Yogesh Bandhu Arya

2010

Overcoming Poverty and Hunger in Bundelkhand

CENTRE FOR CONTEMPORARY STUDIES AND RESEARCH

Pag

e2

Acknowledgement

I am thankful to Bread for the World –Germany and Indian Social National Social Action Forum

(INSAF) for conveying this study to me.

The present work is an effort to consolidate the current situation of Poverty and Hunger in

Bundelkhand, and how the Governments Program and Polices specially PDS, MNREGA, ICDS,

MDM etc.. Further how these program and polices are effective in mitigating poverty and

hunger in Bundelkhand.

The report is based on both; analysis of secondary data available through various sources and

field study conducted in Lalitpur and Jalaun Districts. In this course, Information available on

WebPages and documents from related government’s department and organizations especially

y of Rural Development, Government of India, Departmental websites of and archives of Uttar

Pradesh Government. are found very useful. Their data sources are valuable and highly

appreciable. Informations from many other sources e.g. Uttar Pradesh Planning Department,

Central Ministry of Rural Development, are used in shaping this report.

Discussion with Utkarsh Sinha (CCSR), Sanjay Singh (Parmarth) and Wilfred D’Costa (INSAF) was

insightful. I am thankful to all these organizations and individuals for sharing their

acquaintance.

Hope this report will provide an insight for understanding the current situation of Poverty and

Hunger in Bundelkhand and for further action.

January 31st, 2010 Dr. Yogesh Bandhu Arya

Centre for Contemporary Studies and Research

2/205 Vivek Khand,

Gomati Nagar Lucknow

Pag

e3

Table of Content

Title Page No

Profile of the Study Area: 5

Who are the Marginalised in Bundelkhand: 6

Land Use Pattern in Bundelkhand 8

Industry in Bundelkhand 9

Sources of Employment in Bundelkhand: 10

Women Workforce in Bundelkhand: 13

Migration in Bundelkhand: A Major Source of Alternative Livelihood 14

Poverty Estimates in Bundelkhand: 15

Food insecurity in Bundelkhand: 16

Food Security and Government Policy: 20

Public Distribution System and Antyodaya Anna Yojana: 23

Integrated Child Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and Anganwadi: 26

NREGA in Bundelkhand: 27

Food Security - Some Reflexions Form Ground Reality: 29

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Social Profile of Surveyed Families ................................................................................ 31

Figure 2: DEATIL OF RATION CARD ............................................................................................... 32

Figure 3: Agricultural Land to Surveyed Families ......................................................................... 32

Figure 4: Working Profile of Surveyed Family............................................................................... 33

Figure 5: average income of the family ........................................................................................ 34

Figure 6: regular Availability of food items ................................................................................... 34

Figure 7: Food Support from PDS ................................................................................................. 35

Pag

e4

List of Tables: Page No

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Bundelkhand ............................................................................... 7

Table 2: sc and st population in Bundelkhand ................................................................................ 9

Table 3: Agricultural Land Under Different Uses .......................................................................... 10

Table 4: Wastelands under main categories (2005) ..................................................................... 11

Table 5: Percentage-wise breakup of main workers (Census 1991, 2001) .................................. 13

Table 6: Employment sources of non-agricultural main workers in UP Bundelkhand (Census

2001) ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Table 7: women work participation in Bundelkhand ................................................................... 15

Table 8: Dimentions of Food Security ........................................................................................... 19

Table 9: Possession of ration cards in regions of UP .................................................................... 25

Table 10: Average employment period of Working People ......................................................... 33

Table 11: Working Profile of Surveyed Family .............................................................................. 43

LIST OF ANNEXURES:

Annexure 1: districts classified in proportion to below poverty line rural population (%) .......... 37

Annexure 2 : Calorie share from the food groups in the regions of Uttar Pradesh .................... 37

Annexure 3 : Distribution of food expenditure among major sub-groups ................................... 38

Annexure 4 : MPCE and share spent on food for districts of UP (Rural) ...................................... 38

Annexure 5 :MPCE and share spent on food for districts of UP (Urban) ..................................... 39

Annexure 6: Employment Generated During The financial Year 2009-2010 ............................... 40

Annexure 7: Work Allotted To different categories ..................................................................... 42

Annexure 8: Detail of Surveyed Villages ....................................................................................... 43

LIST OF BOXES:

Box 1Hunger is Weakening Relations ........................................................................................... 22

Box 2: MOUNTING Food Prices ..................................................................................................... 23

Box 3Government Policies and Poverty in Bundelkhand ............................................................. 24

Pag

e5

OVERCOMING POVERTY AND HUNGER IN BUNDELKHAND Yogesh Bandhu Arya

Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of India. According to the 2001 census, U.P.'s population was a little over 166 million accounting for 16.4 percent of the country's population, although the state accounts for only 7.5 percent of the country’s geographical area. Hence, U.P. has a very high population density – 689 persons per square kilometer - which is more than twice the national average, of 324. U.P.’s population has increased almost three times since 1947, the year of India's independence. It is increasing at the rate of 2.3 percent per year, up from 2.2 percent during 1981-91. That is, U.P. is now adding about 3.8 million people per year. The number of females is 7.86 crores and that of males is 8.75 crores. The male-female ratio is 1000:898. The urban population is 3.45 crores while 13.15 crore population lives in the rural areas. It is the fourth largest State in terms of geographical area covering 2.40 lakh sq. kms. and comprising 70 districts, 17 divisions, 298 tehsils, 823 development blocks, approximately 720 urban local bodies, 8814 Nayaya Panchayats, 51826 Gram Sabhas and 97134 revenue villages. The State has a preponderance of small villages, which implies that a large spread of social & economic infrastructure requiring more resources. Uttar Pradesh ranks very low even in terms of basic household amenities. Only 20 percent of households in Uttar Pradesh have electricity connection, 15 percent have access to safe drinking water; 11 percent have toilet facility; and the public distribution system for food grains reaches only 5 percent of households. U.P. is a landlocked state, mainly rural with an economy that is primarily agrarian. The industrialisation pattern in the state is highly skewed with the western region of the state accounting for most of the industries of the state. The main agricultural crops in the state are wheat, rice, sugarcane, pulses and vegetables. The main industries in the state are cement, vegetable oils, textiles, cotton yarn, sugar, jute, and carpet. The sectoral break-up of the state's GSDP in 2002-03 was 32 percent from agriculture, 22 percent from industry, of which merely 11 percent came from manufacturing, and 41 percent from services. The Gross state Domestic product (GSDP) of the state at current prices1 was Rs. 235678 Crore and the Gross state Domestic product (GSDP) at constant price2 was Rs 127560 Crore. The Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) of the state at Current Prices3 was Rs. 205249 Crore and the Net State Domestic Product at Constant Prices4 Rs. 109768 Crore Per Capita Income of the state at current prices5 stand at Rs.11477. The net state domestic product of U.P. in 2001 was about 9 percent of India’s total NDP. Per capita NSDP was 5770 rupees, roughly 40 percent below the average per capita NDP of 9508 rupees for the same year. In 1999-2000, 31 percent of U.P. residents lived below poverty line. This poverty ratio was the same for both rural and urban areas. U.P. is among the most backward states in India with high levels of poverty and low levels of social and economic development.

Honorary Fellow, Centre for Contemporary Studies and Research, Lucknow

1 in 2004-2005 (as of Feb 2006)

2 ibid, base year are (1993-94)

3 In 2004-05

4 ibid

5 ibid

Pag

e6

The structure of state income shows that the contribution of primary sector has declined to 41 in 1991 to only 31.8 percent of the state income having 73 percent of the total working force. This shows the continued pressure of working population in the primary sector. The share of secondary sector, on the other hand, has gone up to 20 percent of the total state income which now employ 9 percent of the total workers in the state. This percentage is the lowest among all the major Indian states except Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa6. The share of tertiary sector has been more impressive from 25 percent in 1970-71 to 37 percent in 1994-95 and 45.9 percent in 2007-08. It thus shows that the U.P.'s growth has been more capital intensive than labour intensive, more urban based than rural based and the shift income from primary to other sectors is not accompanied by corresponding change in employment pattern. Distinguishing feature of Uttar Pradesh's economy is its regional imbalances. In terms of economic indicators like agricultural productivity, infrastructural facilities, industrial growth, the Uttar Pradesh's economy can be categories into four regions; Western, Eastern, Central, and Bundelkhand. The Western Uttar Pradesh is agriculturally prosperous. It is relatively industrialized and has seen greater degree of urbanisation. At the other end is Bundelkhand with Low agricultural growth, less number of industrial units, lesser gross value of industrial products marks tout his region as the least developed in the state. There are huge intrastate differences in UP in infrastructure, production and productivity of different crops. UP has a land area of 240,928 sq. km. after the carving out of Uttaranchal and is comprised of 70 districts. Over two-thirds of the state falls in the Gangetic Plain region, which can be subdivided into the western, central and eastern areas, due to their differing histories and economic status7. In 2001, over three quarters of districts were located in Eastern and Western U.P. Western U.P. and eastern U.P.’s land areas are roughly the same, at 89,589 square km and 87,294 square km, respectively, and the regions have similar population sizes as well, with about 58.5 million western residents and 65.3 million eastern resident. If we compare inter regional growth; in all aspects of socio-economic indicators, Bundelkhand is the most backward region in state. U.P. is primarily rural, with an urbanization rate of just under 21 percent in 2001. Levels of urbanization vary across the state and on average, are twice as high in the west, at over 26.3 percent, than in the East; at 11.6 percent Bundelkhand has the least urbanised area8. Within western U.P., urbanization rates range from a high of just over 46 percent in the district of Gaziabad to a low of about 13 percent in Mainpuri district9. Apart Lucknow District-wise variations within the Central U.P. are not as great as in other regions, while in East U.P. and Bundelkhand urbanization is generally low across districts. Profile of the Study Area: The area proposed for study is 'Bundelkhand' which comprises seven districts of southern UP i.e. Jhansi, Lalitpur, Jalaun, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda, and Chitrakoot districts. However, in recent decades, Bundelkhand has witnessed rapid population growth but historically; it was a

6 http://upgov.nic.in/upinfo/up_eco.html,as on November 2

nd 2009.

7Sharma, Rita (2002) “Reforms in Agricultural Extension: New Policy Framework,” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 37, no. 30,

pp. 3124-31, July 27. and Poleman, 1993). 8Pant, Niranjan (2003). “Key Trends in Ground Water Irrigation in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh,” IMWI-

TATA Policy Research Program, Center for Development Studies, Lucknow. 9 CMIE (2000) Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, October 2000. Profiles of Districts.

Pag

e7

region of low population density due to unfavourable soil and weather conditions for high agriculture productivity, frequency of drought, flood and other weather-induced shocks, low level of industrial development and urbanisation also political instability and lawlessness during many periods of the region's history. Table-1 below shows district-wise population profile and decadal growth rate in the region. According to Census 2001 data, the total population of UP Bundelkhand districts was around 8.2 million and the population of MP Bundelkhand districts was around 7.3 million. By national standards, the region is marked by low population density. By Census 2001 figures, the population density of UP Bundelkhand as a whole works out to 278 persons per sq km - less than a third of the state average. Related to low population density is low level of urbanisation. In all districts of Bundelkhand, except Jhansi, over three-fourths the population was living in rural areas. In Chitrakoot district, less than 10% of the population resided in urban areas. There is a clear variation in intra-regional distribution of population. There is higher population density in the Bundelkhand Plain areas (particularly in Jalaun and Banda), and Bundelkhand Intermediate region areas particularly in Jhansi, and lower population density in Bundelkhand Upland and the southern plateaus.

TABLE 1: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF BUNDELKHAND

Districts Population

- Urban Population

- Rural Population

- Total SC

Population ST

Population

% increase in total

population (1991-2001)

Banda

Person 244,018 1,293,316 1,537,334 320,226 54 22.89

Male 131,555 694,989 826,544 172,542 26

Female 112,463 598,327 710,790 147,684 28

Chitrakoot

Person 76,560 689,665 766,225 201,839 1

Male 40,878 368,300 409,178 106,811 1

Female 35,682 321,365 357,047 95,028 0

Jalaun

Person 340,526 1,113,926 1,454,452 393,307 140 19.47

Male 182,346 604,295 786,641 214,871 68

Female 158,180 509,631 667,811 178,436 72

Jhansi

Person 711,760 1,033,171 1,744,931 489,763 1,070 22.29

Male 380,439 552,379 932,818 261,406 566

Female 331,321 480,792 812,113 228,357 504

Lalitpur

Person 141,944 835,790 977,734 243,788 2 31.1

Male 74,748 444,665 519,413 128,821 2

Female 67,196 391,125 458,321 114,967 0

Hamirpur

Person 173,808 869,916 1,043,724 237,902 166 19.44

Male 93,503 470,298 563,801 129,427 93

Female 80,305 399,618 479,923 108,475 73

Mahoba

Person 154,895 553,552 708,447 182,614 65 Male 82,478 297,213 379,691 97,674 32

Female 72,417 256,339 328,756 84,940 33

Source: Census 1991 and Census 2001. Note: * Hamirpur and Mahoba, ** Banda and Chitrakoot were integrated in

Census 1991.

Pag

e8

Population growth in Bundelkhand was generally higher than the national average (21.54%) in this period. There was phenomenal population growth in Lalitpur. Urban population growth followed this pattern as there was high population growth in Hamirpur+ Mahoba and Banda+ Chitrakoot districts. The growth appears to be strongly related to growth in irrigation facilities which recorded highest increase in net irrigated area in this period. In other districts, growth in urban population could be an indication of lower returns from agriculture production, which is forcing small and marginal farmers without access to irrigation, and landless labourers, to come to cities for work. Urban population growth in Hamirpur+ Mahoba and Banda+ Chitrakoot can be attributed to the formation of Mahoba and Chitrakoot districts - many new government offices were opened, and new business opportunities arose, in the trading, service and other sectors10.

Traditionally the upper cast groups especially Brahmins and Thakurs did not own much land; their principal occupations were trading and money lending. With increased agriculture distress, many moneylenders became large landlords. Kayasths, traditionally scribes, were also in a good position to acquire land, as they were the first social group to understand the intricacies of the land ownership regime brought into force by the British. All these caste groups, come under the 'general' category of castes and constitute around 10-15% of the rural population of Bundelkhand. Across Bundelkhand, as in most parts of India, OBCs form the largest proportion of the population11. Ranked below the general category are a large number of groups, often named after their traditional occupation, which come under the other backward class (OBC) category. Among major OBC groups in Bundelkhand are Ahirs (Yadavs), Koris (weavers), Kurmis (cultivators), Kachis (vegetable cultivators); Lodhis, who were traditionally landowners and cultivators aligned to ruling families. Arakhs, a martial tribe known for its hunting prowess, Telis (oil-pressers), Sonars (goldsmiths), Nais (barbers), Darjis (tailors), Dhobis (washermen) and Kumhars, or potters. A significant feature of the Bundelkhand region is high percentage of population belonging to scheduled castes (SCs). In the 19th century they were placed by the British 'lowest among the agricultural castes' in northern India. In south Bundelkhand, their ranking rose dramatically, following migration to the region and alliance with ruling clans. However, SCs, scheduled tribes (STs) and other highly marginalised groups considered 'criminals' during British rule continue to be at the bottom of the social and economic ladder.

Who are the Marginalised in Bundelkhand:

Very far from mainstream societies in Bundelkhand are occupational groups like snake-charmers and Kabutaras, one of the 200 odd ‘criminal tribes’ during British rule that were 'denotified' after Independence like Kabutaras12, Bedias13 and Baheliyas14.

10

BundelkhandInfo.org

112002 BPL Survey data

12 They took to the manufacture and sale of country liquor.

Pag

e9

Compared to the rest of UP and India, Bundelkhand has a relatively high SC population. The high SC population has some important implications. Generally, compared to other castes, SC households possess less land, of lower quality and incidence of landlessness among them is higher. Traditionally deprived of education, in an under-developed, rural economy, SC households fall easily into a trap of never-ending, highly exploitative manual labour. Oppressive, feudal relations remain the norm in Bundelkhand and SC claim to higher social status, or efforts to enhance economic status, are often met with violence.

TABLE 2: SC AND ST POPULATION IN BUNDELKHAND

Compared to the India average, Bundelkhand has a low percentage of ST population. In UP as a whole, ST groups constitute only 0.1% of the population, and the situation is no different in UP Bundelkhand districts. Also at the bottom of the social ladder are tribal groups, including Kols, who enjoy scheduled tribe (ST) status in MP, but are considered SCs in UP. It must be pointed out that the Sahariyas of Lalitpur district were designated SCs till 2003, when they were granted ST status, but Kols, who numbered around 40,000 in Chitrakoot district according to Census 2001, continue to be considered SCs in UP15. All ST groups of Bundelkhand have taken to settled

13

A nomadic group found in Bundelkhand and some other parts of north India, have a tradition of females working as unmarried sex workers. 14

These are found mainly in forests including the tiger sanctuary area. They lead a wandering life, living in temporary huts, or sleeping on bare ground. They are believed to be used by jungle mafias for poaching and theft.

15 The process of 'scheduling' (notifying) tribes can be traced to the 19th century, when there were several rebellions of tribal

groups in Central India. The protest was targeted at British policies which encouraged entry of outsiders such as money-lenders, government-appointed landlords and labour contractors into tribal habitats; these people were seen as destroyers of the tribal values and the tribal way of life. In response to these movements, and in tacit acceptance of its inability gain total control over areas of the country with a large tribal population, the British deemed certain areas as 'non-regulated'. Essentially this meant that these areas were excluded from British laws and administration. Two forms of non-regulation or exclusion were adopted. While some areas were 'wholly excluded', others were 'partially excluded'. A large part of the North East, the Laccadive and Minicoy islands, and Lahaul and Spiti (now in Himachal Pradesh) were 'wholly excluded'. Tribal areas in the rest of the country

Pag

e10

agriculture. However, over the years, they have lost much of their land to powerful outsiders, due to debt (or related alcoholism), or their land is of very poor quality, unfit for cultivation. Without access to good land, suffering low educational attainment and far from development processes, ST households are generally at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. The other socially and economically marginalised and more vulnerable in comparison to others section are women as in other part of India.

Land Use Pattern in Bundelkhand:

Agriculture is the predominant occupation in Bundelkhand, land available and used for

cultivation in the region is considerably lower than in other agriculture zones of the country.

Around a sixth of the total land of the region falls under some or the other category of

wasteland. In some of its southern districts, a considerable amount of the land is completely

barren and uncultivable. Size of operational (cultivated) land holdings is a basic factor affecting

agricultural production, especially in absence of advanced cultivation technologies.

TABLE 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND UNDER DIFFERENT USES

District Total area in

hectares

Percentage of total area under different uses

Notified

forest

land

Non

agri

use

Barren

land

Grazing

land

Under misc

tree crops

Cultiva

ble

wastela

nd

Net

sown

Banda 4,38,767 1.2 6.7 2.6 0 0.3 2.5 80.1

Chitrakoot 3,38,897 16.4 8.3 7.1 0 8.4 3.2 51.3

Hamirpur 3,90,178 6.2 8 2.4 0 0.2 1 79.1

Jalaun 4,54,434 5.6 8 2.7 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.4

Jhansi 5,01,329 6.9 8.4 6.3 0.1 0.2 3.1 68

Lalitpur 5,07,500 15 7.7 3 0.6 0.2 11.9 54.8

Mahoba 3,27,429 4.9 11.3 2.6 0.1 0 3.5 72.8

Bundel

khand 29,48,534 8 8.2 3.8 0.2 1.2 3.9 69

UP 2,42,01,294 7 10.9 2.1 0.3 1.4 1.9 68.9

Source: District-wise Land Use Statistics, Union Ministry of Agriculture, May 2008.

were 'partially excluded'. The scheduling exercise was done perfunctorily. In the country's largest district with a tribal population, Bastar, some teshils were 'scheduled' and others weren't, with no explanation for this strange differentiation. The Constitution also gave the President the right to specify tribal communities as scheduled tribes (STs). There were two important riders. Firstly, the Constitution did not envisage according ST status to a tribe in the entire country; ST status was state-specific. Secondly, even within a state or a tribe, some groups living in some areas could be given ST status, while people of the same group living in other areas could be denied it. The apparent reason behind such a provision was that ST status has to be linked to backwardness, which was a 'transient phenomenon'. The fundamental principle was that STs had to advance and assimilate with the development processes of the rest of the country.

Pag

e11

Quality of irrigation in Bundelkhand is much poor due to lack of maintenance of canals, erratic and irregular supply of water from dams, and quick depletion of groundwater sources due to the region’s geology and topography. Although the rainfall pattern and the extent of irrigation in Bundelkhand theoretically favours kharif (monsoon) cultivation, most of the land is cultivated in the rabi (post-monsoon) season. Area cultivated more than once a year does not generally exceed 30% of total cultivated area, except in Jhansi, Lalitpur, Sagar and Tikamgarh districts.

Further The Bundelkhand Plain sub-region suffers from over-drainage due to a large number of rivers and streams. A number of nalas scour of these water courses, rendering a large amount of land worthless. Land is cut away by fast-flowing water and flooding leads to loss of precious top soil. In particular, Banda, and Hamirpur districts are severely affected. In Banda district, an area of 12 lakh hectares was affected, according to data given in the Banda district gazetteer (see table). In Hamirpur, the problem is faced in Rath, Hamirpur and Maudaha tehsils, where a total of 2 lakh hectares, comprising 40% to 60% of the total area is affected. In Mahoba, around 1.5 lakh hectares in Charkhari and Mahoba tehsils is affected16.

TABLE 4: WASTELANDS UNDER MAIN CATEGORIES (2005)

District Total wastelands

in sq km (% of

total land)

Land

affected by

gullies, in

sq km

Wastelands with

or without

scrub, in sq km

Degraded

notified forest

land, in sq km

Barren,

rocky land,

in sq km

Banda 393.43 (8.4%) 392.73

Chitrakoot 127.29 (4.3%) 19.89 20.84 30.13 54.31

Jalaun 278.15 (6%) 173.48 55.97 48.1

Hamirpur 184.33 (4.5%) 143.39 25.19 14.32 37.2

Jhansi 851.59 (16.9%) 117.88 537.62 148.9 36.95

Lalitpur 478.96 (9.5%)

288.09 84.38 104.3

Mahoba 156.14 (5%) 11.01 119.9 22.32 2.23

Bundelkhand

858.38 1047.61 348.15 234.99

Source: Wastelands Atlas of India, 2005, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India.

While agriculture is the mainstay of Bundelkhand's economy, conditions are unfavourable for growth of cash crops like sugarcane and cotton. Productivity is affected by the poor water retention ability of the soil, weather fluctuations and large amount of wasteland. Rising input costs and frequent incidence of drought are pushing agricultural labourers and small farmers out of agriculture.

16

Hamirpur District Gazetteer 1988 (p 90).

Pag

e12

Industry in Bundelkhand

There are no significant traditional industries in Bundelkhand. Till the end of 2008, there was only one large manufacturing units in the entire region - a unit of the public sector Bharat Heavy Electricals, set up at Jhansi in the 1970s. There are also a few medium-size industrial units, as shown in the table below. Several small and tiny industrial units are scattered across the region, especially in Jhansi districts but no modern industry has emerged as a major source of employment across the region. Trade and transport, stone quarries are the largest source of 'industrial' employment other than construction, in Lalitpur and Chitrakoot districts. The handloom industry is also a significant source of employment In Jhansi district.

In 2001-02, Jhansi was one of the districts of UP that contributed 5-10% of the state's industrial output, while all other districts of UP Bundelkhand belonged to the category of districts that contributed less than 1% of the state's industrial output17. In terms of share of total investment in factory sector across different regions of UP, Bundelkhand, including Jhansi district, accounted for less than 2% of the investment; the central and eastern regions, which are also considered backward, had more than twice this share, while western UP had over 60% of the investment; if one excludes Jhansi, the share of the rest of Bundelkhand would be miniscule. While sugar accounts for the highest share of factory output in UP, there is no sugar industry in Bundelkhand. The region also does not have the skilled labour force, infrastructure or locational advantage for any modern industry like electronics or the services industry. Many industries started across Bundelkhand have either failed, or did not even take off. No product-specific or sector-specific cluster is seen in the region.

A number of tiny and small industrial units are located across Bundelkhand and are involved in manufacturing a variety of industrial and semi-industrial products. The turnover and quantum of employment generated by these industries is small, production of industrial or semi-industrial goods is not a major economic activity in the region). The tiny and small units cater mainly to local markets and growth is limited by size of the market and severe power shortages. Further a variety of cottage industries like production of handmade paper, brass utensil manufacture in Katora and manufacture of footwear from leather and rubber tyre tubes in Kalpi, Jalaun, carpet weaving in Baruasagar and Badasagar areas of Jhansi district, manufacture of brass images in Lalitpur, manufacture of vessels, dishes and objected art from soapstone, mined at a village called Gorahri, in Hamirpur, production of handicrafts and items made out of 'shajar' stone in Banda are found in Bundelkhand.

Sources of Employment in Bundelkhand:

Bundelkhand rank among the least developed regions of either state, with low industrialisation and low urbanisation. Agriculture is the predominant occupation in Bundelkhand. As the table below shows, according to Census 2001, percentage of main workers engaged in agriculture, as cultivators or labourers, was higher than 60, and much higher than state and national averages,

17

UT T A R PR A D E S H DE V E L O P M E N T RE P O R T , 2007

Pag

e13

in all districts of Bundelkhand18 except Jhansi. Till the end of 2008 there were only two large manufacturing units in the entire region. No small or cottage industry in the region commanded a large market outside. The potential of tourism had not been well realised. Service industry was limited to pockets.

The majority of rural households in most parts of Bundelkhand rely on income from local or inter-state, annual or seasonal or migration for work. Increased migration and increased use of tractors (hired or owned) would account for the significant reduction in the percentage of agriculture labourers between 1991 and 2001 in Jhansi, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda and Chitrakoot. Jhansi was the only district where percentage of main workers engaged in 'other work' was close to the national average19. Manufacturing, followed by trade, construction, employment in government, education and transport accounts for highest percentage of main workers engaged in 'other work' in the region. The details of employment in Bundelkhand are given below in Table-5.

TABLE 5: PERCENTAGE-WISE BREAKUP OF MAIN WORKERS (CENSUS 1991, 2001)

District Cultivation

Agricultural labour

Household Industry

Other work

1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001

Jhansi 46.1 44.6 16 10.6 5.1 5.5 32.7 39.3

Lalitpur 70.9 68.5 10.5 7 2.3 2.8 16.4 20.7

Jalaun 54.8 50.6 23.6 18.9 2 3.4 19.5 26.4

Hamirpur 50.6 50 31.1 22.2 3 3 15.3 24.5

Mahoba

54.4

17.7

3

23.5

Banda 59.2 54.6 26.7 20.4 2.4 3 11.8 21.4

Chitrakoot

66.2

18.4

2.4

12

Bundelkhand 56.3 55.6 21.6 16.5 3.0 3.3 19.1 24.0

UP average

47

15.1

5.3

32.6

India average

33.9

20.3

3.9

42.7

The breakup of main workers is according to their 'main' occupation, as shows in Table-6 reveals

that in the fishing, forestry and mining sectors, there are many more workers engaged as casual

18 Census 2001 defined a 'main worker' as one who had worked for the major part of six months or more in the year preceding

the census household survey. 'Work' was defined as 'participation in any economically productive activity', with or without compensation.

19 Other work' includes working in government service, private sector factories, small industrial units, and businesses engaged

in trading or service sector activities. 'Other work' also includes working as labour in stone quarries.

Pag

e14

or occasional workers. The mining sector also employs a large number of migrant workers, from

other districts or other states. This employment is not reflected in figures below. 'Manufacturing'

includes manufacturing in household industries, tiny and small scale units, and larger factories.

'Construction' includes all activities related to building and other construction.

TABLE 6: EMPLOYMENT SOURCES OF NON-AGRICULTURAL MAIN WORKERS IN UP BUNDELKHAND (CENSUS 2001)

Sectors Banda Chitrakoot Jalaun Hamirpur Jhansi Lalitpur Mahoba Total % of total

Agriculture related service activities

5622 2559 4569 5319 5657 2293 3411 29430 4.4

Forestry 163 1551 267 136 108 413 102 2740 0.4

Fishing 525 81 68 249 603 117 174 1817 0.3

Mining and quarrying 2597 1830 203 2103 1621 4379 2916 15649 2.3

Manufacturing 26282 9457 23726 17761 45586 14935 11709 149456 22.3

Construction 12756 3241 8800 8134 15233 5745 8548 62457 9.3

Trade and repair 22238 9365 24036 16349 37087 5082 10358 124515 18.6

Hotels and restaurants

950 458 853 551 1511 824 492 5639 0.8

Financial intermediation 1107 244 1148 695 1511 654 490 5849 0.9

Transport, storage and communication

6547 2928 6890 5153 22767 6751 4436 55472 8.3

Other business activities 5793 2440 9074 2850 14970 3481 2122 40730 6

Public administration and defence

8126 4123 10962 5688 35654 8712 3050 76315 11.4

Education 7795 3434 10120 5969 11128 4220 3800 46466 6.9

Health and social work 2596 720 1593 2101 3433 1204 1362 13009 1.9

Other sectors

5.9

Total main workers 106700 45100 106953 77433 207396 70005 55776 669363

Pag

e15

'Financial intermediation' includes working as brokers/agents for financial/insurance products

and services. 'Public administration' refers to employment in central, state or local government

bodies/departments. Workers in 'other sectors' (last rows) are mainly engaged as domestic

servants. 'Education', 'health' and 'social work' includes employment in private sector. The data

in the tables show that other manufacturing is the single largest source of non-agricultural

employment in Bundelkhand, followed by, trade, construction, public administration

(employment in government), education and transport. There is highest employment in

manufacturing (other than beedi) is in Jhansi district and lowest employment in manufacturing is

in Chitrakoot districts and highest employment in mining and quarrying is in Lalitpur districts.

Women Workforce in Bundelkhand:

The proportion of women in the workforce20

in Bundelkhand is generally higher than the India

average, and much higher than the UP average. Female workers constituted around 25% of the

total female population in India, and only around 16% of the female population in UP, in all

Bundelkhand districts except Jhansi and Jalaun, they constituted over 30% of the female

population. This may indicate that cultural norms which discourage women from working in UP

are not generally as deeply rooted in Bundelkhand. However, higher female work participation

could also be seen as sign of higher economic vulnerability. Comparatively low female work

participation in Jhansi is in tune with female work participation in other districts of India that

have a fairly high urban population - the proportion of working females in urban India is lower

than in rural India. TABLE 7: WOMEN WORK PARTICIPATION IN BUNDELKHAND

Economic Activity Banda Chitrakoot Jalaun Hamirpur Jhansi Lalitpur Mahoba Bundelkhand

Female Population 710790 357047 667811 479923 812113 458321 328756 3814761

Female (main+ marginal)

215053 128755 135707 131389 187729 160359 107506 1066498

Female Workers as % of female

30.2 36 20.3 27.4 23.1 35 32.7 29.24286

Total workers 215053 128755 135707 131389 187729 160359 107506 1066498

Main workers 80037 57860 38456 41090 73720 49363 39307 379833

Marginal workers 135016 70895 97251 90299 114009 110996 68199 686665

Non workers 495737 228292 532104 348534 624384 297962 221250 2748263

Cultivators 97602 69244 44862 46262 74339 95292 43068 470669

Agricultural laborers 94915 46647 71502 70098 70706 49024 52990 455882

Workers in household industries

6443 3672 6456 3265 16808 6039 2563 45246

20

The proportion of women in the workforce is also called female work participation, and is calculated as percentage of main+ marginal female workers in total female population. While discussing Census data, we refer to 'females' rather than 'women', as working persons below the age of 15 also come under the Census definition of 'workers'.

Pag

e16

However, as the Table-7 above shows, generally less than 50% of female workers in Bundelkhand are 'main workers' - engaged in economic activity for the major part of six months or more in the year. As with the rest of the working population, the majority of female workers are employed in agriculture. In Lalitpur and Chitrakoot, over 60% of female main workers are cultivators. In Jhansi districts, there are more than 15,000 female main workers engaged in 'other work', which includes working in government service, private sector factories, small industrial units, and businesses engaged in trading or service sector activities.

Migration in Bundelkhand: A Major Source of Alternative Livelihood:

Actual number of migrants obviously varies across villages according to factors like quality of local land, availability of irrigation water, and agriculture and non-agriculture employment opportunities available in the village. Across the Bundelkhand 50% to 70% of rural households d have at least one member who migrates annually or has migrated permanently.21 The BPL Survey 200 indicates that apart from permanent or semi-permanent migrants, working adults of 30% to 50% of the region's rural households migrate every year, seeking casual or seasonal employment22. The proportion of casual labour migrants is much higher than that of migrants seeking seasonal employment in Bundelkhand. Chitrakoot witnesses all time highest proportion of migration.

Extent of migration depends on number of factors, among all these land ownership is a major determinant. The more the land a household owns, the less likely any member will migrate. However, small and marginal farmers have a slightly higher chance of migrating compared to households with practically no land. Perhaps this is because the first category of families has the resources to hire labour and thus release family labour for more lucrative outside work. In other words, in normal conditions, the poorest of the poor are unlikely to migrate. Families with extra hands are more likely to migrate. As a rule, only men migrate when they possess the skills required in the work destination, or when migration is a relatively new activity for the community. As the 'migration stream' becomes more established, women accompany their husbands, In some tribal villages, the female migrants outnumber males. Among all social groups, scheduled tribes (STs), followed by scheduled castes (SCs), are more likely to migrate than people from any other group. This is clearly seen in 2002 BPL survey data, which show that whereas 47% of Banda district's rural households reported casual or seasonal migration, among SC families, the proportion was 51%23. Members of landed upper cast households also migrate, but their reasons for leaving the village are opportunistic - driven by the desire to have a better life. But for people from SC and ST groups, migration is usually an unavoidable 'coping strategy', driven simply by the need to survive24.

21

2002 BPL Survey Data 22

www.Bundelkhand.org 23

Poverty among SC and ST rural households in Bundelkhand in www.bundelkhand.org. 24

Deshingkar P and Start D, 'Seasonal Migration for Livelihoods in India: Coping, Accumulation and Exclusion', Working Paper 220, Overseas Development Institute, London: 2003

Pag

e17

Poverty Estimates in Bundelkhand:

Poverty can be defined by many dimensions i.e. income, consumption, materialistic wellbeing, social indicators etc. A current and widely used definition of poverty as defined by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)is: “Poverty encompasses different dimensions of deprivation that relate to human capabilities including consumption and food security, health, education, rights, voice, security, dignity and decent work.”

Poverty in India is measured in two ways The Planning Commission defines poverty in terms of monthly per capita expenditure (MPCE) corresponding to per capita daily requirement of 2100 calories in urban areas and 2400 calories in rural areas. According to NSSO 50th Round data (1993-94), UP Bundelkhand was the poorest region of the state, with close to 70% of the population living below the poverty line25. However, by NSSO 55th Round data (1999-2000), the figure dropped drastically to around 27%26. The data from 50th and 55th round shows huge drop in poverty in the region, but ground realities does not suggest the same. The 'corrected' rate of incidence of poverty in rural and urban Bundelkhand, quoted in the 2003 HUMAN

DEVELOPME NT REPORT- UTTA R PRADE SH , is around 38%27.

Since 1992, the Union ministry of rural development has been estimating rural households living below the poverty line (BPL) every five years. While the NSS estimates percentage of poor, the BPL survey seeks to identify particular BPL households in rural areas, which then become eligible for various social welfare scheme benefits, including subsidised foodgrains through the public distribution system (PDS). Following criticism of the design of the 1992 and 1997 BPL surveys, the Union government appointed an expert group, which suggested use of a schedule with 13 socio-economic indicators, to be filled in through house-to-house surveys28.

25

The per capita monthly expenditure is obtained from the National Sample Survey Organisation, which conducts an extensive consumer-expenditure National Sample Survey (NSS) every five years. A 'poverty line', originally calculated for 1973-74, is then revised, using a price index for rural and urban areas. Leaving aside basic objections to this method of estimating poverty, as well as objections related to methodological issues such as choice of price index, a limitation of this method is that it relies on sample surveys, which do not give us a good district-wise picture. We do get a region-wise picture, but Bundelkhand, as we understand it does not constitute an NSS 'sample region'. All UP Bundelkhand districts do constitute an NSS sample region but the picture that emerges about UP Bundelkhand from NSS data is dubious. 26

The drastic drop was due to the fact that the two NSS surveys did not use the same design. Hence, straightforward comparisons between the two estimates are invalid. Conclusions derived from the two surveys, including one that suggests incidence of poverty in UP overall fell from 41% to 31% in this period, are not taken seriously. Some methods have been suggested for 'correcting' the 1999-2000 estimates to make them comparable with the 1993-94 estimates. 27

The correction however does not take into account a basic problem: to start with, the number of sample households from Bundelkhand was very small. Hence, as a 2002 World Bank study on poverty in UP noted, 'sampling errors are likely to be large' [World Bank, p 20 footnote]. Another problem, not specific to Bundelkhand but relevant to the region, is that in 1993-94, there was a high concentration of households around the poverty line. A little economic growth could push a large number of people above the poverty line. However, many of those who 'got pushed up' from below the poverty level continue to be vulnerable to 'shocks' that can pull them back to below the poverty line [World Bank, ii] and Bundelkhand is highly prone to weather-induced (drought) shocks. 28

The indicators related to factors like size of land holding, type of house, availability of clothing per person, food security, sanitation, possession of consumer durables, literacy, status of household in labour force and means of livelihood. Against each indicator, a household was given a score of 0 to 4. The lowest aggregate score thus was 0; the highest was 52. There was also a 'cut-off' score to determine whether a family falls below or above the poverty line.

Pag

e18

This method, used in 2002, had many problems29. The 2002 BPL Survey did not attempt to identify BPL households. It only attempted to identify households that would be eligible for BPL benefits, according to the state government's capacity and interest. And many of these households were wrongly identified, deliberately, to please vested interests and get election benefits. Therefore there is no reliable and acceptable way of estimating poverty in Bundelkhand. For whatever it is worth, the poverty level in Bundelkhand districts, on the basis of pre-determined cutoff 2002 BPL survey scores, ranged from around 21% in Mahoba to 55% in Chitrakoot.. The figures for Mahoba are absurd. Data from the 2002 BPL Survey related to Bundelkhand has certain limitations. Till December 2008, data from many districts including Jhansi, Lalitpur and Jalaun was not compiled or made publicly accessible. Data for Hamirpur was incomplete. The Mahoba data showed that only seven rural households in the entire district had bonded labourers. On the other hand, there could have been some over-reporting of hunger in responses to questions related to food security, as most families would have known that BPL survey results determine eligibility for subsidised foodgrains30.

We cannot also compare the BPL Survey data with Census 2001 data. The latter refers largely to persons (such as 'main workers'), whereas the former refers to households. There is also much difference in terminology. Census data on labourers refers to agricultural labourers; the BPL survey data refers to 'casual labourers', a broader term. The BPL Survey used the term 'pucca' houses, a term generally understood as houses built with bricks and cement. Census 2001 used the term 'permanent houses', defined as houses built out of permanent materials including sheets of galvanized metal and asbestos. However, responses to particular questions, discussed in 2002 BPL Survey Data, do give us a fairly good picture of poverty across the region, if we look only at the data, and not the overall scores, and treat the data cautiously31.

Food insecurity in Bundelkhand: Food security is a complex sustainable development issue, linked to health through malnutrition, but also to sustainable economic development and environment. The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”. Commonly, the concept of food security is defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's dietary needs as well as their food preferences. In many countries, health problems

29 First, there were design issues, in the scoring system. If a family ate less than one square meal a day, it got 0 on this

parameter, but a family that ate twice a day got a high score of 3, even if it faced occasional shortages. Similarly, a family with a one adult male and female earning-member got a high score, regardless of the income earned. Implicit in the scoring system was the assumption that all indicators carry equal weight. Hence, having less than one meal a day was given the same weight as not owning specified consumer durables like electrical appliances - which is quite absurd.

30 www.bundelkhand.org

31 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Sector Unit, South Asia Region, World Bank, P O V E R T Y I N I N D I A : T H E

C H A L L E N G E O F U T T A R P R A D E S H , World Bank: May 8, 2002

Pag

e19

related to dietary excess are an ever increasing threat, In fact, malnutrion and food borne diarrhea are become double burden.

Food security is built on three pillars:

Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis. Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious

diet. Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as

adequate water and sanitation.

Within the context of the food security definition, three distinct variables are central to the attainment of food security: availability, access and utilization further through these definition four main dimensions of food security can be identified32:

TABLE 8: DIMENTIONS OF FOOD SECURITY

Variable Dimentions

Physical Availability of Food

Food availability addresses the “supply side” of food security and is determined by the level of food production, stock levels and net trade.

Economic and Physical Access to Food

An adequate supply of food at the national or international level does not in itself guarantee household level food security. Concerns about insufficient food access have resulted in a greater policy focus on incomes, expenditure, markets and prices in achieving food security objectives.

Food Utilisation

Utilization is commonly understood as the way the body makes the most of various nutrients in the food. Sufficient energy and nutrient intake by individuals is the result of good care and feeding practices, food preparation, diversity of the diet and intra-household distribution of food. Combined with good biological utilization of food consumed, this determines the nutritional status of individuals.

Stability of the Other Three Dimensions Over Time

Even if your food intake is adequate today, you are still considered to be food insecure if you have inadequate access to food on a periodic basis, risking a deterioration of your nutritional status. Adverse weather conditions, political instability, or economic factors (unemployment, rising food prices) may have an impact on your food security status.

The four dimensions of food insecurity outlined in Table 8 were initially thought of as "core components" of the experience33, and "essential components" of food security measurement34.

32

www.foodsec.org/docs/concepts_guide.pdf 33

Radimer KL, Olson CM, Greene JC, Campbell CC, Habicht J-P. Understanding hunger and developing indicators to assess it in women and children. J Nutr Educ 1992;24(1):36S-45S. 34

Radimer KL, Olson CM, Campbell CC. Development of indicators to assess hunger. J Nutr 1990;120:1544-8.

Pag

e20

The core concept of food insecurity can be understood most simply as deprivation in the basic need for food. Four key conceptual elements further define this phenomenon:

Food insecurity is experienced at the household and individual levels in different ways. Individual-level experience relates to issues of food consumption and allocation and includes the physiological sensation of hunger, whereas food supply management and acquisition issues define the household situation35.

The experience of food insecurity is not static but dynamic in nature, defined by a temporal sequence of events and experiences that can be considered in terms of frequency, duration, and periodicity.

The sequence of stages that define the experience reflect graded levels of severity, ranging from qualitative compromises in food selection and consumption to quantitative compromises in intake and the attendant physical sensation of hunger, as resources become increasingly depleted. As its most severe stage, food insecurity is experienced as absolute food deprivation (i.e., individuals not eating at all).

Within households, individuals' experiences of food insecurity differ. In particular, adults appear to compromise their own intakes first in an effort to minimize the extent and nature of compromise experienced by children in the household. This suggests that food insecurity is a managed process in which the sequence of events and severity of experience for different household members is, to some extent, controlled and predictable36.

The food acquisition, selection, and consumption behaviours characteristic of food insecurity represent deviations from social and cultural norms37. At the household level, the social dimension of food insecurity is also manifested in behaviours to acquire food in ways that deviate from social norms, sometimes it referred as coping strategies or resource augmentation strategies38. Access to food is also affected by caste and gender discrimination further social norms are also constantly evolving and social exclusion appears to be an integral part of the experience of chronic food insecurity. Hamelin et al also documented alienation in relation to household food insecurity, describing the profound feelings of powerlessness, guilt, and shame associated with this condition39. To sum up food insecurity can be chronic or acute. Chronic food insecurity is a state of recurrently having insufficient food to meet the nutritional demands of a healthy life. It is primarily a function of poverty, but poverty can affect individuals differently depending on variables such as gender, age, caste and class. Acute or transient food insecurity is episodic and

35

Campbell CC, Desjardins E. A model and research approach for studying the management of limited food resources by low income families. J Nutr Educ 1989;21(4):162-71. 36

ibid 37

Campbell CC. Food insecurity: A nutritional outcome or a predictor variable? J Nutr 1991;121:408-15. 38

Hamelin AM, Habicht JP, Beaudry M. Food insecurity: consequences for the household and broader social implications. J Nutr 1999;129:525S-8S. 39

Hamelin AM, Beaudry M, Habicht J-P. Characterization of household food insecurity in Quebec: food and feelings. Soc Sci Med 2002;54(1):119-32.

Pag

e21

is most commonly associated with vulnerability to climatic shocks. However shocks can be of an economic nature too. Food insecurity can also be seasonal, the different forms of food insecurity are often inter-linked, because the poor and chronically food-insecure do not have the reserves to see them through the hungry season, and they are also frequently forced to live in disaster-prone areas like in case of study area of this study or in areas which are inherently unproductive, simply because no-one who can avoid it wants to live there. Diverse forms of food insecurity therefore tend to be mutually-reinforcing. It was argued that the price mechanism serves to link food availability to food access. The strongest mechanism de-linking them is income inequality and chronic poverty. The poor themselves equate poverty with food insecurity. Participatory assessments of poverty consistently identify the poor in terms of how long their home produced food lasts. The ‘ultra poor’ or ‘destitute’ are those who produce no food and have to rely solely on food purchases or food supplied as wage goods. One or more ‘middle income’ or ‘poor but not destitute’ groups is normally also identified according to how many months their farm-produced food supply lasts40. Food insecurity is thus a complex issue, and the rural India food insecurity atlas uses 19 indicators, including per capita consumption of food grain, percentage of population consuming less than 1890 calories a day, percentage of drought-prone area, poverty line, percentage of population dependant on labour and rural and health infrastructure index. Based on these indicators, Uttar Pradesh was deemed 'severely insecure'. In Bundelkhand, ST groups are found in Chitrakoot and Lalitpur, and it was from the latter district that the first report of 'hunger death' in Bundelkhand in recent times, made national headlines, in 2001. Subsequently, in 2003, there were reports about poor families forced to survive by 'eating grass', where Sahariyas tribes live in large numbers41. Because of continued and frequent spells of drought, food security of a vast population in Bundelkhand region is always at stake. Officially, there was no case of 'hunger death' in Bundelkhand during the 2003-07 droughts, and strictly speaking, this could have been a correct surmise. 'Hunger death' is extremely difficult to prove. The way it is understood in India, traces of not even a morsel of any kind of food should be found in the victim's digestive system during a post-mortem to establish that cause of death was hunger. This condition is rarely met. As a result, governments deny any incidence of 'hunger death', and this was what happened in during the 2003-2007 droughts. The denial ignores the commonsensical point that prolonged starvation or poor nourishment aggravates illnesses like TB, and leads to death. Instead of searching for morsels of food in dead bodies, a sensitive government would look at the larger issue of food insecurity, which leads to death.

40

Working Paper 231 Food Security and the Millennium Development Goal on Hunger in Asia Gerard J. Gill, John Farrington, Edward Anderson, Cecilia Luttrell, Tim Conway, N.C. Saxena and Rachel Slater December 2003 Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD UK.

41 Antyodaya ration cards were issued to these people, which enabled families living below the poverty line to buy 20 kg of

wheat and 10 kg of rice a month at Rs 2 and Rs 3 per kg respectively. This had only limited impact due to lack of purchasing power.

Pag

e22

Such sensitivity was displayed at least at the level of decision-making, in UP in 2007-2008. As an emergency relief measure, the state government ordered pradhans of villages in each of the region's district to store a quintal of rice and wheat, and use it to distribute it free among hungry people. Every hungry person was entitled to at least 15 kg of wheat free of cost, every month. The mid-day meal scheme of providing a wholesome cooked meal to school going children was extended to destitutes. They were also eligible for cooked evening meals during the winter and dry rations for the evening meal in other seasons, till such time as the drought conditions continued. The scheme however received little publicity. Emergency relief measures would reduce incidence of 'hunger death' but are no answer to the problem of food insecurity. That problem can be solved only by systematic improvements in the quantity and quality of government services such as PDS and wage employment schemes, which can provide much-needed income in times of agriculture distress42.

Food Security and Government Policy: On June 4th, 2009 in speech to parliament outlining, President of India said “My government proposes to enact a new law — the National Food Security Act — that will provide a statutory basis for a framework which assures food security for all. Every family below the poverty line in rural as well as urban areas will be entitled, by law, to 25 kilograms of rice or wheat per month at three rupees (about 6 cents) per kilogram. This legislation will also be used to bring about broader systemic reform in the public distribution system.”

42

Russel RV, Lal Hira, The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, Volume IV, Macmillan, London: 1916 and Rajgopal PV, Voice of Hope, Voices for Change, Working Paper, National Centre for Advocacy Studies, Pune: April 2002

BOX 1HUNGER IS WEAKENING

RELATIONS

In 2008 an old Sahariya woman was abandoned by her family which had migrated to Madhya Pradesh in search of work. She could barely crawl and survived seeking alms from her community, which itself had little to share. In the same village around 250 Sahariya adults out of a total of 450 had migrated to Indore, Bhopal, Delhi and Gwalior for work. Other members who could not migrate were aged, single women and children. 'Only a few able bodied persons were around.'

Pag

e23

Measures to enhance direct access to food are more likely to be beneficial if these are embedded in more general social safety net programmes. Safety nets include income transfers for those chronically unable to work—because of age or handicaps—and for those temporarily affected by natural disasters or economic recession. These options include43; a. Targeted direct feeding programs. These include school meals; feeding of expectant and

nursing mothers as well as children under five through primary health centres, soup kitchens and special canteens;

b. Food-for-work programs. Food-for-work programs provide support to households while developing useful infrastructure such as small-scale irrigation, rural roads, buildings for rural health centres and schools.

c. Income-transfer programs. These can be in cash or in kind, including food stamps, subsidized rations and other targeted measures for poor households.

India's starvation and malnutrition problems have always been as perplexing as they are horrifying. With more than 200 million people classified as hungry by the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute, India has the world's largest population of the starving and malnourished — despite being the world's second-largest grower of rice and wheat and boasting a surplus of 56.5 million tons of food grains in government warehouses.

43

What are Safety Nets? Stamoulis, K. and Zezza, A. 2003. A Conceptual Framework for National Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food Security Strategies and Policies. ESA Working Paper No. 03-17,

BOX 2: MOUNTING FOOD PRICES

THE RECENT RISE FOOD PRICES ARE ALSO MAJOR CONCERN REGARDING

AFFORDABILITY AND FOOD SECURITY.

Pag

e24

India's food security policy was crafted with an aim at attaining food self-sufficiency by making basic foodgrains available to all its citizens at an affordable price. To make this possible and to oversee its implementation, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was set up under the Food Corporations Act 1964. The FCI procures foodgrains from farmers at the government-declared minimum support price (MSP), which is a long-term guarantee to ensure minimum production, stocks them in its warehouses, and then makes them available at affordable rates to the people through the public distribution system (PDS), which was restructured into the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) in 1997, at an issue price, which is different for those above and below poverty lines. Besides the TPDS, the government has implemented numerous other programs aimed at food security, which include the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) for providing nutrition and healthcare services to children and pregnant women, the Antyodaya Anna Yojana for providing affordable food to below poverty level (BPL) households, and the Mid-day Meals Scheme (MDM) for ensuring nutritional security to school going children. The implementation of MNREGA - the world's largest social security and food security program for rural India is

BOX 3GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND POVERTY IN BUNDELKHAND

In a study of 110 Sahariya households in village Dhamna, of Lalitpur District, only half had BPL or Antyodaya cards, which made them eligible to some quantity of subsidised or free foodgrains. BPL/Antyodaya card holders were receiving their quota of grain but even in the drought conditions, they were being overcharged by the public distribution system (PDS) license holder ('kotedar') to the extent of 30%. NREGS – the flagship program of government of India is particularly required during times of severe distress like drought, but in Dhamna, it is found that no Sahariya had got work under NREGS for more than eight days in 2007-2008. Worst affected were single women. None of the single women in Dhamna had BPL or Antyodaya cards. They had received NREGS job cards but none had got work though they had demanded it orally. It was not that no NREGS works being carried; the team visited a work site near the village where 180 people were employed. The workers included some children.

Coming to the overall food security situation in the surveyed villages of the three districts, the team observed that going by two major indicators, the body mass index (BMI) and the haemoglobin count, the surveyed population was 'severely malnourished'. Out of a total of 39 children studied, over 70% were found to be suffering from Grade II or Grade III low haemoglobin count, or anaemia. None of the children had a normal count. Among 23 adults studied, 96% had Grade II or Grade I anaemia. BMI studies of the same samples showed that only 15% of the children had normal or 'normal low' weight. Among adults, 60% had below normal BMI. The majority of the surveyed population was thus in a highly vulnerable position.. 'Shocks' like lack of food in the household for a prolonged period, illness, including minor ailments such as unattended diarrhoea and neurobiological disorders could drive people 'to the verge of death'. This is what indeed happened in Bundelkhand in 2003-2007, according to several media reports on 'bhukmari' or deaths or suicides due to hunger.

Source: Arundhati Dhuru and others, submitted to the Supreme Court as part of the 'Right to Food Case' (writ petition 196/2001, People's Union of Civil Liberties [PUCL] v. Union of India and others). The team visited a total of eight villages in Lalitpur, Mahoba and Banda districts, in January 2008.

Pag

e25

another government’s flagship program and mega initiative for attaining food security in rural India. These policies and programs reflect government’s intention to prevent marginalized people from hunger but ground realities are different from intention. In following section these programs are evaluated on actual experiences. Public Distribution System and Antyodaya Anna Yojana: PDS evolved as a major instrument of the Government’s economic policy for ensuring availability of foodgrains to the public at affordable prices as well as for enhancing the food security for the poor. It is an important constituent of the strategy for poverty eradication and is intended to serve as a safety net for the poor whose number is more than 330 million and are nutritionally at risk. PDS means distribution of essential commodities (Wheat, Rice, Sugar and Kerosene) to a large number of people through a network of Fair Price Shops on a recurring basis. With a network of about 4.99 lakh Fair Price Shops (FPS) it is perhaps the largest distribution network of its type in the world. PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments. The Central Government has taken the responsibility for procurement, storage, transportation and bulk allocation of foodgrains, etc. The responsibility for distributing the same to the consumers through the network of Fair Price Shops (FPSs) rests with the State Governments. The operational responsibilities including allocation within the State, identification of families below poverty line, issue of ration cards, supervision and monitoring the functioning of FPSs rest with the State Governments. TABLE 9: POSSESSION OF RATION CARDS IN REGIONS OF UP

The Revamped Public Distribution System (RPDS) was launched in June, 1992 with a view to strengthen and streamline the PDS as well as to improve its reach in the far-flung, hilly, remote and inaccessible areas where a substantial section of the poor live. It covered 1775 blocks wherein area specific programmes such as the Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDP), Desert Development Programme (DDP) and

Ration card/ Regions

Rural Urban

Per 1000 hhs possessing

RSE(%) Per 1000 hhs possessing

RSE(%)

No card

Western 14.9 17.8 26.1 8.3

Central 18.4 6.7 39.3 4.9

Eastern 16.0 5.0 21.7 8.1

Bundelkhand 8.7 16.0 21.7 24.5

State 15.7 6.3 28.0 4.5

Antyodaya/ BPL cards

Western 9.0 7.7 3.9 19.5

Central 24.2 5.8 8.3 13.4

Eastern 23.2 3.7 9.2 12.8

Bundelkhand 26.7 8.1 14.5 26.7

State 18.7 2.9 6.6 8.7

Pag

e26

certain Designated Hill Areas (DHA) identified in consultation with State Governments for special focus, with respect to improvement of the PDS infrastructure. In June 1997, the Government of India launched the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) with focus on the poor. Under the TPDS, States are required to formulate and implement foolproof arrangements for identification of the poor for delivery of food grains and for its distribution in a transparent and accountable manner at the FPS level.

Year

ALLOTMENT OFFTAKE OFFTAKE% of ALLOTMENT

BPL APL AAY TOTAL BPL APL AAY TOTAL BPL APL AAY TOTAL

Wheat

2009-10 99.862 181.23 47.156 328.248 94.27 198.73 45.803 338.803 94.400 109.656 97.131 103.22

2008-09 1150.344 415.568 565.872 2131.784 1117.443 171.075 542.114 1830.632 97.140 41.167 95.802 85.87

2007-08 910.344 53.59 565.872 1529.806 974.26 40.168 622.767 1637.195 107.021 74.954 110.054 107.02

2006-07 916.122 595.68 569.076 2080.878 865.495 44.18 587.571 1497.246 94.474 7.417 103.250 71.95

2005-06 1182.038 3603.096 600.994 5386.128 1025.072 37.93 553.388 1616.39 86.721 1.053 92.079 30.01

Rice

2009-10 130.613 0 96.134 226.747 109.385 0.098 90.595 200.078 83.747 0 94.238 88.24

2008-09 1615.356 25.106 1153.608 2794.07 1339.07 18.974 1066.661 2424.705 82.896 75.576 92.463 86.78

2007-08 1855.356 11.92 1153.608 3020.884 1521.69 12.062 1044.823 2578.575 82.016 101.191 90.570 85.36

2006-07 1850.541 3247.02 1150.938 6248.499 1615.544 281.595 1104.76 3001.899 87.301 8.672 95.988 48.04

2005-06 1763.068 2891.364 938.692 5593.124 1535.191 2.236 884.901 2422.328 87.075 0.077 94.270 43.31

AAY is a step in the direction of making TPDS aim at reducing hunger among the poorest segments of the BPL population. A National Sample Survey Exercise points towards the fact that about 5 % of the total population in the country sleeps without two square meals a day. This section of the population can be called as “hungry”. In order to make TPDS more focused and targeted towards this category of population, the “Antyodaya Anna Yojana” (AAY) was launched in December, 2000 for one crore poorest of the poor families. AAY contemplates identification of one crore poorest of the poor families from amongst the number of BPL families covered under TPDS within the States and providing them food grains at a highly subsidized rate of Rs.2/ per kg. for wheat and Rs. 3/ per kg for rice. The States/UTs are required to bear the distribution cost, including margin to dealers and retailers as well as the transportation cost. Thus the entire food subsidy is being passed on to the consumers under the scheme.

The scale of issue that was initially 25 kg per family per month has been increased to 35 kg per family per month with effect from 1st April 2002. Further it has been expanded in 2003-2004 by adding another 50 lakh BPL households headed by widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of subsistence or societal support. With this increase, 1.5 crore (i.e. 23% of BPL) families have been covered under the AAY.

Pag

e27

As announced in the Union Budget 2004-05, the AAY has been further expanded by another 50 lakh BPL families by including, inter alia, all households at the risk of hunger. Orders to this effect have been issued on 3rd August 2004. In order to identify these households, the guidelines stipulate the following criteria: -

a. Landless agriculture labourers, marginal farmers, rural artisans/craftsmen, such as potters, tanners, weavers, blacksmiths, carpenters, slum dwellers, and persons earning their livelihood, on daily basis in the informal sector like porters, coolies, rickshaw pullers, hand cart pullers, fruit and flower sellers, snake charmers, rag pickers, cobblers, destitutes and other similar categories irrespective of rural or urban areas.

b. Households headed by widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60 years or more with no assured means of subsistence or societal support.

c. Widows or terminally ill persons or disabled persons or persons aged 60 years or more or single women or single men with no family or societal support or assured means of subsistence.

d. All primitive tribal households.

With this increase, the number of AAY families has been increased to 2 crore (i.e. 30.66% of BPL families). As announced in the Union Budget 2005-06, the AAY has further been expanded to cover another 50 lakh BPL households thus increasing its overage to 2.5 crore households.(i.e. 38% of BPL). As on 30.04.2009, 242.75 lakh AAY families have been covered by the States /UTs under this scheme. About 600,000 people in Bundelkhand were issued BPL & Antyodaya cards. The State-wise estimated number of AAY families and the families identified and ration cards issued under AAY by the Uttar Pradesh and all India are as follows-

(As on30/04/2009) (figures in lakh)

Region/States Estimated no of AAY Families AAY Families identified & Ration Cards

issued

Bundelkhand 6.0 6.0

Uttar Pradesh 40.95 40.945

India 250 242.8

The PDS system and Antyodaya Anna Yojana is victim of government’s ignorance and awful implementation hence not left from critics. A cornerstone of the anti-people food policies has been the enormous cut in the allocations of food grains to the States by 325 lakh tones or by 73.4 per cent between 2006 and 2008, mainly under the APL category. The highest cuts were to the more populous and backward states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh where APL allocation fell by over 95 per cent. These are the States where hunger is most prevalent. The perverse logic of the government was that the states were not lifting their quota. Obviously more wheat will be lifted when market prices are high, and yet it was precisely at such a time when wheat prices shot up by 20-30 per cent that the quotas were slashed, thus directly affecting large sections of the Indian population defined wrongly as the

Pag

e28

non-poor or “above poverty line” families. The household quota itself was slashed from 35 kg per family per month to 20 kg. Going by the current amount of foodgrains allocated to the number of APL families in the State, the actual allocation to APL is down to between 5 to 10 kg per family. It is found in the field survey that the average Antyodaya household obtained close to 67 per cent of its full entitlement. 85 per cent of the respondents of surveyed villages informed that the grain they received under the Antyodaya programme as average or bad. Antyodaya households were charged more than the official issue price. The extent of overcharging was about 13 per cent on average. According to economist Jayati Ghosh, any "adjustment" that would affect the amount of subsidised rice and wheat available to vulnerable populations through the PDS and the Antyodaya Anna Yojan scheme would undermine one of the most basic requirements for survival: access to adequate nutrition. "Reduction of the already small amounts available under PDS for the below the poverty line households (usually 35 kg a month) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana households (usually 25 kg a month) will dramatically weaken what is already a very fragile food balance," she warned. "It may push many more people into semi-starvation or open starvation, as well as have a devastating effect on increasing nutritional deficiencies that have major effects on development. It is completely the opposite of what was promised in terms of more food security for the vulnerable." Integrated Child Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) and Anganwadi:

The Government of India introduced the Integrated Child Development Programme in 1975 to achieve three inter-related objectives, namely:

a. Address the problem of malnutrition among children through provision of supplementary nutrition, monitoring the growth of children and educating families (mother/primary care giver) to adopt better feeding practices – better nutrition during pregnancy, breast-feeding, weaning foods and balanced nutrition in the early years of the development of children (upto 6 years).

b. Ensuring freedom from intermittent diseases and better health of children through timely and complete immunisation for vaccine-preventable diseases, regular de-worming, providing Vitamin A and iron supplements, facilitating referrals in case of illness through convergence with the health sector, and raising health awareness levels amongst the target population.

c. Promoting holistic child development through pre-school education – with a focus on motor and concept development, acquiring language and social skills and preparing the child for schooling.

ICDS seeks to provide supplementary nutrition, health care and pre-school education to children below the age of six. Twenty five years after the introduction of the ICDS programme the Supreme Court (Order dated 28 November 2001) ordered to covers adolescent girls, pregnant women and nursing mothers now ICDS services are provided through centres known as Anganwadi.

Pag

e29

But is this flagship child nutrition and development programme in such a terrible state. The resources provided for the program are technically adequate to meet the requirements of existing centres, but the reality is that there are frequent delays in financial releases from GOI and State government allocations for supplementary nutrition varies, 15 paisa per day per child in Bihar to Rs. 1.69 in Jharkhand. The situation in Uttar Pradesh is rather grim. For example the government had made allocations and the official data on supply of supplementary nutrition reported that 100% of the AWCs received supplies, the reality (as evident in the AWC records) was that there was no supply from August 2003 to March 200444. Here situation persist where procurement of nutrition supplements has been made (on paper) and funds have also been utilised, but there is no achievement and nothing to show on the ground. The coverage in state is low, the distribution of food is irregular and quality is poor. While it is estimated that there are about 3.1 crore children under six years of age in UP, the number of children covered by the (Supplementary Nutritional Program) SNP programme in UP as per the records of the ICDS is only 1.8 crores. Therefore, 40 % of children are outside the coverage of SNP even by official records.

There are many inconsistencies in the program like no quality control and the food; it is so bad that children cannot eat it. In U.P. most Anganwadi Centers have been attached to the primary school. They run either from primary school premises, rented structure, panchayat building or at the residence of Anganwadi worker or helper. None of the Anganwadi Centres visited during this study had its own building. Under the ICDS scheme it is mandatory that every Anganwadi Centre should have a well maintained separate toilet for girls and boys. During this study it was seen that not a single AWC had a separate toilet for girls and boys. In fact out of the 15 Centers visited, 9 do not have any toilet facilities of their own. Another important question is who accesses an Anganwadi Centre is influenced by its physical location as well as the caste/community profile of its workers. The fifth report of the Commissioners notes that one of the primary reasons for poor coverage of needy groups under the scheme is the location of the AWC. Access to services by deprived communities like the SC & ST is restricted if the centre is located in upper caste predominant hamlets.

MNREGA in Bundelkhand:

India has a history of employment-generation schemes starting from famine relief works, the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana and more recently the National Food for Work Programme. But these schemes were largely left to the discretion of the administrative machinery. With the NREGA, work becomes a right. Such a guarantee of employment would, to some extent, act as a shield for the rural poor and the landless, saving them from the exploitative rich agricultural class. Longstanding struggle of social activists demanding right to life resulted in the first round of success though the enactment of National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) Act. The Act was passed on 5th September 2005 and came into force in February 2006. The NREG Programme got launched in the 200 poorest and backward districts of twenty seven states of India. The programme is seen as a significant

44

CPMU, DWCD, GOI, 25 November 2003, cited in Vimala Ramachandran and team: Analysis of positive

deviance in ICDS programme – Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. World Bank, New Delhi, 2004b.

Pag

e30

opportunity by the Government as well as civil society organizations to transform rural economy in selected districts/ states as it guarantees 100 days employment per family, and provides adequate resources for the improvement of infrastructure including productive assets of the village. The initial three quarters since operationalisation of the programme have not only been invested in building systems and procedures, but also developing operational details.

The Act also aims at eradication of extreme poverty and making villages self-sustaining through productive asset creation. Under the Act creation of productive assets like water tanks and soil conservation works get preference. This is to regenerate the village’s natural resources, which in turn result in sustainable livelihoods for residents. The Act puts the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) at the helms of the affairs starting from identifying the eligible household to planning the works to be undertaken. The Union government terms it as a ‘people’s Act’.

The NREGA and food security are significantly interlinked. The Act will give a necessary push to the purchasing power of the rural poor. An additional income of approximately Rs 10,000 a year for each participating household is estimated to be sufficient to pull a large section of families above the poverty line. Women usually are a major proportion of the workforce employed at NREGA work sites. The Act will provide some economic independence to women. In rural areas, the poor are often compelled to work under hazardous conditions of drudgery and physical strain. The NREGA includes an element of basic facilities and dignity. Payment of wages within 15 days after completion of work, provision of drinking water and shaded areas at worksites are small steps to make the work less tiring. The demand for functional crèches at the work sites is also becoming stronger.

The application for work and the dated receipt are crucial to trigger the demand for work. The receipt is also the basic record for claiming unemployment allowance if the work is not provided within 15 days. States is not performing well even in providing Job Cards, and providing work within 15 days, further resistance to giving dated receipts has become a massive problem. There is no recorded instance of payment of unemployment allowance in Bundelkhand (Sitapur District of UP — has been a breakthrough in accountability, and an inspiration to other workers struggling for entitlements.). The wage under NREGA has been another trigger and indicator of its success. The wage rate, the measurement system, and the timely payment of wages have all become part of the entitlement package. But Wage payments through NREGA have initiated the biggest “financial inclusion” drive, with the requirement that all wage payments be made through banks and post offices. The engineers, the accountants, and the post offices have been unable to cope, and late payments have begun to cripple the Act. Students and Academics, working together with workers’ organisations in Khunti District in Jharkhand, have operationalised the entitlement in the NREGA to get Rs. 2,000/- per worker paid to over 300 workers as compensation for delayed payment under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. The Khunti payment, made last month, has once again demonstrated that the solution to the vexatious issue of late payments lies in the entitlement framework.

The NREGA is India’s first law to codify development rights in a legal framework, it has begun to set an example in a global context. Apart from the law, and a set of guidelines, there is a strong

Pag

e31

and immediate need to formulate rules to operationalise provisions in the Act; which includes guaranteeing grievance redressal in seven days, social audit twice a year, and mandatory transparency and proactive disclosure. Properly incorporated and enforced, a comprehensive set of operational rules could strengthen the entitlement framework, fixing responsibility at every level. Once again, it would enable bottom-up pressure for implementation, which should be matched by a strong political mandate. Today, the NREGA has millions of workers’ unresolved and un-addressed grievances and problems to be dealt with. A response system could not only radically improve the NREGA, but can impact and transform the whole face of rural governance.

Food Security - Some Reflexions Form Ground Reality:

The governments program and as it is reported in official documents regarding their implementation are self explanatory of their poor performance. But the ground realities are even worst. To gauge the actual status of villagers and effectives of these programs-a survey has been conducted. Keeping in mind the limitations of time and resources, the survey has been conducted in 16 villages of 4 development blocks sleeted in two districts.

FIGURE 1: SOCIAL PROFILE OF SURVEYED FAMILIES

These districts are selected on stratified random sampling basis on behalf of BPL population, high extent of draught and their experiences of poverty programs. District wise detail of selected development blocks and villages are given in Annexure-8. Total 160 families were covered for gathering information from divers’ economic and social classes. Out of total 160 families 16 percent families were from general category socially not so backward classes but on behalf of income theses families were not in very good condition (Figure-1).

Out of rest largest population (42%) was from Scand OBC (33%) category. Some sample of Muslim (6%) and ST (35) were also included in sample households. Out of 160 families 72

Pag

e32

percent were poor and vulnerable, having either Antyodaya or BPL Ration Card. However rest 28 percent having APL Ration card were also not in economically strong, but they were comparatively better at least in comparison to other surveyed families.

FIGURE 2: DEATIL OF RATION CARD

Agriculture is the main source of the occupation in the region. It is main source of livelihood for almost 50 percent families. Another more than 35 percent families are dependant as agricultural labourer. It is evident from figure-3 that 51 percent families do not have any type of land for their survival. 39 percent families’ posses less than 2 hectare land (out of which 26 percent is marginal land holdings) only 10 percent families had more than 2 hectare land which is viable for survival and provide food sufficiency for a unit of 5 persons’ family.

FIGURE 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SURVEYED FAMILIES

Pag

e33

Even after persistence of draught in the region for long time a large number of families were still dependent on agriculture as their main work and alternative source of livelihood (Annexure-9). It is interesting that concentration of male workers was in agriculture where for women it was labourer. The reason for such phenomenon was that in case of landless families women were working as labourers on other’s farm in village whereas men were migrated to other places (figure-2).

FIGURE 4: WORKING PROFILE OF SURVEYED FAMILY

However these work was not available them for across the year. So it never over the year insures food security to them, because out of 160 surveyed families there were more than 258 adults who were able and willing to work but only 134 people got engaged in any type of work. However total cumulative population of these villages was more than 900, so work participation ration is merely 14.89 percent. The male members were concentrated in working period of six to nine months, whereas average female members were working for less than 6 months for their livelihood. Employment across the year for female was reported nil (Table-10).

TABLE 10: AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT PERIOD OF WORKING PEOPLE

Average Mont of Working Male Female

No. Percentage No. Percentage

Up to 3 Months 4.0 2.6 9.0 8.0

3 to 6 Months 12.0 7.7 45.0 40.2

6 to 9 Months 46.0 29.5 2.0 1.8

Almost Over the Year 16.0 10.3 0.0 0.0

No Work 78.0 50.0 56.0 50.0

Total 156 100 112 100

Pag

e34

Average income from these works as it is shown in Figure-4, 77 percent families were earning less than Rs. 2000 It implies that almost Rs. 10 per person/ Month for their food, clothing, housing, health and educational requirements, which is impossible. Further for most of them, these works was available for average 6 to 9 months so for rest of the year they were unable to even get this miniscule income.

FIGURE 5: AVERAGE INCOME OF THE FAMILY

One can easily estimate that with this little income how much food a family can consume. As it is described in figure -5 below, grains like wheat, rice and coerce grains are available to most of time to most of families, but other essential food articles which are necessary for nutritional requirement is rare to these peoples.

FIGURE 6: REGULAR AVAILABILITY OF FOOD ITEMS

Pag

e35

Food requirement of these families is hard to meet by their current income. Governments support through food supplement program can help to reap this need but due to improper functioning and ignorance, it is fail to provide safety net. As described below in figure-6 only 35.6 percent requirement of wheat and 24.3 percent rice requirement, which are staple food for most of the families, are met by PDS support. In further investigation fact arises that average wheat supplied on per ration card is only 12 kg, average rice supplies is 17.5 kg, average sugar and kerosene oil available is only 2 kg. and 1.2 litters respectively. It is evident from the field data that even this miniscule amount of foodgrains available through PDS shop are not regular. Usually a family rarely get ration for more than 8 months from these shops. In peak demand period (April to November) situations became tough to get this assistance because ration shops open rarely, shop keeper provides partial quota and also charges some extra money. Many times these ration shops are far away from village to reach numbers of time till they get their quota ration.

FIGURE 7: FOOD SUPPORT FROM PDS

The ICDS and Anganwadi centres do not work properly. Mid Day meal are not provided due to irregular supply of foodgrains. The notable point is that every year from the month of March/ April to July/ August, because these are vacation time for schools. Filed data confirm these allegations that MDM provided to children is not regular, sufficient and nutritious. Hunger tends to be chronic rather than acute, a large number of people are undernourished in calorific and micronutrient terms, with particular problems among socially and economically backward families, women, adolescent girls and under-fives. Undernourishment is severe among Scheduled. The Public Food Distribution System is plagued by high costs and leakage. It is important to take on board governance and implementation issues while designing the food security and poverty alleviation programme be it PDS, ICDS, NREGA or any other as corruption and non compliance

Pag

e36

has plagued these programme. The government has to design a way that entitled people must get their PDS ration regularly at proper time and on appropriate prices, procurement procedures for ICDS and MDM, introducing localised procurement of rice, wheat, dal and vegetables. It is tough to get any detail how responsive poor households are to changes in the returns to different poverty alleviation, income-generating and food supplementary schemes. The presumption is that responsiveness is low, because households a) seek to maintain diversified portfolios of income-generating activities as a means of reducing vulnerability, and b) face various physical, informational, and cultural barriers to market opportunities. But fact is also true that government program and policies can play a vital role to prevent these people from hunger and malnutrition.

Pag

e37

ANNEXURE 1: DISTRICTS CLASSIFIED IN PROPORTION TO BELOW POVERTY LINE RURAL POPULATION (%)

Very High (Above 50%) High (40% To 50 %) Moderate (20% To 40%) Low (Below 20%)

District % District % District % District %

Kaushambi 74.65 Kanpur (Nagar) 49.93 Gonda 36.95 Moradabad 19.77

Hardoi 74.00 Pratapgarh 49.09 Kannauj 35.85 Agra 19.43

Bahraich 72.11 Lucknow 49.06 Balrampur 35.69 Gautam Budh Nagar

19.00

Mirzapur 68.38 Ghazipur 48.50 Azamgarh 32.87 Hathras 17.91

Sonbhadra 64.53 Jalaun (Orai) 48.34 Farukkhabad 32.64 Etah 17.26

Kanpur Dehat 60.87 Faizabad 48.22 Rampur 31.83 Mathura 16.24

Shravasti 60.53 Basti 47.64 Maharajganj 30.76 Aligarh 14.64

Unnao 59.51 Etawah 46.34 Lalitpur 30.47 Firozabad 13.61

Ambedkar Nagar 59.15 Barabanki 46.15 Jhansi 29.19 Budaun 12.24

Rae Bareli 57.78 Sant Kabir Nagar

45.99 Gorakhpur 28.24 Muzaffarnagar

11.68

Sitapur 57.46 Hamirpur 45.32 Allahabad 28.17 Deoria 11.67

Chitrakoot 55.13 Pilibhit 45.23 Bareilly 27.50 Bulandshahar 10.34

Sultanpur 54.62 Jaunpur 43.65 Saharanpur 24.56 Meerut 8.38

Shahjahanpur 54.11 Mau 43.34 Jyotiba Phulle Nagar

24.45 Ghaziabad 7.12

Ballia 51.55 Orraiya 43.23 Varanasi 24.24 Baghpat 6.66

Lakhimpur Kheri 51.01 Chandauli 43.10 Bijnor 23.67

Fatehpur 42.77 Sant Ravidas Nagar

22.74

Siddharth Nagar 42.74 Mahoba 21.33

Kushi Nagar 42.66

Mainpuri 42.52

Banda 40.85

Total District 12 Total District 22 Total District 18 Total District 15

Source: BPL Survey 2002, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India,

ANNEXURE 2 : CALORIE SHARE FROM THE FOOD GROUPS IN THE REGIONS OF UTTAR PRADESH

Pag

e38

Region Food groups Rural Urban

Calorie share

Bu

nd

elk

han

d

Cereals 68 62.7

Roots & fibre 2.4 2.8

Sugar & Honey 4.9 5.1

Pulses, nuts and oil seeds 5.8 5.9

Vegitables & fruits 2 3.3

Meat, egg & fish 0.3 0.5

Milk & milk products 6.4 7.6

Oils & fats 8.7 10.1

Misc. food Products 1.4 2

Sta

te

Cereals 67 58.5

Roots & fibre 4.3 4.2

Sugar & Honey 5.2 6.1

Pulses, nuts and oil seeds 5.1 6.8

Vegitables & fruits 2.2 3.6

Meat, egg & fish 0.3 0.5

Milk & milk products 7.5 9.2

Oils & fats 6.9 9

Misc. food Products 1.4 2.1

ANNEXURE 3 : DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD EXPENDITURE AMONG MAJOR SUB-GROUPS

Regions Food sub-groups

Rural Urban

Percent share in food expenditure

Percent share in food expenditure

Bu

nd

elk

han

d Cerials 28.3 23.9

Pulses 8.4 7

Milk & products 20.9 23.4

Vegitables 9.2 10.1

Fruits 2.3 3.6

Intoxicants 6.5 4

Other food items 24.2 28.1

Sta

te

Cerials 32.2 24.3

Pulses 7.2 6.1

Milk & products 20 24.5

Vegitables 11.5 11.3

Fruits 1.6 2.8

Intoxicants 3.9 3.6

Other food items 23.6 27.3

ANNEXURE 4 : MPCE AND SHARE SPENT ON FOOD FOR DISTRICTS OF UP (RURAL)

Pag

e39

District

MRP URP Hhs share spent on food (MRP)

Average MPCE (in Rs.)

Average MPCE (in Rs.) Share (%)

JALOUN 1020.29 1088.93 46.95

JHANSI 756.72 699.07 54.85

LALITPUR 735.91 810.37 54.66

HAMIRPUR 503.62 546.52 54.47

MAHOBA 546.34 579.76 55.65

BANDA 536.65 497.94 56.24

CHITRAKOOT 530.72 454.06 52.84

ANNEXURE 5 :MPCE AND SHARE SPENT ON FOOD FOR DISTRICTS OF UP (URBAN)

District

MRP URP Hhs share spent on food (MRP)

Average MPCE (in Rs.)

Average MPCE (in Rs.)

Share (%)

JALOUN 979.39 957.09 40.34

JHANSI 1293.15 1670.22 37.79

LALITPUR 1063.71 1112.75 42.51

HAMIRPUR 574.61 680.51 53.79

MAHOBA 589.27 653.34 52.68

BANDA 621.92 569.08 48.4

CHITRAKOOT 620.46 556.67 49.72

Pag

e40

ANNEXURE 6: EMPLOYMENT GENERATED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010

EMPLOYMENT GENERATED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010

District

Data From MPR/MIS

Cumulative No. of HH issued jobcards (Till the reporting month)

Cumulative No. of

HH demanded employmen

t

Cumulative No. of HH

provided

employment

No. of HH

working

under NREGA

Cumulative Persondays generate(Till the reporting

month)

Cumulative No. of

HH completed 100 days

No. of HH

which are

beneficiary of land

reform/IAY

No. of Disable

d benefic

iary individuals

BANDA

MPR 81481 0 76077 157558 72854 72854 9665 21.22 0 19.43 40.65 13.8 9626 2659 44

MIS 24806 203 103608 128617 55954 55856 0 2.7932 0.01718 16.66624 19.47662 6.25064 2631 19 31

Difference(MPR-MIS)

56675 -203 -27531 28941 16900 16998 9665 18.43 -0.02 2.76 21.17 7.55 6995 2640 13

CHITRAKOOT

MPR 59337 0 37739 97076 42965 42965 34212 17.07 0 9.29 26.36 10.02 6187 1141 93

MIS 6818 129 74127 81074 21928 21922 0 0.57959 0.00528 7.01414 7.59901 2.46622 956 4 6

Difference(MPR-MIS)

52519 -129 -36388 16002 21037 21043 34212 16.49 -0.01 2.28 18.76 7.55 5231 1137 87

HAMIRPUR

MPR 57765 0 51973 109738 66849 66849 45105 23.4 0 21.65 45.05 15.02 8446 0 0

MIS 19453 111 91222 110786 60342 60316 0 3.73601 0.01998 20.32151 24.0775 7.71545 3509 96 37

Difference(MPR-MIS)

38312 -111 -39249 -1048 6507 6533 45105 19.66 -0.02 1.33 20.98 7.3 4937 -96 -37

JALAUN

MPR 56391 0 79452 135843 107004 107004 46978 31.23 0 27.5 58.73 9.73 24042 36479 738

MIS 25452 546 84481 110479 66954 66858 0 6.06423 0.09192 15.79252 21.94867 4.60362 2126 990 217

Difference(MPR-MIS)

30939 -546 -5029 25364 40050 40146 46978 25.16 -0.09 11.71 36.78 5.13 21916 35489 521

LALITPUR MPR 49194 16993 60886 127073 58678 58678 58678 15.43 3.12 11.43 29.98 9.54 11198 2761 0

MIS 4169 2365 138702 145236 61462 61396 0 0.86147 0.40142 20.44861 21.7115 5.19243 2424 16 59

Pag

e41

Difference(MPR-MIS)

45025 14628 -77816 -18163 -2784 -2718 58678 14.57 2.72 -9.02 8.27 4.35 8774 2745 -59

MAHOBA

MPR 36981 0 30956 67937 39093 39093 39093 14.62 0 12.3 26.92 8.17 4578 486 173

MIS 12458 43 48874 61375 14753 14749 0 0.7388 0.00272 3.3524 4.09392 0.9845 372 3 13

Difference(MPR-MIS)

24523 -43 -17918 6562 24340 24344 39093 13.88 0 8.95 22.83 7.19 4206 483 160

JHANSI

MPR 84418 0 46744 131162 58498 58498 58498 24.91 0 14.96 39.87 12.55 7419 270 260

MIS 27806 526 86244 114576 47909 47894 0 4.12154 0.10493 12.03502 16.26149 4.79449 2125 169 61

Difference(MPR-MIS)

56612 -526 -39500 16586 10589 10604 58498 20.79 -0.1 2.92 23.61 7.76 5294 101 199

Grand Total

MPR 5785247 96044 5496547 1137783

8 4089553 4088947 2154723 1124.77 34.44 924.21 2083.42 422.34 269654 202462 22001

MIS 2027384 108021 6500713 8636118 3726117 3726329 0 213.9499 18.35403 752.229 984.5329 137.497

2 73102 8646 4289

Difference(MPR-MIS)

3757863 -11977 -1004166 2741720 363436 362618 2154723 910.82 16.09 232.3 1098.89 284.84 196552 193816 17712

Pag

e42

ANNEXURE 7: WORK ALLOTTED TO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

District

Total Works appro

ved

Total Works

Ongoing

Total Wor

ks Complete

d

Work Allotted To

Persons Engaged Individual Worked on the Field Individual

not Worked on

the Field BPL Non BPL Total

SCs

STs

Oth

ers

SCs

STs

Oth

ers

SCs

STs

Oth

ers

On

Go

ing

wo

rks

Oth

er t

han

On

Go

ing

wo

rks

SCs

STs

Oth

ers

Tota

l

BANDA 112 99 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 96 0 166 3 1951 2120

CHITRAKOOT 528 512 1 2 0 40 14 0 104 16 0 144 352 1 1291 0 14184 15475

HAMIRPUR 259 251 0 0 0 0 17 0 38 17 0 38 196 0 2249 0 6792 9041

JALAUN 20 14 0 1 0 0 3 0 7 4 0 7 8 0 123 9 343 475

LALITPUR 221 212 0 0 0 1 3 1 50 3 1 51 157 0 467 99 13046 13612

MAHOBA 263 172 0 0 0 0 55 0 62 55 0 62 102 0 1447 6 3935 5388

JHANSI 1090 960 0 0 0 1 127 1 393 127 1 394 489 0 8566 262 23645 32473

Bundelandkh 2493 2220 1 3 0 42 220 2 656 223 2 698 1400 1 14309 379 63896

Grand Total 16923 14094 25 158 2 174 4769 345 5005 4927 347 5179 4907 25 46246 9669 144597 200512

Pag

e43

ANNEXURE 8: DETAIL OF SURVEYED VILLAGES

District Development Block Village

Jalaun Maheva Gudakhas

Satraju

Kasimpur

Paal

Kadoara Nivadi

Kashiram

Luhargaao

Gudakhas

Lalitpur Taalbehat Tidra

Radhapur

Virgha

Kadesrakhurd

Baar Bastgua

Thatkhera

Pulvara

TABLE 11: WORKING PROFILE OF SURVEYED FAMILY

Work Main Work Other Work

Male Female Male Female

Agriculture 62.28 54.14 47.4 25.71

Business 4.11 2.2 6.65 1.23

Job 5.48 6.59 8.41 1.43

Labourer 26.03 30.77 30.14 60.50

Other 2.1 6.3 7.4 12.36