Indian Official Statistics

Dynamics of population of Maharashtra State of India

2012-11-06T01:04:00.002-08:00

As per the data published by the Indian Census authority, Maharashtra State of India comprise of about one-tenth of India’s total population as per 2011 Census. Its population has grown about 16% during the decade (2001-11), whereas all-India has grown by 17.64% during the corresponding period. Thus, there are many other states who are growing faster than Maharashtra. The highest growth in total population has been observed for the district Thane (about 36%) of Maharashtra, whereas its Mumbai district has witnessed negative growth of about 6% during the decade. The other two districts namely, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg also downsized and this was only in their rural areas.

Although the urbanization has increased by only 3% from 42% in 2001, the population pressure has decreased in Mumbai district (which is only urban) by about 6% during the decade. The decadal growth of females had been more than that of males in the Maharashtra. The only district Hingoli where there had been marginal increase in rural population share and it is now around 85%. The Maharashtra share of urban population (45%) is much more than that of All-India (31%).

The sex ratio for total population of Maharashtra has now improved from 922 (2001) to 925 (2011) as against 978 in the 1901 census. There had been decrease in sex ratio in rural population of Maharashtra from 960 in 2001 census to 948 this census. Urban sex ratio has improved from 873 to 899 over the last two censuses. For the year 2011, the sex ratio in urban areas has improved over all the censuses conducted since 1901 in the state of Maharashtra. The urban sex ratio for the district Nandurbar has decreased from 930 to 891. Most of the districts have shown decreased sex ratio in their rural population except for the districts namely, Wardha, Nagpur, Chandrapur, Thane, Sanli and Yavatmal.

Prevalence of Chronic Diseases in Chhattisgarh State of India

2012-11-06T00:53:00.000-08:00

Chhattisgarh is one of the eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) States of India. Before 2000, it used to be part of Madhya Pradesh State of India. The state comprised of 25.5 million people and around 12.8 million (more than half) males as per census 2011. The urban population was around 6 million with half of them were males in 2011. Here below the prevalence of Chronic Illnesses in Chhattisgarh State has been given sex wise and as per their residence too. These rates are based on one Large Scale Annual Health Survey which was conducted in the year 2010-11 for eight EAG States besides the state of Assam, the major North-Eastern State of India. Here below the prevalence of Chronic Diseases in Chhattisgarh State have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) males and females.

*Prevalence (Per Lakh) of Chronic Diseases in Chhattisgarh State of India**
Chronic Diseases	Chhattisgarh		Chhattisgarh (Rural)		Chhattisgarh (Urban)
	Males	Females	Males	Females	Males	Females
Diabetes	690	432	426	249	1634	1105
Hypertension	480	670	263	398	1253	1672
Tuberculosis (TB)	251	137	262	128	213	168
Asthma	511	369	496	339	564	480
Arthritis	452	759	478	757	360	763
Other Chronic Diseases	1722	1740	1685	1649	1853	2074
Any Kind of Chronic Disease	4106	4107	3609	3521	5877	6262

· 1 Million = 10 Lakhs

It can be seen that prevalence of Chronic Illness is much higher in Urban Chhattisgarh (around 5.9% for males and 6.3% for females) than in Rural Chhattisgarh (around 3.6% for males and 3.5% for females).

Urban females are more chronic ill than males, whereas rural males are a few more chronic ill than females. It may be seen that Life style diseases namely, Hypertension and Diabetes are prevalent much more particularly in urban part of the State than other chronic diseases. In the State, prevalence of arthritis is more in rural areas. Also in rural areas, prevalence of arthritis is most occurring than other listed diseases particularly with females. Asthma is little more prevalent chronic disease in urban areas than in the rural areas with both males and females. Tuberculosis is the last in the list as per its prevalence vis-a- vis other listed chronic illnesses. Its prevalence is more with rural males than urban males of the state, whereas its prevalence is more with urban females than rural females.

Males in both areas are more prone to be Diabetics than females, whereas females are more hypertensive than males in both rural as well as in urban parts of the state.

Tuberculosis is affecting more males than females in both the areas.

Females in both areas are more affected by arthritis than males, whereas males are more down with Asthma than females.

Prevalence of Chronic Diseases in Urban Areas of Eight EAG and Assam States of India

2012-11-05T04:19:00.004-08:00

There are eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, namely, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and three sister states : Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. It was seen that the EAG States had poor indicators on demographic stabilization at the time of launching the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). Here below we intend to have some idea of status of Chronic Illnesses in these Group of States individually and also in the State of Assam in their Urban Areas. One Large Scale Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for eight EAG States besides the state of Assam, the major North-Eastern State of India. Here below the prevalence of Chronic Diseases in the various EAG States and in the Assam North-East Major State have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) persons for their urban areas.

.Prevalence (Per Lakh*) of Chronic Diseases in Urban Areas of the EAG and Assam States
States	Diabetes	Hypertension	Tuberculosis	Asthma	Arthritis	Any Kind of Chronic Disease
Chhattisgarh	1377	1456	191	523	556	6064
Madhya Pradesh	741	1382	138	348	607	5368
Uttar Pradesh	619	815	243	420	728	6216
Uttarakhand	1436	1843	187	393	988	9049
Odisha	1622	2239	92	563	294	8255
Rajasthan	344	541	86	234	308	2714
Bihar	699	944	307	616	1116	7313
Jharkhund	924	1062	193	307	760	5564
Assam	1400	2910	199	511	1213	11901

*Ten Lakhs = 1 million

It can be seen that prevalence of Chronic Illness is much higher in Urban Assam (around 12%) than in any of the EAG Group of States (next being in Urban Uttarakhand which is around 9%). Surprisingly, Urban Uttarakhand has a high degree of chronic illness of 9%, more than that in Urban Uttar Pradesh where it is about 6.2%. Urban Rajasthan has the least prevalence (around 2.7%) of chronic illnesses. Urban Odisha also have a high degree of chronic illness, it is over 8% and it is followed by Bihar ( over 7%). Urban Chhattisgarh, Urban Jharkhand and followed by Urban Uttar Pradesh have almost the similar prevalence (around 6%) of chronic illnesses.

It can be seen that Life style diseases namely, Hypertension chronic disease is troubling most the inhabitants of most of the urban areas of these states except of Urban Bihar and TB is the chronic disease which is effecting least the residents of most of urban part of these states. Diabetes’ prevalence is the next to Hypertension in almost all the urban residents of these states.

Diabetes is seen to be more effecting the inhabitants of urban Odisha, followed by urban Uttarakhand and then by urban Assam and Chhattisgarh.

Prevalence of hypertension disease is highest in urban Assam, followed by urban Odisha and then urban Uttarakhand. It is observed to be least prevalent in Rajasthan out these nine states.

Tuberculosis is effecting the residents of urban Bihar most, followed by those of Uttar Pradesh and then by those of Assam.

Asthma is more prevalent in the State of Bihar, followed by Odissa and Chhattisgarh.

In the State of Assam, prevalence of arthritis is highest. It is next most occurring in the state of Bihar, followed by Uttarakhand.

Full antenatal check-up can help to fight maternal and infant deaths

2012-11-05T02:02:00.003-08:00

In most of the States of India, the inhabitant would be mothers do not have registration of their pregnancy. As a result, Ante Natal Check-up (ANC) is just not resorted to by all the pregnant women in India. Even those who go for registration and also make a few visits for ANC, many do not take the mandatory three visits. Thanks to launch of Janani Sureksha Yojana of Government of India, now quite a few have started taking up three ANC visits, but most of these are not taking up full/ complete ANCs, as some of the identified medications or tests are not completed in stupilated time frame. Most of these women, even if these are anemic do not take full course of taking IFA for one hundred days. Some do not take TT booster (s). Quite a few have starting taking deliveries in some health institution or at home by some skilled health worker. But hundred percent of every aspect may not happen in all the States of India. It is common belief of experts that full ANC can help to fight maternal and infant deaths in India, as it ensures regular checkup of both the mothers and future children and then taking needful remedial measures.

Prevalence of Chronic Diseases in Eight EAG and Assam States of India

2012-11-05T01:39:00.000-08:00

There are eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, namely, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and three sister states : Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. It was seen that the EAG States had poor indicators on demographic stabilization at the time of launching the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). Here below we intend to have some idea of status of Chronic Illnesses in these Group of States individually and also in the State of Assam. One Large Scale Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for eight EAG States besides the state of Assam, the major North-Eastern State of India. Here below the prevalence of Chronic Diseases in the various EAG States and in the Assam North-East Major State have been given per one lakh (one tenth of a million) persons.

States	Diabetes	Hypertension	Tuberculosis	Asthma	Arthritis	Any Kind of Chronic Disease
Chhattisgarh	563	574	195	441	603	4107
Madhya Pradesh	352	687	169	372	674	4446
Uttar Pradesh	287	498	290	565	996	7390
Uttarakhand	669	1005	189	550	1358	8005
Odisha	604	1185	139	535	258	6636
Rajasthan	135	277	108	300	287	2201
Bihar	277	699	479	914	1529	8755
Jharkhund	371	486	260	232	754	4349
Assam	541	1738	288	594	1348	9954

Using population provisional estimates are from Census 2011, the number of people diagnosed for any type of Chronic Illness in EAG states and Assam State can also be estimated.

It can be seen that prevalence of Chronic Illness is much higher in Assam (around 10%) than in any of the EAG Group of States (next being in Bihar which is around 8.76%). Surprisingly, Uttarakhand has a high degree of chronic illness of 8%, more than that in Uttar Pradesh where it is about 7.4%. Rajasthan has the least prevalence (around 2%) of chronic illnesses. Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and followed by Madhya Pradesh have almost the similar prevalence (around 4%) of chronic illnesses.

It can be seen that Arthritis chronic disease is troubling most the inhabitants of most of these states except of Odisha and TB is the chronic disease which is effecting least the residents of most of these states except in Bihar where Diabetes’ prevalence is the minimum most. Rajasthan is the state where Asthma’s prevalence is little bit higher than Arthritis and hypertension.

Diabetes is seen to be more effecting the inhabitants of Uttarakhand, followed by Odisha and then by Chhattisgarh.

Prevalence of hypertension disease is highest in Assam, followed by Odisha and then Uttarakhand. It is observed to be least prevalent in Rajasthan out these nine states.

Tuberculosis is effecting the residents of Bihar most, followed by those of Uttar Pradesh and then by those of Assam.

Asthma is more prevalent in the State of Bihar, followed by Assam and Uttar Pradesh.

In the State of Bihar, prevalence of arthritis is highest. It is next most occurring in the state of Uttarakhand, followed by Assam.

Prevalence of Chronic Diseases in Empowered Action Group (EAG) States and in Assam State of India

2012-11-04T21:35:00.004-08:00

National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was launched on April 12, 2005 for rural health care. The NRHM has as its goal improving the availability of and access to quality health care by people, especially poor women and children residing in rural areas. The States with the worst health problems had been listed initially as 18 beneficiary-States of the NRHM. Among the 18 are the Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, namely, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and three sister states : Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. The EAG States are those with high fertility rates and weak socio-demographic indicators. The EAG was created in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) especially to ensure population stabilization and intersect oral convergence. It was seen that the EAG States had poor indicators on demographic stabilization at the time of launching the NRHM. The ultimate objective of the EAG concept, then, is not overall health care but demographic stabilization. The understanding is that issues of reproductive health and child care have to be addressed not because they are rights but because they will lead to demographic stabilization. Here below we intend to have some idea of status of Chronic Illnesses in this Group of States and also in the State of Assam.

A part of monitoring exercise of NRHM, Annual Health Surveys is being undertaken. One Large Scale Annual Health Survey has been conducted in the year 2010-11 for eight EAG States besides the state of Assam, the major North-Eastern State of India. Here below the prevalence of Chronic Diseases in the EAG States (Combined) and in the Assam North-East Major State have been given. Using population provisional estimates are from Census 2011, the number of people diagnosed for any type of Chronic Illness in EAG states and Assam State has been estimated.

Chronic Illness	Eight EAG States		Assam State
	Prevalence (%)	Estimated Persons in Millions	Prevalence (%)	Estimated Persons in Millions
Diabetes	0.32	1.80	0.54	0.17
Hypertension	0.60	3.31	1.74	0.54
Tuberculosis	0.27	1.49	0.29	0.09
Asthma/Chronic Respiratory	0.54	3.02	0.60	0.19
Arthritis	0.88	4.91	1.35	0.42
Others	3.63	20.12	5.45	1.70
Any	6.24	34.65	9.95	3.10

It can be seen that prevalence of Chronic Illness is much higher in Assam (around 10%) than in the EAG Group of States (around 6.25%). Every one out of ten persons of Assam is suffering from one of the Chronic Illness. There were over three million out of over 31 million persons suffering in 2011, whereas about 35 millions out of 555 millions were suffering in the eight EAG States of India. Arthritis and Hypertension disease are the main chronic diseases in all these states. About half a million Assamese are Hypertensive and around four lakh persons are suffering from Arthritis. Less than 0.2 millions are diabetic and/or having Asthma. In the EAG States, the Hypertensive persons are about 3.3 millions and over 3 millions are with Asthma problem, but Arthritis suffering is by around five millions. Diabetic problem is with about 1.8 millions. About one and a half million persons are suffering from Tuberculosis. Its prevalence is also higher in the State of Assam as is seen for other chronic illnesses.

Fact Sheet Data Obtained from Large Scale Annual Health Survey 2010-11 conducted in Chhattisgarh State of India

2012-10-26T00:59:00.004-07:00

The following table is an extract of recently published Fact Sheet of Annual Health Survey 2010-11 by the Office of Registrar General of India. This is regarding Chhattisgarh State of India. To me it is depicting data collection flaw and then not validating the same. The number of persons having some symptoms of a Chronic Illness can not be less than those getting diagnosed. It is happening even at the state level (macro level) for Chhattisgarh. At the district level it is observed even for many districts of Empowered Action Group States and Assam. Probably, it is the assumption taken while formulating the concerned Household Schedule that both symptoms and the diagnosis of chronic illness are independent of each other. But this is rubbish, a person having some symptoms only approaches a doctor for diagnosis of chronic illness and those having no symptoms will get a label of a particular chronic illness is very strange. As per the data, this is happening more in urban areas. People tend to tell their chronic illness without narrating the symptoms. Data needed desired validation checks before analysis.

ANNUAL HEALTH SURVEY 2010-11 : CHHATTISGARH
S.No	INDICATOR	Chhattisgarh
S.No	INDICATOR	Total	Rural	Urban
K1	Having Any kind of Symptoms of Chronic Illness (Per 100,000 Population)
1	Person	4083	3730	5362
2	Male	3894	3596	4959
3	Female	4278	3867	5788
K3	Having diagnosed for Chronic Illness (Per 100,000 Population)
K3.6	Any kind of Chronic Illness
1	Person	4107	3566	6064
2	Male	4106	3609	5877
3	Female	4107	3521	6262
K4	Percentage of Diagnosed for Chronic Illness out of those having any kind of Symptoms of Chronic Illness
1	Person	100.6	95.6	113.1
2	Male	105.4	100.4	118.5
3	Female	96.0	91.1	108.2

Can one believe?

2012-10-18T03:36:00.001-07:00

Times of India has reported an England's research that by watching one hour TV reduces the one's life by 22 minutes. If one calculates the reductions in one's life on the basis of some assumptions, one can easily say that this is rubbish. Can you still believe this?

Has Janani Suraksha Yojana of Government of India is having any success in Uttar Pradesh – A state of India with high level Maternal Mortality Ratio?

2012-09-29T04:27:00.001-07:00

The Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) is one of the most important programmes under the overall umbrella of National Rural Health Mission by the Government of India and is aimed at reducing Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) and Neo-natal Mortality Rate by promoting institutional deliveries. Under the Scheme, cash incentives are provided to mothers and they are facilitated by Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) (the name is different in some of the states like Rajasthan it is known by the name Sahyogini) to deliver their babies in a health facility. There are also provisions for cost reimbursement for transport and incentives to ASHAs for encouraging mothers to opt for institutional delivery. The scheme is fully sponsored by the Central Government and is implemented in all States and Union Territories, with special focus on low-performing States like EAG states where the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and MMR are the highest in the country. Now after some time of its implementation, the situations are changing. There is also a provision for roping in the private sector by giving accreditation to willing private hospitals/nursing homes for providing delivery services. The Scheme has been implemented in all the nine Annual Health survey (AHS) States since 2005.

In the recent large scale survey of AHS, in order to gauge the spread and effectiveness of the JSY, ever married women aged 15-49 years were probed whether they had availed the maternity financial assistance for safe motherhood under the scheme in respect of their last two outcomes of delivery resulting in live / still births during the reference period, i.e., 2007-09. The percentage of mothers who availed financial assistance for delivery, percentage of mothers who availed financial assistance for institutional delivery and percentage of mothers who availed financial assistance for Government institutional delivery under JSY, all in respect of the last outcome of delivery resulting in live birth / still birth, have been calculated and presented in the recent Fact Sheet released by Office of Registrar General, M/O Home Affairs, GOI. Since the scope of JSY has been extended to domiciliary births also, these three sets of indicators have presented a holistic picture.

Take the case of Uttar Pradesh, which has most of the health development parameters low as compared to the other developed states of India. For this flag ship scheme of Government of India which is more for eight EAG states (including this State), AHS is found that although in the State institutional deliveries are there about 46% (43% in rural area), but mothers who availed financial assistance for delivery under JSY are are just 16% (about 18% in rural UP) and mothers who availed financial assistance for institutional delivery under JSY are 31% (40% for rural UP). It is also seen that the deliveries are most occurring in government facilities (75% for entire state and 81% in rural UP) only because of the financial assistance being provided for institutional delivery under JSY otherwise it is at home or in private facility. Women in UP are more for private arrangement for having delivery as home deliveries are for about 54% and institutional deliveries in private facilities are 18 percent. Government facilities need to get more confidence of this major chunk of eligible women for giving births to our future generation. This is one of the major steps required in order to have control on MMR and IMR.

Status of Safe Deliveries in EAG States

2012-09-23T00:20:00.002-07:00

The following table compares conduct of safe deliveries at the time NFHS -3 (2005-06) and AHS (2007-09). One may observe that almost all the considered states show improvement in the conduct of deliveries. Either these are undertaken in private or government health facilities or at home by some skilled health personnel.

Safe Delivery (%)
States	NFHS III	AHS	% Change
Assam	31	70.1	126.1
Bihar	29.3	53.5	82.6
Chattishgarh	41.6	49.5	19.0
Jharkhand	27.8	47.1	69.4
Madhya Pradesh	32.7	82.2	151.4
Odisha	44	75.2	70.9
Rajasthan	41	76.2	85.9
Uttar Pradesh	27.2	51.3	88.6
Uttarakhand	48.8	56.9	16.6
Average of 9 States	35.9	62.4	73.8

The maximum change observed is with respect to what used to happen in the States of Madhya Pradesh (EAG State) and in Assam. In 2005-06, the states which were in the lowest rug in this respect were Uttar Pradesh (UP), Jharkhand, Bihar, Assam, Madhya Pradesh (MP) and so on(in order from lowest to higher in rank). But in the year 2007-09) the states in the lowest rug (although status has much improved over the small period) are Jharkhand, Chattishgarh, UP, Bihar, Uttrakhand and so on. One may comment that the States Uttarakhand and Chhattishgarh did not improve much from the good level as compared with others. Other states like UP, Jharkhand and Bihar still travel in the same boat as in the just past.

At least one quarter of babies in 9 states are born underweight in EAG and Assam States of India

2012-08-04T04:56:00.000-07:00

The Annual Health Survey (AHS) was conducted by in 284 districts of Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and these nine states of Northern/ Central/ Eastern of India houses nearly half of the country's population. It is seen that a generation of condemned children are currently growing up as at least a quarter of the children born in these states are born with less than 2.5 killograms in weight. The children are born over the years (2007-09) and only very few newborns are weighed at birth. The above figure is for those who were weighed and reported by the respondents (parents). On an average only about half of the newborns are weighed at birth in these states according to AHS Factsheets. In two of the poorest states, UP and Bihar, only 26 percent and 32 percent of newborns respectively, were weighed. A large chunk of deliveries are getting done at home and most of these parents are from poorer and uneducated sections. Thus, the proportion of underweight newborns would be much higher.

For the reported ones, in some states like Rajasthan, the proportion was as high as 39 percent with Jharkhand not far behind with about 36 percent children born underweight. In Madhya Pradesh and UP about 28 percent of newborns are underweight while in Bihar and Odisha about 22 percent fall in this category. As expected, in all the surveyed states, share of underweight newborn babies is more in rural areas than in urban areas. In Jharkhand the urban rate is 32 percent compared to a rural rate of 39 percent. In Rajasthan, the urban rate of underweight newborns is 31 percent which shoots up to a shocking 42 percent in rural areas. In UP, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and Assam there is hardly any notable difference between underweight rates in rural and urban areas.

In India, according to the last estimation done in the National Family and Health Survey (NFHS)-III in 2005-06, the national average for underweight newborns was 22 percent. Results of the recent large scale survey show that except for Chhattisgarh, all the other eight states are still above this mark, almost six years after the NFHS III. The proportion of underweight newborns is less than 5 percent in developed countries. At least this major part of India is far behind.

The main cause for underweight newborns is maternal malnutrition. This is not just restricted to the pregnancy period. Full ANC of mothers can take care of this aspect. Underweight babies suffer inherently higher risks of malnutrition, disease and even early death. This affects every aspect of the child's development and growth including intellectual development. Such malnutrition of mothers and then of their newborns is also leading to higher infant mortality and maternal deaths in these nine states of India. So there is a case for caring these mothers and their malnourished offspring at least for future generation of India.

Will India be achieving fourth Millennium Development Goal on Child Mortality?

2012-07-11T02:31:00.002-07:00

The Target for Fourth Millennium Development Goal (MDG) is: “Reduce by two-thirds the mortality among children under five in 1990”.

Where India stand now:

India’s Under Five Mortality (U5MR) was estimated at 125 per 1000 live births in 1990 and thus target for this MDG in case of India is to have U5MR as 41.7 per 1000 live births or to reduce it by 83.3 per 1,000 live births by the end of 2015. India’s U5MR declined from 125 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 59 per 1,000 live births in 2010 (as per official agency estimate).

India: Under5 Mortality Rate (U5MR) per 1000 live Births
Years	1992	1998	2005	2008	2009	2010	1990 (Est)	2015 (Target)
U5MR	109.3	94.9	74.3	69	64	59	125	41.7

Sample Registration System, ORGI, GOI.

In another five years, U5MR is expected to further decline to 47.6 per 1,000 live births, if the trend in the entire available data is used.

As per UNDP, India would be falling short of the target and is expected to be 70 per 1,000 live births instead of 42 per 1,000 live births by 2015.

As it is well known that India has been focusing on Child Health since 2005 through its flagship scheme of National Rural Health Mission. If one uses the trend seen just after 2005, the achievement would be around 43.7, which is much near to the set target of 42 per 1,000 live births.

In view of these statistics, child survival in India needs sharper focus than being attempted particularly in the higher U5MR States than national average. These States are Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (these are not in order of priority). These states of India are likely to fall significantly short of their respective targets. Focus should be on better managing neonatal and other childhood illnesses. The other States namely, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and other north-eastern states are likely to achieve their targets possibly even earlier than 2015.

Will India be achieving fifth Millennium Development Goal ?

2012-07-07T00:56:00.003-07:00

The Target for Fifth Millennium Development Goal is: “Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio in 1990”.

Where India stand now:

Maternal mortality in India continues to be a major concern given the reduced social, cultural and economic status of Indian women that inhibits them from adequate access to health facilities. Though it is a major social concern, there are no reliable estimates available on maternal mortality for early 1990’s.

The estimates available are from the National Family Health Surveys (I and II) and by the Sample Registration System (SRS) officially for few years. The average maternal mortality ratio at the national level estimated for 1998-99 in NFHS II was 540 per 100,000 live births which was higher than the previous estimate of 424 maternal deaths for 1992-93 (NFHS I). These figures are inconsistent and can not be relied upon as the sample size requirement for estimating the same is much more to have reliable estimates. From the SRS, we have the following estimates:

Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) per 1,00,000 Live Births
Year	1997-98	1999-2001	2001-03	2004-06	2007-09
MMR	398	327	301	254	212

As per UNDP, MMR for India was 437 per 100,000 live births in 1990-91. For 1990, so we may adopt this estimate which is also consistent with NFHS I estimate.

From a Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) of 437 per 100,000 live births in 1990-91, India is required to reduce MMR to 109 per 100,000 live births by 2015. Between 1990 and 2009, there has been some improvement in the Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) which has declined to 212 per 100,000 live births as compared to 437 in 1990. Safe motherhood depends on the delivery by trained personnel, particularly through institutional facilities. However, delivery in institutional facilities has risen slowly from 26 percent in 1992-93 to 78.5 percent in 2010-11. Consequently, deliveries by skilled personnel have also increased at the same pace.

UNDP says that India will miss the fifth MDG target by 26 points. But we think contrary because of the following analysis:

If the decreasing trend depicted in the official estimates of MMR continues and this would be because of National Rural Health Mission in place in India, one may easily see that this MDG Goal would be achieved quite comfortably as the linear regression estimate for 2015 is less than 91 ( instead of requirement of 109). Yes, it may not be achievable in respect of a few bigger states of India i.e., out of EAG States like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh and these states, no doubt, are as big or even bigger than many European countries as far as number of females in the reproductive age group is concerned.

Growth of Urbanization in Rajasthan is less as compared to the rest of India

2012-06-19T05:18:00.001-07:00

The following table gives the comparative ratios of urban population to the total population in case of the State of Rajasthan and that for All-India. In the year 1951, Rajasthan was having more urban population vis a vis that of All-India.

Table: Percentage of Urban Population

Census Year	Rajasthan	All-India
1951	18.50	17.29
1961	16.28	17.97
1971	17.63	19.91
1981	21.05	23.08
1991	22.88	25.49
2001	23.39	27.81
2011	24.89	31.16

With the passage of one decade, the urbanization reduced in Rajasthan and was more pronounced as well. Subsequently, growth was there, but it was again more in other parts of India than in the Rajasthan. Although, the growth was almost parallel till the year 1981, the growth trajectory became divergent 1991 onwards. Now, the total urban population of Rajasthan has become about 17 millions (Census 2011), showing an increase of about four millions over 2001. And the population residing in urban areas has increased from 23.4 percent (Census 2001) to 24.9 percent (Census 2011). Although the urban population of the state is showing consistent rise, but still it is about one fourth of the total population of the state, which indicates lesser participation by urban population in overall urban growth of the state and higher cost of development of infrastructure facilities required for urbanization as compared to the rest of India.

Case for forming smaller states in India for dealing with the issues/problems relating to population dynamics and Millennium Development Goals

2012-06-16T00:50:00.002-07:00

Case for forming smaller states in India for dealing with the issues/problems relating to population dynamics and Millennium Development Goals The Empowered Action Group (EAG) States and Assam are focused states for the Government’s Flag Scheme : National Rural Health Mission. The following table gives the share of population and of other important vital events for these states to the All-India total for the year 2010. Share in All-India Total

States	Population	Births	Deaths	Infant Deaths	Maternal Deaths
Assam	2.58	2.70	2.93	3.34	4.97
Bihar	8.58	10.91	8.10	11.14	13.43
Chattisgarh	2.11	2.42	2.34	2.62	3.07
Jharkhand	2.72	3.12	2.65	2.79	3.84
Madhya Pradesh	6.00	7.41	6.92	9.78	9.40
Orissa	3.47	3.22	4.14	4.17	3.91
Rajasthan	5.67	6.85	5.28	8.02	10.28
Uttar Pradesh	16.49	21.12	18.55	27.41	35.76
Uttarakhand	0.84	0.73	0.73	0.59	1.24
EAG and Assam States	48.45	58.47	51.64	69.85	85.90
Population is in ‘000
Source:
For population	Census-2011
Other indicators	SRS-2010

One may see very clearly that for this year in the case of maternal deaths burden in India; the most significant contribution to this is by the states of Uttar Pradesh, Assam and Rajasthan. For this year in the case of infant deaths burden in India; the most significant contribution to this burden is by the states of Uttar Pradesh again, followed by Madhya Pradesh and then by Rajasthan. As regards to less adoption of family planning in these high focused states, measured in terms of share of births, the most significant states in this respect are Uttar Pradesh again, followed by Bihar and then by Madhya Pradesh. As regards to less performance of general health services in these high focused states, measured in terms of share of deaths, the most significant contributory states in this respect are Orissa, followed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Assam. It can be observed that the sister/ baby states formed some time back out of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar are doing much better than their parents in the respects for which this analysis is being presented. Are we having a case for forming smaller states out of bigger states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh for dealing with the issues/problems relating to population dynamics and Millennium Development Goals set for the whole world?

Why National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has been concentrating on nine states only?

2012-06-14T04:52:00.001-07:00

Why National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has been concentrating on nine states only? The following table may be seen to have the answer. Share of Eight EAG and Assam States
	Population	Births	Deaths	Infant Deaths	Maternal Deaths
All India	1210193	26745275	8713393	1257028	56700
EAG and Assam States	586345	15637675	4499958	877998	48702
Share of EAG and Assam States	48.5	58.5	51.6	69.8	85.9

Population is in thousand
EAG and Assam States:	Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Odisha,
	Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand
Source:
For population:	Census-2011
Other indicators:	SRS-2010

These comprise of little less than half of the India’s population. But the burden of maternal deaths is about 86% and the burden of infant deaths is also about 70%. Number of births in these states is also significant and hence Total Fertility is high for these states. These are also part of the global bigger problems. The government’s flag ship scheme (NRHM) is trying to make dent on these problems of India and thus in turn is trying to help the world too.

Quality of IIP Data

2012-06-02T01:41:00.002-07:00

Indian government sharply lowered the industrial growth, which is measured monthly with a gap of one to two months through the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) for January, 2012 from 6.8% to 1.1% citing "incorrect reporting" and Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, Finance Minister had also ordered a probe into the reasons behind the misreporting.

Central Statistical Office (CSO), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI) is India's apex statistical body and is responsible in compiling the IIP and also producing the more robust results concerning Indian industrial growth and other details through a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the help of National Sample Survey Office, MOSPI. IIP is meant to be a short-term indicator of industrial activity, while ASI is a comprehensive survey of registered manufacturing units in the country. The ASI data comes with a lag of two to three years as it covers a large number of units across the country. Growth in industrial production, measured by IIP and ASI, has consistently shown significant divergence. Manufacturing in IIP grew by 4.8% in 2009-10, while growth in gross value added under ASI was at 10%. But there is a lot of time gap between the ASI data with its reference year. This is the reason of having quick estimates of the growth in industrial production by help of IIP. There had been many comments in the past on the results of IIP. Many, even within the Ministry of Statistics & PI, have raised questions on the quality of ASI data too. A few economists say a comparison between the IIP and ASI is not possible because of the varying nature of the data. However, they say there should not be such wide variations in the data. Senior statisticians within the government say there is no systematic relationship between the ASI and IIP growth rates. The quantum of divergence between the two series does not follow any pattern and therefore emphasize on the need to base IIP on the superior ASI data. The latest ASI data is available for the year 2009-10.

The CSO had earlier carried out studies comparing growth rates under IIP and ASI by using the value of output rather than the quantity, but it has been unsuccessful in reconciling the divergence.

Currently, the government tries to revise the base year of IIP every five years in tandem with the revision of the GDP base. The CSO had introduced a new series of IIP with a revised base of 2004-05 only a year ago. And is now planning to change the structure of the Index of Industrial Production (IIP) more frequently to remove the rising doubts on its accuracy. CSO has recommended now that the basket and base year of IIP be upgraded at regular intervals to address volatility in the data. It has also suggested making the Annual Survey of Industries the basis for revision of the IIP base year.

The CSO recommendation would comply with international standards set by the United Nations Statistics Divisions, which prescribes changing the weighting diagram of industrial statistics every year and the product basket later when more data is available.

But the main problem lies somewhere else and that should be addressed first. Without that the problem will remain. The main problem is that the data received every month is never complete. Most of the marked and identified manufacturers don’t adhere to the time schedule and many other divergences are being noted. Many a times the quantities produced by these manufacturers are being repeated month after another without proper scrutiny and other relevant considerations. Some months the data gaps are huge, which leads to the anomalies mentioned. Problems are also in ASI data too, but of different nature. The production figures are normally matched with that of financial data provided to other wing of the Government. It is a big problem for the ministry to match these two sets of data which are being produced by them. Doubts are there with all the minds which are concerned with this industrial data. But still we all are witness to the fact that our equity market (BSE and NSE) put a lot of cognizance to IIP data when it is first released. In the recent past too these indices did fall heavily, if the IIP had shown downward industrial production. Latter, many forget and don’t bother its revisions as well.

Dynamics of population of Maharashtra State of India

2012-06-01T02:23:00.001-07:00

Maharashtra State of India comprise of about one-tenth of India’s total population as per 2011 Census. Its population has grown about 16% during the decade (2001-11), whereas all-India has grown by 17.64% during the corresponding period. The highest growth in total population has been observed for the district Thane (about 36%), whereas Mumbai district has witnessed negative growth of about 6% during the decade. The other two districts namely, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg also downsized and this was only in their rural areas.

Will National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) achieve its target in respect of Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)?

2012-05-28T04:18:00.001-07:00

One of the flag scheme of Government of India is National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). One of the main objective of this scheme was to bring down the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) to the level of 30 by the terminal year of the mission i.e. by 2012. Looking at the Government of India official data on IMR for the years (2003 – 2010), one may predict, by assuming that whatever has been done or is being done continues this year as well, one can’t achieve the required target in case of All-India. Rather it falls quite short at the level of 45 and the same is due to most of the major states of India. Major hurdle states are eight EAG states and Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Gujarat, Haryana and to some extent Karnataka, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh states. If this rate continues, the target for all-India may be achieved by the year 2020. The state of Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha would achieve much latter in the year 2027, 2025, 2023 and 2021 respectively. Following table gives out some more details in which one may be interested in.

Sl.No.	States	IMR	IMR = 30
Sl.No.	States	Prediction for 2012	Prediction Year
	ALL INDIA	45	2020
1	Andhra Pradesh	44	2019
2	Assam	58	2027
3	Bihar	47	2019
4	Chhattisgarh	47	2018
5	Gujarat	43	2019
6	Haryana	46	2020
7	Jharkhand	41	2019
8	Karnataka	36	2015
9	Kerala	13	@
10	Madhya Pradesh	58	2023
11	Maharashtra	26	@
12	Odisha	56	2021
13	Punjab	32	2013
14	Rajasthan	52	2020
15	Tamil Nadu	20	@
16	Uttar Pradesh	58	2025
17	W. Bengal	27	@
18	Arunachal Pradesh	31	@
19	Delhi	34	**
20	Goa	7	@
21	Himachal Pradesh	40	2016
22	J & K	46	**
23	Manipur	14	@
24	Meghalaya	58	**
25	Mizoram	45	@
26	Nagaland	29	@
27	Sikkim	32	@
28	Tripura	31	@
29	Uttarakhand	41	**
30	A&N Islands	33	@
31	Chandigarh	28	@
32	D&N Haveli	28	**
33	Daman & Diu	19	@
34	Lakshadweep	26	@
35	Puducherry	22	@
@ : Already Achieved
**: Prediction not done due to Erratic trend

Kerala State achieved replacement level fertility rate of 2.1 long before, but still have positive population growth

2012-05-25T03:39:00.002-07:00

According to the SRS 2010, twenty two states/uts have achieved replacement level fertility of 2.1 and below. One may have a question that if twenty two states have achieved replacement level fertility of 2.1 and many are below 2.1 for quite a few years, then why these states are showing positive population growth.

Kerala is having TFR much below 2.0 even through the last decade, but is depicting downward positive growth in population as given below:

Percentage Decadal Variation for Kerala State as per various Censuses conducted

1961-71	1971- 81	1981- 91	1991-01	2001-11
+26.29	+19.24	+14.32	+9.43	+4.86

The positive growth is due to population momentum factor. Although the replacement level has been achieved, but the girls born much earlier would add one or more children when they get married and start producing their off springs. This population momentum occurs due to the past high birth rate when the couples born in the past will be in the reproductive ages in the coming years resulting in higher number of marriages and subsequent child birth which cannot be avoided by policies implemented henceforth.

Total Fertility Rate in India Drops from 3.2 in 2000 to 2.5 in 2010 as per SRS 2010 data

2012-05-25T03:38:00.001-07:00

Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is the average number of children expected to be born per woman during her reproductive years. In case of India, it has fallen from 3.2 in 2000 to 2.5 in 2010 i.e. by 22% over the past decade.

The latest Sample Registration System 2010 data says India's TFR, which had remained stagnant in 2008 and 2009 at 2.6, finally has dropped by 0.1 points in 2010. Education mainly of fair sex has been found to play a major role in influencing TFR. At present, a rural woman (having a TFR of 2.9) at the National level would have about one child more than an urban woman (having a TFR of 2.0).

According to the SRS 2010, twenty two states/uts have achieved replacement level fertility of 2.1 and below. However, 13 states/Uts still have a higher TFR than this. These include Bihar (3.7), UP (3.5), MP (3.2), Rajasthan (3.1), Jharkhand (3), Chhattisgarh (2.8), Assam and Gujarat (2.5), Haryana, Odisha (erstwhile Orissa) (2.3), Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and D&N Haveli. For the latter three states/UTs the data is not available for the year 2010, but seeing the time series data one may expect the same as mentioned here.

States which have not recorded a dip in TFR in 2010 as against 2009 include states like Gujarat (2.5), Karnataka (2), Maharashtra (1.9), Tamil Nadu (1.7) and Delhi (1.9). Kerala is the only state which has recorded an increase in TFR - from 1.7 in 2009 to 1.8 in 2010.

According to the National Population Policy 2000, India should have reached there replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1 by 2010, and ought to attain population stabilization at 1450 million by 2045. Population stabilization is when the size of the population remains unchanged. It is also called the stage of zero population growth.

Petrol price up 7.54 to 73.18, sharpest hike ever

2012-05-24T01:51:00.000-07:00

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

New Delhi: By the time you read this, the price of petrol would have gone up by more than Rs 7.50 a litre across the country. After adding state taxes, petrol will cost Rs 73.18 a litre in Delhi, Rs 78.57 in Mumbai, Rs 77.88 in Kolkata and Rs 77.53 a litre in Chennai. This marks an increase of around 10%.

Why oil marketers say price hike was unavoidable

1 Every 1 drop in rupee’s value against dollar adds 8,000 crore import burden on oil marketers. Pre-hike pump prices corresponded to $109/barrel of petrol in regional bulk markets. The average price in the first fortnight of May was $124/barrel.

2 Crude prices fell to a 7-month low near $91 a barrel on Wednesday. But this refers to Brent crude in Singapore, not Indian mix of imports.

Above is the extract from a daily news paper. It is normally reported that any increase in petrol prices have over 50% of Government taxes. The tax component increase is not and should not be dependent on import price of crude oil or on rupee fall vis a vis dollor price i.e. on exchange rate. The quantum of taxes is already fixed before any increase. By such quantum increases, governments should not take undue benefits like this and make fool of people. They should come out with actual facts behind all this and openly say that this is one of the very easy means of raising their revenues outside the budget processes. The subsidies on diesel, LPG and more so on the Kerosene are being financed through increase in petrol prices only. At the same time, poor people may not be getting all the benefits out of this as their most of the purchases have to be from the parallel economy which is very much existing and flourishing in India.

How to Calculate the Age Specific Fertility Rates and Total fertility Rate (TFR)

2012-05-19T02:55:00.004-07:00

The total fertility rate (TFR) is one of the important indicator which one has to be involved if one is studying or analyzing the demographic data or Health Statistics.

The TFR is a calculated rate of live births for women in a specific area. It takes into account age-specific groups over a five-year period generally and can be applied to different size hypothetical groups to estimate live births in a region. The TFR can also be used in conjunction with the death rate to determine the population replacement rate or further constrained to specific.

Following is the procedure for calculations of fertility rates:

1. We first choose or fix the area of which we need to find the fertility rates. These are calculated by using the birth statistics for women ages 15 to 49 for the chosen areas.

2. Have the women into various age categories in increments of say five years (15-19; 20-24; etc.).

3. Divide the number of live births in each age category of women by the number of women in each category to determine the age specific fertility rates for each set of women. Multiply this number by 1,000 to postulate the age-specific fertility rate (ASFR) for each five-year group. This ASFR is the number of children a hypothetical group of 1,000 women would have using this rate, but other numbers can be used to simulate different group sizes or removed to simulate live births per woman.

4. Add the number of children per 1,000 women for each age category. Multiply the value by five to account for a five-year period for each age group. This value is the total fertility rate for the specified group size. But the exact estimate is the ratio of total number of children born to mothers covering all age groups.

Front page headlines in a esteemed daily news paper of India : “East Delhi tops city in development: Census”

2012-05-11T05:33:00.003-07:00

This has been reported by Times of India recently. The data tables presented in the daily cannot be easily accepted. The information presented in the daily cannot be easily digested by any one who is familiar with various Delhi districts. On many indicators, Eastern Delhi can’t be better that Central and Southern Delhi.

The said data was attempted from the official site of the Central Government. The site was giving the information for most of the districts of India, but not for Delhi State. It was stated that the information is yet to be finalized. The link for this data one may use is as below:

http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/District_Tables/HLO_District_Tables.html

Let us seek the data which is yet to be published by the Census Department of Central Government i.e. Office of Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and then conclude.

Is Uttrakhand still a EAG State of India?

2012-02-27T02:16:00.000-08:00

The National Population Policy, adopted in February 2000, further legitimised the paradigm shift to client-based services. The National Population Commission was set up in May 2000 to guide the translation of policy rhetoric into programmes. In March 2001, an Empowered Action Group
was set up by the Government of India to facilitate focused efforts to promote the Reproductive and Child Health Programme in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa,Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttaranchal (now Uttrakhand)which have been lagging behind in a number of sociodemographic indices. These staes have been lagging behind also in respect of promoting the family planning programme of India as these states contributed more to the size of national population being most populous states in India. Therefore, to achieve the target of population stabilization by 2045, as stated in NPP, the major focus was on these eight EAG states and their performances.

As per the last two cesuses conducted in the country in the years 2001 and 2011, the data given below in respect of Uttarakhand and Haryana States may be considered:

The decadal population growth (%) for Uttrakhand is 19.17 and the same for Harayna is 19.90. Corresponding population are 10116752 and 25353081 in the year 2011. The percentage of the 0-6 age group to total population in the respective Staes are 13.14% and 13.01% respectively. These figures clearly make the case that the Uttrakhand State can be taken out of the the EAG States as its parameters are more close to a non-EAG State.