On 8/30/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, why is Bihar so different? >
Bihar is traditionally the most regressive and backward state in India by most measures of human and economic development. The literacy, health and other human-development success story of Kerala is familiar to many. Also the new outsourcing and IT related industries are concentrated in the other Southern states (though not Kerala) especially the 3 big Southern capital cities Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad, and around New Delhi in the North. All of this has largely bypassed the so-called BIMARU refers to Bihar, Madya Pradesh (literally "middle state"), Rajastan, Uttar Pradesh (literally "northern state") and often also Orissa and the new tribal states. The acronym also vaguely means "sickly" in Hindi. It is commonly used to refer disparagingly to these big Hindi-speaking heartland states, that together account for almost 45% of the total population, but have per-capita incomes 50% smaller than Punjab or Maharashtra. It is not so clear why some of the states have consistently performed so much worse than even the rest of India. (Having never traveled there I have no first hand knowledge about this region.) The main factors seem to be social and historical: for some reason the caste and communal hierarchies in Bihar have become unstable compared to other states, so for instance lower caste - upper caste conflicts dominate the politics of the region. Also the region's backwardness itself is self-reinforcing over time. The corruption and poor infrastructure (it is said that kidnapping is one of Bihar's largest industries) cause migration of the educated workforce and discourage private-sector investment. Recent growth statistics show few signs of reversal in Bihar's situation (though others especially Madya Pradesh appear to have made tremendous progress in education and health) http://hdr.undp.org/docs/publications/background_papers/2003/India/India_2003.pdf Here's a slightly different take on Bihar: http://www.bihartimes.com/articles/shaibal/biharidentity.html ---------------------------------------snip At the time of independence in 1947, Bihar's position in relation to the other states was not very bad. After all, we had two major investments in this state at that time. ........... After independence, instead of consolidating this advantage, Bihar's development strategy resulted into its position becoming second last amongst other states by 1961. And by 1971, we were last in the ladder. Economic condition of Bihar has further deteriorated after the recent division of the state in 2000. Even while per capita income (Rs.3859) being lowest and poverty (42.60 percent) being highest in the country, the state never displayed a state of social stagnation. Ironically, even while Bihar has registered a dramatic increase in food grain production in last one decade or so, the state has registered a negative growth in the state income (-1.04). Bihar has displayed that either in the realm of empowerment or in the social consciousness, it is not burdened by its low literacy rate (47.53 percent only). Unlike many other states of the Hindi Heartland, which are contemptuously referred as BIMARU states, the society and the polity in Bihar have always been vibrant and infact in tremor. It can be said figuratively that 'million mutinies' are taking place in Bihar. These 'mutinies' literally ranged from micro to mega struggles. And this phenomenon has historical antecedent. Apart from the stellar role of Bihar in the independence struggle, there have been several movements which had strong impact on the local politics and society. Unfortunately, some of the mega class movement like that of Kisan Sabha against the intermediaries (Zamindars) or social stirring by the Triveni Sangh (involving the Koeri, Kurmi and Yadavas) could not expand their social network or agenda beyond their immediate goal. However they left a powerful imprint in the political and social firmament of the state. -raghu.
