KARNATAKA - of Planning Commission

Karnataka Human Development Report 2005duration is more likely to occur in the north thanin the south (Rama Prasad, 1987).In June 1954, while the reorganisation of stateswas still under examination by the StatesReorganisation Commission, the Government ofMysore appointed a Fact Finding Committee toassess the levels of development in the variousareas that would be integrated with Mysore.The Committee, after a study of the state ofdevelopment in education, public health, ruraldevelopment, industry, irrigation and power, cameto the conclusion that the districts of Bombay,Hyderabad and Madras states and Coorg had notreached the same level of development as ‘OldMysore’ and considerable efforts would have to bemade to bring them to that level. The Committeealso pointed out that the districts from Hyderabadstate were much more backward than all theother areas that were going to be integrated withMysore.As Karnataka’s fi rst Human Development Report(1999) noted, Old Mysore had one school for every6.48 km but after reorganisation, the new statehad one school for every 7.99 km. There were 585medical institutions in Old Mysore, but the newlyintegrated areas had a mere 191 institutions. Thedisparities, which existed in 1956, are a historicallegacy, which have not been eradicated andwere unintentionally reinforced, at least initially.In 1956, the expenditure incurred under planschemes was much higher in Old Mysore than inthe erstwhile Bombay and Hyderabad Karnatakaregions. Since plan expenditure is converted intonon-plan expenditure at the end of each planperiod, thereby becoming committed expenditure,the Old Mysore districts had a defi nite advantage.With better infrastructure due to historicalreasons, this region could justifi ably claim a largershare of non-plan outlays for maintenance. Sincethe plan outlay, which is earmarked for newprogrammes, is normally a third of the total budget(plan + non-plan), funds to districts under planexpenditure are much less than under non-planexpenditure. Thus, disparities in the fl ow of funds todistricts, which had their origins in the pre-mergerdays, continued well after the merger, contributingto skewed development between regions.Karnataka’s Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-85)examined the issue of regional imbalances andthe development of backward areas in somedetail. Twenty two indicators were used to evaluateinter-district variations in the levels of development.The ranking of the northern districts among thethen 19 districts of the state over a period of 30years is presented in Table 1.1.The HPCFRRI found that while the HyderabadKarnataka districts and parts of Bombay Karnatakawere underdeveloped, there were pockets ofeconomic backwardness in some southerndistricts as well. It identifi ed 59 backward taluksin northern Karnataka, of which 26 are classifi edas ‘most backward’, 17 as ‘more backward’ and16 as ‘backward’. The Hyderabad Karnataka areaTABLE 1.1Composite Development Index: Ranking of districts in KarnatakaDistrict 1960-61 1971-72 1976-77 1998-99South KarnatakaBangalore 2 1 1 1Bangalore Rural - - - 13Chikmaglur 7 12 16 15Chitradurga 11 9 7 6Dakshina Kannada 1 2 2 2Kodagu 6 7 8 17Hassan 13 13 14 9Kolar 4 4 6 10Mandya 10 6 4 5Mysore 5 5 5 4Shimoga 3 3 3 3Tumkur 5 16 13 12North KarnatakaBelgaum 12 11 12 14Bellary 14 15 10 11Bidar 17 14 15 19Bijapur 16 18 17 18Dharwad 8 10 11 8Gulbarga 19 19 19 20Raichur 18 17 18 16Uttara Kannada 9 8 9 7Note: The state initially had 19 districts. Bangalore Urban district was formed in 1986.Source: Table 4.10, Report of HPCFRRI, June 2002.7