Brushed aside as a ‘small hilly state’, Himachal Pradesh may not be seen as a ‘model’ but its achievements are impressive. It’s the result of strong public intervention, which suggests that contrary to popular perception, minimum government will not take us very far.
In our surveys on government interventions in education, health, food security, employment etc, Himachal has consistently done well. In the PROBE surveys (1996 and 2006), Himachal emerged as a leader: along with high literacy rates there was little evidence of gender discrimination in education. The India Human Development Survey (2004-5) tested government school students on their skills in reading, writing and subtraction. Himachali children ranked first, fourth and second respectively. Studying NREGA (in 2007), we found active involvement of panchayati raj institutions in its implementation, high participation by women and little evidence of corruption.
In the Public Distribution System (PDS survey 2011), HP was ranked first among nine states. A ‘universal not uniform’ PDS meant that APL and BPL cardholders are entitled to the same commodities but the former pay a bit more. Finally, ‘leakages’ were lower in HP—entitled households got their full quota. In the PEEP survey 2013 that covered five schemes in ten states, HP was second only to Tamil Nadu. Recent visits to public health facilities in Jubbal (Shimla) and Rajgarh (Sirmaur) revealed a functional system, with doctors and other support staff largely in place.
So, what makes the system work? A key to Himachal’s success has been the presence of public support. As soon as it attained statehood in 1970, education and roads were accorded the highest priority.
The role of public transport in making the system work goes unnoticed: in our surveys we have been pleasantly surprised that (unlike many other states) teachers, doctors and health workers report for work regularly and punctually. The reach of public bus services in HP is mind-boggling, especially compared with several ‘plains states’ (including Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and to a lesser extent UP and MP). In contrast, Himachal Road Transport Corporation reaches the remotest villages.
Social distance is another piece of this puzzle. A carpenter from Muzaffarnagar (UP) who recently worked at the HP chief minister’s office was surprised at how ordinary people were able to meet him. I was similarly surprised when, on my many bus journeys in HP, I meet government doctors, pharmacists and teachers. This affects daily interactions between functionaries and people as well as the work culture.
These factors—education, lack of social distance and a healthy work culture—have resulted in a society with a culture of mutual cooperation. On roads less served by public transport, private cars offer rides; donations are common, be it an ambulance given by a taxi union to the local primary health centre or toys, books, sacks of carrots and potatoes for anganwadi children.
I am not suggesting that Himachal is a model in all respects. Disturbing instances of caste discrimination have been reported: scheduled caste helpers or cooks are not allowed to cook because Brahmin parents grumble. The rising popularity of private schooling (20 per cent of children in the 8-14 age group in 2004-5) is also puzzling in a state whose achievements are based on public education. To the extent that it is weakening the public system, the rise of private schooling is something to reflect upon.
Himachal Pradesh is at the crossroads: should it consolidate and improve publicly provided services or will it be mesmerised by hollow slogans? In fact, this is a choice we all need to make.
(Reetika Khera is a development economist from IIT Delhi)
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
[[No point in providing Data to the Moditards here. They are unaccustomed to facts.]]
On the other hand, Jihadi"turds" here understand facts better than anyone else. And the fact is that followers of the "religion of peace" can never live in peace with people of other faiths.
Basically very efficient in distributing dolls! But what about wealth creation, tax contribution, other development indices? If my father gives me Rs 100 Crores I can demonstrate how responsibly I spend but will I generate atleast Rs 10 Crore out given Rs 100 crore.
No point in providing Data to the Moditards here. They are unaccustomed to facts.
A small, hilly state has the advantage of getting more grants and other concessions - remission in excise for manufacturing - but Himachal deserves credit for making sure that government funds are reaching the intended beneficiaries. This model of development presupposes that other, more affluent states will be contributing more to the central kitty. To that extent, it cannot become a template for India's development model.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT