Spatial and Social Inequalities in Human Development: India in the ...

Recommendations

Info

enroll at that level, instead of going to higher levels. The percentage of children in the middleand secondary school, however, are much lower for the SC, ST population than the othergroups. The disparity however has gone down over the years. There has been an increase inschool attendance at higher levels due to a decline in the percentage of children dropping outof the school at the age of 9 or 10 years. This increase has been higher for the socially deprivedgroups compared to the others, confirming the proposition of increase in equity within theformal education system.Table 13 Percentage of children in Current attendance (for age group 5 to 14), NSS 61 st round,2004-05 and 2009-102004-05ST SC OBC OthersCurrently attending in: Pre-primary andPrimary53.43 54.61 55.14 54.52Currently attending in: Middle 16.57 19.06 20.63 24.72Currently attending in: Secondary 3.43 4.81 6.49 8.64Not in the education system 26.57 21.52 17.74 12.122009-10ST SC OBC OthersCurrently attending in: Pre-primary 52.36 53.66 54.05 53.13Currently attending in: Middle 21.22 23.53 23.31 26.19Currently attending in: Secondary 7.20 7.56 9.23 10.13Not in the education system 19.22 15.25 13.41 10.55Source: NSS 61 st and 66 th round survey data.As an outcome indicator of health system, infant mortality rate is often considered as the mostappropriate for India, although it reflects the combined impact of factors like access to healthcare facilities, educational level and economic well being of the people in a region. In the Tablebelow, the IMR for different religious groups (Table 14) show that it is low for Sikh, Buddhistsand Christians in rural areas compared to Hindus and Muslims. Among the social groups, theIMR is the highest for SC, followed by the ST. However the IMR for all categories are still wayabove that observed in developed countries.Table 14: Infant mortality rates for socio-religious groups for 1998-99 and 2005-06Infant mortality rates for socio-religious groups: All India, 1998-99Rural Urban TotalHindu 82.8 53.3 77.1Muslim 67.5 39.9 58.8Christian 53.9 37.5 49.2Sikh 56.8 40.6 53.3Buddhist/Neo 76.9 26.7 53.633
BuddhistOthers 91.0 26.7 80.3ST 86.9 57.6 84.2SC 88.1 60.4 83.0OBC 82.2 51.2 76.0Others 69.3 43.5 61.8Infant mortality rates for socio-religious groups: All India, 2005-06Rural Urban TotalHindu 63.0 44.3 58.5Muslim 60.4 35.5 52.4Christian 54.8 16.3 41.7Sikh 46.0 Not Reported 45.6Buddhist 46.6 Not Reported 52.8Others 86.7 Not Reported 84.6ST 63.9 43.8 62.1SC 71.0 50.7 66.4OBC 61.1 42.2 56.6Others 55.7 36.1 48.9Source: Table 6.4, NFHS-2 and Table 7.2, NFHS-3, All India reportsSanitation and Water SupplyThe percentage of households having no toilet facility is extremely high in rural areas, asrevealed from the Population Census (Table 15). However, against the 70 per cent for ruralIndia, the figures are as high as 77 per cent for SC and 84 per cent for ST in 2011. In urban India,the deficits are lower and there is no difference between the figures for SC and ST population.In case of households having drinking water sources outside the premise, the figures are lessbut the SC and ST figures are much larger compared to the national average. Similar is thepattern across social groups in case of the percentage of households not having electricity forlighting, but here there is no difference between ST SC population in urban areas, as noted incase of toilet facilities.An identical pattern emerges from the NSS data for the years 2002 and 2008-09 (Table 16 &17)). The percentage of households having drinking water facility for exclusive use is very low incase of the ST and SC population, compared to “others” category. The ST-SC gap is very high incase of drinking water but low for toilet facility. The access to both is better for the OBC and forthe general category, the figures are even higher. The outcome indicators seem to suggestsome progressivity in the provision of drinking water as the deprived social groups like ST andOBC report higher improvement in accessing drinking water for exclusive use. However, theimprovements, not much in favour of SC population as their dependence on community facility34
Page 1 and 2: Spatial and Social Inequalities in
Page 3 and 4: Spatial and Social Inequalities in
Page 5 and 6: QatarHungaryBarbadosPolandChileLith
Page 7 and 8: NorwayGermanySwitzerlandHong Kong,
Page 9 and 10: KiribatiKyrgyzstanNamibiaIraqTimor-
Page 11 and 12: Andhra PradeshAssamBiharChhattisgar
Page 13 and 14: Table 3: Average, Standard Deviatio
Page 16 and 17: 7793.697.594.293.610698.3124.1124.9
Page 18 and 19: Graph 9: Persons below the poverty
Page 20 and 21: Table 4: Percentage of children out
Page 22 and 23: The infant mortality rates (IMR), u
Page 24 and 25: Delhi NCT 85.5 97.8 93.4 99.1Rajast
Page 26 and 27: Uttar Pradesh 80.8 78.2 20 16.9Biha
Page 28 and 29: Table 10: Per capita consumption ex
Page 30 and 31: 16001400120010008006004002000Graph
Page 32 and 33: with that of other Hindus or total
Page 36 and 37: emains very high in 2008-09. A simi
Page 38 and 39: Source: NSS unit level dataTable 17
Page 40 and 41: and goes well below the average fig
Page 42 and 43: earnings than a male in a similar j
Page 44 and 45: Registrar General (2008): SRS Bulle

Spatial and Social Inequalities in Human Development: India in the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?