Are BIMARU States Still BIMARU?: A Structural Analysis of Educational Disparities in India Using UDISE+ 2024–25

Introduction

The term “BIMARU,” coined in 1985 by demographer Ashish Bose, described Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. These states lagged behind India’s national averages on socio-economic and demographic indicators such as literacy, fertility, and poverty. Four decades later, significant demographic convergence has occurred. Total fertility rates across states now approximate 1.9. Primary school enrolment is nearly universal. Female literacy in these states has risen from below 25% to between 65% and 75%.

Enrolment Stability in Advanced States: Insights from UDISEPlus 2021-22 to 2024-25 Data

Declining School Enrolment in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh: UDIS+ 2024-25

Why Enrolment is Declining in Some States Despite Universalization [PDF]

A Comparative Analysis of Bihar and Kerala Using UDISEPlus 2023-24 Data

Can the Kerala Model of Education & Development Be Replicated in Other Indian States?

However, these improvements in access and basic metrics mask persistent structural deficiencies. Problems remain in the quality and progression of education, especially at the secondary and higher secondary levels. The latest UDISE+ 2024–25 data provides a comprehensive, student-level-verified snapshot of India’s school system. Despite near-universal access, BIMARU states remain structurally challenged. This analysis finds a regressive educational funnel: there is foundational overload, a secondary-stage collapse, and elite resource concentration at the higher secondary tier.

Structural Disparities in Education

In 2024–25, India’s school system has over 1.47 million schools, 10.1 million teachers, and nearly 233 million students. Nationally, the primary stage accounts for 44.82% of enrolment and 49.65% of schools. State-wise data, however, exposes stark divides. Advanced states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have progressive educational structures. Their higher secondary stages are supported by a disproportionate share of teachers per enrolment, resulting in low pupil-teacher ratios (PTRs). For example, Kerala’s higher secondary PTR is 7.5:1, despite an enrolment rate of only 16%; this evidences strong systemic maturity and student retention.

BIMARU states have inverted education structures: Bihar allocates only 1.4% of schools and 2.06% of teachers to the secondary stage, resulting in a PTR exceeding 100:1, making secondary education essentially non-functional. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan do only slightly better, but all are below the national average PTR of 23:1. Primary levels face acute teacher shortages; PTRs reach 96:1 in Rajasthan, and teacher density per school fails the Right to Education mandate, sustaining poor learning environments. The secondary stage becomes a bottleneck, turning nominal access into effective exclusion. The higher secondary stage is led by teachers, forming elite enclaves that serve only a few students.

Table 1: Stage-Wise Pupil-Teacher Ratios and Teacher Density: UDISE+ 2024–25

State	Primary PTR	Upper Primary PTR	Secondary PTR	Higher Secondary PTR	Primary Teachers/School
All-India	44:1	22:1	23:1	8.5:1	3.24
Kerala	58:1	30:1	28:1	7.5:1	3.2
Tamil Nadu	43:1	50:1	33:1	6.6:1	2.8
Bihar	53:1	11.5:1	~110:1	10.4:1	3.1
Uttar Pradesh	30:1	18:1	58:1	11.4:1	4.2
Madhya Pradesh	55:1	18:1	30:1	7.2:1	2.1
Rajasthan	96:1	22:1	42:1	5.6:1	1.9

Kerala and Tamil Nadu operate education systems with balanced, progressive enrolment tapering. They provide sufficient teacher allocation at secondary stages. BIMARU states are overwhelmed at the primary level but are critically under-resourced at the secondary level; this inhibits student progression while concentrating teachers at higher secondary levels. These higher levels serve only an elite few. This “inverted pyramid” shows severe structural deficits that limit skill development and workforce readiness.

State-Wise Distribution by Level (%)
State	Schools				Teachers				Enrolment
	P	UP	S	HS	P	UP	S	HS	P	UP	S	HS
Kerala	40.36	28.00	12.27	19.37	15.81	20.58	14.53	49.07	39.76	26.54	17.69	16.00
Tamil Nadu	59.19	15.96	9.49	15.37	21.32	12.40	12.26	54.02	39.96	26.88	17.67	15.49
Bihar	41.38	45.44	1.40	11.78	21.48	54.80	2.06	21.67	49.44	27.40	13.33	9.82
Uttar Pradesh	47.08	26.91	13.86	12.15	35.98	34.35	5.43	24.55	46.81	27.24	13.79	12.16
Madhya Pradesh	49.44	35.34	6.71	8.50	19.11	37.07	11.77	32.05	45.93	28.58	15.50	9.98
Rajasthan	34.60	31.98	6.60	26.81	10.52	28.78	8.87	52.83	43.84	27.35	16.06	12.74

Education Outcomes and Retention

Despite access improvements, BIMARU states still face serious challenges in retention and transition. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have secondary Gross Enrolment Ratios (GER) above 95%. In contrast, Bihar lags at 51.1%. Transition rates from upper primary to secondary in Bihar are only 66.7%. Kerala’s transitions are nearly universal at 99.6%. Retention from Class I to Class X highlights this divide: Kerala retains 99.5% of students, but Bihar retains only 35.9%. Other BIMARU states, like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, also lag behind national averages; this reinforces systemic exclusion beyond mere enrolment.

Dropout rates at the secondary level are highest in Madhya Pradesh at 16.8%; this is driven by socio-economic factors such as poverty and inadequate facilities. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh report lower dropout rates, but these figures are misleading. Their rates are low because their secondary-level enrolment pools are already depleted.

State-Wise Comparative Outcomes Indicators: 2024-25

State	GER Secondary	Dropout Secondary	Transition UP→Sec	Retention (Class 1 to 10
Kerala	98.7%	4.8%	99.6%	99.5%
Tamil Nadu	95.5%	8.5%	96.6%	89.3%
Rajasthan	82.2%	7.7%	90.2%	55.9%
Madhya Pradesh	68.2%	16.8%	77.8%	53.7%
Uttar Pradesh	64.3%	7.0%	78.1%	49.6%
Bihar	51.1%	6.9%	66.7%	35.9%
All India	78.7%	11.5%	86.6%	62.9%

The Persistent Structural Challenge

Educational challenges in BIMARU states persist due to policy and system design failures that prioritise access over quality and progression, not demographic burdens. In these states, secondary education—a stage crucial for skill development and economic mobility—has collapsed, acting as a regressive funnel that filters out most students before higher secondary levels.

Comparative Structural Synthesis

Metric	Advanced States (KL, TN)	BIMARU States (BR, UP, MP, RJ)	All-India
Secondary Schools (%)	9–12	1.4–13.8	9.7
Secondary Teachers (%)	12–14	2–12	15.85
Secondary PTR	28–33:1	40–149:1	23:1
Higher Secondary Teachers (%)	49–54	21–53	32.18
Enrolment Taper (P→HS)	~60% drop	75–77% drop	73% drop
Structural Form	Progressive Ladder	Regressive Funnel	Inverted Pyramid

Such structural inversion leads to low human capital formation, sustains inequality, and reinforces the traditional disadvantages of the BIMARU states. Demographic convergence and access improvements have not resolved these problems. The concentration of 91 of India’s 112 Aspirational Districts in BIMARU states further highlights these entrenched, multi-dimensional deprivations.

Policy Recommendations

To reverse this trend, BIMARU states must urgently expand and improve secondary education. They need to enhance quality through the following steps:

• Full implementation of Samagra Shiksha provisions, including upgrading upper primary schools to secondary schools, recruiting subject-specific teachers, and integrating vocational education.
• Ring-fenced budgets targeting Aspirational Districts for infrastructure and teacher deployment, particularly at the secondary level.
• Revitalisation and training of district and state education planning teams, leveraging UDISE+ data for evidence-based planning and monitoring.
• Development by NIEPA of a tailored secondary education planning module to address the unique challenges of BIMARU states, such as low transition rates and elite resource capture.
• Special incentives such as performance-linked grants, accelerated teacher redeployment from higher secondary to secondary schools, and prioritised infrastructure investment to dismantle the regressive funnel.

Only by ensuring equitable access to quality secondary education—along with manageable PTRs like those in advanced states – can BIMARU states break free from their persistent underdevelopment. Achieving this is essential for unlocking their demographic dividend.

Concluding Observations

The BIMARU states remain BIMARU in 2025, not because children fail to enrol, but because the education system fails to retain and advance them. The critical failure lies in the secondary stage; it is a structural chokepoint reflecting policy neglect and resource misallocation. Until the secondary educational bottleneck is addressed, these states will lag. Equitable progression and skill acquisition for all children remain out of reach; this will continue to constrain India’s national potential.

If state and central governments do not make secondary education a clear priority, the BIMARU problem will remain a policy choice rather than a population issue.

THE VERDICT: YES, the BIMRU States are Still BIMARU.

Note:  This article is based exclusively on the UDISE+ 2024–25 data and related analysis, ensuring an accurate representation of current educational disparities without external assumptions or data.