2011-10-25 tamil nadu socioeconomic report
Post on 02-Oct-2014
185 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Socioeconomic Study of 31 Villages in Gummidipoondi & Uthukottai
Thaluks, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu
Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development
New Delhi
2010-11
2
About Forrad
The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD) was established in January 1980. The
Foundation’s objective is to promote, support, guide and coordinate projects, programmes and schemes relating
to development of human and natural resources. Over the last 31 years, FORRAD has created a network of more
than 450 grassroots organizations in rural areas spread over Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Orissa,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The emphasis
has been on encouraging projects that contribute significantly to the enhancement of individual and community
potential in their respective areas. Conservation of environment including land and water and relevant
development activities, promotion of technical skill leading to self- employment, management of renewable
natural resources and innovations in developing community micro-hydel generation systems. FORRAD
endeavours to emphasize women’s involvement in planning process, development and management of schemes
and promoting women’s leadership in all activity fields. The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development
is registered as a Public Charitable Trust.
124-A/6 – Second Floor
Katwaria Sarai
New Delhi 110016
Ph# +91 11 2685 2476
mail@forrad.org
www.forrad.org
3
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 3 Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Contributors ............................................................................................................................... 5
Note on the Authors ........................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary and Key Findings...................................................................................... 7
Background ........................................................................................................................ 7 Structure of the Survey Report .......................................................................................... 7 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 8
Section I ................................................................................................................................... 10
Survey Sample ..................................................................................................................... 10
Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10 Selection of Villages ........................................................................................................ 11 Selection and Training of Enumerators ........................................................................... 11 Preparation of Survey Instrument .................................................................................... 11 Commencement of the Survey ......................................................................................... 12
Verification ...................................................................................................................... 12 Report Writing ................................................................................................................. 12
Limitations of the Survey..................................................................................................... 12 Emphasis on quantitative data ......................................................................................... 12
Control Group .................................................................................................................. 13 Quality Control ................................................................................................................ 13
Section II .................................................................................................................................. 14 Contextual Analysis ............................................................................................................. 14
Human Development Indicators in India ......................................................................... 14 Economic Overview......................................................................................................... 17 Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction ............................................ 19
Corporate Social Responsibility in India ......................................................................... 19 Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India................. 23
Section III................................................................................................................................. 25 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25
Social Composition of the Villages ................................................................................. 25 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 26
Income, Poverty and Indebtedness .................................................................................. 28 Economic Well-being ...................................................................................................... 32
Education ......................................................................................................................... 34 Employment & Occupations ............................................................................................ 35 Land Ownership and Usage ............................................................................................. 37 Animal Husbandry ........................................................................................................... 39 Water ................................................................................................................................ 40
Health & Disability .......................................................................................................... 41 Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents ..................................................... 41
Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English) ........................................................................... 44 Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil) ............................................................................ 52
Annexure III: Survey Data ....................................................................................................... 58
4
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed ................................................................................. 10 Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community .............................................................. 29 Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community ............................................................................... 29
Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community ................................................. 33 Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community ................................................. 33 Table 6: Education Level by Community ................................................................................ 34 Table 7: Education Level by Gender ....................................................................................... 34 Table 8: Current Education Status by Age .............................................................................. 35
Table 9: Grazing Land by Village ........................................................................................... 38
Table 10: Water Uses by Source .............................................................................................. 40
Table 11: Physical Impairments............................................................................................... 41 Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community ............................................................ 43
Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community ............................................................. 25 Figure 2: Household Size by Community ................................................................................ 27
Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community .............................................................................. 28 Figure 4: Gender by Age Group .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community ................................................ 29 Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community................................................................................... 30
Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community .............................................................................. 31 Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community ................................................................................ 32
Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community....................................................................... 36
Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community ............................................................................ 37 Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution .................................................................................. 39
Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community ................................................................... 39
5
Contributors
Authors: Julian Parr, Kanika Satyanand, Susan Abraham
Editor: Amit Mahanti
Data Analyst: Rakesh Khowal
Research Coordinator (Tamil Nadu): Simon Joseph
Field Coordinator: T Annadurai
Enumerators: Anasuya S, Arul N, Arulselvi N, Asha D, Ashok R, Bhaskar S,
Bhuwaneswari R, Charles S, Dhanalakshmi A, Dillikumar K, Gokulan K, Gopi T, Goutham
C, Gunasundar A, Jayalakshmi K, Justin V, Justin D, Kalpana K, Kripa N, Kumar S, Kannan,
Kuppan N, Lingasamy A, Madhan V, Mahesh K, Manjupriya J, Mohan G, Mohanbabu K,
Muniratnam S, Parimala M, Partheban I, Paulraja R, Poomkothai, Poongodi L, Sangeetha S,
Saravanan M, Sathish N, Silambarasan G, Tamilselvi R, Thirupathy T.K, Thiruvarasu P,
Thyagu J, Usha M
Desk Verification Team: M Sangeetha, J Kavitha
Field Verification Team: J Deepika, D Durgadevi, S Ambedkar, U Vignesh Kumar
Data Entry: Equus Technology Solutions (P) Ltd
Design and Layout: Neelima Rao
Resource Persons for the Training of Enumerators: D Nirmal Kennedy, T.C.A
Srinivasaramanujan, R Ravanan, Balamuthumurugan
FORRAD expresses its gratitude to all the households who participated in the survey.
6
Note on the Authors
Julian Parr is an international expert on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and private
sector partnerships. He holds a post-graduate degree in Economic Development from the
School of Oriental and African Studies. His specialisations include international labour law
and supply chain analysis in the informal sector, and the macro-economic impacts of
epidemics on transition economies. He has written a number of papers on the topic of CSR
and has previously advised companies such as BP, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, Microsoft,
McKinsey and Accenture on inward social investment strategies in transition economies. He
is former Director, Asia and the Middle East for the International Business Leaders Forum
(IBLF), Chief Technical Advisor to the ILO and Regional Director for Oxfam GB South
Asia. He lives in New Delhi.
Kanika Satyanand is Programme Advisor and a member of the board of trustees of the
Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD). She holds a post-graduate
degree in Sociology from Delhi University. She has spent most of her working life, spanning
31 years, in the not-for-profit sector. During a stint with the Foundation for Organisational
Research (FORE) she managed and authored action research studies for public sector
undertakings including BHEL, ONGC, SAIL and IPCL in the area of Human Resource
Development and Organisational Design. She is former Executive Director of SRUTI, where
for 15 years she shaped and directed the organisation’s programmes in support of grass root
struggles and people’s movements throughout India. Apart from her engagement with
FORRAD, she currently holds positions on the board of The Hunger Project, India as its
chairperson, and SRUTI. She has been co-editor and contributing author for two all-India
studies: “India’s Artisans – a Status report” and “Seen but not Heard – India’s marginalised,
neglected & vulnerable children”.
Susan Abraham is the director of FORRAD. She holds a post-graduate degree in
International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies,
London. Her courses included International Law, Economics and Boundary Dispute
Resolution. Her work, over the past 20 years, has largely focussed itself around facilitating
community based rural development initiatives around the country. Her previous
engagements have included work with the Barefoot College, Tilonia, Rajasthan, Oxfam’s
Violence Mitigation and Amelioration Project, the Aman Trust, New Delhi and various
independent assignments.
7
Executive Summary and Key Findings
Background
A socio-economic survey of 5724 households in 31 villages of Gummidipoondi and
Uthukottai thaluks (Sriperumbudur parliamentary constituency in Thiruvallur District, Tamil
Nadu) was conducted by Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD), New
Delhi. The survey locations included villages that were on the periphery of an industrial park
proposed by SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu) in the area. The
survey gathered empirical data on demographics, natural resource ownership and usage,
education, health and employment status, poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of
social well-being. The objective behind the survey was to use the data to inform Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes that could address pressing local concerns and
improve the living standards of the local population.
The principal survey instrument was a questionnaire developed by FORRAD in consultation
with the survey team and statisticians based in Chennai. The survey was conducted over a
period of two months between August and October 2010. The survey team consisted of 43
enumerators from the area. They were supervised by a field coordinator. External resource
persons were brought in to train the enumerators in data collection. Teams, external to the
area, conducted desk and field verification of the data. The task of data entry was given to a
firm in Chennai, The research coordinator liaised between the enumerators, the verification
teams, the data entry agency and FORRAD. The final data analysis was done in Delhi by a
statistician and the authors of this report.
Structure of the Survey Report
This report has been divided into four sections. The first section lists the villages and
households that form the survey sample. It also outlines the rationale behind the villages
chosen for the survey as well as the selection and training of enumerators. The nature of
survey tools employed and methods of data collection, verification and analysis have also
been stated here. In addition, details of the kind of training given to the enumerators as well
as training personnel and logistics have been outlined.
The second section locates the proposed project site and impact area in Gummidipoondi and
Uthukottai thaluks, against the larger framework of development needs in India, and the
corresponding need for responsible corporate intervention. This section analyzes the
structural reasons for chronic poverty and inequality in India seen in the light of economic
growth in the country post-liberalization in the early 1990s. It tries to analyze the particular
impact that such growth has had on the agricultural sector, while also examining the
relationship between the growth of the private sector and sustainable development. The
section also provides an historical overview of Corporate Social Responsibility models and
practices in the country and looks at factors that have contributed to the growth of CSR since
the 1990s. It outlines the various issues and challenges that private companies have been
faced with when trying to enforce meaningful CSR interventions and practices in the areas
where they are located. The section also provides an overview of institutional and policy
frameworks around CSR in India.
The third section collates and analyses the household survey findings based on various
parameters. It provides an analysis of social composition and demographic patterns in the
8
area; income, expenditure and indebtedness trends; and the status of education and
employment among the local population. Land ownership and usage patterns, access to health
services and government schemes, availability of drinking and agricultural water, and the
status of available livestock in the villages have also been discussed here. This section tries to
isolate larger trends in order to identify possible areas of intervention that are of critical
importance in the area.
Based on the survey findings and analysis, the fourth section of the report outlines
considerations to be kept in mind for any development interventions in the area. This
becomes especially important given the number of industries that are proposed here. The
baseline data collected through this survey could also be used to gauge the impact of
development interventions made by industrial units in the area. While making
recommendations for investment in local infrastructure development and strengthening
access to primary services, the report also lays stress on the need for all stakeholders – local
communities, civil society organizations, government agencies and industry – to work in
tandem with each other, so as to ensure need-based and equitable growth in the area. The
report also recognizes the need for imaginative interventions in various sectors – agriculture,
health, livelihood, and natural resource management among others – in ways that do not
undermine existing government and non-government systems. Rather, efforts should be
directed towards augmenting these systems to ensure better service delivery and a higher
standard of living for the local population.
The survey instrument in Tamil and its English translation have been provided in the
annexures at the end of the report. The disaggregated data that was collected in the course of
the survey have also been given.
Key Findings
Chronic Poverty: Using World Bank benchmarks, 98 % of the households are poor; and 82%
extremely poor, subsisting on per capita daily incomes of under Rs. 45.50 or $1 a day. The
survey did not reveal any marked income disparities between the various communities
surveyed.
Indebtedness: With expenditure often exceeding income, 60% of families in the area have a
debt burden. The grip of the moneylender continues to be strong. Among landholding
families, a majority of loans were taken for agriculture, while the majority of loans among
non-landholding families were for marriages. 16% of the loans taken in the area were for
medical reasons.
Land ownership: Only 32% of the households own agricultural land. Most of the land is held
by the BC and MBC households.
Dependence on Land: One of the key findings is that the bulk of the population is totally
dependent on the land for livelihood, energy and water.
Energy: Despite the villages being electrified and having gas connections, 83% of the
households depend on fuel wood for cooking.
Water: The villages are predominantly dependent on river and rain-fed lakes/eris and
ponds for irrigation and livestock. 67% of the households depend on these eris for
agriculture while 53% depend on these for their livestock requirements. The eris also
9
contribute significantly to the recharging of ground water. Water, though abundant at
present, could come under threat on account of over-use and pollution from industries
in the area. This could be compounded by the already intensive use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture, Furthermore, the storage capacity of the lakes
in the area is vastly reduced due to siltation and growth of weeds. Poor maintenance
of irrigation channels has also considerably reduced their efficiency, thereby affecting
agricultural output. Traditional irrigation channels are now being replaced by tube-
wells.
Livelihood and unemployment: Outside of agriculture and casual agricultural labour,
livelihood options are virtually non-existent. Unemployment is high at 13% and there
is a high level of underemployment as most of the casual labour is linked to
agricultural cycles and seasonal jobs.
Vulnerable segments: There are a total of 1045 individuals in the area who are above the age
of 60. There are 1069 widows in these villages, compared to only 14 widowers. Of all the
communities in the area, the tribal Irulars are the most disadvantaged group.
Literacy, enrollment and educational attainment: Literacy is at 92% and school enrollment is
high at 96%. 931 graduates and 201 post-graduates were found within the sample.
Connectivity: Despite a network of tarred roads, interconnectivity is poor due to low
ownership of private vehicles (only about 25% of the households own some form of
transport) and an inadequate public transport system.
Government schemes: Apart from MNREGA and housing assistance, government welfare
schemes were grossly under-utilized. 64% households use MNREGA while only 1% uses
education and agriculture schemes.
Overall economic indicators: The overall economic indicators seem satisfactory although this
is not indicative of their actual economic status. For example, while 90% of the households
own televisions, most of these are post-election handouts. 94% have electricity connections
but the electricity supply is generally erratic. Because of this irregularity, 97% of the
households still depend on kerosene for lighting.
Sanitation: 90% of the households who were surveyed do not use toilets.
10
Section I Survey Sample
A total of 30 villages and hamlets were surveyed (Table 1).1 The villages are located in
Gummidipoondi and Uthukottai thaluks, which fall within the Sriperumbudur parliamentary
constituency of the Thiruvallur District in Tamil Nadu.
Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed
Thaluk Village/Hamlet Revenue Village No of Families
Gummidipoondi
Anna Nagar Kannankottai 59
Kannankottai Kannankottai 474
G.R.Kandigai Karadiputhur 87
Karadiputhur Karadiputhur 245
Aaramani Kollanoor 38
Kollanoor Kollanoor 119
Anjamedu Mukkarampakkam 66
Annavaram Colony Mukkarampakkam 223
Chandirapuram Mukkarampakkam 53
Mambedu Mukkarampakkam 34
Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam 450
Pudhukuppam Mukkarampakkam 28
Villiyar Colony Mukkarampakkam 43
Thervoy Thervoy 799
Uthukottai
Kakkavakkam Kakkavakkam 293
Lachivakkam Lachivakkam 370
Perambur Lachivakkam 104
Eri Colony Palavakkam 45
JJ Nagar Palavakkam 183
Palavakkam Palavakkam 289
Sathya Nagar Palavakkam 158
Seenikuppam Seenikuppam 55
Sengarai Sengarai2 298
Kizhkarmanur Soolameni 130
Panjali Nagar Soolameni 68
Soolameni Soolameni 276
Kazadai Sulaimani 30
Thandalam Thandalam 394
DR Kuppam Thunpakkam 84
Vannag Kuppam Vannagkuppam 229
Total 5724
Survey Methodology
A door-to-door survey of 5,724 households was conducted from August to October 2011 in
31 villages and hamlets in the Uthukottai and Gummidipoondi blocks of the Thiruvallur
1 A village is a clustered human settlement, usually defined as being larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town. A village
in India contains anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand people. A hamlet is a section of a village, usually a cluster
removed from the main village. The population of a hamlet usually belongs to a single community. 2 The hamlet of Thambunaidu Palayam has been merged with Sengarai for purposes of the analysis.
11
District in Tamil Nadu. The primary aim of this survey was to gather quantitative data around
demographics, natural resource ownership and usage, education, health and employment,
poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of economic well-being in the area. There were
no focused group discussions, and except where specifically mentioned, no anecdotal
evidence was used in the gathering of data or for analysis.
Selection of Villages
The scope of the survey included all the villages that were located in and around the proposed
industrial site and along the access roads to the site. The objective was to understand the
socio-economic status of the area as a whole, so that an integrated approach to development
of the area could be envisioned. It was, therefore, a conscious choice to include villages that
would be directly affected by proposed industrialization.
Selection and Training of Enumerators
The enumerators were young people from the survey villages. The reason behind choosing
them was to ensure authenticity as well as ownership over the information gathered. The first
training of enumerators was conducted on 9 and 10 February 2010 in Chennai. A total of 27
out of 29 originally identified enumerators participated in the training.
The training was designed to address:
The purpose of the survey
Survey methodology
Anticipated outcomes
The importance of information as a tool for change
Practical training through a mock survey
The mock survey was to enable practical application of the learning by the trainees as well as
to refine the survey instrument. A core group from amongst the trainees was identified to
conduct the pilot using the refined instrument.
The resource persons for the training included representatives from local NGOs, academics,
retired IAS officers, statisticians, and grassroots activists from other parts of Tamil Nadu. The
resource people emphasised the importance of accuracy in the data collection.
The second training of enumerators was conducted in Palavakkam on 27 February 2010. The
date, venue and list of the 18 trainees were drawn up in consultation with representatives
from Thervoy Gramam Munnetra Nala Sangam (TGMNS). FORRAD and TGMNS also
decided to:
a) extend the survey to include the other surrounding villages, and
b) to include enumerators from the other villages
Preparation of Survey Instrument
The survey questionnaire contained questions that are standard to a socio-economic survey. It
included additional questions on the use of natural resources and on education, skills and
training. The first draft prepared by the FORRAD staff in Delhi was further refined by the
enumerators, the FORRAD project staff and Chennai-based statisticians.
12
Commencement of the Survey
The survey began on 29 July 2010. FORRAD set up a field office in Thandalam (one of the
survey villages) to facilitate the easy collection and delivery of the forms. The enumerators
worked in teams of two – one person conducted interviews while the other recorded the
information.
Verification
Desk Verification: Two persons scrutinised each of the field questionnaires for completion
and consistency. Any gaps detected in the data were returned to the survey team.
Field Verification: 10% of the total sample was cross-checked across households by an
external team of four persons. The field verification was done across villages and across
community groups.
Verification at the Level of Data Entry: The completed forms were delivered to a firm in
Chennai for data entry. The forms were once again checked for completion and consistency.
Forms that were incomplete or incorrect were returned to the enumerators for correction.
Verification at the Level of Data Analysis: The final round of data verification was at the
level of data analysis done in Delhi. Errors in consistency were pointed out and rectified by
the enumerators.
Report Writing
The report was written by three persons – a development economist, a social science
researcher and a community-based rural development worker. The contents of the report were
first ratified by the FORRAD project staff in Tamil Nadu and then by eight persons of the
original survey team.
Limitations of the Survey
Emphasis on quantitative data
Knowledge, Attitude and Behavioural Change: The baseline survey was designed to capture
existing social and economic indicators. What it did not aim to do was to determine existing
knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst the target population. Therefore, although it can
be used to measure economic wellbeing and inclusion, it is less useful as a tool to measure
attitudinal and behavioural change, for example, in relation to caste and gender
discrimination.
Quality of Services: The primarily quantitative survey was able to measure access to services
of the targeted population but not the quality of services. So for example, we know the
number of children attending school and how many schools there are in the project area.
However, we don’t know what the quality of the education being received is.
13
Control Group
For purposes of academic research, the presence of a control group could help in meeting two
important criteria. Firstly, it could reveal if there are any anomalies within the project area
which are specific to that geographical area but not atypical to the District as a whole.
Secondly, when conducting a mid-term review of the baseline, there is nothing to compare
the data to. That is, a similar sample size and geographic area would reveal whether any
social interventions planned by industrial companies were having an impact on social and
economic inclusion. Other agencies, government, private sector and NGOs could be
operating within the area, and this could make it difficult for companies doing CSR to
disaggregate the data in order to legitimately claim to be a change agent for good. However,
for a development agency whose mandate is to implement needs-based development work in
the area, the use of a control group as a means of measuring project effectiveness is unethical.
Quality Control
Quality control was an issue, given that the surveyors were new to the task. There was a high
“spoil” or incompletion rate amongst the initial forms returned. However, this was identified
by both the Desk Officers and triangulated by the Field Workers who were carrying out
quality and accuracy tests on 10% of the sample size. This meant that FORRAD was able to
make corrective action, although it meant that over 4,000 of the questionnaires had to be
revisited to either clarify or complete the questionnaires correctly. Data collection was
slowed down considerably, and this meant an extension in the survey time-line.
14
Section II Contextual Analysis
Human Development Indicators in India
Today, India is the seventh largest economy in the world, primarily due to economic
liberalisation in 1991. Despite making considerable progress in various sectors, poverty still
remains one of the biggest challenges that the country faces. An estimated one-third of the
population (37.2%) lives below the poverty line (people who earn less than $2 a day).3 With a
population of over 1.15 billion, India is the world’s largest democracy and currently the
second most populous country in the world after China. Projections suggest that by 2030, the
population of India will be the largest in the world, pegged at around 1.53 billion.
Other human development indicators such as health, nutrition, and education indicate
medium but inequitable growth, ranking India at 119 on the Human Development Index.4
48% of children under the age of five are underweight (almost double the figure for sub-
Saharan Africa), an indicator that reflects the poor access to nutrition and health-care. Low
literacy levels for women push the human development rating for India even lower. This is
reflected in the Gender Inequality Index that ranks India at 122 globally. Despite an increase
in literacy rates over the last decade, the 66% figure for India is well below the world average
of 84%, making India the country with the largest illiterate population in the world.5 Food
insecurity is still a concern for large parts of the population and this will be further
exacerbated by inflation in the price of food staples.
Poverty has a strong ethnic dimension in India, with minority groups and indigenous peoples
accounting for a disproportionate number of the poor. In India, poverty is also deeply rooted
in the caste system where vulnerable castes are socially and/or economically excluded. The
incidence of poverty amongst Dalits is 1.5 times higher than the national average.6
The main factors for adverse human development indicators in India can be summarised thus:
a) Social Exclusion and Poor Governance: Fundamental laws and acts in India
notwithstanding, exclusion from all spheres of decision-making is core to the
continuing poverty of the most marginalised. A robust civil society and relative
freedom of the press have lent a certain momentum to social and political
mobilisation, but progress remains slow. Making services and pro-poor government
schemes work for the most vulnerable remains one of the key challenges for poverty
eradication in India. To this end, India has actively pushed a decentralisation agenda
over the last two decades through devolution of power to regional and local entities
such as the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Yet, corruption remains rampant, with India
still ranking a poor 87th
on the Corruption Perception Index.7 According to a Global
Compact report, the government’s capacity for law enforcement and implementation
of anti-corruption plans is low, which is one of the factors contributing to relatively
3 World Bank Poverty Database 2010 4 Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. UNDP 2010. 5 Human Development Report 2010 ibid 6 Oxfam GB Strategic Plan 2010. 7 Transparency International 2010
15
high levels of corruption.8 A lack of transparency in the electoral process, including
the funding of political parties, has clouded the democratic process.
b) Public Services: Health and education indicators clearly reflect that increased funding
does not necessarily benefit the majority of the poor. Although the enrollment rate in
primary education is now just below 90%,9 the figure hides significant rural and urban
disparities – poor children in rural areas have less access to education, and perhaps
more significantly, less access to quality education than their urban counterparts. A
survey of rural districts in North India in 200610
revealed that on average there is no
teaching activity in half of the government primary schools.
Both infant and maternal mortality remain high with India significantly failing to
achieve its own targets set as part of the fourth Millennium Development Goals for
2015. Every year, 2.1 million Indian children die before the age of five.11
Before the 2009 elections, the previous Government of India (which also returned to
power post-elections), made an election promise to allocate 9% of GDP to public
health and education. It has yet to honour this promise and is under pressure from
civil society in campaigns such as “Nine is Mine”.12
Equally, budgetary allocation on
health is still only 1% of GDP instead of the election commitment of 3%. One of the
stated goals of India’s National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) programme, launched
in 2005, is to increase total government health spending from 1% of GDP to 2-3% of
GDP by 2012, the end of the current Eleventh Five-Year Plan period. It must be
mentioned, though, that there was a significant increase in the expenditure from 2004-
05 (Rs. 27704 crore) to 2006-07 (Rs 39046 crore) – a 41% increase.
c) Gender Inequality: The 2011 Census (provisional) reveals that the child sex ratio for
children between 0-6 years in India stands at 914.23 girls for every 1000 boys. This is
a sharp decrease when compared to the 2001 Census, where the figure stood at 927.31
girls for every 1000 boys.13
This is possibly indicative of high female foeticide
figures. Women continue to face discrimination in many spheres – in employment and
in public and personal life. India scores badly on the Global Gender Gap Report,
ranked at 112 globally against 134 countries surveyed.14
This report assesses countries
on the basis of how well they divide available resources and opportunities between
men and women. The assessment was done on the basis of economic participation and
opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival.
On an average, women earn far less than men and are found more in the informal
sector in low-paid and exploitative jobs.15
8 www.indiaagainstcorruption.org 9 UNDP Education Index 2010. 10 This was a 2006 follow up study to the Public Report on Basic Education in India(PROBE), Anuradha De and Jean Drèze,
1999. 11 UNICEF Annual Report 2008 12 Launched by more than 4,500 children in Delhi, India on October 16 2006, the Nine is Mine campaign is a participatory
children's advocacy initiative to call for 9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) to be committed to health and education.
This initiative of children, schools, communities and organisations across 15 states of India is being led by Wada Na Todo
Abhiyan (WNTA – Hindi phrase meaning “Do not break your promise”), a national campaign to hold the government
accountable to its promise to end poverty, social exclusion, and discrimination - toward meeting the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). 13 Provisional Census Office data, 2011 14 Global Gender Gap Report, World Economic Forum. 2010. 15 “Gender Equality as Smart Economics”, A World Bank Action Plan September 2006
16
d) Employment: India saw a slight (0.3%) rise in unemployment from 10.4% (in 2008) to
10.7% (in 2009)16
. This was due partially to the global recession as well as the new
work force entering the job market. India, as the second largest population globally,
has a startling age demographic where over 50% of its population is under 2517
. It is
expected that in 2020, the average age of an Indian will be 29 years, compared to 37
for China and 48 for Japan. India's labour force is growing at a rate of 2.5% annually,
but employment is growing at only 2.3%. Thus, the country is faced with the
challenge of not only absorbing new entrants to the job market (estimated at seven
million people every year), but also clearing the backlog. Unemployment statistics in
India can often be misleading, as the unorganised sector accounts for over 90% of the
total employment and is characterised by large-scale underemployment, poor working
conditions and poor wages. This is not necessarily reflected in employment statistics.
e) Development-induced displacement: Between 1950 and 2011, there have been a slew
of development projects in India, which have resulted in large-scale displacement
especially among people who belong to marginalized and tribal communities. The
weakness or absence of adequate legislative mechanisms to ensure comprehensive
resettlement and rehabilitation has also exacerbated this phenomenon. Projects around
water, urban infrastructure, transportation, energy, agriculture, industry and forests
have cumulatively had an impact on several indigenous communities. While adivasis
and tribal groups form only 8% of the population, it is believed that between 40-50%
of the forcibly displaced belong to these communities.18
According to an Indian
Social Institute study in 2001, there were an estimated 21.3 million development-
induced displaced persons in the country.19
A more liberal estimate places the number
of people displaced by dams alone at between 21-40 million. As a consequence, the
incidence of landlessness, migration, food insecurity, unemployment and social
disintegration has significantly increased over the years.
f) Exposure to conflict and violence: India faces low-intensity conflict in several areas.
The Naxalite conflict in central and eastern parts of the country and the conflicts in
some states of the Northeast and the Kashmir valley have turned these into areas of
development neglect. Conservative estimates place the number of people who have
been displaced by armed conflict and ethnic and communal violence at 650,000 in
2010.20
This only includes people living in displacement camps. The government has
no comprehensive data of the actual number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs),
nor do they have any strong legislation that can ensure the provision of basic services
and entitlements. 6746 people (including civilians, security personnel and armed
groups) have lost their lives in armed conflict situations over the last three years.21
g) High exposure to disasters: South Asia is prone to “natural”22
disasters. The cost to
human life is often high due to inadequate shelter and high population density.
Between 1990-2008, an estimated 885,224,000 people were affected by disasters,
16 GoI Ministry of Labour, Labour Report (2009) 17 P.N. Mari Bhat, "Indian Demographic Scenario 2025", Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi, Discussion Paper No.
27/2001. 18 www.internal-displacement.org 19 Global IDP Database of Norwegian Refugee Council, July 2001 20
www.internal-displacement.org 21 http://www.satp.org 22 Recently the notion of “natural” disasters has been increasingly debated, as disasters are often the result of “man-made”
vulnerability. Disasters are therefore particularly significant to private sector manufacturing and extractive companies.
17
resulting in 534,000 deaths, an average of 30,000 deaths a year.23
With climate
change and rising population densities, damage and exposure to disasters is set to
increase. In India, direct losses incurred on account of natural disasters amount to 2%
of India’s GDP and up to 12% of central government revenues.
h) Climate change: Climate change has the potential to compound existing development
problems and increase pressure on key resources needed to sustain growth. Analysts
predict that altered rainfall patterns will have a severe impact on the agriculture sector
in India, as around three-fifths of cultivated land is rain-fed. Statistics reveal that
rainfall in India has decreased by approximately 5-8% since the 1950s. In India, the
area affected by floods has more than doubled between 1953 and 2003. A rise in sea
levels rise will also have significant impacts on coastal areas in the shape of
inundation, salinity of ground water sources and consequent migration. The poor will
bear the brunt of these disasters, which will only lead to their further marginalization.
It is predicted that India will also host a rising influx of climate refugees. The 2007
floods displaced more than 20 million people in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. It is
predicted that by 2050, 13% of the land mass of southern Bangladesh will be
submerged, displacing between 15-20 million people.24
The subsequent migration
could put pressure on land and other resources in the sub-continent, including India.
i) Water: The availability of water in India is already under threat on two accounts –
firstly, variability in supply and growing demand due to population growth,
industrialisation and urbanization,25
and secondly, overexploitation of water
resources. The shortage of potable water is a reality in rural and increasingly in urban
areas of India. Per capita water availability has been decreasing steadily relative to
demand since the 1940s.26
Water scarcity will have a major impact on food security in
the country. Increasing the acreage of intensive agriculture requires irrigation and
fresh water usage from river basins that have already been stretched to the limits, with
over 500 million people heavily dependent on them across the country. Glacial melt
will increase the risks of flooding and result in water shortage in the long term. The
geopolitics of access to water both across the region and interstate will be an
additional source of conflict.
j) Poor Regional Integration: Lack of infrastructure, poor connectivity and access to
markets means that there is less than 7% interregional trade across the SAARC
region, impeding economic growth.
Economic Overview
During the 1990s, India’s economy grew rapidly at about 7% annually. Sustained economic
growth has translated into a reduction of poverty from 58% in 1974 to 37% in 2010.27
However, unlike South East Asia, economic growth in India has not translated into a
reduction of the number of people living in absolute poverty, due to the inequitable
distribution of newly acquired wealth. India’s development challenges have been heightened
by the global economic crisis of 2007-09. Although India’s economy grew at 6.1% in the last
23 Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and United Nations World Population Prospectus. 24 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change study. 25 By 2020 it is estimated that 200 million new water connections will be required to cope with urban demand. “India in
2020” Booz & Co. (2010) and 40% of India’s population will be urbanised by 2030 [Mckinsey Global Institute 2010]. 26 World Bank 2009. 27 World Bank Poverty Database 2010
18
quarter of 2010 (which was among the highest growth rates in the world), this still represents
a significant dip from the peak of 9.7% growth attained in the fiscal year 2006-07.28
Retail
inflation is running at about 10% per annum,29
food prices are rising at around 18%, and the
external trade deficit is more than 5% of GDP. Interest rates were lowered to stimulate the
economy after global recession.
However, it is well-established that a sustained run of low interest rates accompanied by high
consumer prices leads to overinvestment in real estate, creating a bubble that is inherently
unstable. An added concern is the widening gap between the rich/middle classes and the poor,
with the 100 wealthiest Indians having a net worth equal to 25% of India's GDP.30
The divide
between the richer and poorer Indian states adds to the economic disparities and
contradictions. It is projected that India’s population will overtake China by 2020.31
Therefore India’s capacity to generate and sustain economic growth will become even more
critical in the face of such a sharp increase in population.
Approximately 70% of India’s poor live in rural areas. Agriculture remains India’s principal
occupation, employing over 60% of the labour force. However, growth and investment in the
agricultural sector has significantly slowed down over the last two decades. Per capita growth
in agricultural productivity is less than 2%, thus contributing only around 22% of GDP
despite employing over 60% of the labour force. Increasing marginalisation of small farmers,
the pressures of population on land, and land acquisition have resulted in an expansion of the
number of landless agricultural wage labourers and seasonal economic migrants. Internal
economic migration from poor to less poor states for seasonal work is massive, with an
estimated 38 million workers migrating across India annually.32
These labourers are highly
vulnerable to exploitation, and estimates suggest that 5 million of them are bonded through
indebtedness to unscrupulous employers.33
In the last decade, there has been a marked leaning within the government towards pro-poor
policies to ensure better access to health, education and livelihoods, and provide social
security benefits for the very poor. Recent acts designed to widen the social security net have
included the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA),
(2005) that aims at guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to at
least one adult member of a rural household who volunteers to do unskilled manual work.
The Right to Information Act (2005) has also provided a powerful tool to citizens, ensuring
them access to government records. However, the effective implementation of these acts,
especially MNREGA, remains a major challenge, on account of inadequate resource
allocation, inefficiencies, and corruption amongst the bureaucracy and political classes.
Prosecution under various acts designed to protect the poor, such as the Bonded Labour
(Abolition) Act 1976 and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), is rare.
Furthermore, unless backed by civil society support, these acts are rarely utilised by the most
marginalised.
28 World Bank. India Country Overview, December 2010 29 “Economic Crisises Are Boring, Here Today And Here Tomorrow As Well”. Roger Nightingale Associates Economic
Analysis December 2010 30 AFP wire 11th January 2011. 31 Population Foundation of India/Population Reference Bureau: “The Future Population of India: A Long Range
Demographic View” August 2007 32 International Labour Organisation (ILO) Labour Report 2009. 33 ILO ibid.
19
Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction
The private sector in India has been growing rapidly since economic liberalisation in 1991.
India has seen the emergence of strong indigenous private firms, predominantly in the area of
information technology, steel, construction and manufacturing and service sectors such as the
tourism and hotel industry and Business Process Outsourcing. The private sector has
contributed significantly to India’s economic growth and employment creation across the
country. However, one of the major challenges for this sector is sustaining this growth.
Urbanisation, industrialisation and a massive deficit in energy have already resulted in
immense pressure on resources and the environment. New towns have mushroomed and
slums have proliferated in urban metropolises due to the scarcity of low-cost housing and
lack of urban planning.
Some leading companies have begun evincing interest in issues of sustainable development
and could spearhead significant changes in India. However, there are several hurdles. Only 4-
6% of the economy is in the formal sector. A bulk of industry consists of small enterprises,
which remain largely unregulated. This fragmentation makes them almost impossible to
audit. Therefore, enforcing compliance with international and national standards across the
industrial spectrum will be an uphill task. Forcible acquisition of land to build factories and
industrial units is increasingly creating tension between industrialists and farmers. Many
industries, particularly in the mining and extractive sectors, have appalling reputations with
regard to pollution. This is further exacerbated by the surging demand for energy, most likely
to be met by low-grade “brown” coal, the most polluting source of energy. The private
sector’s collusion with government has played a significant role in perpetuating corruption
with a number of high-level corporate corruption cases dominating the business press since
the late 1990s.34
Corporate Social Responsibility in India
Responsible business practice has existed since the rise of industrialisation. However, it
tended to follow a business philanthropic model developed in the 18th
century by companies
such as Cadbury-Fry and Ford. In India, it was spearheaded by companies such as Tata, Modi
and Birla. It was during the early 1990s that pressure was put on companies to be more
transparent and accountable for financial and environmental auditing, as well as to implement
social auditing.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be defined for the purposes of this report as:
“The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to
economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their
families as well as of the local community and society at large.”
[World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 1996]
The approach to corporate responsibility in the mid-1990s was shaped by the following
factors:
34
Commencing with the Bofors scandal in the late 1980s, the collapse of Enron in the 1990s, and a recent spate of cases in
the IT and telecom sectors, notably, the Satyam case and irregularities in 2G Spectrum allocation.
20
An altered global economic landscape that included the rise of emerging transition
economies such as India and China and the emergence of a new Europe after the
expansion of the European Union.
An increase in global conflicts that threatened business in developing markets and the
collapse of old regimes that destabilised existing ones.
The contradiction between increased wealth alongside poverty and exclusion that
contributed to political tensions at a national level in a number of low-income
economies.
Increased economic migration that led to the violation of international labour law and
exploitation of cheap labour coupled with government corruption, an unskilled
workforce and local legislation (or lack thereof).
Escalating human rights violations in developing economies, due to outsourcing and
subcontracting labour into the unregulated economy to reduce the costs.
Environmental damage coupled with shrinking natural resources.
Increasingly pervasive corruption.
A rise in stakeholders’ expectations and consumer pressure as awareness of fair trade,
ethical sourcing and corporate environmental damage were highlighted by the media.
This was coupled with an expansion in the definition of stakeholders from simply
shareholders to employees, customers, investors and local communities.
The advent of new media such as the internet and mobile phones, leading to greater
transparency and accountability.
An expansion of civil society and a proliferation of NGOs, creating a new dynamic of
corporate social responsibility in the public consciousness.
In the global context, more institutions and people were expected to have a legitimate role in
contributing to sustainable development. Many of these institutions also became aware of
their responsibilities in this enterprise. The rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships reflected the
growing appreciation of the need for and the opportunities of collaborative action. It reflected
an understanding of the benefits of involving a broad range of different stakeholder groups in
development projects and the risks of not doing so. However, CSR as a fledgling social
science was not without a whole range of issues and challenges, which can be summarised
thus:
The boundaries of responsibility: How far down a company supply chain should a
parent company be accountable and how far beyond statutory compliance should a
company be obliged to go? This would include labour conditions in supply chains,
technical disaster and relocation due to market collapse.
Setting and meeting standards: There has been a proliferation of auditing tools and
voluntary codes of conduct that companies are being asked to subscribe to.
Building trust and confidence: The widely held perception of the private sector being
unethical, as brought out in opinion polls.35
Governance and corruption: (see above on the range of high level corporate
corruption scandals in the 1990s).
Local economic development: Investing locally in terms of employment and
infrastructure.
35 In 2002, Americans (34%) regarded CEOs as more ethical than they did in 2009. In fact, the percentage of Americans who
regarded CEOs as ethical dropped to 22%. The figures revealed that 66% American regard CEOs as corrupt. (American
Enterprise Institute Report, March 2010)
21
Social inclusion: A growing understanding that one could not have “islands of
economic success in a sea of poverty.” In chronically poor countries, ring fencing
business operations with high security were leading to an abuse of human rights.
Environmental protection: A range of high profile environmental disasters, brought
this into sharp relief.
Emerging population issues: Quest for new markets with a population “dividend” in
transition economies and an aging population in traditional markets such as Europe
and America.
Making partnerships work: Civil society and the public and private sectors spoke very
different languages and a great deal of distrust existed between the sectors.
The business case for social investment includes
Improved operational efficiency.
Increased standards/reliability in the supply chain.
Employee motivation / loyalty / productivity.
Strengthening the ‘license to operate’.
Strengthening corporate brand and reputation.
Market development and attracting investment.
CSR is still relatively nascent in India. Although there is a long history of corporate
philanthropy, this has usually taken the form of foundations (eligible for tax breaks) or
hospitals and schools set up in the memory of company founders. In India, companies
account for just 10% of charity funding, compared with 75% percent in the United States.
The CSR agenda in India had initially been driven by multinational corporations (MNCs)
sourcing out of India in the manufacturing sectors. Child and bonded labour in supply chains,
in addition to other violations of labour standards (including health and safety in the work
place, enforced overtime, and freedom of association), were increasingly becoming concerns
for consumers and the press, predominantly in Europe and America, the two main export
markets for India. This, coupled with a number of corporate corruption scandals, and India’s
desire to be a player on the global stage has driven corporations to compliance. CSR is still
viewed as a very Western concept and a tool to create barriers to exclude India from the
global trade market. The other grouse is that compliance comes at a cost in terms of social,
environmental, and infrastructural investment and meeting labour standards.
Since the late 1990s, India has tried to indigenise a range of voluntary codes of conduct and
make them culturally specific. This has been led mainly by industry associations such as the
Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), India’s largest industry and business association; the
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Associated Chambers
of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM). Although they have now reinvented
themselves as CSR advisory agents, they still remain deeply conservative. Their primary
raison d’être is to promote Indian business. However, CII did develop the first voluntary
code of corporate governance, “Desirable Corporate Governance: A Code,” established in
April 1998. A National Foundation for Corporate Governance (NFCG) has been established
by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This is a partnership with the Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII), the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The purpose of the National Foundation for
Corporate Governance is to promote better corporate governance practices in India towards
achieving stability and growth. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has also
established the Business Council for Sustainable Development.
22
In 1997, the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) established the Business
Community Foundation (BCF),36
a business coalition comprising large Indian companies and
MNCs investing in India. The intention behind this foundation was to work both in
partnership and share good practices, as well as document private sector/NGO partnerships
through case studies. IBLF also supported an Action Aid initiative, Partners in Change,37
to
develop case study material and conduct impact evaluations. There is now a proliferation of
CSR consultants, not-for-profit agencies and large consulting agencies such as Accenture,
Development Partners, and Pricewaterhouse Cooper that view India as a lucrative market to
guide large companies through the complexity of CSR. Large international bilateral aid
agencies have also been examining the role of the private sector as a key agency in poverty
eradication in India and CSR as a means of achieving this. Both the UK Department for
International Development (DIFD) and the German Technical Aid agency GTZ have been
spearheading CSR initiatives with Indian companies and inward investors.
India is a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and has ratified 40 of the
ILO conventions. However, India has not ratified four of the ILO core conventions which
have implications for CSR in India:
087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948)
098 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949)
138 Minimum Age Convention (1973)
182 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999)
India has the world’s highest number of child labourers under 14 years and according to
UNICEF, insufficient attention has been given in India to eliminate the worst forms of child
labour. The 1986 child labour law does not cover children in all sectors.
Although CSR in India has been spearheaded by MNCs and large Indian companies, the
biggest single failing is, arguably, the inability to spread CSR beyond the largest businesses.
Even though efforts have been made over the last ten years to engage smaller firms in CSR, it
still remains a big company concern, with the growth spreading internationally rather than
locally. This may be partially addressed by new legislation designed to effectively create a
“CSR levy” on India companies. Several Indian companies might have to set aside 2% of
their average net profits during the preceding three years to meet corporate social
responsibility (CSR) spending requirements.38
A parliamentary standing committee on finance, which vetted the Companies Bill (2009) said
in its report that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has agreed to the suggestion. The
committee has suggested that companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or those
that have an annual turnover of at least Rs 1000 crore, or companies with a net profit of Rs 5
crore or more, be covered by the proposed statutory norms. A White Paper addressing the
Bill’s amendment was tabled in the 2010 parliamentary session and has a strong possibility of
being passed in the 2011 session. Welcoming the ministry’s “acceptance” of the suggestion to
bring CSR in the statute, the parliamentary committee said that a statement indicating the
company’s CSR policy, as well as the specific steps taken, should be part of the company’s
annual report. It has, however, not listed activities that would be qualified to meet CSR
36 www.bcfindia.org 37 www.picindia.org 38 Mandatory compliance will set firms back by over an estimated Rs 4,300 crore. (Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance recommendation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, India 2010)
23
spending. If the bill materialises, it will impact all private sector companies operational on the
Tamil Nadu SIPCOT site, leading to additional resources for potential collaborative
programming and social investment.
To conclude, the factors that influence CSR agendas can be summarised thus:
Market forces – ‘the business case’
Community Stakeholder pressure
Government pressure
Companies – self regulation (for business & ethical reasons)
Peer group leadership/ Business-led associations
Voluntary codes, principles & compacts
Regulation & the law – national and international
Litigation across national boundaries
Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India
Gummidipoondi thaluk is located in the Thiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu.39
Thiruvallur
district is situated in the North East part of Tamil Nadu; the district is bordered by
Kancheepuram district in the South, Vellore district in the West, Bay of Bengal in the East,
and the state of Andhra Pradesh in the North. The district spreads over an area of about 3422
sq km and has a total population of 22,11,413 as per the 2001 Census. About half of the
population resides in rural areas. The district has been subdivided into eight thaluks and 14
blocks for administrative convenience. Agriculture is the main occupation of the rural
population in the district and the net sown area accounts for about 40% of the total
geographical area of the district. Paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, pulses and banana are the
important crops grown in the district. A new state of the art rail terminus and link is set to
connect Gummidipoondi and Thiruvallur, the district headquarters.
Thiruvallur District falls within the Araniyar–Korattalaiyar and Cooum river basins. All the
rivers are seasonal and carry substantial flows during the monsoon. The prominent
geomorphic units identified in the district from satellite imagery include alluvial plains, old
river courses, coastal plains and hills. The district has considerable surface water in the form
of reservoirs and eris (lakes). The district receives an average annual rainfall in the range of
950 to 1150 mm. Rains falls during both the southwest (June to September) and northeast
(October to December) monsoon seasons. There is considerable spatial variability in the
distribution of rainfall, which shows a gradual decrease from east to west.
Gummudipoondi thaluk has an existing SIPCOT site at the thaluk headquarters itself that was
set up a decade ago. A new site is coming up at the village of Thervoy, about 15.4 km from
Gummudipoondi. The older industrial park that came up here was one of the first in the
region. The major units located at the site are Hi-tech Carbon, Bharat Petroleum and
Hindustan Petroleum. The site was developed with very little regulatory compliance and has
consequently become an environmental disaster with heavy atmospheric pollution and
contamination of water. This has hugely influenced local opinion, which now equates
industrial development with pollution and may account for some of the opposition to
SIPCOT’s current acquisition of village pastureland for industrial development in other parts
of the district. The new SIPCOT site is located at what was formerly meikkal poromboke
(pastureland) belonging to the Panchayat of Thervoy-Kandigai village.
39 A thaluk is a sub-division of a district
24
Thervoy is 44 km from India’s fourth largest city and the state capital, Chennai, and is
therefore well connected by air, rail and road links. With an estimated population of 7.5
million and a growth rate of 6.4%, Chennai has several automobile technology and small
parts, hardware manufacturing and healthcare industries. The city is India's second-largest
exporter of information technology and information-technology-enabled services, second to
Bangalore. According to a recent report in the national newspaper The Hindu, economists
have predicted that Chennai's per capita income will increase to $1149 in 2015 and $17,366
in 2050 from a base of $468 in 2000.
Tamil Nadu is rated fifth amongst Indian states in terms of Foreign Direct Investment Flows
(FDI) over the last decade. It has also received 5% of the FDI inflow, estimated at $6 billion
or Rs 27,782 crores.40
From a development perspective, Tamil Nadu ranks in the top ten
States on human development indicators such as health and literacy. During the 1990s and
early 2000s, Tamil Nadu had the second highest rate of HIV/AIDS prevalence after Manipur,
although some attribute this to the fact that Tamil Nadu public health system was more
efficient at gathering the data than less well-off states. However, the latest National Aids
Control Organisation (NACO) figures41
show that this has been brought under control, a
reflection of the fact that HIV/AIDS interventions are beginning to work in Tamil Nadu.
One development issue that must be borne in mind is the vast impact that the tsunami of 2004
had on Tamil Nadu. Not only was its physical impact severe in parts of the state, destroying
infrastructure and livelihoods, it also led to a huge influx of funding by development
agencies.42
This influx was badly coordinated, with many areas receiving triple funding from
different agencies, while others received none at all. The initial tranches of funding were
provided to rebuild houses and restore livelihoods in the form of new boats and fishing nets.
They were perceived as “gifts” by the recipient communities and bred a culture of
dependency and patronage that was ultimately unsustainable. Nearly all poor coastal
communities are aware of the largesse of the tsunami funds, and this phenomenon has raised
expectations when it comes to charitable giving. Instead of taking out loans to generate
ownership and sustainability, many communities now simply expect to be given benefits.
Another impact of the tsunami funding was that it resulted in a shortage of social workers and
technical advisors to implement measures for rehabilitating the affected communities. This
prompted agencies such as the UN and INGOs to effectively “poach” staff from local NGOs.
The resulting competition distorted salaries in the NGO sector making it hard for small
agencies to attract quality staff.
Another important point from a development perspective is the fact that the Coromandel
Coast is severely affected by coastal erosion. Most of the coastal communities live on the
narrow strip of land between the sea and privately-owned agricultural land, eking out a living
mainly through fishing and related occupations like boat building and drying and preserving
fish. The severe pressure put on them by the erosion of their habitat has now forced many
fisher folk to relocate into forest areas inland and give up their livelihoods for casual and
exploitative day labour. This has the potential to depress the labour market for unskilled
labour in the project area.
40 Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, www.dipp.nic.in 41 NACO (2009) 42 India has received $465 million as IDA credit from the World Bank for reconstruction and recovery efforts in Tamil Nadu
and Pondicherry. According to the joint needs assessment of the ADB-UNDP-World Bank, the reconstruction-financing
needs caused by the tsunami amounted to at least $868 million in Tamil Nadu (2005).
25
Section III Data Analysis
Social Composition of the Villages
The majority of the households surveyed comprise a mixture of communities (Figure 1) from
the Scheduled Castes (SC), Backward Classes (BC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC),
with the SC households forming the largest segment – nearly 52% of the 5724 households
surveyed. The Irulars, an indigenous tribal community, make up 7% of the total households.
Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community
Scheduled Castes (SC): At 51.87 %, the Scheduled Caste households form the single largest
social block. All the SC households belong to the Parayan43
community.44
Most Backward Classes (MBC): MBC households, 1237 in number, form the next largest
segment of the survey sample. They make up 21.61% of the sample size and belong to the
following communities: Vanniyar, Yadaval / Eadiyar, Nadar, Navithar and Reddiar.
Backward Classes (BC): 19.37% or 1109 households belong to the Backward Classes. 40
(3.7%) of these families belong to the Kannadiya Naidu, Chettiar and Mudaliar
communities.
Scheduled Tribes (ST): All of the Scheduled Tribes in the area – 7% of the households –
belong to the Irular community. These comprise a total of 409 households. The Irualars were
traditionally a non-agrarian nomadic community. Most survey indicators reflect their weak
socio-economic status vis-à-vis other community groups in the area.
43 All caste classifications are taken from the Gazette Notification, released by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
in 2009. 44 In Tamil Nadu, the term “dalit” is used exclusively to refer to this grouping.
1109, 19.4%
1237, 21.6% 2969, 51.9%
409, 7.1%
BC MBC SC ST
26
A far higher proportion of ST families (18%) have homes that are situated on wasteland (as
opposed to patta land) than the sample average of 7%. These figures assume significance
when one looks at the corresponding figures for MBC families – nearly 99% of the MBC
households own houses on patta (legally-owned) land. In terms of quality of house
construction, the figures for Irular families deviate significantly from the sample average.
63% of their homes have mud walls as compared to 36% for the entire sample while 66%
have thatched roofs as against a sample average of 36%. A higher proportion of ST families
(11%) had availed government housing schemes, against a mean of 6% for all the
households.
Only 77% of the Irular community have electricity connections, as compared to the sample
average of 94%. Families that have three phase connections account for 13% of the sample.
It is lowest in the case of ST families (5%) and highest in the case of BC and MBC
households (17% each). A larger proportion of ST families (66%) mentioned that they use
kerosene for cooking, the sample average being 33%. Firewood is used extensively for
cooking, but the ST families appear to be most dependent on this as a source of fuel.
Access to sanitation, whether individual or community, is poor across the sample (8% and
2% respectively). Here again, ST families have the lowest figures – 1% for both. When these
figures are seen in conjunction with those for BC communities, 18% and 6% respectively, the
difference in access becomes more apparent.
The four most widely owned gadgets/appliances across the survey sample are televisions,
fans, mobile phones and gas stoves. The number of televisions is very high – 90% of the
families own one – but here again, the ST families fall behind the rest of the sample (87%).
The trend is more pronounced when it comes to ownership of fans; while the sample average
is 83%, for ST families it is a mere 40%. Only a small share (6%) of ST families owns a
mobile phone in contrast to the sample average of 40%. None of the ST families own a gas
stove, against a mean of 14%. Interestingly, a higher proportion of ST families relied on
newspapers for information than other groups.
Religious denomination: The majority of households in the area (93%) identified themselves
as Hindus, with Christians and Muslims making up the rest (6% and 1% respectively). There
are, in fact, a larger number of recent converts to Christianity (estimated at over 50% in some
villages) but most declare themselves Hindu in order to retain their caste identity.
Vulnerable Sections: All communities have a section of population that inhabit the margins
vis-à-vis their socio-economic position and entitlements in society. Often, the elderly and
women, particularly widows, have to negotiate many social and institutional barriers. There
were a total of 1045 persons above 60 years of age in the villages surveyed. At the time of the
survey, there were 14 widowers and a sizeable number of widows, 1069 in all. Although
there is a widow pension scheme in place, only 12 of the widows in the sample were availing
its benefits.
Demographics
Size of Households: 51% of the households have a family size between 3-5 persons (Figure
2). This is below the national average of 6 persons to each family. Tamil Nadu has the lowest
27
family size of any state45
due to strong interventions in the field of reproductive and sexual
health in the 1980s and 90s. The fact that the villages surveyed had a higher than state
average could be an indicator of poor access to resources, including education and public
health.
Figure 2: Household Size by Community
Age Profile: The population in the villages is distributed fairly evenly over 3 broad age
bands, viz., below 18 years, 18-35 years and above 35 years (Figure 3). This distribution
roughly matches the national average of 50% of the population being below the age of 25.
36% individuals are between the ages of 18 and 35. Interestingly, there is a higher proportion
of children in the 6-12 age bracket from the ST category (16%) than in other groupings.
Similarly, the proportion of persons in the 18-35 age bracket is slightly higher among the BC
and SC households than the rest of the sample.
45 NFHS-3. National Family health survey (NFHS) International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai designated
by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India. (Oct 2007)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f h
ou
seh
old
s
Communities
less than 3 between 3 and 5 greater than 5
28
Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community
Sex Ratio46
: Worldwide, the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) is about 105 male babies per 100
female babies. The data gathered in this survey points to a slightly higher proportion of
females than males (10691 females to 10531 males), giving no indication of female
infanticide or sex-selective abortion in the survey area. There appears to be a marginally
higher concentration of females (37%) in the 18-35 age range than males (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Gender by Age Group
Income, Poverty and Indebtedness
46 Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males. Sex Ratio is an important social indicator to measure the
extent of equity prevailing between males and females at a given point of time.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f In
div
idu
als
Communities
less than/equal to 6 between 6 and 12 between 12 and 18between 18 and 35 between 35 and 60 over 60
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f In
div
ual
s
Age Range
Male Female Total
29
Per capita income: The average annual per capita income47
was found to be between Rs.
10,000 to 20,000. As is evident from Figure 5, the disaggregated data shows surprisingly little
variation in incomes across communities.
Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community
Poverty: What stands out from the income data is that about 98% of the households subsist
on an annual per capita income of Rs. 20,000 and below. Based on World Bank poverty
indicators, this places them below the poverty line, pegged at a per capita income of less than
$2 a day or Rs. 91 (Table 2).48
Equally significant is the fact that 81% of the households –
4620 out of the 5724 households can be categorised as extremely poor, subsisting on less than
$1 a day, or Rs. 45.50 (Table 3). 17% of the households earn between $1-$2 a day.
Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community
BC MBC SC ST Total
Less than Rs 45.5/$1 79% 82% 81% 81% 81%
Between Rs. 45.5/$1 & Rs.91/$2 18% 16% 17% 18% 17%
Between Rs.91/$1 & Rs.227.5/$5 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%
More than Rs.227.5/$5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community
BC MBC SC ST Total
Greater than Rs 45.50/$1 21% 18% 19% 19% 19%
Less than or equal to Rs 45.50/$1 79% 82% 81% 81% 81%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The general experience while conducting household surveys on low-income groups in India
is that respondents tend to underestimate their annual income. This is often due to the
assumption that lower income will attract greater access to services, as most government
47 Per capita income estimates were derived by dividing household income by the number of members in each of the
households. 48
$1 = Rs.45.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
lessthan/equal
to 20K
between20K and
40K
between40K and
60K
between60K and
80K
between80K and
100K
between100K and
120K
over 120K
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f H
ou
seh
old
s
Income Groups
BC MBC SC ST Total
30
schemes are means tested. (The opposite is true in the West where the tendency is to
exaggerate incomes upwards to improve credit rating and societal standing). This fact must
be kept in mind while interpreting the tables on incomes.
Indebtedness: The gap between income and expenditure is a major issue for the poor in India,
and is one of the major reasons for poverty. Tamil Nadu is no exception. Very poor families
have expenditures in excess of incomes and are, therefore, forced to borrow at crippling
interest rates from commercial moneylenders. One of the main reasons for indebtedness is the
inability of poor families to withstand external economic shocks because of crop failure,
natural disasters, accidents etc. Events such as marriage, birth and death also bring with them
financial strain.
Many of the households that were surveyed were found to have a debt burden, with about
60% having taken loans for one reason or another. Although this trend is visible among all
communities, the incidence of indebtedness appeared to be highest among the MBC families
(67%) and BC families (64%) and lowest among the ST households (32%). The loan amounts
were found to vary from below Rs 20,000 to above Rs 120,000, but most of them were below
Rs 60,000 (Figure 6). One possible explanation for the lower rate of borrowing amongst the
poorest social group, the Scheduled Tribes, is their inability to provide collateral in terms of
possessions and income to secure a higher loan.
71% of the indebted ST families had incurred loans of under Rs 20,000 as opposed to a
sample average of 25%. The proportion of high-end borrowers (greater than Rs 120,000) was
highest among the BC families (23%) followed by MBC households (22%). 87% of the ST
families that had been surveyed had taken loans below Rs 40,000.
Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community
For about 31% of the households, borrowing was linked to marriage; other major causes of
indebtedness were agriculture (20%), education (17%), health (16%) and purchase or
improvement of property (12%).
Disaggregated data reveals that a higher percentage of loans among the SC families were
taken for marriages than among the remaining groups (Figure 7). In the case of the Backward
Classes, the percentage was 21%, below the sample average of 31%. The incidence of health-
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
less than/equalto 20K
between 40K and60K
between 80K and100K
more than 120K
Per
cen
tage
of
Ind
ebte
d H
ou
seh
old
s w
ith
a
Cer
tain
Am
ou
nt
of
Deb
t
Loan Amount
BC MBC SC ST Total
31
related borrowing was highest among the ST households (35%), and lowest among the MBC
households (11%). The frequency of loans incurred for agriculture was highest among the BC
families (32%), followed by Most Backward Classes (27%). For the ST group, the percentage
was a mere 2%. This trend is in keeping with the pattern of land ownership – around 46% and
44% of the MBC and BC families respectively own land, while only 1% of the ST
households have landholdings.
Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community
The dependence on moneylenders in the survey area is evident from the fact that almost
three-fourths of the loans were ascribed to them (Figure 8). 14% of the loans came from
banks and 9% from SHGs. Inter- and intra-family borrowing was low, with only 3% of the
loans having been provided by a family member and 2% by friends or relatives. When it
comes to source of loans, there are some interesting inter-community variations. While more
than 38% of the ST borrowers had availed of loans from SHGs, virtually none of them had
availed of bank loans. A far higher proportion of MBC (34%) and BC (29%) households
reported having taken bank loans as compared to other segments in the sample.
The average rate of interest on loans taken from commercial moneylenders is usually above
100%.49
There appears to be a lack of access to credit through self help groups and micro-
credit in the area surveyed, with a small percentage (9%) accessing credit through this
method. It is interesting to note that there was little inter-family borrowing. What this could
imply is that poverty levels are so high that they simply do not have the assets to loan.
49 Average interest rates in Tamil Nadu on a loan of between Rs.20K to Rs30K from a commercial moneylender are 104%.
World Development Report (2006).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Per
cen
tage
of
ho
use
ho
lds
Communities
Marriage Medical Education
32
Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community
Economic Well-being
A range of questions were designed to establish the “economic well being” of the community
as a whole, to look at spending patterns on commodities and life-style choices.
Consumer durables: In terms of consumer durables, the highest ownership is of televisions
(90%), followed by pedestal fans (83%) and mobile phones (47%). There is a very low level
of ownership of radios (2%) and landline phones (2%). The high degree of ownership of
televisions may seem to suggest that these are being prioritised over more essential household
items such as gas stoves (14%) and sewing machines (2%). However, this anomaly can be
explained by the fact that free televisions were one of promises made by the Tamil Nadu
State Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, the party in power then, to voters prior to
the May 2006 elections.
Other statistics reveal the comparatively low ownership of vehicles and household goods.
Whereas 24% of households own a bicycle, 10% own motorcycles. Only 23 families own
mopeds, 18 own cars, 3 own jeeps and 35 own tractors. 4% of the households own a fridge,
and 0.2% of the households own a computer. Information is largely received via television,
newspaper and word of mouth.
Sanitation: One of the most significant facts emerging from the survey is that 90% of
households do not use toilets. It is not entirely a case of access, as a few villages do have
community toilets constructed, but these lie abandoned and unused.
Housing: The data suggests a high level of house ownership. About 98% of the respondents
have their own dwellings, with 92% of homes being built on Patta (legally owned) land. This
can perhaps be explained by the fact that in this area, housing schemes such as the Kalaignar
Veedu Vazhangum Thittam (Kalaignar Housing Scheme – the Indira Awas Yojana scheme in
Tamil Nadu) have been widely accessed.
A variety of materials are used in house construction. More than half the households (56%)
have homes with cement walls, 36% have mud walls, and the remaining (8%), walls of stone
(Table 4). For roofing purposes, cement, thatch and tiles are the most commonly-used
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Pe
rcen
tage
of
ho
use
ho
lds
Communities
Money Lender Bank Family Member
33
material (Table 5). This was found in 40%, 36 % and 23% of the sample respectively.
Corrugated iron sheets are used very rarely (1%).
Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community
BC MBC SC ST Total
Cement 727 776 1571 120 3194
Mud 263 364 1186 258 2071
Stone 119 97 212 31 459
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community
BC MBC SC ST Total
Thatched 263 375 1169 268 2075
Tiled 275 332 695 26 1328
Sheets 15 7 26 3 51
Cement 556 523 1079 112 2270
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Energy: Virtually all the households (94%) were found to have electricity connections. 77%
ST households have electricity connections against the sample average of 94%. Of these,
87% have two-phase connections. Despite this, almost 97% of the households also depend on
kerosene for lighting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that electricity supply is very erratic and
unreliable.
Firewood, kerosene, LPG and cow dung are the most commonly used fuels for cooking
(Figure 9). 89% of the households rely on firewood for cooking, 33% use kerosene, 21%
LPG, while only 3% use cow dung. Some houses use both kerosene and cow dung fuel for
cooking purposes. 66% of the ST households use kerosene against a sample average of 21%.
Only 2% of these households use LPG as compared to an average of 21% for all the
community groups. 83% of the respondents mentioned that firewood and cow dung is
collected, not bought.
Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
Firewood Cowdung Cake LPG Kerosene
Per
cen
tage
of
Ho
use
ho
lds
Fuel type
BC MBC
34
Connectivity: All the villages have metalled roads and street lighting. However, only four
villages are serviced by public transport. Those that do have public transportation consider
the services to be inadequate.
Education
Literacy and Educational Levels: The survey sought to capture data on the level of
educational attainment in different segments of the sample above the age of 6 (Table 6).
Overall illiteracy is at 8%. A third of those in the age group above 60 are unable to read or
write. An additional 2% of the population is unable to sign their names.
Around 40% of the sample has studied up to the 5th
standard. 1461 persons (7%) have
completed higher secondary education. There are a fairly large number of graduates (931),
post-graduates (201), and those who have completed ITI/certificate/diploma courses (172).
Table 6: Education Level by Community
BC MBC SC ST Total
Not started going to school 5% 5% 5% 6% 5%
Illiterate 8% 8% 8% 14% 8%
Can Sign Name 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%
U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Upto 5th Std. 34% 41% 39% 64% 40%
6th Std to 10 Std. 33% 32% 32% 15% 31%
11th/12th Std. 8% 6% 7% 1% 7%
Graduate 6% 4% 5% 0% 4%
Post graduate 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
ITI/Certificate/Diploma 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Disaggregated data suggests that compared to other groupings, the illiteracy level is higher
among the ST population (14%). This disparity becomes more pronounced along the
educational ladder, with only 15% of the STs having studied between 6th
-10th
standard as
opposed to the sample average of 31%.
Data disaggregated according to gender throws up yet another disparity: the illiteracy rate for
females is almost twice that in the case of males (11% and 6%). Interestingly, while a
sizeable proportion of females (43%) have studied up to the 5th
standard, only 29% have gone
beyond that stage, pointing perhaps to a far higher attrition rate among girls than boys.
Proportionally speaking, the percentage of female graduates is lower than that of their male
counterparts (2% and 6% respectively).
Table 7: Education Level by Gender
Male Female Total
Not started going to school 518 494 1012
Illiterate 640 1158 1798
Can Sign Name 164 213 377
U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 84 66 150
35
Upto 5th Std. 3898 4638 8536
6th Std to 10 Std. 3483 3079 6562
11th/12th Std. 823 638 1461
Graduate 666 265 931
Post graduate 135 66 201
ITI/Certificate/Diploma 109 63 172
Other 11 11 22
Total 10531 10691 21222
School Enrollment: The survey tracked the enrollment of children of school going age (6-18
years). Enrollment (at 96%) is high and matches the national average for compulsory
education below the age of 12. It remains fairly high at 78% up until the age of 18.
Table 8: Current Education Status by Age
Less than 6 years Between 6 and 12 years Between 12 and 18 years Total
Studying 2% 96% 78% 77%
Not Studying 98% 4% 22% 23%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
School infrastructure: 16 of the villages in the survey area have a primary/upper primary
school within their premises. These are accessed by neighboring villages, generally within a
radius of around 2 km.
There are only 3 government high schools in the area. These are situated in Palavakkam,
Kannankottai and Thervoy. Children in most villages have to commute between 1-6 kms to
reach these schools. The 3 higher secondary schools in the survey area are located at
Uthukottai, Madarpakkam and Periapalayam. To get to these schools, children from some of
the villages have to commute between 3-14 kms.
Employment & Occupations
Primary occupations: For the purpose of this survey, the employment and occupation
patterns of individuals between the age of 18 and 60 were considered. This was based on the
assumption that people in this age group constitute the active working population of the area.
A total of 10353 individuals were surveyed in this category.
At an aggregate level, casual day labour is the primary occupation for 69% of the working
population (Figure 10). Next in importance is agriculture at 15%. Less than a tenth of the
working population (9%) have jobs with a private company, 5% are self-employed, and only
3% are government employees.
At a disaggregated level, the highest percentage of those who reported casual labour to be
their primary occupation was found among the ST families (92%), followed by the SC groups
(72%). It was lowest among the MBC category (49%). Virtually none of the workers from
the ST categories reported agriculture as a primary occupation, in contrast to 30% and 34% in
the case of MBC and BC groups respectively.
36
Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community
Secondary Occupations: Casual labour seems to be the most important secondary occupation,
with 62% of the working population reporting it to be so (Figure 11). This is followed by
agriculture (21%), self-employment (11%) and animal husbandry to a very small extent.
A closer look at the data reveals some inter-community variations. Firstly, only 4 workers
from the BC category reported a secondary occupation, i.e. labour. Secondly, a far higher
proportion of workers from the ST category have some form of self-employment as a fallback
occupation (68% as opposed to a sample average of 11%). This is also true of agriculture
(26% ST against a mean of 20%).
A very low percentage of the working population view agriculture as a primary and
secondary occupation. This could be on account of the fact that many of the individuals who
classified themselves as casual wage labourers actually do work on the land (other people’s
landholdings) but do not identify themselves as farmers.
Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f In
div
idu
als
Communities
Labourer Agriculture Private Company Job
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f In
div
idu
als
Communities
Labourer Agriculture Self Employed
37
Other occupations: The survey brings into sharp relief the fact that livelihood options outside
of casual labour and agriculture (with possible overlaps between the two) are extremely
limited, more so in the case of the Scheduled Tribe families.
Unemployment: Unemployment was assessed at 13%,50
slightly above the national average of
8%.
Land Ownership and Usage
Ownership of agricultural land: Of the 5724 households surveyed in the 30 villages, 68% or
3917 households do not own any agricultural land (Figure 12). The percentage of
landlessness is highest among the ST households. Only 4 of the 409 ST families own
agricultural land – almost 100% of these families are landless. Landlessness is also fairly
high among the SC households – 754 households or 75% of the SC households do not own
agricultural land. The figures for BC and MBC households are 56% and 54% respectively.
Most households though, 93% or 5322 families have ownership over their homestead land.
Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community
The total agricultural land owned in all the 30 villages that were surveyed is 3299 acres. Of
this, 1658 acres (50% of total agricultural land) are owned by SC families, 910 acres (27.5%)
by BC families and 727 acres (22%) by MBC households. The 799 households that were
surveyed in Thervoy own the highest percentage of land, followed by Kannankottai (474
households). Thervoy owns 713.381 acres while the figure for Kannankottai is 574.415 acres.
There is only one village – JJ Nagar, where the agricultural land ownership is nil, despite the
fact that the village is inhabited by 183 households. Significantly, 178 of these households
belong to the ST community. The incidence of land ownership among the ST households is
very low- the 409 ST households in the area own barely 3.7 acres of land (0.1% of total land).
Among the land-owning households, the average landholding is highest among the 754 SC
families, who have about 2.19 acres on an average. This is followed by the 486 BC
households who have 1.87 acres on average. For the 563 MBC families, the average
landholding size is 1.29 acres, while the figure is 0.92 acres for the 4 ST families.
50 The unemployment rate in India was last reported at 8% in December 2007. Ministry of Labour, India.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Per
cen
tage
of
Ho
use
ho
lds
Communities
Owns Land Landless
38
Of the 3299 acres of total agricultural land, 83% or 2742.8 acres are under irrigation. 84.3%
of the land owned by SC households is irrigated. For MBC and BC families, 82.7% and
81.1% of agricultural land is irrigated. The figure is the lowest for ST families. Even though,
they collectively own only 3.7 acres, only 1.3 acres or 35% is irrigated. In Thervoy and
Kannankottai, the two villages with the highest quantum of agricultural land, 79% and 96%
of the agricultural land is under irrigation.
Homestead land: The total area under homestead ownership in the 30 villages is 1045.973
acres. Of this, 798.2 acres or 76.3% is owned by SC families, followed by BC households
who own 14.2% of the total residential land. Mukkarampakkam village with 450 households
has the highest average residential landholding size of 1.13 acres. This is followed by
Senkarai where the average landholding size is 0.31 acres.
Irrigation: Of the 1807 families who owned land, 410 (23%) had land that was purely rain-
fed. 84% of the families who have agricultural land depend on eris (lakes) for irrigation.
Agriculture: The bulk of land is allocated for agricultural purposes, mainly rice paddy, with
98% of families involved in rice cultivation. Ragi51
seems to be the only cash crop cultivated
in this area. There is some large-scale cultivation of peanuts (36%), black gram (3%) and
peas (3%). 16% of the households are engaged in commercial cultivation of chillies.
Vegetables and flowers are also commercially grown by around a tenth of the households.
Most families rent tractors and equipment for ploughing and harvesting. Sowing,
transplanting and weeding are done manually.
The use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is widespread – 41% of the land-owning
families reported using only chemical pesticides, while only 2% reported exclusive use of
natural pesticides. The majority (57%), however, seem to use a combination of these two.
Chemical fertilisers are almost universally used, reported by 95% of the families. Over three-
fourths of the families also use manure, while around half of them also use natural fertilizers.
Around 50% households reported using a mix of all three fertilisers.
Grazing land: The survey specifically sought to examine the use of common land both for
grazing and gathering of fodder/firewood, given that this will directly impact the villages
with regard to the SIPCOT site. Significantly, only 8 of the villages surveyed have grazing
lands (Table 9).
Table 9: Grazing Land by Village
Village Grazing land in acres
Palavakkam 500
Sengarai 500
Kannankottai 400
Thervoy 300
Mukarampakkam 500
JJ Nagar 500
Aaramani 300
Kollanoor 300
51 Ragi also known as millet, nachni, sollu, or sattemavu. It grows well without irrigation, pesticides or fertilisers and is rich
in calcium iron, protein and some rare nutrients such as methionine so is an ideal crop to grow in arid periods.
39
One of the key findings is that 89% of the villages are dependent on firewood as a source of
fuel for cooking. Being denied access to common land or having the land denuded of trees for
industrial development might impact the villages. This might be felt most acutely by women
who may have to travel long distances in search of fuel or pay more for it in the market place.
Animal Husbandry
Animal husbandry did not feature in the list of primary occupations. 28% of the households
surveyed or 1626 families reported owning poultry or livestock in some form or the other.
The total animal population in all the 30 villages is 7140. Poultry seems to be the most
preferred form of animal husbandry, accounting for 28% of all animals owned (Figure 13).
Goat ownership is a close second, making up 27% of the animal population. This is followed
by cows (22%), buffalos (9%), ox (8%), sheep (6%) and a tiny proportion of pigs (0.2%).
Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution
The percentage of ST families who own livestock is very low (13%) compared to a mean of
28% (Figure 14). Only 3% of the total livestock population in the area is owned by these
families. The SC families own the highest percentage of livestock – 53% or 3795 animals.
56% of the poultry in the area and 62% of the large ruminants (cows and oxen) are owned by
these families. The MBC families own about 25% of the livestock followed by BC families
who own about 18%. Other than in Perandur, there are no veterinary services in the area.
Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community
614, 8.6%
1603, 22.5%
1930, 27.0%
551, 7.7%
16, 0.2%
2029, 28.4%
397, 5.6%
Buffalo Cow Goat
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
BC MBC SC ST Total
Per
cen
tage
of
ho
use
ho
lds
Communities
Buffalo Cow Goat
40
Water
Water availability: All the respondents reported an adequate supply of potable water and
water for other domestic needs.
Water for animals and irrigation: The topography of the region is characterised by eris
(lakes). There are a total of 27 eris in the survey villages. Their surface area ranges from 60
acres to 1650 acres. The villages without eris are DR Kuppam, Thampunaidupalayam,
Thandalam, Kazadai, Vannagkuppam and Kizh Karamanur.
The eris in Kannakottai(Esarayaneri) and Karadiputhoor are totally dependent on rainfall and
the surrounding watershed area (Siruveda range) for their water. Other eris in the Uthukotai
stretch such as Palavakkam, Lachivakkam, Sengarai, Mukkarambakkam, Kakkavakkam and
Soolaimeni canal, besides being dependent on rainfall, also receive overflow water from the
Pichattoor dam situated in Suruttupally in Andhra Pradesh. Water from the eris are used for
irrigation and livestock. The eris also feed the ground water table which lies at an enviable 20
feet. There are also a large number of smaller ponds which are a valuable source of ground
water recharge.
Upkeep of Eris and Irrigation Channels: The preliminary natural resource survey revealed
that most of the eris are silted up and clogged with weeds, diminishing their storage capacity
to under half their potential. The irrigation channels likewise, are silted up and damaged in
places. As a consequence, farmers with land at the far end of the eris do not receive adequate
water for their crops.
Water for household use: Most villages have overhead tanks that are filled from a bore well
within the village. Pipes run from these tanks to public distribution outlets or private homes.
This water is used for drinking and household use. 85% of the households use public taps
(Table 10). 4% of the families still use open wells for drinking water and household use.
Table 10: Water Uses by Source
Water Source Drinking Water Household use Animals (of the %
who have livestock)
Irrigation (of the % who
own agricultural land)
Handpump 1% 3% 0% 1%
Individual Tap 14% 13% 0% 0%
Individual Well 1% 1% 8% 11%
Lake 2% 20% 53% 67%
Public Tap 85% 85% 9% 0%
Public Well 4% 4% 0% 0%
Water pollution: Most of the traditional open wells have now fallen into disuse and are
slowly turning into garbage dumps, reducing their capacity to recharge the ground water and
increasing the risk of pollution.
90% of the population do not have toilets and use the common lands to relieve themselves.
The risk of e-coli contamination of water sources in the absence of any waste management
system is therefore high.
41
The widespread use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is another factor that contributes to
water pollution. The impact of any form of pollution (earth, water or air) from industry will
be widespread as the surface water bodies will become easy repositories of effluent discharge
from manufacturing units. This in turn could lead to pollution of ground water, impact the
soil, animal health, crops, and finally, human health.
Health & Disability
Illness and hospitalisation: The data shows instances of chronic illness to be low, at fewer
than 4% of the population surveyed. This may have to do with how respondents classified
chronic illness, possibly dismissing long term symptoms as being a normal part of their daily
existence. Equally, seasonal illnesses usually associated with tropical monsoon climates were
surprisingly low for the population surveyed (5%). One would assume that seasonal illnesses
associated with paddy planting and a monsoon climate would show up in a survey of this
kind. This may be an anomaly that needs to be checked. As participants were not given a list
of diseases that they were questioned against (which would have been leading), they possibly
did not identify illnesses such as viral fever, cough, cold, malaria and dysentery as seasonal.
Data suggests that at fewer than 5%, the incidence of hospitalisation is low, as is the
incidence of accidents. Hospitals are accessed mostly when surgeries are required.
Health infrastructure: The area is serviced by one District hospital, located at Thiruvallur,
three thaluk hospitals located at Uthukottai, Gummudipoondi and Periyapalayam, and 5
PHCs/Subcentres in Lachavakkam, Kannankottai, Periyapalayam, Perambur and Uthukottai.
In addition, every village has an ICDS centre.
Most of the sub-centres/PHCs lie within 5 km of the villages. Some are as distant as 18 km.
The thaluk hospitals are generally found within a reach of 18 kms. The district hospital is less
accessible, being situated 25 km from the nearest village and 45 km from the most distant
one. These distances can act as a deterrent for patients and may partially account for the low
rate of hospitalization.
Disability: In the villages surveyed, 270 individuals were identified as being physically
disabled. Given that this was one of the two questions that required sensitive handling (the
other being income), the results probably need further enquiry. The distribution of people
with impairments is given in Table 11.
Table 11: Physical Impairments
Impairment Total Individuals
Sight 35
Hearing 54
Speech 35
Legs 117
Arms 29
Total 270
Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents
42
64% of the sample families (but only 40% of ST families) reported that one of their members
had received employment under the MNREGA. Apart from MNREGA and housing schemes,
virtually none of the other government benefits have been claimed.
Voter cards and ration cards are almost universally owned. Cooperative Society cards and
bank account cards are also widely owned. However, the ownership of these documents is
very low among ST families when compared to other groups that were surveyed. The gap is
particularly stark in the case of bank account cards with only 18% of ST families owning
these compared to the sample average of 64%. In the case of Cooperative Society cards, the
difference is somewhat less pronounced, with 74% of ST families owning these as against a
sample average of 64%.
43
Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community
Government Schemes Used BC MBC SC ST Total
Housing 1% 3% 8% 11% 6%
Education 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Insurance 3% 2% 1% 0% 2%
Agriculture 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%
MNREGA 56% 64% 71% 40% 64%
44
Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English)
Form No:
Code of the survey team:
1. Full name of the Head:
2. Full address:
3. Village:
Ward No:
Panchayat:
4. Community:
1. Scheduled Caste
2. Scheduled Tribe
3. Other backward community
4. Others
5. Religion:
1. Hindu
2. Muslim
3. Christian
6. Ration Card No:
7. Family Constellation:
Sl.
No
Name
Res
iden
ce
Age
Sex
Mar
ital
Sta
tus
Rel
atio
nsh
ip
Educa
tional
Qual
ific
atio
n
Pre
sent
stat
us
of
the
chil
dre
n
(Bel
ow
18 y
rs)
A B C D E F G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A. 1. Residential area
2. Non - Residential area
3. Seasonal migration
B. Age – as on 01.01.2010
C. 1. Male
2. Female
45
D. 1. Unmarried
2. Married
3. Widow / Widower
4. Separated / Divorced
E. 1. Husband
2. Wife
3. Mother
4. Father
5. Guardian
6. Son
7. Daughter
8. Brother
9. Sister
10. Son-in-law
11. Daughter-in-law
12. Brother-in-law
13. Sister-in-law
14. Grandson
15. Granddaughter
16. Grandfather
17. Grandmother
F. 1. Illiterate
2. Can sign only
3. Primary school
4. Middle school
5. High school
6. Higher secondary
7. Graduation
8. Post Graduation
9. Diploma
10. Certificate course
11. Engineering
12. Medical
13. Law
14. ITI
15. Others
G. 1. School/ college
2. School dropout
3. Employee
4. Involved in household work
Primary
occupation
(above 18
years)
Sec
ondar
y
occ
upat
ion
Man
day
s of
Em
plo
ym
ent
in
a yea
r
Annual
Expen
dit
ure
Annual
Inco
me
H I J K L
H & I
1. Agriculture
2. Animal husbandry
3. Self Employed
4. Government Servant
5. Private company job
46
6. Daily wage
7. Home maker/head
8. Unemployed
If self-employed
1. Mason
2. Carpenter
3. Plumber
4. Electrician
5. Tailor
6. Barber
7. Potter
8. Weaver
9. Blacksmith
10. Leather industry
11. Tea shop owner
12. Mess/dhaba owner
13. Provisional store
14. STD booth/net
centre/others
15. Vegetable vendor
16. Cobbler
17. Fish seller
18. Rat catcher
19. Rice mill employee
20. Driver (private)
21. Washerman
If government servant
1. Education Dept
2. Local administration
3. Health Dept
4. Forest Dept
5. Public Works Dept
6. Finance Dept
7. State-level
8. District-level
9. Central-level
10. EB Debt
11. Police
12. Law Dept
8. Land Ownership:
Sl.
No
Land
A
Own
B
Lease /
Rent
C
Area ( in
Acre)
D
Season
E
Nature
F
Type
G
1 Residence
2 Agriculture
F
1. Temple land
2. Panchami land
3. Community land
4. Waste land
5. Patta land
G
1. Wet Land
2. Dry Land
9. Agriculture:
A: Water source
a. Rain dependent
b. Irrigation
1. Well
2. Canal
3. Lake
4. Dam
47
c. Both
B: Method
a. Traditional method
b. Machinery
c. Both
C: Important crops
1. Grains
a. Paddy
b. Ragi
c. Others
2. Pulses
a. Ground nut
b. Black gram
c. Pea variety
d. Others
3. Cash crop
a. Sugarcane
b. Cotton
c. Flowers
d. Chilies
e. Sesame
f. Water melon
4. Garden crops
a. Lettuce
b. Fruit variety
D: Pesticides
1. Natural
2. Chemical
3. Both
E: Fertilizers
1. Manure
2. Natural
3. Chemical
4. All
10. Animals:
Sl.
No
Animal Numbers Source of
feed
Distance from
home Sipcot land
A B C D E
1 Cows
2 Sheep
3 Goats
4 Buffalos
5 Pigs
6 Poultry / Birds
7 Ox
8 Others
48
C
1. Open grazing
2. Stall fed
11. Water Source:
Sl.
No Source
Drinking /
Cooking
House
purpose Animals Agriculture
1 Lake - 1
2 Lake – 2
3 Lake – 3
4 Lake – 4
5 Hand Pump / Deep
well
6 Individual tap
7 Common tap
8 Individual Well
9 Common Well
10 Private Deep well
11 Others
12. Nature of house:
A: Wall
1. Cement
2. Mud
3. Stone
B: Terrace
1. Thatched
2. Tiled
3. Sheets
4. Cement
13. Electricity for house:
A. Connection
1. Yes
2. No
B. If yes, type
1. Two-phase
2. Three-phase
C. Other source
1. Kerosene
2. Candles
3. Generator/Inverter
4. Batteries
5. Sunlight
6. Other – specify
14. Sanitation facilities:
1. Individual
49
2. Common
3. Nil
15. Fuel for cooking:
1. Fire wood
a. bought
b. collected
2. If collected
a. from open land
b. others
3. Cowdung
a. bought
b. collected
4. LPG Gas
5. Kerosene
6. Electricity
7. Others, specify
16. Source of information / News: (Mention any important Two)
1. Radio
2. TV
3. Newspaper
4. Magazines
5. Others
17. Ownership of Vehicles
1. Cycle
2. Moped
3. Motorcycle
4. Scooter
5. Car
6. Jeep
7. Tractor
8. Other
18. Household applicances
1. Sewing machine
2. Gas stove
3. Refrigerator
4. Fan
5. Generator
6. Telephone
7. Mobile
8. Computer
9. TV
10. Radio
19. Indebtedness:
A.
1. Yes
2. 2. No
B: If yes, how much:
C: Reasons
1. Marriage
2. Health care
3. Education
4. Agriculture needs
5. To buy/develop property
D: Source
50
1. Money lender
2. Bank
3. Family members
4. Friends/relatives
5. Self-help group
20. Health:
A: Any chronic illness in the past two years
1. Yes 2. No
If Yes, Mention _____________
B: Any Seasonal Illness
1. Yes 2. No
If Yes, Mention _____________
C: Have you been admitted in Hospital?
1. Yes 2. No
If Yes, Mention the reason
a. Accident
b. Operation
c. Other
21. Disabled persons in your family:
1. Yes
2. No
If yes, their Sl No as on Question no 7:
Type of disability:
1. Physical
a. Degree
i. Mild
ii. Moderate
iii. Severe
b. Faculty/limbs affected
i. Sight
ii. Hearing
iii. Speech
iv. Use of legs
v. Use of hands
vi. Others, mention
2. Mental:
a. Degree
i. Mild
ii. Moderate
iii. Severe
22. Membership:
1. Youth group
2. Women group
3. Religious group
4. Political group
5. SHF
6. Cooperative society
51
7. Panchayat raj
23. Government support and subsidy:
1. Housing
2. Education
3. Insurance
4. Agriculture
5. NREGA
6. Pension
7. Handicapped pension
8. Other, specify
24. Document ownership:
1. Yes
2. No
If yes:
1. Ration card:
2. Voter ID:
3. Community certificate:
4. Bank Account:
5. Driving License (Commercial):
6. Driving License (Private):
7. Passport:
8. PAN card:
9. Employment license:
10. Others, specify:
Signatures: Name of the Respondent
Date:
Names of the Survey team:
52
Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil)
53
54
55
56
57
58
Annexure III: Survey Data
Caste Households
BC 1109
MBC 1237
SC 2969
ST 409
Total 5724
Gender BC MBC SC ST Total
Male 2001 2172 5588 770 10531
Female 2080 2182 5689 740 10691
Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222
Age BC MBC SC ST Total
<=6 299 322 900 137 1658
>6 & <=12 389 391 1255 247 2282
>12 & <=18 443 543 1473 185 2644
>18 & <=35 1455 1499 4086 504 7544
>35 & <=60 1215 1327 3117 390 6049
>60 280 272 446 47 1045
Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222
Household Size BC MBC SC ST Total
<=3 452 569 1152 193 2366
>3 & <=5 577 602 1551 179 2909
>5 80 66 266 37 449
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Extreme Poverty BC MBC SC ST Total
Above 235 222 569 78 1104
Less Than Equal Rs 45.5 874 1015 2400 331 4620
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Per capita income (per day) BC MBC SC ST Total
<$1 874 1015 2400 331 4620
>1$ & <=2$ 204 198 508 75 985
>2$ & <=5$ 26 19 58 3 106
>5$ 5 5 3 0 13
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
59
Household Income BC MBC SC ST Total
<=20K 159 266 488 111 1024
>20K & <=40K 527 607 1466 125 2725
>40K & <=60K 248 220 614 109 1191
>60K & <=80K 98 87 226 40 451
>80K & <=100K 41 30 93 17 181
>100K & <=120K 11 8 23 3 45
>120K 25 19 59 4 107
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Loan taken BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Yes 705 829 1786 131 3451
2. No 404 408 1183 278 2273
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Loan Amount BC MBC SC ST Total
<=20K 119 136 510 93 858
>20K & <=40K 103 110 368 21 602
>40K & <=60K 163 206 424 11 804
>60K & <=80K 31 39 81 2 153
>80K & <=100K 122 156 234 4 516
>100K & <=120 K 4 3 5 12
>120 K 163 179 164 506
Total 705 829 1786 131 3451
Loan Purpose BC MBC SC ST Total
Marriage 151 247 624 38 1060
Medical 95 93 312 46 546
Education 125 106 334 17 582
Agriculture 229 220 229 2 680
Buy Property 107 110 182 18 417
Other 26 85 159 12 282
Total 705 829 1786 131 3451
Loan Source BC MBC SC ST Total
Money Lender 457 661 1379 73 2570
Bank 172 109 197 3 481
Family Member 20 10 65 2 97
Friend/Relatives 37 22 21 80
Self Help Group 28 39 182 52 301
Other 0 3 8 1 12
Total 705 829 1786 131 3451
60
House ownership BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Owned 1071 1220 2932 408 5631
2. Leased/Rented 38 17 37 1 93
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Transportation BC MBC SC ST Total
Cycle 322 336 628 64 1350
Moped 6 9 5 3 23
Motor Bike 119 190 259 3 571
Scooter 70 61 267 1 399
Car 6 6 5 1 18
Jeep 1 2 3
Tractor 9 12 14 35
Other 11 4 112 1 128
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Toilets BC MBC SC ST Total
Individual 200 133 102 4 439
Common 61 24 55 3 143
None 848 1080 2812 402 5142
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Consumer durables BC MBC SC ST Total
Sewing Machine 36 33 38 4 111
Gas Stove 197 202 403 2 804
Refrigerator 93 64 90 1 248
Fan 995 1093 2491 162 4741
Generator 1 1
Telephone 26 19 52 2 99
Mobile 517 591 1585 25 2718
Computer 9 1 1 11
TV 1028 1128 2669 355 5180
Radio 43 22 64 2 131
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Roofing BC MBC SC ST Total
Thatched 263 375 1169 268 2075
Tiled 275 332 695 26 1328
Sheets 15 7 26 3 51
Cement 556 523 1079 112 2270
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
61
Wall BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Cement 727 776 1571 120 3194
2. Mud 263 364 1186 258 2071
3. Stone 119 97 212 31 459
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Electrification BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Yes 1077 1210 2789 313 5389
2. No 32 27 180 96 335
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Electrification - Connection
type
BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Two Phase 897 999 2512 298 4706
2. Three phase 180 211 277 15 683
Total 1077 1210 2789 313 5389
Other Source of Lighting BC MBC SC ST Total
Kerosense 1062 1206 2883 399 5550
Candles 13 7 77 1 98
Generator 1 6 4 0 11
Batteries 2 2 12 1 17
Sunlight 0 4 0 0 4
Other 4 0 3 0 7
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Firewood BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Yes 945 1032 2730 403 5110
2. No 164 205 239 6 614
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Cowdung Cake BC MBC SC ST Total
1. Yes 39 33 96 8 176
2. No 1070 1204 2873 401 5548
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Source of Fuel for Cooking BC MBC SC ST Total
Firewood 945 1032 2730 403 5110
Cowdung Cake 39 33 96 8 176
LPG 381 386 411 9 1187
Kerosene 394 392 856 269 1911
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
62
Level of educational
attainment
<=6 >6 & <=12 >12 & <=18 >18 & <=35 >35 & <=60 >60 Total
Illiterate 0 56 42 481 906 313 1798
Can Sign Name 0 0 1 115 220 41 377
U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 140 10 0 0 0 0 150
1 Standard 288 56 50 581 1553 397 2925
2 Standard 82 116 40 758 1316 150 2462
3 Standard 136 450 25 128 154 12 905
4 Standard 0 405 58 175 110 8 756
5 Standard 0 333 147 553 415 40 1488
6 Standard 0 322 117 228 97 4 768
7 Standard 0 234 108 230 101 6 679
8 Standard 0 189 278 695 311 20 1493
9 Standard 0 57 374 304 81 2 818
10 Standard 0 38 649 1604 478 35 2804
11 Standard 0 7 202 25 15 2 251
12 Standard 0 5 359 725 117 4 1210
ITI/Certificate/Diploma 0 0 32 126 11 3 172
Graduate 0 3 151 658 116 3 931
Post graduate 0 0 6 144 47 4 201
Other 0 1 5 14 1 1 22
NA - Not started going school 1012 0 0 0 0 0 1012
Total 1658 2282 2644 7544 6049 1045 21222
Education BC MBC SC ST Total
Not started going school 194 198 536 84 1012
Illiterate 338 348 904 208 1798
Can Sign Name 105 71 186 15 377
U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 29 40 80 1 150
Upto 5th Std. 1405 1770 4399 962 8536
6th Std to 10 Std. 1346 1387 3606 223 6562
11th/12th Std. 322 283 843 13 1461
Graduate 241 169 517 4 931
Post graduate 56 33 112 201
ITI/Certificate/Diploma 42 44 86 172
Other 3 11 8 22
Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222
63
Education Profile by Gender Male Female Total
Not started going to school 518 494 1012
Illiterate 640 1158 1798
Can Sign Name 164 213 377
U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 84 66 150
Upto 5th Std. 3898 4638 8536
6th Std to 10 Std. 3483 3079 6562
11th/12th Std. 823 638 1461
Graduate 666 265 931
Post graduate 135 66 201
ITI/Certificate/Diploma 109 63 172
Other 11 11 22
Total 10531 10691 21222
Age >= 18 & <=60
Primary Occupation - Top 5 BC MBC SC ST Total
Labourer 961 1381 4040 743 7125
Agriculture 430 407 663 10 1510
Private Company Job 185 129 580 7 901
Self Employed 184 171 162 28 545
Govt. Servant 58 52 159 3 272
Total 1818 2140 5604 791 10353
Age >= 18 & <=60
Primary Occupation - Top 5 Male Female Total
Labourer 3340 3785 7125
Agriculture 1053 457 1510
Private Company Job 731 170 901
Self Employed 493 52 545
Govt. Servant 192 80 272
Total 6923 7191 14114
Age >= 18 & <=60
Secondary Occupation – Top 5 BC MBC SC ST Total
Labourer 269 228 446 7 950
Agriculture 33 93 155 34 315
Self Employed 34 10 36 92 172
Animal Husbandry 18 19 14 10 61
Private Company Job 12 2 23 1 38
Total 366 352 674 144 1536
64
Age >= 18 & <=60
Secondary Occupation - Top 5 Male Female Total
Labourer 678 272 950
Agriculture 179 136 315
Self Employed 134 38 172
Animal Husbandry 42 19 61
Private Company Job 33 5 38
Total 6923 7191 14114
Age >= 18 & <=60
Primary Occupation BC MBC SC ST Total
Agriculture 430 407 663 10 1510
Brick Kiln Owner 2 1 3
Student 53 45 137 6 241
Unemployed 608 502 1291 62 2463
Animal Husbandry 11 7 19 2 39
Self Employed 184 171 162 28 545
Govt. Servant 58 52 159 3 272
Private Company Job 185 129 580 7 901
Labourer 961 1381 4040 743 7125
Home Maker/Head 257 239 454 65 1015
Total 2747 2935 7506 926 14114
Age >= 18 & <=60
Primary Occupation Male Female Total
Agriculture 1053 457 1510
Brick Kiln Owner 1 2 3
Student 135 106 241
Unemployed 938 1525 2463
Animal Husbandry 29 10 39
Self Employed 493 52 545
Govt. Servant 192 80 272
Private Company Job 731 170 901
Labourer 3340 3785 7125
Home Maker/Head 11 1004 1015
Total 6923 7191 14114
65
Age >= 18 & <=60
Secondary Occupation BC MBC SC ST Total
Agriculture 33 93 155 34 315
Brick Kiln Owner 1 1
Animal Husbandry 18 19 14 10 61
Self Employed 34 10 36 92 172
Private Company Job 12 2 23 1 38
Labourer 269 228 446 7 950
Home Maker/Head 1 1
Provision Store 2 2
Total 368 352 676 144 1540
Age >= 18 & <=60
Secondary Occupation Male Female Total
Agriculture 179 136 315
Brick Kiln Owner 1 1
Animal Husbandry 42 19 61
Self Employed 134 38 172
Private Company Job 33 5 38
Labourer 678 272 950
Home Maker/Head 1 1
Provision Store 1 1 2
Total 1069 471 1540
Total Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total
Owns Land 486 563 754 4 1807
Landless 623 674 2215 405 3917
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Irrigated Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total
Owns Land 395 434 612 2 1443
Landless 714 803 2357 407 4281
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Non-Irrigated Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total
Owns Land 101 130 169 2 402
Landless 1008 1107 2800 407 5322
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
Fertilizers BC MBC SC ST Total
Manure 399 464 534 3 1400
Natural 241 380 313 2 936
Chemical 465 532 711 4 1712
All 226 369 291 2 888
Total 486 563 754 4 1807
66
Residence Area in Acre (Sum) BC MBC SC ST Total
Caste Wise 148.7 80.7 798.2 18.3 1046.0
Aaramani 6.8 6.8
Anjamedu 2.5 2.5
Anna Nagar 1.8 2.3 0.3 4.4
Annavaram Colony 0.6 7.4 8.0
Chandirapuram 1.8 0.0 1.8
Dr Kuppam 2.2 0.7 0.8 3.7
Eri Colony 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.1
G.R.Kandigai 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.5 10.2
JJ Nagar 0.0 0.1 5.4 5.5
Kakkavakkam 0.5 3.1 13.1 16.7
Kannankottai 14.4 5.6 53.0 2.1 75.1
Karadiputhur 6.1 5.0 16.1 27.2
Kazadai 0.0 1.0 1.0
Kilakarmanur 1.9 16.0 17.9
Kollanoor 7.0 0.7 0.0 7.7
Lachivakkam 9.6 0.7 7.3 0.7 18.3
Mambedu 0.8 1.6 2.4
Mukkarampakkam 1.4 1.6 504.2 2.2 509.3
Palavakkam 11.6 0.2 42.5 54.3
Panjali Nagar 2.6 0.2 2.8
Perambur 5.4 5.4
Pudhukuppam 20.5 0.0 20.6
Sathya Nagar 0.1 5.0 5.1
Seenikuppam 0.8 0.1 0.8 1.6
Senkarai 43.4 4.2 44.4 0.3 92.3
Soolameni 0.7 11.0 6.2 0.1 18.0
Thandalam 21.6 6.3 4.2 0.3 32.4
Thervoy 5.5 5.0 70.2 80.7
Vannag Kuppam 4.2 3.0 7.1
Villiyar Colony 0.5 5.6 6.1
67
Irrigated Owned Land Area
in Acre (Sum)
BC MBC SC ST Total
Caste wise 740.7 601.9 1398.9 1.3 2742.8
Aaramani 11.6 11.6
Anjamedu 23.0 23.0
Anna Nagar 12.0 12.9 24.9
Annavaram Colony 9.5 30.3 39.8
Chandirapuram 15.8 0.5 16.3
Dr Kuppam 72.3 5.5 77.8
Eri Colony 2.5 4.3 6.8
G.R.Kandigai 107.2 1.3 108.5
JJ Nagar
Kakkavakkam 5.0 14.9 6.3 26.2
Kannankottai 128.9 10.8 413.7 553.4
Karadiputhur 4.4 5.4 12.3 22.1
Kazadai 0.5 0.5
Kilakarmanur 4.5 39.2 43.7
Kollanoor 98.4 1.5 0.1 99.9
Lachivakkam 100.0 2.3 102.3
Mambedu 48.0 48.0
Mukkarampakkam 27.0 121.0 13.7 161.7
Palavakkam 80.1 0.5 34.0 114.6
Panjali Nagar 8.8 1.5 10.3
Perambur 36.8 36.8
Pudhukuppam 27.1 1.5 28.6
Sathya Nagar 0.0 202.5 202.5
Seenikuppam 1.0 1.0
Senkarai 48.0 10.1 64.9 122.9
Soolameni 5.1 29.9 66.3 101.3
Thandalam 63.7 72.1 6.4 142.1
Thervoy 65.8 23.8 471.0 560.5
Vannag Kuppam 40.8 10.0 50.8
Villiyar Colony 5.0 5.0
68
Non Irrigated Owned Land
Area in Acre (Sum)
BC MBC SC ST Total
Caste Wise 169.2 125.4 259.2 2.4 556.2
Aaramani 25.5 25.5
Anjamedu
Anna Nagar 6.0 6.0
Annavaram Colony 4.3 13.1 17.4
Chandirapuram
Dr Kuppam 1.0 1.0
Eri Colony 1.0 1.0
G.R.Kandigai 17.2 2.4 19.6
JJ Nagar
Kakkavakkam 0.5 0.5
Kannankottai 9.0 2.0 10.0 21.0
Karadiputhur 9.3 13.8 13.2 36.3
Kazadai
Kilakarmanur 0.1 2.9 3.0
Kollanoor 29.2 3.4 32.6
Lachivakkam 11.0 3.2 14.2
Mambedu 1.0 0.3 1.3
Mukkarampakkam 6.0 5.0 2.7 13.7
Palavakkam 8.0 50.0 58.0
Panjali Nagar 9.8 9.8
Perambur 24.3 24.3
Pudhukuppam 14.0 14.0
Sathya Nagar
Seenikuppam 31.1 31.1
Senkarai 39.5 12.7 3.7 55.8
Soolameni 0.8 6.8 7.6 15.2
Thandalam 1.5 1.5
Thervoy 5.0 2.6 145.3 152.8
Vannag Kuppam 0.5 0.5
Villiyar Colony
Livestock BC MBC SC ST Total
No 770 851 2120 357 4098
Yes 339 386 849 52 1626
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
69
Number BC MBC SC ST Total
Buffalo 192 155 264 3 614
Cow 247 324 1010 22 1603
Goat 301 605 942 82 1930
Ox 105 105 339 2 551
Pig 9 2 5 16
Poultry
Bird
367 436 1141 85 2029
Sheep 81 189 94 33 397
Total 1302 1816 3795 227 7140
Impairment Total
Sight 35
Hearing 54
Speech 35
Use of Legs 117
Use of Arms 29
Total 270
Govt Schemes Availed of BC MBC SC ST Total
Housing 16 31 240 45 332
Education 8 7 16 1 32
Insurance 30 23 43 2 98
Agriculture 17 7 8 32
MNREGA 617 794 2098 164 3673
Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724
top related