HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

According to this concept of human development, “Income is merely one option that people would
like to have. But it is not the sum total of their lives. Development must, therefore, be more than
just the expansion of income and wealth. Its focus must be people.” Human dimension of
development presupposes that development should be measured in terms of the richness of human
life. It presupposes that people are the real wealth of the nations. So development should be
designed and directed to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and
creative lives. Human development is defined as the process of enlarging people’s freedoms and
opportunities and improving their well-being. Human development is about the real freedom
ordinary people have to decide who to be, what to do, and how to live. To be more definitive human
development can be said to be a paradigm that speaks about creating an environment in which
people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs
and interests.

The human development concept was developed by the Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq. There
was thinking on this human development concept at the World Bank in the 1970s. But it took the
concrete shape as an approach when Dr. Haq argued that existing measures of human progress
failed to improve people’s lives. In particular, he believed that the commonly used measure of Gross
Domestic Product failed to adequately measure well-being. He noted that the existing model of
development had the lacunae of not trickling down to the lower rung of the social ladder. So, it was
becoming pro rich and anti poor. Working with Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and others in 1990 Dr.
Haq published the first Human Development Report, which was commissioned by the United
Nations Development Programme. The concept of human development was then expanded upon by
Martha Nussbaum, Sabina Alkire, Ingrid Robeyns, and others who had development concerns.

“India lives in villages” were the golden words of Mahatma Gandhi many decades ago. Ironically
after almost 50 years the data does not seem to disagree. Today a majority of the Indian population
still live in the villages. Though there is substantial migration from rural to urban areas in India, still
almost 68% of India continues to live in rural areas.

The socio-economic census data (2011) released very recently said that almost 73% of the
households were in rural areas. On the contrary, India’s vision today is highly urban centric. Cities
are tipped to be the catalysts of growth in the future. One fears the decay of villages and therefore
there is a need to visit the existing ground realities. This piece looks at various indicators of socio-
economic progress in India from the rural-urban perspective.

The GDP Composition over time

It is noted that the agriculture and allied services contribution to the GDP of the nation has reduced
considerably from 51.88% in 1950 to 13.94% in 2013. The World Bank data on value added by
agriculture (% of GDP) data does not seem to disagree. From a 42.56 in 1960 it has dropped to a
meager 16.95 in 2014. Given that almost 70% of the population lives in rural areas and about 50% of
the overall labour force is still dependant on agriculture, this situation is definitely not sustainable.
Rural Livelihood & Employment

A deeper look at the Socio-Economic Census (2011) data regarding rural livelihood and employment
is scary. The chart below summarises some of the major findings of the SECC 2011. Almost three
fourths of the rural households live with a monthly income of less than Rs 5000. More than half the
rural households do not own land and more than half of them are casual labour.

Poverty Estimates

The chart below summarises the poverty situation in India. Though poverty has been reducing over
time, the rate of poverty reduction in urban areas has been higher than rural areas. Also today,
nearly 26% of rural India is poor, compared to a meagre 13.7% in urban areas. The Rangarajan
Committee estimates are also indicative of the fact that rural poverty is higher than urban and
stands at approximately 31% in 2011-12.

Literacy Levels

A look at the literacy levels in India over last 3 decades from the same rural urban lens gives us more
or less similar numbers. Rural literacy rate is much lower than the urban literacy rate. The point to
be noted is the gender disparity in this area, where the urban female literacy rate is almost higher by
20% than the rural female.

Literacy Rate of SCs & STs

Again here we can notice the same trend wherein the rural SC/STs lag behind their urban
counterparts. The urban literacy rate of ST’s seems to growing at a decreasing rate in the last decade
of the data, which can be attributed to the lower number of ST’s living in urban pockets.

Net Attendance – Rural Vs Urban

The chart below represents the net attendance rates of rural and urban India in 2006. The net
attendance provides a deeper insight into the education dynamics of India. The rural again falls
behind the urban centres here and it is to be noted that the rate of fall of net attendance from
primary to secondary is much steeper in the rural areas. The widely cited reasons for the same are
lack of familial commitment, migration, climate induced disasters, famine and poverty.

Health Indicators – The same story continues

Health is said to be the wealth of a society. Good health and adequate nutrition are the best
indicators of the overall well-being of population and human resources development. They also form
an important component of human capability. The following charts depict the rural urban health
divide.

Rural India lags behind Urban India in all the indicators; Infant Mortality Rate, Percentage of Anemic
Population, Various Health Indicators and Access to Basic Services (as of 2006).