Chapter 3 Socio-Economic Profile of Scheduled …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/76452/7/ch3.pdfSocio-Economic Profile Page 60 The beneficiaries have been presently divided

Chapter 3

Socio-Economic Profile of

Scheduled Tribe

Beneficiaries & Non-Beneficiaries

Socio-Economic Profile

Page 58

Scheduled Tribes in the Study Area

Socio-economic status is the grading of individuals in the society in which they

live. Before having an over view of the socio economic profile of beneficiary households

it is imperative to have a look at their socio economic status.

The survey work revealed that in district Rajouri out of 12 tribes of the J&K state

there are two scheduled tribes namely, Gujjars and Bakerwals. As per Census 2011 the

total population of Gujjar and Bakerwal tribes is 232815 which constitute 36.2 percent of

the total population of the district. In district Rajouri Gujjars and Bakerwals represent the

second largest population in the state after Poonch district. Among nine blocks of the

district Rajouri, Budhal block has the highest concentrations 56.21% of Gujjar and

Bakerwal tribes. In Rajouri district 12% of total population is comprised of Bakerwals

and 23% belongs to Gujjar tribe. Gujjars, who mostly rear cattle, are herdsmen of

buffaloes and possess small pieces of lands, kachhas houses on the slopes in the foothills

of mountains in Rajouri district. Bakerwal’s livelihood, on the other hand, is mostly

dependent on rearing of the sheep and goats for which they remain in search of green


Page 59

pastures and hence always keep on moving from one place to another with their luggage,

flocks of sheep and goats, fleets of horses and dogs. Bakerwals derive their name from

the word “Bakri” (goat) who they initially used to rear. Because of their nomadic style of

moving during winter to lower reaches and uphill during summer they are referred to as

“nomad” who live a nomadic life.

As a part of the present study, an attempt has been made to collect information

from 245 beneficiary households with regard to their socio-economic status viz;

education, occupation, income level, mode and process of selection and time lag

involved in the selection to become eligible to avail grants under three support schemes

of tribal development viz; Swaranjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), Khadi

Village Industry Board (KVIB), The J&K Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe & other

Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd.(SC/ ST & BC Corporation). Apart

from beneficiaries, the information has been also collected on socio-economic profile of

100 non- beneficiaries to make a comparison between beneficiaries and non-

beneficiaries. On the basis of this information, an attempt has been made in this chapter

to prepare a socio-economic profile of the beneficiaries of SGSY, KVIB and SC/ST &BC

Corporation as well as non–beneficiaries.

Part I: Socio-economic profile of SGSY Beneficiaries

Sex and Age

Information was collected from the sample beneficiaries regarding their age and

sex.

Table 3.1 & fig.3.1 reveals that out of 175 beneficiaries just 9.71% were headed

by women. The block wise data further reveals that 9.14% beneficiary households in

Budhal block and 0.57% in Rajouri block are under the domain of women.

According to the guidelines issued by the concerned ministry, priority was to be

given to women heads of households who were eligible for SGSY. The low percentage of

women beneficiaries as presently observed seems to be on account of traditional family

pattern where households are by a large headed by males only.


Page 60

The beneficiaries have been presently divided into five groups to find out their

working age groups (table-3.1). The data reveals that out of total beneficiaries surveyed

there was no one in the age group of upto 25 years, 3.43% were in the age group of 25-30

years, 50.29% in the age group of 30-35 years, 40.57% in the age group of 35-40 years

and only 5.71% in the age group of 40 and above in both the blocks. It simply indicates

that more than 50% of the sample beneficiaries are in the age group of 30-35 years in the

study area. Sex wise data in the table 3.1&fig. 3.1 further shows that female beneficiaries

had very low representation of just 9.14% in Budhal & as low as only o.57% in Rajouri

block.

Table 3.1: Distribution of sample beneficiary households by sex and age under

SGSY scheme

Particulars Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total

Sex Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total

Age Groups

Upto 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25-30 4

(2.29%)

2

(1.14%)

6

(3.43%) 0 0 0 4

2

6

(3.43%)

30-35 11

(6.29%)

38

(21.71%)

49

(28.00%)

1

(0.57%)

38

(21.71%)

39

(22.29%) 12 76

88

(50.29%)

35-40 1

(0.57%)

39

(22.29%)

40

(22.86%)

0

31

(17.71%)

31

(17.71%) 1 70

71

(40.57%)

40 & above 0 5

(2.86%)

5

(2.86%) 0

5

(2.86%)

5

(2.86%) 0 10

10

(5.71%)

Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.29%)

75

(42.86%)

17

(9.71%)

158

(90.28%)

175

(100%)

Source: Field Survey


Page 61

Fig. 3.1: Graphic representation of sample beneficiary households by sex and age

under SGSY scheme in block Budhal

Fig. 3.2: Graphic representation of sample beneficiary households by sex and age

under SGSY scheme in block Rajouri

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Up to 25 years 25-30 years 30-35 years 35-40 years 40 & aboveyears

Block Budhal

Female

Male

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Block Rajouri

Female

Male


Page 62

Educational Status:-

Data collected from sample beneficiaries about the educational status as given in

table 3.2 & fig. 3.3 indicates very grim picture of literacy. Out of the total sampled

respondents as high as 47.43% were illiterate. From among the rest while 47.83% had

education upto primary level & just 5.14% had education upto middle/secondary level. It

is also clear from the table that none of the beneficiaries has education above secondary

level.

Table 3.2: Educational status of SGSY beneficiaries

Educational

Status

Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total

Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total

Illiterate 12

(6.86%)

26

(14.86%)

38

(21.71%)

1

(0.57%)

44

(25.14%)

45

(25.71%) 13 50

83

(47.43%)

Primary 3

(1.71%)

51

(29.14%)

54

(30.86%) 0

29

(16.57%)

29

(16.57%) 3 80

83

(47.43%)

High school 1

(0.57%)

7

(4.00%)

8

(4.57%) 0

1

(0.57%)

1

(0.57%) 1 8

9

(5.14%)

Pre-Univ.

(12th) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graduation

& above 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand

Total

16

(9.14%)

84

(48.00%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.29%)

75

(42.86%)

17

(9.71%)

158

(90.28%)

175

(100%)



Page 63

Fig. 3.3: Graphic representation of educational status of SGSY beneficiaries

Marital Status and Family Size

While conducting the survey information was also been collected from 245

beneficiaries regarding their marital status and it is shown in table 3.3& fig. 3.4.

Table 3.3 Marital status and family size of the SGSY beneficiaries

Educational

Status



Married 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.29%)

75

(42.86%) 17 158

175

(100%)

Unmarried 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.29%)

75

(42.86%) 17 158

175

(100%)

Family Size

Upto 3 0 0 0 0 2

(1.14%)

2

(1.14%) 0 2

2

(1.14%)

4-5 6

(3.43%)

34

(19.42%)

40

(22.85%) 0

12

(6.85%)

12

(6.85%) 6 46

52

(29.71%)

6-7 9

(5.14%)

41

(23.42%)

50

(28.57%)

1

(0.57%)

41

(23.42%)

42

(24%) 10 82

92

(52.57%)

8 & above 1

(0.57%)

9

(5.14%)

10

(5.71%) 0

19

(10.85%)

19

(10.85%) 1 28

29

(16.57%)

Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.29%)

75

(42.86)

34

(19.42%)

141

(80.57%)

175

(100%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Illiterate Primary High School Pre-univ.(12th) Graduation &Above

Female

Male


Page 64

Fig. 3.4: Graphic representation of family size of SGSY beneficiaries

A look at the table 3.3 & fig. 3.4 reveals that all of the sample beneficiaries

(100%) are married. Table further reveals that while 1.14% had family size upto 3

members, 29.71% had 4-5 members, 52.57% had 6-7 members and 16.57% had 8 &

above members in the family. It is thus evident that more than 50% of the sample

beneficiary households had 6-7 members in the family. It indicates large size of the

family and hence an economic burden on the family heads.

Landholdings

Size of land holdings is used as the main determining factor to access the general

economic status of the sample households in rural areas. The beneficiaries for this

purpose were classified into, Small Farmers, Marginal Farmers and Landless labourer on

the basis of the size of their land holdings. Information regarding these aspects is given

in table 3.4 and fig.3.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

up to 3 members 4-5 members 6-7 memers 8 & above members

Family size

Female

Male


Page 65

Table 3.4: Distribution of sample beneficiaries under SGSY scheme on the basis of

size of landholdings

Land

Holdings



Small

Farmers

(2.5-5 acres)

0 13

(7.42%)

13

(7.42%) 0 0 0 0 13

13

(7.42%)

Marginal

Farmers (<2.5

acres)

16

(9.14%)

71

(40.57%)

87

(49.71%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.28%)

75

(42.86) 17 145

162

(92.57%)

Landess

Labourer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.28%)

75

(42.86)

17

(9.71%)

158

(90.28%)

175

(100%)


Fig. 3.5: Graphic representation of landholdings of SGSY beneficiaries

The data in the table 3.4 & fig. 3.5 clearly shows that 92.57% of the sample

beneficiaries possessed the land holding less than 2.5 acre and only 7.42% sample

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Landless Labourers Marginal Farmers Small Farmers

Female

Male


Page 66

beneficiary households had land holding from 2.5-5 acres. The data also shows that none

of beneficiaries belonged to landless labourer’s category.

Economic Status

Information regarding economic status of the sample households has also been

collected during present study. It has been calculated on the basis of their land holdings

and other sources of the income. The consolidated economic status of the sample

beneficiaries in terms of their annual income at the time of selection is given in table 3.5

& fig. 3.6.

Table 3.5: Distribution of sample beneficiary households under SGSY scheme on

the basis of annual income

Income Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total


Upto 30000 7

(4%)

2

(1.14%)

9

(5.14%)

1

(0.57%)

1

(0.57%

02

(1.14%) 8 3

11

(6.28%)

30001-40000 9

(5.14%)

72

(41.14%)

81

(46.28%) 0

59

(33.71%)

59

(33.71%) 9 131

140

(80%)

40001-50000 0 10

(5.71%)

10

(5.71%) 0

12

(6.85%)

12

(6.85%) 0 22

22

(12.57%)

Above 50000 0 0 0 0 2

(1.14%)

2

(1.14%) 0 2

2

(1.14%)

Grand Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(48%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.28%)

75

(42.86)

17

(9.71%)

158

(90.28%)

175

(100%)



Page 67

Fig. 3.6: Graphic representation of annual income of SGSY beneficiaries

It is clear from the table that 6.28% of sample households had an annual income

upto Rs. 30000 at the time of their selection and 80% of the total respondents were

having annual income in the range of Rs. 30001 to Rs. 40000. Table further shows that

12.57% of the sample beneficiaries had their income to range from Rs.400001to Rs.

50000 and only 1.14% beneficiarie’s income exceeded Rs. 50000 at the time of their

selection.

Occupation

Data on the occupation pattern of beneficiaries in both the blocks as given in

Table 3.6 & fig. 3.7 reveals that 72.57% of beneficiaries had agriculture as the main

occupation and 21.71% were having labour as their occupation. Rest 5.71% of

beneficiaries were running small businesses.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Upto 30000 30001-40000 40001-50000 Above 50000

Female

Male


Page 68

Table 3.6: Occupation of the sample beneficiary households under SGSY scheme in

the study area


Fig. 3.7: Graphic representation of occupation of SGSY beneficiaries

Awareness of the Programme, Selection Process, Eligibility and mode of selection

During the course of the field survey information was gathered from sample

households to find out as to how the sample beneficiaries households came to know about

SGSY.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Agriculture Labour Govt. Job Small Business

Female

Male

Total

Occupation Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total


Agriculture 16

(9.14%)

65

(37.14%)

81

(43.42%)

1

(0.57%)

45

(25.71%)

46

(26.28%) 17 110

127

(72.57%)

Labour 0 14

(8%)

14

(8%) 0

24

(13.71%)

24

(13.71%) 0 38

38

(21.71%)

Govt. Job 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small

Business 0

05

(2.85%)

05

(2.85%) 0

05

(2.85%)

05

(2.85%) 0 10

10

(5.71%)

Grand Total 16

(9.14%)

84

(45.14%)

100

(57.14%)

1

(0.57%)

74

(42.28%)

75

(42.86%)

17

(9.71%)

158

(90.285)

175

(100%)


Page 69

They were also interviewed about the procedure followed by the concerned

functionaries for their selection in the role of Gram Sabha. This information is tabulated

in table 3.7 & represented in fig. 3.8.

Table 3.7: Distribution of SGSY beneficiaries on the basis of sources of information

Sources of

Information


No. %age No. %age No. %age

Block Official 13 7.43% 6 3.43% 19 11%

DRDA

Official 0 0 0 0 0 0

VLW 34 19.43% 31 17.71% 65 37%

Sarpanch 27 15.43% 13 7.43% 40 23%

Others 26 14.86% 25 14.29% 51 29%

Total 100 57.14% 75 42.86% 175 100%


Fig. 3.8: Graphic representation of sources of information of SGSY beneficiaries

Block Official 11%

DRDA Official 0%

VLW 37%

Sarpansh 23%

Others 29%

Sources of Information


Page 70

It is evident from the table that 37% of the beneficiaries of sample households

came to know about SGSY through VLWs. 29% of beneficiaries however, stated that

they got information from others which included village heads, BDOs, Bank employees

etc. It was also observed that 11% of the beneficiaries got information through block

officials and only 23% through Sarpanch. It is quite surprising that none of the

beneficiaries got information about SGSY through Gram Sabha.

Information was also obtained from the sampled beneficiary households about

their awareness of the eligible conditions and mode of selection under SGSY.

To gather information about the mode of their selection, beneficiary households

were asked as to whether they were selected through gram Sabha, VLWs and others.

Their views in this regard have been presented in table 3.8& fig 3.9.

Table 3.8: Distribution of sample beneficiaries under SGSY scheme on the basis of

their mode of selection

Source of

Information



Ghram Sabha 20 11.42% 22 12.57% 42 24%

VLW 40 22.85% 35 20% 75 43%

Others 40 22.85% 18 10.28% 58 33%

Grand Total 100 57.14% 75 42.86% 175 100%



Page 71

Fig. 3.9: Graphic representation of mode of selection of SGSY beneficiaries

Data in the above table & fig. clearly indicates that one third (33%) of the

beneficiaries were selected through others which includes BDO office clerk, Panch,

Village heads, 43% beneficiaries stated that they were selected through VLW and only

24% of the total beneficiaries got selected by Gram sabha.

Attempt presently was also made to gather information regarding knowledge

about National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) programme. Their viewpoints in this

regard are presented in table 3.9& fig 3.10.

Table 3.9: Distribution of beneficiaries on the basis of knowledge about NRLM

Responses of

beneficiaries



Yes 0 0 1 0.57% 1 0.57%

No 100 57.14% 74 42.29% 174 99.43%

Grand Total 100 57.14% 75 42.86% 175 100%

Source Field Survey

Ghram Sabha 24%

VLW 43%

Others 33%


Page 72

Fig. 3.10: Graphic representation of beneficiaries on the basis of knowledge about

NRLM

The data in table 3.9 clearly reveals that none of the beneficiary was aware about

NRLM in Budhal block, while only one beneficiary (0.57%) knew about NRLM in

Rajouri block. The data evidently indicate that scheduled tribes in the study area are not

aware about Government’s new support schemes for their development.

Time Lag

Table 3.10: Time-lag between sanction & actual provision of benefit schemes to the

sample households

S. No. Block No. of

Households

No. of sample households reporting time lag

Within one Month Within 1-3

months

Above 3

months

1 Rajouri 75

(42.86%) 0

02

(1.14%)

73

(41.71%)

2 Budhal 100

(57.14%) 0

19

(10.85%)

81

(46.28%)

Total 175

(100%) 0

21

(12%)

154

(88%)


0.57%

99.43%

Yes No


Page 73

Fig. 3.11: Graphic representation of beneficiaries on the basis of time taken in

availing SGSY scheme

It is evident from the table 3.10 & fig. 3.11 that it took as many as more than three

months by majority of 88% sample beneficiaries to get loan sanctioned through SGSY

scheme, however, only 12 % beneficiaries spent 1-3 months in getting loan under SGSY

and none of the beneficiary received loan within one month. It is, therefore, apparent that

lot of time lag is involved in availing the scheme due to delay in sanctioning of loan.

Part II: Socio-economic Profile of KVIB Beneficiaries

Sex and Age

Information about sample beneficiaries of KVIB in both of the presently studied

blocks was gathered regarding their age and sex and the data has been presented in table

3.11 & fig.3.12. Data clearly reveals that out of total beneficiaries just 31.43% were

headed by women. The block wise data further indicated that 8.57% beneficiaries

household in Budhal block and 20% in Rajouri block were headed by women.

The table 3.11 also shows that the percentage of women heads is very low in

Budhal (8.57%) compared to 20% in Rajouri block. This according to present author

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

within one month one Month tothree Months

More than ThreeMonths

9-12 Months

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries


Page 74

seems to be on account of traditional family pattern where households are by and large

headed by males only. Beneficiaries have been presently divided into five working age

groups. The data reveals that out of total beneficiaries there was none in age group of

upto 25 years. Data also reveals that 5.71% of beneficiaries were in the age group of 25-

30 years, 37.14% in the age group of 30-35 years, 48.57% in the age group of 35-40

years and only 8.57% in the age group of 40 and above in both the blocks. It simply

indicates that majority (86.71%) of the beneficiaries are in the age group of 30-40 years

in the study area.


KVIB scheme



Age Groups

Upto 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25-30 1

2.86% 0

1

2.86% 0

1

2.86%

1

2.86% 1 1

2

(5.71%)

30-35 2

(5.71%)

7

(20%)

9

(25.71%)

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%)

4

(11.43%) 4 9

13

(37.14%)

35-40 0 10

(28.57%)

10

(28.57%)

5

(14.29%)

2

(5.71%)

7

(20%) 5 12

17

(48.57%)

40 &above 0 0 0 0 3

(8.57%)

3

(8.57%) 0 3

3

(8.57%)

Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)



Page 75

Fig. 3.12: Graphic representation of KVIB beneficiary households by sex and age

Educational Status

Information collected from sample beneficiaries about the educational status as

given in table 3.12 & fig. 3.13 represent very grim picture of literacy. Out of the total

sampled respondents as high as 37.14% were illiterate. From among the rest while

57.14% had education upto primary level only 5.71% had education upto graduation and

above level.

Table 3.12: Educational status of KVIB beneficiaries

Educational

Status



Illiterate 2

(5.71%)

7

(20%)

9

(25.71%)

3

(8.57%)

1

2.86%

4

(11.43%) 5 8

13

(37.14%)

Primary 1

2.86%

10

(28.57%)

11

(31.43%)

4

(11.43%)

5

(14.29%)

9

(25.71%) 5 15

20

(57.14%)

High school 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pre-Univ.

(12th) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graduation

&above 0 0 0 0

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%) 0 2

2

(5.71%)

Grand Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Female

Male


Page 76

Fig. 3.13: Graphic representation of educational status of KVIB beneficiaries


While conducting the survey, information collected from beneficiaries regarding

their marital status and family size is shown in table 3.13& fig. 3.14.

Table 3.13: Marital status and family size of the KVIB beneficiaries

Educational

Status



Married 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

5

(14.29%)

7

(20%)

12

(34.29%) 8 24

32

(91.43%)

Unmarried 0 0 0 2

(5.71%)

1

(2.86%)

3

(8.57%) 2 1

3

(8.57%)

Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%) 10 25

35

(100%)

Family Size

Up to 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-5 2

(5.71%)

7

(20%)

9

(25.71%)

4

(11.43%)

2

(5.71%)

6

(17.14%) 6 9

15

(42.86%)

6-7 0 10

(28.57%)

10

(28.57%)

3

(8.57%)

4

(11.43%)

7

(20%) 3 14

17

(48.57%)

8 & above 1

(2.86%) 0

1

(2.86%) 0

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%) 1 2

3

(8.57%)

Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Female

Male


Page 77

Fig. 3.14: Graphic representation of family size of KVIB beneficiaries

A look at the table reveals that 91.43% of sample beneficiaries were married and

8.57% were unmarried. Table further reveals that while 42.86% had family size upto 4-5

members, 48.57% had 6-7 members and 8.57% were having family size of 8 & above

family members. It is thus seen that more than 50% of the sample beneficiary households

had 6-8 members in their family.

Landholdings

Table 3.14: Distribution of sample beneficiaries under KVIB scheme on the basis of

size of landholdings

Land Holdings Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total


Small Farmers

(2.5-5 acres) 0

7

(20%)

7

(20%)

1

(2.86%)

2

(5.71%)

3

(8.57%) 1 9

10

(28.57%)

Marginal

Farmers

(<2.5 acres)

3

(8.57%)

10

(28.57%)

13

(37.14%)

6

(17.14%)

6

(17.14%)

12

(34.29%) 9 16

25

(71.43%)

Landless

laborer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Family Size

Female

Male


Page 78

Fig. 3.15: Graphic representation of size of landholdings of KVIB beneficiaries

It is evident from table 3.14 that more than 70% beneficiaries have land holdings

less than 2.5 acres and only 28% had 2.5-5 acres. None of the beneficiaries had more than

five acres of land. This shows that every beneficiary on an average possessed a very

small piece of landholding.

Economic Status:

Table 3.15: Distribution of sample beneficiary households under KVIB on the basis

of annual income



Upto 30000 3

(8.57%)

1

(2.86%)

4

(11.43%)

3

(8.57%) 0

3

(8.57%) 6 1

7

(20%)

30001-40000 0 6

(17.14%)

6

(17.14%)

4

(11.43%) 0

4

(11.43%) 4 6

10

(28.57%)

40001-50000 0 5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0

3

(8.57%)

3

(8.57%) 0 8

8

(22.86%)

Above 50000 0 5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0

5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0 10

10

(28.57%)

Grand Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


Female

Male


Page 79

Fig. 3.16: Graphic representation of sample beneficiary households under KVIB

scheme on the basis of annual income

The data regarding income status of beneficiary households is given in table 3.15.

It is evident from the table that 28.57% sample beneficiaries had income in the range of

Rs.30001to Rs. 40000, and also that 28.57% had their income above Rs. 50000 at the

time of their selection. Table further shows that 20% beneficiaries had annual income

upto Rs.30000.

Occupation

Table 3.16: Occupation of the sample beneficiary households under KVIB scheme in

the study area



Agriculture 3

(8.57%)

10

(28.57%)

13

(37.14%)

7

(20%)

3

(8.57%)

10

(28.57%) 10 13

23

(65.71%)

Labour 0 5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0

4

(11.43%)

4

(11.43%) 0 9

9

(25.71%)

Govt. Job 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small Business 0 2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%) 0

1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0 3

3

(8.57%)

Grand Total 3

(8.57%)

17

(48.57%)

20

(57.14%)

7

(20%)

8

(22.86%)

15

(42.86%)

10

(28.57%)

25

(71.42%)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Upto 30000 30001-40000 40001-50000 Above 50000

Female

Male


Page 80

Fig. 3.17: Graphic representation of occupation of the sample beneficiary

households under KVIB scheme in the study area

Table 3.16 & fig. 3.17 illustrates very clearly that quite high numbers (65.71%) of

sample beneficiary households had agriculture as their occupation, 25.71% were labourer

and only 8.57% were doing small businesses. It simply indicates that agriculture is the

main occupation of the respondents in the study area.


Table 3.17: Distribution of KVIB beneficiaries on the basis of sources of

information

Sources of Information Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total


KVIB Official 1 2.85% 2 5.71% 3 9%

Village head 8 22.86% 6 17.14% 14 40%

Others 11 31.43% 7 20.00% 18 51%

Grand Total 20 57.14% 15 42.86% 35 100%


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Female

Male


Page 81

Fig. 3.18: Graphic representation of KVIB beneficiaries on the basis of sources of

information

Table 3.17 & fig. 3.18 shows that more than 50% of the beneficiaries got

information about the programme from sources like bank officials, friends, neighbourers

and VLWs. 40% beneficiaries however stated that they got information through village

heads. Only 8.57% beneficiaries got information through KVIB officials. This simply

indicates that very less number of beneficiaries got information through KVIB officials.

Time-Lag

Table 3.18: Distribution of sample beneficiaries on the basis of time taken in

availing KVIB scheme

S. No. Block No. of

Households

No. of sample households reporting time lag


months

Above 3

months

1 Rajouri 15 0 0 15

(42.86%)

2 Budhal 20 0 0 20

(57.14%)

Total 35 0 0

35

(100%)


KVIB Official 9%

Village head 40%

Others 51%



Page 82

Fig. 3.19: Graphic representation of sample beneficiaries on the basis of time taken

in availing KVIB scheme

It is evident from table 3.18 that all of the sampled beneficiaries had to wait more

than three months in getting loan through KVIB. It shows that a lot of time is spent in

getting the financial assistance from KVIB.

Part III: Socio-economic profile of SC/ST &BC Corporation Beneficiaries

Sex and Age


SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme



Age Groups

Upto 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25-30 2

(5.71%)

3

(8.57%)

5

(14.28%)

1

(2.85%) 0

1

(2.85%) 3 3

6

17.14%

30-35 0 10

(28.57%)

10

(28.57%)

1

(2.85%)

4

(11.42%)

5

(14.28%) 1 14

15

(42.86%)

35-40 0 5

(14.28%)

5

(14.28%)

1

(2.85%)

5

(14.28%)

6

17.14% 1 10

11

(31.42%)

40 &above 0 0 0 0 3

(8.57%)

3

(8.57%) 0 3

3

(8.57%)

Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

within one Month Within 1-3 months Above 3 months

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries


Page 83

Fig. 3.20: Graphic representation of SC/ST & BC Corporation sample beneficiary

households by sex and age

Table 3.19 & fig. 3.20 reveals that out of 35 beneficiaries just 14.28% were

headed by women. The block wise data further reveals that 5.71%% beneficiaries

household in Budhal block and 8.57% in Rajouri block were headed by women.

According to the guidelines of the concerned Ministry, priority needs to be given

to women households who were eligible for programme. A low percentage of women

beneficiaries as presently observed seems to be on account of traditional family pattern

where households usually are headed by males.

The beneficiaries have been presently divided into five groups according to their

working age groups. The data reveals that out of the total sample beneficiaries there was

no beneficiary in the age group of upto 25 years. It is also apparent from the data that

17.14% beneficiaries were in the age group of 25-30 years, 42.86% in the age group of

30-35 years, 31.42% in the age group of 35-40 years and only 8.57% in the age group of

40 and above in both the blocks. It simply indicates that higher percentage of beneficiary

households (74%) were is in the age group of 30-40 years.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Female

Male


Page 84

Educational status

Table 3.20: Educational status of SC/ST&BC Corporation beneficiaries

Educational

Status



Illiterate 0 4

(11.43%)

4

(11.43%)

2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%)

4

(11.43%) 2 6

8

(22.86%)

Primary 2

(5.71%)

12

(34/29%)

14

(40%)

1

(2.86%)

10

(28.57%)

11

(31.43%) 3 22

25

(71.43%)

High school 0 2

(5.71%)

2

(5.71%) 0 0 0 0 2

2

(5.71%)

Pre-Univ.

(12th) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Graduation

&above 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)


Fig. 3.21: Graphic representation of educational status of ST/SC & BC Corporation

beneficiaries

0

5

10

15

20

25


Female

Male


Page 85

Regarding educational status of the beneficiaries of SC/ST & BC Corporation, it

has been found presently that 22.86% beneficiaries are illiterate and 71.43% had

education upto primary level. It is surprising to see that only 5.71% beneficiaries had

education upto high school level and none had education above high school level. This

thus means that the literacy rate of the beneficiaries was very low.


Table 3.21: Marital status and family size of the SC/ST&BC Corporation

beneficiaries

Educational

Status



Married 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%) 5 30

35

(100%)

Unmarried 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)

Family Size

Up to 3

members 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4-5 0 9

(25.71%)

9

(25.71%) 0

5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0 14

14

(40%)

6-7 2

(5.71%)

8

(22.85%)

10

(28.57%)

2

(5.71%)

7

(40%)

9

(25.71%) 4 15

19

(54.28%)

8 & above 0 1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0

1

(2.86%) 1 1

2

(5.71%)

Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)



Page 86

Fig. 3.22: Graphic representation of family size of the SC/ST & BC Corporation

beneficiaries

Data on marital status of SC/ST & BC Corporation households as given in table

3.21 shows that all of the beneficiaries are married. Regarding their family size it is

observed that 54.28% beneficiaries had 6-7 members, 40% beneficiaries had 4-5family

members and 5.71% sample beneficiary households had above 8 family members.

Landholdings

Table 3.22: Distribution of sample beneficiaries on the basis of size of landholdings

under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme

Land Holdings Budhal Block Rajouri Block Total


Small Farmers

(2.5-5 acres)

1

(2.86%)

5

(14.29%)

6

(17.14%)

1

(2.86%)

2

(5.71%)

3

(8.57%) 2 7

9

(25.71%)

Marginal

Farmers (<2.5

acres)

1

(2.86%)

13

(37.14%)

14

(40%)

2

(5.71%)

10

(28.57%)

12

(34.28%) 3 23

26

(74.29%)

Landless

Labourer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grand Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Family Size

Female

Male


Page 87

Fig. 3.23: Graphic representation of sample beneficiaries on the basis of size of

landholdings under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme

Information was collected regarding size of the land holdings of the SC/ST & BC

Corporation beneficiaries & is given in table 3.22 & fig. 3.23. It is evident from this data

that about 75% of the beneficiaries had the land holding upto 2.5 acres and 25.71

between the range of 2.5-5 acres. It is also clear that none of the beneficiary was landless

labourer.

Economic Status

Table 3.23: Distribution of sample beneficiary households on the basis of annual

income under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme



Upto 30000 2

(5.71%) 0

2

(5.71%)

3

(8.57%)

1

(2.86%)

4

(11.43%) 5 1

6

(17.14%)

30001-40000 0 10

(28.57%)

10

(28.57%) 0

10

(28.57%)

10

(28.57%) 0 20

20

(57.14%)

40001-50000 0 7

(40%)

7

(40%) 0 0 0 0 7

7

(40%)

Above 50000 0 1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0

1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0 2

2

(5.71%)

Grand Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)


0

5

10

15

20

25


Female

Male


Page 88

Fig. 3.24: Graphic representation of sample beneficiary households on the basis of

annual income under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme

It is evident from the table 3.23 & fig. 3.24 that 57.14% of the sample

beneficiaries had the annual income in the range of Rs. 30001 to Rs. 40000 at the time of

selection and 40% were in the range of Rs. 40001 to Rs.50000, where as 17.14% had

income upto Rs.30000 and only 5.71% had income above Rs. 50000 .

Occupation

Table 3.24: Occupation of the sample beneficiary households under SC/ST & BC

Corporation scheme in the study area



Agriculture 2

(5.71%)

12

(34.29%)

14

(40%)

3

(8.57%)

8

(22.86%)

11

(31.42%) 5 20

25

(71.43%)

Labour 0 5

(14.29%)

5

(14.29%) 0

3

(8.57%)

3

(8.57%) 0 8

8

(22.86%)

Govt. Job 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Small Business 0 1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0

1

(2.86%)

1

(2.86%) 0 2

2

(5.71%)

Grand Total 2

(5.71%)

18

(51.43%)

20

(57.14%)

3

(8.57%)

12

(34.28%)

15

(42.86%)

5

(14.28%)

30

(85.71)

35

(100%)


0

5

10

15

20

25

Upto 30000 30001-40000 40001-50000 Above 50000

Female

Male


Page 89

Fig. 3.25: Graphic representation of occupation of the sample beneficiary

households under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme in the study area

Table 3.24 & fig. 3.25 indicates that most of the beneficiaries (71.43%) had

agriculture as their occupation, followed by 22.86% who worked as labourers and that

only 5.71% had small businesses.

Sources of information

Table 3.25: Distribution of SC/ST & BC Corporation beneficiaries on the basis of

sources of information

Sources of

Information



SC/ST & BC

Corporation. Official 2 5.71% 2 5.71% 4 11.43%

Village head 5 14.29% 6 17.14% 11 31.43%

Others 13 37.14% 7 20% 20 57.14%

Grand Total 20 47.14% 15 42.86% 35 100%


0

5

10

15

20

25


Female

Male


Page 90

Fig. 3.26: Graphic representation of SC/ST& BC Corporation beneficiaries on the

basis of sources of information

The table 3.25 & fig. 3.26 reveals that majority of the respondents (57.14%) got

information about the scheme from MLA, friends, VLWs and Bank officials, while

31.43% got information through village heads. It is quite surprising that a very low

(11.43%) percentage of beneficiaries got information through corporation officials, who

actually otherwise have the responsibility to make people aware about the scheme.

Time Lag

Table 3.26: Distribution of sample beneficiaries on the basis of time taken in

availing SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme

S. No. Block No. of

Households

No. of Sample households Reporting Time Lag


months

Above 3

months

1 Rajouri 15 0 0 15

(42.86%)

2 Budhal 20 0 0 20

(57.14%)

Total 35 0 0

35

(100%)

Source Field Survey

SC-BC Corp. Official 11.43%

Village head 31.43%

Others 57.14%



Page 91

Fig. 3.27: Graphic representation of sample beneficiaries on the basis of time taken

in availing SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme

The data as given in table 3.26 concerning time taken by beneficiaries to avail

loan clearly shows that all of the sample beneficiaries had wasted more than three months

in getting financial assistance under SC/ST & BC Corporation scheme. It therefore means

that the beneficiaries had to waste a lot of time in getting the assistance.

Socio-economic profile of Non-beneficiaries

The information regarding socio-economic profile of non-beneficiaries has also

been collected in the study area in order to draw a comparison with the beneficiaries.

Table 3.27 shows the socio-economic profile of the non beneficiaries.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Within one Month Within 1-3 months more than 3months

Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries


Page 92

Non-beneficiaries of SGSY

Table 3.27: Socio-economic profile of non-beneficiaries

Particulars No. of respondents Percentage to total

a) Educational status

Illiterate 40 67%

Primary 10 17%

High school 5 8%

Pre university 3 5%

Graduation 2 3%

Total 60 100%

b) Family size

Upto 3 6 10%

4-5 30 50%

6-7 20 34%

8 & above 4 7%

Total 60 100%

c) Occupation

Agriculture 45 75%

Labour 10 17%

Govt. Job 0 0

Small Business 5 8%

Total 60 100%

Size-wise classification of respondents

Category No. of respondents No. of respondents

Marginal (<2.5 acres) 37 62%

Small (2.5-5 acres) 15 25%

Landless Labourer 8 13%

Total 60 100%



Page 93

Educational status

It is evident from the table that 67% of the non-beneficiaries were illiterate and

33% were literate. Among the literate persons 17% non- beneficiaries had education upto

primary level, 8% upto high school and 5% had pre-university level of education while

only 3% had education above the graduation level.

Fig. 3.28: Graphic representation of educational status of non-beneficiaries

Family size

Regarding family size of the non beneficiaries table 3.27 and fig.3.29 shows that

while 50% had 4-5family members, 34% had 6-7 members, 10% of these had upto 3

members and 7% had more than 8 family members.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Illiterate Primary High School Pre-university Graduation

Educational Status

Educational status


Page 94

Fig 3.29: Graphic representation of family size of non-beneficiaries

Occupation

A look at the table 3.27 and fig. 3.30 shows that 75% respondents (non-

beneficiaries) in the study area had agriculture as main occupation while rest 17% were

labourer and only 8% were involved in small businesses.

Fig. 3.30: Graphic representation of occupation of non-beneficiaries

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

up to 3 memebers 4-5 members 6-7 members 8 & above members

Family size

Family size

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Agriculture Labour Govt. job Small business

Occupation

Occupation


Page 95

Landholdings

Regarding their landholdings table 3.27 and fig 3.31 further reveals that 62%

non- beneficiaries were marginal farmers having less than 2.5acres land and 25% were

small farmers besides 13% landless labourers.

Fig. 3.31: Graphic representation of landholdings of non-beneficiaries

Gender and Age

Table 3.28: Gender and age-wise distribution of respondents


Gender

Male 48 80%

Female 12 20%

Age (in years)

20-30 3 5%

30-40 37 62%

40-50 20 33%

>50 0 0

Total 60 100%


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marginal farmers Small farmers Medium farmers

Landholdings

Landholdings


Page 96

Fig.3.32: Graphic representation of respondent’s age group

Regarding gender wise classification it is evident from the table (3.28) that 80%

are male and 20% are female non beneficiaries. Data further shows that 62% respondents

are in the age group of 30-40years, 33% in the age group of 40-50, and only 5% are in the

age group of 20-30 years.

Non-beneficiaries of KVIB




Illiterate 13 65%

Primary 5 25%

High school 2 10%

Pre university 0 0%

Graduation 0 0%

b) Family size

Up to 3 1 5%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years above 50 years

Respondents age

Respondents age


Page 97

4-5 8 40%

6-7 9 45%

8 & above 2 10%

c) Occupation

Agriculture 13 65%

Labour 3 15%

Govt. Job 0 0

Small Business 4 20%




Small (2.5-5 acres) 5 25%

Landless labourer 0 0


Educational status

Table 3.29 reveals that 65% of scheduled tribe non-beneficiaries were illiterate

and only 35% were literate. Among the literates 25% had education upto primary level

and 10% upto secondary level. This data simply indicates a low level of literacy among

scheduled tribes in the study area.

Family size

Table 3.29 on the social profile of scheduled tribe non- beneficiaries in

comparison to KVIB beneficiaries shows that 45% people had a family of 6-7 members,

40% of 4-5 members, 10% above 8 members and 5% had upto 3 members in the family.

Occupation

Table also further reveals that 65% non-beneficiaries had agriculture as main

occupation, followed by small businesses (20%) and labour 12%.


Page 98

Landholdings

As for as land holding is concerned 75% people are marginal farmers having less

than 2.5 acres land and 25% are small farmers having land upto five acres (table 3.29).

Gender & Age

Table 3.30: Distribution of non-beneficiaries on the basis of gender and age


Gender

Male 17 85%

Female 3 15%

Age (in years)

20-30 2 10%

30-40 7 35%

40-50 11 55%

>50 0 0%

Total 20 100%


Regarding gender wise classification table 3.30 reveals that 85% non-

beneficiaries were male and 15% were female. It further shows that 55% non-

beneficiaries were in the age group of 40-50, 35% in the age group of 30-40 and 10%

were in the age group of 20-30.

Non-beneficiaries of SC/ST &BC Corporation




Illiterate 14 70%

Primary 4 20%

High school 2 10%


Page 99

Pre university 0 0%

Graduation 0 0%

b) Family size

Up to 3 0 0%

4-5 8 40%

6-7 10 50%

8 & above 2 10%

c) Occupation

Agriculture 15 75%

Labour 4 20%

Govt. Job 0 0

Small Business 1 5%




Small (2.5-5 acres) 4 20%

Landless labourer 0 0


Educational status

Table 3.31 reveals 70% scheduled tribe non-beneficiaries were illiterate and only

30% were literate. Among the literates 20% had education upto primary level and 10%

upto secondary level. This table simply indicates a very low level of literacy among

scheduled tribes in the study area.

Family size

Table also shows that 50% non-beneficiaries have family members in the range of

6-7 members, 40% 4-5 family members and 10% above 8 family members.


Page 100

Occupation

It is evident from this table that 75% non-beneficiaries have agriculture as main

occupation, followed by labourers (20%) and small businesses (10%).

Landholdings

As far as land holding is concerned table 3.31 reveals that 80% people are

marginal farmers having less than 2.5 acres land and 20% are small farmers having land

upto five acres.

Gender & Age

Table 3.32: Gender and age-wise distribution of non-beneficiary respondents


Gender

Male 15 75%

Female 5 25%

Age (in years)

20-30 3 15%

30-40 7 35%

40-50 10 50%

>50 0 0%

Total 20 100%


The age and gender wise classification of scheduled tribe non beneficiaries in

comparison to SC/ST & BC Corporation beneficiaries in the table 3.32 reveals that 75%

non-beneficiaries were male and 25% were females. It further shows that 50% non-

beneficiaries were in the age group of 40-50, 35% in the age group of 30-40 and 15%

were in the age group of 20-30.

Documents

Chapter 3 Socio-Economic Profile of Scheduled …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/76452/7/ch3.pdfSocio-Economic Profile Page 60 The beneficiaries have been presently divided