Access
to Infrastructure
1. Minorities and Development
In this chapter an attempt is made to investigate if
Muslims are at a relatively higher disadvantage than other SRCs. Social
infrastructure has reference to primary and elementary schools, health
dispensaries etc.; physical infrastructure refers to services such as
electricity, piped water, roads and bus service, post and communications
etc.
In determining access (or lack of it) to infrastructure,
three broad dimensions of social and physical infrastructure have to be
taken into account—’presence’, ‘access’ and ‘utilization’. Access also
depends upon the place of residence. Lack of access can emerge either due
to the absence of social and/or physical infrastructure, or through
inaccessibility to such facilities of SRCs even when they are present.
2. Village Amenities
The Census of India provides information on various
amenities available in each village. But since distribution of population
by religion is not available at the village level, one cannot find out if
villages of Muslim concentration get amenities at par with other villages.
However, honouring a request of the Committee, the Census of India
undertook special cross-tabulations of villages according to the share of
their Muslim population (Muslim population as percent of total village
population) and the availability of specified amenities. This has
facilitated an examination of whether the availability of an amenity in a
village is correlated with its share of the Muslim population.
2.1. National Level Findings
Highlights: The proportion of villages with
educational facilities falls from 88% in villages with a low Muslim share
in the population to 85% in villages with a high Muslim share. In larger
villages, the differences are small as practically all villages with a
population of over 2,000 have an educational institution. But as the size
of village becomes small and the share of Muslims increases one finds a
drop in the presence of primary and elementary schools. Thus, there is a
clear and significant inverse correlation between the proportion of the
Muslim population and the availability of educational infrastructure in
small villages. While about 82% of small villages with less than 10%
Muslims have educational institutions, this proportion decreases to 69% in
villages with a substantial Muslim population.
The aggregate picture about medical facilities is not very
clear—villages with 10-39% Muslims are better off as compared to villages
with a lower or higher share of Muslim population. However, when
disaggregated by village size, a clearer pattern emerges. It shows a fall
in the availability of medical facilities with the rise in the proportion
of Muslims, especially in larger villages. A similar but sharper pattern
can be seen with respect to post/telegraph offices. While the aggregate
picture again shows that villages with 10-39% of Muslims are better
served, disaggregative analysis indicates that the availability of such
facilities declines sharply with the increase in the share of Muslim
population.
Muslim concentration villages are not well served with
pucca approach roads and local bus stops. This trend gets worse as the
village size increases. Having an all-weather road and getting a public
bus visiting the village has a strong bearing on the kind of economic
activity one can undertake. As Muslims are also less landed and more
likely to be artisans, casual workers and small traders, physical mobility
provided by roads and bus services will open up economic opportunities to
them. The data suggest that they are at a significant disadvantage on this
count.
2.2. State Level Differentials
The highlights of the state-level analysis on different
types of facilities are discussed below:
(a) Educational facilities: More than 1,000
Muslim-concentration villages in West Bengal and Bihar do not have any
educational institutions; in Uttar Pradesh, this figure is 1,943. The
situation is worse in small villages. The proportion of Muslim
concentration villages (in all three size classes) with educational
facilities is lower than the total proportion of villages that have such
facilities. This is particularly so in the case of smaller villages where
the differential is alarmingly high. This would indicate that Muslim
concentration villages, especially smaller ones, lack access to
educational institutions.
(b) Medical facilities: The situation is poor with
respect to medical facilities. More than 16% of the villages without
medical facilities are located in Muslim concentration areas. Almost 2,000
Muslim concentration villages in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir, more than
3,000 villages in West Bengal and Bihar, and above 5,000 villages in Uttar
Pradesh are without any medical facilities. In most of the states, the
proportion of Muslim concentration villages with medical facilities is
somewhat lower than the proportion of all villages with such facilities,
indicating a bias in public services provisioning in Muslim concentration
areas.
(c) Post and Telegraph facilities: A large number
of Muslim concentration villages in states like West Bengal, Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Jharkhand lack post and
telegraph facilities.
(d) Pucca Approach Roads and Bus Stops: The
proportion of Muslim concentration villages that have a pucca approach
road is again lower than the corresponding estimate for all villages. The
situation with respect to availability of bus stops is of particular
concern in Muslim concentration villages of states like West Bengal, Uttar
Pradesh, Jharkhand (small villages), West Bengal, Bihar and Jharkhand
(medium villages) and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand (large villages).
Overall, the progress in creating infrastructural
facilities is inadequate in all villages. This can be seen from the low
proportion of villages that have infrastructural facilities. The situation
is of particular concern regarding medical facilities. There is no strong
indication that Muslim concentration villages have less infrastructural
facilities. However, the provisioning of infrastructure in states with
substantial Muslim concentration like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and
Jharkhand is a matter of concern. The concentration of Muslims in states
lacking infrastructural facilities implies that a large proportion of the
Community is without access to basic services.
3. Living Conditions
3.1 House and Hygiene
The focus here is on basic aspects of housing conditions:
the kind of house, sanitation, fuel for cooking and source of lighting.
Depending on the building materials used, houses are
classified as pucca, semi-pucca and kutcha. In both urban and rural areas,
the proportion of Muslim households living in pucca houses is lower than
the total population. Muslims are better off compared to OBCs and SCs/STs,
though the proportion of Muslims in pucca houses is lower than the
proportion of H-General (Hindu-General) in both areas.
An important requirement for sanitation is the presence of
toilet facilities. Almost half the Muslim households in India lack access
to toilets; this proportion is higher in rural areas. Even in urban areas
about one in every seven Muslim households lacks toilet facilities.
However, the position of Muslims is better than that of SCs/STs and OBCs.
About one in every five Muslim households has flush toilets of its own.
This proportion is marginally better than that of the Indian population.
Overall, the access of Muslims to toilet facilities is low, but better
than that of both SCs/STs and OBCs. This may be because of greater Muslim
concern for privacy, especially amongst women.
3.2 Household Electrification and Availability of
Tap Water Electrification
It is clear that the Muslims and the SCs/STs live in
larger numbers in villages that are categorized as least electrified.
Their share declines as the level of village electrification increases. On
the other hand, the trend is the opposite for the H-General category whose
share increases as the village electrification increases. The share of
OBCs does not show a clear relationship with levels of village
electrification. A comparison of these estimates from the NSSO 61st Round
data reconfirms the sharp differential access according to SRCs.
The Census data also suggests that the use of electricity
for lighting is less among Muslims 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.
Piped Potable Water
The 60th Round NSSO provides data on household use of tap
water by place of residence. As expected, urban areas are better served
with tap water and between 60 and 70 percent households from across SRCs
used water from this source with small variations amongst them. But the
scenario is different in rural areas, as only about one quarter of all
households have access to tap water. But Muslims have the least access
compared to all other SRCs. Even the NCAER’s Human Development Report (NCAER,
1999) showed similar relative levels more than a decade ago suggesting
nothing much has happened to improve the provisioning of tap water on the
one hand and to reduce the relative differential accesses between the SRCs.
This finding is consistent with the Census data relating to the
distribution of villages for other items of infrastructure that also shows
a deficit in Muslim concentration villages.
3.3 Fuel Use for Domestic Purposes
Clean fuel for cooking is important for health. It is a
serious consideration for women who, in most cases, are burdened with the
task of cooking.
NFHS data provides the pattern of use of modern fuels for
urban and rural areas separately for the year 1998-99. Only 6% have
reported the use of clean fuel in villages and about 48% in urban areas.
Muslim households are poorly placed in this respect; the disparity is
especially wide in urban areas.
An examination of Census 2001 data suggests that just
about 60% of all rural households do not use any of the modern fuels such
as LPG, electricity or even kerosene. The non-use of these fuels for
cooking increases as the share of Muslims increases, more so when the
village size increases as well.
The overall picture in living conditions is a mixed one.
The Muslim population seems to be close to average in terms of housing
structure and better placed in terms of toilet facilities; it ranks poorly
in water availability, electrification and cooking fuel facilities.
Apparently, privacy seems to be given a higher priority by Muslims than
others and this explains the relatively better availability of toilets in
Muslim households. Generally, Muslim households are not as well equipped
as H-General or Other minorities, but as good as or better than H-OBCs and
SCs/STs.
4. Qualitative Study and Observations
In order to supplement data from secondary sources, the
Committee commissioned studies in selected urban and rural localities. The
objective was to probe the following questions:
-- How
do the Muslim concentration localities compare with other localities in
terms of the availability of basic infrastructure such as schools, health
centres, banks, roads, electricity and potable water?
-- Whether Muslims residing in areas with a
non-Muslim majority have equal access to such facilities?
-- Is the pattern uniform in the cities and
the villages or is there a perceptible difference? Similarly, does the
pattern vary across states?
Surveys were conducted in three South Indian states
(Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu), and in Lucknow and its
surrounding regions. In the southern states, samples were drawn from two
urban localities - one predominantly Muslim and the other where Muslims
were few in number. A survey was undertaken on similar lines in two rural
areas.
The result of these surveys suggest regional patterns
while analysing Muslim inhabited areas and their access to basic amenities
and infrastructure. In this context, the three southern states that were
studied showed only marginal deprivation in the Muslim concentration
areas. Localities inhabited by comparable economic classes generally had
similar living standards.
However, the study of the Muslim concentration localities of Lucknow
and its adjoining areas showed a perceptible difference. Compared to the
Muslim majority areas, the areas inhabiting fewer Muslims had better
roads, sewage and drainage, and water supply. Often there was a school and
a health centre which were absent in areas where Muslims of similar
economic background had a large share in population. For instance, a Hindu
dominated urban slum in Lucknow had better quality roads, drainage system,
sanitation, water supply and sewage disposal compared to another slum
populated largely by Muslims. |
|