90

URBANIZATION AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES: PRESENT AND FUTURE

4.1 Introduction:

Urbanization has been recognised as a “Symbol of development as” well as

“Burden over resources”. The latter dimension is particularly for developing

countries. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA)-State of

World Population report: 1986, saw urbanization as a blessing as migration to cities is

a part of a dynamic development process, whereas the “burden” view asserts that rural

surplus population becomes an urban surplus, producing so called “over-urbanization”

in which an efficient and unproductive “informal sector” becomes increasingly

apparent.1 Historically, cities have been the driving force in economic and social

development. It is an established fact that People move into cities to seek economic

opportunities. In rural areas, often on small family farms, it is difficult to improve

one's standard of living beyond basic sustenance. Farm living is dependent on

unpredictable environmental conditions, and in times of drought, flood or pestilence,

survival becomes extremely problematic. Cities, in contrast, are known to be places

where money and wealth are centralised. Cities are where fortunes are made and

where social mobility is possible.

According to 2001 Census, out of the total population of 1027 millions in

India about 286 millions live in urban areas. Thus around 28 out of every 100 persons

in the country reside in cities and towns. It is expected that in coming 20 years (2001-

21), the urban population will nearly double itself to reach about 550 million.

According to the World Urbanization Prospects (the 1996 Revision), the urban

population in the year 2025 will rise to 42.5 per cent (566 million).2 Human activities

modify the natural environment and the number and distribution of people affect the

scale and nature of their activities. The lack of services such as water supply,

sanitation, drainage of storm water, treatment and disposal of waste water,

management of solid and hazardous wastes, supply of safe food, water and housing

are all unable to keep pace with urban growth. All these in turn lead to an increase in

the pollution and environmental degradation.

91

Meeting the challenges of the population size and increasing urbanization, in

the context of continued degradation of critical resources like-Land, Water, Energy,

Forest, Health and Sanitation, are the most important tasks faced by humankind.

Today, people are destroying faster than nature can replenish, because of our

numerical strength of ten million people and our insatiable desire of producing more

and more effective tools for conquering nature. Thus, this chapter is divided in to four

sections: the second section includes effects/consequences and benefits of

urbanization along with benefits of economic reforms to the urban population in

particular and also discusses environmental impact of urbanization. The third section

explores trends of urbanization in pre and post reform periods along with trends and

patterns of urbanization, number of towns, and percentage and growth rate of urban

population including projected urban population and variations in demographic

growth across different size categories of urban centers. The fourth and the last

section deals with critical inadequacies in public utilities like land, water, energy,

health facilities and sanitation with the burden of increasing urbanization on the status

of these available resources.

4.2 Effects/Consequences of Urbanization

So far, urban models have been environmentally quite destructive — bring in

resources from outside, use, misuse, abuse them and flush out the wastes without

thought to downstream impact. Now, with a rising global consciousness about the

human footprint on the planet's ecosystems, cities can no longer afford to be oblivious

to their obligations. While it is true that opportunities exist in cities, it is also true that

the competition for these opportunities is fierce. Very few people make their fortunes,

and the rest must still find ways to eat and sleep while they wait for their chance. The

general problems which are the byproduct of unbalanced urbanization are:

Shortage of Houses: The problem that perhaps causes the most concern to a majority

of urban dwellers is that of finding an appropriate place to live in. According to Tenth

Five Year Plan the nation needed twenty two million additional houses. Inadequate

housing that forces more than fifty per cent of our population in some metropolis to

live in slums, all these severely decrease the quality of life and lower the well being of

urban population (Approach Paper for 11th Plan- Govt. of India).

92

Slums: Ashish Bose (1955) defined slum as “a deprived human settlement-a

settlement which is demographically, economically and environmentally vulnerable”.3

Rapid urbanization with lack of adequate housing resulted in rapid slum population.

According to 2001 Census, the slum population of India in cities and towns with a

population of 50,000 and above was 42.6 million. This constitutes 22.6 per cent of the

urban population of the States/Union Territories reporting slums. People who are

living in slums are under conditions of multiple deprivations. They tend to experience

the high rates of unemployment, malnutrition, morbidity and mortality.

Poverty: Poverty in India can be defined as a situation only when a section of people

are unable to satisfy the basic needs of life. According to an expert group of Planning

Commission, poverty lines in rural areas are drawn with an intake of 2400 calories

and 2100 in urban areas. If the person is unable to get that minimum level of calories

is considered as being below poverty line. In cities people are suffering from acute

poverty and the living conditions is so poor that in one small room all family

members are staying and this is common feature of people who are living below

poverty line.

A. Environmental Impacts of Urbanization

A major issue facing large cities is the disposal of the ever-growing volume of

waste which accompanies increased affluence and reliance on purchased goods. Apart

from the unsightliness of disposal sites, harmful synthetic materials in packaging,

household appliances or machinery may threaten neighboring rural areas or water

sources. Though municipal authorities are trying to address the problem, its rapid

growth threatens to outstrip the resources of developing countries. The growth of

cities can have significant impact on the surrounding environment:

(i) Temperature - Due to several factors, including the paving over of formerly

vegetated land and the high concentration of heat sources, cities tend to be

warmer than surrounding countryside, sometimes by a difference as large as 10°

Celsius. Large cities become 'regional heat islands, which can alter local

weather patterns.

(ii) Air Pollution - One of the most obvious differences between an urban and a

rural area is the air quality. Due in large part to heavy motor vehicle traffic, and

93

also to energy production, a blanket of smog hangs over many cities. This

polluted air is, in addition to being quite ugly, a public health problem.

(iii) Water Issues - When an area is urbanised, the water cycle in the area changes

dramatically. First of all, cities have more precipitation than surrounding areas,

with pollutants and convection currents serving as magnets for raindrop

formation. Once the water falls, instead of being absorbed by the soil, it is

instead channeled into run-off systems, picking up ground pollutants along the

way. This pollution is added to that brought about by industrial waste and

sewage disposal, which is often untreated, especially in cities of the developing

world.

(iv) Destruction of Habitat - The conversion of a natural area to an urban area

means the destruction of whatever was there previously. When wetlands, for

example, are paved over, an ecosystem is lost, and any species dependent on

that ecosystem die out in the area. A less drastic example is that of erosion -

valleys tend to contain fertile topsoil, which tends to get washed away if the

valley is urbanised.

B. Benefits of Urbanization

From the above, the growth of cities sounds rather grim. Why should such a

destructive process be allowed to continue? One should not, however, be misled. There

are many benefits like:

(i) Efficiency - Cities can be tremendously efficient. For example, imagine 100

families living in 100 separate houses spread out over many acres of land. Now

imagine the same 100 families in a single block of flats. Obviously, in the flats,

far less effort is required to supply energy, water, heating, and waste disposal to

these families. Additionally, only in cities are such things as recycling

programmes possible, because collection can be made so efficient.

(ii) Convenience - In a city, everything is nearby. Access to education, health,

social services and cultural events is much more readily available in a city than

in a rural setting. Because things are located so closely, cities can make motor

vehicle use unnecessary for many citizens. This is especially true when a city

94

has efficient mass transportation systems in place, systems which are not

feasible for rural populations.

(iii) Concentration of Resources - Because of the density of people, wealth, and

other resources in cities, many institutions become possible that would not be in

areas where such things are more spread out. Basically, when enough people

are put together in a small area, they start coming up with ideas to do things -

cultural, political, commercial and social activities that just don't occur outside

of cities. For example, without cities, there never would have been universities.4

C. Benefits of Economic Reforms to the urban population

After the reforms, the Indian economy has been growing faster than its

historical growth rate. The Indian economy responded to the economic reforms of the

1990s with the higher growth performance than in previous decades. The economy,

therefore, has shown that it is capable of achieving high growth rates in response to

the implementation of appropriate economic reform policies. It can be said that India

is well integrated with the world economy. The recently released migration data from

the census of 2001 reveals that the percentage of total migrants in the country has

gone up marginally from 27 percent to 29 percent during 1990s. The positive

association between percentage urban population and percentage of urban population

living in class I cities, shows that urban population is highly concentrated in class I

cities. The correlation matrix between different indicators of urbanization and socio-

economic variables in India over a period of time (Table 4.1b) shows that an increase

in the per capita net national product, has led to an increase in the number of towns

per 10 lakh rural population. Further, there exists a very high degree positive

correlation (0.96) between percentage of urban population and percentage of urban in

class I cities. This is evidence that migration in the process of urbanization has mostly

taken place in class I cities due to the availability of job opportunities and better

health & education facilities. This reasoning is well supported by the very high degree

positive correlation (0.98) value between percentage of urban in class I cities and

percentage of literacy and a very high degree negative correlation (-0.97) value

between percentage of urban in class I cities and IMR. A negative correlation value of

0.61 between percentage of urban population and number of towns per ten lakhs of

rural population is reflection of the fact that the areas/states where rural population is

95

Table 4.1a: Different Indicators of Urbanization and Socio-economic Variables in India

Source: Census of India, 1991, 2001 and GOI, 2003

Census % of Urban Urban Growth No. of towns per 10 % of Urban Per capita Income % IMR

Year population in (Million) lakh rural in class I cities NNP at 1993-94 Literacy

prices (US$)

1951 17.3 62.4 9.5 44.63 85 18.33 148

1961 18 78.9 6.6 51.42 102 28.3 138

1971 19.8 109.1 5.9 57.24 115 34.45 120

1981 23.1 159.5 6.4 60.37 123 43.57 110

1991 25.5 217.6 6 65.2 168 52.2 80

2001 27.7 286.2 6 68.67 237 65.38 63

96

Table 4.1b: Correlation Matrix

Indicators % of Urban population

Urban Growth in (million)

No. of towns per 10 lakh

rural

% of Urban in class I cities

Per capita Income NNP at 1993-94 prices

(US$)

% Literacy IMR

% of Urban population

1

Urban Growth in (million)

0.99 (0.000)* 1

No. of towns per 10 lakh

rural -0.61 (0.100) -0.59 (0.111) 1

% of Urban in class I cities

0.96 (0.001) 0.94 (0.002) -0.80 (0.027) 1

Per capita Income NNP at 1993-94 prices

(US$)

0.93 (0.003) 0.97 (0.001) -0.55 (0.129) 0.89 (0.009) 1

% Literacy

0.98 (.000) 0.99 (.000) -0.70 (0.060) 0.98 (.000) 0.95 (0.002) 1

IMR

-0.98 (.000) -0.99 (.000) 0.65 (0.079) -0.97 (0.001) -0.96 (0.001) -0.99 (.000) 1

Source: Calculation based on Table 4.1a

*The figures in the parenthesis shows the respective p-values

97

high, the pace of urbanization has been low. We are very familiar with the fact that still in

some parts of the country, the transportation and communication system and power sector is

not developed to the level as it should be. Still in this era of globalisation, there are areas

which are not properly connected with the rest of the world and hence the pace of urbanization

in these regions has been slow.

4.3 Trends of Urbanization in India in Pre and Post Reform Period

The annual exponential growth rate of urban population during 1950’s was 3.5 per

cent. This was the highest the Country had seen until that time and led to the emergence of

theories of ‘over urbanization’. Subsequently, this high growth rate has been attributed to

independence and partition of the country as also non-rigorous identification of towns and

cities in the 1951 Census.5 Formalization of the criteria for identifying urban centers in the

1961 census resulted in a dramatic decline in urban growth figures in the following decade.

The 1970s, however, following the same methodology of urban population enumeration, saw a

very high urban growth of 3.8 per cent, fuelling speculation that India was on the verge of an

urban explosion. Speculations notwithstanding the growth rate came down to 3.1 per cent in

the 1980s. It has gone down further to 2.7 per cent in the 1990s, which is the lowest in the

post-independence period. As a consequence, the percentage of population in urban areas has

gone up sluggishly from 17.3 in 1951 to 23.3 in 1981 and then to 27.78 in 2001 (Figure 1 and

Table 4.2). However, there has been phenomenon growth in the number of towns and urban

agglomerations over the period of 1981 to 2001.

Table 4.2: Number of Towns, Percentage and Growth Rate of Urban Population in

India since 1951

Source: Census of India, 2001

Census year

No. of towns Per cent Urban

to total population

Annual exponential growth of urban

population 1951 2843 17.29 3.47 1961 2365 17.97 2.34 1971 2590 19.91 3.21 1981 3378 23.34 3.83 1991 3768 25.72 3.09 2001 5161 27.78 2.73

98

Fig 4.1

Percentage and Growth of Urban Population Since 1951

Source: As table 4.2

But, in terms of population size, India’s urban population is vast. Moreover, population

in large cities has grown rapidly (Table 4.3 and Figure 2) and this has led to serious

infrastructural deficiencies and other civic amenities in urban areas.

99

Table 4.3: Growth of Million Plus Cities during 1990s

Note: The growth rates for towns and cities in different size categories have been computed by

considering these by their size class.

Source: Census of India (1981, 1991 and 2001)

S.No. 1991 2001 Annual

exponential growth rate

1. Greater Mumbai 1259243 16368084 2.62

2. Kolkata 11021918 13216546 1.82

3. Delhi 8419084 12791458 4.18

4. Chennai 5421985 6424624 1.70

5. Hyderabad 4344437 5533640 2.42

6. Bangalore 4130288 5686844 3.20

7. Ahmedabad 3312216 4519278 3.11

8. Pune 2493987 3755525 4.09

9. Kanpur 2029889 2690486 2.82

10. Nagpur 1664006 2122965 2.44

11. Lucknow 1669204 2266933 3.06

12. Jaipur 1518235 2324319 4.26

13. Surat 1518950 2811466 6.16

14. Kochi 1140605 1355406 1.73

15. Vadodara 1126824 1492398 2.81

16. Indore 1109056 1639044 3.91

17. Coimbatore 1100746 1446034 2.73

18. Patna 1099647 1707429 4.40

19. Bhopal 1062771 1454830 3.14

20. Vishakhapatnam 1057118 1329472 2.29

21. Ludhiana M. Corp. 1042740 1395053 2.91

22. Varanasi 1030863 1211749 1.62

23. Madurai 1085914 1194665 0.95

Total for Million Plus Cities

70996726 94738248 2.88

100

Fig 4.2

Source: As table 4.3

The 2001 census reveals that urban population of the country was 27.78 percent as

against 23.34 per cent in 1981. Since 1951 urban population in India has steadily increased and

as a consequence the proportion of urban population to total population has raised from 17.3

per cent in 1951 to 27.78 percent of the total population in 2001. During the 1951-2001 period

annual growth rate of urban population steadily increased. The process of urbanization,

however, slowed down between 1951 and 1961. This trend was reversed after 1961 and for the

two decades the rate of growth of urban population once again showed a tendency to rise. The

annual rate of growth of urban population declined during 1991-2001 and was 2.75 percent as

against 3.86 percent during 1971-81 and 3.14 per cent during 1981-91. The pattern of urban

growth across states is significantly different from that of the levels of urbanization. Since

independence until 1991, the developed states that have high percentage of people in urban

areas have shown medium or low growth of urban population. High urban growth has however

been registered in relatively underdeveloped states, viz., Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, Orissa and

Madhya Pradesh, the states that have low percentages of urban population (Table 4.4 and

Figures 3 and 4).

101

Table 4.4: Pattern of Urbanization and Growth of Urban Population across States/UT’s

S.N. States Percentage urban population Annual exponential growth rate

1971 1981 1991 2001 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01

1. Andhra Pradesh 19.31 23.25 26.84 27.08 3.94 3.55 1.37

2. Arunachal Pradesh 3.70 6.32 12.21 20.41 8.32 9.28 7.00

3. Assam 8.82 9.88 11.09 12.72 3.29 3.29 3.09

4. Bihar 7.97 9.84 10.40 10.47 4.27 2.66 2.57

5. Chhattisgarh 10.38 14.69 17.40 20.08 5.33 4.00 3.09

6. Delhi 89.70 92.84 89.93 93.01 4.56 3.79 4.14

7. Goa 26.44 32.46 41.02 49.77 4.37 3.96 3.32

8. Gujarat 28.08 31.08 34.40 37.35 3.42 2.90 2.80

9. Haryana 17.66 21.96 24.79 29.00 4.65 3.58 4.11

10. Himachal Pradesh 6.99 7.72 8.70 9.79 3.02 3.11 2.81

11. Jammu & Kashmir 18.59 21.05 22.76 24.88 3.80 3.44 3.44

12. Jharkhand 16.01 20.29 21.25 22.25 4.51 2.61 2.55

13. Karnataka 23.31 28.91 30.91 33.98 4.08 2.55 2.53

14. Kerala 16.24 18.78 26.44 25.97 3.19 4.76 0.74

102

15. Madhya Pradesh 18.58 22.34 25.27 26.67 4.25 3.63 2.71

16. Maharashtra 31.17 35.03 38.73 42.4 3.35 3.27 2.95

17. Manipur 13.19 26.44 27.69 23.88 9.70 2.98 1.21

18. Meghalaya 14.55 18.03 18.69 19.63 4.87 3.10 3.16

19. Mizoram 11.36 25.17 46.02 49.50 17.79 9.57 3.27

20. Nagaland 9.95 15.54 17.28 17.74 8.49 5.58 5.27

21. Orissa 8.41 11.82 13.43 14.97 5.29 3.08 2.61

22. Punjab 23.73 27.72 29.72 33.95 3.62 3.55 3.19

23. Rajasthan 17.63 20.93 22.88 23.38 4.52 3.31 2.71

24. Sikkim 9.37 16.23 9.12 11.1 9.55 -3.23 4.83

25. Tamil Nadu 30.26 32.98 34.2 43.86 2.45 1.76 3.56

26. Tripura 10.43 10.98 15.26 17.02 3.26 6.19 2.53

27. Uttar Pradesh 14.02 18.01 19.89 20.78 4.78 3.27 2.84

28. Uttaranchal NA NA NA 25.59 NA NA 2.84

29. West Bengal 24.75 26.49 27.39 28.03 2.75 2.54 1.84

103

Union Territories Percentage of Urban Population Annual Exponential Growth Rate

1971 1981 1991 2001 1971-81 1981-91 1991-2001

1. Andaman & Nicobar 22.77 26.36 26.8 32.67 6.38 4.10 4.40

2. Chandigarh 90.55 93.6 89.69 89.78 5.92 3.07 3.40

3. Dadra & Nagar

Haveli 0 6.67 8.47 22.89 - 5.28 14.59

4. Daman & Diu - - 46.86 36.26 - 4.93 1.87

5. Lakshadweep 0 46.31 56.29 44.47 4.66 4.92 2.26

6. Pondicherry 42.04 52.32 64.05 66.57 4.66 4.92 2.26

All India 20.22 23.73 25.72 27.78 3.79 3.09 2.73 Note: (a) The figures for the state of Uttar Pradesh for the 1970s and 180s pertain to the undivided state as existed during that time. The figures for the 1990s are, however, for the new state and hence these figures are not temporarily comparable.

(b) In the absence of the Census data for total and urban population for the year 1981 in case of Assam, the urban and total population growth rates have been assumed to be constant during 1970s and 1980s. The same has been assumed for 1980s and 1990s for Jammu and Kashmir. The percentage of urban population has been arrived at for Assam (1981) and Jammu and Kashmir (1991) based on these assumptions.

(c) Goa in 1971 and 1981 corresponds to Goa, Daman and Diu

Source: Census of India (1981, 1991 and 2001)

104

Fig 4.3

Source: As table 4.4

Fig 4.4

Source: As table 4.4

105

Map 4.1: Levels of Urbanization in 2001

Source: As table 4.4

The number of towns has fluctuated from decade to decade on account of

changes in the definitions and concepts. In the 1961 census certain towns were

declassified, as a result of which the number of towns had declined from 2843 in 1951

to 2365 in 1961. However, the data for 1971, 1981, and 1991 are comparable, as the

definition of an urban unit adopted in 1971 census was also followed in the 1981 and

1991 census. In the 1971, 81 and 91 and 2001 census an urban area was defined as

follows:

a) All places with a municipality, corporation cantonment board or notified towns

area committee, etc.

106

b) All other places which satisfy the following criteria :

i) minimum population of 5,000;

ii) at least 75 per cent of male working population engaged in non-

agricultural pursuits, and

iii) a density of population of at least, 400 person per sq.km. (1,000 persons

per sq.mile).

Such urban areas are termed census towns. It is important to note that India’s

urban definition is very broad-based and closely reflects levels of development

unlike several other developing countries. For example, in south Asia, Nepal defines

urban areas on the basis of population size only: a settlement with a population of

more than 9,000 is declared urban. On the other hand, countries such as Bangladesh,

Sri Lanka and Pakistan apply only the civic status criterion to declare a settlement

urban.6

An important feature of urbanization in India is dualism, urban growth at

macro level is decelerating but in class I cities it is growing. The pattern of

urbanization in India is characterised by continuous concentration of population and

activities in large cities.7 The share of Class I towns or cities, with population size of

100,000 or more, has gone up significantly from 44.63 percent in 1951 to 68.67

percent in 2001(see Table 4.5 and Figures 5 and 6). The percentage share of class

IV, V and VI towns, having less than 20,000 people, on the other hand, has gone

down drastically from 13.63 per cent,12.97 percent and 3.09 percent in 1951 to 6.84

percent,2.36 percent and 0.23 percent respectively in 2001. This is largely due to the

fact that the towns in lower categories have grown in size and entered the next

higher category. The slow process of graduation of large sized villages into towns,

through growth of industrial and tertiary activities, would be a major problem in

India’s urbanization in the next few decades. The number of additional urban

centers identified by the Census of 2001 is 630 which are less than that of 1991 and

much below that of 1981. The process of sectoral diversification in rural economy is

so weak that one would not expect more that 800 additional urban centers during the

next two decades. Also, given the spatial concentration of the growth process, these

new towns are likely to remain concentrated around a few large cities or regions.

More important than the decline in the growth rate of urban population is the change

in the pattern of urban growth. During 1951-91, urban growth was generally high in

107

relatively backward states, the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa

and Madhya Pradesh topping the list. This is because the pace of Rural Urban

migration and urbanization were high in most of the backward states and regions

that were stuck in the vicious circle of poverty. The relationship between urban

growth and economic development was negative but not very strong as a few among

the developed states such as, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Haryana, too, recorded high

or medium growth. The other developed states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and

Punjab experienced low urban growth.

Nineties, however, make a significant departure from the earlier decades. The

developed states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra and Gujarat have

registered urban growth above the national average. West Bengal is the only exception

whose growth rate is not particularly impressive. The backward states, on the other

hand, have experienced growth either below that of the country or at the most equal to

that. It may, therefore, be argued that the dynamics of urban growth would become

weak and tend to get concentrated more and more in developed regions. The decline in

the pace of urbanization may be seen in the form of a reduction in public investment

on urban development and social sectors.

108

Table 4.5: Number of Towns and Percentage of Urban Population in Different Size Categories

Census year

Number of towns Percentage of urban population

Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI

1951 76 91 327 608 1124 569 44.63 9.96 15.72 13.63 12.97 3.09

1961 102 129 437 719 711 172 51.42 11.23 16.94 12.77 6.87 0.77

1971 148 173 558 827 623 147 57.24 1.92 16.01 10.94 4.45 0.44

1981 218 270 743 1059 758 253 60.37 11.63 14.33 9.54 3.58 0.50

1991 300 345 947 1167 740 197 65.20 10.95 13.19 7.77 2.60 0.29

2001 393 401 1154 1344 888 191 68.67 9.67 12.23 6.84 2.36 0.23

Note: Population Census classifies urban centers into six categories based on population size as shown below:

Class I towns - 1, 00,000 or more Class II from 50,000 to 99,999

Class III from 20,000 to 49,999 Class IV from 10,000 to 19,999

Class V from 5,000 to 9,999, and Class IV Below 5,000

Source: Census of India (1981, 1991 and 2001)

109

Fig 4.5

Source: As table 4.5

Fig 4.6

Source: As table 4.5

110

A. Future Urbanization

It is very difficult to predict the future level of urbanization for a country like India

because the urbanization level depends not only upon demographic trends, but on economic

and political factors as well. As such, many of the short-term projections by the Indian

government were not fulfilled. The Registrar General of India has projected total and urban

population for India (Table 4.6). Total population has increased from 1028.6 million in 2001

to 1399.8 million in 2026 whereas during the same period urban population is expected to

increase from 286 million to 534 million i: e from 27.8 per cent to 38 per cent. This

projection by the Registrar General and the Census Commissioner puts the urban population

of India at 358 million by the year 2011. This approximation presumes an addition of 72

million in the urban areas for the decade 2001-2011, an estimate that is very close to the

urban population increment of 69 million recorded during 1991-2001. The projected

percentage of urban population against the total population would be about 30 per cent by

the year 2011, and the average annual urban growth would decline to 2.2 per cent during

2001-2011 from the 2.7 per cent observed during 1991-2001.

Table 4.6: Projected Urban and Total Population in India – 2011, 2021 and 2026

Item 2001 2011 2021 2026

Total population (million) 1028.61 1192.50 1339.74 1399.83

Urban population (million) 286.12 357.94 432.61 534.80

Urban % 27.82 30.02 32.29 38.21

Total AEGR (%) 1.48 1.32 1.23 1.16

Urban AEGR (%) 2.24 2.07 2.50 1.89

Note: AEGR- Annual Exponential Growth rate

Source: Population Projections for India, 2001-26, Registrar General of India, 2006

While provisional data from the Census of 2011 reveal the declining trend in the

urban population growth rate observed during the 1980s and 1990s was reversed at the na-

tional level, and the level of urbanization increased faster during 2001-2011. The urban

population grew to 377 million showing a growth rate of 2.76 per cent per annum during

111

2001-2011. The level of urbanization in the country as a whole increased from 27.8 per cent

in 2001 to 31.1 per cent in 2011 – an increase of 3.3 percentage points during 2001-2011

compared to an increase of 2.1 percentage points during 1991-2001. Nevertheless, it has

created some excitement because for the first time since Independence, the decadal increase

in the size of the urban population (by 90.99 million people over 2001-11) was greater than

that of the rural population (by 90.47 million).

Table 4.7 depicts urban settlements in 2011. The number of urban settlements has

increased from 5,161 in 2001 to 7,935 in 2011, an increase of 54 per cent, which dwarfs the

31 per cent growth in the urban population. At the state level, the pattern of urbanization is

very diverse, but economically advanced states more or less show higher levels of

urbanization. All the Southern states, along with Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra and

West Bengal, have higher urbanization levels than the national average, but small states like

Goa continue to top the list among states (62 per cent urban). Among the major states, Tamil

Nadu continues to be ahead of the others, with levels of urbanization at 48.4 per cent in

2011. States which lag behind are Bihar (11.3 per cent), Assam (14 per cent) and Orissa

(16.6 per cent). Other states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh

and Jharkhand also continue to have lower levels of urbanization than the national average.

As the table shows, one of the significant processes that has been at work in India

over the past decade is the significant increase in the number of Census towns i.e., places

that are not recognised as urban areas in a statutory sense but fulfill the criteria laid down by

the Census. These account for more than 90 per cent of the increase in the total number of

urban settlements. In a few States (such as Karnataka, Haryana and Jharkhand), the number

of statutory towns has actually fallen, while the number of Census towns has increased very

sharply. Overall, the number of Census towns has increased by more than 180 per cent,

while there has been more than a threefold increase in their numbers in Bihar, Kerala,

Punjab and Uttar Pradesh.8

112

Table 4.7: Urban Settlements in 2011

Per cent urban population in

2011

Total urban settlements in

2011

Increase in number since 2001

Statutory towns

Census towns

Total

India 31.16 7,935 242 2,532 2,774

J&K 27.21 59 0 2 2

Punjab 37.49 217 4 56 60

Uttarakhand 30.55 116 0 30 30

Haryana 34.79 154 -4 52 48

Rajasthan 24.89 297 1 74 75

Uttar Pradesh 22.28 915 10 201 211

Bihar 11.3 199 14 55 69

Assam 14.08 214 8 81 89

West Bengal 31.89 909 6 528 534

Jharkhand 24.05 228 -4 80 76

Orissa 16.68 223 0 85 85

Chhattisgarh 23.26 182 93 -8 85

Madhya Pradesh 27.63 476 25 57 82

Gujarat 42.58 348 27 79 106

Maharashtra 45.23 535 5 152 157

Andhra Pradesh 33.49 353 8 135 143

Karnataka 38.57 347 -6 83 77

Goa 62.17 70 0 26 26

Kerala 47.72 520 -1 362 361

Tamil Nadu 48.45 1,097 0 265 265

Source: Jayati Ghosh 2011

113

B. Why do People Commute

In the 1981 Census, a major innovation was made to ascertain the reason for

migration among all the persons who reported different Place of Last Residence (PLRs). Till

the 1981 Census, NSS data were the only source of information on the motives of migration.

In 1981, the reasons for migration were classified into five categories: employment,

education, family moved, marriage, and others. In 1991, categories of business and natural

calamities were added to the list. The 2001 Census followed similar classification, with the

addition of another category of ‘migration after birth’, and ‘migration with household’ in

place of ‘family movement’. Due to a small percentage, less than 1 per cent, of migrants

reporting natural calamities in 1991, this is now clubbed in the ‘others’ category. The

economic motives among males and social customs and practices are the most important

decisive factor for the movement in the country (Table 4.8).

The employment-related reasons such as search for employment, looking for better

employment, and transfer of jobs accounted for about 28 per cent of male migrants and 2

per cent of female migrants. The reason for migration according to type of migration and

stream of migration indicates that the economic reasons become more prominent as the as

the distance of migration increases. Nearly half of male inter-state migrants reported

employment and 4 per cent business-related reasons for migration. In 2001, employment-

related reasons showed an increase over 1991, but business-related reasons showed a

decrease over the 1991 data.

Among the four streams of migration-rural to rural, rural to urban, urban to urban,

and urban to rural, economic reasons remains the most dominant reason for male migration,

while for female, marriage and migration with household is the second most important

reason. As for inter-state rural to urban male migrants, nearly 63 per cent reported to have

moved for employment-related reasons, as compared to 48 per cent among rural to rural

migrants. The urban to rural inter-state migration stream, which is generally supposed to be

movement of people due to non-economic factors such as retirement of army personnel,

housing and environmental reasons, shows that a very high proportion of male migrants

moved due to employment-related reasons (37.4 per cent). This might be due to the creation

of job opportunities in rural areas, which are taken up by many urban-educated migrants

with the help of business

114

Table 4.8: Percentage Distribution of All-India Migrants by Type of Migration Stream and Reason for Migration, 2001 Census

(All Figures are in Percentages)

Types of Migration

Reasons for Migration Employment/

Work Business Education Marriage After Birth With HH Oth ers

Male Migrants All Migrants 28.09 2.55 2.55 2.33 9.94 19.39 35.15

Intra-district 15.28 1.8 2.38 3.17 12.62 16.51 48.24 Rural-rural 16.7 1.73 3.24 7.06 20.73 21.75 28.8

Rural-urban 37.74 4.47 5.51 1.79 8.05 25.42 17.04 Urban-urban 20.9 3.13 1.53 1.02 13.61 26.6 33.21

Urban-rural 15.98 2.05 2.18 2.39 39.99 20.75 16.67

Inter-district 35.54 3.06 3.35 1.99 9.72 22.61 23.74 Rural-rural 29.9 2.12 2.49 5.35 13.42 27.2 19.52

Rural-urban 50.4 4.25 4.38 0.95 6.97 20.33 12.71 Urban-urban 36.13 3.51 3.68 0.94 10.95 27.76 17.02

Urban-rural 27.75 2.7 4.35 2.48 19.04 25.04 18.63

Inter-state 52.25 3.88 2.14 0.93 4.87 19.89 16.05 Rural-rural 48.22 3.11 1.14 2.74 4.9 24.09 15.8

Rural-urban 62.84 3.73 1.62 0.46 3.91 16.78 10.68 Urban-urban 46.61 5.16 3.72 0.67 6.53 24.21 13.11

Urban-rural 37.42 3.95 3.4 1.48 7.5 24.46 21.78

115

Immigrants 14.94 1.89 1.21 0.58 0.68 37.36 43.36

Female Migrants

All Migrants 1.66 0.2 0.44 69.61 2.94 11.27 13.87

Intra-district 1.01 0.16 0.35 73.85 2.82 6.93 14.88 Rural-rural 0.76 0.13 0.22 85.11 2.13 4.5 7.14

Rural-urban 2.84 0.31 1.58 59.05 3.52 23.08 9.62 Urban-urban 2.43 0.4 0.75 41.92 8.21 24.44 21.84

Urban-rural 1.94 0.31 0.53 59.28 15.94 13.53 8.48

Inter-district 2.5 0.26 0.63 66.03 3.38 15.54 11.67 Rural-rural 1.76 0.18 0.22 81.91 1.91 7.5 6.53

Rural-urban 4.32 0.36 1.21 51.37 4.44 28.77 9.53 Urban-urban 3.19 0.39 1.31 48.45 6.24 29.07 11.35

Urban-rural 2.81 0.34 0.96 62.81 7.28 17.47 8.32

Inter-state 4.02 0.35 0.64 54.63 3.01 26.78 10.58 Rural-rural 3.87 0.24 0.14 74.78 1.28 13.08 6.61

Rural-urban 4.66 0.33 0.56 43.09 3.83 38.92 8.6 Urban-urban 3.89 0.5 1.42 45.8 4.43 34.48 9.48

Urban-rural 3.77 0.48 0.97 54.22 4.22 27.2 9.13

Immigrants 2.08 0.34 0.39 25.12 0.48 42.75 28.84 Note: HH-Households.

Source: NSSO (2001)

116

with small capital or with the help of various government schemes for providing

employment opportunities especially in rural areas.

C. Economic Activity

Economic factors are presumed to be the main motivating factors for migration.

The labour force participation rate among migrants is likely to be higher than those of

non-migrants. People move primarily to the areas offering better employment

opportunities in comparison to the areas where their skills cannot be utilized properly.

The labour force or workforce is defined as the people who are engaged in some

economic activity plus those who are seeking work or are available for work. In NSS

data, the information on workforce is collected based on three concepts-principal

usual activity (i.e., economic activity performed by a person for relatively longer time

during the 365 days prior to survey), weekly economic activity, and daily status

(activity done on each day of the week prior to survey date). Table 4.9 presents the

worker (employment) rate based on usual and weekly status of migrants and non-

migrants in the pre-liberalization and post-liberalization periods, based on NSS data.

Table 4.9: Employment Rate among Migrant and Non-migrant Aged Ten Years

and above in Urban Areas by Sex according to Usual (principal)

Activity and Weekly Activity Status (per‘000)

Employment Status

1987-88 Migrant Non-migrant

1999-2000 Migrant Non-migrant

Male

Usual 735 (756) 606 (616) 729 (751) 607 (618)

Weekly 727 (746) 599 (608) 718 (740) 597 (608)

Female

Usual 164 (170) 145 (149) 157 (163) 137 (139)

Weekly 165 (171) 145 (149) 172 (178) 143 (146)

Note: Figures in parentheses are based on ages between ten and sixty-five years.

Source: Computed from NSSO 43rd Round, 1987-8; 49th Round, 1993; 55th Round (1999).

The crude worker rate was observed to be much higher among male migrants

compared to male non-migrants, aged ten years and above. The female work

117

participation rate (WPR) was found to be a little higher among migrants, in

comparison to female non-migrants. It may be remembered that the age structure of

migrants and non-migrants differ widely; the differences in work participation

between the two groups may reduce after controlling the age structure.

Another interesting thing is that the WPR based on usual status and weekly

status concept was found to be similar. Excluding the population below eighteen years

and those aged above sixty-five years, the data shows an increase in WPR, for both

migrants and non-migrants. The increase was more for males than females. The crude

work rate across the size of town and cities shows higher employment rates in cities

as compared to small towns and rural areas. Not much change in the employment

level is observed between pre and post liberalization periods. In fact, the post

liberalisation data show a little decline in employment rate of migrants.

Table 4.10: Wage Rate (Rs.) for Persons of age 15-59 years

Indicator of

Employment

and

Unemployment

Rural Urban Rural+Urban

male female persons male female persons male female persons

Casual labour in

other type of

works

66.59 48.41 60.33 86.58 51.34 72.24 67.09 48.51 60.65

Regular

wage/salaried

persons

175.30 108.14 162.94 276.04 212.86 265.18 235.41 171.68 226.64

Source: NSS Report No. 531: Employment & Unemployment Situation in India: July 2007-June 2008.

According to Table 4.10 which depicts wage Rate (Rs.) for persons of age 15-

59 years, which is defined to be economically active age group that in the rural sector,

on an average, Rs. 66.59 was earned in a day by a male casual labourer (of age 15-59

years) engaged in casual labours in other type of public works, whereas a female

casual labourer earned Rs. 48.41 a day – showing a difference of about Rs. 18. In the

urban areas, a male casual labourer engaged in works other than public works earned

Rs. 86.58 in a day and a female, Rs. 51.34 in a day. While on the other hand, the

regular wage/salaried employees were relatively lower among females as compared to

males in both rural and urban India. The proportion of regular wage/salaried persons

118

was Rs. 175.30 for males and Rs. 108.14 for females in the rural areas, whereas in

urban areas, these figures were Rs. 276.04 and Rs. 212.86 respectively. Also, the

proportions of regular wage/salaried persons were quite high in urban areas as

compared to rural areas. It was 265.18 in urban area as compared to 162.94 in rural

area.

Table 4.11: Key indicators of Migration at a Glance

Indicator Rural Urban Rural+Urban

Proportion of migrant household

(per 1000 households)

13 33 19

Proportion (per 1000) of migrant households for

employment related reasons

552 665 608

Average amount of remittance received

(Rs. 00) per reporting household

207 436

Source: NSS Report No. 533: Migration in India: July 2007-June 2008.

Table 4.11 shows key indicators of migration at a glance. The proportion of

per thousand households migrated to urban areas is almost tripled as compared to

rural areas. It was 33 in urban as compared to 13 in rural areas. In both rural and

urban areas, majority of the households migrated for employment related reasons.

Nearly 55 per cent of the households in rural areas and 67 per cent of the households

in the urban areas had migrated for employment related reasons. Similarly average

amount of remittance received (Rs. 00) was twice in urban as compared to rural areas.

Thus on the basis of the above analyses we reached to the conclusion that;

1. That availability of economic opportunities is the most important factor

responsible for migration. It is clear from Table 4.8 that in all the three

categories i.e. intra-district, inter-district and inter-state, migration in males

119

from rural to urban (urban to urban), areas were 47.72 percent (25.56 percent),

59.03 percent (43.32 percent) and 68.19 percent (55.49 per cent) respectively

and these are mainly due to the availability of employment opportunities. The

employment opportunities are being defined as availability of either

employment/work, Business opportunities or availability of education

facilities in urban areas. However, the most important factor for female

migration is marriage.

2. Table 4.9 shows that employment opportunities in urban areas are more for

migrants as compared to non-migrants for both male as well as female.

3. Table 4.10 depicts that wage Rate (Rs.) for persons of age 15-59 years, which

is defined to be economically active age group in both casual labour in other

type of works and regular wage/salaried persons are quite in urban areas as

compared to rural areas.

4. Table 4.11 shows that the proportion of per thousand households migrated to

urban areas is almost 2.5 times as compared to rural areas. It was 33 in urban

as compared to 13 in rural areas. In both rural and urban areas, majority of the

households migrated for employment related reasons. Nearly 55 per cent of

the households in rural areas and 67 per cent of the households in the urban

areas had migrated for employment related reasons.

Therefore, the above statistical facts clearly guide us to conclude that

migration from rural to urban has taken place mainly due to availabilities of economic

opportunities and the migration has resulted in urbanization. So on the basis of above

results we accept the hypothesis that Urbanization in India is a consequence of

availability of economic opportunities.

4.4 Critical Inadequacies in Public Utilities: viz. Land, Water,

Energy/Power, Health facilities and Sanitation etc.

The rapid growth of urbanization and economic development put tremendous

pressure on public utilities, like, land, water, energy, health, sanitation and destruction

of natural habitats. Degradation of resources is a major concern for developing

countries. The goals of sustainable development in developing countries are not being

met; partly because of lack of access to advanced technology for environmental

120

monitoring and for development of sound and sustainable management practices. The

growing trends of population and consequent demand for food, energy, and housing

have considerably altered land-use practices and severely degraded India’s forest vis-

a-vis environment also. The growing population put immense pressure on land

extensification at cost of forests and grazing lands because the demand for food could

not increase substantially to population.

The natural resources of a country are its most sacred endowment. It is a base

on which all life depends and in most countries of the world it is the life support

system. In the recent past, with burgeoning populations and the national goals of

seeking self-sufficiency in food and fiber production, the resource base is slowly

being stripped. While natural systems often adapt to stress in a remarkable fashion,

some relationships -once destroyed - can never be restored.9

A. LAND RESOURCE

Land is the foundation of food, fodder, fuel, fruit and fiber production. The

health, vigour and fertility of land resources determine the living standard, quality of

life, culture and civilization. Land is vital but an in-elastic resource. India is having 18

per cent of the world’s population on 2.4 percent of its land area. Rapid urban growth

has led to the problems of urban sprawl, ribbon development, unregulated

development, high cost for urban infrastructure and pollution due to the inadequate

disposal of urban and industrial waste. All such issues involve land. Land can be used

in many ways – agriculture, forestry, grazing, industrial and urban uses, utility

corridors, roads, waste disposal and recreation. Since land is a non-renewable

resource, it should be saved from misuse and degradation.

A (I) Availability and Pressure on Land

In terms of area India ranks seventh in the world, while in terms of population it

ranks second. With a total area of 32.87 crore hectares, in absolute size India is really

a big country. However, the land-man ratio in the country is not as favorable as in

many other countries10. India faces the most acute pressure on agricultural land.

Today every million hectares of land supports 7.27 million people. Forty three per

cent of the land is under cultivation, one of the highest in the world. Table 4.12,

describes the land utilisation pattern in India from 2000-01 to 2005-06. A change in

121

land use pattern implies variation in the proportion of area under different land uses at

a point in two or more time periods. Over the past fifty years, while India's total

population increased by about three times, the total area of land under cultivation

increased by only 20.2 per cent (from 118.75 Mha. in 1951 to 141.89 Mha. in 2005-

06). Most of this expansion has taken place at the expense of forest and grazing land.

Despite fast expansion of the area under cultivation, less agricultural land is available

on per capita basis. Out of total geographical area of 329 million hectares, only 306

million hectares is the reporting area (the rest being un administered for various

reasons), 141.89 million hectares is the net sown area, while 192.80 million hectares

is the gross cropped area. The net irrigated area is 60.20 million hectares and the

cropping intensity is 135.90 per cent. The land for non-agricultural uses (housing,

industry and others) is increased from 23.81 million hectares in 2000-01 to 25.03

million hectares in 2005-06. Area under forests has increased from 69.62 million

hectares in 2000-01 to 69.79 million hectares in 2005-06.

The extent of agricultural intensification and extensification characterised by

increase in cropping and irrigation intensity and higher use of chemical fertilizers,

pesticides and insecticides. The process of agricultural extensification and

intensification is leading to land degradation, overexploitation of underground water

resources, increased use of chemical fertilizers leading to eutrophication and water

pollution. Agricultural intensification because of increasing cropping intensity,

irrigation intensity and excessive use of chemical fertilizers resulting into water

logging, salinization and alkalinization of croplands and eutrophication of water

bodies and ill health of oceans and thus reduction in biodiversity.

122

Table 4.12: Land Use Patterns in India, (2000-01 to 2005-06)

(Area in Mha)

Classification 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

(P) (P) (P) (P) (P)

I. Geographical Area 328.73 328.73 328.73 328.73 328.73 328.73

II.Reporting Area for land

utilisation statistics (1 to 5) 305.08 305.01 305.24 305.32 305.23 305.27

1. Forests 69.62 69.51 69.64 69.67 69.67 69.79

2. Not available for cultivation

(a+b) 41.55 41.78 42.08 42.23 42.3 42.51

(a) Non agricultural uses 23.81 24.07 24.28 24.66 24.72 25.03

(b) Barren and Unculturable Land 17.74 17.71 17.8 17.57 17.58 17.48

3.Other Uncultivable Land (excluding fallow land) (a+b+c) 27.71 27.37 27.41 26.98 27 26.92

(a) Permanent Pastures and

other grazing land 10.83 10.59 10.51 10.45 10.43 10.42

(b)Land under Miscellaneous

tree crops and grooves not

included in net area sown 3.32 3.37 3.36 3.39 3.38 3.38

(c) Culturable Wasteland 13.56 13.41 13.54 13.14 13.19 13.12

123

4. Fallow Land (a+b) 25.03 24.94 33.46 25.48 24.94 24.17

(a)Fallow land other than

current fallows 10.19 10.30 11.76 11.20 10.72 10.50

(b) Current Fallows 14.84 14.64 21.7 14.28 14.22 13.67

5. Net area sown (6-7) 141.23 141.42 132.66 140.95 141.32 141.89

6. Gross cropped area 185.70 189.75 175.66 190.37 190.91 192.80

7. Area sown more than once 44.54 48.33 43.00 49.42 49.59 50.90

8.Cropping intensity* 131.60 134.2 132.4 135.1 135.1 135.9

III. Net irrigated area 54.84 56.30 53.88 56.00 58.54 60.2

IV. Gross irrigated area 75.82 78.07 72.89 77.11 79.51 82.63

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a glance, Ministry of Agriculture, 2008.

P: Provisional, *: Cropping Intensity is obtained by gross cropped area by net area sown.

124

A (II) Non-Feasible Pattern of Land Utilisations

In spite of the fact that about five and a half decades ago, India opted for a

planned economic system, there has been virtually no planning in the field of land

utilisation. Thus, land use is a dynamic process. It changes over time due to number of

factors, including increasing population and changes in cropping system and

technology. As the various sectors of economy develop, there may be shift in the

pattern of land use. However, the bulk of land continues to be used for raising crops.

With unabated population growth, the pressure of population on land is bound to grow

in future. Foreseeing this eventuality proper planning in the field of land utilisation is

required. The existing pattern of land utilisation cannot persist in future and it is non-

feasible. On the assumption that the rate of population growth does not slow down

over the next two decades, and the existing pattern of land utilisation is changed only

to the extent that ecological balance is restored, the requirement of land in 2020 A.D.

would be around 50 crore hectares. On taking a slightly optimistic view in regard to

population and assuming that the rate of population growth will decline, the

requirement of land in 2020 would be around 45 crore hectares. Obviously a country

with a total area of 32.87 crore hectares cannot meet this requirement. Thus it should

be a matter of great national concern11.

A (III) Land Problems/Degradation

Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) very rightly state that the term land degradation

is a perceptual word and the definition vary according to the researcher’s intent and

purpose. For the purpose of this research, we define land degradation as a process by

which the natural productivity and / or the economic productivity has been impaired.12

The steady growth of human as well as livestock population, the widespread

incidence of poverty, and the current phase of economic and trade liberalisation, are

exerting heavy pressures on India’s limited land resources for competing uses in

forestry, agriculture, pastures, human settlements and industries leading to very

significant land degradation. According to the information provided by the

Department of Land Resources in the Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, 175 mha out of

328.73 mha of land area has been degraded in one way or the other. It appears

therefore, that most of our land is either degraded, is undergoing degradation or runs

the risk of being degraded. Among the different land categories, land under

125

cultivation faces the biggest problem followed by grazing land and pastures, forests,

barren lands, and uncultivable land in decreasing order.

Direct impacts on agricultural development on the environment arise from

farming activities, which contribute to soil erosion, Land salination and loss of

nutrients. The spread of green revolution has been accompanied by over exploitation

of land and water resources and use of fertilizers and pesticides have increased many

folds. Shifting cultivation has also been an important cause of land degradation.

Leaching from extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers is an important source of

contamination of water bodies. Intensive agriculture and irrigation contribute to land

degradation particularly salination, alkalization and water logging. It is evident that

most of the land in the country is degrading, thus affecting the productive resource

base of the economy.13 In the absence of comprehensive and periodic scientific

surveys, estimates have been made on the basis of localized surveys and studies.

Recently, the National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP),

Nagpur has published a report in 2005. According to this report, 146.82 million

hectare area is reported to be suffering from various kinds of land degradation which

include: 14

• Water erosion - 93.68 million ha,

• Wind erosion - 9.48 million ha,

• Water logging/flooding - 14.30 million ha,

• Salinity/alkalinity - 5.94 million ha,

• Soil acidity - 16.04 million ha, and

• Complex problem - 7.38 million ha,

126

Fig 4.7

Source: Report of the Working Group on Environment and Environmental Regulatory Mechanism (2007), planning Commission, GOI

The degradation of land and forest is also endangering India’s rich

biodiversity. Maintaining viable populations of plant and animal species which form

the basis for traditional systems of medicine and also hold vast potential for modern

science, requires the conservation of important ecosystems, habitats and the

ecological processes of which they are a part. While the country has nearly achieved

the international goal of reserving 5 per cent of its area as protected, some important

biomes and species are not yet covered. This can be accomplished by an expansion of

the system of national parks and sanctuaries combined with enhancing control and

enforcement of wildlife trade, creation of new conservation reserves, conservation

forestry, integration of rural development and biodiversity strategies, and a range of

other legal, administrative and technical measure.15

A (IV) Declining per capita forest land and agricultural land

The population growth has resulted in a downward trend in per capita

availability of forest and agricultural land since the 1950s. Per capita availability of

forests in India is much lower than the world average. The per capita availability of

forest land and agricultural land is depicted in Table 4.13. Overall, per capita

127

availability of forestland had oscillated around 0.113 hectare during the 1950s, and

then has consistently declined. The per capita availability of forest land declined from

0.124 hectares per capita from 1960-61 to 0.063 hectares in 2005-06, a level that is

extremely low compared to the world standards. The growth of population is expected

to be faster than hoped for improvements in forest cover as well as quality. Over the

last ten years, despite governmental initiatives of joint forest management, tree

grower's co-operative movements and other efforts tangible results are still to be

observed, and forest depletion and degradation is still increasing. Similarly, the per

capita availability of agricultural land in rural areas has decline consistently from

0.638 hectare in 1950-51 to 0.277 hectare in 2005-06 and is expected to decline

further as population continues to grow.

Table 4.13: Per capita Availability of forest and agricultural land.

Year Per capita Availability of Forest Land (in hectares)

Per capita Availability of Agricultural Land in

rural areas (in hectares)

1950-51 0.113 0.638

1960-61 0.124 0.503

1970-71 0.115 0.410

1980-81 0.099 0.356

1990-91 0.081 0.315

2000-01 0.068 0.271

2003-04 0.065 0.285

2004-05 0.064 0.281

2005-06 0.063 0.277

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture, 2008

Note: estimates in this table have been worked out on the basis of area figures on

land utilization published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Mid-Year Estimates of

population based on the reports of Standing Committee on Population Projections

and Technical Group on Population Projections constituted by Planning Commission.

128

A (V) Net Availability of Food Grains in India

The net availability of food grains (per annum) in India is presented in Table

4.14& fig 8. The trend of net availability of food grains in India indicates that, there is

an availability or shortage of food grains in the country. Increasing trends in the

availability of food grains is largely due to cereals (wheat & rice). Availability of

pulses seems to have gone down since 1971. Overall the net availability of food

grains had gone up from 144 kgs per capita per year in 1951 to 160 kgs per capita per

year in 2007. The increase in production of food grain was possible as a result of

adoption of quality seeds, higher dose of fertilizer and plant protection chemicals,

coupled with assured irrigation. Although, productivity of wheat and rice increased to

a greater extent. Furthermore, the net availability of pulses declined from 25 kgs per

capita per year in 1961 to 11 kg per capita per year in the period 2007. However, the

availability does not mean accessibility because of lack of purchasing power among

poor sections of society. However, better organizational management can assure

better distribution and thus consumption when the availability is assured.

Table 4.14: The Net Availability of Food Grains (Per Annum) in India

(Kgs. per capita per year)

Years Rice Wheat Pulses Foodgrains

1951 58.00 24.00 22.10 144.10

1961 73.4 28.9 25.2 171.1

1971 70.3 37.8 18.7 171.1

1981 72.2 47.3 13.7 166

1991 80.9 60 15.2 186.2

2001 69.5 49.6 10.9 151.9

2005 64.7 56.3 11.5 154.2

2006 72.3 56.3 11.8 162.5

2007 71.8 57 10.7 160.4

P: Provisional

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture.

129

Fig: 4. 8

Source: As table 4.13

A(VI) Land Degradation: Management of Degraded Land

The Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Rural Development and the

Ministry of Environment & Forests are the ministries involved in drawing up &

implementing the programmes for development of degraded land. Following are the

programmes identified / requiring augmentation in the 11th plan:

a) A concentrated effort is required to expedite the on-going projects of irrigation

that involves 13.4 million hectares of potential land under irrigation. About 14

million hectare can be brought under irrigation in command areas of completed

projects that lie unirrigated due to lack of field channels, silting of reservoirs and

similar problems.

b) Community involved in watershed planning and design has typically been low;

and distributional problems are persistent, arising from existing inequalities in

land distribution or because of ill-defined rights and encroachment. This needs to

be tackled in the Eleventh Plan by greater involvement of community right from

the planning stage to the execution stage and during the maintenance stage.

c) The wastelands and degraded lands, which are either unutilized or underutilized,

should be brought under productive uses by development and distribution of such

130

lands to landless for productive uses for their economic upliftment or community

plantations projects may be tried.

d) Encourage adoption of science-based and traditional sustainable land use

practices, through research and development, extension of knowledge, pilot scale

demonstrations, and large scale dissemination, including farmer's training, and

where necessary, access to institutional finance.

e) Promote reclamation of wasteland and degraded forestland, through formulation

and adoption of multi-stakeholder partnerships, involving the land owning agency,

local communities, and investors.

f) Prepare and implement thematic action plans incorporating watershed

management strategies, for arresting and reversing desertification, and expanding

green cover.

g) Promote sustainable alternatives to shifting cultivation where it is no longer

ecologically viable, ensuring that the culture and social organisation of the local

people are not disrupted.

h) Encourage agro-forestry, organic farming, environmentally sustainable cropping

patterns, and adoption of efficient irrigation techniques.

i) Intensive water and moisture conservation through practices based on traditional

and science based knowledge, and relying on traditional infrastructure.

j) Enhancing and expanding green cover based on local species.16

A (VII) Inefficiency in Land Policy of India / Policy Gap

Land management has been largely unsystematic, arbitrary and, by no means,

sustainable. So far the country has not implemented a well-defined integrated land use

policy. This lacuna has largely been responsible for the current phase of land

degradation. The roots of these problems can be found in the inadequate, inefficient,

iniquitous land policy of the country. This is why it is important to have an effective

and appropriate land policy that would promote sustainable development.

National Commission on Urbanization of India (NCU, 1988) recognized the

need for adequate supply of land, efficiency and equity in allocation of land and

promotion of flexibility in land use. Thus it mentioned that the objectives of urban

131

land policy should be a) to achieve an optimum social use of urban land, b) to make

land available in adequate quantity to both public authorities and individuals at

reasonable prices c) to encourage cooperative community effort as well as individual

builders to develop land and construct houses, d) to prevent concentration of land in

few hands, e) to use land to finance urban development, f) to encourage socially and

economically efficient allocation of land so that land development conserves

resources and land utilization is optimal, g) to promote flexibility in land use in

response to a growing city. 17

4.4B WATER RESOURCES

Of all the planet’s renewable resources, water has unique place. Water is the

foundation for a fertile environment, and underpins such human activities as

agriculture, industries and domestic. It is distributed unevenly over the planet, and is

not always available where it is most needed. Fortunately for the Indian people, the

country is rich in this valuable resource. But unfortunately, it has not been properly

tapped. As a result all that is possible is not available to all the people, to all the areas,

to all the users, and throughout the year. Today the fight is for oil and tomorrow it

will be for water.” Water is going to be the oil of the 21st century. With competition

for water intensifying, it is bound to reshape national economies and geopolitical

alliances or worse, it may even cause wars. Unlike oil, fresh water has no substitutes.

Societies to a certain extent can do away from oil but they cannot do without water.

Water is not only essential for human life, but also to the countless species living on

the globe”.18

B (I) Water Demand Vs Availability

The unprecedented increase in the country’s population, from about 343 million

at the time of independence to over 1,000 million in 2000, accompanied by growth of

agriculture, rapid urbanization, economic growth and improved access to basic

services has resulted in increasing demand for water. “According to the estimates

adopted by National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development

(NCIWRD), 1999, by the year 2025, the population is expected to be 1333 million in

high-growth scenario and 1286 million in low growth scenario. For the year 2050,

high rate of population growth is likely to result in about 1581 million people while

the low growth projections place the number at nearly 1346 million. Keeping in view

132

the level of consumption, losses in storage and transport, seed requirement, and buffer

stock, the projected foodgrains and food demand for 2025 would be 320 million tons

(high-demand scenario) and 308 million tons (low-demand scenario). The

requirement of foodgrains for the year 2050 would be 494 million tons (high-demand

scenario) and 420 million tons (low demand scenario).”19 Water resources are

becoming extremely scarce as demand for water for agricultural, industrial and

household uses is increasingly rapid. As India has only 4% of world water resources

and 16% of share in population. Although water is considered a renewable resource

because it is replenished by rainfall, its availability is finite in terms of the amount

available per unit of time in any one region.

The total surface water of the world is estimated at 1400 million cubic

kilometer while the total quantum of water in the river system of India estimated by

the National Water Resource Council has been estimated at 1870 cubic Kilometer.

The groundwater potential of India has been estimated at 432 cubic Kilometer. With

the rising population the per capita availability of water per annum has been going

down. In 1951, it was a little more than 5000 cubic meters (5571); while in 2001, it

has come down to 1869 cubic meter. The irrigation potential has been systematically

increasing in India from 22.6 million hectares to 94 million hectares in 2002.20 The

availability of ground water for irrigation would emerge as a critical bottleneck for

self sufficiency in food grain by the year 2020 as demand for irrigation would exceed

its availability by nearly 30 percent.21 Thus India is moving fast to join the club of

water stressed nations. According to the forecast of the Ministry of Water Resources

and Agriculture, by 2025, 11 river basins including the Ganges will be water

deficient, threatening 900 million lives.22 We can just imagine therefore, how

imperative it is to manage our water resources effectively and efficiently before it is

too late.

The requirement of water for various sectors has been assessed by Water and

Related Statistics, Central Water Commission in the year 2002 in the Table 4.15. This

requirement is based on the assumption that the irrigation efficiency will increase to

60 per cent from the present level of 35 to 40 per cent.

133

Table 4.15: Water Requirement for Various Sectors

(Unit: BCM)

Sector 1990 2000 2010 2025 2050 (Provisional)

Domestic 32 42 56 73 10

Drinking (incl. live stock)

- - 56 73 -

Irrigation 437 541 688 910 1072

Industry - 8 12 23 63

Energy - 2 5 15 130

Other 33 41 52 72 80

Total 502 634 813 1093 1447

Source: Compiled from the statistics released by: Water and Related Statistics, March 2002, Central Water Commission.

B (II) Conservation and Management of water resources

Conserving the world's water must become a priority for individuals,

communities, and countries. An important approach is to find ways to facilitate the

percolation of rain-fall into the soil instead of allowing it to run off into streams and

rivers. For example, the increased use of trees and shrubs makes it possible to catch

and slow water runoff by 10 per cent to 20 per cent, thereby conserving water before

it reaches streams, rivers, and lakes23. This approach also reduced floods. Efforts need

to be intensified towards the conservation of water. Awareness generation towards

recycling and reuse and developing cost-effective and efficient water appliances,

would help in maintaining water as a valuable resource. Policy- level reforms need to

be introduced in the current structure of subsidy and pricing of the rural electricity and

agricultural water supply that encourages wasteful use of water. The National Water

Policy, 2002 has emphasized the need for an integrated approach to water resources

management because water is a natural resource, a basic human need and a precious

natural asset.

The 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) lays down provisions for efficient

management of water resources in the country. These are as follows: 24

134

a. With efficient management of resources three major projects namely Mahi,

Bisalpur and Ratanpura distributory, four medium projects Panachana, Chaapi,

Chauli, Bethali and 139 minor irrigation projects are likely to be completed by

the end of Tenth Five-year Plan, which would create additional irrigation

potential of 299.16 thousand hectare;

b. The Jal Abhiyan Programme was launched in December 2005 for mass

awareness among the stakeholders about scarcity of water, method for

recharging of ground water, management of surface and ground water for

efficient utilization, which covered about 20,000 villages, developed 1 lakh

water harvesting structures and revamped canal system;

c. Focus on water harvesting structures and improving water use efficiency

through better maintenance of irrigation system and promoting efficiency

through drip/ sprinklers;

d. State Water Policy is under consideration with main objective of utilizing all

available water resources, (surface and groundwater), in a judicious, equitable

and economic manner;

e. Water Users Associations are being formed for maintenance, distribution and

revenue collection;

f. Rural infrastructure: The Bharat Nirman Programme launched in 2005

identifies seven major areas where infrastructure gaps need to be addressed.

The programme currently extends into initial two years of the 11th Plan.

Bharat Nirman is a time-bound business plan for action in rural infrastructure

over the four year period (2005-2009). Under Bharat Nirman, action is

proposed in the areas of irrigation (to create 10 million hectares of additional

irrigation capacity), rural roads, rural housing, rural water supply, rural

electrification and rural telecommunication connectivity.

B (III) Inefficiencies in Water Resource management

The management of water resources in our country has been characterized by

a largely passive role of central government, a huge subsidy on water in the

agricultural sector and a lopsided focus on the demand side, resulting in discriminate

exploitation of existing resources including the groundwater resources. One of the

135

main factors responsible for the present scenario of water management is the issue of

jurisdiction.

Water is a state subject as per the Constitution and jurisdiction of the central

government is only in the area of inter-state rivers or water bodies. It is for this reason

that a uniform policy with regard to user charges, irrigation management and other

crucial issues has not emerged. There is no worthwhile plan for catchment area

treatment and no dedicated organization for desiltation of the rivers and water

bodies25. It seems the importance and implications of growing stress on water

resources are not adequately recognized by the policies. This requires efforts on

several fronts. One, there is a need for creating awareness about the value of water

and its sustainable use. The policies should lead to concrete measures for conservation

of water resources through measures like rainwater harvesting and groundwater

recharging and ensure judicious use of water. This would require first of all placing

value on water that reflects its opportunity cost. Second, improvement in water use

efficiency is crucial.

4.4C ENERGY/POWER RESOURCES

Energy/Power plays a crucial role and has been universally recognized as one of

the most important inputs for economic growth and human development. Energy

being an important element of the infrastructure sector has to be ensured its

availability on sustainable basis. However, the present position in respect of the

availability of energy as also its use presents an unsatisfactory picture as the demand

for energy is growing manifold and the energy sources are becoming scarce and

costlier.

C (I) Energy Needs of India

Since Independence, the country has been significant expansion in the total

energy use in the country with a shift from non-commercial to commercial sources.

The demand for energy, particularly for commercial energy, has been growing rapidly

with the growth of the economy, changes in the demographic structure, rising

urbanization, socio-economic development, and the desire for attaining and sustaining

self-reliance in some sectors of the economy. Table 4.16 gives the trend of primary

commercial energy demand and supply between 1990-91 and 2006-07 and projected

136

requirement for 2011-12. The table shows that total primary energy demand has

increased from 303.15 Mtoe in 1990-91 to 539.09 Mtoe in 2006-07 and further

projected to increase to 715 Mtoe in 2011-12.

The bulk of commercial energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels viz.

coal and lignite in solid form, petroleum in liquid form and gas in gaseous form. In

addition to emission of greenhouse gases, the burning of fossil fuels has led to several

ecological problems and associated with health problems like cancer risk, respiratory

diseases and other health problems. Burning of traditional fuel adds a large amount of

carbon dioxide into atmosphere and increases air pollution.

Table 4.16: Recent Trends in Demand and Supply of Primary Energy in India

(Million tonne of oil equivalent)

1990-91 2000-01 2006-07 2011-12*

1. Domestic production of commercial

energy

150.01 207.08 259.56 435

2. Net imports 31.07 89.03 131.97 111

3. Total commercial energy (1+2)

181.08 296.11 391.53 546

4. Non-commercial

energy

122.07 136.64 147.56 169

5.Total primary energy demand

(3+4)

303.15 432.75 539.09 715

Source: Government of India, Planning Commission, Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), Vol.III, p.343, Table 10.2 (excerpted)

C (II) Present Indian Energy Scenario

India is both a major energy producer and a consumer. India currently ranks as

the world’s seventh largest energy producer, accounting for about 2.49 percent of the

world’s total annual energy production. It is also the world’s fifth largest energy

consumer, accounting for about 3.45 percent of the world’s total annual energy

137

consumption. However, it is noteworthy that India’s per capita energy consumption is

one of the lowest in the world. On the energy demand and supply side, India is facing

severe shortages. 70 per cent of its primary energy needs are being met through

imports, mainly in the form of crude oil and natural gas thereby imposing a heavy

burden on foreign exchange.

India has increased installed power capacity from 1362 MW to over 112,058

MW since independence and electrified more than 500,000 villages. This achievement

is impressive but not sufficient. It is a matter of concern that 44 percent of households

don’t have access to the electricity (Census 2001) and as many as 80,000 villages are

yet to be electrified. The Ministry of Power has now drawn a road map to ensure

‘power on demand’ by 2012. The anticipated demand as per 16th Electric Power

Survey requires additional capacity of 100,000 MW by 2012, requiring approximately

Rs.8000 billion investment. Further, the per capita energy consumption in India is too

low as compared to developed countries, which is just 4 per cent of USA and 20 per

cent of the world average. The per capita consumption is targeted to grow to about

1000 kWh per year by 2012, thus imposing extra demand on power system. The task

is daunting but not unachievable; India has a vast hydro-potential of 150,000 MW out

of which only 17 per cent has been tapped so far. Then there are coal reserves to last

for more than 200 years along with other exploitable energy reserves such as oil and

gas etc. Even the potential of renewable is 82,000 MW. The MOP (Ministry of

Power) has drafted New and Renewable Energy Policy Statement 2005 issuing

guidelines to indigenously develop new and renewable energy technologies, products

and services, at par with international standards, specifications and performance

parameter for development in a manner so as to arrive at an optimal fuel mix that

most effectively meets the overall concern of the country26.

Table 4.17 shows that the per capita electricity consumption in India has

increased from 354.75 kWh in 1999-2000 to nearly 704.00 kWh in 2007-08. During

the same period, the production of electricity from utilities increased significantly

from about 501.04 MU to 1280.76 MU.

138

Table 4.17: Total Production and Per capita Consumption of Electricity in India

(kWh)

Year Total Production (MU) Per Capita Consumption of

Electricity (kWh)

1999-00 501.04 354.75

2000-01 517.29 368.00

2001-02 533.80 373.00

2002-03 560.90 390.00

2003-04 529.23 560.20

2004-05 622.16 631.41

2005-06 670.50 656.80

2006-07 803.41 672.00

2007-08 1280.76 704.00

Source: Central Electricity Authority (DMLF Division)-2009.

C (III) Conservation and Management of Energy

In a scenario where India tries to accelerate its development process and cope

with increasing energy demands, conservation and energy efficiency measures are to

play a central role in our energy policy. There is a considerable wastage of energy in

India due to inefficient transmission and distribution system of electricity and

uneconomic unit size and obsolete technologies in some industries. This wastage can

be reduced with careful energy planning. The decision makers now argue that “the

cheapest form of alternative energy is energy saved”. A national movement for energy

conservation can significantly reduce the need for fresh investment in energy supply

systems in coming years. “The growth in energy consumption has been more in

commercial energy (coal, petroleum and electricity which are fossil fuels) than in

non-commercial energy (firewood, animal dung, etc). Currently, demand for coal has

been rising at the rate of 4 to 5 per cent per year, petroleum products b 6 to 7 per cent

per year and demand for electricity has been rising at the annual rate of 9 to 10 per

cent. The critical situation in India now is the steady depletion of fossil fuel resources

and the rising cost of production”.27 It is imperative that all-out efforts are made to

139

realize this potential. Energy conservation is an objective to which all the citizen in

the country can contribute. Whether a household or a factory, a small shop or a large

commercial building, a farmer or an office worker, every user and producer of energy

can and must make this effort for his own benefit, as well as that of the nation.

4.4D HEALTH FACILITIES

Health and socio-economic development is so closely intertwined that is

impossible to achieve one without the other. While the economic development in

India has been gaining momentum over the last decade, our health system is at

crossroad today. Access to health service is defined as ‘easy availability (physical

access in vicinity) of acceptable (social access) and affordable (economic access)

services’. A World Bank commissioned study evidences that the poor have lower

access to health services than the rich. It also shows that across different countries,

including India, ‘the poorest quintiles fare worse than the wealthiest quintiles on a

range of health outcomes, including childhood mortality and nutritional status’. “The

World Development Report 2004 acknowledges that the publicly financed health care

‘benefits the well-off more than the poor’. The wealthiest 20 per cent of the

population received about 25 per cent of the actual government health spending while

the poorest 20 per cent received only 15 per cent. Evidence shows that the lower a

group’s economic status, the less is its use of health services, including immunization,

maternal care, and family planning”.28 Goals 4 and 5 of Millennium Development

Goals focus on Reducing Child Mortality and Improving Maternal Health. Improving

health implies delivering healthcare services and addressing the causes of ill health.

While many health indicators are 'truly health indicators' such as prevalence and death

rates associated with malaria and tuberculosis, some are related to critical factors for

health such as access to improved water supply or dietary energy consumption.

India is committed to achieve this MDG through targets set under the National

Population Policy 2000 (NPP-2000), National Health Policy 2002 (NHP-2002),

National AIDS Prevention and Control Policy 2004, and the Tenth Five Year Plan.

D (I) Health in India – Key Indicators

An assessment of the performance of the country’s health-related indicators

would suggest that significant gains have been made over the years (Table 4.18).

140

However, despite the progress, India fares poorly in most of the indicators in

comparison with a number of developing countries like China and Sri Lanka. In

addition, the progress in health indicators has been quite uneven across regions (large-

scale inter-State variations), gender (male female differences) as well as space (with

significant rural-urban differences).

Table 4.18: India: Selected Health Indicators

SI. No.

Parameter 1981 1991 Current level

1 Crude Birth Rate (CBR) (Per 1000 Population)

33.9 29.5 22.5(2009*)

2 Crude Death Rate (CDR) (Per 1000 Population)

12.5 9.8 7.3 (2009*)

3 Total Fertility Rate (TFR) (Per Women)

4.5 3.6 2.6 (2008)

4 Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) (Per 1000 live births)

110 80 50 (2009)

Male 49

Female 52

5 Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) (Per 100,000 live births)

NA NA 254 (2004-06)

6 Child (0-4 years) Mortality Rate per 1000 children)

41.2 26.5 15.2(2008*)

7 Life Expectancy at Birth: (1981-85)

(1989-93)

(2002-06**)

Total 55.5 59.4 63.5

Male 55.4 59.0 62.6

Female 55.7 59.7 64.2

Note: *Sample Registration Survey (SRS).

**Abridged Life Table 2002-06, RGI India.

Source: Economic Survey 2010-11

141

D (II) Public Expenditure on Health

There is a considerable variation in public provisioning of health care, a state

subject. Poor states are perpetually short of funds. Consequently health status of the

population is poor in these states. India is an exception across countries in that nearly

eighty percent of its health expenditure is out of pocket. Budgetary allocations for

health in India have been far too inadequate both in terms of per capita expenditure as

well as in terms of percentage of GDP allocated for health. Table 4.19 & Fig 9 shows

trend in health expenditure in India since 1950-51 and builds a strong case for an

increased public sector spending in view of poor health outcomes prevailing in India.

Public spending on health in India gradually accelerated from 0.22 per cent in 1950-

51 to 0.91 per cent during 1980-81, and stagnated at around 0.91 per cent of the GDP

during the later years 2003-04 (i.e. spending by only Central and State health

departments). In terms of per capita expenditure, it increased significantly from less

than Re 1 in 1950-51 to about Rs 215 in 2003-04. Estimates, irrespective of the

definition, reveal that the per capita spending by the Government is far below the

international aspiration of US $12 recommended for an essential health package by

the World Development Report 1993 (World Bank) and, again by the Commission on

Macroeconomics and Health (World Health Organisation 2002) for low-income

countries.

As a result of stagnant budgetary allocations, the quality of care suffered

substantially and adversely impacted on the utilisation of government services by

households. Besides, health services that were earlier being provided free were in

some cases charged, forcing patients to seek private healthcare.

142

Table 4.19: Trend in Health Expenditure in India

Note: GDP is at market price, with base year 1993-94

Source: Report on Currency and Finance, RBI, various issues; Statistical Abstract

of India, Government of India, various issues; Handbook of Statistics of India,

RBI, various issues, NCMH, 2005 (latest)

Fig 4.9

Source: As table 4.18

Year Health Expenditure as % of GDP

Per Capita Expenditure (Rs.) on Health

1950-51 0.22 0.61

1960-61 0.63 2.48

1970-71 0.74 6.22

1980-81 0.91 19.32

1990-91 0.96 64.83

2000-01 0.90 184.56

2001-02 0.83 183.56

2002-03 0.86 202.22

2003-04 0.91 214.62

143

D (III) Pattern of Health Financing

A comparative analysis of health care facilities with some of the other

countries confirms a dismal picture for India. At first glance, India seems to spend an

adequate amount on health care. Table 4.20 shows health financing in India and

selected countries. In 2005, India’s total health expenditure as a proportion of the

GDP was less than the global average of about 6 percent but higher than that for the

neighbouring countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, and China. The situation,

however, changes greatly when per person health expenditures are assessed. At

purchasing power parity International $100 per person, India’s health expenditure is

only about half that of Sri Lanka’s and a third of China’s and Thailand’s. As a

proportion of the GDP, India’s public spending on health, after increasing between

1950–51 and 1985–86, stagnated during 1995- 2005, was 0·95 percent of the GDP in

2005, among the lowest in the world, compared with 1·82 percent in China and 1·89

percent in Sri Lanka.

Furthermore, an analysis of the per person public spending on health shows

that the situation is similarly bleak. The per person government spending on health in

India was about 22 percent of that in Sri Lanka, 16 percent of that in China, and less

than 10 percent of that in Thailand. In 2005, India’s private expenditure of nearly 80

percent of the total expenditure on health was much higher than that in China, Sri

Lanka, and Thailand.

144

Table 4.20: Health Financing in India and selected Countries in 2005

Gross national

income per person (PPP International

$)

Total expenditure on health as proportion

of GDP

Private expenditure on health as proportion

of total expenditure

on health

General government expenditure

on health as proportion

of total government expenditure

Per person government expenditure

on health (PPP

International $)

Per person total

expenditure on health

(PPP International

$)

Government expenditure

on health as

proportion of GDP

South Asia

India 3460 5.0% 78.0% 3.5% 19 100 0.9%

Bangladesh 2090 2.8% 70.9% 5.5% 17 57 0.8%

Sri Lanka 4520 4.1% 53.8% 7.8% 88 189 1.9%

Pakistan 2350 2.1% 82.5% 1.5% 9 49 0.4%

Nepal 1530 5.8% 71.9% 8.4% 21 76 1.6%

Bhutan - 4.0% 29.0% 6.5% 60 85 2.8%

Maldives - 12.4% 14.4% 17.7% 751 878 10.6%

Others

China 6600 4.7% 61.2% 1.0% 122 315 1.8%

Thailand 8440 3.5% 36.1% 11.3% 207 323 2.2% Source: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 2009 and WHO, 2008

145

D (IV) State differentials in financing and outcomes

Table 4.21 depicts health outputs, outcomes, and financing in 14 major

populous Indian states and shows high variability among its states in health financing,

outputs, and outcomes. Generally, the southern states are better than the northern

states in all financing, outputs, and outcomes. Although the average per person public

expenditure on health for India in 2004–05 was Indian National Rupee (INR) 268,

wide variations exist in public expenditure across states. For example, the amounts for

Kerala and Bihar differ by three times. These differences are also shown in the health

outputs and the capability of the health infrastructure. People living in Kerala and

Bihar have a difference of 8·3 years in life expectancy. In Kerala, almost all babies

are born in medical facilities and 75 percent of children are fully immunised, whereas

in Bihar less than a third of the babies are born in medical institutions and about a

third of children are fully immunised. Kerala has roughly one public hospital bed per

1000 population, whereas Bihar has nearly one per 29000 populations. Large

differences exist between Kerala and Bihar’s primary health centres having at least 60

percent of the mandated staff and equipment. Similarly, a comparison of Tamil Nadu

(a state with good health) and Madhya Pradesh (a state with poor health) shows that

the amount and the composition of health expenditure affect both the efficiency and

effectiveness of health spending. On the one hand, the public spending on health in

Tamil Nadu is much higher than in Madhya Pradesh. The provision, reach, and use of

public health services are much better in Tamil Nadu than in Madhya Pradesh.

4.4E SANITATION

Water and Sanitation are considered the most important urban environmental

infrastructures, having serious environmental health and socio-economic

consequences. Therefore, water and sanitation have been given high priorities in

United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and the goal is set to halve, by 2015,

the proportion of people without sanitation access to safe-drinking water and basic

sanitation. As per the Census 1981, 1991, and 2001, the percentage of total

households having access to toilet facilities in urban India was 59 per cent, 64 per

cent, and 74 per cent, respectively29. The urban sanitation coverage according to the

National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-3 is 83.2 per cent. The all-India coverage of

sanitation, according to the survey was 44.6 in 2005-6 which is an 8.9 per cent

146

Table 4.21: Health outputs, Outcomes, and Financing in 14 major populous Indian states

States Life expectancy

at birth (yrs) in 2001-05

Per person public health

spending in 2004-05

(INR)

Private expenditure in 2004-05

Per person gross

domestic product in 2004-05 (INR)

Proportion of births

attended by health

personnel in 2005-06

Proportion of children (age 12-23 months)

fully immunised in 2005-06

Population served per

govt hospital bed

in 2007

Proportion of primary health care centres with atleast 60% staff in 2003

Proportion of primary health care centres with atleast 60% equipment

in 2003 Kerala 73.5 287 90.3% 32 613 99.7% 75.3% 1217 91.4% 34.3% Punjab 69.0 247 81.8% 38 000 68.6% 60.1% 2363 38.0% 43.7%

Karnataka 67.0 233 71.9% 26 782 71.3% 55.0% 1321 58.0% 61.1% Tamil Nadu 67.6 223 82.3% 31 408 93.2% 80.8% 1391 96.8% 92.2% Maharashtra 68.0 204 83.2% 37 091 70.7% 58.8% 2280 95.6% 91.4%

Haryana 67.3 203 81.2% 41 429 54,2% 64.3% 3099 51.1% 41.2% Gujarat 66.9 198 79.2% 34 737 64.7% 45.2% 1360 85.7% 80.6% Andhra Pradesh

65.6 191 82.0% 26 528 74.2% 46.0% 2351 88.4% 84.5%

Rajasthan 65.6 186 75.6% 18 980 43.2% 26.5% 1977 25.6% 53.9% Orissa 61.3 183 79.7% 18 673 46.4% 51.8% 2699 0.2% 15.1%

West Bengal 68.0 173 86.3% 25 072 45.7% 64.3% 1734 5.7% 8.6% Madhya Pradesh

60.9 145 81.6% 16 667 37.1% 40.3% 3392 35.4% 26.2%

Uttar Pradesh 62.0 128 86.9% 13 913 29.2% 22.9% 5646 52.8% 28.6% Bihar 65.2 93 81.9% 8304 30.9% 32.8% 28959 19.6% 6.2%

Note: States are ranked in descending order of per person public health spending

Source: www.thelancet.com Published online January 12, 2011 DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61884-3 5

147

increase from the 1998-9 survey of NFHS-2. Analysis of data from different sources

shows that between 91 per cent and 93 per cent of India’s urban population take their

drinking water from protected sources, leaving an unserved population of between 7

per cent and 9 per cent. On the urban front, in Class I cities and Class II towns, there

is a huge disparity in the quantity of water supplied. Of the 393 Class I cities, only

around Seventy-seven have 100 per cent water supply coverage. Analysis of

sanitation coverage data from various sources shows that between 75 per cent and 81

per cent of all urban households in India have toilets, an increase from 1990 figures of

around 64 per cent. As in the case of water supply, disparities exist across states.30

Table: 4.22 shows proportion of Urban population with access to an improved water

source was 81.38 per cent and while that of Rural was 55.4 per cent in 1991 and in

2001 it has increased to 82.22 in Urban and 86.77 in Rural. Proportion of urban

population with access to sanitation was 47 per cent in 1991 and 63 per cent in 2001.

Table 4.22: Proportion of Population with Access to an Improved Water Source

and Sanitation

Source: Government of India (2005)

Indicator 1991 2001

Proportion of the population with access to an improved water

source

Rural 55.54

Urban 81.38

Total 62.30

Rural 86.77

Urban 82.22

Total 85.22

Proportion of the population with access

to sanitation 1991 2001 2005

Rural 9.48

Urban 47.00

Rural 21.92

Urban 63.00

Rural 32.36

Urban NA

148

Table 4.23: Percentage of Households having selected Civic Amenities in urban

areas in different States of India

*Undivided States; @excludes Assam

Source: Households Tables, Census of India, 1981, 1991, and 2001.

India/States % of households

having Safe Drinking Water

% of Households having Tap Water

% of Households having Toilet Facilities

1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2001 1981 1991 2001 India 74.1 81.4 90 63.2 65 68.7 58.2@ 63.9@ 73.7

Andhra Pradesh

63.3 73.8 90.2 55.3 56.9 71.9 44.1 54.6 78.1

Arunachal Pradesh

87.9 88.2 90.9 87.4 82.5 83.1 64.6 75.1 86.9

Assam NA 64.1 70.4 NA 31.6 31.4 NA 86.1 94.6 Bihar 65.4 73.4 81 47.9 44.7 36 53 56.5 68.4* Goa 52.3 61.7 82.1 52.1 59.9 81 49.5 55.8 69.2

Gujarat 86.8 87.2 95.4 83.4 78.6 83 60.1 65.7 80.5 Haryana 90.7 93.2 97.4 66.3 69 71.7 58.1 64.3 80.7 Himachal Pradesh

89.6 91.9 96.9 89.1 91.3 93.9 55.1 60 77.2

Jammu & Kashmir

86.7 NA 95.7 84.6 NA 87.5 64.5 NA 86.9

Karnataka 74.4 81.4 92.1 73.6 71.2 78.4 53.3 62.5 75.2 Kerala 39.7 38.7 42.8 39.4 37.9 39.9 59.1 72.7 92

Madhya Pradesh

66.6 79.4 88.6 65.6 66.5 66.2 52.7 53 64.4*

Maharashtra 85.6 90.5 95.4 84.9 87.8 89.2 59.4 64.5 58.1 Manipur 38.7 52.1 59.1 38.4 49.6 54.7 62.7 70.2 95.3

Meghalaya 74.4 75.4 73.3 74 74.5 71.3 70.2 85.7 91.6 Mizoram 8.8 19.9 47.4 7.98 18.3 44.1 24.5 84.4 98 Nagaland 57.2 45.5 42.3 54.5 40.1 32.8 65.3 75.1 94.1

Orissa 51.3 62.8 72.3 43.3 46 45.9 41.9 49.3 59.7 Punjab 91.1 94.2 98.9 46.3 58.2 66.8 64.8 73.2 86.5

Rajasthan 78.6 86.5 91.6 77 76.3 80.1 56.5 62.3 76.1 Sikkim 71.9 92.9 96.8 71.5 92.9 96.8 53.2 77.7 91.8

Tamil Nadu 69.4 74.2 85.9 61.2 59.1 65.4 51.3 57.5 64.3 Tripura 67.9 71.1 85.8 47 51.5 53.4 95.7 96.3 96.9

Uttar Pradesh 73.3 85.8 97.2 50.8 58.8 56.5 62.1 66.5 80.5* West Bengal 79.8 86.2 92.3 48.3 52.2 56.7 77.7 78.8 84.8

Delhi 94.9 96.2 97.8 68.1 78.4 77 68 66.6 79

149

The data available from 2001 census, however, show an apparently different

trend. The percentages of urban households having access to safe drinking water and

tap water, both had gone up significantly during the 1990s. In fact, the decadal change

works out to be slightly higher during the 1991-2001 period compared to 1981-91

(Table 4.23). A large part of the increase, however, appears to be statistical in nature.

The households accessing potable water at long distances might have been reported as

not having access to these sources in earlier censuses. The Census of 2001, however,

has introduced special ‘away’ category within the category ‘outside the premises’

which would prompt many of these households to report positively to the question of

having access, thereby inflating the figure. Another important point is that only a

small part of the increase in the coverage can be attributed to tap water. The

percentage of households having toilet facilities has gone up from 58.2 per cent, 63.9

per cent, and 73.7 per cent, respectively (table 4.23).

On the urban front, while access to household toilets in urban India is

relatively high, sanitation beyond home toilets is a different picture. Out of 300 Class

I cities, about 70 per cent have partial sewerage systems and sewerage treatment

facilities. Of the total wastewater generated in the metropolitan cities, barely 30 per

cent is treated before disposal. Thus, untreated water finds its way into water systems

such as rivers, lakes, groundwater, and coastal waters, causing serious water pollution.

150

References

1. Pattern of Urbanization in India- Some Highlights (2007): Asian Urban

Information Centre of Kobe (AUICK) News Letter, No. 11, p.1.

2. Sivaramakrishnan, K.C. and Singh, B.N. (2004): “Urbanization”, in R.K.

Sinha (ed.), India 2025: Social, Economic and Political Stability, Shipra

Publications, Delhi, p. 146.

3. Bose, Ashish (1955): “Urbanization and Slums”, In Prodipto Roy, Shanran

Das Gupta (ed.) “Urbanization and Slums”, Har-Anand Publications, New

Delhi, p. 19.

4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A757415

5. Kundu, Amitabh (2006): “Trends and Patterns of Urbanization and their

Economic Implications”, India Infrastructure Report 2006, p. 27.

6. United Nations (2009): “The World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009

Revision”, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division,

New York.

7. Kundu, A. (1983): “Theories of City Size Distribution and Indian Urban

Structure: A Reappraisal”, Economic and Political Weekly, 18(3).

8. Ghosh, Jayati (2011): “Urban Challenge”, Frontline, Vol. 28, Issue 17: Aug.

13-26, 2011

9. Dill, H.N. (1990): “Conservation of natural resources, a few concepts: In

Environmental and natural resources”. Ed. VP Agarwal & SVS Rana. Society

of Biosciences, Muzaffarnagar, India.

10. Misra, S.K. and Puri, V.K. (2006): “Indian Economy”, Himalaya Publishing

House. Mumbai, p. 83.

11. Ibid. p.84.

12. Blaikie and Brookfield (1987): “Land Degradation and Society”, London:

Routledge.

13. Nagdeve, D.A. (2006): “Population, Poverty and Environment in India”, Vol.

3 N0.3, Population – ENVIS Centre IIPS, Deonar Mumbai, pp .6-7.

151

14. Report of the Working Group on Environment and Environmental Regulatory

Mechanism (2007): In Environment and Forests for the Eleventh Five Year

Plan (2007-2012), Planning Commission, GOI, New Delhi, August 2007, p.

25.

15. India vision 2020, (2002): “The Report of the Committee on India Vision

2020”, Planning Commission; December 2002, New Delhi, pp.79.

16. Report of the Working Group on Environment and Environmental Regulatory

Mechanism (2007) op. cit. pp. 36-37.

17. Chattopadhyay, Basudha (2008): “Sustainable Urban Development in India:

Some Issues”, New Delhi: National Institute of Urban Affairs, pp.8-9.

18. Kumar, H.D. (2008): “Energy and Natural Resources Sustainability and

Management”, Vitasta Publishing Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, p.289.

19. K., Rakesh, Singh, R.D. and Sharma, K.D. (2005): “Water Resources of

India”, Current Science, Vol.89, No.5, 10 September 2005, pp.797-799.

20. Shafi, M. (2006): “Use and Misuse of Land and Water Resources in India”, in

Abha Lakshmi Singh (ed.), Use and Misuse of Land and water Resources,

B.R. publishing corporation, Delhi, pp.6-7.

21. Chopra, Kanchan and Bishawanath, Goldar (2000): “Sustainable Development

Framework for India: The Case of Water Resources” (Mimeo), Institute of

Economic Growth, Delhi.

22. Dhawan, J. (2007): “The Changing Face of Indian Economy”, Atlantic

Publishers and Distributors (p) Ltd, New Delhi, p.11.

23. Pimentel D., Berger B., Filiberto D., Newton M., Wolfe B., Karabinakis E.,

Clark S., Poon E., Abbett E., Nandaopal S. (2004): “Water Resources,

Agriculture, and the Environment”. Ithaca (NY): New York State College of

Agriculture and Life sciences, Cornell University. Environmental Biology

Report 04-1.

24. Government of India (2006): Report of the Working Group on Water

Resources for the XI the Five Year Plan (2007-2012), Ministry of Water

Resources.

152

25. Dhawan, J. (2007) op. cit. p.11.

26. www.indiacore.com/.../kssidhu-non-conventional-energy-resources.pdf

27. Datt, Ruddar and Sundharam, K.P.M. (2008): “Indian Economy”, S. Chand

and company ltd. New Delhi, p.121.

28. Nanda, A., Ratna (2009): “Access of the Urban Poor to Health and Education

Services” in Urban Poverty Report, 2009, Ministry of Housing and Urban

Poverty Alleviation, GOI, Oxford University Press, p.240.

29. Shaban, Abdul (2008); “Urban Environmental Management in India: Issues

and Challenges”, in Abha Lakshmi Singh and Shahab Fazal (eds.), Urban

Environmental Management, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, p.121.

30. Palnitkar, Sneha (2009): “The Millennium Development Goals and the Role of

Cities” in India Urban Poverty Report 2009, Ministry of Housing and Urban

Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, Oxford University Press, pp.147-

148.