Rural Poverty in Punjab: A Case Study of Village Shergarh'

IRJC
International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research

Vol.1 Issue 11, November 2012, ISSN 2277 3630
RURAL POVERTY IN PUNJAB: A CASE STUDY OF VILLAGE

‘SHERGARH’
DR. MANJIT SHARMA*
* Deptt. of Economics, D A V College, Sector-10

Chandigarh, INDIA
______________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
In village Shergarh like other villages of the State, absolutely poverty in the form of people
going hungry without food is absent. Among the fifteen relatively poorest families‟ studies by us,
there is not even a single household without a house of its own. There is not even a single
individual among these poorest who slept without a meal. Almost all these poor people take their
meal thrice a day. They take tea daily in the morning. They have enough clothes and shelter to
protect them. Inspite of it, poverty is reflected in all aspects of life of the poor people. Majority
of poor households are not living in pucca houses and more than fifty per cent poor households
are living in houses which are in bad condition. Their access to toilets, kitchen, bathroom, own
source of water, electric light is very low. Most of the poor households also thought that
excessive expenditure on social ceremonies also keeps them poor.
KEYWORDS: assets, education, health income and poverty.
______________________________________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
According to Nobel laureate Amartya Sen poverty is basically failure of „entitlement‟. All those
individuals or households who lack sufficient „entitlement‟ to purchase food and other
necessities of life are rendered poor because in a capitalist society one can acquire food and other
goods only if one has command over sufficient amount of assets/ money/entitlement.
Karl Marx was probably the first scholar to take note and comment on poverty in India. He
commented and analysed the poverty of Indian society in „Articles on India‟ published in New
York‟s Daily Tribune. The poverty of Indian society according to Marx has been due to
destruction of the earlier frame work of society by the British without any attempt to build a new
one. All developments during British rule had been oriented towards facilitating the drain of
resources of India, resulting in greater poverty among the Indian masses.
According to Rajaraman (1975) there was increase in percentage of population living below
poverty line from 18.4 to 23.28 per cent from 1960-61 to 1970-71.
Ahluwalia (1978) estimated incidence of rural poverty declining till 1960-61 and rising sharply
through the mid 1960s, reaching a peak in 1967-68 and declined up to 1973-74.
Minhas (1991) estimated that 44.9 per cent of rural population and 36.5 per cent of urban
population was in poverty in 1987-88.
68
IRJC
Shergill and Singh (1995) challenged the view of academicians that there has been no
significant decline in poverty in rural Punjab over the last three decades (1960-61 to 1990-91) of
green revolution. In Punjab poverty was at peak in mid 1960s but there was significant downfall
in number and proportion of poor and ultra poor.
OBJECTIVES
Ours is probably the first study of its kind on poverty in rural Punjab. The main objective of
study is to identify the poorest household in village „Shergarh‟ in district Bathinda of Punjab.
The second objective is to study the family size, structure and asset holding of these poorest
families of Shergarh. The third objective is to get an idea of income earned by these poor
families of the village. It being a different type of study is expected to throw fresh light on nature
of rural poverty in Punjab.
DATA & METHODOLOGY

For carrying out the above objectives of the study we have used both secondary and
primary data. Secondary data about the village as a whole and its land, population structure were
collected from District Census Hand Book, Village Red Book and other land record available
with village patwari. The Primary data were generated through a primary survey conducted by
the author himself. The survey was conducted initially in month of November 2011 and was
repeated in month of April 2012. Initially in month of November a complete listing of all
households was done by author himself. On the basis of that list all households were divided into
three broad caste/occupation groups: (1) Jat Sikh (142 households) who were engaged in
cultivation of land as self employed farmers; (2) SC (105 households) who mainly engaged in
agriculture as agricultural laborers; (3) Other caste/occupation groups (39 households) who are
engaged in diverse occupations of various types.
Out of these three groups fifteen poorest households were identified. The poor households
belonging to each caste group in village Shergarh were identified initially with the help of five
knowledgeable persons of that particular caste. Subsequently the poverty of these households
was validated or confirmed on basis of self-perception of these poor households. These
knowledgeable members have a thorough feel about the living conditions of the households of
their respective caste group of the village. These five knowledgeable people of each caste group
were requested to name eight to ten poorest households of their caste. These five independent
lists of each caste group were then pooled to find out the household who have been labeled as the
poorest by each of the five knowledgeable members of the caste group. Through this process five
poorest Jat Sikh households, five poorest Scheduled caste households and five other castes‟
poorest households were identified. A household belonging to a caste group was accepted to be
among the poorest of the caste. If at least three out of the five knowledgeable members of the
caste have independently identified it to be poor household. Through this procedure we identified
and selected five poorest households among Jat Sikh, five poorest households among Scheduled
castes and five poorest households among other castes. So with the help of this procedure we
have a sample of fifteen poor households.
These fifteen poorest households constituted our sample households. To these fifteen poor
households a detailed scheduled/questionnaire was administered to get information about the size
and structure of their families quantum and nature of assets owned and also the expenditure
69
IRJC
incurred and food items consumed by them on the prior day of survey. Again in last week of
April all the food items consumed by these poor households and all expenditure incurred by
them is noted on prior day of survey. So we had information on the food items consumed by
these poor households in a typical winter day (November) and a typical summer day (April). The
average of these two days was taken to be the routine normal consumption of food per day by
these poor households. This information was used to find out routine/normal consumption of
food per day per person by these poor households.
These data were analyzed with the help of the tables‟ mean, proportion, coefficient of variation
to carry out the earlier mentioned objectives. More advanced statistical tool like regression could
not be used because of the nature of study (micro study of the village) and small size of sample.
This paper as divided into three parts. In the first section, size and structure of their families‟
quantum and nature of assets owned is discussed. In the second section information about
education, health and other characteristics about poor households is explored. Besides it,
information about income earned by poor households during last one year is calculated. In the
last section concluding remarks are given.
SECTION I
FAMILY SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF POOR HOUSEHOLD
Information about size and structure of poor household is given in table 1. Table 1 shows that
average number of family members in the poor group is 4.3 which suggests that usual perception
about poor having large families was not correct in the case of poor of the village Shergarh.
Mean Number of male member per family is among the poor is 2.13. Coefficient of variation for
both the above variables is comparatively low. It indicates all families of poor are of the same
size and have almost same number of male members. There is normal sex ratio among poor
families. It indicates that female infanticide in foetus is not common as in other parts of the
country among lower middle caste group. Mean number of adult male members among the poor
is 1.2 with high coefficient of variation. High coefficient of variation shows that some families
are without adult male member. Coefficient of variation for number of children and number of
old person is high. It shows that some families having more children and old persons while some
are devoid of it. Mean number of old person per family is very low. This shows that there is a
trend of breakdown of joint family system and emergence of nuclear family system among the
poor. Dependency Ratio measures the burden of families‟ member on the family adults. It is
defined in two ways, In Dependency Ratio–I only adult males are taken, In Dependency Ratio–II
both adult males and adult females are taken together. Dependency Ratio – I is quite high and
shows that one adult male member is carrying the burden of 3.23 members on the average, with
comparatively high coefficient of variation. It shows that there is absence of adult males in
certain families. Dependency Ratio –II is relatively low and indicates that adult males and adult
females are supporting for 2.3 members on the average. There are thirteen per cent families
among these poor households who have female head. The absence of the male head is main
cause of poverty in such families.
ASSETS OWNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD
70
IRJC
Information on assets owned by poor households is presented in table 2.This information shows
size and nature of assets owned by poor households. Mean land owned per family is eight canals
with high coefficient of variation. It implies that some poor households owing higher land while
other are devoid of it. More than fifty per cent households are without land. There is not even a
single poor household who have pucca house to live in. This is also true for all India rural poor.
Fifty per cent poor households are living in houses, which are in bad condition. Mean area of
house per household is 8.5 marla which is sufficient to live in. Only one third of families have
kitchen in their houses. Eighty per cent households have some sort of bathroom, which are of
course in bad condition. All bathrooms are without roof and are just five feet high. Only forty six
per cent families have their own toilet in their houses. It reflects the poor civic amenities
prevailing in the poor group. Only forty per cent households have their own source of drinking
water. There is not even a single family who have water tap. Only forty six per cent families
have electric light. Seventy three per cent families own one or milk animals. The mean number
of milk animals worked out to be 1.2. Coefficient of variation in case of this variable is high. It
shows that all the families have not milk animals. Some families have higher number of milk
animals while others are devoid of it.
SECTION II
EDUCATION, HEALTH AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR HOUSEHOLD
Information about education, health and other characteristics about poor households is presented
in table no. 3. This information shows that sixty per cent families have illiterate heads, which
may be one cause of their poverty. Forty per cent families are not sending their children to
school. It is indication of their bleak future. Mean no. of children going to school is less than
unity. These are the causes and effect of poverty. It justifies the quotation, “Poverty breeds
poverty”. Twenty per cent of the families have a member who is chronically ill, which may be a
major cause of their poverty. Forty per cent families have unskilled head, which may be cause of
their low earning, and poverty. Mean expenditure on education and medicine is Rs. 7.72 per day
and Rs. 6.20 per day respectively per family. The days are gone when health and education were
provided by the State. Now both are burden on the poor people. It is surprising that members of
only six percent families are addicted to alcohol, which is very low figure in view of the usual
perceptions about widespread addiction to alcohol etc. among the poor. Forty per cent of poor
families have some members addicted to smoking, which is common habit among all Indian
rural poor people. Twenty per cent families have some members addicted to other intoxicants.
Mean debt per family is Rs. 34,913/-, which is a big amounts, at least for the poor peoples.
Coefficient of variation of debt is high, suggesting, some families are without debt and some
families are burdened with high debt. Coefficient of variation for education and medicine is very
high indicating that some families are expending much more than mean expenditure and others
are expending very less as compared to mean expenditure.
DETAIL OF INCOME EARNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD
Information about income earned by poor households during last one year is given in table no.
4. This information shows details of income earned during last one year. It shows that main
source of income of poor households is from labor/paid work. It is Rs. 11,905.33 per family per
71
IRJC
annum. It is two times more from farming sector and is almost four times from milk sold. There
is high coefficient of variation for income from farming, milk sold and labor/paid work. It tells
us that some families are earning huge income while other families are earning very low income
from all the three sectors. Coefficient variation is extremely high for income from other
resources. It indicates that only a few families are earning income from others resources while
majorities of households are not able to earn income from this sector. Per capita per day income
is Rs. 12.74. Mean income of poor households from labor/paid work is roughly half of the total
mean income of the families. It reflects the situation of all India rural poor people. Per capita per
annum income is Rs. 4648.30, which is very less when compared with per capita annum of the
Punjab.
SECTION III
CONCLUSION
The poverty is reflected in all aspects of life of the poor people. Majority of poor households
are not living in pucca houses and more than fifty per cent poor households are living in houses
which are in bad condition. Their access to toilets, kitchen, bathroom, own source of water,
electric light is very low. Only one-fifth households among the poor owned bicycle. They are
taking their meal with Dal/Sabji rarely. Their consumption of gur, sugar, milk, and tealeaves is
less as compared to non-poor. Most of the poor households also thought that excessive
expenditure on social ceremonies also keeps them poor. Most of the poor households were not
optimistic about their getting out of poverty in near future.
In village Shergarh like other villages of the State, absolutely poverty in the form of
people going hungry without food is absent. Among the fifteen relatively poorest families studies
by us, there is not even a single household without a house of its own. There is not even a single
individual among these poorest who slept without a meal. Almost all these poor people take their
meal thrice a day. They take tea daily in the morning. Most of them were having a milch animal
also. They have enough clothes and shelter to protect them. There is not an even a single
individual without a pair of shoes and clothes.
In spite of their eating three meals in a day, having a house of their own and having at
least one pair of shoes per member and also sufficient clothes for each member, they were poor
in the sense that other members of their respective caste group regarded them at the bottom of
the caste group. They also themselves felt that they are poor and their living conditions are not
good. They were not hopeful of getting out of their hopeless position in the near future.
72
IRJC
TABLE NO. 1
FAMILY SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF POOR HOUSEHOLD
Sr. Description of Mean / Standard Coefficient of

No. variable Proportion Deviation Variation
1. No. of family members 4.33 1.53 35.41 %
2. No. of male members 2.13 0.96 44.85 %
3. No. of adult males 1.20 0.83 69.38 %
4. No. of adult females 0.86 0.34 39.22 %
5. No. of children 2.07 1.44 69.48 %
6. No. of old persons 0.40 0.49 122.47 %

(65 years and above )
7. Dependency Ratio – I * 3.23 2.07 63.97 %
8. Dependency Ratio – II 2.35 1.23 52.38 %

**
9. No. of families having 13.33 % -------- --------

female head
NOTE :
* Dependency Ratio-I = No. of family members/No. of adult males

** Dependency Ratio-II = No. of family members/No. of adult males + No. of adult females
Source :own calculations from primary survey
73
IRJC
TABLE NO. 2
ASSETS OWNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD

1. Land owned 8 Canal 1.26 126.49 %
2. Proportion of landless 53.33 % -------- --------

households
3. Proportion of families Nil -------- --------

having no house of their
own
4. Area of house 8.53 Marla 6.31 73.88 %
5. Proportion of families not 93.33 % -------- --------

having pucca house
6. Proportion of families 53.33 % -------- --------

having house in bad
conditions
7. Proportion of households 46.67 % -------- --------

having toilet
having kitchen

having bathroom

having hand pump

having electric light

having milch animals
13. NO. of milch animals 1.20 0.98 81.65 %

owning bicycle
TABLE NO. 3
EDUCATION, HEALTH AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR HOUSEHOLD
74
IRJC

1. Proportion of families with 60.00 % -------- --------

illiterate head
school going children
3. No. of children going to 00.93 0.85 91.47 %
school

chronically ill member

skilled head
6. Expenditure on medicine Rs. 6.20 8.23 132.48 %

per family
7. Expenditure on education Rs. 7.73 14.85 192.04 %

per family

having some member
addicted to smoking

having some member
addicted to alcohal

having some member
addicted to other intoxicants

having some member
addicted to smoking, alcohal
and other intoxicants
12. Amount of debt Rs. 34913.33 Rs. 49347.25 141.34 %
TABLE NO. 4
DETAIL OF ONCOME EARNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD DURONG LAST ONE
YEAR
75
IRJC

( mean in Rs. )
1. Income from farming 4994.33 6089.12 121.92 %
2. Income from milk sold 3123.00 3175.37 101.16 %
3. Income from labour / 11905.33 12223.78 102.67 %

paid work
4. Income from other 120.00 449.00 374.16 %

resources
5. Total income (1+2+3+4) 20142.67 13344.69 66.25 %
6. Per capita per annum 4648.30 -------- --------

income
7. Per capita per month 387.36 -------- --------

income
8. Per capita per day income 12.74 -------- --------
References:
Ahluwalia, Montek (1978.). “Rural Poverty and Agricultural Performance in India.” Journal of
Development Studies, Vol. 14, No.3.
District Census Handbook (Village And Town Directory) for the Years 1961,1971, 1981& 1991.
Government of India Publication.
Minhas, B.S. et al (1991). “Declining Incidence of Poverty in the 1980s Evidences versus
Artefacts.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXVI, No. 27 and 28.
Rajaraman, Indira, (1975) “Poverty, Inequality and Economic Growth: Rural Punjab 1960-61 to
1970-71.” Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 11, No.3. ,
Shergill H.S., Gurmel Singh, (1995), “Poverty in Rural Punjab, Trends over Green Revolution
Decade.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXX No. 24 &25.
76

Rural Poverty in Punjab: A Case Study of Village Shergarh'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Poverty in Punjab: A Case Study of Village Shergarh'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRJC

International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research

RURAL POVERTY IN PUNJAB: A CASE STUDY OF VILLAGE

DR. MANJIT SHARMA*

* Deptt. of Economics, D A V College, Sector-10

DATA & METHODOLOGY

FAMILY SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF POOR HOUSEHOLD

ASSETS OWNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD

EDUCATION, HEALTH AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR HOUSEHOLD

DETAIL OF INCOME EARNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD

FAMILY SIZE AND STRUCTURE OF POOR HOUSEHOLD

Sr. Description of Mean / Standard Coefficient of

1. No. of family members 4.33 1.53 35.41 %

2. No. of male members 2.13 0.96 44.85 %

3. No. of adult males 1.20 0.83 69.38 %

4. No. of adult females 0.86 0.34 39.22 %

5. No. of children 2.07 1.44 69.48 %

6. No. of old persons 0.40 0.49 122.47 %

7. Dependency Ratio – I * 3.23 2.07 63.97 %

8. Dependency Ratio – II 2.35 1.23 52.38 %

9. No. of families having 13.33 % -------- --------

* Dependency Ratio-I = No. of family members/No. of adult males

Source :own calculations from primary survey

ASSETS OWNED BY POOR HOUSEHOLD

Sr. Description of Mean / Standard Coefficient of

1. Land owned 8 Canal 1.26 126.49 %

2. Proportion of landless 53.33 % -------- --------

3. Proportion of families Nil -------- --------

4. Area of house 8.53 Marla 6.31 73.88 %

5. Proportion of families not 93.33 % -------- --------

6. Proportion of families 53.33 % -------- --------

7. Proportion of households 46.67 % -------- --------

9. Proportion of households 80.00 % -------- --------

10. Proportion of households 40.00 % -------- --------

11. Proportion of households 46.67 % -------- --------

12. Proportion of households 73.33 % -------- --------

14. Proportion of families 20.00 % -------- --------

EDUCATION, HEALTH AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR HOUSEHOLD

Sr. Description of Mean / Standard Coefficient of

1. Proportion of families with 60.00 % -------- --------

4. Proportion of families with 20.00 % -------- --------

5. Proportion of families with 60.00 % -------- --------

6. Expenditure on medicine Rs. 6.20 8.23 132.48 %

7. Expenditure on education Rs. 7.73 14.85 192.04 %

8. Proportion of families 40.00 % -------- --------

9. Proportion of families 6.70 % -------- --------

10. Proportion of families 20.00 % -------- --------

11. Proportion of families 53.33 % -------- --------

12. Amount of debt Rs. 34913.33 Rs. 49347.25 141.34 %

Source :own calculations from primary survey

Sr. Description of Mean / Standard Coefficient of

1. Income from farming 4994.33 6089.12 121.92 %

2. Income from milk sold 3123.00 3175.37 101.16 %

3. Income from labour / 11905.33 12223.78 102.67 %

4. Income from other 120.00 449.00 374.16 %

5. Total income (1+2+3+4) 20142.67 13344.69 66.25 %

6. Per capita per annum 4648.30 -------- --------

7. Per capita per month 387.36 -------- --------

8. Per capita per day income 12.74 -------- --------

Source :own calculations from primary survey

You might also like