2011-10-25 Tamil Nadu Socioeconomic Report

Socioeconomic Study of 31 Villages in Gummidipoondi & Uthukottai

Thaluks, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu

Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development

New Delhi

2010-11

2

About Forrad

The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD) was established in January 1980. The

Foundation’s objective is to promote, support, guide and coordinate projects, programmes and schemes relating

to development of human and natural resources. Over the last 31 years, FORRAD has created a network of more

than 450 grassroots organizations in rural areas spread over Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Orissa,

Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The emphasis

has been on encouraging projects that contribute significantly to the enhancement of individual and community

potential in their respective areas. Conservation of environment including land and water and relevant

development activities, promotion of technical skill leading to self- employment, management of renewable

natural resources and innovations in developing community micro-hydel generation systems. FORRAD

endeavours to emphasize women’s involvement in planning process, development and management of schemes

and promoting women’s leadership in all activity fields. The Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development

is registered as a Public Charitable Trust.

124-A/6 – Second Floor

Katwaria Sarai

New Delhi 110016

Ph# +91 11 2685 2476

[email protected]

www.forrad.org

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 3 Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................................... 4 Contributors ............................................................................................................................... 5

Note on the Authors ........................................................................................................... 6 Executive Summary and Key Findings...................................................................................... 7

Background ........................................................................................................................ 7 Structure of the Survey Report .......................................................................................... 7 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 8

Section I ................................................................................................................................... 10

Survey Sample ..................................................................................................................... 10

Survey Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10 Selection of Villages ........................................................................................................ 11 Selection and Training of Enumerators ........................................................................... 11 Preparation of Survey Instrument .................................................................................... 11 Commencement of the Survey ......................................................................................... 12

Verification ...................................................................................................................... 12 Report Writing ................................................................................................................. 12

Limitations of the Survey..................................................................................................... 12 Emphasis on quantitative data ......................................................................................... 12

Control Group .................................................................................................................. 13 Quality Control ................................................................................................................ 13

Section II .................................................................................................................................. 14 Contextual Analysis ............................................................................................................. 14

Human Development Indicators in India ......................................................................... 14 Economic Overview......................................................................................................... 17 Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction ............................................ 19

Corporate Social Responsibility in India ......................................................................... 19 Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India................. 23

Section III................................................................................................................................. 25 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 25

Social Composition of the Villages ................................................................................. 25 Demographics .................................................................................................................. 26

Income, Poverty and Indebtedness .................................................................................. 28 Economic Well-being ...................................................................................................... 32

Education ......................................................................................................................... 34 Employment & Occupations ............................................................................................ 35 Land Ownership and Usage ............................................................................................. 37 Animal Husbandry ........................................................................................................... 39 Water ................................................................................................................................ 40

Health & Disability .......................................................................................................... 41 Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents ..................................................... 41

Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English) ........................................................................... 44 Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil) ............................................................................ 52

Annexure III: Survey Data ....................................................................................................... 58

4

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed ................................................................................. 10 Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community .............................................................. 29 Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community ............................................................................... 29

Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community ................................................. 33 Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community ................................................. 33 Table 6: Education Level by Community ................................................................................ 34 Table 7: Education Level by Gender ....................................................................................... 34 Table 8: Current Education Status by Age .............................................................................. 35

Table 9: Grazing Land by Village ........................................................................................... 38

Table 10: Water Uses by Source .............................................................................................. 40

Table 11: Physical Impairments............................................................................................... 41 Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community ............................................................ 43

Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community ............................................................. 25 Figure 2: Household Size by Community ................................................................................ 27

Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community .............................................................................. 28 Figure 4: Gender by Age Group .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community ................................................ 29 Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community................................................................................... 30

Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community .............................................................................. 31 Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community ................................................................................ 32

Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community................................................................... 33 Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community....................................................................... 36

Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community................................................................... 36 Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community ............................................................................ 37 Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution .................................................................................. 39

Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community ................................................................... 39

5

Contributors

Authors: Julian Parr, Kanika Satyanand, Susan Abraham

Editor: Amit Mahanti

Data Analyst: Rakesh Khowal

Research Coordinator (Tamil Nadu): Simon Joseph

Field Coordinator: T Annadurai

Enumerators: Anasuya S, Arul N, Arulselvi N, Asha D, Ashok R, Bhaskar S,

Bhuwaneswari R, Charles S, Dhanalakshmi A, Dillikumar K, Gokulan K, Gopi T, Goutham

C, Gunasundar A, Jayalakshmi K, Justin V, Justin D, Kalpana K, Kripa N, Kumar S, Kannan,

Kuppan N, Lingasamy A, Madhan V, Mahesh K, Manjupriya J, Mohan G, Mohanbabu K,

Muniratnam S, Parimala M, Partheban I, Paulraja R, Poomkothai, Poongodi L, Sangeetha S,

Saravanan M, Sathish N, Silambarasan G, Tamilselvi R, Thirupathy T.K, Thiruvarasu P,

Thyagu J, Usha M

Desk Verification Team: M Sangeetha, J Kavitha

Field Verification Team: J Deepika, D Durgadevi, S Ambedkar, U Vignesh Kumar

Data Entry: Equus Technology Solutions (P) Ltd

Design and Layout: Neelima Rao

Resource Persons for the Training of Enumerators: D Nirmal Kennedy, T.C.A

Srinivasaramanujan, R Ravanan, Balamuthumurugan

FORRAD expresses its gratitude to all the households who participated in the survey.

6

Note on the Authors

Julian Parr is an international expert on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and private

sector partnerships. He holds a post-graduate degree in Economic Development from the

School of Oriental and African Studies. His specialisations include international labour law

and supply chain analysis in the informal sector, and the macro-economic impacts of

epidemics on transition economies. He has written a number of papers on the topic of CSR

and has previously advised companies such as BP, Rio Tinto, Coca Cola, Microsoft,

McKinsey and Accenture on inward social investment strategies in transition economies. He

is former Director, Asia and the Middle East for the International Business Leaders Forum

(IBLF), Chief Technical Advisor to the ILO and Regional Director for Oxfam GB South

Asia. He lives in New Delhi.

Kanika Satyanand is Programme Advisor and a member of the board of trustees of the

Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD). She holds a post-graduate

degree in Sociology from Delhi University. She has spent most of her working life, spanning

31 years, in the not-for-profit sector. During a stint with the Foundation for Organisational

Research (FORE) she managed and authored action research studies for public sector

undertakings including BHEL, ONGC, SAIL and IPCL in the area of Human Resource

Development and Organisational Design. She is former Executive Director of SRUTI, where

for 15 years she shaped and directed the organisation’s programmes in support of grass root

struggles and people’s movements throughout India. Apart from her engagement with

FORRAD, she currently holds positions on the board of The Hunger Project, India as its

chairperson, and SRUTI. She has been co-editor and contributing author for two all-India

studies: “India’s Artisans – a Status report” and “Seen but not Heard – India’s marginalised,

neglected & vulnerable children”.

Susan Abraham is the director of FORRAD. She holds a post-graduate degree in

International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies,

London. Her courses included International Law, Economics and Boundary Dispute

Resolution. Her work, over the past 20 years, has largely focussed itself around facilitating

community based rural development initiatives around the country. Her previous

engagements have included work with the Barefoot College, Tilonia, Rajasthan, Oxfam’s

Violence Mitigation and Amelioration Project, the Aman Trust, New Delhi and various

independent assignments.

7

Executive Summary and Key Findings

Background

A socio-economic survey of 5724 households in 31 villages of Gummidipoondi and

Uthukottai thaluks (Sriperumbudur parliamentary constituency in Thiruvallur District, Tamil

Nadu) was conducted by Foundation for Rural Recovery and Development (FORRAD), New

Delhi. The survey locations included villages that were on the periphery of an industrial park

proposed by SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu) in the area. The

survey gathered empirical data on demographics, natural resource ownership and usage,

education, health and employment status, poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of

social well-being. The objective behind the survey was to use the data to inform Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes that could address pressing local concerns and

improve the living standards of the local population.

The principal survey instrument was a questionnaire developed by FORRAD in consultation

with the survey team and statisticians based in Chennai. The survey was conducted over a

period of two months between August and October 2010. The survey team consisted of 43

enumerators from the area. They were supervised by a field coordinator. External resource

persons were brought in to train the enumerators in data collection. Teams, external to the

area, conducted desk and field verification of the data. The task of data entry was given to a

firm in Chennai, The research coordinator liaised between the enumerators, the verification

teams, the data entry agency and FORRAD. The final data analysis was done in Delhi by a

statistician and the authors of this report.

Structure of the Survey Report

This report has been divided into four sections. The first section lists the villages and

households that form the survey sample. It also outlines the rationale behind the villages

chosen for the survey as well as the selection and training of enumerators. The nature of

survey tools employed and methods of data collection, verification and analysis have also

been stated here. In addition, details of the kind of training given to the enumerators as well

as training personnel and logistics have been outlined.

The second section locates the proposed project site and impact area in Gummidipoondi and

Uthukottai thaluks, against the larger framework of development needs in India, and the

corresponding need for responsible corporate intervention. This section analyzes the

structural reasons for chronic poverty and inequality in India seen in the light of economic

growth in the country post-liberalization in the early 1990s. It tries to analyze the particular

impact that such growth has had on the agricultural sector, while also examining the

relationship between the growth of the private sector and sustainable development. The

section also provides an historical overview of Corporate Social Responsibility models and

practices in the country and looks at factors that have contributed to the growth of CSR since

the 1990s. It outlines the various issues and challenges that private companies have been

faced with when trying to enforce meaningful CSR interventions and practices in the areas

where they are located. The section also provides an overview of institutional and policy

frameworks around CSR in India.

The third section collates and analyses the household survey findings based on various

parameters. It provides an analysis of social composition and demographic patterns in the

8

area; income, expenditure and indebtedness trends; and the status of education and

employment among the local population. Land ownership and usage patterns, access to health

services and government schemes, availability of drinking and agricultural water, and the

status of available livestock in the villages have also been discussed here. This section tries to

isolate larger trends in order to identify possible areas of intervention that are of critical

importance in the area.

Based on the survey findings and analysis, the fourth section of the report outlines

considerations to be kept in mind for any development interventions in the area. This

becomes especially important given the number of industries that are proposed here. The

baseline data collected through this survey could also be used to gauge the impact of

development interventions made by industrial units in the area. While making

recommendations for investment in local infrastructure development and strengthening

access to primary services, the report also lays stress on the need for all stakeholders – local

communities, civil society organizations, government agencies and industry – to work in

tandem with each other, so as to ensure need-based and equitable growth in the area. The

report also recognizes the need for imaginative interventions in various sectors – agriculture,

health, livelihood, and natural resource management among others – in ways that do not

undermine existing government and non-government systems. Rather, efforts should be

directed towards augmenting these systems to ensure better service delivery and a higher

standard of living for the local population.

The survey instrument in Tamil and its English translation have been provided in the

annexures at the end of the report. The disaggregated data that was collected in the course of

the survey have also been given.

Key Findings

Chronic Poverty: Using World Bank benchmarks, 98 % of the households are poor; and 82%

extremely poor, subsisting on per capita daily incomes of under Rs. 45.50 or $1 a day. The

survey did not reveal any marked income disparities between the various communities

surveyed.

Indebtedness: With expenditure often exceeding income, 60% of families in the area have a

debt burden. The grip of the moneylender continues to be strong. Among landholding

families, a majority of loans were taken for agriculture, while the majority of loans among

non-landholding families were for marriages. 16% of the loans taken in the area were for

medical reasons.

Land ownership: Only 32% of the households own agricultural land. Most of the land is held

by the BC and MBC households.

Dependence on Land: One of the key findings is that the bulk of the population is totally

dependent on the land for livelihood, energy and water.

Energy: Despite the villages being electrified and having gas connections, 83% of the

households depend on fuel wood for cooking.

Water: The villages are predominantly dependent on river and rain-fed lakes/eris and

ponds for irrigation and livestock. 67% of the households depend on these eris for

agriculture while 53% depend on these for their livestock requirements. The eris also

9

contribute significantly to the recharging of ground water. Water, though abundant at

present, could come under threat on account of over-use and pollution from industries

in the area. This could be compounded by the already intensive use of chemical

fertilizers and pesticides for agriculture, Furthermore, the storage capacity of the lakes

in the area is vastly reduced due to siltation and growth of weeds. Poor maintenance

of irrigation channels has also considerably reduced their efficiency, thereby affecting

agricultural output. Traditional irrigation channels are now being replaced by tube-

wells.

Livelihood and unemployment: Outside of agriculture and casual agricultural labour,

livelihood options are virtually non-existent. Unemployment is high at 13% and there

is a high level of underemployment as most of the casual labour is linked to

agricultural cycles and seasonal jobs.

Vulnerable segments: There are a total of 1045 individuals in the area who are above the age

of 60. There are 1069 widows in these villages, compared to only 14 widowers. Of all the

communities in the area, the tribal Irulars are the most disadvantaged group.

Literacy, enrollment and educational attainment: Literacy is at 92% and school enrollment is

high at 96%. 931 graduates and 201 post-graduates were found within the sample.

Connectivity: Despite a network of tarred roads, interconnectivity is poor due to low

ownership of private vehicles (only about 25% of the households own some form of

transport) and an inadequate public transport system.

Government schemes: Apart from MNREGA and housing assistance, government welfare

schemes were grossly under-utilized. 64% households use MNREGA while only 1% uses

education and agriculture schemes.

Overall economic indicators: The overall economic indicators seem satisfactory although this

is not indicative of their actual economic status. For example, while 90% of the households

own televisions, most of these are post-election handouts. 94% have electricity connections

but the electricity supply is generally erratic. Because of this irregularity, 97% of the

households still depend on kerosene for lighting.

Sanitation: 90% of the households who were surveyed do not use toilets.

10

Section I Survey Sample

A total of 30 villages and hamlets were surveyed (Table 1).1 The villages are located in

Gummidipoondi and Uthukottai thaluks, which fall within the Sriperumbudur parliamentary

constituency of the Thiruvallur District in Tamil Nadu.

Table 1: Villages and Hamlets Surveyed

Thaluk Village/Hamlet Revenue Village No of Families

Gummidipoondi

Anna Nagar Kannankottai 59

Kannankottai Kannankottai 474

G.R.Kandigai Karadiputhur 87

Karadiputhur Karadiputhur 245

Aaramani Kollanoor 38

Kollanoor Kollanoor 119

Anjamedu Mukkarampakkam 66

Annavaram Colony Mukkarampakkam 223

Chandirapuram Mukkarampakkam 53

Mambedu Mukkarampakkam 34

Mukkarampakkam Mukkarampakkam 450

Pudhukuppam Mukkarampakkam 28

Villiyar Colony Mukkarampakkam 43

Thervoy Thervoy 799

Uthukottai

Kakkavakkam Kakkavakkam 293

Lachivakkam Lachivakkam 370

Perambur Lachivakkam 104

Eri Colony Palavakkam 45

JJ Nagar Palavakkam 183

Palavakkam Palavakkam 289

Sathya Nagar Palavakkam 158

Seenikuppam Seenikuppam 55

Sengarai Sengarai2 298

Kizhkarmanur Soolameni 130

Panjali Nagar Soolameni 68

Soolameni Soolameni 276

Kazadai Sulaimani 30

Thandalam Thandalam 394

DR Kuppam Thunpakkam 84

Vannag Kuppam Vannagkuppam 229

Total 5724

Survey Methodology

A door-to-door survey of 5,724 households was conducted from August to October 2011 in

31 villages and hamlets in the Uthukottai and Gummidipoondi blocks of the Thiruvallur

1 A village is a clustered human settlement, usually defined as being larger than a hamlet and smaller than a town. A village

in India contains anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand people. A hamlet is a section of a village, usually a cluster

removed from the main village. The population of a hamlet usually belongs to a single community. 2 The hamlet of Thambunaidu Palayam has been merged with Sengarai for purposes of the analysis.

11

District in Tamil Nadu. The primary aim of this survey was to gather quantitative data around

demographics, natural resource ownership and usage, education, health and employment,

poverty and indebtedness and other indicators of economic well-being in the area. There were

no focused group discussions, and except where specifically mentioned, no anecdotal

evidence was used in the gathering of data or for analysis.

Selection of Villages

The scope of the survey included all the villages that were located in and around the proposed

industrial site and along the access roads to the site. The objective was to understand the

socio-economic status of the area as a whole, so that an integrated approach to development

of the area could be envisioned. It was, therefore, a conscious choice to include villages that

would be directly affected by proposed industrialization.

Selection and Training of Enumerators

The enumerators were young people from the survey villages. The reason behind choosing

them was to ensure authenticity as well as ownership over the information gathered. The first

training of enumerators was conducted on 9 and 10 February 2010 in Chennai. A total of 27

out of 29 originally identified enumerators participated in the training.

The training was designed to address:

The purpose of the survey

Survey methodology

Anticipated outcomes

The importance of information as a tool for change

Practical training through a mock survey

The mock survey was to enable practical application of the learning by the trainees as well as

to refine the survey instrument. A core group from amongst the trainees was identified to

conduct the pilot using the refined instrument.

The resource persons for the training included representatives from local NGOs, academics,

retired IAS officers, statisticians, and grassroots activists from other parts of Tamil Nadu. The

resource people emphasised the importance of accuracy in the data collection.

The second training of enumerators was conducted in Palavakkam on 27 February 2010. The

date, venue and list of the 18 trainees were drawn up in consultation with representatives

from Thervoy Gramam Munnetra Nala Sangam (TGMNS). FORRAD and TGMNS also

decided to:

a) extend the survey to include the other surrounding villages, and

b) to include enumerators from the other villages

Preparation of Survey Instrument

The survey questionnaire contained questions that are standard to a socio-economic survey. It

included additional questions on the use of natural resources and on education, skills and

training. The first draft prepared by the FORRAD staff in Delhi was further refined by the

enumerators, the FORRAD project staff and Chennai-based statisticians.

12

Commencement of the Survey

The survey began on 29 July 2010. FORRAD set up a field office in Thandalam (one of the

survey villages) to facilitate the easy collection and delivery of the forms. The enumerators

worked in teams of two – one person conducted interviews while the other recorded the

information.

Verification

Desk Verification: Two persons scrutinised each of the field questionnaires for completion

and consistency. Any gaps detected in the data were returned to the survey team.

Field Verification: 10% of the total sample was cross-checked across households by an

external team of four persons. The field verification was done across villages and across

community groups.

Verification at the Level of Data Entry: The completed forms were delivered to a firm in

Chennai for data entry. The forms were once again checked for completion and consistency.

Forms that were incomplete or incorrect were returned to the enumerators for correction.

Verification at the Level of Data Analysis: The final round of data verification was at the

level of data analysis done in Delhi. Errors in consistency were pointed out and rectified by

the enumerators.

Report Writing

The report was written by three persons – a development economist, a social science

researcher and a community-based rural development worker. The contents of the report were

first ratified by the FORRAD project staff in Tamil Nadu and then by eight persons of the

original survey team.

Limitations of the Survey

Emphasis on quantitative data

Knowledge, Attitude and Behavioural Change: The baseline survey was designed to capture

existing social and economic indicators. What it did not aim to do was to determine existing

knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst the target population. Therefore, although it can

be used to measure economic wellbeing and inclusion, it is less useful as a tool to measure

attitudinal and behavioural change, for example, in relation to caste and gender

discrimination.

Quality of Services: The primarily quantitative survey was able to measure access to services

of the targeted population but not the quality of services. So for example, we know the

number of children attending school and how many schools there are in the project area.

However, we don’t know what the quality of the education being received is.

13

Control Group

For purposes of academic research, the presence of a control group could help in meeting two

important criteria. Firstly, it could reveal if there are any anomalies within the project area

which are specific to that geographical area but not atypical to the District as a whole.

Secondly, when conducting a mid-term review of the baseline, there is nothing to compare

the data to. That is, a similar sample size and geographic area would reveal whether any

social interventions planned by industrial companies were having an impact on social and

economic inclusion. Other agencies, government, private sector and NGOs could be

operating within the area, and this could make it difficult for companies doing CSR to

disaggregate the data in order to legitimately claim to be a change agent for good. However,

for a development agency whose mandate is to implement needs-based development work in

the area, the use of a control group as a means of measuring project effectiveness is unethical.

Quality Control

Quality control was an issue, given that the surveyors were new to the task. There was a high

“spoil” or incompletion rate amongst the initial forms returned. However, this was identified

by both the Desk Officers and triangulated by the Field Workers who were carrying out

quality and accuracy tests on 10% of the sample size. This meant that FORRAD was able to

make corrective action, although it meant that over 4,000 of the questionnaires had to be

revisited to either clarify or complete the questionnaires correctly. Data collection was

slowed down considerably, and this meant an extension in the survey time-line.

14

Section II Contextual Analysis

Human Development Indicators in India

Today, India is the seventh largest economy in the world, primarily due to economic

liberalisation in 1991. Despite making considerable progress in various sectors, poverty still

remains one of the biggest challenges that the country faces. An estimated one-third of the

population (37.2%) lives below the poverty line (people who earn less than $2 a day).3 With a

population of over 1.15 billion, India is the world’s largest democracy and currently the

second most populous country in the world after China. Projections suggest that by 2030, the

population of India will be the largest in the world, pegged at around 1.53 billion.

Other human development indicators such as health, nutrition, and education indicate

medium but inequitable growth, ranking India at 119 on the Human Development Index.4

48% of children under the age of five are underweight (almost double the figure for sub-

Saharan Africa), an indicator that reflects the poor access to nutrition and health-care. Low

literacy levels for women push the human development rating for India even lower. This is

reflected in the Gender Inequality Index that ranks India at 122 globally. Despite an increase

in literacy rates over the last decade, the 66% figure for India is well below the world average

of 84%, making India the country with the largest illiterate population in the world.5 Food

insecurity is still a concern for large parts of the population and this will be further

exacerbated by inflation in the price of food staples.

Poverty has a strong ethnic dimension in India, with minority groups and indigenous peoples

accounting for a disproportionate number of the poor. In India, poverty is also deeply rooted

in the caste system where vulnerable castes are socially and/or economically excluded. The

incidence of poverty amongst Dalits is 1.5 times higher than the national average.6

The main factors for adverse human development indicators in India can be summarised thus:

a) Social Exclusion and Poor Governance: Fundamental laws and acts in India

notwithstanding, exclusion from all spheres of decision-making is core to the

continuing poverty of the most marginalised. A robust civil society and relative

freedom of the press have lent a certain momentum to social and political

mobilisation, but progress remains slow. Making services and pro-poor government

schemes work for the most vulnerable remains one of the key challenges for poverty

eradication in India. To this end, India has actively pushed a decentralisation agenda

over the last two decades through devolution of power to regional and local entities

such as the Panchayati Raj Institutions. Yet, corruption remains rampant, with India

still ranking a poor 87th

on the Corruption Perception Index.7 According to a Global

Compact report, the government’s capacity for law enforcement and implementation

of anti-corruption plans is low, which is one of the factors contributing to relatively

3 World Bank Poverty Database 2010 4 Human Development Report 2010: The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. UNDP 2010. 5 Human Development Report 2010 ibid 6 Oxfam GB Strategic Plan 2010. 7 Transparency International 2010

15

high levels of corruption.8 A lack of transparency in the electoral process, including

the funding of political parties, has clouded the democratic process.

b) Public Services: Health and education indicators clearly reflect that increased funding

does not necessarily benefit the majority of the poor. Although the enrollment rate in

primary education is now just below 90%,9 the figure hides significant rural and urban

disparities – poor children in rural areas have less access to education, and perhaps

more significantly, less access to quality education than their urban counterparts. A

survey of rural districts in North India in 200610

revealed that on average there is no

teaching activity in half of the government primary schools.

Both infant and maternal mortality remain high with India significantly failing to

achieve its own targets set as part of the fourth Millennium Development Goals for

2015. Every year, 2.1 million Indian children die before the age of five.11

Before the 2009 elections, the previous Government of India (which also returned to

power post-elections), made an election promise to allocate 9% of GDP to public

health and education. It has yet to honour this promise and is under pressure from

civil society in campaigns such as “Nine is Mine”.12

Equally, budgetary allocation on

health is still only 1% of GDP instead of the election commitment of 3%. One of the

stated goals of India’s National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) programme, launched

in 2005, is to increase total government health spending from 1% of GDP to 2-3% of

GDP by 2012, the end of the current Eleventh Five-Year Plan period. It must be

mentioned, though, that there was a significant increase in the expenditure from 2004-

05 (Rs. 27704 crore) to 2006-07 (Rs 39046 crore) – a 41% increase.

c) Gender Inequality: The 2011 Census (provisional) reveals that the child sex ratio for

children between 0-6 years in India stands at 914.23 girls for every 1000 boys. This is

a sharp decrease when compared to the 2001 Census, where the figure stood at 927.31

girls for every 1000 boys.13

This is possibly indicative of high female foeticide

figures. Women continue to face discrimination in many spheres – in employment and

in public and personal life. India scores badly on the Global Gender Gap Report,

ranked at 112 globally against 134 countries surveyed.14

This report assesses countries

on the basis of how well they divide available resources and opportunities between

men and women. The assessment was done on the basis of economic participation and

opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival.

On an average, women earn far less than men and are found more in the informal

sector in low-paid and exploitative jobs.15

8 www.indiaagainstcorruption.org 9 UNDP Education Index 2010. 10 This was a 2006 follow up study to the Public Report on Basic Education in India(PROBE), Anuradha De and Jean Drèze,

1999. 11 UNICEF Annual Report 2008 12 Launched by more than 4,500 children in Delhi, India on October 16 2006, the Nine is Mine campaign is a participatory

children's advocacy initiative to call for 9% of the gross domestic product (GDP) to be committed to health and education.

This initiative of children, schools, communities and organisations across 15 states of India is being led by Wada Na Todo

Abhiyan (WNTA – Hindi phrase meaning “Do not break your promise”), a national campaign to hold the government

accountable to its promise to end poverty, social exclusion, and discrimination - toward meeting the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs). 13 Provisional Census Office data, 2011 14 Global Gender Gap Report, World Economic Forum. 2010. 15 “Gender Equality as Smart Economics”, A World Bank Action Plan September 2006

16

d) Employment: India saw a slight (0.3%) rise in unemployment from 10.4% (in 2008) to

10.7% (in 2009)16

. This was due partially to the global recession as well as the new

work force entering the job market. India, as the second largest population globally,

has a startling age demographic where over 50% of its population is under 2517

. It is

expected that in 2020, the average age of an Indian will be 29 years, compared to 37

for China and 48 for Japan. India's labour force is growing at a rate of 2.5% annually,

but employment is growing at only 2.3%. Thus, the country is faced with the

challenge of not only absorbing new entrants to the job market (estimated at seven

million people every year), but also clearing the backlog. Unemployment statistics in

India can often be misleading, as the unorganised sector accounts for over 90% of the

total employment and is characterised by large-scale underemployment, poor working

conditions and poor wages. This is not necessarily reflected in employment statistics.

e) Development-induced displacement: Between 1950 and 2011, there have been a slew

of development projects in India, which have resulted in large-scale displacement

especially among people who belong to marginalized and tribal communities. The

weakness or absence of adequate legislative mechanisms to ensure comprehensive

resettlement and rehabilitation has also exacerbated this phenomenon. Projects around

water, urban infrastructure, transportation, energy, agriculture, industry and forests

have cumulatively had an impact on several indigenous communities. While adivasis

and tribal groups form only 8% of the population, it is believed that between 40-50%

of the forcibly displaced belong to these communities.18

According to an Indian

Social Institute study in 2001, there were an estimated 21.3 million development-

induced displaced persons in the country.19

A more liberal estimate places the number

of people displaced by dams alone at between 21-40 million. As a consequence, the

incidence of landlessness, migration, food insecurity, unemployment and social

disintegration has significantly increased over the years.

f) Exposure to conflict and violence: India faces low-intensity conflict in several areas.

The Naxalite conflict in central and eastern parts of the country and the conflicts in

some states of the Northeast and the Kashmir valley have turned these into areas of

development neglect. Conservative estimates place the number of people who have

been displaced by armed conflict and ethnic and communal violence at 650,000 in

2010.20

This only includes people living in displacement camps. The government has

no comprehensive data of the actual number of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs),

nor do they have any strong legislation that can ensure the provision of basic services

and entitlements. 6746 people (including civilians, security personnel and armed

groups) have lost their lives in armed conflict situations over the last three years.21

g) High exposure to disasters: South Asia is prone to “natural”22

disasters. The cost to

human life is often high due to inadequate shelter and high population density.

Between 1990-2008, an estimated 885,224,000 people were affected by disasters,

16 GoI Ministry of Labour, Labour Report (2009) 17 P.N. Mari Bhat, "Indian Demographic Scenario 2025", Institute of Economic Growth, New Delhi, Discussion Paper No.

27/2001. 18 www.internal-displacement.org 19 Global IDP Database of Norwegian Refugee Council, July 2001 20

www.internal-displacement.org 21 http://www.satp.org 22 Recently the notion of “natural” disasters has been increasingly debated, as disasters are often the result of “man-made”

vulnerability. Disasters are therefore particularly significant to private sector manufacturing and extractive companies.

17

resulting in 534,000 deaths, an average of 30,000 deaths a year.23

With climate

change and rising population densities, damage and exposure to disasters is set to

increase. In India, direct losses incurred on account of natural disasters amount to 2%

of India’s GDP and up to 12% of central government revenues.

h) Climate change: Climate change has the potential to compound existing development

problems and increase pressure on key resources needed to sustain growth. Analysts

predict that altered rainfall patterns will have a severe impact on the agriculture sector

in India, as around three-fifths of cultivated land is rain-fed. Statistics reveal that

rainfall in India has decreased by approximately 5-8% since the 1950s. In India, the

area affected by floods has more than doubled between 1953 and 2003. A rise in sea

levels rise will also have significant impacts on coastal areas in the shape of

inundation, salinity of ground water sources and consequent migration. The poor will

bear the brunt of these disasters, which will only lead to their further marginalization.

It is predicted that India will also host a rising influx of climate refugees. The 2007

floods displaced more than 20 million people in Bangladesh, India and Nepal. It is

predicted that by 2050, 13% of the land mass of southern Bangladesh will be

submerged, displacing between 15-20 million people.24

The subsequent migration

could put pressure on land and other resources in the sub-continent, including India.

i) Water: The availability of water in India is already under threat on two accounts –

firstly, variability in supply and growing demand due to population growth,

industrialisation and urbanization,25

and secondly, overexploitation of water

resources. The shortage of potable water is a reality in rural and increasingly in urban

areas of India. Per capita water availability has been decreasing steadily relative to

demand since the 1940s.26

Water scarcity will have a major impact on food security in

the country. Increasing the acreage of intensive agriculture requires irrigation and

fresh water usage from river basins that have already been stretched to the limits, with

over 500 million people heavily dependent on them across the country. Glacial melt

will increase the risks of flooding and result in water shortage in the long term. The

geopolitics of access to water both across the region and interstate will be an

additional source of conflict.

j) Poor Regional Integration: Lack of infrastructure, poor connectivity and access to

markets means that there is less than 7% interregional trade across the SAARC

region, impeding economic growth.

Economic Overview

During the 1990s, India’s economy grew rapidly at about 7% annually. Sustained economic

growth has translated into a reduction of poverty from 58% in 1974 to 37% in 2010.27

However, unlike South East Asia, economic growth in India has not translated into a

reduction of the number of people living in absolute poverty, due to the inequitable

distribution of newly acquired wealth. India’s development challenges have been heightened

by the global economic crisis of 2007-09. Although India’s economy grew at 6.1% in the last

23 Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and United Nations World Population Prospectus. 24 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change study. 25 By 2020 it is estimated that 200 million new water connections will be required to cope with urban demand. “India in

2020” Booz & Co. (2010) and 40% of India’s population will be urbanised by 2030 [Mckinsey Global Institute 2010]. 26 World Bank 2009. 27 World Bank Poverty Database 2010

18

quarter of 2010 (which was among the highest growth rates in the world), this still represents

a significant dip from the peak of 9.7% growth attained in the fiscal year 2006-07.28

Retail

inflation is running at about 10% per annum,29

food prices are rising at around 18%, and the

external trade deficit is more than 5% of GDP. Interest rates were lowered to stimulate the

economy after global recession.

However, it is well-established that a sustained run of low interest rates accompanied by high

consumer prices leads to overinvestment in real estate, creating a bubble that is inherently

unstable. An added concern is the widening gap between the rich/middle classes and the poor,

with the 100 wealthiest Indians having a net worth equal to 25% of India's GDP.30

The divide

between the richer and poorer Indian states adds to the economic disparities and

contradictions. It is projected that India’s population will overtake China by 2020.31

Therefore India’s capacity to generate and sustain economic growth will become even more

critical in the face of such a sharp increase in population.

Approximately 70% of India’s poor live in rural areas. Agriculture remains India’s principal

occupation, employing over 60% of the labour force. However, growth and investment in the

agricultural sector has significantly slowed down over the last two decades. Per capita growth

in agricultural productivity is less than 2%, thus contributing only around 22% of GDP

despite employing over 60% of the labour force. Increasing marginalisation of small farmers,

the pressures of population on land, and land acquisition have resulted in an expansion of the

number of landless agricultural wage labourers and seasonal economic migrants. Internal

economic migration from poor to less poor states for seasonal work is massive, with an

estimated 38 million workers migrating across India annually.32

These labourers are highly

vulnerable to exploitation, and estimates suggest that 5 million of them are bonded through

indebtedness to unscrupulous employers.33

In the last decade, there has been a marked leaning within the government towards pro-poor

policies to ensure better access to health, education and livelihoods, and provide social

security benefits for the very poor. Recent acts designed to widen the social security net have

included the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA),

(2005) that aims at guaranteeing hundred days of wage-employment in a financial year to at

least one adult member of a rural household who volunteers to do unskilled manual work.

The Right to Information Act (2005) has also provided a powerful tool to citizens, ensuring

them access to government records. However, the effective implementation of these acts,

especially MNREGA, remains a major challenge, on account of inadequate resource

allocation, inefficiencies, and corruption amongst the bureaucracy and political classes.

Prosecution under various acts designed to protect the poor, such as the Bonded Labour

(Abolition) Act 1976 and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005), is rare.

Furthermore, unless backed by civil society support, these acts are rarely utilised by the most

marginalised.

28 World Bank. India Country Overview, December 2010 29 “Economic Crisises Are Boring, Here Today And Here Tomorrow As Well”. Roger Nightingale Associates Economic

Analysis December 2010 30 AFP wire 11th January 2011. 31 Population Foundation of India/Population Reference Bureau: “The Future Population of India: A Long Range

Demographic View” August 2007 32 International Labour Organisation (ILO) Labour Report 2009. 33 ILO ibid.

19

Private Sector in India with Relation to Poverty Reduction

The private sector in India has been growing rapidly since economic liberalisation in 1991.

India has seen the emergence of strong indigenous private firms, predominantly in the area of

information technology, steel, construction and manufacturing and service sectors such as the

tourism and hotel industry and Business Process Outsourcing. The private sector has

contributed significantly to India’s economic growth and employment creation across the

country. However, one of the major challenges for this sector is sustaining this growth.

Urbanisation, industrialisation and a massive deficit in energy have already resulted in

immense pressure on resources and the environment. New towns have mushroomed and

slums have proliferated in urban metropolises due to the scarcity of low-cost housing and

lack of urban planning.

Some leading companies have begun evincing interest in issues of sustainable development

and could spearhead significant changes in India. However, there are several hurdles. Only 4-

6% of the economy is in the formal sector. A bulk of industry consists of small enterprises,

which remain largely unregulated. This fragmentation makes them almost impossible to

audit. Therefore, enforcing compliance with international and national standards across the

industrial spectrum will be an uphill task. Forcible acquisition of land to build factories and

industrial units is increasingly creating tension between industrialists and farmers. Many

industries, particularly in the mining and extractive sectors, have appalling reputations with

regard to pollution. This is further exacerbated by the surging demand for energy, most likely

to be met by low-grade “brown” coal, the most polluting source of energy. The private

sector’s collusion with government has played a significant role in perpetuating corruption

with a number of high-level corporate corruption cases dominating the business press since

the late 1990s.34

Corporate Social Responsibility in India

Responsible business practice has existed since the rise of industrialisation. However, it

tended to follow a business philanthropic model developed in the 18th

century by companies

such as Cadbury-Fry and Ford. In India, it was spearheaded by companies such as Tata, Modi

and Birla. It was during the early 1990s that pressure was put on companies to be more

transparent and accountable for financial and environmental auditing, as well as to implement

social auditing.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) can be defined for the purposes of this report as:

“The continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to

economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their

families as well as of the local community and society at large.”

[World Business Council for Sustainable Development: 1996]

The approach to corporate responsibility in the mid-1990s was shaped by the following

factors:

34

Commencing with the Bofors scandal in the late 1980s, the collapse of Enron in the 1990s, and a recent spate of cases in

the IT and telecom sectors, notably, the Satyam case and irregularities in 2G Spectrum allocation.

20

An altered global economic landscape that included the rise of emerging transition

economies such as India and China and the emergence of a new Europe after the

expansion of the European Union.

An increase in global conflicts that threatened business in developing markets and the

collapse of old regimes that destabilised existing ones.

The contradiction between increased wealth alongside poverty and exclusion that

contributed to political tensions at a national level in a number of low-income

economies.

Increased economic migration that led to the violation of international labour law and

exploitation of cheap labour coupled with government corruption, an unskilled

workforce and local legislation (or lack thereof).

Escalating human rights violations in developing economies, due to outsourcing and

subcontracting labour into the unregulated economy to reduce the costs.

Environmental damage coupled with shrinking natural resources.

Increasingly pervasive corruption.

A rise in stakeholders’ expectations and consumer pressure as awareness of fair trade,

ethical sourcing and corporate environmental damage were highlighted by the media.

This was coupled with an expansion in the definition of stakeholders from simply

shareholders to employees, customers, investors and local communities.

The advent of new media such as the internet and mobile phones, leading to greater

transparency and accountability.

An expansion of civil society and a proliferation of NGOs, creating a new dynamic of

corporate social responsibility in the public consciousness.

In the global context, more institutions and people were expected to have a legitimate role in

contributing to sustainable development. Many of these institutions also became aware of

their responsibilities in this enterprise. The rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships reflected the

growing appreciation of the need for and the opportunities of collaborative action. It reflected

an understanding of the benefits of involving a broad range of different stakeholder groups in

development projects and the risks of not doing so. However, CSR as a fledgling social

science was not without a whole range of issues and challenges, which can be summarised

thus:

The boundaries of responsibility: How far down a company supply chain should a

parent company be accountable and how far beyond statutory compliance should a

company be obliged to go? This would include labour conditions in supply chains,

technical disaster and relocation due to market collapse.

Setting and meeting standards: There has been a proliferation of auditing tools and

voluntary codes of conduct that companies are being asked to subscribe to.

Building trust and confidence: The widely held perception of the private sector being

unethical, as brought out in opinion polls.35

Governance and corruption: (see above on the range of high level corporate

corruption scandals in the 1990s).

Local economic development: Investing locally in terms of employment and

infrastructure.

35 In 2002, Americans (34%) regarded CEOs as more ethical than they did in 2009. In fact, the percentage of Americans who

regarded CEOs as ethical dropped to 22%. The figures revealed that 66% American regard CEOs as corrupt. (American

Enterprise Institute Report, March 2010)

21

Social inclusion: A growing understanding that one could not have “islands of

economic success in a sea of poverty.” In chronically poor countries, ring fencing

business operations with high security were leading to an abuse of human rights.

Environmental protection: A range of high profile environmental disasters, brought

this into sharp relief.

Emerging population issues: Quest for new markets with a population “dividend” in

transition economies and an aging population in traditional markets such as Europe

and America.

Making partnerships work: Civil society and the public and private sectors spoke very

different languages and a great deal of distrust existed between the sectors.

The business case for social investment includes

Improved operational efficiency.

Increased standards/reliability in the supply chain.

Employee motivation / loyalty / productivity.

Strengthening the ‘license to operate’.

Strengthening corporate brand and reputation.

Market development and attracting investment.

CSR is still relatively nascent in India. Although there is a long history of corporate

philanthropy, this has usually taken the form of foundations (eligible for tax breaks) or

hospitals and schools set up in the memory of company founders. In India, companies

account for just 10% of charity funding, compared with 75% percent in the United States.

The CSR agenda in India had initially been driven by multinational corporations (MNCs)

sourcing out of India in the manufacturing sectors. Child and bonded labour in supply chains,

in addition to other violations of labour standards (including health and safety in the work

place, enforced overtime, and freedom of association), were increasingly becoming concerns

for consumers and the press, predominantly in Europe and America, the two main export

markets for India. This, coupled with a number of corporate corruption scandals, and India’s

desire to be a player on the global stage has driven corporations to compliance. CSR is still

viewed as a very Western concept and a tool to create barriers to exclude India from the

global trade market. The other grouse is that compliance comes at a cost in terms of social,

environmental, and infrastructural investment and meeting labour standards.

Since the late 1990s, India has tried to indigenise a range of voluntary codes of conduct and

make them culturally specific. This has been led mainly by industry associations such as the

Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), India’s largest industry and business association; the

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and Associated Chambers

of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM). Although they have now reinvented

themselves as CSR advisory agents, they still remain deeply conservative. Their primary

raison d’être is to promote Indian business. However, CII did develop the first voluntary

code of corporate governance, “Desirable Corporate Governance: A Code,” established in

April 1998. A National Foundation for Corporate Governance (NFCG) has been established

by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This is a partnership with the Confederation of Indian

Industry (CII), the Institute of Company Secretaries of India (ICSI) and the Institute of

Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI). The purpose of the National Foundation for

Corporate Governance is to promote better corporate governance practices in India towards

achieving stability and growth. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) has also

established the Business Council for Sustainable Development.

22

In 1997, the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) established the Business

Community Foundation (BCF),36

a business coalition comprising large Indian companies and

MNCs investing in India. The intention behind this foundation was to work both in

partnership and share good practices, as well as document private sector/NGO partnerships

through case studies. IBLF also supported an Action Aid initiative, Partners in Change,37

to

develop case study material and conduct impact evaluations. There is now a proliferation of

CSR consultants, not-for-profit agencies and large consulting agencies such as Accenture,

Development Partners, and Pricewaterhouse Cooper that view India as a lucrative market to

guide large companies through the complexity of CSR. Large international bilateral aid

agencies have also been examining the role of the private sector as a key agency in poverty

eradication in India and CSR as a means of achieving this. Both the UK Department for

International Development (DIFD) and the German Technical Aid agency GTZ have been

spearheading CSR initiatives with Indian companies and inward investors.

India is a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and has ratified 40 of the

ILO conventions. However, India has not ratified four of the ILO core conventions which

have implications for CSR in India:

087 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (1948)

098 Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining (1949)

138 Minimum Age Convention (1973)

182 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (1999)

India has the world’s highest number of child labourers under 14 years and according to

UNICEF, insufficient attention has been given in India to eliminate the worst forms of child

labour. The 1986 child labour law does not cover children in all sectors.

Although CSR in India has been spearheaded by MNCs and large Indian companies, the

biggest single failing is, arguably, the inability to spread CSR beyond the largest businesses.

Even though efforts have been made over the last ten years to engage smaller firms in CSR, it

still remains a big company concern, with the growth spreading internationally rather than

locally. This may be partially addressed by new legislation designed to effectively create a

“CSR levy” on India companies. Several Indian companies might have to set aside 2% of

their average net profits during the preceding three years to meet corporate social

responsibility (CSR) spending requirements.38

A parliamentary standing committee on finance, which vetted the Companies Bill (2009) said

in its report that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has agreed to the suggestion. The

committee has suggested that companies with a net worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or those

that have an annual turnover of at least Rs 1000 crore, or companies with a net profit of Rs 5

crore or more, be covered by the proposed statutory norms. A White Paper addressing the

Bill’s amendment was tabled in the 2010 parliamentary session and has a strong possibility of

being passed in the 2011 session. Welcoming the ministry’s “acceptance” of the suggestion to

bring CSR in the statute, the parliamentary committee said that a statement indicating the

company’s CSR policy, as well as the specific steps taken, should be part of the company’s

annual report. It has, however, not listed activities that would be qualified to meet CSR

36 www.bcfindia.org 37 www.picindia.org 38 Mandatory compliance will set firms back by over an estimated Rs 4,300 crore. (Parliamentary Standing Committee on

Finance recommendation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, India 2010)

23

spending. If the bill materialises, it will impact all private sector companies operational on the

Tamil Nadu SIPCOT site, leading to additional resources for potential collaborative

programming and social investment.

To conclude, the factors that influence CSR agendas can be summarised thus:

Market forces – ‘the business case’

Community Stakeholder pressure

Government pressure

Companies – self regulation (for business & ethical reasons)

Peer group leadership/ Business-led associations

Voluntary codes, principles & compacts

Regulation & the law – national and international

Litigation across national boundaries

Survey Location - Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu, India

Gummidipoondi thaluk is located in the Thiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu.39

Thiruvallur

district is situated in the North East part of Tamil Nadu; the district is bordered by

Kancheepuram district in the South, Vellore district in the West, Bay of Bengal in the East,

and the state of Andhra Pradesh in the North. The district spreads over an area of about 3422

sq km and has a total population of 22,11,413 as per the 2001 Census. About half of the

population resides in rural areas. The district has been subdivided into eight thaluks and 14

blocks for administrative convenience. Agriculture is the main occupation of the rural

population in the district and the net sown area accounts for about 40% of the total

geographical area of the district. Paddy, groundnut, sugarcane, pulses and banana are the

important crops grown in the district. A new state of the art rail terminus and link is set to

connect Gummidipoondi and Thiruvallur, the district headquarters.

Thiruvallur District falls within the Araniyar–Korattalaiyar and Cooum river basins. All the

rivers are seasonal and carry substantial flows during the monsoon. The prominent

geomorphic units identified in the district from satellite imagery include alluvial plains, old

river courses, coastal plains and hills. The district has considerable surface water in the form

of reservoirs and eris (lakes). The district receives an average annual rainfall in the range of

950 to 1150 mm. Rains falls during both the southwest (June to September) and northeast

(October to December) monsoon seasons. There is considerable spatial variability in the

distribution of rainfall, which shows a gradual decrease from east to west.

Gummudipoondi thaluk has an existing SIPCOT site at the thaluk headquarters itself that was

set up a decade ago. A new site is coming up at the village of Thervoy, about 15.4 km from

Gummudipoondi. The older industrial park that came up here was one of the first in the

region. The major units located at the site are Hi-tech Carbon, Bharat Petroleum and

Hindustan Petroleum. The site was developed with very little regulatory compliance and has

consequently become an environmental disaster with heavy atmospheric pollution and

contamination of water. This has hugely influenced local opinion, which now equates

industrial development with pollution and may account for some of the opposition to

SIPCOT’s current acquisition of village pastureland for industrial development in other parts

of the district. The new SIPCOT site is located at what was formerly meikkal poromboke

(pastureland) belonging to the Panchayat of Thervoy-Kandigai village.

39 A thaluk is a sub-division of a district

24

Thervoy is 44 km from India’s fourth largest city and the state capital, Chennai, and is

therefore well connected by air, rail and road links. With an estimated population of 7.5

million and a growth rate of 6.4%, Chennai has several automobile technology and small

parts, hardware manufacturing and healthcare industries. The city is India's second-largest

exporter of information technology and information-technology-enabled services, second to

Bangalore. According to a recent report in the national newspaper The Hindu, economists

have predicted that Chennai's per capita income will increase to $1149 in 2015 and $17,366

in 2050 from a base of $468 in 2000.

Tamil Nadu is rated fifth amongst Indian states in terms of Foreign Direct Investment Flows

(FDI) over the last decade. It has also received 5% of the FDI inflow, estimated at $6 billion

or Rs 27,782 crores.40

From a development perspective, Tamil Nadu ranks in the top ten

States on human development indicators such as health and literacy. During the 1990s and

early 2000s, Tamil Nadu had the second highest rate of HIV/AIDS prevalence after Manipur,

although some attribute this to the fact that Tamil Nadu public health system was more

efficient at gathering the data than less well-off states. However, the latest National Aids

Control Organisation (NACO) figures41

show that this has been brought under control, a

reflection of the fact that HIV/AIDS interventions are beginning to work in Tamil Nadu.

One development issue that must be borne in mind is the vast impact that the tsunami of 2004

had on Tamil Nadu. Not only was its physical impact severe in parts of the state, destroying

infrastructure and livelihoods, it also led to a huge influx of funding by development

agencies.42

This influx was badly coordinated, with many areas receiving triple funding from

different agencies, while others received none at all. The initial tranches of funding were

provided to rebuild houses and restore livelihoods in the form of new boats and fishing nets.

They were perceived as “gifts” by the recipient communities and bred a culture of

dependency and patronage that was ultimately unsustainable. Nearly all poor coastal

communities are aware of the largesse of the tsunami funds, and this phenomenon has raised

expectations when it comes to charitable giving. Instead of taking out loans to generate

ownership and sustainability, many communities now simply expect to be given benefits.

Another impact of the tsunami funding was that it resulted in a shortage of social workers and

technical advisors to implement measures for rehabilitating the affected communities. This

prompted agencies such as the UN and INGOs to effectively “poach” staff from local NGOs.

The resulting competition distorted salaries in the NGO sector making it hard for small

agencies to attract quality staff.

Another important point from a development perspective is the fact that the Coromandel

Coast is severely affected by coastal erosion. Most of the coastal communities live on the

narrow strip of land between the sea and privately-owned agricultural land, eking out a living

mainly through fishing and related occupations like boat building and drying and preserving

fish. The severe pressure put on them by the erosion of their habitat has now forced many

fisher folk to relocate into forest areas inland and give up their livelihoods for casual and

exploitative day labour. This has the potential to depress the labour market for unskilled

labour in the project area.

40 Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, www.dipp.nic.in 41 NACO (2009) 42 India has received $465 million as IDA credit from the World Bank for reconstruction and recovery efforts in Tamil Nadu

and Pondicherry. According to the joint needs assessment of the ADB-UNDP-World Bank, the reconstruction-financing

needs caused by the tsunami amounted to at least $868 million in Tamil Nadu (2005).

25

Section III Data Analysis

Social Composition of the Villages

The majority of the households surveyed comprise a mixture of communities (Figure 1) from

the Scheduled Castes (SC), Backward Classes (BC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC),

with the SC households forming the largest segment – nearly 52% of the 5724 households

surveyed. The Irulars, an indigenous tribal community, make up 7% of the total households.

Figure 1: Distribution of Households by Community

Scheduled Castes (SC): At 51.87 %, the Scheduled Caste households form the single largest

social block. All the SC households belong to the Parayan43

community.44

Most Backward Classes (MBC): MBC households, 1237 in number, form the next largest

segment of the survey sample. They make up 21.61% of the sample size and belong to the

following communities: Vanniyar, Yadaval / Eadiyar, Nadar, Navithar and Reddiar.

Backward Classes (BC): 19.37% or 1109 households belong to the Backward Classes. 40

(3.7%) of these families belong to the Kannadiya Naidu, Chettiar and Mudaliar

communities.

Scheduled Tribes (ST): All of the Scheduled Tribes in the area – 7% of the households –

belong to the Irular community. These comprise a total of 409 households. The Irualars were

traditionally a non-agrarian nomadic community. Most survey indicators reflect their weak

socio-economic status vis-à-vis other community groups in the area.

43 All caste classifications are taken from the Gazette Notification, released by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

in 2009. 44 In Tamil Nadu, the term “dalit” is used exclusively to refer to this grouping.

1109, 19.4%

1237, 21.6% 2969, 51.9%

409, 7.1%

BC MBC SC ST

26

A far higher proportion of ST families (18%) have homes that are situated on wasteland (as

opposed to patta land) than the sample average of 7%. These figures assume significance

when one looks at the corresponding figures for MBC families – nearly 99% of the MBC

households own houses on patta (legally-owned) land. In terms of quality of house

construction, the figures for Irular families deviate significantly from the sample average.

63% of their homes have mud walls as compared to 36% for the entire sample while 66%

have thatched roofs as against a sample average of 36%. A higher proportion of ST families

(11%) had availed government housing schemes, against a mean of 6% for all the

households.

Only 77% of the Irular community have electricity connections, as compared to the sample

average of 94%. Families that have three phase connections account for 13% of the sample.

It is lowest in the case of ST families (5%) and highest in the case of BC and MBC

households (17% each). A larger proportion of ST families (66%) mentioned that they use

kerosene for cooking, the sample average being 33%. Firewood is used extensively for

cooking, but the ST families appear to be most dependent on this as a source of fuel.

Access to sanitation, whether individual or community, is poor across the sample (8% and

2% respectively). Here again, ST families have the lowest figures – 1% for both. When these

figures are seen in conjunction with those for BC communities, 18% and 6% respectively, the

difference in access becomes more apparent.

The four most widely owned gadgets/appliances across the survey sample are televisions,

fans, mobile phones and gas stoves. The number of televisions is very high – 90% of the

families own one – but here again, the ST families fall behind the rest of the sample (87%).

The trend is more pronounced when it comes to ownership of fans; while the sample average

is 83%, for ST families it is a mere 40%. Only a small share (6%) of ST families owns a

mobile phone in contrast to the sample average of 40%. None of the ST families own a gas

stove, against a mean of 14%. Interestingly, a higher proportion of ST families relied on

newspapers for information than other groups.

Religious denomination: The majority of households in the area (93%) identified themselves

as Hindus, with Christians and Muslims making up the rest (6% and 1% respectively). There

are, in fact, a larger number of recent converts to Christianity (estimated at over 50% in some

villages) but most declare themselves Hindu in order to retain their caste identity.

Vulnerable Sections: All communities have a section of population that inhabit the margins

vis-à-vis their socio-economic position and entitlements in society. Often, the elderly and

women, particularly widows, have to negotiate many social and institutional barriers. There

were a total of 1045 persons above 60 years of age in the villages surveyed. At the time of the

survey, there were 14 widowers and a sizeable number of widows, 1069 in all. Although

there is a widow pension scheme in place, only 12 of the widows in the sample were availing

its benefits.

Demographics

Size of Households: 51% of the households have a family size between 3-5 persons (Figure

2). This is below the national average of 6 persons to each family. Tamil Nadu has the lowest

27

family size of any state45

due to strong interventions in the field of reproductive and sexual

health in the 1980s and 90s. The fact that the villages surveyed had a higher than state

average could be an indicator of poor access to resources, including education and public

health.

Figure 2: Household Size by Community

Age Profile: The population in the villages is distributed fairly evenly over 3 broad age

bands, viz., below 18 years, 18-35 years and above 35 years (Figure 3). This distribution

roughly matches the national average of 50% of the population being below the age of 25.

36% individuals are between the ages of 18 and 35. Interestingly, there is a higher proportion

of children in the 6-12 age bracket from the ST category (16%) than in other groupings.

Similarly, the proportion of persons in the 18-35 age bracket is slightly higher among the BC

and SC households than the rest of the sample.

45 NFHS-3. National Family health survey (NFHS) International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai designated

by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Government of India. (Oct 2007)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f h

ou

seh

old

s

Communities

less than 3 between 3 and 5 greater than 5

28

Figure 3: Age Distribution by Community

Sex Ratio46

: Worldwide, the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB) is about 105 male babies per 100

female babies. The data gathered in this survey points to a slightly higher proportion of

females than males (10691 females to 10531 males), giving no indication of female

infanticide or sex-selective abortion in the survey area. There appears to be a marginally

higher concentration of females (37%) in the 18-35 age range than males (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Gender by Age Group

Income, Poverty and Indebtedness

46 Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males. Sex Ratio is an important social indicator to measure the

extent of equity prevailing between males and females at a given point of time.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f In

div

idu

als

Communities

less than/equal to 6 between 6 and 12 between 12 and 18between 18 and 35 between 35 and 60 over 60

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f In

div

ual

s

Age Range

Male Female Total

29

Per capita income: The average annual per capita income47

was found to be between Rs.

10,000 to 20,000. As is evident from Figure 5, the disaggregated data shows surprisingly little

variation in incomes across communities.

Figure 5: Average Annual Per Capita Income by Community

Poverty: What stands out from the income data is that about 98% of the households subsist

on an annual per capita income of Rs. 20,000 and below. Based on World Bank poverty

indicators, this places them below the poverty line, pegged at a per capita income of less than

$2 a day or Rs. 91 (Table 2).48

Equally significant is the fact that 81% of the households –

4620 out of the 5724 households can be categorised as extremely poor, subsisting on less than

$1 a day, or Rs. 45.50 (Table 3). 17% of the households earn between $1-$2 a day.

Table 2: Per Capita Income Per Day By Community

BC MBC SC ST Total

Less than Rs 45.5/$1 79% 82% 81% 81% 81%

Between Rs. 45.5/$1 & Rs.91/$2 18% 16% 17% 18% 17%

Between Rs.91/$1 & Rs.227.5/$5 2% 2% 2% 1% 2%

More than Rs.227.5/$5 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 3: Extreme Poverty by Community

BC MBC SC ST Total

Greater than Rs 45.50/$1 21% 18% 19% 19% 19%

Less than or equal to Rs 45.50/$1 79% 82% 81% 81% 81%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The general experience while conducting household surveys on low-income groups in India

is that respondents tend to underestimate their annual income. This is often due to the

assumption that lower income will attract greater access to services, as most government

47 Per capita income estimates were derived by dividing household income by the number of members in each of the

households. 48

$1 = Rs.45.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

lessthan/equal

to 20K

between20K and

40K

between40K and

60K

between60K and

80K

between80K and

100K

between100K and

120K

over 120K

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f H

ou

seh

old

s

Income Groups

BC MBC SC ST Total

30

schemes are means tested. (The opposite is true in the West where the tendency is to

exaggerate incomes upwards to improve credit rating and societal standing). This fact must

be kept in mind while interpreting the tables on incomes.

Indebtedness: The gap between income and expenditure is a major issue for the poor in India,

and is one of the major reasons for poverty. Tamil Nadu is no exception. Very poor families

have expenditures in excess of incomes and are, therefore, forced to borrow at crippling

interest rates from commercial moneylenders. One of the main reasons for indebtedness is the

inability of poor families to withstand external economic shocks because of crop failure,

natural disasters, accidents etc. Events such as marriage, birth and death also bring with them

financial strain.

Many of the households that were surveyed were found to have a debt burden, with about

60% having taken loans for one reason or another. Although this trend is visible among all

communities, the incidence of indebtedness appeared to be highest among the MBC families

(67%) and BC families (64%) and lowest among the ST households (32%). The loan amounts

were found to vary from below Rs 20,000 to above Rs 120,000, but most of them were below

Rs 60,000 (Figure 6). One possible explanation for the lower rate of borrowing amongst the

poorest social group, the Scheduled Tribes, is their inability to provide collateral in terms of

possessions and income to secure a higher loan.

71% of the indebted ST families had incurred loans of under Rs 20,000 as opposed to a

sample average of 25%. The proportion of high-end borrowers (greater than Rs 120,000) was

highest among the BC families (23%) followed by MBC households (22%). 87% of the ST

families that had been surveyed had taken loans below Rs 40,000.

Figure 6: Loan Amount by Community

For about 31% of the households, borrowing was linked to marriage; other major causes of

indebtedness were agriculture (20%), education (17%), health (16%) and purchase or

improvement of property (12%).

Disaggregated data reveals that a higher percentage of loans among the SC families were

taken for marriages than among the remaining groups (Figure 7). In the case of the Backward

Classes, the percentage was 21%, below the sample average of 31%. The incidence of health-

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

less than/equalto 20K

between 40K and60K

between 80K and100K

more than 120K

Per

cen

tage

of

Ind

ebte

d H

ou

seh

old

s w

ith

a

Cer

tain

Am

ou

nt

of

Deb

t

Loan Amount

BC MBC SC ST Total

31

related borrowing was highest among the ST households (35%), and lowest among the MBC

households (11%). The frequency of loans incurred for agriculture was highest among the BC

families (32%), followed by Most Backward Classes (27%). For the ST group, the percentage

was a mere 2%. This trend is in keeping with the pattern of land ownership – around 46% and

44% of the MBC and BC families respectively own land, while only 1% of the ST

households have landholdings.

Figure 7: Purpose of Loan by Community

The dependence on moneylenders in the survey area is evident from the fact that almost

three-fourths of the loans were ascribed to them (Figure 8). 14% of the loans came from

banks and 9% from SHGs. Inter- and intra-family borrowing was low, with only 3% of the

loans having been provided by a family member and 2% by friends or relatives. When it

comes to source of loans, there are some interesting inter-community variations. While more

than 38% of the ST borrowers had availed of loans from SHGs, virtually none of them had

availed of bank loans. A far higher proportion of MBC (34%) and BC (29%) households

reported having taken bank loans as compared to other segments in the sample.

The average rate of interest on loans taken from commercial moneylenders is usually above

100%.49

There appears to be a lack of access to credit through self help groups and micro-

credit in the area surveyed, with a small percentage (9%) accessing credit through this

method. It is interesting to note that there was little inter-family borrowing. What this could

imply is that poverty levels are so high that they simply do not have the assets to loan.

49 Average interest rates in Tamil Nadu on a loan of between Rs.20K to Rs30K from a commercial moneylender are 104%.

World Development Report (2006).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Per

cen

tage

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Communities

Marriage Medical Education

32

Figure 8: Source of Loan by Community

Economic Well-being

A range of questions were designed to establish the “economic well being” of the community

as a whole, to look at spending patterns on commodities and life-style choices.

Consumer durables: In terms of consumer durables, the highest ownership is of televisions

(90%), followed by pedestal fans (83%) and mobile phones (47%). There is a very low level

of ownership of radios (2%) and landline phones (2%). The high degree of ownership of

televisions may seem to suggest that these are being prioritised over more essential household

items such as gas stoves (14%) and sewing machines (2%). However, this anomaly can be

explained by the fact that free televisions were one of promises made by the Tamil Nadu

State Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, the party in power then, to voters prior to

the May 2006 elections.

Other statistics reveal the comparatively low ownership of vehicles and household goods.

Whereas 24% of households own a bicycle, 10% own motorcycles. Only 23 families own

mopeds, 18 own cars, 3 own jeeps and 35 own tractors. 4% of the households own a fridge,

and 0.2% of the households own a computer. Information is largely received via television,

newspaper and word of mouth.

Sanitation: One of the most significant facts emerging from the survey is that 90% of

households do not use toilets. It is not entirely a case of access, as a few villages do have

community toilets constructed, but these lie abandoned and unused.

Housing: The data suggests a high level of house ownership. About 98% of the respondents

have their own dwellings, with 92% of homes being built on Patta (legally owned) land. This

can perhaps be explained by the fact that in this area, housing schemes such as the Kalaignar

Veedu Vazhangum Thittam (Kalaignar Housing Scheme – the Indira Awas Yojana scheme in

Tamil Nadu) have been widely accessed.

A variety of materials are used in house construction. More than half the households (56%)

have homes with cement walls, 36% have mud walls, and the remaining (8%), walls of stone

(Table 4). For roofing purposes, cement, thatch and tiles are the most commonly-used

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Pe

rcen

tage

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Communities

Money Lender Bank Family Member

33

material (Table 5). This was found in 40%, 36 % and 23% of the sample respectively.

Corrugated iron sheets are used very rarely (1%).

Table 4: Material Used in Wall Construction by Community

BC MBC SC ST Total

Cement 727 776 1571 120 3194

Mud 263 364 1186 258 2071

Stone 119 97 212 31 459

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Table 5: Material Used in Roof Construction by Community

BC MBC SC ST Total

Thatched 263 375 1169 268 2075

Tiled 275 332 695 26 1328

Sheets 15 7 26 3 51

Cement 556 523 1079 112 2270

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Energy: Virtually all the households (94%) were found to have electricity connections. 77%

ST households have electricity connections against the sample average of 94%. Of these,

87% have two-phase connections. Despite this, almost 97% of the households also depend on

kerosene for lighting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that electricity supply is very erratic and

unreliable.

Firewood, kerosene, LPG and cow dung are the most commonly used fuels for cooking

(Figure 9). 89% of the households rely on firewood for cooking, 33% use kerosene, 21%

LPG, while only 3% use cow dung. Some houses use both kerosene and cow dung fuel for

cooking purposes. 66% of the ST households use kerosene against a sample average of 21%.

Only 2% of these households use LPG as compared to an average of 21% for all the

community groups. 83% of the respondents mentioned that firewood and cow dung is

collected, not bought.

Figure 9: Source of Cooking Fuel by Community

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

Firewood Cowdung Cake LPG Kerosene

Per

cen

tage

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

Fuel type

BC MBC

34

Connectivity: All the villages have metalled roads and street lighting. However, only four

villages are serviced by public transport. Those that do have public transportation consider

the services to be inadequate.

Education

Literacy and Educational Levels: The survey sought to capture data on the level of

educational attainment in different segments of the sample above the age of 6 (Table 6).

Overall illiteracy is at 8%. A third of those in the age group above 60 are unable to read or

write. An additional 2% of the population is unable to sign their names.

Around 40% of the sample has studied up to the 5th

standard. 1461 persons (7%) have

completed higher secondary education. There are a fairly large number of graduates (931),

post-graduates (201), and those who have completed ITI/certificate/diploma courses (172).

Table 6: Education Level by Community

BC MBC SC ST Total

Not started going to school 5% 5% 5% 6% 5%

Illiterate 8% 8% 8% 14% 8%

Can Sign Name 3% 2% 2% 1% 2%

U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Upto 5th Std. 34% 41% 39% 64% 40%

6th Std to 10 Std. 33% 32% 32% 15% 31%

11th/12th Std. 8% 6% 7% 1% 7%

Graduate 6% 4% 5% 0% 4%

Post graduate 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

ITI/Certificate/Diploma 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Disaggregated data suggests that compared to other groupings, the illiteracy level is higher

among the ST population (14%). This disparity becomes more pronounced along the

educational ladder, with only 15% of the STs having studied between 6th

-10th

standard as

opposed to the sample average of 31%.

Data disaggregated according to gender throws up yet another disparity: the illiteracy rate for

females is almost twice that in the case of males (11% and 6%). Interestingly, while a

sizeable proportion of females (43%) have studied up to the 5th

standard, only 29% have gone

beyond that stage, pointing perhaps to a far higher attrition rate among girls than boys.

Proportionally speaking, the percentage of female graduates is lower than that of their male

counterparts (2% and 6% respectively).

Table 7: Education Level by Gender

Male Female Total

Not started going to school 518 494 1012

Illiterate 640 1158 1798

Can Sign Name 164 213 377

U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 84 66 150

35

Upto 5th Std. 3898 4638 8536

6th Std to 10 Std. 3483 3079 6562

11th/12th Std. 823 638 1461

Graduate 666 265 931

Post graduate 135 66 201

ITI/Certificate/Diploma 109 63 172

Other 11 11 22

Total 10531 10691 21222

School Enrollment: The survey tracked the enrollment of children of school going age (6-18

years). Enrollment (at 96%) is high and matches the national average for compulsory

education below the age of 12. It remains fairly high at 78% up until the age of 18.

Table 8: Current Education Status by Age

Less than 6 years Between 6 and 12 years Between 12 and 18 years Total

Studying 2% 96% 78% 77%

Not Studying 98% 4% 22% 23%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

School infrastructure: 16 of the villages in the survey area have a primary/upper primary

school within their premises. These are accessed by neighboring villages, generally within a

radius of around 2 km.

There are only 3 government high schools in the area. These are situated in Palavakkam,

Kannankottai and Thervoy. Children in most villages have to commute between 1-6 kms to

reach these schools. The 3 higher secondary schools in the survey area are located at

Uthukottai, Madarpakkam and Periapalayam. To get to these schools, children from some of

the villages have to commute between 3-14 kms.

Employment & Occupations

Primary occupations: For the purpose of this survey, the employment and occupation

patterns of individuals between the age of 18 and 60 were considered. This was based on the

assumption that people in this age group constitute the active working population of the area.

A total of 10353 individuals were surveyed in this category.

At an aggregate level, casual day labour is the primary occupation for 69% of the working

population (Figure 10). Next in importance is agriculture at 15%. Less than a tenth of the

working population (9%) have jobs with a private company, 5% are self-employed, and only

3% are government employees.

At a disaggregated level, the highest percentage of those who reported casual labour to be

their primary occupation was found among the ST families (92%), followed by the SC groups

(72%). It was lowest among the MBC category (49%). Virtually none of the workers from

the ST categories reported agriculture as a primary occupation, in contrast to 30% and 34% in

the case of MBC and BC groups respectively.

36

Figure 10: Primary Occupation by Community

Secondary Occupations: Casual labour seems to be the most important secondary occupation,

with 62% of the working population reporting it to be so (Figure 11). This is followed by

agriculture (21%), self-employment (11%) and animal husbandry to a very small extent.

A closer look at the data reveals some inter-community variations. Firstly, only 4 workers

from the BC category reported a secondary occupation, i.e. labour. Secondly, a far higher

proportion of workers from the ST category have some form of self-employment as a fallback

occupation (68% as opposed to a sample average of 11%). This is also true of agriculture

(26% ST against a mean of 20%).

A very low percentage of the working population view agriculture as a primary and

secondary occupation. This could be on account of the fact that many of the individuals who

classified themselves as casual wage labourers actually do work on the land (other people’s

landholdings) but do not identify themselves as farmers.

Figure 11: Secondary Occupation by Community

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f In

div

idu

als

Communities

Labourer Agriculture Private Company Job

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f In

div

idu

als

Communities

Labourer Agriculture Self Employed

37

Other occupations: The survey brings into sharp relief the fact that livelihood options outside

of casual labour and agriculture (with possible overlaps between the two) are extremely

limited, more so in the case of the Scheduled Tribe families.

Unemployment: Unemployment was assessed at 13%,50

slightly above the national average of

8%.

Land Ownership and Usage

Ownership of agricultural land: Of the 5724 households surveyed in the 30 villages, 68% or

3917 households do not own any agricultural land (Figure 12). The percentage of

landlessness is highest among the ST households. Only 4 of the 409 ST families own

agricultural land – almost 100% of these families are landless. Landlessness is also fairly

high among the SC households – 754 households or 75% of the SC households do not own

agricultural land. The figures for BC and MBC households are 56% and 54% respectively.

Most households though, 93% or 5322 families have ownership over their homestead land.

Figure 12: Land Ownership by Community

The total agricultural land owned in all the 30 villages that were surveyed is 3299 acres. Of

this, 1658 acres (50% of total agricultural land) are owned by SC families, 910 acres (27.5%)

by BC families and 727 acres (22%) by MBC households. The 799 households that were

surveyed in Thervoy own the highest percentage of land, followed by Kannankottai (474

households). Thervoy owns 713.381 acres while the figure for Kannankottai is 574.415 acres.

There is only one village – JJ Nagar, where the agricultural land ownership is nil, despite the

fact that the village is inhabited by 183 households. Significantly, 178 of these households

belong to the ST community. The incidence of land ownership among the ST households is

very low- the 409 ST households in the area own barely 3.7 acres of land (0.1% of total land).

Among the land-owning households, the average landholding is highest among the 754 SC

families, who have about 2.19 acres on an average. This is followed by the 486 BC

households who have 1.87 acres on average. For the 563 MBC families, the average

landholding size is 1.29 acres, while the figure is 0.92 acres for the 4 ST families.

50 The unemployment rate in India was last reported at 8% in December 2007. Ministry of Labour, India.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Per

cen

tage

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

Communities

Owns Land Landless

38

Of the 3299 acres of total agricultural land, 83% or 2742.8 acres are under irrigation. 84.3%

of the land owned by SC households is irrigated. For MBC and BC families, 82.7% and

81.1% of agricultural land is irrigated. The figure is the lowest for ST families. Even though,

they collectively own only 3.7 acres, only 1.3 acres or 35% is irrigated. In Thervoy and

Kannankottai, the two villages with the highest quantum of agricultural land, 79% and 96%

of the agricultural land is under irrigation.

Homestead land: The total area under homestead ownership in the 30 villages is 1045.973

acres. Of this, 798.2 acres or 76.3% is owned by SC families, followed by BC households

who own 14.2% of the total residential land. Mukkarampakkam village with 450 households

has the highest average residential landholding size of 1.13 acres. This is followed by

Senkarai where the average landholding size is 0.31 acres.

Irrigation: Of the 1807 families who owned land, 410 (23%) had land that was purely rain-

fed. 84% of the families who have agricultural land depend on eris (lakes) for irrigation.

Agriculture: The bulk of land is allocated for agricultural purposes, mainly rice paddy, with

98% of families involved in rice cultivation. Ragi51

seems to be the only cash crop cultivated

in this area. There is some large-scale cultivation of peanuts (36%), black gram (3%) and

peas (3%). 16% of the households are engaged in commercial cultivation of chillies.

Vegetables and flowers are also commercially grown by around a tenth of the households.

Most families rent tractors and equipment for ploughing and harvesting. Sowing,

transplanting and weeding are done manually.

The use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is widespread – 41% of the land-owning

families reported using only chemical pesticides, while only 2% reported exclusive use of

natural pesticides. The majority (57%), however, seem to use a combination of these two.

Chemical fertilisers are almost universally used, reported by 95% of the families. Over three-

fourths of the families also use manure, while around half of them also use natural fertilizers.

Around 50% households reported using a mix of all three fertilisers.

Grazing land: The survey specifically sought to examine the use of common land both for

grazing and gathering of fodder/firewood, given that this will directly impact the villages

with regard to the SIPCOT site. Significantly, only 8 of the villages surveyed have grazing

lands (Table 9).

Table 9: Grazing Land by Village

Village Grazing land in acres

Palavakkam 500

Sengarai 500

Kannankottai 400

Thervoy 300

Mukarampakkam 500

JJ Nagar 500

Aaramani 300

Kollanoor 300

51 Ragi also known as millet, nachni, sollu, or sattemavu. It grows well without irrigation, pesticides or fertilisers and is rich

in calcium iron, protein and some rare nutrients such as methionine so is an ideal crop to grow in arid periods.

39

One of the key findings is that 89% of the villages are dependent on firewood as a source of

fuel for cooking. Being denied access to common land or having the land denuded of trees for

industrial development might impact the villages. This might be felt most acutely by women

who may have to travel long distances in search of fuel or pay more for it in the market place.

Animal Husbandry

Animal husbandry did not feature in the list of primary occupations. 28% of the households

surveyed or 1626 families reported owning poultry or livestock in some form or the other.

The total animal population in all the 30 villages is 7140. Poultry seems to be the most

preferred form of animal husbandry, accounting for 28% of all animals owned (Figure 13).

Goat ownership is a close second, making up 27% of the animal population. This is followed

by cows (22%), buffalos (9%), ox (8%), sheep (6%) and a tiny proportion of pigs (0.2%).

Figure 13: Total Livestock Distribution

The percentage of ST families who own livestock is very low (13%) compared to a mean of

28% (Figure 14). Only 3% of the total livestock population in the area is owned by these

families. The SC families own the highest percentage of livestock – 53% or 3795 animals.

56% of the poultry in the area and 62% of the large ruminants (cows and oxen) are owned by

these families. The MBC families own about 25% of the livestock followed by BC families

who own about 18%. Other than in Perandur, there are no veterinary services in the area.

Figure 14: Livestock Distribution by Community

614, 8.6%

1603, 22.5%

1930, 27.0%

551, 7.7%

16, 0.2%

2029, 28.4%

397, 5.6%

Buffalo Cow Goat

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

BC MBC SC ST Total

Per

cen

tage

of

ho

use

ho

lds

Communities

Buffalo Cow Goat

40

Water

Water availability: All the respondents reported an adequate supply of potable water and

water for other domestic needs.

Water for animals and irrigation: The topography of the region is characterised by eris

(lakes). There are a total of 27 eris in the survey villages. Their surface area ranges from 60

acres to 1650 acres. The villages without eris are DR Kuppam, Thampunaidupalayam,

Thandalam, Kazadai, Vannagkuppam and Kizh Karamanur.

The eris in Kannakottai(Esarayaneri) and Karadiputhoor are totally dependent on rainfall and

the surrounding watershed area (Siruveda range) for their water. Other eris in the Uthukotai

stretch such as Palavakkam, Lachivakkam, Sengarai, Mukkarambakkam, Kakkavakkam and

Soolaimeni canal, besides being dependent on rainfall, also receive overflow water from the

Pichattoor dam situated in Suruttupally in Andhra Pradesh. Water from the eris are used for

irrigation and livestock. The eris also feed the ground water table which lies at an enviable 20

feet. There are also a large number of smaller ponds which are a valuable source of ground

water recharge.

Upkeep of Eris and Irrigation Channels: The preliminary natural resource survey revealed

that most of the eris are silted up and clogged with weeds, diminishing their storage capacity

to under half their potential. The irrigation channels likewise, are silted up and damaged in

places. As a consequence, farmers with land at the far end of the eris do not receive adequate

water for their crops.

Water for household use: Most villages have overhead tanks that are filled from a bore well

within the village. Pipes run from these tanks to public distribution outlets or private homes.

This water is used for drinking and household use. 85% of the households use public taps

(Table 10). 4% of the families still use open wells for drinking water and household use.

Table 10: Water Uses by Source

Water Source Drinking Water Household use Animals (of the %

who have livestock)

Irrigation (of the % who

own agricultural land)

Handpump 1% 3% 0% 1%

Individual Tap 14% 13% 0% 0%

Individual Well 1% 1% 8% 11%

Lake 2% 20% 53% 67%

Public Tap 85% 85% 9% 0%

Public Well 4% 4% 0% 0%

Water pollution: Most of the traditional open wells have now fallen into disuse and are

slowly turning into garbage dumps, reducing their capacity to recharge the ground water and

increasing the risk of pollution.

90% of the population do not have toilets and use the common lands to relieve themselves.

The risk of e-coli contamination of water sources in the absence of any waste management

system is therefore high.

41

The widespread use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers is another factor that contributes to

water pollution. The impact of any form of pollution (earth, water or air) from industry will

be widespread as the surface water bodies will become easy repositories of effluent discharge

from manufacturing units. This in turn could lead to pollution of ground water, impact the

soil, animal health, crops, and finally, human health.

Health & Disability

Illness and hospitalisation: The data shows instances of chronic illness to be low, at fewer

than 4% of the population surveyed. This may have to do with how respondents classified

chronic illness, possibly dismissing long term symptoms as being a normal part of their daily

existence. Equally, seasonal illnesses usually associated with tropical monsoon climates were

surprisingly low for the population surveyed (5%). One would assume that seasonal illnesses

associated with paddy planting and a monsoon climate would show up in a survey of this

kind. This may be an anomaly that needs to be checked. As participants were not given a list

of diseases that they were questioned against (which would have been leading), they possibly

did not identify illnesses such as viral fever, cough, cold, malaria and dysentery as seasonal.

Data suggests that at fewer than 5%, the incidence of hospitalisation is low, as is the

incidence of accidents. Hospitals are accessed mostly when surgeries are required.

Health infrastructure: The area is serviced by one District hospital, located at Thiruvallur,

three thaluk hospitals located at Uthukottai, Gummudipoondi and Periyapalayam, and 5

PHCs/Subcentres in Lachavakkam, Kannankottai, Periyapalayam, Perambur and Uthukottai.

In addition, every village has an ICDS centre.

Most of the sub-centres/PHCs lie within 5 km of the villages. Some are as distant as 18 km.

The thaluk hospitals are generally found within a reach of 18 kms. The district hospital is less

accessible, being situated 25 km from the nearest village and 45 km from the most distant

one. These distances can act as a deterrent for patients and may partially account for the low

rate of hospitalization.

Disability: In the villages surveyed, 270 individuals were identified as being physically

disabled. Given that this was one of the two questions that required sensitive handling (the

other being income), the results probably need further enquiry. The distribution of people

with impairments is given in Table 11.

Table 11: Physical Impairments

Impairment Total Individuals

Sight 35

Hearing 54

Speech 35

Legs 117

Arms 29

Total 270

Government Schemes and Ownership of Documents

42

64% of the sample families (but only 40% of ST families) reported that one of their members

had received employment under the MNREGA. Apart from MNREGA and housing schemes,

virtually none of the other government benefits have been claimed.

Voter cards and ration cards are almost universally owned. Cooperative Society cards and

bank account cards are also widely owned. However, the ownership of these documents is

very low among ST families when compared to other groups that were surveyed. The gap is

particularly stark in the case of bank account cards with only 18% of ST families owning

these compared to the sample average of 64%. In the case of Cooperative Society cards, the

difference is somewhat less pronounced, with 74% of ST families owning these as against a

sample average of 64%.

43

Table 12: Government Schemes Used by Community

Government Schemes Used BC MBC SC ST Total

Housing 1% 3% 8% 11% 6%

Education 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%

Insurance 3% 2% 1% 0% 2%

Agriculture 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%

MNREGA 56% 64% 71% 40% 64%

44

Annexure I: Survey Questionnaire (English)

Form No:

Code of the survey team:

1. Full name of the Head:

2. Full address:

3. Village:

Ward No:

Panchayat:

4. Community:

1. Scheduled Caste

2. Scheduled Tribe

3. Other backward community

4. Others

5. Religion:

1. Hindu

2. Muslim

3. Christian

6. Ration Card No:

7. Family Constellation:

Sl.

No

Name

Res

iden

ce

Age

Sex

Mar

ital

Sta

tus

Rel

atio

nsh

ip

Educa

tional

Qual

ific

atio

n

Pre

sent

stat

us

of

the

chil

dre

n

(Bel

ow

18 y

rs)

A B C D E F G

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

A. 1. Residential area

2. Non - Residential area

3. Seasonal migration

B. Age – as on 01.01.2010

C. 1. Male

2. Female

45

D. 1. Unmarried

2. Married

3. Widow / Widower

4. Separated / Divorced

E. 1. Husband

2. Wife

3. Mother

4. Father

5. Guardian

6. Son

7. Daughter

8. Brother

9. Sister

10. Son-in-law

11. Daughter-in-law

12. Brother-in-law

13. Sister-in-law

14. Grandson

15. Granddaughter

16. Grandfather

17. Grandmother

F. 1. Illiterate

2. Can sign only

3. Primary school

4. Middle school

5. High school

6. Higher secondary

7. Graduation

8. Post Graduation

9. Diploma

10. Certificate course

11. Engineering

12. Medical

13. Law

14. ITI

15. Others

G. 1. School/ college

2. School dropout

3. Employee

4. Involved in household work

Primary

occupation

(above 18

years)

Sec

ondar

y

occ

upat

ion

Man

day

s of

Em

plo

ym

ent

in

a yea

r

Annual

Expen

dit

ure

Annual

Inco

me

H I J K L

H & I

1. Agriculture

2. Animal husbandry

3. Self Employed

4. Government Servant

5. Private company job

46

6. Daily wage

7. Home maker/head

8. Unemployed

If self-employed

1. Mason

2. Carpenter

3. Plumber

4. Electrician

5. Tailor

6. Barber

7. Potter

8. Weaver

9. Blacksmith

10. Leather industry

11. Tea shop owner

12. Mess/dhaba owner

13. Provisional store

14. STD booth/net

centre/others

15. Vegetable vendor

16. Cobbler

17. Fish seller

18. Rat catcher

19. Rice mill employee

20. Driver (private)

21. Washerman

If government servant

1. Education Dept

2. Local administration

3. Health Dept

4. Forest Dept

5. Public Works Dept

6. Finance Dept

7. State-level

8. District-level

9. Central-level

10. EB Debt

11. Police

12. Law Dept

8. Land Ownership:

Sl.

No

Land

A

Own

B

Lease /

Rent

C

Area ( in

Acre)

D

Season

E

Nature

F

Type

G

1 Residence

2 Agriculture

F

1. Temple land

2. Panchami land

3. Community land

4. Waste land

5. Patta land

G

1. Wet Land

2. Dry Land

9. Agriculture:

A: Water source

a. Rain dependent

b. Irrigation

1. Well

2. Canal

3. Lake

4. Dam

47

c. Both

B: Method

a. Traditional method

b. Machinery

c. Both

C: Important crops

1. Grains

a. Paddy

b. Ragi

c. Others

2. Pulses

a. Ground nut

b. Black gram

c. Pea variety

d. Others

3. Cash crop

a. Sugarcane

b. Cotton

c. Flowers

d. Chilies

e. Sesame

f. Water melon

4. Garden crops

a. Lettuce

b. Fruit variety

D: Pesticides

1. Natural

2. Chemical

3. Both

E: Fertilizers

1. Manure

2. Natural

3. Chemical

4. All

10. Animals:

Sl.

No

Animal Numbers Source of

feed

Distance from

home Sipcot land

A B C D E

1 Cows

2 Sheep

3 Goats

4 Buffalos

5 Pigs

6 Poultry / Birds

7 Ox

8 Others

48

C

1. Open grazing

2. Stall fed

11. Water Source:

Sl.

No Source

Drinking /

Cooking

House

purpose Animals Agriculture

1 Lake - 1

2 Lake – 2

3 Lake – 3

4 Lake – 4

5 Hand Pump / Deep

well

6 Individual tap

7 Common tap

8 Individual Well

9 Common Well

10 Private Deep well

11 Others

12. Nature of house:

A: Wall

1. Cement

2. Mud

3. Stone

B: Terrace

1. Thatched

2. Tiled

3. Sheets

4. Cement

13. Electricity for house:

A. Connection

1. Yes

2. No

B. If yes, type

1. Two-phase

2. Three-phase

C. Other source

1. Kerosene

2. Candles

3. Generator/Inverter

4. Batteries

5. Sunlight

6. Other – specify

14. Sanitation facilities:

1. Individual

49

2. Common

3. Nil

15. Fuel for cooking:

1. Fire wood

a. bought

b. collected

2. If collected

a. from open land

b. others

3. Cowdung

a. bought

b. collected

4. LPG Gas

5. Kerosene

6. Electricity

7. Others, specify

16. Source of information / News: (Mention any important Two)

1. Radio

2. TV

3. Newspaper

4. Magazines

5. Others

17. Ownership of Vehicles

1. Cycle

2. Moped

3. Motorcycle

4. Scooter

5. Car

6. Jeep

7. Tractor

8. Other

18. Household applicances

1. Sewing machine

2. Gas stove

3. Refrigerator

4. Fan

5. Generator

6. Telephone

7. Mobile

8. Computer

9. TV

10. Radio

19. Indebtedness:

A.

1. Yes

2. 2. No

B: If yes, how much:

C: Reasons

1. Marriage

2. Health care

3. Education

4. Agriculture needs

5. To buy/develop property

D: Source

50

1. Money lender

2. Bank

3. Family members

4. Friends/relatives

5. Self-help group

20. Health:

A: Any chronic illness in the past two years

1. Yes 2. No

If Yes, Mention _____________

B: Any Seasonal Illness

1. Yes 2. No

If Yes, Mention _____________

C: Have you been admitted in Hospital?

1. Yes 2. No

If Yes, Mention the reason

a. Accident

b. Operation

c. Other

21. Disabled persons in your family:

1. Yes

2. No

If yes, their Sl No as on Question no 7:

Type of disability:

1. Physical

a. Degree

i. Mild

ii. Moderate

iii. Severe

b. Faculty/limbs affected

i. Sight

ii. Hearing

iii. Speech

iv. Use of legs

v. Use of hands

vi. Others, mention

2. Mental:

a. Degree

i. Mild

ii. Moderate

iii. Severe

22. Membership:

1. Youth group

2. Women group

3. Religious group

4. Political group

5. SHF

6. Cooperative society

51

7. Panchayat raj

23. Government support and subsidy:

1. Housing

2. Education

3. Insurance

4. Agriculture

5. NREGA

6. Pension

7. Handicapped pension

8. Other, specify

24. Document ownership:

1. Yes

2. No

If yes:

1. Ration card:

2. Voter ID:

3. Community certificate:

4. Bank Account:

5. Driving License (Commercial):

6. Driving License (Private):

7. Passport:

8. PAN card:

9. Employment license:

10. Others, specify:

Signatures: Name of the Respondent

Date:

Names of the Survey team:

52

Annexure II: Survey Questionnaire (Tamil)

53

54

55

56

57

58

Annexure III: Survey Data

Caste Households

BC 1109

MBC 1237

SC 2969

ST 409

Total 5724

Gender BC MBC SC ST Total

Male 2001 2172 5588 770 10531

Female 2080 2182 5689 740 10691

Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222

Age BC MBC SC ST Total

<=6 299 322 900 137 1658

>6 & <=12 389 391 1255 247 2282

>12 & <=18 443 543 1473 185 2644

>18 & <=35 1455 1499 4086 504 7544

>35 & <=60 1215 1327 3117 390 6049

>60 280 272 446 47 1045

Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222

Household Size BC MBC SC ST Total

<=3 452 569 1152 193 2366

>3 & <=5 577 602 1551 179 2909

>5 80 66 266 37 449

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Extreme Poverty BC MBC SC ST Total

Above 235 222 569 78 1104

Less Than Equal Rs 45.5 874 1015 2400 331 4620

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Per capita income (per day) BC MBC SC ST Total

<$1 874 1015 2400 331 4620

>1$ & <=2$ 204 198 508 75 985

>2$ & <=5$ 26 19 58 3 106

>5$ 5 5 3 0 13

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

59

Household Income BC MBC SC ST Total

<=20K 159 266 488 111 1024

>20K & <=40K 527 607 1466 125 2725

>40K & <=60K 248 220 614 109 1191

>60K & <=80K 98 87 226 40 451

>80K & <=100K 41 30 93 17 181

>100K & <=120K 11 8 23 3 45

>120K 25 19 59 4 107

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Loan taken BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Yes 705 829 1786 131 3451

2. No 404 408 1183 278 2273

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Loan Amount BC MBC SC ST Total

<=20K 119 136 510 93 858

>20K & <=40K 103 110 368 21 602

>40K & <=60K 163 206 424 11 804

>60K & <=80K 31 39 81 2 153

>80K & <=100K 122 156 234 4 516

>100K & <=120 K 4 3 5 12

>120 K 163 179 164 506

Total 705 829 1786 131 3451

Loan Purpose BC MBC SC ST Total

Marriage 151 247 624 38 1060

Medical 95 93 312 46 546

Education 125 106 334 17 582

Agriculture 229 220 229 2 680

Buy Property 107 110 182 18 417

Other 26 85 159 12 282

Total 705 829 1786 131 3451

Loan Source BC MBC SC ST Total

Money Lender 457 661 1379 73 2570

Bank 172 109 197 3 481

Family Member 20 10 65 2 97

Friend/Relatives 37 22 21 80

Self Help Group 28 39 182 52 301

Other 0 3 8 1 12

Total 705 829 1786 131 3451

60

House ownership BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Owned 1071 1220 2932 408 5631

2. Leased/Rented 38 17 37 1 93

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Transportation BC MBC SC ST Total

Cycle 322 336 628 64 1350

Moped 6 9 5 3 23

Motor Bike 119 190 259 3 571

Scooter 70 61 267 1 399

Car 6 6 5 1 18

Jeep 1 2 3

Tractor 9 12 14 35

Other 11 4 112 1 128

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Toilets BC MBC SC ST Total

Individual 200 133 102 4 439

Common 61 24 55 3 143

None 848 1080 2812 402 5142

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Consumer durables BC MBC SC ST Total

Sewing Machine 36 33 38 4 111

Gas Stove 197 202 403 2 804

Refrigerator 93 64 90 1 248

Fan 995 1093 2491 162 4741

Generator 1 1

Telephone 26 19 52 2 99

Mobile 517 591 1585 25 2718

Computer 9 1 1 11

TV 1028 1128 2669 355 5180

Radio 43 22 64 2 131

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Roofing BC MBC SC ST Total

Thatched 263 375 1169 268 2075

Tiled 275 332 695 26 1328

Sheets 15 7 26 3 51

Cement 556 523 1079 112 2270

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

61

Wall BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Cement 727 776 1571 120 3194

2. Mud 263 364 1186 258 2071

3. Stone 119 97 212 31 459

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Electrification BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Yes 1077 1210 2789 313 5389

2. No 32 27 180 96 335

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Electrification - Connection

type

BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Two Phase 897 999 2512 298 4706

2. Three phase 180 211 277 15 683

Total 1077 1210 2789 313 5389

Other Source of Lighting BC MBC SC ST Total

Kerosense 1062 1206 2883 399 5550

Candles 13 7 77 1 98

Generator 1 6 4 0 11

Batteries 2 2 12 1 17

Sunlight 0 4 0 0 4

Other 4 0 3 0 7

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Firewood BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Yes 945 1032 2730 403 5110

2. No 164 205 239 6 614

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Cowdung Cake BC MBC SC ST Total

1. Yes 39 33 96 8 176

2. No 1070 1204 2873 401 5548

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Source of Fuel for Cooking BC MBC SC ST Total

Firewood 945 1032 2730 403 5110

Cowdung Cake 39 33 96 8 176

LPG 381 386 411 9 1187

Kerosene 394 392 856 269 1911

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

62

Level of educational

attainment

<=6 >6 & <=12 >12 & <=18 >18 & <=35 >35 & <=60 >60 Total

Illiterate 0 56 42 481 906 313 1798

Can Sign Name 0 0 1 115 220 41 377

U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 140 10 0 0 0 0 150

1 Standard 288 56 50 581 1553 397 2925

2 Standard 82 116 40 758 1316 150 2462

3 Standard 136 450 25 128 154 12 905

4 Standard 0 405 58 175 110 8 756

5 Standard 0 333 147 553 415 40 1488

6 Standard 0 322 117 228 97 4 768

7 Standard 0 234 108 230 101 6 679

8 Standard 0 189 278 695 311 20 1493

9 Standard 0 57 374 304 81 2 818

10 Standard 0 38 649 1604 478 35 2804

11 Standard 0 7 202 25 15 2 251

12 Standard 0 5 359 725 117 4 1210

ITI/Certificate/Diploma 0 0 32 126 11 3 172

Graduate 0 3 151 658 116 3 931

Post graduate 0 0 6 144 47 4 201

Other 0 1 5 14 1 1 22

NA - Not started going school 1012 0 0 0 0 0 1012

Total 1658 2282 2644 7544 6049 1045 21222

Education BC MBC SC ST Total

Not started going school 194 198 536 84 1012

Illiterate 338 348 904 208 1798

Can Sign Name 105 71 186 15 377

U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 29 40 80 1 150

Upto 5th Std. 1405 1770 4399 962 8536

6th Std to 10 Std. 1346 1387 3606 223 6562

11th/12th Std. 322 283 843 13 1461

Graduate 241 169 517 4 931

Post graduate 56 33 112 201

ITI/Certificate/Diploma 42 44 86 172

Other 3 11 8 22

Total 4081 4354 11277 1510 21222

63

Education Profile by Gender Male Female Total

Not started going to school 518 494 1012

Illiterate 640 1158 1798

Can Sign Name 164 213 377

U.K.G/L.K.G/Pre School 84 66 150

Upto 5th Std. 3898 4638 8536

6th Std to 10 Std. 3483 3079 6562

11th/12th Std. 823 638 1461

Graduate 666 265 931

Post graduate 135 66 201

ITI/Certificate/Diploma 109 63 172

Other 11 11 22

Total 10531 10691 21222

Age >= 18 & <=60

Primary Occupation - Top 5 BC MBC SC ST Total

Labourer 961 1381 4040 743 7125

Agriculture 430 407 663 10 1510

Private Company Job 185 129 580 7 901

Self Employed 184 171 162 28 545

Govt. Servant 58 52 159 3 272

Total 1818 2140 5604 791 10353

Age >= 18 & <=60

Primary Occupation - Top 5 Male Female Total

Labourer 3340 3785 7125

Agriculture 1053 457 1510

Private Company Job 731 170 901

Self Employed 493 52 545

Govt. Servant 192 80 272

Total 6923 7191 14114

Age >= 18 & <=60

Secondary Occupation – Top 5 BC MBC SC ST Total

Labourer 269 228 446 7 950

Agriculture 33 93 155 34 315

Self Employed 34 10 36 92 172

Animal Husbandry 18 19 14 10 61

Private Company Job 12 2 23 1 38

Total 366 352 674 144 1536

64

Age >= 18 & <=60

Secondary Occupation - Top 5 Male Female Total

Labourer 678 272 950

Agriculture 179 136 315

Self Employed 134 38 172

Animal Husbandry 42 19 61

Private Company Job 33 5 38

Total 6923 7191 14114

Age >= 18 & <=60

Primary Occupation BC MBC SC ST Total

Agriculture 430 407 663 10 1510

Brick Kiln Owner 2 1 3

Student 53 45 137 6 241

Unemployed 608 502 1291 62 2463

Animal Husbandry 11 7 19 2 39

Self Employed 184 171 162 28 545

Govt. Servant 58 52 159 3 272

Private Company Job 185 129 580 7 901

Labourer 961 1381 4040 743 7125

Home Maker/Head 257 239 454 65 1015

Total 2747 2935 7506 926 14114

Age >= 18 & <=60

Primary Occupation Male Female Total

Agriculture 1053 457 1510

Brick Kiln Owner 1 2 3

Student 135 106 241

Unemployed 938 1525 2463

Animal Husbandry 29 10 39

Self Employed 493 52 545

Govt. Servant 192 80 272

Private Company Job 731 170 901

Labourer 3340 3785 7125

Home Maker/Head 11 1004 1015

Total 6923 7191 14114

65

Age >= 18 & <=60

Secondary Occupation BC MBC SC ST Total

Agriculture 33 93 155 34 315

Brick Kiln Owner 1 1

Animal Husbandry 18 19 14 10 61

Self Employed 34 10 36 92 172

Private Company Job 12 2 23 1 38

Labourer 269 228 446 7 950

Home Maker/Head 1 1

Provision Store 2 2

Total 368 352 676 144 1540

Age >= 18 & <=60

Secondary Occupation Male Female Total

Agriculture 179 136 315

Brick Kiln Owner 1 1

Animal Husbandry 42 19 61

Self Employed 134 38 172

Private Company Job 33 5 38

Labourer 678 272 950

Home Maker/Head 1 1

Provision Store 1 1 2

Total 1069 471 1540

Total Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total

Owns Land 486 563 754 4 1807

Landless 623 674 2215 405 3917

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Irrigated Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total

Owns Land 395 434 612 2 1443

Landless 714 803 2357 407 4281

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Non-Irrigated Land Owned BC MBC SC ST Total

Owns Land 101 130 169 2 402

Landless 1008 1107 2800 407 5322

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

Fertilizers BC MBC SC ST Total

Manure 399 464 534 3 1400

Natural 241 380 313 2 936

Chemical 465 532 711 4 1712

All 226 369 291 2 888

Total 486 563 754 4 1807

66

Residence Area in Acre (Sum) BC MBC SC ST Total

Caste Wise 148.7 80.7 798.2 18.3 1046.0

Aaramani 6.8 6.8

Anjamedu 2.5 2.5

Anna Nagar 1.8 2.3 0.3 4.4

Annavaram Colony 0.6 7.4 8.0

Chandirapuram 1.8 0.0 1.8

Dr Kuppam 2.2 0.7 0.8 3.7

Eri Colony 0.2 0.7 0.2 1.1

G.R.Kandigai 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.5 10.2

JJ Nagar 0.0 0.1 5.4 5.5

Kakkavakkam 0.5 3.1 13.1 16.7

Kannankottai 14.4 5.6 53.0 2.1 75.1

Karadiputhur 6.1 5.0 16.1 27.2

Kazadai 0.0 1.0 1.0

Kilakarmanur 1.9 16.0 17.9

Kollanoor 7.0 0.7 0.0 7.7

Lachivakkam 9.6 0.7 7.3 0.7 18.3

Mambedu 0.8 1.6 2.4

Mukkarampakkam 1.4 1.6 504.2 2.2 509.3

Palavakkam 11.6 0.2 42.5 54.3

Panjali Nagar 2.6 0.2 2.8

Perambur 5.4 5.4

Pudhukuppam 20.5 0.0 20.6

Sathya Nagar 0.1 5.0 5.1

Seenikuppam 0.8 0.1 0.8 1.6

Senkarai 43.4 4.2 44.4 0.3 92.3

Soolameni 0.7 11.0 6.2 0.1 18.0

Thandalam 21.6 6.3 4.2 0.3 32.4

Thervoy 5.5 5.0 70.2 80.7

Vannag Kuppam 4.2 3.0 7.1

Villiyar Colony 0.5 5.6 6.1

67

Irrigated Owned Land Area

in Acre (Sum)

BC MBC SC ST Total

Caste wise 740.7 601.9 1398.9 1.3 2742.8

Aaramani 11.6 11.6

Anjamedu 23.0 23.0

Anna Nagar 12.0 12.9 24.9

Annavaram Colony 9.5 30.3 39.8

Chandirapuram 15.8 0.5 16.3

Dr Kuppam 72.3 5.5 77.8

Eri Colony 2.5 4.3 6.8

G.R.Kandigai 107.2 1.3 108.5

JJ Nagar

Kakkavakkam 5.0 14.9 6.3 26.2

Kannankottai 128.9 10.8 413.7 553.4

Karadiputhur 4.4 5.4 12.3 22.1

Kazadai 0.5 0.5

Kilakarmanur 4.5 39.2 43.7

Kollanoor 98.4 1.5 0.1 99.9

Lachivakkam 100.0 2.3 102.3

Mambedu 48.0 48.0

Mukkarampakkam 27.0 121.0 13.7 161.7

Palavakkam 80.1 0.5 34.0 114.6

Panjali Nagar 8.8 1.5 10.3

Perambur 36.8 36.8

Pudhukuppam 27.1 1.5 28.6

Sathya Nagar 0.0 202.5 202.5

Seenikuppam 1.0 1.0

Senkarai 48.0 10.1 64.9 122.9

Soolameni 5.1 29.9 66.3 101.3

Thandalam 63.7 72.1 6.4 142.1

Thervoy 65.8 23.8 471.0 560.5

Vannag Kuppam 40.8 10.0 50.8

Villiyar Colony 5.0 5.0

68

Non Irrigated Owned Land

Area in Acre (Sum)

BC MBC SC ST Total

Caste Wise 169.2 125.4 259.2 2.4 556.2

Aaramani 25.5 25.5

Anjamedu

Anna Nagar 6.0 6.0

Annavaram Colony 4.3 13.1 17.4

Chandirapuram

Dr Kuppam 1.0 1.0

Eri Colony 1.0 1.0

G.R.Kandigai 17.2 2.4 19.6

JJ Nagar

Kakkavakkam 0.5 0.5

Kannankottai 9.0 2.0 10.0 21.0

Karadiputhur 9.3 13.8 13.2 36.3

Kazadai

Kilakarmanur 0.1 2.9 3.0

Kollanoor 29.2 3.4 32.6

Lachivakkam 11.0 3.2 14.2

Mambedu 1.0 0.3 1.3

Mukkarampakkam 6.0 5.0 2.7 13.7

Palavakkam 8.0 50.0 58.0

Panjali Nagar 9.8 9.8

Perambur 24.3 24.3

Pudhukuppam 14.0 14.0

Sathya Nagar

Seenikuppam 31.1 31.1

Senkarai 39.5 12.7 3.7 55.8

Soolameni 0.8 6.8 7.6 15.2

Thandalam 1.5 1.5

Thervoy 5.0 2.6 145.3 152.8

Vannag Kuppam 0.5 0.5

Villiyar Colony

Livestock BC MBC SC ST Total

No 770 851 2120 357 4098

Yes 339 386 849 52 1626

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724

69

Number BC MBC SC ST Total

Buffalo 192 155 264 3 614

Cow 247 324 1010 22 1603

Goat 301 605 942 82 1930

Ox 105 105 339 2 551

Pig 9 2 5 16

Poultry

Bird

367 436 1141 85 2029

Sheep 81 189 94 33 397

Total 1302 1816 3795 227 7140

Impairment Total

Sight 35

Hearing 54

Speech 35

Use of Legs 117

Use of Arms 29

Total 270

Govt Schemes Availed of BC MBC SC ST Total

Housing 16 31 240 45 332

Education 8 7 16 1 32

Insurance 30 23 43 2 98

Agriculture 17 7 8 32

MNREGA 617 794 2098 164 3673

Total 1109 1237 2969 409 5724