regional socio-economic disparities in the kashmir …shahnaz mohiuddin, haseena hashia / bulletin...

ISSN 1732–4254 semiannual

Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series No. 18 (2012): 85–98

BULLETIN OF GEOGRAPHY. SOCIO–ECONOMIC SERIES

journal homepages:http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl

http://versita.com/bgss

Regional socio-economic disparities in the Kashmir Valley (India) – a geographical approach

Shahnaz Mohiuddin1, Haseena Hashia2

Jamia Millia Islamia, Department of Geography, New Delhi, India; 1phone: +95 608 601 142, e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author); 2phone: +99 101 971 133, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The problem of regional disparities in the levels of social and economic development is a universal phenomenon. Both developed and developing coun-tries have witnessed this problem in the path of their socio-economic advance-ment. India is a large federal nation and it is well known that there are widespread disparities in the levels of socio-economic development among the different re-gions of the Indian nation. Balanced regional development has always been an essential component of India’s national development strategy in order to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation. Jammu and Kashmir, the northernmost state of India, has been divided into three geo-physical regions, viz. Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the Ladakh. The Kashmir Valley is the most thickly populated area of the state; the overriding characteristics of the economy of the Kashmir Valley is its extreme backwardness which is largely the result of the peculiar physi-cal features of the Valley and traditional society. The indicators to be used in the present study have been assigned statistical weights derived through the factor analysis method. The changes in the index values have been examined to trace the direction of development. Finally, the sectoral indices have been pooled together to derive a comprehensive composite index of development. This gives an aggre-gate picture of the changes in the levels of development of all the tehsils over two time periods, i.e. 1981 and 2001.

© 2012 Nicolaus Copernicus University Press. All rights reserved.

Article details:Received: 09 May 2012

Revised: 04 September 2012Accepted: 27 September 2012

Key words:India, Kashmir Valley, regional

disparities, countries, factor analysis.

Contents:

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862. The environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873. Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874. Material and research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875. Research results: Kashmir Valley – socio-economic differentiation and dimensions of development 886. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94


Mohiuddin, S. and Hashia, H., 2012: Regional socio-economic disparities in the Kashmir Valley (India) – a geographical approach. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 18, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, pp. 85–98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-012-0021-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-012-0021-5

86 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98

1. Introduction

The problem of regional disparities in the levels of social and economic development is a universal phenomenon. Both developed and developing coun-tries have witnessed this problem in the path of their socio-economic advancement, but its adverse impact has been felt more in the latter. This phenomenon is a natural outcome of the development process itself, wherein certain regions develop faster than others due to a number of factors. Regional inequalities are generally an outcome of numerous factors such as variations in natural and physical endowments, differences in social and attitudinal parameters, institutional structures and, to some extent, the dis-criminatory policies of the State. Emmanuel (1972) has made a study of the growing socio-economic inequality between developed and less developed na-tions. He argued that the under developed economies are exploited by the developed ones with a widening gap between the two. Some regions are locationally preferred which makes them development-oriented compared to others which have poor natural re-sources and few other attractions. As the process of development gains momentum, the regions which are initially favoured because of certain locational advan-tages continue to attract people, trade, manufacturing, and capital, not only because of resource advantages but also because of the external economies offered by the developed regions.

Robock (1970) pointed out the possibility of regional disparities changing with the stage of de-velopment. Disparity means unequal possession of particular property or attributes between two or more social groups or regions. Wide disparities between ur-ban and rural areas and regions in countries in Asia and the Pacific remain in terms of economic condi-tions, access to infrastructure and services, opportu-nities for socio-economic mobility and control over natural resources and local development. Disparities are caused by natural differences, social factors and policy decisions (United Nations Economic and Social Council Report, 2001). Maćkowiak (2011) tried to analyse the characteristics of the European Union’s role in trade of specific regions. Finally, the degree of intra-industry specialisation was evaluated as was the trend in changes in the trade between Polish re-gions and European Union countries. Kurian (2000)

revealed that there are considerable disparities in so-cio-economic development across the Indian states. According to the World Health Organisation Report

(2000), socio-economic status is one of the strongest determinants of health, but the health of a population appears to be more determined by the distribution of income rather than the overall wealth of the popula-tion. Khan (2006) argued that the dispersed pattern and small size of settlements, poor means of transport and communication in mountainous areas, particu-larly in the Kashmir Valley, pose a serious problem to the development of education, the outcome of which is unequal development in the overall development. Mukherge (1999) revealed that socio-economic status is a measure of an individual’s or group’s standing in the community. It usually relates to the income, oc-cupation, educational attainment and wealth of either an individual or a group.

India is a large federal nation and it is well-known that there are widespread disparities in the levels of socio-economic development among the different regions of the Indian nation. Balanced regional de-velopment has always been an essential component of India’s national development strategy in order to en-sure the unity and integrity of the nation. The central policy issue is how to achieve rapid socio-economic development in backward regions without slowing down the development of the more progressive and dynamic regions. Balanced regional development has been an important policy objective since the begin-ning of the planning era and occupies an increasingly important place in the planning. The first five year plan could not devote much attention to this problem because of the urgent priorities that had to be ac-corded to certain other sectors of the economy, which had to be tackled expeditiously. In the second five year plan, specific attention was given to the question of regional disparities and it was emphasised that the pattern of investment must be devised so as to lead to a balanced regional development.

Jammu and Kashmir, the northernmost state of India, is the home of majestic snow capped moun-tains, picturesque rivers and green forests. The state has an area of 222,236 square kilometres and a popu-lation of about 10,143,700 (Census of India, 2001). Although the state is generally hilly, it has been di-vided into three geo-physical regions, viz. Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the Ladakh. The Kashmir Valley is the most thickly populated area of the state; the overriding characteristics of the economy of the state of the Kashmir Valley is its extreme back-wardness which is largely the result of the peculiar physical features of the state and traditional society. The state itself has remained much below the level of socio-economic development attained in the rest of country.

Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 87

2. The environment

The longitudinal and latitudinal extent of the valley of Kashmir of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is from 73°55΄ E and 75°35΄ E, and 35°25΄ N and 34°45΄ N, respectively, and covers an area of 15,948 km on the side of India while a significant part of it lies in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This oval-shaped valley is essentially a synclinal trough of tectonic origin be-tween the Greater and Lesser Himalayas. It evolved due to the differential uplift of the chains of moun-tains. It is enclosed by the Great Himalayas and the north Kashmir range in the north-west and by the Pir Panjal range in the south-east (Raza et al., 1978: 11). Its axis in length is parallel to the bordering ranges and is about 140 km long. The lowest elevation of this basin is 1,600 m and the highest 1,840 m above mean sea level.

The flat bottom of the Valley of deposits of fluio-lacustrine origin overlays a depository of rock mate-rial of great thickness from the surrounding moun-tains. The older deposits of upper Pleistocene, called Karewas, are flat surface mounds along the flanks of the mountains up to the border. The Jehlum flood-plain occupies more than half of the valley bottom. The soils of Kashmir are poorly drained and lack organic matter. They are leached of Caco3. They are made of silt with a high proportion of coarse sand. Though PH as well as the content of Cao are appropri-ate, they are of low capability and further handicapped by lack of irrigation due to their high elevation. That is why they have a sparsed vegetative cover (Hussain, 1998: 29; Raychunduri, 1963: 105‒110).

3. Objectives of the study

The present study is intended to fulfil the following objectives: (a) to identify the differentially developed areas (tehsils, tehsil is the local name for a subdistrict, e.g. Sopore is the subdistrict of Baramulla) within the valley of Kashmir; (b) to classify the tehsils on the ba-sis of differential levels of development for different time periods and to mark inter-regional variations; (c) to analyse the factors responsible for the inequali-ties in the levels of socio-economic development among the teshils; (d) to suggest appropriate strate-gies to reduce the regional inequalities for equitable development.

4. Material and research methods

The examination of the problem presented in this investigation requires a lot of data from secondary sources. The secondary data have been obtained from different government offices and agencies.

Selection of study unit. The area of case study for the present study is the valley of Kashmir. Although the entire valley is a region in itself, one has to select a certain unit of study within the valley for measur-ing the disparity in socio-economic development be-tween different areas of the valley. Many such studies have been done at the state level and at district level in India. It is generally believed that spatial dispari-ties in the levels of socio-economic development of any economy can be better assessed when the analysis is based on data collected for smaller administrative units, i.e. tehsil or block level. In the present study, tehsil (sub-district) has been taken as a unit of study.

Selection of indicators of development. The process of socio-economic development has many compo-nents. Generally, mechanised agriculture, greater industrialisation, better health and education facili-ties, improved and adequate transport facilities, and better organised administration are some of the fac-tors which together foster development. However, the concept of development is defined in different ways by geographers, economists and regional scientists, highlighting its different aspects. In order to analyse the level of socio-economic development with respect to its spatial context, one has to choose a certain num-ber of most relevant variables. The selection of a set of such variables is a very difficult task. In different countries different sets of such indicators are used to identify differentially developed areas or regions. For example, in the USA and western European countries, regional unemployment and per capita income con-stitute the main criteria for the purpose of such iden-tification. Besides unemployment, industrialisation, life expectancy and productivity are also considered as indicators of development. This basis of analysis, no doubt, succeeds in focusing attention on the extent of poverty but difference in per capita income differenc-es in all dimensions of socio-economic development do not adequately reflect. Hence, per capita income is considered a poor guide in measuring regional dis-parities in developing countries like India. Therefore, it is better to depend on several physical indicators reflecting the levels of activities and to examine them separately and compositely to identify the relatively


less developed or more advanced regions and the na-ture of their development.

In the present study the following six blocks are examine to reflect the levels of socio-economic de-velopment in the valley of Kashmir: (a) social sector (education and health); (b) economic sector (agri-culture and industries); (c) economic infrastructure (communication and roads).

For each of these categories a number of relevant indicators have been selected. However, the selection of these indicators has been made on the basis of the understanding of the concept of development in con-junction with various empirical studies conducted in this field. In India many empirical investigations aimed at identifying and analysing inter regional dis-parities in the levels of development have been con-ducted, e.g. the first such attempt related to the iden-tification or delimitation of an agricultural area or backward area was conducted in 1962. The Planning Commission tried to identify backward regions on the basis of some indicators pertaining to the socio-economic dimensions of development.

The indicators to be used in the present study have been assigned statistical weights derived through the factor analysis method. The indicators have been standardised and on the basis of factor matrix, an index of sectoral development has been prepared. All tehsils have been ranked according to their index values and then classified into highly developed, developed, backward and highly backward tehsils according to their quartile values. The changes in the index values have been examined to trace the direction of develop-ment. Finally, the sectoral indices have been pooled together to derive a comprehensive composite index of development. This gives an aggregate picture of the changes in the levels of development of all the tehsils over two time periods, i.e. 1981 and 2001. In addition, to have a clear insight into the problems of the back-wardness of some tehsils and their future prospects, a detailed analysis of the dimensions of development and typology of backwardness has been attempted.

5. Research results: Kashmir Valley – socio-economic differentiation and dimensions of development

It is vital to comprehend that for a clear understand-ing of the overall scenario of the socio-economic de-velopment of a tehsil or a region, it is necessary to rely upon the composite index of development of all the sectors. This exercise is of immense utility to study

the extent of development or backwardness. On the basis of this analysis, one can combine the regions with homogenous characteristics and probe into the factors of unequal development. The composite index of development has been constructed by using the statistical technique of factor analysis with the first factor method at two stages. In the first, the physi-cal variables related to all the selected sectors have been taken into consideration and the first factor of each sector has been derived separately. In the sec-ond stage, all the first factors of each sector have been taken as the raw indicators and once again, by using the method of factor analysis, the first factor of these variables has been derived and this has been taken as the composite index of development. The factor load-ings have been taken as weights to all the sectoral in-dices. This type of methodology is considered highly objective and unbiased, and is relied upon to identify differentially developed tehsils with the following six indicators: (a) agriculture development index derived from six indicators; (b) industrial development index with five variables; (c) educational development in-dex using twelve indicators; (d) health development index using three indicators; (e) road development index using four indicators; (f) communication de-velopment index using four indicators.

An important finding that emerges from Table 1 is that development in the Kashmir Valley was not uni-dimensional. This would be clear when we examine the factor matrix given in the table below.

While the first factor explains the overall levels of development highlighting the contribution of non-agricultural sectors, the second factor represents de-velopment mainly in the agricultural sector. If we look at the factor loadings on the first factor, it is clear that the indicators of agriculture and education figures are very high. On the second factor, infrastructure has the highest loading, followed by industries. Thus, it

Table 1. Factor matrix for socio-economic development

Indicator A BAgriculture development index 0.180 0.935Industrial development index 0.731 0.370Education development index 0.941 –0.122Health development index 0.842 –0.288Road development index 0.862 0.002Communication development index 0.918 –0.090

Explanation: A – factor 1; B – factor 2

Source: Computed values of composite indices of agricul-ture, industries, education, health, roads, and communica-tion


truly reflects the bi- dimensional development that has taken place in the Valley. The first factor has been taken to measure the overall levels of development. Therefore, the first factor is relied upon for a realistic analysis of the levels of development of the tehsils across the Valley. Tehsil-wise factor scores or index of development have been derived, which give a com-parative picture of the levels of development of all the tehsils of the Kashmir Valley over a period of twenty years, i.e. from 1981 to 2001.

The Srinagar tehsil occupies the prime place in both time-points with exceptionally high index val-ues. The Sopore tehsil is placed at a distinct second. Uri and Karnah are figured in the lowest order in both time-points. Three tehsils, namely Baramulla, Ganderbal and Ananthnag, are figured in the highly developed category in 2001.The negative sign of this trend is that two tehsils, Kulgam and Bijbehara, moved down from the very developed to the devel-oped category. The sole reason for this change is the slow pace of development of both tehsils during the process of development

However, along with this positive development, the study notices the problem of increasing inter-tehsil disparities. To probe the factors that have con-tributed to the widening of disparities, we can clas-sify all the tehsils into four categories. As pointed out earlier, the Srinagar tehsil rural and urban combined together emerges as highly developed, having scored exceptionally high index values in both time-points. The Srinagar tehsil is followed by Sopore, Baramulla, Anantnag, and Ganderbal in the same category.

Six tehsils: Bijbehara, Kulgam, Budgam, Duru, Pulwama, and Shopian, are figured in the developed category in both time points in 2001. Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Sonawari, Kupwara, and Tral are figured in the backward category, while Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, and Uri are figured in the highly backward category in both time points.

It is interesting to note that the trend in develop-ment remained almost the same from 1981 to 2001 except for some hills like Bijbehara and Kulgam which could not attain the pace of development and were moved down from the highly developed to de-veloped category, which shows that the tehsils which were highly developed in 1981 could not retain their position in the same category in 2001. On the other hand, it is very interesting to observe that the tehsils which are figured in the backward and highly back-ward category in 1981 retained the same position in 2001.

Table 2. Socio-economic development in Kashmir Valley

Tehsil1981 2001

A B A BAnantnag 0.42 6 0.71 4Bijbehara 0.46 5 0.52 6Duru 0.01 9 0.09 9Kulgam 0.71 3 0.34 7Pahalgam –0.87 19 –0.82 19Budgam 0.33 8 0.27 8Beerwah –0.40 13 –0.38 14Chadura –0.73 18 –0.74 18Bandipora –0.52 16 –0.44 15Baramulla 0.71 4 0.87 3Gulmarg –1.03 21 –0.97 20Sonawari –0.33 12 –0.23 13Sopore 1.02 2 1.02 2Uri –0.89 20 –1.20 21Handwara –0.44 14 –0.63 16Karnah –1.07 22 –1.29 22Kupwara –0.49 15 –0.69 17Pulwama –0.10 10 0.06 10Shopian –0.14 11 –0.17 11Tral –0.58 17 –0.22 12Ganderbal 0.38 7 0.53 5Srinagar 3.57 1 3.37 1

Explanation: A – index; B – rank

Source: Survey of India 2001

Table 3. Classification of tehsils on the levels of socio-economic development

Year Highly Developed Developed Backward Highly Backward

1981 Srinagar, Sopore, Kulgam, Bijbehara, Baramulla

Anantnag, Budgam, Duru, Ganderbal, Pulwama, Shopian

Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Kupwara, Sonawari, Tral

Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, Uri

2001Srinagar, Sopore, Baramulla, Ganderb-al Anantnag

Budgam, Duru, Kulgam, Bijbehara, Pulwama, Shopian

Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Kupwara, Sonawari, Tral

Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, Uri

Source: Classification derived after ranking of the tehsils


Thus, if we compare the two time-points, we can clearly see that the distance between highly backward and highly developed regions has remained in the same category in both time points. If we consider the index values of the first and last ranked tehsils during 2001, Srinagar with (3.37) and Karnah with (–1.29), the wide gap is quite evident. Similarly, a huge gap ap-pears if we compare the other tehsils in the developed and backward category.

A region-wise glance at the tehsils in the two time points with their index values supports the long standing view that the degree of overall economic backwardness is greater in the hilly and Kandi areas (Kandi is the local name of one of the physiographic divisions of the Kashmir Valley, it is a backward re-gion). Not even a single tehsil of these regions is fig-ured in the developed category in both time-points. The position of the Karewa belt is better when com-pared to the hilly and Kandi areas of the Valley. This region has an enormous potential to grow and the lo-cation close to the Jhelum Floor belt provides a boost to its growth and development.

The predominant position of the Sopre and Srinagar tehsils is evident from all the angles of devel-opment. In fact, the very high rate of the development of both tehsils is one of the principle factors which has pushed up the index of their development. Therefore, it is quite evident that there is uneven socio-economic development across all the tehsils of the Kashmir Valley. Both developed and backward tehsils are scat-tered across different regions.

A detailed analysis of individual sectors and the composite indices of development discussed so far gives us both micro and macro insights into the dif-ferent aspects of development within the Kashmir Valley. This in-depth analysis raises three basic ques-tions, namely, why is there an enormous gap between differentially developed tehsils? Why is such a gap increasing? And why is development concentrated only in few centres? Answers to these questions are sought with the help of an analysis of the dimen-sions of development and typology of backward-ness. It is thought that this will highlight the major findings of the present study and also give valuable

Table 4. Typology of backwardness 1981 and 2001

Tehsils1980‒1981 2000‒2001

A B C D E F A B C D E FAnantnag B HB HD HD D HD D B HD HD D HDBijbehara D HD D HB HD D HD HD B B HD DDuru HD B D D D D HD D D HB D DKulgam B D D HD HD HD D HB D D HD HDPahalgam D B HB B B HB B D HB HB B HBBudgam D HD B D D D D HD B B HD DBeerwah D D HB B B B B B HB B D BChadura HB B B B HB HB HB D B B HB HBBandipora HB HB D D B B B HB D HD HB BBaramulla D D HD HD D HD B HD HD D HD HDGulmarg HB HB HB HB HB B HB HB B B HB BSonawari HD B HB D HD HB D D HB HD D HBSopore HD D HD HD HD HD HD D HD HD HD HDUri B D B HB HB HB HD HB HB D HB HBHandwara B D B HB B B B B B HB B BKarnah HB HB HB D HB HB HB D HB D HB HBKupwara HB B B B D D HB HB B D B DPulwama B B HD B B D B B HD D B DShopian HD HD B B HB B HD B D B B BTral HD HB D HB B B D B D HB B BGanderbal D HD D HD B D HD HD D HB D DSrinagar B HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD

Explanation: A – agriculture; B – industrial; C – education; D – health; E – road; F – communication



policy suggestions to all those who are interested in the development process of the Kashmir Valley. In the following sections II and III, the important findings drawn from the analysis of the intricate issues related to the dimensions of development and typology of backwardness will be presented.

According to Rao (1984), the term dimension im-plies four possibilities. First of all, all sectors in a dis-trict or tehsil may be totally developed or backward. Other possibilities could be that a district or a region may experience uni-sectoral, bi-sectoral and multi-sectoral development or backwardness.

One should have a clear perception of these four possibilities to evolve different strategies of develop-ment and formulate sectoral plans. In addition, once the dimensions are known we can proceed further to have a clear view of the typology of backwardness. This helps us to understand the type of development in a tehsil, i.e. whether a tehsil is agriculturally de-veloped or backward, industrially developed or back-ward, or whether there is a combination of all these sectoral developments or backwardness. Once we arrive at the typology of backwardness, the task of fixing priorities for the development of lagging sec-tors becomes easier. In this way, the factors hinder-ing development could be removed paving the way for further utilisation of the potential of a tehsil for future development. Table 4 presents a clear view of the dimensions of development of the tehsils across two time points, 1981 and 2001.

Table 5 and Table 6 give some insights into the disturbing issues raised in the previous paragraphs such as the problems of increasing disparities and the widening gap across the tehsils. The first nega-tive feature that emerges from the table is that while Sopore has a distinction of having all developed sec-tors, the rest of the tehsils could not maintain this sta-tus. Srinagar, Baramulla, Anantnag, and Ganderbal

achieved multi-dimensional development but are lacking in one or another sector. Most of the tehsils maintained their status and could not excel to show their further development. Most of the tehsils wit-nessed a decline in their dimensions of development. Only Srinagar, Sopore and Anantnag could be placed on the higher level of multi-sectoral development. This clearly brings out the direct and positive rela-tionship between the levels of development and di-mensions of development. This implies that, with an increase in the levels of development, there would be an increase in the dimensions of development from uni-sectoral to bi-sectoral and then to multi-sectoral development. It highlights the interdependency of different sectors in the regional development pro-cess, underlining the crucial significance of adopting integrated regional and sectoral approaches to set up aggregate development of a region.

6. Conclusion

In practical sense, it implies that developmental strat-egies should be formulated and implemented in such a way that development in one sector could induce development in other sectors as well. Judging from this angle, it is rather discouraging to see that in spite of a sustained increase in index values by most of the tehsils in many sectors, a large number of tehsils have remained backward with respect to the dimensions of development. A total of eleven tehsils have multi sec-toral backwardness. This is indeed a situation of great concern. It points towards the failure of the overall socio-economic dispersion mechanism from the de-veloped to the backward regions. Hence, proper inter-regional and inter-sectoral developmental measures assume crucial importance.

Table 5. Sectoral indices of development

1981 2001

Category A B C D E F Category A B C D E F

H. Developed 5 5 6 6 5 5 H. Developed 7 5 5 5 6 5Developed 6 6 5 5 5 6 Developed 5 6 6 6 5 6Backward 6 6 6 6 7 6 Backward 6 6 5 6 6 6H. Backward 5 5 5 5 5 5 H. Backward 4 5 6 5 5 5

Explanation: A – agriculture; B – industrial; C – education; D – health; E – road; F – communication



Fig. 1. Kashmir Valley aggregate socio-economic development in 1981



Fig. 2. Kashmir Valley aggregate socio-economic development in 2001



Refrences

Ahluwalia, M.-S., 2002: State Level Performance under Economic Reforms in India in Economic Policy Re-forms and the Indian Economy. In: Drez, J. and Sen, A. editors, Indian Economic Development and Social Op-portunity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91‒125.

Anderson, K. and Richard, P., 2005: Spatial inequality and Development in Central Asia. In: Kanbur, R., Venables, A.J. and Wan, G. editors, Spatial Disparities in Human Development: Perspectives from Asia, (United Nations Development Programme), pp. 305.

Anita, K., 2006: Balanced Regional Development in India: Issues and Policies, New Delhi: New Century Publica-tions, p. 228.

Basavaraj, B.-S., 2008: Infrastructural development and regional disparity – a comparative district level analysis in Karnataka. In: The Journal of Indian Management & Strategy, 8 M Year, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 25‒37.

Census of India, 1981: Series-8’, Jammu and Kashmir State, District Hand Books.

Census of India, 2001: Jammu and Kashmir State, District Hand Books.

Dholakia, R.-H., 1985: Regional Disparities in Economic Growth in India, Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House.

Emmanuel, 1972: Unequal Exchange: A Study of the impe-rialism of Trade, London: New Left Books.

Friedman, J., 1966: Regional Development Policy, Cam-bridge: MIT Press, Mass.

Government of India, 1981: Identification and Classifica-tion of Backward Areas (From the Draft Report of the Chakravarty Committee on Backward Areas), as pre-sented in Annexure 4.1 of Report on Genera! Issues re-lating to Backward Areas Development, National Com-mittee on the Development of Backward Areas, New Delhi, P 41.

Government of India, 1981: Report on General Issues re-lating to Backward Areas Development, National Com-mittee on the Development of Backward Areas, New Delhi, November 1981, Delhi, P 41.

Government of India, Planning Commission, 1969: Work-ing Group on Identification of Backward Areas, Pande Committee, New Delhi.

Government of UP, 1983: Regional Dimensions of India’s Economic Development, State Planning Commission, Lucknow.

Table 6. Composite indices used as socio-economic indicators

Tehsil A B C D E F1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001

Anantnag 0.48 0.45 0.94 0.64 –0.37 0.75 –1.07 –0.64 –0.08 0.41 1.45 1.25Bijbehara 0.20 –0.09 –0.82 –0.54 0.85 1.41 0.90 0.68 1.02 0.69 0.56 0.57Duru 0.31 0.22 0.19 –0.73 0.86 0.95 –0.17 –0.25 –0.25 0.30 –0.25 –0.16Kulgam 0.04 –0.08 –0.19 0.26 –0.22 0.82 0.83 –0.69 1.27 0.34 1.24 0.65Pahalgam –1.05 –1.13 –0.66 –0.88 0.33 –0.43 –0.30 –0.28 –0.42 –0.21 –1.38 –0.88Budgam –0.29 –0.33 0.15 –0.58 0.33 0.40 1.60 1.62 –0.08 0.93 0.28 –0.12Beerwah –0.75 –0.76 –0.69 –0.39 0.04 0.06 0.53 –0.30 –0.42 –0.13 –0.26 –0.25Chadura –0.50 –0.25 –0.41 –0.58 –1.22 –0.79 –0.42 –0.17 –0.59 –0.67 –0.99 –0.94Bandipora –0.08 0.12 0.16 0.53 –1.05 –0.76 –0.98 –0.65 –0.59 –0.89 –0.65 –0.56Baramulla 1.03 1.36 0.67 –0.02 0.45 .29 –0.11 0.39 –0.08 0.82 1.37 0.93Gulmarg 0–.81 –0.59 –0.95 –0.31 –1.45 –1.08 –0.89 –0.79 –0.67 –1.06 –0.90 –0.86Sonawari –0.80 –0.92 0.54 1.19 1.46 0.60 –0.57 0.08 0.09 0–.17 –1.00 –1.19Sopore 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.53 0.93 1.01 0.21 0.15 0.85 0.91 1.66 1.29Uri –0.74 –1.00 –0.77 –0.10 –0.68 –1.59 –0.13 –0.80 –0.76 –1.06 –1.26 –1.18Handwara –0.16 0–.25 –0.80 –0.90 –0.44 –0.76 –0.07 –0.48 –0.33 –0.37 –0.45 –0.45Karnah –1.07 –1.11 0.21 –0.26 –1.65 –1.81 –1.86 –0.16 –0.76 –1.39 –0.98 –1.12Kupwara 0–.47 –0.56 –0.55 –0.01 –0.97 –1.90 –0.81 –0.80 –0.08 –0.50 –0.10 –0.01Pulwama 0.33 0.32 –0.27 0.32 –0.71 –0.36 –0.15 –0.53 –.033 –0.25 0.09 0.42Shopian –0.22 0.01 –0.48 –0.45 1.58 0.93 0.88 –0.49 –0.67 –0.50 –0.27 –0.23Tral –0.05 0.27 –1.08 –0.63 1.75 0.72 –0.96 –0.32 –0.50 –.58 –0.44 –0.42Ganderbal 0.07 0.12 0.60 –0.80 0.74 0.84 1.09 3.55 –0.33 0.05 0.24 0.35Srinagar 3.67 3.52 3.63 3.71 –0.56 0.70 2.45 1.96 3.72 3.35 2.03 2.92

Explanation: A – education; B – health; C – agriculture; D – industry; E – roads; F – communications

Source: Derived through Factor Analysis of data given in appendices


Hussain, M., 1994: Human Geography, Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Hussain, M., 1998: Geography of Jammu and Kashmir State, New Delhi: Rajesh Publication.

Khan, A.Q., 2006: Regional Imbalances and changing Patterns Of Literacy In Jammu and Kashmir state (1961‒2001), Jammu: JK Publishers.

Kothari, S., 2001: Analysis of Spatial Disparities in Educa-tion and Health Facilities in India. In: Annals of The Ra-jasthan Geographical Association, Vol. XVII-XVIII, pp. 97–107.

Kumar, T., 2008: Spatial Analysis of Regional Divergence in India: Income and Economic Structure Perspective. In: The International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Vol. 3, Article 7, pp. 138.

Kundu, A., 1980: Measurement of Urban Development: A Study in Regionalisation, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Kurian, N.-J., 2000: Widening Disparities in India- Some Indicators. In: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. II, pp. 548‒549.

Maćkowiak, H., 2011: The Goods Structure of Trade Be-tween Polish Regions and the European Union. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography – Socio–economic Series, No. 16. Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, pp. 57–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-011-0014-9

Mukherge, D., 1999: Socio-Economic Status and School System Enrolments, Australian Centre for Equity Through Education.

Myrdal, G., 1957: Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, Lomdon: Gerald Duckworth.

Myrdal, G., 1964: Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., p. 26.

Raina, A.-N. 1977: Geography of Jammu and Kahmir, New Delhi: National Book Trust.

Rao, H., 1984: Regional Disparities and Development in India, New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.

Rao, H., 1985: Inter-State Disparities in Development in India. In: Mishra, G.P. editor, Regional Structure of Development and Growth in India, Vol. 1, New delhi: Ashish Publishing House.

Rao, H., 1977: Identification of Backward Regions and Trends In Regional Disparities in India. In: Arthavij-nana, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1307.

Raychunduri, N., 1963: Final Report of All India Soil sur-vey Scheme. In: ICAR Bulletin, pp. 73.

Raza, M. and Ali, M., 1978: The Valley of Kashmir, Vol. I, New Delhi: Vikas Publising House, pp. 25‒27..

Robock, S.-H., 1970: Strategies for Regional Economic De-velopment. In: McKee, D.L, Dean, R.D. and Leahy, W.H. editors, Regional Economics, New York: Free Press.

Sarker, P.-C., 1989: Measurement of Imbalances in Region-al Development in India. In: Graphical Approach, RBI Occasional Papers, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 41‒43.

Sundaram, K.-V., 1983: The Geography of Underdevel-opment: The Spatial Dynamics of Underdevelopment, New Delhi: Concept.

Tiwari, R.-T., 1985: Inter-Regional Disparities in Levels of Development in India, New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications, pp. 33‒49.

UNESC Report 2001, Status of education in India.WHO Report, 2000, available at: www.who.in..Williamson, J., l965: Regional Inequality and the Process

of National Development: A Description of the Pat-tern. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 13, No.4, Part II, p. 74.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-011-0014-9

96 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98A

gric

ultu

re, I

ndus

trie

s, Ed

ucat

ion,

Hea

lth, C

omm

unic

atio

n, R

oads

in 1

981

in th

e K

ashm

ir Va

lley

Tehsil

Agricultu

reIndu

stries

Education

Health

Commun

ication

Roads

X1X2

X3X4

X5X6

X7X8

X9X1

0X1

1X1

2X1

3X1

4X1

5X1

6X1

7X1

8X1

9X2

0X2

1X2

2X2

3X2

4X2

5X2

6X2

7X2

8X2

9X3

0X3

1X3

2X3

3

Anantnag

148.01

59.81

31.35

2.93

0.35

0.35

11.0774180

1.01893170

1.16616740

1.01893170

57.60

34.40

54.7

31.9

73.40

49.8

34.19

0.32

12.19

28.63

10.35

6.66

4.45

23.50

36.33

7.53

6.3215466

54.1011300

4.01

18.99

3222.00

80.32

Bijbehara

160.08

62.51

35.91

8.01

1.05

0.26

17.3322120

3.63849000

2.74913140

3.09796200

58.20

33.70

54.5

29.7

69.90

48.1

35.90

0.31

12.32

22.31

8.91

4.21

4.44

12.60

21.90

8.23

3.6574354

45.3241600

2.27

22.31

4525.00

79.21

Duru

135.03

74.58

29.09

13.34

0.76

0.45

17.6877330

1.57032220

2.26126380

1.31907060

60.00

63.90

58.4

35.6

69.40

45.3

49.67

0.28

8.32

21.21

6.33

3.31

3.37

21.21

21.40

7.21

2.2342155

37.2631450

2.18

13.12

3022.00

75.32

Kulgam

113.09

64.78

31.25

16.03

0.25

0.39

29.1348820

3.57093000

0.45674405

0.50241846

55.60

33.10

55.0

32.7

69.30

43.7

51.62

0.32

8.91

19.21

6.97

4.44

3.36

12.31

30.67

11.34

7.3241653

45.3212360

2.59

23.11

4826.00

75.45

Pahalgam

163.05

62.60

35.25

21.37

0.52

0.24

12.4689380

2.27282570

1.62344700

1.94813630

47.80

23.50

46.9

23.4

59.00

23.5

45.17

0.13

7.21

16.37

5.52

2.20

2.39

12.10

29.80

8.32

1.1357211

8.2234150

1.29

8.27

2820.00

68.37

Budgam

109.17

62.88

33.06

21.27

0.63

0.35

18.8903520

4.38964700

6.61190600

0.98767060

53.50

30.60

51.1

28.4

70.70

47.8

39.93

0.27

8.33

25.23

6.52

3.39

2.44

16.32

30.01

10.01

3.2673213

36.3214530

3.04

16.23

3223.00

75.22

Beerwa

h103.12

55.77

35.09

8.73

0.71

0.35

16.6159110

3.01205400

4.11239050

1.05253140

47.20

26.70

45.9

26.0

69.40

40.3

36.98

0.19

9.91

18.32

5.22

2.23

2.22

11.34

22.67

10.21

3.1326785

16.4232140

3.15

11.31

2820.00

70.21

Chadura

118.08

50.52

30.30

16.11

0.13

0.16

11.6496940

2.37998250

2.31132910

0.64076453

59.20

34.50

57.6

32.1

68.30

48.5

36.54

0.12

7.63

20.23

4.31

3.33

2.22

15.68

21.42

8.23

3.1879650

18.2341580

1.03

8.12

2620.00

69.31

Bandipora

100.02

36.37

33.17

16.42

0.34

0.32

12.5032690

1.25580810

0.96032387

0.73871064

56.60

35.50

53.4

29.5

69.30

45.6

48.24

0.18

8.21

29.25

5.77

4.43

3.31

14.54

32.90

11.24

2.2376320

23.2143210

2.12

9.99

2622.00

68.43

Baramulla

101.05

65.48

32.02

13.60

0.59

0.54

9.4461150

4.01939630

1.67004070

0.75727360

69.00

43.60

61.9

34.7

80.40

59.2

57.32

0.38

11.11

28.62

9.96

4.42

5.51

12.21

29.43

17.91

5.5472140

52.7654650

3.05

26.21

3223.00

82.31

Gulmarg

101.04

43.01

33.30

10.62

0.19

0.15

13.2279940

1.16139970

1.16139970

0.92911977

46.30

30.10

55.0

29.9

84.70

40.2

33.32

0.15

7.32

16.31

4.44

2.34

2.22

11.23

31.90

6.65

3.3214533

10.2134210

1.69

8.32

2520.00

67.22

Sonawa

ri100.32

57.56

35.60

8.06

0.73

1.14

6.4915075

2.31740980

1.99044590

2.32218700

72.60

20.40

39.7

19.9

46.60

23.6

39.01

0.27

8.23

17.21

5.55

3.39

2.21

18.64

42.31

8.21

1.1324764

8.2231655

2.88

6.61

3419.00

67.23

Sopore

127.64

50.57

28.63

16.61

1.21

0.55

17.0607640

3.64126230

1.37654270

0.63532740

57.30

38.20

59.4

35.1

67.80

48.7

59.08

0.39

13.35

28.26

11.21

4.44

4.47

16.21

35.64

12.21

7.7095437

56.1123540

3.01

24.44

4329.00

83.23

Uri

119.12

49.52

25.89

18.21

0.32

0.41

10.6120420

0.92763764

6.91456460

0.79511800

40.70

25.70

59.3

24.6

78.50

54.3

33.48

0.15

8.21

22.23

5.59

2.23

2.29

11.32

35.17

7.23

2.2657810

10.2314210

1.17

7.32

2419.00

65.31

Handw

ara

104.32

45.80

29.61

24.26

0.65

0.24

10.0698880

2.53723860

4.57098300

0.63739160

61.30

30.20

54.1

29.4

73.10

44.6

44.95

0.21

9.21

21.21

7.62

3.39

3.33

14.98

18.90

6.64

2.9910734

18.2765430

2.51

11.12

2920.00

69.21

Karnah

99.78

41.56

30.01

1.55

0.32

0.13

8.0274350

0.23812346

0.23189127

0.21243150

60.10

33.40

71.4

33.4

0.00

0.00

19.23

0.10

8.21

20.22

4.44

2.26

1.91

11.21

84.10

5.01

3.1165488

8.6043560

1.89

6.63

2418.00

64.22

Kupw

ara

100.02

37.16

31.01

16.97

0.37

0.37

16.4151940

0.96855710

0.88050646

0.79245580

57.10

27.40

52.8

26.7

73.70

41.4

40.23

0.23

8.31

20.25

6.62

3.37

2.32

13.03

26.43

8.83

4.2314530

13.2109730

3.01

13.32

3219.00

69.25

Pulwam

a123.34

28.84

28.33

20.58

0.54

0.49

13.5335090

2.82402100

2.65881590

0.23533510

53.80

38.00

60.4

37.5

75.20

44.8

53.34

0.25

8.51

31.31

8.22

4.41

3.33

10.65

31.24

12.23

3.3547210

33.4309840

3.15

12.21

2921.00

76.21

Shopian

100.34

70.06

29.93

21.37

1.20

0.59

13.9014750

4.44226200

4.69710800

0.70140980

64.80

34.30

53.0

32.8

75.80

57.8

48.21

0.23

7.66

18.21

5.53

2.22

2.20

11.09

21.46

12.21

4.2316732

23.2190820

2.03

12.11

2519.00

71.23

Tral

100.16

67.84

29.74

24.86

0.98

0.87

12.7756420

1.01225080

0.16196012

2.02450160

61.70

40.10

65.7

39.1

75.90

49.2

49.61

0.19

7.92

16.32

6.62

2.35

2.67

12.03

19.54

7.34

2.3317654

23.2340980

2.99

8.77

2718.00

71.21

Ganderbal

130.71

59.33

32.74

20.39

0.78

0.49

20.8915480

1.89107440

5.93982700

2.86948160

69.60

32.10

56.4

30.5

71.80

43.5

52.73

0.27

8.21

21.27

8.83

3.36

3.33

18.98

16.54

13.31

3.3768510

33.2345160

3.01

16.21

2921.00

76.22

Srinagar

100.13

64.25

29.54

21.31

0.23

0.23

30.5780640

4.40105060

6.52385570

1.30286260

71.97

48.10

59.9

36.1

74.40

53.9

73.62

0.71

18.62

52.32

32.21

16.64

9.93

23.86

69.44

20.23

7.3321560

68.8734300

4.33

21.12

7736.00

90.65

Expl

anat

ion:

X1

– pe

rcen

tage

of g

ross

cro

pped

are

a to

net

sow

n ar

ea; X

2 –

perc

enta

ge o

f net

irrig

ated

are

a to

net

sow

n ar

ea; X

3 –

perc

enta

ge o

f mai

n w

orke

rs (

agric

ultu

re a

gric

ultu

ral

labo

urer

s an

d cu

ltiva

tors

) to

tota

l pop

ulat

ion;

X4

– pe

rcen

tage

of m

argi

nal w

orke

rs (

agric

ultu

ral l

abou

rers

and

cul

tivat

ors)

to to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

5 –

num

ber

of tr

acto

rs u

sed

per

100

culti

vato

rs; X

6 –

num

ber

of tr

acto

rs u

sed

per

100

hect

ares

of n

et s

own

area

; X7

– nu

mbe

r of

sm

all s

cale

uni

ts p

er 1

0,00

0 po

pula

tion;

X8

– nu

mbe

r of

coo

pera

tive

soci

etie

s pe

r 10

,000

po

pula

tion;

X9

– pe

rcen

tage

of e

mpl

oyee

s in

smal

l sca

le in

dust

ry u

nits

to to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

10 –

num

ber o

f rur

al e

mpl

oym

ent g

ener

atio

n un

its p

er 1

0;00

0 po

pula

tion;

X11

– p

erce

ntag

e of

m

ale l

itera

tes t

o to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

12 –

per

cent

age o

f fem

ale l

itera

tes t

o to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

13 –

per

cent

age o

f rur

al m

ale l

itera

tes t

o to

tal r

ural

pop

ulat

ion;

X14

– p

erce

ntag

e of

rura

l fem

ale

liter

ates

to to

tal r

ural

pop

ulat

ion;

X15

– p

erce

ntag

e of u

rban

mal

e lite

rate

s to

tota

l urb

an p

opul

atio

n; X

16 –

per

cent

age o

f urb

an fe

mal

e lite

rate

s to

tota

l urb

an p

opul

atio

n; X

17 -p

erce

ntag

e of

stud

ents

enro

lled

in (P

rimar

y, m

iddl

e and

Hig

h sc

hool

s) in

the a

ge g

roup

of 5

‒14

year

s; X

18 –

num

ber o

f sch

ools

in th

e age

gro

up o

f 5‒1

4 ye

ars;

X19

– n

umbe

r of a

ll tr

aine

d te

ache

rs av

aila

ble

at d

iffer

ent l

evel

s per

1,0

00 o

f sch

ool g

oing

pop

ulat

ion

aged

5‒1

4; X

20 –

num

ber o

f per

sons

hav

ing

a deg

ree i

n hu

man

ities

, soc

ial s

cien

ces,

com

mer

ce an

d sc

ienc

es p

er 1

,000

per

sons

aged

25

and

abov

e; X

21 –

num

ber o

f per

sons

hav

ing

a PG

deg

ree,

Ph.D

. or a

bove

per

1,0

00 p

erso

ns a

ged

25 a

nd a

bove

; X22

– n

umbe

r of p

erso

ns h

avin

g a

degr

ee in

eng

inee

ring

or te

chno

logy

per

1,

000

pers

ons a

ged

25 an

d ab

ove;

X23

– n

umbe

r of p

erso

ns h

avin

g a

degr

ee in

med

icin

e or s

urge

ry p

er 1

,000

per

sons

age

d 25

and

abov

e; X

24 –

per

cent

age o

f vill

ages

with

med

ical

faci

litie

s; X

25 –

per

sons

dep

ende

nt p

er p

rimar

y he

alth

cent

re; X

26 –

num

ber o

f bed

s per

1,0

00 p

opul

atio

n; X

27 –

num

ber o

f pos

t offi

ces p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

28 –

num

ber

of te

leph

ones

in u

se p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

29 –

num

ber o

f pos

t offi

ces p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion;

X30

– n

umbe

r of t

elep

hone

s in

use p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion;

X31

– to

tal

road

leng

th p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

32 –

tota

l sur

face

d ro

ad le

ngth

per

100

squa

re k

ilom

eter

s of g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea;

X33

per

cent

age

of v

illag

es h

avin

g pu

cca

road

s.

Sour

ce: F

inan

cial

Com

miss

ione

r (Re

venu

e) S

rinag

ar, J

& K

, Dire

ctor

ate o

f Eco

nom

ics a

nd S

tatis

tics,

Dire

ctor

ate o

f Ind

ustr

ies a

nd C

omm

erce

, Srin

agar

, J &

K, E

duca

tion

Dep

artm

ent J

& K

, U

nive

rsity

of K

ashm

ir, S

rinag

ar, M

edic

al C

olle

ge S

rinag

ar, D

irect

or T

echn

ical

Edu

catio

n, D

irect

orat

e of

Hea

lth S

ervi

ces K

ashm

ir D

ivisi

on, J

&K

, Pos

t Mas

ter G

ener

al T

elec

omm

unic

atio

ns,

Ass

istan

t Dire

ctor

(MIS

) J&

K, C

hief

Eng

inee

r PW

D K

ashm

ir D

ivisi

on, J

&K

Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 97A

gric

ultu

re, I

ndus

trie

s, Ed

ucat

ion,

Hea

lth, C

omm

unic

atio

n, R

oads

in 2

001

in th

e K

ashm

ir Va

lley

Tehs

ilA

gric

ultu

reIn

dust

ries

Educ

atio

nH

ealth

Com

mun

icat

ion

Roa

ds

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X17

X18

X19

X20

X21

X22

X23

X24

X25

X26

X27

X28

X29

X30

X31

X32

X33

Ana

ntna

g14

8.01

59.8

131

.35

2.93

0.35

0.35

11.0

7741

801.

0189

3170

1.16

6167

401.

0189

3170

57.6

034

.40

54.7

31.9

73.4

049

.834

.19

0.32

12.1

928

.63

10.3

56.

664.

4523

.50

36.3

37.

536.

3215

466

54.1

0113

004.

0118

.99

3222

.00

80.3

2

Bijb

ehar

a16

0.08

62.5

135

.91

8.01

1.05

0.26

17.3

3221

203.

6384

9000

2.74

9131

403.

0979

6200

58.2

033

.70

54.5

29.7

69.9

048

.135

.90

0.31

12.3

222

.31

8.91

4.21

4.44

12.6

021

.90

8.23

3.65

7435

445

.324

1600

2.27

22.3

145

25.0

079

.21

Dur

u13

5.03

74.5

829

.09

13.3

40.

760.

4517

.687

7330

1.57

0322

202.

2612

6380

1.31

9070

6060

.00

63.9

058

.435

.669

.40

45.3

49.6

70.

288.

3221

.21

6.33

3.31

3.37

21.2

121

.40

7.21

2.23

4215

537

.263

1450

2.18

13.1

230

22.0

075

.32

Kulg

am11

3.09

64.7

831

.25

16.0

30.

250.

3929

.134

8820

3.57

0930

000.

4567

4405

0.50

2418

4655

.60

33.1

055

.032

.769

.30

43.7

51.6

20.

328.

9119

.21

6.97

4.44

3.36

12.3

130

.67

11.3

47.

3241

653

45.3

2123

602.

5923

.11

4826

.00

75.4

5

Paha

lgam

163.

0562

.60

35.2

521

.37

0.52

0.24

12.4

6893

802.

2728

2570

1.62

3447

001.

9481

3630

47.8

023

.50

46.9

23.4

59.0

023

.545

.17

0.13

7.21

16.3

75.

522.

202.

3912

.10

29.8

08.

321.

1357

211

8.22

3415

01.

298.

2728

20.0

068

.37

Budg

am10

9.17

62.8

833

.06

21.2

70.

630.

3518

.890

3520

4.38

9647

006.

6119

0600

0.98

7670

6053

.50

30.6

051

.128

.470

.70

47.8

39.9

30.

278.

3325

.23

6.52

3.39

2.44

16.3

230

.01

10.0

13.

2673

213

36.3

2145

303.

0416

.23

3223

.00

75.2

2

Beer

wah

103.

1255

.77

35.0

98.

730.

710.

3516

.615

9110

3.01

2054

004.

1123

9050

1.05

2531

4047

.20

26.7

045

.926

.069

.40

40.3

36.9

80.

199.

9118

.32

5.22

2.23

2.22

11.3

422

.67

10.2

13.

1326

785

16.4

2321

403.

1511

.31

2820

.00

70.2

1

Cha

dura

118.

0850

.52

30.3

016

.11

0.13

0.16

11.6

4969

402.

3799

8250

2.31

1329

100.

6407

6453

59.2

034

.50

57.6

32.1

68.3

048

.536

.54

0.12

7.63

20.2

34.

313.

332.

2215

.68

21.4

28.

233.

1879

650

18.2

3415

801.

038.

1226

20.0

069

.31

Band

ipor

a10

0.02

36.3

733

.17

16.4

20.

340.

3212

.503

2690

1.25

5808

100.

9603

2387

0.73

8710

6456

.60

35.5

053

.429

.569

.30

45.6

48.2

40.

188.

2129

.25

5.77

4.43

3.31

14.5

432

.90

11.2

42.

2376

320

23.2

1432

102.

129.

9926

22.0

068

.43

Bara

mul

la10

1.05

65.4

832

.02

13.6

00.

590.

549.

4461

150

4.01

9396

301.

6700

4070

0.75

7273

6069

.00

43.6

061

.934

.780

.40

59.2

57.3

20.

3811

.11

28.6

29.

964.

425.

5112

.21

29.4

317

.91

5.54

7214

052

.765

4650

3.05

26.2

132

23.0

082

.31

Gul

mar

g10

1.04

43.0

133

.30

10.6

20.

190.

1513

.227

9940

1.16

1399

701.

1613

9970

0.92

9119

7746

.30

30.1

055

.029

.984

.70

40.2

33.3

20.

157.

3216

.31

4.44

2.34

2.22

11.2

331

.90

6.65

3.32

1453

310

.213

4210

1.69

8.32

2520

.00

67.2

2

Sona

war

i10

0.32

57.5

635

.60

8.06

0.73

1.14

6.49

1507

52.

3174

0980

1.99

0445

902.

3221

8700

72.6

020

.40

39.7

19.9

46.6

023

.639

.01

0.27

8.23

17.2

15.

553.

392.

2118

.64

42.3

18.

211.

1324

764

8.22

3165

52.

886.

6134

19.0

067

.23

Sopo

re12

7.64

50.5

728

.63

16.6

11.

210.

5517

.060

7640

3.64

1262

301.

3765

4270

0.63

5327

4057

.30

38.2

059

.435

.167

.80

48.7

59.0

80.

3913

.35

28.2

611

.21

4.44

4.47

16.2

135

.64

12.2

17.

7095

437

56.1

1235

403.

0124

.44

4329

.00

83.2

3

Uri

119.

1249

.52

25.8

918

.21

0.32

0.41

10.6

1204

200.

9276

3764

6.91

4564

600.

7951

1800

40.7

025

.70

59.3

24.6

78.5

054

.333

.48

0.15

8.21

22.2

35.

592.

232.

2911

.32

35.1

77.

232.

2657

810

10.2

3142

101.

177.

3224

19.0

065

.31

Han

dwar

a10

4.32

45.8

029

.61

24.2

60.

650.

2410

.069

8880

2.53

7238

604.

5709

8300

0.63

7391

6061

.30

30.2

054

.129

.473

.10

44.6

44.9

50.

219.

2121

.21

7.62

3.39

3.33

14.9

818

.90

6.64

2.99

1073

418

.276

5430

2.51

11.1

229

20.0

069

.21

Kar

nah

99.7

841

.56

30.0

11.

550.

320.

138.

0274

350

0.23

8123

460.

2318

9127

0.21

2431

5060

.10

33.4

071

.433

.40.

00.

019

.23

0.10

8.21

20.2

24.

442.

261.

9111

.21

84.1

05.

013.

1165

488

8.60

4356

01.

896.

6324

18.0

064

.22

Kupw

ara

100.

0237

.16

31.0

116

.97

0.37

0.37

16.4

1519

400.

9685

5710

0.88

0506

460.

7924

5580

57.1

027

.40

52.8

26.7

73.7

041

.440

.23

0.23

8.31

20.2

56.

623.

372.

3213

.03

26.4

38.

834.

2314

530

13.2

1097

303.

0113

.32

3219

.00

69.2

5

Pulw

ama

123.

3428

.84

28.3

320

.58

0.54

0.49

13.5

3350

902.

8240

2100

2.65

8815

900.

2353

3510

53.8

038

.00

60.4

37.5

75.2

044

.853

.34

0.25

8.51

31.3

18.

224.

413.

3310

.65

31.2

412

.23

3.35

4721

033

.430

9840

3.15

12.2

129

21.0

076

.21

Shop

ian

100.

3470

.06

29.9

321

.37

1.20

0.59

13.9

0147

504.

4422

6200

4.69

7108

000.

7014

0980

64.8

034

.30

53.0

32.8

75.8

057

.848

.21

0.23

7.66

18.2

15.

532.

222.

2011

.09

21.4

612

.21

4.23

1673

223

.219

0820

2.03

12.1

125

19.0

071

.23

Tral

100.

1667

.84

29.7

424

.86

0.98

0.87

12.7

7564

201.

0122

5080

0.16

1960

122.

0245

0160

61.7

040

.10

65.7

39.1

75.9

049

.249

.61

0.19

7.92

16.3

26.

622.

352.

6712

.03

19.5

47.

342.

3317

654

23.2

3409

802.

998.

7727

18.0

071

.21

Gan

derb

al13

0.71

59.3

332

.74

20.3

90.

780.

4920

.891

5480

1.89

1074

405.

9398

2700

2.86

9481

6069

.60

32.1

056

.430

.571

.80

43.5

52.7

30.

278.

2121

.27

8.83

3.36

3.33

18.9

816

.54

13.3

13.

3768

510

33.2

3451

603.

0116

.21

2921

.00

76.2

2

Srin

agar

100.

1364

.25

29.5

421

.31

0.23

0.23

30.5

7806

404.

4010

5060

6.52

3855

701.

3028

6260

71.9

748

.10

59.9

36.1

74.4

053

.973

.62

0.71

18.6

252

.32

32.2

116

.64

9.93

23.8

669

.44

20.2

37.

3321

560

68.8

7343

004.

3321

.12

7736

.00

90.6

5

Expl

anat

ion:

X1

– pe

rcen

tage

of g

ross

cro

pped

are

a to

net

sow

n ar

ea; X

2 –

perc

enta

ge o

f net

irrig

ated

are

a to

net

sow

n ar

ea; X

3 –

perc

enta

ge o

f mai

n w

orke

rs (a

gric

ultu

ral l

abou

rers

and

cu

ltiva

tors

) to

tota

l pop

ulat

ion;

X4

– pe

rcen

tage

of m

argi

nal w

orke

rs (

agric

ultu

ral l

abou

rers

and

cul

tivat

ors)

to to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

5 –

num

ber

of tr

acto

rs u

sed

per

100

culti

vato

rs; X

6 –

num

ber o

f tra

ctor

s use

d pe

r 100

hec

tare

s of n

et s

own

area

; X7

– nu

mbe

r of s

mal

l sca

le u

nits

per

10,

000

popu

latio

n; X

8 –

num

ber o

f coo

pera

tive

soci

etie

s per

10,

000

popu

latio

n; X

9 –

perc

enta

ge o

f em

ploy

ees i

n sm

all s

cale

indu

stry

uni

ts to

tota

l pop

ulat

ion;

X10

– n

umbe

r of r

ural

em

ploy

men

t gen

erat

ion

units

per

10,

000

popu

latio

n; X

11 –

per

cent

age

of m

ale

liter

ates

to

tota

l pop

ulat

ion;

X12

– p

erce

ntag

e of

fem

ale

liter

ates

to to

tal p

opul

atio

n; X

13 –

per

cent

age

of ru

ral m

ale

liter

ates

to to

tal r

ural

pop

ulat

ion;

X14

– p

erce

ntag

e of

rura

l fem

ale

liter

ates

to to

tal

rura

l pop

ulat

ion;

X15

– p

erce

ntag

e of

urb

an m

ale

liter

ates

to to

tal u

rban

pop

ulat

ion;

X16

– p

erce

ntag

e of

urb

an fe

mal

e lit

erat

es to

tota

l urb

an p

opul

atio

n; X

17 –

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

enro

lled

in (P

rimar

y, m

iddl

e an

d H

igh

scho

ols)

in th

e ag

e gr

oup

of 5

‒14

year

s; X

18 –

num

ber o

f sch

ools

in th

e ag

e gr

oup

of 5

‒14

year

s; X

19 –

num

ber o

f all

trai

ned

teac

hers

ava

ilabl

e at

di

ffere

nt le

vels

per 1

,000

of s

choo

l goi

ng p

opul

atio

n ag

ed 5

‒14;

X20

– n

umbe

r of p

erso

ns h

avin

g a

degr

ee in

hum

aniti

es, s

ocia

l sci

ence

s, co

mm

erce

and

scie

nces

per

1,0

00 p

erso

ns a

ged

25

and

abov

e; X

21 –

num

ber o

f per

sons

hav

ing

a PG

deg

ree,

Ph.D

. or a

bove

per

1,0

00 p

erso

ns a

ged

25 a

nd a

bove

; X22

– n

umbe

r of p

erso

ns h

avin

g a

degr

ee in

eng

inee

ring

or te

chno

logy

per

1,

000

pers

ons a

ged

25 an

d ab

ove;

X23

– n

umbe

r of p

erso

ns h

avin

g a

degr

ee in

med

icin

e or s

urge

ry p

er 1

;000

per

sons

age

d 25

and

abov

e; X

24 –

per

cent

age o

f vill

ages

with

med

ical

faci

litie

s; X

25 –

per

sons

dep

ende

nt p

er p

rimar

y he

alth

cent

re; X

26 –

num

ber o

f bed

s per

1,0

00 p

opul

atio

n; X

27 –

num

ber o

f pos

t offi

ces p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

28 –

num

ber

of te

leph

ones

in u

se p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

29 –

num

ber o

f pos

t offi

ces p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion;

X30

– n

umbe

r of t

elep

hone

s in

use p

er 1

,000

pop

ulat

ion;

X31

– to

tal

road

leng

th p

er 1

00 sq

uare

kilo

met

ers o

f geo

grap

hica

l are

a; X

32 –

tota

l sur

face

d ro

ad le

ngth

per

100

squa

re k

ilom

eter

s of g

eogr

aphi

cal a

rea;

X33

– p

erce

ntag

e of v

illag

es h

avin

g pu

cca

road

s;

Sour

ce: F

inan

cial

Com

miss

ione

r (Re

venu

e) S

rinag

ar, J

& K

, Dire

ctor

ate

of E

cono

mic

s and

Sta

tistic

s; D

irect

orat

e of

Indu

strie

s and

Com

mer

ce, S

rinag

ar, J

& K

; Edu

catio

n D

epar

tmen

t J&

K,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Kas

hmir,

Srin

agar

, Med

ical

Col

lege

Srin

agar

, Dire

ctor

Tec

hnic

al E

duca

tion;

Dire

ctor

ate

of H

ealth

Ser

vice

s Kas

hmir

Div

ision

, J&

K; P

ost M

aste

r Gen

eral

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ions

, A

ssist

ant D

irect

or (M

IS) J

&K

; C

hief

Eng

inee

r PW

D K

ashm

ir D

ivisi

on, J

&K

.


regional socio-economic disparities in the kashmir …shahnaz mohiuddin, haseena hashia / bulletin...

Documents