BIMARU states

Per capita net state domestic product (NSDP) of Indian states in 1997-1998 (Darker states have higher per capita NSDP). The states of Rajasthan, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh have one of the lowest NSDPs.

BIMARU (for BIhar, MAdhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh) is an acronym coined by taking the first letter of four northern Indian states: Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. This term has definite derogatory undertones as it is a take on the Hindi term 'Bimar', which means sick; the acronym "BIMARU" brings forth images of a collection of sick people.

By his own admission, the pejorative BIMARU was coined by the Demographer Ashish Bose [1]. Whether or not he coined it, he has definitely used it extensively to refer to the four states in not a very favorable light. While Bose has correctly highlighted that these states have lagged behind in most parameters of economic progress, specially since independence, he has utterly failed to address why it is so. For example, in none of his writings, one finds reference to the fact that these states have always received less funds for their development since Indian independence [2] . Even the most glaring case of Bihar, which has received the lowest per capita grant in each of the five year plans since independence [3], [4] & [5] finds no mention in his writings. While the third and fourth reference quoted will need a detailed perusal of data to establish how the so called BIMARU states have been given step motherly treatment in each five year plan, the sixth quote is a plain data sheet showing how a state like Karnataka which is roughly half the size of Bihar gets double the plan assistance in the Tenth plan outlay. Thus it makes the per capita largess to Karnataka, a much prosperous state, four times. Comparison could as well be made with Tamil Nadu or any other so called Non Bimaru states who have been consistently favored by the Indian Central Govt.

Social and Economic indices highlighted as ailments

People who wish to denigrate the Hindi speaking states of India talk of them as BIMARU states and highlight the following characteristics:

Higher than average population growth rates

Notably, this is a recent phenomenon, observed since the 70s only. As late as 1981, ignoring urban states like Delhi, Kerala was the state with the highest population density [6]. See Table 1.9 in the link. This is remarkable since the habitable portion of Kerala as a percent of the total area is much smaller than the Gangentic plains states with their highly fertile land.

Lower than average literacy rates

Statistics show this is true. However, what is not highlighted is that plans were never conceived taking in consideration the cultural landscape of these states. [7] With the empowerment of the states, the policies are being modified. As a result, the statistics are beginning to change [8]. Please read page 19 for changes in Bihar.

When a recent survey was conducted by the respected non governmental organization Pratham[9], it emerged that the retention of education by the kids of the Hindi speaking states in general was better and that of Bihar in particular was the best in the country. [10]. This is again corroborated in this news item[11]. Renowned educationists have asked for a complete overhaul of the educational system, particularly at the primary level. [[12]]

Much lower than average ratings on nearly all health-care indices such as malnutrition and infant mortality

This is a direct result of the apathy of the central government. Defying all logic, the central government has continued to give lavish grants to the richer states at the cost of poorer states [13]. For example, food subsidy is one of the biggest expenditure of the central government for poverty alleviation scheme [14]. A large part of it goes into the hands of the rich farmers of Punjab in the name of minimum support price and their inferior quality grain then rots in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India [15].

Yet again, the key index of average life span appears to indicate that the Hindi speaking states are better than the non Hindi ones, particularly the southern states.

Slower than average economic growth rates

This again appears to be a direct result of the skewed policy of the central government [16]. For example, the state of Bihar, though being an agrarian state, does not have even one of the dozen odd agricultural research laboratories where the central government pumps in millions of dollars. The PUSA institute built by the noted American philanthropist Phillips near Samastipur in 1905 [17] was shifted to Delhi [18]. This has left little scope for agricultural research in Bihar.

It is one of the enigmas that in spite of the large representation in the parliament, these states could not get adequate resources for their development. Economist Mohan Guruswamy is one of the few who has tried to get into the reasons. He says " If politics were mostly about the allocation of resources, surely Bihar and UP should have done better in terms of what they have got so far. One explanation could be that the states with aggressive regional parties at the helm with a tradition of strong regional sentiments like Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh or Gujarat have done better at attracting the Central Government’s concerns and winning a larger share of resources. Clearly then numbers either in parliament or in the government have not served the people of the two states." [19]

The differences in economic and population growth rates between the BIMARU states and other Indian states sharpened over the 1990s. The economy of the four BIMARU states grew at an average of 4.6% per year in the 1990s, compared to 6.5% per year for India as a whole. Since population growth in the BIMARU states was much higher that the Indian average in this period, the income disparity between the BIMARU states and India as a whole also increased.

A closer analysis shows that the Hindi speaking states were much better off at the time of independence. Uttar Pradesh had the second highest per capita income in India. Bihar was adjudged the best governed state by the noted American academician and researcher of public administration, Paul Appleby in 1952 [20] and had a per capita income 5% higher than the national average. People from Rajasthan are known for their entrepreneurial spirit. For example, noted industrialist Lakshmi Mittal, the second richest man in the world, is a native of Rajasthan. However, due to continued apathy and wrong policies pursued by the government, these state started to lag behind.

There has been no effort to involve the local population of these states in the planning process. Most of the decision makers of august bodies like planning commission are not from these states. No noteworthy public sector industry has its head quarters in these states. Coal is largely produced in these states. However, the HQ of Coal India Ltd is in West Bengal. This region is the biggest producer of steel. However, the HQ of Steel Authority of India is at Delhi. Banking industry was nationalized in the sixties. The banks which were based out of these states were merged with bigger entities which had their HQ elsewhere. Thus the decision makers, far removed from these states, are apathetic to the needs of the people from these states. Above mentioned Ashish Bose is an example of such ivory tower planners who have been at the root of the continued backwardness of these states.

The Indian government scheme which epitomizes the folly as no other is the freight equalisation scheme (FES) which sought to neutralize the geographical advantages of Bihar. A tonne of coal or steel in Dhanbad was sought to be priced the same as say at Kanyakumari, some 3000 km away in Tamil Nadu. Sadly, FES was applied for only those items which gave advantage to Bihar, viz coal and steel; not, for example, the advantage that a Chennai enjoyed due to being a port city. This thoroughly ill conceived policy was kept in operation until it managed to break the back of the most industrialized region of India which was referred as the 'Ruhr' of India at the time of independence. The scheme was in operation till the mid nineties. Another unfortunate example is the sugar policy. At the time of independence and well into the fifties, Bihar produced 25% of India's sugar. However, due to discriminatory policies and lack of research into the local sugar cane varieties, the sugar industry of Bihar and east Uttar Pradesh was brought to its knees. Today Bihar produces less than 2% of the sugar of India.

A third is the lack of investment in irrigation and flood control. In spite of the highest incidence of floods in this region, the investment to manage this has been rather meager. Even though the socialist era in India was known for large infrastructure projects, the most modern irrigation system of Bihar is the British built Son Command Canal System which was opened for use in 1890s. This is in sharp contrast to projects like Bhakra Nangal Dam in Punjab, the Godavari project in Gujarat and so on.

A fourth is the lack of perspective in the planning exercise. For example, even though large portions of the national highway schemes: the Golden Quadrilateral and the East West corridor pass through the so called BIMARU states, its alignment would not serve the population of these states. Muzaffarpur is the only town of any significance in the whole of Bihar and Jharkhand put together that would be served by these highways. Let alone the main alignment, there is no provision even for by-passes to serve towns such as Ranchi, Patna, Dhanbad, Gaya or Jamshedpur. The colonially minded central planners completely failed to discern the gross inadequacy of their plans as they built highways as if they were meant to transport troops and supplies over an enemy territory. Similarly, investment in the tourism infrastructure of Bodh Gaya, the most revered place of the Buddhists the world over, is rather conspicuous by its absence. In spite of very favorable overtures from Japan and Singapore to build a proper international airport at Gaya, central government is apathetic to this.

As the central funding during the socialist era had gone into building the infrastructure of the non Hindi states in general and in the southern states in particular, these could take full advantage of the liberalization since 1991. Among the so called BIMARU states, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had received somewhat better central investments. Therefore, during the 1990s, the economic growth rates diverged somewhat; Rajasthan showed a faster economic growth rate than the other states, as did Madhya Pradesh. Other non-BIMARU states, like Orissa, showed slow economic growth during the same period.

Since 2005, Bihar is seeing a revival. Latest figures show that it is self sufficient in food, perhaps the only example of a green revolution without any major inputs from the government. The challenge now is to get adequate economic returns to the farmers since the centre seems reluctant to take any action along the lines it took in other parts by way of minimum support price mechanism.

The state recently fought to have the debilitating provisions of the central sugar policy revoked. The result is that 25 new sugar factories have been committed by private entrepreneurs in the state over the last year or so. This could very well change the economic shape of the state.

Since 2000, there has also been a change in the geographic composition of these states, with Bihar being bifurcated into Bihar and Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh being bifurcated into Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh being bifurcated into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The smaller units are less reluctant to ask for their fair share from the central kitty.

External links

• Jeffrey D. Sachs, Nirupam Bajpai, and Ananthi Ramiah. "Understanding Regional Economic Growth in India". CID Working Paper No. 88, March 2002. Center for International Development at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. [21]

• The Hindu, [22]

• The Children of Ganga, [23]

• Deurbanisation of Bihar, [24]

• Centrally planned Inequality, [25]