|
|
|
|
Below the Poverty
Line
In
both rural and urban areas, the proportion of
Muslim households living in pucca houses is
lower than the total population. Almost half
the Muslim households in India lack access to
toilets; this proportion is highest in rural
areas. This results in sanitation problem. On
the other hand, one in every five Muslim households
has flush toilets of its own which is marginally
better than that of the Indian population. In
urban areas, however, the proportion of Muslim
households who have flush toilets is much lower
than the proportion for the whole urban population.
The use of electricity for lighting is less
among Muslim than the all-India average. The
disadvantage is quite large in Muslim concentrated
villages; the share of villages with no electricity
increases substantially as the size of the village
falls and the share of Muslim population rises.
Muslims
have the lease access to tap water compared
to all other socio-religious communities. Muslim
households are poorly placed in using fuel for
cooking purposes. This disparity is especially
wide in urban areas. So the Muslims rank “poorly
in water availability, electrification and cooking
fuel facilities”. (p.148). The Gopal Singh
Committee (1983) also found in its extensive
of ghetto areas in several cities dominated
by the Muslims, other minorities and the Scheduled
Castes. It found that only Muslim areas were
deprived of basic amenities which were found
available in non-Muslim ghettos. Historically
deprived groups have exhibited lower levels
of living in economic terms including levels
of consumption. The all India Mean Per Capita
Expenditure (MPCE) for the year 2004-05 was
Rs. 712 with a high of Rs. 1023 for H-General
followed by Rs. 646 for H-OBCs, Rs. 635 for
Muslims and Rs. 520 for the Scs/STs. Thus relative
deprivation of the Muslim community in terms
of consumption expenditure is much higher in
urban areas than in rural areas. By estimating
Head Count Ratio in 2004-05, 61st Round of the
NSSO found that SCs/Sts together are the most
poor with an HCR of 35% followed by the Muslims
who record the second highest incidence of poverty
with 31% people below the poverty line. Below
are given two data state-wise Urban and rural
poverty incidence across socio-religious communities.
|
State-wise Rural Poverty Indices
| States
– Urban |
All |
Hindus |
Muslims |
Other
Minorities |
| |
|
All |
SCs/STs |
OBCs |
General |
|
|
| Total |
22.7
|
22.6
|
34.8
|
19.5
|
9.0
|
26.9
|
14.3 |
| West
Bengal |
25 |
21 |
27 |
16 |
14 |
33 |
32 |
| Kerala |
9 |
9 |
19 |
7 |
4 |
11 |
4 |
| Uttar
Pradesh |
28
|
28
|
39
|
26
|
10
|
33
|
40 |
| Bihar |
35 |
34 |
56 |
29 |
13 |
38 |
33 |
| Assam |
18 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
7 |
27 |
20 |
| Jammu
& Kashmir |
3 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
| Jharkhand |
38
|
38 |
49
|
32 |
17 |
36 |
46 |
| Karnataka |
14 |
14 |
21 |
14 |
7 |
18 |
1 |
| Uttaranchal |
11 |
12 |
17 |
19 |
7 |
8 |
21 |
| Delhi |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
| Maharashtra |
23 |
22 |
44 |
16
|
13 |
21 |
36 |
Andhra
Pradesh
|
8 |
8 |
16 |
6 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
| Gujarat |
14 |
15 |
24 |
14 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
| Rajasthan |
16 |
16 |
28 |
9 |
6 |
11 |
15 |
| Madhya
Pradesh |
30
|
31 |
45 |
22 |
6 |
25
|
2 |
| Haryana |
9 |
9
|
21 |
7 |
2
|
24 |
6 |
| Tamil
Nadu |
17 |
17 |
23
|
14 |
14 |
10 |
18 |
| Orissa |
41 |
40 |
60 |
30 |
16 |
22 |
70 |
| Himachal
Pradesh |
8 |
8 |
16 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
| Chhattisgarh |
33 |
33 |
40 |
27 |
26 |
40 |
11 |
| Punjab |
6 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
| All
Other State |
12 |
48 |
29 |
12 |
10 |
22 |
3 |
|
State-wise Urban Poverty Indices
| States
– Urban |
All |
Hindus |
Muslims |
Other
Minorities |
| |
|
All |
SCs/STs |
OBCs |
General |
|
|
| Total |
22.8
|
20.4
|
36.4
|
25.1
|
8.3
|
38.4
|
12.2 |
| West
Bengal |
12 |
10 |
22 |
13 |
6 |
27 |
1 |
| Kerala |
18 |
19 |
32 |
21 |
8 |
24 |
9 |
| Uttar
Pradesh |
31
|
24 |
42 |
28 |
11 |
44 |
6 |
| Bihar |
36
|
34 |
65 |
39 |
8 |
45 |
4 |
| Assam |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
0 |
| Jammu
& Kashmir |
9 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
2 |
12 |
2 |
| Jharkhand |
18 |
10 |
37 |
15 |
50 |
32 |
27 |
| Karnataka |
30 |
27 |
52 |
30 |
13 |
45 |
9 |
| Uttaranchal |
15 |
14 |
29 |
20 |
80 |
24 |
0 |
| Delhi |
12 |
12 |
24 |
24 |
4 |
22 |
1 |
| Maharashtra |
26 |
20 |
33 |
25 |
12 |
49 |
27 |
Andhra
Pradesh
|
26 |
25 |
41 |
27 |
11 |
35 |
16 |
| Gujarat |
11 |
10 |
17 |
18 |
3 |
24 |
0 |
| Rajasthan |
29 |
27 |
47 |
28 |
11 |
41 |
15 |
| Madhya
Pradesh |
41 |
38 |
64 |
46
|
13 |
58 |
6 |
| Haryana |
5 |
5
|
16 |
5 |
1 |
6
|
0 |
| Tamil
Nadu |
18 |
18 |
37 |
16 |
5 |
18 |
15 |
| Orissa |
43 |
42 |
69 |
49 |
22 |
48 |
49 |
| Himachal
Pradesh |
2 |
3 |
3
|
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Chhattisgarh |
38 |
38 |
48 |
47 |
13 |
61 |
10 |
| Punjab |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| All
Other State |
5 |
6 |
14 |
6 |
3 |
9 |
1 |
|
In
chapter seven of the Gopal Singh Committee Report,
there is an emphasis on the importance of education,
economic and social betterment. It says that
poverty breeds its own culture of acceptance
and resignation. It notes on page IX, para 19,
that in the distribution of surplus lands by
the government, no preference for minorities
is made. Similar situation exists in the distribution
of house-sites and flats, shops and other concessions
like licenses for petrol pumps, cooking gas,
transport, fair-price shops and so on. |
|
|
|