The pointlessness of the debate over Indian measures of poverty becomes clear when we look at the country’s human development record. If per capita real incomes have risen so well during the last two decades since reforms were introduced, surely that should mean better lives for most Indians. Forget about catching up with China, there is increasing evidence of India falling behind Bangladesh in terms of key human development indicators (the best measure of quality of lives) even as the neighbour remains far behind in terms of per capita income.
To decide where to go from here, it is important to look for the devil in the detail. For a large and diverse country like India, the national score is no more than the average of the achievement of individual states. Examining the latter gives us an idea of who are the laggards and what they can do in emulating those which are successful. The latest India Human Development Report (2011) allows us to do this with the help of some numbers.
There is remarkable consistency in the human development standing of states across the development spectrum in the last 30 years — covering advanced states like Kerala, Punjab, Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujarat; middle-ranking states like Karnataka, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh; and backward states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. So we can probably say that national policies of wide-ranging economic reforms have not had any impact on the relative human development status of 12 out of 15 important states.
But there are three exceptions. During 2001-08 there has been a sharp rise in the rank of Assam and a fall in that of Orissa. Assam has been under the same leadership — chief minister and party — for the last 10 years (eight years till 2008, year of the latest available index) and its gain can be attributed to the decline in insurgency, return of peace and significant progress in agriculture in a predominantly agricultural state.
Bihar has also seen a return of law and order but only for two years to 2008 and no significant improvement in human development rank till then. Orissa has also known stable political leadership since 2000 but has not shown any improvement in its human development rank, in fact, the reverse. It is difficult to draw any distinction between the quality of governance in Assam and Orissa to explain their divergent performance.
More From This Section
Historically, one other state which made a sharp gain in its human development rank in the past is Tamil Nadu which dramatically changed its ranking between 1981 and 1991 and then maintained it. By all accounts — from the conditions of its primary health centres to state-run primary schools to pursuit of correct industrial policies — few could equal Tamil Nadu in governance. Both Tamil Nadu and Gujarat have showed considerable dynamism in their industrial policy in the last decade but this has not found any reflection in Gujarat's ranking. While Gujarat has maintained policy consistency under the same leadership, Tamil Nadu has done so despite changes in government.
| HDI RANK OF MAJOR INDIAN STATES | ||||||
| 1981 | 1991 | 2001 | 2008 | Percentage change in HDI value 2001-08 | Rank in HDI value change | |
| Andhra Pradesh | 9 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 29 | 4 |
| Assam | 10 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 32 | 1 |
| Bihar | 15 | 15 | 15 | 14 | 26 | 5 |
| Gujarat | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 13 | 12 |
| Haryana | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 15 |
| Karnataka | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 20 | 7 |
| Kerala | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 9 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 14 | 13 | 12 | 13 | 32 | 1 |
| Maharashtra | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 14 | 11 |
| Orissa | 11 | 12 | 11 | 15 | 32 | 1 |
| Punjab | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 14 |
| Rajasthan | 12 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| Tamil Nadu | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 19 | 8 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 13 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 21 | 6 |
| West Bengal | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 17 | 9 |
| Source: National Human Development Report 2001 India Human Development Report 2011 | ||||||
Despite the relative stability in ranking, there is sharp divergence between states in the improvement (percentage change) in the development index achieved during the period 2001-08. Backward states, that is, those with low bases, have forged ahead. Conversely, advanced states with high legacy scores have progressed modestly. States which have achieved a balance between high legacy scores and current advancement are Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal. If you leave out the last two as moderate performers and Kerala as a historical exception, then the models to follow are Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. But weren’t they great even before reforms?