For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

The southern part of Rajasthan (Banswara, Dungarpur and Udaipur districts) is the most important area of the concentration of tribal population. In this region, the proportion of tribal population to total population is 62.1 percent and it accounts for 42.0 percent of the state’s total tribal population. The whole of Banswara and Dungarpur and a major part of Udaipur district are covered by the Tribal Sub-Plan. In this paper, attempts have been made to provide an overview of the demographic and asset ownership characteristics of the tribal households in the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) areas of Rajasthan. The analysis has been carried out in a comparative framework in which a comparison has been made between the Scheduled Tribes and Others on the economic parameters so as to find out the level of disparity, if any, between the two social groups. In this study ‘Others’ stand for unreserved categories or net of STs in some cases. The analysis is based on secondary data provided by various government sources and information obtained through field survey. The National Sample Survey’s 66th round, region-wise data on employment unemployment situation and Population Census 2011 data have been used to explain the demographic and asset ownership characteristics of the households and the individuals.

The review of literature includes the studies on the livelihood, demography and asset ownership of the tribes. The findings of secondary data make it clear that the tribes of the central Indian tribal belt have very poor record in demographic and asset ownership parameters.

A study by Meena, A K (2000), based on the NSS data (1993-94) shows that there are significant inters state variations in the asset ownership pattern of tribes. Though the tribes of the central Indian tribal belt own land but the size of holdings and the terrain are major issues.

Livelihood is a comprehensive term which includes the demographic and asset ownership parameters. “It attempts to capture not just what people do in order to make a living, but the resources that provide them with the capability to build a satisfactory living, the risk factors that they consider in managing their resources and the institutional and policy context that either helps or hinders them in their pursuit of a viable or improving living” (Ellis and Freeman, 2005).

The development of livelihood asset is essential for reduction of the poverty of the tribes. “The livelihood framework regards the assets status of poor individuals or households as fundamental to an understanding of the options open to them”. (Ellis and Freeman, 2005)

Another study on asset ownership pattern of tribes in Rajasthan concludes, “Land is the most important livelihood asset owned by the tribes of both the regions but the size of holding is very small and most of it is fragmented and unirrigated in the hilly region” (Meena AK, 2014)

A study on the demographic characteristics of the people of Sohela village in Rajasthan finds, “The average household size in Sohela village is higher than the state average of 5.5 person. Sohela village is having a very poor sex ratio (875). A larger family size and an adverse sex ratio are reflective of poor performance on social development parameters of Sohela village”. Further, “about two third of the population of Sohela village are in the working age group which is in conformity by the demographic dividend experienced by the country” (Meena AK & Chandel SK, 2019).

Demographic Characteristics

The demographic characteristics have been described in terms of the household size, age structure, literacy and the level of education are the very basis. The size of the household shows not only the availability of earning members with the household but also the pressure of the population on the resources available with the household. The household size details have been provided in table 1. The average size of the household is 5.08 person for tribes and 5.19 person for the ‘others’ in the TSP areas. Thus, the average household size is less among the tribes as compared to others.

Table 1: Average Size of Households

Source: NSS 66th round

The age structure of the household members is another important demographic characteristic as it shows the proportion of the total population belonging to working age and dependent groups. The age-structure details of the individuals of the two regions have been provided in table 2. About 43 percent tribal people of the TSP areas are children or belong to the 0–14-year age group. The corresponding figure for the people of ‘other’ social group is only 32.7 percent. The proportion of the tribes falling in the working age group (15-59 year) is 52.9 percent whereas the proportion is as high as 59.5 percent for the people of ‘other’ social group. The proportions of the aged people (>59 year) are 4.3 percent and 7.9 percent for the tribes and others respectively. The relatively higher proportion of the children in the age structure of the tribes shows that the population growth rate is still high in this particular social group resulting in high proportion of the dependent population. The higher proportion of people belonging to the working age group for ‘others’ means they are enjoying demographic dividend and thus are placed in a better position in comparison to the tribes of the TSP areas.

Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Person by Age Group

Source: NSS 66th Round

Literacy is another important determinant of the type of livelihood of the people. A literate person can have access to better quality livelihood sources and are subjected to less exploitation by the others. The literacy details have been obtained from the population census 2011 and presented in table 3.

Table 3: Literacy Rate

Source: Population Census 2011

In the TSP areas, 63.3 percent tribal male and only 35.2 percent tribal female are literates. On the other hand, among the others, the literacy rate is as high as 82.8 percent among male and 53.5 percent among female. Thus, the literacy rate is not only low among the tribes of TSP areas but they suffer from a high level of inter social group disparity on this front.

An important determinant of the livelihood diversification, particularly towards the more secure and better paid occupation categories, is the level of education attained by the people. The technical diploma/ certificate courses help the people to start their own non-farm business. The NSS provides the information about the level of education in terms of the highest level of education attained by the individuals. The level of education information has been provided in table 4.

In the TSP areas, 42.1 percent male are illiterate and another 30.3 percent are educated but below the primary level. Another 22.6 percent ST male are educated from primary to middle level. Thus, about 95 percent ST male are either illiterate or educated below the secondary level. Only 4.5 percent of them are educated up to secondary and higher secondary levels and 0.4 percent are graduated and above graduate. None of the ST male has done diploma/ certificate course. The position of the ST female is even worse in terms of the level of education attained. The proportion of ST female illiterate is as high as 66.9 percent and another 21.8 percent are educated below primary level. Thus, the proportion of ST female falling in these two categories adds up to 88.7 percent. Less than 2 percent ST female are educated up to or more than secondary level and none of them has done diploma/ certificate courses.

In the same region, the proportion of ‘Other’ male illiterate is 29.3 percent and another 21.1 percent are literate but below the primary level. About 50 percent of ‘Others’ male is educated up to and above primary level. The proportion of ‘Other’ male educated up to and above secondary is about 12 percent out of which 2.8 percent have attained education up to graduation and above graduation. Only 0.4 percent ‘Others’ male have done the diploma/ certificate course. The proportion of ‘Other’ female illiterates is about 55 percent in the TSP areas another 20 percent of them are educated but below primary level. The remaining one-fourth of the ‘Other’ female are educated up to and above primary level. About 5 percent of the ‘Other’ female have attained the education up to and above secondary level but only 0.7 percent of them are graduated and above. The proportion of ‘Others’ females having diploma/ certificate course is nil. 

Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Person by Level of Education

Source: NSS 66th Round

The analysis shows that there exist a great inter social group disparity between the scheduled tribes and ‘Others’ in terms of the level of education attained. This is true for both males and females. The disparity keeps on widening with the increase in the level of education and the diploma/ certificate courses are out of the reach of the tribal individuals. 

Asset Ownership

Land is an important asset which determines the livelihood of the rural people. The region wise data on land ownership has been taken from the NSS 66^th round. The landownership pattern has been explained through the average size of holding and then by showing the distribution of the households into various land size categories. Table 5 shows that the average size of land holding of the ST households of the TSP areas is 0.70 hectare. For the ‘others’ households of the same region, the size of holding is slightly higher (i.e., 0.77 hectare).

The analysis shows that the average size of land holding is very small in the TSP areas for both the social groups but the holdings size is relatively larger among the ‘Other’ social groups.

Table 5: Average Size of Land Holdings (in hectare)

Source: NSS 66th round

The size of holding is important as it determines the economic viability of agriculture as a livelihood source. It also determines the level of investments in irrigation and farm machinery by the households. The size also has an important bearing on the productivity levels. Figure:1 provides the distribution of households into six broad land size categories; landless (< 0.02 hectare), marginal (0.02 to 0.99 hectare), small (1.00 to 1.99 hectare), semi-medium (2.00 to 3.99 hectare), medium (4.00 to 9.99 hectare) and large (10.00 hectare & above.

About 8 percent ST households of the TSP areas are landless and another 67 percent belongs to the marginal land size category. Thus, about three-fourth households of the TSP areas are either landless or own land less than 1 hectare which is not an economically viable size category. About 22 percent households belong to the small land size category and the remaining 3 percent households belong to the semi-medium land size category. The proportions of the households belonging to the medium and large land size categories are nil. Thus, though, the proportion of the landless households is very low among the ST households, about 90 percent of them are concentrated in the marginal and small land size categories.

The proportion of landless households is as high as 23.4 percent among the households of the ‘Other’ social group and another 44.1 percent belong to the marginal land size category. Thus, about 68 percent households are either landless or own less than 1 hectare of land. Further, 27.7 percent households belong to the small land size category. Only about 5 percent ‘Other’ households belong to semi-medium and medium land size categories but none of the households have large size land holding. Thus, though a relatively large proportion of the household of the ‘Other’ social group is landless but those who own land belong to the relatively larger land size categories.

Figure 1: Holdings by Land-Size Categories

Source: NSS 66th Round  

1. Anderson, E. and P. Deshinkar (2005), “Livelihood Diversification in Rural Andhra Pradesh, India”, in Frank E and Freeman H A (ed) Rural Livelihood and Poverty Reduction Policies, Routledge, N.York. 2. Chadha, G.K., S. Sen and H. R. Sharma (2004), “Land Resources” in State of Indian Farmers: A Millennium Study, Vol.2, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Academic Foundation, N. Delhi. 3. Christopher, B. and B.M. Swallow (2005), “Dynamic Poverty Traps and Rural Livelihood”, in Frank E and Freeman H A (ed) Rural Livelihood and Poverty Reduction Policies, Routledge, N.York. 4. Census of India (2011). 5. Ghadolia, M. K. (1992), “Infrastructure Development Programmes in Tribal Sub-Plan Areas in Rajasthan”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol.47, No.3. 6. Meena, A.K. (2001), “Occupation, Employment and Poverty of Tribes in India: A Regional and Comparative Analysis”, M. Phil. Dissertation, CSRD/SSS/JNU/ N. Delhi. 7. Meena, A.K. (2014), “Ownership of the Livelihood Assets by the Tribes: A Comparative Analysis of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan”, the Indian Economic Journal, Special Issue, Dec. 8. Meena, A.K. (2015), “Livelihood Patterns of Tribes in Rajasthan: A Case Study of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan”, Ph. D. Thesis, CSRD/SSS/JNU/ N. Delhi. 9. Meena A.K. (2018), “Cost of Cultivation and Farm Income of the Tribal Households: An Analysis of Hill and Plain Regions of Rajasthan (India)”, Remarking an Analisation, pp 71-79, Vol-3, Issue-1, April. 10. Meena A.K. and Chandel N.K. (2019), “Demographic and Livelihood Characteristics of Sohela Village District Tonk (Rajasthan): A Micro Level Analysis”, International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, Volume 3, Issue 6 October ISSN: 2456-6470. 11. National Sample Survey Organisation, (2009-10), “Employment and Unemployment Situation among Social Groups in India”, 66th Round. 12. Thorat, S.K. (1993), “Land Ownership Structure and Non-Farm Employment of Rural Households in India”, Indian Journal of Labour Economics Vol.36, No.3. 13. Thorat, Sukhadeo (2011), “Growth Inequality and Poverty Linkages during 1983-2005: Implications for Socially Inclusive Growth”, Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, Vol. 66, No-1.