Report of the Seminar on Progress of Literacy in India: What the Census 2001 Prevails

NIEPA

Seminar on

Progress of Literacy in India: What the Census 2001 Prevails

(October 05, 2001)

Background

Census is considered one of the most reliable sources of data on socio-economic and demographic variables. India is one of the very few countries in the world, which has the history of holding census every ten years uninterruptedly since 1872. It collects and disseminates, basic counts on various characteristics of population and also provides data on demographic, socio-cultural, economic, migration and fertility aspects and various other characteristics. The Census operation is one of the largest operations in the world involving about 2 million enumerators and supervisors. The Census of India 2001 was the 14th in the series that was conducted during 9th to 28th February 2001 in two phases, namely, House listing Operations and Population Enumeration. The entire population of the country was enumerated on a full-count basis during this period. The data generated by the Census of India 2001 provides benchmark statistics on the People of India at the beginning of the millennium. The census statistics is used for assessing the impact of the developmental programmes and identify new thrust areas for focussing the efforts on improving the quality of life in the country.

The Census operations were over on February 28 and the first set of results were released with lightening speed, in less than one months’ time on March 26, 2001. However, only little data is yet disseminated especially on educational variables. Population, its male and female & rural and urban distribution, density of population, sex ratio and literacy rates are made available both at the all-India and state levels. Barring rural/urban distribution, all the data released, so far, is also available for all the districts of the country. The rural/urban distribution of literacy rates in case of 15 states is also available through Paper-2 of Census 2001. Those who work in the area of education are more interested in distribution of literates and literacy rates in different age groups, educational attainments of literates’, percentage of children of age group 5-14 attending schools and literacy rates in case of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes population. Census is the only source that presents data on literacy on regular basis. However, the importance of data especially on literacy is marred by the late dissemination. It took about 5 to 7 years to release this set of data during 1991 Census because of which the same was neither properly disseminated nor adequately utilised and analysed. In view of the growing needs of the industrial, commercial and other user agencies, the Census Organisation is considering a more proactive strategy of data dissemination to meet the specific needs of the customers making them available information from the huge Census database. It is hoped that this set of data will be made available soon this time.

With the little set of data, the Institute decided to conduct a seminar on Progress of Literacy in India: What the Census 2001 Prevails. The Seminar was conducted on Friday, October 05, 2001 and was attended by more than 60 professionals, data users, demographers and educationists. Different aspects, such as, progress in literacy, regional and gender disparities in literacy, spatial-temporal dimension, comparison of literacy rates generated by NSSO and Census and contribution of primary education on literacy were the themes around which papers were focused. The analysis was carried out both at the all-India and State & District levels. All together five papers covering different aspects of literacy were presented in the seminar. Prof. Ashish Bose, Honorary Professor, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi inaugurated the seminar on October 05, 2001 at 10.00 am in the Lecture Hall of the Institute. Prof. B. P. Khandelwal, Director, NIEPA Chaired the inaugural session.

The whole day was divided into two sessions. In the pre-lunch session, presentations were made by Prof. M. K. Premi on India’s’ Literacy Panorama and by Dr. Arun C. Mehta on Impact of Primary Education on Literacy. Prof. Satya Bhushan, Former Director, NIEPA Chaired this session. The post-lunch session that was chaired by Dr. Y. P. Aggarwal, Senior Fellow, NIEPA had three presentations. One each by Prof. A. B. L. Srivastava on Trends in Literacy in India, Dr. P. K. Bhargava on Changes in the Sex-wise Literacy Rates and by Prof. Saraswati Raju and Ms. Barnali Biswas on Spatial Temporal Disparities in Maharashtra. This session was followed by a brief concluding session that was chaired by Prof. B. P. Khandelwal, Director, NIEPA.

Dr. S.M.I.A Zaidi, Dr. K. K. Biswal, Dr. R. S. Tyagi and Dr. Neeru Snehi were the rapporteurs of various sessions without their contributions it would not have been possible to bring out this publication. Dr. Arun C. Mehta, Fellow, NIEPA coordinated the seminar and it was conducted by the Sub-national Systems Unit of the Institute.

The detailed day-long programme is presented in Annexure I and the list of delegates in Annexure II. District-specific Census 2001 population and literacy data are also annexed.

1.0 Opening Session

The opening session of the seminar started with a welcome address and introduction of the seminar presented by Dr. Arun C. Mehta. He welcomed the chief guest of the session and participants of the seminar. He highlighted the need and the objectives of the seminar. He said that the first set of data for 2001 Census was disseminated in March 2001, which is quite appreciable. However, till date only a limited amount of data has been made available on literacy. Dr. Mehta briefly highlighted the items on which the literacy data has already been made available and the items on which the data is yet to be disseminated by Office of the Registrar General of India.

Prof. B.P. Khandelwal, Director, NIEPA in his opening remarks expressed gratitude to the delegates for attending the seminar and extended a warm welcome to all of them as well as to the chief guest of the session Prof. Ashish Bose. Highlighting the importance of data collected in the census Prof. Khandelwal said that the detailed household information is made available to the users through the census. He informed that in the process of formulation of the Tenth Plan preparation, Census data has been extensively used for making projection for the next five years on various items related to education. He highlighted the efforts initiated by the institute under the District Primary Education Programme (DPEP) to develop the Educational Management Information System, which is in operation in all the DPEP districts of the country. He was of the view that the deliberations and discussion in this seminar will be useful and help us to utilise Census data in a better way for the purpose of not only research but also for the planning and management of educational programmes.

The chief guest, Prof. Ashish Bose who had a long association with the Census operation in the country presented introduction of the Census exercises undertaken during 1961 to 2001. He said that a few organizations have already started working on the data made available for the 2001 census and the first item on which the analysis is undertaken is literacy. Prof. Bose highlighted the need to form a multi-disciplinary team to work for collation analysis, utilization and evaluation of census data.

Literacy being the most basic indicator of educational development, according to Prof. Bose, is non-negotiable and discussion on how literacy rates have increased over the last decade etc. are not much meaningful. Even progress made during the last ten years in elementary education also need not be a point of discussion as universalisation of elementary education is also non-negotiable. He said it would be appropriate to talk of secondary education and analyse data related to secondary education on items like enrolment ratio and retention rates. In the present scenario the key to Human Resource Development is not literacy or elementary education but what is important is the development of secondary education. It is the time that we should now talk of universalisation of secondary education and ensure to achieve 100 per cent enrolment and retention at this level of education. Prof. Bose discussed the contents of all the five papers, which were to be presented during the day-long seminar and offered comments on each of these papers.

Thereafter, Prof. Bose discussed the literacy data made available in the Census 2001 and highlighted important points in this regard. He said the gender disparity in literacy is a malady that has been exhibited from the census figures. According to him the researchers need not only be satisfied with the analysis of the data, as it is more important to probe why this disparity is prevailing in our society. There is a need of conducting sociological studies to understand the problem of women’s education and literacy.

According to Prof. Bose, the data of 2001 census confirms that Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are `BIMARU’ which literally mean sick (educationally) states. This is irrespective of the fact that except Rajasthan, the other three states have been bifurcated. The literacy data shows that these states are still backward states despite the fact that faster progress has been made in literacy in these states especially in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh as compared to earlier decades. While analyzing the literacy data, Prof. Bose was of the view that inter-state comparison in many cases are not meaningful e.g. we may not compare Kerala with Bihar or Uttar Pradesh as the social condition in these states are quite different than the conditions in Kerala. There is a need to look into the social background of the states, which determine the educational development of the area.

An analysis of literacy data, as presented by Prof. Bose shows that Bihar has a net addition of 23,22,416 female illiterates in the state in 2001 compared to 1991. Similarly there are nine more states where number of female illiterates has increased during 1991 and 2001. These states are Jharkhand, Delhi, Gujarat, Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Sikkim. In rest of States/UTs, the number of female illiterates has declined in 2001 as compared to 1991. There is a net decrease of 24.51 lakh female illiterates in Andhra Pradesh, 20.12 lakh in Maharashtra, 18.85 lakh in Tamil Nadu, 12.12 lakh in Madhya Pradesh and 11.31 lakh and 10.03 lakh in West Bengal and Chhatisgarh respectively. Thus from the point of view of female literates in absolute terms, Bihar is the most backward state in the country.

Commenting upon the papers in which projections for literacy have been made for various states the speaker said that destiny is not the trend. Notwithstanding of what has been the trend in the past we need to focus on discussing how to have dramatic progress in literacy and education especially in the backward states. Substantiating his view Prof. Bose said that the green revolution in India has shown that trends do not necessarily show the destiny for future.

There is a need to look at the sociological factors responsible for poor literacy. Prof. Bose cited example of three neighboring states from the North-India namely Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana. In Himachal Pradesh, all the girls attend schools whereas in Punjab and Haryana despite being economically well off states, participation of girls in education is quite disappointing. It may be noted that non-participation of girl children in these two states is not because of the financial problems but because of the social taboos. The speaker suggested that the organization like NIEPA should conduct field studies to know the real causes of low female literacy and low participation of girls in education especially in the economically well off states. The Census 2001 figures show that the gender disparity in literacy has not declined substantially. There is a need to conduct research studies to know the causes in this regard also.

A point of real concern is the decline in the sex ratio of 0-6 population in the country as revealed by the Census 2001 data. Prof. Bose said that it is desired to undertake extensive field studies and conduct research to probe the reasons for this shocking adverse sex ratio in the 0-6 population. In this regard it is important to note that Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, both being educationally advanced states, have adverse sex ratio in 0-6 population which is quite disturbing. Even in Kerala the sex ratio of 0-6 population has gone down. According to Prof. Bose, sociological explanations are needed to discuss such population imbalances.

In his concluding remarks Prof. Bose suggested that NIEPA being an apex educational institutional in the field of educational planning and Management, it should undertake the following activities with respect to the educational data.

  • Collate all data related to not only literacy but also on elementary, secondary and higher education.
  • Evaluate the quality of data collected/disseminated; and
  • Conduct in-depth studies to know the causes of educational backwardness of states.

Pre-Lunch Session I:

Chairperson:
Prof. Satya Bhushan
(Rapporteur: Dr. K. K. Biswal)

India’s Literacy Panorama
Speaker: Prof. M. K. Premi
Formerly with J. N. University, Delhi

Impact of Primary Education on Literacy: An Analysis of Census 2001 Preliminary Data
Speaker: Dr. A. C. Mehta
Fellow, NIEPA, New Delhi

2.0 Literacy Panorama & Impact of Primary Education on Literacy

In the 1st session of the seminar, two papers entitled “India’s Literacy Panorama” and “Impact of Primary Education on Literacy: An Analysis of Census 2001 Preliminary Data” were presented by Prof. M.K. Premi and Dr. Arun C. Mehta respectively. Prof. Premi in his presentation mainly focused on: (i) literacy level and its growth pattern at state and district levels; (ii) male-female differential in literacy rates; (iii) nature and distribution of districts, where number of illiterates has gone up during the 1990s; and (iv) factors responsible for a slow growth in literacy. Dr. Mehta broadly divided his presentation into three parts. Part I & II of his presentation focused on census definition of literates & possible errors in enumeration and trends in growth of literacy respectively. In Part III of his presentation, Dr. Mehta discussed in detail the contribution of formal as well as non-formal education systems to growth of literacy in India. Prof. Satya Bhusan, former Director of NIEPA, New Delhi chaired this session. In the following sections, an attempt has been made to summarize the presentations as well as observations on them.

2.1 India’s Literacy Panorama

2.1.1 Growth in Literacy

According to Census 2001, India has made a significant progress in the growth of literacy. Now, two-third of the population aged 7 and above and more than half of the females (54.2 per cent) are literate. The male-female differential in literacy rates has declined to 21.7 per cent as compared to 24.8 per cent in 1991. In absolute terms, the number of illiterate population aged 7 and above decreased for the first time by 32 million (21.4 million among males and 10.5 million among females). However, in states/UTs like Bihar, Manipur, Nagaland, Delhi, and Chandigarh, the number of illiterates has increased during the nineties.

In India, there has been a slow increase in the crude literacy rate (i.e. literacy rate which is estimated by taking total population as the denominator) after 1951. However, it was 16.7 per cent in 1951, which increased to 55.3 per cent in 2001, an increase of more than three times. But the percentage change in crude literacy rate during the last decade is only 12.5. Over the years, increase in female literacy rate is relatively higher than that of males thereby reducing the gender disparity in literacy rate. This can be explained partly in terms of general expansion of education, policies of positive intervention followed in favour of girls and implementation of externally funded education promotion programmes such as District Primary Education Programme, Bihar Education Project, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project, etc., literacy promotion programmes through National Literacy Mission (NLM) and Adult Literacy Programme. In the 1990s, there has been a significant increase in the net literacy rate for both males and females.

At the national level, the literacy rate of population aged 7 and above has improved from 52.2 per cent in 1991 to 65.5 per cent in 2001, an improvement of 13.3 percentage points during the decade. However, the national level literacy rate conceals more than what it reveals. In other words, inter-state and intra-state disparities in literacy rates are very large in India. For example, among the states, Kerala has the highest literacy rate of 90.9 per cent and Bihar has the lowest literacy rate of 47.5 per cent in 2001. Other than Kerala, Mizoram and Goa, only five union territories namely, Delhi, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondichery have literacy rates more than 80 per cent.

2.1.2 Literacy Rates by Zones and States/UTs

Analysis of literacy rates by zones reveals that, in 2001, west zone (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu) with 73.2 per cent literacy rate tops the list; south zone (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadeep, Pondichery and Goa) with 70.4 per cent the literacy rate takes the 2nd place; east zone (Bihar, Jharkhand, Sikkim, West Bengal, Orissa and Andaman & Nicobar Islands) occupies the lowest rank (i.e. 6th position with 58.9 per cent literacy rate); north zone (Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Chandigarh and Delhi) with 66.5 per cent literacy rate takes the 3rd place; and north-east zone (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura) and central zone (Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, including Uttaranchal) with 65.8 per cent and 60.1 per cent literacy rate respectively occupy 4th and 5th position.

As regards improvements in literacy rates during the last decade (i.e. 1991-2001), all the states and union territories without exception have registered positive growth. Rajasthan has recorded a maximum increase of 22.5 per cent, followed by Chhatisgarh (22.3 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (19.4 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (17.0 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (16.6 per cent). Bihar is the only state having literacy rate below 50 per cent (i.e. 47.5 per cent) and it has registered only 10 per cent increase in literacy rate during the last decade. Regression analysis reveals that urbanization rather than growth rate explains the increase in literacy rates during the 1990s.

2.1.3 Gender Disparity in Literacy Rate

As per 2001 Census, 13 status and UTs have literacy rates below the national average of 65.4 per cent. In these states/UTs, the male-female differential in literacy rate is very large. In terms of male-female differential in literacy rates, Rajasthan having 32.1 per cent differential tops the list, followed by Jharkhand (28.6 per cent), Chhatisgarh (25.5 per cent), Orissa (25 per cent), Jammu and Kashmir (23.9 per cent) and Dadra & Nagar Haveli (30.3 per cent). Ranking of these states/UTs in terms of gender gap in literacy rate has remained almost the same between 1991 and 2001. The states, where the overall literacy rate is low and concentration of tribal population is relatively high, continue to have large gender gaps in literacy rates even after substantial increase in female literacy rate during the last decade.

2.1.4 Comparison of Census and NSS Literacy Rates

In 1997, the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) conducted a special survey on literacy and educational attainment (53rd round). Comparison of the findings of the NSS (53rd round) with that of the 2001 census reveals that, at the national level, the literacy rate of 65.5 per cent in 2001 is higher than the literacy rate of 62 per cent recorded in the NSS. The difference in literacy rates as reported in census 2001 and NSS (53rd round) can be explained in terms of time lag in their implementation and the methodology adopted for collection of data and information. For example, the gaps in literacy rates as reported by census 2001 and NSS (53rd round) are large in smaller states and UTs. Probably, the NSS sample size in these states is not large enough to be representative of the population to provide the actual literacy situation. This however needs further probing.

2.1.5 District Level Literacy Scenario

In India, even state level analysis of literacy rates does not tell the whole story. It is therefore necessary to look into the intra-state variations in growth of literacy rates during the 1990s. It may be mentioned here that comparison of district level literacy data has been made after considering the bifurcation of the districts during the nineties. Moreover, in 1991census, data were not available for 14 districts of J&K, where the census could not be conducted. Similarly, in 2001 census, data on literacy are not available for two districts namely Kinnaur in Himachal Pradesh and Kachchh in Gujarat.

Presently, India has 594 districts, out of which 59 districts have literacy rate more than 80 per cent and 14 districts have literacy rate more than 90 per cent. However, it may be necessary to evaluate data on literacy when the results of post-enumeration check are available. Besides, literacy rates by age group would also help analyze the pattern of growth of literacy during the last decade. In 1991, there were 45 districts having literacy rates below 30 per cent and most of these districts were in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. In 2001, none of the districts has recorded literacy rate below 30 per cent. In 1991, female literacy rate was below 30 per cent in more than one-third of the districts (i.e. 228 districts) and it was below 20 per cent in 103 districts. In 2001, the number of districts having female literacy rate below 30 per cent has come down to 45 and only two districts namely Shravasti in Uttar Pradesh and Kishanganj in Bihar are having female literacy rate below 20 per cent.

Analysis of the literacy rates in top 20 districts of the country reveals that it varies between 96.6 per cent (in Aizawl) and 86.6 per cent (in Mumbai). Out of 20 top districts in the country, 11 are in Kerala, 4 in Mizoram, 2 in Maharashtra and one each in Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu and Lakshadweep. Among the bottom 20 districts (i.e. in terms of overall literacy rate) in 2001, 8 are in Bihar, 4 each in Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, 2 in Jharkhand, and one each in Chhatisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. Moreover, 13 districts out of bottom 20 districts of 1991 have not changed their relative position, i.e. they still continue to be in the bottom 20 districts in 2001. In 2001, top 20 districts in terms of overall literacy rate are the same as that of 1991 census. However, all the bottom 20 districts of 1991 census do not figure in the bottom 20 districts of 2001 census.

In 1991, female literacy rate in the bottom 20 districts was well below 15 per cent, and even 3 districts had female literacy rate below 10 per cent. In 2001, however, none of the districts has female literacy rate below 15 per cent. As has already been mentioned earlier, districts having low female literacy rate are found in Bihar, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh.

2.1.6 The Illiterate Population

In 2001, absolute number of illiterates in the country has for the first time come down substantially. The major contributions to the decline in the number of male illiterates come from Uttar Pradesh (19.5 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (13.6 per cent), Rajasthan (12.4 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (11.4 per cent), Maharashtra (9.2 per cent), Tamil Nadu (7.1 per cent), and West Bengal (7 per cent), which account for around 80 per cent reduction in male illiterates. Similarly, there has been major reduction in female illiterates in nineties in Andhra Pradesh (23.3 per cent), Maharashtra (19.1 per cent), Tamil Nadu (17.9 per cent), West Bengal (10.8 per cent), Chhatisgarh (9.5 per cent) and Rajasthan (9.5 per cent), which account for around 90 per cent. Bihar is the only state, which has registered an increase of 2.31 million in the number of female illiterates (i.e. around 22 per cent) during the last decade. During the nineties, the number of illiterates has also increased in Gujarat, Jharkhand, Manipur, Nagaland, Delhi and Chandigarh. In-migration of illiterate workers to some of these states/UTs, to a large extent, explains the increase in illiterate population. Analysis of illiterates by age group reveals that there were 37.5 million illiterates in the age group 10-14 in 1981, which came down to 30.8 million in 1991. It is expected that the number of illiterates in the age group 10-14 would further come down in 2001. However, the number of adult illiterates (i.e. in the age group 15-34) increased from1o7.2million in 1981 to 121.3 million in 1991, the increase was relatively more pronounced for females (10 million). It is expected that, in 2001, there would be significant reduction in the number of illiterates in both the age groups. An increasing trend in adult illiterates over the census years however provides enough basis for questioning the effectiveness of adult literacy programmes in the country.

2.1.7 Implications for Planning

In the 1990s, several education promotion programmes including externally funded programmes were launched. Among them, prominent are: (i) Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Project (UPBEP); (ii) Bihar Education Project (BEP); (iii) Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project (APPEP); (iv) Lok Jumbish (LJ); (v) District Primary Education Programme (DPEP). During this period, the DPEP covered around 250 districts having low female literacy rate. The DPEP interventions to bring the out-of school children to schools and to retain them in the system also contributed to growth of literacy in these districts. The growth of literacy in these districts is relatively more compared to that of the districts where such primary education promotion programmes have not been implemented during the 1990s. One of the possible explanations is that, to start with these districts were having low literacy rates, which provided more scope for raising the literacy level. Moreover, the impact of planned interventions during the nineties on primary education and literacy are obvious in these districts. To sum up, implementation of these externally funded projects have, to a large extent, contributed to the growth of literacy in the country in general and in educationally backward pockets in particular.

The above analysis of the literacy scenario using provisional figures of 2001 census in not sufficient enough to draw firm conclusions about the pattern of growth of literacy during the 1990s and factors which have more or less contributed to growth of literacy. Even then, such a trend in the growth of literacy calls for intensifying efforts for effectively planning and implementing population control programmes, and interventions aimed at raising the level of girls’ education. There is a need for effectively translating the National Population Policy into concrete interventions in the coming years. Focused interventions are required to reduce the gender disparity in literacy rate and the number of illiterates in educationally backward pockets of the country. Literacy programmes particularly in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa need to be critically reviewed.

2.2 Impact of Primary Education on Literacy

2.2.1 Definition and Possible Errors in Enumeration

The UNESCO defines a literate person as “the one who has acquired all the essential knowledge and skills which enable him/her to engage in all those activities in which literacy is required for effective functioning in his/her group and community and those attaining in reading, writing and numeracy make it possible to use these skills towards his/her own his/her community’s development”. The National Literacy Mission (NLM) defines literacy as “acquiring the skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and the ability to apply them to one’s day-to-day life”. According to NLM, the achievement of functional literacy implies: (i) self-reliance in 3 R’s; (ii) becoming aware of the causes of deprivation and moving towards amelioration of their condition by participating in the process of development; (iii) acquiring skills to improve their economic status and general well being; and (iv) imbibing values of national integration, conservation of environment, women’s equality, observance of small family norms, etc. Functional literacy once acquired should result in empowerment and a definite improvement in the quality of life. The Census of India has defined literacy as “reading and writing with ability in any Indian language”.

It may be mentioned here that, in Census 2001, no tests have been conducted by the Enumerators to verify the literacy status of individual members of the household. The household proforma used in 2001 Census also does not include any specific guidelines to assess the literacy status of members of the household. In fact, as the respondents were mostly the heads of the household, the Census Enumerators did not come in contact with members of the household. The literacy status of the members was therefore entirely based upon the response of the head of the household. No specific procedure has been adopted in the Census 2001 to verify the response of the head of the household. There is no question about the integrity of the heads of the households, but their perception of a literate person may vary from one head of the household to another. This is specifically true keeping in view that a large number of heads of households themselves are illiterates.

Because of reasons discussed above, Census 2001 data on literacy status of population may not be very reliable. There may be errors in enumeration also, which may be because of a number of reasons, particularly conceptual and methodological. There is a need for checking of Census 2001 data on literacy on a sample basis. The external evaluations conducted in the past (NLM, 1994) had found discrepancy in the number of literates reported in the census enumerations and the actual status of persons. Often, when children are reported to be in schools, the Enumerators (mostly teachers) unconsciously treat them as literates, which may not always be true. For example, children of grades I & II are treated as literates in 2001 census. Moreover, a 9 or 10-year old child, if reported as enrolled in school, may not necessarily be treated as literate if he/she has entered the system laterally and studying in grade I or II. Empirical evidences show that, in India, the grossness in enrolment at primary level (Grades I-V) is around 22 per cent (NCERT, 1998a), and majority of these children are over-aged. Many of these over-aged children are also found enrolled in grade I or II. This implies that if we include enrolment in the age group 7-11 in the category of literates, then we are overestimating the literacy rate, because many of these children may be enrolled in grade I or II, and hence not completed the minimum years of schooling required to acquire the literacy skills. This supports the argument that the number of literates and also the literacy rates reported in 2001 census are overestimated. However, availability of data on distribution of literates by age group and educational attainment will help throw more light on this aspect.

2.2.2 Growth Trends in Literacy

In this section, to avoid repetition, an attempt has been made to summarize those findings on growth of literacy in the nineties, which have not been reported in the earlier presentation. According to 2001 census, three-fourth of India’s male population and a little more than half of the female population are now literate and, at the same time, nearly one-third of our population is illiterate. During the period 1991-2001, the overall literacy rate has improved by more than 13 percentage points and female literacy rate improved by 14.87 per cent. However, the gender disparity in literacy rate still continues at 22 per cent. In 2001, Kerala has the highest literacy rate (90.92 per cent), followed by Mizoram (88.44 per cent), Lakshadweep (87.52 per cent), Goa (82.52 per cent), Delhi (81.82 per cent), and Dadra & Nagar Haveli (81.08 per cent).

So far as the ranking of states and union territories in terms of literacy rate is concerned, it is found that Kerala, Mizoram and Lakshadweep have maintained their relative position in 2001 census – i.e. they have respectively occupied the first three positions. Rajasthan has improved its position from 33rd in 1991 to 29th in 2001. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have maintained their relative position respectively at 31st and 34th, whereas the position of Madhya Pradesh has improved from 26th in 1991 to 25th in 2001. West Bengal has improved its position from 19th to 18th in 2001, whereas Orissa and Andhra Pradesh have lost their relative position respectively from 25thand 27th in 1991 to 26th and 28th in 2001. Maharashtra has maintained its position in 2001 at 10, whereas Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have lost their earlier position in 1991 and occupy 22nd and 13th position respectively in 2001.

Despite high growth rate of literacy during the last decade, currently, 128.57 million illiterates are found in four states namely Bihar (34.97 million), Madhya Pradesh (17.86 million), Rajasthan (17.94 million), and Uttar Pradesh (57.8 million), which account for nearly 43 per cent of total illiterates in the country. In 2001, around 31 per cent of total illiterates (93 million) in the country are found in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. In 2001, total number of illiterates in the country is 296.21 million.

An attempt has also been made to estimate the number of years required to achieve universal literacy# in various states and union territories (Mehta, 2001). This projection exercise assumes current growth rate of literacy in states/union territories and therefore does not envisage any major intervention to improve literacy in the country. The findings of the projection exercise reveal that Nagaland and Bihar will take 60 years and 58 years respectively to achieve universal literacy. Besides, to reach the target of universal literacy (i.e. 100 per cent literacy), maximum period will be required in the union territory of Chandigarh (46 years), followed by Manipur (35 years), Gujarat (35 years), Arunachal Pradesh (34 years), Assam (31 years), Karnataka (30 years), Delhi (28 years), Uttar Pradesh (27 years), Pondicherry (27 years), West Bengal (27 years), Punjab (26 years), Meghalaya (26 years), Goa (26 years), Orissa (25 years), Haryana (25 years), Tamil Nadu (25 years), Sikkim (24 years), Andhra Pradesh (23 years), Andaman & Nicobar Islands (23 years), Lakshadweep (22 years), Dadra & Nagar Haveli (21 years), and Tripura (20 years). In all states/ union territories, relatively more years will be required to make all the female population literate.

2.2.3 Impact of Primary Education on Literacy

In 1991, total population in the age group 7+ was 686.57 million in India, which increased to 858.22 million in 2001, showing an absolute growth of 171.65 million. The average annual growth rate of population in the age group 7+ was 2.2 per cent during 1991-2001. During the same period, the number of literates in the country increased by 203.61 million from 358.4 million in 1991 to 526.01 million in 2001. The average annual growth rate of literates in the country was 4.6 per cent during 1991-2001. This shows that, during the last decade, the average annual growth rate of literates was almost double the average annual growth rate of population in the age group 7+.

The literacy rate in India is computed for population in the age group 7+. This implies that, if the entry age to formal school system is 6 years, only children enrolled in Grade II are included in the category of literates. This further implies that only one year of formal schooling is sufficient enough to develop required knowledge and skills to categorize a person as literate. However, NSSO (1991) data even suggest that a few children below 7 years of age are also literate. At the same time, high incidence of dropouts and low levels of learners’ achievement do not suggest to treat Grade I children as literate (NCERT, 1998b). If the present level of learners’ achievements is taken into account, even children who have completed Grade II cannot be treated as literate. Given the definition of literacy, it is perhaps necessary to examine as to whether children in the age group 7-8, who have either completed Grade I or II or are enrolled in Grade II, should be treated as literate. There is a need to debate on the issue, which may help resolve the problem of overestimation of literacy rates, particularly in educationally backward areas of the country where planned interventions have been made during the 1990s to improve primary education. However, attempt has been made to provide alternative estimates of contribution of the formal education system to the growth of literacy in the country during 1991-2001 (Mehta, 2001). In the first alternative, the number of children enrolled in Grade II during 1991-2001 has been estimated and treated as literate. In order to estimate total enrolment in Grade III during the period 1991-2001, the average of the enrolment in Grade III has been taken and then the same has been multiplied by 10. Total enrolment in Grade III thus comes out to be 196.3 million during 1991-2001. Total enrolment in Grade III during the last decade (i.e. 196.3 million) thus can be treated as the contribution of the formal education system towards growth of literacy, which is around 95 per cent of additional literates during this period (i.e. 203.61 million). This implies that the contribution of the National Literacy Mission (NLM) and other interventions for growth of literacy during the 1990s is 7.31 million. Besides, in absolute terms, the decline in illiterate population during the last decade is 31.96 million. This implies two possibilities: (i) the NLM may have contributed 7.31 million towards the decline in illiterate population and the balance 24.65 million may have been contributed by the formal education system; or (ii) the contribution of the formal education system is less than 24.65 million. However, these can be verified only by analyzing the increase in literates by age group during the last decade, data for which are currently not available.

While estimating the contribution of the formal education system to the increase in literate population during 1991-2001, it is necessary to introduce correction factors by taking into account the dropout rate, survival rate, etc., which is currently 40 per cent at primary level (Grades I – V). If dropout rate is taken into consideration and applied to Grade III enrolment, the contribution of the formal system to growth of literacy will further go down. Since the Grade III enrolment is gross in nature, children of different age groups constitute total enrolment. As grade-wise survival rates are not available, it is not possible to apply the same to enrolment in Grade III. Alternatively, it can be assumed that a student of Grade IV can be considered as literate and accordingly the contribution of formal education system can be assessed. Total enrolment in Grade IV during 1991-2001 is estimated as 170.4 million. After adjusting for repetition rate (i.e. 5 per cent), the effective enrolment is Grade IV during the last decade becomes 170 million. This may be treated as the contribution of the formal education system to growth of literacy. The contribution of the formal education system thus comes out to be 82.9 per cent of additional literate population during 1991-2001. As an alternative, after taking into consideration the low level of learners’ achievement is Grade IV, total enrolment in Grade V can be considered for estimating the contribution of formal education system to growth of literacy. Accordingly, if children of Grade V are considered as literate and total enrolment in Grade V is estimated, it comes out to be 153.72 million, which is 75 per cent of additional literates during 1991-2001.

Thus, the alternative estimates of the contribution of formal education system to growth of literacy during the last decade suggest that, it ranges between 162 to 196 million. Even in the extreme case when Grade V enrolment is taken into account, the contribution of the formal education system to growth of literacy comes out to be 153 million, i.e. one-third of the literates produced during 1991-2001.

2.2 Some Observations

The presentations were followed by extensive discussions on various aspects of growth of literacy in India during the 1990s, including the conceptual and methodological issues. The following are some of the important observations and suggestions:

  • There is a need for conceptual clarification – i.e. who is a literate? There should be a common acceptable definition of “literacy”, which may facilitate comparability of data generated by different sources.
  • Quality of available data on literacy is a major concern in the country. For example, according to 2001 census, the growth rate of literacy in five districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1991-2001 is less than 8 per cent, which may seem unacceptable.
  • If the female literacy rate is more than 50 per cent in any district, there is a need to examine the growth rate during the last decade.
  • In most of the states, the growth of literate population in relatively more in districts covered under the DPEP. These districts may be eliminated while analyzing the overall literacy rate of the country.
  • Several externally funded primary education reform programmes were implemented during the 1990s. We need to assess the contribution of these programmes to the growth of literacy in the country.
  • At this stage, when disaggregated data on literacy are not available, it may not be possible to isolate the contribution of NLM or formal education system or alternative education system or any other intervention to growth of literacy during the last decade. Moreover, given the existing data gaps (viz. non-availability of data on enrolment in alternative education system, unrecognized private education sector, etc.), it is perhaps very difficult to estimate the contribution of National Literacy Mission to the growth of enrolment in the nineties.
  • While estimating the contribution of NLM to growth of literacy, adjustments may be made by taking into account the level of wastage in the formal education system, enrolment in alternative system of education and in unrecognized private primary schools. If these correction factors are introduced, the contribution of NLM to growth of literacy during 1991-2001 as reported in the presentation will further go down.
  • Given the nature and type of available data, it is not possible to draw definite conclusions about all aspects of growth of literacy in the country during 1991-2001. Census 2001 data on literacy only help estimate the trends in growth of literacy by sex, state and district. Moreover, these analyses are based on unchecked data. Sample studies can be undertaken to check the validity of census 2001 data on literacy.
  • The 2001 census figures on literacy do not tell the whole story. They hide more than what they tell. Therefore, one should not limit one’s analyses to 2001 census data on literacy only, rather one needs to look for factors which are responsible for growth or lack of growth of literacy in particular demographic groups and geographical regions.

3.0 Post-Lunch Session II: Chairperson: Dr.. Y. P. Aggarwal
(Rapporteurs: Dr. R. S. Tyagi & Dr. Neeru Snehi)

Trends in Literacy: Some Significant Features of Literacy Data of the 2001 Census
Speaker: Dr. A. B. L. Srivastava
Ed.CIL, New Delhi

Changes in Gender Disparity in Literacy Rate During 1991-2001: District-wise Analysis
Speaker: Dr. P. K. Bhargava
NIAE, New Delhi

Maharashtra: A Socio-special Analysis of Literacy Trends With Special Reference to 2001 Census
Speaker: Prof. Saraswati Raju
Ms. Barnali Biswas
CSRD, J. N. U, New Delhi

3.1 Prof. A.B.L. Srivastava made his presentation on Trends in Literacy. He indicated that the trends in literacy has been faster (19.3% increase) during the decade 1991-2001 as compared to the growth (8.6% increase) in 1981-1991. While highlighting his point, he said, that the number of non-literates declined for the first time during he last decade (1991-2001). This was particularly due to the rapid rise in the number of literates and some slowing down of population growth rate during 1991-2001. During this period the number of literates increased by 56.8 per cent, while decrease in non-literates was 9.7 per cent. He observed that it is expected that the trend of decline in the number of non-literates will continue and the size of non-literate population will diminish substantially in the coming years. Prof. Srivastava drew the attention of the participants regarding the gender gap and mentioned that even three has been a greater increase in the female literacy, the gender gap is still vary large since the number of female illiterates is 189.6 million against 106.7 million male illiterates.

He linked the slower growth in female literacy to the enrolment and dropout of children at the primary stage. While referring various reports like National Family Health Survey and of MHRD, Government of India, he pointed out that enrolment ratios of girls were lower and dropout rate at primary stage was higher.

Prof. Srivastava while discussing state to state variations in literacy rates mentioned that Bihar still has the lowest literacy rate of 37.5% among all the states and union territories. He observed that there have been significant increase in the literacy rate of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. While analyzing the progress of female literacy in different states he emphasized that for bridging the gender gap the states require concerted efforts and the enrolment and retention of girls in these states must increase. There is a need to give more emphasis on adult literacy.

The speaker also analyzed the past trends in literacy and observed that the growth in literacy rate was almost linear between 1961 and 1991, however, there was a clear shift in the trend since 1991 on the one hand, and the reduction in gender gap was slow, on the other. While mentioning the contribution of school education to the progress of literacy he pointed out that literacy in the age group 10-14 has increased from 42.3 per cent in 1960-61 to 68.5 in 1991 which reflects the impact of various educational development programmes in the country for achieving the universalisation of elementary education. However, he observed that there was no desired impact of adult education programmes on the progress of overall literacy.

He emphasized that the greater attention needs to be paid the adult literacy programmes for the vast population of non-literate adult. While concluding his session he observed that in the coming years, the programmes like District Primary Education Programme and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan will play an important role in the progress of literacy.

3.2 Dr. N. K. Bhargava while discussing the issues of gender disparity in literacy observed that in spite of various efforts made by the Government of India, female literacy has been a major challenge for the country. He mentioned that it needs no reiteration that female literacy is the they to all aspects of development; the narrowing the gender gap is literacy therefore very much necessary.

While analyzing the provisional population figures he sated that female literacy in the last 10 years has grown at a faster rate (14.87 percentage points from 39.29 per cent in 1991 to 54.16 in 2001) as compared to male literacy (11.69 percentage points from 64.13 per cent to 75.85 per cent) during the same period. Dr. Bhargava, while mentioning the objective of his paper, indicated that there are variations in overall literacy rate and female literacy rate across the States/UTs and districts in the country.

Dr. Bhargava discussed the states-wise scenario of literacy. He pointed out that Rajasthan has significant achievement in the literacy which is 38.55% in 1991 and 61.01 and in 2001. On the other hand, Bihar still lagged behind in the progress of literacy from 37.49 per cent to 47.53 per cent during the same period. In terms of female literacy, Rajasthan has achieved greater progress from 22.44 percent to 44.34% percent. Similarly, Chhatisgarh where overall literacy increased from 42.91 per cent to 65.18 per cent, female literacy increased from 27.52 percent to 52.40 per cent.

He further mentioned that Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Jharkhand were in the range of 40-50 per cent of literacy in 1991. In 2001 all the three states are placed in 50-60 per cent of literacy range. He pointed out that 11 states and union territories had literacy rates of 50 per cent and below with a share of 51 per cent of the country’s population in 1991. Female literacy in 20 states and union territories in 1999 was 50 per cent or below which has come down to six states in 2001. This has helped reduction in the gender gap in literacy rates in almost all the states in the country.

Dr. Bhargava mentioned that as far as the district-wise literacy in the country is concerned, in 1991 there were 62 districts in the country with a literacy rate of 70 pr cent and above. This number with corresponding percentage has increased to 210 districts in 2001 which accounts for 38 percent of countries population indicating a marked improvement in the literacy position. While in case of male literacy 71 districts were having literacy of 80 per cent and above in 1991 which increased to 225 districts in 2001 in case of female literacy, there were 143 districts with 50 per cent and above literacy rate, this number has increased to 335 districts in 2001. He drew the attention of the participants that there were 103 districts with a female literacy rate below 20 percent in 1999 which reduced to 2 districts only in 2001 indicating remarkable achievement in the field of female literacy. Dr. Bhargava mentioned the decade increase in the district-wise literacy that during 1991-2001 out of 577 districts, in 69 districts the decade increase in overall literacy was twenty percentage points or more.

Indicating the male female literacy gap, he said, that in 2001 out of the 5 states, namely, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan has gender gap of 30 percentage points or more in spite of the fact that both male and female literacy rates in Rajasthan are higher than literacy rates of male and female in Bihar. He said that in 1991, out of 577 districts 409 (71%) had gender gap in literacy rate (below 30 percentage points) which has increased to 481 districts in 2001 accounting 83 per cent of the total districts.

Dr. Bhargava also presented his analysis of literacy on the basis of Index of Gender Disparity. He pointed out that value of the gender disparity found to be more than 40 in two states namely Rajasthan and Bihar in 1991. In Rajasthan it has reduced from 46.79 in 1991 to 27.48 in 2001 whereas in Bihar it reduced from 40.92 to 29.38 during the same period.

3.3 Ms. Barnali Biswas did the presentation on literacy in India for the period 1981-2001 with special focus on Maharashtra. In the discussion initiated and shared by both the authors, they observed that India’s Progress in literacy has been tremendous during the last five decades. However, a large disparity in literacy between different sections of populations, based on gender and residence remains consistent.

They also observed that the lower than the national average percentages in literacy, both in rural and urban areas are in the proverbial BIMARU states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Kerala on the other hand is ahead of all states in literacy levels since 1981, Goa and Maharashtra maintained there second and third position in terms of male literacy and showed lowest female literacy rate (33.55 percent) in 2001. Rajasthan has improved in terms of female literacy from 20.44 percent in 1991 to 44.34 percent in 2001. Moreover, despite changing absolute levels in literacy, the relative positioning of various states have remained remarkably unchanged.

They have attempted to explore if even in relatively advanced locale such as Maharashtra this stability continues to prevail. They are particularly interested in interrogating the historical embeddedness of the phenomena and the space and gender interface in sex disparities in literacy.

They observed that-

  • The state has experienced maximum increase in literacy in last decade.
  • Total numbers of literate are increasing much faster than the total population with an increasing share of females in total literate compared to male counter part.
  • In case of male literacy, maximum number of districts (25 out of 30) fall in the literacy range of 60 to 80 percent in 1991 whereas in 2001 as many as 29 districts fall in percentage range of 60 to 90.
  • In case of female literacy larger number of districts fall in lower category.
  • The districts having higher literacy rates are mainly located in the western and northeastern part of Maharashtra, while lower literacy districts in central part of Maharashtra i.e. Marathwada region.
  • A probe into the nature of sex disparity between male and female literacy also reveals interesting regional patterns. The districts that exhibit disparities more than the State average are concentrated in a belt located in the central part of Maharashtra that includes the Marathwada region and part of Deccan plateau.
  • The regional pattern is replicated in both rural and urban areas and strikingly the relative position of the regions seems to be essentially the same over the decade as revealed by the high and positive correlation of sex disparities.
  • The districts the Marathwada region and part of Deccan plateau did not show decline in the sex disparity vis-à-vis the decline for the State as a whole.
  • Based on these observations, it can be argued that the persistence of the high sex disparity in literacy in the Marathwada region and parts of Deccan plateau is not the question of rural and urban locations. Instead, as social indicator literacy is an outcome of long-standing historical context in which the districts are located.
  • In his study of 1986 of regional patterns in literacy, Nuna had identified districts that have consistently been above/below the national average in terms of female literacy ever since the turn of the century i. e., 1901.
  • The authors also noted that despite changes in absolute levels, the Marathwada region and the districts of Chandrapur and Gadchiroli (part of Nuna’s below the national average in female literacy ever since 1901) show exactly the same pattern even in 1991.
  • By 2001, however, there is slight change and some of these districts have attained literacy levels above the national average of 54.28 percent. But the increase is not very much and the values are only within 2-4 percent points above the national average. Also, the region still lags vis-à-vis the rest of Maharashtra.
  • The analysis further shows that the most industrialized and socio- political regions of the western Maharashtra and the Nagpur-Vidharba region in the northeast experienced the emergence of the Dalit movement and recorded growth in literacy rate.
  • In contrast, the Marathwada region was a part of princely Hyderabad State where the predominantly Muslim population made the general literacy including that of women levels low. Besides, social movements spearheaded by the Dalits did not take off in the rural areas.
  • As a result, scheduled caste population in this region, by virtue of their socially, economically and deprived status could not possibly attain much literacy.

In sum, the authors’ analysis brings forth the significance of historically embedded patterns in literacy that seems to continue persistently in even an otherwise enhanced literacy achievement. She summarized that this “ exploratory analysis brings forth the significance of historically embedded patterns in literacy that seems to continue persistently in even an otherwise enhanced literacy achievements”.

In the next section Seminar papers are presented, which is followed by the Annexures.

Annexure I

Seminar on Progress of Literacy in India: What the Census 2001 Prevails
(Friday, October 05, 2001)

PROGRAMME

1000 hrs. OPENING SESSION
(Rapporteur: Dr. S. M. I. A Zaidi)

Welcome & Introduction to Seminar
Dr. A. C. Mehta
Fellow, NIEPA

Opening Address
Prof. Ashish Bose
Honorary Professor
Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi

Chairman’s Observation
Prof. B. P. Khandelwal
Director, NIEPA

1100 hrs. Tea Break
1115.hrs. Session I: Chairperson: Prof. Satya Bhushan
(Rapporteur: Dr. K. K. Biswal)

India’s Literacy Panorama
Speaker: Prof. M. K. Premi
Professor of Demography
Formerly at J. N. U, Dew Delhi

Impact of Primary Education on Literacy: An Analysis of Census 2001 Preliminary Data
Speaker: Dr. A. C. Mehta
NIEPA, New Delhi

1300 hrs. Lunch
1345 hrs. Session II: Chairperson: Prof. Y. P. Aggarwal
(Rapporteurs: Dr. R. S. Tyagi & Neeru Snehi)

Trends in Literacy: Some Significant Features of Literacy Data of the 2001 Census
Speaker: Dr. A. B. L. Srivastava Ed.CIL, New Delhi

Changes in Gender Disparity in Literacy Rate During 1991-2001: District-wise Analysis
Speaker: Dr. P. K. Bhargava
NIAE, New Delhi

Maharashtra: A Socio-special Analysis of Literacy Trends With Special Reference to 2001 Census
Speaker: Prof. Saraswati Raju
Ms. Barnali Biswas
CSRD, J. N. U, New Delhi

1545 hrs. Concluding Remarks
Prof. B. P. Khandelwal
Director, NIEPA

Annexure II

Progress of Literacy in India: What the Census 2001 Prevails

(October 05, 2001)

List of Delegates

Prof. Ashish Bose
Block – I/1777
C. R. Park
New Delhi – 100019
(Phone: 6218849)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. Satya Bhushan
Former Director
NIEPA
B-485, Sarita Vihar
New Delhi – 110045
Prof. M. K. Premi
1036, Sector D-1
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi – 110070
(Phone: 6137696)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. A. B. L. Srivastava
Chief Consultant
Ed. CIL, New Delhi
B 10, I. P. Estate, New Delhi
(Phone: 3779191/91-4512689)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. M.S. Yadav
C3/3038
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi – 110070
(Phone: 6125718)
Ms. Allman Suznnee
UNICEF, 73, Lodhi Estate
New Delhi – 110003
Mr. Subash Misra
UNICEF, 73, Lodhi Estate
New Delhi – 110003
(Phone: 4690401)
([email protected]/[email protected])
Ms. Suman Sachedeva
Consultant UNICEF
B/350D, Sushant Lok
Gurgaon
(Haryana)
Mr. A. K. Singh
Deputy Director
Office of the Registrar General
2-A, Man Singh Road
New Delhi – 11 00 11
(Phone: 3381357)
Dr. Aslam Mahmood
UNESCO
8, Poorvi Marg
New Delhi – 111157
(Phone: 6173752)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. Kuldip Kumar
207/ Block I
Kirti Apartments
Mayur Vihar
Phase I Extension
Delhi – 110091
(Phone: 2713595)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. J. L. Azad
B-2/98, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi – 110029
(Phone: 6102001)
Dr. T. N. Dhar
A-60, Yojana Vihar
Delhi – 110092
(Phone: 2155032)
Dr. P. K. Bhargava
NIAE
10 B, I. P. Estate
New Delhi – 110002
Dr. J.C. Goyal
B-176, Ramprarsta
Gaziabad – 201011
(Phone: 91-4613191)
Dr. T. B. Mathur
B-11, S-2 Dilshad Garden
Delhi – 110095
(Phone: 2296713)
Dr. Tarujyoti Buragohain
NCAER
Parisila Bhawan
11 – Indraprashta Estate
New Delhi – 110002
Mr. C. M. Sehgal
168/18, HB
Faridabad
(Phone: 91-5295257)
Dr. Kusum Premi
1036, Sector D-1
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi – 110070
(Phone: 6137696)
Prof. Muhammad Miyan
Director
DEP-DPEP (IGNOU)
K-3, Green Park Extension
New Delhi – 110016
(Phone: 6524774)
(E-mail:[email protected])
Dr. Sumitra Chaudhary
13/4, Andrews Ganj
New Delhi – 110049
(Phone: 6263655)
(E-mail: chowdhurysu[email protected])
Dr. K.C. Nautiyal
132, Aravali Apartments
Alakanands
Kalkaji
New Delhi – 110019
(Phone: 6415388)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. S.L. Gupta
189/1, Arjun Nagar
New Delhi – 110029
(Phone: 6102027)
Shri L.C. Kaul
D-40, Pamposh Enclave
New Delhi-110048
(Phone: 6417140)
Prof. S.P. Ruhela
126, Sector 37
Faridabad – 121003
(Phone: 91-5275844)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. L.C. Singh
B-5/134, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi- 110029
(Phone: 6101211)
Prof. Karma Chanana
Zakir Hussain Centre for
Educational Studies
J.N.U.
New Delhi – 110067
(Phone: 6107676/2416, 6106265)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. Saraswati Raju
CSRD, School of
Social Sciences, J. N. U.
New Delhi – 110067
(Phone: 6107676/2571/2463, 6165559)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Ms. Barnali Biswas
CSRD, School of
Social Sciences,
J. N. U.
New Delhi – 110067
(Phone: 6190125)
Mr. Biresh K. Mohanty
Ph.D Scholar
C. S. R. D
J. N. U
New Delhi – 110067
Mr. Radhey Shyam
72/2, Sector I
Pushpa Vihar
New Delhi – 110017
(Phone: 6517534)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Mr. S. S. Shokesh
Joint Director
MHRD, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi
(Phone: 3782881)
(E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. T. C. Sharma
J. S. O
University Grants Commission
New Delhi
(Phone: 3782881)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. J. L. Pandey
Population Education Department
NCERT
New Delhi – 110016
(Phone: 6964083)
Prof. Neeraja Shukla
NCERT
New Delhi – 110016
(Phone: 6962459/6963120)
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Saroj Yadav
NCERT
New Delhi – 110016
(Phone: 6964083)

NIEPA

Prof. B. P. Khandelwal
Director
(E-mail: [email protected])
Prof. M. M. Mukhopadhyay
Senior Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Y. P. Aggarwal
Senior Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Sudesh Mukhopadhyay
Senior Fellow
(E-mail: sudesh­[email protected])
Dr. Pramila Menon
Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Neelam Sood
Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Nalini Juneja
Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. S. M. I. A Zaidi
Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Y. Josephine
Associate Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Geetha Rani
Associate Fellow
(E-mail:[email protected])
Dr. Rashmi Diwan
Associate Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. R. S. Tyagi
Associate Fellow
Dr. K. K. Biswal
Associate Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Neeru Snehi
Associate Fellow
(E-mail:[email protected])
Dr. Madumita Bandopadhyay
Associate Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])
 Dr. Subash SharmaHindi Officer Ms. Deepak Makol
Documentation Officer
Dr. Manju Narula
Research & Training Associate
Ms. Sunita Chug
Research & Training Associate
Mr. N. Reddy
Research & Training Associate
Mr. V. P. S Raju
Research & Training Associate
(E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Ramesh Chandra
Project Officer
(Phone: 6855079)
Dr. R. S. Thakur
EMIS Project
Dr. Mona
EFA Project
Shri P. N. Tyagi
Cartographer (Computer Applications)
Mr. Alekha Mohanty
Project Assistant
(E-mail:[email protected])
Dr. Arun C. Mehta
Fellow
(E-mail: [email protected])

# Number of Years Required to Universalize Literacy (RYul) = (100 – Literacy Rate in 2001) / (Literacy Rate in 2001 – Literacy Rate in 1991).