It was the noted demographer Ashish Bose who coined the term “BIMARU”
in the mid-1980s to highlight the sickness of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, as compared to the rest of India in terms
of economic and social indicators. The term has stuck. But over the
past decade, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have made determined efforts
to get out of the “BIMARU” category. They face formidable challenges
and the backlog of poverty, backwardness and feudalism is huge. But
they can no longer be clubbed together with Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.
Their achievements in the 1990s have been substantial. Politics and
administration in these two states both have a visibly strong development
dimension, unlike in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are still poor. But just look what was
accomplished, for example, in the area of female literacy. During 1991-2001,
Rajasthan’s female literacy rate increased dramatically from 21% to
44% and Madhya Pradesh’s from 29% to 50%. But in Bihar the increase
was from 22% to 34% and in Uttar Pradesh from 24% to 43%. Take another
important indicator-the proportion of households have electricity connection.
According to recently released figures from the 2001 Census, this proportion
was 70% in Madhya Pradesh, 55% in Rajasthan, 32% in Uttar Pradesh and
10% in Bihar. The contrasts in economic growth rates also are striking.
In the decade of the 1990s, compound annual growth rate of gross state
domestic product (GSDP), the broadest measure of economic performance,
was 5.6% in Rajasthan, 5.4% in Madhya Pradesh, 4.5% in Uttar Pradesh
and 4.2% in Bihar. All states are financially bankrupt but none more
so than Bihar and Uttar Pradesh where all of public expenditure goes
for interest payments, salaries and pensions.

But statistics are only part of the story. Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh
both have political and administrative systems that are development-oriented.
In both these states, there have been a number of innovations in areas
like literacy, women’s self-help groups, health, panchayats, electricity
supply and irrigation. Political leaders talk the language of growth
and investment without which social justice will be meaningless. Political
leaders talk the language of social empowerment but in the context of
good governance. The political ambience is fundamentally different in
these two states than in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. There is still a long
way to go but if the trends of the 1990s are maintained, Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh have a reasonably bright future.

But what of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh which between them account for 25%
of India’s population today and which by the middle of this century
may well account for two-fifth of the country’s population. There is
poverty all over India, even in relatively better-off states like Gujarat,
Karnataka and Maharashtra. But the numbers of poor and undernourished
in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are staggering. Worse, these two states have
been saddled with a political leadership and indeed with a political
class that seems to have no time for or interest in economic growth
or social development. In peninsular India, in states like Tamil Nadu
and Karnataka social justice movements have not been at the cost of
economic growth. But in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, social justice parties
are fixated only on job reservations in the government sector and are
unable to articulate and mobilise the people around a new all-inclusive
vision of economic growth that fulfills the aspirations of the weaker
sections of society. National political parties are finding themselves
increasingly marginalised with the BJP and the Congress being forced
to support governments that are making a mockery of good governance,
whose only agenda is political survival in a most cynical fashion. What
a steep collapse there has been : in the 1950s, foreign experts like
Paul Appleby who came to India rated the administration in Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh as among the best in the country.

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are among the most politically conscious states
in the country-the maximum number of ministers in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s
cabinet are from Bihar. But, alas, politics in these two states has
ceased to have any real social purpose and meaning. A social revolution
in these two states was most definitely needed to break the monopoly
of upper castes on political, economic and social power. Over the past
decade, this social revolution has certainly gathered momentum. But
this has been a destructive social revolution, unlike in south India
and in western India which has experienced a constructive social revolution.
Why this is so is on account of many factors. Upper castes in peninsular
India are a very small proportion -around 5%– of the population unlike
in the Indo-Gangetic belt where their proportions are higher. Hence,
the transition has been more peaceful in the south. Then, the south
and the west has seen many social reform movements which have stressed
education and professional skill acquisition as a tool of empowerment-Narayana
Guru in Kerala, Ramaswami Naicker in Tamil Nadu, Jyotiba Phule and Babasaheb
Ambedkar in Maharashtra are some prominent examples. The tradition of
social reform and modernisation has been comparatively weaker in the
south. Historically, the south had been a ryotwari system unlike the
north that was under a zamindari system. This could well have had an
impact on the culture of administration particularly at the grassroots.
It is now fashionable to blame Islam for the social backwardness of
Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. But the fact of the matter is that Muslims
in south India have a higher literacy rate and a lower fertility rate
than Hindus in north India.

There are some positive signs. Bihar is full of committed social action
groups and NGOs who are making substantial contributions. Construction
is a very visible activity. Milk cooperatives have been a success story.
In eastern Uttar Pradesh, thanks to the spread of irrigation and land
consolidation, there have been significant advances in agricultural
production and productivity. But all these are very small islands of
hope in a very large ocean of despair. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh are simply
to big, too populous and too much an integral part of Indian culture
and civilisation to be written off. It is true that the revival of Bihar
and Uttar Pradesh is a national task, even if the rest of the country
is simply losing patience and is getting unconcerned with Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh.. However, if the political establishment in these two
states is simply unwilling to recognise its responsibility, then something
radical needs to be done. Creating Jharkhand and Uttaranchal was a first
step but it is clearly not enough. The time has come to think of more
drastic solutions within the framework of representative democracy and
mass politics , of course. Linking all financial assistance from the
centre to performance-in other words, introducing tough conditionalities-could
be one option to think about. Public-private partnerships bringing together
public expenditure with private management is another alternative. Further
reorganisation of Uttar Pradesh especially could also be considered.
Long-term cooperation with Nepal is essential for solving the perennial
flood and drainage problems of the two states. Denationalisation of
the coal industry could bring new investment into Bihar.

These days there is talk of ” failed states” , “rogue states” and “regime
change” all over the world. None of this applies to India which is seen
to a model of democracy and diversity. But within India, how long can
be deny that some of these concepts may well apply to Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh.