Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gautam Pingle
This paper attempts to compare the relative economic status of rural Hindu households with
that of rural Muslim households over the decade 1994-2004. It relies for base line estimates on the
rural surveys conducted in 1994 by the National Council for Applied Economic Research. It also
uses the National Sample Survey Organisations 61st Rounds 2004 rural data as extracted and
published in the Sachar Report. It further examines data on Hindu-Muslim income differentials
identified as a result of the independent surveys of 42 Minority Concentration Districts (MCDs).
The findings do not substantiate the idea of fixed and firm Muslim household income/expenditure differences over time compared to the Hindu majority. On the other hand, they indicate that
a relatively faster Muslim progress over the decade 1994-2004 has led to closing of the initial gap.
This is especially heartening as it relates to the period of liberalisation and the transition to a market
economy, which has disrupted many traditional patterns of rural livelihoods especially of artisans.
INTRODUCTION
Gautam Pingle is Director, Centre for Public Policy and Governance, Administrative Staff College of India, Bella Vista,
Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad - 500082. E-mail: gautam.pingle@gmail.com
86
seeks, on the other hand, to consider the household incomes/expenditures of the mass of Hindus
and Muslims who live and work in the rural areas
where income generating opportunities are not as
abundant as in urban areas and where traditional
and religious constraints can come in the way of
economic progress of households.
JAN-DEC 2014
87
88
households would then be offset by these structural factors in the gender-age weighted estimates. The NSSO estimates for sex ratio (number
of females per 1000 males) in rural areas in 1994
was 941 for Hindus and 960 for Muslims, while
in 2004 the figures were 961 and 968 respectively
[NSSO, 2007, p. 18] to compute the weighted per
capita income/expenditure of the two communities, more detailed and micro level analysis is
needed to be done using the raw data.
Further, unweighted per capita income/expenditure estimates result in favorable intertemporal comparisons if household size has fallen
over time. Household size for the two religious
groups has been generally falling at different rates
and from different base levels. It would, therefore,
seem better to deal with this complexity openly
rather than reduce it to this sort of simplistic
standardisation.6 (In the section on "Results", we
have given ratios based on both household as well
as per capita figures in Table 3 and discussed the
implications).
More critically, the differences in household
size both between Hindus and Muslims in the
same data set have a significant impact on figures
expressed in per capita terms. The size of the
household and its participation in income generating work is a result of household decisions.
These could have a major effect on household
income/expenditure together with other factors
such as differences in land resources, available
employment opportunities and individual capabilities and household preferences - the last of
these also depend upon differences in
socio-economic and cultural influences. The
general effect of household size and structure on
income/expenditure will be indicated in due
course. Unlike the NCAER reports, Sachar (surprisingly) does not give the figures for household
size of the religious communities, so we have to
take recourse to the NSSO [2007a] for this data.
JAN-DEC 2014
SCs
STs
OBCs
Others
All
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
22.2
0.8
9.0
30.7
89.5
9.1
0.5
32.8
0.9
7.4
2.6
15.9
82.5
8.5
42.8
39.2
24.8
22.4
0.4
3.0
13.7
6.2
41.1
26.0
59.5
33.3
46.1
2.7
94.3
70.4
8.7
30.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Hindu
Muslim
Christian
Sikhs
Buddhists
Jains
Zorastrians
Others
Total
2.6
19.7
89
Hindu-SCs/STs,8 Hindu-OBCs and HinduGeneral (or "Other", Upper Caste) groups alternatively. The proper procedure would be to
compare each social group with a similar one in
a different religious group. Only then would there
be a like-to-like comparison. Sachar does not
provide caste level disaggregation for Muslims
and anyway the resultant sub-sample size may not
generate valid data. For our nine states the
NSSO/Sachar sample size for rural Muslim
households ranges from a low of 106 (Rajasthan)
to a high of 1505 (West Bengal).9
However, Sachar devotes a whole chapter to
Muslim OBCs10 which provides data on this
group. Sachar gives the All-India MPCE averages
for Muslim OBCs and Hindu OBCs [Sachar,
2006, p. 212]. But Sachar has added the Muslim
SC/ST groups to the Muslim BC group11 thus
biasing the figures downwards and further confusing the interpretation of the data when compared to Hindu OBCs. Despite these issues, the
MPCEs indicate that Muslim OBCs do better
than Hindu OBCs in rural areas (Rs 566 compared
to Rs 548) while the reverse is the case in urban
areas (Rs 689 compared to Rs 901). This would
also indicate that the difference between the two
OBCs of the two religious groups is mainly in the
urban rather than in the rural sector.
We must also bear in mind that Sachar defined
its category of Backward Castes as "Other
Backward Classes" (OBCs) as listed in the
comprehensive list of OBCs prepared by the
National and State Backward Classes Commissions and adopted by the Central and State Governments for reservation for various purposes.
[Sachar, 2006, p. 3]. While the sociological
category is that of caste, the official nomenclature
of this sub-group is "Backward Class". This then
is a select group of castes or sub-castes from the
main and larger backward caste group, which
have been selected for special state support. They
may be either Hindu or Muslim in religious terms.
90
JAN-DEC 2014
(1)
Bihar
West Bengal
Kerala
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
HINDU
MUSLIM
1994
NCAER
2004
61st R
1994
NCAER
2004
61st R
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
6.1
5.6
4.9
6.3
5.7
4.8
5.7
5.6
6.3
5.4
4.7
4.1
6.0
4.7
4.0
5.0
4.8
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.4
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.3
5.4
5.2
5.3
6.3
5.1
4.5
5.5
5.5
6.3
91
NCAER 1994 HH
Income (Rs.)
HINDUS
MUSLIMS
SACHAR 2004 HH
Expenditure (Rs.)
HINDUS
% MUSLIM/HINDU
Household
% MUSLIM/ HINDU
Per capita
MUSLIMS
1994
2004
1994
2004
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Bhar
West Bengal
Kerala
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
22812
18441
26344
27079
27801
25529
30056
30947
26803
21369
17401
29991
24298
23661
16142
21213
26179
34228
29436
34886
48392
39716
30081
29398
39181
35219
40408
27991
31700
62427
39019
33014
33401
44705
38548
46839
94
94
114
90
85
63
71
85
128
95
91
129
98
110
114
114
109
116
94
85
87
90
76
51
65
76
128
95
82
100
94
101
101
104
96
103
92
JAN-DEC 2014
Hindus
MALES
Muslims
Hindus
Muslims
Muslims
Hindus
Muslims
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
355
542
103
1000
427
494
79
1000
341
560
99
1000
394
530
76
1000
375
527
98
1000
451
470
79
1000
359
539
102
1000
428
493
79
1000
Sources: NSSO (1998: Table 7, A-11, A-12); NSSO (2007a: Table 5, A-7, A-8). Data regrouped.
As far as the proportion of male population is visible in the changes in the proportion
employed is concerned, the Muslim proportions employed.
Table 5. Proportion of Rural Persons Employed (Principal and Subsidiary Status) Per 1000 persons
FEMALES
50th Round (1994)
Years
(1)
Bihar
West Bengal
Kerala
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Hindus
Muslims
(2)
178
212
265
230
442
529
401
484
467
MALES
Hindus
Muslims
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
99
104
134
141
272
359
254
317
293
150
194
302
249
470
490
436
480
411
74
131
124
190
348
397
322
280
236
514
571
565
527
607
634
575
555
543
484
514
431
481
559
585
527
498
450
487
591
596
504
635
609
590
572
509
413
541
448
450
600
538
619
476
481
Hindus
Muslims
Muslims
93
Despite this, however, their quality is somewhat variable and not all are comparable with
each other. The point is illustrated by the fact that
of the 89 MCD surveys only 42 present average
annual household income for Hindus and Muslims.17 This is a vital omission. A report, commissioned by ICSSR and titled "Overview of the
Findings",18 deals with some of the issues and
shortcomings. Neither the MCD reports nor the
"Overview" deals with income differential data
even when collected. Yet household income data
is critical by itself and can serve as a baseline
estimate for measuring the effectiveness of the
investment in the MCDs.
Table 6 presents the figures (for 2007-08) for
Hindu and Muslim household income per annum
and Muslim incomes as a percentage of Hindu
incomes in the 42 MCDs. These vary considerably. The lowest three are for Sirsa in Haryana
(51%), Uddham Singh Nagar in Uttaranchal
(52%) and Mamit in Mizoram (58%). In another
6 districts Muslim incomes are 60% to 70% of
Hindu incomes, in 9 districts they are between
70% and 89% of Hindu incomes and in 8 districts
Muslim incomes are 90-97% of Hindu incomes.
In 16 MCDs, Muslim household incomes are
equal to, or higher, than Hindu ones. This indicates an uneven pattern from which no firm
conclusions can be drawn about the condition of
the Muslim community across these 42 districts.
94
JAN-DEC 2014
District
State
Source19
% Muslim
Population
Hindu
Muslim
% M/H
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.
Bahraich
UP
34.8
30153
28224
94
2.
Balrampur
UP
36.7
46333
41341
89
3.
Barabanki
UP
22.0
32195
26306
82
4.
Muzzafarnagar
UP
38.1
43665
37975
87
5.
Bijnor
UP
41.7
30948
25994
84
6.
Baduan
UP
21.3
23737
26341
111
7.
Bagpat
UP
24.7
44735
30498
68
8.
Saharanpur
UP
39.1
61017
66457
109
9.
Bulandshar
UP
21.1
52985
35482
67
10.
Lucknow
UP
20.5
34068
45557
134
11.
Moradabad
UP
45.5
40625
41637
102
12.
Siddharthanagar UP
29.4
31712
39406
124
13.
JP Nagar
UP
39.4
50987
50842
100
14.
Lashmipur Keri UP
19.1
30970
24730
80
15.
Shrawasti
21.6
41876
37107
89
UP
(Contd.)
95
Table 6. (Contd.)
No.
District
(1)
State
(2)
(3)
Source19
% Muslim
Population
Hindu
Muslim
% M/H
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
16.
Bareilly
UP
33.9
27534
25278
92
17.
Rampur
UP
49.1
42940
45699
106
18.
Hardwar
Uttarkhand
37.7
42840
37636
88
19.
U Singh Nagar
Uttarkhand
16.2
84796
43985
52
20.
Dharbhanga
Bihar
22.3
33174
32149
97
21.
P-Chamaparan
Bihar
21.7
25148
33398
133
22.
Kishangunj
Bihar
74.1
34291
38020
111
23.
Katihar
Bihar
44.8
26065
27966
107
24.
Araria
Bihar
41.4
32065
31012
97
25.
Purnia
Bihar
38.1
32055
28891
90
26.
Sitamarhi
Bihar
21.4
32804
29951
91
27.
Gumla
Jharkhand
3.6
18996
29004
153
28.
Pakur
Jharkhand
32.7
29070
38438
132
29.
Ranchi
Jharkhand
10.2
33565
33426
100
30.
Sahibganj
Jharkhand
32.4
33051
35216
107
31.
Parbhani
Maharashtra
6.6
52013
32002
62
32.
Hingoli
Maharashtra
6.1
62503
37864
61
33.
Washim
Maharashtra
6.5
55461
48445
87
34.
Bhuldana
Maharashtra
9.1
50898
32876
65
(Contd.)
96
JAN-DEC 2014
Table 6. (Contd.)
No.
District
(1)
State
(2)
(3)
35.
Sirsa
Haryana
36.
Mewat
Haryana
37.
Leh
J&K
38.
Bidar
Karnataka
39.
Gulbarga
Karnataka
40.
Mamit
Mizoram
41.
Lawngtlai
Mizoram
42.
Wynad
Kerala
Source19
% Muslim
Population
Hindu
Muslim
% M/H
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
negl
86375
44063
51
74.2
34798
48580
140
12.9
83079
76527
92
12.2
48324
43539
90
11.6
49150
40251
82
1.8
58006
33627
58
0.3
51203
35254
69
26.5
44446
56802
128
SUMMING UP
97
3. "The cross-sectional pattern with respect to consumption and poverty differentials are analysed at using the most
recent NSSO 61st Round data with a reference period of July
2004 to June 2005" [Sachar 2006, p. 151].
4. Comparison of expenditure and income figures for 2004
from two different data sets indicates that income estimates
arehigher than expenditure estimates by about 54% for Hindus
and 40% for Muslims [Shukla, 2010, Table 1.12, p. 38].
5. As every NSSO Report states: "The size of a household
is the total number of persons in the household."
6. A similar problem emerges in the comparison of farm
income. With different extent of land with differences in size
and nature of its cultivated and irrigated portions, cropping
intensities and cropping pattern, any attempt to reduce farm
income to per acre terms causes loss of detail. This also
prevents meaningful inter farm comparisons, by not taking
into account land endowments and farmers crop decisions.
Most analysts tend to use econometric tool such as regressions,
principal component or factor analysis to separate out the
varying effects of these factors on farm income [Pingle, 1976].
7. Ahmad [1967, Pp. 887-891] deals with the categories
of Ashraf and Ajlaf in the Muslim community. Also see
Aggarwal [1966, Pp. 159-162] and Basant [2007]. See Asian
Development Research Institute (ADRI) (no date given,
seems c. 2002-2003, Table 2.22, p. 47) for Bihar Muslim data
and Shaban [2011, Table 5.3, p. 114] for Maharashtra Muslim
data. Also see Shukla [2010, p. 38-40].
8. Combining SC and ST data into one groups when the
two populations are significantly different in economic status
is unwarranted.
9 Incidentally, Sachars rural estimates for All-Muslims
in Delhi is based on a sample of only two householdsillustrating the need for adequate degrees of freedom for
credible averages and also the need for statistical significance
tests.
10. Sachar [2006, pp. 189-216].
11. Ibid (p. 5).
12. (See interesting Cartograms: http://realitycheck.wor
dpress.com/2006/11/01/the-india-social-cartogram-projectmaps/ (Accessed 21.09.2014).
13. See endnote 4 above.
14. See http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/sites/upload_files/
moma/files/Sachar_Committee_Recommendation-wise.pdf
(Accessed 30.9.2014).
15. See http://minorityaffairs.gov.in/sites/upload_files/
moma/files/guideline.pdf (Accessed 30.9.2014).
16. "The baseline surveys in the identified MCDs were to
bring out the following:
(i) A gap analysis of availability of infrastructure like
schools, health centres, ICDS centres and drinking
water supply.
(ii) A gap analysis of housing and sanitary toilets.
(iii) Identification of income generating activities in
which the villagers have comparative advantage.
98
(iv)
17.
For
all
89
reports
see
:
http://www.icssr.org/minority-dist.htm
18.
http://www.icssr.org/Overview%20Report.pdf,
accessed on 21.09.2014.
19. All accessed on 15th July 2011.
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, Partap C., 1966; "A Muslim Sub-Caste of North
India - Problems of Cultural Integration", Economic and
Political Weekly, September 10.
Ahmad, Imtiaz, 1967; "The Ashraf and Ajlaf Categories in
Indo-Muslim Society", Economic and Political Weekly,
May 13.
Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), 2001;
Socio-Economic and Educational Status of Muslims in
Bihar- A Study Commissioned by the Government of
Bihar, ARDI, Patna, no date given, survey conducted in
2001-2002).
Basant, Rakesh, 2007; "Diversity among Indian Muslims",
Seminar, 31 January, 2007, http://www.india-seminar.c
om/2007/569/569_rakesh_basant.htm Accessed on 11th
May 2011.
Government of India, 2006; High Level Committee to Report
on the Social, Economic and Educational Status of the
Muslim Community of India (Sachar), Akalank Publications, New Delhi.
Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi For
all
89
MCD
Baseline
Surveys
see
http://www.icssr.org/minority-dist.htm
(Accessed
7.10.2014).
JAN-DEC 2014