Rural Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: Realization Effective by Networking of Institutions, Programs, Policies and Social Auditing

Mr.V. Govindarajulu
Hon. Chairman, Sustainable Natural Resources Trust**
TC 54/2039, Thiruvananthapuram 695018
maithry@eth.net

Abstract
India did make significant achievements, since independence, in many socio-economic sectors. However, wide spread poverty, in the country, is the root cause of multifaceted maladies in the society. Such maladies include rural-urban divide, draught and famine, degradation of agriculture, mounting unemployment, hunger and malnourishment and deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS. Such societal maladies do adversely impact on the production, productivity, economy and social security. Fortunately, India has builtup a wide network of institutions, programs and policy framework (constitutional laws) that could help not only industrial development but also poverty reduction. In the days of globalization, knowledge explosion and digital information communication, there is no justification for the poverty to prevail on such massive scale. Sectarian approach by isolated parametric and linear progression made in poverty reduction only results in the resurgence of the same poverty by manifold and by multi parametric. A holistic approach, by all possible parametric and by logistic (exponential) progression, in poverty reduction, is required for its total elimination. Public-private partnership, both national and international, with human face, by networking of institutions, programs and policy framework (constitutional laws), with social auditing, is the need of the hour, to realize rural empowerment and poverty reduction, exponentially, to, say, 10% or less, at $2 percapita income a day, by 2025 or early and to the least minimum, say 0-1% by 2050 and beyond

India is a classic land of diverse linguistic cultures and civilizations for ages. It has been a land of human habitation, both indigenous and settlers from diverse cultures and continents, since time immemorial. India was known as a seat of learning and scholarship in diverse fields of human endeavour. Diverse philosophical and spiritual thoughts did originate in India and spread across the continents that immensely influenced the world outlook. In the like manner, India did welcome, different philosophical and spiritual thoughts, from around the world, and assimilated them into its main stream. India, thus, is truly a global society in its world outlook.

India is one of the 12 mega bio-diversity rich countries of the world. It is endowed with vast human resources besides rich natural and mineral resources. India has a long history of developmental efforts, but constrained by several limits, mostly inherited from feudal and colonial legacies. Such limits of human development is notably reflected in the wide spread absolute poverty and rural and urban divide.

India’s Achievements
India’s achievements could be reflected in some select socio-economic indicators. India is one of the world’s largest populated countries, next only to China. It is blessed with one-fifth of the world population. Today, India’s population exceeds 1.08 billion (WDR 2006). Female : Male sex ratio is 933: 1000 with population density 363 persons per sq km. Literacy rate is 65% with male 76% and female 54%. Life expectancy for male is 64 years and female 67 years (Chronicle India 2006). Nearly 700 million people (72%) are living in about 6 lakh villages, comprising 2 lakh panchayaths, and depend upon agriculture for their livelihood. Development trends, as illustrated in Table 1, do reflect remarkable achievements of India for the last sixty plus years. However, in the context of global developmental trends, India needs to accomplish much more, to emerge as a developed country, at the earliest, say the year 2020-2050.

Multi-dimensional Nature of Poverty in India
India did make significant progress in poverty reduction since independence. Poverty line is variously defined by various institutions. Accordingly, the magnitude of poverty varies from the basis of definition. Planning Commission, GoI, defines poverty line on the basis of nutritional norm and its percapita availability and daily intake of 2400 calories in rural and 2100 calories in urban areas. It is presumed that people in the rural areas do hard work and hence need a higher calorie intake. A person who is unable to get this minimum calorie intake a day is classified as a person living below poverty line (BPL). Rural people living BPL, in the mid fifties, was 54% (or 184 million persons). And the people living BPL, at the dawn of 21st century, was brought down to 27% rural and 24% urban. But the absolute number of persons living BPL did dramatically increase to 193 million rural and 67 million urban and 260 million total (India SDR 2006).

According to UN studies, the largest number of world poor are living in India (HDR 2003). And, that amounts to one-fourth of the world poor. A big fraction of them are concentrated in remote and inaccessible areas. Among the social groups, SC, ST and BC account for 81% of rural poor (India SDR 2006). And, as a social class, they (BC, SC and ST) constitute 2/3rd of the population in the country. Further, poverty is highly concentrated among the landless, agricultural labour and self-employed traditional artisans and craftsmen.

Percentage share of rural poverty by backward states, like Bihar, Orissa, MP and UP, in the early nineties, was 53% and increased to 61% in the late nineties (India SDR 2006). Share of rural poverty, by agriculture prosperous North-Western states, like Punjab, Haryana and HP, declined from 3% to 1%, in the same period. In the like manner, share of rural poverty by southern states declined from 15% to 11% in the nineties. Strangely, the well to do states, like West Bengal and Maharashtra, relatively, have a higher share in the rural poverty. And, the share of urban poor, by the states, like AP, MP, UP, WB and Maharashtra, increased from 56% to 60% in the nineties. Orissa, singularly did increase its share of both rural and urban poverty in the nineties.

Work participation (employment) rate in the country is around 39% (Subramanian KK, 2005). However, hardly 10% of them are employed in the organized sector and 90% of them are in the informal and unorganized sector (Amit Bhaduri, 2006). In other words, it could be inferred that around 61% of people, in the working age group, are classified as non-work participants (unemployed). Employment, in some vocation, is the source of income generation, which in turn, influences the calorie intake and physical quality life index (PQLI) of the people. Accordingly, such high rate of non-work participation (unemployment) does influence adversely on the percapita income earning and calorie consumption which in turn give raise to higher magnitude of poverty. That is the reason why, poverty in the country, is said to be wide spread, acute and chronic.

Percapita income is another index of defining poverty line. The World Bank defines poverty base at $1 percapita income a day. It is further enhanced to $2 percapita income a day. Accordingly, nearly 35% of people in India are reported to be living on the verge of poverty by eking their living at $1 or less income a person a day (WDR 2006). When poverty base is redefined at $2 or less income a person a day, the people living on the verge of poverty in the country is galloped to 81% of the population (WDR 2006). And, by enhanced definition, nearly 800 million people, in the country, are reported to be living on the verge of poverty which is believed to be the root cause for more than 1/4th of the districts suffering from various orders of social conflict (Suresh Prabhu, 2007).

Under such low income situation, women and children are the worst affected ones. According to UNICEF “Progress for Children: Nutrition Report Card 2006”, India accounts for 57 million of world’s 146 million chronically malnourished children. In other words, more than one-third of world chronically malnourished children are housed in India. Chronic malnourishment of children is also wide spread in South-Asian countries where 300 million people are reported to be suffering from chronic hunger (Kim Hak-Su 2006). Such a pathetic situation and children’s malnourishment reflects the fact of parental poverty base as wide spread, acute and chronic. The fact is corroborated by Ziegler’s Report, titled “The Extent of Chronic Hunger and Malnutrition in India”, submitted to UN Human Rights Commission, in September 2006, which states that India has the largest number of undernourished people in the world and one of the highest levels of child malnutrition (RUPE, 2006).

It is reported that India has the second highest cases of HIV/AIDS. South Africa and India, together, account for 25% of world HIV/AIDS cases. According to UN AIDS Global Report 2006, India contains 5.7 million HIV/AIDS patients which is considered as the highest in the world. Also, it is reported that 53 percent of all deaths in the country are caused by the combined effect of wide spread diseases like diabetes, respiratory, cardiovascular, hyper tension, kidney disorder and cancer. And 44% of all deaths in the country are due to DALY (Disability Adjusted Life Years). However all such deaths could be averted by ensuring proper health care and nutrition security but for the wide spread poverty in the country. The health status of Indian people, in the world context, is illustrated in Table 2.

HDI is a summary measure of Human Development. It measures the average achievement of a country mainly in terms of three basic parameters of human development viz., (i) a long and healthy life as measured by life expectancy at birth, (ii) access to knowledge as measured by the adult literacy rate and (iii) a decent standard of living as measured by GDP percapita (HDR 2001). Human Development Index (HDI) is an all inclusive definition that distinguishes and differentiates the world people on account of development index. HDI for highly developed countries in the west tend to near unity. Whereas HDI for the least developed countries tend to near zero. HDI for moderately developed countries, like India, tend to near half the unity and around. Accordingly, HDI for India showed a marginal progress from 0.593 in 2002 to 0.602 in 2003. However, India’s HDI continues to be in the rank of 127 on the list of 177 countries (Chronicle Year Book, 2006) which is definitely a cause for concern. Neighbouring countries like China, Pakistan and Sri Lanka did improve their ranks considerably (HDR, 2005).

While HDI measures the average achievements, Human Poverty Index (HPI) measures the degree of deprivation in three basic dimensions of human development as captured in the HDI viz., (i) a long and healthy life: vulnerability to death at a relatively early age as measured by the probability at birth not surviving to the age 40 for developing countries and 60 for developed OECD countries, (ii) knowledge accession: degree of exclusion from the world of reading and communication as measured by the adult illiteracy rate for developing countries and percentage of adults in the age group of 16-65 lacking functional literacy skills for OECD countries and (iii) a decent standard of living: lack of access to overall economic provisions as measured by the percentage of population not using improved water sources and the percentage of children under 5 who are under weight for developing countries and percentage of people living below the income of poverty line (50% of the median disposable household income) (HDR, 2001). In addition, a dimension of social exclusion as measured by the rate of long term unemployment (12 months or more) is also included in developing HPI for OECD countries (HDR, 2001).

HPI, as a measure of resources deprivation, reflects the degree of poverty suffered by the people. On account of HPI, India did slide down by 10 places and ranked at 48 on the list of 95 developing countries. HPI is a measure of the proportion of people below the threshold level in terms of basic dimensions of income and human development viz., life expectancy, education and access to knowledge and living standards. The HPI value, in 2003, was 31% for India and 10% for Brazil (Chronicle Year Book, 2006). That means nearly 31% of people in India, deprived of basic resources and means of livelihood, are reported to be living on the verge of poverty. The poverty figure, in India, could exceed 70%, if the parameters of HPI, as in the case of OECD countries, is uniformly applied to the developing countries as well.

Liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG) syndrome did promote international economic growth, especially that of developed countries. However, it is noted that LPG is increasingly failing to generate new and better jobs that could lead to people’s empowerment and poverty reduction in developing countries. According to ILO Key Indicators of Labour Market (KILM) Report 2005, half of the world’s workforce i.e., 1.38 billion are not able to earn enough to lift themselves and their families above poverty line (APL) at $2 or more income a person a day. Obviously, the Indian labour force is the worst affected ones. That is why, the post liberalization growth of India is aptly termed as job less growth.

Thus, poverty in India, as elsewhere, among the developing countries, is wide spread, acute and chronic. In addition, the poverty is multidimensional in character. The absolute number of people living BPL presents a phenomenon of perennial and not amenable to any sectarian approach of poverty alleviation programs. It is the reflection of a bundle of contradictions (Maya) in the society. Such contradictions is a bundle of truths and sub-truths, submerged into one another, at times complementary and at many other times conflicting with each other. Hence there is a need for holistic approach, both differential and integral. The specific target groups should be identified on the basis of facts and figures. The aim of extending aid and support is to reduce poverty on an accelerated basis. Such poverty alleviation programs should sustain the human development of the target groups duly integrated with the national main stream.

Reasons for Rural Poverty
It was an economic dictum, in the past, that people in rural India were born in debt, lived in debt and died in debt. This dictum, in the context of raising orders of farmers suicides, is more true even today. Indian farmer who ventures to modernize his agricultural process, by his own capital investment, whether borrowed or otherwise, is compelled to end his life, due to repeat monsoon-cum-crop failures, inappropriate technological inputs, inaccessibility to resources and markets and mounting burden of debt, without any relief like subsidy or insurance, as available for the incorporated industrial ventures. Such phenomenon did occur in the west, during industrial revolution, that witnessed the emergence of native capitalist farmers. Modern farmers, in India too, are the emerging capitalist class, in the rural region, who without any social security, depend on the vagaries of monsoon, capital, technology, resources and markets. In times of distress, which is recurring in the country, when the institutional support is absent or ineffective, not only the farmers but also the agricultural and landless labourers and artisans suffer the worst. Such negatives mutually reinforce and sustain the poverty in the country. Thus, the reasons of rural poverty, in the country, are manifold. They are deep rooted in socio-economic, socio-political and socio-cultural dimensions. Hostile environment, both natural and societal, add to the compounding of the phenomenon of poverty. Some such reasons of rural poverty are illustrated as follows.

Population Explosion: Population is an economic function of the society. More persons in a family, for the illiterate and poor, means more earning hands, however small the earning may be. Whereas, it is the opposite for the rich and educated family. For the rich and educated ones, less persons in a family, means more percapita wealth and more comforts and privileges available per member of the family. The poor and illiterate involuntarily promote population explosion. And, the rich and educated ones are conscious of regulation of population by opting for small family norms. In either case, it is the economic interest and social security, with entropic logic, that conditions the size of the population. Poverty inbreeds more poverty, while capital accumulates more capital. And, both capital and poverty co-exist, with vested interests and status-quo, and sustain each other. Since the rural India contains more than 70% of population, of which the bulk are un-resourceful, by entropic logic, it keeps inbreeding more and more people in poverty.

Inaccessibility to Resources: People in the rural region, who are mostly illiterates and poor, do not have ease access to the necessary resources like skills, capital, technology, knowledge and markets. Such inaccessibility to the resources, by the vast majority of the rural mass, pushes them to be on the verge of more poverty.

Agriculture on the Decline Mode: Agriculture, in the rural India, is on the decline mode with diminishing returns. Yet the bulk of the rural mass, nearly 700 million living in 6 lakh villages, comprising about 2 lakh panchayaths, are compelled to depend on agriculture without alternate avenues of employment. Such a situation badly affects not only the farmers and the landless laborers but also pauperizes the self employed village artisans and craftsmen.

Nature Turning Hostile: Large scale destruction of forests, desert formation, industrial pollution and emissions, environmental degradation, green house effects, global warming, El-Nino effect, monsoon vagrancy, repeat failure of rain, sudden outburst of rain clouds, depression, storms, cyclones, tsunamis, flash floods, soil erosion and salination, all result in the large scale destruction of human habitats, material property, crops and cattle wealth. This reflects the deep rooted conflict among “Man-Society-Nature” as “Cause and Effect” of mindless implementation of large scale “Agro-Industrial-Military” ventures that result in the massive dispossession, deprivation and displacement of people. The developing countries, like India and their rural regions, are the worst affected ones.

Depletion of Ground Water: Capital intensive modern technological systems like deep drilling, bore wells and booster pump sets, when competitively deployed, very close to each other, and when rainwater harvesting and conservation, through wells, ponds, lakes, dykes and check dams, across the streams and rivers are ignored, for decades, result in the overexploitation of ground water much below 500 meter depth (Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, 2002) and pushes many marginal farmers away from agriculture but without alternate employment for their livelihood.

Widening Regional Disparities: Scarcity of resources and their uneven distribution in addition to hostile nature and inaccessibility to the resources, causes the widening of regional disparities, especially the developing countries, like India and their rural regions.

Inadequate and/or Ineffective Programs: Poverty alleviation programs implemented till now are generally perceived as either inadequate or ineffective or isolated or partially implemented with corrupt practices resulting in the continuation of the rural poverty by manifold and by many parametric.

Dependency Syndrome: Rural poverty, which is acute, chronic and widespread, appears to have developed a psychology of dependency syndrome. It results in the added inhibitions and cultural limits and disability to experiment with new ideas, inventions and innovations.

Rural Poverty Alleviation Initiatives
Government of India (GoI), over the years, did initiate several development oriented and poverty alleviation programs. Some such programs/initiatives are as follows:

• Abolition of bonded labour by law
• Abolition of Zamindari System and Initiation of Land Reform Act
• Antodaya Plan
• Small Farmers Development Program
• Drought Areas Development Program
• Twenty Point Program (20PP)
• Food for Work Program
• Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP)
• National Rural Employment Program
• Jawahar Grama Samridhi Yojana
• Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)
• Development of Women and Children of Rural Areas (DWACRA) Program
• Swarna Jayanthi Grama Swarojgar Yojana
• Mahila Samridhi Yojana
• Pradhan Manthri Gramodaya Yojana
• Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana
• Indira Awas Yojana
• Samagra Awas Yojana

Many of the above centrally sponsored programs are implemented by State Government Agencies and Local Administrations with the main objects as illustrated below:

• Community Development
• Development of Primary Health and Sanitation
• Promotion of Primary Education
• Development of Rural Shelter (Housing), Drinking Water and Nutrition
• Development of Rural Electrification, Roads and Communication
• Development of Rural Water Sheds and Rain Water Harvesting
• Training and Skill Development of Rural People for Productive Employment and Income Generation

In addition to such centrally sponsored programs, there are many state sponsored development programs, besides those initiated by international development agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). GoI did allocate crores of rupees towards poverty alleviation programs. Lately, GoI has initiated “National Mission Programs” such as “India Developed 2020”, “PURA (Provision of Urban Amenities to Rural Areas)” and “Bharat Nirman Program” with funds allocation exceeding Rs.174,000 crores (Abdul Kalam APJ, 2006).

Reasons of Urban Poverty
Urban poverty is the extension of rural miseries in addition to its own peculiarities including the negative fall outs from the North-South World divide. Some such reasons are illustrated as follows:

• Migration of rural youth to urban centers in search of employment and livelihood
• Limited job opportunities available in the towns and cities. It is noticed that, at any job mela (fair), tens of thousands of educated youth do participate and get interviewed by the potential job providers like IT companies (The Hindu, 2006, 2007). However, hardly 1-3% of them get on the spot confirmed job offers and another 4-9% of them get promises of job offer in the near future and, in sum, the job potential, in the market, is 5-12% only.
• Explosion of urban population and swelling of slum areas leading to development of a psychology of dependency syndrome and the resultant insecurity
• Unplanned and haphazard urban development as dumping yards of obsolete plants and machinery, mostly foreign origin, leading to environmental degeneration
• Lack of urban amenities in the rural areas forcing people to migrate
• Improper and/or ineffective implementation and corrupt practices in urban poverty alleviation programs including PDS (public distribution system)
• Lack of vocational education, training and skills in the emerging fields where some job opportunities do exist


Urban Poverty Alleviation Initiatives

Implementation of land reforms, spread of education and extension of health care and provision of basic amenities to all could reduce distress migration of rural people to urban areas (Amartya Sen, 2006) and help mitigation of urban poverty. Government of India (GoI) did initiate some development programs with a view to reduce urban poverty as well. Such programs are complemented by other actions initiated by international development agencies and NGOs. Some such programs include the following:

• Emphasis on vocationalization of education, training and skill development
• Nehru Rojgar Yojana
• Self Employment Programs for Urban Poor
• Self Employment Programs for Urban Educated Youth
• Prime Minister’s Rojgar Yojana
• National Social Assistance Program
• Program for Urban Basis Services by the Poor
• Prime Minister’s Integrated Urban Poverty Eradication Program
• Swarna Jayanthi Sahari Rojgar Yojana
• Mid Day Meal Scheme (MDMS)

Alternate Development Paradigm
People’s development is a function of inclusion of positive factors and exclusion of negatives. It is a continuous process where in the positives and negatives keep changing their polarities which require constant corrections. There are four main factors of development by inclusion or exclusion by appropriate selection (India SDR, 2006). They include:

• Socio-politico system that includes knowledge, technology, capital, labour (skills), market and accessibility and affordability to the people
• Societal values, cultures and ethics conducive for the growth and development of people
• Public-Private (Government-NGO) development initiatives and intervention programs aimed at people’s development
• Perception of development as a process of urbanization and provision of urban amenities to rural areas (PURA) to bridge the gap between rural-urban divide

Rural Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: Realization Effective by Networking of Institutions, Programs, Policies and Social Auditing
Poverty, in the country, is acute, chronic, widespread and multidimensional in character. That is why, individual programs, initiated by sectarian approach, does not yield desirable results. When poverty is tackled by one-dimension or by one-definition, it raises its head most ferociously by many other dimensions or by many other definitions. And, in the process, each program, including capital (aid) and labour (poverty ridden target groups) coupled with dysfunctional bureaucracy and NGOs, did develop vested interests and status-quo in the fashion of a psychology of dependency syndrome. Such dependency syndrome, with vested interests and status-quo, does limit further social development. It is therefore essential to break the status-quo, with vested interests and dependency syndrome, to encourage continuous social development. This is better accomplished by holistic (integrated) and cybernetic (self-regulating) approach. Such organic networking of systems will empower the rural mass as masters of their own destiny. Capital, labour, technology and markets must be held accountable to the public good and harmonize with each other. Constitutional laws and international treaties, as public policy options, must be harmonized with the laws of political-economy of the nation states in addition to be in harmony with the laws of nature. Constitution of India, Environment Protection Act, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, Right to Information Act, Right to Education, Employment and Decent Living with Human Dignity and such other Judicial Directives and Policy Guidelines etc are the constitutional laws which could be creatively applied in the service of rural empowerment. Rural empowerment and poverty reduction is effectively realized by networking of institutions, programs, policies and social auditing (Figure 1). Resolution of rural poverty leads to logical extension of resolution of urban poverty as well. Success of poverty alleviation programs is better guided, by the logistic curve, as desirable template, as illustrated in Figure 2. Accordingly, in the course of time, there should be none or the least number of the target groups, available as beneficiaries of the poverty alleviation programs.

Today, there are about 81% of people, in the country, living on the verge of poverty, whose percapita income is $2 or less a day. To reduce this figure even exponentially from 81% to the minimum tolerable size, say 0-1% of population, it may take a 50 year effort for the country (Figure 2). That could be achieved, if and only if, the system of dependency syndrome, with vested interests and status-quo, is replaced by a system of win-win relationship. This demands for structural reforms, including land reforms in a more radical manner, that ensures dialectical relationship, among all the people, in the process of production, distribution and consumption of material wealth. The guiding principle is to maximize the output per workforce which is the product of two factor ratios as illustrated below:

Op/Wf = (Op/Ha) x (Ha/Wf).

Where Op= Output
Wf= Workforce
Ha= Hectare of land

One could maximize output per hectare of land by ensuring optimal utilization of resources like capital, skill, knowledge, scientific and technological inputs, markets, supply and demand, costs and prices. In the like manner, the workforce is better motivated, for achieving higher outputs, by ensuring minimum economic size of hectare of land. The workforce could be defined as a family of tilling farmers or group of farmers or co-operatives of farmers and workers or corporates. This relationship ensures integration of agriculture with industry and workforce with land and other factors of production viz., capital, technology and markets. Land reform should ensure a minimum economic size of land per workforce, say 5-10 hectares. Ensuring land to the tillers promote personality development of individual farmers. It is an essential condition for self-initiatives, entrepreneurship, inventions and innovations.

Agriculture, industry and trade, both domestic and global, should play complementary roles. People’s participation in decision making and implementation of development programs should be encouraged. The laws of capital, technology and labour (human will) should be harmonized, by judicious blend of constitutional laws with international treaties. Or else, the laws of capital and technology, left to themselves, tend to be expansive and monopolistic and distort the true meanings of human will, liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG). The true meanings of liberalization, privatization and globalization is the liberation of people from all form of inhibitions and encourage them for inclusiveness, self-initiatives and reaching global markets over and above the developed domestic markets. It should be based on the principles of comparative advantages, peace and democracy, secularism, empowerment, entitlement, lawfulness and make the rules work for the benefit of one and all in the society.

References

Abdul Kalam APJ (2006), Media as a Partner in National Development, The Hindu, 27 November, p10.
Amartya Sen (2006), Don’t Rely on Market Economy for Development, The Hindu, 21 December, p13.
Amit Bhaduri (2006), Development with Dignity, National Book Trust, India, New Delhi.
Chronicle India (2006), Chronicle Books, New Delhi.
Chronicle Year Book (2006), Chronicle Books, New Delhi.
Joseph Stiglitz (2007), Development is about Transforming Lives, not just Economies, The Hindu, 5 January, p12.
Kim Hak-Su (2006), The Goal: A Poverty Free South Asia, The Hindu, 30 November, p11.
HDR (2001), Human Development Report, UNDP/Oxford University Press, New York.
HDR (2003), Human Development Report, UNDP/Oxford University Press, New York.
HDR (2005), Human Development Report, UNDP/Oxford University Press, New York.
India SDR (2006), India Social Development Report, Council for Social Development/Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Kandeh K Yunkella (2007), Heavy Industries to South-South Co-operation, The Hindu, 12 February, p.10.
Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke (2002), Blue Gold, Left Word Books, New Delhi.
Nirmala Lakshman (2007), Tackling the Crisis of Child Malnutrition, The Hindu, 26 February, p10.
Raj Kumar C (2007), Poverty, Human Rights and Development, The Hindu, 22 February, p10.
Rupe (2006), Research Unit for Political Economy, Mumbai, Aspects of India’s Economy, No.42, December, p.41.
Subramanian KK (2005), Kerala’s Recent Development Experience, Abstracts, Vol 3, International Congress on Kerala Studies, AKG Center for Research and Studies, Trivandrum, 9-11 December, pp.171-195.
Suresh Prabhu (2007), A Common Minimum Program for the Nation, The Hindu, 23 January.
The Hindu (2006), 27 March, p.22.
The Hindu (2007), 29 January, p.2.
WDR (2006), World Development Report, World Bank/Oxford University Press, New Delhi.