|
|
|
The 1981 Census enumeration was conducted during February-March 1981, with sunrise of March 1, 1981 as the reference point of time. The houseless persons were enumerated on the night of the February 28 and a revisional round was conducted from March 1 to 5, 1981. In certain inaccessible areas, however, the enumeration was carried out non-synchronously. These areas, include the snow bound regions of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim and the operations were also carried out non-synchronously in certain parts of Andaman and Nicobar Islands where the enumeration was carried out in September-October 1980, the reference point being the sunrise of May 6, 1981. The revisional round was from May 6 to May 10, 1981. This was due to the unfavourable weather conditions that prevailed in February 1981. The census could not be taken in Assam owing to disturbed conditions prevailing there at the time of census.
Census data have always been presented for rural and urban areas separately. The basic unit for rural areas is the revenue village which has definite surveyed boundaries. The revenue village may comprise several hamlets but the entire village has been treated as one unit for presentation of data. In unsurveyed areas, like villages within forest areas, each habitation area with locally recognised boundaries within each forest range officer's beat, was treated as one unit.
The following criteria were adopted for treating a place as urban for the 1981 census:
A town with a population of one hundred thousand and above was treated as a city.
The urban criterion of 1981 was similar to that of 1961 and 1971 except the workers in occupations of fishing, livestock, hunting, logging, plantations and orchards etc., (falling in industrial category (III) were treated as coming under non-agricultural activities in 1961 and 1971 census and in the 1981 census, these activities were treated as agricultural activities for purposes of determining the male working population in non- agricultural activities.
A 'Household' is a group of persons who commonly live together and would take their meals from a common kitchen unless the exigencies of work prevented any of them from doing so. There may be a household of persons related by blood or a household of unrelated persons or having a mix of both. Examples of unrelated households are boarding houses, messes, hostels, residential hotels, rescue homes, jail, ashrams, etc. These are called 'Institutional households'. There may be one member households, two member households or multi-member households. For census purposes, each one of these types is regarded an a 'household'.
The definition of a literate person is as follows:-- "A person who can both read and write with understanding in any language is to be taken as literate. A person who can merely read but cannot write is not literate. It is not necessary that a person who is literate should have received any formal education or should have passed any minimum educational standard."
The test that was applied for reading was the ability to read any portion of the printed matter in the enumerator's instruction booklet (provided the person was familiar with the language used in the booklet) and the test for writing was the ability to write a simple letter. A child of age of 4 years or less was treated as illiterate even if the child was going to a school and might have picked up reading and writing a few odd words.
From the 1951 census onwards the census questionnaire contains items of enquiry to ascertain whether the respondent belongs to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe and if yes, the name of the scheduled caste/tribe to which he belongs with a view to collecting information for discharging the Constitutional obligations towards these communities. In the individual Slip (universal) adopted for the 1981 Censu, question 9 makes an enquiry about the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe status and question 10 about the name of the specific scheduled castes/tribes. Likewise, question 3 of the household scheduled enquires whether the head of the household belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and question 4 the name of the scheduled caste/tribe of the head of the household, if the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative.
The statutory lists of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are notified in pursuance of articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The lists of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were notified for the first time under the Constitution (Schedule Castes) Order, 1950 and the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. These lists have been modified or amended or supplemented from time to time. On the reorganisation of the States, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, list (Modification), Order came into force from 29th October, 1956. Thereafter, a few orders specifying Scheduled castes/tribes in respect of a few individual states also came into force. For instance, the Constitution (Jammu & Kashmir) Scheduled Castes Order was issued in 1956, while the Constitution (Dadra & Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders were issued in 1962. In Uttar Pradesh the Scheduled Tribes were notified for the first time in 1967 vide the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) (Uttar Pradesh) Order, 1967. Likewise, the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order was enforced in 1964. In the case of the union territory of Goa, Daman & Diu the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes order was issued in 1968. Likewise, the Constitution (Nagaland) Scheduled Tribes Order came into force in 1970. Later, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act 1976, came into force. The main purpose of this Amendment act was to remove area restrictions in respect of most of the Scheduled Castes and Schedulted Tribes. The Amendment Act of 1976 did not include the lists of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in respect of states/union territories like Chandigarh, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Pondicherry which were not affected by the Act. Each enumerator was furnished with a list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in relation to his state/union territory as notified under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976, and other relevant Acts and Orders. If the person enumerated belonged to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe he/she was recorded as such. If the person belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe was reckoned as scheduled caste or scheduled tribe only if the name found place in the list furnished to the enumerator. The general terms, like Harijan/Girijan or Achhut/Adivasi were not reckoned as belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as the case may be. In such cases the name of the caste/tribe, was ascertained fully and if that name found place in the list furnished to the enumerator he/she was treated as scheduled caste/scheduled tribe as the case may be. If a person merely claimed to be a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, but said that he/she did not belong to any of the notified communities applicable to the area, as reflected in the list supplied to the enumerator, he/she was not reckoned as belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. Scheduled castes could belong to Hindu or Sikh religion, whereas scheduled tribes could belong to any religon.
(From the 1971 census.) Each enumerator was furnished with a list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes applicable to the state under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes List (Modification) Order (1956) as amended from time to time. He was instructed to record a person as belonging to a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe only when the name of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as returned by the persons figured in the list. If the person belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe returned his caste or tribe by any synonym or generic name of the caste or tribe not mentioned in the list, he was not eligible to be entered as belonging to a scheduled caste or tribe.
In the 1961 Census, the enumerators in some States had been provided with a set of synonyms and generic names of the scheduled castes and tribes so that a person who returned his caste or tribe by any synonym or generic name was enumerated as a scheduled caste or schedule tribe irrespective of whether such synonym or generic name found a place in the notified list. In the 1971 census, however, in view of a Supreme Court judgement on the subject, the notified list of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes had to be strictly followed and the synonyms or generic names of such communities could not be recognized for purpose of enumeration as a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, as such synonyms or generic names were not included in the list. There is, therefore, a possibility that despite specific instructions to the enumerators to make all efforts to elicit the correct name of the caste or tribe, some persons might have returned themselves by some synonym, local name or generic name and suffered omission from enumeration as a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Care was, however, taken to include those who returned themselves merely as scheduled caste or schedule tribe, and in whose case the enumerator did not record the actual name of the caste or tribe.
In the 1981 census the information regarding economic activity of the people was collected in greater detail. The economic questions consisted of three parts, namely: I. Q.14A Worked any time at all last year? YES NO (H/ST/D/R/B/I/O) Q.14B If yes in 14A, did you work for the major part of last year? YES/NO II. Q.15A Main activity last year? YES in 14B (C/AL/HHI/OW) NO in 14B (H/ST/D/R/B/I/O) Q. 15B 14B YES--Any other work any time last year? Yes (C/AL/HHI/OW) NO 14B No --Work done any time last year? (C/AL/HHI/OW) III. Q.16 If NO in 14A or 14B, seeking/available for work? YES/NO Every person including the very young or very old was asked Q.14A (worked anytime at all last year) and answer to this question was filled in. The other questions 14B, 15A and 15 B were to be filled in the case of those to whom they were applicable. These questions were meant to get details of the work done by the people with reference to last and year preceding the date of enumeration. Certain types of work such as agriculture, household industry like gur making, etc., are carried on either throughout the year or only during certain seasons or part of the year depending on the local circumstances. In such cases the broad time span of the agricultural season preceding the enumeration was taken into account.
According to this definition, the entire population has been classified into three main categories, i.e., Main workers, Marginal workers and Non- workers.
Main activity of a person who was engaged in more than one activity was reckoned in terms of time disposition. For example, if a person had worked as a daily wage labourer for four months, as an agricultural labourer for one month and as a cultivator for two months he was reckoned as daily wage labourer for question 15A since he had spent more time in this activity than as a cultivator or agricultural labourer.
A person who normally worked but had been absent from work during the reference period on account of illness, holiday, temporary closure, strike etc., was treated as engaged in the work he would have otherwise have been doing, but for his temporary absence. Persons under training such as apprentices, with or without stipend or wages were treated as workers. A person who had merely been offered work but had not actually joined, was not treated as engaged in that work.
A man or woman who was engaged primarily in one's own household duties or a boy or a girl who was primarily a student, even if such a person helped in the family economic activity but not as full time worker was not treated as worker for Q.14b even though he or she might have been recorded as 'yes' in Q.14A. On the other hand, if a person was primarily engaged in some economic activity for major part of the year but at the same time also attended to some household chores or attended a night school etc, he or she was treated basically as a worker.
An adult woman who was engaged in household duties but doing no other productive work to augment the family's resources was not considered as working. If, however, in addition to her household work, she engaged herself in work such as rice pounding for sale or wages or in domestic services for wages for others or minding cattle for wages or selling firewood etc., or any other work like cultivation etc., was treated as working under Q.14A.
A man or a woman who was doing household duties might be producing or making something only for domestic consumption of the household and not for sale. Such a person was not considered a worker, even though from his or her point of view the activity was productive.
The 'work' concept of 1961 and 1971 censuses as opposed to the 'Income' or 'Economic independence' concept of the censuses prior to 1961, was retained in the 1981 census also. But the criterion for classification of persons as workers underwent changes. While in the 1961 and 1971 censuses dual approach, namely, usual status and current status, were adopted with a reference period of one year for seasonal and one fortnight in 1961 and one week in 1971 for regular work, at the 1981 census the usual status approach was adopted uniformally for all work. In the 1961 and 1971 censuses, classification as worker or non-worker was made through different criteria. In 1961 a person was classified as a worker if he had worked regularly during the last season or if he had worked at least for a day in regular (non-seasonal) work during the receding fortnight. At the 1971 census a person was treated as a worker only if he spent his time mainly in work or if he worked at least for a day in regular (non-seasonal) work during the preceding week.
In 1981, for main worker, the time criterion of engagement in work was the major part of the year i.e. at least 183 days in the preceding one year, while those who worked for some time during the last year but not for the major part of the year were treated as marginal workers. Those who had never worked during the last one year were considered as non-workers. This approach was adopted with the expectation that a partial comparability of 1981 census economic data with that of 1971 as well as 1961 would be possible. It was expected that the main worker of 1981 would correspond to the worker of 1971 and the main worker and marginal worker together of 1981 would correspond to the worker of 1961.
[From the 1971 census.] The definition of "workers" in the 1971 Census is slightly different from that of 1961. In the 1961 Census, a person was considered as "worker" according to his participation in any economically productive work. In the case of regular employment in any trade, profession, service, business or commerce, a person was taken as a worker if he was employed during any of the 15 days preceding the day on which he was enumerated. An exception to the 15 days period to reckon one as a worker had been made in 1961 in the case of seasonal work like cultivation, livestock, dairying, household industry, etc. In such cases if a person had put in an hour's regular work a day throughout the greater part of the working season, he was considered as a worker. "Work" included not only actual work but also effective supervision and direction of work. A person might be working as a cultivator or as an agricultural labourer or at a household industry or might be doing any other work. He might be engaged either in one or more than one of the above. A full-time student who spent some time in his father's shop for even a day in a fortnight was considered as a "worker". Similarly if a woman who was basically engaged in household duties also engaged herself in work such as pounding rice for sale or wages or in domestic services for wages for others or minding cattle or selling firewood or making and selling dung cakes, grass, etc. or any such work, she was also treated as a "worker". Thus in the 1961 Census a person was categorized basically as a "worker" even if such a person's contribution to work was extremely marginal.
In the 1971 Census, every individual was asked to declare himself what according to him was his "main activity" i.e. how he engaged himself mostly. Accordingly all persons were divided into two broad streams of main activity as workers and non-workers. A 'worker' was defined clearly as a person whose "main activity" was participation in any economically productive work by his physical or mental activity. "Work" involved not only actual work but effective supervision, or direction of work. The reference period was one week prior to the date of enumeration in the case of regular work in trade, profession, service or business. If a person had participated in any such regular work on any one of the days during the week preceding the day of enumeration and this had been returned as his 'main activity', the person was classified as a worker and categorized accordingly. A person who normally worked but had been absent from work during the reference period on account of illness or travel, holiday, temporary breakdown, strike, etc., was treated as engaged in regular work in which he would have otherwise been employed but for his temporary absence. Persons under training such as apprentices with or without stipends or wages were considered as economically active and recorded as working. A person who was offered work but did not actually join it was not treated as engaged in work. In respect of seasonal work like cultivation, livestock keeping, plantation, some types of household industry, etc., which are not carried on throughout the year, a person's main activity was ascertained with reference to such work in the last one year even if he was not economically active in the week prior to enumeration. In 1971 A person was treated basically as a "non-worker" if he or she did not come under any of the categories of "worker" mentioned above. Thus a person engaged primarily in household duties such as cooking for one's own household or performing one's own household duties or student attending an institution or a rent receiver was classified as such for his main activity and was treated as "non-worker". If he was also engaged in some economic activity, obviously not to the same extent as a full-time worker, that activity was mentioned under the head of "secondary work". The secondary work, if any, of those who were basically classified as "workers" was also ascertained. Data on "secondary work" will be presented in Table B-VII which will be published in Part II-B.
A person was considered as cultivator if he or she was engaged either as employer, single worker or family worker in cultivation of land owned or held from government of held from private persons or institutions for payment in money, kind or share of crop. Cultivation included supervision or direction of cultivation.
A person who had given out his/her land to another person or persons for cultivation or money, kind or share of crop and who did not even supervise or direct cultivation of land was not treated as cultivator. Similarly, a person working in another person's land for wages in cash or kind or a combination of both was not treated as cultivator.
Cultivation involved ploughing, sowing and harvesting and production of cereals and millet crops such as wheat, paddy, jowar, bajra, ragi, etc., and pulses, raw jute and kindred fibre crop, cotton, etc., but did not include fruit growing, vegetable growing or keeping orchards or groves or working on plantations like tea, coffee, rubber, cinchona and other medicinal plantations.
Household industry was defined as an industry conducted by the head of the household himself/herself and/or by the members of the household at home or within the village in rural areas, and only within the precincts of the house where the household lived in urban areas. the larger proportion of workers in a household industry should consist of members of the household including the head. The industry should not be run on the scale of a registered factory.
The main criterion of a household industry was the participation of one or more members of a household. This criterion applied in urban areas too. Even if the industry was not actually located in the house but was located somewhere within the village limits in the rural areas, there was greater possibility of the members of the household participating in the industry. In the urban areas where organized industry was more prominent, the household industry was to be confined to the precincts of the house where the participants lived. In urban areas even if the members of the household by themselves ran an industry but at a place away from the precincts of their home, it was not considered a household industry.
A household industry is one that is engaged in production, processing, servicing, repairing or making and selling (but not merely selling) of goods. It does not include professions such as those practised by a pleader or doctor or barber, musician, dancer, dhobi, astrologer etc. or merely trade or business, even if such professions, trade or services are run at home by members of the household. A list of a few typical household industries is given in Annexe. 3.
[From the 1971 census.] In 1971, a separate category has been provided for mining and quarrying (category 4) as against the 1961 combined category 3 of "Mining, quarrying, livestock forestry, fishing, hunting and plantations, orchards and allied activities". Category 4 of 1961, (household industry), is now included in category 5 -- (manufacturing, 'processing, servicing and repairs) as Cal. 5(a) -- household industry. At the 1961 Census, "households industry" covered establishments falling under divisions '0' and '1' of the National Industrial Classification, e.g., cattle rearing, orchardry, plantations, etc., apart from divisions 2 & 3. At the 1971 Census, "household industry" is confined to division 2 and 3 only, it covers only manufacturing, processing, servicing or repairing. "Business services" as also "tea-stalls" and "restaurants" were included in category 9 at the 1961 Census. They are now included in category 7 which stands for workers in trade and commerce.
In the 1981 Census, four questions relating to fertility were canvassed. These were age at marriage, number of surviving chidren and whether any chlid was born during the last one year. The first three were canvassed for all ever-married women. For operational reasons, the question on births during the last one year was canvassed for currently married women only. The data released are based on a 20 percent sample of enumeration blocks in major states with a population of over 10 million and 100 per cent basis in other states and union territories. On the basis of these sets of questions it has become possible, for the first time in India, to work out estimates of female age at marriage, fertility and child mortality at areas below the state level. The estimates on fertility and child mortality have been worked out by indirect estimation techniques.
Civil registration system which usually provides estimates of mortality by age groups is deficient in India. The deficiency is, in particular, noticed in respect of child mortality. The Sample Registration System (SRS) initiated by the office of the Registrar General India as in recent years provided estimates of infant and child mortaility rates at national and state levels. However, due to small sample size, estimates below the stae level are not available from this source.
In recent years, a number of methods for estimation of infant and child mortality rates from the data on children ever born and children surviving have been developed. The method was originally proposed by W. Brass and has been termed as indirect estimation technique. The estimates derived by using this method have been found to be fairly reliable.
Application of this method requires that data on children ever born and children surviving be cross-classified by the age of mother. Data on children ever born and children surviving have been collected in the 1981 census. The questions on children ever born and children surviving were canvassed for all ever-married women. The number of children ever born and the chidren surviving have been tabulated by the age of the mother. Tables F-12, F-13, F-15, F-21, and F-27 present the required data. Of these tables, F-21 and F-27 are available at district level separately for rural and urban areas. Tables F-12, F-13 and F-15 present the required data by religion, educational level and occupation at state level.
The essence of the Brass child mortality procedure is that the proportions of children dead classified by the age of the mother could be converted into estimates of child mortality by selecting suitable multipliers (Ki). These multipliers will differ according to the fertility pattern. As an indicator of fertility pattern, Brass suggested the ratio P1/P2 or P2/P3 where P1, P2 and P3 are the average number of chilren ever born per women in the age groups, 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29. The multipliers for converting the proportions dead into estimates of child mortality were derived by Brass, using Brass fertility polynomial. This fertility polynomial was a mathematical function and had some limitations. In view of this, the multipliers were later modified by Trussel who generated a different set of multipliers using model fertility schedules developed by Coale and Trussel and the regional model life tables generated by Coale and Demeney. In estimating the child mortality we have used the Trussel equation. In a nutshell, the estimation equations used are as folows. q(i)=K(i)D(i) K(i)=a(i)+b(i) (P(1)/P(2)+C(i) (P(2)/P(3) where i=1,2,3,4.........refers to different five-year age-groups of 15-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34.... D(i)=Ratio of reported children dead to reported chldren ever born in the ith age-group P(i)=average number of children ever born per woman in the age-group, i, a(i) and b(i) are the regression coefficients for age-group, i. The coefficients differ for each of the four different model life table systems. In this report coefficients based on South model life tables have been made use of.
The Brass procedure as modified by Trussel helps us to estimate the probability of a new born child dying before age 1, the probability of a new born child dying before age 2, the probability of new born child dying before age 3, and the probability of a new born child dying before age 5. These probabilities multiplied by 1000 are denoted as q(1), q(2), q(3) and q(5) respectively. In the original Brass estimation procedure it was assumed that the child mortaility would remain constant for a period preceding the census (survey). This assumption was, however, relaxed later on. Coale and Trussel developed a procedure which is valid when mortality declined. This procedure assigned the estimated q(x) to a few years prior to census (YPC). In other words, when mortality is declining these estimates would not refer to the year before the census but would refer to different points of time prior to census. The YPC corresponding to q(1) is generally about 1 year, for q(2) it varies between 2 and 2 1/2 years, for q(3) it varies between 4 to 5 years and for q(5) the YPC varies between 6 to 7 years.
The four estimates of child mortality viz. q(1), q(2), q(3) and q(5) denote the number of deaths per 1000 live births by age 1, age 2, age 3 and age 5 respectively. Many a time, however, it has been noticed that the progression of estimates of q(1), q(2), q(3) and q(5) is not smooth. In our estimates, sometimes, q(1) is observed to be higher than q(2) which is not possible. Sometimes, there is inconsistency between q(2) and q(3) also. Such estimates arise because of the inaccuracies in reporting of age, number of children born and surviving, small number of events reported and other factors. Brass, in his presentation, had menioned that the estimates of q(1) could not be relied upon because of the small number of chidren born to women in the age group 15-19 leading to sampling errors. However, due to early marriage of females, the objection of small number of births to women in this age group may not be valid in India. However, the lack of consistency between estimated figures results in serious limitations for the users. To remove the inconsistencies, graduation has been resorted to. As a general rule, the value of q(1) has been graduated. For this purpose, the expectations of life at birth corresponding to q(2), q(3) and q(5) were worked out from the South Asian pattern of Model Life Tables and their average taken. Corresponding to this average value of e the value of q(1) was interpolated. This interpolated value of q(1) has been taken as the graduated value of q(1). Wherever the values of q(2) or q(3) or q(5) were found to be inconsistent among themselves, they had also to be graduated. In some cases, the estimates are so inconsistent with each other that it has not been possible to graduate them. In such cases, the estimates have been presented without graduation and a footnote added so that the user distinguishes them from other undergraduated but useable estimates. Many such cases have been noticed in Smaller States and Union Territories despite 100 percent tabulation in these areas.
The estimates presented in the tables are ungraduated estimates. The graduated figures, wherever graduation has been considered necessary, are also shown in brackets. The discussions in the following chapters are based on graduated estimates. The discussion in this paper is, in general, restricted to All India and States. Separate varityped publications are being brought out for the major states of India (with a population of 10 million and above in 1981) wherein detailed analysis for disparities, between districts within each state has been done.
| Return to: |
|
||
| Last updated October 1, 2000 |
comments to: Reeve Vanneman.
reeve@umd.edu
|