-2000 (Rural)<br />
Social Groups/ Self-employed in Agricultural Other Labour Self-employed Others Total<br />
Household Type Non-agriculture Labour<br />
in Agriculture<br />
Scheduled Tribe 10.71 33.92 12.50 23.21 19.64 100<br />
Scheduled Caste 4.72 55.79 26.60 3.43 9.01 100<br />
Other Backward Classes 22.81 16.86 25.35 17.71 17.01 100<br />
Others 18.36 19.32 21.32 20.36 20.43 100<br />
Source: Nair and Menon (2006, forthcoming).<br />
The decline in poverty among SCs and STs could be broadly<br />
attributed to the increase in wages <strong>of</strong> rural labourers, a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> anti-poverty measures undertaken by both the<br />
Central and State Governments, and to the growth <strong>of</strong> the<br />
general economy, which, in turn, raises the average level<br />
<strong>of</strong> income. However, what is still a matter <strong>of</strong> concern is the<br />
over-representation <strong>of</strong> both SCs and STs in the population<br />
below the poverty line in the State.<br />
It has been argued (Chapter 3) that a major contributory<br />
factor to poverty reduction in <strong>Kerala</strong> was the growth in<br />
urbanisation and its positive correlation with non-agricultural<br />
output/employment; there might be some connection<br />
between urbanisation and reduction in income poverty<br />
through the non-farm income route. Perhaps, a clue as to<br />
why SCs and STs have not benefited from a more equitable<br />
provisioning <strong>of</strong> social services lies in the lower diversification<br />
<strong>of</strong> these groups into non-agricultural activities, the proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> which is higher in the more urbanised districts (Narayana<br />
2003). In <strong>Kerala</strong>, the dependence <strong>of</strong> the SC/ST population<br />
on agriculture is much higher than the general population<br />
(Table 4.6). 4 Although the overall proportion <strong>of</strong> main workers<br />
in the non-primary sector among the SCs is about 17 per cent<br />
lower compared to the general population, the proportion is<br />
close to 50 per cent in the most urbanised districts (Narayana<br />
ibid.). This is not so for the ST population; the proportion<br />
<strong>of</strong> which in the non-primary sector is low, irrespective <strong>of</strong><br />
the district they belong to. Further, the district with a large<br />
concentration <strong>of</strong> STs (Wayanad) is the least urbanised and<br />
has shown practically no growth in this respect. The lower<br />
economic diversification, which also impacts on level <strong>of</strong><br />
wages earned in agriculture, does get translated into poorer<br />
material conditions <strong>of</strong> life and in turn constrains access to<br />
basic social amenities, whether it is housing, electricity<br />
lighting, good sanitation and drinking water. 5<br />
This is reflected in a much higher index <strong>of</strong> deprivation for<br />
SCs and STs as shown in Table 4.3; it is higher by 70 and<br />
115 per cent, respectively, as compared to other caste and<br />
community groups in the State. The STs in Wayanad district<br />
are the most deprived social group, followed by the STs in<br />
Idukki and Palakkad, and among the SCs, the most deprived<br />
are in Kasaragod district. As expected, in all districts, ‘other’<br />
caste groups are the least deprived. Interestingly, the disparity<br />
in deprivation does not exist between SCs and other caste<br />
groups in Idukki and it is low in Wayanad.<br />
This situation gets further aggravated by landlessness/small<br />
sized holdings among the SC and ST households in the<br />
State, which is still a crucial developmental issue. 6<br />
5.4 Landholding<br />
The average size <strong>of</strong> landholding among the STs is 0.68 acres,<br />
which is higher than that for the SCs (0.32 acres), OBCs<br />
(0.40 acres) and others (0.63 acres) (Nair and Menon 2006,<br />
forthcoming). Though the average size <strong>of</strong> land ownership is<br />
higher among the STs, given the historical experiences <strong>of</strong> land<br />
encroachment, acquisition <strong>of</strong> forest land by the Government<br />
and tribal displacement, the STs remain vulnerable, the<br />
4 It is also higher than the proportion in many other States.<br />
5 Kannan and Hari (2002).<br />
6 For detailed accounts, see K. Ravi Raman (2003). “Breaking New Ground: Adivasi Land Struggle in <strong>Kerala</strong>”, Economic and<br />
Political Weekly, March 9; Bijoy, C.R. and K. Ravi Raman (2003). “Muthanga: The Real Story: Adivasi Movement to Recover<br />
Land”, Economic and Political Weekly, May 17.