Minority Concentration District Project Cooch Behar,West Bengal

Sponsored by the Ministry of Minority Affairs Government of India

Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta
R1, Baishnabghata Patuli Township Kolkata 700 094, INDIA. Tel.: (91) (33) 2462-7252, -5794, -5795 Fax: (91) (33) 24626183
E-mail: info@cssscal.org

Research Team Faculty: Prof. Partha Chatterjee, Dr. Pranab Kumar Das, Dr. Sohel Firdos, Dr. Saibal Kar, Dr. Surajit C. Mukhopadhyay, Prof. Sugata Marjit. Research Associate: Smt. Ruprekha Chowdhury. Research Assistants: Smt. Anindita Chakraborty, Shri Pallab Das, Shri Avik Sankar Moitra, Shri Satakratu Roy and Shri Abhik Sarkar.

Acknowledgment The research team at the CSSSC would like to thank Shri G. C. Manna, Deputy Director General, NSSO, Dr. Bandana Sen, Joint Director, NSSO, Shri Pawan Agarwal, Principal Secretary, MDW & ME, Shri A. Khaleque, Director & E.O. Joint Secretary, MDW, Shri A.A. Siddiqui, Joint Secretary, MDW, Shri S.N. Pal, Director & E.O. Joint Secretary, Madrasah Education, Shri Arfan Ali Biswas, CEO, Board of Wakfs, Mr. Tanvir Afzal, General Manager, and Mr. Raktim Nag, Manager-Systems, West Bengal Minorities Development & Finance Corporation, Bhavani Bhavan, Kolkata and Shri Rajesh Kumar Sinha, District Magistrate and Shri Panna Lal Mahapatra, Additional District Magistrate (Development) of Cooch Behar and other department officials for their generous support and assistance in our work. We are also grateful to Nature Club and its members, especially Shri A. Chakrabarty, Chairman of the club for their generous help to run the survey.

1

Content

An Overview…………………………………………………...4 Significance of the Project……………………………………5 The Survey..……..……………………………………………7 Methodology………………………………………………….8 Introducing West Bengal……………………………………9 Cooch Behar………..……………………………………….10 Demography…………………………………………………10 Selected Villages in Respective Blocks……………………..11 Map of the District of Cooch Behar……...………………...12 Findings……………………………………………………....13 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Basic Amenities……………………………………..13 Education……………………………………………18 Occupation…………………………………………..28 Health………………………………………………..33 Infrastructure……………………………………….38 Awareness about Government Schemes……….…38 Other issues…………………………………………41

Recommendations…………………………………………..47

2

Appendices Table A1: General information………………………….….50 Table A2: Transport and Communication…………………50 Fig. A 1 Sources of Water………………………………..…..51 Fig. A2: Distance to Post-Office.……………………….……51 Fig. A3: Distance of Public Transport…..……………..…52 Fig. A4: Average No. of Banks and………………………..52 Other Financial Institutions Fig. A5: Irrigation…………………………..……….….….53 Sampling Methodology……………………………..………54

3

The Minority Concentrated Districts Project

An Overview
The MCD project aims to provide a baseline survey on the state of minorities in the districts identified by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India. Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, undertakes the project in the following districts: Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Malda, Murshidabad, Birbhum, Nadia, South 24 Parganas, North 24 Parganas, Bardhaman, Koch Behar, Haora, Gajapati, North Sikkim and Nicobar Islands.1 The objective of the proposed study has been conducting a baseline survey on religious minority population under the aegis of Indian Council of Social Science Research and funded by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. A total of ninety districts have been selected by the Ministry of Minority Affairs on the basis of three criteria, viz. minority population, religion specific socio economic indicators and basic amenities indicators. The Ministry has classified the districts with substantial minority population on the basis of religion specific socio economic indicators and basic amenities indicators respectively. The four religion specific socio-economic indicators are: (i) literacy rate, (ii) female literacy rate, (iii) work participation rate and (iv) female work participation rate. The four basic amenities are: (i) % of households with pucca walls, (ii) % of households with safe drinking water, (iii) % of households with electricity and (iv) % of households with W/C latrines. A total of 53 districts with both sets of indicators below national average were considered more backward and were classified into group ‘A’ and 37 districts with either of the indicator values below national average were classified into group ‘B’. Group B was further classified into two sub-categories – B1 for which religion specific socio-economic indicators are below national average and B2 for which basic amenities indicators are below national average. The minorities are defined on the basis of National Commission of Minorites Act, 1992 and includes Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Zorastrians (Parsis). Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta would carry out the survey in 11 districts of West Bengal and one each in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Orissa and Sikkim. Of the 11 districts of West Bengal Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, Malda, Murshidabad, Birbhum,

1

The spellings for the districts and state are in accordance with West Bengal Human Development Report, 2004

4

3).2 Besides indicating the developmental deficits. upon which the latter is envisaged and formulated. it may be noted that the benefits will accrue all sections of people in the district where intervention is executed (use a better term) and not only the minorities. the report illustrates how the perception among Muslims that they are discriminated against and excluded. is widespread (SCR. if a school is built up. if a school is built up then all groups of people should have access to this school and not that only the Muslims in a district marked for a Muslim concentrated district. To give a specific example. Significance of the MCD Project The purpose of this survey is to help the district administration draw an action plan for socio economic and infrastructure development of the selected districts for improving the quality of life of the people and reducing the imbalances during the 11 th. South 24 Parganas. Before elaborating on the MCD Project. 237). 5 . It proposes to identify the key areas of intervention by Government to address relevant issues relating to the socio-economic conditions of the Muslim community (SCR. Nicobars in Andaman and Nicobar Island and North Sikkim in Sikkim are in group B (sub-category B2). The Sachar Committee Report (2006) on the social. then all groups of people would 2 Sachar Committee will be written as ‘SCR’. Five Year Plan. economic and educational status of the Muslim community primarily dealt with the question of whether different socio-religious categories in India have had an equal chance to reap the benefits of development with a particular emphasis on Muslims in India. The purpose of this survey is to help the district administration draw action plan for socio economic and infrastructure development of the selected districts for improving the quality of life of the people and reducing the imbalances during the 11 th. it may be noted that the benefits will accrue all sections of people in the district where intervention is applied. Gajapati district in Orissa is in group A. Brdhaman and Koch Bihar are in group A while Haora. it would be useful to highlight some of the main objectives of the Sachar Committee Report. North 24 Parganas are in group B (sub-category B1). To give a specific example.Nadia. However. However. It may also be noted that all the 11 districts of West Bengal are marked for Muslim minority category while Gajapati and Nicobars are marked for Christian minority category and North Sikkim for the Buddhist minority category. Five Year Plan.

Needless to say. the MCD proposes to provide support. among the minority concentrated districts thereby constructively sustaining ongoing discussions and dialogues on this delicate issue. In doing so. groupism. People ranging from Government officials to the people of the community were careful not to use certain terminologies in the conversation. to all communities irrespective of religious affiliations. The Sachar Report writes of how this particular community imagine themselves and is imagined by other socio-religious communities (SCR. In the Indian imagination. in a way. when associated particularly with the Muslim community. fiscal and otherwise. From a sociological point of view the vision of the MCD project is to open up an in-depth understanding about not just the Muslim community but other minority communities as well. imageries. and therefore any one to one correlation would make a simplistic argument. 4 It would be useful to look at how survey study itself can be a tool to generate social awareness. the MCD makes for provisions to look into other socio-economic aspects common to all poor people and to minorities. initiating a dialogue on the subject of discrimination and deprivation is not easy. to ensure overall growth and development of the districts--that the term ‘minority’ is not restricted or limited to the Muslim community only. It is highly nuanced with multi-layered causalities. 239). thus reinforcing the need for equity and inclusion as proposed in Sachar Report. and ideas that may trigger further speculation. (SCR. While the Sachar Committee Report agrees that the widespread perception of discrimination among the Muslim community needs to be addressed. 11) and observes how “the Muslims complained that they are constantly looked upon with a great degree of suspicion not only by certain sections of society but addresses the issues relating to Muslim minority community. Based on the survey report. etc—the social hurdles which seemingly appear to play little to no direct role in addressing and During the course of our survey. The term. the MCD project’s baseline survey. is fraught with negative meanings. the discussions on ‘discrimination’ and ‘deprivation’ were carefully articulated to the respondent. the term ‘minority’ is coeval with the Muslim community. acts as a tool4 to perpetuate wider social awareness.have access to this school irrespective of socio-religious category. 3 6 . nonetheless it admits that there are hardly any empirical studies that establish discrimination. This argument calls for further elaboration that is beyond the scope of the present report. it urges the larger society to think through issues of discrimination and the like such as casteism.3 Under the circumstance.

This approach towards research would allows us to gain a holistic perspective while at the same time enabling us to stay focused on certain key aspects of development of the minority concentrated districts. and therefore although it will identify the minority community. aims to gain an in-depth and detailed view of the socio-economic conditions of the communities living in these districts and create socioeconomic profiles of the districts by identifying the key developmental deficits viz. Sikkim and Andaman and Nicobar Islands respectively. it allows us to create a benchmark for future survey on the focused areas that need immediate Government intervention.’ (SCR pp. that have a significant bearing on the overall growth and expansion of a State. Also.implementation of various schemes and programmes offered by the Government.2) The MCD also looks into issues pertaining to non. 10). viz.239) 5 7 . female work participation etc. one has to take cognizance of how the ‘social’ is intertwined with the economic parameters of human conditions and vice versa. The project is a district level plan that doesn’t necessarily target the minority community. are nonetheless inextricably linked to the overall growth and advancement of the country. Orissa. the funds will be allocated across communities irrespective of socio-religious affiliations.5 By focusing on the14 districts. the MCD project headed by the Center for Studies in Social Sciences. A baseline survey is significant as it creates a rich database.reducing developmental deficits. which allows us to interrogate. and provides us with more research options. The new data collected and collated by baseline survey will thus build on and supplement the existing data provided by Census and the Sachar Committee. Calcutta. The Survey The MCD project undertakes a baseline survey to address the socio-economic issues of the district communities. literacy rate. West Bengal. p. There is a need to describe developmental deficits in terms of figures and numbers. The Sachar Committee quotes of how the ‘nonimplementation” of several earlier Commissions and Committee has made the Muslim community wary of any new initiative (SCR. The Sachar Committee Report notes that the widespread perception of discrimination among the Muslim community needs to be addressed but admits that ‘there are hardly any empirical studies that establish discrimination. health. extended over 3 states and 1 union territory. (See ICSSR’s Expert Committee Meeting on Baseline Survey of Minority Concentration Districts.

However our population is not the whole village but two hamlet groups if village population exceeds 1200. a specific focus on minorities would also show the relative position vis-à-vis other disadvantaged groups namely the SC/STs. The village schedule would be instrumental in collecting the village average data. the Block Development Officer. The advantage of focusing on the conditions of minorities in terms of standard socioeconomic indices is to clearly highlight their condition. a village schedule. This data will be collected from the various government offices. Based on the proportion of minority population the development blocks and accordingly the villages are grouped into three strata where first stratum is top 20%.Previous research such as the State HDR (West Bengal) did not treat the Muslim community as a separate socio-religious group. or such like. While certain socio-economic conditions would be applicable across communities in terms of literacy. to understand both the individual and the collective experiences of people living in these areas. In the second stage a total of 30 households are chosen from each village randomly in proportion to religious group in the total population of the village. the 8 . employment. Typical size of a hamlet group is 600. The villages are chosen by the method of probability proportional to size given the number of villages to be chosen from each stratum. The census villages are primary sampling units. second one is middle 50% and the third is the bottom 30%. such as the office of the District Magistrate. The methodology employs two types of survey instruments – one a rural household questionnaire and second. If district population is more than 0. Household schedule would be used to identify socio-economic parameters.5 Million then a total of 30 villages will be chosen which will be distributed in the three strata in proportion to population of the respective strata. as well as. the absence of focus on the Muslim community does not bring to the fore their specific socio-economic status. which would have been glossed over if the research were conducted by focusing on the SC/STs only. The hamlet group with highest concentration of minority population is chosen with probability one and another is chosen from the rest hamlet groups randomly. While data for SC/STs and on gaps in development exist. Methodology The survey has been conducted at two stages.

Introducing West Bengal West Bengal is the fourth most populous state in the Eastern Region of India accounting for 2.8 % of the country’s population and ranks first in terms of density of population which is 904 per square Km.7 % of India’s total area. where members of the faculty and team met and discussed on a weekly basis. education. Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshin Dinajpur in the north. (SCR. Purulia. It will be useful in understanding the nature of the village in terms of availability of infrastructure. The interviews have been carried out with the consent and voluntary participation of the respondents. to evaluate the comprehensibility. Muslims are the dominant minority and account for 27 % of the total population of the State. With 72% of people living in rural areas. with appropriate coding categories. wherever necessary. is annexed for further clarification of the questionnaire if and when so required. the office of the Panchayat Pradhan. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was accomplished through various drafts. It is equally worth noting that the concentration of Muslim minority in the state of West Bengal is higher than the national average. Koch Behar. land and irrigation and the like. the State of West Bengal is primarily an agrarian state with the main produce being rice and jute. Birbhum in the west and the two 24 Parganas (north and south) stretching across the Sunderbans are relatively more backward socio-economically than the rest of the districts in West Bengal. An instruction sheet with comments. The methodology has required appointing and training supervisors and field investigators in the districts for conducting the survey among the rural householders effectively. ICDS centres etc. Bankura. the questionnaires primarily consist of short. About 31. access to basic amenities such as health services.8% of the total population lives below the poverty line. 7. Jalpaiguri. (whether the questions are relevant) and competency (whether the respondents will be able to answer reliably) of the questions being asked. Confidentiality and their right to privacy have been safeguarded at all times. Previous research on West Bengal has shown that certain districts such as Darjeeling. conviviality.Agricultural Department. Besides very few descriptive open-ended questions. Malda. 30) 9 . close-ended questions.

1% and 0. in terms of Human Development Index (Human Development Report.1% respectively.49. Cooch Behar is characterized by humid weather and abundant rain.9%. 2004).9% and 56.58% respectively. Cooch Behar.8% and 41. is very far from Kolkata. The density of population is 732 per square Km.Cooch Behar The district of Cooch Behar as Muslim minority district belongs to category ‘A’ of the MCD districts with 23. 18 professional and technical colleges.34% Muslim population and religion specific average socio-economic indicator value 40. The economy of the district is agriculture based whence rice is the major agricultural crop with a significant production of jute and other crops. 181 secondary and higher secondary schools.7% respectively as calculated by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. 10 . 128 Gram Panchayats and 1703 Gram Samsads in the district.99% and the female work participation rate is 21. There are 12 CD Blocks. Of the total population the rural population is approximately 90. Demography Of the 18 districts of West Bengal.6 The district has long international borders with Bangladesh and on the Eastern side of the district is Assam.22%.31% females. The district has 1805 primary schools. 9 degree colleges. 6 The corresponding national averages are 45.18% males and 4. The proportion of landless labourers constitute a very large proportion – 15. The total population of the district is 2479155 (Census. The rate of work participation is 38. district headquarter. The SC and ST population of the district are 50. 2001). some ten hours’ journey by train.2 and average basic indicator value 10. The literacy rates of males and females are 75. Cooch Behar ranks 11 th.

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Block Dinhata .Selected Villages in Respective Blocks Sl.II 00185400 00187700 00226500 Tufanganj .I 00223200 00255400 Sitai 00257600 00205300 00206100 00208600 00211100 Cooch Behar .II 00229300 Village Name Households Population BARA NACHINA (P) 2711 13365 RUIER KHUTHI 1343 6139 SITALKUCHI 6767 31750 PHULBARI 42 231 BARA GADAIKHORA 927 4319 BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI 592 2789 CHHOTA NALANGIBARI 373 1838 HARI BHANGA 1319 6462 DIGHALTARI 546 2621 TIADAHA 1045 4931 SAHEBGANJ 1215 5635 DAKSHIN SAMILABAS 108 584 CHHOTA HALDIBARI 497 2394 UTTAR BASARAJBALA 120 599 NATABARI 880 4077 CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA 1117 5183 SANTOSHPUR 605 2991 BARA ADABARI 300 1438 NAGARSITAI 254 1047 PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS 415 2341 KALARAYERKUTHI 3371 17240 KUTHIPARA 301 1377 SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA 248 1224 PASCHIM CHAPAGURI 93 449 BAISGURI 1069 4748 CHAUDANGA 404 1802 CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS 170 828 BARA SIMULGURI 2022 9637 MAHISHKUCHI 1351 6536 DEBGRAM 769 3785 11 .II 00211600 00215600 00216400 Mathabhanga .II 00250100 00147700 00148600 Haldibari 00149300 00217000 00217300 Tufanganj .I 00201600 00201800 00244400 00248000 Dinhata .I Village Code 00233900 00236500 00263900 00264000 Sitalkuchi 00265700 00194300 Cooch Behar .

Map of Cooch Behar with Indicative Location of Sample Villages by Blocks Note: Map not to scale. 12 .

We provide two sets of tables – one for the data across villages to capture the locational variation preceded by the district averages computed for all the households surveyed in all the sample villages chosen in the district. So the problem cannot be solved by allocating more funds only. We systematically provide the district level followed by the village level findings on a variety of aspects including the broad categories of Basic Amenities. the percentage of houses in these villages with access to toilet facilities. The percentage of in-house toilet facility is higher in the sample villages which are relatively more close to District Head Quarter or Sub-divisional town and as a result receive more development facilities. The percentage of in-house toilet facility in Dakshin Samilabasin Haldibari Block is found to be as low as 3. Infrastructure. Existence and Efficacy of Government Schemes and any other issue that is crucial for a better understanding of the conditions of the minorities as well as general population in the district. percentage of electrified houses. Education. This is very poor compared the state scenario as well as for the variation across inter religious groups. However. Basic Amenities We begin with a distribution of the Basic Amenities in the district of Cooch Behar calculated at the level of villages using the household survey data and it includes the types and percentage of houses under Kutcha/ Pucca constructions. and the type of fuel used. CSSSC has identified the following key areas in the District of Cooch Behar. but other measures.64% for nonMuslim households. In this connection it may be noted that in our discussion with government officials and Panchayat functionaries this has been emphasized that often it is the case that though a large fund is available for low cost toilet.33%. It shows that the 43% Muslim households on average have in-house toilet facilities compared to 53. Health. 1. there is a wide variation across villages. the average distance of each house within a specific village from its source of drinking water. Those who have toilet facility inside their premises do have hygienic provision in general.Findings In line with the aims and objectives of the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Occupational conditions. such as awareness 13 . but people are reluctant to access such benefits even though their contribution is only 10%. 60% in Chhat Phulbari Daribas in Mathabhanga II Block and 100% in Santoshpur in Tufanganj I Block (Table 2).

60 87.21 16.70 32.92 0. 14 .27 0.64 46.27 14.36 22.25 4.95 5.34 73.22 5.00 0.31 90.38 11.32 8.00 17.47 0.00 0.88 11.61 97.98 0.33 2.24 Source: Household survey data.Table 1: Basic Amenities of Household – District Averages (%) Amenities Percentage of houses electrified Primary source of light if house is not electrified (%) Oil Lamp Oil Lantern Petromax Muslim Non Muslim 6.53 2.12 0.79 0.50 76.71 1.16 1.00 57.54 76.82 1.40 40.23 53.49 1.60 14.20 43.22 12.75 8.03 0.57 12.99 13.19 87.36 14.92 Others Own Hand Pump/ Tube Well Public Hand Pump/ Tube Well Tap water Public Un-protected dug Well Public Protected dug Well Pond/River/Stream Others Average Distance from source of Water(K.77 14.00 74.68 0.04 15.35 2.62 3.40 1.63 2.M) Source of Water (%) Position of Toilet In House (%) Outside House Septic Tank Latrine Water Sealed Latrine in House Pit Latrine Covered Dry Latrine Well Water Sealed Others Wood Coal Kerosene Oil Leaves/ Hay LPG Others % with drainage facility in house Type of Toilet (%) Drainag e Facility (%) Primary Source of Fuel (%) 7.05 0.22 0.

00 10.00 0.00 0.00 95.67 3.00 0.0 0.0 0.24 0.04 40.00 93.00 86.00 0.00 0.33 0.89 86.00 0.67 41.00 47.33 26.00 0.38 36.33 3.57 0.67 13.33 0.00 0.07 3.00 40.00 0.00 0.21 0.0 0.0 40.71 10.00 0.0 0.0 3.33 6.0 0.67 3.00 100.0 0.67 96.92 76.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 0.67 0.3 3.86 100.61 77.00 27.00 0.33 96.0 0.00 100.5 70 26.00 3.00 3.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.59 26.81 0.Table 2: Village wise Basic Amenities of Households (in percentage Kerosene Oil Others 0.5 0.00 100.67 100.14 0.00 0.53 0.45 4.15 0.00 0.00 93.00 0.33 0.45 0.60 1.67 23.33 0.06 0.00 0.33 100.0 3.00 0.0 0.10 100.43 50.00 3.33 100.03 0.00 6.52 96.33 0.79 62.01 0.33 76.00 0.00 0.00 40.79 30.3 3.58 0.00 0.03 0.33 3. 7 Wood Coal DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKU THI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA 96.00 0.67 70.00 0.00 100.00 88.00 72.67 100.67 93.0 0.91 71.00 0.67 13.00 0.33 0.33 0.19 93.67 0.00 0.0 0.67 66.00 1.00 57.) Electrified houses Households having Septic Tank /water/Sealed/W ell-water Latrine Type of Fuel used Toilet outside house 96.00 66.00 0.00 46.33 100.00 0.00 3.67 96.33 29.00 0.33 13.33 3.00 68.00 0.0 0.00 33.67 90.00 3.00 14.00 3.33 0.67 70.00 0. Compared to this.00 6.5 0.00 96.00 0.33 0.33 66. LPG Name of the Village Type of Houses Kutcha Kutcha Pucca -Pucca Avg.43 85.67 86.67 48.33 0.00 0.00 23.10 93.00 0.89 75.00 53.0 3.45 0.00 0.55 96.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.0 3.14 3.0 4.3 0.00 0.90 36.67 96.00 0.00 31.00 3.00 Leaves/ Hay 0.00 0.81 6.0 3.33 3.33 0.00 42.00 8.67 100. the level of average electrification in the Muslim households is lower at 6.97 3.00 100.00 73.33 23.33 43.21 88.66 83.00 37.00 3.00 0.00 10.0 0.16 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.33 0.55 91.45 0.00 100.0 0.00 100.00 73.33 16.00 0.0 0.00 3.00 0.33 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 40.00 0.00 17.0 4.00 3.A means not available and campaigning at the level of households is urgently called for.33 33.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0. dist.17 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.86 100.00 89.83 14.0 0 0. 7 0.50 0.67 96.67 10.33 75.00 87.0 0.31 66.00 0.33 56.00 0.00 0.0 0.2 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 96.67 100.00 20.67 89.67 0.33 Source: Village survey data.0 0.31 % compared to 14.67 90.61 % for 15 .3 26.33 100.25 0.0 0.00 0.67 43.18 0.00 86.00 0.67 83.25 77.00 26.83 0.0 10 0.67 0.00 33.00 0.15 60.00 100.00 10.00 66.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0. for source of Drinking water (Km.67 3.0 0.00 100.00 93.29 90.00 0.67 50.00 0.33 0.37 68.69 0.04 0.67 6.0 0 0.0 26.00 0.78 0.00 0.70 1.0 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 3.33 3.00 6.33 6.00 3.0 0.40 0.00 0.00 3.10 100.00 0.00 10.29 100.34 7.00 0.41 92.5 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 66.0 0.0 0.00 0.83 100.33 0.33 14.00 3. Note: N.00 0.67 0.23 0.28 0.00 82.00 0.00 0.97 3.33 3.00 0.33 13.00 93.0 0.00 0.33 96.33 33.33 76.50 76.00 0.0 0.86 100.2 0.00 65.67 0.00 0.00 10.63 31.55 0.27 33.90 0.0 0.

33% of electrified households (Table 2) and there are many villages in our sample with quite low level of electrification. A mere 4. for both Muslims and non-Muslims. 7 16 . For cooking fuel and other households activities. Dakshin Samilabas. Kuthipara or Bara Adabari majority have no access to LPG or even Kerosene. while 95.79% of the latter live in kutcha houses. Most Muslim or non-Muslim households have access to private hand pumps or tube wells (around 73% for both the communities) or public tube wells or hand pumps (around 15% for both the communities).11% of Muslim and 94. All these information is directly available from Tables 1 and 2 and may be used for specific actions. There is however. Usage of tap water is very low for both the communities. It is understood that construction and maintenance of better houses require large investments from the residents.63%. which if channeled into provision of education and health facilities among the children and women shall serve a better purpose under all possible conditions. This is percentage with respect to the general population. There is no village in our sample which has more than 40% households with pucca or kutcha-pucca houses.7%) which is situated in a relatively backward and inaccessible area.38% of the former and 85.59% of non-Muslim households own their houses.89 % of the Muslims and 4. Bara Gadaikhara and Chhota Haldibari report zero percentage and Uttar Basarajbala. 91. Surprisingly Nagar Sitai has a very high percentage of families with LPG connection (26.7 This we believe should be an area where top up facilities may be extended. Proportion of pucca or even kutcha-pucca houses are more prevalent in the relatively developed or in the areas that are close to district head quarter or sub-divisional town. such as gathered leaves and hay and barring a few villages as Uttar Basarajbala. In respect of Kutcha-pucca or pucca nonMuslims are slightly better off than the Muslims.25%). Not surprisingly therefore. The same as the percentage of BPL families for the district as a whole is 5.non-Muslim households. Once again at the village level. most households are dependent on wood and stray sources.22%) than Muslims (1. The average distance traversed for procurement of water is not much and in fact well within quarter of a Km. Dighaltari and Sitalkuchi report 3.71% of non-Muslims have received government help for construction of houses under different schemes including IAY (see Table 3). non-Muslims (1. scope for immense intervention in the types of houses the respondent and therefore the average person in each village surveyed lives in. In general the district is well placed in respect of safe drinking water.

District Averages Religion group Own IAY/ Government Provided Muslim 95.37 10.59 NA Average Value of Own House (Rs.40 0.38 7. percentage of Muslim families owning two wheelers is lower at 0.78%). Type and Value .Ownership.89 Rented 4.00 0.25 Type of House (%) Kutcha Kutcha-Pucca Pucca Others Own Land adjoining own residence (%) Provided By Government Land Holders Land Others 10. However. such as for telephones or mobiles it may be noted that there is no appreciable difference across communities.00 68.93% than non-Muslims (2.05 200.00 65.00 91.48 48979.Table 3: Housing.11 Non Muslim 94.71 0.79 11.) Average Rent (Rs.81 2.98 4.70 85.51 15.69 0.) per month Source: Household survey data In respect of other amenities and assets.93 0.28 8.59 Ownership of House (%) 4.17 16. 17 .96 41732.

the percentage of below primary educated male is 20.04%).87 5150.0 0.43 and female 23.93 15633.0 2. and non-Muslim households (Table 6). Of the rest who are deemed literate.46 NA 1840. The situation is not appreciably better for Motor cycle/ Scooter/ Mopeds Education The household survey on educational conditions offer a plethora of data on both Muslim 18 .03 and the percentage steadily dwindles as one goes higher up till the secondary level (Male 2.88 Source: Household survey data Note: NA means not available. Non Muslim 0.Table 4: Other Amenities of Household .33 Non Muslim 0.27% for the female. Average Price (Rs.78 21146.23 9000.49 NA N.A means not available.0 Source: Household survey data Note: N.District Averages Religion group Percenta ge of people with Telephone Mobile Telephone Mobile Muslim N. 10.A. Of the many glaring facts.61% and Female 2.) Table 5: Non-agricultural Assets – District Averages Muslim Oxcart Percentage of household who own Average Price(Rs) Percentage of households who own Average Price (Rs) 1. 2.82% for the male and 42. one should begin with the level of illiteracy among Muslim households that stands at 42.A.87 11.

What we propose is that the households that choose to send children to school may be provided with additional income support during the school years so that the student does not drop out and transform into child labour.91. Conversely. most Muslim (64. Still it does not take care of the opportunity cost in full. Table 9 clearly identifies the reasons why the dropout rates have been so high for most school goers. In fact.01 and female. We do not think mid-day meal alone can address this problem successfully.non-Muslim households. continuation becomes infeasible at a very early stage due to the high opportunity cost (next best alternative to school is go out for work and earn for the family) of being in school.02%) households find the school almost in the neighbourhood within a distance of 1 Km. because the respondents clearly voiced their positions on the choice between school and work and the only way they could continue in school is providing the household sending children to school with a subsidy equivalent to the income they would lose by not working during that time. This also. if the families that send children to school receive higher income from their existing jobs that may relax the constraint facing these children intending to attend school on a longer term. We therefore. and include the mid-day meal arrangements although with several problems of mismanagement and corruption among the organizers that the scheme regularly suffers from. where literacy level is certainly higher. we would like to draw attention to policies that can ensure such in-school support program for the household 19 . since it is well known that putting children in the work force is essentially a decision taken by one or both parents under the condition that children’s leisure is a luxury good under dire necessity of survival for the household. On average 30% to 60% of all dropouts across gender and communities in the villages of Cooch Behar report that the cost of remaining in school is quite high – both the direct cost and the indirect cost of not earning anything while in school. provisions of such facilities in kind are already in practice. is a potential point of intervention where without stressing on the supply of schools. but secondary school going percentage for male is 7. the emphasis should be on provisions of supplementary resources that could keep them in school.2%) and non Muslims (63. re-emphasize that this is an area although well known to both academic and policy-making communities need larger attention. 4. It seems almost self-selection among those who could continue to the highest possible level of graduation – those who stayed onto the higher secondary level also continued till graduation and at that point the disparity across Muslim and non-Muslim households almost vanishes as does the gender gap across religions. Despite the fact that distance wise. Thus.

09 0.43 23.00 0.67 1.45 20.82 42. 20 .07 0.00 0.91 Vocational/management 0.16 Secondary 2.03 21. which are more vulnerable than others in terms of health facilities.33 Post Graduate 0.61 2.50 Middle 12.24 0.43 22.44 2.15 0.00 0.00 0. It is also important to identify if these are also the households.38 Primary 19.91 Higher Secondary 1.12 0.04 22.65 0.00 Technical/Professional Degree 0.48 0.00 0.04 7.01 4.00 Graduate 0. or parental access to regular work and other demographic features different from those which choose to retain their children in school. This will obviously require targeting of households which have shown positive choice towards sending children to school and those who would also be forthright in withdrawing the same in case of drop in household income levels below a critical level.37 0.15 0.24 0.72 Technical Diploma 0.27 27.31 21. Table 6: Level of Education of General Population – District Average (%) Muslim Non Muslim Descriptive Male Female Male Female Illiterate 42.08 Source: Household survey data.84 Below Primary 20.21 35.29 1.16 Others 0. It is both generic across villages surveyed in Cooch Behar and strongly buttress the argument in favour of subsidiary arrangements to boost school attendance among this mass.00 0.29 0.91 17.instead of creating larger supply of such facilities.47 13. Tables 7-12 categorically identify these features that hinder school attendance among the village children.03 0.69 9.

73 0.78 2. Type of school Level 21 .32 0.00 1.58 0.16 0.Table 7: State of Education for 5 to 18 age group – District Averages (%) Muslim Condition Not admitted to school Below primary education Primary education Class Eight Vocational Secondary Higher Secondary Government/ Aided School Private School Madrasah Missionary School Unconventional school Others 5.00 0.44 0.48 Non Muslim 4.48 25.21 0.00 8.24 0.97 40.00 0.52 23.53 33.33 38.54 98.00 7.04 1.00 Source: Household survey data.89 97.08 1.02 0.06 17.

Table 8: Village wise State of Education – General Population (%) Literacy Rate Name of Village DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA Male 67.12 Female 50.56 47.92 67.12 68.46 54.71 61.00 54.54 63.68 83.65 60.44 65.04 55.72 51.53 65.49 70.26 56.45 52.24 60.42 76.16 66.61 71.37 58.09 67.47 46.21 67.85 65.85 41.47 63.11 82.05 73.95 64.14 58.85 68.70 64.32 Source: Household survey data.24 46.77 73.17 67. 22 .32 66.00 50.67 71.71 87.68 57.81 71.00 79.69 64.84 63.54 69.25 80.28 67.61 67.89 53.74 79.05 63.66 47.71 59.29 64.33 69.82 89.04 51.

M.92 Hindi 0.61 2.16 9.0 64.01 0.M.Table 9: Education – Infrastructure facilities (District Averages in %) Muslim Non Muslim Community Below 1 K.5 10. 64.54 84.21 Others 2.56 and toilet Unable to attend because of work 30. 23 .62 86.0 28.44 English 0.47 Stipend 0.06 16.71 61.53 Not proper teaching 38.24 0.0 5.00 4.56 Bengali 84.91 85.20 63.10 School dress 1.33 76.64 Bengali & English 13.16 Above 4 K.00 Books 82.13 12. classroom 16.M.26 2-4 K.65 7.02 1-2 K.M.82 Male Female Male Female Distance 48.11 It is expensive 65.00 0.99 20.00 0.92 12.56 Unavailability of water.00 Local Language 0.36 Reasons for drop-out Government Help Instruction Distance Source: Household survey data. 7. 20.29 42.0 12. 7.5 5.71 28.87 13.40 Mid-day meal 14.0 20.48 26.

82 71.06 71.41 43.68 81.83 1. Table 11: Rate of Dropout from School – Community and Gender wise(%) (District Averages) Muslim Non Muslim Level of dropout Male Female Male Female < Primary 27.14 51.75 42.98 2.60 5.95 7.74 1.37 Male 5.27 13.Table 10: Education .37 60.31 33.27 59.79 23.01 17.48 Female 1.77 93.02 84.13 63.52 20.52 3.72 4.32 Book Teachers Aspiration of parents Male 1.05 27.34 19.34 Female 1.81 3.78 Source: Household survey data.29 21.66 21.82 Source: Household Survey Data 24 .46 94.S Graduate Post-Graduate Professional Courses Others 85.68 38.85 52.43 73.Infrastructure and Aspirations (%) (Community wise District Averages) Muslim Mid-day meal Regularity Taste Cleanliness Availability Regularity Discipline Teaching Vocational Madhyamik H.43 23.42 2.69 15.85 2.55 Non Muslim 90.15 60.79 14.82 47.27 14.98 7.27 <Class Eight 81.51 82.

0.00 0.A. 100. 33.0 N.00 0.00 100. N.00 42. 0.A. 100. 100.A.0 100. N.00 100.00 N.A.A.00 N.0 100. 100. N. N. N.00 N.A. N. N.A.0 25.00 100.A. N. 0. 50.00 DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA N.0 N.A. 25. N. 50.A.A.00 0.A.00 50. 100. N.00 0.00 N.A.00 N.A.00 50. N.0 N.00 0. 0.A.00 N. N.00 0. 0.A.A.A.A.00 N. N.0 50.00 0.A.00 N. N.0 75.00 60.A.00 0.A. 0. 0. N. N.A. N.A.A.00 N. N.00 100. 33. 33.A.00 0. N. N. N.00 0. 25. 75. 0.00 N.00 N.00 0. N.A.A. N. 0. N.A.00 N.00 N.00 N.A.0 N.A.00 100. N. N.00 N.00 N.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.00 N.00 N.A.A.0 N.57 0.00 N.Table 12: Reason For Drop Out – Village wise (%) Name of the Village ance Abs ence of any teac Dist Male ance Exp endit ure No Drin king wate Lab our Dist Female Abs ence of any teac hing No Drin king wate r Exp endit ure N.00 100.A.A.A.A.A.00 100. 33.A.0 N.0 100.00 N. N. 75.A.A. N.00 N.00 50.A. N. N. 0. N.A.A.00 25. N.A. N.0 N. 0.A.00 N.00 0.A.00 0. 75.A.A.00 0. 100.A.86 100. 0.A.00 100.A.33 100.00 50.0 N. 0. 0.A.00 0.A.A.00 N.A.A. N. N.A.A. N.A.A.00 0.50 40.A.A.A.A.A. 0. N.0 100.00 N.A.00 0.A.A.00 0. N.A. 0.A. N.A. N.00 71.A.A.0 0.0 100. N. N. N.A.57 60. 0.A.0 0.00 N.A.00 0.00 0. N.A.A.33 100.A.A. N.00 N.00 N.00 N. 0.A.00 N. 66.00 N.0 0.A.0 N.0 100.00 0. 100.00 N. 0.A.A.0 N.A.A.43 0.00 50.33 0.A.A. N.0 50.A. N.00 N.00 N. Note: N.A. N.00 0. 0. 33. N.A.A. 25.0 100.A.00 75.A.A. 100.A.A.A.A.0 100. 0.00 N. 0. N.67 28.A. 0.A.A.00 50. 0.00 N. 0.00 33.00 0.A. 0.00 0.00 N. N.00 N.00 N.A. 80.33 0.0 100.00 14.A.00 0. N.0 0.A.A.0 N. N.A. N.00 50. N. 0.A.00 N. N.00 N.00 50.A.00 0. 25.00 N.0 N. N.0 50.0 Lab our N.A. N. 100. N.00 N.00 0.A.A. N.A.00 100.00 0. N. 100. 50. N.00 N. 0. 0. 100.00 N.A. N. 100. N.0 0.00 0.A. 100.33 0.0 100.00 0. 0. N. 0.A. N.A. N.00 12.A.A.A.A.0 100.A. N.33 0.00 100. N.00 100. N. N.00 0.00 N.29 50.00 N. N. N. N.0 N.A.A.00 0. 75.A.00 Source: Village survey data. N.00 0.00 0.00 0.A.0 100.00 0.A means not available 25 .A.0 100.00 0.A.00 28.

71 23.69 Family Education 0.57 7.69 Electronic & Electrical 0 0 Driving Training 28.19 6.00 Source: Household survey data.57 15.) Willing to bear the cost Source: Household survey data. 51.70 0.49 23.86 38.69 Courses Handicraft 42.71 Handicraft 21.14 27.77 Institution Government Institution.57 11.Table 13: Vocational Education (%) (Community wise District Averages) Muslim Non Muslim Tailoring 0 7.38 Expert Worker 28.00 11620.91 Automobile Labour 14.78 1.46 Apprentices 0. Duration of training (in days) 26.77 Training Motor Driving Training 9.46 26 .40 0.77 Apprentices Training 0.30 People Interested in Training 33.57 30.91 Others 1.56 Computer 26.70 36.00 0.00 Other 28.97 Family Education 2.50 Average Expenditure for training (Rs.69 Computer Trained 0 7.29 23.00 0.36 Apprentice 0.08 9.09 10.27 Whether useful 100.21 Electronics & Type of Electrical 7.00 66.65 Sericulture 2. Table 14: Demand for Technical/ Vocational Education (%) Religion Muslim Non Muslim 25.00 Diploma Number of people who Certificate hold 57.00 7.02 Tailoring 11.) 1360. 28.67 Average.94 Cost (Rs.29 13.57 30.

00 96.90 0.50 0.22 0. 0. 0 0 50 12.00 0.69 0.67 0.00 N.00 N.A.67 63.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.69 6.33 N.11 0.A. 0.67 50.00 0.00 0.00 0. 0.29 16.70 4.25 0 33.00 20.00 85.00 0.A means not available 27 .00 0.00 10.75 0. 0.00 21.00 0.00 62.00 N.33 66.00 6.26 0.67 0 4 0 5.50 33.00 0.35 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Village survey data Note: N.00 0.A.33 0 N.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 22. 0 0 6.53 0 0 14.00 100.00 0.A.00 0.33 3.05 0. 0.00 0.00 N. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 N.00 0.50 66.00 N.00 5.33 6.58 0.00 18.00 81.22 100.33 3.69 0.00 31.A.A.A.00 30.00 0.00 37.00 5.90 0.00 25.67 6. 0. 0.39 8.A.50 0.00 3.00 0.00 100.33 30.A.A.75 0.25 0 44.Table 15: Village wise Demand for Technical/Vocational Education (in %) Family Education People willing to bear the cost Electronics & Electrical Motor Driving People interested in training Automobile Labour Tailoring Name of the Village Apprentice Sericulture Handicraft Computer Training DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA 13.11 0.00 40.00 16.33 43.67 0 0 12.00 0.77 62.00 23.85 0.00 0.50 22.00 0.00 26.44 0 0 N.00 42.45 28.00 21.67 25.00 12.67 83.00 12.69 0.00 N.33 65.00 12.50 0.00 N.00 14.22 0.A.33 62.05 100.25 100.33 66. 100.A.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 53.67 N.A.A.33 31.67 3.00 0.00 0.24 20.67 0.67 4. 0.00 0.67 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.26 6.00 4.22 0.00 0.00 0.33 53.67 100. 0 0 0 0 0 6.00 N.00 7.00 N.00 12.00 0.53 31. 0 10.00 N.57 20.00 20.00 0.A.00 4.00 0.00 12.A.00 0.14 76.33 73. 0 0 0 N.00 0.45 71.00 0.00 8.50 100.00 57.5 0 6.00 0.00 0.A.11 18. 0.00 0.69 42.00 0.00 83.00 11.00 0.00 6.26 6.00 3.00 0.00 30.50 0.00 3. 100.67 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.A.03 10.11 0.00 0.25 11.43 53.00 0.00 50.33 100.A.00 N.00 0.25 0 0 6.86 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N.00 100.00 5. 0.00 11.00 20.00 0.29 33.50 0.25 0. 0 60 33.67 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 16.00 50.00 0.00 N.00 0.00 12.00 7.26 0 0 0 16.33 17.00 25. 0.00 22.00 22.A.57 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0. 100.08 28.00 66.A.00 17.75 33.00 N.A.00 16.00 0.84 18.67 20.50 0.00 50.75 22.00 20.33 26.00 12.00 5.35 24.22 0.00 5.22 12 0 10.00 36.

Given the findings on educational choices and preferences it is undoubtedly related that the population strongly prefers the supply of such training facilities to replace or add on to the general educational trainings. The predominance of casual workforce in agriculture and allied occupations among the working population clearly displays the lack of skill in both religious groups. though the percentage of such employees is quite small. More impoverished villages are also the ones with largest participation in casual agricultural work. even if incomplete. of the beckoning possibilities in this new era of electronics and information technologies. In fact.67% Muslim and 9. The public funds must be allocated towards provision of such facilities in the areas covered in this study.The demand for technical and vocational training also reflects the significant gap that exists between agricultural and non-agricultural work participation in the villages surveyed. Muslim participation in government jobs is lower compared to other communities in this district. Given the fact that major source of occupation is agriculture it only reflects disguised unemployment in agriculture leading to effectively low productivity.68% of nonMuslim migrant workers even work abroad.45% of non 28 . Interestingly like many other districts of West Bengal. However. 3. On our field survey it was revealed to us that a sizable section of the work force go to work in Nepal and Bhutan for which no passport or visa is required. the overwhelming demand for computer training epitomizes the awareness. either as cultivator or as landless agricultural labourers. Occupation It is readily revealed by the tables below (Tables 16 through 19) that agriculture is the major source of livelihood for both the communities. Across religion there is a strong homogeneity in the type of occupation the migrant workers get involved in as also the locations. The share of migrant workers is quite sizable (Table 17) and about 14. While a higher literacy rate is a definite precursor for even partial awareness in this regard. across communities there is very little female participation in work although there is a sizable share in both Muslim and nonMuslim communities who do not classify as either in full time or casual jobs or purely engaged in household maintenance. about 64% of Muslims and 56. the need for technical education is a certain emphasis among the potential workforce that should not be downplayed under any circumstances.

78 0.91 49.75 2.73 0.75 41. Table 16: Work participation – Community wise District Averages (%) Muslim Male Female Agriculture 18.88 Student 19.66% of the latter are engaged in transport sector mostly as labourers.24 29 .96 0.50 0.44 Agricultural Labour 35.41 Casual Labour 7.07 9.44 0.70 2.00 Others 0.36 2.03 Salaried Employee (Govt.44 0.33 0.15 1.38 Salaried Employee (Private) 1.03 2.17 7.73 23.10 1.45 39. These systematically indicate the lack of opportunities in the province and that even traditional migrant pullers like the city of Kolkata has become less attractive to job seekers from the villages.68 0.26 2.14 0.15 10.) 0.70 3.09 Non Muslim Male Female 14.06 1.88 0.75 Family Business 1.75 Unemployed 6.33 0.19 Unable to work (Child/ Elderly) 5.28 0. Pensioners.04 13.46 0.81 Domestic and related work 0.Muslims migrate to towns outside the province of West Bengal and 73. Remittance Recipient 0.93 Unorganised Employee 1.33 23.14 19.36 6.49 Source: Household survey data 2.16 7.94 Retirees.33% of the former and 60.29 5.70 0.41 1.

44 55.67 61.00 0.64 0.23 4.33 9.28 8.00 4.84 6.68 9.42 56.84 60.66 3.33 6.56 1.33 1.68 56.00 14.45 9.56 3.67 5.00 8.33 0.68 9.64 Non Muslim 44.33 2.00 5.Table 17: Migration for Work – Community wise District Averages (%) Muslim Duration Short Term Long Term Within District (Village) Within District (Town) Within State (Village) Place of Within State (Town) work Outside State (Village) Outside State (Town) Abroad Professional Work Administrative Work Clerical Work Sales Work Reasons for Farmer migration Transport and labourers Student Others Repatriation Household Source: Household survey data 43.67 73.20 66.58 4.84 6.45 9.33 64.00 9.00 1.13 30 .

00 0.78 58.00 0.00 0.67 28.32 4.06 5.26 46.00 0.33 0.85 14.00 26.00 0.82 9.52 18.00 3.25 1.21 50.00 5.95 8.00 5.00 0.26 8.47 60.55 16.00 0.00 26.03 0.00 0.12 0.67 7.00 0.87 26.77 31.30 42.00 1.96 0.00 0.99 67.00 0.70 20.82 62.00 0.49 0.39 71.16 0.00 0.35 56.85 33.00 0.22 1.47 7.44 4.89 7.05 0.00 2.00 0.00 1.) (Govt.15 60.18 0.53 2.00 2.20 0.00 0.20 0.44 0.17 5.00 0.42 1.74 1.00 0.98 8.00 0.00 0.75 4.75 0.00 0.58 6.25 8.00 0.00 13.12 9.60 1.67 10.96 15.26 9.75 4.37 53.26 9.89 20.45 0.44 0.38 6.58 3.74 5.46 3.11 33.00 0.00 3.09 0.77 33.33 0.00 2.47 12.09 3.11 15.94 0.95 1.22 0.84 15.75 52.65 2.22 0.60 15.06 0.00 18.00 9.30 0.32 3.00 2.51 6.96 2.Table 18: Village wise Occupational pattern among the Male (in percentage) Male Name of the Village Casual Labour Salaried Salaried Cultivator Agricult Business Employee Employee (Nonural Agriculture) (Pvt.32 0.09 6.00 2.85 38.06 8.00 0.00 2.81 1.00 2.00 1.25 16.48 2.00 0.00 10.00 47.00 0.00 0.37 13.00 1.00 1.00 6.75 38.00 0.76 58.33 5.51 12.61 62.39 35.33 54.23 0.) Labour DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.50 0.00 1.88 7.71 Source: Village survey data 31 .08 17.43 5.90 0.33 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.03 2.00 0.00 0.72 18.37 34.29 3.53 26.00 2.00 3.00 9.66 41.00 0.00 0.00 0.

00 0.00 7.00 1.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 4.58 1.00 0.00 0.46 0.67 0.72 5.69 1.44 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.52 4.59 13.00 0.72 Source: Village survey data 32 .32 2.72 1.29 0.04 2.00 4.00 6.00 Cultivator Agricultural Labour 2.00 0.42 2.00 0.91 5.35 0.73 58.35 10.00 0.23 0.90 Salaried Employ ee (Pvt.62 1.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 4.26 9.29 0.00 0.04 0.08 1.00 3.00 0.72 0.62 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.89 5.23 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.17 DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 9.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 18.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 7.88 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 9.84 8.00 0.52 1.) 2.70 0.00 2.00 1.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 4.94 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 5.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.86 1.00 0.00 1.72 10.00 4.00 7.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 1.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 10.73 38.00 0.63 1.00 Casual Labour (NonAgriculture) 0.00 2.Table 19: Village wise Occupational pattern among the Female (in percentage) Name of the Village Female Business Salaried Employee (Govt.00 0.00 4.00 0.95 3.00 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.96 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.49 0.56 53.00 0.55 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.86 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.25 13.00 2.32 0.07 6.

the vaccination programmes have not done very well compared to other districts in West Bengal.43 facilities (%) @ Private 19. Note: @ % values may exceed 100 as families access more than one facility. and hardly any is located in the neighbourhood of the village or even within the Panchayat. 33 . Most of the public hospitals are not located in close proximities. while pulse polio programme has done better in terms of coverage for non-Muslims (91. Major reasons for non participation in vaccination programmes turn out to be distance of hospitals or health centres and that people are unaware. It is to be noted that. Health The data reveals that people are more dependent on government health centres or hospitals for accessing health facilities.56 94.00 Access to health Government 89.86 Source: Household survey data. The survey reports that the most dominating reason (46. However. In terms of infrastructure the thirty villages that were surveyed have access to PHC or sub-PHC at least within the panchayat if not within the village.03%). There is hardly any ambulance available for pregnant women to take them to the hospitals. Table 20: Health – Expenditure and Facilities (Community wise averages for the District) Muslim Non-Muslim Annual Average Expenditure for Health per family (Rs) 5273. both the communities also go to the quacks. The consequence of this inaccessibility is strongly reflected in the high average incidence of childbirth at home (60.85% of non-Muslim households) with the aid of trained and largely untrained midwives.4.16%) than Muslims (88.84 9.68 3421. However.61 9.48% for Muslims and 70. people mainly depend upon rented cars. only one (Santoshpur) boasts of having a government hospital within its panchayat limits.32 Quack 4. other conventional vaccination programmes have been more successful among the Muslims.11% for non-Muslims) for not visiting a government hospital is the distance one needs to cover.33% of Muslim households and 46.

00 0. 2833.33 96. N.1 80.33 12.00 N.0 91. N. 100.00 25.00 55.00 0.0 75.A.33 6.00 N.00 66.8 0.0 100.67 73.00 0.0 100.00 11.A.6 60.00 7300.00 16.A.0 22.00 100.A.67 93.50 6129.67 50.00 100.A.33 81.29 600.A.56 0.A. 0. 0.00 60.0 N. 0. 34 .31 80.22 0.44 100.00 N.00 100.00 N.A.A. N.2 0. 0. N.A.85 1574.3 100. N.67 100.43 15830.33 96. 0.A.67 0. N.50 25.A.00 11.00 3.33 93.A.00 5.44 1440.00 0.0 100.0 100. 100.00 100.00 22.A.22 N.A.00 N.A.00 13.00 100.00 0.00 Source: Village survey data.0 100.) Access to health centers (%) Vaccination (%) Problem of Vaccination (%) Polio BCG DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKU THI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA 782.A.0 91. 0.00 4535.29 96.4 20.A.0 93. 75.5 0. 100. N. N.A. 0.A.0 N.0 83.A.0 N.3 10.50 1918.0 100. N.A.A.00 N.0 50.00 N.00 40.00 83.A. N. N.0 15.50 25.67 64. N.00 N.00 72.4 0.0 0. N.A.00 5321.00 17. N.0 0.A.00 0. N.00 33.00 23. 0. N.A.45 0.41 90.00 N.78 100. N.00 0.00 N. N.0 94.A.0 100.A. N.67 N.0 50.0 96.59 93.0 0.00 0.33 70.0 37.55 1614.3 12.6 100 0.00 0.0 25.00 100.17 100.7 20.0 100.00 100.0 0.A.A.00 0.0 85.3 6.36 20.73 4720.00 100.00 9754.4 3. 2272.A.A. N.9 86.29 4252.82 20.00 100. 0.A.00 15.5 56.0 0.00 N.0 94.00 100 100 88.00 544.0 25.67 100.00 N.0 100.A.00 11212.0 100. 0.00 8687.00 100.A.0 55.0 12.00 0.A.00 15.00 N.00 0.A. 00 91. 0.00 0.00 100 0.67 100. N.3 41.67 0.0 0.0 0 N.00 94.00 Quack Average expenditure on health (Rs.A.89 100.A.00 1350. N.00 94.00 92.33 90.0 63.Table 21: Health – Village-wise Averages Name of the Village Govern -ment Measle s distanc e Private Unawa re Others N. N.21 96.7 0.96 4916. N.75 91.0 100.A.00 1532.A.00 50.0 60.00 1148.0 55.1 10. N.A.0 100 DPT N.0 100.0 88. 0.67 3.00 0.0 100. N. 100. N. N. 25.00 100 28.A.0 100.00 100.0 0.67 0.0 0.A.5 0. 100.67 86.67 100.56 86.0 0.A.38 0.50 2214. 100 N.00 100.A.00 1325. N.00 7. N. 25. N.A.00 0.A.00 100.00 0.00 63.00 30.00 11.A.00 0. N.A.A.A.64 1737.00 50. N.A.00 0.1 0.0 91.A.0 100.0 0.33 96.00 29.33 46.0 93.26 4.A. N.50 2139.A.00 6. 0.A.33 2144.00 23.A.00 0.00 N.00 100.A.0 100.A.0 N.44 0.00 0.00 0.67 100. 0.00 0.29 7560.71 100. N.00 N. 100.A.7 50. N.0 N.44 0.00 100.0 92.11 100.0 100.67 75.67 10500.50 77.00 0.00 33.A.0 100.2 24.00 N.67 30. N.57 41.38 100.14 0.A.3 55. 0.

35 . Y = present and NA means not available. Note: N = absent.Name of the Villages BAISGURI BARA ADABARI BARA GADAIKHORA BARA NACHINA BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHAUDANGA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA CHHOTA HALDIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI DAKSHIN SAMILABAS DEBGRAM DIGHALTARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI KUTHIPARA MAHISHKUCHI NAGAR SITAI NATABARI PASCHIM CHAPAGURI PHULBARI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS RUIER KUTHI SAHEBGANJ SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA SANTOSHPUR Table 22: Types of Medical Facilities –Village wise Government PHC Sub-PHC Hospitals Within Within Within Within Within Within village Panchayat village Panchayat village Panchayat N N NA NA N Y NA NA N Y NA NA N N N N Y N N NA NA N Y Y Y Y N N NA NA NA NA NA N N N NA NA N N N NA NA N NA N NA N N NA NA N NA N N N NA NA N N N NA NA N NA N NA N N NA NA N N N NA NA NA NA Y N N N NA NA Y N NA N N NA Y N Y Y NA NA NA NA N N Y NA NA Y NA N N NA N N NA Y NA Y Y NA Y N NA NA N NA N NA N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y NA NA NA Y NA NA Y NA Y NA Y N Y - N Y N Y N N N Y SITALKUCHI N N N Y TIADAHA N N NA NA UTTAR BASARAJBALA Source: Village survey data.

57 child birth Nurse 16.40 Transport Own car 4.00 Support during Doctor 24.83 28.13 Reason for not Long distance 46. 36 .00 3.11 67.85 Hospital 38.95 Private hospital 1.88 Ambulance 0.67 19.00 0.67 1.79 Source: Household survey data.58 Trained midwife 16.02 48.05 7.78 Non trained midwife 40.86 2.33 46.14 21. Unhygienic Govt.05 Below grade service 4.65 4.11 going to Govt.17 33.62 13.82 8.67 16.20 Others 0.75 No female doctor 9. Hospital hospital 2.30 Others 36.67 Others/Don’t know 1.48 70.Table 23: Information on Childbirth – Household Response (%) (Community wise District Averages) Muslim Non-Muslim Place of birth In house 60.23 5.29 Rented car 58.71 No vehicle 35.

A.00 0. 14.00 N.00 0.00 0.55 33. 0.00 11.00 50.00 33.00 0.29 71.00 0.00 22.00 0.09 36.22 0.00 0.00 66.00 0. N.33 7.A.00 0.00 0.00 100.57 90.00 76.00 25. 0. 40.00 33.00 100.00 66.00 0.00 N.00 Source: Household survey data.00 N.00 100.00 64.00 100.A.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.67 0.00 100.00 N.11 60.00 0.A.00 14.00 0.00 0.A.00 20.A.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 75.00 0.00 0.53 At home Name of villages Government Hospital Private Hospital N. N.00 14.00 0.33 83.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.29 0.00 0.00 N.00 10. N.00 50.00 100.00 0.92 75.A.00 0.A.00 20.00 0. N.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.A.00 0.00 0.18 60.00 33.00 0.00 23.A. 0.00 0.A.29 0.00 0.A. N.00 0.00 0.43 9.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 N.00 N.00 N.67 50.00 71. N.A.00 100.00 0.64 66.00 0.00 0.45 66.00 0.36 33. 100.A.00 0.00 DAKSHIN SAMILABAS CHHOTA HALDIBARI UTTAR BASARAJBALA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS KUTHIPARA PASCHIM CHAPAGURI SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA BAISGURI CHAUDANGA NATABARI CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA SANTOSHPUR MAHISHKUCHI DEBGRAM BARA NACHINA (P) RUIER KHUTHI DIGHALTARI TIADAHA SAHEBGANJ BARA ADABARI NAGARSITAI SITALKUCHI PHULBARI BARA GADAIKHORA N.33 66.00 N. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.A.A. 0.00 75.14 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.A.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.69 0.00 0.A.00 0. 0.00 0.00 76.67 15.33 0.38 25. N.00 0.00 100.00 66.00 0.00 N.00 75.00 N.00 0.A. 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.A.33 0.71 50.67 16.00 66.00 25. 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 14. 60.67 100.00 .A.86 75.00 10.00 0.00 N.71 66. 0.A.00 33. 37 Others N.A. 0.00 0.00 0. N.71 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.67 42.00 0.00 0.A.82 40.00 0.00 0.29 33.A.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.00 11.A. 0.00 0.00 50.00 0. 0.00 0.53 25.00 0.A.00 0.00 0.00 100.91 63.A. 85.00 60.00 0.00 58.00 0.76 25.00 0. 0.00 0.00 0.Table 24: Information on Child Birth – Village-wise (%) Place of birth Reasons for not visiting Government places Problem of distance Uncleanline ss Inefficie nt services No female doctors Others N.00 0. N.00 41.43 28.33 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 54.00 33.00 0.33 57.00 N.00 45.00 0.A.00 100.00 N.00 0.67 100.00 0.00 20.00 0. N. 0.00 0.00 66.47 N.00 0.

68 99.17. from the village.82 41.07 for the district though the average number of teachers per primary school is 2.69 Unaware Distance Others Unaware Distance Others 33. 6. The cross-village data clearly displays that the level of awareness is widely scattered across villages for all the programmes taken together ranging from 3.03 91.32 2.0 Source: Household survey data.33 55.25 54.23 59. while over 57.Table 25: Vaccination of Under Five-Year Children (%) (Community wise District Averages) Vaccination Polio (pulse) DTP BCG Measles Organization Reasons for non participation Muslim Non Muslim 88.29% (Bara Nachina) to 71.11 58.83% of the villages have commercial banks and 47. Around 45. But only a few villages have secondary schools.56 11.94 55.32% 38 . Awareness about Government Programmes It is easily understood that the success of government sponsored development schemes strongly depend on the level of awareness and hence the participation in using such facilities.18 0.78 63.. and 80% villages have post offices within respective villages or within 5 Kms.52. in fact the district average of number of secondary schools per village is 0.31 0. Around 50% of the villages are connected through bus routes with a bus stop within 5 Kms.14% villages are connected through train routes with rail stations more than 10 Kms.37% have agricultural credit societies within 5 Kms.42 Government Private Government Private 97. Infrastructure Almost all the villages have at least one primary school within the village with an average of 2.86 70. 5.16 69. of the village and for the residual 50% the bust stop is within 10 Km.

0 N.0 12.5 0.16 15.76 0.29 17.98 33.29 N.0 N.67 25.44 71.0 0. 0.0 N.0 Sarba 80.95 2.0 0.0 0.33 66.81 20.0 N.0 Source: Household survey data.A.27 0.06 63.0 14.A.49 0.64 85.33 14.67 62. 6.0 0.56 SGSY NREGS IAY Old age pension Swajal dhara Irri gation ARWSP SSA 0.63 13.0 N. 0.74 TSC/SSUP 11. 0.0 0.0 14.68 1.0 50.53 36.43 0. Note: NA means not available.0 N.37 5.68 9.0 Help received from for accessing benefit % of cases where Commission Pra GP NGO Self Others paid dhan Office 44.89 4.45 26.67 0.07 38.29 33.0 2.A.2 69.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Household Survey Data.0 N.63 24. 77.48 12.0 0.4 3 0.0 50.98 8.0 N.52 33.A.0 50.0 0.A.08 24.55 6.0 N.0 25. 0.33 50.A.91 10.A.0 0.34 22.2 7 N. 0.33 0. 0 0. Table 27: Awareness and Efficacy of the Government Sponsored Development Programmes – District Average for non-Muslims (%) % of cases Help received from for accessing benefit % of Programme % of people benefici Pra GP NGO Self Others where Commission aware ary dhan Office paid SGSY NREGS IAY Old age pension Swajal dhara Irrigation 43.33 0.0 N. N.0 33.0 0.A.45 55.A.0 4.29 9.A. 0.07 52.21 6. 0.73 N.A.0 0.0 N.A.33 100.76 % of benefic iary 37.0 0.5 0.0 10.A.0 0.61 15.3 25.83 TSC /SSUP 16.0 2.0 1. 14. 5.67 29.0 6.65 36.A.0 N. 31.36 68.25 2.39 64.0 50.Table 26: Awareness and Efficacy of the Government Sponsored Development Programmes – District Average for Muslims (%) Programme % of people aware 30.22 0.56 30.A.0 siksha 24. 0. 22.17 20.91 0.10 1.4 73. 71.0 39 . 0.06 14.A.A.76 5.57 27.83 0.88 N.12 56.0 0.A.45 ARWSP 60.62 69.0 16. 0.0 N.45 39. 14.

11 12.36 32.95 11.07 39.66 Percentage of people benefited (all schemes) 21.21 8.41 34.94 5.29 40.64 3.90 45.23 17.11 37.00 80.33 33.90 14.39 9.38 BAISGURI BARA ADABARI BARA GADAIKHORA BARA NACHINA BARA SIMULGURI BHOGDABRI KESHARIBARI CHAUDANGA CHHAT PHULBARI DARIBAS CHHAT RAMPUR DWITIA KHANDA CHHOTA HALDIBARI CHHOTA NALANGIBARI DAKSHIN SAMILABAS DEBGRAM DIGHALTARI HARI BHANGA KALARAYERKUTHI KUTHIPARA MAHISHKUCHI NAGAR SITAI NATABARI PASCHIM CHAPAGURI PHULBARI PUTIMARI BAKSIBAS RUIER KUTHI SAHEBGANJ SALMARA TRITIAKHANDA SANTOSHPUR SITALKUCHI TIADAHA UTTAR BASARAJBALA Number of people who have job cards for NREGS 350 476 765 874 3968 390 171 350 300 302 505 534 100 882 1552 2033 162 100 178 374 186 45 239 3232 382 224 150 5500 900 350 Number of people who have got job under NREGS 350 476 450 NA 2258 60 82 350 200 0 450 0 100 150 1300 1755 77 100 178 335 114 42 151 2395 382 216 150 5500 NA 0 Source: Village survey data & Household survey data Note: N.98 50.32 69.38 21.A means not available.56 13.83 6.98 93.33 88.Table 28: Awareness and Efficacy of Government Schemes – Village-wise Name of the Villages Percentage of people aware (all schemes) 25.35 71.96 15.80 11.19 62.74 30.25 21.00 100.00 31.89 14.96 65.13 19.06 18.81 32.39 42.35 71.50 39.33 98.97 3.92 90.25 41.97 3.58 43.13 14.00 44.11 9.30 12.26 16.59 38.32 47.15 25.13 16.98 19. 40 .22 21.94 55.51 14.

At this stage. but the percentage of beneficiaries as we have also seen witnessed previously under the section on housing facilities that. Table 29 clearly shows very little penetration of banking and 41 .53% among non-Muslims) are aware.93 percent of the Muslim and 3.13 percent non-Muslim respondent families have health insurance and there is around 6% disparity between non-Muslim and Muslim households with regard to purchase of life insurance. There are many other facilities and schemes that the central government have been running for quite some time and very few the respondents have heard of. These are as follows. the popularity of the NREGS with ready source of income and cash flow seems to receive the highest attention despite longer-term benefits associated with many others already in operation. but the Muslims have benefited relatively less among those who are aware compared to non-Muslims. SSA. unless interest and participation in the existing ones can be maximized with due emphasis on the awareness part of the schemes which could run equally well for all communities. we are not convinced that adding more programmes would be beneficial. with a higher average deposit value for the latter.28% for the non-Muslims. The major source of information in cases of profitable job opportunities have come from the Panchayat Pradhan himself/herself or from the GP office.62% Muslims and 69.07% among Muslims and around 55. Next. is pretty low (222 to 27%). TSC and Swajaldhara. Among the Muslim and non-Muslims households the relatively affluent ones also engage in term deposits. though percentage of benefit is similar across communities.41% for the Muslims and 11. AWRP. Apparently. 7. and there is no report of the fact that NGOs have been of significant help in this connection.45% non-Muslims) among all the government programmes.(Chhat Phulbari Daribas). compared to the more well known indicators often invoked for the purpose. About 0. The interesting thing about the government programmes is that awarness about NREGS is the highest among all the communities in the district as a whole (85. and those who deposit money with the bank vary between 7. Percentage of people buying crop insurance is negligible across communities. These include: old age and widow pension. for IAY (69. Other Issues We use Tables 29-32 to reflect on a score of other features that are no less important in understanding the reasons behind the acute underdevelopment in these communities. SGSY.

A well above 40% of families among the Muslims and 55. 38. either because of inadequacy. 26. The meagre percentage of people approaching the commercial banks or other government provided sources is rather negligible and once again reflects on the issue of lack of awareness and sometimes even lack of trust with such institutions. Finally.16%. since the larger part of the loan (Muslims. Added to it is the unwillingness of the dealers to sell the commodities (reported by Muslims. non.4%. The level of indebtedness is high among both communities exceeding 25% of the households surveyed and in fact more among the Muslims.Muslims.9% among the non-Muslims are reported to have BPL ration card. non-Muslims 22. On the whole therefore.5%) is taken for covering medical expenses. The average interest rate paid (see Table 30) clearly indicates that the source is still the traditional moneylenders and around 20% of indebted households in either community have used this source at some point. though the use is not very high. irregularity and so on. less in amount. inferior quality. the assessment re-opens the possibilities of improving upon the lacunas that have been plaguing the district for long enough. 28. the use of common property resources is similar across religious communities.financial institutions in the villages of Cooch Behar. It is also the breakdown of the reasons of indebtedness (vide Table 31) that ties the borrowers with informal moneylenders. Table 33).46%. More than 60% of the respondents from all communities report the public distribution system to be inefficient. 42 .

71 Source: Household survey data.33 9.57 4460.5 Non Muslim 3.Table 29.86 18035. Bank Deposit Crop Insurance Life Insurance 43 .67 7.0 11.35 25250.41 3565.28 16509.70 0.94 30262.28 5883.83 4.28 4.13 8277.84 0.93 18047. Insurance and Financial Assets – Community wise District Averages Muslim Health Insurance Percentage of households who have Average Value (Rs) Percentage of households who have Average Value (Rs) Percentage of households who have Average Value(Rs) Percentage of households who have Average Value(Rs) Percentage of households who have Fixed Deposit Average Value (Rs) 0.56 15.93 18166.

Sources and Conditions of Loan (Community wise District Averages) Muslim Percentage of households indebted 36.48 Commercial Bank 6.23 Government 9.61 16.14 11.59 Relative 38.78 3.91 2.03 4.74 3.76 Co-operative Bank 1.Table 30: Indebtedness .70 21.45 24.15 18.45 Conditions & Terms of Loan (%) Only Interest Physical labour Land mortgage Ornament mortgage 73.79 Others 3.27 1.52 1.11 Big landowner/Jotedar 2.11 38.72 Self Help Group/Non Governmental Organization Moneylender 6.94 Source: Household survey data.93 63.97 17. 44 .34 6.41 Non Muslim Average Interest Rate 37.34 11.03 Sources of availing loans (%) Rural Bank 7.61 2.03 24.36 6.

Table 31: Indebtedness .25 0.2 13.9 Reasons of Loan Purchase of agricultural equipment Purchase of land/home Repairing of house Marriage/other social function Medical expenditure Purchase of cattle Investment Others 17.3 2.Reasons and Nature of Loan (Community wise District Averages) Muslim Capital related expenditure 6.7 6.00 Other Govt.9 15.00 0.23 0.03 5.23 Cattle-pen 9.4 1.37 0.8 28.16 Pond 9.23 Field 11.5 6.00 Others 0.42 0.58 0.4 Terms – Cash only Source: Household survey data.6 94.1 24.6 22.00 0.2 5.47 School ground 6.8 10.07 21.36 1.51 13. buildings 3.00 0.2 5.9 11.37 4.73 0.8 14.0 Non Muslim 4.43 1.65 3.18 0. Uses and Interference 45 .02 11.41 1. Table 32: Common Property Resources – Household Response of Uses and Interference (District Averages) Percentage of User Percentage of Interference Non Muslim Muslim Non Muslim Muslim Forest 1.00 1.00 Source: Household survey data.08 0.5 97.3 2.

86 BPL Card Sufficiency Quantity 40.83 21.49 38.42 8.99 13.46 16.39 Problem (%) 46 .00 34. 59.49 7.01 7.10 7.27 5.90 42.11 4.82 28.63 7.26 55.09 21. per family per month Wheat – Kg.75 1.37 29.70 39.30 6.03 Non Muslim 47.04 35.92 0.31 26.Table 33: Public Distribution System – Community wise District Averages Muslim APL Card % of families with APL ration cards % of families with BPL/ Antodaya/ Annapurna card.95 36. % of families with sufficient product Rice – Kg.18 0.14 4.42 5. per family per month Inadequate Inferior quality Less in amount Not available in time Irregular Others No problem Purchase % of families who can purchase all goods Reason for problems Monetary constraint of purchase (%) Insufficiency of ration Unwillingness to sell off by the dealers Others Source: Household survey data.87 37.44 36.16 5.12 35.

Since the approach of the Multisector Development Plan funded by the Ministry of Minority Affairs is supplementary in nature and does not intend to change the very nature of the plan process. But a careful examination of work participation will reveal the nature of work engagements of which landless labourers is the most important category. Accordingly the district administration is expected to draw up their development plan funded by the Ministry of Minority Affairs based on the priority ranking of the facilities as listed above. In addition we have also provided the status of the many other indicators that we thought to be of relevance.Recommendations We have discussed the conditions of the district in terms of the major indicators. For example we have gone into a detailed account of status of education. In all other cases district averages are higher than the corresponding national averages. at different levels as we thought that only literacy is inadequate. one should be careful to interpret the results with caution. In addition to these indicators we have also discussed about some of the indicators. as we tried to relate the same with job market situation for the general populace. in our opinion. viz. the four religion specific indicators and the four basic amenities indicators. For example. It is clear from the table that the district averages perform worst for electrified houses. Hence it is recommended that the district administration should pay Table 34: Priority Ranking of Facilities Based on Deficits of District 47 . which in our opinion are extremely important for the development of the district. Hence we provide the deficit of the district for the religion specific socio-economic indicators and the basic amenities indicators where the deficit has been calculated as the deviation of the survey averages from national averages provided by the NSSO 2005 and NHFS3 in Table 34 below. We also provided the status of training in vocational trades and the demand for such training. However. followed by houses with pucca walls. The above analysis is very broad in nature and requires intervention at a very larger scale and change in the attitude of the process of policy planning. we have provided the current status of the most important eight indicators identified by the Ministry of Minority Affairs. Some of these are calculated at a more disaggregated level for a particular indicator. work participation or female work participation is higher than the respective national averages. literacy and W/C toilet. it is suggested that the district administration may start working on priority basis with the additional fund in the areas where the deficit can very easily be identified at the district level or at the village or in the pockets of the district. This is important.

Socio-economic Indicators 1 Literacy (%) 67.25 1 8 W/C Toilet (%) 39. adequate attention towards the provision of training facilities in vocational education as well as creation of employment opportunities.29 -5. However. However. Of course the fund from Ministry of Minority Affairs is not enough for the latter. 2005. Indicator District National Deficit Priority Average Average Rank I.9 43.06 -19.5 10 Institutional Delivery (%) 47.9 56. Basic Amenities Indicators 5 Houses with Pucca Walls (%) 12.63%.7 2. We draw the attention of the district administration to be cautious when drawing plan for the district.14 7 4 Female Work Participation (%) 21. 48 . coverage of IAY for BPL families being only 5.88 59.5 41.1 62. In such cases it makes better sense to concentrate the efforts of the district administration areas other than the above ten indicators as suggested by the Ministry.14 -10.3 64. Given the representative nature of the sample one can treat those villages or the blocks where they are situated as the pockets of relative backwardness in terms of the above indicators.4 46.07 87.2 -0. but part of a larger planning process. Health Indicators 9 Full Vaccination of Children (%) 44. In addition to the above priority ranking of facilities we also like to point out that there are some findings that the study team of the CSSSC thinks very important from the standpoint of the development of the district.17 5 7 Electricity in Houses (%) 11.19 6 3 Work Participation (%) 38. there are large variations across the villages. A comparison may be made consulting the relevant tables for the village level averages.65 67. the district authority should pay adequate attention in the provision of pucca houses for the BPL families.33 39. No.52 2 6 Safe Drinking Water (%) 91.35 38.9 -3.6 3 2 Female Literacy (%) 57. This is specially so where district averages are higher than the corresponding national averages. and national averages for Sl.Averages and National Averages Sl.7 Note: District averages are based on sample data on rural areas only.0 48.56 8 II. These are given below. (5) to (8) are based on NFHS-3 and the rest are based on NSSO. No.13 4 III. In this way one can find out the priority ranking for the villages separately. it may also be noted that the district averages and the deficits are not uniform across the district.

• • So far secondary schools are concerned.86% non-Muslims go to quacks for treatment though some of them also go to government hospitals or private practitioners.43 Km. the district administration should pay attention to this. average distance of primary health centre or sub-centres is 1. • The average number of primary schools per village is 2. there is hardly any ambulance available for this purpose in the villages. Apparently the district performs very poor in terms of health related infrastructure. average distance of government hospital is 7.23 days in a year. But the district average of the number of primary teachers per school (2. percentage of BPL families covered under IAY is extremely poor. This is an important area where the policy makers should think of providing at least one ambulance per village. So looking at only vaccination or institutional delivery is inadequate. the performance of the district is very poor – 0. This also needs intervention..52 per school) is in fact lower than the national average (2. These are by no means can be considered good whether they exceed national average or not.57 Km. So we think it is an important area where the district administration should top up. 5. but the national average itself is very poor.07 which sounds reasonably good. • For the ICDS centres only 57% are housed in government building while 30 % have good quality building and average number of visits of ICDS employees is only 17.63 %. 49 . So though the district average is better than the national average. average distance of private hospital or nursing home is 5.44 % of villages have primary health centres or sub-centres situated within the village. A mere 5% of villages have government hospitals in its vicinity. though in most of the cases they are lower than national average..17 secondary and higher secondary schools per village.84% Muslims and 9.• Though pucca walled house receives a rank of 3. It means that on an average all the four classes in a primary school cannot be held.84 per school based on Census 2001). A large percentage of families – 4. 44. For taking pregnant women to hospitals for delivery the major means is rented cars.77 Km.

59 % 0.00 % 32.31 % 40.00 % Footpath Available Nature of Approach Roads Average for the district Average for sample villages Not Available 67.34 Average of the sample villages 640.00 % 54.55 persons 15.00 % Source: Village Directory.57 7.81 % 60.Appendices Table A 1: General information District averages 278.00 % Mud Road Available Not Available 92.94 Hectares 4.23 Area of the village Household size Area of irrigated land out of total cultivable area Number of post offices Number of phone connection Source: Village Directory.45 Hectares 4.19 % 40.83 persons 11.22 1. Census 2001 Table A 2: Approach Roads to the villages Paved Road Available Not Available 45.61 % 90.00 % 7.69 % 60. Census 2001 50 .19 % 0.39 % 10.

00 60.51 76. Source: Village Directory.98 5.00 Percentage 60.00 0.00 20.00 District (Post Office) < 5 km.00 40.22 52.32 WELL Tap 0.00 20.00 70.00 13.67 26.00 70.00 90. 5-10 km.00 50.32 3.22 80.16 5.00 District Nil Available Sample villages Not available Source: Village Directory.32 TUBEWELL TANK 23.33 23.00 30.00 5. A2: Distance to post-office 78.00 WELL TANK 63.Fig.70 91.00 20.47 1.32 10. Census 2001 Fig.00 HANDPUMP TUBEWELL 0.67 73.33 0.11 26. 20.56 68. A 1 Sources of Water Average availability of sources of drinking water (%) 100.00 0.00 10.67 80.33 100.33 46.00 5.67 76.00 Percentage 50.00 0.00 40.00 80. Census 2001 51 .60 53.46 5.00 0.32 HANDPUMP 0.00 Sample villages (Post Office) >10 km.31 80.08 42.00 Tap 0.00 31.00 30.

05 59.37 29.00 20.04 70.63 31.00 9.58 21.17 25.00 20. Commercial Bank 35. Rail station Bus-stand Rail station Sample villages >10 km. 5-10 km.71 25. Source: Village Directory.00 50.00 17.25 30.86 0.00 60.00 Percentage 40.50 60.00 0.88 10.00 54. A4: Distance of Bank and Other Financial Institutions Distance of Banking Institutions 70.04 50.36 26.11 29.05 Co-operative Agricultural Bank Credit Society Sample villages >10 km. Census 2001 52 .00 10.00 0.46 45. Census 2001 Fig.00 Commercial Bank Co-operative Agricultural Bank Credit Society District <5 km.26 47.00 57.Fig.00 30. A3: Distance to Public Transport Distance from transport points 66.00 50.00 60.76 55.91 15.06 13.00 30.14 25. 5-10 km.38 11.16 19.00 Source: Village Directory.00 Bus-stand District < 5 km.44 25.83 59.00 Percentage 40.00 50. 3.

00% 0.00% 8.00% 12.59% 16.00% 2. Census 2001 53 .00% District 11.00% 6.Fig. A5: Irrigation Area of irrigated land out of total cultivable area 15.00% 14.00% 4.19% Sample villages District Sample villages Source: Village Directory.00% Percentage 10.

A total of two hamlet groups will be chosen from these hamlet groups. block. one hamlet group will be the one with highest minority population (for the district).2. one has to work with percentage of minority population at the level of CD block. For the purpose of sampling the district is classified into three strata Si (i=1. No. The households of chosen hamlet groups will be listed. These N blocks are then arranged in descending order (one can also use ascending order) by pj.3) be the proportion of rural population in Si to district rural population. Out of these two. subject to a minimum of 6 villages in each stratum. For this purpose one may exactly follow the methodology of NSSO for hamlet group formation. If population of the sample village is less than or equal to 1200 all households will be listed.3). The villages are chosen by the method of PPS (probability proportional to population) with replacement from each of Si where aggregate population of villages are the size criteria (as per census 2001). But since there is no published data on minority population at the village level. If population of the village is more than 1200. Let Pi (i =1. Let N be the no. if the district population is less than equal to 0. For stratification of villages in the district percentage of minority population will be used as the criteria.2. of villages to be drawn from Si by ni one obtains ni = (Pi) 25.. Each Si contains the villages belonging to the respective blocks. The top 20%. S2 and S3 respectively.N) be the percentage of minority population of the j th..5 million then a total of 30 villages will be chosen for the district and if the population is less than or equal to 0. = (Pi) 30. middle 50% and the bottom 30% constitutes S1. If the population of the district is greater than 0. While listing the 54 . of villages from each strata will be chosen by the proportion of population of that strata in the total.5 million.5 million then 25 villages will be chosen for the district.Sampling Methodology The primary unit for survey is census village.…. Then denoting the no. A sample of villages will be selected for each district. Another hamlet group will be chosen randomly from the remaining hamlet groups. After the sample villages are chosen by the method described above the next task is to choose the sample of households for each village. 3 or more hamlet groups will be chosen.5 million if the district population is greater than 0. of CD blocks in a district and pj (j=1.

. Approximate present population of the village no. The rule followed by NSSO for forming hamlet-groups is given below. Muslim. A total of 30 households will be chosen from each sample village (or the two hamlet groups if hamlet groups have been formed) in proportion to number of households in each stratum subject to a minimum of 2 households in each stratum. Buddhist and Parsi. If there is no listing in any stratum then the corresponding group will be ignored for that village. Given the auxiliary information on minority status of the households they will be classified into five strata – Hindu. Christian.households their minority status will also be collected as auxiliary information. of hamletgroups to be formed 1200 to 1799 1800 to 2399 2400 to 2999 3000 to 3599 ………….and so on 3 4 5 6 55 . The sampling methodology will be simple random sampling without replacement.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful