One-sixth of India’s population lives in Uttar Pradesh. The state has more people than the UK, France, Germany and the continent of Australia. Its economic development has, however, lagged far behind all these countries. Its per capita income is less than one-40th of the UK and half of the average per capita income of India.
The funny thing is that this was not always the state of affairs. When India became independent, the average per capita income of the state was at the same level as rest of India. But growth of the state domestic product (SDP) was slow and lagged behind the rest of the country. Except for the 1980-1990 period, when it picked up, it failed to match the growth in the rest of India. The problem was further compounded by high rates of population growth in the three decades of 1971-2001. While the decadal growth of the population declined from 2.2% per annum to 1.8% in the rest of the country, the state’s population continued to grow at 2.3% per annum.
The worst period for the state, in terms of economic growth, was immediately after India’s economic reforms were ushered in the early 1990s. During this period (1990-2004), while the country grew at an average rate of 6.8%, UP’s growth was far less. As a result, the gap between UP and the country’s average, in terms of per capita income growth rates, went from less than 1% in the first four decades to 3.3% in the period after liberalisation. Though there was some recovery in subsequent years, post-2005 the gap in annual growth rates of per capita incomes have still continued to be 1-2%. This lagging behind the rest of the country has resulted in the per capita income of Uttar Pradesh becoming roughly half of the national average.
Natural and unnatural limitations
It is true that the state has suffered from several serious disadvantages. Firstly, UP is a land-locked region and has no direct access to the sea, meaning that it has no ability to add to its income through international trade.
Secondly, it has a very high population density of 828, which is more than two times the national averages of India, England and the Netherlands (the latter two being the most densely populated regions of Europe). This has put huge pressure on the state’s limited natural resources, sharply increased the requirement for investment to clock high growth rates and made development more difficult. Also, while the average growth in population across the country has been less than 2%, Uttar Pradesh has grown at a higher rate. Because of this, even when the SDP has grown at comparable rates with the rest of the country, the rate of increase in per capita income has lagged behind.
Third, the state’s political parties needed to work together in the matter of development. This was especially necessary after economic reforms were ushered into the country. This period, unfortunately, coincided with the Babri Masjid demolition and strong polarisation in the state’s political environment. Instead of focusing on growth, the parties tried to cling to power and devoted their energies to political manoeuvring. The acceleration in economic growth in other parts of the country due to reforms could not be achieved in the state. It was only later, when some stability was regained in the political environment, that focus on growth was re-established.
Fourth, the population of the state is heavily dependent upon agriculture. Growth in this sector, even after the green revolution was ushered in, averaged only around 2.5%, except for a phenomenal jump in the 1980s. The industry and services sector did not grow as rapidly as in rest of the country.
Also read: UP Is Fudging Numbers Under Swachh Bharat to Achieve ‘Open Defecation Free’ Goal
Fifth, a lack of financial resources and poor planning has led to slow expansion of the social sector – health and education. While many southern states used private investment in health and engineering to open medical colleges, engineering universities and provide nutrition to children, UP has lagged behind on this. As a result, the quality of manpower has not improved to support faster growth. The problem is further compounded by poor governance leading to low learning levels and inefficient use of medical infrastructure.
A major problem with UP is the size of the state, which is not conducive to good governance. It has four clear regions: western UP, central UP, eastern UP and Bundelkhand. While the east and west regions have 28-30 districts each, the central region has mere a ten districts and Bundelkhand seven. Governing from a central point of the state capital requires a thorough knowledge and problems of each part and knowing the officers well. This is impossible for any chief minister. Almost all chief ministers are not fully acquainted even with the political grassroots leaders of different areas. Policies are often not suited to many regions, which have widely different problems.
The UP Vidhan Sabha building. Credit: UP govt website
Given our method of administration, where lot of power is centralised at the top, the state’s chief ministers are not able to focus on many of these issues. Often, they get bogged down with local law and order problems. Given the large population of minorities and important religious places in the state, winning elections by using the ‘masjid-or-mandir’ issue or cow protection, or using caste or religious divisions becomes a focal point. The development of different regions with their own problems recedes into the background.
I recall the slow pace of implementation of the Bundelkhand package in 2011-12. Dividing the state into four manageable entities and improving governance may be ideal for development, with a part of Madhya Pradesh joining the Bundelkhand region. This has not happened despite several recommendations since the 1950s and even a resolution of the assembly when BSP was the ruling party.
Can the state in its present form catch up with the rest of the country? I am not suggesting it should leap to becoming among the Indian states with highest per capita incomes. Its medium-term goal should be to take its place amongst states like Chhatisgarh or Andhra Pradesh, which are near the average. But even this modest target may not be possible unless its SDP grows at a rate of about 9%-10% over the next two-three decades and averages growth of at least 2-3% higher than the national average.
How should we step in?
This will need a series of policy interventions and political commitments.
One, governance in Uttar Pradesh must improve. This is necessary to establish credibility of state’s institutions to deliver results on their promises. A false view has circulated that its machinery is not capable of delivering. So despite improvement in infrastructure and positive support, the private industry has not invested.
In the past there have been stories circulating that there is no law and order in the state or that corruption is very high and politicians have to be heavily bribed or certain share of funds sanctioned by the government for development schemes is always taken away by ministers and so on. As with most rhetorical claims, it is difficult to separate what is true from what is exaggerated.
For instance, we have to understand that corruption pervades almost all states. Haryana has become one of the fastest growing states, even though in 2005, Transparency International placed the state very high on its corruption index. What was important for the state is that despite the corruption, it was able to develop a credible governance system.
In UP, corruption must be minimised through policy interventions and simplified procedures. Chief ministers must have a personal image of uprightness which should be reflected in public office holders who are selected by them.
Watch: The Truth About Yogi Adityanath’s Mission to Save Gorakhpur’s Children
Also, it is critical that the state’s various departments work as a team and not try to develop individual empires. The development agenda for western, central, eastern and Bundelkhand parts of UP must be separately chalked out in accordance with their requirements and effectively implemented. It is also necessary that industry and business are treated with respect and not as cash cows. This message must come from all political parties.
Two, growth in the primary sector, particularly agriculture and allied sectors, will have to pick up. Over the years irrigated area has now increased sharply. The productivity of food grains especially in eastern UP must increase to the level of Punjab and Haryana. At the moment the average yields are about 40% less in two major crops of rice and wheat. Against the yields obtained in China, our rice yields are just 40%. While the west UP has commercial crops of sugarcane and potato, east and central UP have not developed any such crops. Many states have taken up horticulture especially vegetables and grapes. Food processing industry has not developed in the state. The huge production of potato, about 26 % of the country’s total output is often sold for a song. Similarly, there is huge scope in dairying and milk products. We must further modernise it and invest in the sector.
Third, the state must further improve infrastructure of roads and airports to attract big investments. It can develop a zone of industry along the eastern freight corridor which has excellent infrastructure cutting across the whole of the state. It should also use the areas adjoining the large highways being developed in the State to develop industrial parks and new solar capacities. I understand that some of it is already planned. The existing industry and small scale units need to be nurtured to keep them healthy. The tariff structure of electricity should be revised to provide moderate tariff to industry and full tariff for domestic users. Any subsidy in power tariff must be fully borne on the state budget. Investments in the state should be attracted with proactive policies. UP must develop industries for export. This will add to both jobs and income. Development of defence industry and petroleum based units can provide new avenues.
Also read: Despite Repeat Promises, MNREGA Continues to Fail the Common Man in Rural UP
Fourth, the health and education sector is in a bad way. Our quality of population depends vitally on it. Levels of learning at primary stage is very poor. We must provide greater focus on students in primary schools. The teaching there is abysmal. Regular training of teachers and periodic assessment of schools learning levels must be made. In case of serious short falls teachers be required to go for compulsory motivational training. Repeated failures can be dealt with separately. The universities are not churning out any employable graduates. Also, the research in our universities is not much and nowhere near global standards. Conscious efforts be made to invite faculty from abroad who may conduct special courses. In the field of science, there are many research labs and the faculty over there should be used for lectures in specific areas. Similarly, the quality of healthcare facilities are quite inadequate in the state. The number of medical colleges are not enough. We must expand this infrastructure. Huge number of deaths of children in the Gorakhpur Medical College by Japanese Encephalitis is just one example of gross neglect of health sector. The state has a very high rate of maternal mortality and infant mortality. There are adequate resources and infrastructure and governance must improve to improve the quality of human resource available in the State.
Relatives carry a child at the Baba Raghav Das Medical College Hospital in Gorakhpur. Credit: PTI/Files
Fifth, the state has a huge population and needs an expanding services sector. These provide a large chunk of its SDP – nearly half of it comes from this segment. Growth in this sector has been generally behind the national average. While the state grew at 8.1%, the national sector grew at 8.8% in 2016-17. This sector includes transport, hotels, financial services, public services, real estate sector and such areas. Agriculture sector has limitations for growth. Considering the large contribution of the tertiary sector, we must work on this more assiduously. Specifically, education and health services have a good potential.
Sixth, in states like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand and others with very low incomes, central investments must be prioritised. The major public sector capable of such investment are the oil companies, NTPC, power grid and those in the coal sector. The Central government must push investments in these states. This can ensure large transfer of resources and new jobs. It can develop new growth centres.
It is clear that UP has lagged behind badly. If it has to catch up with rest of the country, major reforms will be needed. Considering the size of the state, an ideal solution is its division in viable entities for improving governance. An alternative strategy is for all political parties to develop a strong growth consensus. This requires growth at 9-10% per annum for at least two decades. It will need political stability.
The state’s credibility at the national level cannot be established unless it delivers on good governance for several years. There has to be a consensus on development amongst political leaders.
There is unfortunately an attitude that the preceding government has done a poor job and there is a new direction to be given. It must be realised that each succeeding government has to build on the work already done. That is how progress will be faster. In matters of development, there cannot be any groups. This realisation has not permeated into the thinking of our political leaders. Unless that happens, people of the state will continue to suffer.
B.K. Chaturvedi is a former cabinet secretary and member of the Planning Commission.
