Read Microsoft Word - SVK Report Part 1 English text version

Study on the Development of

Andhra Pradesh

(2007-2009)

Volume 1

Regional, Sub-regional and District level disparities in development

Volume 2

Disparities among Socio-economic Groups

Sodhana Sundarayya Vignana Kendram Baghlingampalli Hyderabad ­ 500 044

Volume ­ 1

Regional, Sub-regional and District level disparities in development

ii

Contents

List of Tables ....... List of Figures ........ A Word on the Study .... Introduction .......... Chapter I: Andhra Pradesh at Present A. Resources and growth 1. Natural Resources (i) Soils (ii) Rainfall (iii) Rivers & irrigation (iv) Forests (v) Sea-coast (vi) Ores and minerals (vii) Live-stock

2. Agriculture (i) Land use (ii) Irrigation (iii) (iv) Crops Animal rearing & Dairying

(v) Fisheries (vi) Forest Produce

3. Industries (i) Factories and workers (ii) Trade

iii

(iii)

Mineral production

4. Economic Infrastructure (i) Roads & Transport (ii) Railways (iii) Communications

(iv) Power (v) Marketting (vi) Credit

5. Social Infrastructure (i) Education (ii) Medical & Health 6. Demography B. Comparative Growth Performance of A.P. 1. Human Resources 2. Medical & Health 3. Agriculture and animal husbandry 4. Transport and communications 5. Economy

Chapter II: Methodology 1. Variables utilized 2. Deriving sectoral index and comprehensive composite development index

iv

Chapter III: Disparities in Development A. Disparities in Development among Regions B. Disparities in Development among Sub-regions C. Disparities in Development among Districts 1. Developed Districts 2. Backward districts 3. More Backward Districts 4. Most Backward Districts Chapter IV: Impact of liberal economic policies on different sectors (i) Negative impact on backward regions (ii) Priority of food crops (iii) (iv) Dilution of research & Extension services Neglected veterinary services

(v) Jobless growth (vi) Declining banking sector

(vii) Disfunctioning of public health system Chapter V: Guidelines for Integrated development of Andhra Pradesh A. Sector wise guidelines - Agriculture - Industry - Economic Infrastructure - Social Infrastructure - Demography

v

B. Region wise guidelines C. Specific Development packages for backward districts Bibliography (Major references used for the study)

Annexures 1. State, Regions and Sub-Regions 2. Development Indicators - Agriculture 3. Development Indicators ­ Industry 4. Development Indicators ­ Economic Infrastructure 5. Development indicators ­ Social Infrastructure 6. Development Indicators ­ Demography 7. Important Indicators - The status of Districts 8. Classification of Districts based on Main Resources 9. No. of Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise 10. No. of Upper Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise 11. No. of High Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise

vi

List of tables

1. Land Utilization in A.P 2. Distribution of land holdings in A.P. 3. Percentage of Gross Irrigated Area to Gross Cropped Area (1960-2008) 4. Percentage of Net Irrigated area to Net area sown 5. Area under principal crops 6. Cattle, milk, eggs and meat production in A.P. 7. Fish produce - prices 8. Forest products ­ Income 9. Industrial Production 10. Factories & workers 11. Expenditure on industry and mining in A.P. 12. Number of enterprises and workers 13. Mineral products (value) 14. Transportation 15. Length of Railway Lines 16. Communication facilities 17. Power production 18. Power consumption 19. Status of Primary education 20. Details of schools ­ government and private 21. Enrollment ratio & dropouts 22. Details of junior colleges 23. Details of Higher education 24. Details of educational sector (1981-2008) 25. No. of govt. hospitals and dispensaries 26. No.of govt. hospital beds 27. No. of doctors in govt. hospitals 28. Human resources ­ State and nation 29. Education parameters in the State and country 30. Medical & Health: State and country 31. Agriculture: State and country 32. Transport and communications: State and country 33. Economy (GSDP & Per Capita Income) State & country 34. Districts in descending order of Development (CCDI) 35. Districts in descending order of Development ­ Agriculture 36. Districts in descending order of Development ­ Industry 37. Districts in descending order of Development ­ Economic Infrastructure 38. Districts in descending order of Development ­ Social Infrastructure 39. Districts in descending order of Development ­ Demography 40. Disparities in Development ­ Regions 41. Disparities in Development ­ Agriculture 42. Disparities in Development ­ Industry 43. Disparities in Development ­ Economic Infrastructure 44. Disparities in Development ­ Social infrastructure 45. Disparities in Development ­ Demography 46. Sector ­ wise ranking - Regions

vii

47. Disparities in Development ­ Sub-Regions 48. Disparities in Development ­ Agriculture 49. Disparities in Development ­ Industry 50. Disparities in Development ­ Economic infrastructure 51. Disparities in Development ­ Social infrastructure 52. Disparities in Development ­ Demography 53. Sector-wise Ranking Sub-Regions 54. Disparities in Development among districts (CCDI) 55. Disparities in Development among districts (Agriculture) 56. Disparities in Development among districts (Industry) 57. Disparities in Development among districts (Economic Infrastructure) 58. Disparities in Development among districts (Social Infrastructure) 59. Disparities in Development among districts (Demography) 60. Extent of area under different major crops in A.P. 61. Budgetary allocation to research and extension services in agriculture 62. Impact on veterinary services ­ region wise 63. Capital and employment after liberalization 64. Impact on banking sector 65. Number of Doctors ­ Region wise 66. Number of hospital beds ­ region wise

viii

List of Figures

1. Average size of Landholdings in A.P. 2. Annual growth rate in GIA 3. Percent of area irrigated under canals and tanks 4. Percent of Net irrigated area 5. Percent of Rainfed area 6. Area under principal crops 7. Annual growth rate of factories 8. Annual growth rate of workers 9. Expenditure on industry and mining 10. Length of roads ­ Annual growth rate 11. Length of railway line 12. Annual growth rate in power 13. Regional variation in power consumption 14. Primary schools: Annual growth rate 15. High schools: annual growth rate 16. Govt. hospitals and dispensaries ­ annual growth rate 17. Number of hospital beds ­ annual growth rate 18. Disparities in development in the districts, CCDI 19. Disparities in development among regions - CCDI 20. Disparities in development among regions (Agriculture) ­ Region wise 21. Disparities in development among regions (Industry) ­ Region wise 22. Disparities in development among regions (Economic Infrastructure) ­ Region wise 23. Disparities in development among regions (Social Infrastructure) ­ Region wise 24. Disparities in development among regions (Demography) ­ Region wise 25. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (CCDI 26. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (Agriculture) 27. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (Industry) 28. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (Economic Infrastructure) 29. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (Social Infrastructure) 30. Disparities in development among Sub - regions (Demography) 31. Disparities in Development (CCDI) of Districts, 1986-88 32. Disparities in Development (CCDI) of Districts, 1996-98 33. Disparities in Development (CCDI) of Districts, 2006-08 34. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Agriculture, 1986-88 35. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Agriculture, 1996-98 36. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Agriculture, 2006-08 37. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Industry, 1986-88 38. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Industry, 1996-98 39. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Industry, 2006-08 40. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Economic Infrastructure, 1986-88 41. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Economic Infrastructure, 1996-98 42. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Economic Infrastructure, 2006-08 43. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Social Infrastructure, 1986-88 44. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Social Infrastructure, 1996-98 45. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Social Infrastructure, 2006-08 46. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Demography, 1986-88

ix

47. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Demography, 1996-98 48. Disparities in Development of Districts ­ Demography, 2006-08 49. Expenditure on Agricultural education and research 50. Expenditure on Agricultural Research 51. Number of veterinary professionals ­ Regions 52. Annual growth rate of productive capital and Industrial workers 53. Number of commercial banks ­ annual growth rate 54. Number of Government doctors ­ Annual growth rate 55. Number of Government hospital beds ­ annual growth rate

x

A Word on the Study

Presently India ranks amongst the fastest growing economies of the world. Its high GDP growth rate, touching 9.75 per cent during 2006-07 was commended by world leaders. The state of Andhra Pradesh recorded much more impressive growth rate of 11.2 percent GSDP during this period. The state achieved a unique level of growth in selective sectors like information technology, in addition to food production as per the statistics provided by concerned departments. In spite of this ascending growth in primary and secondary sectors, there are frequent disturbances like separatist movements, farmers' suicides etc. The failure in transforming growth into development was defined and evaluated by many eminent experts in economics and sociology. However, there appears to be gaps in understanding the reasons behind the regional disparities and identifying the methods to reduce the unevenness in development. Hence, inspired by the political activists that are struggling for integrated development of the state, a comprehensive study was undertaken to review and redefine the disparities between different regions of the state and suggest remedial steps to reduce the differences, if not to totally eliminate them. These studies were undertaken in the light of the methodology evolved by Dr.D.M.Nanjudappa (an eminent economist and state planning board member) who steered a High Power Committee in 2002 that was meant for readdressal of regional differences in Karnataka state. The secondary data obtained through various administrative departments of government of Andhra Pradesh formed the basis to classify regions, sub-regions, districts and revenue mandals of the state in terms of development. The inferences drawn and conclusions arrived at through this study are presented in this compilation. The study was supported by esteemed Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, kolkata. June 2010 Sodhana Sundarayya Vignana Kendram

xi

Introduction

Historical Background

Andhra Pradesh is the fourth largest State in area and fifth in population in the country as per the recent assessments. What is called Dakshina Padha or Deccan was mainly comprised of Andhra region with Telugu language speaking population. Several dynasties ruled over this part of the country. The earliest mention of Andhras could be seen in the Aitareya Brahmana of 800 B.C. It was called Dakshina Padha. The oldest evidence of political prominence of the Andhras in the Southeastern Deccan was visible from the Mauryan age. Megasthenese, who visited the Court of Chandragupta Maurya (B.C.322--297 B.C), mentioned that Andhra country had 30 fortified towns with an army of 1,00,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry and 1,000 elephants. Buddhist books reveal that Andhras established their kingdoms on the Godavari belt that stretches from present day Telangana to Costal Andhra. The 13th rock edict of Ashoka mentioned that the Andhras were his subordinates.

Satavahana Rule - 400 Hundred Years: After the fall of Mauryas, it was the Satavahana who ruled over the Andhradesa [basically with Telugu language speaking people] including almost all parts of the Deccan for about 400 years from the 2nd century B.C. to beyond the 2nd century A.D. The Matsya Purana mentions that there were 29 rulers in the Satavahana dynasty that ruled Andhradesa. The Satavahana rulers used as their capitals Dharanikota in Guntur district, Dharmapuri in Karimnagar district and Paithan in Aurangabad district and some even say Srikakulam in Krishna district.

The present day Andhra Pradesh has been in existence both as a political and as a cultural entity for over 2000 years.

Post-Satavahana Period:

From A.D.180 to A.D.624, Ikshvakus, Brihatphalayanas, Salankayanas, Vishnukundins, Vakatakas, Pallavas, Anandagotras, Kalingas and others ruled over the Andhra area with their small kingdoms. It was only the Eastern Chalukyas who brought stability to the Andhra region which includes all present day sub-regions of Andhra Pradesh.

A.D 624 to 1323 A.D, Chalukyas to Kakatiyas:

The Andhra history, over seven centuries, saw significant change in the political, social, religious and linguistic and literary areas. During the 7th and 14th centuries, the indigenous style of Telugu language, Desi emerged as a literary medium overthrowing the domination of Sanskritic form. Andhradesa used as a synonym in history to Telugu language speaking people living in all sub-regions of Deccan achieved an identity and a distinction of its own as an important constituent of Indian Culture. This change was brought by strong historical forces, namely, the Eastern and Western Chalukyas, the Rashtrakutas and the early Cholas. Kakatiyas came to power during the later half of this period and extended their rule over the entire Telugu land. The rule of the Kakatiyas in the 12th and the 13th centuries, over the entire Telugu land [called Tilling] was a testimony to the collective energies of Telugu people. The military strength was provided by the newly formed peasant-warrior class called Velamas, who migrated from the Palnad region of Guntur to Warangal. This new peasant-warrior class from Palnad [Guntur] helped the Kakatiyas to successfully stop the intrusion of Turks into Deccan. Prataparudra [1295 to 1323] who succeeded his grandmother Rudramba even pushed the western border of his kingdom up to Raichur. His rule saw the Muslim invasion particularly from the Ghiaz-ud-din Tughlaq in whose custody Prataparudra died as a prisoner. The creative expression in arts, crafts, forts, temples, culture, language and literature that had flourished under the benevolent patronage of the Kakatiya rulers was a testimony to the collective contribution of the people from Costal Andhra to Telangana to Rayalaseema.

Vijayanagara Empire:

After the fall of Kakatiyas, the region was ruled by several small kingdoms like Nayakas, Recherla Chiefs, the Reddis of Kondavidu and Rajahmundry, the Gajapathis of Orissa and the Bahmanis. However the entire Telugu land was unified into a glorious empire under the Vijayanagara king, Krishnadevaraya. The history of Telugu people from 14th through 18th century however shows a decisive influence of Islamic culture along with the flourishing Hindu religion and culture. Throughout this period of five hundred years, the Telugu people were ruled by Vijayanagara, Bahmani and Qutb Shahi rulers: the areas from the south-western part of Andhra on the banks of the

2

Tungabhadra through Telangana and costal Andhra to the Rayalaseema and Tanjore and Madhura were brought under their rule. The rule of Krishnadevaraya was the golden age in the history of Telugu people in Deccan. Telugu language and literature was given a preferential treatment and Telugu was treated as official language of the empire though Sanskrit was also encouraged. The creative literature and arts were produced by the intellectuals coming to the Court of Krishnadevaraya from all over Andhra and Karnataka.

Qutub Shahi's - 16th to 17th Centuries:

The Qutub Shahi dynasty had ruled the Andhra country for over two hundred years. Their rule started with the appointment of Sultan Quli Qutb Shah, the founder of the dynasty, as the governor of Telangana in A.D.1496 by the Bahmanis. He declared independence in 1518 and ruled the Telugu speaking areas up to Machilipatam. It was after 1550 that Ibrahim Qutub Shah developed Golkonda Empire. Hyderabad and Machilipatam in Andhra played an important role in the history of Qutub Shahis. For the first time Telugu language and culture was influenced by the Deccani Urdu and Persian traditions. The Golkonda had acted as the centre for the religious and cultural mosaic in Deccan. The Mughal Emperor Aurangazeeb from the North invaded Golkonda in A.D.1687 and annexed it to the Mughal Empire. From 1724 the destiny of Deccan was shaped by the trading and colonial interests of the East India Companies of England and France, and the political struggles between Asafjahi Nizams, Maratha Peshwas and Carnatic rulers.

Asafjahi Rulers:

The Nizams of Asafjahi dynasty ruled the Deccan from 1724 to September 1948. It was perhaps the only period in the history of Telugu people that saw the separation of Andhra and Rayalaseema from the Telangana into two different political systems [150 years]: Telangana along with Marathwada and Northern Karnataka under the Nizams while Andhra and Rayalaseema under the British rule.

3

But the Hyderabad that was founded in A.D.1590-91 and built by Muhammad Quli was financed by the taxes paid by all the people in Deccan, from Northern Karnataka to Marathwada to Andhra to Telangana and Rayalaseema. Between 1768 and 1801, the Nizam lost his political power and through a series of treaties surrendered Andhra and Rayalaseema districts to British in lieu of his debt to them. 1. In 1768 the Northern Circars were transferred to the British 2. He surrendered Guntur circar in 1788 to the British 3. In 1800, with a treaty the Nizam transferred the sovereignty over the districts of Rayalaseema and Bellary (now in Karnataka) 4. Nellore region comprising the present day Nellore and Prakasam districts and a part of the Chittoor district were however taken by the British from the Nawab of Arcot in 1781. Thus, by 1801, the Telugu people were divided into two divisions: one was Telangana under the feudal and autocratic rule of the Nizam and the other, popularly called Andhra, in British ruled Madras Presidency. Throughout these 2000 years of history of Telugu people it was only during the 1801 and 1947 that their destinies were shaped by two distinct political and economic regimes. This however did not deter them in coming together and fighting for their freedom from the British colonialism and the Nizam of Hyderabad's autocratic rule from 1920s till September 1948, when Nizam ruled areas were liberated with the Union Government's police action. The national liberation struggle and the Telangana peasant struggles were collectively conducted by the leaders and people from both Andhra and Telangana. Their freedom was won fighting collectively and not separately. On the eve of India's independence in August 1947, the coastal district and Rayalaseema were in Madras Presidency and Telangana in Nizam's dominion. Telugu speaking coastal districts and Rayalaseema were backward compared to other districts in Madras Presidency. Telangana was the most backward area in the Nizam Kingdom compared to the Marathwada and North Karnataka. The state of Andhra Pradesh was therefore formed with the union of these three backward areas. As a result the A.P state was lagging behind the other Southern states right from the beginning.

4

Though the state was formed with three backward regions there were some inequalities between these otherwise backward regions right from the beginning. British rulers had built Dams on Rivers Krishna, Godavari and Penna during their regime. Partial irrigation systems were formed in Krishna, Godavari, Guntur and Nellore districts. As this was a delta area with black cotton soil and with 1000 mm rainfall, the conditions were very suitable for crop cultivation. On the other hand the Ryotwari System implemented by the British created individual peasant properties in the Costal and Rayalaseema areas. Independent self owned agriculture rather than lease holds increased in the agrarian economy under the British ruled areas. That set the foundation for development. Though there was 1000 mm rainfall, because of other constraints and lack of cultivable land, the Northern Andhra area had remained backward form the beginning. Likewise Rayalaseema suffered from famines and shortfall in rainfall. As there were no irrigation facilities except a few tanks the whole area has become an abode of famine and drought. In Telangana, except Nizam Sagar and a few tanks there was no other form of irrigation facility. The coal mines in the north also could not remove the backwardness. On the other hand the autocratic and oppressive feudal rule of Nizams till 1948 has turned out to be a very big obstacle for the development of this area. Unlike in the Ryotwari areas in Andhra, except the Nizam and his relatives nobody could own lands. The middlemen, Zamindars and Jagirdars looted the farmers. Though there was good rainfall in North Telangana it did not help much. Therefore all over Telangana there was no growth in Agriculture. As a result by the time AP was formed in 1956, the Telangana, Rayalaseema and North Coastal areas were more backward than the southern Andhra districts. It is from that historically constituted backwardness that the three regions made a decisive transition.

Development of Andhra Pradesh

(1) Imbalances in the beginning

By the time, we achieved independence, Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema were in Madras Presidency and Telangana was under Nizams rule. In Madras presidency, Rayalaseema was backward compared to other regions. Similarly, Telangana was the most backward part of

5

Nizam's estate. So, in 1956 Andhra Pradesh was formed with a relatively developed Coastal Andhra and backward regions of Rayalaseema and Telangana. Thus, there were disparities in development between different regions even before the formation of the state. But, unlike Rayalaseema and some parts of Telangana, dams were built across the three major rivers Krishna, Godavari and Penna to provide irrigation to fertile delta area in Coastal Andhra even during the British period. The area had an added advantage of vast tracts of alluvial and black cotton soils and a good rainfall. Most important of all was the rythwari system introduced by the British in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, which created hither to non-existent ownership in land. Unlike tenants, self-cultivating farmers became the owners of the produce, which created interest in farming. All these factors made Coastal Andhra congenial for the development of agriculture. In spite of good rainfall, North Coastal Andhra could not advance because of other factors including non-availability of sufficient cultivable land. Similarly, Rayalaseema was a drought prone area from the beginning. Normal rainfall was mere 714mm in that area. Except a few irrigation tanks, lack of sustained irrigation rendered this region drought prone. In Telangana also, there were no major irrigation systems excepting Nizam sagar project and few irrigation tanks. Even vast coal fields spread over North Telangana could not pave the way for advancement of Telangana region. Though, there are favorable factors for the development of Telangana, the most important factor which retarded the development of this region was the despotic Nizams rule and its feudal exploitation and oppression. Unlike rythvari areas, here in Telangana except Nizam and his kith and kin, others are tenants, no ownership of land for others. Intermediaries like jamindars and jagirdars used to extract maximum from the tenants. Though, there is good rainfall in North Telangana, it could not help the exploited and oppressed tenants.

(2)Agrarian Policies

After achieving independence, the ruling classes in their bid to build capitalism in the country have set up some tasks in the agrarian sector, namely (1) to reduce hunger in the country (2) to achieve food security and (3) to use agricultural surplus for the development of capitalism in the country. In order to fulfill them, they went on changing their tactics. Till 1968-69, they tried to achieve their targets by increasing the cropped area and by providing irrigation. Whatever may

6

be the limitations in removing intermediaries they enacted zamindari abolition act. Using loopholes in the act, the feudal lords could save big chunks of fertile lands. Using the tenancy act, lakhs of tenants were either evicted or forced to buy the land for a price. Whatever may be the lacuna in the acts, using the very same acts, the landless and the poor peasants could get some land, and their rights are safe guarded to some extent. In the rythvari areas, the tenancy act was used to evict lakhs of tenants in the name of own cultivation which led to the practice of un registered tenancy (tenant at will). Because of these acts they could extend the cropped area to some extent in Telangana region. It was during this period the construction of Nagarjuna Sagar irrigation dam was under taken. The gross cropped area went up by 25 lakh acres. 20 lakh acres of additional land was provided with irrigation. Double cropped area went up by 10 lakh acres. The food production was nearly doubled. It went up from 38 lakh tones to 71 lakh tones. In spite of increasing production, to feed the growing population, we had to depend on PL480 American imports in 60s. So, the ruling classes were forced to change their agrarian tactics.

(3) Industrial policy:

Right from the beginning, the industrial policy was such as to protect the interests of ruling classes. For capitalism to grow, an ever-expanding infrastructure is a must. Oil, natural gas, power, steel, machine building factories, transport, communications etc are needed. They need very big investments. But the ruling classes in the beginning had no such reserves. So the responsibility of building and developing infrastructure was given to public sector (i.e.) with people's money. Public sector started building infrastructure in a big way. Annual budgets and taxation policies helped them is mobilizing money from the public. Nationalization of financial institutions also helped them to mobilize much needed resources. Added to the infrastructure, technology is also an important component for the development of capitalism. In spite of liberal technological support coming from the then existing Soviet Union, many research institutions were established in public sector. To protect themselves from international competition, the national market was protected with tariff walls. They were not free market champions in those days. That is how, here in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, Rangareddy and Medak districts, number of research institutions and heavy industries like

7

BHEL, ECIL, HMT, IDPL, Medhani, BHPV, Visakha steels (factory) were established. Many defense research production units were also established. Power generation plants, Fertilizer units, Metal extraction factories were also established. Road and transport sectors were also expanded in a big way. All with public money only and all for private profit only.

(4) Green revolution:

In the field of agriculture, they have decided to increase production with the help of landlords and rich peasants. Technology seemed to be the panacea for them. In addition to expanding irrigation, they started producing inputs to support green revolution. But, they could not imagine that the farmers could raise food production manifold if they are given land and other inputs. Because of their alliance with the landlords, they could not do it. The land reforms act, which they brought in 1970s, though failed in giving land to the tiller, succeeded in converting feudal land lords in to capitalist land lords and in creating a rich peasant class. So, they have to produce high yielding varieties. Research is to be encouraged. They started agricultural university. They established research institutions. Irrigation was expanded. Pump sets were energized. They started producing fertilizers and pesticides. Use of fertilizers and pesticides increased manifold. Though, there was reduction in cropped area, production of food grains went up. It reached 103 lakh tons. The area of commercial and horticultural crops went up. There was growth in sectors like dairying and poultry. Agro based industries came into being. There was increase in number of rice mills, oil mills and cotton mills. There is development in agricultural sector and it gained momentum mainly because there was all round support from the govt. It supported agriculture by supplying subsidized inputs like fertilizer, seed and power. Agriculture was made a priority sector for institutional lending. It established a good network of extension officers and field staff. Food Corporation of India was established to provide remunerative prices for the farmers and to intervene in the market in favor of consumers. There was minimum support price for the farmers. They erected tariff walls to protect the national market. There was rapid mechanization of agriculture during this period. But, the momentum gained could not be sustained for long. In 1980s, there was deceleration. The growth rate of food grain production was dropped. Not only that, the development was confined to irrigated areas of south coastal Andhra. There was almost no impact of green revolution in rainfed regions like Rayalaseema, Telangana and North coastal

8

Andhra. That means green revolution gave a push only to already developed south coastal Andhra. The landlords and rich peasants from that area became richer. Agricultural surplus put them in the forefront in all fields. They were there in the front row in education, in employment, in industry and commerce. But, the same green revolution gave nothing to agricultural workers, marginal and small farmers (There was slight increase in working days) So, during the period of green revolution, the gap between rich and poor got widened. Similarly, the disparities between regions also got widened.

(5). Liberal policies ­ Agricultural crisis

The growth in agricultural sector was already started retarding. 1990s gave birth to WTO. The Central govt. started implementing liberal policies. World Bank started guiding our economy. This dealt a body blow to the already retreating agricultural sector. Public investment started receding. Irrigation was in doldrums. Extension was relegated to the background. Minimum support price policy received a setback. Subsidies were started shrinking. Large farmers were losing interest in agriculture. They started going to towns and cities in search of profitable avenues after leasing out their land. Even if they stayed back in the villages more and more began to prefer leasing out their land because they are getting as much money in the form of rent as they would earn by cultivating the land themselves. But, for the tenant farmer, there is no guarantee that the land will remain with them as it is oral tenancy. Unable to make both ends meet with the meager wage rates, there was heavy competition for tenancy. In some of the districts, the rents were touching the sky. The peasantry, which lost govt. support, was subjected to market fluctuations and natural calamities. Farmers suicides have become the order of the day. On, the one hand the large farmers were trying to wriggle out from farming by either leasing out their lands or by keeping them fallow, on the other side we find tenants struggling with ever rising rents, marginal and small farmers after losing govt. support, to wriggle out of the strangle hold of money lenders and input dealers. The only solution for getting over this crisis is 1) protection of the tenant and two thirds share from the produce 2) Institutional credit 3) All out support from the govt. as in the period of green revolution. But, the govt. instead of facing the crisis involving all concerned is pleading that the small farmer cultivation is not sustainable, and that though the share of agriculture in the GDP is only 30%, its dependent population is 70%, and that this has become a big burden on this sector and so to lessen the burden, agriculture must be made profitable, for

9

that, the lands must be consolidated, co-operative farming (Corporate farming) is the only panacea. It was getting ready to implement it. But, what is the govt. going to do with crores of marginal and small farmers who are going to lose land? What alternative that the govt. can show to such a big section (i.e.) crores of peasant population? After agriculture, hand loom sector was the biggest in the state. Not able to withstand the competition from power loom and mill made cloth and unable to get govt. support, the sector is slowly dying. Small and medium scale industry flourished well until the introduction of liberal policies. But, after the introduction, the sickness was growing. While percentage of sick industries in 1985 was only 18, it went up to 35 by 1990. Though there are number of crops in the state which can be used as raw material for industrial production, there was no serious attempt in this direction. Similarly, the state stands sixth in mineral wealth. Except coal and cement, there is no other industry worth mentioning in the state. Though, there is some pharmaceutical industry also, the state remains backward industrially. The states agricultural surplus which should have been used for industrialization went to unproductive cinema industry in the beginning. Even now, the capital is being invested increasingly in sectors like education, and health. Out of the 23 districts in the state, only 6 are relatively developed.

(6) Slump:

By 1990, crisis engulfed the agricultural and industrial sectors simultaneously. Balance of payments became an unsurmountable problem. The govt. was forced to approach World Bank and accept it's conditionalties. The govt. had to accept structural adjustment policies. This change in govt. policies has turned out to be a boon for the ruling classes. In order to get technology and foreign investment, the country has embraced "World Trade Organization. The national market was opened for international competition. These are the same policies which the ruling classes opposed till 70s and 80s. They wanted public sector to grow because they did not have sufficient reserves to invest in infrastructure. They were opposed to the opening up of the national market, because they have to protect the interests of native budding capitalists. But the conditions have completely changed during the last three or four decades. They gained sufficient strength. They have enough reserves now to invest in infrastructure and to buy public sector industries. They wanted privatization. They wanted subsidies to go. They wanted free

10

market to flourish, international competition to flourish. That is why, they accepted liberalization, privatization and globalization as a national policy. As a result, the country has landed in agricultural crisis. In industrial sector, the small and medium scale industries, which create maximum employment are increasingly falling sick. In the name of enhancing growth rate, they have followed the path of jobless growth. In the name of development, they talked about growth corridors and special economic zones. Lakhs of acres of cultivating land, mostly belonging to the poor peasants was forcibly taken in the name of growth corridors and SEZS. The real estate sector has grown beyond all expectations with the entry of foreign institutional investments. With this, lakhs of acres of land under cultivation was kept fallow. Govt. education and health sectors were deliberately neglected. Lack of funds made them redundant. Poor people were the ultimate sufferers. In the absence of quality education and health in public sector, private sector has rapidly grown. But, there is no entry for the poor. Though, there is some growth in I.T sector, very few got benefited from it. That too is in crisis now. All these changes led to the fall in purchasing power of the people. Together with this, the crises in western countries pushed us in to economic stagnation and slump.

The need for study

From late sixties separatist movements started cropping up. First it was Telangana movement, then it was separate Andhra movement, next came Rayalaseema movement and finally now, again separate Telangana movement. Every region blames the other regions for `it's backwardness. Added to this farmers suicides went on increasing after the govt. started implementing liberal policies. In this back ground "Sundarayya Vignana Kendram" has decided to take up the study of regional imbalances. The necessary data was taken from the records and published books of the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh.

11

Studies undertaken on the development of Andhra Pradesh

There have been some institutions like the Centre for Economic and Social Studies, some of the universities in the state, non-governmental organizations and individuals, who have taken up such studies. There were 10 such attempts between 1969 and 2001. The findings were almost common in all the studies. All South Coastal districts except Prakasam, Chittoor district in Rayalaseema, Hyderabad, Nizamabad, Rangareddy and Medak districts in Telangana and Visakhapatnam in North coastal districts are found to be comparatively developed in all the studies. Similarly Adilabad, Mahabubnagar, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Ananthapur, Kurnool and Prakasam districts were found to be backward. Among the developed districts or backward districts, there may be one and two exceptions for the common findings. Neelam Rajasekhara Reddy Research Foundation had organized a seminar on regional disparities in December 2001. The seminar papers were edited by Sri Y.V. Krishna Rao and Prof.S.Subrahmanyam. Ghan Shyam Mahanthy, for his M. Phil degree took up such a study in 1997 in Centre for Economic and Social Studies. He took three periods to study the disparities at the district level. In his studies also, almost the same pattern of development has emerged. In our study also, though, there are some changes that took place with time almost the same picture emerged. The High Power Committee appointed by the govt. of Karnataka, headed by the renowned economist Prof. D.M.Nanjundappa made a thorough study of the imbalances between different regions. It inspired us to take up this study. Same procedure was adopted for calculating comprehensive composite development index (CCDI) and for classifying different regions, sub-regions, districts and mandals.

Specialties of the study Study of disparities from mandal level (1107 mandals). (Mandal level analysis is included in District reports) Studying sector wise disparities between mandals. Categorizing backward mandals and suggesting the ways for overcoming backwardness.

12

Limitations of the study To assess the imbalances between regions any number of variables can be used. But we could get data only for 25 variables at the district level. For some of the important indicators, we could not get data for all the 23 districts. For, one or two districts, they were missing. That is why; such indicators though important are not used for the analysis. Because of this constraint, we had to limit our study to only 25 variables. This study could have started from 1956, the year of formation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, instead of starting from 1986. But, there was no data worth the name till 70s. So, the study was started from 1986 from which year, we could get data for all the 25 variables and for all the 23 districts.

13

Chapter -1

Andhra Pradesh at Present

A. Resources & Growth

1. Natural Resources: ( i ) Soils: Andhra Pradesh is endowed with several natural resources. Its strength equally is quoted in terms of population (8.3 crores) and area (2.75 lakh Km). The topography and soils of the state create a basis to classify the state into three different parts i.e. Coastal belt, Eastern ghats and Western plateau. The Sea Coast that stretched around 1000km is located from Srikakulam to Nellore. The coast is endowed with deltaic soils and river based ecosystem, besides large tracts of mangrove forests. Towards west of the coast lies the Eastern Ghats. These hills stretched from north of Godavari to the south of Krishna, the two mighty rivers of the state. The remaining large area is uniformly spread plateau. The entire Telangana as well as Kurnool and Anantapur districts of Rayalaseema are located in this region. The sandy loam soils of coastal region close to the sea (Bay of Bengal) even though are less fertile, in some areas they are conducive for cashew production and casuarina like plantation crops. Though the area is limited, the deltaic region that took shape because of Godavari and Krishna rivers are with fertile clay soils. Naturally rice like major food crop got adopted to such ecosystems. Similarly the coastal areas of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Nellore also are endowed with deltaic regions because of Nagavali, Vamsadhara and Penna rivers. In around 25 per cent area of the state black cotton soils are available that can retain moisture, a desirable character for crop production and forest development. Such soils are there in Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam, Mahabubnagar, Krishna, Guntur districts. They are suitable for the cultivation of commercial crops like cotton, chilies, turmeric, onion, tobacco and for several food (millets) and oilseed crops. Black soils are also present in some areas of western Ananthapur, eastern regions of Kadapa and Medak districts. Large areas in state are covered with red-soils. Naturally the nutrient poor and low moisture retention capacity make them suitable for crop production only under irrigated dry conditions. In all the districts of Telangana and Rayalaseema and Nellore, Guntur, West

14

Godavari, East Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam districts such soils are common. In addition, in some districts like Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, Nellore, Medak there are some gravel or sandy soils that are only suitable for one or two horticultural or agro-forestry crops. (ii) Rainfall: The average annual rainfall in the state is 94 cm., while it is as high as 121.7 cm in East Godavari and as low as 55.2cm in Anantapur district. Except in Guntur and Prakasam districts the annual rainfall in the coastal districts is more than 100 cm. Among the four Rayalaseema districts Chittoor receives maximum (94 cm) rainfall. In Telangana, Adilabad, Nizamabad and Khammam districts receive annually 105 cm., while Mahabubnagar receives 60.4 cm ., only. The state receives rain from Southwest as well as Northeast monsoons. (iii) Rivers and Irrigation: Andhra Pradesh is also a river state; since there are about 34 big or small rivers. Of these Godavari, Krishna, Penna, Vamsadhara, Nagavali are major ones. Godavari river that originates in Maharastra flows for about 772 km in the state. Its ¾ flow in the state is due to local rivulets like Pranahitha, Manjeera, Sabari, Penganga. This river is tamed through two major dams, one at Dhavaleswaram (East Godavari) and another at Pochampadu (Nizamabad). However, the state is not able to realize its full potential and most of the water is flowing into the sea. Hence, a new dam at Polavaram (West Godavari) is under construction. Similarly Krishna river flows about 660 km in the state after Maharastra and Karnataka. In the state there are three tributaries to Krishna, Thungabhadra, Bhima and Musi. To harness Krishna water for irrigation and power generation, three dams/anicuts were constructed at Srisailam, Nagarjunasagar, Vijayawada, besides a new one at Pulichinthala. The river Penna that flows through Ananthapur, Kadapa and Nellore, is tamed by building an anicut at Somasila. Nagavali, Vamsadhara whose origins lie in Orissa are yet to be tamed appropriately, Thungabhadra, a tributary of Krishna flows in the boarders of Kurnool and Mahabubnagar districts and is useful to some extent in Kadapa and Kurnool districts. Manjeera that flows through Medak and Nizamabad, Pranahitha that flows in the boarders of Adilabad, Musi that flows through Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad, Nalgonda districts, Munneru that flows through Warangal and Khammam districts are also tamed to a limited extent. There is a scenic Kolleru lake that stretched in about 260 sq. km area in between Krishna and Godavari districts. Through these resources there is scope to obtain around 2000 TMC of water that could be used for surface irrigation. There is a scope to expand irrigation for more than 350 lakh acres with the existing surface and ground water resources in the state.

15

(iv) Forest: 23.2 percent area in the state is covered by forests (64000 Sq. Km). Of these forests 80 percent are reserved, while the remaining are protected variety. Because of the short sighted approach, around 54 lakh acres of forest area was converted into agricultural lands. The forest area is distributed almost equally in three regions. In these forests more than 2.78 lakh acres area is with teak; 1.92 lakh acres with eucalyptus; 1.72 lakh acres casuarinas, red sandal wood, bamboo, cashew nut that are commonly maintained. The forest resources ­ beedi leaf, honey, tamarind, soapnuts, amla, resins, lacs are important for locals, particularly in agency area. (v) Sea-coast: The state has a long (974 km) sea coast stretched from Itchapuram (Srikakulam) to Thada (Nellore). There are 9 sea-ports in the state. However, only Visakhapatnam and Kakinada are well developed ports. The others are yet to be structured and maintained properly. Mangroves along the sea-coast is another natural resource that protects the ecosystems of coastal regions. The brakish water lake, "Pulicot" that stretched between Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh is another natural resource. Fisheries and artificial prawn cultures are dependable professions for many communities who live in the coastal region. Added to that, the coastline of Bay of Bengal is endowed with specific minerals like ­Elmnite, Magnatite, Monazite, Zirkan, Garget, Silica, Black sand, Gloconite etc. (vi) Ores and Minerals: The state is equally endowed with several ores and minerals, the basic resources for development of industries. Iron ore to the extent of 46 crores of tones is available in the mines located in Ananthapur, Kurnool, Prakasam, Krishna and Khammam districts. Bauxite an important ore for Aluminum, and other chemical industries is located in Visakhapatnam and East Godavari districts. Manganese ore is located in Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Prakasam districts. Similarly Mica, Clay, Quartz, Apatite, Copper, lead and Zinc like minerals are also traced in several areas of the state. The high volumes of lime stone, Granite, Marble, Berytes etc are also present in specific areas. In addition the most important resource, Coal is extensively located (5.6% of the country) in the Godavari Valley. These mines are extended in 350 km area of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal and Khammam districts.

16

Another most valuable resource of the state that was identified recently is petroleum and natural gas. It is located in Krishna-Godavari basin both Onshore and Offshore. The volume of the gas available here is comparable with that of "Bombay High". Besides these resources, few rare minerals like Rutile, Zircun, Monazite, Garnet, Elmenite, titanium etc are also available near sea-coast area of the state. Of late even "uranium" deposits are found in certain areas of the state. (vii) Livestock: The state is also rich in livestock that is intertwined with agriculture, the primary sector. As per the recent assessments, around 112 lakhs of cows and bulls/bullocks, 133 lakhs of buffaloes, 256 lakhs of sheep, 97 lakhs of goats, 4.3 lakhs of swines are being reared in the state. The strength of poultry to the tune of 1240 lakhs of birds is also an addition to enhance the value of this sector. Naturally the state is in forefront in milk, meat and egg productions because of this base. The expansion of fisheries including inland and sea-coast regions is also another strength of the state.

2. Agriculture:

i) Land use: The statistical sources reveal that the uncultivable waste in the state has been reduced by 13 lakh acres when compared to 1956-57 (Table I). The use of land for nonagricultural purpose is growing. It has become difficult to rear or maintain sheep and goat in the traditional style. The data also shows that there is an increase in the area of forests. Around 28 lakh acres of cultivable waste was brought under cultivation. But the area of current fallows and other fallows increased by 40 lakhs. This makes negative impact on the development of the state.

17

Table 1: Land Utilization in Andhra Pradesh (Million Hectares) Category 1956-57 1970- 711980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2004-05 2007-08 Total Geographical Area 26.89 27.44 27.44 27.44 27.44 27.44 27.50 Forests 5.57 6.34 6.11 6.27 6.20 6.20 6.21 Barren and Uncultivable Land 2.59 2.10 2.34 2.10 2.10 2.08 2.06 Land put to Non-Agricultural uses 1.52 2.12 2.17 2.31 2.52 2.61 2.64 Permanent pastures & Other Grazing Lands 1.21 1.08 0.93 0.84 0.67 0.68 0.57 Land under miscellaneous Tree crops, 0.23 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.31 Groves Cultivable waste 1.79 1.12 0.87 0.78 0.73 0.69 0.66 Current Fallows 1.77 1.77 2.56 2.48 2.31 2.82 2.72 Other Fallows 0.81 0.88 1.35 1.38 1.42 1.65 1.50 Net Area Sown 11.41 11.73 10.74 11.02 11.22 10.43 10.84 Area Sown More than once 1.03 1.62 1.54 2.17 2.43 2.09 2.81 Total Cropped Area 12.44 13.35 12.28 13.19 13.65 12.52 13.57 Source:- Andhra Pradesh at50 and Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2001, 2005 and 2008.

Land holdings: The analysis of land holdings from 1956 reveals that there was steep increase in the number of marginal farmers. The number of marginal farmers which was 16.38 lakhs in 1956, increased fourfold and reached 70.23 lakhs in 2001. But the average area of holding of marginal farmers was reduced from 1.24 to 1.09 acres. Similarly the number of small farmers also increased three times and reached 25.18 lakhs which was only 7.53 in 1956. Average area of the holding of small farmers increased from 3.19 acres to 3.51 acres. The number of middle farmers also increased from 7.53 lakhs to 14.24 lakhs and average size of their holdings also increased from 5.48 to 6.59 acres. But the number of other two categories of farmers got reduced. Rich farmers who were 7.11 lakhs in 1956 were reduced to 5.01 in 2001. Similarly large farmers were also reduced from 3.69 lakhs to 57000. The average size of the holding of rich farmers has increased from 10.08 acres to 14.08 acres and the average size of holding of large farmers has increased from 26.43 acres to 40.36 acres (Table 2) There is rapid increase in the number of marginal farmers. They constitute 60 percent in the total farmers. But the size of average holding of marginal farmers is decreasing. Agricultural production, costs of inputs and environmental changes are making serious impact on marginal farmers. Suicide has become a normal phenomena in this category. Marginal farmer cultivation cannot be sustained without govt. support.

18

Table 2: DISTRIBUTION OF LAND HOLDINGS IN ANDHRA PRADESH Sl. Size No. Group 1956 No. of % in Operated % in Average Total Size Holdin Total Area area (hectares) gs (in Holdings (Lakh Hectares) Lakhs) 3 16.38 7.75 7.53 7.11 3.69 42.46 4 38.58 18.25 17.73 16.75 8.69 100.00 5 8.16 10 16.69 29.04 39.48 103.37 6 7.89 9.67 16.15 28.09 38.19 100.00 7 0.5 1.29 2.22 4.08 10.7 2.43 2000-01 Operated % in Area Total Holdings (Lakh Hectares) 9 60.90 21.83 12.35 4.34 0.57 100.00 10

No. of Holdin gs in Lakhs 8 70.23 25.18 14.24 5.01 0.66 115.32

% in Total area 11

Average Size (hectares) 12 0.44 1.42 2.67 5.7 16.34 1.25

1 1 2 3 4 5

2 Marginal Small

Semi Medium

Medium Large Total

31.04 21.56 35.65 24.76 37.95 26.36 28.55 19.83 10.8 7.50 143.99 100.00

Source: "Andhra Pradesh at 50" and "Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh", 2001. Average size of land holdings in Andhra Pradesh ­ Economic Group wise SL.No 1 2

3

Size Group

4 5

Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Semi Medium Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers

Average size of the holdings 1.09 3.51 6.59 14.08 40.36

Fig 1: Average size of the holding

ii) Irrigation: According to the Statistical data of 2007-08 there is 267.82 lakh acres of net sown area in the state. Out of this, irrigation facility was available for only 114.7 lakhs acres. That means 42.82 percent of the net sown area is having irrigation facility. Out of this, 39.76

19

lakh acres of land was irrigated under canals, 14.44 lakh acres under tanks, 56.48 lakh acres under tube wells and 4 lakh acres through other sources. In the 2007-08, only 155.24 lakh acres of land was irrigated out of 337.25 lakh acres of gross cropped area. That means only 46.03 percent of the gross cropped area was provided with irrigation facility in 2007-08. With a view to fully utilize the river water resources of the State, the government of Andhra Pradesh decided to construct 86 irrigation projects under the scheme `Jalayagnam'. Currently irrigation facility is provided in the State through 20, 000 small irrigation schemes. During 1960-61, gross irrigated area in the gross cropped area was more in North and South Coastal Andhra. It was 51.5 percent and 50.66 percent respectively. But in other subregions it was very very small. It was 16.43 per cent in Rayalaseema, 14.03 per cent in South Telangana and 23.43 percent in North Telangana. There was only 29.14 percent irrigated area in the State during that period.

Table 3: Percentage of Gross Area Irrigated (GIA) to Gross Cropped Area (GCA), 1960-61 to 2007-08 (Area in Lakh Acres) Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 Sub Region GCA 22.97 80.30 79.26 60.00 48.90 291.43 1960-61 GIA 11.83 40.68 13.02 8.42 10.97 84.92 % 51.50 50.66 16.43 14.03 22.43 29.14 GCA 27.64 89.71 77.19 71.04 64.07 329.65 1970-71 GIA 11.46 47.87 15.84 13.58 15.56 104.31 % 41.46 53.36 20.52 19.12 24.29 31.64 1980-81 GCA GIA % 27.57 11.19 40.59 90.87 51.01 56.13 63.75 14.28 22.39 60.29 12.87 21.34 61.13 17.93 29.33 303.61 107.27 35.33 Table 1 Continued... 2007-08 Growth

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5

Sub Region

1990-91

2000-01

GCA GIA % GCA GIA % GCA GIA % North Coastal Andhra 31.29 12.33 39.38 30.13 11.02 36.56 31.47 13.24 42.07 South Coastal Andhra 97.98 55.60 56.74 94.68 56.34 59.51 105.12 62.54 59.49 Rayalaseema 72.22 16.40 22.71 71.51 19.44 27.18 76.67 19.07 24.87 South Telangana 60.59 19.19 31.68 57.58 18.60 32.30 56.02 22.92 40.92 North Telangana 63.80 29.10 45.61 60.89 31.39 51.56 67.97 37.47 55.12 Andhra Pradesh 325.89 132.61 40.69 314.78 136.79 43.46 337.25 155.24 46.03 Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 and 2008

-9.43 8.83 8.44 26.88 32.69 16.89

20

Percentage of Gross Area Irrigated (GIA) to Gross Cropped Area (GCA), 1960-61 to 2007-08 (Area in Lakh Acres) Annual Average Growth Rate -0.20 0.19 0.18 0.57 0.70

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5

Sub Region North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

1961 51.50 50.66 16.43 14.03 22.43

1981 40.59 56.13 22.39 21.34 29.33

1991 39.38 56.74 22.71 31.68 45.61

2007 42.07 59.49 24.87 40.92 55.12

Fig 2: Annual growth rate in gross irrigated area

· · ·

Growth rate is phenomenally high in North followed by south Telangana Negative growth rate in North coast Growth rate is marginal in Rayalaseema and South coastal region

21

Irrigation facility slowly increased in South Coastal Andhra sub region and reached 59.49 percent in 2007-08. During 1960-61 to 2007-08 there was 8.83 per cent growth in irrigation facility in South coastal Andhra region. But, there was negative growth (-9.43 per cent) in North Coastal Andhra. There was 8.44 percent growth in Rayalaseema, 26.88 percent in South Telangana and a maximum of 32.69 percent growth in North Telangana (Table 3). Though there was high growth in irrigation facility in North Telangana one need not conclude that Telangana was given more importance in irrigation projects during this period. South Coastal Andhra which is having highest irrigation facility (59.37%) is rewarded with a major share of its irrigation (canal and tank 40.76%) at govt. expense. In north Andhra, canal and tank irrigation was 39.13 per cent and irrigation by other sources was only 8.24 per cent. But the situation is entirely different in other sub regions. In North Telangana, though there was 50.97 net irrigated area in the net sown area, only 11.48 per cent of land is getting water from tanks and canals. The remaining land (39.51%) is irrigated using ground water. Similar situation could be seen in South Telangana also. It has 34.54% of irrigated area in which only 7.22 per cent of land is irrigated under canals and tanks. Remaining 27.32 per cent land is irrigated by ground water. The condition of Rayalaseema was also not different. There was only 22.58 per cent irrigated area in Rayalaseema, out of which only 6.83 percent of land was irrigated under canals and tanks and the remaining 15.77 per cent was irrigated with ground water (Table 4)

22

Table 4 Percentage of Net Area Irrigated to Net Area sown and rainfed area

Sl. No District Net Area Sown Area % of Area Area % of Area Net % in Rainfed % in Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated Irrigated by Irrigated the Net Area the by Canal under by Other Other Area Area Net and Canals and Sources sources sown Area Tanks Tanks Sown

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2 Karimnagar West Godavari Nellore East Godavari Warangal Nizamabad Krishna Guntur Srikakulam Nalgonda Vizianagaram Khammam Chittoor Kadapa Medak Visakhapatnam Prakasam Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Kurnool Adilabad Anantapur Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 1 South Coastal Andhra 2 3 4 5 North Telangana

North Coastal Andhra

3

10.60 11.73 8.69 10.92 11.16 6.62 12.57 15.56 8.10 12.62 7.98 11.19 9.02 9.71 11.31 7.71 16.03 19.07 5.09 22.08 12.52 27.54 0.00 267.82 75.51 52.09 23.79 48.09 68.34 267.82

4

0.96 5.21 4.00 5.36 1.36 0.55 6.20 7.66 4.37 2.25 3.16 2.77 0.57 0.96 0.12 1.78 2.34 1.06 0.04 2.50 0.34 0.64 0.00 54.20 30.77 5.98 9.31 3.47 4.67 54.20

5

9.06 44.42 46.03 49.08 12.19 8.31 49.32 49.23 53.95 17.83 39.60 24.75 6.32 9.89 1.06 23.09 14.60 5.56 0.79 11.32 2.72 2.32 0.00 20.24 40.75 11.48 39.13 7.22 6.83 20.24

6

7.43 4.08 2.05 1.90 6.00 3.66 1.68 1.88 0.57 3.98 0.57 2.25 3.19 2.67 3.68 0.82 2.47 4.20 1.28 2.62 1.24 2.30 0.00 60.52 14.06 20.58 1.96 13.14 10.78 60.52

7

70.09 34.78 23.59 17.40 53.76 55.29 13.37 12.08 7.04 31.54 7.14 20.11 35.37 27.50 32.54 10.64 15.41 22.02 25.15 11.87 9.90 8.35 0.00 22.60 18.62 39.51 8.24 27.32 15.77 22.60

8

8.40 9.29 6.05 7.26 7.36 4.20 7.88 9.53 4.94 6.22 3.73 5.01 3.75 3.63 3.80 2.59 4.82 5.26 1.33 5.11 1.58 2.94 0.00 114.68 44.83 26.55 11.26 16.61 15.43 114.68

9

79.25 79.20 69.62 66.48 65.95 63.44 62.69 61.25 60.99 49.29 46.74 44.77 41.57 37.38 33.60 33.59 30.07 27.58 26.13 23.14 12.62 10.68 0.00 42.82 59.37 50.97 47.33 34.54 22.58 42.82

10

2.21 2.44 2.64 3.66 3.80 2.41 4.69 6.02 3.16 6.39 4.25 6.17 5.26 6.08 7.51 5.11 11.22 13.81 3.77 16.96 10.94 24.60 0.00 153.10 30.67 25.53 12.52 31.48 52.90 153.10

11

20.85 20.80 30.38 33.52 34.05 36.40 37.31 38.69 39.01 50.63 53.26 55.14 58.31 62.62 66.40 66.28 69.99 72.42 74.07 76.81 87.38 89.32 0.00 57.17 40.62 49.01 52.63 65.46 77.41 57.17

South Telangana Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008

23

Percentage of Net Area Irrigated to Net Area sown

Sl. No 1 1 2 3 4 5

Sub Regions 2 South Coastal Andhra North Telangana North Coastal Andhra South Telangana Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

% Area Irrigated under Canals and Tanks 3 40.75 11.48 39.13 7.22 6.83 20.24

% Area Irrigated by Other sources 4 18.62 39.51 8.24 27.32 15.77 22.60

% Net Irrigate d area 5 59.37 50.97 47.33 34.54 22.58 42.82

% of Rain Fed Area 6 40.62 49.01 52.63 65.46 77.41 57.17

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008

- Still rain fed region is very high in Rayalaseema followed by south Telangana - Surface irrigation is very low in Rayalaseema, South Telangana and North Telangana

Fig 3: Percentage of Area Irrigated under Canals and Tanks

24

Fig 4: Percentage of Net Irrigated Area

Fig 5: Percentage of Rainfed Area

Those districts, where there is maximum rainfed cultivation are generally backward. But, Rangareddy district is different. Though, most of its cultivated are is rainfed, it is industrially well advanced. Hence, it is categorized as a developed district. But, the growth in the industrial sector has masked the backwardness of agriculture. Whether canal irrigation or ground water irrigation, both the farmers have to sell their produce in the same market. The farmer who used ground water has to spend more than that of the farmer who is provided with canal irrigation. Farmers who are provided with canal

25

irrigation have to spend very little for irrigation. But the use of ground water for cultivation is more expensive. For digging the bore well, for fixing pump set and for meeting its repairs a lot of investment is needed. So, to produce a unit of crop, the farmer who uses ground water has to spend more than that of the farmer who is provided with canal water. Apart from this there is more risk in ground water irrigation. Added to that, they have to sell their produce in the same market and for the same price which puts the ground water farmer at a disadvantage. So, either they must be given special price for their produce or they must be provided with surface irrigation. Rainfed irrigation is maximum (89.33 percent) in Anantapur district. Next comes Adilabad with 87.38 percent, Kurnool with 76.85 per cent, Rangareddy with 73.79 percent, Mahabubnagar with 72.41 per cent and Prakasam with 70 per cent. Among the sub-regions, Rayalaseema (77.41 percent) and South Telangana (65.43 per cent) stand first and second in rainfed agriculture (table 4). iii) Crops: Rice was produced in 86.45 lakh acres in 1997-98 and it increased to 94.45 lakh acres in 2000-01 and 108.06 lakh acres in 2008-09. During the last decade the area under rice crop has increased by 21.61 lakh acres. During this period the area of other food crops has decreased from 35.99 lakh acres to 31.74 lakh acres. The area under cereals has increased from 15.65 lakh acres to 17.72 lakh acres. But, the area of groundnut cultivation has decreased from 45.30 lakh acres in 1998 to 41.77 lakh acres in 2000-01 and 43.60 lakh acres in 2008-09. During the whole period the net reduction in the area is 1.70 lakh acres. During the last decade, the area under cotton cultivation has increased from 22.38 lakh acres to 30.16 lakh acres. Similarly the area under chillies has increased from 4.25 lakh acres to 6.40 lakh acres. Another crop, castor, which was produced in 4.20 lakh acres in the year 1998, has gone up to 6.99 lakh acres in 2000-01 and then fell to 3.93 lakh acres in 2008-09 (Table 5).

26

Table 5 Area under Principle Crops Area (in Lakh Acres) 2008-09 108.06 139.80 43.77 43.60 30.16 6.40 4.74 3.93 9.68 5.24 2.27 0.96

Sl. No 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Crop Rice Total Food Crops Total Cereals Groundnut Cotton Chilli Sugarcane Castor Sunflower Tobacco Turmeric Banana

1997-98 86.45 122.39 38.65 45.30 22.38 4.25 4.74 4.20 9.48 4.96 1.23 0.86

2000-01 94.45 126.86 47.40 41.77 27.34 5.53 5.38 6.99 6.59 3.14 1.51 0.89

Source: (1) A.P. Statistical Abstract, 2003 and 2008.

(2) A.P. Socio-economic Survey, 2008-09 Fig 6: Area (in lakh acres) under principal crops, 2008-09

27

iv) Animal rearing, Dairying: According to 2007 statistics, there were a total of 6,00,77,390 cattle in the state. If it is compared with the cattle in the year 2003, there is an annual growth of 6.1 per cent from 2003 to 2007. Similarly the annual growth of - cows and bullocks is 5.47 per cent (94,24,000 - 1,14,88,804), buffaloes 6.85 per cent (1,07,68,000-1,37,27,836), sheep 4.525 per cent (2,10,15,000-2,45,84,552), and goats 12.98 per cent (64,27,000-97,65,200). The production of milk, which was 69,59,000 metric tones in 2003-04 reached 89,26,000 metric tones in 2007-08. That means there was 7.3 per cent of annual growth in milk production. Similarly there is 5.5% annual growth (1,49,930 lakhs ­ 1,83,440 lakhs) in the production of eggs. There was 6 per cent of annual growth (4,47,000 tones ­ 5,56,000 tones) in meat production (Table 6).

Table 6: Cattle, Milk, Eggs, Meat Production and Growth rate

Sl.No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cattle - Milk Cows and Bullocks Buffaloes Sheep Goat Milk production (in tones) Poultry Egg production (in lakhs) Meat production (in tones)

2003-04 94,24,000 1,07,68,000 2,10,15,000 64,27,000 69,59,000 10,22,77,712 1,49,930 4,47,000

2007-08 1,14,88,804 1,37,27,836 24,58,84,552 97,65,200 89,26,000 11,84,85,624 1,83,440 5,56,000

Annual Growth 5.47% 6.80% 4.52% 12.98% 7.30% 3.96% 5.50% 6.00%

Source: A.P. Statistical Abstract, 2005 and 2008 v) Fisheries: Fish and prawn produced in 2001-02 and 2006-07 are given in the following table Table 7- Fish Produce- Prices

Year Produced from Quantity (in tones) Value (in rupees)

2001-02

Sea Water Surface water Total Sea Water Surface water Total

204941 471164 676105 240713 662384 903097

102043 324535 426578 120131 412528 532659

2006-07

Source: A.P. Statistical Abstract, 2003 and 2008. In the last 5 years, annual growth rate of fish and prawn production is 6.71% and their value has increased at the rate of 4.97% per year.

28

vi). Forest Products: The annual growth of forest products can be seen by comparing the income derived from forest products during the years between 2002-03 and 2006-07. Income from Major products (2,21,738 thousand ­ 5,18,143 thousand) has increased by 33.41% but the minor products income (4,18,428 ­ 1,08,065) shows a decline by 18.54 %. So the total annual growth is very little­ 0.18%. Table 8: Forest Product Income Other major Veduru Beedi Other minor products products Leaves 6,757 1,88,693 2,27,944 3,525 1,791 278

Year

Teak

Firewood 4,735

Others

Total

2002-03 2,10,246 2006-07 4,00,238

1,876 6,42,042 20,527 6,46,735

3,343 1,14,562 1,04,262

3. Industries If the production and annual growth rate of some important industries for the period from 1960 to 2004 are compared, it becomes clear that the annual growth rate of jute industry was 0.04 per cent only. This shows that this industry has been deteriorating in the state. The cement industry recorded maximum growth rate (32.59 per cent) during this period. Paper industry also recorded a good growth rate (17.24 per cent). Tobacco industry received a setback. There is only 0.56 percent of annual growth in that industry. In sugar industry there is 8.86 per cent of annual rowth during this period. Similarly the annual growth rate in coal industry is also fairly high and is 27.88 percent. Coal industry has also recorded a better growth rate (Table 9)

Table 9: Industrial Production of Selected Industries Industry Cotton Yarn Jute Cement Paper Sugar Cigarettes Coal Unit 1960 2004 Annual Average Growth Rate Lakh Kgs 172.67 848.34 8.70 Tonnes 31868.00 32384.00 0.04 Tonnes 718689.00 11258655.00 32.59 Tonnes 35506.00 310927.00 17.24 Tonnes 132773.00 662406.00 8.86 Millions 6819.00 8546.00 0.56 `000 Tonnes 2531.00 34283.00 27.88 Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2005

29

(i) Factories and workers: There was positive growth in the no. of factories and no. of workers in factories during 1960 to 1980-81. There was 10 per cent of annual growth rate. Later the growth fell down to 2 per cent in 1990-91. During 1990-91 to 2001 there was negative growth in the number of industries. The annual growth in this period was -2.94%. This low growth rate has continued till 2002-03. Similarly the growth in the no. of workers is also very low during this period. Out of 23 districts, only 6 districts are relatively developed in this sector. The comparison at all India level reveals that Andhra Pradesh is in better position than other states in this sector. But still the state has to achieve its previous growth rates by fully utilizing all its resources (table 10).

Year Table 10: Factories and Workers No. of factories Annual Average No. of Employees Growth rate Annual Average Growth Rate

81.43 12.89 11.20 6.97 0.81 1.70 -0.50 12.25

1956 1961 1970-71 1980-81 1982-83 1990-91 2000-01 2002-02 2002-03

3754 3160 7096 15939 16927 19881 14029 14237 14683

-3.16 12.46 12.46 6.20 2.18 -2.94 0.74 3.13

0.28 1.42 3.25 6.89 7.85 8.36 9.07 8.98 10.08

Source: Golden Jubilee of Andhra Pradesh, 1956-2005, Table 4.

Fig 7: Annual Growth rate of Factories

15 10 5 0 -5 1956 1961 1970- 1980- 1982- 1990- 2000- 2002- 200271 81 83 91 01 02 03

30

Fig 8: Annual Growth Rate of Workers

100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 1956 1961 1970- 1980- 1982- 1990- 2000- 2002- 200271 81 83 91 01 02 03

The amount spent on mines and industries during the period from 2nd five year plan to 10th five year plan is given in the following table. In the 2nd plan only 5.8 per cent of the total plan expenditure was spent on mines and industries. Gradually it was reduced to 3.56 per cent in 5th plan. Later it went up to 6.21 per cent. In the 9th plan it reached lowest i.e., 2.67 per cent. In the 10th plan there was little growth in it and it reached 3.98 per cent. It is clear that insufficient allocations are the main cause for the stunted growth of industrial sector in the state (Table 11).

Table 11: Expenditure on Industry and Mining in Andhra Pradesh Sl. No 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plan Period Expenditure on Total Plan % in the Total Industry and Mining Expenditure (in Plan Expenditure (Rs. in Crores) Rs.) 3 4 5 10.15 188.60 5.80 15.19 352.42 4.31 14.73 448.87 3.28 51.50 1444.71 3.56 200.88 3237.07 6.21 284.92 5978.88 4.77 540.57 13606.60 3.97 811.85 30398.23 2.67 1855.11 46611.83 3.98

Source: Golden Jubilee of Andhra Pradesh, 1956-2005, p.71

2 II Plan III Plan IV Plan V Plan VI Plan VII Plan VIII Plan IX Plan X Plan

31

Fig 9: Expenditure on Industry and Mining (%)

ii) Trade: There were 29,02, 543 enterprises in the state in the year 2000. By 2005, the number reached 39,96,982. It shows that there is 37.7 per cent annual growth in the number of enterprises. Among these enterprises, the agricultural enterprises have achieved a better growth rate (63.76%) compared to non-agricultural enterprises. Similarly, there was 13.48 percent of growth in the number enterprises in urban areas when compared to the enterprises in rural areas. There were 75,11,803 workers in enterprises in 2000. By 2005, their number rose to 1,12,01,513 recording a 49.12 per cent growth rate.

Table 12 Number of Enterprises and Workers Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 Enterprises / Workers Agricultural Enterprises Non-Agricultural Enterprises Rural Enterprises Urban Enterprises Total workers

2000

5,99,634 23,02,909 20,07,386 8,95,157 75,11,803

2005

9,81,986 30,14,996 28,47,796 11,49,186 1,12,01,513

Annual Growth Rate

63.76 30.92 41.86 28.38 49.12

The value of goods and services which were exported from the State in the year 2000 was Rs.13,615 cores. By the year 2006-07 it reached to Rs.40,601 crores (198%) with an annual growth rate of 33 per cent. During this period I.T. related exports stood in the 1st place with (Rs.3,668 crores ­ 18,582 crores) and 67.76% annual growth. The exports of minerals and mineral related products stood in the 2nd place (Rs.729 crores ­ 3083 crores) with 53.8 per cent

32

annual growth and pharmaceutical exports stood in the 3rd place (Rs.2420 crores-7199 crores) with 32.9 per cent annual growth. iii) Mineral production: The progress in the development of mineral production can be seen by comparing its production in 2000-01 and 2006-07. During the six years, there was 5.66 per cent growth in the fuel production. Similarly there was 46.29 per cent growth in mineral ores and 13.06 per cent growth in nonmetallic ores. (Table 13)

Table 13 ­ Value of Mineral Products (in rupees)

Minerals a. Fuel b.Metal c.Non-metal Total 2000-01 3404,08,40,000 20,86,23,000 261,78,76,000 3686,73,39,000 2006-07 4561,72,51,000 78,81,05,000 466,90,30,000 5107,43,86,000

During the 6 years period, there was 6.42 per cent annual growth in mineral production.

4. Economic Infrastructure

(i) Road and Transport: By 2009 there were 4648 kms. of national high ways in State. Out of this, 1229 kms. is a four line road and works are going on to convert the remaining length to four lines. Along with national highways, there are 10519 kms. of State highways, 32170 kms. of district roads, 21714 kms.of rural roads in the State. In National Highways 4638 kms. are black top roads. In the State Highways 612 kms are cement roads, 54.651 kms are tar roads, 5262 kms metal roads and 3,339 km mud roads. Apart from this under Panchayati Raj there are 1682 Km cement roads, 19,340 km Tar roads, 31,087 KM metal roads and 71,171 mud roads. In the state, cement and Tar roads together are 80,933 KM long. Andhra Pradesh Road Development Corporation is set up for the road construction and expansion. In order to lessen its burden the government is allotting the construction and maintenance of roads to private firms on "BOT" and "PPP" basis. By 2009 state has 10,87,525 passenger and cargo transport vehicles, 5,99,697 private vehicles, 55,55,338 motor cycles and scooters.

33

Table 14: Transportation Road Length (in Kms) per 100 sq.kms Annual Average Growth Rate 2007

Length of Road Per 100 Sq.kms

Sl. No

District

1956-57

Lengt h of Road Per 100 Sq.kms

1981

Length of Road Per 100 Sq.kms

1991

Length of Road Per 100 Sq.kms

2001

Length of Road Per 100 Sq.kms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Srikakulam

1518 0 Visakhapatnam 1621 East Godavari 2730 West Godavari 1835 Krishna 2314 Guntur 2616 Prakasam 0 Nellore 2547 Chittoor 2789 Kadapa 2176 Anantapur 2274 Kurnool 2662 Mahabubnagar 1120 Rangareddy 0 Nalgonda 758 Hyderabad 602 Medak 618 Nizamabad 531 Adilabad 504 Karimnagar 515 Warangal 651 Khammam 536 Andhra Pradesh 30917

Vizianagaram

18.96 1960 0.00 1625 12.03 2892 18.27 2920 23.71 2807 25.55 3081 17.43 2279 0.00 4426 12.38 2075 18.16 4857 14.18 3948 11.89 6192 11.08 3465 6.33 6042 0.00 3047 5.43 3872 8.00 0 6.27 3368 6.40 0 3.12 2616 4.41 3113 4.72 3690 4.89 2795 11.34 71070 14.61 17.89 13.41 6.32 4.50 11.34 6477 17588 18462 16329 12214 71070

33.79 3024 25.00 2186 25.82 3271 27.04 2446 36.45 3071 35.41 3763 19.99 3627 25.15 5453 15.84 2996 31.95 5989 25.64 4091 32.42 6649 19.58 3694 32.84 6475 40.63 2912 27.27 4725 0.00 0 34.72 3647 0.00 2999 16.25 4442 26.38 4902 28.60 4785 17.47 3808 25.84 88955 27.56 25.38 27.39 32.66 18.85 25.84 8481 21356 20423 17759 20936 88955

52.14 33.63 29.21 22.65 39.88 43.25 31.82 30.98 22.87 39.40 26.56 34.81 20.87 35.19 38.83 33.27 0.00 37.60 37.49 27.59 41.54 37.09 23.80 32.35 36.09 30.82 30.30 35.52 32.31 32.35

5301 91.40 5785 99.74 4181 64.32 4706 72.40 7334 65.48 7445 66.47 7244 67.07 8648 80.07 7051 91.57 7301 94.82 7152 82.21 7463 85.78 8044 70.56 8616 75.58 10339 58.74 10940 62.16 7384 56.37 8045 61.41 11443 75.28 11990 78.88 7717 50.11 9387 60.95 10076 52.75 10398 54.44 8192 46.28 9599 54.23 11691 63.54 14378 78.14 5464 72.85 6090 81.20 10110 71.20 11303 79.60 207 103.50 210 105.00 7073 72.92 7607 78.42 5336 66.70 5765 72.06 7991 49.63 8476 52.65 8575 72.67 9426 79.88 7996 61.98 8991 69.70 8672 54.20 9223 57.64 174573 63.48 191792 69.74 16816 47214 37428 34545 38570 174573 71.56 68.13 55.53 69.09 59.52 63.48 17936 51013 41374 39588 41881 191792 76.32 73.61 61.39 79.18 64.63 69.74

1.616 1.823 1.089 1.236 1.422 1.205 1.163 1.423 0.981 1.214 0.935 0.851 0.863 1.436 1.560 1.483 1.940 1.443 1.313 0.991 1.509 1.300 1.055 1.168 1.234 1.114 0.960 1.457 1.203 1.168

Sub Regions

1 North Coastal Andhra 2 South Coastal Andhra 3 Rayalaseema 4 South Telangana 5 North Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

3139 12042 9901 3098 2737 30917

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008.

34

LENGTH OF ROADS PER 100 SQ. KMS. ROAD LENGTH (IN KMS) PER 100 SQ.KMS SL. N O 1 2 3 4 5 1956-57 SUB REGIONS NORTH COASTAL ANDHRA SOUTH COASTAL ANDHRA RAYALASEEMA SOUTH TELANGANA NORTH TELANGANA ANDHRA PRADESH

LENGTH OF ROAD PER 100 SQ.KMS

1981

LENGTH OF ROAD PER 100 SQ.KMS

1991

LENGTH OF ROAD PER 100 SQ.KMS

2001

LENGTH OF ROAD PER 100 SQ.KMS

2007

LENGTH OF ROAD PER 100 SQ.KMS

3139 12042 9901 3098 2737 30917

14.61 17.89 13.41 6.32 4.50 11.34

6477 17588 18462 16329 12214 71070

27.56 25.38 27.39 32.66 18.85 25.84

8481 21356 20423 17759 20936 88955

36.09 30.82 30.30 35.52 32.31 32.35

16816 47214 37428 34545 38570 174573

71.56 68.13 55.53 69.09 59.52 63.48

17936 51013 41374 39588 41881 191792

76.32 73.61 61.39 79.18 64.63 69.74

ANNUAL AVERAG E GROWTH RATE 9.24 6.35 6.23 23.10 28.04 10.20

Fig 10: Length of Roads ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

- The length of roads per 100 sq.kms area is highest in South Telangana and lowest in Rayalaseema

35

In 1956-57, the state has only 11.34 KM length of roads for 100 sq. kms. area. Gradually it grew and reached 69.74 kms. in 2007. During 1956-57, the disparities were more between sub-regions with regard to availability of road facility. It was 3 times more than that of Telangana in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. The road density was 4.5 kms ­ 6.32 kms in Telangana where as it was 13.41 ­ 17.89 kms in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. By 2007 this disparity is reduced considerably. In 2007 it was lowest in Rayalaseema with 61.39 kms and highest in South Telangana with 79.18 kms. By 2007, it reached a maximum of 105 kms in Hyderabad, Srikakulam is in second place with 99.74 kms, West Godavari District is in third place with 94.82 kms where as Adilabad district is in last place with 52.65 kms. (table 14)

(ii) Railways: Compared to Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, Telangana is still lagging behind in the length of railway lines. The length of railway lines in South Telangana and North Telangana is less than the State average of 17.23 kms per 1000 sq. kms. There are around 4737 kms length of railway lines in the state. Apart from the International airport in State capital Hyderabad, air ports are also located in Visakhapatnam, Rajahmundry, Gannavaram and Tirupathi (table 15). Table 15: Length of Railways ­ District wise

Sl. No District Length of Railway line per 1000 Sq.Kms (2001) Length 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy 142.00 244.00 180.00 126.14 201.04 229.50 409.38 237.34 146.87 292.28 194.79 451.09 348.96 206.97 222.61 Per 1000 Sq.kms. 24.48 37.54 16.07 11.68 26.11 26.38 35.91 13.49 11.21 19.23 12.65 23.62 19.72 11.25 29.68

36

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh

179.33 92.42 101.30 122.40 143.52 88.13 162.41 215.30 4737.78

12.63 462.10 10.44 15.30 8.91 7.47 12.59 13.46 17.23

Length of Railway line per 1000 sq. kms. Sub Region Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Length 566.00 1350.27 1287.12 802.63 731.76 4737.78 Per 1000 Sq.kms. 24.09 19.48 19.10 16.05 11.29 17.23 Length of Railway line per 1000 Sq.Kms (2001)

Fig 11: Length of Railway lines per 1000 sq. kms.

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008

· ·

Typically North Coast is in advantage position North Telangana is lagging behind

37

iii) Communications: The information services available in the state till 2009 indicate that there are 105 head post offices, 2332 sub post offices, 13681 branch post offices. Similarly, there are 4070 telephone exchanges established in the state. According to the report of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) there are 329.5 lakh telephone connections in the state in 2009. Compared to Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, Telangana region was lagging behind in information sector in 1956-57. Later Telangana moved forward and it stood first in Telephone connections. While Coastal Andhra has 2690 and Rayalaseema has 2179 telephone connections per lakh population, Telangana has 3535 connections. Similarly, with regard to Public Telephones per lakh population, Telangana stood first with 107.19 where as Rayalaseema has 100.57 and Coastal Andhra has 97.71. With regard to Public Telephones, Coastal Andhra is lagging behind compared to other two regions (Table 16) Table 16: Communication facilities

1956-57

No. of Post Offices Post Offices per Lakh Population No. of Telephone exchanges Telephone Exchanges per Lakh Population No. of Telephone Connections Telephone Connections per Lakh Population No. of Telegraph Offices Telegraph Office per Lakh Population No. of Public Telephones Public Telephones per Lakh Population

1999-2000 6702 21.44 49 0.16 --374 1.20 158 0.51 6650 21.06 1001 3.17 849170 2690 48 0.15 30847 97.71 3685 27.38 548 4.07 5857 19.08 853 2.78 16192 21.38 2402 3.17 2227487 2942 122 0.16 77286 102.06

Costal Andhra Rayalaseema TelanganaAndhra Pradesh Costal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

3180 22.03 35 0.24

1369 22.53 14 0.23

2153 20.02 ----

293337 1084980 2179 19 0.14 13536 100.57 3535 55 0.18

222 1.54 108 0.75

91 1.50 50 0.82

61 0.57 ---

32903 107.19

- Information not available. Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 1957 and Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2000

38

Due to the progress made in the I.T. sector, the government is also using I.T. to provide service to the public. aponline, e-seva, e-procurement, apnet and other services were introduced in government offices. iv) Power: Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board which was established in 1959, was bifurcated into A.P. Genco., and A.P. Transco. in 1999. To supply power, 4 regional Discoms were established in the state. There are 16 Hydal Power Generation units and 10 Thermal Power Generation units in the state. In 2008-2009 power generation capacity reached 12,382 mega watts. Number of consumers also increased to 206.8 lakhs. Power consumption reached 67,622 mega units and income reached Rs.13,945 crores.

Table 17: POWER-PROGRESS IN INSTALLED CAPACITY Year 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2003-04 2007-08 Hydel Thermal Central Pvt. Gas Total Annual Average Growth Rate 18.57 27.84 11.28 6.27 17.07 5.25

124.00 89.00 213.00 271.60 337.00 608.60 1043.20 1260.00 2303.20 2461.21 1612.50 762.00 4901.71 2684.21 3224.50 1000.00 1065.20 7973.91 3586.36 2972.50 2212.50 1924.22 10695.58 3627.36 3382.50 2963.22 2136.46 272 12381.54 Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 and Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008

Fig 12: Annual Growth rate in power production

39

Production of electricity was 213 Mega watts in 1960-61. Gradually it reached to 12381.54 Mega watts in 2007-08. But the annual growth rate was not uniform every year. There was 18.75 per cent of growth during 1960-61 to 1970-71. In the next decade it reached to 27.84 and it fell down to 11.28 subsequently (1980-81). Again it fell to 6.27 in the next decade and then went up to 17.07. During 2003 -04 and 2007-08 it fell down to 5.25. The fluctuations in power production created a serious impact on the production in agriculture and industrial sectors (Table 17).

Table 18: Power Consumption (in M.K.H) Per Lakh Population Sl. No District

Power Consumption

1971

Power Consumption

1981

Power Consumption

1991

Power Consumption

1999-2000

Power Consumption

2008

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam

Andhra Pradesh

300.00 11.58 26.80 1.37 147.20 0.00 0.00 265.40 14.70 367.00 284.60 9.80 446.60 17.34 760.30 157.40 5.10 248.80 6.72 633.30 124.60 5.25 304.70 10.60 637.00 118.30 4.75 223.40 12.75 614.10 138.20 4.69 208.60 6.07 689.20 0.00 0.00 55.30 2.37 337.90 68.00 4.22 113.80 5.65 618.10 99.10 4.34 240.40 8.78 1003.00 43.00 2.73 98.80 5.11 541.10 75.00 3.55 139.20 5.46 672.60 121.90 6.15 211.20 8.77 412.80 23.10 1.20 80.30 3.28 541.80 0.00 0.00 107.50 6.80 1075.70 30.30 1.66 117.30 5.14 880.00 311.08 11.14 598.10 26.45 788.30 44.30 3.02 135.50 7.50 1080.00 24.40 1.86 93.10 5.54 741.20 96.70 7.51 137.40 8.38 442.00 75.20 3.83 407.20 16.72 1288.90 36.60 1.96 99.50 4.33 882.40 13.70 1.00 239.60 13.68 928.20 2185.48 5.00 4598.50 8.80 16082.10

6.34 17.39 23.14 13.95 18.11 27.71 16.78 12.25 25.84 30.76 23.86 21.12 13.88 17.61 42.15 30.86 25.06 47.58 36.37 21.23 42.44 31.30 41.89 24.73

315.20 345.67 1270.59 943.98 1014.93 1052.72 1016.05 607.68 930.89 1389.62 940.18 802.36 513.27 1039.01 1718.90 1678.95 1814.32 1710.92 1034.75 885.61 2194.70 1662.66 889.16 25772.12

13.58 16.37 38.68 20.79 28.85 47.51 24.74 22.03 38.92 42.61 41.45 25.20 17.26 33.77 67.36 58.87 57.67 75.37 50.77 42.54 72.27 58.98 40.12 39.63

718.09 1018.41 2222.11 1891.88 2207.90 1923.91 2158.87 1275.90 1533.09 2404.38 1501.86 2202.67 1409.53 2422.02 4407.38 3390.89 4052.70 3552.75 1635.31 1225.23 1949.70 1751.87 1057.93 47914.38

28.41 45.36 58.63 38.82 58.16 45.61 49.00 41.76 57.63 64.37 58.37 60.53 40.13 69.06 125.67 104.72 109.95 133.46 69.80 49.42 56.07 54.22 41.24 63.27

Per Lakh Population

Average Annual Growth Rate

0.580 1.057 1.684 1.163 1.824 1.409 1.528 1.358 1.842 2.070 1.919 1.965 1.172 2.340 4.099 3.554 3.407 4.498 2.343 1.445 1.801 1.802 1.388 2.009

40

Sl. No

District

Power Consumption

1971

Power Consumption

1981

Power Consumption

1991

Power Consumption

1999-2000

Power Consumption

2008

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Sub Regions 1 North Coastal Andhra 2 South Coastal Andhra 3 Rayalaseema 4 South Telangana 5 North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

584.6 10.64 738.8 11.65 606.5 4.20 1154.6 7.17 339 4.26 689.6 7.16 408.78 5.10 1038.7 10.01 246.6 3.16 976.8 9.96 2185.48 5.00 4598.5 8.80

1274.5 3529.6 2629.5 4365.8 4282.7 16082.1

16.52 18.07 22.50 31.42 35.13 24.73

1931.46 5566.25 3645.43 7962.1 6666.88 25772.12

25.03 28.50 31.19 57.29 54.68 39.63

3958.61 46.23 10991.55 47.77 7518.44 55.86 17825.74 107.38 7620.04 54.06 47914.38 63.27

Per Lakh Population

Average Annual Growth Rate

1.227 1.502 1.779 3.527 1.755 2.009

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 and 2008.

Power Consumption (in M.K.H) Per Lakh Population

1971 Consumption Consumption Population Sl. No 1981 Consumption Population 1991 Population 1999-2000 Consumption Population 2008 Consumption Population Average Annual Per Lakh Growth Rate

Per Lakh

Per Lakh

Per Lakh

Power

Power

Power

North Coastal 1 Andhra South Coastal 2 3 4 5 Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh 606.5 339 408.78 246.6 2185.48 4.20 4.26 5.10 3.16 5.00 1154.6 689.6 1038.7 976.8 4598.5 7.17 7.16 10.01 9.96 8.80 3529.6 2629.5 4365.8 4282.7 16082.1 18.07 22.50 31.42 35.13 24.73 5566.25 3645.43 7962.1 6666.88 25772.12 28.50 31.19 57.29 54.68 39.63 10991.55 7518.44 17825.74 7620.04 47914.38 47.77 55.86 107.38 54.06 63.27 584.6 10.64 738.8 11.65 1274.5 16.52 1931.46 25.03 3958.61 46.23

Power

Power

Sub Regions

Per Lakh

15.19 45.06 55.73 112.12 78.69 55.06

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 and 2008.

41

Fig 13: Annual average growth rate in power consumption

-

South Telangana is the highest consumer North Coastal Andhra is the lowest consumer

The consumption of electricity in South Telangana was 5.10 MKH per lakh population in 1970. Later it went up 107.38 MKH in 2008. In North Telangana it has grown from 3.16 MKH in 1970 to 54.06 MKH in 2008, In North Coastal Andhra it reached 46.23 MKH from 10.64 MKH, In South Coastal Andhra also it has grown from 4.20 MKH to 47.77 MKH and in Rayalaseema from 4.26 MKH to 55.86 MKH. Because of the presence of number of industries the power consumption is highest in South Telangana. Along with that there is high consumption in agricultural sector also in South Telangana. That is the reason for the fast growth from 5.10 MKH to 107.38 MKH in this sub region. The consumption of electricity for agricultural purpose is higher in North Telangana than other regions. It is high in Rayalaseema region also. (Table 18) Since May 2005, the government is providing free power to agricultural sector. This facility is provided to the farmers who has 3 or less than 3 motors in dry land or those who were having below 2.5 acres of wet land. Out of the existing 21.67 lakh agricultural electricity connections, around 20.5 lakhs connections (94.58 per cent) were brought under this scheme. (v) Marketing Facilities:- There are 317 market committees and 891 notified markets in the state. The total income of these markets in 2008-09 is Rs.348 crores.

42

(vi) Credit:- By March 2009, there are 6.999 bank branches in the state. The total loans sanctioned by them are Rs.2,10,294 crores. Out of that, priority sector got Rs. 1,00,325 crores. In the priority sector the share of agriculture was Rs. 51,487 crores (24.48%). Loans sanctioned to other non-priority sector is Rs.27,710 crores. Out of this educational loans are only Rs.4.198 crores. Other loans sanctioned are Housing ­ Rs.19,825 crores, small and medium commercial establishments ­ Rs.21,128 crores and Rs.9,837 crores to the 9,89,380 self help groups. There are 22 Central Corporative Banks and 4650 Primary agricultural credit societies in the state. The State Cooperative Bank has sanctioned an amount of Rs.3297 crores of credit in 2006 through its branches. 5.Social Infrastructural Sector: (i) Education In order to implement the directive principles of state policy regarding primary education and in exercise of the right to education according article 21A, schemes such as Rajiv Education Mission/ Sarva Sisksha Abhiyan were introduced. As a result, the enrollment ratio went up and dropout ratio came down considerably.

Table 19: Status of Primary Education in the State 2007-08 School level/ No. of No. of Students No. of Management Schools Teachers Boys Girls Total A. Primary Schools 1 Central Govt. 24 2235 2308 4543 197 2 State Govt. 4862 127203 146796 273999 9196 3 Mandal Parishat 47953 1360517 1458417 2818934 99425 4 Municipal 1396 66616 76542 143158 3300 5 Private Aided 2246 153127 178884 332011 7281 6 Un-Aided 5983 1010023 784281 1794304 47660 B. Upper Primary Schools 1 Central Govt. 2 State Govt. 581 50536 44795 95331 3315 3 Mandal Parishat 10960 760931 8071193 1568124 52885 4 Municipal 339 41842 46439 88281 5 Private Aided 431 5202 53631 104833 2693 6 Un-Aided 5586 711392 542725 1254117 50178 Total 17,957 16,15,903 14,94,783 31,10,686 11,0,949 C. Secondary Schools 1 Central Govt. 30 6974 7232 14206 571 2 State Govt. 1605 255982 295345 551327 17230 3 Mandal Parishat 8155 1206829 1206045 2412874 62911 4 Municipal 302 5911 70526 130137 5 Private Aided 856 147944 167882 315826 8821 6 Un-Aided 5989 968772 721300 1690072 64020 Sl.No

43

D.Higher Secondary Schools 1 Central Govt. 59 27293 21773 49066 1975 2 Private Un-aided 40 25414 25184 50598 2266 Total 99 52,707 46,957 99,664 4,241 School Education Total 97,457 70,34,443 66,57,298 1,36,91,741 43,9,136 Source: Andhra Pradesh Statistical Abstract, 2008, Table 19.

Table 20: Details of Schools under Government and Private sectors Sl.No School level/ Management No. of Schools No. of Students No.of Teachers A. Government Sector 1 Primary 56,481 35,72,645 1,19,399 2 Upper Primary 12,371 18,56,569 60,771 3 Secondary 10,948 34,24,370 92,867 4 Higher Secondary 59 49,066 1,975 Total 79,859 89,02,650 1,75,012 B. Private (un-aided) 1 Primary 5983 17,94,304 47,660 2 Upper Primary 5586 12,54,117 50,178 3 Secondary 5,989 16,90,072 64,020 4 Higher Secondary 40 50,598 22,66 Total 17,598 47,89,091 1,64,124

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008, Table 19.

In addition to the above mentioned schools, there 4955 students in 49 schools meant for deaf and dumb children, 3032 students in 29 schools meant for blind children, 1113 students in 13 physically handicapped students schools, 3441 students in 40 schools meant for mentally handicapped children, 1437 students in 14 juvenile schools and 43344 students 201 oriental schools.

44

No.of Primary Schools ­ Average Annual Growth Rate Sl. No Region Annual Average Growth rate

1 2 North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

0.00 -0.60 -0.15 0.06 0.45

3 4 5

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana (see Annexure 9 for details)

Fig 14: No.of Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008. · The growth rate in North Telangana is maximum. · Growth rate is negative in South coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema and zero in North Coastal Andhra.

45

No. of High Schools Per Lakh PopulationAnnual Average Growth Rate

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 Sub Region

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

Annual Average Growth Rate 15.39 6.14 14.66 37.12 127.36

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana (see Annexure 11 for details)

Fig 15: No. of High Schools per Lakh Population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008. · No. of High Schools is highest in North and South Telangana but Lowest in South Coastal Andhra.

46

Table 21: Enrolment Ratio and Dropout Rates in Schools Education Sl.No 1 2 3 School level Boys Enrolment Ratio Girls Total Dropout ratio Girls Total

Boys

Primary (6-10) 96.19 96.62 96.40 19.10 18.48 Upper Primary (11-12) 82.23 80.97 81.61 33.26 35.23 Secondary (13-15) 66.25 63.93 65.11 62.30 64.00 Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008, Table 19.6 (B)

18.79 34.24 63.13

Intermediate Education:- Intermediate education was introduced in 1969-70 as a part of 10+2+3 education system. Junior colleges were started for this purpose. In 2007-08, there are 4032 junior colleges with 14,23,752 students and 41,559 teachers (table 22).

Table 22: Details of Junior colleges, 2007-08 Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Management No.of Colleges

Govt. Junior Colleges Aided Junior Colleges Aided Degree Colleges with Inter Un-aided Junior Colleges Govt. Vocational Junior Colleges Un-aided vocational Junior colleges Incentive Junior Colleges Others (Social Welfare, APRJC etc Total

Source:- Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2008, Table 19.

ïïï ïïï ïï ïïïï ïï ïïï ïïï ïïï 4032

Table 23: Details of Higher Education

Colleges type No. of Colleges General Degree 420 Engineering 535 M.C.A. 653 M.B.A. 455 B. Pharmacy 258 Polytechnic 187 Post Graduate 105 Total 2613 Source:- Socio-economic Survey, A.P., 2008-09 Sl.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. of students

3,30,859 1,76,512 44,845 32,856 15,395 42,335 10,488 5,95,560

As per census of 1981, Andhra Pradesh is one of the backward states in educational sector. The development in the education sector can be seen by comparing the schools, students and teachers in successive periods 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2007 (table 24).

47

Table 24: Details of Educational Sector

Sl.No. Education level Year No. of Schools Students (in thousands) Boys Girls Teachers

I. School Education A. Primary

1981-82 1991-92 2001-02 2007-08

B.

Upper Primary

1981-82 1991-92 2001-02 2007-08

C.

Secondary

1981-82 1991-92 2001-02 2007-08

D.

Intermediate

1981-82 1991-92 2001-02 2007-08

E.

General Degree

1981-82 1991-92 2001-02 2007-08

40691 2471 49057 -602158249 2610 62464 2719 4812 876 6223 -209214472 1729 17957 1615 4189 1205 6462 -302511537 2764 17034 2698 467 167 956 -3442718 578 4032 809 313 208 464 240 1080 355 242

1763 2619 2647 542 1593 1494 657 2271 2515 52 346 614 80 130 243 168

80812 113124 127313 167059 36229 42941 35371 110949 67394 90002 148744 161128 6772 10412 26731 41559 12876 13196 24914 12537

(Details of Un-aided Colleges for 2007-08 are not given)

Source: A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table No. 19

The above table shows that no. of primary schools has increased gradually. But by 200102, though no. of primary schools has increased, the number of students did not grow in the same proportion. Establishment of schools under Sarva Siksha Abhiyaan and other schemes by the government and upgradation of primary schools into upper primary schools and upper primary schools into secondary schools are the reasons for the increase of schools. Same trend continued even after 2001-02.

48

The strength of schools and students which was 61742 and 1,11,38,000 respectively in 1991-92, reached 84258 and 1,11,38,000 in 2001-02. As per these details, during one decade there was 36.46 per cent and 21.88 per cent growth in schools and students respectively. Similarly if we compare the schools and students of 2001-02 with 2007-08, during the six years period, the growth in the number of schools and students was 15.66 and 0.82 per cent respectively (Reasons for the decrease in the growth rate of students in schools are to be identified).

With regard to technical education, there are 535 Engineering Colleges (1,76,512 seats), 258 B. Pharmacy colleges (15390 seats), 455 M.B.A. Colleges (32856 seats), 653 M.C.A. colleges (44,485 seats) and 187 polytechnic colleges (42335 seats) in the state in the year 200809. (ii) Medical and Health By March, 2007 there are 228 General Allopathic Hospitals, 8 T.B.Hospitals, 17 E.N.T. Hospitals, 2 Mental Hospitals, 3 Cancer Hospitals, 15 Women and Child Welfare Hospitals, 1 Affiliated Hospital (total of 274 hospitals) are functioning in the state under Government sector. Apart from these, there are 1580 primary health centers and 262 dispensaries in the state. There are 7721 regular doctor and 494 contract doctors working in these hospitals. There are 663 Ayurvedic hospitals in the state. 452 doctors are working in these hospitals. Similarly, 176 doctors are working in 196 Unani hospitals and 199 doctors in 263 homeopathic hospitals. Corporate sector occupied first place in private medical services. In rural areas R.M.P. doctors are working as private doctors. (However, details of private hospitals could not be collected). In 1956-57, there were 4.765 hospitals per lakh population in South Coastal Andhra. It was maximum in the state then. North Telangana has only 2.324 hospitals per lakh population which is half of what South Coastal Andhra had. South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra were also lagging behind in medical facilities. But there was radical change in the situation by 2007. The disparities were almost eliminated. South Coastal Andhra which was occupying first

49

place, went back and backward sub regions came forward. No. of hospitals in Rayalaseema were above State average since 1956-57, and the same is continuing till today. (Table 25)

Table 25: No. of Govt. Hospitals and Dispensaries per Lakh Population Sl. No District 1956-57 1971 1981 1991 2001 2007 Annual Average Growth Rate 0.051 0.023 -0.025 -0.007 -0.027 -0.083 -0.059 0.034 -0.049 0.028 -0.028 -0.019 -0.036 0.011 0.002 0.019 -0.027 0.012 -0.015 0.016 0.004 0.024 0.022 -0.014 0.013 -0.043 -0.012 -0.003 0.011 -0.014

No.o Per No.of Per No.of Per No.of Per No.of Per No.of Per f H Lakh H & Lakh H & D Lakh H & Lakh H & D Lakh H & D Lakh & D Popul D Populati Popula D Popul Popul Populat ation on tion ation ation ion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh

25 1.178 0 0.000 86 4.149 76 3.142 62 3.651 116 6.521 131 5.137 0 0.000 103 5.735 35 1.934 52 4.475 56 3.774 79 4.880 32 2.225 0 0.000 22 1.756 63 3.465 31 2.758 26 3.118 25 3.005 32 2.241 21 1.584 15 2.143

75 0 123 123 97 46 81 0 142 53 111 50 74 48 0 73 74 54 32 33 41 35 37

2.896 0.000 4.234 3.984 4.086 1.845 2.751 0.000 8.820 2.318 7.039 2.364 3.734 2.484 0.000 4.011 2.650 3.678 2.437 2.562 2.088 1.871 2.701 3.208 3.603 3.389 3.618 3.108 2.280 3.208

55 2.808 52 2.881 104 4.037 129 3.486 99 3.445 49 2.797 65 1.892 54 2.318 119 5.906 59 2.156 110 5.691 53 2.080 80 3.324 47 1.922 25 1.580 29 1.272 77 3.406 29 1.605 24 1.429 38 2.318 42 1.724 38 1.652 41 2.340

78 3.361 72 3.411 124 3.775 139 3.061 118 3.354 92 4.152 87 2.118 85 3.081 99 4.139 94 2.883 104 4.586 94 2.952 98 3.296 86 2.795 52 2.038 77 2.700 79 2.511 67 2.952 48 2.355 78 3.746 80 2.634 75 2.661 70 3.159

77 3.046 63 2.806 85 2.243 94 1.929 75 1.976 84 1.991 84 1.906 84 2.750 78 2.932 103 2.758 72 2.798 89 2.446 93 2.648 93 2.652 54 1.540 81 2.502 22 0.597 75 2.817 54 2.305 78 3.146 79 2.272 77 2.383 71 2.768 1765 2.331 225 2.628 499 2.169 357 2.653 325 1.958 359 2.547 1765 2.331

94 78 110 135 87 99 97 98 88 124 79 102 108 98 57 87 78 90 55 94 85 90 83 2116 282 604 413 410 407 2116

3.718 3.474 2.902 2.770 2.292 2.347 2.202 3.208 3.308 3.320 3.070 2.803 3.075 2.794 1.625 2.687 2.116 3.381 2.347 3.792 2.445 2.786 3.236 2.794 3.293 2.625 3.069 2.470 2.888 2.794

1088 3.480 1402 198 489 288 249 178

1418 2.714 1996 3.070 211 3.328 515 3.197 302 3.138 207 1.995 183 1.866 274 3.551 620 3.174 390 3.337 361 2.598 351 2.879

Sub Regions 1 2 3 4 5

North Coastal Andhra 111 2.645 South Coastal Andhra 488 4.765

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

222 3.654 148 2.627 119 2.324

1088 3.480 1402

1418 2.714 1996 3.070

No.of H % D = No. of Hospitals and Dispensaries Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008.

50

No. of Govt. Hospitals and Dispensaries per Lakh Population

1956-57 Per Lakh Population No.of H & D Sl. No Sub Regions 1971 Per Lakh Population No.of H & D 1981 Per Lakh Population No.of H & D 1991 Per Lakh Population No.of H & D 2001 Per Lakh Population No.of H & D 2007 Per Lakh Population No.of H&D Annual Average Growth Rate

0.48 -0.88 -0.31 -0.12 0.48 0.48

1 2 3 4 5

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

2.645 198 3.603 211 3.328 274 3.551 225 2.628 282 3.293 4.765 489 3.389 515 3.197 620 3.174 499 2.169 604 2.625 3.654 288 3.618 302 3.138 390 3.337 357 2.653 413 3.069 2.627 249 3.108 207 1.995 361 2.598 325 1.958 410 2.470 2.324 178 2.280 183 1.866 351 2.879 359 2.547 407 2.888 3.480 1402 3.208 1418 2.714 1996 3.070 1765 2.331 2116 2.794 No.of H % D = No. of Hospitals and Dispensaries Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008.

111 488 222 148 119 1088

Fig 16: Govt. Hospitals and Dispensories ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

-

Negative growth rate in south coast followed by Rayalaseema. South Coastal Andhra is the worst sufferer Marginal increase in North coast and North Telangana

51

The number of hospitals per lakh population is gradually decreasing in the state. It was 3.480 in 1956-57, 3.208 in 1971, 2.714 in 1981, 3.070 in 1991, 2.331 in 2001. Later there was slight increase and reached 2.794 in 2007. That means the medical facility is going down instead of going up. (Table 25) Table 26: No. of govt. Hospital Beds per Lakh Population

Sl. No District No. of Beds 1957 Per Lakh Popu latio n

0.00 0.00 98.60 53.91 45.82 67.68 30.35 0.00 821 694 226 355 579 223 149 3910 112 171 79 186 292 93 13994 2044 4881 1854 4394 821 13994 45.71 38.34 19.45 23.92 35.76 15.51 0.00 11.89 215.07 9.96 20.50 9.50 13.03 22.02 13.29 44.76 48.71 47.66 30.52 78.00 16.04 44.76 918 1160 500 763 1241 493 583 5432 331 514 436 430 1102 388 21270 2825 5072 3664 6839 2870 21270 2342 1293 638 649 1574

1971 No. of Bed s

483

1981 No. of Bed s

564 322 2334 1503 688 1136 1367 420 946 1349 614 921 1267 683 620 628 6131 399 554 618 560 1164 507 25295 3220 6060 4151 8461 3403 25295

1991 No. of Beds Per Lakh Popu latio n

32.49 22.69 77.47 41.82 25.41 55.05 30.78 23.99 47.49 50.08 34.88 36.06 51.66 27.88 30.88 28.79 198.95 35.07 36.60 40.83 27.96 49.95 29.47 46.12 48.96 36.22 43.71 68.52 36.96 46.12

2001 No. of Bed s

988 680 2757 2237 896 1550 2273 854 1297 2003 908 1200 2113 1071 1519 1012 6009 1585 1014 982 1456 1283 819 36506 4425 9107 6224 11196 5554 36506

2007 No. of Beds Per Lakh Popul ation

39.08 30.29 71.16 45.91 23.60 37.46 51.36 27.95 48.76 57.16 34.12 32.98 59.31 30.54 33.90 31.25 176.10 39.56 44.13 39.61 30.60 50.91 30.99 47.70 50.98 39.67 46.78 65.16 39.16 47.70

Per Lakh Popu latio n

18.65 0.00 80.62 41.89 26.87 26.03 53.46 0.00 57.02 50.74 31.71 36.08 62.61 25.52 0.00 32.03 194.56 22.55 39.15 33.85 21.89 58.90 28.32 48.67 51.41 35.15 46.03 85.36 36.77 48.67

Per Lakh Popul ation

28.79 17.84 90.61 40.61 23.94 64.84 39.80 18.03 46.95 49.29 31.76 36.15 52.64 27.93 39.19 27.54 271.16 22.08 32.98 37.71 22.99 50.61 28.94 48.41 50.79 37.62 43.13 81.55 34.70 48.41

Per Lakh Populat ion

39.08 30.29 72.74 45.91 23.60 36.75 51.59 27.95 48.76 53.63 35.29 32.98 60.17 30.54 43.31 31.25 163.02 59.54 43.28 39.61 41.88 39.71 31.93 48.21 51.68 39.58 46.24 67.45 39.40 48.21

Avera ge Annua l Growt h Rate

0.584 0.479 -0.549 -0.160 -0.444 -0.604 0.420 0.382 0.061 0.376 0.293 0.181 0.471 0.301 -0.203 0.387 -0.779 0.592 0.473 0.602 0.351 0.578 0.354 0.059 0.045 -0.160 0.325 -0.257 0.462 0.059

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh Sub Regions

0 0 2044 1304 778 1204 774

754 479 2545 1899 894 1220 1264 662 1136 1633 791 1148 1536 858 788 821 6259 796 746 850 849 1408 653 29989 3778 7075 5108 9522 4506 29989

988 680 2697 2237 896 1580 2263 854 1297 2135 878 1200 2083 1071 1189 1012 6491 1053 1034 982 1064 1645 795 36124 4365 9127 6296 10816 5520 36124

1 2 3 4 5

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 and 2008.

52

No. of Govt. Hospitals Beds Per Lakh Population

1957 1971 1981 1991 2001 2007 Annual Average Growth Rate

No.of Beds

No.of Beds

No.of Beds

No.of Beds

No.of Beds

No.of Beds

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Sl.No

Sub-Regions

1 2 3 4 5

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

Per Lakh Population

2044 4881 1854 4394 821

48.71 47.66 30.52 78.00 16.04

2825 5072 3664 6839 2870

51.41 35.15 46.03 85.36 36.77

3220 6060 4151 8461 3403

50.79 37.62 43.13 81.55 34.70

3778 7075 5108 9522 4506

48.96 36.22 43.71 68.52 36.96

4425 9107 6224 11196 5554

51.68 39.58 46.24 67.45 39.40

4365 9127 6296 10816 5520

50.98 39.67 46.78 65.16 39.16

0.09 -0.33 1.04 -0.32 2.83

Fig 17: No. of Govt. Hospital Beds per Lakh Population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

53

There were 44.76 government hospital beds per lakh population in 1956-57. It reached 47.70 in 2007. But during 1956-57, in North and South Coastal Andhra there were 48 beds per lakh population, where as it was 16 in North Telangana. However, all the medical facilities in South Telangana were confined to Hyderabad city only. Because of that, according to 1956-57 statistics, there were 78 beds per lakh population in South Telangana in which Hyderabad was a part. But, by 2007, though South Telangana continued its dominance with 65 beds per lakh population, the disparities among various sub regions have decreased. North Telangana with 38 beds per lakh population became equal to South Coastal Andhra which has 39.67 beds per lakh population. The differences among other sub regions are marginal. But if we look at the districts, West Godavari district is lagging behind with only 23.60 beds per lakh population. Other districts with lowest beds per lakh population are ­ (1) Prakasam (27.95), (2) Vizianagaram (30.29), (3) Mahabubnagar (30.54) (4) Karimnagar (30.60) and (5) Khammam (30.99) (table 26)

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District Table 27: No. of doctors in Government hospitals per lakh population 1981 1991 2001

No. of Doctors

Per Lakh Population

2007

No. of Doctors

Per Lakh Population

No. of Doctors

Per Lakh Population

No. of Per Lakh Doctors Population

Average Annual Growth Rate

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittoor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam

72 102 327 381 133 158 349 74 135 287 93 117 290 126 69 118 912 94 98 115 113 275 100

3.68 5.65 12.69 10.29 4.63 9.02 10.16 3.18 6.70 10.49 4.81 4.59 12.05 5.15 4.36 5.18 40.34 5.20 5.83 7.02 4.64 11.96 5.71

164 151 463 485 200 236 421 181 191 422 141 219 445 205 119 176 1199 188 130 208 179 361 138

7.07 7.15 14.09 10.68 5.69 10.65 10.25 6.56 7.98 12.94 6.22 6.88 14.97 6.66 4.66 6.17 38.11 8.28 6.38 9.99 5.89 12.81 6.23

256 265 701 643 264 507 624 267 284 627 275 391 612 289 246 290 1,481 290 225 311 251 486 235

10.13 11.80 18.50 13.20 6.95 12.02 14.16 8.74 10.68 16.79 10.69 10.74 17.43 8.24 7.01 8.96 40.18 10.89 9.60 12.55 7.22 15.04 9.16

152 171 657 574 173 472 547 161 204 528 292 237 544 176 161 213 1351 226 144 174 196 462 177

6.01 7.62 17.34 11.78 4.56 11.19 12.41 5.27 7.67 14.14 11.35 6.51 15.49 5.02 4.59 6.58 36.65 8.49 6.15 7.02 5.64 14.30 6.90

0.093 0.079 0.186 0.060 -0.003 0.087 0.090 0.084 0.039 0.146 0.262 0.077 0.138 -0.005 0.009 0.056 -0.148 0.132 0.013 0.000 0.040 0.094 0.048

54

Andhra Pradesh Sub Regions 1 2 3 4 5

4538 501 1230 787 1319 701 4538

8.68 7.90 7.64 8.18 12.71 7.15 8.68

6622 778 1714 1227 1887 1016 6622

10.18 10.08 8.77 10.50 13.58 8.33 10.18

9820 1222 2589 1905 2596 1508 9820

12.97 14.27 11.25 14.15 15.64 10.70 12.97

7992 980 2131 1601 2127 1153 7992

10.55 11.44 9.26 11.90 12.81 8.18 10.55

0.075 0.142 0.065 0.149 0.004 0.041 0.075

North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Source: Andhra Pradesh at 50 (for data before 2000-01) and Statistical Abstract, Andhra Pradesh 2003 and 2008.

No. of Doctors per Lakh Population

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 sub region

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

1981 7.90 7.64 8.18 12.71 7.15

1991 10.08 8.77 10.50 13.58 8.33

2001 14.27 11.25 14.15 15.64 10.70

2007 11.44 9.26 11.90 12.81 8.18

Annual Average Growth Rate 0.14 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.04

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

In 1981, there were 8.68 doctors per lakh population in the state. Gradually it reached 12.97 in 2001. But, due to the impact of liberalization, it has fell down to 10.55 in 2007. Compared to other two sub regions South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana, no. of doctors are high in North Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and South Telangana. It is 8.18 in North Telangana and 9.26 in South Coastal Andhra (Table 27).

6.Demography According to the census of 2001, the population of the state is 7.62 crores. Compared to 1991 census, there is 14.59 per cent of growth in Population in 2001. But it is less than the growth rate in India (21.53 per cent). In sex ratio, the state is far ahead with 978/1000 when compared to 933/1000 of India. The literacy rate in the state in 1991 was 44.08 per cent and it reached 60.47 per cent in 2001. But it is below national average (64.84 per cent). Regarding urbanization, according to 1991 census there was 26.89 per cent of urban population and it went up to 27.30 in 2001. Hyderabad district occupied first place with 100

55

per cent urban population and Rangareddy district which is abutting Hyderabad, occupied second place with 54.2 per cent urban population. Mahabubnagar district occupies last position with 10.57 per cent of urban population. In 2004-05 the labour force participation rate (LFPR - working labour and labour waiting for work in 1000 persons) was 492 in rural areas and 388 in urban areas. This is higher than the rates at all India level (387, 364). Likewise Work Force Participation Rate (WFPR ­ Number persons working among 1000) was 439 in rural areas and 358 in urban areas. This is also higher than the rates at all India level (355, 334). If these rates are separated on gender basis, the difference will be much more. There are 3.48 crores of workers in the total population in the state. Among the total workers, 2.17 crores are employed in agriculture sector, where as 0.13 crores are employed in non-ag.sector, 0.16 crores in household industry and 1.2 crores in other sectors. B. Comparative growth performance of A.P. It is necessary to assess the relative position of the state in comparison with 15 major Indian states in development. The states taken for comparison are Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. 1. Human Resources: The density of population in Andhra Pradesh is 277, while it is 313 at national level. (Table 28). Comparatively the sex ratio (Male: Female) is high in Andhra Pradesh. Average rate at All India level is 933 while it is 978 in Andhra Pradesh. The Average sex ratio of Andhra Pradesh is comparatively higher than the average of several other states. The percentage of urban population in Andhra Pradesh (27.3) is almost equal to its percentage at all India level (27.8). If urban population is considered as an indicator for development, Andhra Pradesh is far behind Maharashtra which has 42.4 per cent of urban population.

56

The state average percentage of cultivators in the total workers (22.5 per cent) is less than that of average percentage at all India level (31.7 per cent). Similarly the average percentage of agricultural workers in the total workers (39.6 percent) is higher than at the national level (26.5). The state average of non-agricultural workers in the total workers (50.6 per cent) is lower than the national average (58.5 per cent). The average of agricultural workers is high in Kerala with 84.4 per cent. The growth in the number of Non-agricultural workers is an indicator of decreasing pressure on land (table 28). Table 28: Human Resources, State and Nation

Sl.No Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Population Density Male: female Ratio Urban Population (%) Andhra Pradesh 277 978 27.3 India 313 933 27.8 Highest 903 1058 42.4 State with Highest value W. Bengal Kerala Maharasht ra Rajasthan Lowest 165 860 10.3 5.7 4.2 43.6 32.29 State with lowest value Rajasthan Haryana Bihar Kerala Rajasthan Bihar Kerala

cultivators in Total 22.52 31.65 55.28 Workers (%) Ag. Workers in Total 39.6 26.5 48.0 Bihar workers (%) Ag. Workers in total 50.6 58.5 84.4 Kerala workers (%) Total workers in Total 45.78 39.10 45.78 Andhra Population (%) Pradesh Source : 1.Sl.No.1to6 - A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table 28.1&.2 2.Sl.No:7 - APHDR 2007, Table A2.6

The literacy level increased by 16.38 per cent in the state during 1991-2001 period while the increase was 12.63 per cent at the national level during that period. Similar proportionate growth in literacy levels with reference to females could be seen. Kerala was leading in both these parameters while Bihar and Rajasthan were lagging behind. The strength of primary school children were more in M.P. (i.e. 7,824) when compared to other states, while Maharashtra leads in high school level students. Punjab and Bihar are on the opposite side of these parameters. The state's expenditure on education is comparatively low (Rs. 925 lakhs) while it is as high as Rs. 1546 in Kerala and as low as Rs. 639 in Bihar. (Table 29) Though there is fast growth in literacy in the state during 1991-2001, state could not achieve the rate of literacy that was achieved at the national level.

57

Table 29: Education ­ State and all India

S.no variable Period A.P Nation Maximum State having maximum value

89.81 90.86 92.04 93.08 26,844

minimum

State having minimum value

2 3 4 5

Literacy (%) female literates (%) Number of school children per lakh population No.of high school children per lakh population Expenditure on education per population (in Rs lakhs)

1991 2001 1991 2001

44.09 60.47 59.36 71.71

52.21 64.84 61.26 71.31 12,299

Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala M.P

37.49 47.00 37.17 55.49 15,587

Bihar Bihar Rajastan Bihar Punjab

(2003-04) 19,020

(2003-04) 1,387

1,145

1,584

Maharast 667 ra Kerala

638.5

Bihar

924.9

921.8

1545.8

Bihar

Source : A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table 28.18,.20,.21 2. Medical and Health: The no of hospitals per lakh population are slightly more (24.6) in the state compared to the national average (22.1). However, the experience of the people is somewhat different. The facility is far behind their expectations, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Even in the case of expenditure incurred per lakh population, the state is far behind Assam. The expenditure in Assam is 3.04crores, where as it is only Rs2.156 crores in the state. The child mortality rate was comparatively low (53) compared to it's value at the national level (57). But the same rate in Kerala is as low as 15.80. In longevity, the state is (63.9) lagging behind the national average (65.4). But compared to Punjab (70.9), the state is far behind (Table 30).

58

Table 30: Medical and Health sector ­ state and All India S.n o variable A.P Count Maxim ry um 18.7 3.0 0.4 208.5 57 65.4 25.9 4.7 0.8 304.6 73 70.9 State having maximu m value

Tamilnadu Karnataka Gujarat Assam

mini mum

14.5 1.9 0.1 124.7

1 2 3 4 5 6

No. PHCs per lakh population No.of Health sub centers per lakh population No. community health centers per lakh population Expenditure on medical and health services per lakh population Child mortality rate Average life expectancy

21.6 2.7 0.3 215.6 53 63.9

State having minimum value U.P W.Bengal Bihar Bihar Kerala Bihar

U.P Punjab

15 58.6

Source: A.P. HDR2007, Table A2.1,A2.12 3.Agriculture and animal husbandry: Average size of the holding in the country is 3.27 acres, where as it is only 3.08 acres in the state. Maximum average holding (9.96 acres) is in Punjab (i.e.) more than three times the size of the holding in the state. Crop intensity is more at the national level compared to the state. The crop intensity is only 124.4% in the state, where as it is 135.9% in the country. However, in Punjab, it is 190.6%. The percentage of total irrigated area to total cropped area is 44.9% in the state, where as it is 42.9% at the national level. But it's maximum value is in Punjab which is 96.7%. (i.e.) more than double the value in the state. Rice yield per acre is only 851 kg. in the country, where as it is 1190kg in the state. But it is 1566 kg/acre in the neighboring Karnataka state. In fertilizer consumption, the state is very close to Punjab where the fertilizer consumption is the highest. In Punjab, the per acre consumption is 86.1kg where as it is 83.6kg in the state. But, the national average is only 43.2kg which is half compared to consumption in the state. The number of animals per lakh population is 63273 in the state, while it is 47157 at the national level. Rajastan is leading with 67751. Similarly, in poultry, the number of birds per lakh population is only 47541 at the national level, where as it is 1,31,977 in the state which is 2 1/2 times more than the national average. The maximum value (138755) is also very near to the

59

state value. So, it can be inferred that the state is progressing well in animal husbandry and poultry. (Table 31)

Table 31: Agriculture and animal husbandry ­ State, Country S.n o variable Average area per households(in acres) % of gross area sown to net area sown % of gross area irrigated to gross area sown Rice yield per acre Fertilizer use (kg per acre) Normal rain fall (mm)

A.P Country Maximum State having maximum value minim um State having minimum value

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3.08 124.4 44.9 1190 83.6 940.4

3.27 135.9 42.9 851 43.2

9.96 190.6 96.7 1566 86.1

Punjab Punjab Punjab

0.58 114.7 4.3

Kerala Gujarat Assam M.P Rajasta n

Karnataka 404 Punjab

16.5

4265 63273 47151 67751 Number of animals per lakh Rajastan Kerala population 1,31,977 47541 1,38,755 Tamilnadu 7051 No. of birds per lakhs U.P population Source: A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table 2.86, Table 28.3(D),28.4(B),28.7&.18

4.Transport and communications : Road density in the country is 81.22 Km, where as it is slightly less (74.94km) in the state. However, its maximum value is 368.67km (Kerala). Road length per lakh population is 61.01 km in the state which is far below that of Assam where it is 692.23km. However, the state in this parameter is above national average (247.42km) In rail road density, the sate (18.92km) and the country (19.32km) are almost having the same value. But, it is 43.45km in west Bengal which is far ahead of the state. Vehicle density is (7243) more in the state compared to the national average (6339). But it is maximum (13903) in Punjab, almost twice what the state is having (Table 32)

60

Table 32: Transport and communications ­ State, country S.no variable A.P Country Maxi mum State having maximu m value

Kerala

mini mum

State having minim um value

Rajastan

1 2

Road density(per 100km)

74.94

81.22

368.67

42.34 84.15

261.01 247.42 692.23 Length of road per lakh population( in km) 18.92 19.32 43.45 3 Density of rail road ( per 1000km) 7243 6739 13903 4 No. of vehicles for lakh population Source: A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table 28.11A&B

Assam

Bihar

W.Bengal 14.64 Orissa Punjab

856

Bihar

5.Economy: The share of agriculture in GSDP is only 16.5% in the state. It is less than the national average which is 21.7%. But in Punjab, the share of agriculture is maximum and it is 38.6% (i.e.) more than twice that of state's share. The consumption of electricity in the state (448.97 K.W.H) is more than the national average which is 354.28KWH. But, in Punjab, it is maximum (882.34 KWH) and is nearly twice that of the state's consumption. The number of bank branches per lakh population in the state is 9.39, whereas it is 13.35 in Punjab and 8.64 at the national level which is less than what the state is having. The Per capita income in the state is Rs23755/-, which is slightly, more than national average (Rs23199/-). However, the per capita income in Haryana is Rs376481/- which is 1½ times more than the states value (table 33).

61

Table 33: Economy ­ GSDP and per capita income S.n o variable A.P Country Maximum

State having minimum maximum value State having minimum value

Maharastra Share of 16.5 21.7 38.6 Punjab 9.6 agricultural in GSDP (%) Per capita power Punjab U.P 2 consumption (k.w.h) No of Bank 448.97 354.28 882.34 Punjab 156.23 Bihar 3 branches per lakh population(comme rcial + rural) Per capita income 9.39 8.64 13.35 Haryana 6.18 Bihar 4 in current prices Source : 1.Sl.No.1- A.P. HDR 2007, Table -A2.4 2.Sl.No.2 to 5 A.P. Statistical Abstract 2008, Table 28.15,.16,.19,.23&.30

1

62

Chapter ­II

Methodology

1. List of Variables (development indicators) used for this study

Agriculture A1 = Gross area sown to Net area sown A2= Gross area irrigated to Gross area sown A3 = Yield per acre­ Rice A4 = Short term Ag. Loans per 10000 acres Gross area sown A5 = No. of Tractors per 10000 acres Net area A6 = Livestock and Poultry per 1 lakh rural population A7 = Veterinary professionals (Veterinary Assistant Surgeons + Para Veterinary Staff) per 1 lakh live stock Industry

É 1= % of Industrial workers among Total workers É 2 = No. of Electrical connections to Industries per Lakh Population É 3 = Value of productive capital (in lakhs) per lakh population É 4 = Net Industrial value added per lakh population

Economic Infrastructure E1= No. of vehicles per lakh population E2 = Length of roads per 100 sq.kms. E3 = No. of Telephone exchanges per lakh population E4 = No. of Commercial Bank branches per lakh population E5 = No. of Railway stations per Lakh population Social Infrastructure S1= No. of Hospital Beds per lakh population S2= No. of Doctors (allopathic, ayurvedic and others) per lakh population S3 = No. of PHCs per lakh rural population S4= Literacy Rate S5= Enrollment in High Schools per lakh population S6 = No. of Junior colleges per lakh population Population P1 = Sex ratio P2 = % of Urban Population P3 = % of Non-Ag. Workers among total workers

63

2. Method of computing indices

(i) Variables: District is taken as a basic unit to study the disparities in development between regions, sub-regions and districts. A comprehensive composite development index (CCDI) is worked out for each district to indicate its level of development. But to workout CCDI for each district 25 variables (development indicators) belonging to different sectors of the economy viz., agriculture, Industry, Economic infrastructure, Social infrastructure and Demography are used (Table 35). Sectoral index : In order to calculate comprehensive composite development index for each district, we have to first calculate an index for each variable, then for each sector and finally the total (i.e.) comprehensive composite development index for the district (CCDI). Actual value1 (-) Minimum value 0-1 value of the variable = ----------------------------------------Maximum value (-) Minimum value after calculating 0-1 value, it's standard deviation and it's reciprocal value are calculated. Using these values, the relative weight of the variable is calculated using the following formula. Relative weight of the variable Inverse of standard deviation of the respective variable ----------------------(1)

= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------(2)

sum of the inverses of all the standard deviations of different variables in each sector

Then, the index of the variable =0-1 value of the variable X relative weight the variable. -------------- (3) Like this, for each variable an index is calculated using formula (3) Then index for each sector is calculated using the formula. Sectoral index = Sum of the indices of variables of the respective sector X relative share of the sector in GSDP. ------------------ (4) Then, comprehensive composite development index = Sum of the sectoral indices -----(5) Using this procedure, comprehensive composite development index is calculated for each district. The districts whose CCDI values are above state average are classified as relatively

1

For actual values - see annexures 2 to 6.

64

developed. The remaining districts are further classified in to three categories namely backward, more backward and most backward. The difference between the average value and minimum value of the CCDI is divided in to there equal parts and this is indicated by . Average value of CCDI ­ Minimum value of CCDI Then = -----------------------------------------------------------------3 Then, the districts whose CCDI value is between average value and (average value - x ) are called relatively backward districts and those districts whose CCDI value is between (average value ­ ----------------------(6)

x) and (average value ­ 2 x ) are called relatively more backward and the

remaining districts are called relatively most backward (table 34). Using the same procedure, the districts are classified in each sector in to relatively developed, backward, more backward and most backward districts (table 35 to table 39).

65

Table 34: Districts in Descending order of Development (CCDI) 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 Rank District CCDI Rank District CCDI Rank District 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2

Developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hyderabad Rangareddy Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Visakhapatnam Nizamabad Backward Nellore Guntur Chittoor More Backward Kadapa Warangal Medak Kurnool Karimnagar Khammam Anantapur Prakasam Nalgonda Srikakulam Most Backward Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Adilabad 0.28449 0.25344 0.22704 21 22 23 0.36116 0.35375 0.35355 0.34406 0.34039 0.33317 0.31801 0.31683 0.31542 0.31445 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 0.43716 0.41846 0.40459 1.49615 0.73639 0.68750 0.62228 0.55709 0.53689 0.45721 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Developed Rangareddy Krishna West Godavari Nellore Hyderabad Chittoor Nizamabad East Godavari Medak Visakhapatna m Guntur Backward Kurnool Nalgonda Kadapa Karimnagar More Backward Khammam Prakasam Warangal Anantapur Srikakulam Most Backward Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Adilabad 0.24563 0.22853 0.21226 0.29079 0.28528 0.27738 0.26816 0.25360 20 21 22 23 0.31310 0.31240 0.31036 0.29875 15 16 17 18 19 12 13 14 0.48308 0.44983 0.44086 0.40115 0.38592 0.37792 0.37441 0.36151 0.36036 0.34695 0.34670 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Developed Rangareddy Hyderabad West Godavari Nellore Visakhapatna m Nizamabad Krishna Chittoor East Godavari Guntur Medak Backward Nalgonda Karimnagar Khammam More Backward Warangal Kadapa Prakasam Srikakulam Vizianagaram Most Backward Kurnool Anantapur Adilabad Mahabubnagar

CCDI 3

0.52390 0.46220 0.43199 0.41786 0.40665 0.40626 0.40598 0.39322 0.39034 0.36487 0.36049 0.34007 0.33024 0.32541 0.30652 0.29885 0.29668 0.29582 0.28377 0.27660 0.25020 0.24250 0.24058

66

Fig 18: Disparities in the Development among districts

- All the 4 most backward districts are on the Karnataka border - Most of the developed districts (7) are along the coast line, while the remaining developed districts are around Hyderabad except Nizamabad

67

Table 35: Districts in Descending order of Development ­ (Agriculture)

Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1986-88 District 2 Developed Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Nellore Rangareddy Guntur Nizamabad Chittoor Karimnagar Khammam Nalgonda Kadapa Backward Srikakulam Warangal Prakasam Visakhapatnam Kurnool Vizianagaram Medak Mahabubnagar Anantapur More Backward Adilabad Most Backward 23 Hyderabad 0.00000 23 0.12141 22 Index 3 0.31382 0.30960 0.29268 0.24911 0.23060 0.23027 0.21590 0.21458 0.21139 0.20770 0.20645 0.20267 0.18415 0.18342 0.18184 0.17757 0.16988 0.16726 0.16522 0.15730 0.15124 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1996-98 District 2 Developed Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Nellore Karimnagar Guntur Rangareddy Nizamabad Nalgonda Chittoor Khammam Backward Warangal Prakasam Kadapa Medak Visakhapatnam Kurnool Srikakulam Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Anantapur More Backward Adilabad Most Backward Hyderabad 0.00000 23 0.10851 22 0.16827 0.16521 0.15940 0.15553 0.15229 0.15037 0.14886 0.14429 0.12954 0.12264 Index 3 0.26641 0.26170 0.23599 0.20706 0.19984 0.19711 0.19564 0.18885 0.18282 0.18246 0.17393 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2006-08 District 2 Developed West Godavari East Godavari Krishna Rangareddy Karimnagar Nizamabad Nellore Chittoor Guntur Nalgonda Khammam Medak Backward Warangal Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram Kadapa Prakasam Srikakulam Kurnool Mahabubnagar Anantapur More Backward Adilabad Most Backward Hyderabad 0.00000 0.09996 Index 3 0.22691 0.22513 0.20353 0.19296 0.18588 0.18527 0.17568 0.17308 0.17051 0.16186 0.15450 0.15223 0.14875 0.14165 0.13875 0.13529 0.13451 0.13366 0.12544 0.11437 0.10663

68

Table 36: Districts in Descending order of Development (Industry)

Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 1986-88 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Rangareddy Nizamabad Medak Backward 5 6 7 8 9 Visakhapatnam Krishna Guntur Nalgonda Karimnagar More Backward 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 West Godavari Kurnool Khammam Adilabad Vizianagaram Warangal Chittoor East Godavari Most Backward 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mahabubnagar Nellore Prakasam Kadapa Anantapur Srikakulam 0.01259 0.01209 0.01150 0.00836 0.00788 0.00288 0.02180 0.02032 0.01936 0.01931 0.01791 0.01542 0.01407 0.01404 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 11 12 13 14 0.02944 0.02833 0.02698 0.02588 0.02318 7 8 9 10 Index 3 0.15537 0.12880 0.06630 0.06626 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1996-98 District 2 Developed Rangareddy Medak Nizamabad Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Nalgonda Backward Nellore East Godavari Krishna Chittoor More Backward West Godavari Kurnool Guntur Warangal Most Backward Adilabad Mahabubnagar Karimnagar Khammam Kadapa Anantapur Vizianagaram Prakasam Srikakulam 0.01277 0.01222 0.01050 0.01048 0.00902 0.00834 0.00792 0.00498 0.00415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0.01889 0.01854 0.01813 0.01358 11 12 13 14 15 0.02928 0.02638 0.02523 0.02361 7 8 9 10 Index 3 0.12527 0.10236 0.07499 0.07205 0.04486 0.03847 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006-08 District 2 Developed Rangareddy Visakhapatnam Medak Nizamabad Nellore Hyderabad Backward Nalgonda East Godavari Krishna Guntur More Backward Khammam West Godavari Chittoor Warangal Anantapur Most Backward Mahabubnagar Prakasam Karimnagar Adilabad Kurnool Kadapa Srikakulam Vizianagaram 0.01372 0.01366 0.01277 0.01047 0.01040 0.00918 0.00852 0.00478 0.02116 0.02030 0.01912 0.01478 0.01460 0.03011 0.02962 0.02482 0.02418 Index 3 0.09784 0.09555 0.09089 0.07567 0.05432 0.03983

69

Table 37: Districts in Descending order of Development (Economic Infrastructure)

1986-88 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Rangareddy Krishna Visakhapatnam West Godavari East Godavari Backward Nizamabad More Backward Chittoor Anantapur Guntur Nellore Warangal Kurnool Kadapa Most Backward Medak Srikakulam Karimnagar Prakasam Vizianagaram Khammam Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Adilabad 0.08752 0.08565 0.08276 0.08119 0.07248 0.06764 0.06342 0.06239 0.04950 18 19 20 21 22 23 1.19820 0.32650 0.30831 0.28083 0.25307 0.20707 0.14673 0.13446 0.12700 0.12601 0.12254 0.11533 0.11003 0.10060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Index 3 Ran k 1 1996-98 District 2 Developed Hyderabad West Godavari Chittoor Krishna Anantapur Nellore Kurnool Rangareddy Kadapa Guntur Backward Nizamabad Prakasam More Backward Medak Visakhapatnam Khammam Mahabubnagar Srikakulam Most Backward Vizianagaram Nalgonda Karimnagar East Godavari Adilabad Warangal 0.05880 0.05800 0.05690 0.05464 0.04830 0.04688 20 21 22 23 0.18385 0.12501 0.12399 0.11074 0.10612 0.10493 0.09203 0.09193 0.09174 0.09135 0.07882 0.07566 0.06975 0.06893 0.06744 0.06652 0.06227 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Index 3 Ran k 1 2006-08 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Rangareddy West Godavari Chittoor Nellore Krishna Guntur Prakasam Backward Srikakulam Nalgonda Nizamabad Vizianagaram Kurnool More Backward Kadapa Anantapur Visakhapatnam Khammam Mahabubnagar East Godavari Most Backward Medak Warangal Karimnagar Adilabad 0.05569 0.05506 0.05472 0.04564 0.24527 0.12220 0.12063 0.10848 0.10358 0.10303 0.10048 0.09249 0.08175 0.07760 0.07759 0.07623 0.07425 0.07307 0.07306 0.07257 0.07024 0.06760 0.05993 Index 3

70

Table 38: Districts in Descending order of Development (Social Infrastructure)

1986-88 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Nellore Kadapa Rangareddy Visakhapatnam Kurnool Chittoor Prakasam Warangal Khammam Backward East Godavari Srikakulam Adilabad Medak Anantapur West Godavari Krishna More Backward Guntur Most Backward Vizianagaram Nalgonda Nizamabad Mahabubnagar Karimnagar 0.02522 0.01546 0.01441 0.01422 0.01281 0.01214 21 22 23 0.03078 0.02933 0.02754 0.02690 0.02683 0.02670 0.02558 15 16 17 18 19 20 0.11638 0.04393 0.04237 0.04179 0.03648 0.03586 0.03467 0.03426 0.03257 0.03251 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Index 3 Ran k 1 1996-98 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Rangareddy Nellore Kurnool Kadapa Warangal Chittoor Visakhapatnam Backward Krishna Prakasam Khammam Adilabad East Godavari Guntur More Backward Nalgonda Medak Anantapur Srikakulam West Godavari Vizianagaram Most Backward Karimnagar Nizamabad Mahabubnagar 0.01971 0.01533 0.01460 23 0.02785 0.02602 0.02592 0.02586 0.02301 0.02281 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0.03510 0.03260 0.03246 0.03185 0.03028 0.03022 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.12720 0.05795 0.04897 0.04553 0.04308 0.04196 0.04027 0.03929 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Index 3 Ran k 1 2006-08 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Rangareddy Chittoor Visakhapatnam Warangal Adilabad Nellore Khammam Kadapa Backward Nalgonda Karimnagar East Godavari Krishna Kurnool Srikakulam More Backward Guntur Medak West Godavari Nizamabad Vizianagaram Anantapur Prakasam Most Backward Mahabubnagar 0.03869 0.05712 0.05334 0.05250 0.04960 0.04958 0.04822 0.04815 0.06358 0.06190 0.06154 0.06074 0.05820 0.05794 0.14653 0.09471 0.08133 0.07936 0.07900 0.07218 0.07182 0.07103 0.07063 Index 3

71

Table 39: Districts in Descending order of Development (Demography)

1986-88 Ran k 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Vizianagaram West Godavari Karimnagar Guntur Backward Nellore Adilabad Rangareddy More Backward Prakasam Kurnool Medak Mahabubnagar Kadapa Warangal Chittoor Most Backward Nalgonda Khammam Anantapur 0.00629 0.00596 0.00506 0.00949 0.00928 0.00870 0.00804 0.00797 0.00765 0.00732 0.00716 0.00701 0.00681 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 13 14 15 0.02620 0.01406 0.01257 0.01252 0.01244 0.01146 0.01138 0.01111 0.01092 0.00998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Index 3 Ran k 1 1996-98 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Rangareddy West Godavari Vizianagaram Karimnagar Nellore Adilabad Backward Guntur 0.00989 More Backward Chittoor Kadapa Most Backward Prakasam Medak Warangal Kurnool Khammam Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Anantapur 0.00683 0.00670 0.00669 0.00663 0.00648 0.00565 0.00526 0.00514 19 20 21 22 23 0.00759 0.00712 16 17 18 0.03001 0.01642 0.01439 0.01422 0.01246 0.01235 0.01229 0.01225 0.01181 0.01180 0.01091 0.01083 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Index 3 Ran k 1 2006-08 District 2 Developed Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam Rangareddy Karimnagar Vizianagaram Adilabad East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Guntur Backward Nellore West Godavari Chittoor Kadapa More Backward Warangal Khammam Medak Most Backward Kurnool Prakasam Anantapur Nalgonda Mahabubnagar 0.00831 0.00787 0.00769 0.00692 0.00620 0.00893 0.00848 0.00834 0.01246 0.01165 0.01121 0.01068 0.03057 0.01813 0.01752 0.01619 0.01497 0.01443 0.01425 0.01412 0.01395 0.01386 0.01258 Index 3

72

Chapter -III

Disparities in development (Region-wise)

There are 23 districts in the state of which 9 are in coastal Andhra, 4 are in Rayalaseema and 10 are in Telangana. Coastal Andhra and Telangana are further divided according to agro ­ climatic conditions. North Coastal Andhra with 3 districts and south Coastal Andhra with 6 districts constitute Coastal Andhra as a whole. Similarly South Telangana with 5 districts and North Telangana with 5 districts constitutes Telangana region. (For regions, sub-region and districts ­ Annexure1) The districts are divided into relatively developed, backward, more backward and most backward depending on their CCDI values for each period (Table 34). Districts are counted and percentages are calculated category wise for the state, region and sub region and for each period and the results are tabulated (Table 40 for regions and Table 47 for sub-regions) Similarly for the five sectors, districts are counted, percentages are calculated category wise, for the state, region and sub-region for all the three periods and the results are tabulated (Tables 41-45 for regions and Tables 48 to 52 for sub-regions) In 1986-88, out of the 23 districts in the state, only 7 are relatively developed. Of the remaining districts, 3 are in backward position, 10 are in more backward and the remaining three are in most backward position. But, by 1996-98 the number of developed districts went up to 11 and 4 are in the backward category while 5 are in more backward category and 3 are in the most backward category. By 2006-08, the number of developed districts remained unchanged (11). But, the number of backward districts is reduced by one and number of most backward districts increased by one. So, between 1996-98 and 2006-08, relatively there was no development in the state. Added to that, there was one more addition to most backward category (Table 40). However, there was development during 1986-88 and 2006-08.

73

Sl. Years of No. Study 1 2 a 1986-88 b 1996-98 c 2006-08

TABLE 40: Disparities in Development - State and Regions (CCDI) State No. of Developed % Backward % More % Most % Districts Backward Backward 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 23 7 30.43 3 13.04 10 43.48 3 13.04 23 11 47.83 4 17.39 5 21.74 3 13.04 23 11 47.83 3 13.04 5 21.74 4 17.39 Regions Backward

Sl. No. 1 a b c a b c a b c

Years of Study 2 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

No. of Districts 3 9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

Developed 4 4 6 6 3 4 4 0 1 1

%

% 7 22.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 30.00 25.00 50.00 0.00

More Backward 8

% 9

Most Backward 10

% 11

5 6 1. Coastal Andhra 44.44 2 66.67 0 66.67 0 2. Telangana 30.00 0 40.00 2 40.00 3 3. Rayalaseema 0.00 1 25.00 2 25.00 0

2 22.22 2 22.22 3 33.33 5 50.00 2 20.00 1 10.00 3 75.00 1 25.00 1 25.00

1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0.00 2 20.00 2 20.00 2 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 50.00

74

Fig 19: Disparities in Development among Regions (CCDI)

Sl.No

Regions

Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23

Rayalaseema

Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

44.44 0.00 30.00 30.43 66.67 25.00 40.00 47.83 66.67 25.00 40.00 47.83

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1986-88 1996-98 30.43

Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

47.83

47.83

2006-08

75

A. Disparities in Development among Regions: If we examine region wise, we find 44.44% of coastal Andhra, 30% of Telangana and zero percent of Rayalaseema were relatively developed in 1986-88. During 1986-88to 199698, there was some development in all regions. Developed area in coastal Andhra has increased from 44.44% to 66.67% while in Telangana it has gone up from 30% to 40% and in Rayalaseema it went up from zero to 25%. There was development, but the development was not such as to minimize the imbalances between regions. Instead of reducing the disparities, the development has widened them. In 1986-88, the difference between coastal Andhra and Telangana in development was 14.44% only. But, by 1996-98 the difference grew from 14.44% to26.67%. Similarly, the difference between Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema was 44.44% in 1986-88, but by 1996-98, it was slightly decreased from 44.44% to 41.67%. The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema also got reduced from 30% to 15%. But, between 1996-98 and 2006-08, there was neither increase, nor decrease in the developed area in any of the regions in the state. So, the disparities between the regions also remained the same. But Vizianagaram a coastal Andhra district, which was occupying most backward position, moved up to more backward position. Similarly, in Telangana, one of the two districts previously occupying more backward position moved up to backward position. In Rayalaseema, not only there was no development, but also, there was complete reversal, a fast deterioration in the development of this region. Of the 4 districts in this region, three districts have experienced relatively a negative growth. Kurnool district was the worst affected. In 1996-98, it was in backward position. By 2006-08 it moved down by two steps and landed in most backward position. Kadapa district which was in backward position fell to more back ward position. Similarly, Ananthapur district which was in more backward position was pushed down to most backward position. (Table 40) During the period under study, with regard to CCDI development, the gap between Coastal Andhra and Telangana got widened from 14.44% to 26.67% where as the gap between Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got slightly reduced from 44.44% to 41.67%. The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema also got reduced from 30% to 15%. So, on the whole the reduction in regional disparities was very little.

76

Sector wise study Agriculture Table 41 gives us the picture in agricultural sector. By 1986-88, percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in Agriculture ­ region wise are given here under. Coastal Andhra : Developed Backward More backward More backward Telangana Developed Backward More backward More backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward More backward : : : : : : : : : : : : 55.56% 44.44% 0% 0% 50% 30% 10% 10% 50% 50% 0% 0%

By 1996-98 Changes in region wise development in Agriculture. Coastal Andhra : No change, 55.56% developed area continued. Telangana : No change, 50% developed area continued Rayalaseema : Developed area fell from 50% to 25%

77

Table 41: Disparities in Development among Regions (Agriculture) Sl. No. State/Region No. of Developed Districts Districts 3 23 23 23 4 12 11 12 % Backward Districts 6 % More Backward Districts 8 1 1 1 % Most Backward Districts 10 1 1 1 %

1 2 State 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c Regions 1 Coastal Andhra 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 2 Telangana 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 3 Rayalaseema 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c

5 52.17 47.83 52.17

7 9 39.13 10 43.48 9 39.13

9 4.35 4.35 4.35

11 4.35 4.35 4.35

9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 6 2 1 1

55.56 55.56 55.56 50.00 50.00 60.00 50.00 25.00 25.00

4 44.44 4 44.44 4 44.44 3 30.00 3 30.00 2 20.00 2 50.00 3 75.00 3 75.00

0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

78

Fig 20: Disparities in Development among Regions (Agriculture)

Sl.No Regions Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23

Rayalaseema

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1986-88 1996-98 52.17 47.83

Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 55.56 55.56 55.56 50.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 60.00 52.17 47.83 52.17

Andhra Pradesh

Telangana

52.17

2006-08

79

By 2006-08 changes in region-wise development in agriculture A) Coastal Andhra B) Telangana C) Rayalaseema : No change, 55.56 % Developed area continued : Developed area went up from 50% to 60% : No change. 25% Developed area continued

So, by 2006-08, in agriculture with 60% developed area, Telangana stands first. With 55.56% developed area Coastal Andhra stands second and Rayalaseema with only 25% developed area stands third. Though the difference between Coastal Andhra and Telangana is small, it is significant that Telangana could come first in agriculture, in spite of Coastal Andhra having vast delta areas, good rainfall and maximum amount of surface irrigation.

Change in Disparities during the period of study The gap between Coastal Andhra and Telangana in agricultural development has decreased from 5.56% to (-) 4.44%. The gap between Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in agricultural development has increased from 5.56% to 30.56% The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema in agricultural development has increased from 0% to 35% (Table 43) Over all, the disparities between regions got widened during this period in agriculture.

Industry

By 1986-88 percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in industry ­ Region wise are given below: Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward : : : : 0% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33%

80

Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward Coastal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : : : : : : : : : : : 40% 20% 30% 10% 0% 0% 50% 50% Developed area went up from 0% to 11.11% went up from 40% to 50% No change. 0% continued

By 1996-98 changes in region-wise development in industry

By 2006-08 changes in region wise development in industry Coastal Andhra : Developed area went up from 11.11% to 22.22%. Telangana : Decreased from 50% to 40% Rayalaseema : No change, 0% continued. By 2006-08, Telangana with 40% relatively developed area stands first ­ coastal Andhra with only 22.22% developed area stands second and Rayalaseema with zero percent developed area stands at the bottom in industrial development. Between 1986-98 and 2006-08 (i.e.) during the period of study changes in disparities between regions with regard to development in industry. - The gap between Coastal Andhra and Telangana got reduced from 40% to 17.78%. - The gap between coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got widened from 0% to 22.22% - The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema remained unchanged at 40%. (Table 42) So, Telangana takes first place. not only in agriculture, but also in industry. (Table 42) Over all, the gaps between regions are not narrowed in this sector.

81

Table 42: Disparities in Development among Regions (Industry) Sl. No. State/Region No. of Developed Districts Districts 3 23 23 23 4 4 6 6 % Backward Districts 6 5 4 4 % More Backward districts 8 8 4 5 % Most Backward Districts 10 6 9 8 %

1 2 State 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c Regions 1 Coastal Andhra 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 2 Telangana 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 3 Rayalaseema 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c

5 17.39 26.09 26.09

7 21.74 17.39 17.39

9 34.78 17.39 21.74

11 26.09 39.13 34.78

9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

0 1 2 4 5 4 0 0 0

0.00 11.11 22.22 40.00 50.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 0

33.33 33.33 33.33 20.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 25.00 0.00

3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2

33.33 22.22 11.11 30.00 10.00 20.00 50.00 25.00 50.00

3 3 3 1 4 3 2 2 2

33.33 33.33 33.33 10.00 40.00 30.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

82

Fig 21: Disparities in Development among Regions (Industry)

Sl.No Regions Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23

Rayalaseema

Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

0.00 0.00 40.00 17.39 11.11 0.00 50.00 26.09 22.22 0.00 40.00 26.09

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

60 50 40 30

Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

26.09 20 10 0 1986-88 1996-98 17.39

26.09

2006-08

83

Economic infrastructure : By 1986-88, percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in Economic infrastructure - region wise are given as under. Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward : : : : 0% 0% 100% 0% : : : : 20% 10% 10% 60% : : : : 44.44% 0% 22.22% 33.33%

By 1996-98, changes in region wise development in Economic infrastructure. Coastal Andhra: Telangana : Rayalaseema : No change, 44.44% developed area continued. No change, 20% developed are a continued Developed area went up from 0% to 100%, it is a big leap.

By 2006-08, changes in region wise development in economic infrastructure. Costal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : Developed area went up from 44.44% to 55.56% : No Change, 20% developed area continued. : Developed area got shrunk from 100% to 25%.

84

By 2006-08, Coastal Andhra with 55.56% developed area stands first. Rayalaseema with 25% developed area stands a distant second and Telangana with 20% developed area stands third in the development of economic infrastructure. It is significant that Rayalaseema stood second.

Between 1986-88 and 2006-08 (i.e.) during the period under study, changes in disparities between regions with regard to development in economic infrastructure. The gap between coastal Andhra and Telangana got widened from 24.44% to 35.56%. The gap between coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got reduced from 44.44% to 30.56%. The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema got reduced from 20% to (-) 5%. In 1986-88 Telangana is ahead of Rayalaseema. But by 2006-08 Rayalaseema is ahead (Table 43) In this sector, the regional imbalances slightly got reduced during the period under study.

85

Table 43: Disparities in Development among Regions (Economic Infrastructure)

Sl. No. State/Region No. of Districts 3 23 23 23 Developed Districts 4 6 10 8 % Backward Districts 6 1 2 5 % More Backward Districts 8 7 5 6 % Most Backward Districts 10 9 6 4 %

1 2 State 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c Regions 1 Coastal Andhra 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 2 Telangana 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 3 Rayalaseema 1986-88 a 1996-98 b c 2006-08

5 26.09 43.48 34.78

7 4.35 8.70 21.74

9 30.43 21.74 26.09

11 39.13 26.09 17.39

9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

4 4 5 2 2 2 0 4 1

44.44 44.44 55.56 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 100.0 0 25.00

0 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 1

0.00 11.11 22.22 10.00 10.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 25.00

2 2 2 1 3 2 4 0 2

22.22 22.22 22.22 10.00 30.00 20.00 100.00 0.00 50.00

3 2 0 6 4 4 0 0 0

33.33 22.22 0.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

86

Fig 22: Disparities in Development among Regions (Economic Infrastructure)

Sl.No Regions Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23

Rayalaseema

Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

44.44 0.00 20.00 26.09 44.44 100.00 20.00 43.48

Andhra Pradesh

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1986-88 26.09

55.56 25.00 20.00 34.78

Telangana

43.48 34.78

1996-98

2006-08

87

Social infrastructure: In 1986-88, the percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in social infrastructure ­ region wise are given below Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward : : : : 75% 25% 0% 0% : : : : 40% 20% 0% 40% : : : : 33.33% 44.44% 11.11% 11.11%

By 1996-98, Changes in region wise development in social infrastructure. Coastal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : Developed area got reduced from 33.33% to 22.22% : Developed area got reduced from 40% to 30%. : No change. 75% developed area continued.

By 2006-08, changes in region wise development in social infrastructure Coastal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : No change; 22% developed area continued. : Developed area went up from 30% to 50% : Developed area got reduced from 75% to 50%

By2006-08, with 50% developed areas Telangana and Rayalaseema stand first whereas with only 22.22% developed area, Coastal Andhra stands a distant second.

88

During the period under study, changes in disparities between regions in respect of development in social infrastructure The gap between Coastal Andhra and Telangana got widened from (-)6.67% to (-) 27.78%. The gap between coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got reduced from (-) 41.67% to (-) 27.78%. The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema got reduced from (-) 35% to 0%. (Table 44) In social infrastructure, the regional disparities got some what reduced during this period.

89

Table 44: Disparities in Development among Regions (Social Infrastructure)

Sl. No. State/Region No. of Districts 3 23 23 23 Developed districts 4 10 8 9 % Backward Districts 6 % More Backward Districts 8 1 6 7 % Most Backward Districts 10 %

1 2 State 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c Regions 1 Coastal Andhra 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 2 Telangana 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 3 Rayalaseema 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c

5 43.48 34.78 39.13

7 7 30.43 6 26.09 6 26.09

9 4.35 26.09 30.43

11 5 21.74 3 13.04 1 4.35

9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

3 2 2 4 3 5 3 3 2

33.33 22.22 22.22 40.00 30.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 50.00

4 44.44 4 44.44 3 33.33 2 20.00 2 20.00 2 20.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 1 25.00

1 3 4 0 2 2 0 1 1

11.11 33.33 44.44 0.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 25.00 25.00

1 11.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 40.00 3 30.00 1 10.00 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00

90

Table

Fig 23: Disparities in Development among Regions (Social Infrastructure)

Sl.No Regions Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23

Rayalaseema

Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

33.33 75.00 40.00 43.48 22.22 75.00 30.00 34.78

Andhra Pradesh

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1986-88 43.48

22.22 75.00 50.00 39.13

Telangana

39.13 34.78

1996-98

2006-08

91

Demography : By 1986-88 percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in demography, region wise are given below. Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward : : : : 0% 0% 75% 25% : : : : 30% 20% 30% 20% : : : : 77.78% 11.11% 11.11% 0%

By 1996-98 Changes in region wise development in demography : Coastal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : No change, 77.78% developed area continued : Developed area got widened from 30% to 50% : No change, 0% developed area continued.

BY 2006-08, changes in region wise development in demography Coastal Andhra Telangana Rayalaseema : Developed area got reduced from 77.78% to 66.67% : No change; 50% developed area remained unchanged. : No change; 0% developed area continued.

By 2006-08, with 66.67% developed area Coastal Andhra comes first. with 50% developed area Telangana comes second, and with 0% developed area Rayalaseema will be at the bottom.

92

Table 45: Disparities in Development among Regions (Demography) Sl. No. More Backward Districts 8 7 2 3 Most Backward Districts 10 3 8 5

1 State 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c Regions 1 Coastal Andhra 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 2 Telangana 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c 3 Rayalaseema 1986-88 a 1996-98 b 2006-08 c

State/Region 2

No. of Developed Districts Districts 3 4 23 23 23 10 12 11

% 5 43.48 52.17 47.83

Backward Districts 6

% 7

% 9 30.43 8.70 13.04

% 11 13.04 34.78 21.74

3 13.04 1 4.35 4 17.39

9 9 9 10 10 10 4 4 4

7 7 6 3 5 5 0 0 0

77.78 77.78 66.67 30.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 11.11 1 11.11 2 22.22 2 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 50.00

1 0 0 3 0 3 3 2 0

11.11 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 30.00 75.00 50.00 0.00

0 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 2

0.00 11.11 11.11 20.00 50.00 20.00 25.00 50.00 50.00

93

Fig 24: Disparities in Development among Regions (Demography)

Sl.No Regions Total No. of Districts 9 4 10 23 Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

77.78 0.00 30.00 43.48 77.78 0.00 50.00 52.17 66.67 0.00 50.00 47.83

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Coastal Andhra

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1986-88 43.48

Rayalaseema

Telangana

Andhra Pradesh

52.17

47.83

1996-98

2006-08

94

During the period under study changes in disparities between regions in respect of demography The gap between coastal Andhra and Telangana got reduced from 47.78% to 16.67% The gap between Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got reduced from 77.78% to 66.67%. The gap between Telangana and Rayalaseema got widened from 30% to 50%. During these two decades, there is no development in Rayalaseema in demography. Overall, there is reduction in disparities to some extent. (Table 45) Sector wise ranking of regions: Table 47 shows that Telangana stands first in three sectors namely agriculture, industry and social infrastructure, where as Coastal Andhra comes first in two sectors only, namely economic infrastructure and demography. Rayalaseema together with Telangana stands first in social infrastructure.

Table 46: Sector wise ranking of regions(2006-08)

Sector Agriculture Industry Economic infrastructure Social infrastructure Demography I Telangana Telangana Coastal Andhra Telangana/ Rayalaseema Coastal Andhra II Coastal Andhra Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Coastal Andhra Telangana III Rayalaseema Rayalaseema Telangana Rayalaseema

But, Coastal Andhra comes second in three sectors namely agriculture, industry and social infrastructure where as Telangana comes second only in one sector, namely demography. Added to that Telangana gets one third place where as coastal Andhra gets none. So, in overall development, (i.e.) in comprehensive composite development, Coastal Andhra occupied the first place leaving second to Telangana (Table 46)

95

B. Disparities in Development among sub-regions:

There are five sub-regions in the state. 1) North coastal Andhra with 3 districts 2) South Coastal Andhra with 6 districts 3) Rayalaseema with 4 districts 4) South Telangana with 5 districts and 5) North Telangana with 5 districts (Annexure1) Comprehensive composite development (CCDI) By 1986-88 percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in CCDI are given sub region wise. North Coastal Andhra Developed : 33.33% Backward : 0% More backward : 33.33% Most backward : 33.33% South Coastal Andhra Developed : 50% Backward : 33.33% More backward : 16.67% Most backward : 0% Rayalaseema Developed : 0% Backward : 25% More backward : 75% Most backward : 0% South Telangana Developed : 40% Backward : 0% More backward : 40% Most backward : 20% North Telangana Developed : 20% Backward : 0% More backward : 60% Most backward : 20%

96

Table 47: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (CCDI)

Sl. No. 1 a b c a b c a b c a b c a b c Years of Study 2 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 No. of Districts 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Developed 4 3 5 5 2 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 % Sub-Regions Backward % More Backward 8 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 % 9 16.67 16.67 16.67 40.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 66.67 75.00 25.00 25.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 Most Backward 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 % 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 33.33 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

5 6 7 1. South Coastal Andhra 50.00 2 33.33 83.33 0 0.00 83.33 0 0.00 2. South Telangana 40.00 0 0.00 60.00 1 20.00 60.00 1 20.00 3. North Coastal Andhra 33.33 0 0.00 33.33 0 0.00 33.33 0 0.00 4. Rayalaseema 0.00 1 25.00 25.00 2 50.00 25.00 0 0.00 5. North Telangana 20.00 0 0.00 20.00 1 20.00 20.00 2 40.00

97

Table Fig 25: Disparities in Development in Sub Regions (CCDI)

Sl. No. Sub Regions Total No. of Districts

3 6 4 5 5 23

1986-88

Developed Districts 1996-98 2006-08

33.33 83.33 25.00 60.00 20.00 47.83 33.33 83.33 25.00 60.00 20.00 47.83

1 North Coastal Andhra 2 South Coastal Andhra 3 Rayalaseema 4 South Telangana 5 North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

33.33 50.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 30.43

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1986-88 30.43

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

47.83

47.83

1996-98

2006-08

98

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development (CCDI) North Coastal Andhra : No change; 33.33% developed area continued. South Coastal Andhra : Developed area went up from 50% to 83.33% Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : Developed area went up from 0% to 25% : Developed area went up from 40% to 60% : No change; developed area 20% continued

By 2006-08 changes in sub-region wise comprehensive composite development North Coastal Andhra : No, change; 33.33% developed area continued. South Coastal Andhra : No change 83.33% developed area continued Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : No change; 25% developed area continued. : No change; 60% developed area continued. : No change; 20% developed area continued.

So, by 2006-08, with 83.3% developed area South Coastal Andhra stands first; with 60% developed area South Telangana comes second, North Coastal Andhra comes third with 33.33% developed area, Rayalaseema stands fourth with 25% developed area and North Telangana stands last (i.e.) fifth with only 20% developed area. During the second period, none of the sub-regions developed further. During the first decade also only the developed sub-regions, namely South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got developed further. Backward North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana got no further development. During the period of study changes in the disparities between sub-regions in comprehensive composite development. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 16.67% to 50%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got widened from 50% to 58.38%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got widened from 10% to 23.33%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana also got widened from 30% to 63.33%.

99

-

The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema got reduced from 40% to 35%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 6.67% to 26.67%. The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana got widened from 20% to 40%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from 33.38% to 8.33%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana got-reduced from (-) 2-% to 5%. During 1986-88 and 2006-08 (i.e.) the period understudy, the disparities in

comprehensive composite development between sub-regions went up further. (table 47)

Sector wise study

Agriculture:

By 1986-88, the percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most back ward in agriculture- sub region wise are given below. North Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward South Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward : 50% : 50% : 0% : 0% :100% : 0% : 0%

: 83.33% : 16.67% : 0% : 0%

100

Most backward South Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward

: 0%

: 40% : 40% : 0% : 20%

North Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 60% : 20% : 20% : 0%

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development in agriculture.

North Coastal Andhra : No change, 0% developed area continued

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 83.33% developed area continued. : Developed area got reduced from 50% to 25%. : No change, 40% developed area continued. : No change; 60% developed area continued.

Excepting Rayalaseema, in other sub-regions, there is no further development during 1986-88 to 1996-98. But in Rayalaseema there is negative growth. Developed area got reduced from 50% to 25% (table 48).

101

Table 48: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (Agriculture)

Sub-Regions

Sl. No. 1 State/Region 2 No. of Districts 3 Developed 4 % 5 Backwar d 6 % 7 More Backward 8 % 9 Most Backward 10 % 11

1

a b c

South Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 83.33 83.33 83.33 40.00 40.00 60.00 1 1 1 2 2 1 16.67 16.67 16.67 40.00 40.00 20.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

2

a b c

South Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

3

a b c

North Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 100.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 50.00 75.00 75.00 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4

a b c

North Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

5

a b c

Rayalaseema

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

102

Fig 26: Disparities in the Development of Sub Regions (Agriculture)

Sl. No. Sub Regions Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

1 North Coastal Andhra 2 South Coastal Andhra 3 Rayalaseema 4 South Telangana 5 North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

0.00 83.33 50.00 40.00 60.00 52.17

0.00 83.33 25.00 40.00 60.00 47.83

0.00 83.33 25.00 60.00 60.00 52.17

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1986-88 52.17

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

47.83

52.17

1996-98

2006-08

103

By 2006-08, changes in sub-region wise development in agriculture

North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 0% developed area continued.

: No change, 83.33% developed are continued. : No change, 25% developed area continued. : The developed area went up from 40% to 60%. : No change, 60% developed area continued.

So, by 2006-08, with 83.33% developed area South coastal Andhra stands first; with 60% developed area South Telangana and North Telangana come second, Rayalaseema comes third with 25% developed area and North Coastal Andhra stands at the bottom with 0% developed area. In coastal Andhra, South Coastal Andhra comes first and North Coastal Andhra comes last in agricultural development. During the second period (i.e.) 1996-08 to 2006-08, none of the sub ­regions except South Telangana gained or lost in development. They maintained their relative levels of development.

By 2006-08, changes in sub-region wise development in agriculture. North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 0% developed area continued.

: No change, 83.33% developed are continued. : No change, 25% developed area continued. : No change, 40% developed area continued. : No change, 60% developed area continued.

So, by 2006-08, with 83.33% developed area South Coastal Andhra comes first. Next comes North Telangana and South Telangana with 60% developed area. So, They occupy second place. Rayalaseema with 25% developed area comes third and North Coastal Andhra with 0% developed area comes last in agricultural development. In coastal Andhra, South Coastal Andhra comes first and North Coastal Andhra comes last in agricultural development.

104

Changes in disparities between sub-regions in the development of agriculture during the period 1986-08 to 2006-08 The gap between South coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra remained unchanged. The gap between South Coastal Andhra ad Rayalaseema got widened from 33.33% to 58.33%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got reduced from 43.33% to 23.33%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana remained unchanged at 23.33%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 40% to60%. The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema got widened from (-)10% to 35%. The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana got reduced from ()20% to 0%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from 50% to 25%. This is because of negative development in Rayalaseema. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana got widened from 10% to 35% (Table 48) So, two decades of development in agriculture has resulted in enhancing rather than reducing the disparities between sub-regions also.

Industry: By 1986-88, percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in industry ­ region wise are given here under. North Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 0% :33.33% : 33.33% : 33.33%

105

South Coastal Andhra

Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward South Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 0% : 0% : 50% : 50% : 0% : 33.33% : 33.33% : 33.33%

: 60% : 20% : 0% : 20%

North Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 20% : 20% : 60% : 0%

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development in industry. North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : Developed area went up from 0% to 33.33% : No change, 0% developed area continued. : No change, 0% developed area continued : Developed area went up from 60% to 80%. : No change, 20% developed area continued.

106

By 2006-08, changes in sub-region wise development in industry. North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : No change 33.33% developed area continued. : Developed area slightly increased from 0% to 16.67% : No change; 0% developed area continued. : Developed area got reduced from 80%to 60%. : No change, 20% developed area continued.

So, with 60% developed area South Telangana stands first followed by North Coastal Andhra with 33.33% developed area standing second. Third, comes North Telangana with 20% developed area followed by South Coastal Andhra with 16.67% developed area which stands fourth. In the fifth position, we find Rayalaseema with no industrially developed area whatever. South Telangana stands first with 60% developed area. North Coastal Andhra stands a distant second with only 33.33% developed area. Other sub-regions are far away with little or no development. Whatever industrial development is there in south Telangana is concentrated around Hyderabad. Similarly, in North Coastal Andhra the industrial development is concentrated around Visakhapatnam. Because of this highly skewed development, the disparities are bound to be more.

Changes in disparities during 1986-88 and 2006-08 in industry

The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra is widened from 0% to 16.67%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema increased from 0% to 16.67% The gap between south coastal Andhra and South Telangana got reduced from (-) 60% to (-) 43.33%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana got reduced from (-) 20% to3.33%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from 60% to 26.67%. The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema remained unchanged at 60%.

107

-

The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana also remained unchanged at 40%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 0% to 33.33%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana remained unchanged at 20%.

In industrial sector also, it appears the disparities between sub-regions are not reduced. They are continuing (Table 49).

108

Table 49: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (Industrial Sector)

Sub-Regions

Sl. No. 1 State/Region 2 No. of Districts 3 Developed 4 % 5 Backwar d 6 % 7 More Backward 8 % 9 Most Backward 10 % 11

1

a b c

South Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 6 6 6 5 5 5 0 0 1 3 4 3 0.00 0.00 16.67 60.00 80.00 60.00 2 3 3 1 0 1 33.33 50.00 50.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 2 2 1 0 0 0 33.33 33.33 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1 1 1 1 1 33.33 16.67 16.67 20.00 20.00 20.00

2

a b c

South Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

3

a b c

North Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.00 33.33 33.33 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 33.33 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 1 0 0 3 1 2 2 1 2 33.33 0.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 40.00 50.00 25.00 50.00 1 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 2 33.33 66.67 66.67 0.00 60.00 40.00 50.00 50.00 50.00

4

a b c

North Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

5

a b c

Rayalaseema

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

109

Fig 27: Disparities in the Development of Sub Regions (Industry)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5

Sub Regions North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh 1986-88 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 17.39

Developed Districts 1996-98 2006-08 33.33 33.33 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 80.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 26.09 26.09

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1986-88 17.39

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

26.09

26.09

1996-98

2006-08

110

Economic infrastructure: By 1986-88 percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward and most backward in economic infrastructure - sub- region wise are given as under. North Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 33.33% : 0% : 0% : 66.67%

South Coastal Andhra

Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward South Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 50% : 0% : 33.33% : 16.67% : 0% : 0% : 100% : 0% : 40% : 0% : 0% : 60%

North Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 0% : 20% : 20% : 60%

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development in economic infrastructure North Coastal Andhra : The developed area got reduced from 33.33% to 0%. South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : Developed area got reduced from 50% to 44.44% : developed are got widened from 0% to 100%, a big leap. : No, change, 40% developed area continued. : No change, 0% developed area continued.

111

By 2006-08, changes in sub-region wise development in economic infrastructure North Coastal Andhra : No change, 0% developed area continued. South Coastal Andhra : Developed area went up from 44.44% to 83.33%. Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana : Developed area got drastically cut from 100% to only 25% : No change, 40% developed area continued. : No change, 0% developed area continued.

So, by 2006-08, South Coastal Andhra with 83.33% developed area stands first. South Telangana is a distant second with 40% developed area. Rayalaseema stands third with 25% developed area. North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana come last with 0% developed area. The developed area in respect of economic infrastructure is only 34.78% in the state. Added to that, most of the developed area is concentrated in south Coastal Andhra. In South Telangana also, there is some development. Both North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana are totally deprived of any development. The case of North Telangana is much more pathetic. 60% of this sub-region is in the most backward category.

Changes in disparities during the period between 1986-99 and 2006-08 in Economic infrastructure - The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 16.67% to 83.33%. The gap between South coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got widened from 50% to 58.33% The gap between South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got widened from 10% to 43.33% The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana got widened from 50% to 83.33%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 6.67% to 40%. The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema got reduced from 40% to 15%.

112

-

The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana remained unchanged at 40%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from (-) 33.33% to 25%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana got widened from 0% to 25%.

The disparities between sub-regions instead of getting reduced have got widened during the period 1986-88 to 2006-08 in economic infrastructure. The backward sub-regions are being neglected resulting in the birth of separatist movements (Table 50)

113

Table 50: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (Economic Infrastructure)

Sub-Regions

Sl. No. 1 State/Region 2 No. of Districts 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 Developed 4 3 4 5 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 % 5 50.00 44.44 83.33 40.00 40.00 40.00 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 25.00 Backward 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 % 7 0.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 20.00 20.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 More Backward 8 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 4 0 2 % 9 33.33 0.00 16.67 0.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 20.00 20.00 20.00 100.00 25.00 50.00 Most Backward 10 1 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 % 11 16.67 11.11 0.00 60.00 10.00 20.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1

a b c

South Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

2

a b c

South Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

3

a b c

North Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

4

a b c

North Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

5

a b c

Rayalaseema

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

114

Fig 28: Disparities in the Development of Sub Regions (Economic Infrastructure)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Sub Regions North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 33.33 0.00 0.00 50.00 66.67 83.33 0.00 100.00 25.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26.09

43.48

34.78

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 1986-88 26.09

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

43.48 34.78

1996-98

2006-08

115

Social infrastructure: By 1986-88, percentage of areas developed, backward, more backward, and most backward in social infrastructure sub ­region wise is given below. North Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 33.33% : 33.33% : 0% : 33.33%

South Coastal Andhra

Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward South Telangana Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 75% : 25% : 0% : 0% : 33.33% : 50% : 16.67% : 0%

: 40% : 20% : 0% : 40%

North Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 40% : 20% : 0% : 40%

116

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development in social infrastructure. North Coastal Andhra: No change, 33.33% developed area continued. South Coastal Andhra: The developed area got reduced from 33.33% to 16.67% Rayalaseema : No changed; 75% developed area continued. South Telangana : No change, 40% developed area continued. North Telangana : Developed area got reduced from 40% to 20%.

By 2006-08 changes in sub-region wise development in social infrastructure : North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 33.33% developed area continued.

: No change, 16.67% developed area continued. : Developed area got reduced from 75% to 50%. : No change, 40% developed area continued. : Developed area went up from 20% to 60%.

By 2006-08, North Telangana with 60% developed area stands first in social infrastructure development. Next comes Rayalaseema with 50% developed area occupying second position. Third position is taken by South Telangana with 40% developed area and North Coastal Andhra takes Fourth place with 33.33% developed area. Last comes South Coastal Andhra which is generally accepted as developed area. Similarly Rayalaseema and North Telangana are considered to be back ward in the state. But they occupy second and first positions in social infrastructure development. One more significant point is that there is no most back ward area in any of the 4 sub-regions except South Telangana. Changes in disparities during the period between 1986-88 and 2006-08 in social infrastructure. - The gap between south coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra got widened from 0% to 16.66%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got reduced from (-) 41.67% to (-) 33.33%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got widened from (-) 6.67% to (-) 23.33%.

117

-

The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana got widened from (-) 6.67% to (-) 43.33%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra remained unaltered at 6.67% The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema got reduced from (-) 35% to (-) 10%. The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana got widened from 0% to(-) 20%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from (-) 41.67% to (-) 16.67% The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana got reduced from (-) 35% to 10%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Coast, North Telangana

and South Telangana sub-regions got widened, whereas status co is maintained in Rayalaseema during this period. (Table 51)

118

Table 51: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (Social Infrastructure)

Sub-Regions

Sl. No. 1 State/Region 2 No. of Districts 3 Developed 4 % 5 Backwar d 6 % 7 More Backward 8 % 9 Most Backward 10 % 11

1

a b c

South Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 6 6 6 5 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 33.33 16.67 16.67 40.00 40.00 40.00 3 4 2 1 0 1 50.00 66.67 33.33 20.00 0.00 20.00 1 1 3 0 2 1 16.67 16.67 50.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 0 0 0 2 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 20.00

2

a b c

South Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

3

a b c

North Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 2 33.33 33.33 33.33 40.00 20.00 60.00 75.00 75.00 50.00 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 33.33 0.00 33.33 20.00 40.00 20.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 33.33 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4

a b c

North Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

5

a b c

Rayalaseema

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

119

Fig 29: Disparities in the Development of Sub Regions (Social Infrastructure)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Sub Regions North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 33.33 33.33 33.33 33.33 16.67 16.67 75.00 75.00 50.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 60.00

43.48

34.78

39.13

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1986-88 43.48

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

34.78

39.13

1996-98

2006-08

120

Demography: By 1986-88, percentage of areas developed backward, more backward and most backward in demography- sub-region wise are given here under. North Coastal Andhra Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 100% : 0% : 0% : 0%

South Coastal Andhra

Developed Backward More backward Most backward Rayalaseema Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 0% : 0% : 75% : 25% : 66.67% : 16.67% : 16.67% : 0%

South Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 20% : 20% : 40% : 20%

North Telangana

Developed Backward More backward Most backward : 40% : 20% : 20% : 20%

121

By 1996-98, changes in sub-region wise development in demography North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 100% developed area continued.

: No change, 66.67% developed area continued. : No change, 0% developed area continued. : Developed area got widened from 20% to 40% : Developed area got widened from 40% to 60%

By 2006-08 changes in sub- region wise development in demography

North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

: No change, 100% developed area continued.

: Developed area got reduced from 66.67% to 50%. : No change, 0% developed area continued. : No change, 40% developed area continued. : No change, 60% developed area continued.

By 2006-08 in demography, with 100% developed area North Coastal Andhra stands first. With 60% developed area, North Telangana stands second. South Coastal Andhra comes third with 50% developed area and south Telangana comes fourth with 40% developed area. Rayalaseema one of the most backward regions in the state comes at the bottom with 0% developed area. The total developed area in demography, in the state is less than half (i.e.) 47.88%. Most of this developed area is concentrated in North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana. In demography also, two backward sub-regions namely North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana occupying first and second positions is significant. Another backward sub-region Rayalaseema, not having any developed area in this sector is also significant. Added to that, in this sub-region 50% of the area is under most backward category.

122

Changes in disparities during period between 1986-88 and 2006-08 in demography The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Coastal Andhra got widened from (-) 33.33% to (-)50% The gap between South Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema got reduced from 66.67% to 50%. The gap between South Coastal Andhra and South Telangana got reduced from 46.67% to 10% The gap between South Coastal Andhra and North Telangana got reduced from 26.67% to (-) 10%. The gap between South Telangana and North Coastal Andhra got reduced from () 80% to (-) 60% The gap between South Telangana and Rayalaseema got widened from 20% to 40%. The gap between South Telangana and North Telangana remained unaltered at 20% The gap between Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra remained unaltered at (-) 100%. The gap between Rayalaseema and North Telangana got widened from (-) 40% to (-)60%. In this sector, it appears that the disparities between sub-regions are slightly reduced. (Table 52)

123

Table 52: Disparities in Development among Sub-Regions (Demography)

Sub-Regions

Sl. No. 1 State/Region 2 No. of Districts 3 6 6 6 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 Developed 4 4 4 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 % 5 66.67 66.67 50.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backward 6 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 % 7 16.67 16.67 33.33 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 More Backward 8 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 2 0 % 9 16.67 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 75.00 50.00 0.00 Most Backward 10 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 % 11 0.00 16.67 16.67 20.00 60.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 50.00

1

a b c

South Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

2

a b c

South Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

3

a b c

North Coastal Andhra

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

4

a b c

North Telangana

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

5

a b c

Rayalaseema

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

124

Fig 30: Disparities in the Development of Sub Regions (Demography)

Sl. No. Sub Regions Developed Districts 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

1 North Coastal Andhra 2 South Coastal Andhra 3 Rayalaseema 4 South Telangana 5 North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

100.00 66.67 0.00 20.00 40.00

100.00 66.67 0.00 40.00 60.00

100.00 50.00 0.00 40.00 60.00

43.48

52.17

47.83

Rayalaseema Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Telangana

120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00

South Coastal Andhra North Telangana

52.17 40.00 20.00 0.00 1986-88 1996-98 43.48

47.83

2006-08

125

Sector wise ranking of sub-regions (2006-08) From table 53, it is clear that south Coastal Andhra Stands first in two sectors namely agriculture and economic infrastructure. Similarly, South Telangana stands first in industry, North Telangana in social infrastructure and North Coastal Andhra in demography. In comprehensive composite development (CCD) South Coastal Andhra stands first as it stood first in two sectors. North Coastal Andhra in agriculture and economic infrastructure, Rayalaseema in industrial sector and demography, North Telangana in economic infrastructure, South Coastal Andhra in Social infrastructure are far away from development (table 53).

Table 53: Sector wise ranking of sub-regions (2006-08) Sl. no Sector I II Ranks of sub-regions III IV

-

V

ï

Agriculture

South Coast South Telangana South Coast

ïï Industry ïï Economic

Infrastructure

North Telangana, Rayalaseema North Coast South Telangana North coast North Telangana South Coast South Telangana Rayalaseema Rayalaseema North Coast, North Telangana South Telangana North coast South Telangana

Rayalaseema

ïï Social

North infrastructure Telangana ïï Demography North Coast

South Coast Rayalaseema

North Telangana South coast

ï

C. Disparities in development among districts:

The 23 districts in the state are ranked according to their comprehensive composite development indices for all the three periods (Table 36) (Actual values of the variables ­ annexes 2 to 6)

126

Table 54: Disparities in Development among Districts (CCDI)

Period 1

1986-88

Developed Districts 2

Hyderabad Rangareddy Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Visakhapatnam Nizamabad

Backward Districts 3

Nellore Guntur Chittoor

More Backward Most Backward Districts Districts 4 5

Kadapa Warangal Medak Kurnool Karimnagar Khammam Anantapur Prakasam Nalgonda Srikakulam Khammam Prakasam Warangal Anantapur Srikakulam Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Adilabad

1996-98

2006-08

Rangareddy Krishna West Godavari Nellore Hyderabad Chittoor Nizamabad East Godavari Medak Visakhapatnam Guntur Rangareddy Hyderabad West Godavari Nellore Visakhapatnam Nizamabad Krishna Chittoor East Godavari Guntur Medak

Kurnool Nalgonda Kadapa Karimnagar

Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Adilabad

Nalgonda Karimnagar Khammam

Warangal Kadapa Prakasam Srikakulam Vizianagaram

Kurnool Anantapur Adilabad Mahabubnagar

(Refer Table 34 for ranking)

127

Fig 31: Disparities in Development in the Districts Based on 25 Development indicators (1986-88) (Table 34)

-

Developed Districts Backward Districts More Backward Districts Most Backward Districts Among the lowest 6 Districts ­ 2 in South Telangana, 2 in North Telangana, 2 in North Coastal Andhra and 1 in South Coastal Andhra 7 were categorized as relatively developed, where as 3 as backward, 10 as more backward and the remaining 3 as most backward.

128

Development Index (CCDI)

Fig 32: Disparities in the Development ­ Districts Based on 25 Development Indicators (1996-98) (Table 34)

-

Among the lowest 6 districts, 2 are in North Telangana, 2 are in North Coastal Andhra and one each in South Telangana and Rayalaseema 11 Districts are classified as Developed, 4 as backward, 5 as more backward and 3 as most backward

129

Development Index (CCDI)

Fig 33: Disparities in the Development ­ Districts Based on 25 Development Indicators (2006-08) (Table 34)

-

Development Index (CCDI)

11 Districts are classified as developed while 3 as backward, 5 as more backward and 4 as most backward Out of 6 bottom most districts ­ 1 in North Telangana, 2 in South Telangana, 2 in Rayalaseema and 2 in North Coastal Andhra · Kurnool and Anantapur were addition to Most Backward · Krishna slided down · Vizianagaram improved a little

130

Table 55: Disparities in Development among Districts: Agriculture Perio d 1

1986-88

Developed Districts 2

Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Nellore Rangareddy Guntur Nizamabad Chittoor Karimnagar Khammam Nalgonda Kadapa Krishna West Godavari East Godavari Nellore Karimnagar Guntur Rangareddy Nizamabad Nalgonda Chittoor Khammam West Godavari East Godavari Krishna Rangareddy Karimnagar Nizamabad Nellore Chittoor Guntur Nalgonda Khammam Medak

Backward Districts 3

Srikakulam Warangal Prakasam Visakhapatnam Kurnool Vizianagaram Medak Mahabubnagar Anantapur

More Backward Districts 4

Adilabad

Most Backward Districts 5

Hyderabad

1996-98

Warangal Prakasam Kadapa Medak Visakhapatnam Kurnool Srikakulam Vizianagaram Mahabubnagar Anantapur Warangal Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram Kadapa Prakasam Srikakulam Kurnool Mahabubnagar Anantapur

Adilabad

Hyderabad

2006-08

Adilabad

Hyderabad

(Refer Table 35 for ranking)

131

Fig 34: Analysis of Development in Agriculture in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 7 Development Indicators (1986-88) (Table 35)

132

Fig 35: Analysis of Development in Agriculture in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 7 Development Indicators (1996-98) (Table 35)

133

Fig 36: Analysis of Development in Agriculture in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 7 Development Indicators (2006-08) (Table 35)

134

Table 56: Disparities in Development among Districts (Industry)

Perio d 1

1986-88

Developed Districts 2

Hyderabad Rangareddy Nizamabad Medak

Backward Districts 3

Visakhapatnam Krishna Guntur Nalgonda Karimnagar

More Backward Districts 4

West Godavari Kurnool Khammam Adilabad Vizianagaram Warangal Chittoor East Godavari West Godavari Kurnool Guntur Warangal

Most Backward Districts 5

Mahabubnagar Nellore Prakasam Kadapa Anantapur Srikakulam Adilabad Mahabubnagar Karimnagar Khammam Kadapa Anantapur Vizianagaram Prakasam Srikakulam Mahabubnagar Prakasam Karimnagar Adilabad Kurnool Kadapa Srikakulam Vizianagaram

1996-98

Rangareddy Medak Nizamabad Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Nalgonda

Nellore East Godavari Krishna Chittoor

2006-08

Rangareddy Visakhapatnam Medak Nizamabad Nellore Hyderabad

Nalgonda East Godavari Krishna Guntur

Khammam West Godavari Chittoor Warangal Anantapur

(Refer table 36 for ranking)

135

Fig 37: Analysis of Industrial Development in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 4 Development Indicators (1986-88) (table 36)

136

Fig 38: Analysis of Industrial Development in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 4 Development Indicators (1996-98) (table 36)

137

Fig 39: Analysis of Industrial Development in the Districts of Andhra Pradesh Based on 4 Development Indicators (2006-08) (table 36)

138

Table 57: Disparities in Development among Districts (Economic Infrastructure)

Perio d 1

1986-88

Developed Districts 2

Hyderabad Rangareddy Krishna Visakhapatnam West Godavari East Godavari

Backward Districts 3

Nizamabad

More Backward Districts 4

Chittoor Anantapur Guntur Nellore Warangal Kurnool Kadapa Medak Visakhapatnam Khammam Mahabubnagar Srikakulam

Most Backward Districts 5

Medak Srikakulam Karimnagar Prakasam Vizianagaram Khammam Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Adilabad Vizianagaram Nalgonda Karimnagar East Godavari Adilabad Warangal

1996-98

2006-08

Hyderabad West Godavari Chittoor Krishna Anantapur Nellore Kurnool Rangareddy Kadapa Guntur Hyderabad Rangareddy West Godavari Chittoor Nellore Krishna Guntur Prakasam

Nizamabad Prakasam

Srikakulam Nalgonda Nizamabad Vizianagaram Kurnool

Kadapa Anantapur Visakhapatnam Khammam Mahabubnagar East Godavari

Medak Warangal Karimnagar Adilabad

(Refer table 37 for ranking)

139

Fig 40: Analysis of Economic Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 5 Development Indicators (1986-88) (Table 37)

Development Index (Economic Infrastructure)

140

Fig 41: Analysis of Economic Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 5 Development Indicators (1996-98) (Table 37)

Development Index (Economic Infrastructure)

141

Fig 42: Analysis of Economic Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 5 Development Indicators (2006-08) (Table 37)

Development Index (Economic Infrastructure)

142

Table 58: Disparities in Development among Districts (Social Infrastructure)

Perio d 1

1986-88

Developed Districts 2

Hyderabad Nellore Kadapa Rangareddy Visakhapatnam Kurnool Chittoor Prakasam Warangal Khammam Hyderabad Rangareddy Nellore Kurnool Kadapa Warangal Chittoor Visakhapatnam Hyderabad Rangareddy Chittoor Visakhapatnam Warangal Adilabad Nellore Khammam Kadapa

Backward Districts 3

East Godavari Srikakulam Adilabad Medak Anantapur West Godavari Krishna

More Backward Districts 4

Guntur

Most Backward Districts 5

Vizianagaram Nalgonda Nizamabad Mahabubnagar Karimnagar

1996-98

Krishna Prakasam Khammam Adilabad East Godavari Guntur Nalgonda Karimnagar East Godavari Krishna Kurnool Srikakulam

Nalgonda Medak Anantapur Srikakulam West Godavari Vizianagaram Guntur Medak West Godavari Nizamabad Vizianagaram Anantapur Prakasam

Karimnagar Nizamabad Mahabubnagar

2006-08

Mahabubnagar

(Refer table 38 for ranking)

143

Fig 43: Analysis of Social Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 6 Development Indicators (1986-88) (Table 38) Development Index (Social Infrastructure)

144

Fig 44: Analysis of Social Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 6 Development Indicators (1996-98) (Table 38)

Development Index (Social Infrastructure)

145

Fig 45: Analysis of Social Infrastructural Development in Andhra Pradesh Based on 6 Development Indicators (2006-08) (Table 38)

Development Index (Social Infrastructure)

146

Table 59: Disparities in Development among Districts (Demography)

Period Developed Districts 2

Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Vizianagaram West Godavari Karimnagar Guntur Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Rangareddy West Godavari Vizianagaram Karimnagar Nellore Adilabad Hyderabad Nizamabad Visakhapatnam Rangareddy Karimnagar Vizianagaram Adilabad East Godavari Srikakulam Krishna Guntur

Backward Districts 3

Nellore Adilabad Rangareddy

1

1986-88

More Backward Districts 4

Prakasam Kurnool Medak Mahabubnagar Kadapa Warangal Chittoor

Most Backward Districts 5

Nalgonda Khammam Anantapur

1996-98

Guntur

Chittoor Kadapa

Prakasam Medak Warangal Kurnool Khammam Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Anantapur

2006-08

Nellore West Godavari Chittoor Kadapa

Warangal Khammam Medak

Kurnool Prakasam Anantapur Nalgonda Mahabubnagar

(Refer table 39 for ranking)

147

Fig 46: Analysis of Human Resource Development (Demography Sector) in Andhra Pradesh Based on 3 Development Indicators (1986-88) (Table 39)

Development Index (Demography)

148

Fig 47: Analysis of Human Resource Development (Demography Sector) in Andhra Pradesh Based on 3 Development Indicators (1996-98) (Table 39)

Development Index (Demography)

149

Fig 48: Analysis of Human Resource Development (Demography Sector) in Andhra Pradesh Based on 3 Development Indicators (2006-08) (Table 39)

Development Index (Demography)

150

1. Developed districts basing on 2006-08 data (Tables 54 to 59) The districts whose CCDI values are above state average are classified as relatively developed. There are 11 such districts in the state.

(i). Ranga Reddy (37 Mandals): Ranga Reddy district which is ranked first among the 11 relatively developed districts is having a CCDI value of 0.52390 which reflects the combined effect of the five sectors of the economy. Of the 23 districts in the state, it stands fourth in agriculture (0.19296), first in industrial sector (0.09784), second in Economic infrastructure (0.12220), second in social infrastructure (0.09471) and fourth (0.01619) in demography. With regard to crop intensity, irrigation and yield, though the district is far behind the state average in sectors like availability of credit, mechanization, veterinary services and animal husbandry it is three to four times ahead. The main reasons for this district to occupy the first position in the developmental ladder are Industrial development in the district, Poultry and Veterinary services. No, doubt, Ranga Reddy is much ahead of other districts with regard to industrial workers, but, for the last 10 years, the number is gradually coming down. It is noteworthy that this district is three to four times more than state average in sectors like Industrial (electrical) connections, productive investment and value addition in production. Similarly, the district is far ahead in economic infrastructure. It is three to four times above state average in road density, vehicle density, telephone exchanges and Railway stations. But in social infrastructure, the picture is not so rosy. Though the district is above state average in education, it lags behind in health. The sector is not growing in proportion to its population. Sometimes there is absolute decline. In demography, though the district is above state average in sex ratio, it is below state average in urban population and non agricultural workers. Special features of the district The sex ratio is below 940 in 13 mandals. There is as much of fallow land as there is net sown area.

151

(ii) Hyderabad:

According to its CCDI value Hyderabad occupies second place in the development

ladder. It occupies first place in Economic infrastructure, social infrastructure and demography. But, it occupies last position in agriculture and sixth in industrial sector. Because it occupies first place in three sectors, it naturally comes forward and occupies one of the front ranks. The details of this district were avoided for discussion since it is typical urban district and not comparable with other districts of the State. (iii) West Godavari (46 Mandals): Not only is the district above state average in all the sub sectors of the agricultural sector, but also, it occupies first place in five of its sub- sectors. However, in industrial sector it occupies 12th position. During the last two decades it fell from 10th to 12th position leading to a status of more backward category. The district is far behind the state average in all sub-sectors of the industrial sector viz, in industrial connections, no. of industrial workers, productive investment and value addition. However, in economic infrastructure in vehicle density, road density, telephone exchanges, bank branches and railway stations the district is above state average. Like industry, in social infrastructure also the district is lagging behind. Except literacy, in all the other sub-sectors of this sector the district is below state average. Similarly in demography, except in sex ratio, the remaining two sub-sectors namely the urban population and non-agricultural workers, the district is behind the state average. Because of its foremost position in agriculture, it could stand third in the ranking. Special features of the district: - There are 14 mandals where more than 80% of the holdings are below 2.5 acres. In 11 mandals, the average size of the holding is only 1.5 acres. Average holding in Narsapuram and Penugonda mandals is only 1.2 acres. - In 36 mandals of the district, agriculture workers are more than 57%. - Agricultural workers are 65% to 75% in 9 mandals. - There is as much of fallow land as there is net sown area in 10 mandals.

152

- In Jeelugumilli mandal, the area of the fallow land is equal to 89% of the net sown area. - Gross irrigated area to net sown area is more than 150% in 24 mandals.

(iv) Nellore (46 Mandals): Nellore occupies forth place according to the value of CCDI. Though it was first among backward districts in 1986-88, by 1996-98 it moved up and entered the list of developed districts. In agriculture, the values of five of the seven sub-sectors are above state average. Only in two sub-sectors namely poultry and animal husbandry the district is lagging behind. Industrially, the district is backward. Regarding the number of industrial workers, the productive capital and value addition the district is much below state average. But, the industrial connections are many times more than the state average in this district. In economic infrastructure the district is above state average in three out of 5 subsectors. But in important sub-sectors like road density and vehicle density, the district is below state average. The district is better placed in social infrastructure. Number of hospital beds, number of PHCs, literacy and in number of Junior colleges, the district is above state average. But in number of doctors and High school students, the district is lagging behind the state average. Regarding demography, the district is better placed in sex ratio and number of nonagricultural workers, but it is falling behind in urbanization. Special features of the district SCs are above 25% in 21 mandals. There is lot of cultivable waste in 30 mandals. The cultivable waste is up to 10% of the net sown area. Area wise, the cultivable waste is more than 50% in 7 mandals. The area of the fallows is more than the net area sown in 4 mandals.

153

(v) Visakhapatnam (43 Mandals): With respect to CCDI, the district occupied 6th rank in 1986-88. But, by 1996-98 it slided down to 10th position only to pick up again and climb up to 5th position in 2006-08. Agriculturally, the district is backward and occupies 14th place. In 1986-88 it was in 16th place. Though, it remains backward, there is some improvement. The district is above state average in three viz, crop intensity, credit and veterinary services. But in the remaining four sub sectors, namely irrigation, crop yields, mechanization and animal husbandry, the district is below state average. Industrially the district occupies second place in the state because of its productive investment, which is nearly 4 times the state average. But, in the remaining 3 subsectors of the industrial sector viz, number of workers, number of industrial connections and value addition, the district in below state average. Regarding Economic infrastructure, the district is favorably placed. It is above state average in vehicle density, no of bank branches and no of railway stations and below in important sub-sectors (i.e.) road density and telephone exchanges. But in social infrastructure, the district lags behind. Though it is above state average in health; in education, it is very poor, far behind state average. With regard to demography, the district is above state average in all the three subsectors, viz, in sex ratio, non ­ agricultural workers and urban population. Hence, the district occupies third place in this sector. Main reason for it to find a place among developed districts is the location of major industries in Vizag. Special features Tribal population is more than 90% in 6 mandals. Maximum presence of tribals is in Hukumpet mandal, where the proportion of tribal is 95.3%. Literacy is only 29.2% in G.Madugula mandal.

154

-

Female literacy is less them 20% in three mandals (Ananthagiri, Munchingpattu and G. Madugula) There is not even 10% of non- agricultural labour in 6 mandals. In G.Madugula it is 4.77% and in Hukumpet, it is 4.02%. Area wise, fallows are equal to net sown area in three mandals.

(vi) Nizamabad (36 Mandals): In 1986-88 itself, the district was occupying 7th place, which was the last place among the developed districts. The district occupies sixth place in agriculture, fourth place in industry and second place in demography. But, regarding the other two sectors, the district is lagging, occupying 11th place in Economic infrastructure and 19th place in social infrastructure (more backward) As far as agriculture is concerned, the district is well developed. It is above state average in crop intensity, irrigation, crop yield, credit and mechanization but below, in the remaining two (i.e.) animal husbandry and veterinary services. The district occupies fourth place in industry because of its beedi industry. The no of industrial workers is 10 times that of state average. Value addition is also above state average. Regarding economic infrastructure, in vehicle density, bank branches and railway stations the district is below state average, but is above state average in road density and telephone exchanges. In social infrastructure, it is lagging in no of doctors, literacy and Junior colleges but is leading in the remaining three, namely hospital beds, PHCs and high school students. Though the district is above state average in sex ratio and non-agricultural labour, it is below state average in urban population. In addition to agriculture, beedi industry helped a lot in pushing this district to developed status. Special Features: Fallows are wide spread in this district. Area wise, they are either equal or more than the net area sown in 23 mandals. Irrigation is more than 100% in 20 mandals Surface irrigation is less than 10% in 30 mandals.

155

-

Poultry is very very poor in 22 mandals. No of birds per lakh rural population is less than 40,000.

(vii) Krishna district (50 Mandals): Though, the district was occupying third place in 1986 ­88 and second place in 199698, it finally came to 7th position by 2006-08 according CCDI values. In agriculture, the district occupied first place in 1996-98, but moved down to third place in 2006-08. At every stage, the district was backward industrially. In Economic infrastructure also, though, it was occupying 3 or 4 positions earlier, finally it reached 6th place in 2006-08. With regard to social infrastructure, the negative development is much more pronounced. In 1986-88 it was in 17th place, then improved it's position and reached 9th place in 1996-98. But, again, it fell back and reached 13th place. But, in demography, the district could find a place among developed districts at all the three stages. Agriculturally, Krishna is one of the three most developed districts in the state. Of the 7 sub-sectors of agriculture 6 sub-sectors are above state average in the district. Crop intensity, irrigation, yield, credit, mechanization, and animal husbandry are above state average. Only in veterinary services, the district is lagging. Industrially, the district is backward. Out of four sub-sectors, three are below state average (no of industrial workers, productive investment and value addition) Only in industrial connections, the district is above state average. In economic infrastructure, though it is below state average, in telephone exchanges and railways stations; it is above state average in vehicle density, road density, and bank branches. But in social infrastructure, it is in the backward category. In four of the six sub-sectors namely hospital beds, PHCs, number of high school students and junior colleges, the district is below state average. Only in literacy and number of doctors, the district is above state average. In demography, urban population and non-agricultural labour are more than state average. In sex ratio it is equal to state average.

156

Why the district, which was occupying second place in 1986-88 fell to 7th place by 2006-08? Expansion of the irrigation facility is less when compared to other districts in the state. The rate of growth of animal husbandry and poultry is more in other districts when compared to this district. The decline in no of industrial workers is more in this district, compared to the state average. The rate of value addition is less here when compared to other districts during this period. The rate of growth of road density is more in other parts of the state The rate of fall of urban population per lakh population is more in this district. Special features There are more than 38% SC's in 19 mandals. Agricultural workers are more than 57% of the total population in 31mandals Agricultural workers are highest in the district in Veerulapadu (73.87%), Mopidevi (70.42%) and Musunur (70.20%) mandals. Cultivable wastelands are more in Bantumilli mandal. Area wise, they are equal to the net sown area in ten mandal. Compared to net sown area, the area of the fallows is more than 50% in three mandals. Horticultural crops are more in Vissannapeta, Chatrai, Reddygudem, Nuzvid and Agiripalli mandals. They are 78.48% in Vissannapet, 67.5% in Chatrai, 62.86% in Reddygudem, 61.95% Nuzvid and 70.04% in Agiripalli. House hold industries are least in 28 mandals.

(viii) Chittoor (66 Mandals) Chittoor by 1986.88 was a backward district. But by 1996-98 it attained developed status and occupied 6th place among the developed districts. But, during the next 10 years, it could not retain that place and fell to 8th place by 2006-08. The district acquired developed status because of its development in Economic and Social infrastructures. In economic infrastructure, it ranked fourth and in social

157

infrastructure, it ranked third. In agriculture, it ranked eighth and is in developed category. In the other two sectors, the district is far behind, occupying 13th place in industry and 14th place in demography. In agriculture also important sub sectors like irrigation, crop intensity and yield are below the state average. But in credit, mechanization, animal husbandry and veterinary services, the district is above state average. In industrial sector, except industrial connections, other factors like no of industrial workers, productive investment and value addition, it is far below state average. In economic infrastructure, it is above state average in road density, telephone exchanges and railway stations, where as it is below state average in vehicle density and bank branches. Most of the sub-sectors in social infrastructure sector are above the state average. With regard to demography, it is at a disadvantage with two factors below state average and only one (sex ratio) above. In another important sub sector, sex ratio, it is above state average.

Special features SC's are more than 25% of the total population in 19 mandals. The highest difference between male and female literacy (41.18%) is in Nagalapuram mandal. There are more than 30% horticultural crops in 13 mandals. Cultivable waste is more in 36 mandals. Area wise, these lands are more than 10% of the net area sown. Area wise, the fallows are equal to net area sown in the district. They are more in 20 mandals.

(ix) East Godavari (57 Mandals): The district is in the relatively developed stage during these two decades. In 1986-88, it was occupying 5th place, slid to 8th place in 1996-98 and then moved down to 9th place in 2006-08. In agriculture, it is in second place, in industry it is in back ward category, in economic infrastructure, it is in more backward category, in social

158

infrastructure it is in backward category and in demography it is in developed category. In all the sub-sectors of agricultural sector, the district is well ahead and above state average. But in irrigation and mechanization, it is falling behind it's neighbor, west Godavari district. In industrial sector only the productive investment is more than the state average, but, the remaining three (i.e.) no of industrial workers, industrial connections and value addition, the district is below state average. In economic infrastructure also, the district is behind the state average. In telephone exchanges, bank branches and railway stations it is lagging behind; where as it is above state average in vehicle density and road density. In social infrastructure, the district is still behind. Except number of doctors and literacy, the district is behind in all others sub-sectors. Regarding demography, sex ratio is above state average, but in the remaining two (i.e.) urban population and non agricultural workers, the district is below state average.

Special Features: - More than 30% of the net sown area is under horticultural crops in 17 mandals. - In 9 mandals, the average size of the holding is only 1.2 acres. The mandals are Ambajipeta, Mandapeta, Atreyapuram, Mamidikuduru, Ravulapalem, T.Gannavaram, Katrenikona, Kothapeta and Amalapuram. In 18 mandals, the average size of the holding is less than 1.5 acres. - Gross Irrigated area to net area sown is more than 100% in 29 mandals and more than 150% in 1 mandal. - 35 mandals are having more than 57% agricultural workers. - Agricultural workers are from 65% to 75% in 13 mandals. In Kajuluru mandal, they are 70.96%. - Cultivable waste is upto 155% in Maredumilli and 69.79% in Rampachodavaram mandals.

(x) Guntur (57 Mandals): According to CCDI value Guntur district occupies 10th place and is among the developed districts in the state. It occupies 10th place in agriculture, 9th place in

159

industry and 7th place in economic infrastructure. But in social infrastructure, it is far behind and occupies 16th place. In demography it is in the developed category. Except animal husbandry, in all other sub-sectors of the agricultural sector, it is above state average. But in industrial sector, except industrial connections, in all other sub ­sectors it is below state average. In economic infrastructure, the district is above state average only in two subsectors (i.e.) road density, Railway stations. But, in vehicle density and telephone exchanges it is below state average. In social infrastructure, the district is above state average in literacy, in number of doctors and in number of Junior colleges, whereas it is below state average in hospital beds, PHCS and high school students. In sex ratio, urban population and non-agricultural workers, the district values are almost equal to state averages. Special features: The highest concentration of agricultural workers in the state is in Karlapalem mandal (74.8%) Non ­agricultural workers are less than 17% in 27 mandals. There are 41 mandals where the household industrial workers to total workers are less than 2%. Fallows and cultivable waste are negligible in this district.

(xi) Medak (45 Mandals): According to CCDI value the district is in 13th place in 1986-88, but went up to 9th place in 1996-98 and again moved down by two steps and finally reached 11th place by 2006-08. There is development in agricultural sector during these two decades. In 198688 the district was in 19th place. By 1996-98, it went up to 15th place and finally reached 12th place in 2006-08, which is a place in developed category. In industrial sector, it occupies third place in 2006-08. But in economic infrastructure the district occupies 20th place, which is in most backward category. But in 1996-98, the district is in 13th place, which is in more backward category. So during 1996-98 and 2006-08, the district went down in economic infrastructure development from more backward to most backward category. But in the beginning

160

(i.e.) 1986-88, the district was occupying a better place (i.e.) in backward category. In demography also, the district is in most backward category in 1996-98 and reached more backward position by 2006-08. In three key sub-sectors of the agricultural sector, viz, crop intensity, irrigation and yield the district is below state average. Mechanization and poultry, the district is far a head of state average. In other sub-sectors, the district is below state average. Industrially, it is one of the six districts developed in the state and it occupies third place after Visakhapatnam. Number of industrial workers is 10 times more than the state average. In the remaining three sub-sectors also viz, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition, the district is far ahead of state average. Except road density and telephone exchanges, the other sub-sectors of economic infrastructure are below state average. Similarly in social infrastructure also, the district is lagging behind except in PHCs. All the three sub-sectors of demography are also below state average. Yet, the district remained in developed category because of its development in industry and poultry (one important variable of agriculture).

Special futures Female literary is less than 30% in 13 mandals. Irrigation is less than 5% in 17 mandals Area wise, fallows are equal to net sown area in 15 mandals. There are 22 mandals where the number of doctors per lakh population is not even four. 14 mandals are there, where there is only one doctor per lakh population. 2.Back Ward Districts Tables 54 to 59 The districts whose CCDI values are less than state average are divided into three categories depending on their CCDI values. Of the three categories, the first category immediately below the state average is called backward, the next one is called more backward and the last one is most backward. In backward category there are only three districts (i.e.) Nalgonda, Karimnagar, Khammam.

161

(xii) Nalgonda (59 Mandals): In 1986-88 the district was in more backward category occupying 19th place. By 1996-98, it moved up to 13th position and again by 2006-08, it moved up still further and reached 12th place, which puts it in backward category. Though, there is development during these two decades it could not reach developed category. It is just behind the developed group of districts. In agricultural sector, there is not much of an improvement. But, it remained in the developed category throughout the period. Except in two sub-sectors viz., credit and veterinary services, in all others sub ­ sectors, the district is above state average. That is why, it continued to be in developed category throughout. Industrially, the district is in backward category in 1986 ­88. Though, there is some development by 1996-98, once again it fell back to backward category by 200608. Productive investment and industrial connections are more than state average. In economic infrastructure, though the district was in most backward position until 1996-98, in the next decade, there was some development and the district reached `backward' position from `most backward' position, The district is above state average only in road density and telephone exchanges. In bank branches, railway stations and vehicle density, the district is below state average. Regarding social infrastructure, the district is in 20th place in 1986-88, by 1996-98 it gone up to 15th place. By 2006-08 it further moved up and reached 10th place. The district is above state average only in high school students and Junior colleges. In other four sub-sectors it is lagging. In demography, the district is below state average in all the sub-sectors viz., sex ratio, urban population and non-agricultural workers. Special features: Literacy is very low in 16 mandals. It is less than 40% in these mandals. It is less than 30% in three mandals; namely Gundlapalli, P.A.Palli and Chandampet. Fallows are there throughout the district. Area wise, they are equal to net sown area in 40 mandals. In 20 mandals, Fallows are double the net sown area. The total area of the fallows in the district is 1.4 times that of net sown area in the district. - In 17 mandal, ground water is contaminated with fluorides.

162

(xiii) Karimnagar (56 Mandals): There is some development in the district during the period under study. The district moved up from 15th place to 13th place, still falling under backward category. Agriculturally, it is a developed district and is on par with Krishna and Godavari districts. It is far ahead of other districts in irrigation, crop intensity, crop yield and mechanization. But it is below state average in other three sub-sectors. Industrially, it is in most backward category. So it is below state average in all the four sub-sectors (i.e.) no of workers, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition. In Economic infrastructure, the district is in 22nd place (i.e.) in the most backward category again. Except road density and telephone exchanges, in all other sub-sectors it is below state average. In social infrastructure, the district is in 23rd place during 1986-88. In 1996-98 it is in 21st place and finally in 2006-08 it moved up to 11th place, which is in backward category. Except in junior colleges and high school students, in all other sub-sectors the district is below state average. The district is favorably placed in demography. It is in the developed category throughout. But urban population is below state average. Special features: There is no surface irrigation in 41 mandals.

-

Fallows are more in 28 mandals. Area wise, they are equal to net sown area. In 10 mandals, fallows are double the net sown area. Area wise, the fallows and net area sown are equal in the district. Household industry (beedi) is wide spread in the district. There are more than 10% of the workers working in house hold industry in 10 mandals of the district.

-

(xiv) Khammam (46 Mandals): Till 1996-98, the district was in more backward category. But, by2006-08, it went up to backward category. Though, there is no development in agriculture during the last two decades, the district continued its position in developed category.

163

In irrigation, credit, veterinary services and mechanization, the district is above state average, where as in crop intensity, yield and animal husbandry, it is below state average. In industrial sector, the district is above state average only in productive investment, but is below in other sub-sectors, viz., number of workers, industrial connections and value addition. So, it occupies 11th place in industrial sector. The district is much more underdeveloped in economic infrastructure and occupies 17th place in that sector. The district is below state average in road density, vehicle density, bank branches and railway stations, whereas it is above state average only in telephone exchanges. Regarding social infrastructure, the district is above state average in PHCs, high school students and junior colleges, where as it is below in hospital beds, doctors and literacy. In all the three sub-sectors of demographic sector, the district is below state average. So, it is in the more backward category in this sector. Special features: The tribal population is more than 25% in 26 mandals. Fallows are wide spread in 10 mandals. Area wise, they are equal to net sown area. The area of fallows is equal to half the net area sown in the district. Non-agricultural workers are very very limited in 33 mandals.

3. More backward district

(Table 54-59)

There are five districts in the state which are categorized as more backward. They are Warangal, Kadapa, Prakasam, Srikakulam and Vizianagaram.

(xv) Warangal (51 Mandals): During the entire period of our study the district remained `more backward'. But with in the category there is some change. In 1986-88, it was in better position occupying 12th place. But, by 1996-98 it moved down to 18th place, from where, it climbed up to 15th place by 2006-08. However, there is change in place or rank, but not in category. It continued to occupy `more backward' category throughout the period of study.

164

Regarding agricultural sector, there is some improvement, it moved from 14th place (1986-88) to 12th place (1996-98) and then to 13th place (2006-08). The district is above state average in crop intensity, irrigation and yield, whereas it is below in credit, animal husbandry, mechanization, and veterinary services. In industrial sector this district is below state average. In economic infrastructure, the district was better placed in the beginning (1986-88) occupying 12th place. Then, the deterioration started and it occupied 23rd place in 1996-98 and then after slightly improving its position reached 21st place in 2006-08 (i.e.) in most backward category. The district is far behind state average in all the sub-sectors viz., road density, vehicle density, bank branches, telephone exchanges and railway stations. The sudden fall from 12th place to 23rd place is because of the following reasons. -

The increase in road density is not as high as in other districts. The telephone exchanges and bank branches are not growing at the rate at which the population is growing in the state. In Warangal, the growth rate is much more smaller compared to other districts. In social infrastructure, the district is a front runner from the beginning. It is in

-

8th place in 1986-88, 6th place in 1996-98 and in 5th place in 2006-08. In doctors, high school students and junior colleges, the district is well above state average. But in the remaining three sub-sectors it is below state average. Demographically, the district is far behind occupying 16th place in this sector. In all the three sub-sectors the district is behind state average. Special features: Surface irrigation is zero in 42 mandals. In 4 mandals, more than 2% of the holdings are above 25 acres. The area of the fallow land is equal to half the net sown area in the district. No of telephones are very very less in 36 mandals. Percentage of industrial workers to total workers is less than 0.5% in 30 mandals.

(xvi) Kadapa (51 Mandals): In Rayalaseema, Kadapa district is better compared to Anantapur and Kurnool districts, but it is far behind Chittoor district. Not only there is no improvement in its

165

position during 1986-88 to 2006-08, but also, there is actual decline during this period. In 1986-88 it is in 11th place. By 1996-98 it moved down from 11th place to 14th place and by 2006-08 its position is further deteriorated and finally reached 16th place (i.e.) it moved from backward to more backward category. Agriculturally, the district is backward because it is below state average in crop intensity, irrigation, yield, credit, mechanization and animal husbandry. Only in veterinary services, the district is above state average. Industrially, it is in 21st place which is in most back ward category. Not only in 2006-08, but also in previous periods, the district is in most backward category. Industrial connections, productive investment, value addition ­ in every sub-sector it is below state average. So far as industrial workers are concerned, they are 51/2 times less than state average. In economic infrastructure also, the district is not favorably placed. Its place is 14th in this sector. The district is far behind the state average in road density, vehicle density and bank branches. Only in telephone exchanges and railway stations, it is above state average. The district is in developed category in social infrastructure. However, it fell from third place to ninth place during the period under study. Because it is above state average in PHCs, literacy and high school students, it could attain developed status in this sector. In all the three demographic sub-sectors, the district is below state average. Special features: There is more than 30% gap between male and female literacy in 16 mandals. Pupil ­ Teacher ratio is more than 50 in 5 mandals. Horticulture is more in 4 mandals. They are Koduru (79.57%), Penegaluru (68.7%), Obulavaripalli (67.99%) and Pullampet (64.76%) Kodur stands first in having highest percentage of horticultural crops in the state. Area of the cultivable waste in the district is equal to 10% net sown area. Area of the cultivable waste is from 50% to 170% of the net area sown in Penagaluru, Pendlimarri, Khajipet, Nandalur and Muddanur mandals. The area of the fallows in the district is more than 50% of the net sown area. Negligible number of industrial workers in 39 mandals.

166

(xvii). Prakasam (56 Mandals): Prakasam is the most backward district in south costal Andhra. That means, roughly it is at the same level as Srikakulam and Vizianagaram in north coast, Kadapa in Rayalaseema and Warangal in North Telangana. During these 20 years, there is no change in its place (17). In agriculture also it continued to be in the backward category throughout the period. The district is far behind the state average in crop intensity, irrigation, credit, mechanization, animal husbandry and veterinary services. Industrially also, it is most backward. In number of industrial workers, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition, it is far below the state average. In economic infrastructure, the district is in developed category. In 1986-88 it was in 18th place. Gradually, it improved its position and finally reached 8th place by 2006-08. The district is above state average in telephone exchanges, bank branches and railway stations, but it is below in two important sub sectors namely road density and vehicle density. But in social infrastructure, the district is far behind. In 1986-88 it is in 8th place, in 1996-98 it is in 10th place, but all of a sudden it went down to 22nd place by 2006-08. The district is below state average in hospital beds, doctors, literacy, high school students and junior colleges. In demography also it is below state average in sex ratio, urban population and non-agricultural workers.

Special features: There are 17 mandals where not even 5% of the net sown area is having irrigation. Not even 10% of surface irrigation, in as many as 47 mandals. In 21 mandals, the percentage of SCs is more than 25. The gap between male and female literacy is more than 30% in 11 mandals. Female literacy is lowest (19.8%) in Pullalacheruvu mandal. House hold industry is negligible in 32 mandals.

167

-

Five mandals are having more fallow lands. Donakonda and C.S.Puram mandals are having more cultivable waste.

(xviii) Srikakulam (38 Mandals): According to CCDI it occupies 18th place in the state. There is some development during the period under study. It moved from 20th place to 18th place which is in more backward category. Agriculturally, the district is in backward category. It is above state average in crop intensity, irrigation and veterinary services. However it is below state average in yield, credit, mechanization and animal husbandry. Industrially, it is in most backward category throughout the period. It is far below the state average in all sub-sectors viz., number of industrial workers, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition. In economic infrastructure, though it is in 9th place, it is still in backward category. The district is below state average in terms of vehicle density, telephone exchanges, and bank branches. However, it is above state average in road density and railway stations. Though it was in 12th place in social infrastructure in 1986-88, it moved to 18th place in 1996-98 and finally to 15th place in 2006-08. Only in PHCs it is in better position. In other sub-sectors, viz., hospital beds, doctors, literacy, high school students and junior colleges, it is far below state average. Interestingly in demography, it is in developed category. However, in sex ratio only it is better while in other two sub-sectors, it is below state average. It is one of the three districts that shows high sex ratio. Special Features: There are 6 mandals where the average size of the holding is less than 1.5 acres. The availability of fallows and culturable waste lands is very very limited in this district. There are very few tractors in 13 mandals. In 20 mandals, there are no latrines even for 9% of the households.

(xix) Vizianagaram (34 Mandals): In 1986-88 and 1996-98, the district is in most backward category. But, by 2006-08, it could reach 18th place (i.e.) from most backward to more backward category.

168

There is some development in agricultural sector. While the district was in 18th place in 1986-88, it could reach 15th place by 2006-08. The district is above state average in crop intensity and veterinary services while it is far below state average in irrigation, yield, credit and animal husbandry. Industrially, the district experienced negative growth. The district, which was in 14 place in 1986-88 was pushed to the lowest position (i.e.) 23rd place by 200608. It is three to four times below state average in no of industrial workers, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition. Though, there is increase in no of industrial workers in the state during 1986-88 to 1996-98, the district experienced a decline in the number of workers. Similarly, there is growth in industrial connections in the state but here there is decline. Productive investment also grew number of times in the state, whereas in this district, though there is some growth during the first decade, it declined in the second decade. So, specially during the second decade, the industrial sector in this district received a severe setback. That is why, industrially the district moved down from 14th to 23rd place. The district is better placed in economic infrastructure. The district, which was occupying 19th place, climbed up to 12th place by 2006-08. Though, the district is ahead of state average in road density and railway stations, it is behind state average in vehicle density, telephone exchanges and bank branches. Because, there is growth in road density and vehicle density during these two decades, the district could move from 19th to 12th place in this sector. The district is in backward position throughout the period in social infrastructure. It is far behind state average in hospital beds, doctors, literacy, high school students and junior colleges. But PHCs are more here. In demography, the district was occupying developed status throughout the period. Here also, sex ratio which is very high is playing a crucial role in keeping this district in developed category. Special Features: There are maximum no of mandals (20) in this district, where not even 9% of the households are having latrine facility. In 32 mandals mechanization in agriculture is very poor. There are not even 15 tractors for every 10,000 acres of land. The number of tractors is even less than 5 per 10,000 acres in 8 mandals.

th

169

-

In 9 mandals, the no of bank branches is less than half of the state average. Fallows and cultivable waste is very very limited in this district.

4.Most back ward districts

(Tables from 54 to 59)

Kurnool, Anantapur, Adilabad and Mahabubnagar districts are in this category. Adilabad and Mahabubnagar were there in this status from the beginning (i.e.) 198688, whereas Kurnool, and Anantapur joined them later (i.e.) 2006-08.

(xx) Kurnool (54 Mandals): In 1986-88, Kurnool was in 14th place. From then on there was some development and the district climbed up to 12th position (From more backward to backward category) by 1996-98. Latter, it was pushed down from backward to most backward or from 12th place to 20th place by 2006-08. Agriculturally the district is in backward category. It is far behind the state average in crop intensity, irrigation, credit, mechanization and animal husbandry and it is above state average only in crop yields and veterinary services. Industrially, the district is facing negative growth. In 1986-88 and 1996-98, the district was occupying 11th and 12th places in this sector. But by 2006-08, it was pushed to 20th place, a steep fall in industrial ranking. The district is far behind state average in all four sub-sectors, viz., number of industrial workers, industrial connections, productive investment and value addition. In economic infrastructure there is some development. It went up to 7th from 13th place in 1996-98 and acquired developed status. But by 2006-08, it returned to its original 13th place. There is growth in bank branches and railway stations, but it is not in proportion to the population growth. The other sub-sectors also grew, but not to the extent of growth in other districts. So, it seems there is some negative growth during 1996-98 to 2006-08 period. Both in road density and vehicle density, the district is far behind the state average. In railway stations and telephone exchanges, it is somewhat better, but lagging in bank branches. In health (i.e.) hospital beds, doctors and PHCs, the district is above state average, but in education (i.e.) literacy, high school students and junior colleges it is

170

far below the state average. Why the district lost its position from 4th to 14th place in this sector during 1996-98 to 2006-08? During this period, there is general decline in the number of hospital beds in the state. But the fall is much more in Kurnool district. - Similarly, in the case of PHCs, there is general decline. But, here the decline is more than what was seen in other districts. - Literacy in the district did not grow as much as in other districts. - Similarly, the increase in no of junior colleges here is far below compared to other districts. Why is it that the district which was occupying 11th place in industry went down to 20th place? Percentage of industrial workers fell to half its initial value. Productive investment went up by 7 times in the state, where as it grew only by 5 times in the district. Added to this the quantity of productive investment is very small here. The average productive investment in the state is Rs.5496/- where as it is only Rs2065/- in this district. That means, the district is starved of productive investment, when the hither to existing industries are getting closed one after the other. Special Features: Agricultural workers are up to 65%to 75% in 6 mandals. Area of the fallow lands in 6 mandals is equal to the net sown area. Literacy is below 30% in Pedakadubur and Kosigi mandals. There are as many as 36 mandals, where the teacher, pupil ratio is more than 40. Female literacy is less than 20% in C.Belagal, Pedakadubur and Kosigi mandals. 30% - The rain fall is low and is between 500mm and 600 mm in 12 mandals. - Large holdings having more than 25acres are more in 20 mandals. Such holdings are much more in Holugonda, Alur, Pattikonda, Chippagiri and Aspiri mandals. - Non-agricultural workers are more in 23 mandals. - Poultry is negligible in 30 mandals. - There are 11 mandals where not even 9% of the households are having latrine facility.

- In more than 10 mandals the gap between male and female literacy is more than

171

(xxi) Anantapur (63 Mandals): During the period of study, the development in the district is taking a negative course, moving from 17th to 19th place and then finally to 21st place in 2006-08, which is in most backward category. In all the sub-sectors of agricultural sector the district is far below state average. There is some improvement in industrial sector. The district moved from 22nd place to 15th place which is in more backward category. Yet, the district is far behind the state average in number of industrial workers, productive investment and value addition. Whatever advantage the district is having in economic infrastructure, is lost during the later part of the study period. In 1996-98, the district was in 5th position. But by 2006-08, it went down to 15th place which is in more backward category. The district is below state average in road density, vehicle density, telephone exchanges, and bank branches. The district is far behind state average in almost all sub-sectors of social infrastructure, viz., hospital beds, doctors, literacy, high school students and junior college. Only in PHCs it is nearer the state average. The district was in 15th place in 1986-88. But, by 2006-08, it went down to 21st place because the hospital beds, doctors and PHCs did not grow in proportion to population growth. The district is far behind state average in demography also. The reasons for the backwardness of Anantapur district and its down ward movement from 17th place to 21st place. Crop intensity is only 106% Only 13% of the net sown area is irrigated. Surface irrigation is zero in 47 mandals. In more than 17 mandals the irrigation is less than 5% . Rainfall is less than 600 mm in 42 mandals. In mechanization of agriculture, it stands third from below. No of mandals having not even 5 tractors for 10,000 acres is 16. Availability of veterinary services is less than state average.

172

-

Percentage of industrial workers is only 1/5 of state average. That too is getting reduced as the time passes. That means the existing industries are also getting closed.

-

Industrial connections are very very small in number. Road density is far below state average. Bank branches are less compared to the state average. Hospital beds and no of doctors are far below the state average. Literacy is low. No of mandals where the gap between male and female literacy is more than 30% is 9. Junior colleges are less in number. The number of mandals where not even 9% of the households are having latrine is 20. In more than 9 mandals the gap between male and female literacy is more than 30%. In more than 16 mandals the number of tractors per 10,000 acres is less than 5. Atmakur mandal is the one in this district where the rainfall is least (341mm)in the state. Large holdings having more than 25 acres are more in 17 mandals. Such holdings are highest in number in D.Hirehall, and Atmakur mandals. In 19 mandals ground nut is cultivated in more than 90% of the cultivated land. Above 80% ground nut is in 38 mandals. No of mandals where not even 9% of households are having latrine facility is 20. Fallow lands and cultivable waste lands are scarce is this district.

-

Special features:

22. Adilabad (52 Mandals): Earlier it was in 23rd place. But in 2006-08, it pushed Mahabubnagar down and occupied its place (i.e.) 22nd place. In agriculture, it is in most backward position throughout the period in spite of its great virtue of receiving favourable precipitation. Typically it could not attain a better place when compared to a district like. Anantapur, where the rainfall is the lowest. In all the agricultural subsectors (crop intensity, irrigation, yield, credit, mechanization, animal husbandry and veterinary services) the district is far behind the state average.

173

Industrially, Adilabad also experienced relatively negative growth. In 1986-88 it was in 13th place, moved to 15th position by 1996-98 and finally by 2006-08 it moved further down and reached 19th place. In all the four sub-sectors it is far below state average. In economic infrastructure the district was occupying most backward position throughout the study period. In road density, vehicle density, telephone exchanges, bank branches and railway stations it is far behind state average. However, in social infrastructure, there is some growth during this period. It could move from 12th to 6th place in this sector. It is far ahead of state average in hospital beds and PHCs. In number of doctors, junior colleges and literacy, the district is below state average. But high school students are more in this district. In demography, the district is in developed category. In sex ratio and nonagricultural workers, the district is above state average.

Reasons for backwardness of Adilabad

Crop intensity is only 106%. Irrigation is only for 12.6% of the cultivated land, where as in the state it is 43%. Irrigation is less than 5% in 19 mandals. Low crop yields ­ input crunch. Poultry is very very low in 28 mandals where number of birds per lakh rural population is less than 40,000. Credit in this district is only 1/3 of state average. The district stands second from below in mechanization. Percentage of industrial workers is very very low compared to state average. Industrial connections are less than half of the state average. Productive investment is less than half of the state average. Vehicle density is less than half of the state average. Road density is not even half of the state average. In 30 mandals telephone facility is far less. Bank branches are less Bank branches are less in 37 mandals. In 5 mandals, not even two branches per mandal. Number of doctors are less

174

-

literacy is low Female literacy is less than 30% in 18 mandals. (It is 19% in Bejjur mandal) Urbanization is low.

Special Features: - Tribal population is more than 25% in 17 mandals. - There are 19 mandals where not even 9% of the households are having latrines. - In 9 mandals, the area of fallow lands is equal to the net area sown. In six mandals, fallows are twice the net area sown. - Household industries are sparse in 25 mandals. - There is maximum concentration of industrial workers (80.12%) in Bellampalli mandal.

(xxiii) Mahabubnagar (64 Mandals): Mahabubnagar and Adilabad districts have interchanged their places in 200608. Right from 1986-88, Mahabubnagar was continuing in most backward position. In agriculture, it is better than Ananthapur and Adilabad districts. In spite of that, the district is below state average in most of the subsectors, viz., crop intensity, irrigation, yield, credit, mechanization and veterinary services. Only in animal husbandry (Poultry) it is far ahead of state average. In industrial sector it is in 16th place. It is 5 times below state average in no of industrial workers. In other sub-sectors also it is far behind the state average. In economic infrastructure, it occupies 18th place. In vehicle density it is far below state average. But in road density and telephone exchanges it is above state average. In social infrastructure it is consistently in most backward category. In health (i.e.) hospital beds, doctors and PHCs it is far below the state average. In literacy it is at the bottom of the state. In high school students and junior colleges it is far below state average. In all the demographic sub sectors it is below state average. In urban population it is at the level of Srikakulam, Nalgonda and Medak districts where the urbanization is the least.

175

Reasons for the backwardness of Mahabubnagar district. Of the 25, only in 3 variables the district is above state average. In the remaining 22 variables the district is from below to far below the state averages. Rainfall is below 600mm in 30 mandals. In 50 mandals, surface irrigation is zero. In 59 mandals, surface irrigation is less than 10% Second from below in veterinary services. Second from below in vehicle density. Telephone facility is leas in 39 mandals. Second from below in industrial workers percentage. Percentage of industrial workers is less than 0.2 in 27 mandals. Bottom most position in literacy Literacy is below 40% in 22 mandals. In mandals like Maldakal, Dharoor and Ghattu, the literacy ranges from 20% to 27% only. Lowest literacy in the state is 22.28% and it is in Ghattu mandal. Lowest female literacy is also from the same mandal and it is as low as 12.52%. Bottom most position in percentage of Non-agricultural workers. Bottom most position in urbanization.

Special Features: Fallows are more in 18 mandals. They are much more in 6 mandals. The area of the fallow lands in the district is 81.86% of the net sown area. Bank branches are very limited in 18 mandals. There are 16 mandals, where not even 9% of the households are having latrine.

176

Chapter IV Impact of liberal policies on development I. Negative impact on backward regions: After achieving a long cherished goal of a united state for all Telugu speaking people, in 1956 separatist movements started cropping up within a decade and half.. In 1969, basing on Fazul Ali commission recommendations, agitation for separate state was initiated in Telangana region. May be as a reaction, separatist movement gained currency in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. Every one accepted, there were some imbalances between regions, and in order to overcome them a formula was worked out and a presidential order was issued basing on that formula. As a result, there were some efforts to bridge the gaps between regions and actually there was some progress which was reflected in the results of the first decade (198688 to 1996-98) of our study. There was some development in south Telangana and Rayalaseema. But in the later part of 1990s the state govt. started implementing liberal policies and started withdrawing from important sectors of the economy saying that it will play only a facilitator role. Privatization, liberalization and globalization became the order of the day. The state became a role model in implementing liberal policies. There was considerable development during 1986-88 and 1996-98 in South Coastal Andhra, South Telangana and Rayalaseema. But there was no further development after 1996-98 till 2006-08 not only in the above sub-regions but also in the remaining sub-regions namely North Coastal Andhra and North Telangana. What is important is that in backward Rayalaseema, not only there was no development, but actually the development took a negative turn. Within Rayalaseema, Kurnool district was badly affected. Kurnool, which was in back ward category before 1996-98, fell by two steps and landed in most backward position.

Ananthpur, which was in more backward position, joined Kurnool in most backward position after sliding one step down. Similarly Kadapa which is also one of the Rayalaseema districts moved down from backward to more backward position (Table 41) Such policies may increase the wealth of the country. But, They result in rich becoming richer and poor becoming poorer. Not only it increases the gulf

177

between the haves and have nots, but also leads to growing disparities between regions, sub regions and districts which is amply reflected in our study.

II. Change in the priority of food crops

Prior to the policy change, importance was given to food crops. Later there was a shift to cotton, chilies, sugarcane castor, and turmeric besides horticultural crops.

Table 60: Extent of Area under different major crops in A.P Crops 1986-87 1997-98 Rice 72.32 86.45 Millets 20.72 8.30 Pulses 46.25 38.65 Food Crops 139.29 133.40 Ground nut 44.10 45.30 Cotton 17.29 22.38 Chilies 3.17 4.25 Sugarcane 4.10 4.74 Castor 2.35 4.20 Sunflower 2.49 9.48 Tobacco 0.91 1.23 Turmeric 0.91 1.23 Banana 0.62 00.86 Other crops 2.10 3.12 Total 220.24 233.92

2008-09 108.10 4.20 43.77 155.07 43.60 30.16 6.40 4.74 3.93 9.68 2.27 2.27 0.96 4.31 266.36

Interestingly even in food crops large area is covered by a high resource consuming crop like rice. The government identified " rice" as one of the growth engines. Naturally the farmers even in backward regions adopted to paddy at the expense of drought resistant millets. Naturally there was a pressure on resources like water. The farmers resorted to ground water exploitation in districts like Mahabubnagar, Anantapur, Karimnagar, Warangal, Chittoor, Kadapa etc where surface irrigation was destroyed. Similarly the risk prone commercial crops like groundnut, cotton, chilies, castor were increasingly cultivated even in the low rain fall and little surface irrigation available areas ­ Prakasam, Anantapur, Mahabubnagar, Rangareddy, Nalgonda. Even in Adilabad where the farmers are basically resource poor started opting for cotton and soybean like commercial crops in a big way. The spread of citrus in Nalgonda. Banana, Mango, oil palm in Chittoor, Kadapa, Nellore and West Godavari also show a change in cropping pattern that was risky for marginal and small farmers (table 60).

178

Most of the inputs like seeds, fertilizers and chemical pesticides essential for these commercial crops are being produced and marketed by multinationals who are behind this neo-liberal regime. In addition the small producers were also driven into a competitive market system by the same regime.

(III) Dilution of Research and extension services The budgetary allocations for agriculture and its allied sectors were significantly influenced by the liberal policies being pursued by the government. The information obtained from the concerned wings of the government supports this understanding. The expenditure on agricultural research was almost in ascending order (3.1 -12.0%) up to 1994-95. But, there after it started declining. It declined from 12% in 1994-95 to 1.0% in 2002-03.

Similarly in case of agri ­ extension services, the percent of expenditure on this was 4.9 during 1990-91. It continued to decline up to 2001-02 though there were some fluctuation during this period. (Table 61) Agricultural research that was commended as one of the important contributors for self ­ sufficiency in food grain production was maintained by state and central governments with well knit institutes managed by agricultural university and Indian council of Agriculture Research. In addition an international institute, ICRISAT was playing a prominent role with specific mandates of crop improvement, food sciences, animal sciences etc. They were responsible for high yielding varieties of rice, sorghum, maize, finger millet, pearl millet as well as several commercial and horticultural corps that contribute raw materials to agro ­ industries of the state. Their expansion to backward regions with a view to develop specific cropping systems as a whole keeping small and marginal farmers as target kept the state in better position up to 1990. Subsequently the liberalization policies that diluted the system as a whole facilitated the entry of multinational companies, whose seeds or other technologies are out of reach of the common farmer. Particularly for uncertain monsoon agriculture, these new inputs are less suitable and pushed the farmers into risk. Even this trend of dilution of public research has gone to the extent of " Indo ­US knowledge initiative on agriculture " where the role of agri ­ input producing companies was predominant. Naturally farmers from backward regions were kept under pressure. This is evident

179

with the suicides and mass migration of farmers or agri ` wage earners in many revenue mandals of Mahabubnagar, Ananthpur, Prakasam, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Warangal, Kurnool, Guntur where rainfed risky agriculture was a major profession. Similarly the role of department of agricultural extension in expanding green revolution technologies in the state was significant. Several intensive agricultural practices, seeds, chemicals, machines were popularized by extension workers. They guided the farmers in adopting new techniques of nutrient and pest managements. The technologies of IADP rice, intensive cotton, pulse and oilseed crop production methods that helped the farmers of all regions of the state were spread by extension wing of the state alone. In that process of establishing and spreading new methods of agriculture, sericulture, horticulture it was understood that there was a need of at least one extension worker for every 100 farmers. However, the policies pursued by the Govt. from the middle of 90s have weakened the extension system also. Every extension worker was supposed to guide more than 4000 farmers. The allocations for movement and maintenance were drastically cut. In addition the departments were bifurcated to eliminate sericulture. With these changes, the farmers in the underdeveloped areas were put to great disadvantage. The disturbance caused for sericulture department that mainly cater to the needs of farmers in the rainfed districts like Anantapur, Mahabubnagar and parts of Chittoor was realized during 2001-04 when drought dominated the state. Prof. Jayati Ghosh commission, which evaluated the crisis ridden agriculture of Andhra Pradesh pin ­ printed this lacuna of dilution of extension wing. However the government did not take note of it, since it was committed to the liberal policies. Just to pretend that they are for the cause of small and marginal farmers, they maintain less qualified (contract) extension employees and "adarsha rytulu" in place of qualified persons. In the wake of pauperization of peasants particularly in risk ­ prone areas like South Telangana, Rayalaseema and North coastal districts ­ there is a need for restoring the extension system in true sense.

180

Table 61: Budgetary allocations agricultural Agri. research Period (% of total allocations 1990-91 3.1 1991-92 6.7 1992-93 6.5 1993-94 6.8 1994-95 12.0 1995-96 11.7 1996-97 8.4 1997-98 3.1 1998-99 3.8 1999-2000 3.0 2000-01 3.1 2001-02 1.8 2002-03 1.0 2003-04 1.2 2004-05 1.2

Source

to research and extension services of Extension (% of total allocations to agriculture) 4.9 3.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 3.6 4.6 2.0 3.8 1.9 4.6 6.1 6.1

: Report of the deportment of economics and statistics.

Fig 49: Expenditure on Agriculture and extension services

181

Fig 50: Expenditure on Agricultural Research

(IV) Neglected Veterinary services: Animal husbandry comprising cattle, Sheep, goat and bird rearing as well as aqua culture ­ is another sector that provides livelihood to many in rural and semi urban regions. Particularly in risk prone agriculture areas, these allied professions act as buffer supports to marginal and small farmers. In Andhra Pradesh there is still lot of scope to expand this sector in backward regions. There are technologies that can retain the value of animal production even under several constraints. In fact in the later part of 80s, experts widened the plan of agriculture in terms of supporting it through new breeds of cattle and poultry strong infrastructure ­ research and extension for improving the breeds and developing management and production technologies was established in the state evidenced with a veterinary university and many research institutes. Even the rapidly expanding aqua culture fish, prawn, crab cultures of both inland and sea (brackish) reiterate its role in the state. However this expansion confined to already developed regions, instead of backward regions. The liberalization facilitated the concentration of the units in certain specific areas besides few individuals. Naturally the backward districts are neglected in this sector also. This is also evident from the services provided by government in this sector. The number of veterinary experts per one lakh livestock declined from 17.2 to 10.7 during 1996-08- 2006-08. The decline was quite high in Telangana (15.4-8.5) and Rayalaseema (17.3- 10.4) when compared with coastal region 19.5 ­ 14.4) of the state (Table 62)

182

The serious repercussions are there for all to see, in the form of loosing sheep, goat and poultry birds in many districts where these services are too weak (table 64).

Table 62: Veterinary Services ­ Region wise

Sl.No.

Region

Number 199698

of

Veterinary Annual

Average

professionals per lakh livestock 200608 4 14.40 10.38 8.46 10.65 1 1 2 3 4 2 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh 19.53 17.25 15.43 17.19 3

Growth Rate 5

2.63 3.98 4.52 3.80

Fig 51: Annual growth rate of Veterinary Professionals

(V) Jobless growth Table 63: Capital and Employment after liberalization

Region/State Productive Lakh Annual Average Growth Rate 1 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh 199698 2 3965.07 1405.25 3697.85 3410.47 200608 3 6165.00 3151.58 5834.97 5496.36 5.55 12.43 5.78 6.12 4 5 1.62 0.99 4.36 2.58 Percentage of Industrial Annual Average Workers among Total Workers 199698 200608 6 1.48 0.66 3.81 2.27 7 Growth Rate Capital in lakhs/ Population

0.86 3.33 1.26 1.20

183

Fig 52: Capital and Employment Annual Average Growth Rate

During the period between 1996-98 and 2006-08 the productive investment per lakh population went up from 11/2 times to 2 1/4 times in all the regions. But the growth in no of industrial workers is not commensurate with the growth of investment. Actually, it is declining. The liberal policies may lead to increase in production, fast growth in GDP, but it also leads to shrinking employment opportunities. (Table 63)

(VI) Declining banking Sector Before the introduction of liberal policies, encouraging primary sector lending was the govt.'s motto. But after the introduction of these policies the number of bank branches per lakh population is falling which is shown in Table 64.

Table 64: Impact on Banking Sector

Sl.No. 1 1 2 3 4 2 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh 7.66 6.88 7.78 7.57 Region Number of Bank branches per Annual Lakh Population 199698 3 7.68 6.64 7.54 7.44 200608 4 5 Average Growth Rate

0.03 0.35 0.31 0.17

184

Fig 53: No. of Commercial Banks ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

(VII) Badly affected Health sector Before the introduction of free market policies poor and middle classes used to depend on public health system. Provision of health and medical services was considered to be the responsibility of the govt. But, after the introduction of liberal policies, govt. started looking at them as growth engines. So, the govt. started facilitating private entry by rendering public health system ineffective. So, the govt. is gradually reducing doctors and hospital beds (Table 65 and 66)

Table 65: Number of Doctors/ Lakh population ­ Region wise

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 2 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh 11.89 13.38 14.30 13.10 Region Number of Govt. Doctors / Lakh Population 199698 3 10.72 12.98 12.24 11.74 200608 4 Annual Average Growth Rate 5

0.98 0.30 1.44 1.04

185

Fig 54: No.of Government doctors ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Table 66: Government hospital Beds per Lakh Population

Sl.No.

1

Region

2

No. of Beds per Lakh Population

199698 3 200608 4

Annual Average Growth Rate

5

1 2 3 4

Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

42.82 46.71 56.47 48.86

35.48 38.00 44.20 39.47

1.71 1.86 2.17 1.92

Fig 55: Government Hospital Beds ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

186

Chapter ­ V

Guidelines for Integrated Development of Andhra Pradesh

A.Sector wise guidelines Agriculture It is a known fact that assured irrigation is a necessary condition for the development of agriculture particularly in the regions where monsoon rains are insufficient and erratic. Till 2006-08 only 46 percent of cultivable land is provided with assured irrigation. Of this 22 percent is through surface irrigation (provided by, govt. support) while 24.3 percent is through ground water irrigation (individual farmers investments ). If we closely observe, the districts whose development is below that of state average ( Anantapur, Mahabubnagar, Prakasam, Kurnool, Vizianagaram, Srikakulam ,Adilabad ) rainfed agriculture is predominant there. In reality if the water resources-rivers, tanks, lakes, ground water bodies are appropriately utilized in planned way, every acre of cultivable land in the state can be irrigated, as per the experts assessments.

Similarly modern technologies strengthen the rational utilization of water that contribute for stabilizing the phenomenon of irrigation in agriculture in turn in food production . This approach would also solve the drainage problem, a threat in south ­ coastal region.

In the state around one crore acres (both in rainy and winter seasons ) of land is used for rice cultivation. More than 80 percent of water resources are exploited for this major food crop. Unfortunately the planners still project this as growth engine to the state economy. However, in major rice producing districts like Nellore, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Kurnool, Guntur, Warangal, West Godavari, East Godavari, Krishna, Nalgonda and Prakasam, the average productivity is ranging around 1.2 tonnes/ Ac: while in other districts the average productivity is estimated to be below 1 tonn/Ac. Hence, it is reasonable to confine rice cultivation to the districts where the resource utilization is efficient.

Similarly some of the new methods like "system of rice intensification (SRI)" or integrated rice production method (IRPM) are proved to be beneficial in production

187

as well as resource utilization. Technologies developed for specific regions likecoastal (Inundative flooding) districts, single monsoon areas (north Telangana) should be preferred. The state and centre level researchers shaped versatile agronomic practices, including "cultivars" (varieties and hybrids) for the specific problem situations. Hence, there should be enough effort to adopt these new innovative methods with the support of well trained extension experts.

Sorghum, red-gram, mesta, green-gram, sesame, black gram, groundnut, Bengal gram, bajra, foxtail millet, ragi, variga are the traditional food crops that are grown either as rainfed or as irrigated dry. Similarly in some districts soybean, sunflower, maize, safflower like crops started expanding. There is a need for relevant modern technologies to further encourage these crops, since these are comparatively better in conserving resources and enhancing food and nutritional security. Hence, the govt. should plan its research and technology wing in such a way as to encourage these crops and their maketting. Through that there is scope to reduce area for the rice like crop that requires more resources. For low rain fall regions, crops that can secure fodder, fibres (silks), fuel, timber besides food are to be encouraged. Especially there is a need to alter the monocropping systems of Anantapur, Mahabubnagar, Prakasam, Kurnool where frequent dry spells and drought situations are common. Similarly in high rainy regions where inundation is a frequent phenomenon, suitable farming systems that combine crop, animal (fish, sheep, goat) production through modern technologies should be adopted. Crops that enhance scope of silvi pastures, forages, honeybee rearing should find a place for profitable returns. The support for the producers of horticultural crops should be extended, since these enhance scope for nutrition ­security. New technologies including shade houses, temperature regulating chambers, frost protecting houses, sprinkler & drip irrigation system, structured around "precision farming" methods should be made available to the farmers. Infrastructure required for transport, storage and marketing should be provided on priority.

188

In certain regions there is enough scope to produce honey, silk, mushrooms etc through intensive methods.

Sugarcane an important industry oriented commercial crop is widely grown in Krishna, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Nizamabad, Medak and Chittoor districts. These farmers should have a protective cover since the price of the produce is frequently at the mercy of market forces. Similarly groundnut is another major crop that is widely grown in Anantapur, Chittoor, Kadapa, Karimnagar districts. There is a frequent problem with input supply and output marketing. Govt. should play a role to save these farmers. In Guntur, Prakasam, Warangal, Khammam Nalgonda, Adilabad, Karimnagar districts cotton is widely grown. It is mostly controlled by multinationals and textile industry. There is a need to control these forces and save the farmers. Similar is the case with growers of chilies and turmeric crops. They need very high investments and hence risky. The market forces are to be regulated. The farmers of Tobacco, Onion, Castor that are grown in selective regions of the state are also to be protected from the market forces.

Revamping the system as a whole:

Andhra Pradesh especially South Coast and North Telangana districts are in forefront in exploiting the resources and adopting new technologies evolved in the light of green revolution. Some of the districts- Guntur, Krishna, Warangal, Khammam and West Godavari have earned the dubious distinction of lead centres for agrochemical (pesticides, fertilizers) usage. It is also a fact that this approach had boomeranged in several areas, as evident from decelerating trends in crop yields and increasing environment and health problems. The soil and water problems, have become detrimental for further improvement. However, there is a trend of using more and more chemicals or recombinant DNA technologies instead of integrating the resources in a better way. The influence of market forces make the farmers to believe that artificial inputs are more important than the natural inputs. The absence of several macro and micro fauna in the system due to mis-management practices, could not be realized even after the setbacks that are frequently surfacing in cotton, rice, groundnut, sugarcane ecosystems. This kind of imitative and short gain approaches

189

can be attributed to the failure of research and extension system in agriculture. The new economic reforms that were prioritized by the governments diluted the central theme of sustainable technologies in agriculture, the backbone of Andhra Pradesh. This is evident with the continuity of suicides of several debt ridden farmers and mass migrations of agricultural ­wage earners.

The hither to existing systems of research in agriculture has taught the farmer to profit at the expense of posterity that is how to transfer capital in the shape of soil fertility and environment. It led for a temporary "gain" (success) as was felt in terms of grain or produce. All went well as long as the soil could be made to yield a crop. As soon as the soil has become sick- saline, prone to erosion, lost microbial activity farming started to be in decelerating trend. That is practically evident for the past one and half decades in the districts like Guntur , Krishna , West Godavari , Khammam , Warangal, East Godavari , Prakasam particularly in areas where commercial crops are concentrated. The evolution of a species is directly related to the structure of environment that is proportionately responsible to shape that system in terms of energy transfer from one level to another. In the wake of modernism, technologies devoid of dialectical base were opted in this prime occupation related to food production and life sustainability. The ultimate destiny of the small and marginal farmers as well as wage earners, who participate in this struggle (better living) were moulded by science and technology traders to simply thrive at the cost of life forms. They could not think of its repercussions. Agriculture research was shaped in this background. Hence, there is an immediate need for a change in the direction of agricultural research.

In the state several farmers of less developed districts ­Srikakulam, Khammam, Visakhapatnam, Adilabad, Vizianagaram, opted to practice alternative methods, even with the support of govt. departments (social welfare). Such technologies should be modernized by giving a scientific and rational base in the process of popularizing them widely in the present crisis- ridden crop and animal production professions.

In the state around 6.9% of tribal populations depend on agri-forestry profession. Their strength is conspicuously more in Khammam. Vizianagaram

190

Visakhapatnam, Adilabad, Warangal, Nalgonda districts. Hence, there is a need for implementing the Forest Rights Act in letter and spirit, so that displacement of tribals is averted. A Forest Produce Price Commission should be established. State should give priority for expanding forest produce procurement infrastructure to eliminate middlemen. A special research system must be developed to solve the problems of tribal agro- eco -systems and conserve the most valuable germplasm as well as flora and fauna in the process of modernizing the life- styles of tribes, whose economy is intertwined with agro- forestry ecosystems. As, International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) inferred that "small farms" show a way to conserve resources and enhance production in real sense. The world body that analyzed the crisis in climate change fix responsibilities to each nation in that direction. The urbanized organic agriculture of Cuba, township village enterprises of China could show a way for altering the existing phenomenon of resource erosion in the state. Andhra Pradesh should show a way in that direction by prioritizing land to the tiller and agriculture for social and cultural development.

Few points for consideration in agri- development:

Land distribution among agri ­wage earners, marginal and small formers on priority basis. As a first step the 1.5 crore acres cultivable waste land should be distributed by adopting rational methodology

To protect the tenant farmers and reduce the absentee landlords, specific (well drafted) legal framework should be evolved and implemented.

Providing irrigation (at least irrigated dry ) to each acre of land in the state

Govt. should play a pivotal role in supplying quality agri ­ inputs on priority basis

Liberating seed-sector from the clutches of monopoly companies. Govt. should invariably play a dominating role in this sector.

191

Extending credit facilities to tenant farmers through co-operative and commercial banking system

Restructuring the agri- research and education system to suit to the social requirements as well as to enhance the sustainability of local ecosystems.

Strengthening agri- extension wing that is meant to enhance the capacity of small and marginal farmers.

Encouraging farmers who are pioneers in identifying alternate methods that save natural resources. The produce through such methods should be provided with premium price. Govt. should play a vital role at this critical juncture, where ST and SC farmers should be brought to the central stage of development.

Farmers, who develop their own irrigation resources should be supported and guided

Alternative crops to rice and cotton should be encouraged

The water bodies- tanks, lakes streams should be protected, maintained and expanded. Through this monsoon fluctuations can be managed besides ground water recharging can be enhanced.

Farming systems ­ crop production along with forestry, fishery, sheep or goat rearing should be supported

Storage structures, transport facilities should be expanded

Village-township enterprises should be planned in larger way

192

Special package programmers for tribal and scheduled caste farmers should be implemented until they enter into the main stream of development.

Industrial Sector: The state is phenomenally a backward one in industrial sector except in information technology. Of the 23 districts comparatively 6 are developed industrially to some extent. Among these Six, 4 are in and around Hyderabad. The other two are in North Coast and South Coast regions. There is enough scope to develop agroindustries in the state, since commercial crops are extensively grown in larger areas in all corners of the state. The advances in food and nutrition technologies show larger scope to add enough value to the products obtained through such crops. Though this is being highlighted by several experts, there are only few attempts to shape agro based industries. Similarly the diversity of flora and fauna create avenues for herbal or microbe based pharmaceutical industry in the state. In districts like Ananthapur, Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Prakasam and Adilabad where agriculture is risky and uncertain, new agro based technologies can create avenues for better living. Industries related to groundnut, castor, soybean, cotton, mesta, tobacco should be further expanded in these districts. Similarly in Godavari districts, industries that can enhance the value of horticultural crop produces must be given importance. The mango based industries in Chittoor, Krishna, Medak, citrus based industries in Nalgonda, Anantapur, West Godavari; coconut related units in west Godavari, East Godavari and Srikakulam, banana processing technologies in Krishna, Kadapa, Godavari Districts, Tamarind processing industries in Chittoor area tapioca, Cashew nut and oil palm industries in North Coast ­ would create new avenues in agro-industry sector. The sick units of sugar and kandasari of cooperative sector

should be revamped particularly in Nizamabad, Vizianagaram, Chittoor districts. The major food crops like rice, sorghum, maize, pulses are widely grown in almost all regions. However, except rice processing units, there are no industries that can add value to the products of these crops. In certain areas where men and material as well as land, water resources can be allotted, new technology based industries can be created. The entry of new crops like coffee, sunflower, soybean also show ways for utilizing new technologies to process them through small scale industries. The bamboos, soap nut based small units in tribal regions also can enhance scope for diversifying production.

193

With an area of more than 60 lakh acres of cotton crop, the role of AP in textiles or fibre processing units is marginal. The prominent textile mills of Warangal, Kurnool are to be restructured with modern machinery, instead of discontinuing them. The industries related to milk and meat as well as eggs are also not in proportion with the level of their production. Similarly the fish, prawn processing units are also not commensurate with their production in coastal region of the state. The salt industry can be expanded in coastal region. There is still scope to strengthen the mulberry silk worm production units in Anantapur and Chittoor districts, that are nearer to Mysore, the silk capital of the country. The availability of wild silk worms, that are exploited by tribals in Khammam, Adilabad should be streamlined and an industrial unit support should be provided as in Tripura and Assam, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand states. Similarly the high altitude zones of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Khammam, Adilabad, Chittoor show a way to grow medicinal plants. This occupation can be supported by pharma and cosmetic industries in specified regions. The state is endowed with ore and minerals including iron, bauxite, manganese, laterite, quartz. Its uniqueness in barite and lime stone production is well known. Its role in cement production is recognized. There is ample scope to expand the industry, related to steel and cement. Instead of exporting ore and minerals, the govt. should expand industrial base for utilizing them through modern technologies. The forestry, both natural and artificial, including social forestry farming, show a way to expand paper and pulp industry in the state.

The availability of granite in drought prone regions of the state also show a way for new industries. Instead of exporting them as it is, these can be processed and improved to convert them into value added products, by starting industries locally.

The leather industries can be modernized and restructured to make them environment friendly to pave a way for employment generation in certain selective regions of the state.

194

Oil and natural gas available in K.G.basin can be utilized for industrial expansion in a big way in the state. The energy production and transport sectors can be modernized with the support of this natural resource.

The growth of IT and communication industry can be streamlined in a way that these sectors absorb more human resources in all corners of the state. The expansion of bio-technology should be regulated to create avenues to the state as a whole rather than to few individuals. The short gains realized through harmful industries based on tobacco, cocoa, opium (poppy) should be discouraged. The seed (industry) production, processing and marketing, the back bone of Indian agriculture, should be regulated and expanded. Pollution control and environment protection institutes must be strengthened so that industries that are detrimental to the health of the people are replaced with better ones. Agro-based industries on top priority Backward regions with more industrial incentives Encouraging employment oriented industries Regulating natural resource exploitation and implementing environmental protection laws Energy production through non-conventional methods should be prioritized

Economic infrastructure: The average density of roads in the state is far less (74.9km/100km2) than at the national level (82.1). Hence there is an immediate need for investing on this infrastructure, particularly in Visakhapatnam, Prakasam, Nellore, Kadapa,

Ananthapur, Mahabubnagar, Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam districts, since these are comparatively neglected in this sub-sector. In Ananthapur, Medak, Nalgonda districts, the rural infrastructure in terms of connecting roads is very poor. Hence, priority should be given to these districts.

The transport organized by State Road Transport Corporation is also disproportionate to the requirements at ground level. Their claim of 202 depots, buses with 1.2 lakh employees in 23 regions of 7 zones appear to be impressive. However, the needs of people in Vizianagaram, Warangal, Adilabad, Khammam,

195

Mahabubnagar, Medak are neglected. The role of this mass transport should be strengthened to reduce the dependence on most polluting two and four wheelers usage in the state. The CNG gas based buses should be used in place of diesel or petrol based ones.

The railway facilities are comparatively less in Kadapa, Warangal, Adilabad, Nalgonda, Mahabubnagar, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Khammam and East Godavari districts. Hence, new lines should be laid to cover these areas. The lone sea port of Visakhapatnam should be further strengthened besides adding new sea- ports at Machilipatnam, Krishnapatnam, Kalingapatnam, Nizampatnam that are already identified as suitable places of the 1000 km coast line of the state. Similarly the airports of the state should be further expanded with modern amenities and people (commoners) oriented tariff and duties.

The public sector telephone, telegraph and postal sector should be modernized to withstand the competition of private sector in this basic infrastructure related to commoners. The internet facilities should be expanded to bring it nearer to rural areas. The existing banking system with 6,296 branches of commercial banks is insufficient. Particularly in rural areas of North Telangana, North Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema, this infrastructure is neglected. In some districts branches are run in urban or semi urban centers on the name of rural branch centers. This should be regulated. The credit support to be extended to the rural sectors should be more liberal. This should never be evaluated in terms of credit deposit ratio. The Reserve Bank of India should reform the policies in a way that every village approaches public bank, instead of going to private money lender. This, particular point was highlighted by Jayati Ghosh commission as well as MS Swaminathans famers commission, whose role in assessing the crisis ridden agriculture in the state as well as in the country is frequently quoted by experts.

As per the claim of the dept. of tourism, the annual income of Rs. 110 crores is obtained by organizing tours, maintaining catering in certres of public interest. However, there is a need to restructure tourism in a way that the historical places of backward regions are developed to attract tourists instead of focusing on Tirupati and

196

Puttaparthi. There are many places in Warangal, Mahabubnagar, Adilabad, Kurnool, Anantapur, Vizianagaram that deserve the attention of tourists. This is possible when the department has a rational and scientific outlook.

Power production is important for the growth of industrial sector. The availability of coal and water should be rationalized for producing electricity, besides the utilization of natural gas as well as non conventional resource- wind, solar etc. The state government should rise up to the occasion and demand for the share of KG basin gas as is recommended by the 12th Finance Commission. Even as per the assessments, IT industry is providing employment to 2.5 lakh people and adding Rs. 31,470 crores worth of exports (15.4% of the country's exports) to the state. However, as this being concentrated at one place, the regional disparities are growing. In addition, the sole dependence on few selective countries also created new problems. The undue importance given to this sector resulted in the neglect of pure sciences and humanities. Hence this should be avoided. The very concept of SEZ is anti-poor.

Communication networks should be developed in backward regions. Strengthening link roads and state highways of backward region. Rationalizing transport system. Support for modern storages. Reforming banking system in away to support rural poor.

Social Infrastructure Education: The mindset of the government that was influenced by new economic reforms of 1990's led to deform the education sector of the state. Especially the intermediate education was almost converted as an "industry" in the state. Subsequently, the primary and high school education also entered into this line in the state, much more rapidly than in any other state in the country. The role of government to maintain the education sector was totally diluted. The professional education was also schematically taken away by private sector by diluting social responsibility of the government. There are 538 engineering, 633 MCA and 455, MBA colleges run by private individuals in the state presently. Through these institutes, around 2.5 lakh qualified people are coming out annually. Majority of these

197

are from economically affordable sections of the society. This ultimately created a system that government education is for poorer sections and private education is for richer sections. Now even university level of education also is in the realm of privatization, as evident with the new legal sanctions created by the contemporary governments.

Interestingly in the state where there are so many professional colleges, so many universities, lot of infrastructure in primary and secondary educational sectors, the literacy rate is only 60.5 per cent. This literacy is far below in females and very very low in tribals and minorities, in certain districts like Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Khammam, Vizianagaram, Adilabad, Srikakulam etc.

Even the quality of education (among the 60% literates) that is imparted in both public and private institutes, particularly in certain districts is not in tune with the rapid changes occurring in the society. According to some experts, A.P. is far below in school level education among the four southern states.

The technical (professional) education imparted in the state is also in questionable standards. Jayati Ghosh commission, that assessed the crisis ridden agriculture of the state during 2005-06, suggested to restructure and revamp the education imparted by the agricultural institutes of the state. Similarly the gaps in the education of health sciences imparted in the state level institutes have come to surface through the discussions of experts in the recent past. Hence, there is a need to restructure the curriculum and method of teaching as well as type of selections for these professional courses. Common school systems should be restored. State should play a pivotal role. The institutes that are maintained by private individuals should be regulated by government. Human resource should be given top priority. Scientific spirit should be infused among new generation through education. Right to education should be implemented in letter and spirit. Technical schools at high school level. Health sector: As per the statistics, the state government is investing lot many resources on medical and health sector. There are around 1570 PHCs, 12,522 sub

198

centres, 19 district level (referral) hospitals and 10 super specialty hospitals in the state. However, in all the recognized health development indices, the state is lagging behind. Why?

Many of the hospitals both at revenue mandal level or distinct level are functioning for name sake. The beds, doctors and supporting staff are not sufficient to meet the local needs. The budgetary allocations are also not commensurate with the requirement of the institute. The maintenance of equipment and establishment is far from the normal level. This situation is prevalent in Adilabad, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Nalgonda, Prakasam like backward districts. Interestingly in Ranga Reddy, Karimnagar, East Godavari districts (that are in forefront of developmentindicators) show negative trend in the infrastructure of this sector. The role of nongovernmental institutes (corporate sector of health) in Hyderabad, Guntur, Medak, Krishna, West Godavari, Visakhapatnam, Chittoor has increased, since the public institutes were relegated by the policies adopted during the past 18-20 years in the state.

The government was not sincere even in implementing midday meal schemes in educational institutes. The budgetary allocations and man power allotments are insufficient for this purpose. The children of backward regions and sections are permanent suffers. Revamping the primary health sector in the state. Providing nutritional support to marginal sections (effective implementation of expanded PDS). Restructuring the medical and health system of the state and regulating private medical sector. "Health for all" as a basic right (Almatta declaration of 1972) should be recognized. Discouraging mass migrations by providing work and employment. Reducing occupational health hazards-implementing the laws in true spirit. Providing protected drinking water to all sections.

199

Reducing the pollutants created by pharmaceutical, agro chemical leather like industries. Implementing mid day meal scheme in schools in true spirit (A well fed child is an asset to the society). Discouraging if not banning the business of unhealthy (zunc) foods in educational institutes and medical hospitals. Allotting medical & health staff and providing material to save people when outbreaks occur due to seasonal disturbances.

B. GUIDELINES FOR REDUCING THE DISPARITIES AMONG THE REGIONS OF ANDHRA PRADESH Though the state is referred to in terms of three major regions, as per the agroecological and natural resources basis it could be divided into five regions as

discussed in the earlier chapters. Hence, for reducing the regional disparities among these five sub-regions, there is a need to execute certain reforms in the process of restructuring (decentralization) the system as a whole.

North-Coastal Region: Nearly 53% of the cultivated land is rainfed. Average land holding is also very very small. So, unless irrigation is provided to every acre of land in this sub-region, it is impossible to develop it. So, rainfed area must be provided with irrigation.

It

comprises

three

districts

Viz.,

Srikakulam,

Vizianagaram

and

Visakhapatnam and can be divided as high altitude and plain areas. This region is endowed with sea - coast and high monsoonic rainfall. A special developmentprogramme, centered around cropping systems and agricultural modules for both high altitude hilly areas and low plain areas were drafted by Regional Agricultural Research Centers, Anakapalle and Chintapalli, steered by Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University. There was some improvements made with reference to agri technologies related to major crops--sugarcane, mesta, cashew, coconut, sesame, sorghum etc of the region. However, because of the topographical reasons, high rural population density, poor soils with less organic content and failure in exploiting as well as conserving water resources etc. and other social reasons ­ more landless

200

groups of SC and ST and B.C sections, almost all the rural revenue mandals of this region are either most backward or more backward in development of agriculture. Hence, there is a need to revamp the system and implement irrigation development schemes and follow a suitable cropping patterns dovetailed with animal and avian rearing. The scope to enhance or expand the production of coffee or forest based products including medicinal plants should be taken care through special schemes that can be grounded as part of social commitment. As per the experts evaluation, since rice production levels in this region are not proportionate to the input usage, there is a need to develop irrigated dry cropping systems. The existing tanks and new irrigation projects in Vizianagaram and Srikakulam can facilitate to irrigate every acre of land in the region. The marketing of inputs and produce should be regulated by the intervention of government. Additional incentives can be offered to crop growers who resort to resource saving methods of agriculture. The credit facility through government agencies for agriculture should be widened. The industrial development that was confined to "Visakhapatnam" city should be expanded by developing village-township enterprises in Amudalavalasa, Araku, Parvathipuram, Tekkali, Gentada, Bobbili, Cheepurupalli, Palasa, Thagarapuvalasa besides Srikakulam and Anakapalle. There is scope to concentrate on Bheemili, Kalingapatnam, Uddanam, Borra caves to further develop as tourist centers. The resources of scheduled tribes should be protected through special legal structure. The health units should be expanded to all corners of the region with sufficient budget and other resource provisions. A statutory body should be

appointed for the development of this sub-region that is almost in the bottom line in many of the developmental indices.

South Coastal Region: As per the assessments and developmental indices, South Coastal Andhra is ahead of the other sub regions in agriculture. Particularly its production levels in rice, cotton, sugarcane, chilies, turmeric are comparatively high. It is covered with deltaic soils and canal network in certain regions. It is endowed with black cotton soils in larger areas. Several horticultural crops ­ mango, cashew, coconut, citrus, banana, chilies, turmeric, vegetables are extensively grown in this region. Planning for

201

appropriate crop-sequences were developed by Regional Agricultural Research Centers of Guntur and Maruteru besides the main campus of Horticultural University and several satellite centres on various crops and allied agri growth engines. However, in execution of the cropping plan evolved for each and every revenue mandal there is imperfection and negligence. In addition several areas of this region periodically get inundated due to faulty drainage system. The maintenance of the two natural lakes, Kolleru (fresh water) and Chilka (brakish water) is also problematic. The fish and prawn culturing in coastal region also creates some soil and environmental problems frequently, though they add some support to the farming in this area. In addition, the upland areas of Guntur, Krishna, West and East Godavari districts, the low rainfall area of Prakasam become less favourable for cultivation when there is scanty rainfall. The excessive dependence on agro-chemicals and machines as well as over dependence on farming by landless labourers created new problems. There was no planning and execution in maintaining surface irrigation sources and drainage system in this region. Frequent crop failures make the small farm cultivation unsustainable. There is a need to expand the existing small sea- ports and create new avenues for transport. Storage and transport structures are to be enhanced so that industries and agriculture sectors can be integrated. Central delta region and extreme dry land areas are neglected in road and rail facilities. Even air-travel facilities are marginal in this densely populated area. The education and health infrastructures were excessively commercialized. Naturally, marginal sections are deprived in obtaining reasonably better facilities of these two fields. It is a common experience that the farmers get attracted to imitative technologies and realize the negative effects after losing the resources.

There is enough scope to expand tourist centers in this region. Amaravathi, Nagarjunasagar, Vijayawada, Annavaram, Rajahmundry etc. being the existing centers should be developed further in addition to Kondapalli, Kondaveedu, Amalapuram, Kolleru, Venkatagiri, Mummidivaram, Nizampatnam, Challapalli, Vodarevu, Krishnapatnam, Bhattiprolu, Srikakulam, Kuchipudi that are historically important.

202

There is enough scope to convert the industrial and urban wastes into valuable compost, which can be used for soil-nutrient enhancement and restoring the recycle phenomenon. The KG Basin natural gas is a boon for this region which can be exploited for energy for production, industrialization and transport.

North Telangana Region In North Telangana also nearly half of the cultivated land is rainfed. So, providing irrigation should be the primary task of the planners.

Though in terms of natural resources it is far ahead of other regions of the state, development is not proportionate to those resources. There are well developed agricultural plans drafted up to mandal level by Regional Agricultural Research Stations of Jagityal (Karimnagar) and Warangal. In addition, special centres of Rudrur (Nizamabad), Mudhol (Adilabad) besides several satellite centres in Khammam, Nalgonda districts developed location or crop specific plans for improving agriculture of this region.

The region is unique in having large tanks, if not lakes and mighty rivers. Its forest wealth is worth mentioning. The diversity in soils and flora and fauna is specific to this region. The mineral wealth made this region as a special one in the state.

However its development is not commensurate with its resources. The failure of the system to address the needs of larger sections of people of Adilabad, Khammam, Warangal (where STs are considerable in number) is one of the main reasons. The neglect of surface irrigation is the main problem in this sub-region. Lack of surface irrigation forced the farmers to use ground water for cultivation. Providing surface irrigation to every acre of land is the only solution. There is a need to execute cropping system plans considering mandal as unit. The improvements made in rice, sorghum, maize, sugarcane, cotton, pulses, chilies, soybean should be taken to small and marginal farmers. The richness of "Palmyrah"

203

(Tadi trees) germ plasm is to be explored. The horticultural farmers could be protected through special schemes. The cooperative movements initiated in Mulkanur of Karimnagar, Dinapur of Nizamabad showed a way for procuring agri inputs and marketing the output. The govt. departments should take a lead in expanding this concept of cooperative movement. In industrial units also, except the already existing beedi industry no other new major industries have taken shape even in rich coal belt areas. The fertilizer, heavy water, alloy industries of this region are not in a position to involve the local skills or man power. In addition the closer of Azamjahi Mills in Warangal or few others in Adilabad and diversion of sugar mills of Nizamabad showed the negligence in this sector. There is a need to restart the closed units, expand the existing units and start new units with a mission mode approach of strengthening the concept of integrated development. The coal belts of Karimnagar, Adilabad, Khammam, Warangal and long Godavari bank create enough scope to develop many agro ­ forestry based industries, that can reduce pressure on agriculture of this region. The scope for expansion of tourism in this region is very high since there are many historical places and natural landscape areas in this region also. The mania of religious tourism-Sammakka Saralakka jathara Bhadrachalam temple visits should be streamlined in a proper manner and new places should be developed simultaneously. There are unique areas intertwined with the tribes of this region that requires expansion and encouragement.

The education and health sectors should be protected to safeguard the interests of ST and other neglected sections, who cannot afford to depend on private sector resources. There is equal scope to develop town-village enterpenueship centers to safeguard the interests of tribal enterpeneurers of Adilabad and Khammam districts. South Telangana Region In South Telangana more than 65% of the land is under rainfed cultivation. Irrigation is to be provided for this 65% land either for wet or for dry cum wet cultivation.

204

Though, the Hyderabad city and some industrial areas are included in this subzone, the remaining area is very backward. As per the agro- ecological situation, an advance cropping plan was proposed by Regional Agricultural Research Station, Palem (Mahabubnagar) Agricultural Research Institutes of Rajendranagar (Ranga Reddy). In addition several state, central and international research centers with a mandate of agricultural development are functioning in this semi ­arid zone. However, the progress in agri cultural sector is not encouraging. The (poor) resourceless farmers and the frequent disturbances in climatic factors are making cultivation risky. Though there are food, commercial and horticultural crops including grape ­ wine in this region, the farmers are the neglected lot here. Absence of surface irrigation, lack of infrastructure facilities and less coordination between welfare departments and marginal sections associated with agriculture, keep this region constantly in under developed condition agriculturally. However, in poultry and dairying, this is ahead of other sub-regions.

The growth of private sector in education and health rendered the government institutions useless. The failure of governance in providing drinking water, sanitation facilities is much more serious. Interestingly this region has the most neglected sections minorities, STs and SCs, whose literacy levels among female sections are as low as 10-15%. The "Bholakpur" incident of Hyderabad (sewage water for drinking) exposes the precarious condition of marginal sections of this mighty city that has many institutes for development of science and technology, besides humanities as a whole.

Rayalaseema Region Nearly 80% of the cultivated land, highest in the state is rainfed. Added to that, it is a low rainfall area frequently visited by droughts and famines. Anantapuram district is the most backward not only in this region, but also in the state. Unless irrigation is provided, this region cannot be developed further. The cost of providing irrigation is comparatively high. But, that should not come in the way of providing irrigation. So every acre of cultivated land should be provided with irrigation at least for one crop.

205

Unless a "regional development board with statutory powers" is made to function, this low rainfall region cannot be brought to the level of developed regions. Particularly Anantapur, ;parts of Kurnool, Kadapa and Chittoor that are relegated to most backward areas of the state should have a different approach. Monocropping of groundnut in larger areas, the recent spread of Bengal gram and sunflower in many mandals keep the agri-returns of Kadapa, Anantapur too low. The spread of

horticultural crops in few revenue mandals and adoption of mango crop in larger areas of Chittoor and Kadapa are specific features of the districts. However, the frequent monsoon failures and negligence in extending irrigation facilities make the farmers helpless. The mass migrations of marginal sections related to agriculture are a common feature. The decline of mulberry silkworm production due to market fluctuations is another point to be taken into consideration. The failure of intensiveinput technology based approach of Kuppam Project (steered by Israel experts) taught a different lesson. Similarly the dilution of cooperative approach among animal husbandry farmers and oil seed growers was also another shock in this region. The policies of government in terms of investing on new watersheds instead of repairing the already well planned historical tanks of Chittoor, Anantapur and Kadapa also taught a new lesson. The over exploitation of ground water in the absence of recharging systems also deepened the crisis in agriculture.

There were some attempts to develop cropping systems to suit to low rainfall regions. The Regional Agricultural Research Station of Nandyal (Kurnool Dist) Tirupathi and Dry land agricultural Research Centres of Ananthapur and well knit District level technology transfer wings could not solve the basic things of the area. The failure of government to extend irrigation system, the negligence in regulating market systems aggravated the situation in this region. The weak infrastructuretransport, storage, markets-keep the farmers always in disadvantage. Particularly the farmers who produce mango, banana, citrus, tamarind, onion, turmeric in this region are frequently exposed to vagaries of weather and market fluctuations. Unless they are given protective cover by the government, these small and marginal farmers cannot sustain their profession. Even the milk, egg and meat producers are left to the mercy of middle men. Though cargo facilities through Tirupati airport is a new addition to this area, unless the producers are protected, such infrastructure becomes useless.

206

There is enough scope for expanding the agro-industries in this region. The oil extraction, milk processing, mango pulp or tomato food factories are not being supported by government. Keeping in view of reducing pressure on agriculture, the government should play vital role to revitalize cooperative sector in true sense. The scope of iron-ore based industries, limestone oriented factories, byrites utilization must be realized by the industries department of the state. The unwise policies in the guise of liberalization and privatization led to lose rich mineral resources of the region already.

The decline of education and health sectors to be maintained by government added extra pressure on marginal sections or resource poor farm labourers, artisans, the major sections of the society. Though some funds of TTD and Satya Sai Trust are utilized sectors for these sections these are insufficient.

C. Specific Development Packages for the backward Districts

Mahabubnagar, Adilabad, Anantapur, Prakasam, Kurnool, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam are the 7 bottom level districts, that require special attention for development. There is a need to safeguard the interests of these districts that are deprived of natural resources and neglected by the successive governments. Several sociologists and political experts indicated implementable, holistic plan to be executed through a concerted and coordinated efforts of all the welfare departments of state and centre. Few guidelines to reduce the disparities in development are hinted hereunder in the light of the studies made.

Mahabubnagar: A systematic well organized "literacy movement" in specified revenue mandals showing low literacy level in marginal sections and females is needed. Enhancing irrigation facilities. Special steps to improve economic infrastructure to attract investments on industries in backward mandals.

207

Specific agricultural plan for low rainfall regions, where small and marginal formers and migratory wage-earners are more concentrated. Extra effort to establish agro-industries that create more jobs to rural sections. Transport and storage facilities should be improved on priority basis in interior mandals. Strengthening the educational and medical sectors in a way that every person of the district gets benefit out of it. The development should be extended to semi-urban centers like Kalwakurthi, Gadwal, Wanaparthi, Atchampet, Kolhapur, Narayankhed in addition to Mahabubnagar and Zedcherla. Top priority for decentralization of governance

Adilabad: It is a unique district that is endowed with natural resources including a favourable rainfall. Keeping the STs in view the district level planning should be modified and executed with thorough monitoring and rectification of the system. Empowering village level leaders to execute the reforms of land and major resources of agriculture. A time-bound plan for developing irrigation to every acre of land that is suitable for crop production. Supporting farmers by supplying quality inputs and marketing system should be given top priority. Village level crop insurance should be implemented in true spirit. Road network should be improved. The southern part of the district should be linked with rail road. New tourist centres should strengthened. There must be a serious effort to implement Forest Rights Protection Act and Right to Education Act. Literacy levels in many mandals being far below the state average levels. There is a need for special attention. The periodical out breaks of contagious diseases in many ST populated mandals remind the need for strengthening medical and health facilities.

208

The language and culture of tribals should be developed by organizing periodical cultural meets and interaction sessions and establishing special museums and libraries. A special regional or central level institute / university should be shaped with enough support for tribal culture & history.

Anantapur: Priority for stabilizing agriculture in a way that every rural family intertwined with this profession gets reasonable income to lead a quality life. For this a cropping system specific to this semi-arid climate with the organic matter-poor soil should be evolved. In addition to groundnut that is grown as a monocrop in large areas alternate crops like castor, sorghum, guar, cowpea, field beans, sun flower etc should be encouraged. Quality inputs and supporting market system must be developed for this change. Encouraging perennial crops like tamarind, jamun, soapnut as well as farm forestry and silvi-horticultural crops ­ should be taken up in low rainfall mandals. 90% of the cultivated land is rainfed. Rainfall is also lowest in the state. So providing irrigation by either means (surface/ground water) to each and every acre with in a time frame should be taken up as top priority. The mineral sources should be exploited to the extent that they are utilized for new industries instead of exporting. The transport, roads and infrastructure should be developed. The public health system and education institutes should be strengthened. Decentralization of governance should be prioritized. Exploiting non conventional methods of energy generation. Animal rearing and dairying in cooperative sector through modern technologies may enhance the capacity of rural poor, if implemented by govt. departments. Developing other mandal centres like Guntakal, Hindupuram, Kalynadurgam, kadiri etc in addition Ananthapur. The tourist centers of Kadiri banayan tree, Lepakshi, caves of Ahobilam etc in addition to Puttaparthi also must be developed.

209

The establishment of IISC extension campus in Anantapur district must be made a reality, through which the region as a whole may derive a benefit in future. Kurnool: 75% of the cultivated are is rainfed. Providing irrigation to every acre of land should be the priority for the planners. Though this district is endowed with diversified resources, there is negative development in this district. Stabilizing the ayacut area of Tungabhadra river (KC canal). Specific cropping system that can give maximum returns through sustainable technologies should be evolved. The spread of Bengal gram, sunflower in black cotton soils should be monitored and stabilized by improving the technologies associated with these major crops. There is a need to regulate cotton seed production units in the district. The exploitation of the producers should be arrested, through a regulatory body. There is a need of special package to the revenue mandals where SCs and minorities are concentrated and who are deprived of the fruits of developments, in education and other services. Health education sectors need improvement. Decentralization of governance to distribute resources and implement welfare schemes. Developing village town enterprising centers in the process of shaping new industries with jobs. The cement and granite industry should be extended with environmental friendly technologies. In addition to Kurnool, Nandyal like major towns, Adoni, Atmakur, Betamcherla, Yemmiganur, Panyam like urban centers can be developed to diversity the peoples concentration in few places.

Vizianagaram: More than half of the cultivated area is rainfed. So, providing irrigation becomes top priority.

210

The state planning wing should evolve a specific plan that suites to that agroclimatic region of Vizianagaram. It is also a district with diverse resources. But lagging behind due to lack of skills as well as education in many revenue mandals. The agricultural development depends on the improvement of irrigation facilities in all the revenue mandals. There is enough scope for expanding this facility through surface and ground water exploitation. The improvement and modernization of mesta production would retain the production value of this only commercial crop of this district. The jute mills must be modernized. Road network linking mandals should be developed. The transport facilities must be enhanced. Education and health sectors should be revamped to make the right to education and health for all a reality. Decentralization of governance would involve the local tribal communities in the process of development. The development of Bobbili, Cheepurupalli, Parvathipuram, Thagarapuvalasa, Gantada like semi urban centers would reduce pressure on Vizianagaram, the district head-quarter.

Srikakulam: Resources related to agriculture should be improved and stabilized Rational land utilization system must be evolved. The Regional Agricultural Research Wings and education centers should be given a clear mandate of regional development with better cropping system. The lone fibre crop-mesta improvement should be taken up with the support of Central agencies. Coastal area development board should have a clear mandate of improving the life-standards of rural people. Backward mandals where migration of wage-earners is a big problem should be earmarked for implementing skill improvement and employment provision programmes.

211

The special programmes for development of ST communities (FRA) should be implemented. The education and health sector indicators of many mandals are weak. There is a need for special attention of extending these facilities, so that literacy and improvement in health creates new opportunities for development.

The semi-urban centres of Amudalavalasa, Tekkali, Palasa, Itchapuram, Garividi, Ragolu should be developed in addition to Srikakulam, the district headquarters.

Prakasam Seventy percent of the cultivated land is rainfed. Unless this situation is changed, there is no scope for development. So, providing irrigation should become the top priority for the planners. It is an interesting district with lot of diversity in resources. In fact it was carved in 1972 by combining major backward taluks of Guntur, Kurnool and Nellore districts with a view to pay special attention for development. However even after 40 years of its formation it is in underdeveloped state as indicated by all the development indicators. "PRAKASAM" an icon of Ongole breed of cattle and symbol of social and political reformers is cursed with low rainfall and fluorine contaminated ground water. However, its resource of granite, availability of good soils and expansion of farm-forestry and spread of commercial crops like tobacco and cotton attracted the attention of many. There are several institutes that are supposed to improve the area in agriculture and industry. In spite of so many favourable conditions, the district is still lagging behind in development.

o A sustainable cropping system must be evolved and executed. o The Ongole breed of cattle and drought resistant breeds of sheep and goats should be conserved and improved through special schemes.

o The coastal mandals should be developed with special package programme for salt and fish producers.

212

o The mandals where SCs are more in number should be monitored for development. The benefits derived through the mining of granites should not go to the pockets of individuals. Instead mining must be planned in such a way that the benefits are enjoyed by all. o Semi urban centers ­ Addanki, Singarayakonda, Kandukuru, Marturu, Tanguturu, Giddaluru, Markapuram, Bhairavakona etc. must be developed to establish village-town enterprises. o The fluoride affected areas should be protected by special package programmes instead of depending on trusts and foreign aided schemes. o Decentralization of governance on priority basis to execute schemes.

213

Bibliography

High Power Committee on Reddressal of Regional Imbalances ­ Final Report June 2002, Secretariat ­ Government of Karnataka, Bengalore, pp.1000. Committee headed by Prof. D.M.Nanjundappa. Development of A.P. 1956-2001: A Study on Regional Disparities (2002), Y.V. Krishna Rao and S.Subramanyam (Eds.) N.RR. Research Centre, Hyderabad, PP.268. District-wise Socio-economic Indicators (2008), Directorate of Economics and Statistics Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, PP.224. Bharata Swatantra Samaranganamulo Godavari Thiram (1987), Swathantra Samara Parishodhana Samstha, Kakinada, PP.652. Season and Crop Report Andhra Pradesh (2004-2005) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad, PP. 400. Andhra Pradesh Darshini (1976), Y.V.Krishna Rao & Etukuru Balarama Murthy, Visalandhra Publishing House, Hyderabad, PP.1408. Human Development Report Andhra Pradesh (2007), Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad, PP.257. Socio- economic Survey (2008-09), Planning Department., Govt. of Hyderabad. PP.291. AP.,

Andhra Pradesh At 50: A Data Based Analysis (1998) V.Hanumantha Rao, N.K.Acharaya, M.C. Swaminathan (Eds.), A Data News Features Publication, Hyderabad. Development of Andhra Pradesh: Problems and Prospects, 1992. T.K.Rao & S.Sudhakar Reddy, CESS & Book links Corporation, Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh Economy in Transmission. 1990. Kanakalatha Mukund, CESS & Book Links Corporation, Hyderabad, PP. 621. Pathikella Andhra Pradesh, 1956-1980. (1981), Telugu Academy, Hyderabad, PP. 724. Statistical Abstracts Andhra Pradesh 1956-57, 1962, 1987, 1989, 1990-91, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Re- Visiting Puchalapalli Sundarayya's Research Study on Agrarian change in the villages of Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh, 2001. ICSSR, A.Ranga Reddy, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, PP.47.

214

Socio- economic surveys of Three villages in AP. A study of Agrarian Relations. (2010) VK Ramachandran., Vikas Rawal & Madhura Swaminathan, Tulika Books New Delhi, pp.230. Raghunatha Rao P. 1993 Adhunika Andhra Pradesh Charithra (IV Edition) (1993) P. Raghunadha Rao, Sterling Publishers, New Delhi. Golden Jubilee of AP., (1956-2005: 50 years) 2005, Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Govt. of AP Hyderabad. Pp.219. Statistical Abstract of AP 2003 Directorate of Economics and statistic Govt., of AP., Hyderabad PP 509 Statistical Abstract of AP- 2008 Directorate of Economics and Statistics., Govt. of AP., Hyderabad, pp.658. Andhra Pradesh Development: Economic Reforms and Challenges Ahead. V.Hanumantha Rao and S.Mahendra Dev (Eds). Centre for Economics and Social; Studies, Nizamia Observatory Campus, Hyderabad, pp.636. Human Development Report 2007: Fighting Climate change - Human Solidarity in a divided World, (2008). UNDP, pp.384. Gramina Pedalu ­ Bhupampakam (Rural poor- Land Distribution) (1976). P. Sundaraiah. Marxist Prachuranalu, Vijayawada, pp.69. A Study of Anantapur District: Designing Rural Technology Delivery Systems for Mitigating Agricultural Distress (2010). T. Rukmani & M.Manula, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development, Chennai. Andhra Darsini (1959). S.V.Narasaiah, K.S.Reddy, A.Anantha Reddy & N.V. Bhaskara Rao (Eds), Visalandhra Publications, Vijayawada, pp.862. Andhra Darsini (1954). S.V.Narasaiah, K.S.Reddy, G.Radha Krishnamurthy and A.K.R.B. Koteswara rao (Eds) Visalandhra Publications, Vijayawada, pp.1215 Andhra Pradesh District Gazetteers, Hyderabad (1983) R.Parthasarathy, Director of Printing and Stationery, Govt. Central Press, Hyderabad, pp.517. Andhra Pradesh District Gazetteers: Ranga Reddy District (2000). K.Sukhadev Reddy, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pp.586 Andhra Pradesh District Gazetteers Medak (1976), M.V.Rajagopal, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, pp.309 Bhoo- Garista Parimithi Chattam, 1973 Andhra Pradesh (1975). Y.V. Krishna Rao.

215

District Level Deprivation in New Millennium., Bibek Debroy and Eavesh Bhandari (eds). Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, New Delhi and International Dev. Enterprises (India) New Delhi, Konark Publishers, Delhi. Interstate ­ Comparison of GSDP of Major States and GDP of All India 1993-94 to 2003-2001., Directorate of Economics and Statistics., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Gram Panchayats in AP: Economic Classification of Finances 2001-02 and 200203, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. A Report of Census of Land Holdings 2000-2001, Directorate of Economics and Statistics., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Report on Fifth ­ Economic Census - Guntur District (2005), Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Raman Rao AV., (1958) The Economic Development of Andhra Pradesh 17661957 (1958), Popular Book Depot, Bombay, pp.384. The Telangana Movement: An Investigative Focus (A Research volume). (1969) T.Anandarao. Based on the Papers Presented by TU&C Teacher's Convention May 20, 1969. Hyderabad, pp.161 A.P.District Profile, 1991. (1993). Vijayanunni. Office of the Registrar General of India, New Delhi, pp.193 Tribes and Tribal Areas of Andhra Pradesh (Basic Statistics), 2001. Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute., Tribal Welfare Dept., Govt. of AP., Hyderabad. Pp.204. Third Minor Irrigation Census, 2000-2001 of Andhra Pradesh., Directorate of Economics and Statistics Govt., of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad Pp 126 Human Development Report 1999, UNDP Published for the United Nations Development Programme, Oxford University Press. India Development Report 2008, R.Radhakrishna (ed.), Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Oxford University Press, pp.291. Report of the Expert Group on agricultural Indebtedness. 2007 Banking Division, Dept of Economic Affairs Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India PP 128 Pattern of consumption expenditure among different social Groups in Andhra Pradesh (2005) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad PP54

216

Gross Fixed Capital Formation in Andhra Pradesh 2002-03, Directorate of Economics and Statistics Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad PP56 India Development Report 2002, Kirit S.Parikh and R.Radha Krishna (Eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 273 India Development Report 2004-05, Kirot S.Parikh and R.Radha Krishna (Eds.), IGIDR & Oxford University Press. Alternative Economic survey India 2005-2006., ASG, Daanish Books, Delhi, pp.306 Compendium of Area and Land use Statistics of Andhra Pradesh 1955-56 to 20042005., Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad., PP361 A Plan for Sustainable Development Hyderabad 2008: Draft Master plan for Hyderabad Metropolitan Area HUDA., PP 321 Report on Agricultural census of Andhra Pradesh, 1995-96., Directorate of Economics and Statistics., Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad Selected Educational Statistics of Andhra Pradesh and Major States of India (2004), Directorate of Economics and Statistics Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad PP84 Regional Development and Human Development ­ A District wise Analysis. Ghana Shyama Mohanty (1997), A Dissertation of M.Phil. Submitted to Dr. BR Ambedkar Open University & CESS, Hyderabad. Rural transformation: Perspectives from Village studies in Andhra Pradesh (2008). G.Niranjan Rao and D.Narsimha Reddy (eds.) Daanish Books, Delhi, pp.540.

217

Annexures

Annexure ­ I

State, Regions, Sub-Regions and Districts

State

Regions

Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema

Telangana

Sub Regions

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema

South Telangana

North Telangana

Districts

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Rangareddy Medak Hyderabad Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam

218

Annexure ­ II

Development Indicators - Agriculture Sector

A1 = Gross area sown to Net area sown = Gross Area Sown X 2.47 Net Area Sown X 2.47 X 100

A2= Gross area irrigated to Gross area sown = Gross Area Irrigated X 2.47 Gross Area Sown X 2.47 X 100

A3 = Yield per acre­ Rice = Yield per Hectare (K.G.) 2.47

A4 = Ag. Loans per 10000 acres Gross area sown = District Loans in Rs. Gross Area Sown X 2.47 X 10000

A5 = No. of Tractors per 10000 acres Net area = No. of Tractors Net Area sown X 10000

A6 = Livestock and Poultry per 1 lakh rural population = Livestock + Poultry Rural Population X 100000

A7 = Veterinary professionals (Veterinary Assistant Surgeons + Para Veterinary Staff) per 1 lakh live stock = Veterinary Assistant Surgeons + Para veterinary Staff Live Stock X 100000

219

Actual values of Development indicators ­ Agriculture Sector Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/SubRegion/ Region

1986-88

Agriculture Sector

A1

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

A2

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

A3

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

123.68 125.16 134.98 154.43 152.34 153.27 135.42 109.88 111.99 108.66 105.37 101.84 106.69 104.58 106.04 146.79 108.65 122.61 101.82 117.11 120.59 105.28 115.04 117.367 127.89 136.04 105.15 108.58

133.59 137.90 132.67 173.35 145.14 143.09 137.46 107.79 113.44 113.13 112.49 104.09 110.98 107.46 108.09 130.92 118.36 141.70 104.43 138.92 129.50 107.24 121.71

122.2568

140.04 133.02 124.05 179.74 149.35 144.31 132.47 106.50 113.72 110.31 120.12 106.01 113.03 107.24 113.83 0.00 121.99 161.48 105.59 150.88 128.67 112.26 128.31 124.50 132.44 136.49 110.88 116.90

44.98 32.44 31.93 64.67 85.13 60.93 43.15 30.07 78.83 34.45 30.30 16.67 16.11 15.90 19.88

44.87 35.85 35.15 60.59 85.89 61.42 41.68 33.71 82.53 41.76 37.57 16.60 20.37 22.36 24.10

46.82 40.32 35.35 88.05 60.39 31.75 74.50 47.00 13.26 23.37 27.55 30.38 0.00 36.42 69.62 18.01 74.16 65.83 46.48 46.18 41.11 61.11 25.02 38.50 55.29 46.18 56.50 25.02 47.81 46.18

690.28 652.36 571.79 892.31 960.86 987.18 973.55 829.15 814.84 859.24 655.06 810.66 884.08 678.81 815.65 525.64 861.40 743.86 746.02 835.12 638.15 991.84 890.76 800.67 738.52 835.12 873.94 890.76 766.14 835.12

734 847 610

992.98 909.99 732.66

63.88 1000.54

1071 1373.14 1116 1393.39 1203 1251.15 1264 1265.05 1054 1394.74 1112 1470.72 940 1154.93 954 1044.40 911 1157.89 1130 1366.26 815 1055.33 891 1077.87 985 0.00 767 1164.91 872 1370.04 619 989.61 1157 1366.80 990 1217.00 950 1117.27 1058 1220.11 959 1185.74 968 878.54 974 1358.03 990 1180.87 986 1129.55 980 1212.15 971 1185.74 958 1198.20 954 1180.87 947 1175.44 971 1185.74

52.63 1136.57

38.11 1059.78

93.06 100.22 29.92 32.36 54.44 9.07 54.74 45.06 34.84 34.23 38.033 36.29 58.42 21.51 24.76 66.16 12.62 67.54 54.21 40.08 45.30 42.93 38.49 59.20 25.55 31.24 46.18 42.10 53.96 25.55 39.12 42.10

57.02 1058.16

134.71 136.96 109.13 113.59

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

112.00 120.97 128.18 37.50 117.366 122.2566 124.50 38.029 134.12 136.38 135.53 53.47 105.15 109.13 110.88 21.51 110.33 117.36 122.89 31.37 117.366 122.2566 124.50 38.029

220

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/SubRegion/ Region

1986-88

Agriculture Sector

A4

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

A5

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

A6

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

4.46 4.93 12.84 26.01 33.74 31.98 13.41 7.17 8.49 9.54 6.18 6.82 5.41 4.04 5.88 0.00 4.27 19.77 1.58 11.89 4.94 17.81 9.88 11.762 7.52 21.08 6.71 6.11 9.95 11.763 18.05 6.71 8.10 11.763

13.21 13.67 43.18 53.18 63.35 84.70 33.84 27.50 17.29 19.41 10.87 15.20 9.92 6.59 4.48 0.00 12.93 48.39 11.92 22.07 10.10 36.43 21.02 26.65 23.55 49.43 13.62 11.72 23.73 27.26 42.88 13.62 18.06 27.26

54.76 44.24

5.6116 1.5969

11.44 5.72 8.01 45.90 55.01 51.57 34.89 36.04 60.54 41.24 27.97 13.60 14.66 17.87 20.14 0.00 27.23 32.05 5.14 42.39 26.44 31.47 39.75 28.33 8.35 45.83 20.92 25.90 25.39 28.33 36.22 20.92 25.64 28.33

15.717 42.078 6.555 43.514 55.098 58.060 40.309 28.137 61.802 52.703 31.392 13.983 14.673 17.517 42.300 0.000 46.172 47.431 7.894 71.910 29.626 41.092 51.230 34.508 21.446 46.078 22.427 35.845 38.170 34.508 40.575 22.427 37.075 34.508

128996 145187 154993 96759 138087 226780 124773 144112 216761 198817 178747 146892 146969 189476 527834 0 133988 114531 144260 176600 182654 190815 208485 171649 143020 150725 168790 240650 164882 171258 148607 168790 200015 171258

111090 149116 176261 139340 177590 204290 146315 125036 169956 215825 138554 124005 113377 174204 592315 0 167005 97263 123421 154568 168716 176765 228398 170287 145020 158742 150931 254488 147172 170183 155057 150931 197466 170183

158657 213187 280417 435560 310778 269699 246538 172871 208712 468536 212745 247094 150995 319834 893287 0 457550 175606 211063 256660 250281 225577 349724 295448 218118 286652 277926 455228 228217 295302 268296 277926 334359 295302

178.27 2.3753 151.87 26.4248 220.74 29.0931 202.22 25.6655 99.04 16.0760 84.72 9.6732 59.96 29.5951 96.27 23.2950 44.81 9.3969 63.01 31.25 40.26 148.21 49.76 3.9314 3.7894 3.8558 6.5318 9.2760

0.00 14.1164 187.51 12.7255 36.09 0.8961 73.93 11.3607 57.89 134.97 7.7241 9.2973

66.50 13.3263 93.48 11.0636 89.23 3.1853 142.62 21.4141 54.12 62.08 90.90 7.9071 8.0051 7.5106

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

93.48 11.0635 130.29 17.1365 54.12 78.05 7.9071 7.7523

93.48 11.0635

221

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/SubRegion/ Region

Agriculture Sector

A7

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

16.37 14.02 13.13 22.99 19.86 23.51 13.94 10.55 11.06 14.73 16.90 9.35 16.07 14.07 18.38 54.62 12.86 13.28 9.72 12.96 11.17 17.57 10.26 14.20 14.47 16.06 14.01 13.21 12.98 14.16 15.60 14.01 13.09 14.16

18.75 14.62 15.04 24.90 29.16 30.75 18.67 15.21 15.27 20.07 19.21 10.36 21.62 12.47 24.84 0.00 19.55 14.61 14.00 15.26 14.38 17.16 13.92 17.21 16.11 21.06 17.25 15.73 15.14 17.19 19.53 17.25 15.43 17.19

12.77 11.95 15.29 24.32 18.92 17.37 16.10 9.00 12.04 14.38 13.07 4.81 14.09 6.15 15.77 76.43 8.89 6.82 7.83 8.46 8.03 11.45 8.11 10.71 13.32 14.83 10.38 8.40 8.51 10.65 14.40 10.38 8.46 10.65

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

222

Annexure III Development Indicators ­ Industrial Sector 1= % of Industrial workers among Total workers

= No. of Industrial Workers No. of Main Workers + Marginal Workers X 100

2 = No. of Electrical connections to Industries per Lakh Population

= Low tension Industrial Connections + High Tension Total connections Total Population X 100000

3 = Value of productive capital per lakh population

= Value of Productive (in rupees Lakhs) Total Population X 100000

4 = Net Industrial value added per lakh population

= Value added (in rupees Lakhs) Total Population X 100000

223

Actual Values of Development Indicators ­ Industrial Sector

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

Industrial Sector

I1

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

I2

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

I3

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

0.45 1.64 2.04 1.56 1.81 1.71 3.37 2.67 0.53 0.74 0.59 0.65 1.39 0.32 6.20 9.04 3.32 10.91 2.52 1.78 1.23 0.82 0.59 2.18 1.41 2.04 0.85 3.07 3.26 2.18 1.87 0.85 3.16 2.18

0.66 1.12 3.06 1.35 1.50 1.69 2.36 1.17 0.99 1.40 0.77 0.62 1.10 0.55 6.42 3.16 4.56 25.51 2.31 2.32 1.28 0.79 1.46 2.58 1.74 1.58 0.99 2.91 5.84 2.58 1.62 0.99 4.36 2.58

1.20 108.34 2.66 90.65

99.03 98.09

100 109 124 145 230 297 270 198 702 245 155 187 192 182 561 374 296 200 108 186 210 139 249 239 113 282 198 336 172 239 236 198 260 239

43.53 1463.24 3143.47 168.86 2431.17 888.79 2012.83 19811.01 23384.92 229.38 4356.36 9718.22 253.57 962.11 2192.10 388.77 1285.84 2647.09 299.86 1072.61 3199.20 97.08 545.45 2165.68 113.21 2711.20 2976.98 208.18 1602.19 2907.17 613.54 1840.84 3308.39 132.02 1001.21 4344.35 391.39 1289.64 2064.64 100.28 1420.94 2820.69 2800.62 10373.21 13127.84 7832.24 2163.14 3446.87 2566.90 13725.10 17727.92 231.65 796.71 678.08 2037.97 661.16 1293.58 387.03 1294.11 2270.65 135.72 1189.76 1788.25 573.94 2953.35 7332.14 605.32 4098.04 7316.15 850.44 3410.47 5496.36 879.48 9538.41 11552.25 244.05 1918.52 4154.83 315.25 1405.25 3151.58 2737.65 5792.01 8383.98 436.63 1310.89 2801.60 850.44 3410.47 5496.36 413.73 3965.07 6165.00 315.25 1405.25 3151.58 1619.48 3697.85 5834.97 850.44 3410.47 5496.36

1.36 123.36 104.22 1.40 127.04 132.65 1.64 171.23 190.63 1.31 216.46 218.95 1.83 153.72 165.83 0.76 90.02 117.17 0.69 167.90 240.84 1.06 161.80 219.28 0.43 104.33 118.57 0.47 125.09 142.80 0.60 161.41 191.62 0.47 185.29 156.71 4.83 496.08 496.58 2.47 302.71 279.31 3.72 222.62 213.52 23.65 201.27 148.60 1.70 138.84 121.71 2.08 148.28 145.14 1.75 175.34 167.45 0.77 169.24 98.93 1.03 229.33 241.88 2.27 171.66 179.45 1.83 105.43 100.05 1.34 155.04 174.31 0.66 140.44 171.86 2.34 274.45 273.63 5.38 165.87 138.47 2.27 171.66 179.45 1.48 141.79 154.36 0.66 140.44 171.86 3.81 221.69 210.47 2.27 171.66 179.45

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

224

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

Industrial Sector

I4 1986-88 1996-98 319 291 2169 1248 512 649 544 269 579 472 432 278 475 396 3735 1274 4811 1367 552 162 282 565 1047 942 1099 677 412 2063 531 942 790 412 1347 942 2006-08 677 608 9383 1509 1172 978 801 758 616 664 218 372 296 914 5787 1938 7373 2288 1073 471 455 1149 1073 1792 4528 1017 403 3237 998 1792 1972 403 2215 1792 13.73 230.67 293.67 103.14 130.10 137.36 154.91 62.90 36.97 74.48 64.05 56.51 146.64 13.59 1031.08 1244.01 615.87 252.11 70.96 156.86 20.04 121.91 108.47 204.87 189.23 110.76 85.67 562.65 120.48 204.87 131.71 85.67 347.78 204.87

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

225

Annexure IV Development Indicators ­ Economic Infrastructure E1= No. of vehicles per lakh population Total No. of Vehicles = Total Population E2 = Length of roads per 100 sq.kms. Total Length of Roads = Area X 1000

X 100000

X 100

E3 = No. of Telephone exchanges per lakh population No. of Telephone Exchanges = X 100000 Total Population E4 = No. of Commercial Bank branches per lakh population = No. of Commercial Banks Total Population X 100000

E5 = No. of Railway stations per Lakh population = No. of Railway Stations Total Population X 100000

226

Actual Values of Development Indicators ­ Economic Infrastructure

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

Economic Infrastructure

E1 1986-88 1996-98 934 1259 6893 4935 4056 6300 2619 1370 2127 2523 1968 2439 2162 1473 5129 25453 1413 2542 952 2807 2861 2478 1592 4039 3559 3788 2300 7588 2398 4039 3726 2300 5163 4039 2006-08 1704 2100 9267 7211 6471 9021 4187 2334 3265 3718 2162 3844 2813 1716 7916 32050 2313 4424 2482 4422 4097 4134 2513 5860 5164 5733 3217 10125 3954 5860 5578 3217 7302 5860 E2 1986-88 1996-98 E3 2006-08 1986-88 1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

527 503 3126 2285 2162 2942 1017 450 868 810 801 843 936 376 2841 13905 499 1302 453 723 1039 599 486 1776 1577 1720 848 3746 829 1776 1682 848 2328 1776

74.83 49.07 39.60 45.97 63.55 68.96 48.51 41.38 39.23 55.73 37.54 47.95 34.45 44.19 57.14 36.00 52.77 47.96 33.15 48.12 47.14 33.70 48.27 45.85 50.92 48.80 43.78 48.92 40.62 45.85 49.33 43.78 44.24 45.85

85.47 99.241 58.02 71.667 55.11 67.827 65.29 79.096 79.34 94.736 79.10 85.452 65.49 75.380 50.55 61.943 54.26 60.486 69.08 77.945 49.46 58.461 52.09 54.129 43.81 54.164 55.08 71.286 66.49 80.476 127.50 104.667 61.15 76.969 58.63 71.479 46.06 52.395 67.92 78.418 54.62 67.762 48.34 57.404 70.51 58.35 63.40 62.79 80.944 68.776 76.643 73.146

2.22 2.49 2.39 3.38 4.78 3.89 3.01 4.08 4.54 4.53 4.01 4.45 4.07 3.95 4.90 0.93 5.42 4.47 2.59 4.54 3.74 3.91 3.49 3.71 2.37 3.86 4.29 3.59 3.90 3.71 3.46 4.29 3.74 3.71

2.15 2.23 2.08 2.43 3.94 3.33 2.86 2.86 3.87 4.07 3.76 4.10 4.07 3.25 2.74 1.63 3.77 3.53 2.55 3.12 2.35 3.52 2.71 3.07 2.14 3.15 4.02 2.77 2.99 3.07 2.88 4.02 2.87 3.07

3.88 4.05 2.90 3.41 4.79 4.53 4.54 5.50 6.28 5.30 4.90 4.67 5.72 5.25 6.19 7.38 5.07 5.59 4.52 4.72 4.27 6.20 5.65 4.66 3.49 4.67 5.16 5.97 4.99 4.97 4.35 5.16 5.52 4.97

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

53.15 60.499 62.64 76.643 53.86 63.786 58.35 68.776 62.94 74.032 53.15 60.499 57.68 69.386 58.35 68.776

227

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

1986-88

Economic Infrastructure

E4

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

E5

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

6.51 7.09 8.07 7.48 8.09 9.32 7.99 7.98 8.88 7.76 7.42 7.26 7.39 7.40 8.28 17.21 8.41 8.36 7.84 6.46 7.43 7.82 6.82 8.14 7.31 8.23 7.47 9.72 7.49 8.14 7.99 7.47 8.64 8.14

5.86 6.16 8.22 7.07 7.76 9.33 7.82 7.68 8.11 7.45 7.01 6.44 6.63 6.24 6.62 16.31 7.05 7.85 6.77 5.83 6.67 6.86 6.28 7.57 6.95 7.93 6.88 8.73 6.71 7.57 7.66 6.88 7.78 7.57

5.58 6.03 8.48 7.33 7.76 9.02 7.84 7.74 8.04 7.10 6.91 6.30 6.32 5.60 7.35 16.87 6.29 7.20 5.90 5.55 6.07 6.57 5.91 7.44 6.98 7.94 6.64 8.69 6.19 7.44 7.68 6.64 7.54 7.44

1.123 1.441 1.281 0.648 1.392 0.951 1.485 1.417 1.390 1.371 1.648 1.345 1.607 2.149 0.973 0.774 0.498 1.064 0.833 0.913 0.856 0.534 1.159 1.162 1.278 1.178 1.506 1.060 0.826 1.162 1.205 1.506 0.946 1.162

0.948 1.232 1.005 0.528 1.137 0.784 1.242 1.196 1.170 1.349 1.147 1.319 1.110 0.845 1.332 0.699 0.397 0.638 0.912 0.428 0.745 0.677 0.666 0.935 1.050 0.975 1.241 0.792 0.664 0.935 0.995 1.241 0.732 0.935

0.870 1.158 0.871 0.493 1.054 0.687 1.158 1.080 1.053 1.178 1.010 1.154 0.940 0.741 0.970 0.597 0.338 0.555 0.766 0.374 0.650 0.585 0.587 0.821 0.946 0.891 1.077 0.663 0.575 0.821 0.906 1.077 0.622 0.821

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

228

Annexure V Development indicators ­ Social Infrastructure

S1= No. of Hospital Beds per lakh population Total No. of Beds = X 100000 Total Population S2= No. of Doctors (allopathic, ayurvedic and others) per lakh population Total No. of Doctors (Allopathic + Ayurveda + Unani + Homeopathi = Total Population S3 = No. of PHCs per lakh rural population No. of Hospitals = X 100000 Total Population S4= Literacy Rate = Literacy rate S5= Enrollment in High Schools per lakh population Total No. of Students enrolled in High schools = Total Population S6 = No. of Junior colleges per lakh population No. of Junior Colleges = X 100000 Total Population

X 100000

X 100000

229

Actual Indicators of Development Indicators ­ Social Infrastructure

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

1986-88

Social Infrastructure

S1 1996-98 32.80 23.45 78.41 41.85 24.78 43.72 48.78 27.56 55.08 51.10 36.10 35.64 61.86 28.00 42.14 206.54 34.91 36.81 40.69 29.77 53.69 31.86 27.50 48.86 49.66 40.31 46.71 72.04 38.72 48.86 42.82 46.71 56.47 48.86 S2 2006-08 39.01 30.28 46.11 35.87 23.58 32.89 36.46 27.94 48.68 46.22 27.15 29.26 46.27 30.51 36.24 112.00 37.63 44.14 39.51 30.49 36.04 30.92 31.20 39.47 39.88 33.85 38.00 51.38 35.69 39.47 35.48 38.00 44.20 39.47

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

S3

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

38.07 25.16 98.06 49.61 29.99 45.97 52.67 26.83 55.34 58.54 40.55 42.92 62.66 35.30 49.11 273.61 42.06 44.00 50.70 33.58 60.93 36.82 35.66 56.39 58.78 43.95 51.82 90.59 45.22 56.39 47.91 51.82 68.54 56.39

11.48 11.28 20.03 16.68 10.28 13.42 17.91 12.13 16.30 18.30 14.85 12.23 21.91 10.82 10.59 56.33 13.31 10.75 15.56 9.93 18.58 10.96 11.45 16.10 14.90 14.64 16.90 21.27 13.23 16.10 14.71 16.90 17.36 16.10

9.13 9.22 17.71 12.65 7.00 12.77 14.55 9.53 11.52 15.05 11.14 9.11 17.85 8.66 9.76 46.61 11.28 8.64 10.72 5.52 17.68 7.82 8.88 13.10 12.81 11.56 13.38 17.92 10.16 13.10 11.89 13.38 14.30 13.10

8.02 8.74 17.57 12.07 5.72 11.78 13.26 7.07 8.08 15.18 10.08 9.60 16.29 8.01 6.00 37.57 9.83 7.30 8.57 7.37 16.18 7.23 7.75 11.74 12.45 10.08 12.98 14.49 9.57 11.74 10.72 12.98 12.24 11.74

3.80 3.96 4.75 3.85 4.11 2.85 2.49 3.69 6.01 3.32 6.31 3.55 4.22 3.31 3.10 3.65 3.38 2.65 4.45 3.14 3.04 3.74 3.20 3.72 4.24 3.68 4.21 3.34 3.36 3.72 3.83 4.21 3.35 3.72

3.55 3.55 2.92 2.82 2.52 2.70 2.25 3.23 3.82 3.24 3.33 3.02 3.78 2.92 2.35 2.48 3.37 2.50 3.94 2.70 2.84 3.32 2.93 2.99 3.28 2.80 3.33 2.79 3.02 2.99 2.93 3.33 2.90 2.99

3.23 3.21 3.59 2.26 2.23 2.53 2.29 3.12 3.14 3.12 3.38 2.84 2.86 2.74 2.54 0.00 2.92 2.34 4.16 2.56 2.62 3.67 2.56 2.85 3.36 2.54 3.03 2.70 3.00 2.85 2.75 3.03 2.86 2.85

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

230

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3

District/Sub-Region/ Region

1986-88

Social Infrastructure

S4

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

S5

1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

S6

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

22.72 21.74 27.83 35.31 37.61 41.71 36.06 29.39 32.16 31.85 31.11 29.02 28.73 19.42 29.41 58.33 21.53 21.73 18.79 21.50 23.55 25.59 22.44 29.94 24.10 35.37 30.18 30.23 22.23 29.94 31.61 30.18 26.23 29.94

36.22 34.19 45.51 48.79 53.38 53.16 46.35 40.30 47.76 49.75 48.12 42.18 39.97 29.58 49.07 71.52 32.41 34.18 32.96 37.17 39.30 40.50 38.00 44.09 38.64 48.29 45.01 44.12 36.82 44.09 45.07 45.12 40.47 44.09

55.30 51.10 60.00 65.50 73.50 68.80 62.50 57.40 65.10 66.80 62.80 56.10 53.20 44.40 66.20 78.80 51.60 52.00 52.70 54.90 57.10 56.90 57.20 60.47 55.47 65.47 59.73 59.64 54.72 60.47 62.13 59.73 57.18 60.47

2107 3499 2160 3054 3325 3706 3788 2587 3383 3132 3722 2741 2883 2430 10233 7316 3167 3702 3152 2330 4266 3609 3213 3522 2524 3333 3085 4985 3385 3522 3117 3085 4208 3522

3780 3766 2596 4497 4041 4117 3972 3272 3923 3970 4835 3960 3978 4347 20004 13033 4915 5604 4926 6429 7595 4339 5253 5443 3272 4025 4137 9467 5924 5443 3823 4137 7811 5443

5668 5440 6015 5946 5500 5016 4620 4730 5503 6631 6584 6199 5503 5649 9415 8889 6215 6576 7047 7824 7593 6644 7671 6365 5762 5235 6211 7649 7212 6365 5378 6211 7449 6365

0.953 0.277 0.427 0.405 0.325 0.284 0.349 0.987 0.447 0.682 0.397 0.641 0.526 0.477 0.421 0.885 0.793 0.437 0.549 0.479 0.710 0.856 0.380 0.537 0.547 0.442 0.575 0.591 0.605 0.537 0.470 0.575 0.598 0.537

1.51 1.45 2.09 1.56 1.67 2.12 2.54 2.90 2.63 1.88 2.85 1.80 2.07 1.58 3.28 5.26 1.67 1.52 1.41 1.85 2.64 2.54 2.55 2.24 1.74 2.17 2.10 2.94 2.03 2.24 2.05 2.10 2.51 2.24

4.772 4.617 4.855 4.611 4.250 4.717 5.236 4.703 5.427 4.739 5.272 3.389 3.891 4.287 7.728 8.717 4.219 4.027 4.840 5.186 6.107 5.964 5.177 5.087 4.768 4.797 4.255 6.160 5.285 5.087 4.789 4.255 5.759 5.087

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

231

Annexure VI Development Indicators ­ Demography Sector

P1 = Sex ratio = Sex Ratio P2 = % of Urban Population Urban Population = Total Population

X 100

P3 = % of Non-Ag. Workers among total workers Main Workers ­ (Cultivators + Agricultural Labourers) = Main Workers + Marginal Workers

X 100

Actual Values of Development indicators ­ Demography Sector

Sl.No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1

District/Sub-Region/ Region

1986-88

Demography Sector

P1 1996-98 1012 1000 975 998 994 969 970 970 980 966 955 946 953 973 941 933 970 1017 980 986 962 961 962 973 996 P2 2006-08 1014 1009 985 993 991 978 984 971 984 982 974 958 965 972 944 933 974 1017 989 998 973 975 966 978 1000 232

1986-88 1996-98 2006-08 1986-88

P3

1996-98 2006-08

Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra

1023 1006 981 993 991 971 973 978 978 966 959 946 962 983 956 920 982 1013 980 994 964 957 969 975 1003

10.89 15.94 31.28 22.21 20.77 32.54 27.53 14.99 20.76 16.88 19.37 20.84 24.49 10.93 23.83 100.00 11.97 19.21 19.34 15.79 17.24 16.98 11.38 23.32 20.61

12.50 17.22 39.83 23.80 20.71 35.82 28.89 16.45 23.79 19.80 24.03 23.50 25.84 11.12 47.23 100.00 14.47 20.27 23.13 20.55 19.39 20.23 11.87 26.89 25.43

10.98 18.33 39.95 23.50 19.74 32.08 28.80 15.28 22.45 21.65 22.59 25.26 23.16 10.57 54.20 100.00 14.36 18.11 26.53 19.44 19.20 19.81 13.32

21.69 22.79 33.99 33.27 27.38 33.18 27.23 23.05 26.74 22.42 27.22 22.38 25.50 18.81 34.71 98.55 20.57 31.20 25.34 28.54 24.72 23.50 21.99 28.14 26.68

23.38 24.79 37.22 33.18 28.50 34.46 26.82 21.53 29.17 25.55 27.59 24.31 24.93 17.72 44.95 98.10 22.54 33.71 29.30 32.20 24.17 23.06 23.21 29.80 29.23

31.46 31.59 46.63 37.90 30.84 40.99 33.19 31.61 37.67 33.94 36.68 32.48 31.84 26.82 59.52 98.34 32.30 43.03 39.04 41.34 31.93 27.90 32.42 37.84 37.61

27.30 25.78

2 3 4 5 1 2 3

South Coastal Andhra

981 958 962 982 975 988 958 972 975

980 955 956 981 973 985 955 969 973

984 969 956 990 978 988 969 971 978

23.70 20.33 32.59 17.52 23.32 22.88 20.33 25.27 23.32

25.43 23.16 38.57 20.62 26.89 25.43 23.16 30.18 26.89

24.25 23.20 41.31 20.48 27.30 24.67 23.20 31.80 27.30

28.76 24.14 33.22 26.78 28.14 28.19 24.14 29.97 28.14

29.13 25.43 36.39 28.55 29.80 29.16 25.43 32.50 29.80

35.36 33.47 46.51 36.62 37.84 35.98 33.47 41.73 37.84

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

233

Annexure -VII

Important Indicators - The status of Districts

Indicator Population Density Sex Ratio Female Literacy Dalits (%) Tribal Population (%) Cultivators (%) Industrial Workers (%)

Adilabad Nizamabad Karim Warangal Khammam Nalgonda M.Nagar Ranga Medak Srikakulam Vijaya Visakha East West Krishna nagaram patnam Godavari Godavari nagar reddi Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor

Cuddapah

Kurnool Anantapur State

195 988 40.3 18.4 16.8 30.8 6.2

293 295 253 1070 39.5 14.8 7.1 998 42.8 18.6 2.6

190 227 191 473 275 944 56.5 14.6 4.1

433 344

343 985 50.1 7.6 14.6 27.1 26.3 8.4 2.3 34.7 17.4 29.9 15.9 1202 31.1 49.9

453

491

481

394 174 204

246 201 200

190 277 958 43.4 14.1 3.5 978 50.4 16.2 6.6

962 972 966 970 45.0 47.4 44.7 31.9 17.0 16.6 17.7 17.1 14.0 26.5 10.6 7.9

974 1014 1009 38.7 43.7 39.9 17.6 91 10.6 5.0 6.0 9.6

993 991 978 984 971 984 982 974 965 60.9 69.0 63.2 53.7 45.1 56.4 55.8 49.5 40.0 8.0 19.2 17.9 17.0 21.3 22.0 16.0 15.7 17.8 3.9 2.5 2.6 6.0 3.9 9.1 2.8 2.4 2.011.3 12.5 11.4 17.8 24.6 17.6 30.1 24.3 22.2 50.8 47.6 49.0 43.8 44.7 35.7 35.9 39.0 46.0 3.9 2.2 2.1 3.5 3.0 2.8 5.6 0.8 2.4 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.5 3.4 2.8 2.5 3.4 5.1 43.3 35.1 32.2 34.0 31.6 36.4 30.2 28.0 35.6 10.9 6.9 8.2 11.1 7.7 6.6 10.4 10.5 10.4

27.3 25.3 29.4 22.9 25.5 30.0 19.6 30.2 22.2 28.3 29.7 33.4 39.0 49.2 42.1 42.8 20.8 37.5 46.4 40.2 2.6 3.3 1.5 9.7 5.0 1.1 8.8 6.7 2.4 6.6 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.6 3.7 4.1 3.8 2.9 1.8 2.1 34.7 29.7 29.7 39.1 35.0 32.0 33.2 33.3 32.5 34.5 7.2 8.1 9.9 7.8 10.4 10.1 4.9 7.5 10.0 9.7

29.8 22.6 37.8 39.6 1.2 4.2 4.9 3.1 36.5 33.3 7.7 10.2 10.5 39.6 2.2 19.3 552 940 21.9 65.4 10.3 22.7

Agricultural Workers (%) 30.6 Average Land Holding 3.9 (in Acres) Teacher ­ Student 33.3 Ratio 12.2 Doctors per Lakh Population 60.0 Irrigation Facility Surface Irrigation Facility Rainfall (mm) Fertilisers use Forests (%)

7.7 1158 33.6 42.6

55.4 52.0 60.4 49.0 45.5 18.4 19.8 7.6 59.4 39.5 3.9 2.2 5.6 22.1 15.2 1.6 1.3 0.8 54.6 34.2 1036 969 994 11.24 751 664 781 874 1162 1132 97.0 75.1 63.6 65.4 99.0 28.1 16.6 33.5 41.0 30.8 21.0 21.0 30.9 47.0 5.9 14.4 7.6 8.6 12.1 17.8

43.8 75.42 69.15 61.7 11.7 69.7 39.0 36.3 23.9 36.7 66.1 52.1 45.3 4.3 39.8 6.1 3.1 15.8 1218 1153 1033 853 871 1081 935 700 670 89.3 133 103.5 88.8 58.6 50.9 146.9 48.4 61.7 7.9 14.3 25.8 18.7 30.1 38.9 18.1 28.9 10.4

* Hyderabad District not compared

234

Annexure - VIII

Classification of Districts based on Main Resources i. Rainfall (State Average: 940 mm) 552-1218 mm

1 550-700 2 701-850 3 851-1000

Karimnagar Warangal Medak Krishna Guntur Prakasam Chittor Nellore

4 >1000

Adilabad Nizamabad Khammam Srikakulam Vijayanagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari

Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Cuddapah Rangareddi Kurnool Hyderabad Anantapuram

ii. Irrigation Facility (State Average: 31.9%)

10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% >50%

Adilabad Nalgonda Nizamabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam VisakhapatnamVijayanagaram Chittor Srikakulam Mahabubnagar Guntur East Godavari Rangareddi Cuddapah West Godavari Medak Krishna Prakasam Nellore Kurnool Anantapuram

iii. Population Density (No/Area in Sq.kms) (State Average: 277)

150-250

Adilabad Khammam Nalgonda Mahabubnagar Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah Kurnool Anantapuram

251-350

Nizamabad Karimnagar Warangal Medak Vijayanagaram Visakhapatnam

351-450

Srikakulam Guntur

>450

Rangareddi Hyderabad East Godavari West Godavari Krishna

235

iv. Literacy (%) (State Average: 60.50 %)

40-50 51-60 61-70

Rangareddi East Godavari Krishna Guntur Nellore Chittor Cuddapah

>70

Hyderabad West Godavari

Mahabubnagar Adilabad Medak Nizamabad Vijayanagaram Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Srikakulam Visakhapatnam Prakasam Kurnool Anantapuram

v. Agricultural workers (%) (State Average: 39.6

20-30

Adilabad Nizamabad Rangareddi Visakhapatnam

31-40

Karimnagar Warangal Medak Vijayanagaram Chittor Cuddapah Anantapuram

41-50

>50

Khammam West Godavari Nalgonda Mahabubnagar Srikakulam East Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Kurnool

vi. Dalit Population (%) (State Average: 16.2%)

5-10 11-15

Hyderabad Nizamabad Srikakulam Rangareddi Vijayanagaram Anantapuram

16-20

>20

Prakasam Nellore

Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Nalgonda Mahabubnagar Medak East Godavari West Godvari Krishna

236

Guntur Chittor Cuddapah Kurnool

vii. Tribal Population (%) State Average: 6.63

>3.0

Karimnagar Hyderabad West Godavari Krishna Chittor Cuddapah Kurnool Anantapur

4-7

Nizamabad Rangareddi Medak Srikakulam East Godavari Guntur Prakasam

8-11

Nalgonda Mahabubnagar Vijayanagaram Nellore

>12

Adilabad Warangal Khammam Visakhapatnam

viii. Male: Female Ratio (State Average: 978)

940-955

Rangareddi Hyderabad

956-970

Warangal Nalgonda Mahabubnagar Kurnool Anantapur

971-985

Khammam Medak Visakhapatnam Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Cuddapah

>985

Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Srikakulam Vijayanagaram East Godavari West Godavari

ix. Cultivators (%) (State Average: 22.6%)

11-15

East Godavari West Godavari

16-20

Rangareddi Guntur Nellore

21-25

Karimnagar Khammam Nalgonda Srikakulam Prakasam Cuddapah Kurnool

237

>25

Adilabad Nizamabad Warangal Mahabubnagar Medak Vijayanagaram Chittor Anantapuram

x. Area of Average Land holding (in Acres) State Average: 3.1 Acres

1.0-2.0 2.1-3.0 3.1-4.0

Adilabad Khammam Nalgonda Rangareddi Prakasam Cuddapah

>4.1-5.0

Mahabubnagar Kurnool Anantapuram

Srikakulam Nizamabad Vijayanagaram Karimnagar East Godavari Warangal Medak Visakhapatnam West Godavari Krishna Guntur Nellore Chittor

238

Annexure IX No. of Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise

1956-57

Per Lakh Population

No. of Primary Schools Per Lakh Population 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Per Lakh Population Per Lakh Population Per Lakh Population Per Lakh Population Per Lakh Population

2007

Per Lakh Population

Primary Schools

Primary Schools

Primary Schools

Primary Schools

Primary Schools

Primary Schools

District

Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra 2295 0 1704 2323 1856 2032 2962 0 1921 1756 1524 1283 1650 1166 0 880 1033 829 642 597 1004 968 565 28990 108 0 82 96 109 114 116 0 107 97 131 86 102 81 0 70 57 74 77 72 70 73 81 93 1612 0 1595 2327 2169 2223 3194 0 2343 2182 1865 1292 1345 1414 0 1167 1285 1042 730 819 1162 1162 977 31905 69 0 70 89 110 107 106 0 115 114 139 73 70 89 0 74 62 85 71 81 72 75 92 89 2914 0 2175 2391 2073 2115 3069 0 2743 2358 2029 2165 2072 1558 0 1319 1120 1205 806 1076 1212 1195 1062 36657 113 0 75 77 87 85 104 0 170 103 129 102 105 81 0 72 40 82 61 84 62 64 78 84 2159 1675 1790 2460 2190 2231 2469 2308 2234 2919 2174 2353 1713 1674 392 1614 9203 1307 771 1312 1348 1398 1200 48894 110 93 69 66 76 127 72 99 111 107 112 92 71 68 25 71 407 72 46 80 55 61 68 94 2,527 2,135 2,540 2,918 2,357 2,347 2,673 2,509 2,778 3,996 2,625 2,804 1,843 1928 1171 1770 405 1400 903 2555 1499 1801 1641 49125 109 101 77 64 67 106 65 91 116 123 116 88 62 63 46 62 13 62 44 123 49 64 74 76 3041 2364 3,024 3,281 2,436 2,367 2,888 3,036 3,067 4,490 2,972 3,159 1,858 2,277 1,438 2,201 318 1,535 1,241 2,884 1,686 2,142 2,196 55901 120 105 80 67 64 56 66 99 115 120 116 87 53 65 41 68 9 58 53 116 48 66 86 74 2577 2390 3183 3246 2591 2533 2913 2981 2879 4400 3156 3067 1990 2865 2463 2857 1439 2123 1722 3193 2585 2819 2493 62465 102 106 84 67 68 60 66 98 108 118 123 84 57 82 70 88 39 80 73 129 74 87 97 82

Sub Regions

1 2 3 4 5

3999 11094 6213 3908 3776 28990 95 108 102 69 74 93 3207 12256 6684 4908 4850 31905 69 105 96 76 78 89 5089 12391 8624 5202 5351 36657 93 86 108 65 69 84 5624 13892 9159 14190 6029 48894 89 86 95 137 61 94 7202 15582 11268 6674 8399 49125 93 80 96 48 69 76 8429 17075 12479 7769 10149 55901 98 74 93 47 72 74 8150 17143 12613 11747 12812 62465 95 75 94 71 91 82

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 1957-2001, Directorate of economics and Statics, Hyderabad

239

Primary Schools

Sl. No

No. of Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh No. of Primary Schools per Lakh Population 1957 2007

108 93* 82 96 109 114 116 99* 107 97 131 86 102 81 25* 70 57 74 77 72 70 73 81 93 * Data for the year 1981 102 106 84 67 68 60 66 98 108 118 123 84 57 82 70 88 39 80 73 129 74 87 97 82

Annual Average Growth Rate -0.11 0.54 0.05 -0.60 -0.75 -0.95 -0.86 -0.04 0.02 0.43 -0.12 -0.05 -0.88 0.02 6.92 0.51 -0.63 0.16 -0.10 1.58 0.11 0.38 0.40 -0.24

240

Annexure X No. of Upper Primary Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise

1956-7

Upper Primary Schools

1961

Upper Primary Schools

1971

Upper Primary Schools

1981

Upper Primary Schools

1995

Upper Primary Schools

2001

Upper Primary Schools

2007

Upper Primary Schools

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Per Lakh Population

Sl. No

District

Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

9 0 6 14 11 8 20 0 9 7 4 11 5 20 8 68 10 10 10 17 19 7

273

0.42 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.65 0.45 0.78 0.00 0.50 0.39 0.34 0.74 0.31 1.39 0.00 0.64 3.74 0.89 1.20 1.20 1.19 1.43 1.00

0.87

8 22 37 43 23 62 34 43 16 20 34 78 63 159 66 38 33 56 60 41

936

0.34 0.00 0.96 1.42 2.17 1.11 2.06 0.00 1.67 2.25 1.19 1.13 1.78 4.90 0.00 4.00 7.71 5.37 3.72 3.27 3.45 3.88 3.88

2.60

152 0 126 171 140 257 232 0 166 151 111 86 100 155 0 142 266 106 85 57 166 144 106

2919

5.87 0.00 4.34 5.54 5.90 10.31 7.88 0.00 10.31 6.61 7.04 4.07 5.05 8.02 0.00 7.80 9.53 7.22 6.47 4.43 8.45 7.70 7.74

6.68

131 110 107 275 227 344 269 166 208 234 174 146 141 265 183 249 236 152 175 127 291 223 188

4621

6.69 6.09 4.15 7.43 7.90 19.63 7.83 7.12 10.32 8.55 9.00 5.73 5.86 10.84 11.57 10.92 10.44 8.41 10.42 7.75 11.95 9.70 10.73

8.84

192 157 211 362 236 381 270 269 261 398 281 235 246 450 415 375 422 279 272 316 513 480 277

7298

8.27 7.44 6.42 7.97 6.71 17.19 6.57 9.75 10.91 12.20 12.39 7.38 8.27 14.62 16.26 13.15 13.41 12.29 13.35 15.18 16.89 17.03 12.50

11.22

791 389 466 679 434 660 410 481 521 970 526 614 611 830 784 644 513 623 612 624 917 778 595

14472

31.29 17.33 12.30 13.93 11.43 15.65 9.31 15.74 19.59 25.97 20.44 16.87 17.40 23.67 22.36 19.89 13.92 23.40 26.12 25.17 26.37 24.08 23.20

19.11

953 522 734 914 607 886 593 567 759 996 642 1029 991 1015 880 593 468 728 649 821 1021 801 788

17957

Sub Regions

1 2 3 4 5

15 62 27 106 63 273 0.36 0.61 0.44 1.88 1.23 0.87 30 199 113 366 228 936 0.65 1.70 1.63 5.67 3.64 2.60 278 966 448 669 558 2919 5.06 6.70 5.63 8.35 7.15 6.68 348 1489 695 1085 1004 4621 5.49 9.24 7.22 10.46 10.24 8.84 560 1779 1160 1941 1858 7298 7.26 9.11 9.93 13.97 15.24 11.22 1646 3185 2721 3394 3526 14472 19.22 13.84 20.22 20.45 25.02 2209 4326 3658 3684 4080 25.80 18.80 27.18 22.19 28.95 23.71

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

19.11 17957

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 1957-2001, Directorate of economics and Statics, Hyderabad

241

Per Lakh Population 37.70 23.25 19.37 18.76 15.99 21.01 13.46 18.56 28.53 26.67 24.95 28.28 28.22 28.94 25.09 18.31 12.70 27.35 27.70 33.12 29.36 24.79 30.72

23.71

No.of Upper Primary Schools per Lakh population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh No. of Upper Primary Schools per Lakh Population 1957 2007

0.42 6.09* 0.29 0.58 0.65 0.45 0.78 7.12* 0.5 0.39 0.34 0.74 0.31 1.39 11.57* 0.64 3.74 0.89 1.2 1.2 1.19 1.43 1

0.87

37.7 23.3 19.4 18.8 16 21 13.5 18.6 28.5 26.7 25 28.3 28.2 28.9 25.1 18.3 12.7 27.4 27.7 33.1 29.4 24.8 30.7

23.7

Annual Average Growth Rate 177.52 10.84 131.59 62.69 47.20 91.38 32.51 6.18 112.12 134.77 144.76 74.43 180.06 39.64 4.49 55.22 4.79 59.46 44.17 53.20 47.34 32.67 59.44 52.51

* Data for the year 1981

242

Annexure XI No. of High Schools per Lakh Population ­ District wise

1956-7

Per Lakh Population

1961

Per Lakh Population

1971

Per Lakh Population

1981

Per Lakh Population

1991

Per Lakh Population

2001

Per Lakh Population

2007

Per Lakh Population

18.51 17.28 15.59 17.18 15.44 15.17 13.23 18.04 19.51 23.24 26.35 17.56 16.40 23.27 35.02 30.54 29.76 26.30 28.64 28.76 33.16 32.16 23.66 22.37 16.90 16.15 20.51 29.10 29.68 22.37

High Schools

High Schools

High Schools

High Schools

High Schools

District

Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

45 0 35 66 63 95 127 0 49 36 31 36 44 7 0 4 67 4 3 3 4 10 3 732 2.12 0.00 1.69 2.73 3.71 5.34 4.98 0.00 2.73 1.99 2.67 2.43 2.72 0.49 0.00 0.32 3.69 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.75 0.43 2.34 42 0 41 81 80 108 143 0 61 55 43 42 50 40 0 31 135 31 27 16 33 37 46 1142 1.79 0.00 1.79 3.11 4.04 5.20 4.75 0.00 3.00 2.87 3.20 2.38 2.62 2.51 0.00 1.97 6.54 2.52 2.64 1.58 2.03 2.39 4.35 3.17 160 0 106 164 163 183 239 0 170 146 95 137 165 150 0 142 275 122 81 65 120 127 115 2925 6.18 0.00 3.65 5.31 6.87 7.34 8.12 0.00 10.56 6.39 6.02 6.48 8.32 7.76 0.00 7.80 9.85 8.31 6.17 5.05 6.11 6.79 8.39 6.69 119 119 124 205 240 225 224 156 136 173 149 170 170 196 126 189 226 147 115 90 160 189 147 3795 6.07 6.59 4.81 5.54 8.35 12.84 6.52 6.70 6.75 6.32 7.71 6.67 7.06 8.02 7.96 8.29 10.00 8.14 6.85 5.49 6.57 8.22 8.39 7.26 204 187 262 401 315 344 369 291 309 376 335 293 282 379 411 436 506 252 271 238 460 482 264 7667 8.79 8.86 7.98 8.83 8.95 15.52 8.98 10.55 12.92 11.53 14.77 9.20 9.49 12.32 16.11 15.29 16.08 11.10 13.30 11.43 15.15 17.10 11.91 11.79 313 272 409 566 421 443 450 401 385 551 464 436 434 545 808 624 734 390 451 418 817 734 398 11464 12.38 12.12 10.79 11.62 11.09 10.50 10.21 13.13 14.47 14.75 18.03 11.98 12.36 15.54 23.04 19.27 19.91 14.65 19.25 16.86 23.50 22.72 15.52 15.14 468 388 591 837 586 640 583 551 519 868 678 639 576 816 1228 989 1097 700 671 713 1153 1039 607 16937

Sub Regions

1 2 3 4 5

80 400 147 82 23 732 1.91 3.91 2.42 1.46 0.45 2.34 83 473 190 237 159 1142 1.79 4.04 2.74 3.67 2.54 3.17 266 919 543 689 508 2925 4.84 6.37 6.82 8.60 6.51 6.69 362 1186 662 884 701 3795 5.71 7.36 6.88 8.52 7.15 7.26 653 2029 1286 1984 1715 7667 8.46 10.39 11.00 14.28 14.07 11.79 994 2666 1885 3101 2818 11464 11.61 11.59 14.01 18.68 19.99 15.14 1447 3716 2761 4830 4183 16937

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 1957-2001, Directorate of economics and Statics, Hyderabad

243

High Schools

High Schools

Sl. No

No. of High Schools Per Lakh Population ­ Annual Average Growth Rate

Sl. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 District Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Nalgonda Hyderabad Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Andhra Pradesh No. of High Schools per Lakh Population 1957 2007

2.12 18.5 17.3 15.6 17.2 15.4 15.2 13.2 18 19.5 23.2 26.4 17.6 16.4 23.3 35 30.5 29.8 26.3 28.6 28.8 33.2 32.2 23.7 22.4

6.59*

1.69 2.73 3.71 5.34 4.98

6.70*

2.73 1.99 2.67 2.43 2.72 0.49

7.96*

0.32 3.69 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.75 0.43 2.34

Annual Average Growth Rate 15.46 6.24 16.45 10.59 6.32 3.68 3.31 6.51 12.29 21.36 17.74 12.45 10.06 92.98 13.07 188.88 14.13 144.11 157.11 157.78 234.86 83.76 108.05 17.12

* Data for the year 1981

244

Study on the Development of

Andhra Pradesh

(2007-2009)

Volume 1

Regional, Sub-regional and District level disparities in development

Volume 2

Disparities among Socio-economic Groups

Sodhana Sundarayya Vignana Kendram Baghlingampalli Hyderabad ­ 500 044

Volume 2

Disparities among Socio-economic Groups

ii

Contents

List of tables .............................. List of graphs and figures ........ A word about the study .......... Introduction ............................. Methodology ........................... Chapter 1: Disparities among Economic Groups 1. Distribution of land among various economic groups 2. Land: Regional Disparities 3. Land: concentration in the hands of top 5% households 4. Agriculture dependant economic groups and amenities 5. Literacy and education in relation to economic groups Chapter II: Disparities among Social groups 1. Distribution of land among various social groups 2. Castewise distribution of land 3. Accessibility of amenities to different social groups 4. Literacy & education in relation to social groups 5. Other issues like sex ratio, school enrollment Chapter III: Sources of Income for Social & economic groups 1. Net income in tenant and self cultivation and rent rates 2. Economic groups and sources of income 3. Incomes from cultivation and wage work for four economic groups region wise 4. Sources of income for various social groups 5. Incomes from cultivation and wage work for Social groups region wise 6. Credit: Economic and Social Groups (i) Credit: Economic groups (ii) Credit Social Groups (iii) Credit: region wise

iii

Chapter IV: Reasons for rural poverty: Shrinking Incomes and rising expenditures 1. per capita daily income 2. Rural households ­ expenditure on education and health 3. Causes of Rural poverty (i) Agricultural workers: a. Exploitation b. working days & wage rates c. Gender discrimination in wage rates (ii) Tenants (iii) Marginal farmers (iv) Commission agents (v) Small farmers Chapter V: Guidelines to reduce the social and economic inequalities among rural people (1) importance of cultivable land (2) To improve the income levels of the poor ..... (3) Suggestions for raising the living standards of the landless poor (i) Long term measures Agricultural workers, tenants and marginal farmers (ii) Immediate steps (a) Agricultural workers (b) Tenants (c) Marginal Farmers (d) Tribals (e) Small,Middle and Rich farmers Bibliography

iv

List of Annexures

Annexure 1: List of Villages surveyed Annexure 2: Distribution of land among Economic Groups Annexure 3: Land Concentration in the districts Annexure 4: Amenities ­ Economic Groups (Agricultural dependent households only) Annexure 5: Percentage of literates ­ Economic Groups Annexure 6: Intermediate and Above ­ Economic Groups Annexure 7: land distribution among different Social Groups Annexure 8: Caste wise Distribution of Land Annexure 9: 90% of the agricultural workers are from S.C., S.T. and B.C. Annexure 10: Amenities Social groups Annexure 11: Adult Literacy Social Groups Annexure 12: Higher Education in Social Groups Annexure 13: Sources of income Economic Groups Annexure 14: Source of income ­ Social groups Annexure 15: Sources of credit ­ Economic Groups Annexure 16: Sources of credit ­ Social groups Annexure 17: Per capita daily income of Social groups Annexure 18: Per capita Income Economic Groups Annexure 19: Expenditure on Education and Health Annexure 20: Expenditure on Education and Health ­ Social Groups Annexure 21: No. of Working Days and Wage Rates Annexure 22: Rent, Expenditure and Income Tenant cultivation (Irrigated Land) Annexure 23: Expenditure and Income Own Cultivation (Irrigated Land) Annexure 24: Rent, Expenditure and Income Tenant cultivation (Dry Land) Annexure 25: Expenditure and Income Own Cultivation (DryLand) Annexure 26: Survey Questionnaires ­ 1, 2, 3

v

List of Tables

1. Number and percentage of households economic groups 2. Distribution of land among various economic groups that are related to agriculture 3. Average land per household among economic groups ­ Region wise 4. LandEconomic groups of South Coastal Andhra 5. Land ­ Economic Groups of West Godavari 6. Land concentration among top 5% households 7. Landless households ­ Region wise 8. Land concentration in South Coastal Andhra 9. Economic Groups ­ Accessibility to Amenities 10. Literacy levels among various economic groups 11. Plustwo level of education among economic groups 12. Distribution of land among various social groups (State level) 13. Distribution of Land: Social groups (region wise) 14. Distribution of land: Social Groups (South Coastal Andhra) 15. Castewise distribution of land (State) 16. Castewise distribution of land (Coastal Andhra) 17. Percentage of Social groups in economic groups 18. Most of the agricultural workers are from S.C., S.T., and B.C. 19. Social groups: Accessibility to amenities 20. Adult Literacy and social groups (state level) 21. Plustwo education among different social groups 22. Sex ratio among juvenilesections (regions) 23. Enrollment in Primary schools ­ Social groups 24. Rent rate and net income in irrigated lands of tenants and selfcultivating farmers 25. Rent rate and net incomes of tenants and self cultivators in dry lands 26. Sources of income ­ Economic groups 27. Major Sources of Income for Agriculture dependent households 28. Percentages of income from cultivation and wage work: region wise 29. Sources of income ­ Social groups 30. Income from cultivation and wage work ­ Region wise 31. Institutional and private credit 32. Credit availability ­ Social Groups (State level) 33. Credit Availability ­ Region wise 34. Per Capita income ­ Social Groups (State level) 35. Per Capita income ­ Social Groups (Regional level) 36. Per Capita income ­ Economic Groups (State level) 37. Per Capita income ­ Economic Groups (Regional level) 38. Expenditure on education and health ­ Economic Groups 39. Percentage of expenditure of economic groups on education and health ­ Region wise 40. Expenditure on education and health ­ Social groups 41. Percentage of exploitation ­ crop wise (State level) 42. Percentage of exploitation ­ Regional level 43. No. of working days and wage rates (State level) 44. No. of working days and wage rates (Region wise) vi

45. Rent, expenditure and income, irrigated land ­ Tenant cultivation 46. Expenditure and income, irrigated land ­ own cultivation 47. Rent, expenditure and income ­ Tenant cultivation (Dry land) 48. Expenditure and income ­ own cultivation (Dry land)

List of Graphs and Figures

1. Andhra Pradesh 2. Land per Household ­ Economic Groups (State level) 3. Average land per household Region wise 4. Average land per household in South Coastal Andhra 5. Average land per household West Godavari district 6. % of land owned by top 5% of the households 7. % of Landless households ­ Region wise 8. % of land owned by top 5% households South Coastal Andhra 9. % of Landless Households South Coastal Andhra 10. % of households having gas stove 11. % of households having telephone 12. % of households having motor cycle 13. % of literates among adults 14. Persons studied inter and above (%) 15. Average land per household in acres ­ Social groups (State) 16. Average land per household in acres ­ Social groups (Region wise) 17. Average land per household in acres ­ Social groups (South Coastal Andhra) 18. Caste wise land distribution (State) 19. % of landless households Caste wise (State) 20. Caste wise distribution of land Coastal Andhra 21. % of Landless households in Coastal Andhra (Caste wise) 22. % of households having gas stove (Social Groups) 23. % of households having telephone (Social groups) 24. % of households having motor cycle (social groups) 25. % of adult literates (social groups) 26. Persons studied inter and above (%)(social groups) 27. Per centage of Children enrolled among School Age children govt. Primary Schools 28. Net income in self cultivation ­ Irrigated and dry 29. Major sources of income ­ Economic groups 30. Income from wage (%) ­ Economic groups (Region wise) 31. Sources of income ­ social groups 32. % share of wage component in total income (social groups) 33. % of institutional credit in total credit ­ Economic groups 34. % of institutional credit in total credit Social groups 35. % of institutional credit in total credit ­ Region wise 36. Per Capita daily income (Social groups) 37. Per Capita daily income of social groups (Region wise) 38. Per Capita daily income ­ Economic groups (State level) 39. Regional variation in per capita income across Economic groups 40. Percentage of exploitation: crop wise (State level) 41. Percentage of exploitation (SubRegion wise) vii

42. No. of working days available per annum (Region wise) 43. Wage rates (Region wise) 44. Male & Female Wage rates (Region wise) 45. Working days and wage rates ­ subregion wise 46. Rate of rent and net income in selfcultivation are almost equal in irrigated land 47. Regional variation in rates of rent for irrigated land 48. Income and expenditure per acre in tenant cultivation (irrigated land) 49. Rate of rent and net income in selfcultivation are almost equal in dry land 50. Regional variation in rates of rent for dry land 51. Income and expenditure per acre in tenant cultivation (Dry land)

viii

A word about the Study

Andhra Pradesh, that took shape in the present form, fifty five years back, is the fourth largest in area and fifth largest in population in the country. Impressive growth rates were projected in major sectors during the past 3-4 decades in the state. Around 59 lakh tonnes was the level of food grain production during 1960 in the state. Its level was projected as, 203 lakh tonnes by 2008, while in egg, meat, milk, vegetable and fruit productions, about 3-6 times more was reported. In many of the crop production parameters, the state is in the forefront. In industrial sector the output reached 22.7 per cent of GSDP from 14.7 per cent while in service sector, it was projected as 50.7 percent from 32.7 percent, two decades back. Within two and half decades, the construction sector reached 6.9 per cent growth from 2.1 per cent. In terms of investments, the state is in 6th position. In the beginning the state had only 3,754 industrial units, while their present number is 16,312. Around 11.5 lakh labourers have become part of this sector as per the official records. The state is now specially quoted for coal, lime stone, selective minerals and natural gas. Industries like BHEL, BHVP, ECIL, Hindustan Petrolium, shipyards. Cargo air ports, Visakha steels and few others that are now getting shaped are worth mentioning in the state. It is home for several institutes meant for research and development in Science and Technology. Its unique achievements in IT sector and expansion in BT fields are frequently commended upon. However, the poor are getting poorer. The rural poverty is growing and the poorer sections are leading a miserable life. The suicides of farmers, handloom weavers, selling of body parts by commercial crop producers, mass migration of wage workers in large numbers during the past one and half decades are a testimony to the growing crisis in the countryside. More than 96 percent of wage workers are in unorganized sector. Naturally the entire rural economy has entered into a pathetic-phase. So, one can witness two distinct worlds; shining Andhra Pradesh and suffering Andhra Pradesh. In order to understand the disparities prevailing in the state and to suggest ways to bridge the gaps, studies were undertaken during 2007-09. Through the first part of that study, the disparities between regions, sub-regions, districts as well as revenue mandals could be assessed. In addition, guidelines were given to reduce the disparities. However, that analysis could not project the disparities existing among different social and economic groups in the state. Hence, an attempt was made to understand the disparities among various rural sections by undertaking systematic surveys of all the 22 rural districts of the state during 2008-09. The organization that is responsible for the significant inferences also ix

owns the lapses and gaps in this attempt. The study was financially supported by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Kolkata, for which the investigators express their appreciation and gratitude.

August 2010

Sodhana Sundarayya Vignana Kendram Hyderabad-500 044

x

Introduction

The toiling masses have participated and made utmost sacrifices during freedom struggle with the hope of getting land to the tiller, getting liberated from feudal servitude, age old social oppression and exploitation and protecting traditional occupations from collapsing. But, none of their aspirations have come true. They continue to suffer discrimination and oppression. Though it gave some relief to the tenants in Telangana, the tenancy act was used only to drive out tenants from lands in Andhra and Rayalaseema regions. Using loop holes in the ceiling laws, the landlords converted most of their surplus lands into benami lands. Thus, the land ceiling acts gave very little land to the landless poor. But, the feudal landlords were transformed in to capitalist land lords. On the other hand, the number of marginal farmers who were 16.38lakhs only in the beginning went up to 70.23 lakhs. The number of small farmers also went up. The number went up from 7.75 lakhs to 21.83lakhs. The two groups put together now reached 92 lakhs. Most of them own very little land like 1 acre and 2 acres. Because they can not live on this meager land, they employ themselves as agricultural workers also. Whatever laws were enacted to protect the traditional occupations from collapsing, were rendered useless. Once, there used to be 3 to 4 lakh handloom weavers households. But, not able to face competition from textile mills and power looms, a major section of them became agricultural workers. Some of them went to towns in search of work. Thus, most of the traditional occupations were destroyed. The less, we talk about social justice, the better. The shameful attacks that were organized against SCs in Karamchedu, Tsundur, Kanchikacherla, Neerukonda are a testimony to the kind of social justice practiced in rural A.P. Why, it all happened so?. They aspired for something. But, what happened is different, why? Every time the ruling classes faced a crisis in agriculture, they tried to over come it by resorting to methods such as extending cultivation, increasing irrigation facility, going for new technologies and adopting green revolution techniques etc. But, they did not dare to think of radical land reforms, distribution of land to the agricultural workers and poor peasants and thus inspire productive forces to increase production. That is why, the number of agricultural workers and poor peasants increased several

1

fold. Crises ridden agriculture is forcing the peasantry to commit suicides. They are resorting to the sale of vital organs of the body like kidneys in order to safe guard their self respect. In the current year, the number of billionaires in our country have doubled, their number rose to 48 from 24. Among the top 10 wealthiest people in the world, four are from our country. Not only that, the central govt. is boasting that it is aiming at achieving 9% to 10% growth rate in the country. For that, they are asking people to prepare for sacrifices. Who should get ready for such sacrifices? Is it the billionaires and multibillionaires? Or, the people, who are unable to earn enough to get minimum food (2400cal). If Rs 33.33 is taken as poverty line which is arrived at according to the method adopted by Prof. Utsa Patnaik, 87.76% of the rural households will fall below the poverty line according to our survey results. So, on one side, we see shinning India. But, on the other side, there is other India which is getting darker everyday. If wealth is getting concentrated on one side, poverty is piling up on the other.

Under these circumstances Sundarayya vignana kendram has taken up the task of assessing the disparities existing between different socio-economic groups in the state by undertaking rural socio-economic survey. What for this study? In the wake of separatist movements that are going on in the state, Sundarayya Vignana Kendram has taken up the study of regional imbalances in the state. But disparities are there, not only between regions, but also between different groups of people. So, along with the study of regional imbalances in the state, we have to study the imbalances across different groups of people and the causes behind. Added to that, thousands of farmers are committing suicide. Such suicides were not there in the past. Why are they taking place now? What are the social and economic causes behind them? Such issues are to be examined. Migration is a growing phenomenon among the poor in rural areas? They are migrating to neighboring districts, neighboring regions, other states and beyond the borders of the country also. Why? No doubt, this is a big problem and

2

the study of which is beyond the scope of Vignana Kendram. However, keeping its importance in view, SVK has decided to take up the study in a modest way. Studies, So far undertaken In 1974, the then General Secretary of the communist party of India (Marxist) Sri P.Sundarayya had undertaken socio- economic study in Ananthavaram and Kaza villages in Guntur district. (The way in which he classified the rural poor is inspiring) Ranga Reddy, A. (2001) of S.V. University has resurveyed the villages where P.Sundarayya has conducted studies in 1974. Prof K.Chakradhara Rao of Osmania University conducted a special study on different social groups in Nalgonda district. "Socio-economic disparities between regions and mandals in chittor district" ­ a study undertaken by Prof N. Jayasimhulu Naidu from S.V University, Tirupati. A book titled, "Rural transformation" edited by Prof G.N.Rao and Prof D.NarasimhaReddy. Prof. V.K.Ramachandran, Foundation for Agrarian Studies, has undertaken a socio- economic survey in 3 villages in Andhra Pradesh. Specialties of our study 1) 21657 households across 22 districts of Andhra Pradesh were taken up for study. 2) Some of the conclusions are in agreement with the assessments of renowned economists. 3) It was shown that the rent rate and the per acre net income in the case of owner cultivator are almost equal in the state. Limitations of the study 1) The study team could not get complete information about the land owned by large and rich farmers. The actual data on land could have strengthened our conclusions regarding land concentration and the accessibility of amenities. So, what ever was revealed was tabulated. Thus there will be a difference between tabulated land and actual land, mostly in the case of large farmers. Similarly, they

3

did not give correct information regarding the amenities accessible to them, number of literates, and number of persons who studied inter and above etc. One more difficulty was that the number of large farmer households are very very small. So is the case with rich farmers. So, when we take 10% sample there may not be even one household for each village for these groups. If they are not available at the time of survey or if they refuse to give information, then that group is lost for our study in that village. So, the sample size of these families will be between 0 and 1. With so small a sample, one may not be able to arrive at correct conclusions at the village and district levels. Because the total number of households covered is nearly 2000 (10%), the sample size of large farmers (Rich farmers also in some cases) also becomes big enough at sub region, region and state levels. So, it becomes dependable up to sub-region level from above. 2) It was observed that tenants, marginal and small farmers are also doing wage work. Those who are doing wage work will also definitely work in their own fields. So the family members of the tenants, marginal and small farmers will also work in their fields.

But, while calculating the net income per acre in cultivation, the amount` spent on agricultural workers was calculated using the number of days of work needed to raise the crops in one acre of land. If the agricultural workers from outside did the work, then this amount will be paid to them and it comes under expenditure to the farmer. But, if the family members of the farmer did it, the amount should go to the family members only. That means it goes to the farmer's family and hence it becomes income, but not expenditure for the family. Hence, it should go to the income account of the family. But, in our calculations it did not go, because the family members could not give the enumerator, the details regarding number of days, they have worked in leased in land or in their own land. Not knowing the number of days of work, wages can not be calculated. Hence, there is no possibility of adding these wages to the family income. To that extent, there is error in our calculation and it must be corrected. For, all the farmers, whose family members work in their fields, the net income we have calculated with out taking in to account the family labour will be less than the actual income. So, actual incomes will be some what more.

4

For example, let us suppose that 76 days of work is needed annually to raise crops in 1 acre of irrigated land. If the family members contribute half the work (i.e.) 38 working days, then wage income for the family = 38X78.46 =Rs 2981.48 ................. .(1) (Rs. 78.46, being the average wage rate in the state)

We also know the net average income in 1 acre of irrigated land is Rs 9145/- (table 24) So, add them both to get correct income of the family Therefore, correct income of the family per acre in this case = 9145+ 2981.48 = Rs.12126.48

In this way, correction can be applied to the household income and from that per capita daily income, provided we know the number of days of work contributed by the members of the farmer's family.

5

Methodology

Three types of questionnaire were prepared (form I, II, III) and the enumerators were given training in collecting data using these forms. The chief investigators associated with the study monitored the process of data collection and thoroughly scrutinized the data at every stage. Form I was used for collecting house to house data on household particulars like the members of family, male and female, caste, type of the house, social group, main and subsidiary occupations, land owned, land rented and amenities available etc. Using this information, the households are classified into different groups on the basis of main sources of income. (agricultural workers; tenants; marginal, small, middle, rich and large farmers; animal rearing households; households continuing in the traditional occupations; employees; self employed; business men; contractors; commission agents; non agricultural workers and others). From each group a minimum of 10% households are picked up using stratified random sampling method and detailed survey was undertaken in these selected families (Form-II). From each household, detailed information was collected regarding their household income and expenditure. For example, from an agricultural worker household, data was collected pertaining to the types of work they were employed in, number of days of work in a year for each type of work, the wage rates for each type of work, number of days of non agricultural work and its wage rate, detailed information regarding income from cultivation on either own or rented land and income from leased out land etc. Similar exercise was done for the remaining groups also. In the case of cultivators, data was collected regarding the number of acres sown, crops raised, out put achieved and the rates at which the produce was marketed for calculating the income. However, detailed data regarding expenditure incurred in cultivation was collected from different groups of farmers through personal interaction in village centers (Form III). This can also be used to counter check the information collected from 10% households.

a) wage income

As we know the number of days of work and the wage rate for each work, we can calculate the wage income for each work by using the formula Wage income = number of days of work x wage rate

6

Then the incomes from different works were added to get the annual income for each worker Then household income from wage work = sum of the incomes of the individual wage workers in the family.

b) Income from cultivation

Data was collected regarding number of acres sown, output of different crops and the rates at which they were sold. Income from each crop = output in quintals X quintal rate 1. Then incomes of all crops were added to get total income from cultivation. 2. As data on expenditure is available one can compute expenditure for each crop and by adding them the total expenditure incurred. 3. Then Net income of the household from cultivation = Total income ­ Total expenditure. Whether it is own or rented land, net income can be calculated using the above procedure. C) Household income: While collecting data, members of the household were asked to give information regarding various activities they were engaged in, like wage work, cultivation, employment, business etc as there is possibility of different members of the same household engaged in different activities. Thus, while computing household income, income from all the activities were taken into account and the per capita daily income was calculated using this total.

Percapita daily income = Total income ÷ (No.of persons in the household x 365)

d) No. of working days and average wage After tabulating the data, average number of days of work, and average wage rate for male and female workers are calculated separately and from that combined averages are worked out for agricultural workers. The data collected from 88 villages1 across 22 districts in the state in 6 months from 21,657 households was tabulated and processed for drawing conclusions. (But out

1

For complete list of villages and number of households surveyed, see Annexure ­ 1.

7

of 10% households (2165), only data pertaining to 1805 households was taken in to account for computing income and expenditure because the remaining households did not give the needed particulars.) The first chapter deals with disparities in respect of economic groups, second chapter deals with the same disparities with respect to Social groups, third chapter deals with sources of income for social and economic groups. Fourth chapter deals with per capita daily income of both social and economic groups and the reasons for rural poverty in the state. Finally, the fifth chapter deals with the suggestions for achieving development with social and economic equity at least to certain extent.

1. Andhra Pradesh

8

I Disparities among Economic Groups

Chapter

During the course of long history, the Indian country side has under gone many changes. It acquired special characteristics like the hierarchical division of society in to four varnas and later their transformation in to caste system. Finally it lead to formation of modern classes without destroying the old feudal order (i.e.) the caste system. Andhra Pradesh is not an exception to this rule. Keeping this in view the data is collected with respect to economic as well as social groups and castes. So, one way of categorization of rural sections is on the basis of existing 4 social groups (SC, ST, BC, OC); and another way is to categorise them into 17 economic groups as per their main source of income. It is also examined as to whether there is any relationship between land owned by a household and its ability to access amenities like latrine, T.V., gas stove, telephone, motor cycle etc.

So, let us start the discussion with the economic groups first. Table 1: Number and Percentage of Households ­ Economic Groups Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Economic Group Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employees Self-Employed Pensioners Businessmen Contractors Commission Agents Non-Ag. Workers Others Total No. of Households

9228 1065 2584 1241 493 166 54 568 410 1332 533 100 476 28 43 2322 1014 21657

% of Households in the respective group

42.61 4.92 11.93 5.73 2.28 0.77 0.25 2.62 1.89 6.15 2.46 0.46 2.20 0.13 0.20 10.72 4.68 100.00

Number and percentage of households surveyed are given in table 1.

9

1. Distribution of land among economic groups

Land distribution among agriculturally dependent households like agricultural workers, tenants, marginal farmers etc is highly skewed. Though the agricultural worker households are 62.2% among the agriculture dependent households, they own only 14.07% of the total land. Though the large, rich and middle farmer households together constitute only 4.8%, they own nearly 36% of the total land. Even small farmer is having more than his normal share. Small farmer households are only 8.37%, but they possess 22.89% land.

Table 2 : Distribution of land among Various Economic Groups related to Agriculture (State level) No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3 9228 1065 2584 1241 493 166 54 14831 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 62.22 7.18 17.42 8.37 3.32 1.12 0.36 100.00 Land Owned by Respectiv e Group 5 5858 2386 8991 9531 6908 4487 3476 41637 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 14.07 5.73 21.59 22.89 16.59 10.78 8.35 100.00 Land per house hold 7 0.63 2.24 3.48 7.68 14.01 27.03 64.38 2.81

Sl. Economic No. Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

Note 1 : Land is given in terms of rainfed land in acres.An acre of irrigated land is taken as equivalent to 2.5 acres of rainfed land (Dry). Note 2 : Marginal Farmer : upto 5 acres Small Farmer : Above 5 and upto 10 Middle Farmer : Above 10 and upto 20 Rich Farmer : Above 20 and upto 40 Large Farmer : Above 40 acres (Regions and sub-regions ­ Annexure 2)

10

2. Land per Household ­ Economic Groups (State level)

70 60 Land in acres 50 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

This disparity in land distribution can also be seen from the average land per household. Average land per household in the case of agricultural workers is only 0.63 acres whereas it is 64.38 acres in the case of large farmers which is 102.19 times, 27.03 acres in the case of rich farmers which is 42.90 times, 14.01 acres in the case of middle farmer which is 22.24 times more than that of the agricultural worker's households. (Table 2)

In addition to the agricultural workers, tenants are also deprived of their normal share of land. Tenant households are 7.18% where as their share of land is only 5.73% of the total. 2. Land - Regional disparities: The average land per household for agricultural workers is less than one acre in all the regions of the state. It is least (0.27acres) in coastal Andhra and highest (0.96 acres) in Telangana. The average land per household for large farmers is 68 times in Telangana, 77 times in Rayalaseema and 249 times (i.e.) highest in Coastal Andhra compared to the average land of the respective agricultural worker's household.

11

Tenants own very little land in Coastal Andhra Compared to Telangana and Rayalaseema. It is 3.2 acres in Telangana, 2.50 acres in Rayalaseema and 1.58acres in Coastal Andhra. Compared to Agricultural workers the rich and middle farmers own much more land (i.e.) many times more than what the agricultural workers have. (Table 3)

Table 3: Economic groups - Average land per household Region wise

Sl. No. Economic Group Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total / Average Coastal Andhra Average land per household Rayalaseem Telangana a Andhra Pradesh

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.27 1.58 3.19 7.79 13.52 26.34 67.34 1.82

0.84 2.59 3.52 7.89 14.16 26.93 61.26 4.15

0.96 3.20 3.68 7.55 14.19 27.64 65.66 3.24

0.63 2.24 3.48 7.68 14.01 27.03 64.38 2.81

3. Average land per Household ­ Region wise

12

Land ­ Economic groups - South Coastal Andhra: Land concentration is strikingly high

in South Coastal Andhra Pradesh contrary to the general understanding. The percentage of agricultural workers in South Coastal Andhra is 66.34. But, they own only 6.35% of the total land. But there are only 0.34% large farmers and they own 12.52% of the total land. It is 37 times more than their normal share. Large farmers, rich and middle farmers together constitute only 3.29% of the total households, but their share of land is 39.77%. Similarly if we compare average land per household of large farmers with that of agricultural workers, it will be 396 times more. Similarly the rich farmers land is 79 times. (Table 4)

Table 4: Economic groups ­ land (South coastal Andhra)

Land Owned by Respecti ve Group

5

Sl. No.

Economic Group

No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture

3

% of Respective Group in the Total Households

4

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land

6

Land per household

1

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmer Total / Average

3149 573 653 216 105 35 16

66.34 12.07 13.76 4.55 2.21 0.74 0.34

546.11 927.79 2013.02 1694.53 1414.38 930.00 1077.50

6.35 10.78 23.40 19.70 16.44 10.81 12.52

4747

100.00

8603.34

100.00

0.17 1.62 3.08 7.85 13.47 26.57 67.34 1.81

13

4.Average land per household in South Coastal Andhra

80 70 60 Land in acres 50 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

In West Godavari district, there are 74.45% agricultural workers households. That means, nearly three fourths of total households. But their land is only 8.27% of the total land. Hence it can be inferred that among the districts of South Coastal Andhra, West Godavari stands first in land concentration.

Table 5: Distribution of Land among different economic groups (West Godavari District)

No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3 682 101 64 36 23 6 4 916 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 74.45 11.03 6.99 3.93 2.51 0.66 0.44 100.00 % of Land Land Owned by Owned by Respective Respective Group in the Group Total Land 5 6 122.83 87.75 237.73 283.75 315.50 182.50 255.00 1485.06 8.27 5.91 16.01 19.11 21.25 12.29 17.17 100.00

Sl. Economic Group No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

Land per household 7 0.18 0.87 3.71 7.88 13.72 30.42 63.75 1.62

14

5. Average land per Household ­ West Godavari District

70 60 Land in acres 50 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

In West Godavari district, there are only 0.44% large farmer households. But, the land, they own is 17.17% which is 40 times more than their normal share. Large, rich and middle farmers together constitute only 3.61% of the total households, but the land they own is more than half of the total (i.e.) 50.71%. None of the districts in the state is having such high concentration of land. Hence it is clear that in South Coastal Andhra, West Godavari stands first in land concentration (Table 5). 3. Land concentration in the hands of Top 5% households Land concentration becomes more pronounced if we take top 5% and bottom 60% households. It can be seen that the top 5% households own 51.85%, the highest, in South Coastal Andhra, 37.73% in North Coastal Andhra, 36.16% in Rayalaseema, 33.47% in South Telangana and 32.21% the lowest in North Telangana.

15

Table 6: Concentration of Land

Sl.No Sub-Region No.of Households Surveyed 3 2011 6434 3418 4450 5344 21657 % of land owned % of land owned by top 5% by bottom 60% Households Households 4 5 37.73 1.70 51.85 0.72 36.16 8.08 32.21 10.63 33.47 4.96 37.72 6.13

1 1 2 3 4 5

2 North Coast South Coast Rayalaseema North Telangana South Telangana Andhra Pradesh

6. % of Land owned by top 5% of the households

(Land concentration ­ Regional, sub-regional and district wise ­ Annexure 3)

Whereas the top 5% of the households in the state (large land Owners) are owning 37.72% of the total land, the bottom 60% of the households own a meagre 6.13% in the state. As the land owned by top 5% is the highest (51.85%) and that owned by the bottom 60% is the lowest (0.72%) in South Coastal Andhra, it can be said that the land concentration is the highest in this sub-region. Similarly, the land concentration is lowest in North Telangana sub-region. (32.21%) (Table 6) The bottom 60% households are having maximum land (10.63%) in North Telangana. It is 8.08% in Rayalaseema. 4.96% in South Telangana, 1.70% in North

16

coastal Andhra and the least 0.72% in South coastal Andhra. So, in North Telangana and Rayalaseema, poorer sections are having more land compared to other sub-regions. In the most developed South coastal Andhra, it is the least (i.e.) 0.72% only. Is the capitalist development in agriculture is rendering poorer sections landless? (Table 6) It is seen that land concentration is more in coastal Andhra. Where there is more land concentration, there will be more landlessness also. The percentage of land less households is highest in coastal Andhra (67.97%) where as it is only 45.22% in Telangana and 43.15% in Rayalaseema. So, the distribution of land is less iniquitous in Telangana and Rayalaseema. Land less households in the state is 53.81% (Table 7)

Table 7: landless households ­ Region wise Sl.No 1 2 3 4 Region Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh landless households(%) 67.97 43.15 45.22 53.81

7. % of Landless households ­ Region wise

80.00 70.00 60.00 Land in Acres 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Regions Telangana

17

Table 8: Land Concentration in the districts of South Coastal Andhra

Sl.No District No.of Households Surveyed 3 1172 1136 1017 1211 1028 870 6434 % of land owned by top 5% Households 4 59.90 63.21 61.89 55.24 30.91 49.74 51.85 % of land less Households 5 81.91 77.99 75.91 71.10 50.00 61.49 70.38

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Total

8. % of land owned by top 5% households ­ South Coastal Andhra

18

9.

% of Landless Households ­ South Coastal Andhra

Contrary to the general perception, the land concentration is highest in south coastal districts, which is most fertile delta region and hence the most developed region in the state. Within the South coastal region, the land concentration is much more in East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna districts. Top 5% of the households own 59.9% land in East Godavari, 63.21% in West Godavari and 61.89% in Krishna district. So, among the districts, West Godavari stands first in land concentration in the state. At the bottom the landless households are 81.91% in East Godavari, 77.99% in West Godavari and 75.91% in Krishna district. So, more than three fourths of the households are landless in most of the Krishna and Godavari delta regions (Table 8) So, it can be inferred through these observations that though, - The concentration of land is there every where in the state. It is highest in fertile south coastal Andhra and Lowest in North Telangana. So, one can see a link between landlessness and development. - Land concentration is the highest in West Godavari district of South coastal Andhra. - Where there is more land concentration, there is more landlessness also. East Godavari in south coastal Andhra tops in having highest percentage of land less house holds.

4. Agriculture dependent Economic Groups and Amenities

Is there any relation ship between land owned and amenities accessed in rural areas?

19

It was seen that the land owned by the economic groups increases as we go from agricultural workers to large farmers. The economic groups are given in the same order i.e., in the order of increasing land ownership. It is also clear that the amenities available are also increasing in the same order except for tenants (Table 9). Only 3.92% agricultural workers households are having gas stove. But in the case of large farmers it is 62.96% which is 16 times more than that of agricultural workers households. Similarly Only 2.77% agricultural workers households are having motor cycle. But, for large farmers it is 62.96% i.e., nearly 23 times more than what the agricultural workers have. Similarly, large and rich farmers are having amenities which are several times more than what the tenants and marginal farmers have.

Table 9: Amenities ­ Economic Groups (State Level)

No. of Households Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group 14 2.77 13.08 7.66 13.24 26.77 42.33 62.96 6.70

No. of Households having Lavatory

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2

Agricultural Workers

3 9228 1065 2584 1241 493 166 54 14831

4 62.22 7.18 17.42 8.37 3.32 1.12

5 2085 444 746 455 243 104

6 22.59 41.50 28.87 36.72 49.29 63.80 77.78 27.77

7 2655 636 1056 654 331 135 47 5514

8 28.77 59.44 40.87 52.78 67.14 82.82 87.04 37.18

9 362 208 311 247 158 82 34 1402

10 3.92 19.44 12.04 19.94 32.05 50.31 62.96 9.45

11 1272 369 663 484 266 104 42 3200

12 13.78 34.49 25.66 39.06 53.96 63.80 77.78 21.58

Tenants

Marginal Farmers

Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

0.36 42 100.00 4119

(Regions and sub regions­ Annexure 4)

20

No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 256 140 198 164 132 69 34 993

No. of Households having Television

No. of Households having Gas Stove

No. of Households having Telephone

% in Respective Economic Group

% in Respective Economic Group

% in Total Households

Sl. No.

10. % of Households having Gas stove

70 60 50 % of Households 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

11. % of Households having Telephone

90 80 70 % of Households 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

21

12. % of Households having motorcycle

70 60 50 % of Households 40 30 20 10 0 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers

Economic Groups

The gap between amenities available to different groups widens in the case of gas stove and motorcycle which are costlier and expensive to maintain. In the case of nonagricultural groups, the amenities available to them are proportional to their incomes. So, in rural areas, the accessibility of amenities increases with in creasing land ownership (Table 9).

5. Literacy and higher education in relation to economic groups

In the case of literacy and education also (up to and above intermediate) the land factor is quite visible. The rate of literacy among agricultural workers is only 28.61%, where as it is 72.58% in the case large farmers. Similarly, it can be seen that the rate of literacy gradually increases from 28.61% to 72.58% as the land, each group owns gradually increases. So it can be said that literacy increases with increasing land ownership (Table 10).

22

Table 10 : Percentage of literates (State Level)

SL. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. of Adult Population 2 3 Agricultural Workers 1349 Tenants 308 Marginal Farmers 525 Small Farmers 443 Middle Farmers 310 Rich Farmers 218 Large farmers 62 Traditional Occupations 176 Animal Rearing 122 Employees 323 Self-Employed 195 Pensioners 6 Businessmen 95 Contractors 9 Commission Agents 9 Non-Ag. Workers 746 Others 133 Total 5029 Economic Group No. of Literates Among Adults 4 386 118 187 218 176 141 45 62 34 155 99 3 63 6 5 226 17 1941 % of Literates among Adults 5 28.61 38.31 35.62 49.21 56.77 64.68 72.58 35.23 27.87 47.99 50.77 50.00 66.32 66.67 55.56 30.29 12.78 38.60

In the case of non-agricultural groups, the amenities available depend on their incomes. (Regions and sub regions­ Annexure 5)

23

13. % of Literates among Adults

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

or k gi Te ers na n Sm l F ant ar s M all F me id dl arm rs e R Fa ers ich rm Tr ad L F e itio ar ar rs na ge m e l O fa rs r An ccu me pa rs im al tio R n E m ear s Se p ing lf- loy Em e e Pe plo s y Bu nsi ed sin one C om C ess rs m on me is t n N sio rac on n to - A Ag r s g. e W nts or ke O rs th er s M ar

% of Literates

Ag

ric u

ltu

ra lW

Economic Groups

Table 11 : Percentage of people having Education upto and above intermediate (State Level)

% persons % of studied inter No. Persons Respective (+2) and No. of Studied Inter Economic Sl. above in the Economic Group persons Group in the (+2) and Above No. Respective surveyed in the Total Total Economic Population Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Agricultural Workers 2039 27.76 92 4.51 2 Tenants 469 6.38 32 6.82 3 Marginal Farmers 769 10.47 51 6.63 4 Small Farmers 636 8.66 66 10.38 5 Middle Farmers 425 5.79 74 17.41 6 Rich Farmers 262 3.57 69 26.34 7 Large Farmers 84 1.14 26 30.95 8 Traditional Occupations 251 3.42 16 6.37 9 Animal Rearing 169 2.30 9 5.33 10 Employees 447 6.08 66 14.77 11 Self-Employed 307 4.18 28 9.12 12 Pensioners 3 0.04 1 33.33 13 Businessmen 131 1.78 19 14.50 24

14 15 16 17

Contractors Commission Agents Non-Ag. Workers Others

Total

14 14 1148 178 7346

0.19 0.19 15.63 2.42 100.00

3 2 48 4 606

21.43 14.29 4.18 2.25 8.25

(Regions and sub regions­ Annexure 6) 14. Persons studies inter and above (%)

35 30 25 % of Literates 20 15 10 5 0

er s na al nt s Sm Fa al r me r M lF a s id dl rm e er F s R arm ich er Tr ad L a F ar s itio rg m e na e f rs l O arm cc er An up s im at al ion s R e Em arin Se plo g y lfE m ee s pl P e oy ed n B u si o ne sin es rs C om Co sm m nt r e n is sio act o N on n A rs -A ge g. n W ts or ke r O s th er s gi n Te or k ric u ltu Ag ra lW

M ar

Economic Groups

In case of plus-two education the picture is clearer. The percentage of people who studied intermediate and above goes on increasing as the land owned increases from agricultural worker to large farmer. The percentage is 4.51 only for agricultural workers where as it is as high as 30.95 for large farmers. Similarly, the percentage is less in the case of tenants and marginal farmers. It is 6.82% and 6.63% respectively. If we compare this with that of large and rich farmers, it will be 4.5 times more. It can also be seen that the gap between agricultural workers and tenants on the one hand and the large farmer and rich farmers on the other becomes more here when compared to literacy. It is also clear from the two preceding tables that gap in accessing education widens in the case of higher education. Whether it is education or amenities, only the landed can access them more in rural areas (Table 11).

25

Chapter I Disparities among Social Groups

Villages in Andhra Pradesh exhibit number of inequalities both socially and economically. Added to that social domination is still continuing in several forms in number of villages, especially in Rayalaseema and Telangana.

1.Distribution of Land among various social groups

Table 12: Social distribution of land (State level)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total % of Respective No. of Group in the Households Total Households 3 4 5541 25.59 1467 6.77 10426 48.14 4223 19.50 21657 100.00 Land Owned % of Land Owned Land per by Respective by Respective Group household in the Total Land Group 5 4899 2586 22125 18503 48114 6 10.18 5.38 45.99 38.46 100.00 7 0.88 1.76 2.12 4.38 2.22

Note1: Land is given in acres. Note 2: As productivity of rain fed and irrigated lands are not the same, the irrigated land is converted into rain fed land using the formula that 1 acre of irrigated land = 2.5 acres of rain fed land and the total equivalent land which appears in the tables is calculated by adding the two types of land. Therefore, equivalent dry land = Rainfed land + Irrigated land x 2.5 (Annexure 7- Region and sub-region)

15. Average Land per Household (in Acres) ­ Social Groups (State)

26

The inequality in land distribution among different social groups., is evident with the data (Table 12). About 19.5% OC households are having 38.46% of the village land, while the SC households, whose strength is 25.59% posses only 10.18%. Average land per household in the case of SCs is only 0.88 acres. The same is 4.38 acres for OCs which is nearly 5 times to that of SCs. This gap is even more in fertile delta areas i.e., in south coastal districts.

B.C households though better than SCs are also deprived of their share in land. Though the number of BC households is 2.5 times more than that of OC households, their share of land is not in that proportion, but only slightly more (45.99%) than what the OC's possess (38.46%). Again, the average holding of BCs is only 2.12 acres, where as it is 4.38 acres in case of OC's which is twice that of BC's. As in the case of SC's here also this gap becomes more pronounced in South Coastal districts and much more in Guntur district. The same thing holds good for ST's also. From the same table we can see that the land per household gradually increases from SC to OC (table 12).

Compared to Rayalaseema and Telangana SC, ST, BCs are having very little land in Coastal Andhra (But, in case of STs it is least in Rayalaseema) If we compare average land per house hold of OCs and SCs, OCs have 4 times more in Rayalaseema, 4.5 times more in Telangana and 9 times (maximum) more in Coastal Andhra. That means, SCs are having relatively more land in Rayalaseema and Telangana. But, for OCs, the average land per household is highest in Rayalaseema (5.90acres) and least in Coastal Andhra (3.10acres). Whatever the region, OCs are having more land than other social groups. Average land per household is lowest (1.48acres) in Coastal Andhra and highest (3.34acres) in Rayalaseema (Table 13) The disparities are highest in South Coastal Andhra which is fertile and well developed part of the state.

27

Table 13: Social distribution of land (Region wise)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total Coastal Andhra Average land per household Andhra Rayalasee Telangana Pradesh ma

0.35 0.86 1.39 3.10 1.48

1.44 0.69 3.05 5.90 3.34

1.20 2.56 2.34 5.31 2.47

0.88 1.76 2.12 4.38 2.22

16. Average land per household (Region wise)

Land distribution in South Coastal Andhra: Table 14: Social groups ­ land(South coastal Andhra)

Land % of Land Owned No. of % of Respective Land per Owned by by Respective Group Househo Group in the Total household Respective in the Total Land Households lds Group

3 4 5 6 7

Sl. No.

1

Social Group

2

1 2 3 4

SC ST BC OC

Total/ Average

2142 424 2216 1652 6434

33.29 6.59 34.44 25.68 100.00

793.5 297.63 2735.92 5955.99 9803.00

8.09 3.04 27.91 60.76 100.00

0.37 0.70 1.23 3.61 1.52

28

17. Average land per household ­ South Coastal Andhra

SCs, who constitute 33.29% of the total households are having only 8.09% of the total land, where as OCs who constitute only 25.68% are having 60.76% of the total land. BCs are in the middle as far as the ownership of land is concerned. Average land per house hold in the case of SCs is only 0.37 acres, where as it is 3.61 acres for OCs, which is 10 times more than what the SCs are having. This difference is more in Guntur district. It is 13 times more in that district. (Table 14).

2. Caste wise distribution of land

The distribution of land among different castes is iniquitous. It seems the land is concentrated mostly in the hands of reddy and kamma castes (Table 15). The house holds of these two castes constitute only 10.47% of the total households, but they own as much as 31.01% of the total land. This is very high when compared to the land owned by other castes. On the other side, there are mala and madiga castes (SC) who constitute more than one fourth (25.17%) of the total house holds, but they own as little as 9.77% of the total land. That too, the lands they own are of very poor quality. The average land per house hold is 7.04 acres for reddys, 6.09 acres for kammas. But for Mala and Madiga Castes it is 0.97 acres and 0.77 acres respectively. So, reddys and Kammas are having 8 to 9 times more land when compared to mala and madiga

29

castes. It is observed that the gap in land ownership is more among economic groups when compared to social groups. The actual differences or gaps in owning land or assets between different social groups are some what masked when we view it through the prism of social groups rather than economic groups (Table 15).

Table 15: Caste wise distribution of land( State level)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Caste Reddy Kamma Patel/ Are Patel Kalinga Kuruma Vysya/ Komati / Setti Mudiraj Boya / Valmiki Munnurukapu / Thurpukapu Yadava/ Golla / Are Golla Velama Balija/ Kapu/ Naidu/ Telaga Tribes Gouda Besta, etc., Rajaka, etc., Muslim Mala Madiga Other Castes (120) Total % of Households Surveyed 6.00 4.47 0.28 0.30 1.63 1.18 6.05 3.29 3.90 9.17 1.39 6.01 5.10 1.99 1.95 2.79 3.62 12.50 12.67 15.69 100.00 % of Land Owned 18.85 12.16 0.60 0.62 2.52 1.57 7.29 3.96 4.67 10.33 1.51 5.31 4.48 1.76 1.17 1.30 1.98 5.40 4.37 10.16 100.00 Land Per Household 7.04 6.09 4.85 4.54 3.45 2.98 2.70 2.70 2.68 2.52 2.43 1.98 1.97 1.98 1.35 1.04 1.23 0.97 0.77 1.45 2.24 % Landless Households 27.17 24.25 30.00 30.30 36.72 66.27 39.97 40.59 39.45 45.65 47.51 56.07 50.23 56.71 61.94 65.40 67.82 67.76 67.09 62.55 53.77

(Regions ­ Annexures 8)

30

18. Caste wise Distribution of land (Land per Household)

8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

R e K ddy el am /A m re a Pa V K tel ys al ya / K K inga om uru M at m un i/ a nu S ru B M et Y ad ka oya u ti di av pu a/ / T / Va raj G h lm Ba ol ur ik la lij p / A uk i a/ K r e ap ap G u u/ ol N ai Vel la du am /T a el ag Tr a ib G es B e ou d s R ta, a aj et ak c. a, , et M c., us lim O M th al er C Ma a as di te ga s( 12 0) Pa t

19. % of Landless Households ­ Caste wise

The average land per household in the state is 2.24 acres. Some of the B.C Castes are having more than (land) the state average. They are kurumalu, mudirajulu, boya/ valmiki, munnuru kapu, thurpuKapu, yadava and aregolla.

31

They Constitute 24.04% of the total households and they own 28.77% of the total land (i.e.) a bit more than their normal share. The percentage of Landless households are 27.17% among reddys and 24.25% among kammas. The landless house holds among the above-referred BC castes is between 36.72% and 45.65%. But among castes like besta, rajaka, muslim, mala, madiga etc the landlessness is from 60% to 70%. The total land less households in the state are 53.77%. (Table 15)

Caste wise distribution ­ Coastal Andhra:

If we examine coastal Andhra, The gap becomes much more pronounced. Here also kamma, reddy castes together constitute the same 10.67% of the total house holds, but, the land they own in 35.96% of the total land.

Table 16: Caste wise distribution of land (Coastal Andhra)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Caste Reddy Kamma Kalinga Vysya Kshatriya Thurpukapu Yadava/Golla Kapu/ Balija Muslim Mala Madiga Other Castes (96) Total % of Households Surveyed 3.48 7.19 0.77 1.22 0.53 5.17 8.53 9.14 1.07 14.75 11.72 36.43 100.00 % of Land Land Per Owned Household 13.30 22.66 2.40 3.77 1.22 7.63 11.01 6.83 0.34 3.33 1.94 25.57 100.00 5.65 4.66 4.61 4.56 3.38 2.18 1.91 1.10 0.48 0.33 0.24 0.98 1.48 % Landless Households 34.35 25.86 29.23 66.99 38.00 39.82 62.22 67.62 81.11 88.04 88.89 71.08 67.97

32

20. Caste wise Distribution of land - Coastal Andhra (Land per Household)

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00

dy K am m a K al in ga V ys ya K sh at T ri hu ya rp uk Y ad ap av u a/ G K ol ap la u/ B al ija M us lim

al a M

O th e

21. % of Landless Households in Coastal Andhra (Caste wise)

100.00 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

On the other, Mala and Madiga castes together constitute more than one fourth (26.47%) of the total households, but the land they own is a meager 5.27%. The average land of reddys is 5.65 acres and that of kammas is 4.66 acres, where as it is 0.33 acres for Mala and 0.24acres for Madiga (i.e.) it is much less than what the reddys and kammas have. (Table 16)

at ri hu ya rp uk Y ad ap av u a/ G K ol ap la u/ B al ija M us lim

33

M al a M ad r C ig as a te s (9 6)

m a K al in ga

dy

K am

R ed

T

K sh

V ys

ya

O th e

r

C

ig as a te s (9 6)

R ed

M ad

Landlessness is very high in Coastal districts. It is 67.97%. It is 81.11% in muslims, 88.04% in mala, and 88.89% in madiga castes. So, it is clear through these observations that the groups that are at the bottom of the social scale are also at the bottom of the economic scale.

Major chunk of agricultural workers come from SC, ST and BC social groups only.

Table 17: Percentage of Social groups in economic groups

Sl. No. Social group % of agricultural workers in social group % of Tenant workers in social group % of marginal farmers in social group

1 1 2 3

2 SC ST BC Total

3 36.40 8.65 44.74 89.79

4 18.15 5.33 43.50 66.98

5 13.90 8.39 52.03 74.32

It is also clear that nearly 90% of the agricultural workers are from SC, ST and B.C of which 36.40% are from SC, 8.65% are from ST and 44.74% are from B.C. But the proportion of SCs is more in South Coastal Andhra (i.e.). In South Coastal Andhra 45.62% of the agricultural workers are coming from SCs alone. But their share in new value created is so low that they live in perpetual poverty. Most of the tenants and marginal farmers also come from these social groups. 66.95% of the tenants, and 74.32% of the marginal farmers are coming from these social groups (table-17)

Agricultural workers are mostly from SC, ST and BCs

SC, ST and B.Cs together constitute 87.12% of agricultural workers in coastal Andhra, 85.85% in Rayalaseema and 94.43% in Telangana, while their state average is 89.79%. That means, the concentration of these social groups among agricultural workers is highest (94.43%) in Telangana.

34

Table 18: Most of the agricultural labour are from SC, ST, BCs (region wise)

Sl. No. Social group % of agricultural workers

1 1 2 3

2 SC ST BC Total

Coastal Andhra 36.67 8.34 42.11 87.12

Rayalasee Telangana ma 31.12 39.20 6.03 9.67 48.70 45.56 85.85 94.43

Andhra Pradesh 36.40 8.65 44.74 89.79

(Regions ­ Annexure 9) The composition of SC, ST and BCs in agricultural workers in the state is as high as 89.79%. In Telangana it is highest (94.43%) followed by Coastal Andhra with 87.12% and Rayalaseema with 85.85%. That means, the bottom most economic group (agricultural workers) is synonymous with the social groups at the bottom (i.e.) SCs, STs and B.Cs. BCs are more among agricultural workers. They are 48.7% in Rayalaseema, 45.56% in Telangana and 42.11%, the lowest in coastal Andhra. Among SC agricultural workers, highest percentage (i.e.) 39.2% is from Telangana, lowest percentage (31.12%) is from Rayalaseema. In coastal Andhra they are 36.67%. But in Rayalaseema BCs are in highest percentage (i.e.) 48.7%, lowest is from coastal Andhra which is 42.11% (Table 18).

3. Amenities accessible to different social groups- State level

Table 19: Amenities and Social groups

% in Total Households % in the Respective Social Group % in the Respective Social Group % in the Respective Social Group No. of Households having Motor cycle No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone % in Respective Social Group % in Respective Social Group Social Group

1 2 3 4 1 SC 5541 25.59 2 ST 1467 6.77 3 BC 10426 48.14 4 OC 4223 19.50 Total 21657 100.00

Sl. No.

5 6 7 8 9 10 1455 26.25 1784 32.19 277 5.00 183 12.47 281 19.15 24 1.64 2642 25.31 4751 45.52 1302 12.47 2041 48.47 2417 57.40 1264 30.02 6321 29.19 9233 42.63 2867 13.24 (Regions and sub ­ regions ­ Annexure 10)

11 967 148 2647 1656 5418

12 13 17.45 229 10.09 49 25.36 897 39.33 716 25.02 1891

14 4.13 3.34 8.59 17.00 8.73

35

22. Per centage of Households having Gas stove

23. % of Households having Telephone

36

24:

% of Households having Morotcycle

Land plays a role in accessing amenities like toilet, gas stove etc. It can be seen that the amenities available i.e., toilet to motorcycle gradually increase from SCs to OCs just as their average land per household increases (Table 19). The gap between SCs (STs also) and OCs in accessing amenities widens in the case of gas stove and motor cycle which are costlier and expensive to maintain. BC households, no doubt are better placed than SCs and STs in accessing amenities, but they are far away from OCs in accessing amenities like gas stove and motor cycle. So, it is those households which are having more land and earning more can enjoy more amenities. As the biggest land owners, OCs, stand first and SCs whose land is least, are the last in enjoying modern gadgets. The only exception for this is STs. Though their average holding is more than that of SCs, their access to amenities is less. This is because the land they own is of poor quality tribal land. (Table 19)

4.Literacy & Education - Social groups

The land is also influencing the access to education. Table 20 shows the rate of literacy among different social groups (Table 20).

37

Table 20: Adult Literacy and Social Group- State level

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of No. of Literates among Adults Adults 3 4 1081 378 281 75 2555 867 1112 621 5029 1941 (Regions and sub regions­ Annexure 11) 25. % of Adult literates % of Adult Literates 5 34.97 26.69 33.93 55.85 38.60

It can be seen that the rate of literacy rises from SCs to OCs with the exception of STs. (It is already explained). There is one more inconsistency i.e., the literacy rate of BCs is slightly less than that of SCs. Similar discrepancy can be seen in the case of toilet use between SCs and BCs. This discrepancy made its appearance consistently at all levels right from village to the state (State level). This may be due to governments support to SCs in the fields of education and health. In the case of higher education the disparity is more pronounced. It is 7.11% for SCs, 3.65% for STs, 7.36% for BCs and 13.08% for OCs. The access to higher education for OCs is double that of SCs and BCs. (Tables 20 and 21)

38

Table 21: Plus ­two Education among different Social Groups-State level

Sl. Social No. Group 1 1 2 3 4 2 SC ST BC OC Total No.of persons surveyed 3 1702 466 3657 1521 7346 % persons who % of Respective No. Persons who studied inter (+2) Studied Inter (+2) Social Group and above in and Above in the among the Respective Social Social Group persons surveyed Group 4 5 6 23.17 121 7.11 6.34 17 3.65 49.78 20.71 100.00 269 199 606 7.36 13.08 8.25

(Regions and sub regions­ Annexure 12) 26. Persons studied inter and above (%)

In the above two cases i.e., literacy and higher education, though the sample size is small, the trend is clear.

5.Other issues like Sex ratio & School enrollment

According to 2001 census, sex ratio in the state was 978. It was 972 during the survey period (2008-09). But in Coastal Andhra it is 962, in Telangana it is 979 and in Rayalaseema it is maximum (i.e.) 972. But, for boys and girls below 18 years, the sex ratio has turned out to be only 878. That is, a drastic fall in sex ratio from 978 to 878. If it is so low in the

39

present generation of below 18 years, there is a danger of sex ratio falling still further in near future. If the sex ratio for children below 18 years at the state level is 878, it is 893 in Telangana, 883 in Rayalaseema and lowest (i.e.) 854 in coastal Andhra (Table 22) Tabe-22: Sex Ratio among juveniles in different regions

Sl. No. 1 Region 2 Male Female Sex ratio

962

Below 18 years boys

5592

2001 Census Male

15944402 6863585 15723462 38531449

girls

4777

Sex ratio

854

Female

15760729 6654059 15267826 37678558

Sex ratio

988 969 971 978

1 2 3 4

Coastal Andhra 15609 15013 6681 6493 Rayalaseema 20854 20413 Telangana

Total

43144 41919

972 979 972

2345 2071 7797 6966 15734 13814

883 893 878

Number of children enrolled in government primary schools -social groups wise Among school age children, the number of children enrolled in govt. primary schools is only 61.84%; of which the boys are 60.40% and the girls are slightly more (i.e.) 63.32%

Table 23: Enrollment in govt. primary schools

Sl. No. Social groups persons Female Total male School age children girls Total boys School going children girls % of children enrolled among school age children Total girls Total

66.57 62.99 69.77 35.81 61.84

boys

1 2 3 4

SC ST BC OC Total

7357 2568

7268 2509

14625 5077 28713 11943 60358

885 313 1819 733 3750

874 304 1759 705 3642

1759 616 3579 1438 7392

609 213 1216 227 2265

562 175 1281 288 2306

1171 388 2497 515 4571

68.81 68.05 66.85 30.97 60.40

boys

64.30 57.57 72.83 40.85 63.32

14589 14124 6075 5868 30589 29769

40

27. Per centage of Children enrolled among School Age children - govt. Primary Schools

If we examine across social groups, BC children stand first with 69.77% in enrollment followed by SC children with 66.57% and ST children with 62.99%. But the enrollment of OC children is the lowest with only 35.81%. This is really impossible to believe because the OC's are generally in the forefront in acquiring education. But, their enrollment in the Govt. primary schools is the lowest of all the groups. Why? (Table 23) The survey team goes to the villages early in the morning. At that time, it is observed in most of the villages that mini buses, vans, and Auto rickshaws with full of school going children running towards nearby towns. That means, most of the OC children, up to 90% in some south coastal districts (up to 100% also in some villages), it is observed, are going to convent schools in the towns. There are valid reasons for their going to convent schools. The department of education has miserably failed in creating congenial atmosphere in the schools for the children to study. So, not only OCs but also other social groups, if they could afford will send their children to convent schools only. Even, this much of enrollment (more than 60%) from socially backward sections is possible only because, there is midday meal scheme running in the schools. It is also observed that there are many lacunae in running that scheme (Table-23).

41

Chapter III

Sources of income of Social and Economic groups

1. Net income in tenant cultivation and self-cultivation and rent rates

Rent rate is maximum (Rs 10951/-) in south coastal Andhra where there is maximum irrigation. The net income in leased-in land is also more in south coastal Andhra (Rs.1685/-) compared to other sub-regions. But, it is too small to make tenant Cultivation viable. The rent rate is minimum (Rs 5261/-) in South Telangana. Though the rent rate is low, the net income is negative (i.e.) (-) Rs 798/- a loss to the tenant. So the rent rate ranges from Rs. 5261/- to Rs.10951/- in the state. Average net income of the tenants in the state is only Rs.1138/- (table 24).

Tabe-24 Rent rate and net income from Tenant and self cultivations (Rs. / Irrigated Acre)

Sl. No. Sub region Rate of Net income in tenant Net income in self rent cultivation cultivation 6110 1095

10951

1 2 3 4 5

North coastal South Coast Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

6016 9980 11380 7142 9298 9145

1685

8379

5261 7671

175

798 911

9411

1138

42

28. Net Income in Self-Cultivation

Table 25: Rent rate and net income of tenants and selfcultivating farmers in Dry lands

Sl. No. Sub region Rate of rent

1500 2000 1800 1323 1822 1598

Net income in tenant cultivation

3500 -1250 1630 3524 2248 1699

Net income in self cultivation 600 2566 1412

1944

1 2 3 4 5

North coastal South Coast Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana Andhra Pradesh

2900 2020

Note: Net Incomes are worked out using the data collected by the enumerators from 10% households.

Tenant farming in rainfed areas is more risky. From the table, it is clear that the average net income in rain fed areas is negative. It is Rs.- 1699/-. But the rates of rent are not as high as in irrigated lands. They range from Rs. 1323/- in South Telangana to Rs. 2000/- in South Coastal Andhra. The average rent is Rs.1598/-. Even own cultivation is not viable in rainfed areas. Average net income in the state in self-cultivation is only Rs. 2020/-. If we compare net income in

43

irrigated area with the income in rain fed area it is 4.5 times more than that in rainfed area. Maximum income in self-cultivation is Rs. 2900/- and it is in North Telangana where as the minimum is in North Coastal Andhra which is Rs. 600/- (Table 25). But in the case of own cultivation in irrigated areas the situation is entirely different. In irrigated areas, the net income is fairly good. It is maximum in Rayalaseema (Rs 11380/-) and minimum in North Coastal Andhra (Rs 6016/-). Except in North Coast, in other sub-regions, the net income is well above Rs 7000/- and the average net income is Rs 9145/- in the state. It can be seen from tables 24 and 25 that the rent rate and the net income are almost equal in irrigated lands.

2. Economic groups - Sources of income

Household income may come from different sources in varying degrees. Incomes of all economic groups from all sources are tabulated (Table-26). If the incomes of all the groups from a particular source are added, we get village/Region income from that particular source. So, the incomes in the last row represent village/Region income. The main sources of income for the village/Region are (1) income from wages and (2) net income from cultivation. The proportion of wage income is 38.24% where as the net income from cultivation (own and rented land) is 29.62%. Other important sources of income for the village/Region are self-employment and employment. From self-employment, it is 10.31% and from employment, it is 5.62%. Animal rearing is also one of the important sources and the income from that source is 5.16% . Other incomes are also tabulated.

44

A) Middle, rich and large farmers: (Table 26, Col. 6 and 8) Middle and rich farmers get most of their

income from cultivation. Middle farmers get 71.41% of their income from own cultivation and (-) 0.43% from rented land. So, altogether, the middle farmer gets 70.98% of his income from cultivation. Rich farmer gets 72.49% of his income from his own cultivation only as he has no rented land. The other sources for both the groups are employment, self-employment, animal rearing etc. But the large farmers get 97% of their income from cultivation alone. (There may be some income from other sources also, but, the enumerators could not extract it from the large farmers.) B) Traditional occupations (Table 26, S.No 9): 3.6% households are still continuing in traditional occupations. They are getting 73.44% of their income from traditional occupations. The next main source of income for them is wage labour, which is giving them 17.17% of their total income. From employment they are getting 4.33%. The rest is coming from other sources.

45

Table 26: Sources of household income Economic Groups Sources of income Economic Groups (State Level)

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Farm Servants Income from Traditional occupation % in Total Households Income from Wages Tenant Cultivation Income from Own cultivation

% in Total Income

Income from Other Sources

Income from Employment

Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent

Income from Members working Elsewhere

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Landlords Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total 550 109 195 146 90 51 16 43 30.47 6.04 10.80 8.09 4.99 2.83 0.89 2.38 10551 651798 20 87600 23440 0 0 0 0.08 22.90 0.00 1.41 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 595306 530725 2087837 3362344 3891927 4815307 4910879 172909 4.39 18.65 40.65 54.16 71.41 72.49 97.09 10.98 11812227 1154615 2206095 1420023 346485 112400 0 333010 87.10 40.57 42.95 22.87 6.36 1.69 0.00 21.15 98000 10000 35740 12500 60000 0 0 7500 0.72 0.35 0.70 0.20 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.48 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 546122 333390 440275 522079 309754 237120 127200 1030105 4.03 11.71 8.57 8.41 5.68 3.57 2.51 65.43 160000 105600 107200 421800 705600 603850 20000 10000 1.18 3.71 2.09 6.79 12.95 9.09 0.40 0.64 43250 12000 66000 75000 57000 76700 0 18500 0.32 0.42 1.28 1.21 1.05 1.15 0.00 1.18 120230 30600 92140 57150 40000 744290 0 0 0.89 1.08 1.79 0.92 0.73 11.21 0.00 0.00 31500 2000 32000 20000 63000 0 0 0 0.23 0.07 0.62 0.32 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 143860 15600 69180 230200 0 52800 0 2400 1.06 0.55 1.35 3.71 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.15 13561554 2846327 5136488 6208687 5450326 6642467 5058079 1574424

NonAgricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 65 106 73 1 30 3 3 264 60 1805 3.60 5.87 4.04 0.06 1.66 0.17 0.17 14.63 3.32 100.00 14082 32640 7755 0 0 0 0 4248 0 769744 0.56 0.47 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.03 43909 400284 67116 0 74504 65136 0 332681 54676 21405540 1.76 5.77 1.96 0.00 5.29 5.05 0.00 2.95 3.78 28.59 442170 725576 373210 0 110970 0 0 9275792 314900 28627473 17.71 10.45 10.89 0.00 7.88 0.00 0.00 82.37 21.78 38.24 1833560 23100 30000 0 0 0 3600 84910 1500 2200410 73.44 0.33 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.75 0.10 2.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97000 567080 664580 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 39.22 0.89 9760 69750 20670 0 18000 0 0 183281 15450 3862956 0.39 1.01 0.60 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.00 1.63 1.07 5.16 108000 5166980 85800 0 63600 0 0 160600 0 7719030 4.33 74.45 2.50 0.00 4.52 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.00 10.31 0 239500 21000 0 1100973 1225000 77148 50800 0 3062871 0.00 3.45 0.61 0.00 78.20 94.95 95.54 0.45 0.00 4.09 9280 161480 2748520 0 0 0 0 184350 18000 4206040 0.37 2.33 80.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 1.24 5.62 0 54000 0 0 35850 0 0 315000 161600 714950 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 2.55 0.00 0.00 2.80 11.18 0.95 36000 66900 88852 42000 4000 0 0 572010 312600 1636402 1.44 0.96 2.59 100.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 5.08 21.62 2.19 2496761 6940210 3427413 42000 1407897 1290136 80748 11260672 1445807 74869996

Note: Incomes of farm servants and people working elsewhere are included under "Other sources".

(Regions and Sub-regions ­ Annexure 13

46

Total Income

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

C) Tenants, Marginal and Small farmers are also engaged in Wage work As tenants, marginal farmers and small farmers do not get sufficient income from cultivation to make both ends meet, they get employed as wage labourers, they employ themselves in dairying etc. Tenants' share of income from cultivation is only 41.55%, but they get a significant share i.e., 40.57% from wage work and 11.71% from dairying. Similarly in case of marginal farmers, the income share from cultivation is only 40.65% where as their share of income from wage work is 42.95% and from dairying it is 8.57%. The corresponding figures for small farmers are: cultivation 55.57%, wage work 22.87% and dairying 8.41%. Though the tenants and marginal farmers work day and night, their per capita daily income works out to only Rs. 16.88 and Rs.18.89 respectively. They are at the lowest rung of the economic scale along with agricultural workers. (Table 36)

Table 27: Major sources of Income for agricultural dependant households (%)

Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cultivation Wage Animal Employment+ Rearing Self Employment 2 3 4 5 6 Ag.Worker 4.47 87.10 4.03 2.07 Tenant 41.55 40.57 11.71 4.79 Marginal 40.65 42.95 8.57 3.79 Small 55.57 22.87 8.41 7.71 Middle 71.84 6.36 5.68 13.68 Rich 72.49 1.69 3.57 20.30 Large 97.09 0.00 2.51 0.40 Farmer 29. Economic Groups - Major sources of Income

Business others Total

7 0.32 0.42 1.28 1.21 1.05 1.15 0.00

8 2.01 0.96 2.76 4.23 1.40 0.80 0.00

9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Income from Wage Income from Cultivation Income from Employment and Self-Employment 47

Wage Income is the major share for the tenants and Marginal farmers along with Agricultural workers. For middle, rich and large farmers' lion's share of their income comes from cultivation. (Table 27) D) Agricultural workers (Table 27): The agricultural workers get major share of their income (87.10%) from wage work. For Tenants and Marginal farmers, the incomes from cultivation and wage are almost equal i.e., nearly 40% from each sector. These three groups constitute nearly 87% of the agricultural dependent households. For all of them the average per capita income is less than Rs 20/- and hence, they are poor. (Table 36) E) Non agricultural sector (Table 36) There are four economic groups whose per capita daily income is less than Rs 20/-. They are 1) Agricultural workers 2) Tenants 3) Marginal farmers and 4) Commission agents. First three are major groups in rural areas and they belong to agricultural sector. Fourth one is from non- agricultural sector and it is insignificant with only 3 households. So, all most all the households whose per capita daily income is below Rs20/- are from agricultural sector only. In the non agricultural sector except commission agents, other's per capita is above Rs 20/-. F) Employment Opportunities (Table 27) The income component from employment and self employment is negligible for agricultural workers, tenants and marginal farmers. But, it is 7.71% for small farmers, 13.68% for middle farmers and 20.3% for rich farmers. We have seen that the percentage of educated (upto and above intermediate) is more in middle farmers (7.41%) and rich farmers (26.34%). Hence, the employed and self employed are also more from these households. So, it can be said that most of the employment opportunities are also cornered by the land owning sections.

48

3.Incomes from cultivation and wage work (Region wise)

To what ever region they belong, the agricultural workers income share from cultivation is very very limited. They get major share of their income from wage work only. Agricultural workers share from cultivation is very very low and is almost equal in all the three regions. It is 3.58% in Coastal Andhra, 4.54% in Rayalaseema and 5.41% in Telangana. Similarly their share from wage work. It is 89.19% (highest) in Coastal Andhra, 86.92% in Rayalaseema and 84.91% in Telangana, (i.e.) they too are almost equal in all the three regions. So, whatever, may be the region, the agricultural workers get lions share of their income from wage work and it ranges from 85% to 90% in the state. (Table 28). While the income share of wage work for tenants is 32.2% in Coastal Andhra, it is 48.80% in Telangana and 62.11%, the highest in Rayalaseema. That means, among tenants, wage workers are the highest in Rayalaseema and lowest in Coastal Andhra. Similarly for marginal farmers. It is 35.66% in Coastal Andhra, 40.99% in Telangana and again the highest 65.25% in Rayalaseema. So, among marginal farmers also, wage workers are highest in Rayalaseema. So, in Rayalaseema farmers owning up to 5 acres of land are mainly dependent on wage work, rather than cultivation. Even small farmers resort to wage work. But the wage share of their income is less than that of tenants and marginal farmers. it is only 11.73% in Coastal Andhra 25.43% in Telangana and 33.4% (The highest again) in Rayalaseema. Hence, Rayalaseema has got the highest number of wage workers among tenants and marginal farmers. They get nearly 60% of their income from wage work. But, the share of the same groups from coastal Andhra is the lowest and it is between 32% and 36% only (Table 28)

49

Table 28: % of Income from cultivation and wage work- region wise

Economic Group Sl.No

% of incomes cultivation

Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Coastal Andhra

wage

Rayalaseema Telangana

1 2 3 4

Ag. worker Tenant Marginal farmer Small farmer

3.58 54.51 50.51 61.42

4.54 21.71 16.55 54.14

5.41 24.08 41.68 52.51

89.19 32.21 35.66 11.73

86.92 62.11 65.25 33.40

84.91 48.80 40.99 25.43

30. Income from Wage (%)

4. Sources of Income for Various Social Groups (%) Table 29: Sources of Income - Social Groups

Sl. No. Social Group % of income from Cultivation 3 10.06 22.18 25.02 52.40 29.62 % of income from Wage 4 61.00 61.29 40.61 14.30 38.24 % of income from Traditional Occupations 5 0.15 4.50 5.02 0.72 2.94 % of income from Farm Servants 6 2.34 0.38 0.81 0.16 0.89 % of income from Animal Rearing 7 3.80 2.06 6.11 4.96 5.16 % of income from ­ Employment and Self Employment 8 14.39 7.56 16.53 17.51 15.93 % of income from Business 9 2.77 0.26 3.44 6.90 4.09 % of income from Else Where 10 1.31 0 0.89 1.03 0.95 % of income from Others 11 4.20 1.75 1.58 2.03 2.19

1 1 2 3 4 5

2 SC ST BC OC Total

(Regions and sub-regions ­ Annexure 14)

50

31. Sources of Income ­ Social groups

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ul tiv at io n Se rv an ts ea rin g ns Bu si ne ss he re cc up at io em pl oy m W th er So u El se w R rc es ag e en t

SC ST BC OC

An im al

C

Fa rm

lO

or ki ng

Tr ad iti on a

Se lf

en t/

pl oy m

Em

It can be seen that more than half of the total income of OCs is from cultivation as most of the land is owned by them. SC and ST's get major share of their income from wage work. This is natural because the land they own is meagre and they are forced to depend on others for their sustenance. For BC's it is mixed. Though their biggest share is from wage work, their share in cultivation is not also small. It is 25.02%. (Table 29)

5.Income from cultivation and wage work ­ Social Groups (Region wise To whatever region they belong, SCs and STs get most of their income from wage work only. STs get most of their income (73.66%) from wage work in Coastal Andhra. It is 67.85% for SCs and 42.31% for BCs. In Rayalaseema the income shares of SCs and STs are nearly equal from wage work and they are 67.22%

51

M

em

be rs

W

O

and 68.29% respectively. For BCs it is 40.93%. But the income share from wage work in Telangana is slightly less. It is 54.02% for SCs, 52.32% for STs and 39.49% for BCs. for SCs and STs, the income share of wage work is relatively low in Telangana because their share from cultivation is more compared to other regions. It is 14.53% for SCs, 29.48% for STs and 21.46% for BCs. But in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema SCs and STs get nearly 70% of their income from wage work. Their income share from cultivation in these regions is very very low. (Table 30)

Table 30: % of Income from cultivation and wage work- Social Group wise

% of incomes

Sl. No.

Social group SC ST BC OC

cultivation

Coastal Andhra 6.93 14.82 29.34 53.09 Rayalaseema 2.59 0.71 27.85 54.41 Telangana 14.53 29.48 21.46 50.19 Coastal Andhra 67.85 73.66 42.31 18.04

wage

Rayalaseema Telangana

1 2 3 4

67.22 68.29 40.93 10.27

54.02 52.32 39.49 12.49

32. % share of Wage component in Total Income

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

SC ST BC OC

Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema

Telangana

52

6.Economic and Social Groups: Credit

i.Credit : Economic groups

Villages are heavily dependent on money lenders for credit. They charge exorbitant rates of interest. Only 40% of the rural requirement of credit is met by institutional finance. The rest, they have to barrow from private lenders. Most of the institutional credit, which is available at cheap rates of interest is garnered by rich and middle farmers. Rich farmers get 75.71% of their credit requirement from public lending agencies. Middle farmers get up to 63% of their requirement from public agencies. But, the tenants and marginal farmers could get only up to 41.17% and 26.60% respectively from such public lending institutions. For small farmers it is 44.33% and for agricultural workers it is only 22.14%. Agricultural workers, marginal farmers, service castes and non agricultural workers are meeting 70% to 80% of their requirements from private lending (Table 31)

Table 31: Institutional and Private credit (state level)

Sl. No. Economic Group Institutional credit Private credit % of Total % in Credit % in total credit Households Credit total (rupees) (rupees) credit credit

3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 1 Ag. Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Big Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents

30.47 6.04 10.75 8.20 4.93 2.83 0.89 3.60 2.38 5.87 4.04 0.06 1.66 0.17 0.17

1354000 1362000 1090000 1746000 2272000 4769000 1560000 130000 420000 559500 922000 0 129000 200000 0 53

22.15 41.17 26.60 44.33 63.01 75.71 46.71 13.98 43.98 17.21 48.60 0.00 36.03 57.14 0.00

4760000 1946500 3007500 2193000 1334000 1530000 1780000 800000 535000 2691000 975000 15000 229000 150000 30000

77.85 58.83 73.40 55.67 36.99 24.29 53.29 86.02 56.02 82.79 51.40 100.00 63.97 42.86 100.00

6114000 3308500 4097500 3939000 3606000 6299000 3340000 930000 955000 3250500 1897000 15000 358000 350000 30000

Sl. No.

Economic Group

Institutional credit Private credit % of Total % in Credit % in total credit Households Credit total (rupees) (rupees) credit credit

16 17

Non-Ag. Workers Others Total

14.63 3.32 100.00

396500 77000 16987000

13.05 16.74 40.46

2641000 383000 25000000

86.95 83.26 59.54

3037500 460000 41987000

(Regions ­ Annexure 15)

33. % of Institutional Credit in total credit ­ Economic groups

80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00

ii.Credit ­ Social Groups OCs could meet their requirement up to 60% from institutional credit. But the institutional credit could meet the requirements of SCs up to 23.94%, STs Up to 18.43% and BCs up to 30.75% only. For more than 70% of their requirement SCs, STs and BCs are forced to depend on money lenders who charge abnormal rates of interest. The gap between OCs and other social groups in accessing public credit becomes more pronounced in Coastal Andhra. In Coastal Andhra, while, the OCs are getting more than 70% of their

54

W or ke rs Te M na ar nt gi na s lF ar m Sm er al s lF ar M m id er dl s e Fa rm Ri er ch s Fa rm Tr er Bi s ad g iti Fa on rm al er O s cc up ati A on ni m s al Re ar Em ing pl oy Se ee lfs Em pl oy Bu ed sin es sm en Co nt N ra on cto -A rs g. W or ke rs O th er s

A

gr icu ltu ra l

requirement from public lending institutions, the SCs are getting only up to 10.84% of their requirement from such institutions (Table 32) What ever may be the social group, those who are having more land, will get more institutional credit. So, land plays a dominant role in accessing not only amenities and education but also institutional credit.

Table 32: Credit availability ­ Social groups (state level)

% house holds 3 22.66 6.76 50.80 19.78 100.00 of Institutional credit Private credit

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

Social groups 2

Credit (rupees)

4 1181500 235000 6037500 9533000 16987000

%in total Credit credit (rupees)

5 23.94 18.43 30.75 59.07 40.46 6 3754500 1040000 13599500 6606000 25000000

%in total credit

7 76.06 81.57 69.25 40.93 59.54

Total credit 8 4936000 1275000 19637000 16139000 41987000

SC ST BC OC Total

(Regions- Annexure 16)

34. % of Institutional Credit in total credit ­ Social groups

70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 SC ST BC OC

55

iii.Credit ­ Region wise Institutional lending is not uniform across the regions. Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema are meeting more than 50% of their credit requirements from public institutions where as Telangana had to depend on private lending up to 68% of its requirements (Table 33).

Table 33: Credit availability - Region wise

Sl. No 1 1 2 3

Institutional credit Region

2 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

Private credit

Credit (rupees)

3 576200 3194000 8031000 16987000

%in total Credit credit (rupees)

4 51.37 52.79 32.49 40.46 5 5455000 2856000 16689000 25000000

%in total credit credit

6 48.63 47.21 67.51 59.54 7 11217000 6050000 24720000 41987000

Total

35. % of institutional credit in total credit ­ Region wise

60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Pradesh

56

Chapter IV

Reasons for Rural Poverty: Shrinking incomes and rising expenditure

1.Per capita daily income

As we go from SCs to OCs, per capita daily incomes go on rising. While the percapita daily income of SCs is Rs. 22.99, it is Rs 40.69 for OCs, which is almost twice that of the SCs. Compared to the percapita of STs also, it is nearly twice. But, the gap between OCs and SC, STs appears narrow when compared to a similar gap between large farmers and agricultural workers. There will be some poor house holds among OCs, which reduces it's average per capita income. Similarly, the presence of some rich people among SCs raises its percapita to some extent. As a result, the gap between OCs and SCs appears smaller than the gap between large farmers and agricultural workers because there will be no poor among large farmers and no wealthy people among agricultural workers. As there will be no rich among the poor and no poor among the rich, the gap between economic groups will be more. The fact is that the real gap between different groups is masked when we look at them from social angle (Table -34).

Table 34: Per capita income - social groups (State level)

Sl. No 1 1 2 3 4 5

No. households Per capita daily Social surveyed income groups 2 3 4 SC 411 22.99 ST 124 23.46 BC 916 27.22 OC 371 40.69 Total 1822 28.60 (Regions and sub regions - Annexure 17)

57

36. Per capita daily income ­ Social group wise

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 SC ST BC OC Average

The per capita daily income of SCs and STs is more in Telangana and less in Rayalaseema. They are Rs 24.82 and Rs 25.25 respectively in Telangana and Rs. 19.02 and Rs. 19.37 respectively in Rayalaseema. In Telangana, they get more from cultivation. That is why, their per capita daily incomes are more in Telangana. But, in Rayalaseema, the income from cultivation is nominal. For the same reason, their per capita daily incomes are more is Telangana compared to coastal Andhra also (table 35). The reasons for higher per capita daily incomes in Telangana are 1. Working days are more and wage rates are also slightly more. 2. Higher income from cultivation. BCs are also no better. The per capita daily income of BCs is slightly more than SCs and STs and far less than OCs in all the regions.

Table 35: Per capita income - social groups (Region wise)

Sl. No

1 2 3 4

Social group SC ST BC OC Total

Coastal Andhra 22.54 21.91 25.43 39.85 27.76

Region Rayalaseema Telangana 19.02 24.82 19.37 25.25 29.01 27.75 44.11 39.62 30.20 28.66 58

Andhra Pradesh 22.99 23.46 27.22 40.69 28.60

37. Per capita daily income of social groups ­ Region wise

Irrespective of the region, the per capita daily income of OCs is nearly double that of that the SCs and STs. Table 36: Per capita daily income - economic groups (State level)

Sl. No. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Economic Group 2 2 Contractors Large Farmers Rich Farmers Employees Pensioners Middle Farmers Businessmen Self-Employed Non-Ag. Workers Traditional Occupations Small Farmers Animal Rearing Others Marginal Farmers Agricultural Workers Tenants Commission Agents Total

No.of house holds surveyed

3 3 16 51 106 1 90 30 73 264 65 146 43 60 195 550 109 3 1805

Total income

Annual No. of Per income of persons in capita the total daily the house households income holds

5 430045 316129 130244 65474 42000 60559 46930 46951 42654 38412 42525 36615 24097 26341 24657 26113 26916 41479 6 14 74 252 445 3 419 112 292 1091 249 631 168 169 745 2032 462 14 7172 7 252.47 187.27 72.22 42.73 38.36 35.64 34.44 32.16 28.28 27.47 26.96 25.68 23.44 18.89 18.28 16.88 15.80 28.60

4 1290136 5058079 6642467 6940210 42000 5450326 1407897 3427413 11260672 2496761 6208687 1574424 1445807 5136488 13561554 2846327 80748 74869996

(Regions and sub regions - Annexure 18)

59

38. Per capita daily income of economic groups

300.00 Per Capita Daily Income (in Rs.) 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00

In rural areas, the incomes of large and rich farmers and contractors are the highest. Their annual income is found to be between Rs.1,30,244 and Rs 4,30,045 in the 88 villages, where the survey was undertaken. So, their per capita daily incomes are between Rs.72.22 and Rs 252.47. Middle farmers, pensioners and employees can be classified as middle class house holds. Their annual income is between Rs 42000/- and Rs 65,474/and their per capita daily income is between Rs 35.64 and 42.73. But, the percapita daily income of agriculture workers is only Rs 18.28; where as it is Rs 187.27 for large farmers which is 10.24 times more than that of agricultural worker. The per capita daily income of contractors is still higher. It is Rs 252.47 and is 13.8 times more than that of the agricultural workers. Even the income of rich farmers is also many times more than that of agricultural workers.

60

tr Bi act o g F a rs R ic rm h e Fa rs rm Em e pl rs o Pe ye es n M id sio dl e ner s F Bu arm si n er Se es s sm lf Tr No -Em en ad n p iti -A g loy on . W ed al o O cc rke up r s Sm a al tion lF s An im arm al e R rs ea rin M a g Ag rgin Ot he ric al rs F ul tu a r m ra l W ers or C ke om Te rs m is si nan on ts Ag en ts

Economic Categories

C on

In rural areas, there are four groups of people who are below poverty line, if Rs 20/- is taken as poverty line. They are 1) Agricultural workers 2) Tenants 3) marginal farmers and 4) Commission agents in the villages. They constitute 59.66% of the households in the villages (table 1). But, among agriculture dependent house holds, they constitute 86.82% (table 2). That means 60% of the total households or 86.82% of the agriculture dependent households in the villages are below poverty line. If Prof. Utsa Patnaik's estimates of rural poverty is taken into account the poverty line becomes Rs.33.33. Then, 87.76% of the total households and 95.19% of the agricultural dependent households in the rural areas will be below poverty line. If we examine the groups that are below poverty line, they are either landless or having very little land. That means, those households which are landless or having very little land are below poverty line. Per capita daily income of non- agricultural workers is Rs 28.28. They are better compared to agricultural workers. Non-agricultural workers also work on farms when there is no work out side agriculture. Compared to agricultural workers, other groups in non-agricultural sector are also having higher per capita incomes. It ranges from Rs 23.44 to Rs 34.44 for other groups (table 36).

Per Capita daily income ­ Economic groups (Region wise)

A) As we have already seen, per capita daily income of agricultural workers in Telangana will be more than that in Coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema. B) Tenant farmers are at the bottom of the economic scale. The average per capita daily income of tenants in the state is Rs.16.88 only. It is still less in Rayalaseema and Telangana regions and they are Rs12.10 and Rs

61

13.61 Respectively. Here in these regions fixed rent system is very rare. Share cropping system with some local variations exist in these regions. It is more exploitative compared to fixed rent system. Added to this, it is mostly rain fed cultivation and so risky. As in Coastal Andhra, here also, moneylenders and input dealers are squeezing them. Table 37: Per capita daily income - economic groups (Region wise)

S.No Economic group Region Coastal Rayalaseema Telangana Andhra Andhra Pradesh 17.55 17.95 19.30 18.28 21.12 12.10 13.61 16.88 17.72 14.26 21.53 18.89 35.61 22.87 25.03 26.96 40.75 29.45 35.53 35.64 73.47 55.81 77.71 72.22 210.35 209.41 126.26 187.27 23.20 35.14 28.41 27.47 20.13 30.60 23.61 25.68 45.09 54.50 39.31 42.73 35.81 27.40 29.91 32.16 0.00 0.00 38.36 38.36 27.08 74.07 30.76 34.44 145.68 256.85 320.75 252.47 0.00 0.00 15.80 15.80 28.86 28.23 27.93 28.28 19.81 30.70 23.52 23.44

27.76 30.20 28.66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Ag. workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employees Self-Employed Pensioners Businessmen Contractors Commission Agents Non-Ag. Workers Others Total

28.60

(Regions ­ Annexure 18)

62

39. Regional Variation in Per Capita Income (rupees) across Economic Groups

C) The per capita daily income of marginal farmers is only Rs 18.89 which is slightly more than that of agricultural workers, but, they are also below poverty line. In Rayalaseema, the per capita daily income is far less. It is Rs 14.26 only. Marginal farmers are facing many problems like non ­ availability of institutional credit, exploitation of input dealers, unstable market conditions etc in addition to the risky rain fed cultivation. D) Small farmers are better of in coastal region compared to other regions. Per capita daily income of small farmers in coastal Andhra is Rs. 35.61 where as it is Rs. 22.87 only in Rayalaseema. In Telangana, it is Rs 25.03.

63

E) Compared to agricultural workers and marginal farmers, the incomes of middle and rich farmers are far better. But the rich farmers per capita daily income is almost double that of the middle farmers in all the regions. L) Large farmers and contractors are the highest income earners in the villages and their per capita daily incomes are between Rs. 120/- and Rs. 320/- in the different regions of the state. Compared to per capita daily incomes of agricultural workers and tenants they are 7 to 19 times more. The per capita daily incomes of the remaining groups are more than Rs 20/in all the regions. Non-agricultural worker's per capita daily income is nearly equal in all the regions. It is nearly Rs. 28/- which is more than Rs 20/-, the poverty line (table 37).

2. Rural households ­ Expenditure on Education and Health

Data was recorded in respect of expenditure on education and health of households belonging to different economic groups in the state. It is observed that the surveyed households are spending 8.65% of their income on education and 20.6% on health. Low income groups namely agricultural workers, tenants, marginal farmers and small farmers are spending around one fourth of their income (i.e.) from 17.18% to 36.36% on health alone. Other poorer sections are also spending major amounts (i.e.) from 26% to 44% of their income on health. Some times, they have to spend even more. Their incomes are so low that they are not sufficient even to feed them. If they are forced to spend on health also, they have to further reduce their food quota. Hence they need free education and health (table 38).

64

Table 38: Expenditure on education and Health ­ Economic groups

S.No Economic group No. of Total income % in Expenditu % in Expenditure house of the total re on total on education holds households income health income

3

550 109 194 148 89 51 16 65 43 106 73 1 30 3 3 264 60 1805

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

2 Ag. workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Big Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employees Self-Employed Pensioners Businessmen Contractors Commission Agents Non-Ag. Workers Others Total

4

13561562 2846325 5171803 6231373 5392327 6642466 5058079 2496761 1574425 6940210 3427413 42000 1407897 1290136 80748 11260672 1445807 74870000

5 550916 433750 334510 575600 729220 1075700 858500 154410 44700 287520 143840 9000 152300 48500 15400 492900 37650 5944416

6 4.06 15.22 6.49 9.23 13.42 16.19 16.97 6.18 2.84 4.14 4.20 3.53 10.82 4.50 19.07 4.38 2.60 7.94

7 1533430 317150 634100 506000 387400 416040 35000 170800 113300 229550 159400 10000 155900 8000 0 1143750 125450 5945270

8 11.31 11.13 12.31 8.12 7.13 6.26 0.69 6.84 7.20 3.31 4.65 3.93 11.07 0.74 0.00 10.16 8.68 7.94

(Region ­ Annexure 19)

Expenditure on Health and Education ­ Region wise

The amount spent on education is maximum in Telangana. It is 11.99% of the total expenditure in Telangana, 9.87% in Rayalaseema and minimum 9.14% in coastal Andhra. But the expenditure on health is maximum in Coastal Andhra. It is 28.90% in coastal Andhra, 25.54% in Rayalaseema and minimum 20.26% in Telangana. On an average, the rural households are spending between 32% and 38% on health and education. In coastal Andhra agricultural workers are spending more on their children's education (7.31%). Similarly, marginal farmers are also incurring more expenditure on education in coastal Andhra. But tenants are spending more (16.92%) in Telangana on education. Next comes coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema in the end.

65

But, the poorer sections are spending more on health. In Rayalaseema, agricultural workers are spending maximum (31.52%) on health. It is 26.40% in coastal Andhra and 24.89% in Telangana. Even tenants are also spending more on health. It is between 11% and 27%. Marginal farmers are spending more than what the agriculture workers spend in coastal Andhra and Telangana. It is 41.41% in coastal Andhra and 27.07% in Telangana. On an average, the agricultural workers, marginal farmers and tenants are spending between 33% and 50% of their incomes on education and health across the regions. this is very high, almost reaching half of their income. As it is already stated, the incomes they earn are not even sufficient to fill their bellies twice a day. Spending from their meager earnings on health and education also means further reduction from their food quota. From middle farmers to large farmers, they are spending 24% to 33% of their incomes on education alone. This expenditure is more in Telangana also (except middle farmers) Middle farmers also are spending more on health. But the portion of their income that they spend on health is very very small in the case of rich and large farmers (Table 39)

Table 39: Percentage of Expenditure on education and Health ­ Economic groups (Region wise)

S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Economic group

Coastal Andhra

Expenditure on Education

Rayala seema

3.03 2.98 6.35 10.23 25.16 8.10 44.00 1.47 2.78 6.66 1.04 0.00 5.76

Expenditure on Health

Coastal Andhra

26.49 17.16 41.41 21.78 5.44 12.16 7.89 24.42 40.77 51.45 37.34 0.00 37.99

Telangana

5.65 16.92 4.83 13.09 5.00 31.15 77.38 10.08 8.33 11.24 6.38 0.00 8.13

Andhra Pradesh

6.02 12.77 6.52 10.68 16.60 29.54 57.16 6.31 4.14 7.45 9.92 0.00 8.66

Rayala seema

31.52 26.75 5.86 28.06 39.62 9.24 1.31 16.22 24.76 36.63 12.40 0.00 5.76

Telangana

24.89 11.21 27.07 16.35 24.22 15.63 0.00 17.63 13.69 25.46 21.11 0.00 22.45

Andhra Pradesh

30.16 20.37 36.36 17.18 20.26 7.72 0.72 13.99 20.43 25.29 20.03 0.00 22.05

Ag. workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Big Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employees Self-Employed Pensioners Businessmen

7.31 11.80 8.53 6.26 24.07 34.23 32.89 3.61 1.01 2.32 13.62 0.00 10.40

66

S.No 14 15 16 17

Economic group

Coastal Andhra

Expenditure on Education

Rayala seema

8.17 0.00 5.07 0.37 9.87

Expenditure on Health

Coastal Andhra

18.18 0.00 32.84 12.53 28.90

Telangana

48.80 15.51 8.15 6.82 11.99

Andhra Pradesh

32.90 15.51 5.87 4.06 10.60

Rayala seema

0.00 0.00 16.68 38.51 25.54

Telangana

8.40 0.00 24.20 17.20 21.34

Andhra Pradesh

1.40 0.00 20.13 13.74 20.26

Contractors Commission Agents Non-Ag. Workers Others Total

16.36 0.00 2.26 0.00 9.14

Table 40: Expenditure on Education and Health - Social Categories

% of total Total Expenditure % in S.No Social No. of % in income of Expenditure Total expenditure group on total on health total expenditure in total house the education income income holds income households

1 1 2 3 4

2 3 SC 409 ST 122 BC 917 OC 357 Total 1805

4 13573180 3990247 36904736 20405038 74870000

5 6 7 700480 5.16 3066553 91600 2.30 375240 2209124 5.99 8199302 3477266 17.04 3529275 6479270 8.65 15167970

8 22.59 9.40 22.22 17.30 20.26

9 12064006 2833515 30973649 15247247 61125333

10 88.88 71.01 83.93 74.72 81.64

(For regions ­ Annexure 20)

SCs are spending more on health and it is 22.59% of their total income. Similarly BCs are also spending more (i.e.) 22.22% on health. This is very heavy burden on poorer sections (table 40).

3. Causes for rural poverty i) Agricultural workers

Agricultural workers form major part of rural population. 62.22% of the agriculture dependent rural house holds are agricultural workers. Their per capita daily income is only Rs. 18.28 which is below poverty line. The only other group among agriculture dependent households whose per capita daily income is less than Rs. 18.28 is tenants. Why the income of agricultural workers is so low? This can be understood, if we examine tables 41 and 42 carefully where there are

67

particulars about the labour component of expenditure, net income per acre and rate of exploitation etc. What the farmers plead is that they are loosing in agriculture because of high wage rates! To understand this, we have to separate labour component of expenditure from the non-labour component of expenditure. On an average, the labour component of expenditure is only 45.08% in the state (Table 42). That means the farmers are investing more on inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, seed, irrigation etc rather than on agriculture workers. The expenditure on inputs is 54.92%. So, The farmers are loosing heavily while buying and selling (i.e.) while buying inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, seed, pump set etc and while selling the produce. In fact, the farmers are benefited by employing wage labour (i.e.) agricultural workers. How?. The average net income per acre in agriculture is calculated subregion wise using particulars related to 32 crops, spread over all the 22 rural districts in the state. It has turned to be Rs. 10708/- (table 42). Among the crops covered, for Banana, tobacco, turmeric and chillies the net income has turned out to be more than this average and it is more than Rs20,000/-.Principal crops in the state are paddy and cotton and the net income from paddy is Rs. 9846 and that from cotton is Rs.8711. For Groundnut which is mainly rain fed the net income is only Rs. 5959/-. Similarly, the net incomes of others crops are also given in the table (Table 41) (a) Exploitation New Value is created by human labour alone. None else like the fertilizers, pesticides etc can produce new values. Who is raising the crops? It is the agricultural workers and poor peasants who toil on the land and raise crops. So, the crops are the fruits of labour of the workers and it is their own labour which produces paddy, which produces cotton, which produces groundnut etc. So, they should naturally belong to the agricultural workers and toiling peasants. It may be asked that the farmers are also investing on

68

fertilizers, pesticides, seed etc. What benefit they are getting out of it? Yes, they are investing, they are spending on inputs. But, the fertilizers etc, can produce only their own value, not any new value. So, give them that part of the produce which is equal to the amount spent on fertilizers, pesticides, seed, irrigation etc, excluding wages. After paying whatever the landholder spent, including interest, still, there will be a portion of the produce left. This is the new value created (Because, the equivalent value of the inputs is already paid back to the investor (i.e.) the landholder) by the labour of agricultural workers and poor peasants and this should belong to them only. If the land owning farmers work in their fields, they get the fruits of their labour in the form of produce which they take possession after harvesting. But, if the land on which the agricultural labourers work do not belong to them, even if they toil on the land and raise the crops, they can not take possession of the crops they raised. The rightful owner according to the law books is the land holder, but not the actual producers like agricultural workers who actually work in the fields and raise the crops. So, the agricultural workers are not entitled to take possession of the crops they raised. They are entitled only to the wages they receive from the land holders. But the land holders do not pay them wages in full, (i.e.) the entire new value created by them. They pay only a part of the new value as wages and pocket the rest (i.e.) surplus value in the name of profit.

So, in the new value created by the labour of agricultural workers, there are two parts and as a matter of fact both of them should go only to the agricultural worker. But, that is not happening. What is actually taking place is that, the agricultural worker is getting one part in the form of wages and the second part, though it actually belongs to the agricultural worker is going to the landholder in the from of profit (surplus value). That means the agricultural worker is not paid what is due to him (i.e.) the new value which he has created. He is exploited. Rate of exploitation gives the relative shares of agricultural worker and landholder in the new value created. The rate of exploitation is 100% means that the landholder gives the agricultural worker Rs. 100/- as

69

wages and pockets Rs. 100/- as profit. Similarly, if the rate of exploitation is 400%, the landholder gives Rs. 100/- as wages and pockets Rs. 400/- as profit. As owner of the land, he can take possession of the produce, sell it and realize what ever he spent on inputs, wages, interest etc and more in the form of profit. This all happens, because he owns the land. But the agricultural worker has no land of his own. So, he cannot take possession of the crop(produce) he raised and he cannot sell it to realise the full value of his labour in addition to the investments he might have made on inputs. He is exploited because he has no land (means of production). Exploitation can be avoided only when the worker owns the land on which he toils (tables 41 & 42).

Table 41: % of exploitation- crop wise (State level)

Sl. Sub-Region No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Coconut Tobacco Banana Sunflower Bengal Gram Turmeric Maize Paddy Cotton Groundnut Red Gram Chillies Sugarcane

Labour % in Total Non-Labour % in Total Net Income Rate of Component Investment Component of Investment Exploitati of Investment Investment on

3339 9075 7511 3869 3185 9618 3765 5645 6008 4229 2952 17199 16265 39.11 36.44 36.63 43.51 41.94 41.49 40.56 46.93 41.85 39.91 45.31 38.88 59.7 5198 15829 12995 5024 4410 13563 5517 6383 8348 6367 3563 27037 10979 60.89 63.56 63.37 56.49 58.06 58.51 59.44 53.07 58.15 60.09 54.69 61.12 40.3 14464 27429 20906 8772 6813 20382 7896 9846 8711 5959 4056 20404 8789 433.18 302.25 278.34 226.73 213.91 211.92 209.72 174.42 144.99 140.91 137.4 118.63 54.04

70

40: % of Exploitation ­ Crop wise (State level)

500.00 450.00 400.00 350.00

302.25 433.18

300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00

278.34 226.73 213.91 211.92

209.72 174.42 144.99 140.91 137.40 118.63 54.04

50.00 0.00

Table 42 : % of exploitation- Region wise Sl.No Sub-region 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Coastal Andhra North Telangana South Telangana Rayalaseema North Coastal Andhra Andhra Pradesh

Labour % in Total Non-Labour % in Total Net Rate of Component Investment Component Investment Income Exploitation of Investment of Investment

7194 5704 5760 8703 8460

7123

44.27 43.07 41.7 44.54 60.19

45.08

9057 7538 8052 10838 5596

8678

55.73 56.93 58.3 55.46 39.81

54.92

13617 9615 9566 10758 6491

189.28 168.57 166.08 123.61 76.73

150.33

10708

Note 1: Net income derived from the data collected during the public (open) discussions held with the farmers gathered at the village centres. Mostly irrigated crops were taken into account

Note 2: Labour and non-labour (except rent) components of expenditure for raising crop in one acre of land are worked out separately from the data collected from farmers gathered at village centres. (Their sum gives us total expenditure). We know total expenditure (investment) = labour component of expenditure + Non-labour component of expenditure ............. (1) As we know total income and non-labour component of expenditure (expenditure on inputs like fertilizers, pesticides etc.), we can calculate new value created.

. . . New value created = total income ­ non-labour component of expenditure .........

71

(2)

If we substract labour component of expenditure from new value created, we get the remaining new value which is called the surplus value or profit of the land owner.

. . . Surplus value (profit) = new value ­ labour component of expenditure

By substituting new value from equation (2) in equation (3) we get, surplus value (profit) = Total income ­ non-labour component ­ labour component = Total income ­ (non-labour component + labour component)

(3)

. . . surplus value

(profit) = total income ­ total expenditure ( 4) As we know both total income and total expenditure we can calculate surplus value or profit for the landlord. But, rate of surplus value or rate of exploitation = Surplus value Labour component X 100 (5)

We know surplus value and labour component, so we can calculate rate of exploitation using equation (5).

41. % of Exploitation ­ sub ­ region wise

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 76.73 123.61 189.28 168.57 166.08

South Coastal North Telangana South Telangana Andhra

Rayalaseema

North Coastal Andhra

The rates of exploitation are given in last column of tables 41 and 42. The rates of exploitation range from 54% to 433% for 13 crops and from 76.73% to 189.28% in the five sub-regions in our state (32 crops are included here). There are many other crops which are not included here because their acreage is very very small. But, for some of those crops the rate of exploitation went up to 852%. Paddy is the main crop in the state. The rate of exploitation in paddy is 174.42%. Those farmers who employ wage labour for raising paddy exploit the wage workers at the rate of 174.42% which means for every

72

Rs.100/-the farmer pays the agricultural workers as wages, the farmer pockets Rs. 174.42 as profit. Therefore, for every hundred rupees he invests on agricultural worker, he gets Rs.174.42% as profit. So, if he invests one lakh rupees on workers, he gets Rs.1,74,420 as profit. During the year 2008-09, the rate of exploitation in cotton was found to be 144.99%, in Maize it was 209.72%, in Tobacco it was 302.25%. The rate of exploitation in groundnut crop was 140.91%. The rates of exploitation for other crops is given in table 41. In both the tables II column gives the name of the crop, third column labour component of expenditure, fourth, percentage of labour component, fifth, non-labour component of expenditure, sixth, its percentage, seventh, net income and finally the column eighth gives rates of exploitation. The average net income per acre in the state is Rs.10708/-while it is Rs.13617/- in South Coastal Andhra, Rs. 10758/- in Rayalaseema, Rs.9615/- in North Telangana Rs.9566/- in South Telangana and the least Rs.6491/- in North Coastal Andhra. The rate of exploitation is maximum (189.28%) in South Coastal Andhra and minimum (76.73%) in North Coastal Andhra. For the remaining sub-regions the rates of exploitation lie between these two limits. The rate of exploitation is minimum in North Coastal Andhra because (1) the productivity is low (2) the survey was under taken during drought year. So, there were crop failures. Production fell and consequently the value addition got reduced reducing the net income. As a result, the rate of exploitation has come down. In South Coastal Andhra, the rate of exploitation is 189.28%. The rates of exploitation may change from farmer to farmer also.

Dialogue between a farmer and a Wage worker

Padamati Takkellapadu is a moderate village in Santhanuthalapadu mandal of Prakasam district. Main crops in the village are Virginia tobacco, Bengal gram and maize. Some large farmers have taken to forestry also. Survey team was collecting house to house data. It was noon. In a pandal attached to a tobacco barren shed some farmers were chit chatting. Then, two enumerators have entered the pandal. After introduction, the enumerators started eliciting information about the cost of cultivation, output, rate etc. 73

Farmer: What can I say? The input costs are going up every year. Even if we pay Rs.200/- per day nobody is turning up for the work. Under Employment Guarantee Scheme, they are paying Rs. 100/- for only two hours work. What work, they are doing there? Absolutely no work! Just going and coming back. For that they are paid Rs.100/- every day. When, that is the situation in NREGA, how can they come to us for field work? We are being rendered helpless, we are destroyed because of this scheme. Meanwhile, an agricultural worker by name Subbarayudu (incidentally, the famrer's name is also Subbarayudu) who usually works under this farmer came after completing the work under NREGA and sat on the floor listening to the farmer's `owes'. Again the farmer Farmer: Yera Subbadu (that is how the low class people are addressed in the villages) how much time has elapsed after you went to the work? Within so short a time, you have pocketed 100 rupees! Turning to the enumerator, he continued "see the situation! How can they come to our work? In fact, they are lending money for investment. They are well off. No worry; no responsibility!! They are really the happy lot. After listening to the entire episode, not able to withstand the tirade, the agricultural worker (Subbarayudu) burst out. Subbarayudu (worker): Yes, we are happy, is it the thing you want to say? Are we able to give lakhs of rupees dowry to our daughters as you have done to your daughters? Did our children study in America? Employed in America as your children did? Are we both husband and wife able to spend for frequent American trips as both of you did very frequently? Where did you get this money from? This is all our labour, this is all our sweat and blood. Now, only govt. is providing us some relief during this lean season. It is not giving us land, nor any means of production which can make us self dependent. Then, why do you worry so much as if we are liberated from this wage bondage! Soon after the monsoon rains, we will be at your beck and call, do not worry. Why, all this? Tell me one thing. Can I call you, yera Subbadu? As you are calling me right from my childhood? (Work under Employment Guarantee Scheme starts at 7.30 am and ends at 12.00 noon. We saw this in many villages)

(b)Working days and wage rates The number of days of work available in a year for an agricultural worker is 137 only (i.e.) only four and half months. Rest of the year, he has no work. He has to depend on his four and half months earnings for the entire year. Wage rates are also low. The average wage rate in the state is Rs. 78.46 only. If we assume that there are two working members in a household, then the total number of working days available for the household becomes 2x137=274. So

74

they get Rs. 78.46x274=Rs. 21498.04 as annual income from wage work. There are some other sources of income. So, if we add all annual incomes and calculate per capita daily income, it turns out to be Rs. 18.28 only (Table 36). So, agricultural workers incomes are low because the number of working days is less and wage rates are low. Added to this, female workers are not paid on par with male workers. If these three are increased, then their incomes will be improved. But the wage rates depend on rates of exploitation. If the exploitation is more, then the wage rates will come down. So, ultimately, the reasons for low incomes of agricultural workers are three 1) low wages (exploitation) 2) less numbers of working days and 3) wage difference between male and female workers (exploitation). So, in order to increase their incomes, wage rates and number of working days must be increased and equal work must be paid equally, irrespective of gender difference. But, how to increase number of working days? Even this much of work (137 days) has become possible because of the implementation of national rural employment guarantee scheme and boom in the economy during 2008-09. Construction sector was in rapid progress, it was attracting people from rural areas both skilled and unskilled. Hence, there was migration from rural areas, which enhanced the demand for agricultural workers in the villages. Number of working days increased and wages were also slightly increased. That was the period, when the survey was undertaken and the number of working days turned out to be 137. Now, that the conditions are changed, and our economy slipped in to slump, we may not expect the same number of working days and same wage rates (In spite of NREGA being continued).

75

Table 43: No. of Working Days and Wage Rates (State Level)

Male Workers

No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Workers Average Wage

Female Workers

No. of Working Days per Head No. of Workers Average Wage

Total Workers in Households

No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Workers Average Wage

Sl. Region No.

1

2

3

12993

4

89

5

137 146 142 140

6

3281755 1101540 2364951 6748246

Income

7

95.69 84.78 94.59 93.35

8

30120 13661 35852 79633

9

248 103 242 593

10

121 133 148 134

11

1997877 890610 2281364 5169851

Income

12

66.33 65.19 63.63 64.92

13

64414 26654 60854 151922

14

499 192 418 1109

15

129 139 146 137

16

5279632 1992150 4647315 11919097

Income

17

81.96 74.74 76.37 78.46

1 Coastal Andhra 2 Rayalaseema 3 Telangana State Total

34294 251

25002 176 72289 516

(Regions and Subregions, Annexure 21) 76

42. No. of Working Days available per Annum (Region wise)

150

43. Wage Rates (Region wise)

84

145

82

No. of Working Days

80

140

Average Wage 78

135

76

130

74

125

72

120 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Average Regions

70 Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana Average Regions

(Region - Annexure 20)

44. Male ­ Female Wage Rates (Region wise)

77

So, in order to increase the number of working days along with wage rates, we have to embark on a new scheme. There is no big difference between wage rates in irrigated areas and rainfed areas or between fertile delta soils and light soils. The wage rate in fertile and extensively irrigated delta areas in coastal Andhra is Rs81.96 where as it is Rs76.37 in Telangana and Rs74.74 in Rayalaseema (Table 43) Surface irrigation is provided mostly by the govt., but, only the farmers are reaping the fruits of it leaving agricultural workers high and dry. So, for improving the incomes of agricultural workers. 1. Number of working days should go up. 2. Wage rates must be enhanced. 3. Irrespective of gender difference equal pay for equal work.

Number of working days and wage rates are uniformly low in all the regions

Wage rates and number of working days are low in all the regions. So, the incomes of agricultural workers are also low in all the regions. But, the number of working days is (150) slightly higher in North Telangana, where as in South Coastal Andhra wage rates are relatively higher (Rs 84.95). But in North Coastal Andhra both working days (109) and wage rates (Rs 71.14) are the least. That is why, the per capita daily income of agricultural workers is the lowest there (table 44).

78

Table 44: No. of Working Days and Wage Rates (subregion wise)

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Sub region North coastal Andhra South coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana A.P 113 144 146 144 141 140 Male

No. of working days Wage rates

Female

No. of working days Wage rates

Total household

No. of working days Wage rates

87.46 97.68 84.78 97.67 91.78 93.35

105 128 133 137 156 134

56.17 69.56 65.19 64.44 63.15 64.92

109 136 139 140 150 137

71.14 84.95 74.74 80.11 73.70 78.46

45. Working days and wage rates ­ sub-region wise

(c) Gender discrimination in wage rates There is difference between male and female working days. For males it is 140, where as it is 134 for females. There is wage difference also between them. Wage rate for males is Rs 93.35 where as it is only Rs 64.92 for females. This is just 70% of the male wage rate. Female wage rate in North coastal Andhra is the lowest (i.e.) Rs 56.17 only. In South Coastal Andhra it is Rs 69.56 (table 44).

The same old feudal ways of exploitation It was Marella Madaka village in Chakrayapet mandal of Kadapa district. The lands are fertile. There is a small rivulet called Papagni which is providing much needed irrigation to the fields. The rich and large farmers are pumping water to their fields through filters. Though the farmers are rich, the wage rates are very very low. 79

Female workers are paid Rs. 40 to Rs. 50 and male workers Rs. 70 to Rs. 100 per day. Annually workers get around 130 days of work only. During summer, there will be no work. So, the workers are forced to approach big land owners for loans. The land owners use this opportunity and give loans to those who agree to work in their fields at reduced wage rates. Even if other farmers pay more, they will not be allowed to go out till the season's work is completed in their fields or the worker has to continue to work till the loan is cleared. But, the loan will never be cleared because of the usurious rates of interest they levy. When the enumerator asked about the wage rate the worker said "If you take loan, you will be paid half the wages." That is the norm in that village.

So, for the incomes of agricultural workers households to rise, number of working days should be increased and the wage rates should also be increased

There are ample opportunities for enhancing the wage rates and the number of working days. Rainfed lands may be provided with irrigation. Cultivable waste lands and fallow lands may be distributed to the agricultural workers and poor peasants. Radical land reforms must be implemented. If this is done, not only agricultural workers, but also tenants and marginal framers can be brought out of the quagmire of poverty. poverty can be driven out from the countryside.

Till now, only 43% of the net area sown got irrigation. There is plenty of water going into the sea every year. On an average 2000 TMC of water is going waste according to one estimate. So, it is not impossible to give water to at least one crop for the remaining 57% of the net area sown in the state. If that is done, crores of working days can be created. Net area sown in the state is about 2,60,00,000 acres. 57% of the net area sown means 2,60,00,000X 57 = 1,48,20,000 acres 100 If this much of area is provided with irrigation, then the number of working days will be increased by 1,48,20,000 x 36= 53,35,20,000 (Because, an acre of dry land converted in to wet provides on an average 36 days of extra

80

employment). There are 68,01,722 agricultural workers households in the state. So, the number of days of extra work each household gets =53,35,20,000/ 68,01,722 = 78.43 days. Thus, each agricultural house hold gets annually 78 days of extra work. (In addition to the land that would be distributed to them). Extension of irrigation leads to not only increase in employment, but also increase in productivity of the soil. (According to this study wet land gives 4.5 times more returns than the dry land.) So, farmers also get benefited. They will be able to pay higher wages. On the other hand, the demand for wage workers will also increase resulting in enhanced wage rates.

Besides providing irrigation, if the land reform acts are genuinely implemented, if the cultivable waste and fallow lands are distributed properly, then lakhs of households will get land (1.70 crore acres of land is available for distribution in the state apart from ceiling lands.) If so much of cultivable waste and fallow lands are brought under cultivation, working days will increase further, increasing the demand for agricultural workers. As a result, wage rates will also go up.

Working days will be doubled if irrigation is provided for the lands so distributed.

ii)Tenants

This is another group, which is in poverty. It's per capita daily income is the lowest (Rs 16.88) in the villages. There are several reasons for their low income. They are getting 40.5% of their income from wage work which is a major portion of their income. So, if the wage rates go up, the income of the tenant farmers will also go up. Added to that the increase in wage rates lessens the competition between tenants and leads to the fall in rates of rent which ultimately results in further enhancing the income of the tenants.

81

-

They are tenant farmers only for name sake. Their income share from tenant cultivation is only 22.09%. (Table 26, col.6) which means, Tenant cultivation is not viable. There are number of reasons for this to become un viable A) There is heavy competition for tenancy among agricultural workers and marginal farmers because of low wage rates. The competition became so intense that the rate of rent went up till it almost became equal to the net income from self cultivation.

Tenant Farming, a gambling in life It is Peddampalli village in Regonda Mandal in Warangal district. Though, it is rainfed farming, with good moisture retention capacity, the soils are better suited for commercial crops like cotton and chillies. Normally, the area gets good rains during south-West monsoon. Because of these favourable factors farmers prefer growing cotton and chillies with intensive production practices. But, most of them are marginal and small farmers. So, they lease in some more land and raise commercial crops. During 2007-08, everything went on well and there was bumper crop. The cotton yields went up to 20 Q/ acre. During that year, the land rent was also not high. It was around Rs. 5000/-. So, most of the farmers could earn handsome profits during that year. Next year, there was heavy competition for leasing. The land rent has gone up to Rs. 12000/- per acre. Despite, high rates of rent, farmers ventured to invest in this enterprise with the hope that they would get similar profits this year also. However, this year (2008-09), the monsoon was erratic and the rainfall was scanty. As a result, there was drastic fall in per acre yields. Cotton yields went down up to 5Q per acre. In addition to the high rents, the farmers invested around Rs. 8000 for cotton and more for chillies on inputs. So, the tenant farmers lost heavily because of crop failure. This mandal, Regonda had earned the dubious distinction of scoring the highest number of farmers' suicides in the state during 2001-04. Now, one can understand the reason behind the farmers' suicides. Now a days, tenant farming has become worst form of gambling.

Land owners prefer leasing out their land if the rate of rent is more than or equal to the net income in self cultivation. In such cases the chance of tenants incurring losses will be more. Rates of rent are given in column 4 of tables 45 and 47, where as the net incomes are given in last columns of tables 45, 46, 47 and 48.

82

Table 45: Rent, Expenditure and Income Tenant cultivation (Irrigated Land)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5

North Andhra South Andhra

Region 2

Coastal Coastal

Expenditur Area in Rent (in Expenditure e per Acre acres Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) 3 4 5 6 14.00

205.95

Total Income (in Rs.) 7 187445

5733046

Net Income Net Income Per Acre (in Rs.) (in Rs.) 8 9 15335

346968

6110

10951

202780

5386078

14484 26152 25962 14560 20701 23798

1095

1685

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

37.05

11.00 107.50

8379

5261 7671

961910

160160 2225336

968386

151379 2323266

6476

8781 97930

175

798 911

Total

375.50

9411 8936264 (For districts Annexure 22)

9363522 427258

1138

Table 46: Expenditure and Income Own Cultivation (Irrigated Land)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 2

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra

Region

Net income Area in Expenditure Expenditure Per Total Income Net Income Per Acre (in acres (in Rs.) Acre (in Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) Rs.) 3 4 5 6 7 8

186.30 1777285 6735980 4403255 5114186 9231941 27262647 9540 13011 15836 18521 17414 15245 2898085 11902845 7567346 7086361 14161529 43616166 1120800 5166865 3164091 1972175 4929588 16353519 6016 9980 11380 7142 9298 9145

517.70 Rayalaseema 278.05 South Telangana 276.13 North Telangana 530.15 Total 1788.33

(For districts­ Annexure 23)

83

46. Rate of Rent and Net income in self-cultivation are almost equal in irrigated land

Rate of Rent

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Net Income

47. Regional variation in Rates of Rent for Wet land (Rs. Per Acre)

12000 10000 8000 6110 6000 4000 2000 0 5261 10951 9411 8379 7671

84

48. Income and Expenditure per acre in tenant cultivation (irrigated land)

Expenditure

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 5000

Net Income

North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra

Rayalaseema

South Telangana

North Telangana

Average

In irrigated land, the average rate of rent (Rs. 9411/-) is more than the average net income (Rs.9145/-) in the state (self-cultivation). So, the possibility of tenants incurring losses becomes more. For a tenant, the net average income in the state is only Rs. 1138/-. In North Coastal Andhra and South Coastal Andhra the rates of rent are more than the respective net incomes. However, in Rayalaseema, South Telangana and North Telangana the rates of rent are less than the respective net incomes in self-cultivation. But the difference is small (i.e.) two to three thousand rupees only. So, for the year long toil, the tenant if he is lucky may get at the most a net income of two to three thousand rupees per acre only (tables 45 and 46).

According to table 45, in irrigated land if the tenant spends on an average Rs. 23798/- per acre, the net income, he gets is only Rs. 1138/-. But in rain fed land the tenant invests Rs. 10577/- per acre, and gets in return a loss of Rs.1699/- (table 47).

85

The rent rates are high in all the sub-regions, though there is some variation depending on the productivity of the soil and pressure on land. In South Coastal Andhra, for irrigated land, the land rent is maximum and it is Rs. 10951/- where as it is minimum (Rs. 5261/-) in South Telangana. The average rate of rent in the state is Rs. 9411/- which is higher than the average net income (Rs. 9145/-) in self cultivation in the state.

In rain fed areas also south Coastal Andhra tops in rate of rent (i.e.) Rs. 2000/-. As in the previous case, South Telangana is at the bottom with a rent of Rs.1323/-. The average rent rate in the state is Rs.1598/- (table 47).

Coming to the net income in the irrigated self-cultivated land, it is on an average Rs. 9145/- per acre in the state. If we examine sub-region wise, the same is maximum in Rayalaseema (Rs.11380/-) and minimum in North Coastal Andhra (Rs.6016/-) (farmers in Madhavaram, a village under KC canal ayacut in Kurnool district raised seed crop jowar on contract basis. The seed farmers earned very high profits. Because of this, the net income became highest in Rayalaseema).

Table 47: Rent, Expenditure and Income Tenant cultivation (Dry Land)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 2

North Andhra South Andhra Coastal Coastal

Region

Total Expenditur Area in Rent (in Expenditure e per Acre Income acres Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) 3 4 5 6 7

2.00 4.00 35.00 49.00 22.50 112.50 1500 2000 1800 1323 1822 1598 14000 28000 254980 635754 257165 1189899 7000 7000 7285 12975 11430 10577 7000

Net Net Income Income Per Acre (in Rs.) (in Rs.) 8 9

7000 3500 -1250 1630 3524 2248 1699

Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

Total

23000 -5000 197926 57054 463070 172684 307750 50585 998746 191153

(For Districts­ Annexure 24)

86

Table 48: Expenditure and Income Own Cultivation (Dry Land)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 2

North Coastal Andhra South Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema South Telangana North Telangana

Region

Net income Area in Expenditure Expenditure Per Total Income Net Income Per Acre (in acres (in Rs.) Acre (in Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.) Rs.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 1.00 67.15 558.50

302.75

7500 580370 3960550

2211644

7500 8643 7091 7305 8614

8100 752680 4749141

2800250

600 172310 788591

588606

600 2566 1412

1944

Total

372.70 1302.10

3210477 9970541

7657

4291225 12601396

1080748 2630855

2900 2020

(for Districts ­ Annexure 25)

Note 1: Net incomes are worked out using the data collected from 10% households Note 2:Rayalaseema shows highest net income because farmers of Madhavaram village (Kurnool district) raised seed crops and got abnormal profits. This may not reflect the reality in the district.

49. Rate of Rent and Net income in self-cultivation are almost equal in Dry land

Rate of Rent

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Net Income

North Coastal South Coastal Rayalaseema South Andhra Andhra Telangana

North Telangana

Average

87

50. Regional variation in Rates of Rent for Dry land (Rs. Per Acre)

2500 2000 2000 1500 1500 1323 1800 1822 1598

1000

500

0

North Coastal South Coastal Rayalaseema Andhra Andhra

South Telangana

North Telangana

Average

51. Income and Expenditure per acre in tenant cultivation (Dry land)

Expenditure

14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2000 4000 6000

Net Income

North Coastal South Coastal Rayalaseema Andhra Andhra

South Telangana

North Telangana

Average

The average rate of rent in the state for dry land is Rs. 1598/- and the net income in self cultivation is (i.e.) Rs. 2020/- only. So, what the tenant may get is paltry Rs. 422/- in this case. But in Rayalaseema and North Coastal Andhra the rent rates are higher than net incomes. So, the chance of loosing is more for the tenants here. But it is some what better in South Coastal Andhra, North Telangana, South Andhra and South Telangana, the net incomes being slightly higher.

88

In rainfed lands, the net income is very very small in self-cultivation also. The average net income in the state is only Rs. 2020/-. Sub-region wise, it is maximum in South Coastal Andhra (Rs. 2566/-) and minimum in North Coastal Andhra (Rs.600/-) (Table 48)

So, it is clear that in irrigated lands, the average net income per acre is around rupees nine thousand and in rainfed area it is around rupees two thousand.

If we compare the net income in irrigated lands (Rs.9145/-) and net income in rain fed lands (Rs.2020/-), irrigated land gives 4.5 times more income than that of the rainfed lands. This proves beyond any doubt that irrigation plays a crucial role in making small peasant farming viable and making the country self sufficient in food grains. B) Because this is oral tenancy, they will not get bank credit. They have to depend mostly on private moneylenders who charge very heavy rates of interest. With that, the expenditure goes up reducing the net income. C) More over, they will be forced to sell their produce only to the moneylender. If the moneylender is also an input dealer, he will be forced to buy the inputs also from him. Thus, the tenant farmers loose both ways, while buying and while selling also. D) Because it is oral tenancy, there will be no guarantee for the tenant that he will remain on land next year. He may be asked to vacate the land. So, he can not invest to develop land. So, the productivity falls. Because the tenant is loosing in several ways, his per capita daily income is at the bottom, even lesser than that of agricultural worker (table 35). If the net income of the tenant is negative or insignificant, why should they continue in tenant cultivation? If the rate of rent and net income in

89

self cultivation are almost equal why should the tenant undertake tenant cultivation? There are some reasons for the tenant to continue in tenancy. They use family labour for raising crops in the land. To that extent, they will save wage component and that is a gain for the tenant. They get fodder for the milch animals which is also an income. Compared to agricultural workers, they enjoy better social status in the villages.

Because of these benefits, they undertake tenant cultivation in spite of net income in tenancy becoming zero or negative.

The particulars of family labour, a farmer (self cultivating farmer or tenant farmer) employs in raising the crops is not taken into account while calculating the per capita daily income because the farmers could not give details about family labour. To this extent, there will be error in per capita income of farmers who employ family labour also for raising crops) iii)Marginal farmers Even for marginal farmers, the percapita daily income is less than Rs20/-(i.e.) Rs 18.89 only. The reasons for the low income of marginal farmers are A) The labour component of marginal farmer's income is as high as 42.95%. This is more than what he gets from cultivation. So, if the wage rates are low their income falls. B) The land they own is very little. The average land (Rainfed) of a marginal farmer in the state is only 3.48acres. So, with that land, with out irrigation, cultivation becomes unviable. C) Marginal farmers also are heavily dependent on private moneylenders. There fore, the usurious rates of interest they charge, naturally swallows, what ever little, they save in cultivation. D) As in the past, there is no extension department to guide them as to what fertilizer or what pesticide, they have to use. Therefore the farmers are

90

forced to depend on selfish input dealers for guidance and are being cheated. E) They are loosing heavily on account of Market fluctuations and natural calamities iv) Tribals The per capita daily income of tribals in the state is Rs. 23.46 which is slightly more than that of SCs. Though the average land per household (1.76 acres) is also more than what the SCs are having, the land is of very poor quality covered with stones and bushes and spread over a hilly region. So, the income from the land is very very limited. The other avocation for them is gathering forest produce. But, they are completely deceived while selling their forest produce. That is why, their incomes are so low that the amenities they access and the literacy levels they achieve are also far less than that of SCs. v) Commission agents The sample size is very very small. Only three out of 1805 households. So the reality may not be reflected. vi) Small farmers Though the per capita daily in come of small farmers is above Rs. 20/-, it is only Rs 26.96. They are also suffering because of market fluctuations and natural calamities. Added to this they are not getting institutional credit to the extent of their requirement and are made to depend on input dealers for guidance.

91

"How much time we require to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; achieve universal primary education; promote gender equality and empower women; reduce child mortality; improve maternal health; combat malaria, HIV/AIDS like diseases; ensure environmental stability and prepare people for partnership in the economic and cultural development (The Millennium Development Goals supposed to be achieved by 2015 as per the UNO pledge of 2000)?!"

M.S.Swaminathan (2009)

92

Chapter V

Guidelines to reduce social and economic inequalities among rural people

1. Importance of Cultivable land

We have seen that the poverty stricken groups in the villages are (1) Agricultural workers (2) Tenants and (3) Marginal farmers. They constitute 59.43% of the total households in the rural areas (table 1) or 86.82% of the agricultural dependent house-holds (table 2). Most of them are landless. If at all they own any land, it will be meager. In order to pull them out of poverty, they must either be given sufficient land for cultivation or provide them employment for at least-270 days in a year.

Where can we get money for medicines? During the survey in Isaipet village of Machareddy Mandal in Nizamabad district, we came across a family leading a most miserable life. Mr. Sailu, a daily wage worker has to support a family of seven with his meager earnings. His father is a paralytic patient who is confined to bed, while his mother afflicted with arthritis is not able to move. He has got three children and they are under nourished and anemic. His wife, though eager to support the family with her earnings is forced to stay in doors to take care of his diseased parents and his little ones. So, he is the lone earning member in the family. Because of uncertainty in getting work in the village, he goes to the nearby town for odd jobs and earns around Rs.100/- a day. On an average he earns about Rs. 2500/- per month. So, the entire family has to live on that. No full meals, only roti or gruel. Even that is not available all the 365 days. When the enumerator asked the old man as to why he is not using medicine to cure his disease, he shot back "when there is not even gruel to drink, where can we get money for medicines? The under nourished children and anemic wife of Sailu were mute spectators standing around the beds of diseased old grandparents and waiting for their bread earner to return from the town.

There is sufficient land, both govt. and private for distribution in the state. There is 16.4lakh acres of cultivable wastelands and 104.23 lakh acres of fallows (Both current and other fallows). The owners might have kept them fallow, because they are not yielding expected returns or for some other reason. It may not be a loss for them to keep the lands fallow. But it becomes a big national loss. If this is encouraged, the food security of the country maybe threatened. So, the fallow lands of 93

such large farmers who evince no interest in cultivation may be taken over by the govt. by paying compensation. Top 5% of the households own 37.72% of the land in the state. Net area sown in the state is about 2,60,00,000acers. 37.72% of the net area means 2,60,00,000 x 37.2% 100

= 98,07,200 acres.

This is large farmers' land. So, we can safely assume that half of the above land (ie) 49,03,600 acres is leased out. The owners are not interested in raising or in maintaining the productivity of the soil. They are interested only in extracting as much rent as possible. (The tenant is also not interested, because it is oral tenancy, he is not sure of retaining the land for long). Because, such large farmers have no interest, their leased out lands may be acquired after paying compensation. It is a well known fact that large land owners, through out the state, using loopholes in the land ceiling laws saved big chunks of their surplus lands. Such lands can be distributed to the landless poor. So, the land available for distribution is as follows. 1. Cultivable waste lands 2. Current and other fallows Total : : = 16,40,000 acres 104,23,000 49,03,600 1,69,66,600 acres

3. Land leased out by large farmers :

So, there is 1.69crore acres of land for distribution. Ceiling surplus lands are excluded from this. Land available for distribution 53.8% of the rural house holds are landless. Number of rural households 53.8% of these households= 1,26,07,167 x 53.8 100 =1,26,07,167 = 67,82,656 = 1,69,66,600 acres.

So, no of landless house holds = 67,82,656

94

Land for each land less household

=

Land available for distribution No of land less rural households

1,69,66,600 67,82,656

= 2.5 acres

That means, every land less house hold in the state can be allotted 2.5 acres of land.

2.To improve the income levels of the poor

The house holds who got the land are very very poor. So they work on the allotted land to raise crops. If they employ wage workers during seasons like planting, harvesting etc, they also go to others as wage labourers for some days. If the amount of labour hired in and hired out are equal, then we can take that the crops are raised using family labour alone. In such a case, there will be two components in their income of which (1) the net income earned by selling the produce and (2)The wage income earned through family labour (Though it is not actually paid, it is income for the household because the house hold did not employ any labour and did not pay anything for it).

The number of working days needed to raise crops in 2.5 acres will be small. So, the working members of the household get themselves employed as wage workers in other's fields. Thus, they get income from wage work also. As 120.63 lakh acres of hither to uncultivated land (cultivable waste-16.4 and fallows -104.23) is brought under cultivation, crores of working days will be created. No. of extra days of work = 120,63,000 x 30 = 36, 18, 90,000 (to raise crops in one acre of dry land, 30 days of work is needed)

extra work / household = 36,18,90,000 68,01,722 = 53.2 days

95

So, 53 extra days of work becomes available by bringing waste and fallow lands under the plough. This is in addition to 78 working days that will be created by extending irrigation. This leads to increased demand for wage labour and enhanced wage rates.

Thus, the family gets income both from land and from wage work. If the ceiling laws are strictly applied and the surplus land is also distributed, the poorer sections will get some more land. Thus, their incomes will go up and their per capita daily income will increase. Added to this, they can take up supplementary activities like poultry, dairying, animal rearing etc. to raise their incomes. So, they get income (1) from cultivation (2) from wage work and (3) there is a possibility for taking up supplementary activities and enhancing their incomes.

As the incomes rise, their purchasing power also goes up, creating demand for industrial goods. The increased demand for industrial goods paves the way for rapid industrialization and the advancement of the society. This will help the poor in enhancing their skills and opting for nonagricultural jobs. With extra income from land and higher incomes from wages, they can have two square meals a day, they can educate their children and they can approach a doctor when the situation warrants. For socially back ward groups, land gives them confidence, land gives them social status also.

3. Suggestions for raising living standards of the landless poor

- They must be provided with at least 2.5 acres of land

- Irrigation facility must be provided - Bank loan for land development - In puts must be provided at subsidized rates.

96

- Remunerative prices for the crops raised - Extension services must be brought to the door step of the farmers. - (This is still a small farmer cultivation. Without govt. support, it becomes unsustainable)

One need not become wonder struck after seeing this charter of demands. Why? Because, this is nothing when compared to the Rs five lakh crore bail out packages doled out to corporate houses in the last budget. If the corporate houses are given concessions, they make use of them only for their own benefit. But the concessions that are given to the poor will not only help them, but also help the country. - This is the sure way of solving agricultural crisis. - food security will be achieved - Poverty can be banished from the country - This increases the demand for industrial products paving the way for rapid industrialization - SC and STs become more self-dependent. They become self confident and try to assert themselves which results in lessening of caste discrimination. So, following are the suggestions offered-

(i) Long term measures ­ Ag workers and tenants

A) Not less than 2.5 acres of land must be given to each landless household. B) C) D) E) F) Institutional loans for the development of land. Irrigation must be provided. In puts at subsidized rates. Remunerative prices for the produce Extension services at the door step of the farmers

97

(2) Immediate steps for improving the living standards of the poor i) Agricultural workers A) Irrigation should be provided to the remaining 57 % of the net are sown.

B) The minimum wage must be increased to Rs.118/- and it must be implemented through out the year. Separate machinery must be set up to implement the minimum wage. C) Under rural employment guarantee scheme 130days of work must be provided for all those who ask for it. Irrespective of gender difference Rupees 118/- wage rate must be implemented equally for all. D) Subsidized rice quota must be enhanced to 35kg. Existing rate of Rs 2/- per kg must be continued. Other essential items should also be supplied at subsidized rates through fair price shops. E) The govt. should take complete responsibility for feeding, clothing, sheltering and providing books to all school age children up to secondary level. F) At high school and intermediate levels technical training schools must established extensively and they must be accessible to all. G) Govt. should provide free and quality medical care. It should be accessible to all.

ii)Tenant farmers

A) B) They must be registered Two thirds of the produce should be the share of the tenant. A law must be enacted to that effect. C) D) E) F) G) Inputs must be supplied at subsidized rates. Extension services must be made available. Institutional credit must be made available. Govt. should provide free and quality medical care. Remunerative prices for the produce.

98

iii)Marginal farmers

A) B) C) D) E) In puts must be supplied at subsidized rates. Institutional credit to the extent needed. Remunerative prices for the produce. Extension services. Free and quality medical care.

iv)Tribals

In order to raise their living standards ­ A) 1/70 must be implemented in letter and spirit. Tribal rights must be protected. B) Mining should not be allowed without the consent of grama sabhas. C) Corruption in ITDA must be eliminated. Remunerative prices for tribal produce. Out side people must be prohibited from doing business. D) The govt. should take complete responsibility for feeding, clothing, sheltering and providing books to all school age children up to the secondary level. E) F) G) Technical schools after secondary education in tribal areas. Free and quality medical care should be provided. At the time of seasonal diseases, medical aid must be provided at their door step.

v) Small farmers, middle farmers and rich farmers

A) B) C) D) Inputs at subsidized rates. Institutional credit Remunerative prices for the produce. Extension services.

99

vi) Holistic development of Village

A) B) C) Protection of resources at the village level. Supplementary activities must be modernized. Road and Telephone connectivity should be improved.

Some more suggestions: The rural surveys clearly exposed the intensity and seriousness of disparities prevailing among different economic and social groups of Andhra Pradesh. The studies also revealed that the welfare schemes implemented by both sate and central governments could hardly reduce the gaps between the upper and lower strata of society. The situation demands a radical change in planning and execution. A uniform planning and development programme keeping the so called "growth engines" as targets may enhance production. However, unless a "new vision" of reducing the gaps for sustainable development becomes the ultimate goal, the economic and social crisis deepens. The agricultural wage earners, marginal and tenant farmers who form the larger part of rural societies should be elevated by providing real assets and share in production instead of subsidies and temporary benefits. Interestingly majority of the SCs, STs, BCs and religious minority communities fall in this economic group. The assets these group own, the amenities they realize and the extra pressures to which they are exposed (to invest more on education and health) emphatically reveal the hollowness of the policies embraced by the governments, hither to. In that context few guidelines' underscored by several expert sociologists with rural background and political activists who struggle for sustainable development are given hereunder. Creating "assets-base" to major sections of rural populations. Land reforms in letter and spirit should be implemented. Elimination of absentee landlordism that also disrupts the cause of sustainable agricultural practices, should become part of it.

100

Govt. support to develop irrigation structures so that each and every acre of land becomes suitable for agriculture crop production, animal husbandry etc. Assessments of experts reveal the possibility of such water distribution. Similarly the new group of farmers should be supported by public funded research and extension wings instead of exposing them to science-traders or input dealers. Fixing priorities to extend credit support for strengthening this new group of farmers by public owned institutes including commercial banks. Stringent tenant laws that favour farmers who opt to take land on rent until a real dream of land to the tiller is fulfilled. Implementing wage-structure of rural professions including agriculture in a way that the work is treated or considered as a valuable profession. Providing inputs-seeds and other artificial resources ­ with govt. support at subsidized rates that reduces the cost of production at field level. Protecting the interest of these sections in obtaining appropriate share in community resources including tanks, lakes, grazing land, drain-bunds etc that are additional assets of village. Restructuring the education and health system in a way that a common school or common hospital is provided to the entire community of the village. Transferring executive power to local bodies in true sense, to make the village level leaders as partners in the development activities. Decentralization of governance in true spirit will facilitate this goal. Ensure nutritious food and drinkable water for all in the process of strengthening the concept of a "healthy child a real wealth" to the society. Develop a "crop insurance scheme" village ­ wise.

101

Protecting the interests of tribals by implementing FPA (1/70 act) so that their land is not grabbed by non-tribals. Their status in agriculture should be protected equally. Supporting minorities who depend mostly on non agricultural work and artisan related professions. Their literacy levels and asset owning capacity must be enhanced until they identify themselves as partners in the main stream of development. Extending incentives to those groups whose agriculture or related professions conserve resources and safeguard social interests.

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Report of Census of land holdings 2000-2001, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. A Study of anantapur Districts Designing Rural Technology Delivery Systems for mitigating Agricultural Distress (2010) Rukmani, T. & Manula. M., M.S. Swaminathan Research foundation, Centre for Research on Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development, Chennai. Andhra Darsini (1959), S.V.Narasaiah, K.S. Reddy, A. Anantha Reddy & N.V. Bhaskara Rao, Visalandhra Publications, Vijayawada, PP.862. Bhoo- Garista Parimithi Chattam (1975) Y.V. Krishna Rao. Visalandhra Publishing House, Hyderabad. Re- Visiting Puchalapalli Sundarayya's Research Study on Agrarian Changes in the villages of Guntur Dt., AP., (2001). A.Ranga Reddy., ICSSR, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, PP.47. Report on Agricultural Census of Andhra Pradesh, 1995-96., Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh., Hyderabad

Rural transformation: Perspectives from Village studies in Andhra Pradesh (2008). G.Niranjan Rao and D.Narsimha Reddy (eds.) Daanish Books, Delhi, pp.540.

Socio- economic Survey of three villages in AP: A study of Agrarian Relations. (2010) V.K. Ramachandran, Vikas Rawal., Madhura Swaminathan (eds). Tulika Books & Foundation for Agrarian Studies, Kolkata.

103

Annexures

Annexure 1 List of Villages surveyed

Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Name of the Village Pedarama Gopalapenta Dimmidijola Jogempeta Gadabavalasa Gundalapeta Madagada Papaiahsanthapalem

Ommalijagannadhapuram

Name of the Mandal Sitampeta Narasannapeta Nandigam Sitanagaram Dattirajeru Denkada Araku Anakapalli V.Madugula Rayavaram Mamidikuduru Prathipadu Rampachodavaram Bhimavaram Achanta T.Narsapuram Buttayagudem Nandigama Vissannapeta Vuyyuru Koduru Bhattiprolu Nujendla Sattenapalli Nujendla Tsunduru Markapuram Peddacherlopalli Santhanutalapadu Ongole Duttaluru Manubolu Tada Muttukuru Chandragiri Srikalahasti Palmaner Tamballapalli Kamalapuram Badvel Tsndupalli Chakrayapeta Kadiri Atmakuru

Name of the District Srikakulam Srikakulam Srikakulam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam East Godavari East Godavari East Godavari East Godavari West Godavari West Godavari West Godavari West Godavari Krishna Krishna Krishna Krishna Gunturu Gunturu Gunturu Gunturu Gunturu Prakasam Prakasam Prakasam Prakasam Nellore Nellore Nellore Nellore Chittor Chittor Chittor Chittor Cuddapah Cuddapah Cuddapah Cuddapah Anantapuram Anantapuram

No. of Households 111 273 394 279 221 270 257 225 238 247 336 456 133 307 312 328 189 384 202 236 195 327 196 344 137 344 259 317 272 181 165 173 265 266 190 200 171 162 133 258 226 199 127 285

Nadurubada Komarada Gujjanapudi Rampa Betapudi Koderu Bandivarigudem Jainavarigudem Raghavapuram Maremanda Sayapuram Jayapuram Pesarlanka Tellabadu Kattavaripalem T.Annavaram Chinagadelavarru Jammanapalle Diwakarapuram P.Takkellapadu Chintayagaripalem Brahmeswaram Bandepalli Karijatha Tallapudi Dornakambala Chukkalanidigallu Nakkapalli Danduvaripalli Nasanthapuram Anantarajupuram Sonthamvaripalle Marellamadaka E.Kothapalli Vaddipalli

104

Sl.No. 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Name of the Village Aravakuru Muchukota Bucherla Muddanagere Palukudoddi Husenapuram Madhavaramu Vathugundla Chinnavaddemanu Lakshmipalli Bollaram Girmapur Chiguralpalli Madanpalli Peddathundla Madri Kambalapalli Tunika Imambad Bijjalwadi Thimmapur Pochampadu Isaipeta Kothalgaon Chorgaon Kukuda Hanmanthupalli Venkatraopalli Malapalli Potharam Padakal Gangadevipalli Laknavaram Adivikesavapuram Peddampalli Chinnabandirevu Moddulagudem Anasagaram Vengannapeta Rasoolpur Rudravaram Mulathanda Peddakonduru Penchikaladinne

Name of the Mandal Kuderu Peddapappuru Roddam Aluru C. Belagal Banaganapalli Velugodu Damaragidda C.C.Kunta Balmuru Pangal Medchal Parigi Vikarabad Ibrahimpatnam Kohir Sadasivapet Kaudipalli Siddipeta Jukkal Varni Balkonda Machareddy Bhainsa Narnoor Bejjur Luxettipeta Huzurabad Husnabad Bejjanki Velgatur Geesugonda Govindaraopeta Janagam Regonda Dummugudem Dammapeta Nelakondapalli Thallada Nalgonda Miryalaguda Peddavura Choutuppal Nereducharla

Name of the District Anantapuram Anantapuram Anantapuram Kurnool Kurnool Kurnool Kurnool Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Rangareddi Rangareddi Rangareddi Medak Medak Medak Medak Nizamabad Nizamabad Nizamabad Nizamabad Adilabad Adilabad Adilabad Adilabad Karimnagar Karimnagar Karimnagar Karimnagar Warangal Warangal Warangal Warangal Khammam Khammam Khammam Khammam Nalgonda Nalgonda Nalgonda Nalgonda Nalgonda

No. of Households 261 516 250 234 225 201 296 267 197 287 597 280 223 307 501 314 208 354 316 250 262 394 485 297 79 311 285 298 118 128 198 259 126 245 167 423 421 309 289 167 157 60 216 697

105

Annexure 2

Distribution of land among Economic Groups

A. Regions

(1) Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total (2) Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total No. of Households Depended on Agriculture 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per househol d 7

0.84 2.59 3.52 7.89 14.16 26.93 61.26 4.15

No. of Households Depended on Agriculture 3

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

Land per househol d 7

4112 595 875 269 126 45 16

6038

68.10 9.85 14.49 4.46 2.09 0.75 0.26

100.00

1121.38 940.05 2790.82 2096.03 1703.63 1185.50 1077.50

10914.91

10.27 8.61 25.57 19.20 15.61 10.86 9.87

100.00

0.27 1.58 3.19 7.79 13.52 26.34 67.34

1.81

1343 95 538 291 123 60 22 2472

54.33 3.84 21.76 11.77 4.98 2.43 0.89 100.00

1124.54 246 1894.035 2294.6 1741.25 1615.5 1347.8 10263.72

10.96 2.40 18.45 22.36 16.96 15.74 13.13 100.00

106

(3) Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total No. of Households Depended on Agriculture 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per househol d 7

3773 375 1171 681 244 61 16 6321

59.69 5.93 18.53 10.77 3.86 0.97 0.25 100.00

3612 1200 4306 5140 3463 1686 1051 20457

17.66 5.86 21.05 25.13 16.93 8.24 5.14 100.00

0.96 3.20 3.68 7.55 14.19 27.64 65.66 3.24

B. Sub-Region (1) North Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3

963 22 222 53 21 10 0 1291

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

74.59 1.70 17.20 4.11 1.63 0.77 0.00 100.00

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

575.27 12.25 777.8 401.5 289.25 255.5 0 2311.57

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

24.89 0.53 33.65 17.37 12.51 11.05 0.00 100.00

Land per househol d 7

0.60 0.56 3.50 7.58 13.77 25.55 0.00 1.79

107

(2) South Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3 3149 573 653 216 105 35 16 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 66.34 12.07 13.76 4.55 2.21 0.74 0.34 Land % of Land Owned Owned by by Respective Respective Group in the Total Group Land 5 6 546.11 6.35 927.795 10.78 2013.02 23.40 1694.53 19.70 1414.38 16.44 930 10.81 1077.5 12.52 Land per househol d 7 0.17 1.62 3.08 7.85 13.47 26.57 67.34 1.81

4747

100.00

8603.34

100.00

(3) Rayalaseema

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per househol d 7

0.84 2.59 3.52 7.89 14.16 26.93 61.26 4.15

Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

1343 95 538 291 123 60 22 2472

54.33 3.84 21.76 11.77 4.98 2.43 0.89 100.00

1124.54 246 1894.035 2294.6 1741.25 1615.5 1347.8 10263.72

10.96 2.40 18.45 22.36 16.96 15.74 13.13 100.00

108

(4) South Telangana

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3

1608 101 499 317 109 32 12 2678

Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

60.04 3.77 18.63 11.84 4.07 1.19 0.45 100.00

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

1968.38 321.25 1810.94 2323.73 1587.75 878.5 833 9723.51

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

20.24 3.30 18.62 23.90 16.33 9.03 8.57 100.00

Land per househol d 7

1.22 3.18 3.63 7.33 14.57 27.45 69.42 3.63

(5) North Telangana No. of Households Dependent on Agriculture 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per househol d 7

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Economic Group 2 Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Total

2165 274 672 364 135 29 4 3643

59.43 7.52 18.45 9.99 3.71 0.80 0.11 100.00

1643.62 878.26 2495.23 2816.45 1875.00 807.75 217.50 10733.79

15.31 8.18 23.25 26.24 17.47 7.53 2.03 100.00

0.76 3.21 3.71 7.74 13.89 27.85 54.38 2.95

109

Annexure 3

Land Concentration in the Districts, Sub-Regions and Regions

Sl.No District No.of Households Surveyed 2

Srikakulam Vijayanagaram Visakhapatnam East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Chittor Kadapa Anantapuram Kurnool Mahabubnagar Nalgonda Rangareddy Medak Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

3

778 770 463 1172 1136 1017 1211 1028 870 723 816 923 956 1348 600 1311 1191 1391 972 742 797 1442

% of land owned by top 5% Households 4

38.40 36.73 37.15 59.90 63.21 61.89 55.24 30.91 49.74 35.56 28.74 36.49 39.32 27.46 32.59 36.30 33.75 38.83 31.76 30.32 28.08 36.17

% of land less Households 5

52.83 62.47 69.98 81.91 77.99 75.91 71.10 50.00 61.49 54.63 45.71 36.40 39.44 37.98 35.50 35.39 46.85 58.38 42.39 46.09 39.15 55.76 53.81 1.70 0.72 8.08 10.63 4.96

Total Sub-Regions 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3

North coastal South coastal

21657

2011 6434 3418 4450 5344

37.72

37.73 51.85 36.16 32.21 33.47

Rayalaseema

South Telangana North Telangana

Andhra Pradesh Regions Coastal Andhra Rayalaseema Telangana A.P

21657

8445 3418 9794

37.72

48.77 36.16 32.83

6.13

0.93 8.08 7.86

21657

37.72

6.13

110

Annexure 4

Amenities ­ Economic Groups (Agricultural dependent households only)

A. Regions

(1)

Coastal Andhra

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14 2.21 11.17 5.83 16.17 29.60 47.73 75.00 5.33 % in the Respective Economic Group 14 2.53 9.47 5.20 3.77 5.65 32.76 36.36 4.69 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 91 67 51 43 37 21 12 322 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 34 9 28 11 7 19 8 116 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone 11 553 186 185 118 72 31 No. of Households having Telephone 11 109 25 88 70 44 32 14 382 % in Respective Economic Group % in Respective Economic Group 8 32.00 61.67 41.26 65.41 77.60 95.45

No. of Households

Economic Group

Sl. No.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3 4112 600 875 266 125 44 16 6038

(2)

% in Total Households 4 68.10 9.94 14.49 4.41 2.07 0.73 0.26 100.00

5 1081 295 261 125 80 36 12 1890

6

7

9 219 142 156 90 63 33 13 716

10 5.33 23.67 17.83 33.83 50.40 75.00

12 13.45 31.00 21.14 44.36 57.60 70.45 75.00 19.16

26.29 1316 49.17 29.83 46.99 64.00 81.82 75.00 31.30 370 361 174 97 42

13 81.25 2373 39.30

81.25 12 11.86 1157

Rayalaseema

% in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 12 8.12 26.32 16.36 23.97 35.48 55.17 63.64 15.45 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove 9 26 4 32 20 11 24 9 126

No. of Households

% in Respective Economic Group

Economic Group

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3 1343 95 538 292 124 58 22 2472

% in Total Households

4 54.33 3.84 21.76 11.81 5.02 2.35 0.89 100.00

5 426 26 177 116 51 42 19 857

6 31.72 27.37 32.90 39.73 41.13 72.41 86.36 34.67

7 343 54 191 139 71 48 18 864

% in Respective Economic Group 8 25.54 56.84 35.50 47.60 57.26 82.76 81.82 34.95

Sl. No.

10 1.94 4.21 5.95 6.85 8.87 41.38 40.91 5.10

111

(3)

Telangana

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone 11 % in Respective Economic Group % in Respective Economic Group 8

No. of Households

Economic Group

Sl. No.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3

% in Total Households 4

5

6

7

9

10

12

3773 375 1171 681 244 61 16 6321

59.69 5.93 18.53 10.77 3.86 0.97 0.25 100.00

578 123 308 214 112 26 11 1372

15.32 32.80 26.30 31.42 45.90 42.62

996 212 504 341 163 45

26.40 56.53 43.04 50.07 66.80 73.77

117 62 123 137 84 25 12 560

3.10 16.53 10.50 20.12 34.43 40.98

610 158 390 296 150 41

16.17 42.13 33.30 43.47 61.48 67.21 100.00 26.28

131 64 119 110 88 29 14 555

3.47 17.07 10.16 16.15 36.07 47.54 87.50 8.78

68.75 16 100.00 21.71 2277 36.02

75.00 16 8.86 1661

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14 6 0 1 6 3 2 0 18 0.62 0.00 0.45 11.32 14.29 20.00 0.00 1.39 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone 11 108 2 28 16 7 6 0 167 % in Respective Economic Group % in Respective Economic Group 8 28.87 36.36 28.83 58.49 66.67 90.00 0.00 31.29

Economic Group

Sl. No.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3 963 22 222 53 21 10 0 1291

% in Total Households 4 74.59 1.70 17.20 4.11 1.63 0.77 0.00 100.00

5 107 1 23 10 6 7 0 154

6 11.11 4.55 10.36 18.87 28.57 70.00 0.00 11.93

7 278 8 64 31 14 9 0 404

9 17 0 9 7 2 5 0 40

10 1.77 0.00 4.05 13.21 9.52 50.00 0.00 3.10

12 11.21 9.09 12.61 30.19 33.33 60.00 0.00 12.94

112

(2) South Coastal Andhra

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14

2.70 11.59 7.66 17.37 32.69 55.88 75.00

Economic Group

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3

3149 578 653 213 104 34 16

% in Total Households

4

66.34 12.18 13.76 4.49 2.19 0.72 0.34

5

974 294 238 115 74 29 12

6

30.93 50.87 36.45 53.99 71.15 85.29 75.00

7

1038 362 297 143 83 33 13

8

32.96 62.63 45.48 67.14 79.81 97.06 81.25

9

202 142 147 83 61 28 13

10

6.41 24.57 22.51 38.97 58.65 82.35 81.25

11

445 184 157 102 65 25 12

12

14.13 31.83 24.04 47.89 62.50 73.53 75.00

4747

100.00

1736

36.57 1969

41.48

676

14.24

990

20.86

No. of Households having Motor cycle 13

85 67 50 37 34 19 12

No. of Households having Television

No. of Households having Gas Stove

No. of Households having Telephone

% in Respective Economic Group

% in Respective Economic Group

Sl. No.

304

6.40

(3) Rayalaseema

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14 2.53 9.47 5.20 3.77 5.65 32.76 36.36 4.69 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 34 9 28 11 7 19 8 116 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone 11 109 25 88 70 44 32 14 382 % in Respective Economic Group % in Respective Economic Group 8 25.54 56.84 35.50 47.60 57.26 82.76 81.82 34.95

Economic Group

Sl. No.

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3 1343 95 538 292 124 58 22 2472

% in Total Households 4 54.33 3.84 21.76 11.81 5.02 2.35 0.89 100.00

5 426 26 177 116 51 42 19 857

6 31.72 27.37 32.90 39.73 41.13 72.41 86.36 34.67

7 343 54 191 139 71 48 18 864

9 26 4 32 20 11 24 9 126

10 1.94 4.21 5.95 6.85 8.87 41.38 40.91 5.10

12 8.12 26.32 16.36 23.97 35.48 55.17 63.64 15.45

113

(4) South Telangana

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14

3.61 23.76 12.83 16.72 41.28 59.38 91.67

Economic Group

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3

1608 101 499 317 109 32 12

% in Total Households

4

60.04 3.77 18.63 11.84 4.07 1.19 0.45

5

268 35 132 89 50 11 10

6

16.67 34.65 26.45 28.08 45.87 34.38 83.33

7

452 48 229 135 76 24 12

8

28.11 47.52 45.89 42.59 69.72 75.00 100.00

9

67 17 64 58 41 16 10

10

4.17 16.83 12.83 18.30 37.61 50.00 83.33

11

292 38 178 128 72 24 12

12

18.16 37.62 35.67 40.38 66.06 75.00 100.00

2678

100.00

595

22.22

976

36.45

273

10.19

744

27.78

No. of Households having Motor cycle 13

58 24 64 53 45 19 11

No. of Households having Television

No. of Households having Gas Stove

No. of Households having Telephone

% in Respective Economic Group

% in Respective Economic Group

Sl. No.

274

10.23

(5) North Telangana

% in the Respective Economic Group % in the Respective Economic Group No. of Households No. of Households having Lavatory % in the Respective Economic Group 14 No. of Households having Motor cycle 13 No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Telephone 11

% in Respective Economic Group

Economic Group

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

2

Agricultural Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers

Large Farmers

3

% in Total Households

4

5

6

7

% in Respective Economic Group 8 25.13 59.85 40.92 56.59 64.44 72.41 100.00 35.71

Sl. No.

9

10

12

2165 274 672 364 135 29 4

3643

59.43 7.52 18.45 9.99 3.71 0.80 0.11

100.00

310 88 176 125 62 15 1

777

14.32 32.12 26.19 34.34 45.93 51.72 25.00

544 164 275 206 87 21 4

50 45 59 79 43 9 2

287

2.31 16.42 8.78 21.70 31.85 31.03 50.00

7.88

318 120 212 168 78 17 4

917

14.69 43.80 31.55 46.15 57.78 58.62 100.00

25.17

73 40 55 57 43 10 3

281

3.37 14.60 8.18 15.66 31.85 34.48 75.00

7.71

21.33 1301

114

Annexure 5

Percentage of literates

A. Regions

(1) Coastal Andhra

SL. No. 1

Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

No. of Adult Population 3

No. of Literates Among Adults 4

% of Literates among Adults 5

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

(2)

599 148 161 115 85 52 23 67 31 103 89 3 27 2 0 239 50 1794

194 52 64 69 55 38 17 23 11 43 43 1 12 2 0 77 5 706

32.39 35.14 39.75 60.00 64.71 73.08 73.91 34.33 35.48 41.75 48.31 33.33 44.44 100.00 0.00 32.22 10.00 39.35

Rayalaseema No. of Adult Population 3 No. of Literates Among Adults 4 % of Literates among Adults 5

SL. No. 1

Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed

239 47 107 103 71 49 19 28 47 37 23

60 18 43 44 39 33 15 8 14 24 15

25.10 38.30 40.19 42.72 54.93 67.35 78.95 28.57 29.79 64.86 65.22

115

12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

(3)

0 16 2 0 106 15 909

0 13 2 0 27 4 359

0.00 81.25 100.00 0.00 25.47 26.67 39.49

Telangana No. of Adult Population 3 No. of Literates Among Adults 4 % of Literates among Adults 5

SL. No. 1

Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

511 113 257 225 154 117 20 81 44 183 83 3 52 5 9 401 68 2326

132 48 80 105 82 70 13 31 9 88 41 2 38 2 5 122 8 876

25.83 42.48 31.13 46.67 53.25 59.83 65.00 38.27 20.45 48.09 49.40 66.67 73.08 40.00 55.56 30.42 11.76 37.66

116

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra

SL. No. 1

Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

No. of Adult Population 3

138 20 57 35 23 12 6 19 7 46 27 0 8 0 0 108 7 513

No. of Literates Among Adults 4

25 6 21 21 17 10 4 3 0 19 9 0 5 0 0 26 1 167

% of Literates among Adults 5

18.12 30.00 36.84 60.00 73.91 83.33 66.67 15.79 0.00 41.30 33.33 0.00 62.50 0.00 0.00 24.07 14.29 32.55

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total (2) South Coastal Andhra SL. No. 1 Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers Traditional 8 Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees No. of Adult Population 3 461 128 104 80 62 40 17 48 24 57

No. of Literates Among Adults 4 169 46 43 48 38 28 13 20 11 24

% of Literates among Adults 5 36.66 35.94 41.35 60.00 61.29 70.00 76.47 41.67 45.83 42.11

117

11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total (3) Rayalaseema SL. No. 1 Economic Group 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers Traditional 8 Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total (4) South Telangana SL. Economic Group No. 1 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers

62 3 19 2 0 131 43 1281

34 1 7 2 0 51 4 539

54.84 33.33 36.84 100.00 0.00 38.93 9.30 42.08

No. of Adult Population 3

No. of Literates Among Adults 4

% of Literates among Adults 5

239 47 107 103 71 49 19 28 47 37 23 0 16 2 0 106 15 909

60 18 43 44 39 33 15 8 14 24 15 0 13 2 0 27 4 359

25.10 38.30 40.19 42.72 54.93 67.35 78.95 28.57 29.79 64.86 65.22 0.00 81.25 100.00 0.00 25.47 26.67 39.49

No. of Adult Population 3

No. of Literates Among Adults 4

% of Literates among Adults 5

230 43 104

53 15 30

23.04 34.88 28.85

118

4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers Traditional 8 Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total (5) North Telangana SL. Economic Group No. 1 2 1 Agricultural Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers Traditional 8 Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

93 58 27 11 28 22 118 43 0 41 5 0 220 20 1063

46 29 20 8 12 5 52 20 0 30 2 0 63 4 389

49.46 50.00 74.07 72.73 42.86 22.73 44.07 46.51 0.00 73.17 40.00 0.00 28.64 20.00 36.59

No. of Adult Population 3

No. of Literates Among Adults 4

% of Literates among Adults 5

281 70 153 132 96 90 9 53 22 65 40 3 11 0 9 181 48 1263

79 33 50 59 53 50 5 19 4 36 21 2 8 0 5 59 4 487

28.11 47.14 32.68 44.70 55.21 55.56 55.56 35.85 18.18 55.38 52.50 66.67 72.73 0.00 55.56 32.60 8.33 38.56

119

Annexure 6

Percentage of people having Education up to and above intermediate

A. Regions

(1)

Coastal Andhra % of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) Population in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 3

923 217 236 152 116 58 31 94 39 142 127 0 41 4 0 367 58 2605

Sl. No.

Economic Group

1

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

4

35.43 8.33 9.06 5.83 4.45 2.23 1.19 3.61 1.50 5.45 4.88 0.00 1.57 0.15 0.00 14.09 2.23 100.00

5

37 13 19 24 16 15 7 4 3 22 17 0 5 1 0 16 0 199

% persons studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Economic Group 6

4.01 5.99 8.05 15.79 13.79 25.86 22.58 4.26 7.69 15.49 13.39 0.00 12.20 25.00 0.00 4.36 0.00 7.64

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

120

(2) Rayalaseema % of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) Population in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 3 4 5 % persons studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Economic Group 6

Sl. No.

Economic Group

1

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total (3) Telangana Sl. No. 1 Economic Group

339 73 153 158 102 62 28 38 69 46 41 0 18 4 0 167 26 1324

25.60 5.51 11.56 11.93 7.70 4.68 2.11 2.87 5.21 3.47 3.10 0.00 1.36 0.30 0.00 12.61 1.96 100.00

16 3 12 11 24 14 10 4 3 11 0 0 3 1 0 7 1 120

4.72 4.11 7.84 6.96 23.53 22.58 35.71 10.53 4.35 23.91 0.00 0.00 16.67 25.00 0.00 4.19 3.85 9.06

% persons studied % of Respective No. Persons inter (+2) and above Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the population of Population in the Total and Above in the Respective Economic Population Economic Group Group

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers

3

4

5

6

777 179 380 326 207 142 25

22.74 5.24 11.12 9.54 6.06 4.16 0.73

39 16 20 31 34 40 9

5.02 8.94 5.26 9.51 16.43 28.17 36.00

121

8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing 10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

119 61 259 139 3 72 6 14 614 94 3417

3.48 1.79 7.58 4.07 0.09 2.11 0.18 0.41 17.97 2.75 100.00

8 3 33 11 1 11 1 2 25 3 287

6.72 4.92 12.74 7.91 33.33 15.28 16.67 14.29 4.07 3.19 8.40

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 1

Economic Group

No. of persons surveyed 3

209 28 90 44 31 17 9 33 8 62 41 0 8 0 0 178 7 765

% of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 4

27.32 3.66 11.76 5.75 4.05 2.22 1.18 4.31 1.05 8.10 5.36 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 23.27 0.92 100.00

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

5

3 1 4 7 9 5 1 0 0 10 2 0 1 0 0 8 0 51

% persons studied inter (+2) and above in the Respective Economic Group 6

1.44 3.57 4.44 15.91 29.03 29.41 11.11 0.00 0.00 16.13 4.88 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 4.49 0.00 6.67

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

122

(2) South Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 1

Economic Group

No. of persons surveyed 3 714 189 146 108 85 41 22 61 31 80 86 0 33 4 0 189 51 1840

% of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 4 38.80 10.27 7.93 5.87 4.62 2.23 1.20 3.32 1.68 4.35 4.67 0.00 1.79 0.22 0.00 10.27 2.77 100.00 5 34 12 15 17 7 10 6 4 3 12 15 0 4 1 0 8 0 148

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

% persons studied inter (+2) and above in the Respective Economic Group 6 4.76 6.35 10.27 15.74 8.24 24.39 27.27 6.56 9.68 15.00 17.44 0.00 12.12 25.00 0.00 4.23 0.00 8.04

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

123

(3) Rayalaseema % of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 4 5 % persons studied inter (+2) and above in the Respective Economic Group 6

Sl. No. 1

Economic Group

No. of persons surveyed 3

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

339 73 153 158 102 62 28 38 69 46 41 0 18 4 0 167 26 1324

25.60 5.51 11.56 11.93 7.70 4.68 2.11 2.87 5.21 3.47 3.10 0.00 1.36 0.30 0.00 12.61 1.96 100.00

16 3 12 11 24 14 10 4 3 11 0 0 3 1 0 7 1 120

4.72 4.11 7.84 6.96 23.53 22.58 35.71 10.53 4.35 23.91 0.00 0.00 16.67 25.00 0.00 4.19 3.85 9.06

124

(4) South Telangana % of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 4 5 % persons studied inter (+2) and above in the Respective Economic Group 6

Sl. No. 1

Economic Group

No. of persons surveyed 3

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

367 59 154 133 69 32 15 35 29 172 75 0 56 6 0 331 25 1558

23.56 3.79 9.88 8.54 4.43 2.05 0.96 2.25 1.86 11.04 4.81 0.00 3.59 0.39 0.00 21.25 1.60 100.00

18 3 7 12 12 10 7 6 1 19 6 0 7 1 0 12 2 123

4.90 5.08 4.55 9.02 17.39 31.25 46.67 17.14 3.45 11.05 8.00 0.00 12.50 16.67 0.00 3.63 8.00 7.89

125

(5) North Telangana % of Respective No. Persons Economic Group Studied Inter (+2) in the Total and Above in the Population Economic Group 4 5 % persons studied inter (+2) and above in the Respective Economic Group 6

Sl. No. 1

Economic Group

No. of persons surveyed 3

2 Agricultural 1 Workers 2 Tenants 3 Marginal Farmers 4 Small Farmers 5 Middle Farmers 6 Rich Farmers 7 Large Farmers 8 Traditional Occupations 9 Animal Rearing

10 Employees 11 Self-Employed 12 Pensioners 13 Businessmen 14 Contractors 15 Commission Agents 16 Non-Ag. Workers 17 Others Total

410 120 226 193 138 110 10 84 32 87 64 3 16 0 14 283 69 1859

22.05 6.46 12.16 10.38 7.42 5.92 0.54 4.52 1.72 4.68 3.44 0.16 0.86 0.00 0.75 15.22 3.71 100.00

21 13 13 19 22 30 2 2 2 14 5 1 4 0 2 13 1 164

5.12 10.83 5.75 9.84 15.94 27.27 20.00 2.38 6.25 16.09 7.81 33.33 25.00 0.00 14.29 4.59 1.45 8.82

126

Annexure 7

land distribution among different Social Groups

A. Regions

(1) Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3

2294 542 3600 2009 8445

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

808.38 468.38 5002.9 6220.32 12519.94

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

6.46 3.74 39.96 49.68 100.00

Land per household 7

27.16 6.42 42.63 23.79 100.00

0.35 0.86 1.39 3.10 1.48

(2) Rayalaseema

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3

758 133 1645 882 3418

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

22.18 3.89 48.13 25.80 100.00

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

1094.9 92.01 5020.58 5204.63 11411.1

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

9.60 0.81 44.00 45.61 100.00

Land per household 7

1.44 0.69 3.05 5.90 3.34

(3) Telangana

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per household 7

2489 792 5181 1332 9794

25.41 8.09 52.90 13.60 100.00

2996 2026 12102 7078 24201

12.38 8.37 50.01 29.25 100.00

1.20 2.56 2.34 5.31 2.47

127

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra No. of % of Respective Sl. Social Househol Group in the Total No. Group ds Households 1 2 3 4 1 SC 152 7.56 2 ST 118 5.87 3 BC 1384 68.82 4 OC 357 17.75 Total 2011 100.00 (2) South Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per household 7 0.37 0.70 1.23 3.61 1.52 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per household 7

14.88 170.75 2266.98 264.33 2716.94

0.55 6.28 83.44 9.73 100.00

0.10 1.45 1.64 0.74 1.35

2142 424 2216 1652 6434

33.29 6.59 34.44 25.68 100.00

793.5 297.63 2735.92 5955.99 9803.00

8.09 3.04 27.91 60.76 100.00

(3) Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3

758 133 1645 882 3418

% of Respective Group in the Total Households 4

22.18 3.89 48.13 25.80 100.00

Land Owned by Respective Group 5

1094.9 92.01 5020.58 5204.63 11411.1

% of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6

9.60 0.81 44.00 45.61 100.00

Land per household 7

1.44 0.69 3.05 5.90 3.34

128

(4) South Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per household 7

966 260 2518 706 4450

21.71 5.84 56.58 15.87 100.00

1182.25 515.00 6619.21 3844.70 12161.16

9.72 4.23 54.43 31.61 100.00

1.22 1.98 2.63 5.45 2.73

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Househol ds 3 % of Respective Group in the Total Households 4 Land Owned by Respective Group 5 % of Land Owned by Respective Group in the Total Land 6 Land per household 7

1523 532 2663 626 5344

28.50 9.96 49.83 11.71 100.00

1813.25 1510.50 5483.25 3233.00 12042.00

15.06 12.54 45.53 26.85 100.00

1.19 2.84 2.06 5.16 2.25

129

Annexure 8

Caste wise Distribution of Land (1) Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Caste Reddy Kamma Kalinga Vysya Kshatriya Thurpukapu Yadava/Golla Kapu/ Balija Muslim Mala Madiga Other Castes (95) Total % of Households Surveyed 3.48 7.19 0.77 1.22 0.53 5.17 8.53 9.14 1.07 14.75 11.72 36.43 100.00 % of Land Owned 13.30 22.66 2.40 3.77 1.22 7.63 11.01 6.83 0.34 3.33 1.94 24.57 100.00 Land Per Household 5.65 4.66 4.61 4.56 3.38 2.18 1.91 1.10 0.48 0.33 0.24 0.98 1.48 % Landless Households 34.35 25.86 29.23 66.99 38.00 39.82 62.22 67.62 81.11 88.04 88.89 71.08 67.97

(2) Rayalaseema

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 % of Households Surveyed 2.14 15.06 3.57 0.38 1.48 3.89 1.99 12.87 5.85 3.42 10.21 11.59 27.55 100.00 % of Land Owned 10.26 30.15 5.25 0.54 1.99 5.04 2.20 11.93 5.09 2.06 5.35 3.98 16.16 100.00 Land Per Household 16.03 6.68 4.90 4.75 4.47 4.33 3.69 3.09 2.91 2.00 1.75 1.15 1.96 3.34 % Landless Households 17.81 25.10 37.60 30.77 46.20 21.00 35.29 34.77 44.50 70.09 42.41 56.31 53.99 43.15

Caste Kamma Reddy/ Kapu Balija / Naidu Bhatrajulu Sali/ Padmasali/ Thogati Kuruma/ Kuruva/ Kuruba Besta Boya Yadava/ Golla Muslim Madiga Mala Others (56) Total

130

(3) Telangana

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 % of Households Surveyed 5.89 2.90 4.63 1.24 10.40 10.16 1.65 3.25 2.16 3.38 10.48 5.39 14.34 24.13 100.00 % of Land Owned 18.06 7.58 6.07 1.54 12.53 11.92 1.95 3.78 2.30 2.89 6.39 2.60 5.14 17.25 100.00 Land Per % Landless Household Households 7.71 6.58 3.30 3.13 3.03 2.95 2.96 2.93 2.68 2.15 1.54 1.17 0.90 1.80 2.52 25.15 22.54 37.40 17.36 34.35 33.20 32.78 39.31 38.68 52.87 48.34 66.67 57.83 54.15 45.22

Caste Reddy Kamma Munnurukapu/Kapu Lambada Mudiraj Yadava / Golla Valmiki / Boya Kuruma Koya Gouda Mala Muslim/ Mohammamd/Shaik Madiga Others (93) Total

131

Annexure 9

90% of the Agricultural workers are from SC, ST, and BCs

1.Coastal Andhra

S.No

Social Group

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC Total

% of Agricultural % of Tenants from % of Marginal workers from the respective Farmers respective group Social Groups from the respective Social Groups 3 4 5 36.40 18.15 13.90 8.65 5.33 8.39 44.74 43.50 52.03 89.79 66.98 74.32

2.Rayalaseema

S.No Social Group % of Agricultural % of Tenants from % of Marginal workers from the respective Farmers respective group Social Groups from the respective Social Groups 3 4 5 31.12 15.79 21.47 6.03 0.00 2.07 48.70 60.00 48.78 85.85 75.79 72.32

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC Total

3.Telangana

S.No Social Group of Marginal % of Agricultural % of Tenants from % respective Farmers workers from the from the respective Social Groups respective group Social Groups 3 4 5 39.20 6.20 15.02 9.67 10.78 12.20 45.56 60.11 57.17 94.43 77.09 84.39

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC Total

132

4

Sl. No. Sl. No. Sl. No. Social Group

3 2 2

2

1

1

3

2

1

1

4

3

2

1

1

2

4 OC Total

Total ST ST SC SC BC BC OC

Social Group Social Group

Total

SC

ST

BC (3) (2)

No. of Households No. of Households No. of Households

OC 3 3 3418

(1)

3

2489 133 870 759 542

% in Total Households % in Total Households

1656

3600

2294

A. Regions

5181

4 4

2009 8445

792

% in Total Households

Telangana

100.00

4

25.45

22.21

52.90 3.89 6.42

5 5

No. of Households having Lavatory No. of Households having Lavatory

8.09

1186

1332 13.60 9794 100.00

Rayalaseema

Coastal Andhra

25.41 23.79 100.00 889 2623 19 395

48.45

42.63

27.16

5

No. of Households having Lavatory % in Respective Social Group

1246 272 500 896 711 127

% in Respective Social Group % in Respective Social Group

37

6 34.70

757 2512 14.29 45.40 30.19 24.89 30.99 44.25 31.06 35.84 23.43

7 1240

472

6

6

18.96

56.83 25.65 1853 1091 3856

No. of Households having Television No. of Households having Television

24.05 42 431 597 170

4.67

7

7

2301

895 4137

No. of Households having Television

831

783 129

110

Annexure 10

Amenities and Social groups

133

8 36.28

8

8

31.58

49.54

44.41

% in Respective Social Group % in Respective Social Group

67.19 42.24 22.40

9 227

No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Gas Stove % in the Respective Social Group

33.39 64 10 151

36.05

34.13 51.47 23.80

54.31 45.66

13.89 2

% in the Respective Social Group

% in Respective Social Group

9

9

553 1357

560 1283

10 6.64

No. of Households having Gas Stove

13

597 17.36 3.86 1.50 1.32

11 580

No. of Households having Telephone

117

150 641

9 267 209 13 91

12 16.97

% in the Respective Social Group

10

10

11.52 30.69 12.62 11.99

% in the Respective Social Group

27.53 16.07

42.04 13.10 9.77

13 239

No. of Households having Motor cycle % in the Respective Social Group

17.81

4.70

6.54 2.40

1.14 100 105 30 4

14 6.99

11

11

1804 11.49 6.34 3.01 3.95

650 1623

739 3215

No. of Households having Telephone % in the Respective Social Group No. of Households having Motor cycle % in the Respective Social Group

No. of Households having Telephone

597

279 634 60

75

12

12

34.82

55.48 32.83

23.99

12.16 17.61 11.07

32.35 19.22

% in the Respective Social Group

9.47

13

13

No. of Households having Motor cycle

231 558

536

146

53 18

256

27

385 28.90 1094 11.17

% in the Respective Social Group

14

14

10.35

11.50 6.61

5.87

2.31 7.11 3.32

3.41

4

Sl. No. Sl. No. Social Group

3 2 2

2

1

1

4

3

2

1

1

Total SC ST SC ST BC

Social Group

BC

OC (2)

No. of Households No. of Households

OC

(1)

3

3

1384

424

118 152

% in Total Households

% in Total Households

68.82

4

4

1652 25.68

357 17.75 2011 100.00

2216 34.44 6.59

5.87 7.56

5 5

No. of Households having Lavatory

2142 33.29

B. Sub-Regions

6434 100.00 153 16 0 70 239

North Coastal Andhra

South Coastal Andhra

No. of Households having Lavatory % in Respective Social Group

2384

127 29.95 695 32.45

% in Respective Social Group

11.05

19.61 11.88

0.00

6

6

819 49.58

10.53 859

7

No. of Households having Television

743 33.53

12 82

8

37.05 2722

7 8

No. of Households having Television

181 50.70 1134 56.39

117 27.59

910 55.08

994 44.86

701 32.73

134

42.31

% in Respective Social Group

62.07

10.17

53.95

% in Respective Social Group

291

21 340

9

9

1017

No. of Households having Gas Stove

No. of Households having Gas Stove

26 2

124

10

11 2.59 5.79

532 32.20

11 12

350 15.79 266 12.42 518 23.38 52 12.26

13

% in the Respective Social Group

% in the Respective Social Group

10

21.03 5.88 16.91

17.11 1.69

15.81 1411

11

No. of Households having Telephone % in the Respective Social Group No. of Households having Motor cycle

No. of Households having Telephone

116 75 212 21.01 10.54 8.38

13 8 6.78 8.55

12

575 34.81 151 6.81 48 17

14

21.93

% in the Respective Social Group

13

No. of Households having Motor cycle

1

12 123

105

5

219 13.26

435 6.76

% in the Respective Social Group

% in the Respective Social Group

14

3.36 6.12

0.85 7.59

3.29

2.24

4.01

4

Sl. No. Sl. No. Sl. No. Social Group

3 2 2

2

1

1

4

3

2

1

1

4

3

2

1

1

2

Total ST ST SC SC BC BC OC OC

Social Group Social Group

Total

Total

SC

ST

BC (5) (4)

No. of Households No. of Households No. of Households

OC

(3)

1656

870

759

133

3

3

3

2663 3418

1523

532

2518

706 4450

626

260

966

% in Total Households

% in Total Households

% in Total Households

4

4

4

9.96

5344 100.00

49.83

28.50

48.45

25.45

22.21

100.00

21.71

56.58

Rayalaseema

15.87 100.00

South Telangana

North Telangana

11.71

3.89

5.84

5

5

5

No. of Households having Lavatory

No. of Households having Lavatory

No. of Households having Lavatory % in Respective Social Group

28

1233

650

239

500

395

272

233

1186

441 1279

316

19

9

596

% in Respective Social Group

% in Respective Social Group

30.19

45.40

35.84

6

6

6

15.69

5.26

14.29

62.46 28.74

24.12

23.07 34.70

24.41

50.48

23.67 3.46

7

7

7

503 2111

2026

1176

1125

No. of Households having Television

No. of Households having Television

No. of Households having Television

597 431

170

385

42

73

1240

392

446

37

8

8

8

135

46.17 14.23 44.68 71.25 47.44

% in Respective Social Group % in Respective Social Group

36.05

49.54

22.40

31.58

37.91 9

No. of Households having Gas Stove No. of Households having Gas Stove % in the Respective Social Group

13.72

44.16

25.28

62.62

36.28

% in Respective Social Group

9

9

No. of Households having Gas Stove

151

547

309

64

10

24

208

2

227

93

288

352 736

6

3

% in the Respective Social Group

% in the Respective Social Group

10

10

10

1.13

1.58

17.36

10.24

11.60

33.23

3.86

6.64

1.32 1.50

9.63

1.15

11.44

49.86 16.54

11

11

11

1461

432 1754

No. of Households having Telephone

No. of Households having Telephone % in the Respective Social Group

No. of Households having Telephone

231

47

876

209

267

307

91 13

580

366

28

928

12

12

12

15.17

% in the Respective Social Group No. of Households having Motor cycle

12.62

11.99

30.69

27.34

32.90

49.04

16.97

9.77

37.89

10.77

36.85

61.19 39.42

% in the Respective Social Group

8.83

13

13

13

No. of Households having Motor cycle

No. of Households having Motor cycle

58

105

100

423

16

217

132

30

239

4

88 11

319

253 671

% in the Respective Social Group

% in the Respective Social Group

% in the Respective Social Group

14

14

14

21.09

3.81

6.34

3.95

11.49

3.01

12.67

35.84 15.08

7.92

3.01

8.15

6.99

9.11 4.23

Annexure 11

Adult Literacy and Social Groups

A. Regions

(1)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

Coastal Andhra Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total

No. of Adults 3

No. of Literates % of Adult among Adults Literates 4 5

398 117 821 458 1794

144 36 286 240 706

36.18 30.77 34.84 52.40 39.35

(2)

Rayalaseema Social Group No. of Adults 3 No. of Literates % of Adult among Adults Literates 4 5

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC OC Total

180 20 454 255 909

62 2 140 155 359

34.44 10.00 30.84 60.78 39.49

(3)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

Telangana Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total

No. of Adults 3

No. of Literates % of Adult among Adults Literates 4 5

503 144 1280 399 2326

172 37 441 226 876

34.19 25.69 34.45 56.64 37.66

B. Sub Regions

(1)

North Coastal Andhra Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Adults 3 No. of Literates among Adults 4 % of Adult Literates 5

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

26 41 344 102 513

6 17 110 34 167

23.08 41.46 31.98 33.33 32.55

136

(2)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

South Coastal Andhra Social Group No. of Adults No. of Literates among Adults % of Adult Literates 2 3 4 5 SC 372 138 37.10 ST 76 19 25.00 BC 477 176 36.90 OC 356 206 57.87 Total 1281 539 42.08 Rayalaseema Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Adults 3 No. of Literates among Adults 4 % of Adult Literates 5

(3)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

180 20 454 255 909

62 2 140 155 359

34.44 10.00 30.84 60.78 39.49

(4)

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4

South Telangana Social Group No. of Adults No. of Literates among Adults % of Adult Literates 2 3 4 5 SC 191 71 37.17 ST 48 13 27.08 BC 653 208 31.85 OC 171 97 56.73 Total 1063 389 36.59

(5) North Telangana

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Social Group 2 SC ST BC OC Total No. of Adults 3 No. of Literates among Adults 4 % of Adult Literates 5

312 96 627 228 1263

101 24 233 129 487

32.37 25.00 37.16 56.58 38.56

137

Annexure 12

Higher Education in Social Groups

A. Regions

(1)

Coastal Andhra % persons studied inter (+2) and % of Respective No. Persons Studied above in the Populatio Social Group in the Inter (+2) and Above population of n Total Population in the Social Group Respective Social Group 3 4 5 6

613 185 1182 625 2605 23.53 7.10 45.37 23.99 100.00 46 7 86 60 199 7.50 3.78 7.28 9.60 7.64

Sl. No.

Social Group

1 1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC

2

Total

(2)

Rayalaseema % persons studied inter (+2) and % of Respective No. Persons Studied above in the Populatio Social Group in the Inter (+2) and Above population of n Total Population in the Social Group Respective Social Group 3 4 5 6

Sl. No.

Social Group

1 1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC

2

345 36 591 352 1324

(3)

26.06 2.72 44.64 26.59 100.00

21 0 44 55 120

6.09 0.00 7.45 15.63 9.06

Total

Telangana % persons studied inter (+2) and % of Respective No. Persons Studied above in the Populatio Social Group in the Inter (+2) and Above population of n Total Population in the Social Group Respective Social Group 3 4 5 6

Sl. No.

Social Group

1 1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC

2

744 245 1884 544 3417

21.77 7.17 55.14 15.92 100.00

54 10 139 84 287

7.26 4.08 7.38 15.44 8.40

Total

138

B. Sub-Regions (1) North Coastal Andhra No.of persons surveyed 3

37 59 524 145 765

Sl. No. 1

Social Group 2

% of Respective Social Group in the Total Population 4

4.84 7.71 68.50 18.95 100.00

No. Persons who Studied Inter (+2) and Above in the Social Group 5

2 3 43 3 51

% persons who studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Social Group 6

5.41 5.08 8.21 2.07 6.67

1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC Total

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC Total Social Group 2 No.of persons surveyed 3 576 126 658 480 1840 % of Respective Social Group in the Total Population 4 31.30 6.85 35.76 26.09 100.00 No. Persons who Studied Inter (+2) and Above in the Social Group 5 44 4 43 57 148 % persons who studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Social Group 6 7.64 3.17 6.53 11.88 8.04

(3) Rayalaseema No.of persons surveyed 3 % of Respective Social Group in the Total Population 4 No. Persons who Studied Inter (+2) and Above in the Social Group 5

% persons who studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Social Group

Sl. No. 1

Social Group 2

6

1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC Total

345 36 591 352 1324

26.06 2.72 44.64 26.59 100.00

21 0 44 55 120

6.09 0.00 7.45 15.63 9.06

139

(4) South Telangana No.of persons surveyed 3 % of Respective Social Group in the Total Population 4 No. Persons who Studied Inter (+2) and Above in the Social Group 5 % persons who studied inter (+2) and above in the population of Respective Social Group 6

Sl. No. 1

Social Group 2

1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC Total

280 85 950 243 1558

17.97 5.46 60.98 15.60 100.00

21 5 65 32 123

7.50 5.88 6.84 13.17 7.89

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 SC 2 ST 3 BC 4 OC Total Social Group 2 No.of persons surveyed 3 % of Respective Social Group in the Total Population 4 No. Persons who % persons who studied inter Studied Inter (+2) (+2) and above in the and Above in the population of Respective Social Group Social Group 5 6

464 160 934 301 1859

24.96 8.61 50.24 16.19 100.00

33 5 74 52 164

7.11 3.13 7.92 17.28 8.82

140

Annexure 13

Sources of income - Economic Groups (1) Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere Income from Animal Rearing Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing 258 54 66 37 28 16 7 12 36.96 7.74 9.46 5.30 4.01 2.29 1.00 1.72 9865 741511 0 100000 3560 0 0 0 0.17 44.74 0.00 5.27 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 201908 162011 780601 1065609 1674723 1348895 1935210 17666 3.41 9.77 50.51 56.15 94.61 86.72 96.94 6.17 5279632 533965 551025 222648 32355 2100 0 64110 89.19 32.21 35.66 11.73 1.83 0.14 0.00 22.37 38200 10000 24040 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 0.60 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129220 85840 112590 113300 59520 46000 61000 190775 2.18 5.18 7.29 5.97 3.36 2.96 3.06 66.58 83800 84000 0 183000 0 144000 0 0 1.42 5.07 0.00 9.64 0.00 9.26 0.00 0.00 19250 0 0 0 0 14400 0 14000 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 4.89 57420 30600 41140 12000 0 0 0 0 0.97 1.85 2.66 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30000 0 0 20000 0 0 0 0 0.51 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70310 9600 36000 181200 0 0 0 0 1.19 0.58 2.33 9.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5919604 1657527 1545396 1897757 1770158 1555395 1996210 286551

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Traditional Occupation Employment Self-Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total 28 34 36 0 12 1 0 87 22 698 4.01 4.87 5.16 0.00 1.72 0.14 0.00 12.46 3.15 100.00 3832 14180 -14400 0 0 0 0 -2665 0 855883 0.48 0.61 -0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.00 3.25 1050 155511 15716 0 6000 62700 0 105065 6080 7538745 0.13 6.65 0.95 0.00 1.48 29.48 0.00 2.72 1.56 28.67 122010 220540 101430 0 34900 0 0 3588889 57150 10810754 15.33 9.44 6.11 0.00 8.61 0.00 0.00 92.84 14.63 41.11 603230 0 22500 0 0 0 0 15000 0 712970 75.79 0.00 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 2.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191300 191300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.98 0.73 8560 12240 13380 0 6000 0 0 58985 0 897410 1.08 0.52 0.81 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.53 0.00 3.41 36000 1862600 15000 0 21600 0 0 41000 0 2471000 4.52 79.69 0.90 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.00 9.40 0 15000 21000 0 336773 150000 0 12600 0 583023 0.00 0.64 1.26 0.00 83.10 70.52 0.00 0.33 0.00 2.22 9280 50000 1462920 0 0 0 0 21600 0 1684960 1.17 2.14 88.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 6.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18000 0 68000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.26 12000 7200 22600 0 0 0 0 7200 136000 482110 1.51 0.31 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 34.82 1.83 795962 2337271 1660146 0 405273 212700 0 3865674 390530 26296154

141

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

(2) Rayalaseema

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment Self-Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total 91 17 38 34 19 10 5 16 29.26 5.47 12.22 10.93 6.11 3.22 1.61 5.14 10564 13725 0 30700 30000 0 0 0 0.49 4.51 0.00 2.42 2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 109079 52398 124895 717635 559166 724147 2095169 110618 5.03 17.20 16.55 56.56 54.75 68.36 97.90 14.35 1885280 189200 492380 423750 68200 13500 0 176635 86.92 62.11 65.25 33.40 6.68 1.27 0.00 22.92 4000 0 0 7500 0 0 0 7500 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 102920 49300 70100 114140 56700 63560 25000 471480 4.74 16.18 9.29 9.00 5.55 6.00 1.17 61.17 42000 0 31200 0 331200 67050 20000 0 1.94 0.00 4.13 0.00 32.43 6.33 0.93 0.00 6000 0 12000 500 0 51100 0 4500 0.28 0.00 1.59 0.04 0.00 4.82 0.00 0.58 0 0 0 36000 0 87120 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.84 0.00 8.22 0.00 0.00 1500 0 24000 0 36000 0 0 0 0.07 0.00 3.18 0.00 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 28800 0 0 0 0 52800 0 0 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 2169023 304623 754576 1268825 1021266 1059277 2140169 770733

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 14 9 0 4 1 0 36 7 311 3.22 4.50 2.89 0.00 1.29 0.32 0.00 11.58 2.25 100.00 0 230 -7205 0 0 0 0 3225 0 61289 0.00 0.03 1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.45 26750 11182 0 0 33150 0 0 15145 23796 4603129 5.49 1.22 0.00 0.00 9.43 0.00 0.00 1.09 8.17 33.67 31950 84250 32100 0 4300 0 0 1212880 69650 4684075 6.55 9.21 8.67 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 87.19 23.91 34.27 428742 0 0 0 0 0 0 2400 0 450142 87.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 3.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74300 74300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.50 0.54 0 35760 0 0 0 0 0 9250 0 998210 0.00 3.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 7.30 0 705600 4800 0 42000 0 0 0 0 1243850 0.00 77.11 1.30 0.00 11.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 0 78000 0 0 258000 375000 0 0 0 785100 0.00 8.52 0.00 0.00 73.41 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.74 0 0 340400 0 0 0 0 0 0 463520 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.39 0 0 0 0 10000 0 0 70000 120000 261500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.85 0.00 0.00 5.03 41.19 1.91 0 0 0 0 4000 0 0 78200 3600 167400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 5.62 1.24 1.22 487442 915022 370095 0 351450 375000 0 1391100 291347 13669947

142

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl.No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

(3) Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total 201 38 91 75 43 25 4 15 25.25 4.77 11.43 9.42 5.40 3.14 0.50 1.88 11250 103438 20 18300 3000 0 0 0 0.21 11.70 0.00 0.60 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 284319 316316 1182341 1579100 1658038 2742265 880500 44626 5.20 35.78 41.68 51.91 62.36 68.08 95.53 8.63 4647315 431450 1162690 773625 245930 96800 0 92265 84.91 48.80 40.99 25.43 9.25 2.40 0.00 17.84 55800 0 11700 5000 60000 0 0 0 1.02 0.00 0.41 0.16 2.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 313982 198250 257585 294639 193534 127560 41200 367850 5.74 22.42 9.08 9.69 7.28 3.17 4.47 71.13 34200 21600 76000 238800 374400 392800 0 10000 0.62 2.44 2.68 7.85 14.08 9.75 0.00 1.93 18000 12000 54000 74500 57000 11200 0 0 0.33 1.36 1.90 2.45 2.14 0.28 0.00 0.00 62810 0 51000 9150 40000 657170 0 0 1.15 0.00 1.80 0.30 1.50 16.32 0.00 0.00 0 2000 8000 0 27000 0 0 0 0.00 0.23 0.28 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 44750 6000 33180 49000 0 0 0 2400 0.82 0.68 1.17 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 5472927 884177 2836516 3042105 2658902 4027795 921700 517141

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 27 58 28 1 14 1 3 141 31 796 3.39 7.29 3.52 0.13 1.76 0.13 0.38 17.71 3.89 100.00 10250 18230 13850 0 0 0 0 3688 0 -24850 0.84 0.49 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.07 16109 233591 51400 0 35354 2436 0 212471 24800 9263666 1.33 6.33 3.68 0.00 5.43 0.35 0.00 3.54 3.25 26.54 288210 420786 239680 0 71770 0 0 4474023 188100 13132644 23.75 11.41 17.15 0.00 11.02 0.00 0.00 74.52 24.62 801588 23100 7500 0 0 0 3600 67510 1500 66.06 0.63 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 1.12 0.20 2.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97000 301480 398980 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 39.46 1.14 1200 21750 7290 0 12000 0 0 115046 15450 1967336 0.10 0.59 0.52 0.00 1.84 0.00 0.00 1.92 2.02 5.64 72000 2598780 66000 0 0 0 0 119600 0 4004180 5.93 70.47 4.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 0.00 11.47 0 146500 0 0 506200 700000 77148 38200 0 1694748 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 77.74 99.65 95.54 0.64 0.00 4.86 0 111480 945200 0 0 0 0 162750 18000 2057560 0.00 3.02 67.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.71 2.36 5.89 0 54000 0 0 25850 0 0 227000 41600 385450 0.00 1.46 0.00 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.00 3.78 5.45 1.10 24000 59700 66252 42000 0 0 0 486610 173000 986892 1.98 1.62 4.74 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.10 22.65 2.83 1213357 3687917 1397172 42000 651174 702436 80748 6003898 763930 34903896

37.63 1037298

143

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

(B) Sub - Region

1.North Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total

58 7 24 10 7 3 1 2 29.44 3.55 12.18 5.08 3.55 1.52 0.51 1.02 -7999 15730 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.68 11.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53649 21743 239910 155666 368740 236972 390000 11116 4.53 16.35 42.26 35.65 96.72 100.00 100.00 18.86 991300 72800 232815 62650 12505 0 0 13020 83.77 54.75 41.01 14.35 3.28 0.00 0.00 22.09 8400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43050 1500 17880 13100 0 0 0 34800 3.64 1.13 3.15 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.05 18000 0 0 114000 0 0 0 0 1.52 0.00 0.00 26.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42120 11600 41140 0 0 0 0 0 3.56 8.72 7.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34870 9600 36000 91200 0 0 0 0 2.95 1183390 7.22 6.34 20.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132973 567745 436616 381245 236972 390000 58936

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

9 14 12 0 3 0 0 43 4 197 4.57 7.11 6.09 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 21.83 2.03 100.00 0 600 0 0 0 0 0 -2665 0 5666 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.16 0.00 0.08 3300 136490 3500 0 0 0 0 67215 0 1688301 2.16 10.15 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 23.80 49960 81590 45230 0 7450 0 0 1551950 4050 3125320 32.77 6.07 11.27 0.00 5.48 0.00 0.00 93.91 21.95 44.06 86838 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95238 56.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3080 1800 4980 0 0 0 0 9545 0 129735 2.02 0.13 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 1.83 0 1110000 15000 0 0 0 0 5000 0 1262000 0.00 82.56 3.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 17.79 0 0 0 0 128400 0 0 0 0 128400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 9280 14000 322920 0 0 0 0 21600 0 462660 6.09 1.04 80.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 0.00 6.52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 9600 0 0 0 0 0 14400 195670 0.00 152458 0.00 1344480 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 401230 0 135850 0 0

0.00 1652645 78.05 18450

2.76 7092990

144

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

2. South Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total

200 47 42 27 21 13 6 10 39.92 9.38 8.38 5.39 4.19 2.59 1.20 2.00 17864 725781 0 100000 3560 0 0 0 0.38 47.61 0.00 6.97 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 148259 140268 550666 899968 1305983 1111923 1545210 6550 3.13 9.20 54.79 62.77 94.03 84.34 96.20 2.88 4288332 461165 335660 142548 19850 2100 0 51090 90.54 30.25 33.40 9.94 1.43 0.16 0.00 22.45 29800 10000 24040 0 0 0 0 0 0.63 0.66 2.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86170 84340 94710 100200 59520 46000 61000 155975 1.82 5.53 9.42 6.99 4.29 3.49 3.80 68.53 65800 84000 0 69000 0 144000 0 0 1.39 5.51 0.00 4.81 0.00 10.92 0.00 0.00 19250 0 0 0 0 14400 0 14000 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 6.15 15300 19000 0 12000 0 0 0 0 0.32 1.25 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30000 0 0 20000 0 0 0 0 0.63 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35440 0 0 90000 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.00 0.00 6.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4736214 1524554 1005076 1433716 1388913 1318423 1606210 227615

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

19 3.79 3832 0.60 -2250 -0.35 72050 11.20 516392 80.25 0 0.00 5480 0.85 36000 5.59 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 12000 1.86 643504

20 24 0 9 1 0 44 18

3.99 4.79 0.00 1.80 0.20 0.00 8.78 3.59

13580 -14400 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.37 -1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19021 12216 0 6000 62700 0 37850 6080

1.92 0.97 0.00 2.23 29.48 0.00 1.71 1.63

138950 56200 0 27450 0 0 2036939 53100

14.00 4.46 0.00 10.19 0.00 0.00 92.04 14.27

0 22500 0 0 0 0 15000 0

0.00 1.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191300

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.41

10440 8400 0 6000 0 0 49440 0

1.05 0.67 0.00 2.23 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.00

752600 0 0 21600 0 0 36000 0

75.81 0.00 0.00 8.02 0.00 0.00 1.63 0.00

15000 21000 0 208373 150000 0 12600 0

1.51 1.67 0.00 77.34 70.52 0.00 0.57 0.00

36000 1140000 0 0 0 0 0 0

3.63 90.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0 0 0 0 0 0 18000 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00

7200 13000 0 0 0 0 7200 121600

0.73 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 32.68

992791 1258916 0 269423 212700 0 2213029 372080

145

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

3.Rayalaseema

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total 91 17 38 34 19 10 5 16 29.26 5.47 12.22 10.93 6.11 3.22 1.61 5.14 -10564 13725 0 -30700 -30000 0 0 0 -0.49 4.51 0.00 -2.42 -2.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 109079 52398 124895 717635 559166 724147 2095169 110618 5.03 17.20 16.55 56.56 54.75 68.36 97.90 14.35 1885280 189200 492380 423750 68200 13500 0 176635 86.92 62.11 65.25 33.40 6.68 1.27 0.00 22.92 4000 0 0 7500 0 0 0 7500 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 102920 49300 70100 114140 56700 63560 25000 471480 4.74 16.18 9.29 9.00 5.55 6.00 1.17 61.17 42000 0 31200 0 331200 67050 20000 0 1.94 0.00 4.13 0.00 32.43 6.33 0.93 0.00 6000 0 12000 500 0 51100 0 4500 0.28 0.00 1.59 0.04 0.00 4.82 0.00 0.58 0 0 0 36000 0 87120 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.84 0.00 8.22 0.00 0.00 1500 0 24000 0 36000 0 0 0 0.07 0.00 3.18 0.00 3.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 28800 0 0 0 0 52800 0 0 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 2169023 304623 754576 1268825 1021266 1059277 2140169 770733

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 14 9 0 4 1 0 36 7 311 3.22 4.50 2.89 0.00 1.29 0.32 0.00 11.58 2.25 100.00 0 230 -7205 0 0 0 0 3225 0 -61289 0.00 0.03 -1.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 -0.45 26750 11182 0 0 33150 0 0 15145 23796 4603129 5.49 1.22 0.00 0.00 9.43 0.00 0.00 1.09 8.17 33.67 31950 84250 32100 0 4300 0 0 1212880 69650 4684075 6.55 9.21 8.67 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 87.19 23.91 34.27 428742 0 0 0 0 0 0 2400 0 450142 87.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 3.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74300 74300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.50 0.54 0 35760 0 0 0 0 0 9250 0 998210 0.00 3.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 7.30 0 705600 4800 0 42000 0 0 0 0 1243850 0.00 77.11 1.30 0.00 11.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 0 78000 0 0 258000 0.00 8.52 0.00 0.00 73.41 0 0 340400 0 0 0 0 0 0 463520 0.00 0.00 91.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.39 0 0 0 0 10000 0 0 70000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.85 0.00 0.00 5.03 0 0 0 0 4000 0 0 78200 3600 167400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 5.62 1.24 487442 915022 370095 0 351450 375000 0 1391100 291347

375000 100.00 0 0 0 785100 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.74

120000 41.19 261500 1.91

1.22 13669947

146

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

4.South Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total

86 13 34 32 15 5 2 7 25.44 3.85 10.06 9.47 4.44 1.48 0.59 2.07 0 -181985 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 -127.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20989 36743 475352 564124 293116 633800 574000 4698 0.88 25.83 45.05 46.50 48.23 85.21 98.66 1.83 2031962 199400 361185 317855 28580 0 0 57450 85.52 140.17 34.23 26.20 4.70 0.00 0.00 22.43 33800 0 0 5000 0 0 0 0 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175620 58100 108225 90440 76040 26800 7800 193950 7.39 40.84 10.26 7.45 12.51 3.60 1.34 75.73 34200 18000 10000 136800 126000 0 0 0 1.44 12.65 0.95 11.28 20.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 18000 12000 54000 50000 57000 11200 0 0 0.76 8.44 5.12 4.12 9.38 1.51 0.00 0.00 26250 0 36000 0 0 72000 0 0 1.10 0.00 3.41 0.00 0.00 9.68 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 27000 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 34800 0 10500 49000 0 0 0 0 1.46 0.00 0.99 4.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2376121 142258 1055282 1213219 607736 743800 581800 256098

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

8 38 12 0 9 1 0 68 8 338 2.37 11.24 3.55 0.00 2.66 0.30 0.00 20.12 2.37 100.00 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -181465 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.20 -186 192218 3800 0 16724 2436 0 126070 0 2943884 -0.06 7.33 0.60 0.00 3.84 0.35 0.00 3.90 0.00 19.55 56550 314936 106290 0 61020 0 0 2173623 45900 5754751 19.47 12.01 16.65 0.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 67.27 28.25 38.21 234030 1500 0 0 0 0 0 48600 0 322930 80.59 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 2.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28000 64000 92500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 39.38 0.61 0 21750 0 0 12000 0 0 85886 0 856611 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.00 0.00 2.66 0.00 5.69 0 1823580 24000 0 0 0 0 62400 0 2234980 0.00 69.52 3.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 0.00 14.84 0 146500 0 0 320400 700000 0 28200 0 1397300 0.00 5.59 0.00 0.00 73.49 99.65 0.00 0.87 0.00 9.28 0 111480 456290 0 0 0 0 152600 0 854620 0.00 4.25 71.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.72 0.00 5.67 0 0 0 0 25850 0 0 102500 0 155350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.93 0.00 0.00 3.17 0.00 1.03 0 10500 48000 0 0 0 0 423150 52600 628550 0.00 0.40 7.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.10 32.37 4.17 290394 2622964 638380 0 435994 702436 0 3231029 162500 15060011

147

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

5.North Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Agricultural Sector

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers Animal Rearing Traditional Occupation Employment SelfEmployed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent NonAg.Workers Others Total

115 25 57 43 28 20 2 8 25.11 5.46 12.45 9.39 6.11 4.37 0.44 1.75 11250 78547 0 18300 3000 0 0 0 0.36 10.59 0.00 1.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 263330 279573 706989 1014977 1364922 2108465 306500 39928 8.50 37.68 39.69 55.50 66.54 64.20 90.17 15.30 2615353 232050 801505 455770 217350 96800 0 34815 84.45 31.28 45.00 24.92 10.60 2.95 0.00 13.34 22000 0 11700 0 60000 0 0 0 0.71 0.00 0.66 0.00 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 138362 140150 149360 204199 117494 100760 33400 173900 4.47 18.89 8.39 11.17 5.73 3.07 9.83 66.62 0 3600 66000 102000 248400 392800 0 10000 0.00 0.49 3.71 5.58 12.11 11.96 0.00 3.83 0 0 0 24500 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36560 0 15000 9150 40000 585170 0 0 1.18 0.00 0.84 0.50 1.95 17.82 0.00 0.00 0 2000 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.27 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9950 6000 22680 0 0 0 0 2400 0.32 0.81 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 3096806 741919 1781234 1828887 2051166 3283995 339900 261043

Non-Agricultural Sector

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

19 20 16 1 5 0 3 73 23 458 4.15 4.37 3.49 0.22 1.09 0.00 0.66 15.94 5.02 100.00 10250 17730 13850 0 0 0 0 3688 0 156615 1.11 1.66 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.79 16295 41373 47600 0 18630 0 0 86401 24800 6319782 1.77 3.88 6.27 0.00 8.66 0.00 0.00 3.12 4.12 31.85 231660 105850 133390 0 10750 0 0 2300400 142200 7377893 25.10 9.94 17.58 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 82.96 23.64 37.18 567558 21600 7500 0 0 0 3600 18910 1500 714368 61.49 2.03 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.46 0.68 0.25 3.60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69000 237480 306480 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 39.49 1.54 1200 0 7290 0 0 0 0 29160 15450 1110725 0.13 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 2.57 5.60 72000 775200 42000 0 0 0 0 57200 0 1769200 7.80 72.79 5.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.00 8.92 0 0 0 0 185800 0 77148 10000 0 297448 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.35 0.00 95.54 0.36 0.00 1.50 0 0 488910 0 0 0 0 10150 18000 1202940 0.00 0.00 64.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 2.99 6.06 0 54000 0 0 0 0 0 124500 41600 230100 0.00 5.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.49 6.92 1.16 24000 49200 18252 42000 0 0 0 63460 120400 358342 2.60 4.62 2.41 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.29 20.02 1.81 922963 1064953 758792 42000 215180 0 80748 2772869 601430 19843885

148

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Annexure 14 Source of income ­ social groups A) Regions 1.Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

163 51 320 164

23.35 7.31

84498 44080

1.66 2.96

268085 176380

5.27 11.86 26.52 48.27

3448857 1095495 4721152 1545250

67.85 73.66 42.31 18.04 41.11

10000 57032 499338 146600 712970

0.20 3.83 1.71

39600 0 0

0.78 0.00 1.36 0.00 0.73

119140 18660 481775 277835 897410

2.34 1.25 3.24

577600 42000 588400

11.36 2.82 11.32 6.87 9.40

55773 0 111050 416200 583023

1.10 0.00 1.00 4.86 2.22

430820 30720 479840 743580

1684960

8.48 2.07 4.30 8.68 6.41

0 0 30000 38000 68000

0.00 0.00

49000 22800

0.96 5083373 1.53 1487167 1.32 11158290 3.08 8567324 1.83 26296154

45.85 314590 23.50 412715

2.82 2959006 4.82 4135274 3.25 7538745

4.48 151700 2.71 191300

4.32 1263000 3.41 2471000

0.27 146840 0.44 263470 0.26 482110

698 100.00 855883

28.67 10810754

2.Rayalaseema

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

67 11 159 74 311

21.54 3.54 51.13 23.79

100.00

-96531 0 29415 5827 -61289

-5.23 0.00

144329 1801

7.82 0.71 27.42 54.29 33.67

1241145 173825 2777965 491140 4684075

67.22 68.29 40.93 10.27 34.27

400 61500 388242 0 450142

0.02

24.16

42800 0 31500 0 74300

2.32 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.54

136590 6900 606160 248560 998210

7.40 2.71 8.93 5.20

136800 0 493200 613850

7.41 0.00 7.27 12.84 9.10

108000 10500 105600 561000 785100

5.85 4.13 1.56 11.73 5.74

0 0 385520 78000 463520

0.00 0.00 5.68

1500 0 95000

0.08 131400 0.00 1.40 3.45 0 14000 22000

7.12 1846433 0.00 0.21 254527 6787679

0.43 1861066 0.12 2595932 -0.45 4603128

5.72 0.00 3.29

1.63 165000 3.39 261500

0.46 4781308 1.22 13669947

7.30 1243850

1.91 167400

149

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

3.Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

179 60 438 119

22.49 7.54 55.03

41976 32160 56889 -24850

0.63 1.43

923050 630742

13.90 28.05 21.16 52.40

3587298 1176350 7487306 881690

54.02 52.32 39.49 12.49

10410 61150 965738 0

0.16 234480 2.72 0.00 15000 33000 5.09 116500 2.97 398980

3.53 0.67 0.47

259331 56750 484964

3.91 2.52 6.87

621980 186000 753800

9.37 8.27 10.68

211600 0 431300

3.19 0.00 6.11

184600 43250 794110

2.78 175600 1.92 11.25 0 8000 5.46 201850 5.89 385450

2.64 389850 0.00 47150 1.06 422112 0.11 127780 1.10 986892

5.87 6640166 2.10 2248553 2.23 18958771 1.81 7056406 2.83 34903896

0.30 4012237 -2.21 3697637 -0.07 9263666

0.61 1166291 1.14 1967336

6.15 2442400 5.64 4004180

12.88 1051848 11.47 1694748

5.55 1035600 4.86 2057560

14.95 -155875

796 100.00

26.54 13132644

37.63 1037298

B) Sub Regions 1. North Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3 11 17 130 39 197

4 5.58 8.63 65.99 19.80 100.00

5 0 11500 -15969 10135 5666

6 0.00 2.31 -0.32 0.80 0.08

7 0 97670 1518256 72375 1688301

8 0.00 19.64 30.55 5.72 23.80

9 235785 328585 2009530 551420 3125320

10 65.33 66.08 40.43 43.61 44.06

11 0 0 92638 2600 95238

12 0.00 0.00 1.86 0.21 1.34

13 0 0 0 0 0

14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 0 0 113105 16630 129735

16 0.00 0.00 2.28 1.32 1.83

17 96000 24000 962000 180000 1262000

18 26.60 4.83 19.35 14.23 17.79

19 0 0 0 128400 128400

20 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.15 1.81

21 29120 16320 240340 176880 462660

22 8.07 3.28 4.84 13.99 6.52

23 0 0 0 0 0

24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 0 19200 50400 126070 195670

26 0.00 3.86 1.01 9.97 2.76

27 360905 497275 4970300 1264510 7092990

150

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

2.South Coastal Andhra

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3 152 34 190 125 501

4 77.16 17.26 96.45 63.45 100.00

5 84498 32580 330559 402580 850217

6 1.79 3.29 5.34 5.51 4.43

7 268085 78710 1440750 4062899 5850444

8 5.68 7.95 23.28 55.63 30.47

9 3213072 766910 2711622 993830 7685434

10 68.04 77.47 43.82 13.61 40.02

11 10000 57032 406700 144000 617732

12 0.21 5.76 6.57 1.97 3.22

13 39600 0 151700 0 191300

14 0.84 0.00 2.45 0.00 1.00

15 119140 18660 368670 261205 767675

16 2.52 1.89 5.96 3.58 4.00

17 481600 18000 301000 408400 1209000

18 10.20 1.82 4.86 5.59 6.30

19 55773 0 111050 287800 454623

20 1.18 0.00 1.79 3.94 2.37

21 401700 14400 239500 566700 1222300

22 8.51 1.45 3.87 7.76 6.37

23 0 0 30000 38000 68000

24 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 0.35

25 49000 3600 96440 137400 286440

26 1.04 0.36 1.56 1.88 1.49

27 4722468 989892 6187990 7302814 19203164

3.Rayalaseema

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

67 11 159 74 311

21.54 3.54 51.13 23.79

100.00

-96531 0 29415 5827 -61289

-5.23 0.00

144329 1801

7.82 0.71 27.42 54.29 33.67

1241145 173825 2777965 491140 4684075

67.22 68.29 40.93 10.27 34.27

400 61500 388242 0 450142

0.02 24.16 5.72 0.00 3.29

42800 0 31500 0 74300

2.32 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.54

136590 6900 606160 248560 998210

7.40 2.71 8.93 5.20

136800 0 493200 613850

7.41 0.00 7.27 12.84 9.10

108000 10500 105600 561000 785100

5.85 4.13 1.56 11.73 5.74

0 0 385520 78000 463520

0.00 0.00 5.68

1500 0 95000

0.08 131400 0.00 1.40 3.45 0 14000 22000

7.12 1846433 0.00 0.21 254527 6787679

0.43 1861066 0.12 2595932 -0.45 4603128

1.63 165000 3.39 261500

0.46 4781308 1.22 13669947

7.30 1243850

1.91 167400

151

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

4.South Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

58 22 209 49

11.58 4.39 41.72

0 -23775 -31236

0.00 -3.07

99554 124894

4.66 16.14 13.85 49.96 19.55

1036130 498215 3784206 436200 5754751

48.48 64.37 40.79 15.19 38.21

5000 12000 305930 0 322930

0.23 1.55 3.30 0.00 2.14

52000 0 22500 18000 92500

2.43 0.00 0.24 0.63 0.61

71520 41400 602701 140990 856611

3.35 5.35 4.91

344380 78000 333400

16.11 10.08 15.94 11.61

99600 0 950700 347000

4.66 0.00 10.25 12.09 9.28

85200 43250 503770 222400 854620

3.99 5.59 7.75

0 0 0

0.00 343650 0.00 0.00 0 64900 1.67 220000 1.03 628550

16.08 0.00 2.37 2.26

2137034 773984 9278303 2870690

-0.34 1285182 -4.41 1434254 -1.20 2943884

6.50 1479200 5.69 2234980

5.43 155350 5.67 155350

9.78 -126454

338 100.00 -181465

14.84 1397300

4.17 15060011

5.North Telangana

Income from Traditional occupation Income from Business/ Contract/ Commission Agent % in Total Households Income from Members working Elsewhere

Income from Animal Rearing

Income from Wages

Income from Other Sources

Income from Farm Servants

Tenant Cultivation

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

1 1 2 3 4 SC ST BC OC Total

2

3 121 38 229 70 458

4 35.80 11.24 67.75 20.71 100.00

5 41976 55935 88125 -29421 156615

6 0.93 3.79 0.91 -0.70 0.79

7 823496 505848 2727055 2263383 6319782

8 18.29 34.30 28.17 54.07 31.85

9 2551168 678135 3703100 445490 7377893

10 56.65 45.99 38.25 10.64 37.18

11 5410 49150 659808 0 714368

12 0.12 3.33 6.82 0.00 3.60

13 182480 15000 94000 15000 306480

14 4.05 1.02 0.97 0.36 1.54

15 187811 15350 563590 343974 1110725

16 4.17 1.04 5.82 8.22 5.60

17 277600 108000 963200 420400 1769200

18 6.16 7.32 9.95 10.04 8.92

19 112000 0 101148 84300 297448

20 2.49 0.00 1.04 2.01 1.50

21 99400 0 531830 571710 1202940

22 2.21 0.00 5.49 13.66 6.06

23 175600 0 46500 8000 230100

24 3.90 0.00 0.48 0.19 1.16

25 46200 47150 202112 62880 358342

26 1.03 3.20 2.09 1.50

27 4503132 1474569 9680468 4185716

1.81 19843885

152

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Total Income

Income from Employment

Sl. No

Social Category

% in Total Income

Income from Own cultivation

Total Households

Income from Self Employment

Annexure 15

Sources of credit ­ Economic Groups

(1) Coastal Andhra

Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Economic Group 3 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers

Traditional Occupations

% of the Economic Group 4

36.96 7.74 9.46 5.30 4.01 2.29 1.00 4.01 1.72 4.87 5.16 0.00 1.72 0.14 0.00 12.46 3.15 100.00

Institutional Loans Amount 5

367000 660000 407000 526000 970000 1260000 810000 20000 15000 134500 300000 0 25000 200000 0 67500 0 5762000

Private Loans Amount 7

1226500 498500 745000 440000 238000 258000 700000 157000 65000 465000 263000 0 8000 150000 0 186000 55000 5455000

% in the Total Loan 6 23.03 56.97 35.33 54.45 80.30 83.00 53.64 11.30 18.75 22.44 53.29 0.00 75.76 57.14 0.00 26.63 0.00 51.37

% in the Total Loan 8 76.97 43.03 64.67 45.55 19.70 17.00 46.36 88.70 81.25 77.56 46.71 0.00 24.24 42.86 0.00 73.37 100.00 48.63

Total Loan 9 1593500 1158500 1152000 966000 1208000 1518000 1510000 177000 80000 599500 563000 0 33000 350000 0 253500 55000 11217000

Animal Rearing Employment Self Employment Pensioners Business Contractors Commision Agents Non-Ag Workers Others

Total

(2) Rayalaseema

Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Economic Group 3 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers

Traditional Occupations

% of the Economic Group 4

29.26 5.47 12.22 10.93 6.11 3.22 1.61 3.22 5.14 4.50 2.89 0.00

Institutional Loans Amount 5

333000 90000 227000 361000 435000 640000 550000 40000 160000 150000 120000 0

Private Loans Amount 7

765000 196000 405000 88000 165000 255000 280000 18000 118000 95000 125000 0

% in the Total Loan 6 30.33 31.47 35.92 80.40 72.50 71.51 66.27 68.97 57.55 61.22 48.98 0.00

% in the Total Loan 8 69.67 68.53 64.08 19.60 27.50 28.49 33.73 31.03 42.45 38.78 51.02 0.00

Total Loan 9 1098000 286000 632000 449000 600000 895000 830000 58000 278000 245000 245000 0

Animal Rearing Employment Self Employment Pensioners

153

13 14 15 16 17

Business Contractors Commision Agents Non-Ag Workers Others

Total

1.29 0.32 0.00 11.58 2.25 100.00

0 0 0 60000 28000 3194000

0.00 0.00 0.00 30.30 15.05 52.79

50000 0 0 138000 158000 2856000

100.00 0.00 0.00 69.70 84.95 47.21

50000 0 0 198000 186000 6050000

(3) Telangana

Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Economic Group 3 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large farmers

Traditional Occupations

% of the Economic Group 4

25.25 4.77 11.31 9.67 5.28 3.14 0.50 3.39 1.88 7.29 3.52 0.13 1.76 0.13 0.38 17.71 3.89 100.00

Institutional Loans Amount 5

654000 612000 456000 859000 867000 2869000 200000 70000 245000 275000 502000 0 104000 0 0 269000 49000 8031000

Private Loans Amount % in the Total Loan 8 80.89 67.17 80.29 65.97 51.78 26.17 80.00 89.93 58.96 88.57 53.90 100.00 62.18 0.00 100.00 89.60 77.63 67.51 Total Loan 9 3422500 1864000 2313500 2524000 1798000 3886000 1000000 695000 597000 2406000 1089000 15000 275000 0 30000 2586000 219000 24720000

% in the Total Loan

Animal Rearing Employment Self Employment Pensioners Business Contractors Commision Agents Non-Ag Workers Others

Total

6 7 19.11 2768500 32.83 1252000 19.71 1857500 34.03 1665000 48.22 931000 73.83 1017000 20.00 800000 10.07 625000 41.04 352000 11.43 2131000 46.10 587000 0.00 15000 37.82 171000 0.00 0 0.00 30000 10.40 2317000 22.37 170000 32.49 16689000

154

Annexure 16

Sources of credit ­ Social groups

(1) Coastal Andhra Institutional Loans Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 Social Group 3 SC ST BC OC Total % of the Social Group 4 23.35 7.31 45.85 23.50 100.00 Amount 5 112500 0 1468500 4181000 5762000 % in the Total Loan 6 10.84 0.00 35.56 70.05 51.37 Private Loans % in the Amount Total Loan 7 8 925500 89.16 80000 100.00 2661500 64.44 1788000 29.95 5455000 48.63 Total Loan 9 1038000 80000 4130000 5969000 11217000

(2) Rayalaseema Institutional Loans Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 Social Group 3 SC ST BC OC Total % of the Social Group 4 21.54 3.54 51.13 23.79 100.00 Amount 5 310000 53000 840000 1991000 3194000 % in the Total Loan 6 27.78 36.05 39.02 75.59 52.79 Private Loans % in the Amount Total Loan 7 8 806000 72.22 94000 63.95 1313000 60.98 643000 24.41 2856000 47.21 Total Loan 9 1116000 147000 2153000 2634000 6050000

(3) Telangana Institutional Loans Sl. No. 2 1 2 3 4 Social Group 3 SC ST BC OC Total % of the Social Group 4 22.49 7.54 55.03 14.95 100.00 Amount 5 759000 182000 3729000 3361000 8031000 % in the Total Loan 6 27.28 17.37 27.92 44.60 32.49 Private Loans % in the Amount Total Loan 7 8 2023000 72.72 866000 82.63 9625000 72.08 4175000 55.40 16689000 67.51

Total Loan 9 2782000 1048000 13354000 7536000 24720000

155

Annexure 17

Per capita daily income of Social groups A. Regions (1) Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Social Group No. of Per capita daily Households Surveyed Income in rupees 1 2 3 4 1 SC 163 22.54 2 ST 51 21.91 3 BC 320 25.43 4 OC 164 39.85 5 Total 698 27.76 (2) Rayalaseema Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 67 2 ST 11 3 BC 159 4 OC 74 5 Total 311 (3) Telangana Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 179 2 ST 60 3 BC 438 4 OC 119 5 Total 796

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 19.02 19.37 29.01 44.11 30.20

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 24.82 25.25 27.75 39.62 28.66

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 11 2 ST 17 3 BC 130 4 OC 39 5 Total 197 Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 24.12 22.71 25.69 25.85 25.40

156

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 152 2 ST 34 3 BC 190 4 OC 125 5 Total 501 (3) Rayalaseema Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 67 2 ST 11 3 BC 159 4 OC 74 5 Total 311 (4) South Telangana Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 58 2 ST 22 3 BC 209 4 OC 49 5 Total 338 (5) North Telangana Sl.No. Social Group No. of Households Surveyed 1 2 3 1 SC 121 2 ST 38 3 BC 229 4 OC 70 5 Total 458

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 22.42 21.52 25.23 43.97 28.75

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 19.02 19.37 29.01 44.11 30.20

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 22.61 25.24 27.25 38.94 27.92

Per capita daily Income in rupees 4 26.03 25.25 28.24 40.10 29.25

157

Annexure 18

Per capita Income - Economic Groups A. Regions (1) Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total

No.of Total Households income Surveyed 3 4

258 54 66 37 28 16 7 28 12 34 36 0 12 1 0 87 22 698 5919604 1657527 1545396 1897757 1770158 1555395 1996210 795962 286551 2337271 1660146 0 405273 212700 0 3865674 390530 26296154

Average annual Income per household 5

22944 30695 23415 51291 63220 97212 285173 28427 23879 68743 46115 0 33773 212700 0 44433 17751 37674

No.of Percapita Persons daily 6

924 215 239 146 119 58 26 94 39 142 127 0 41 4 0 367 54 2595

7

17.55 21.12 17.72 35.61 40.75 73.47 210.35 23.20 20.13 45.09 35.81 0.00 27.08 145.68 0.00 28.86 19.81 27.76

(2) Rayalaseema Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total

No.of Total Households income Surveyed 3 4

91 17 38 34 19 10 5 10 16 14 9 0 4 1 0 36 7 311 2169023 304623 754576 1268825 1021266 1059277 2140169 487442 770733 915022 370095 0 351450 375000 0 1391100 291347 13669947

Average annual Income per household 5

23835 17919 19857 37318 53751 105928 428034 48744 48171 65359 41122 0 87863 375000 0 38642 41621 43955

No.of Percapita Persons daily 6

331 69 145 152 95 52 28 38 69 46 37 0 13 4 0 135 26 1240

7

17.95 12.10 14.26 22.87 29.45 55.81 209.41 35.14 30.60 54.50 27.40 0.00 74.07 256.85 0.00 28.23 30.70 30.20

158

(3) Telangana Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total

No.of Total Households income Surveyed 3 4

201 38 91 75 43 25 4 27 15 58 28 1 14 1 3 141 31 796 5472927 884177 2836516 3042105 2658902 4027795 921700 1213357 517141 3687917 1397172 42000 651174 702436 80748 6003898 763930 34903896

Average annual Income per household 5

27228 23268 31171 40561 61835 161112 230425 44939 34476 63585 49899 42000 46512 702436 26916 42581 24643 43849

No.of Percapita Persons daily 6

777 178 361 333 205 142 20 117 60 257 128 3 58 6 14 589 89 3337

7

19.30 13.61 21.53 25.03 35.53 77.71 126.26 28.41 23.61 39.31 29.91 38.36 30.76 320.75 15.80 27.93 23.52 28.66

B. Sub Region

(1) North Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Economic No.of Total Average annual No.of Percapita Group Households income Income per Persons daily Surveyed household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Ag.Workers 58 1183390 20403 210 15.44 2 Tenants 7 132973 18996 28 13.01 3 Marginal Farmers 24 567745 23656 90 17.28 4 Small Farmers 10 436616 43662 44 27.19 5 Middle Farmers 7 381245 54464 31 33.69 6 Rich Farmers 3 236972 78991 17 38.19 7 Large Farmers 1 390000 390000 9 118.72 8 Traditional Occupations 9 152458 16940 33 12.66 9 Animal Rearing 2 58936 29468 8 20.18 10 Employment 14 1344480 96034 62 59.41 11 Self Employed 12 401230 33436 41 26.81 12 Pensioner 0 0 0 0 0.00 13 Business 3 135850 45283 8 46.52 14 Contractor 0 0 0 0 0.00 15 Commission Agent 0 0 0 0 0.00 16 Non-Ag.Workers 43 1652645 38434 177 25.58 17 Others 4 18450 4613 7 7.22 18 Total 197 7092990 36005 765 25.40

159

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl.No. Economic No.of Total Average annual No.of Percapita Group Households income Income per Persons daily Surveyed household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Ag.Workers 200 4736214 23681 714 18.17 2 Tenants 47 1524554 32437 187 22.34 3 Marginal Farmers 42 1005076 23930 153 18.00 4 Small Farmers 27 1433716 53101 101 38.89 5 Middle Farmers 21 1388913 66139 85 44.77 6 Rich Farmers 13 1318423 101417 41 88.10 7 Large Farmers 6 1606210 267702 17 258.86 8 Traditional Occupations 19 643504 33869 61 28.90 9 Animal Rearing 10 227615 22762 31 20.12 10 Employment 20 992791 49640 80 34.00 11 Self Employed 24 1258916 52455 86 40.11 12 Pensioner 0 0 0 0 0.00 13 Business 9 269423 29936 33 22.37 14 Contractor 1 212700 212700 4 145.68 15 Commission Agent 0 0 0 0 0.00 16 Non-Ag.Workers 44 2213029 50296 190 31.91 17 Others 18 372080 20671 47 21.69 18 Total 501 19203164 38330 1830 28.75 (3) Rayalaseema Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total

No.of Total Households income Surveyed 3 4

91 17 38 34 19 10 5 10 16 14 9 0 4 1 0 36 7 311 2169023 304623 754576 1268825 1021266 1059277 2140169 487442 770733 915022 370095 0 351450 375000 0 1391100 291347 13669947

Average annual Income per household 5

23835 17919 19857 37318 53751 105928 428034 48744 48171 65359 41122 0 87863 375000 0 38642 41621 43955

No.of Percapita Persons daily 6

331 69 145 152 95 52 28 38 69 46 37 0 13 4 0 135 26 1240

7

17.95 12.10 14.26 22.87 29.45 55.81 209.41 35.14 30.60 54.50 27.40 0.00 74.07 256.85 0.00 28.23 30.70 30.20

160

(4) South Telangana Sl.No. Economic No.of Total Average annual No.of Percapita Group Households income Income per Persons daily Surveyed household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Ag.Workers 86 2376121 27629 367 17.74 2 Tenants 13 142258 10943 58 6.72 3 Marginal Farmers 34 1055282 31038 135 21.42 4 Small Farmers 32 1213219 37913 140 23.74 5 Middle Farmers 15 607736 40516 67 24.85 6 Rich Farmers 5 743800 148760 32 63.68 7 Large Farmers 2 581800 290900 10 159.40 8 Traditional Occupations 8 290394 36299 33 24.11 9 Animal Rearing 7 256098 36585 28 25.06 10 Employment 38 2622964 69025 170 42.27 11 Self Employed 12 638380 53198 64 27.33 12 Pensioner 0 0 0 0 0.00 13 Business 9 435994 48444 42 28.44 14 Contractor 1 702436 702436 6 320.75 15 Commission Agent 0 0 0 0 0.00 16 Non-Ag.Workers 68 3231029 47515 306 28.93 17 Others 8 162500 20313 20 22.26 18 Total 338 15060011 44556 1478 27.92

161

(5) North Telangana Sl.No. Economic Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 Ag.Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self Employed Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others Total No.of Total Households income Surveyed 3 4

115 25 57 43 28 20 2 19 8 20 16 1 5 0 3 73 23 458 3096806 741919 1781234 1828887 2051166 3283995 339900 922963 261043 1064953 758792 42000 215180 0 80748 2772869 601430 19843885

Average annual Income per household 5

26929 29677 31250 42532 73256 164200 169950 48577 32630 53248 47425 42000 43036 0 26916 37985 26149 43327

No.of Percapita Persons daily 6

410 120 226 193 138 110 10 84 32 87 64 3 16 0 14 283 69 1859

7

20.69 16.94 21.59 25.96 40.72 81.79 93.12 30.10 22.35 33.54 32.48 38.36 36.85 0.00 15.80 26.84 23.88 29.25

162

Annexure 19 Expenditure on Education and Health 1. Coastal Andhra

No. of Households Total Expenditure % in Total Income % in Total Income Economic Group Expenditure On Education Expenditure on Health % of Total Expenditure in total income Total Income Sl.No.

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

2

Ag. Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self-Employment Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others

3

258 54 66 37 28 16 7 28 12 34 36 0 12 1 0 87 22 698

4

5919613 1657525 1572820 1870331 1770158 1555395 1996210 795962 286551 2337271 1660146 0 405273 212700 0 3865674 390530 26296159

5

511925 204150 215665 86600 254370 316400 130000 25403 3501 42220 176241 0 48001 9000 0 65902 0 2089378

6

8.65 12.32 13.71 4.63 14.37 20.34 6.51 3.19 1.22 1.81 10.62 0.00 11.84 4.23 0.00 1.70 0.00 7.95

7

1855567 296953 1047521 301208 57460 112440 31200 171800 141321 935125 483151 0 175301 10000 0 956407 29750 6605203

8

31.35 17.92 66.60 16.10 3.25 7.23 1.56 21.58 49.32 40.01 29.10 0.00 43.26 4.70 0.00 24.74 7.62 25.12

9

7005726 1730721 2529630 1382800 1056714 924313 395300 703643 346652 1817643 1293782 0 461462 55000 0 2912448 237428 22853261

10

118.35 104.42 160.83 73.93 59.70 59.43 19.80 88.40 120.97 77.77 77.93 0.00 113.86 25.86 0.00 75.34 60.80 86.91

Total 2. Rayalaseema

No. of Households

Total Expenditure

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

Economic Group

Expenditure On Education

Expenditure on Health

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

2

Ag. Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self-Employment Pensioner Business

3

91 17 38 34 19 10 5 10 16 14 9 0 4

4

2169012 304623 754576 1268825 1021267 1059276 2140169 487442 770733 915022 370095 0 351450

5

68650 13300 45400 117320 380800 30700 168500 3350 13800 31100 2100 0 10000

6

3.03 2.98 6.35 10.23 25.16 8.10 44.00 1.47 2.78 6.66 1.04 0.00 5.76

7

3.17 4.37 6.02 9.25 37.29 2.90 7.87 0.69 1.79 3.40 0.57 0.00 2.85

8

712975 119250 41850 321850 599500 35000 5000 37000 122900 171100 25000 0 10000

9

31.52 26.75 5.86 28.06 39.62 9.24 1.31 16.22 24.76 36.63 12.40 0.00 5.76

% of Total Expenditure in total income

Total Income

Sl.No.

10

32.87 39.15 5.55 25.37 58.70 3.30 0.23 7.59 15.95 18.70 6.76 0.00 2.85

163

14 15 16 17

Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others

1 0 36 7 311

375000 0 1391100 291347 13669934

2000 0 39800 650 927470

8.17 0.00 5.07 0.37 9.87

0.53 0.00 2.86 0.22 6.78

0 0 130900 68000 2400325

0.00 0.00 16.68 38.51 25.54

0.00 0.00 9.41 23.34 17.56

Total 3. Telangana

No. of Households

Total Expenditure

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

Economic Group

Expenditure On Education

Expenditure on Health

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

2

Ag. Workers Tenants Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Middle Farmers Rich Farmers Large Farmers Traditional Occupations Animal Rearing Employment Self-Employment Pensioner Business Contractor Commission Agent Non-Ag.Workers Others

3

201 38 90 77 42 25 4 27 15 58 28 1 14 1 3 141 31

4

5472937 884177 2844407 3092216 2600902 4027795 921700 1213357 517141 3687917 1397172 42000 651174 702436 80748 6003898 763930

5

345252 246800 141260 358340 89890 727600 560000 80380 34900 286500 53900 0 45300 46500 15400 397300 40000 3462422

6

5.65 16.92 4.83 13.09 5.00 31.15 77.38 10.08 8.33 11.24 6.38 0.00 8.13 48.80 15.51 8.15 6.82 11.99

7

6.31 27.91 4.97 11.59 3.46 18.06 60.76 6.62 6.75 7.77 3.86 0.00 6.96 6.62 19.07 6.62 5.24 9.92

8

1521020 163550 791200 447425 435572 365100 0 140560 57400 648926 178340 0 125100 8000 0 1179860 100890 6162442

9

24.89 11.21 27.07 16.35 24.22 15.63 0.00 17.63 13.69 25.46 21.11 0.00 22.45 8.40 0.00 24.20 17.20 21.34

% of Total Expenditure in total income

Total Income

Sl.No.

10

27.79 18.50 27.82 14.47 16.75 9.06 0.00 11.58 11.10 17.60 12.76 0.00 19.21 1.14 0.00 19.65 13.21 17.66

Total

796 34903907

164

Annexure 20 Expenditure on Education and Health ­ Social Groups 1. Coastal Andhra

No. of Households Total Expenditure % in Total Income % in Total Income Economic Group Expenditure On Education Expenditure on Health % of Total Expenditure in total income Total Income Sl.No.

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC OC Total

3

163 51 320 164 698

4

2389803 903807 7485067 3186837 13962314

5

184550 35950 711713 1156365 2089378

6

7.72 3.98 9.51 36.29 14.96

7

1295988 157440 3495300 1658875 6605203

8

54.23 17.42 46.70 52.05 47.31

9

4707534 1096578 10609307 6432926 22853261

10

196.98 121.33 141.74 201.86 163.68

2. Rayalaseema

No. of Households Total Expenditure % in Total Income % in Total Income Economic Group Expenditure On Education Expenditure on Health % of Total Expenditure in total income Total Income Sl.No.

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC OC Total

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

67 11 159 74 311

3. Telangana

No. of Households

1846433 254527 6787667 4781308

13669934

64250 3300 287250 572670

927470

3.48 1.30 4.23 11.98

6.78

276700 60000 1386025 677600

2400325

14.99 23.57 20.42 14.17

17.56

1517229 243544 4776799 2859281

9396853

82.17 95.69 70.37 59.80

68.74

Total Expenditure

% in Total Income

% in Total Income

Economic Group

Expenditure On Education

Expenditure on Health

1 1 2 3 4

2 SC ST BC OC Total

3

179 60 438 128 796

4

6640175 2248553 18958772 7056408 34903908

5

451680 52350 1210161 1748231 3462422

6

6.80 2.33 6.38 24.78 9.92

7

1493865 157800 3317977 1192800 6162442

8

22.50 7.02 17.50 16.90 17.66

9

5839243 1493393 15587543 5955040 28875219

165

% of Total Expenditure in total income

Total Income

Sl.No.

10

87.94 66.42 82.22 84.39 82.73

Annexure 21

No. of Working Days and Wage Rates

A. Regions

(1) Coastal Andhra

Male Workers No. of Working Days No. of Workers Female Workers No. of Working Days No. of Workers Average Wage

Total Workers in Households

No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Workers Average Wage Average Wage Income Income

No. of Working Days per Head

Sl. No.

Region

Income

1 1 2

2

North Andhra South Andhra

3

6665 27629

4

59 192

5

113 144

6

582945 2698810

7

87.46 97.68

8

7270 22850

9

69 179

10

105 128

11

408355 1589522

12

56.17 69.56

13

13935 50479 64414

13

128 371 499

15

109 136 129

16

991300 4288332 5279632

17

71.14 84.95 81.96

Total/Average

34294

251

137

3281755

95.69

30120

248

121

1997877

66.33

(2) Rayalaseema

Male Workers No. of Working Days No. of Workers No. of Working Days per Head Average Wage Female Workers No. of Workers No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head Average Wage

Total Workers in Households

No. of Workers No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

Income

Income

1 1 2 3 4

2 Chittor Kadapa Anantapur Kurnool State Total

3

4 15 17 14 43 89

5 146 137 217 126 146

6 140860 191185 309560 459935 1101540

7 64.35 82.05 101.76 84.67 84.78

8 2042 2423 3746 5450 13661

9 18 22 21 42 103

10 113.44 110 178 130 133

11 97965 139040 295315 358290 890610

12 47.98 57.38 78.83 65.74 65.19

13

4231 4753 6788 10882 26654

13

33 39 35 85 192

15

128 122 194 128 139

16

238825 330225 604875 818225 1992150

Income

17

56.45 69.48 89.11 75.19 74.74

2189 2330 3042 5432 12993

166

(3) Telangana

Male Workers Female Workers

Total Workers in Households No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head

No. of Working Days

No. of Working Days per Head

No. of Working Days per Head

No. of Working Days

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

Average Wage

Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

Income

Income

1

2 1 North Telangana 2 South Telangana State Total

3

11928 13074 25002

4

83 93 176

5

144 141 142

6

1164968 1199983 2364951

7

97.67 91.78 94.59

8

13438 22414 35852

9

98 144 242

10

137 156 148

11

865994 1415370 2281364

12

64.44 63.15 63.63

13

25366 35488

13

181 237

15

140 150

16

2031962 2615353

17

80.11 73.7

60854

418

146

4647315

76.37

B. Sub Regions

(1) North Coastal Andhra Male Workers Female Workers

Total Workers in Households

No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days per Head

No. of Working Days

No. of Working Days

No. of Working Days per Head

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

Average Wage

Average Wage

Average Wage 17

69.44 73.25 71.50 71.14

Income

Sl. No.

Region

1 1 2 3

2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam State Total

3

2475 1370 2820 6665

4

23 14 22 59

5

108 98 128 113

6

209575 130100 243270 582945

7

84.68 94.96 86.27 87.46

8

2690 1810 2770 7270

9

24 17 28 69

10

112 106 99 105

11

149075 102850 156430 408355

12

55.42 56.82 56.47 56.17

13

5165 3180 5590 13935

13

47 31 50 128

15

109.89 103.00 111.80 108.87

16

358650 232950 399700 991300

167

Average Wage

Income

Income

Income

(2) South Coastal Andhra Male Workers

No. of Working Days per Head

Female Workers

No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days

Total Workers in Households

No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

Average Wage

Average Wage

1 1 2 3 4 5 6

2

East Godavari

West Godavari

3 7327 4936 4980 2893 3431 4062 27629

4 52 38 41 18 18 25 192

5 141 130 121 161 191 162 144

6 760400 583870 425370 229310 304810 395050 2698810

7 103.78 118.29 85.42 79.26 89 97.26 97.68

8 5481 5147 4030 2560 3002 2630 22850

9 45 35 35 21 20 23 179

10 122 147 115 122 150 114 128

11 424740 424195 269977 161470 170280 138860 1589522

12 77.49 82.42 66.99 63.07 56.72 52.80 69.56

13

12808 10083 9010 5453 6433 6692 50479

13

97 73 76 39 38 48 371

15

132.04 138.12 118.55 139.82 169.00 139.42 136.06

16

1185140 1008065 695347 390780 475090 533910 4288332

17

92.53 99.98 77.18 71.66 73.85 79.78 84.95

Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore State Total

(3) Rayalaseema Male Workers No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days Female Workers No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days

Total Workers in Households No. of Workers No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head Average Wage 17

56.45 69.48 89.11 75.19 74.74

No. of Workers

No. of Workers

Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

Average Wage

Income

Income

1 1 2 3 4

2 Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool State Total

3

4

15 17 14 43 89

5

145.93 137 217 126 146

6

140860 191185 309560 459935 1101540

7

64.35 82.05 101.76 84.67 84.78

8

2042 2423 3746 5450 13661

9

18 22 21 42 103

10

113.44 110 178 130 133

11

97965 139040 295315 358290 890610

12

47.98 57.38 78.83 65.74 65.19

13

4231 4753 6788 10882 26654

13

33 39 35 85 192

15

128.21 122 194 128 139

16

238825 330225 604875 818225 1992150

2189 2330 3042 5432 12993

168

Income

Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

o. of Working Days

Income

Income

Income

(4) South Telangana

No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head Male Workers No. of Working Days Female Workers No. of Workers Average Wage

Total Workers in Households

No. of Workers Average Wage Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

No. of Workers

Income

Income

1 1 2 3 4

2 Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Medak Nalgonda State Total

3

2971 1455 4372 3130 11928

4

23 10 31 19 83

5

129 146 141 165 144

6

258928 134600 395300 376140 1164968

7

87.15 92.51 90.42 120.17 97.67

8

3771 3191 4310 2166 13438

9

26 22 34 16 98

10

145 145 127 135 137

11

230624 212400 229200 193770 865994

12

61.16 66.56 53.18 89.46 64.44

13

6742 4646 8682 5296 25366

13

49 32 65 35 181

15

138 145 134 151 140

16

489552 348000 624500 569910 2031962

Income

17

72.61 74.90 71.93 107.61 80.11

(5) North Telangana No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head No. of Working Days No. of Working Days per Head Male Workers No. of Working Days No. of Workers Female Workers No. of Workers Average Wage

Total Workers in Households

No. of Workers Average Wage Average Wage

Sl. No.

Region

Income

Income

1 1 2 3 4 5

2 Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam State Total

3

4 17 20 9 14 33 93

5 127 176 131 733 126 141

6 184545 330175 111750 211260 362253 1199983

7 85.76 93.91 95.11 101.76 87.18 91.78

8 3484 4738 3680 4626 5886 22414

9 21 27 24 25 47 144

10 166 175 153 1355 125 156

11 195455 287250 232150 295502 405013 1415370

12 56.1 60.63 63.08 63.88 68.81 63.15

13

5636 8254 4855 6702 10041 35488

13

38 47 33 39 80 237

15

148 176 147 172 126 150

16

380000 617425 343900 506762 767266 2615353

Income

17

67.42 74.8 70.83 75.61 76.41 73.70

2152 3516 1175 2076 4155 13074

169

Annexure 22 Rent, Expenditure and Income - Tenant cultivation (Irrigated Land) Districts - Sub Region wise (1) North Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Expenditur Expenditur e per Acre Total Rent e Income 6 4 5 7 6200 56000 14000 52600 7020 78770 15754 72600 5127 68010 13602 62245 6110 202780 187445 14484 Net Incom Net Income e Per Acre 8 9 -3400 -850 -6170 -1234 -5765 -1153

Region 2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam Total

Area 3 4.00 5.00 5.00

14.00

-15335

-1095

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expenditure Net Expenditu per Acre Total Incom Net Income re Income e Per Acre 6 5 7 8 9 996095 30649 1082860 86765 2670 1313080 31264 1466200 153120 3646 1702900 25416 1716559 13659 204 823295 21984 896889 73594 1965 40000 20000 36000 -4000 -2000 510708 20428 534538 23830 953 5386078 26152 5733046 346968 1685

Region 2 East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Total

Area 3 32.50 42.00 67.00 37.45 2.00 25.00 205.95

Rent 4 12986 13548 11780 9099 7000 4812

10951

(3) Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Expenditur Net Expenditur e per Acre Total Incom Net Income e Income e Per Acre 6 5 7 8 9 159250 17597 191461 32211 3559 157630 18545 187200 29570 3479 0 0 0 0 0 645030 33078 589725 -55305 -2836 961910 968386 6476 175 25962

Region 2 Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Total

Area 3 9.05 8.50 0.00 19.50

Rent 4 4690 7423 0 10508

37.05

8379

(4) South Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Expenditur Net Expenditur e per Acre Total Incom Net Income e Income e Per Acre 6 5 7 8 9 45600 22800 29900 -15700 -7850 0 0 0 0 0 14000 7000 11200 -2800 -1400 100560 14366 110279 9719 1388 160160 14560 151379 -8781 -798

Region 2 Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Medak Nalgonda Total

Area 3 2.00 0.00 2.00 7 11.00

Rent 4 5100 0 5600

5210

5261

170

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Region 2 Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Total Area 3

9 15 2 14 67.5

Rent 4

Expenditure Total Net Net Income Expenditure per Acre Income Income Per Acre 6 5 7 8 9 17907 11102 161164 197940 36776 4086

7333 9600 9033 6949 275500 62800 350520 1375352 18367

107.50

7671

2225336

31400 25037 20376 20701

287567 12067 72600 9800 380963 30443 1384196 8843.53

804 4900 2175 131

2323266

97930

911

171

Annexure 23 Expenditure and Income - Own Cultivation (Irrigated Land) Districts - Sub Region wise (1) North Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Region 2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam Total/Average Area 3 92.35 73.30 20.65 186.30 Expenditure Total Net Net income Expenditure Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 4 5 6 7 8 881592 9546 1520474 638882 6918 668868 9125 1071341 402473 5491 226825 10984 306270 79445 3847 1777285 9540 2898085 1120800 6016

Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6

(2) South Coastal Andhra Expenditur Expenditur Total Net Net income Region Area e e Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 East Godavari 57.50 975250 16961 1783191 807941 14051 West Godavari 100.50 2217050 22060 3274980 1057930 10527 Krishna 91.10 1397760 15343 2422959 1025199 11254 Guntur 172.60 1048164 6073 2634467 1586303 9191 Prakasham 7.00 89770 12824 122881 33111 4730 Nellor 89.00 1007986 11326 1664367 656381 7375 Total/Average 57.50 975250 16961 1783191 807941 14051

(3) Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Region 2 Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Total Area 3 37.40 78.65 40.00 122.00 278.05 Expenditur Expenditur Total Net Net income e e Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 4 5 6 7 8 740900 19810 1089636 348736 9324 1157330 14715 1738581 581251 7390 460875 11522 881007 420132 10503 2044150 16755 3858122 1813972 14869 4403255 15836 7567346 3164091 11380

(4) South Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Region 2 Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Medak Nalgonda Total Expenditur Total Net Net income Area Expenditure e Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 3 4 5 6 7 8 47.00 811064 17257 891067 80003 1702 70.50 1172300 16628 1655975 483675 6861 89.50 1986892 22200 2744219 757327 8462 69.13 1143930 16548 1795100 651170 9419 276.13 5114186 18521 7086361 1972175 7142

172

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Expenditure Total Net Net income Area Expenditure Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 3 4 5 6 7 8 77.50 1784941 23031 2610777 825836 10656 125.00 1792500 14340 2985905 1193405 9547 58.50 1198375 20485 1793727 595352 10177 78.55 1159875 14766 1897853 737978 9395 190.60 3296250 17294 4873267 1577017 8274 530.15 9231941 17414 14161529 4929588 9298

Region 2 Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Total

173

Annexure 24

Rate of Rent, Expenditure and Income in Tenant cultivation ­ Dry land

Districts - Sub Region wise (1) North Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Region 2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam Total Area 3 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Expenditure Total Net Net Income Rent Expenditure per Acre Income Income Per Acre 6 4 5 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 14000 7000 7000 -7000 -3500 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 14000 7000 7000 -7000 -3500

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Expenditure Total Net Net Income Rent Expenditure per Acre Income Income Per Acre 6 4 5 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 28000 7000 23000 -5000 -1250 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 28000 7000 23000 -5000 -1250

Region 2 East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Total

Area 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00

(3) Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Region 2 Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Total Area 3 0.00 0.00 25.00 10.00 35.00 Expenditure Total Net Net Income Rent Expenditure per Acre Income Income Per Acre 6 4 5 7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 167500 6700 119566 1000 -47934 -1917 87480 8748 78360 3800 -9120 -912 1800 254980 7285 197926 -57054 -1630

(4) South Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Region 2 Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Medak Nalgonda Total Area 3 11.00 23.00 3.00 12.00 49.00 Expenditure Total Net Net Income Rent Expenditure per Acre Income Income Per Acre 6 4 5 7 8 9 7682 709 84500 81100 -3400 -309 18304 1739 421000 275600 -145400 -6322 1503 28000 9333 15670 -12330 -4110 1043 102254 8521 90700 -11554 -963 1323 635754 12975 463070 -172684 -3524

174

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Region 2 Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Total Area 3

2.00 10.50 10.00 0.00 0.00

Rent 4

2250 1333 2250 0 0

Expenditure 5

20700 72465 164000 0 0

Expenditure Total per Acre Income 6 7

10350 6901 16400 0 0 20000 133350 154400 0 0

Net Income 8

-700 60885 -9600 0 0

Net Income Per Acre 9

-350 5799 -960 0 0

22.50

1822

257165

11430

307750

50585

2248

175

Annexure 25 Expenditure and Income in own cultivation- Dry land Districts - Sub Region wise (1)North Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 Region 2 Srikakulam Vizianagaram Visakhapatnam Total Expenditure Total Net Net income Area Expenditure Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 7500 1.00 7500 8100 600 600 1.00 7500 8100 600 600 7500

(2) South Coastal Andhra Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Region 2 East Godavari West Godavari Krishna Guntur Prakasam Nellore Total (3)Rayalaseema Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Region 2 Chittor Cuddapah Anantapur Kurnool Total Area 3

19.5 117.5 211 210.5

Area 3

Expenditure 4

Expenditure Total Per Acre Income 5 6

Net Income 7

Net income Per Acre 8

7.00 0.00 3.00 16.25 23.40 17.50 67.15

40100 0 17000 83494 212126 227650 580370

5729 0 5667 5138 9065 13009

8643

74600 0 19650 112830 252100 293500 752680

34500 0 2650 29336 39974 65850 172310

4929 0 883 1805 1708 3763 2566

Expenditure 4

162000 910400 1449150 1439000

558.50

3960550

Expenditure Total Net Net income Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 5 6 7 8 8308 214626 52626 2699 7748 985180 74780 636 6868 1598079 148929 706 6836 1951256 512256 2434 788591 1412 7091 4749141

(4)South Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 Region 2 Mahabubnagar Rangareddi Medak Nalgonda Total Expenditure Total Net Net income Area Expenditure Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 3 4 5 6 7 8 126 637114 5056 851350 214236 1700 90 817630 9085 959440 141810 1576 56.25 519900 9243 734710 214810 3819 30.5 237000 7770 254750 17750 582 302.75 2211644 7305 2800250 588606 1944

176

(5) North Telangana Sl. No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 Region 2 Nizamabad Adilabad Karimnagar Warangal Khammam Total Area 3

84 158.5 43.5 63.7 23

Expenditure 4

563507 956970 537250 916750 236000

372.70

3210477

Expenditure Total Net Net income Per Acre Income Income Per Acre 5 6 7 8 6708 715040 151533 1804 6038 1281460 324490 2047 12351 618000 80750 1856 14392 1205975 289225 4540 10261 470750 234750 10207 2900 8614 4291225 1080748

177

Annexure 26 Comprehensive Development

I. Family Information Form Categorisation:.........

Family Sl. No: ............................ House No: ..........................................Ward No:........... Village: ..................... Mandal: .............. .............District:...................

I. Family ­ Members ­ Social Group: 1. Name of the Head of the Family: ........................................ Father / Husband: ............. 2. Family Members : Male............. Female: ............... Boys: ......... Girls: ....... Total: .............. 3. Social Group: SC: ST: BC: OC: (Note: Put ` ' mark against the appropriate Category) 4. Caste: ............................................................ 5. Religion: ¦ Hindu: Muslim: Christian: Others: (Note: Put ` ' mark against the appropriate Category) II. Family ­ Type of House: Own: Rented:

a) 1. Thatched:

2. House with Tiles / Corragated Sheets:

3. Pacca House:

4. Nil: b) Household Amenities 1. Lavatory: 2. Electricity: 3. T.V.:

4. Gas Stove: 5. Telephone: 6. Motor Cycle/ Scooter: Yes: No:

c). Whether Residing in the Village?

III. Family ­ source of Income ­ Categorisation: (Note: Write number of persons involved in each occupation) 1. Agricultural Worker: 2. Tenant: Land under cultivation (in acres) Wet Land a. Tenant without Own Land - Rented Land ................ b. Tenant having own land - Leased in Land Own land ................ ................

Dry Land ................. ................. .................

178

3. Farmer Land (in Acres) Wet Land Dry Land Own Land: Own Cultivation: Leased Out: 4. Traditional Occupations 5. Animal Rearing 6. Employment / Self-Employment/ Pensioner 7. Business / Contract / Commission Agent 8. Non ­ Agricultural Worker 9. Others (Note: Put ` ' against any one occupation which gives maximum Income to the Family)

Note: As productivity of rain fed and irrigated lands are not the same, the irrigated land is converted into rain fed land using the formula that 1 acre of irrigated land = 2.5 acres of rain fed land and the total equivalent land is calculated by adding the two types of land. Therefore, equivalent dry land = Rainfed land + Irrigated land x 2.5 Farmers are classified into 5 categories depending upon the size of the holding. (1) Marginal farmer = up to 5 acres (2) small farmer > 5 acres and upto 10 acres, (3) middle farmer > 10 acres and upto 20 acres (4) rich farmer > 20 acres and up to 40 acres and (5) big farmer > 40 acres of eqvivalent dry land.

................ ................ ................

................. ................. .................

IV. Government Welfare Schemes: 1. White Ration Card: 2. Pink Ration Card: 3. Antyodaya Card: 4. Old Age Pension 5. Widow Pension

Yes: Yes: Yes:

No: No: No:

No. of Pensioners: _____ Pension Recieved per Year (in Rs.): ______ No. of Pensioners: _____ Pension Recieved per Year (in Rs.): ______

6. Scholarships No. of Scholarship holders: _____ Amount Recieved per Year (in Rs.): ____ 7. Other Schemes No. of Persons: _____ Amount Recieved per Year (in Rs.): _______ 8. Recieved from Govt.: House site: House Subsidy: Signature of the Enumerator/

179

Comprehensive Development

II. Household Information Form

Categorisation:............

Family Sl No: ............................ House No: ................................Ward No:........... Village: ..................... Mandal: .............. .......District:......................

I. Particulars of Family Members

1. Social Group: 2. Religion: Hindu: SC: ST: Muslim: M/F BC: Christian: Age OC: Others: Relation with the Head of the Family Level of Education Caste:

3. Family Members ­ Age wise Sl. Name No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 II. Housing Own House: 1. Thatched House 2. Tiled/ Sheets : :

Rented House:

No House:

3. Pacca House/ building : III. Land alloted by the Government: Wet: ............ Dry: ............. (in acres)

IV. Tenant Cultivation

Land Leased in

1. Nature of Tenancy Agreement: Written: 2. Rate of Rent

Rent per Acre

Oral:

Area (in acres)

Wet Dry

180

3. Crops - Income (a). Wet land crops

Sl. No Crop Area Output (in Bags/Qui.) Rate per Bag/Qui. Income on Crop (in Income from Rs) ( 4X 5) Grass etc (in Rs.) Total Income (6+7)

1 1 2 3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(Note: Bag in this village = ............. k.g. (b). Dry land Crops

Sl. No Crop Area Output (in Bags/Qui.) Rate per Bag/Qui. Income on Crop (in Income from Rs) (4 X 5) Grass etc (in Rs.) Total Income (6+7)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (Note: Bag in this village = ............. k.g. V. Own Land (in Acres) (a) 1. Total land: 2. Land under Cultivation: 3. Land Leased out: 4. Fallow Land: (b) Wet Land Crops

Sl. No Crop Area Output (in Bags/Qui.)

5

6

7

8

Wet: .................... Dry: .................. Wet: .................... Dry: .................. Wet: .................... Dry: .................. Wet: .................... Dry: ..................

Rate per Bag/Qui.

Income on Crop (in Income from Rs) (4X5) Grass etc (in Rs.)

Total Income (6+7)

1 1 2 3 4

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(Note: Bag in this village = ............. k.g.

181

(c) Dry land Crops

Sl. No Crop Area Output (in Bags/Qui.) Rate per Bag/Qui. Income on Crop (in Income from Rs) (4X5) Grass etc (in Rs.) Total Income (6+7)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 (Note: Bag in this village = ............. k.g.

5

6

7

8

VI. Marketting

Sl. No 1 Crop Sold in Paddy

(Bags/Qu i.)

Cotton (Qui.) 4

Sugarcane (Tonnes) 5

Groundnut (Bags/ Qui.) 6

Chilli (Qui.) 7

Maize (Qui.) 8

Others (Bags/Qui.) 9

2 Open Market 1 Rate (Bag/Qui.) Commission Agent/ 2 Broker Rate (Bag/Qui.) Moneylender 3 Rate (Bag/Qui.) Total Income

3

(Note: Bag in this village = ............. k.g.

VII. Credit ­ sources

Sl. No Source of Credit Loan amount till now Rate of Interest Amount Spent on Agriculture Amount Spent on Family Amount Spent on others Loan repaid in this year Outstanding loan

1

1 2 3 4 5

2 Primary Agricultural Credit Societies Commercial Banks Farmers/ Landlords/ Others Fertilizers and Pesticides Dealers Moneylenders Total Loan

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

182

VIII. Agricultural Workers ­ Working Days ­ Annual Income

Family Members

Agricultural Operations

P1 - M/F P2 - M/F P3 - M/F P4 ­ M/F Days Wage Days Wage Days Wage Days Wage Rate Rate Rate Rate

P5 ­ M/F Days Wage Rate

P6 ­ M/F Days Wage Rate

a. Ploughing b. Sowing c. Weeding d. Watering e. Manuering f. Spraying Pesticides g. Cutting h. Harvesting i. Other Works Non-Agricultural Works a.Brick Making b. Earth Work c. Construction Work d. Quarrying e. Works in Towns (Lorry, Rikshwa, Hamali etc) f. Other works (Note: P1, P2 etc indicates the number of working members of the family. 'M' is for male and 'F' is for female. Tick the appropriate with ` ' mark. Working days include both of Kharif and Rabi)

IX. Traditional Occupations (for the households who are involved in Traditional Occupations only)

Washermen: Others: (a) No. of Families Served? (b) How many from the family are working? (c) No.of Working hours per head for a day (d) No. of working days in a year per member (e) Total annual income through the occupation : : : : : Barber: Carpenter: Blacksmith: Pot Maker: Weaver: Cobbler:

183

X. Feudal Relations:

I. Wage rate in the village is decided by? A. Landlord .... B. Workers.... C. Workers Association .... D. Mutual agreement .... 2.a. Do you go to work individually or under contract system?..........................

b. Is there any work compulsion from anybody? ................. c. If so, Reason (Custom / Advance payment / Debt) ......................................... d. Is it Customary to work for Land lords during auspicious occasion like marriages? .............. e. If so what they pay? ...................................................... 3. Have you barrowed in advance from your land lord?

A. Money /Food grains

B. How much?

C. What is the agreement or understanding on it?

4. Paleru (farm servant) ­ Annual Income

Age Family Members Male Female Children

In Kind

In Cash

Wage Occasional Gifts

Total in the form of Cash

XI. Family Income ­ Other sources (Annual)

1. Animal Wealth She buffaloes:........ He buffaloes:.... Cows:...... Bullock:....... Net Income (Rs.): ..........

Goat: ..... Sheep: ........... Pig: ......... Poultry: ........ Net Income (Rs.): ...........

2. Employment: Details:.................................. No.of Employees ............

3. Business / Contract / Commision Agent Details: ...................... No. of Persons Working: ....................... 4. Self ­ Employment 5. Members working Elsewhere

}}

Net Income: ............... Net Income: ............... Net Income: ............... Net Income: ...............

Details: ........................... No. of Persons working: .......... Details: ...................................... No. of Persons Working: .............

6. Other Sources

Details: ........................................... Net Income: ............... No. of Persons Working: ................ __________________ Total Income (in Rs.): ....................

184

XII (a). Family Expenditure Per Year (in Rs.)

Item Food Consumables Social Customs Entertainment Total Expenditure Details of Expenditure

XII (b). Expenditure on Education Per Year

No. of Children studying Sl. No Age Class of Study Govt./ Private School / College Annual Expenditure

Total Expenditure

XII (c). Expenditure on Health per Year

No. of Family Members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Disease Govt./ Private Hospital Amount Spent

Total Expenditure

XIII. Benifit from Govt. Welfare Schemes:

1. White Ration Card 2. Pink Ration Card 3. Annapurna Card 4. Antyodaya Card Yes: Yes: Yes: Yes: No: No: No: No:

185

5. No. of Persons recieving Scholarships: ............. Total Amount Recieved: ...... 6. No. of Persons Recieving Old Age Pension: ......... Total Amount Recieved: ........... 7. No. of Persons Recieving widow Pensions: ............ Total amount Recieved: ............. 8. No. of Beneficiaries of Girl child Welfare Scheme: ........ Total Amount Recieved: ...........

9. Details of Medical support recieved from govt.:.............................

10. Total amount recieved from Govt. (Rs.): ................................................ 10. Recieved from Govt.: House site: House Subsidy:

(Note : Make ` ' mark on appropriate answer for the items 1to 4)

XIV. Public Distribution System - Benefits

1. Commodities Recieved (1) Rice (2) Wheat (3) Sugar (4) Palmolive Oil (5) Kerosine (6) Others ............... k.g. ............... k.g. ............... k.g. ............... k.g. ............... Lts. ............... k.g.

2. Periodicity of the Distribution : .......................... 3. Who is distributing : ............................. 4. Periodicity of purchase of ration?: ........................ 5. Opinion on the Distribution system in the Village: .................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................

Signature of the Enumerator/

186

Comprehensive Development

III. Agriculture ­ Income and Expenditure ­ Random Survey

Village: ............................... Mandal: ................................ District: ....................... Area: 1 Acre Name of the Crop:.......................

A.Investment:

1.Non- Labour component: a. Rent b. Seeds c.Fertilisers d. Pesticides e. Water Cess / Power Bill f. Sprayer Rent / Its depriciation g. Tractor Rent/ Plough Rent etc h. Govt. Taxes Total

: Rs. ......... : Rs. . ......... : Rs. ......... : Rs. .......... : Rs. .......... : Rs. .......... : Rs. .......... : Rs. .......... : Rs. ......... Working Days ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ Wage Rate (Rs.) ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ Total Wage (Rs.) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......

2. Labour Component a. Ploughing b. Tractor Driver's wage c. Sowing / Transplantation d. Manuering e. Intercropping f. Watering g. Spraying Pesticides h. Weeding i. Watching / Protecting j. Crop cutting k. Harvesting l. Transporting m. Others

Total (Rs):________________

(Note: Rent/Wage should be calculated for own implements and own labour also)

187

3. (a) Non-Labour Component of Expenditure : Rs. ......... (b) Expenditure on Labour : Rs. ......... (c) Interest on Labour and Non-Labour Components : Rs. .........

Total : Rs. .........

B.Income per Acre

(i) Income from Crop (ii) Income from grass, etc.

Quintals

...... ......

Rate

Income (Rs.)

....... ........ ...... ...... . Total Income: Rs..........

C. Net Income

(i) (P) Income (Q) Expenditure (R) Net Income : Rs. ....... : Rs. ....... :Rs. ....... Net Income / Loss Total expenditure X 100

(ii) Rate of Profit / Loss =

Signature of the Enumerator

188

Information

Microsoft Word - SVK Report Part 1 English

455 pages

Find more like this

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

829853