The Forgotten India
It is time we corrected the imbalance, say S R Kasbekar and Samata Dhawade
India is all set to enter the next millennium, ironically enough, with a backbreaking burden of 320 million plus poor ( not much less than its population at the time of independence) and illiterates constituting nearly half the population. In its fiftieth year of independence, it has one Indian out of three in the world without safe drinking water and one out of three leprosy patients, and is home to one out of four of the world s child labourers, it has half the worlds blind, and 12.7 million out of the worlds 16 million tuberculosis patients. More than 90 million children of school going age in the country do not go to school. As bureaucrat Muchkund Dubey says, Over 90 per cent of the worlds illiterates would be living in the Indian subcontinent; and most of them in India.
In other words, the continuing neglect of social infrastructure - education, health, family welfare, women and child development, and land reforms has created the other India which is deprived of the fruits of economic growth and social opportunities. A paradox of high growth and high social backwardness has failed to ensure quality of growth. The latest Human Development Report 1997 brought out by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) points out, In too many countries growth has failed to reduce poverty, either because growth has been too slow or stagnant, or because its quality and structure has been insufficiently pro-poor. This observation typifies the Indian economic growth experience as well.
The result: of the 78 countries, India is 47 in terms of human poverty index, with nearly 36.7 per cent of the countrys population living in poverty. It ranks 118, just above Pakistan (119) and Bangladesh (123), among 146 countries in terms of the Human Development Index which covers three variables life expectancy, educational attainment and real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). China is at 93, Sri Lanka 77, and Singapore 26. Other countries that have done better in growth have also done better in terms of these indices. This is because most of these countries are particularly careful not to neglect social sector development as an integral part of long term economic development strategy.
Human poverty has led to a strong gender related inequality in developing countries. The country is number 118 in the Gender-related Development Index (the HDI discounted or adjusted downwards for gender inequality). Of the 94 countries, India is 86 in terms of Gender Empowerment Measure (the measure indicates whether women are able to actively participate in economic and political life). Both indices are far from flattering.
The basic reason is in their obsession to pare down gross fiscal deficit to the desired level and to be on the right side of the World Bank and the IMF as well as the donor countries. As a result, the Indian policy makers have pruned public spending. The share of social sector spending in the GDP at market prices varies between 0.8-1.2 per cent during 1991-92 to 1997-98, the period of high noon of liberalisation.
The share of social sector spending in the central plan expenditure edged up to 34.8 per cent in 1996-97 from 32.9 per cent the previous year. Currently, the share is around 38 per cent. Social sector spending as a percentage of total expenditure was 12.7 per cent in 1991-92, slated to be 21.8 per cent in 1997-98. It is difficult to believe the target will be achievable in the light of past experience. Women and child development has a mere Rs 900 crore (Rs 847 crore) in 1997-98. Economist Amartya Sens lament on the neglect of weaker sections of society like women and children and marginalised sections like landless labourers and marginal farmers is borne out by the measly allocation .
The neglect of these weaker sections in plan allocation has a lot to do with the absence of the political pressure lobbies and peer pressure groups that are so vocal among other sections of the society.
The total central plan outlay on education was Rs 2574 crore (Rs 2504 crore) in 1996-97 of which just Rs 112 crore are allocated for adult education when nearly 48.8 per cent of the adult population is illiterate in the country.
Health service is in a poor state. In five years the primary health centres increased only by 6.9 per cent to 21853 units in 1996 from 20450 in 1991. The health sub-centres rose to just 1.33 lakh in 1996 from 1.31 lakh in 1991. The Health for All strategy should be reoriented towards the health for under privileged which the government has recently enforced. Since 1992, the number of hospitals has gone up from 11,174 to13,692.
Kerala is a shining example of how even moderate growth can translate into reduction of human poverty through political activism and rapid, equitable expansion of opportunities. Higher literacy rate of about 90 per cent is an indicator of wider social participation that contributes to poverty alleviation.
The cumulative impact of the paltry provision of funds for social sector in the country is all too revealing when compared to the progress in other countries. Life expectancy at birth in China is 68.8 years, Malaysia 70.9 years, Korea 71.3 years, Singapore 74.9 years and Thailand 69.2 years, is better than in India. The country at number 74 in terms of infant mortality rates (per 000 births) Singapore is six, Sri Lanka 17, Malaysia 13, and Korea 11 has yet to traverse a long road to catch up with these countries. Only Pakistan with 36.4 per cent of literate persons is behind India which is 52.2 per cent. Other countries have literacy rates of over 80 -90 per cent.
Indian policy makers and planners who tirelessly drum the achievements of the Asian tigers and want the country to follow their track conveniently ignore the basic fact that high growth in these countries has been sustained on a well-developed social infrastructure. A well-fed and well-educated population alone can strengthen democracy and ensure social participation in the growth process. It is time India corrects the imbalance in its growth strategy by giving a due place to the social sector.
A lot needs to be done to uplift the weaker sections of the country which accounts for 85 per cent of the population. Weaker sections include scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, minorities and handicapped. Water supply and sanitation are important, basic to a modicum of living. According to the ministry of rural area & employment, nearly 73.9 per cent of rural and, 83.8 per cent of the urban population had the facility for drinking water by 1990. Sanitary facilities are concentrated in the urban sector. Only 4.6 per cent of rural population against 50 per cent of urban population was estimated to have been covered by 1996.
The Common Minimum Programme, announced amidst much hype in June 1996, was strongly wedded to the development of social sectors for achieving distributive justice. Yet nothing much has been done in this respect. Allocation of funds touch the fringe of the problem, only active social participation may ensure improvement.
The message of the HDR 1997 is clear: countries must invest liberally in human development so that they are ready to face the challenge of globalisation. For that to happen the focus of policy must change to social participation.
It is clear that the Indian economic growth, fired by a middle class-led strategy, has left nearly half the population without social opportunities or basic entitlement to a modicum of living. It is time development strategy incorporated the needs and aspirations of the powerless underclasses in the country.
As Amartya Sen said, The success of economic development is integral to the creation of social opportunity. That requires a great deal more than purely economic changes. It needs the necessary policies towards education, healthcare, land reform and so forth. These, I am afraid, are still rather neglected. The neglect, unless corrected, may perpetuate non-egalitarian structure that may endanger democracy.
The message of the HDR 1997 is clear: countries must invest liberally in human development in order to face the challenge of globalisation.