STATE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND … Rangan...VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 5 K arl Marx1 argued forcefully that the history of all hitherto existing societies was the history of class

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 5

Karl Marx1 argued forcefully that the history of allhitherto existing societies was the history of classstruggle i.e., the struggle between the contending

classes and in the 19th century the period when he lived, itwas the struggle between the numerically smaller yetdominant bourgeoisie and the large mass of the proletariat,which would inexorably lead to the victory of the Proletariatand transfer of power to the latter. Bertrand Russell2,however, viewed ‘power’ as the chief motivation of allhuman actions and search for power, its acquisition andretention dominate human actions in all spheres and phases.Some recent thinkers have articulated that regardless ofthe differences in the form of government, the state or theeconomic system, an organized society is always dividedinto classes who command and dictate and those who arerequired to obey and carry out these orders. This holisticview of power and its manifestations in large nation stateslike India or Russia in areas of centre-state relations, inter-state or ever intra-state spheres are as complex as ininternational relations because within a large federal orquasi-federal state with strong unitary features, as the IndianPolity, the power game is always and necessarily intenseand continuously shifting caused by operation of socio-economic and technological forces, often influenced bydevelopments outside the country. The study of dynamicsof power is, therefore, an art as well as a science. It maybe argued that while power game is an art, the structureand ingredients of power constitute a science in its ownright. Politics is all about the power play just as war alwaysinvolves violence.

Understanding of power, therefore, is essential for anysociety organized as a province or state in any federal or

STATE, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND SOCIETY

RANGAN DUTTA*

even a unitary state like Bangladesh because there arealways instances of uneven development and consequentunequal distribution of power. At any case power gamealways leaves some parts better off while the rest strivesfor a larger share in the cake and in this matter, evenimaginary grievances do play its part. If one looks at India’sdevelopment experience since 1947, one is struck by shiftsof economic power from East to West first in the 50’s andthen to Peninsular India in the 60s and 70s and later since1980’s to the territory roughly falling in the operationalarea of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and ChandigarhChambers of Commerce (PHDCC), the National CapitalRegion and parts of Rajasthan & Western UP. Theeconomic power shift made these zonal clusters theadvancing economic and industrial centres and relegatedthe Eastern zone and Bengal, once the most advancedregion to a position of a secondary player primarily as thesource of strategic minerals, raw materials and cheapunskilled labour and as market for value added productsof these ‘developed areas. The point to note is that thisshift of power was not just the outcome of the economicor financial policies of the Centre but rather these policiesthemselves were made possible or facilitated by the erosionand eventual loss of political clout of Bengal and EasternStates. Therefore, merely demanding a change of policieswould be unproductive without appreciating the power basesuch policies and forces had already created and thematerial changes in the political economy of the countrysince 1947. Thus, any plan to revive the regional economymust recognize that strategy is an ingredient of power andits success critically depends on how the levers of thecentral power structure respond to measures proposed torevive or regenerate the societal capacity of the people, itseconomy and polity.

ARTICLE

* Scientific Consultant in the Office of the Principal ScientificAdviser to the Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Former Assam-Meghalaya Cadre IAS Officer.

6 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

The word ‘strategy’ derived from the Greek word‘strategos’ means generalship, the art of war, a detailedplan for success in war, politics and the skill of planningfor such situations and therefore must be relatable to thepower structure within which the goals are to be achievedwithin a time frame. In recent times, the word ‘strategy’has been put too much abuse in the corporate lexicon andmust be ignored as it essentially relates to ‘state craft’which, it must be emphasized is a higher discipline and apeople can neglect it only at its peril because loss of controlover state apparatus or state power sets in motion a processthat turns men into mice which no individual scholastic orcultural or spiritual achievement could undo or reverse inany significant manner. And, let us be honest – the state isnot going to ‘wither’ away in the Marxist sense; rather theinstitution is likely to get stronger with broadening as wellas deepening of its institutions of public governance. Thisbeing the reality it is essential that the intelligentsia andthe civil society take a hard look at the dynamics of statepower – its theory and practice and consider measuresto make it an effective instrument of all-round progressand empowerment of the society. This is the reason forassigning high priority to the study of Government atHarvard and other great centres of learning in the West asa major discipline.

Since the state or the government is essentially aninstrument for exercise of power, it may be useful tounderstand what constitutes ‘power’. To begin with powerof a state, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder andin this case it is what is perceived by others – states andnations in its neighborhood, especially rivals andadversaries – actual and potential. Thus, the concept of‘Perceived Power’ i.e., power as perceived by others hasbeen evolved. The following equation of Ray Cline, a U.S.strategic thinker which formed the theoritical frameworkof one year course at National Defence College, the highestranking military training institution in India3 merits amention here:

pp = (e + c + m) x (s + w)

where pp = perceived Power

e = economic strength inclusive of the scientificand technology (S & T) capacity

c = critical mass e.g., territory, access to sea,capacity to absorb onslaughts and retaliate

m = military capability

s = strategy

w = will, means will of the state and the peopleto pursue goals and objectives

The equation is based on study of many wars andconflicts in the modern period suggesting the vital role ofstrategy and national will in determining the pp of a state.Thus, even if e + c + m add upto a big number if (s + w)is o, the pp is zero.

This was evident in France in World War II when theThird Republic collapsed in a few days as the French Army,had no strategy to deal with the German Blitzkrieg andthe armoured thrust of Gen. Guderian and the French politylacked the will to resist. A similar lack of strategy tocounter the mounted archery of the Turks and completelack of will displayed by Lakshman Sen, the lastindependent Hindu King of Bengal resulted in centuries ofsubjugation and decadence. It is not necessary to go intodetails of each ingredient of pp but to stress the specialrole of ‘strategy’ because every ingredient has to bestrategised to optimise its outcome and capability. To citean example – S&T education optimally adds to theeconomic strength only when its programmes are integratedinto the industrial and rural development process. Thissynergy is possible through strategy only and, therefore,critical for attaining science and technological capabilitywhich is the foundation of economic strength. In India, afederation characterized by inter-state competition for fasterprogress a strategic approach to S&T seems most relevant.To develop this idea, the case of West Bengal – her uniquedevelopment experience since 1947, resourceendowments, geo-strategic position, scientific andtechnological tradition and capacity and also developmentchallenges including environmental security issues – hasbeen focused as it has reached the stage when adoption ofa strategic approach to S&T appears to be essential toretrieve, at least in a substantial measure her position as alead state in the country. As several large states like MPand UP face similar complexities, the above approach couldas well apply to them.

Raja Rammohan Roy was the first Indian to graspthe concept of power in the new political order in Indiabased on the Rule of Law and accountability to the BritishParliament albeit under the aegis of the East IndianCompany. In making his submission to the authorities inEngland in 1831 on the practical operation of theadministrative and judicial systems and the conditions ofthe native inhabitants4 he made two insightful commentson the rise of British power in India. Pointing out howvast areas of India had fallen into the possession of theEnglish, Roy submitted that the army they (the British)employed consisted of the natives of India, a country intowhich, “the notion of patriotism has never made ‘it easy’,and attributed the defeat of Indian rulers, to the “dissensions

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 7

and pusillanimous conduct of the native princes as well asto the ignorance existing in the East of the modernimprovements in the art of war.” He discounted the powerof the Sikh empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of north westIndia consisting of Lahore, Multan, Cashmere and EasternCabul, because it was ‘arbitrary the idea of constitutionalgovernment being entirely foreign to his (Maharaja RanjitSingh) mind and its foundation through military wasnevertheless mild and conciliatory’. It, therefore, lackedcapacity for expansion of its power. His submission bearstestimony of his strategic assessment that the British rulein India was there to stay for quite sometime because itwas endowed with the sinews of power – advanced military,administrative, scientific and technological capability andthe will of the rulers.

Since the Industrial Revolution, scientific researchwhich began at the centres of learning gradually movedinto the public domain because it was no longer a purepursuit of knowledge but its outcome in the shape of‘technology’ became an instrument of state power. Theintegration of scientific and industrial research, relentlessapplication of science to defence related industries includingspace and nuclear sciences put ‘science’ into the centre-stage of state policy. In “The Corridors of Power” C.P.Snow5 gives a fascinating account of this development inUK which holds good for every aspiring nation. Today thescientists especially those engaged in ‘strategic sectors’ havecome to occupy positions of great prestige and power. Inemerging economies one sees a common feature – adominant role of the state especially the central governmentin science and technology, S&T education, research anddevelopment. In India, the Department of Science&Technology, the core scientific departments and threeinstitutions – the office of the Principal Scientific Adviser(PSA) to the Govt. of India, the Scientific AdvisoryCommittee to the Cabinet and the PM’s Scientific AdvisoryCouncil constitute a formidable power structure in policyplanning and functioning of S&T system in India. On theother hand, at the state level where the real action is inthe fields of agriculture, manufacturing and services, thereis virtual absence of any such S&T policy making orimplementation and evaluation capability. The fact that S&Tand R&D are entirely funded by the centre does not fullyexplain this situation. Rather, the dominating role of thecentre has dwarfed S&T policy initiatives at most statecapitals notwithstanding the creation of a state S&TCouncils headed by the Chief Minister. Only recently stateslike Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh havecome out with their own S&T Policy which is a positivedevelopment as State specific R&D priorities and S&Tinterventions have been identified for action within the

framework of the National Science Policy 20036. This is aright move towards decentralization of science policymaking. Perhaps more significantly, it reflects anunderstanding of the strategic role of S&T as an ingredientof long-term state power and not just for economicprogress. The intense competition for seeking establishmentof hi-tech S&T research and educational institutions amongthe states must be seen from this perspective. In thisbackdrop, the National Science Policy 2003 statement that“the States will also be encouraged and assisted in the useof science & technology for developmental purposesthrough mechanisms set up for this and in establishinglinkages with national institutions for solving their regionaland locale specific problems” sounds paternalistic becausein major States like West Bengal at last, basic S&T capacityalready exists and the issue is how to raise its capabilitypreferably on its own motion by systemic reform. It wouldbe useful at this stage to note the major thrusts of NationalScience Policy 2003 and its implementation plan assummarized below :-

Science must grapple with the key challengesfacing the country – pressures of increasingpopulation, greater health risks, degraded naturalresources, environment, dwindling farm lands andfood security, mitigation and management ofnatural hazards and promotion of innovation andall those call for an integrated and holisticapproach.

Science is becoming increasingly inter and multidisciplinary and S&T have become so closely intertwined that it has become a source of economicmight and power as the basis of competitivenessand instrument for alleviation of poverty andregional imbalance in development. There is needto blend traditional knowledge systems withmodern S&T.

Since information is key to development of S&T,all efforts must be made to provide high speedaccess to information.

All major socio-economic Ministries of Govt. ofIndia will have high level scientific advisorymechanisms.

A major initiative to modernize the infrastructurefor science and engineering in academic institutionswill be undertaken. It will be ensured that allmiddle and high schools vocational and othercolleges will have appropriately sized ScienceLaboratories.

8 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

Promotion of basic research by improving R&Dfacilities and restructuring of existing institutions,or creating new institutions and measures to attracttalent to basic research is a major policy objective.

Development of technology foresight whichinvolves not only forecasting and assessment oftechnologies but also their social economic andenvironmental consequences and innovativetechnologies of breakthrough nature.

Creation of a comprehensive national system ofinnovation covering S&T as also legal financialand other related aspects and the need to changethe ways in which society and economy performs,if innovation has to fructify.

Achievement of synergy between industry andscientific research by putting in place AutonomousTechnology Transfer Organizations as associateorganizations of universities and NationalLaboratories to facilitate transfer of the know howgenerated to the industry.

Intellectual Property Rights must be viewed as aneffective policy instrumental relevant to wideranging socio-economic and political concepts andtherefore the development of skills and competenceto manage IPR and leveraging its influence willbe given a major thrust.

Scientific and technological empowerment of thesociety to enable the communities to appreciate theimplications of emerging S&T options in areaswhich infringe directly on their lives.

International S&T Cooperation especially withdeveloping countries in our neighbourhood and alladvanced countries by way of collaborativeprojects in order to pool intellectual resources.

Expansion of Public-Private Partnership in S&Tand R&D actives to ensure a leap frogging processof development.

The above scheme in the National Science Policy2003 contains an unstated administrative position – theinitiative in S&T rests with the centre. This is reiterated inthe Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Plan in its mentionthat “State S&T councils in the most States need to bestrengthened in terms of human and financial resources tomeet State specific technological needs and to integrateS&T with State development process. Department of S&Tlinkages with the States also need to be strengthened severalfold.”

Quite frankly, this would be a tall order for the StateS&T Councils, structured as they were, to play a verylimited and largely a ceremonial role in the governance ofthe state and therefore the present central dependencysyndrome in S&T will continue unless states especially thelarger states with S&T tradition and base consider scientificand technological self-reliance as a societal objective, ameans to progress and prosperity and an instrument ofpower. Assuming that such an idea or awareness exists,though it is dormant at times, an approach to develop aState specific S&T Policy and S&T System responsive tothe states’ S&T needs keeping West Bengal in view isattempted in the successive paragraphs.

The bedrock of any S&T system has always beenthe science education system at the school especially highersecondary level because it lays down the base or thecatchment area of S&T based skill development andentrepreneurship. Here the number counts – the higher theproportion of students opting for maths and science streams,larger is the base and the capacity to sustain technical andscientific and professional institutions in Engineering,Medical & Management. The status of S&T education inWest Bengal compared to some States as analysed belowunderscores this point.

Under AICTE approved Computer RelatedCourses7, the share of West Bengal based teachinginstitutions in 2003 was about 3.8% compared toabout 20% in Andhra Pradesh and 27% in TamilNadu. This has led IT industry observers to statethat IT sector in West Bengal has perhaps reacheda point whereby its further expansion woulddepend heavily on migrant knowledge workers8.In a state wise review carried out by NISTADS9,it has been noted while 64.95% of students inTamil Nadu opted for science streams in 12th

standard, the corresponding figure of West Bengalis 12.46%. No wonder, the Annual intake inengineering degree programme in EngineeringColleges in Tamil Nadu in 2005-06 was 18.06%of the All India intake and that of West Bengal ameagre 2.6% (Andhra holds the highest share of19.06% and U.P. 8.2% in 2005-06). This holdsgood for Medical and Professional Degree Coursesalso. To be specific, West Bengal has 71recognised Engineering Colleges compared to 527in Andhra and 33 Business Schools against 324such schools in Andhra. (West Bengal StateDevelopment Report 2010)

The intake capacity at – Industrial TrainingInstitutes / Industrial Training Centres at Diploma

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 9

level also is low in West Bengal being only 11per one lakh population (2006-07) compared to26 in Odisha which points to the need to increasethe network of ITIs and polytechnics. Realizingthe need to expand the ITI network, Bihar, placedin a worse situation had pressed for additionalCentral Grants and has been sanctioned Rs. 100crores for establishing 105 new ITIs as statespecific grant by the 13th Finance Commission. Itis interesting to note that in all southern states morethan the Govt. ITIs, privately owned IndustrialTraining Centres (ITC) play a much bigger role inimparting vocational training which has pushed thenumber of ITI / ITC per million population inKarnataka and Kerala to 14 and 17 respectively.Since, the ITC’s are very few in West Bengal, theno. of ITI / ITC per million population is aboutone reflecting extremely inadequate facility forformal vocational training and skill development– an unfortunate feature of eastern states exceptOdisha where due to ITC network, the aboveproportion is 4 in a million population. These twoinstitutions, ITI’s particularly need to bemodernized with better equipments, facilities andnew courses to impart skills which are in demandin the market. Therefore, expansion of ITI / ITCnetwork must be a major plank of skilldevelopment strategy.10

Thus the assertion made in the West Bengal StateDevelopment Report 2010 that “there was no‘demand deficiency’ in the state for technicaleducation but only a supply side problem” seemsquestionable.

The weak base of primary education is alsoresponsible for this situation. The state ranked 32out of 35 States/UT’s in the composite schooleducation index for 2008-09 brought out by theNational University for Educational Planning andAdministration. West Bengal ranks 18th among 20States according to indicators of infrastructure forprimary education11.

The high dropout rates in Class I-VIII (Elementary)stage in West Bengal which was 63.9% against All-India average 43.08% in 2007-08 had the effectof reducing the base of technical and highereducation together with the low net enrolment ratioof 84.5% when advanced states like Tamil Naduhas registered 97.8% enrolment and just 9.1%dropout rate. West Bengal ranks third from thebottom in the dropout rates being next only to

Assam (73.5%), Bihar (70.7%) and Orissa (61.3%)but much lower than U.P. (28.6%).12 Science andTechnology Policy exercise must, therefore, beginin any state for that matter with a comprehensivereview of primary education, quality of teachingof maths and science subjects, laboratory, computerand such other facilities at schools and theexamination system for testing analytical ability ofstudents and not just rote-learning for the solepurpose of passing examinations.

A new approach to science education at the highschool level is emerging in the country developed by publicspirited scientists to convert school as a hub for technologydemonstration, dissemination and rural developmentthrough innovation. Dr. P. Sudhakar,13 (who had served asa Faculty at IIT Delhi from 1973-84 in the Centre forApplied Research in Electronics) worked at Palonchavillage in Khamman District in Andhra Pradesh where hestarted a school, Haritha Ecological Institute. His idea wasto enable the students to carry on normal school curriculawith a capacity to analyse the village environment. Hisemphasis was to assist them in developing innovativesolutions to problems the community faces by a practicallearning process. This is worthy of study and emulation.What is needed is out of the box thinking on crucial matterslike improvement in standard of teaching of mathematics.Without maths a society cannot even participate in theexpanding opportunities thrown by what is called “sunriseindustries” e.g. IT and telecom technology and high endscientific research and product development.

The National Science Policy 2003 has underscoredAcademia-Industry collaboration as an instrument ofeconomic growth and promotion of basic and appliedresearch in the country. Examined closely, it would appearthat the prospects of the former activity exist primarily inthe industrially diverse and advanced regions in south, westand north-west regions. This is somewhat limited in easternIndia. This is because of a pattern of industrial growth since1956 when the Industrial Policy Resolution was made. Thisled to concentration of R&D, scientific & technicalinstitutions and public investments in strategic industriesin a manner ‘convergent’ enough to generate a multipliereffect in these three regions. In the process a durable basein these regions was ensured of hi-tech industries and R&Dinstitutions associated with such industries. It is not withinthe scope of this paper to examine whether this was theright approach or how it evolved but it is a situation thatmust be recognized and factored into any state specificS&T policy. The statement at Annex I on the total numberof recognised educational institutions in India 2007-08

10 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

taken from the Economic Survey 2010-201114, Govt. ofIndia bears out the fact of such concentration and theregional imbalance. The Annexure II, also from theEconomic Survey 2010-2011 on the State wise distributionof Bank offices, Aggregate Deposits and total credit ofPublic sector banks and percentage share of Advances toPriority sectors gives an idea of imbalance in wealthcreation caused in no small a measure by uneven growthin S&T skill and knowledge base. Going a step further,Table 2.7-2.8 Annexure III the Mid-Term Appraisal of the11th Plan15 regarding the economic performance of statesin the industrial sector, show that states with strongerinstitutional base in S&T and R&D have been performingmuch better and in fact leading growth in service andindustrial sector. This is inevitable because higher valueadded services and industrial output are primarilytechnology and knowledge driven and it holds good foragriculture sector as well. Hence, the differences in thegrowth rate of Gross State Domestic Product of states asenumerated at Table 2.5 of the Mid Term Appraisal (MTA)of the Eleventh Plan (Annexure IV) reflect to a large extentthe relative S&T strength, the capacity to harness S&T tothe development process and deepen and broaden the baseof the middle class and knowledge workers.

The above inter relationship between institutional baseof S&T and management education, R&D and growth inindustries and services sector suggests than the S&T policyof a state must provide a framework for integrating R&Dinstitutions with industry and entrepreneurship development.The two note worthy successes in this process are (i) therapid growth of high value added leather export industryin Chennai due to the technology support extended toentrepreneurships from the Central Leather ResearchInstitute Chennai and (ii) phenomenal growth ofpharmaceutical and bio-technology based industries inHyderabad and national capital region.

The success of Jaipur Ceramics, a private corporateenterprise in equipping rural potters in a cluster of villagesclose to its plant in Jaipur with technology developed atthe Central Glass & Ceramic Research Institute, Jadavpurin West Bengal and enabling them to produce high valueproducts for exports shows that technology could bringabout integration of unorganized rural non-farm sector andthe organized sector. There are scores of such examples ofhubs of specialized industries which came up in south Indiaespecially after establishment of S&T institutions in high-tech fields which achieved a synergy between the work oforganized and unorganized sector. Thus, an importantelement of the S&T policy should be (i) to take stock ofthe states institutional capacity in S&T, covering science

education and R&D, (ii) identity technology gaps inindustries and activities in all sectors, (iii) current capacityof existing S&T institutions to bridge the gaps and on thisbasis, prepare a need based plan for new R&D facilitiesand S&T institutions essential for securing a place for thestate knowledge based industries and services sector. ThisPlan could be taken up with the centre and even multilateralagencies. It is not just ‘a wish list’ for new S&T institutions,but a strategic need for economic development and socialstability. The social aspect is important because the currentphenomena of internal brain drain that has denuded WestBengal and Eastern India of its skilled youth in recent timeswhich has benefitted knowledge based industries inBangalore, Pune and abroad is primarily due to lack ofopportunity within the region – arising out of a very narrowbase of high end and inter related scientific research facility,hi-tech and sunrise and strategic industries whichnecessarily came up in the other regional clusters basedon technological foundation initially created there anddecisions to start activities in space, electronics, aeronautics,atomic energy in these regions. However, much one maywish or try, reversal of this internal brain drain is possibleonly to a very limited extent in the short to medium termand only a successful execution of long term strategic plantowards S&T capacity building in hi-tech areas backed upby efforts to promote ‘technopreneurship’ and publicinvestment in modern industries could significantly reducethe imbalance. The development experience of Germany& Japan after World War II suggests that a lead once lostis hard but not impossible to recapture provided the innatetechnological, entrepreneurial and R&D capability survivedthe vicissitudes to enable the authorities to work on thatbase to build an economy on new technologies.

A policy to promote technology basedentrepreneurship calls for a close linkage betweentechnology developers, the financing agencies, the state andthe technopreneurs engaged in medium, small and microenterprises and creation of specialized hubs to achieve andmaintain a competitive edge. The global experience oftechnology transfer suggests a three stage process – a S&Tinstitution generating an innovation, a state or a non-govt.organization including corporates willing to demonstrate theinnovation, an entrepreneur eager to try the innovation andmarket the product who usually looks forward to specialsupport in the form of venture capital and a bank or afinancing agency to invest and share the risk. In theadvanced countries, the state funding of research at theuniversity level for innovation for eventual use in industryhas been liberal; equally generous is the financial supportextended by banks to the entrepreneurs to cover the riskalmost entirely often with state underwriting the loan. The

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 11

state also creates the physical and social infrastructure forthe hubs. Over the last two decades hubs or clustersspecializing in machine tools, automobiles, textiles,readymade garments and hosiery, pharmaceuticals,chemicals, ship building and repairs of ships, leather goodsand garments have emerged primarily in the southern,western and north western regions. None of the 17 newclusters approved in the Tenth Plan in auto, chemicals,textiles, pharmaceuticals, machine tools was located in theeast zone16. Since these are integrated complexes, hubs ineastern region, for example auto clusters in Jamshedpurand Kolkata, are unlikely to expand, as transport of autocomponents from Ludhiana to assembly plants take as manyas five days. The proximity of auto componentmanufacturing close to automobile plants gives the ‘autohubs’ in Delhi-Gurgaon-Manesar a strong advantage. Theconcentration of special economic zones also in theseregions will add greater strength to these regional hubs andreduce the chances of eastern zonal hubs unlessinfrastructure, technology-skill base are diversified toachieve competitiveness. For this, West Bengal needs aspecial policy to stimulate its innovation, eco system andpromotion of hubs by developing a capacity within the stategovt. to work with central labs, R&D institutions and theindustry and institutional finance. For this following stepsare suggested–

to draw up a coordinated plan to indicate stateR&D priorities for development of various sectorsof the economy.

to put in place a mechanism to promote academia-industry collaboration, by incentivising theprograme so as to draw the university system intothis effort and to identify needs for new R&Dinstitutions for development of state.

to select innovations already developed in the S&Tsystem by TIFAC (Technology Forecast andAssessment Council) for example for projectisation/ commercialization in the partnership modementioned above.

to work out a strategy for regaining states capacityin areas where it had enjoyed primacy in not toodistant a past eg. engineering, pharmaceuticals,glass and ceramics, leather goods, food processing,hosiery, surgical instruments etc. coveringtechnology gaps and upgradation, and institutionalsupport for expansion of existing units.

to utilize large fish seed production capacitycurrently geared to supply to other states forproduction of fish in private tanks, and beels and

in clusters with processing facilities as in the westcoast by organizing fish farmers into producergroups – with technology and marketing support.

to utilize favourable agro-climate situation forcreating floriculture hubs in South of and NorthBengal with storage and transport facilities.

to strategize growth of coastal region – once thehub of east coast sea trade by an integratedapproach to development of sea and river ports,sustainable exploitation of marine resources andcoastal tourism.

A State specific land policy based on an updated landcapability survey taking note of the massive degradationof land in recent years is an imperative need as WestBengal is already the most thickly populated state in thecountry with a population approaching 10 crores which isunlikely to abate. Singur and Nandigram have putagricultural land firmly in the national agenda; the issue isnot just land acquisition but scientific land use which hasto be addressed. In the 70’s the states were advised by thecentral govt. to set up Land-use Boards to assess landcapability and to take measures to ensure its sustainability.Like many initiatives, this was given up. A science basedland use policy utilizing the satellite imageries and fieldsurveys requires a lot of scientific work in the field. Here,participation of the university system, the scientificcommunity and S&T capable voluntary organizations isessential.

The National Water Policy 200217 lays down thenational priorities and strategies to conserve and harnessthe water resources for development and well being of thepeople and a framework. However, a large state andespecially West Bengal which shares water with Bangladeshand to a lesser extent with Bhutan and is faced withmultiple problems such as severe water quality problem inSouth Bengal, rapid depletion of ground water and highincidence of arsenic and nitrate pollution must have a statespecific water security policy covering following aspects

conservation of river systems

conservation of water holding structures such aswetlands, beels and public tanks and privatelyowned ponds and fisheries.

a specific water and sanitation policy withemphasis on economy and efficiency in water useto minimize wastage.

avoidance of profligacy in water use especially inurban areas by appropriate water pricing.

12 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

integration of water policy with measures toconserve forests, tree over and improveenvironment for ecological security.

The states in the Indo-Gangetic plains areoverpopulated. Consequently the man-land ratio, the sizeof the farm operational holdings are steadily falling leadingto (i) intensive cultivation / multiple cropping and (ii)increasing difficulty in obtaining land for construction ofroads and other infrastructure and expansion of urban areas.As the very small agricultural holdings are unviable, manysmall farmers in villages close to the cities have switchedover to commercial crops, high value vegetables and havebeen forced to seek jobs outside agriculture preferably innearby urban centres. In this scenario, a fall in productionof cereals relative to the rising demand is bound to pose aserious problem because the green revolution technologyis yielding less proportionate to the increased use of inputsapart from steadily reducing the fertility of the soil.

This has created what Dr. Dhirubajyoti Ghosh18 called‘uncertainty in rural livelihoods’ and a ‘visible decline invillage people’s care for nature’. Therefore, checkingdegradation of land and water resources is a major scientificand policy challenge as S&T management have to developalternative operational / business models for the farmingcommunity, who, are as Nanaji Deshmukh, nationalist socialthinker, pointed out “the custodians of natural resources”and must be assisted to remain in the villages. Some ofthe proven technological initiatives like ‘landscapemanagement’ and biological treatment of solid wastes needprojectisation.

The approach to sources of energy is integral to landuse and water policy. Here the harnessing the potentionalof solar and wind energy and use of bio mass for energygeneration by gasifier technology deserve high priority ina state like West Bengal. Though WBREDA has initiatedcommendable work, R&D back up of these efforts needgreater support to address location specific problems.Science & Technology for urban development is a greyarea in the country where suppliers and constructionagencies determine the type of investment often at a hugecost and unrelated to the public need. The construction ofstainless of steel bust stop-shelters in New Delhi and muchof the street renovation and infrastructural work at a hugecost to turn Delhi into “a world class city” during theCommon Wealth Games 2010 reflect not only a waste ofpublic money but lack of an urban technology policy todevelop and apply cost effective and environment friendlytechnologies to deal with the pressing problems of transport,sanitation, congestion, water and power services. Statescience and technology policy must address these issues.

Science and Technology activities of a state areexpected to cover only subjects which come within thepurview of the state govt. such as agriculture and rural/urban development and industries. The industrial and otheractivities carried out by the central ministries like defenceor railways have independent R&D back up for their workprovided by dedicated agencies like Defence Research &Development Organisation (DRDO) or Railway Design andStandards (RDSO) even though they generate significant‘spill over’ effect in the local economy. From the societalperspective, work in ordnance factories, defence researchespecially in space, atomic energy, aeronautics, shipbuilding, heavy vehicles are so inter-related and have larger‘spin offs’ for civilian use and contribute to skilldevelopment that a State Science Policy in a state like WestBengal which pioneered manufacturing of modern rifles,guns and battle ships should at least take a view on apossible linkage between technical education and training,and R&D in these fields and the possibility of expandingthe defence manufacturing & R&D base in the state andintegrating them into the state industrial developmentprocess. As a first step participation of selected stateuniversities and engineering colleges in collaborativeresearch with DRDO, Department of Atomic Energy andDepartment of Space has to be institutionalised along withestablishment of R&D institutions in West Bengal instrategic fields.

West Bengal still commands an unrivalled strategiclocation which in the past attracted traders and investorsfrom the west and the east. Kolkata continues to be thesurface and as communication hub of the whole of eastand north-east India and Siliguri, the strategic enterport forthe NE, Sikkim, Bhutan and surface link to Nepal & Tibethas the potential to emerge as the ‘Regional Metro’ of theNE with improved connectivity and urban infrastructure.Despite these advantages, ‘India’s look East Policy’ haslargely expanded economic interaction between the southernstates and ASEAN countries and share of West Bengal andNE is indeed very small for want of a strategy. Before1947, Calcutta had strong links with Malaysia, Mayanmar,Thailand and other ASEAN states of today. To begin with,prospects of scientific and technological collaboration atthe Institutional level could be explored including technicaland medical education and research to deal with commonproblems like malaria, water quality, flood moderation,disaster preparedness, climate change, etc. In the next stepcomplimentarities between the economies of the regionneed to be explored and established by policy interventionand technological collaboration.

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 13

Conclusion

The complexity of organizing science19 in a vastnation state like India with the object of promotingcreativity and innovation in all regions needs, in the firstplace recognition of the fact of low participation of Statesin S&T and a frank appraisal of the present, central govt.driven and funded S&T system built in the 1950’s on themodel of the then Soviet Union which greatly expandedthe R&D work through the network of national laboratoriesand specialized field research work by agencies such asthe Indian Council of Agricultural Research or CSIR.Though the number of universities and private universitieshave increased manifold since 1947 the quantity and qualityof scientific research carried out by the universities underthe states are far below the levels compared to the R&Dwork at the science and technology institutions, funded bythe Govt. of India20. The decision to set up new centraluniversities, IITs and NISER, IIMs will widen the gap.Already, better salaries and prospects have been known toattract talent to the central science and technologyorganizations. However, no observer of management ofscience in India could miss the fact that the R&D in thestates has been stifled and the states suffer from atechnological dependency syndrome of having to dependon the central science and technology system and moreimportantly, the constraint of not being able to makeappropriate choice of scientific and technological optionswhich severely hinders development initiatives, especiallyin areas where ‘directed’ research is needed to deal withlocation or sector specific problems. In this situation,formulation of a comprehensive state specific science andtechnology policy is really a step towards democratizationof science and technology system as the sheer size,population and complexity of development challenges ofmajor states demands such an initiative and to make ithappen, the scientific community as a part of the civilsociety has a vital role to play in initiating an informeddebate, and create opinion to get the idea accepted by thepolitical class.

It is worthwhile to note here that way back in Sept.1938, the 15 member National Planning Committeeconstituted by Netaji Subhas Chadra Bose, the thenCongress President under the Chairmanship of Pandit Nehrucontained 5 scientists including Dr. Meghanad Saha andDr. J.C. Ghosh. In fact Prof. Meghanad Saha was the prime-mover of this first national effort towards Planning builtto a great extent on scientific inputs. It is interesting tonote that Gandhiji’s “inexplicably strong opposition” to theidea of national planning led to suppression of the report

of the National Committee21. In the present context it isnot enough that individual scientists are involved in theplanning process. What could really make a difference ispositioning of scientists in the state power structure.Constitution of a Scientific Advisory Committee to the statecabinet could be the first positive step to this directionand a systemic reform.

A common feature in the fast changing internal andexternal environment of India is the intense struggle forpower; it is among major states within India for a largerspace in economic and political spheres and it is the samein our neighbourhood. The World Bank observation22 madein its report on NE India that “Geography is economicdestiny” suggests that even within a nation state there is akind of geo-political game for capital and technology. Insuch a situation, states endowed with greater technological,scientific and management-entrepreneurial capacities willcontinue to advance faster in a liberalised economy withincreasing globalization. This is already happening in Indiaas its pattern of economy growth is much like the Italianeconomy in the 1930’s when parts of Italy were in advancedcapitalist stage while other parts were having features of acolonial economy. The current low share of West Bengal(7.44%) in GSDP and eastern and NE region as a whole23

Annexure V (about 19% in 2006-07 at current prices) spurtin growth in the 10th Plan notwithstanding, reflects a deepimbalance with enormous security, and socio-economicimplications which need to be addressed. This papercontends that of various factors contributing to this stateof affairs, the technological asymmetry, that West Bengaland other eastern states suffer in relation to advancedregions merits recognition as a major cause and the firststeps to remove this constraint on development of the statecould well be the formulation of a science and technologypolicy for West Bengal and an institutional arrangement toposition the scientists in the development power structure.

The object of this paper is really to provoke somethinking on this proposition with a conviction that this effortis in line with the thought of Acharya P.C. Ray and Dr.Meghnad Saha whose abiding concern for all round socio-economic and cultural development was the guiding spiritof Science and Culture since its appearance in 1935.Hence, the effort to create a strategic culture would havecertainly received their blessings. ❐

References1. Karl Marx and F. Engles – The Communist Manifesto.

2. Bertrand Russell – Power.

14 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

3. National Defence College – Course Introduction by Air MarshalP.W. Puri. (1988)

4. Raja Rammohan Roy – Exposition of the Practical Operation ofthe Judicial and Revenue Systems of India and of the GeneralCharacter and Condition of its Native Inhabitants, London, SmithElder and Cornhill - (1832).

5. C.P. Snow – Corridors of Power, Macmillan, (1964).

6. The National Science Policy (2003).

7. West Bengal State Development Report – Academic Foundation,(2010) – Chapter XI – Education.

8. The Business Line – Statement of NASSCOM representative inCalcutta, 14th May, (2011).

9. NISTADS - Review – Dr. Naresh Kumar, (2011).

10. NISTADS - Vocational Education in India – India – S&T (2008).

11. The Hindustan Times, (19.05.2011).

12. M.S. Ahluwalia - 12th Plan Prospects Challenges EPW – May21-27, (2011) – Vol. XLVI-21.

13. Paper presented by Dr. P. Sudhakar at NISTADS – InternationalSeminar at New Delhi on Technology Policy and innovationMarch (2009).

14. Economic Survey (2010-11) – Ministry of Finance, Govt. ofIndia.

15. Mid Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Plan - Planning Commission,Govt. of India.

16. Mid Term Appraisal of the Tenth Plan – Chapter 12 – June 2005– Planning Commission, Govt. of India.

17. The National Water Policy (2002).

18. Dhirubajyoti Ghosh – Cultivating Uncertainity – the Statesman– 07-08 June, (2011).

19. Anderson – Organising Science in India – Saha to Bhaba.

20. P. Banerjee – Higher Education and Research Training –NISTADS Science & Technology (2008).

Measures of Progress of Science in India – A NISTADS Studyunder the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Govt. of India –April (2006).

21. Jairam Ramesh – Nehru’s Scientific Temper Recalled, Scienceand Culture 77, (7-8), 246 (2011).

22. The World Bank Strategy Report – Development and Growth ofNorth East India – June (2007).

23. E.P.W. Research Foundation Domestic Product of States in India1960-61 to 2006-07 – April (2009).

Other Referencesi. West Bengal State Development Report – Academic Foundation,

(2010) – Chapter XI – Education.

ii. R. Chidambaram – Research & Innovation – An IndianPerspective –Research & Technology Management (2011).

iii. J.D. Sachs – The End of Poverty – Penguin, (2006).

iv. Measures of impact of Science & Technology in India –Agriculture and Rural Development – M.S. SwaminathanResearch Foundation - 2007 & Principal Scientific Adviser tothe Govt. of India.

v. Rangan Dutta – Address at the 7th Annual Convocation,Vidyasagar University, April (2002).

vi. Rangan Dutta – Science & Technology for Rural Development– Need for a systemic reform - The Journal of Governance,New Delhi – Vol. 2, Jan. (2011).

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 15

ANNEX-ITotal Number of Recognised Education Institutions in India 2007-08

S. State / Primary/ Middle/ High/ Degreee and above level Poly-No. Union Territorries Junior Senior Higher Sec/ technic

Basic Basic Intermediate/ College College Others Universities/Schools Schools Pre-Degree for for Deemed Univ./

Ju. Colleges General Professional Instt. NationalEducation Education Importance

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Andhra Pradesh 62464 17957 20969 1767 1222 547 30 146

2 Arunachal Pradesh 1561 664 280 13 5 2 2 3

3 Assam 31042 13023 5820 325 54 166 8 10

4 Bihar 45980 16245 3746 817 61 34 17 13

5 Chhattisgarh 34034 14066 4226 330 25 51 9 12

6 Goa 1253 442 457 24 13 6 1 5

7 Gujarat 17443 23927 8328 593 694 569 24 60

8 Haryana 13602 3196 6095 179 520 50 10 32

9 Himachal Pradesh 11517 5009 2964 64 11 6 5 7

10 Jammu & Kashmir 13369 5202 1498 65 139 23 8 16

11 Jharkhand 19818 9996 1654 113 25 26 7 19

12 Karnataka 28871 27570 15261 638 963 13 27 186

13 Kerala 6802 3042 5525 189 244 1 10 59

14 Madhya Pradesh 98463 38107 9672 740 287 149 18 45

15 Maharashtra 42467 26863 20337 2182 748 328 42 178

16 Manipur 2563 769 804 58 8 6 2 3

17 Meghalaya 6618 2259 774 56 2 2 1 3

18 Mizoram 1752 1090 590 23 3 2 1 2

19 Nagaland 1662 4654 06 42 4 22 1 3

20 Orissa 49765 20013 8522 700 127 73 13 33

21 Punjab 13238 2477 4110 231 229 12 12 89

22 Rajasthan 55361 34211 13667 993 261 214 22 29

23 Sikkim 772 221 164 5 6 5 3 2

24 Tamil Nadu 29364 8629 7572 550 630 165 40 261

25 Tripura 2151 1021 713 16 5 7 3 1

26 Uttar Pradesh 127247 42201 15518 2050 335 147 36 110

27 Uttarakhand 15356 4263 2362 107 35 60 12 18

28 West Bengal 49913 1283 8640 382 192 48 20 48

29 A&N Islands 226 64 96 3 2 1 0 2

30 Chandigarh 30 11 126 17 11 2 3 1

31 D&N Haveli 174 108 44 0 0 0 0

32 Daman & Diu 50 24 28 1 2 0 0 1

33 Delhi 2569 640 1768 89 40 41 18 16

34 Lakshadweep 21 4 13 2 1 0 0 0

35 Puducherry 309 112 261 17 32 4 1 5

India 787827 325174 172990 13381 6936 2782 406 1418

Source : 1. Statistics of School Education 2007-082. Statistics of Higher and Technical Education-2007-08 (Abstract-Provisional).

Notes : 1. General Education includes Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges.2. Professional Education includes Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Medical and Teacher Training Colleges.

Economic Survey 2010-11

16 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

ANNEX-IIState-wise Distribution of Bank Offices, Aggregate Deposits and Total Credit of Public Sector Banks and

Percentage Share of Advances to Priority Sectors(` Crore)

No of offices Deposits Bank credit Share of priorityat the end of (` crore) (` crore) sectors in total bank

End End credit (per cent)

State/Union Territory June 1969 June 2010 June 1969 June 2010 June 1969 June 2010 June 1969 June 2010

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Andaman & N Islands 1 39 ... 1539 ... 577 ... 47.7

2 Andhra Pradesh 567 4935 121 196051 122 211501 24.4 43.6

3 Arunachal Pradesh ... 59 ... 4007 ... 1052 ... 45.7

4 Assam 74 973 33 42470 13 15293 10.3 45.8

5 Bihar 273 2481 169 86223 53 23104 9.1 68.8

6 Chandigarh 20 227 35 25249 64 39499 4.2 32.3

7 Chhattisgarh ... 793 ... 40217 ... 20365 .. 39.3

8 Dadra & Nagar Haveli ... 15 ... 817 ... 203 ... 92.3

9 Daman & Diu ... 15 ... 1268 .... 258 ... 85.3

10 Delhi 274 1789 360 414293 245 315190 10.2 16.8

11 Goa 85 348 49 23031 20 5965 12.6 43.6

12 Gujarat 752 3689 401 179866 195 112336 15.9 36.7

13 Haryana 172 1752 49 76262 23 58771 28.2 54.8

14 Himachal Pradesh 42 812 12 24842 3 10341 2.7 56.8

15 Jammu & Kashmir 35 324 18 10801 1 3267 30.3 55.6

16 Jharkhand ... 1336 ... 57973 ... 18934 ... 50.3

17 Karnataka 756 3971 188 204422 143 163286 24.8 40.8

18 Kearala 601 2467 117 94956 77 63525 27.6 68.7

19 Lakshadweep ... 11 ... 414 ... 34 .. 48.0

20 Madhya Pradesh 343 2861 107 106090 63 61921 22.3 69.1

21 Maharashtra 1118 6127 903 753602 912 682587 12.4 17.2

22 Manipur 2 81 1 2313 612 1091 ... 54.8

23 Meghalaya 7 143 9 7131 3 1671 50 39.8

24 Mizoram ... 33 ... 1614 ... 884 ... 62.6

25 Nagaland 2 74 1 3372 455 1178 40 38.5

26 Orissa 100 1832 29 68978 15 37070 11.2 49.5

27 Puducherry 12 95 5 5090 6 2667 12.9 48.2

28 Punjab 346 2893 185 117063 50 86014 27.9 49.9

29 Rajasthan 364 2580 74 84142 38 77168 16.8 50.0

30 Sikkim 53 69 1161 2678 596 1038 ... 59.7

31 Tamil Nadu 1060 4486 233 198717 311 229436 25.5 40.2

32 Tripura 5 114 4 5657 720 1303 9.5 56.9

33 Uttar Pradesh 747 6773 337 263068 154 110952 16.9 61.0

34 Uttarakhand 687 886 21367 37696 5476 12237 ... 69.9

35 West Bengal 504 4054 456 221730 526 134151 4.4 33.6

India 8262 59107 3896 3363640 3036 2504872 14.9 34.4

Source : Reserve Bank of India & Previous Economic Surveys.a Includes State Bank of India and its Associates, 19 Nationalised Banks and since 2004 IDBI Bank Limited.

Notes : 1. Deposits exclude inter-bank deposits.2. Bank credit excludes dues from banks but includes amount of bills rediscounted with RBI/financial isntitutions.3. The data relating to deposits and bank credit relate to the last Friday of the month and are based on quarterly return on aggregate

deposits and gross bank credit.4. State-wise and all India percentages have been worked out with reference to gross bank credit (inclusive of food credit).5. Figures may not add up to totals because of rounding.

Economic Survey 2010-11

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 17

ANNEXURE-IIIEconomic Performance of the States in the Industrial Sector

(per cent)

Averages for Plan Periods XI Plan

VII Plan VIII Plan IX Plan X Plan Expectation Annual

1985-90 1992-97 1997-2002 2002-07 2007-12 2007-08 2008-09

Growth over period in per cent per annum

1 Andhra Pradesh 8.1 6.6 4.9 11.5 12.0 10.4 0.2

2 Assam 3.1 3.2 1.9 7.9 8.0 3.4 3.8

3 Bihar 6.0 –0.6 10.6 17.7 8.0 17.0 19.6

4 Chhattisgarh 10.2* 2.5 4.3 14.7 12.0 13.5 10.7

5 Delhi 9.6 3.6 5.0 10.9 na 4.6 na

6 Goa 6.3 7.8 12.3 9.0 15.7 8.8 na

7 Gujarat 7.6 15.6 1.8 13.1 14.0 10.7 na

8 Haryana 10.8 6.0 6.7 10.4 14.0 9.5 5.4

9 Himachal Pradesh 11.8 14.2 5.6 10.2 14.5 9.1 12.5

10 Jammu & Kashmir 4.6 1.9 3.0 8.4 9.8 11.3 na

11 Jharkhand 6.0* –0.3 3.2 13.5 12.0 4.4 4.4

12 Karnataka 7.7 6.0 7.8 11.1 12.5 13.1 5.0

13 Kerala 6.0 8.4 4.3 12.5 9.0 11.2 10.3

14 Madhya Pradesh 10.2 9.0 8.2 5.5 8.0 6.9 na

15 Maharashtra 8.6 8.0 1.0 8.6 8.0 8.0 na

16 Orissa 9.4 3.4 4.2 16.1 12.0 20.0 0.7

17 Punjab 8.7 7.1 4.8 7.8 8.0 9.8 8.0

18 Rajasthan 8.5 9.2 8.1 10.0 8.0 7.8 2.8

19 Tamil Nadu 4.2 8.4 2.0 10.5 8.0 2.2 1.0

20 Uttar Pradesh 8.6 7.7 0.8 9.7 8.0 9.2 6.2

21 Uttarakhand 8.6* 7.9 5.7 15.9 12.0 13.4 14.1

22 West Bengal 3.9 5.3 6.6 8.7 11.0 10.4 7.2

Median 8.3 6.8 4.9 10.4 11.0 9.6 5.8

Standard Deviation 2.4 4.0 3.0 3.1 2.6 4.2 5.3

Quartile 1 6.0 3.4 3.0 8.8 8.0 7.9 3.6

Quartile 3 9.2 8.3 6.8 12.9 12.0 11.3 10.4

North-Eastern hill states

1 Arunachal Pradesh 7.0 10.0 16.2 12.1 8.0 4.3 3.0

2 Manipur 6.6 2.7 6.5 14.1 8.0 9.8 9.7

3 Meghalaya 6.1 4.3 10.4 8.8 8.0 15.8 11.0

4 Mizoram na na 9.6 8.6 8.0 7.1 11.2

5 Nagaland 19.8 21.5 0.0 9.7 8.0 na na

6 Sikkim 22.8 7.5 12.4 10.2 8.0 9.8 10.6

7 Tripura 9.5 9.2 24.2 6.7 8.0 3.0 na

*In these periods, growth rate taken to be that for patent state before division.

Source : Macroeconomic Frame work

18 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

ANNEXURE-III AEconomic Performance of the States in the Industrial Sector

(per cent)

Averages for Plan Periods XI Plan

VII Plan VIII Plan IX Plan X Plan Expectation Annual

1985-90 1992-97 1997-2002 2002-07 2007-12 2007-08 2008-09

Growth over period in per cent per annum

1 Andhra Pradesh 11.1 5.8 7.5 8.9 10.4 8.0 9.6

2 Assam 4.5 4.4 3.9 7.3 8.0 9.1 6.9

3 Bihar 5.7 4.9 6.9 7.3 8.0 15.0 16.6

4 Chhattisgarh 6.8* 5.6 5.9 6.8 8.0 11.9 11.6

5 Delhi 10.2 5.8 7.1 10.2 na 14.4 na

6 Goa 7.4 11.5 2.8 10.5 9.0 17.0 na

7 Gujarat 8.2 9.0 7.8 10.1 10.5 13.3 na

8 Haryana 9.5 6.7 10.6 11.8 12.0 13.5 11.2

9 Himachal Pradesh 9.3 5.1 8.4 8.7 7.5 5.9 7.6

10 Jammu & Kashmir 4.6 6.0 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.3 na

11 Jharkhand 5.7* 1.5 6.9 7.9 8.0 9.6 7.7

12 Karnataka 7.8 8.5 8.7 9.0 12.0 11.9 8.7

13 Kerala 5.7 7.9 7.9 10.0 11.0 12.6 7.0

14 Madhya Pradesh 6.8 5.3 5.0 4.2 7.0 8.2 na

15 Maharashtra 8.2 8.5 7.6 9.5 10.2 9.5 na

16 Orissa 8.2 5.1 6.7 10.1 9.6 8.9 13.6

17 Punjab 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.0 7.4 7.4 7.6

18 Rajasthan 11.3 7.7 6.3 7.7 8.9 12.0 10.4

19 Tamil Nadu 8.2 8.7 7.2 8.9 9.4 8.2 7.6

20 Uttar Pradesh 7.7 5.1 4.1 5.5 7.1 8.0 7.9

21 Uttarakhand 7.7* 5.8 6.4 8.2 11.0 10.2 8.3

22 West Bengal 4.2 8.0 8.6 7.8 11.0 9.3 9.0

Median 7.7 5.8 6.9 8.5 9.0 9.5 8.5

Standard Deviation 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.7 3.0 2.7

Quartile 1 5.7 5.2 6.0 7.3 8.0 8.2 7.6

Quartile 3 8.2 8.0 7.8 9.8 10.5 12.5 10.6

North-Eastern hill states

1 Arunachal Pradesh 8.7 5.3 9.4 6.3 7.2 7.5 10.1

2 Manipur 7.1 5.4 4.6 3.3 7.0 6.6 7.0

3 Meghalaya 9.9 4.5 6.8 6.2 7.9 6.3 6.5

4 Mizoram na na 7.9 5.0 8.0 5.7 5.9

5 Nagaland 5.9 4.8 4.6 4.5 10.0 na na

6 Sikkim 14.8 6.4 9.7 7.7 7.2 7.7 8.0

7 Tripura 11.2 8.7 7.9 7.7 8.0 6.2 na

*In these periods, growth rate taken to be that for patent state before division.

Source : Mid-Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan.

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 19

ANNEXURE-IVEconomic Performance of the States in Growth Rate of Gross State Domestic Product

(per cent)

Averages for Plan Periods XI Plan

VII Plan VIII Plan IX Plan X Plan Expectation Annual

1985-90 1992-97 1997-2002 2002-07 2007-12 2007-08 2008-09

Growth over period in per cent per annum

1 Andhra Pradesh 8.0 5.5 5.5 8.3 9.5 10.7 5.0

2 Assam 3.7 2.8 1.8 5.3 6.5 5.7 6.2

3 Bihar 3.3 3.7 3.7 8.7 7.6 8.8 16.6

4 Chhattisgarh 5.7* 2.9 3.3 9.3 8.6 11.7 6.8

5 Delhi 10.1 7.0 6.6 10.2 na 12.5 na

6 Goa 6.2 9.0 5.7 9.3 12.1 11.1 na

7 Gujarat 6.1 12.9 2.8 10.9 11.2 12.8 na

8 Haryana 8.0 5.2 6.1 9.5 11.0 9.5 7.9

9 Himachal Pradesh 8.8 6.5 6.3 7.7 9.5 8.6 7.4

10 Jammu & Kashmir 2.5 5.0 4.2 5.6 6.4 6.3 na

11 Jharkhand 3.3* 0.9 5.2 8.2 9.8 6.2 5.5

12 Karnataka 5.4 6.2 5.8 7.7 11.2 12.9 5.1

13 Kerala 4.8 6.5 5.2 8.9 9.5 9.8 7.0

14 Madhya Pradesh 5.7 6.5 4.5 4.4 6.7 5.2 na

15 Maharashtra 8.3 8.9 4.1 8.6 9.1 9.2 na

16 Orissa 7.5 2.3 5.1 9.5 8.8 11.2 6.6

17 Punjab 6.0 4.8 4.0 5.1 5.9 6.9 6.4

18 Rajasthan 7.9 8.0 5.3 7.5 7.4 9.1 6.6

19 Tamil Nadu 5.1 7.0 4.7 8.5 8.5 4.4 4.5

20 Uttar Pradesh 5.6 5.0 2.5 5.4 6.1 7.2 6.5

21 Uttarakhand 5.6* 5.0* 4.4 9.2 9.9 10.4 8.7

22 West Bengal 4.5 6.3 6.5 6.3 9.7 7.7 6.3

Median 5.7 5.8 4.9 8.4 9.1 9.1 6.5

Standard Deviation 2.0 2.6 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.5 2.8

Quartile 1 4.9 4.8 4.0 6.6 7.4 6.9 5.8

Quartile 3 7.4 6.9 5.6 9.3 9.8 11.0 6.9

North-Eastern hill states and union territories

1 Arunachal Pradesh 7.7 5.0 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 5.9

2 Manipur 4.7 3.7 4.7 5.7 5.9 6.8 7.1

3 Meghalaya 6.7 4.0 7.2 6.4 7.3 8.4 8.2

4 Mizoram na na 5.7 5.1 7.1 5.5 6.4

5 Nagaland 7.5 7.2 6.5 5.9 9.3 na na

6 Sikkim 12.7 4.6 6.6 7.8 6.7 7.4 8.0

7 Tripura 7.8 6.7 9.4 6.4 6.9 4.1 na

8. Andaman & Nicobar 6.8 10.6 2.4 8.8 na 6.3 na

9. Chandigarh na 11.4 8.5 11.5 na 11.5 10.4

10. Puducherry 4.4 8.6 12.9 9.3 na 24.8 10.8

*In these periods, growth rate taken to be that for patent state before division.

Source : Mid-Term Appraisal of the Eleventh Five Year Plan.

20 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 2012

ANNEXURE-VStatement 8A.1a: Gross state Domestic Product (GSDP) a. ............................... Prices – State-wise

(Rupees, Crore)

1999-2000 Series

SL. State/UT 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008No.

At Constant Prices

1 Andhra Pradesh 129403 139679 145543 150281 164213 175641 190957 207904 230023

2 Arunachal Pradesh 1612 1726 1997 1911 2120 2469 2349 2647 2986

3 Assam 34833 35715 36642 39233 41595 43726 46341 49850 53823

4 Bihar 50200 58251 55495 62059 58899 65564 67394 81054 80994

5 Chhattisgarh 24249 25840 29250 29233 34069 36323 40074 45035 50125

6 Delhi 54975 57198 59321 63766 66458 73558 79916 89487 –

7 Goa 6330 6093 6367 6818 7329 8076 8878 9940 –

8 Gujarat 109861 104494 113277 122500 140598 153079 170200 185802 –

9 Haryana 51278 55477 59850 63659 69388 75676 82604 92053 101319

10 Himachal Pradesh 14112 15004 15786 16585 17925 19281 20928 22854 24806

11 Jammu & Kashmir 15660 16213 16531 17379 18278 19234 20421 21698 23060

12 Jharkhand 34323 30941 33043 33882 36604 42170 43256 47562 50995

13 Karnataka 97303 103203 106304 111005 115223 124496 133769 142097 151926

14 Kerala 68617 71242 74914 80273 85253 92075 98817 106833 –

15 Madhya Pradesh 80132 74582 79891 76765 85530 88623 92371 96254 –

16 Maharashtra 247830 242615 253072 270170 290468 314312 343501 376783 –

17 Manipur 3260 3053 3261 3246 3598 3947 4103 4318 4464

18 Meghalaya 3578 3773 4033 4186 4470 4788 5079 5350 5628

19 Mizoram 1550 1627 1733 1913 1974 2056 2202 2368 2528

20 Nagaland 2800 3317 3648 3948 4349 4638 4880 – –

21 Orissa 42910 42422 45072 45047 51675 58192 61887 67676 73542

22 Punjab 67176 69836 71174 73172 77212 81229 85729 91148 97179

23 Rajasthan 82720 81060 89869 80974 104189 102258 109121 116946 125146

24 Sikkim 896 964 1040 1116 1204 1297 1413 1526 1651

25 Tamil Nadu 134187 141973 139790 142366 150915 167775 180120 193404 209436

26 Tripura 4867 5153 5878 6255 6623 7162 7813 8472 –

27 Uttar Pradesh 175160 179020 182888 189598 199413 207826 219554 236070 –

28 Uttarakhand 12621 14141 14923 16404 17653 19947 21227 23434 –

29 West Bengal 135182 140400 150721 156415 165410 176533 189749 206570 –

30 Andaman & N Islands 939 937 964 1055 1166 1200 1216 – –

31 Chandigarh 3937 4411 4913 5407 6020 6819 7743 – –

32 Puducherry 3235 3672 3935 4309 4530 4044 4295 4614 4984

All-India GDP 1786525 1864300 1972606 2048287 2222758 2388384 2612847 2864309 3122862

VOL. 78, NOS. 1–2 21

ANNEX-V (C0NTD...)Statement 8A.1a: Gross state Domestic Product (GSDP) a. ............................... Prices – State-wise

(Rupees, Crore)

1999-2000 Series

SL. State/UT 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008No.

At Current Prices

1 Andhra Pradesh 129403 145090 157150 168143 190880 210449 236034 269173 312509

2 Arunachal Pradesh 1612 1787 2104 2071 2368 2853 2918 3400 4004

3 Assam 34833 36814 38313 43407 47305 52920 57543 65033 72700

4 Bihar 50200 57270 57688 65000 66253 73221 80157 98957 105148

5 Chhattisgarh 27249 25846 29539 32493 38802 44813 55059 64242 76588

6 Delhi 54975 59732 64571 71070 78804 89920 101800 118240 –

7 Goa 6330 6757 7097 8100 9301 11482 13354 14523 –

8 Gujarat 109861 111139 123573 141534 168080 189118 219780 254533 –

9 Haryana 51278 58090 65505 72544 82468 93627 106385 126475 147576

10 Himachal Pradesh 14112 15661 17148 18905 20721 23066 25471 28358 31974

11 Jammu & Kashmir 15660 16700 18039 20326 22194 24265 26537 29030 31793

12 Jharkhand 34323 32093 35069 37967 42449 51323 55031 62676 69503

13 Karnataka 97303 103941 109429 117919 129181 149854 167975 188274 215282

14 Kerala 68617 72143 77385 86275 96012 107054 118998 132739 –

15 Madhya Pradesh 80132 79203 86745 86832 102839 107282 116322 128202 –

16 Maharashtra 247830 252283 274113 300476 341424 387390 438058 509356 –

17 Manipur 3260 3112 3369 3506 3979 4568 5065 5343 5704

18 Meghalaya 3578 3961 4478 4763 5280 5806 6319 6959 7605

19 Mizoram 1550 1737 1947 2166 2325 2455 2697 2985 3288

20 Nagaland 2800 3552 4166 4684 5040 5346 5667 – –

21 Orissa 42910 43493 46946 50223 61422 71428 78536 91151 103304

22 Punjab 67176 74710 79696 82339 89818 97452 109735 123397 137486

23 Rajasthan 82720 82435 91771 88550 111606 117274 129509 148444 166629

24 Sikkim 896 1014 1136 1276 1430 1602 1830 2070 2353

25 Tamil Nadu 134187 146862 149074 158370 175897 2000781 223528 246266 279287

26 Tripura 4867 5499 6370 6733 7551 8297 9388 10282 –

27 Uttar Pradesh 174160 181533 190513 207103 227086 246618 279766 312107 –

28 Uttarakhand 12621 14501 15826 18473 20439 23720 26172 29709 –

29 West Bengal 135182 143536 157141 168045 189087 208613 234737 272597 –

30 Andaman & N Islands 939 989 1082 1228 1392 1522 1691 – –

31 Chandigarh 3937 4570 5324 6104 7120 8305 9872 – –

32 Puducherry 3235 3864 4259 4931 5439 5192 5700 6299 6991

All-India GDP 1786525 1925017 2097726 2261415 2538171 2877706 3275670 3790063 4303654

– Not Available

Source : For Sl. No. 1-32 – Directorate of Economic & Statistics of respective State Governments, and for All-India – Central Statistical Organisation.