ISSN 1732–4254 semiannual
Bulletin of Geography. Socio–economic Series No. 18 (2012): 85–98
BULLETIN OF GEOGRAPHY. SOCIO–ECONOMIC SERIES
journal homepages:http://www.bulletinofgeography.umk.pl
http://versita.com/bgss
Regional socio-economic disparities in the Kashmir Valley (India) – a geographical approach
Shahnaz Mohiuddin1, Haseena Hashia2
Jamia Millia Islamia, Department of Geography, New Delhi, India; 1phone: +95 608 601 142, e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author); 2phone: +99 101 971 133, e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The problem of regional disparities in the levels of social and economic development is a universal phenomenon. Both developed and developing coun-tries have witnessed this problem in the path of their socio-economic advance-ment. India is a large federal nation and it is well known that there are widespread disparities in the levels of socio-economic development among the different re-gions of the Indian nation. Balanced regional development has always been an essential component of India’s national development strategy in order to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation. Jammu and Kashmir, the northernmost state of India, has been divided into three geo-physical regions, viz. Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the Ladakh. The Kashmir Valley is the most thickly populated area of the state; the overriding characteristics of the economy of the Kashmir Valley is its extreme backwardness which is largely the result of the peculiar physi-cal features of the Valley and traditional society. The indicators to be used in the present study have been assigned statistical weights derived through the factor analysis method. The changes in the index values have been examined to trace the direction of development. Finally, the sectoral indices have been pooled together to derive a comprehensive composite index of development. This gives an aggre-gate picture of the changes in the levels of development of all the tehsils over two time periods, i.e. 1981 and 2001.
© 2012 Nicolaus Copernicus University Press. All rights reserved.
Article details:Received: 09 May 2012
Revised: 04 September 2012Accepted: 27 September 2012
Key words:India, Kashmir Valley, regional
disparities, countries, factor analysis.
Contents:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 862. The environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 873. Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874. Material and research methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875. Research results: Kashmir Valley – socio-economic differentiation and dimensions of development 886. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
© 2012 Nicolaus Copernicus University Press. All rights reserved.
Mohiuddin, S. and Hashia, H., 2012: Regional socio-economic disparities in the Kashmir Valley (India) – a geographical approach. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 18, Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, pp. 85–98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-012-0021-5
86 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98
1. Introduction
The problem of regional disparities in the levels of social and economic development is a universal phenomenon. Both developed and developing coun-tries have witnessed this problem in the path of their socio-economic advancement, but its adverse impact has been felt more in the latter. This phenomenon is a natural outcome of the development process itself, wherein certain regions develop faster than others due to a number of factors. Regional inequalities are generally an outcome of numerous factors such as variations in natural and physical endowments, differences in social and attitudinal parameters, institutional structures and, to some extent, the dis-criminatory policies of the State. Emmanuel (1972) has made a study of the growing socio-economic inequality between developed and less developed na-tions. He argued that the under developed economies are exploited by the developed ones with a widening gap between the two. Some regions are locationally preferred which makes them development-oriented compared to others which have poor natural re-sources and few other attractions. As the process of development gains momentum, the regions which are initially favoured because of certain locational advan-tages continue to attract people, trade, manufacturing, and capital, not only because of resource advantages but also because of the external economies offered by the developed regions.
Robock (1970) pointed out the possibility of regional disparities changing with the stage of de-velopment. Disparity means unequal possession of particular property or attributes between two or more social groups or regions. Wide disparities between ur-ban and rural areas and regions in countries in Asia and the Pacific remain in terms of economic condi-tions, access to infrastructure and services, opportu-nities for socio-economic mobility and control over natural resources and local development. Disparities are caused by natural differences, social factors and policy decisions (United Nations Economic and Social Council Report, 2001). Maćkowiak (2011) tried to analyse the characteristics of the European Union’s role in trade of specific regions. Finally, the degree of intra-industry specialisation was evaluated as was the trend in changes in the trade between Polish re-gions and European Union countries. Kurian (2000)
revealed that there are considerable disparities in so-cio-economic development across the Indian states. According to the World Health Organisation Report
(2000), socio-economic status is one of the strongest determinants of health, but the health of a population appears to be more determined by the distribution of income rather than the overall wealth of the popula-tion. Khan (2006) argued that the dispersed pattern and small size of settlements, poor means of transport and communication in mountainous areas, particu-larly in the Kashmir Valley, pose a serious problem to the development of education, the outcome of which is unequal development in the overall development. Mukherge (1999) revealed that socio-economic status is a measure of an individual’s or group’s standing in the community. It usually relates to the income, oc-cupation, educational attainment and wealth of either an individual or a group.
India is a large federal nation and it is well-known that there are widespread disparities in the levels of socio-economic development among the different regions of the Indian nation. Balanced regional de-velopment has always been an essential component of India’s national development strategy in order to en-sure the unity and integrity of the nation. The central policy issue is how to achieve rapid socio-economic development in backward regions without slowing down the development of the more progressive and dynamic regions. Balanced regional development has been an important policy objective since the begin-ning of the planning era and occupies an increasingly important place in the planning. The first five year plan could not devote much attention to this problem because of the urgent priorities that had to be ac-corded to certain other sectors of the economy, which had to be tackled expeditiously. In the second five year plan, specific attention was given to the question of regional disparities and it was emphasised that the pattern of investment must be devised so as to lead to a balanced regional development.
Jammu and Kashmir, the northernmost state of India, is the home of majestic snow capped moun-tains, picturesque rivers and green forests. The state has an area of 222,236 square kilometres and a popu-lation of about 10,143,700 (Census of India, 2001). Although the state is generally hilly, it has been di-vided into three geo-physical regions, viz. Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir and the Ladakh. The Kashmir Valley is the most thickly populated area of the state; the overriding characteristics of the economy of the state of the Kashmir Valley is its extreme back-wardness which is largely the result of the peculiar physical features of the state and traditional society. The state itself has remained much below the level of socio-economic development attained in the rest of country.
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 87
2. The environment
The longitudinal and latitudinal extent of the valley of Kashmir of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is from 73°55΄ E and 75°35΄ E, and 35°25΄ N and 34°45΄ N, respectively, and covers an area of 15,948 km on the side of India while a significant part of it lies in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This oval-shaped valley is essentially a synclinal trough of tectonic origin be-tween the Greater and Lesser Himalayas. It evolved due to the differential uplift of the chains of moun-tains. It is enclosed by the Great Himalayas and the north Kashmir range in the north-west and by the Pir Panjal range in the south-east (Raza et al., 1978: 11). Its axis in length is parallel to the bordering ranges and is about 140 km long. The lowest elevation of this basin is 1,600 m and the highest 1,840 m above mean sea level.
The flat bottom of the Valley of deposits of fluio-lacustrine origin overlays a depository of rock mate-rial of great thickness from the surrounding moun-tains. The older deposits of upper Pleistocene, called Karewas, are flat surface mounds along the flanks of the mountains up to the border. The Jehlum flood-plain occupies more than half of the valley bottom. The soils of Kashmir are poorly drained and lack organic matter. They are leached of Caco3. They are made of silt with a high proportion of coarse sand. Though PH as well as the content of Cao are appropri-ate, they are of low capability and further handicapped by lack of irrigation due to their high elevation. That is why they have a sparsed vegetative cover (Hussain, 1998: 29; Raychunduri, 1963: 105‒110).
3. Objectives of the study
The present study is intended to fulfil the following objectives: (a) to identify the differentially developed areas (tehsils, tehsil is the local name for a subdistrict, e.g. Sopore is the subdistrict of Baramulla) within the valley of Kashmir; (b) to classify the tehsils on the ba-sis of differential levels of development for different time periods and to mark inter-regional variations; (c) to analyse the factors responsible for the inequali-ties in the levels of socio-economic development among the teshils; (d) to suggest appropriate strate-gies to reduce the regional inequalities for equitable development.
4. Material and research methods
The examination of the problem presented in this investigation requires a lot of data from secondary sources. The secondary data have been obtained from different government offices and agencies.
Selection of study unit. The area of case study for the present study is the valley of Kashmir. Although the entire valley is a region in itself, one has to select a certain unit of study within the valley for measur-ing the disparity in socio-economic development be-tween different areas of the valley. Many such studies have been done at the state level and at district level in India. It is generally believed that spatial dispari-ties in the levels of socio-economic development of any economy can be better assessed when the analysis is based on data collected for smaller administrative units, i.e. tehsil or block level. In the present study, tehsil (sub-district) has been taken as a unit of study.
Selection of indicators of development. The process of socio-economic development has many compo-nents. Generally, mechanised agriculture, greater industrialisation, better health and education facili-ties, improved and adequate transport facilities, and better organised administration are some of the fac-tors which together foster development. However, the concept of development is defined in different ways by geographers, economists and regional scientists, highlighting its different aspects. In order to analyse the level of socio-economic development with respect to its spatial context, one has to choose a certain num-ber of most relevant variables. The selection of a set of such variables is a very difficult task. In different countries different sets of such indicators are used to identify differentially developed areas or regions. For example, in the USA and western European countries, regional unemployment and per capita income con-stitute the main criteria for the purpose of such iden-tification. Besides unemployment, industrialisation, life expectancy and productivity are also considered as indicators of development. This basis of analysis, no doubt, succeeds in focusing attention on the extent of poverty but difference in per capita income differenc-es in all dimensions of socio-economic development do not adequately reflect. Hence, per capita income is considered a poor guide in measuring regional dis-parities in developing countries like India. Therefore, it is better to depend on several physical indicators reflecting the levels of activities and to examine them separately and compositely to identify the relatively
88 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98
less developed or more advanced regions and the na-ture of their development.
In the present study the following six blocks are examine to reflect the levels of socio-economic de-velopment in the valley of Kashmir: (a) social sector (education and health); (b) economic sector (agri-culture and industries); (c) economic infrastructure (communication and roads).
For each of these categories a number of relevant indicators have been selected. However, the selection of these indicators has been made on the basis of the understanding of the concept of development in con-junction with various empirical studies conducted in this field. In India many empirical investigations aimed at identifying and analysing inter regional dis-parities in the levels of development have been con-ducted, e.g. the first such attempt related to the iden-tification or delimitation of an agricultural area or backward area was conducted in 1962. The Planning Commission tried to identify backward regions on the basis of some indicators pertaining to the socio-economic dimensions of development.
The indicators to be used in the present study have been assigned statistical weights derived through the factor analysis method. The indicators have been standardised and on the basis of factor matrix, an index of sectoral development has been prepared. All tehsils have been ranked according to their index values and then classified into highly developed, developed, backward and highly backward tehsils according to their quartile values. The changes in the index values have been examined to trace the direction of develop-ment. Finally, the sectoral indices have been pooled together to derive a comprehensive composite index of development. This gives an aggregate picture of the changes in the levels of development of all the tehsils over two time periods, i.e. 1981 and 2001. In addition, to have a clear insight into the problems of the back-wardness of some tehsils and their future prospects, a detailed analysis of the dimensions of development and typology of backwardness has been attempted.
5. Research results: Kashmir Valley – socio-economic differentiation and dimensions of development
It is vital to comprehend that for a clear understand-ing of the overall scenario of the socio-economic de-velopment of a tehsil or a region, it is necessary to rely upon the composite index of development of all the sectors. This exercise is of immense utility to study
the extent of development or backwardness. On the basis of this analysis, one can combine the regions with homogenous characteristics and probe into the factors of unequal development. The composite index of development has been constructed by using the statistical technique of factor analysis with the first factor method at two stages. In the first, the physi-cal variables related to all the selected sectors have been taken into consideration and the first factor of each sector has been derived separately. In the sec-ond stage, all the first factors of each sector have been taken as the raw indicators and once again, by using the method of factor analysis, the first factor of these variables has been derived and this has been taken as the composite index of development. The factor load-ings have been taken as weights to all the sectoral in-dices. This type of methodology is considered highly objective and unbiased, and is relied upon to identify differentially developed tehsils with the following six indicators: (a) agriculture development index derived from six indicators; (b) industrial development index with five variables; (c) educational development in-dex using twelve indicators; (d) health development index using three indicators; (e) road development index using four indicators; (f) communication de-velopment index using four indicators.
An important finding that emerges from Table 1 is that development in the Kashmir Valley was not uni-dimensional. This would be clear when we examine the factor matrix given in the table below.
While the first factor explains the overall levels of development highlighting the contribution of non-agricultural sectors, the second factor represents de-velopment mainly in the agricultural sector. If we look at the factor loadings on the first factor, it is clear that the indicators of agriculture and education figures are very high. On the second factor, infrastructure has the highest loading, followed by industries. Thus, it
Table 1. Factor matrix for socio-economic development
Indicator A BAgriculture development index 0.180 0.935Industrial development index 0.731 0.370Education development index 0.941 –0.122Health development index 0.842 –0.288Road development index 0.862 0.002Communication development index 0.918 –0.090
Explanation: A – factor 1; B – factor 2
Source: Computed values of composite indices of agricul-ture, industries, education, health, roads, and communica-tion
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 89
truly reflects the bi- dimensional development that has taken place in the Valley. The first factor has been taken to measure the overall levels of development. Therefore, the first factor is relied upon for a realistic analysis of the levels of development of the tehsils across the Valley. Tehsil-wise factor scores or index of development have been derived, which give a com-parative picture of the levels of development of all the tehsils of the Kashmir Valley over a period of twenty years, i.e. from 1981 to 2001.
The Srinagar tehsil occupies the prime place in both time-points with exceptionally high index val-ues. The Sopore tehsil is placed at a distinct second. Uri and Karnah are figured in the lowest order in both time-points. Three tehsils, namely Baramulla, Ganderbal and Ananthnag, are figured in the highly developed category in 2001.The negative sign of this trend is that two tehsils, Kulgam and Bijbehara, moved down from the very developed to the devel-oped category. The sole reason for this change is the slow pace of development of both tehsils during the process of development
However, along with this positive development, the study notices the problem of increasing inter-tehsil disparities. To probe the factors that have con-tributed to the widening of disparities, we can clas-sify all the tehsils into four categories. As pointed out earlier, the Srinagar tehsil rural and urban combined together emerges as highly developed, having scored exceptionally high index values in both time-points. The Srinagar tehsil is followed by Sopore, Baramulla, Anantnag, and Ganderbal in the same category.
Six tehsils: Bijbehara, Kulgam, Budgam, Duru, Pulwama, and Shopian, are figured in the developed category in both time points in 2001. Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Sonawari, Kupwara, and Tral are figured in the backward category, while Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, and Uri are figured in the highly backward category in both time points.
It is interesting to note that the trend in develop-ment remained almost the same from 1981 to 2001 except for some hills like Bijbehara and Kulgam which could not attain the pace of development and were moved down from the highly developed to de-veloped category, which shows that the tehsils which were highly developed in 1981 could not retain their position in the same category in 2001. On the other hand, it is very interesting to observe that the tehsils which are figured in the backward and highly back-ward category in 1981 retained the same position in 2001.
Table 2. Socio-economic development in Kashmir Valley
Tehsil1981 2001
A B A BAnantnag 0.42 6 0.71 4Bijbehara 0.46 5 0.52 6Duru 0.01 9 0.09 9Kulgam 0.71 3 0.34 7Pahalgam –0.87 19 –0.82 19Budgam 0.33 8 0.27 8Beerwah –0.40 13 –0.38 14Chadura –0.73 18 –0.74 18Bandipora –0.52 16 –0.44 15Baramulla 0.71 4 0.87 3Gulmarg –1.03 21 –0.97 20Sonawari –0.33 12 –0.23 13Sopore 1.02 2 1.02 2Uri –0.89 20 –1.20 21Handwara –0.44 14 –0.63 16Karnah –1.07 22 –1.29 22Kupwara –0.49 15 –0.69 17Pulwama –0.10 10 0.06 10Shopian –0.14 11 –0.17 11Tral –0.58 17 –0.22 12Ganderbal 0.38 7 0.53 5Srinagar 3.57 1 3.37 1
Explanation: A – index; B – rank
Source: Survey of India 2001
Table 3. Classification of tehsils on the levels of socio-economic development
Year Highly Developed Developed Backward Highly Backward
1981 Srinagar, Sopore, Kulgam, Bijbehara, Baramulla
Anantnag, Budgam, Duru, Ganderbal, Pulwama, Shopian
Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Kupwara, Sonawari, Tral
Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, Uri
2001Srinagar, Sopore, Baramulla, Ganderb-al Anantnag
Budgam, Duru, Kulgam, Bijbehara, Pulwama, Shopian
Bandipora, Beerwah, Handwara, Kupwara, Sonawari, Tral
Chadura, Gulmarg, Karnah, Pahalgam, Uri
Source: Classification derived after ranking of the tehsils
90 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98
Thus, if we compare the two time-points, we can clearly see that the distance between highly backward and highly developed regions has remained in the same category in both time points. If we consider the index values of the first and last ranked tehsils during 2001, Srinagar with (3.37) and Karnah with (–1.29), the wide gap is quite evident. Similarly, a huge gap ap-pears if we compare the other tehsils in the developed and backward category.
A region-wise glance at the tehsils in the two time points with their index values supports the long standing view that the degree of overall economic backwardness is greater in the hilly and Kandi areas (Kandi is the local name of one of the physiographic divisions of the Kashmir Valley, it is a backward re-gion). Not even a single tehsil of these regions is fig-ured in the developed category in both time-points. The position of the Karewa belt is better when com-pared to the hilly and Kandi areas of the Valley. This region has an enormous potential to grow and the lo-cation close to the Jhelum Floor belt provides a boost to its growth and development.
The predominant position of the Sopre and Srinagar tehsils is evident from all the angles of devel-opment. In fact, the very high rate of the development of both tehsils is one of the principle factors which has pushed up the index of their development. Therefore, it is quite evident that there is uneven socio-economic development across all the tehsils of the Kashmir Valley. Both developed and backward tehsils are scat-tered across different regions.
A detailed analysis of individual sectors and the composite indices of development discussed so far gives us both micro and macro insights into the dif-ferent aspects of development within the Kashmir Valley. This in-depth analysis raises three basic ques-tions, namely, why is there an enormous gap between differentially developed tehsils? Why is such a gap increasing? And why is development concentrated only in few centres? Answers to these questions are sought with the help of an analysis of the dimen-sions of development and typology of backward-ness. It is thought that this will highlight the major findings of the present study and also give valuable
Table 4. Typology of backwardness 1981 and 2001
Tehsils1980‒1981 2000‒2001
A B C D E F A B C D E FAnantnag B HB HD HD D HD D B HD HD D HDBijbehara D HD D HB HD D HD HD B B HD DDuru HD B D D D D HD D D HB D DKulgam B D D HD HD HD D HB D D HD HDPahalgam D B HB B B HB B D HB HB B HBBudgam D HD B D D D D HD B B HD DBeerwah D D HB B B B B B HB B D BChadura HB B B B HB HB HB D B B HB HBBandipora HB HB D D B B B HB D HD HB BBaramulla D D HD HD D HD B HD HD D HD HDGulmarg HB HB HB HB HB B HB HB B B HB BSonawari HD B HB D HD HB D D HB HD D HBSopore HD D HD HD HD HD HD D HD HD HD HDUri B D B HB HB HB HD HB HB D HB HBHandwara B D B HB B B B B B HB B BKarnah HB HB HB D HB HB HB D HB D HB HBKupwara HB B B B D D HB HB B D B DPulwama B B HD B B D B B HD D B DShopian HD HD B B HB B HD B D B B BTral HD HB D HB B B D B D HB B BGanderbal D HD D HD B D HD HD D HB D DSrinagar B HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD HD
Explanation: A – agriculture; B – industrial; C – education; D – health; E – road; F – communication
Source: Classification derived after ranking of the tehsils
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 91
policy suggestions to all those who are interested in the development process of the Kashmir Valley. In the following sections II and III, the important findings drawn from the analysis of the intricate issues related to the dimensions of development and typology of backwardness will be presented.
According to Rao (1984), the term dimension im-plies four possibilities. First of all, all sectors in a dis-trict or tehsil may be totally developed or backward. Other possibilities could be that a district or a region may experience uni-sectoral, bi-sectoral and multi-sectoral development or backwardness.
One should have a clear perception of these four possibilities to evolve different strategies of develop-ment and formulate sectoral plans. In addition, once the dimensions are known we can proceed further to have a clear view of the typology of backwardness. This helps us to understand the type of development in a tehsil, i.e. whether a tehsil is agriculturally de-veloped or backward, industrially developed or back-ward, or whether there is a combination of all these sectoral developments or backwardness. Once we arrive at the typology of backwardness, the task of fixing priorities for the development of lagging sec-tors becomes easier. In this way, the factors hinder-ing development could be removed paving the way for further utilisation of the potential of a tehsil for future development. Table 4 presents a clear view of the dimensions of development of the tehsils across two time points, 1981 and 2001.
Table 5 and Table 6 give some insights into the disturbing issues raised in the previous paragraphs such as the problems of increasing disparities and the widening gap across the tehsils. The first nega-tive feature that emerges from the table is that while Sopore has a distinction of having all developed sec-tors, the rest of the tehsils could not maintain this sta-tus. Srinagar, Baramulla, Anantnag, and Ganderbal
achieved multi-dimensional development but are lacking in one or another sector. Most of the tehsils maintained their status and could not excel to show their further development. Most of the tehsils wit-nessed a decline in their dimensions of development. Only Srinagar, Sopore and Anantnag could be placed on the higher level of multi-sectoral development. This clearly brings out the direct and positive rela-tionship between the levels of development and di-mensions of development. This implies that, with an increase in the levels of development, there would be an increase in the dimensions of development from uni-sectoral to bi-sectoral and then to multi-sectoral development. It highlights the interdependency of different sectors in the regional development pro-cess, underlining the crucial significance of adopting integrated regional and sectoral approaches to set up aggregate development of a region.
6. Conclusion
In practical sense, it implies that developmental strat-egies should be formulated and implemented in such a way that development in one sector could induce development in other sectors as well. Judging from this angle, it is rather discouraging to see that in spite of a sustained increase in index values by most of the tehsils in many sectors, a large number of tehsils have remained backward with respect to the dimensions of development. A total of eleven tehsils have multi sec-toral backwardness. This is indeed a situation of great concern. It points towards the failure of the overall socio-economic dispersion mechanism from the de-veloped to the backward regions. Hence, proper inter-regional and inter-sectoral developmental measures assume crucial importance.
Table 5. Sectoral indices of development
1981 2001
Category A B C D E F Category A B C D E F
H. Developed 5 5 6 6 5 5 H. Developed 7 5 5 5 6 5Developed 6 6 5 5 5 6 Developed 5 6 6 6 5 6Backward 6 6 6 6 7 6 Backward 6 6 5 6 6 6H. Backward 5 5 5 5 5 5 H. Backward 4 5 6 5 5 5
Explanation: A – agriculture; B – industrial; C – education; D – health; E – road; F – communication
Source: Classification derived after ranking of the tehsils
92 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98
Fig. 1. Kashmir Valley aggregate socio-economic development in 1981
Source: Survey of India 2001
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 93
Fig. 2. Kashmir Valley aggregate socio-economic development in 2001
Source: Survey of India 2001
94 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98
Refrences
Ahluwalia, M.-S., 2002: State Level Performance under Economic Reforms in India in Economic Policy Re-forms and the Indian Economy. In: Drez, J. and Sen, A. editors, Indian Economic Development and Social Op-portunity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91‒125.
Anderson, K. and Richard, P., 2005: Spatial inequality and Development in Central Asia. In: Kanbur, R., Venables, A.J. and Wan, G. editors, Spatial Disparities in Human Development: Perspectives from Asia, (United Nations Development Programme), pp. 305.
Anita, K., 2006: Balanced Regional Development in India: Issues and Policies, New Delhi: New Century Publica-tions, p. 228.
Basavaraj, B.-S., 2008: Infrastructural development and regional disparity – a comparative district level analysis in Karnataka. In: The Journal of Indian Management & Strategy, 8 M Year, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 25‒37.
Census of India, 1981: Series-8’, Jammu and Kashmir State, District Hand Books.
Census of India, 2001: Jammu and Kashmir State, District Hand Books.
Dholakia, R.-H., 1985: Regional Disparities in Economic Growth in India, Bombay: Himalaya Publishing House.
Emmanuel, 1972: Unequal Exchange: A Study of the impe-rialism of Trade, London: New Left Books.
Friedman, J., 1966: Regional Development Policy, Cam-bridge: MIT Press, Mass.
Government of India, 1981: Identification and Classifica-tion of Backward Areas (From the Draft Report of the Chakravarty Committee on Backward Areas), as pre-sented in Annexure 4.1 of Report on Genera! Issues re-lating to Backward Areas Development, National Com-mittee on the Development of Backward Areas, New Delhi, P 41.
Government of India, 1981: Report on General Issues re-lating to Backward Areas Development, National Com-mittee on the Development of Backward Areas, New Delhi, November 1981, Delhi, P 41.
Government of India, Planning Commission, 1969: Work-ing Group on Identification of Backward Areas, Pande Committee, New Delhi.
Government of UP, 1983: Regional Dimensions of India’s Economic Development, State Planning Commission, Lucknow.
Table 6. Composite indices used as socio-economic indicators
Tehsil A B C D E F1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001 1981 2001
Anantnag 0.48 0.45 0.94 0.64 –0.37 0.75 –1.07 –0.64 –0.08 0.41 1.45 1.25Bijbehara 0.20 –0.09 –0.82 –0.54 0.85 1.41 0.90 0.68 1.02 0.69 0.56 0.57Duru 0.31 0.22 0.19 –0.73 0.86 0.95 –0.17 –0.25 –0.25 0.30 –0.25 –0.16Kulgam 0.04 –0.08 –0.19 0.26 –0.22 0.82 0.83 –0.69 1.27 0.34 1.24 0.65Pahalgam –1.05 –1.13 –0.66 –0.88 0.33 –0.43 –0.30 –0.28 –0.42 –0.21 –1.38 –0.88Budgam –0.29 –0.33 0.15 –0.58 0.33 0.40 1.60 1.62 –0.08 0.93 0.28 –0.12Beerwah –0.75 –0.76 –0.69 –0.39 0.04 0.06 0.53 –0.30 –0.42 –0.13 –0.26 –0.25Chadura –0.50 –0.25 –0.41 –0.58 –1.22 –0.79 –0.42 –0.17 –0.59 –0.67 –0.99 –0.94Bandipora –0.08 0.12 0.16 0.53 –1.05 –0.76 –0.98 –0.65 –0.59 –0.89 –0.65 –0.56Baramulla 1.03 1.36 0.67 –0.02 0.45 .29 –0.11 0.39 –0.08 0.82 1.37 0.93Gulmarg 0–.81 –0.59 –0.95 –0.31 –1.45 –1.08 –0.89 –0.79 –0.67 –1.06 –0.90 –0.86Sonawari –0.80 –0.92 0.54 1.19 1.46 0.60 –0.57 0.08 0.09 0–.17 –1.00 –1.19Sopore 0.86 0.69 0.59 0.53 0.93 1.01 0.21 0.15 0.85 0.91 1.66 1.29Uri –0.74 –1.00 –0.77 –0.10 –0.68 –1.59 –0.13 –0.80 –0.76 –1.06 –1.26 –1.18Handwara –0.16 0–.25 –0.80 –0.90 –0.44 –0.76 –0.07 –0.48 –0.33 –0.37 –0.45 –0.45Karnah –1.07 –1.11 0.21 –0.26 –1.65 –1.81 –1.86 –0.16 –0.76 –1.39 –0.98 –1.12Kupwara 0–.47 –0.56 –0.55 –0.01 –0.97 –1.90 –0.81 –0.80 –0.08 –0.50 –0.10 –0.01Pulwama 0.33 0.32 –0.27 0.32 –0.71 –0.36 –0.15 –0.53 –.033 –0.25 0.09 0.42Shopian –0.22 0.01 –0.48 –0.45 1.58 0.93 0.88 –0.49 –0.67 –0.50 –0.27 –0.23Tral –0.05 0.27 –1.08 –0.63 1.75 0.72 –0.96 –0.32 –0.50 –.58 –0.44 –0.42Ganderbal 0.07 0.12 0.60 –0.80 0.74 0.84 1.09 3.55 –0.33 0.05 0.24 0.35Srinagar 3.67 3.52 3.63 3.71 –0.56 0.70 2.45 1.96 3.72 3.35 2.03 2.92
Explanation: A – education; B – health; C – agriculture; D – industry; E – roads; F – communications
Source: Derived through Factor Analysis of data given in appendices
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 95
Hussain, M., 1994: Human Geography, Jaipur and New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Hussain, M., 1998: Geography of Jammu and Kashmir State, New Delhi: Rajesh Publication.
Khan, A.Q., 2006: Regional Imbalances and changing Patterns Of Literacy In Jammu and Kashmir state (1961‒2001), Jammu: JK Publishers.
Kothari, S., 2001: Analysis of Spatial Disparities in Educa-tion and Health Facilities in India. In: Annals of The Ra-jasthan Geographical Association, Vol. XVII-XVIII, pp. 97–107.
Kumar, T., 2008: Spatial Analysis of Regional Divergence in India: Income and Economic Structure Perspective. In: The International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Vol. 3, Article 7, pp. 138.
Kundu, A., 1980: Measurement of Urban Development: A Study in Regionalisation, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Kurian, N.-J., 2000: Widening Disparities in India- Some Indicators. In: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. II, pp. 548‒549.
Maćkowiak, H., 2011: The Goods Structure of Trade Be-tween Polish Regions and the European Union. In: Szymańska, D. and Biegańska, J. editors, Bulletin of Geography – Socio–economic Series, No. 16. Toruń: Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, pp. 57–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-011-0014-9
Mukherge, D., 1999: Socio-Economic Status and School System Enrolments, Australian Centre for Equity Through Education.
Myrdal, G., 1957: Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, Lomdon: Gerald Duckworth.
Myrdal, G., 1964: Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., p. 26.
Raina, A.-N. 1977: Geography of Jammu and Kahmir, New Delhi: National Book Trust.
Rao, H., 1984: Regional Disparities and Development in India, New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.
Rao, H., 1985: Inter-State Disparities in Development in India. In: Mishra, G.P. editor, Regional Structure of Development and Growth in India, Vol. 1, New delhi: Ashish Publishing House.
Rao, H., 1977: Identification of Backward Regions and Trends In Regional Disparities in India. In: Arthavij-nana, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 1307.
Raychunduri, N., 1963: Final Report of All India Soil sur-vey Scheme. In: ICAR Bulletin, pp. 73.
Raza, M. and Ali, M., 1978: The Valley of Kashmir, Vol. I, New Delhi: Vikas Publising House, pp. 25‒27..
Robock, S.-H., 1970: Strategies for Regional Economic De-velopment. In: McKee, D.L, Dean, R.D. and Leahy, W.H. editors, Regional Economics, New York: Free Press.
Sarker, P.-C., 1989: Measurement of Imbalances in Region-al Development in India. In: Graphical Approach, RBI Occasional Papers, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 41‒43.
Sundaram, K.-V., 1983: The Geography of Underdevel-opment: The Spatial Dynamics of Underdevelopment, New Delhi: Concept.
Tiwari, R.-T., 1985: Inter-Regional Disparities in Levels of Development in India, New Delhi: Deep and Deep Publications, pp. 33‒49.
UNESC Report 2001, Status of education in India.WHO Report, 2000, available at: www.who.in..Williamson, J., l965: Regional Inequality and the Process
of National Development: A Description of the Pat-tern. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 13, No.4, Part II, p. 74.
96 Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98A
gric
ultu
re, I
ndus
trie
s, Ed
ucat
ion,
Hea
lth, C
omm
unic
atio
n, R
oads
in 1
981
in th
e K
ashm
ir Va
lley
Tehsil
Agricultu
reIndu
stries
Education
Health
Commun
ication
Roads
X1X2
X3X4
X5X6
X7X8
X9X1
0X1
1X1
2X1
3X1
4X1
5X1
6X1
7X1
8X1
9X2
0X2
1X2
2X2
3X2
4X2
5X2
6X2
7X2
8X2
9X3
0X3
1X3
2X3
3
Anantnag
148.01
59.81
31.35
2.93
0.35
0.35
11.0774180
1.01893170
1.16616740
1.01893170
57.60
34.40
54.7
31.9
73.40
49.8
34.19
0.32
12.19
28.63
10.35
6.66
4.45
23.50
36.33
7.53
6.3215466
54.1011300
4.01
18.99
3222.00
80.32
Bijbehara
160.08
62.51
35.91
8.01
1.05
0.26
17.3322120
3.63849000
2.74913140
3.09796200
58.20
33.70
54.5
29.7
69.90
48.1
35.90
0.31
12.32
22.31
8.91
4.21
4.44
12.60
21.90
8.23
3.6574354
45.3241600
2.27
22.31
4525.00
79.21
Duru
135.03
74.58
29.09
13.34
0.76
0.45
17.6877330
1.57032220
2.26126380
1.31907060
60.00
63.90
58.4
35.6
69.40
45.3
49.67
0.28
8.32
21.21
6.33
3.31
3.37
21.21
21.40
7.21
2.2342155
37.2631450
2.18
13.12
3022.00
75.32
Kulgam
113.09
64.78
31.25
16.03
0.25
0.39
29.1348820
3.57093000
0.45674405
0.50241846
55.60
33.10
55.0
32.7
69.30
43.7
51.62
0.32
8.91
19.21
6.97
4.44
3.36
12.31
30.67
11.34
7.3241653
45.3212360
2.59
23.11
4826.00
75.45
Pahalgam
163.05
62.60
35.25
21.37
0.52
0.24
12.4689380
2.27282570
1.62344700
1.94813630
47.80
23.50
46.9
23.4
59.00
23.5
45.17
0.13
7.21
16.37
5.52
2.20
2.39
12.10
29.80
8.32
1.1357211
8.2234150
1.29
8.27
2820.00
68.37
Budgam
109.17
62.88
33.06
21.27
0.63
0.35
18.8903520
4.38964700
6.61190600
0.98767060
53.50
30.60
51.1
28.4
70.70
47.8
39.93
0.27
8.33
25.23
6.52
3.39
2.44
16.32
30.01
10.01
3.2673213
36.3214530
3.04
16.23
3223.00
75.22
Beerwa
h103.12
55.77
35.09
8.73
0.71
0.35
16.6159110
3.01205400
4.11239050
1.05253140
47.20
26.70
45.9
26.0
69.40
40.3
36.98
0.19
9.91
18.32
5.22
2.23
2.22
11.34
22.67
10.21
3.1326785
16.4232140
3.15
11.31
2820.00
70.21
Chadura
118.08
50.52
30.30
16.11
0.13
0.16
11.6496940
2.37998250
2.31132910
0.64076453
59.20
34.50
57.6
32.1
68.30
48.5
36.54
0.12
7.63
20.23
4.31
3.33
2.22
15.68
21.42
8.23
3.1879650
18.2341580
1.03
8.12
2620.00
69.31
Bandipora
100.02
36.37
33.17
16.42
0.34
0.32
12.5032690
1.25580810
0.96032387
0.73871064
56.60
35.50
53.4
29.5
69.30
45.6
48.24
0.18
8.21
29.25
5.77
4.43
3.31
14.54
32.90
11.24
2.2376320
23.2143210
2.12
9.99
2622.00
68.43
Baramulla
101.05
65.48
32.02
13.60
0.59
0.54
9.4461150
4.01939630
1.67004070
0.75727360
69.00
43.60
61.9
34.7
80.40
59.2
57.32
0.38
11.11
28.62
9.96
4.42
5.51
12.21
29.43
17.91
5.5472140
52.7654650
3.05
26.21
3223.00
82.31
Gulmarg
101.04
43.01
33.30
10.62
0.19
0.15
13.2279940
1.16139970
1.16139970
0.92911977
46.30
30.10
55.0
29.9
84.70
40.2
33.32
0.15
7.32
16.31
4.44
2.34
2.22
11.23
31.90
6.65
3.3214533
10.2134210
1.69
8.32
2520.00
67.22
Sonawa
ri100.32
57.56
35.60
8.06
0.73
1.14
6.4915075
2.31740980
1.99044590
2.32218700
72.60
20.40
39.7
19.9
46.60
23.6
39.01
0.27
8.23
17.21
5.55
3.39
2.21
18.64
42.31
8.21
1.1324764
8.2231655
2.88
6.61
3419.00
67.23
Sopore
127.64
50.57
28.63
16.61
1.21
0.55
17.0607640
3.64126230
1.37654270
0.63532740
57.30
38.20
59.4
35.1
67.80
48.7
59.08
0.39
13.35
28.26
11.21
4.44
4.47
16.21
35.64
12.21
7.7095437
56.1123540
3.01
24.44
4329.00
83.23
Uri
119.12
49.52
25.89
18.21
0.32
0.41
10.6120420
0.92763764
6.91456460
0.79511800
40.70
25.70
59.3
24.6
78.50
54.3
33.48
0.15
8.21
22.23
5.59
2.23
2.29
11.32
35.17
7.23
2.2657810
10.2314210
1.17
7.32
2419.00
65.31
Handw
ara
104.32
45.80
29.61
24.26
0.65
0.24
10.0698880
2.53723860
4.57098300
0.63739160
61.30
30.20
54.1
29.4
73.10
44.6
44.95
0.21
9.21
21.21
7.62
3.39
3.33
14.98
18.90
6.64
2.9910734
18.2765430
2.51
11.12
2920.00
69.21
Karnah
99.78
41.56
30.01
1.55
0.32
0.13
8.0274350
0.23812346
0.23189127
0.21243150
60.10
33.40
71.4
33.4
0.00
0.00
19.23
0.10
8.21
20.22
4.44
2.26
1.91
11.21
84.10
5.01
3.1165488
8.6043560
1.89
6.63
2418.00
64.22
Kupw
ara
100.02
37.16
31.01
16.97
0.37
0.37
16.4151940
0.96855710
0.88050646
0.79245580
57.10
27.40
52.8
26.7
73.70
41.4
40.23
0.23
8.31
20.25
6.62
3.37
2.32
13.03
26.43
8.83
4.2314530
13.2109730
3.01
13.32
3219.00
69.25
Pulwam
a123.34
28.84
28.33
20.58
0.54
0.49
13.5335090
2.82402100
2.65881590
0.23533510
53.80
38.00
60.4
37.5
75.20
44.8
53.34
0.25
8.51
31.31
8.22
4.41
3.33
10.65
31.24
12.23
3.3547210
33.4309840
3.15
12.21
2921.00
76.21
Shopian
100.34
70.06
29.93
21.37
1.20
0.59
13.9014750
4.44226200
4.69710800
0.70140980
64.80
34.30
53.0
32.8
75.80
57.8
48.21
0.23
7.66
18.21
5.53
2.22
2.20
11.09
21.46
12.21
4.2316732
23.2190820
2.03
12.11
2519.00
71.23
Tral
100.16
67.84
29.74
24.86
0.98
0.87
12.7756420
1.01225080
0.16196012
2.02450160
61.70
40.10
65.7
39.1
75.90
49.2
49.61
0.19
7.92
16.32
6.62
2.35
2.67
12.03
19.54
7.34
2.3317654
23.2340980
2.99
8.77
2718.00
71.21
Ganderbal
130.71
59.33
32.74
20.39
0.78
0.49
20.8915480
1.89107440
5.93982700
2.86948160
69.60
32.10
56.4
30.5
71.80
43.5
52.73
0.27
8.21
21.27
8.83
3.36
3.33
18.98
16.54
13.31
3.3768510
33.2345160
3.01
16.21
2921.00
76.22
Srinagar
100.13
64.25
29.54
21.31
0.23
0.23
30.5780640
4.40105060
6.52385570
1.30286260
71.97
48.10
59.9
36.1
74.40
53.9
73.62
0.71
18.62
52.32
32.21
16.64
9.93
23.86
69.44
20.23
7.3321560
68.8734300
4.33
21.12
7736.00
90.65
Expl
anat
ion:
X1
– pe
rcen
tage
of g
ross
cro
pped
are
a to
net
sow
n ar
ea; X
2 –
perc
enta
ge o
f net
irrig
ated
are
a to
net
sow
n ar
ea; X
3 –
perc
enta
ge o
f mai
n w
orke
rs (
agric
ultu
re a
gric
ultu
ral
labo
urer
s an
d cu
ltiva
tors
) to
tota
l pop
ulat
ion;
X4
– pe
rcen
tage
of m
argi
nal w
orke
rs (
agric
ultu
ral l
abou
rers
and
cul
tivat
ors)
to to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
5 –
num
ber
of tr
acto
rs u
sed
per
100
culti
vato
rs; X
6 –
num
ber
of tr
acto
rs u
sed
per
100
hect
ares
of n
et s
own
area
; X7
– nu
mbe
r of
sm
all s
cale
uni
ts p
er 1
0,00
0 po
pula
tion;
X8
– nu
mbe
r of
coo
pera
tive
soci
etie
s pe
r 10
,000
po
pula
tion;
X9
– pe
rcen
tage
of e
mpl
oyee
s in
smal
l sca
le in
dust
ry u
nits
to to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
10 –
num
ber o
f rur
al e
mpl
oym
ent g
ener
atio
n un
its p
er 1
0;00
0 po
pula
tion;
X11
– p
erce
ntag
e of
m
ale l
itera
tes t
o to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
12 –
per
cent
age o
f fem
ale l
itera
tes t
o to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
13 –
per
cent
age o
f rur
al m
ale l
itera
tes t
o to
tal r
ural
pop
ulat
ion;
X14
– p
erce
ntag
e of
rura
l fem
ale
liter
ates
to to
tal r
ural
pop
ulat
ion;
X15
– p
erce
ntag
e of u
rban
mal
e lite
rate
s to
tota
l urb
an p
opul
atio
n; X
16 –
per
cent
age o
f urb
an fe
mal
e lite
rate
s to
tota
l urb
an p
opul
atio
n; X
17 -p
erce
ntag
e of
stud
ents
enro
lled
in (P
rimar
y, m
iddl
e and
Hig
h sc
hool
s) in
the a
ge g
roup
of 5
‒14
year
s; X
18 –
num
ber o
f sch
ools
in th
e age
gro
up o
f 5‒1
4 ye
ars;
X19
– n
umbe
r of a
ll tr
aine
d te
ache
rs av
aila
ble
at d
iffer
ent l
evel
s per
1,0
00 o
f sch
ool g
oing
pop
ulat
ion
aged
5‒1
4; X
20 –
num
ber o
f per
sons
hav
ing
a deg
ree i
n hu
man
ities
, soc
ial s
cien
ces,
com
mer
ce an
d sc
ienc
es p
er 1
,000
per
sons
aged
25
and
abov
e; X
21 –
num
ber o
f per
sons
hav
ing
a PG
deg
ree,
Ph.D
. or a
bove
per
1,0
00 p
erso
ns a
ged
25 a
nd a
bove
; X22
– n
umbe
r of p
erso
ns h
avin
g a
degr
ee in
eng
inee
ring
or te
chno
logy
per
1,
000
pers
ons a
ged
25 an
d ab
ove;
X23
– n
umbe
r of p
erso
ns h
avin
g a
degr
ee in
med
icin
e or s
urge
ry p
er 1
,000
per
sons
age
d 25
and
abov
e; X
24 –
per
cent
age o
f vill
ages
with
med
ical
faci
litie
s; X
25 –
per
sons
dep
ende
nt p
er p
rimar
y he
alth
cent
re; X
26 –
num
ber o
f bed
s per
1,0
00 p
opul
atio
n; X
27 –
num
ber o
f pos
t offi
ces p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
28 –
num
ber
of te
leph
ones
in u
se p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
29 –
num
ber o
f pos
t offi
ces p
er 1
,000
pop
ulat
ion;
X30
– n
umbe
r of t
elep
hone
s in
use p
er 1
,000
pop
ulat
ion;
X31
– to
tal
road
leng
th p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
32 –
tota
l sur
face
d ro
ad le
ngth
per
100
squa
re k
ilom
eter
s of g
eogr
aphi
cal a
rea;
X33
per
cent
age
of v
illag
es h
avin
g pu
cca
road
s.
Sour
ce: F
inan
cial
Com
miss
ione
r (Re
venu
e) S
rinag
ar, J
& K
, Dire
ctor
ate o
f Eco
nom
ics a
nd S
tatis
tics,
Dire
ctor
ate o
f Ind
ustr
ies a
nd C
omm
erce
, Srin
agar
, J &
K, E
duca
tion
Dep
artm
ent J
& K
, U
nive
rsity
of K
ashm
ir, S
rinag
ar, M
edic
al C
olle
ge S
rinag
ar, D
irect
or T
echn
ical
Edu
catio
n, D
irect
orat
e of
Hea
lth S
ervi
ces K
ashm
ir D
ivisi
on, J
&K
, Pos
t Mas
ter G
ener
al T
elec
omm
unic
atio
ns,
Ass
istan
t Dire
ctor
(MIS
) J&
K, C
hief
Eng
inee
r PW
D K
ashm
ir D
ivisi
on, J
&K
Shahnaz Mohiuddin, Haseena Hashia / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 18 (2012): 85–98 97A
gric
ultu
re, I
ndus
trie
s, Ed
ucat
ion,
Hea
lth, C
omm
unic
atio
n, R
oads
in 2
001
in th
e K
ashm
ir Va
lley
Tehs
ilA
gric
ultu
reIn
dust
ries
Educ
atio
nH
ealth
Com
mun
icat
ion
Roa
ds
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X9
X10
X11
X12
X13
X14
X15
X16
X17
X18
X19
X20
X21
X22
X23
X24
X25
X26
X27
X28
X29
X30
X31
X32
X33
Ana
ntna
g14
8.01
59.8
131
.35
2.93
0.35
0.35
11.0
7741
801.
0189
3170
1.16
6167
401.
0189
3170
57.6
034
.40
54.7
31.9
73.4
049
.834
.19
0.32
12.1
928
.63
10.3
56.
664.
4523
.50
36.3
37.
536.
3215
466
54.1
0113
004.
0118
.99
3222
.00
80.3
2
Bijb
ehar
a16
0.08
62.5
135
.91
8.01
1.05
0.26
17.3
3221
203.
6384
9000
2.74
9131
403.
0979
6200
58.2
033
.70
54.5
29.7
69.9
048
.135
.90
0.31
12.3
222
.31
8.91
4.21
4.44
12.6
021
.90
8.23
3.65
7435
445
.324
1600
2.27
22.3
145
25.0
079
.21
Dur
u13
5.03
74.5
829
.09
13.3
40.
760.
4517
.687
7330
1.57
0322
202.
2612
6380
1.31
9070
6060
.00
63.9
058
.435
.669
.40
45.3
49.6
70.
288.
3221
.21
6.33
3.31
3.37
21.2
121
.40
7.21
2.23
4215
537
.263
1450
2.18
13.1
230
22.0
075
.32
Kulg
am11
3.09
64.7
831
.25
16.0
30.
250.
3929
.134
8820
3.57
0930
000.
4567
4405
0.50
2418
4655
.60
33.1
055
.032
.769
.30
43.7
51.6
20.
328.
9119
.21
6.97
4.44
3.36
12.3
130
.67
11.3
47.
3241
653
45.3
2123
602.
5923
.11
4826
.00
75.4
5
Paha
lgam
163.
0562
.60
35.2
521
.37
0.52
0.24
12.4
6893
802.
2728
2570
1.62
3447
001.
9481
3630
47.8
023
.50
46.9
23.4
59.0
023
.545
.17
0.13
7.21
16.3
75.
522.
202.
3912
.10
29.8
08.
321.
1357
211
8.22
3415
01.
298.
2728
20.0
068
.37
Budg
am10
9.17
62.8
833
.06
21.2
70.
630.
3518
.890
3520
4.38
9647
006.
6119
0600
0.98
7670
6053
.50
30.6
051
.128
.470
.70
47.8
39.9
30.
278.
3325
.23
6.52
3.39
2.44
16.3
230
.01
10.0
13.
2673
213
36.3
2145
303.
0416
.23
3223
.00
75.2
2
Beer
wah
103.
1255
.77
35.0
98.
730.
710.
3516
.615
9110
3.01
2054
004.
1123
9050
1.05
2531
4047
.20
26.7
045
.926
.069
.40
40.3
36.9
80.
199.
9118
.32
5.22
2.23
2.22
11.3
422
.67
10.2
13.
1326
785
16.4
2321
403.
1511
.31
2820
.00
70.2
1
Cha
dura
118.
0850
.52
30.3
016
.11
0.13
0.16
11.6
4969
402.
3799
8250
2.31
1329
100.
6407
6453
59.2
034
.50
57.6
32.1
68.3
048
.536
.54
0.12
7.63
20.2
34.
313.
332.
2215
.68
21.4
28.
233.
1879
650
18.2
3415
801.
038.
1226
20.0
069
.31
Band
ipor
a10
0.02
36.3
733
.17
16.4
20.
340.
3212
.503
2690
1.25
5808
100.
9603
2387
0.73
8710
6456
.60
35.5
053
.429
.569
.30
45.6
48.2
40.
188.
2129
.25
5.77
4.43
3.31
14.5
432
.90
11.2
42.
2376
320
23.2
1432
102.
129.
9926
22.0
068
.43
Bara
mul
la10
1.05
65.4
832
.02
13.6
00.
590.
549.
4461
150
4.01
9396
301.
6700
4070
0.75
7273
6069
.00
43.6
061
.934
.780
.40
59.2
57.3
20.
3811
.11
28.6
29.
964.
425.
5112
.21
29.4
317
.91
5.54
7214
052
.765
4650
3.05
26.2
132
23.0
082
.31
Gul
mar
g10
1.04
43.0
133
.30
10.6
20.
190.
1513
.227
9940
1.16
1399
701.
1613
9970
0.92
9119
7746
.30
30.1
055
.029
.984
.70
40.2
33.3
20.
157.
3216
.31
4.44
2.34
2.22
11.2
331
.90
6.65
3.32
1453
310
.213
4210
1.69
8.32
2520
.00
67.2
2
Sona
war
i10
0.32
57.5
635
.60
8.06
0.73
1.14
6.49
1507
52.
3174
0980
1.99
0445
902.
3221
8700
72.6
020
.40
39.7
19.9
46.6
023
.639
.01
0.27
8.23
17.2
15.
553.
392.
2118
.64
42.3
18.
211.
1324
764
8.22
3165
52.
886.
6134
19.0
067
.23
Sopo
re12
7.64
50.5
728
.63
16.6
11.
210.
5517
.060
7640
3.64
1262
301.
3765
4270
0.63
5327
4057
.30
38.2
059
.435
.167
.80
48.7
59.0
80.
3913
.35
28.2
611
.21
4.44
4.47
16.2
135
.64
12.2
17.
7095
437
56.1
1235
403.
0124
.44
4329
.00
83.2
3
Uri
119.
1249
.52
25.8
918
.21
0.32
0.41
10.6
1204
200.
9276
3764
6.91
4564
600.
7951
1800
40.7
025
.70
59.3
24.6
78.5
054
.333
.48
0.15
8.21
22.2
35.
592.
232.
2911
.32
35.1
77.
232.
2657
810
10.2
3142
101.
177.
3224
19.0
065
.31
Han
dwar
a10
4.32
45.8
029
.61
24.2
60.
650.
2410
.069
8880
2.53
7238
604.
5709
8300
0.63
7391
6061
.30
30.2
054
.129
.473
.10
44.6
44.9
50.
219.
2121
.21
7.62
3.39
3.33
14.9
818
.90
6.64
2.99
1073
418
.276
5430
2.51
11.1
229
20.0
069
.21
Kar
nah
99.7
841
.56
30.0
11.
550.
320.
138.
0274
350
0.23
8123
460.
2318
9127
0.21
2431
5060
.10
33.4
071
.433
.40.
00.
019
.23
0.10
8.21
20.2
24.
442.
261.
9111
.21
84.1
05.
013.
1165
488
8.60
4356
01.
896.
6324
18.0
064
.22
Kupw
ara
100.
0237
.16
31.0
116
.97
0.37
0.37
16.4
1519
400.
9685
5710
0.88
0506
460.
7924
5580
57.1
027
.40
52.8
26.7
73.7
041
.440
.23
0.23
8.31
20.2
56.
623.
372.
3213
.03
26.4
38.
834.
2314
530
13.2
1097
303.
0113
.32
3219
.00
69.2
5
Pulw
ama
123.
3428
.84
28.3
320
.58
0.54
0.49
13.5
3350
902.
8240
2100
2.65
8815
900.
2353
3510
53.8
038
.00
60.4
37.5
75.2
044
.853
.34
0.25
8.51
31.3
18.
224.
413.
3310
.65
31.2
412
.23
3.35
4721
033
.430
9840
3.15
12.2
129
21.0
076
.21
Shop
ian
100.
3470
.06
29.9
321
.37
1.20
0.59
13.9
0147
504.
4422
6200
4.69
7108
000.
7014
0980
64.8
034
.30
53.0
32.8
75.8
057
.848
.21
0.23
7.66
18.2
15.
532.
222.
2011
.09
21.4
612
.21
4.23
1673
223
.219
0820
2.03
12.1
125
19.0
071
.23
Tral
100.
1667
.84
29.7
424
.86
0.98
0.87
12.7
7564
201.
0122
5080
0.16
1960
122.
0245
0160
61.7
040
.10
65.7
39.1
75.9
049
.249
.61
0.19
7.92
16.3
26.
622.
352.
6712
.03
19.5
47.
342.
3317
654
23.2
3409
802.
998.
7727
18.0
071
.21
Gan
derb
al13
0.71
59.3
332
.74
20.3
90.
780.
4920
.891
5480
1.89
1074
405.
9398
2700
2.86
9481
6069
.60
32.1
056
.430
.571
.80
43.5
52.7
30.
278.
2121
.27
8.83
3.36
3.33
18.9
816
.54
13.3
13.
3768
510
33.2
3451
603.
0116
.21
2921
.00
76.2
2
Srin
agar
100.
1364
.25
29.5
421
.31
0.23
0.23
30.5
7806
404.
4010
5060
6.52
3855
701.
3028
6260
71.9
748
.10
59.9
36.1
74.4
053
.973
.62
0.71
18.6
252
.32
32.2
116
.64
9.93
23.8
669
.44
20.2
37.
3321
560
68.8
7343
004.
3321
.12
7736
.00
90.6
5
Expl
anat
ion:
X1
– pe
rcen
tage
of g
ross
cro
pped
are
a to
net
sow
n ar
ea; X
2 –
perc
enta
ge o
f net
irrig
ated
are
a to
net
sow
n ar
ea; X
3 –
perc
enta
ge o
f mai
n w
orke
rs (a
gric
ultu
ral l
abou
rers
and
cu
ltiva
tors
) to
tota
l pop
ulat
ion;
X4
– pe
rcen
tage
of m
argi
nal w
orke
rs (
agric
ultu
ral l
abou
rers
and
cul
tivat
ors)
to to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
5 –
num
ber
of tr
acto
rs u
sed
per
100
culti
vato
rs; X
6 –
num
ber o
f tra
ctor
s use
d pe
r 100
hec
tare
s of n
et s
own
area
; X7
– nu
mbe
r of s
mal
l sca
le u
nits
per
10,
000
popu
latio
n; X
8 –
num
ber o
f coo
pera
tive
soci
etie
s per
10,
000
popu
latio
n; X
9 –
perc
enta
ge o
f em
ploy
ees i
n sm
all s
cale
indu
stry
uni
ts to
tota
l pop
ulat
ion;
X10
– n
umbe
r of r
ural
em
ploy
men
t gen
erat
ion
units
per
10,
000
popu
latio
n; X
11 –
per
cent
age
of m
ale
liter
ates
to
tota
l pop
ulat
ion;
X12
– p
erce
ntag
e of
fem
ale
liter
ates
to to
tal p
opul
atio
n; X
13 –
per
cent
age
of ru
ral m
ale
liter
ates
to to
tal r
ural
pop
ulat
ion;
X14
– p
erce
ntag
e of
rura
l fem
ale
liter
ates
to to
tal
rura
l pop
ulat
ion;
X15
– p
erce
ntag
e of
urb
an m
ale
liter
ates
to to
tal u
rban
pop
ulat
ion;
X16
– p
erce
ntag
e of
urb
an fe
mal
e lit
erat
es to
tota
l urb
an p
opul
atio
n; X
17 –
per
cent
age
of s
tude
nts
enro
lled
in (P
rimar
y, m
iddl
e an
d H
igh
scho
ols)
in th
e ag
e gr
oup
of 5
‒14
year
s; X
18 –
num
ber o
f sch
ools
in th
e ag
e gr
oup
of 5
‒14
year
s; X
19 –
num
ber o
f all
trai
ned
teac
hers
ava
ilabl
e at
di
ffere
nt le
vels
per 1
,000
of s
choo
l goi
ng p
opul
atio
n ag
ed 5
‒14;
X20
– n
umbe
r of p
erso
ns h
avin
g a
degr
ee in
hum
aniti
es, s
ocia
l sci
ence
s, co
mm
erce
and
scie
nces
per
1,0
00 p
erso
ns a
ged
25
and
abov
e; X
21 –
num
ber o
f per
sons
hav
ing
a PG
deg
ree,
Ph.D
. or a
bove
per
1,0
00 p
erso
ns a
ged
25 a
nd a
bove
; X22
– n
umbe
r of p
erso
ns h
avin
g a
degr
ee in
eng
inee
ring
or te
chno
logy
per
1,
000
pers
ons a
ged
25 an
d ab
ove;
X23
– n
umbe
r of p
erso
ns h
avin
g a
degr
ee in
med
icin
e or s
urge
ry p
er 1
;000
per
sons
age
d 25
and
abov
e; X
24 –
per
cent
age o
f vill
ages
with
med
ical
faci
litie
s; X
25 –
per
sons
dep
ende
nt p
er p
rimar
y he
alth
cent
re; X
26 –
num
ber o
f bed
s per
1,0
00 p
opul
atio
n; X
27 –
num
ber o
f pos
t offi
ces p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
28 –
num
ber
of te
leph
ones
in u
se p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
29 –
num
ber o
f pos
t offi
ces p
er 1
,000
pop
ulat
ion;
X30
– n
umbe
r of t
elep
hone
s in
use p
er 1
,000
pop
ulat
ion;
X31
– to
tal
road
leng
th p
er 1
00 sq
uare
kilo
met
ers o
f geo
grap
hica
l are
a; X
32 –
tota
l sur
face
d ro
ad le
ngth
per
100
squa
re k
ilom
eter
s of g
eogr
aphi
cal a
rea;
X33
– p
erce
ntag
e of v
illag
es h
avin
g pu
cca
road
s;
Sour
ce: F
inan
cial
Com
miss
ione
r (Re
venu
e) S
rinag
ar, J
& K
, Dire
ctor
ate
of E
cono
mic
s and
Sta
tistic
s; D
irect
orat
e of
Indu
strie
s and
Com
mer
ce, S
rinag
ar, J
& K
; Edu
catio
n D
epar
tmen
t J&
K,
Uni
vers
ity o
f Kas
hmir,
Srin
agar
, Med
ical
Col
lege
Srin
agar
, Dire
ctor
Tec
hnic
al E
duca
tion;
Dire
ctor
ate
of H
ealth
Ser
vice
s Kas
hmir
Div
ision
, J&
K; P
ost M
aste
r Gen
eral
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
, A
ssist
ant D
irect
or (M
IS) J
&K
; C
hief
Eng
inee
r PW
D K
ashm
ir D
ivisi
on, J
&K
.
© 2012 Nicolaus Copernicus University Press. All rights reserved.