the demographic & health scenario of rajasthan...

THE DEMOGRAPHIC & HEALTH SCENARIO OF RAJASTHAN FROM AN

ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND

STATISTICS, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, YOJANA BHAWAN, JAIPUR

2012

Government of Rajasthan

THE THE THE THE DEMOGRAPHIC & HEALTHDEMOGRAPHIC & HEALTHDEMOGRAPHIC & HEALTHDEMOGRAPHIC & HEALTH

SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO SCENARIO OF OF OF OF RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN FROMFROMFROMFROM AN AN AN AN

ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVEANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVEANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVEANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Government of Rajasthan

DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, YOJANA BHAWAN,

JAIPUR

2012

3 The demographic & health scenario of Rajasthan from an Analytical perspective

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Sl. No. Contents

Page

No.

1.0 Preface ……………………………………………………………………….......................... 2

2.0 List of Tables………………………………………………………………………................ 4

3.0 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………................. 5

4.0 Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………...................... 6

5.0 Rajasthan at a Glance, 2012…………………………......................................... 7

6.0 Chapter 1 : The Current Scenario- The Current Demographic and Health

Scenario of Rajasthan………................................................................................

8

7.0 Chapter 2 : The Future Scenario-Population Projection and estimation of

vital Statistics………..............................................................................................

31

8.0 Chapter 3: Analytical insights into Demography, Health and Education

issues....................................................................................................................

41

9.0 Chapter 4: Conclusions and Way Forward…………………………………………… 60

10.0 References ……………………………………………………………………..................... 64

11.1 Annexure-1 : Ranking of States and UTs in India…………………………………. 67

11.2 Annexure-2: Ranking of Districts in Rajasthan……………………………………. 73

12.0 Status of selected MDG indicators for Rajasthan......................... 96

13.0 Official List of MDG indicators……………………………………………… 101

14.0 Background Note on the Annual Health Survey, 2010-11………….. 104

15.0 Definitions …………………………………………………………………......................... 106

16.0 Formula………………………………………………………………………......................... 108


L I S T O F T A B L E S

Table No.

List of Tables Page No.

1 Rajasthan’s rank among the eight EAG states, AHS, 2010-11 11 2 Levels of IMR & MMR according to SRS in the EAG States and Assam with rank in descending

order of value, AHS, 2010-11 12

3 CBR in SRS, 2009 and AHS, 2010-11 (2007-09) 14 4 IMR and MMR in SRS, 2009 and AHS, 2010-11 (2007-09) 14 5 List of 5 common districts in Rajasthan featuring in top 100 districts in order of Infant Mortality

Rate and top 25 administrative divisions (Commissionerate) in order of Maternal Mortality Ratio 15

5a Human development Index Rank in India and major states, 1999-2000 and 2007-08 27 6 Projected Population as on 1st July from 2011 to 2021 (Provisional) 33-34 7 Projected Population as on 1st October from 2011 to 2021 (Provisional) 35-36 8 Annual Exponential, Geometric and Arithmetic Growth rates (2001-2011) (%)(Provisional) 37 9 CRS, SRS and Exponential estimates of IMR (2011-2012) 39

10 CRS, SRS and Exponential estimates of MMR (2010-2012) 39 11 Conversion factors for CRS for IMR for the years 2011 &2012 and MMR for the period of 2010-12 39 12 Results of Simple Linear Regression between IMR, 2007-09, AHS and Female Literacy, Census

2011 Provisional 42

13 Highest and Lowest Literacy and IMR in districts of Rajasthan 42 14 Odds Ratios from Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of the likelihood of

contraceptive use among currently married women in the reproductive age of 15-49 years, Rajasthan (NFHS-3, 2005-06)

53

15 Profile of Rajasthan, Kerala and India 54 16 Progress of Selected Millennium Development Goals of 1-6 (1990-2015) for Rajasthan, 2012 56 17 Progress of Selected Monitorable Targets of Eleventh Plan (2007-12) for India and Rajasthan,

2012 57

18 GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance : Population and sex ratio according to Census 2001

58

19 GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance : Population and sex ratio according to Census 2011 provisional, Fertility and Mortality indicators according to Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

58

19a GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance : Education and Health indicators according to Census 2011 provisional and Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

59

20 Reorganization of districts in India and States between Census 2001 and 2011 68 21 Percentage Share of Population by residence in Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census

2011 69

22 Population and decadal growth rate of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census

71

23 Population density of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census 2011

71

24 Total, Male and Female Literacy of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census 2011

72

25a Geographical area in sq. km. in Rajasthan and districts according to Census 2001 in descending order

74

25b Administrative units in Rajasthan according to Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census 2011

75

25c Division and District-wise population and decadal growth rate in Rajasthan according to Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census 2011

76

26 Population and population density of Rajasthan and districts arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census 2011

77

27 Percentage Share of Population by residence in Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census 2011

78

28 Overall Sex Ratio and Child Sex Ratio in the Districts of Rajasthan, arranged in descending order according to the provisional results of Census 2011

79

29 Total, Male and Female Literacy in the Districts of Rajasthan, arranged in descending order according to the provisional results of Census 2011

80


Table No.

List of Tables Page No.

30 Total, Rural and Urban Population by Gender in the Districts of Rajasthan, according to the provisional results of Census 2011

81-83

31 Population by Gender, Overall Sex Ratio, Child Sex Ratio and Literacy Rate in the cities of 1 lakh and above in Rajasthan according to the provisional results of Census

84

32 Child Sex Ratio (0-6 years) by Residence in the districts of Rajasthan according to the provisional results of Census 2011

85

33 Total Literacy Rate by Residence in the districts of Rajasthan according to the provisional results of Census 2011

86

34 Birth and Death Rates in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in descending order of value, Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

87

35 Child Mortality Rates in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in descending order of value, Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

88

36 Indicators of sex composition in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in descending order of value, Annual

89

37 Selected Indicators of Annual Health Survey-Rajasthan, 2010-11 (2007-09) 90 38 Profile of Rajasthan and India (Selected Indicators) 91-95 39 Estimated Number and Percentage of Live births, Infant and maternal deaths in India and EAG

States, 2009 95

40 Selected MDG indicators for Rajasthan, 2012 96-100 41 District-Wise Sample of Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 for Rajasthan 105

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure

No. Particulars Page No.

1 Levels of & MMR according to AHS, 2010-11 for the period of 2007-09 in the EAG States 12 2 Levels of & MMR according to AHS, 2010-11 for the period of 2007-09 in the 7 divisions of

Rajasthan 15

3 Overall Sex Ratio (OSR) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 16 4 Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 17 5 Crude Birth Rate (CBR) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 18 6 Crude Death Rate (CDR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 19 7 Infant Mortality Rate and Under five mortality Rate by Gender and Residence in Rajasthan,

AHS, 2007-09 20

8 IMR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 21 9 Neonatal Mortality Rate in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 22 10 Post Neonatal Mortality Rate in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 23 11 U5MR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09 24 11a Classic Phases of Demographic transition 25 11b Demographic transition in Rajasthan: 1972-2010 26 11c Demographic transition in Kerala: 1972-2010 26 12 Human development Index Rank in India and major states, 1999-2000 and 2007-08 28 13 Human development Index in the districts of Rajasthan, 2002 29 14 Human development Index in the districts of Rajasthan, 2007 29 15 Human development Index in the districts of Rajasthan, 2002 and 2007 30 16 Projection of IMR : 2011-2012 38 17 Projection of MMR : 2010-2012 40 18 Literacy Rates in India and Rajasthan by Gender, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 43 19 Total Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 44 20 Male Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 45 21 Female Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 46 22 Total Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 47 23 Male Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 48 24 Female Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011 Provisional (%) 49


A B B R E V I A T I O N S

AHS : Annual Health Survey BDO : Block Development Officer CBR : Crude Birth Rate CEB : Children Ever Born CD : Children Dead CDR : Crude Death Rate CRS : Civil Registration System CS : Children Surviving DLHS : District Level Household Survey DSO : District Statistical Officer EAG : Empowered Action Group GDP : Gross Domestic Product GSDP : Gross State Domestic Product GRR : Gross Reproduction Rate HDI : Human Development Index ICDS : Integrated Child Development Services IMR : Infant Mortality Rate MDGs : Millennium Development Goals MMR : Maternal Mortality Ratio NDP : Net Domestic Product NFHS : National Family Health Survey NRHM : National Rural Health Mission NSDP : Net State Domestic Product ORGI : Office of the Registrar General of India PCI : Per capita Income PEO : Progress Extension Officer RGI : Registrar General of India SBR : Stillbirth Rate SRB : Sex Ratio at Birth SRS : Sample Registration System ST : Scheduled Tribe TFR : Total Fertility Rate TMFR : Total Marital Fertility Rate U5MR : Under five Mortality Rate


Rajasthan at a glance : Population according to Census 2011 provisional, Fertility and Mortality indicators in the Districts of Rajasthan according to Annual Health

Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

Sl. No.

State / District Population, Census 2011

provisional (in lakh)*

Crude Birth Rate

(births per 1,000 MYP)**

Crude Death Rate

(deaths per 1,000 MYP)**

Infant Mortality

Rate (infant

deaths per 1,000 LBs)**

Neo- natal Mortality

Rate (deaths per

1,000 LBs)**

Under Five Mortality

Rate (deaths per

1,000 LBs)**

RAJASTHAN 686.21 24.7 6.6 60 40 79

1 Ajmer 25.85 23.8 6.4 57 34 77

2 Alwar 36.72 22.9 5.9 59 35 82

3 Banswara 17.98 30.8 7.7 62 41 99

4 Baran 12.24 25.7 6.8 62 41 79

5 Barmer 26.04 32.5 6.4 72 54 86

6 Bharatpur 25.49 23.8 6.0 55 42 75

7 Bhilwara 24.10 22.4 7.5 68 48 85

8 Bikaner 23.68 24.9 6.4 54 37 72

9 Bundi 11.14 23.7 7.8 65 45 81

10 Chittaurgarh 15.44

21.4 5.7 62 45 75

11 Churu 20.41 23.4 6.3 55 36 69

12 Dausa 16.37 22.4 6.6 57 33 87

13 Dhaulpur 12.07 29.1 5.9 63 36 77

14 Dungarpur 13.89 28.0 6.5 67 43 87

15 Ganganagar 19.70

22.7 6.3 60 39 79

16 Hanumangarh 17.80 23.6 6.3 54 35 73

17 Jaipur 66.64 23.1 5.9 55 39 74

18 Jaisalmer 6.72 24.2 6.7 58 30 78

19 Jalor 18.30 27.9 7.4 79 58 99

20 Jhalawar 14.11 25.0 7.8 65 47 82

21 Jhunjhunun 21.40 23.3 5.9 54 39 74

22 Jodhpur 36.86 23.9 6.3 54 35 71

23 Karauli 14.58 27.5 6.2 68 44 80

24 Kota 19.50 22.0 5.7 36 25 45

25 Nagaur 33.09 23.4 6.5 59 42 75

26 Pali 20.39 23.5 6.8 55 39 78

27 Pratapgarh 8.68 - - - - -

28 Rajsamand 11.58 28.1 8.7 65 41 89

29 Sawai Madhopur 13.38 27.4 7.4 67 46 78

30 Sikar 26.78 24.0 6.1 56 32 82

31 Sirohi 10.37 24.1 6.9 62 41 85

32 Tonk 14.22 23.3 7.6 51 33 73

33 Udaipur 30.68 29.9 8.2 62 40 88

Sources : *Census 2011 provisional and **Annual Health Survey, 2010-11


Chapter 1 : The Current Demographic and Health Scenario of Rajasthan


Chapter 1 The Current Demographic and Health Scenario of Rajasthan Introduction

In India, the high levels of fertility and mortality is contributed mostly by a group of States now termed as Empowered Action Group (EAG1) States, formerly referred to as BIMARU States. These eight states are Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Orissa and Rajasthan. These eight States constitute 46 percent of the total population of India and account for 59 percent of the total poor in India. These States alone contribute to more than half (55 percent) of the estimated live births, two-thirds of infant deaths (66 percent) and eight out of ten maternal deaths (80 percent) in India. Rajasthan belongs to this group of states. Considering the fact that most of population and health indicators is at a low level in the state, it has been considered as a High Focus State under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM: 2005-2012). In this publication, in the first chapter, the current demographic and health scenario has been presented, followed by a chapter on the projections of population and vital rates. The third chapter discusses some analytical insights into the data on demography, education and health. The last chapter discusses the key strategies and best practices at the national and international level to improve the situation of health demography in Rajasthan. It is followed by annexures on ranking of states and Union territories in India and districts in Rajasthan on selected demographic and health indicators. Area and Population Rajasthan is situated in the northern part of India. It is the largest State in India by area constituting 10.4 percent of the total geographical area of India and it accounts for 5.67 percent of population of India according to the provisional totals of Census 2011. Topographically, deserts in the State constitute a large chunk of the land mass, where the settlements are scattered and the density of population is quite low. It constitutes about three-fifths (233,100 sq. km.) of the total land mass of the state (342,239 sq. km.). It is administratively divided into 7 divisions, 33 districts and 44,672 villages as of Census 2011. Regarding the geographical reorganization of the districts, historically, in the last three decades (1981-2011), during the period of 1981-1991, Dhaulpur was formed, during 1991-2001, five districts of Baran, Dausa, Hanumangarh, Karauli and Rajasamand were carved out and during 2001-2011, the district of Pratapgarh has been carved out of the three districts of Banswara, Chittaurgarh and Udaipur. According to this provisional data, the population of India is 121.02 crore and of Rajasthan is 6.86 crore. The percentage variation between the projected population of 2011 and the actual provisional population of 2011 is 1.17 percent in Rajasthan compared to 1.48 percent in case of India. The population in the districts varies from a high of 66.64 lakh in Jaipur to a low of 6.72 lakh in Jaisalmer. The density of population varies from 598 persons per sq. km. in Jaipur to 17 in Jaislamer. Division-wise, the population is highest in case of Jaipur division with a population of 13,762,203 (which is about 20 % of the State’s population) and Kota division with the 1 In order to facilitate the preparation of area-specific programmes, with special emphasis on eight states

that have been lagging behind in containing population growth to manageable limits, the Government of

India has constituted an Empowered Action Group in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare w.e.f.

20th March, 2001.


lowest population of 4,733,121 (which is about 7 percent of the State’s population). In the districts of Rajasthan, the population varies from a high of 66.64 lakh in Jaipur to a low of 6.72 lakh in Jaisalmer. Decadal Growth Rate: According to the Census 2011, the decadal growth rate of the population of Rajasthan is 21.44 percent compared to 28.41 percent in the previous decennial period of 1991-2001. It is still higher than the decadal growth rate of India, which is 17.64 percent between 2001 and 2011, which has declined from a high of 21.54 percent during 1991 and 2001. Though the pace of growth has slowed down, but still, it is higher than the all India level. In the districts, the decadal growth rate varies from 32.55 percent in Barmer to 10.06 percent in Ganganagar. The Population density: The Population density in Rajasthan has increased from 165 per sq.km. during Census 2001 to 201 in the recent Census 2011. It has increased from 30 in 1901 to 201 in 2011 in the last 110 years. It varies from 598 in Jaipur to 17 in Jaisalmer. Sex Ratio: The overall sex ratio of the population of Rajasthan in terms of number of females per thousand males is 926 compared to 940 in case of all India. There is a slight increase of five females per thousand males from 2001 to 2011. In the last 110 years from 1901 to 2011, in Rajasthan, the overall sex ratio has increased from 905 to 926 compared to a decline from 972 to 940 in case of India. In the districts of Rajasthan, it varies from 990 in Dungarpur to 845 in Dhaulpur. Alarmingly, the child sex ratio (0-6 years of age) has registered a sharp decline from 909 in 2001 to 883 in 2011 census. In the districts, it varies from 926 in Pratapgarh to 831 in Jhunjhunun. Except Sri Ganganagar, in all the districts, there is a decline in the child sex ratio. Among the states in India, in case of child sex ratio, Rajasthan was 28th in position during Census 2001 and it has declined to 29th position during the recent census of 2011. In overall sex ratio, it was in the 20th position among the states during Census 2001 and now it has assumed 21st position in Census 2011.

Literacy : The literacy rate of Rajasthan is 67.06 in total and 80.51 percent and 52.66 for males and females respectively compared to 74.04 percent, 82.14 and 65.46 percent respectively for persons, males and females in case of all India. In the districts of Rajasthan, the total literacy rate varies from 77.48 percent in case of Kota (which is highest) to 55.58 percent in case of Jalore (lowest). The male literacy varies from 87.88 percent in case of Jhunjhunun to 70.13 percent in case of Pratapgarh.

As regards to the trends in literacy rate, it presents a dismal picture, as the literacy rate in case of Churu and Barmer have declined in the last decade both in case of males and females. The female literacy varies from 66.32 percent in case of Kota to 38.73 percent in case of Jalore. In total literacy, Rajasthan ranks 33rd amongst the 35 states and union territories and in case of male and female literacy it ranks 27th and 35th respectively. Among the States, Rajasthan is at the bottom in terms of the female literacy rate.


Percentage of Economically backward classes of SC & ST At the all India level as well as in most of the States, the SC and ST population is mostly backward in almost all socio-economic and health indicators. The combined percentage of SC and ST in Rajasthan is little less than a third (29.62 percent). Low Population Density in Rajasthan : The population density in western Rajasthan in the desert districts is quite low making it difficult for service delivery in these areas. It increases the cost of service delivery. There is a need to improve the condition in these areas by allocating more funds towards this. Declining Sex Ratio in Rajasthan : Sex ratio is a measure of the sex composition of a population. There are several measures of this indicator like; 1. The Overall Sex Ratio, 2. Child Sex Ratio and 3. The Sex Ratio at Birth. The overall sex ratio in the Indian context refers to the number of females per 1,000 males in the total population. Child sex ratio refers to the number of girls in the age group of 0-6 years per 1,000 boys in the same age group. The overall sex ratio in Rajasthan is 926. The child sex ratio in Rajasthan is quite low at 883 girls per thousand boys. Similar is the case with sex ratio at birth, which is masculine in nature in Rajasthan. It is 870 in Rajasthan. There is a need to increase the awareness level of the community towards addressing the issue of gender discrimination. Adverse Maternal and Child Health (MDG 4 & 5) The health situation of Rajasthan needs a lot of critical inputs for improvement. The major health MDG outcome indicators of 4 and 5 like; IMR and MMR are quite high in Rajasthan. IMR is the most sensitive indicator of human development. It is at a high level in Rajasthan. The IMR of Rajasthan is 55 per thousand live births, which is about five times to that of Kerala. The Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) of Rajasthan is 318 per one lakh live births, which is about four times of to that of Kerala.

Table 1 : Rajasthan’s rank among the eight EAG states, AHS, 2010-11

Sl. No.

Indicator Unit Rajasthan Rajasthan’s Rank among

eight EAG States 1 IMR Infant deaths per

thousand live births 60 4th

2 NNMR Neonatal deaths per thousand live births

40 4th

3 U5MR Under-five per thousand live births

79 4th

4 MMRatio Maternal deaths per lakh live births

331 2nd

Source : Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, RGI, GoI

Among the 8 EAG states including Assam, a special category state, Rajasthan is ranked third highest in MMR.


Figure 1 : Levels of Maternal Mortality Ratio in 8 EAG States + Assam (2007-09)

381

345

331

310

305

278

277

275

188

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Assam

Uttar Pradesh

Rajasthan

Madhya Pradesh

Bihar

Jharkhand

Odisha

Chattisgarh

Uttarakhand


Trends in IMR and MMR in India and Rajasthan The maternal mortality ratio in Rajasthan has declined from 508 per one lakh live births to 318 per one lakh live births in a period of a decade from 1997-98 to 2007-09. The percentage decline in MMR Rajasthan is 37 percent in Rajasthan. The IMR in Rajasthan has declined from 123 in 1972 to 55 in 2010. The percentage decline in the last three decades in IMR in Rajasthan is 55 percent.

Table 2 : Levels of IMR & MMR according to SRS in the EAG States and

Assam with rank in descending order of value, AHS, 2010-11

State Rank in IMR, AHS, 2010-11

(2007-09) State

Rank in MMR, AHS, 2010-11

(2007-09)

Assam 4 Assam 1

Bihar 6 Bihar 5

Chhatisgarh 7 Chhatisgarh 8

Jharkhand 9 Jharkhand 6

Madhya Pradesh 2 Madhya Pradesh 4

Odisha 3 Odisha 7

Rajasthan 5 Rajasthan 3

Uttar Pradesh 1 Uttar Pradesh 2

Uttarakhand 8 Uttarakhand 9



GSDP & Per capita Income As per the quick estimates, the percapita income of Rajasthan is Rs. 26,436/- at constant prices during 2010-11 and the GDP growth rate is 10.97 per cent for 2010-11 over the previous year. The percentage share of GSDP at current prices and at constant prices of Rajasthan in India is 4.5 and 4.2 per cent respectively as per 2010-11 quick estimates. As per the advance estimates for 2011-12, the percapita income of Rajasthan is Rs. 27,421/- at constant prices during 2011-12 and the GDP growth rate is 5.41 per cent for 2011-12 over the previous year The average growth rate of GDP during 2007-08 to 2010-11 is 7.7 per cent compared to 8.2 per cent in case of all India and during 2007-08 to 2011-12 is 7.2 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent in case of all India, in which the estimate for 2008-09 is provisional, 2010-11 is quick and 2011-12 is advance. The public expenditure on health as a share of GSDP According to the National Health Accounts Cell of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, GoI, 2004-05, the public expenditure on health as a percentage share of GSDP is low in Rajasthan (0.98 percent). The public expenditure on health as a share of state expenditure is also on the lower side in Rajasthan (3.90). The actual public expenditure on health in Rajasthan is Rs. 1128.3 crore. The percapita public expenditure on health is high in Rajasthan (Rs. 186). Poverty Levels According to the latest estimates released in March 2012 by the Planning Commission using Tendulkar Methodology, the percentage of population below poverty line is 24.8 percent in case of Rajasthan compared to 29.8 per cent at the all India level. Wide District-wise variations in Rajasthan There is a lot of district-wise variation in the State. According to the Census 2001, the geographical area of the districts vary from 3,033 sq. km. in Dholpur to 38,401 sq. km. in Jaisalmer. According to census 2011, the district-wise population varies from 66.64 lakh in Jaipur to 6.72 lakh in Jaisalmer. The population density varies from 17 in Jaisalmer to 598 in Jaipur. In the districts, the decadal growth rate from 2001 to 2011 varies from 32.55 percent in Barmer to 10.06 percent in Ganganagar. The CBR varies from 21.4 births per 1,000 mid-year population in Chittaurgarh to 32.5 births per 1,000 mid-year population in Barmer. The literacy rate varies from 55.58 percent in Jalore to 77.48 in Kota. The male literacy rate varies from 70.13 in Pratapgarh to 87.88 percent in Jhunjhunun. The female literacy rate varies from 38.73 percent in Jalore to 66.32 in Kota. The overall sex ratio varies from 990 females per thousand males in Dungarpur to 845 in Dholpur. The Child Sex Ratio (0-6 years) varies from 926 females per thousand males in Pratapgarh to 831 in Jhunjhunun. The IMR varies from 36 in Kota to 79 in Jalore district. Fertility and Mortality Levels : Birth Rate, Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) & Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) State level : According to the Annual Health Survey, among the nine States of Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, Bihar has recorded the highest CBR (26.7 births per thousand mid-year population) and Uttarakhand the lowest CBR of under 20 (18.6 births per thousand mid-year population). In case of IMR, Uttar Pradesh has recorded the highest IMR (71 infant deaths per thousand live births) and Jharkhand the lowest IMR of under 50 (41 infant deaths per thousand live births). In case of MMR, Rajasthan (331) ranks third among the nine states and second among the EAG states. Among the nine States,


Assam has the highest MMR (381) and Uttarakhand has the lowest MMR of under 200 (188). Rajasthan (331) ranks third among the nine states and second among the EAG states.

Table 3 : CBR in SRS, 2009 and AHS, 2010-11 (2007-09)

Sl. No.

State CBR-SRS

CBR-AHS

Difference in CBR (AHS-SRS)

India 22.5 - - 1 Assam 23.6 21.9 -1.7 2 Bihar 28.5 26.7 -1.8 3 Jharkhand 25.6 23.7 -1.9 4 Madhya Pradesh 27.7 25.0 -2.7 5 Chhatisgarh 25.7 23.9 -1.8 6 Odisha 21.0 20.0 -1.0 7 Rajasthan 27.2 24.7 -2.5 8 Uttarakhand 19.7 18.6 -1.1 9 Uttar Pradesh 28.7 25.5 -3.2

Reference Period: SRS- Calendar year 2009 and AHS- Calendar years 2007 to 2009 Source : Sample Registration System (SRS) and Annual Health Survey, 2010-11

Table 4 : IMR and MMR in SRS, 2009 and AHS, 2010-11 (2007-09)

Sl. No.

State MMR-SRS

MMR-AHS

Difference in MMR (AHS-

SRS)

IMR-SRS

IMR-AHS

Difference in IMR (AHS-

SRS)

India 212 - - 50 - - 1 Assam 390 381 -9 61 60 -1 2 Bihar 261 305 - 52 55 3 3 Jharkhand 278 - 44 41 -3 4 Madhya

Pradesh 269 310 - 67 67 0

5 Chhatisgarh 275 - 54 53 -1 6 Odisha 258 277 19 65 62 -3 7 Rajasthan 318 331 13 59 60 1 8 Uttarakhand 359 188 - 41 43 2 9 Uttar Pradesh 345 - 63 71 8

Reference Period: SRS- Calendar year 2009 and AHS- Calendar years 2007 to 2009 Source : Sample Registration System (SRS) and Annual Health Survey, 2010-11

Divisional Level maternal mortality Situation in Rajasthan : Among the divisions in Rajasthan, the tribal dominant division of Udaipur has the highest MMR (364) and Bharatpur has the lowest MMR of under 300 (292). The seven divisions consist of the following districts:

Sl. No.

Division Districts

1 Ajmer Nagaur, Ajmer, Tonk, Bhilwara 2 Bikaner Ganganagar, Hanumangarh, Bikaner, Churu 3 Bharatpur Bharatpur, Dhaulpur, Karauli, Sawai Madhopur 4 Jaipur Jhunjhunun, Alwar, Dausa, Jaipur, Sikar 5 Jodhpur Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Barmer, Jalor, Sirohi, Pali 6 Kota Bundi, Kota, Baran, Jhalawar 7 Udaipur Rajsamand, Udaipur, Dungarpur, Banswara, Chittaurgarh


Figure 2 : Levels of & MMR according to AHS, 2010-11 for the period of 2007-09 in the 7 divisions of Rajasthan

292

319 322331

338 343 343

364

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Bharatpur Jaipur Jodhpur Rajasthan Ajmer Bikaner Kota Udaipur


Table 5 : List of 5 common districts in Rajasthan featuring in top 100 districts in order of Infant Mortality Rate and top 25 administrative divisions (Commissionerate) in order of Maternal Mortality Ratio

Sl. No. State Name of districts

1 Rajasthan Bhilwara 2 Rajasthan Dungarpur 3 Rajasthan Rajsamand 4 Rajasthan Jhalawar 5 Rajasthan Bundi



District level Demographic and Health Scenario of Rajasthan

Overall Sex Ratio (OSR) : Among the districts in Rajasthan, four districts of Jalore (1055), Rajsamand (1030), Sirohi (1002) and Dungarpur (1001) have reported to have the highest overall sex ratio over 1,000 and Dhaulpur the lowest under 900 (819).

Figure 3 : Overall Sex Ratio (OSR) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

1055

1030

1002

1001

986

983

982

975

965

961

960

952

951

938

929

928

925

922

913

911

908

906

905

889

883

882

882

881

874

872

851

827

822

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Jalor

Rajsamand

Sirohi

Dungarpur

Barmer

Pali

Udaipur

Banswara

Churu

Jhunjhunun

Sikar

Bhilwara

Chittaurgarh

Ajmer

Baran

Jhalawar

Rajasthan

Nagaur

Jodhpur

Bikaner

Bundi

Kota

Tonk

Dausa

Hanumangarh

Alwar

Ganganagar

Jaipur

Bharatpur

Sawai Madhopur

Jaisalmer

Karauli

Dhaulpur



Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) : In case of sex ratio at birth in the districts of Rajasthan, Bhilwara has reported to be the highest (968) and Sawai Madhopur the lowest under 800 (782).

Figure 4 : Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

968

927

925

923

922

914

912

909

905

894

894

889

887

887

883

882

882

878

874

872

870

865

864

856

846

846

844

841

841

836

830

820

782

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Bhilwara

Banswara

Tonk

Baran

Barmer

Jhunjhunun

Chittaurgarh

Jodhpur

Bikaner

Bundi

Churu

Ganganagar

Ajmer

Sirohi

Pali

Alwar

Jalor

Rajasthan

Hanumangarh

Dungarpur

Udaipur

Bharatpur

Jhalawar

Sikar

Jaipur

Kota

Nagaur

Dausa

Jaisalmer

Rajsamand

Karauli

Dhaulpur

Sawai Madhopur



Crude Birth Rate (CBR): In case of crude birth rate, Barmer has been reported to have the highest birth rate (32.5 births per thousand mid-year population) and Chittaurgarh the lowest (21.4 births per thousand mid-year population).

Figure 5 : Crude Birth Rate (CBR) in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

32.5

30.8

29.9

29.1

28.1

28.0

27.9

27.5

27.4

25.7

25.0

24.9

24.7

24.2

24.1

24.0

23.9

23.8

23.8

23.7

23.6

23.5

23.4

23.4

23.3

23.3

23.1

22.9

22.7

22.4

22.4

22.0

21.4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Barmer

Banswara

Udaipur

Dhaulpur

Rajsamand

Dungarpur

Jalor

Karauli

Sawai Madhopur

Baran

Jhalawar

Bikaner

RAJASTHAN

Jaisalmer

Sirohi

Sikar

Jodhpur

Ajmer

Bharatpur

Bundi

Hanumangarh

Pali

Churu

Nagaur

Jhunjhunun

Tonk

Jaipur

Alwar

Ganganagar

Bhilwara

Dausa

Kota

Chittaurgarh



Crude Death Rate (CDR): In case of crude death rate in the districts of Rajasthan, Rajsamand has been reported to be the highest (8.7 deaths per thousand mid-year population) and Chittaurgarh the lowest (5.7 deaths per thousand mid-year population).

Figure 6 : Crude Death Rate (CDR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

8.7

8.2

7.8

7.8

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.4

6.9

6.8

6.8

6.7

6.6

6.6

6.5

6.5

6.4

6.4

6.4

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.9

5.7

5.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0

Rajsamand

Udaipur

Bundi

Jhalawar

Banswara

Tonk

Bhilwara

Jalor

Sawai Madhopur

Sirohi

Baran

Pali

Jaisalmer

Rajasthan

Dausa

Dungarpur

Nagaur

Ajmer

Barmer

Bikaner

Churu

Ganganagar

Hanumangarh

Jodhpur

Karauli

Sikar

Bharatpur

Alwar

Dhaulpur

Jaipur

Jhunjhunun

Chittaurgarh

Kota



Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) : According to AHS, the levels of IMR and U5MR are quite high in Rajasthan. Gender-wise, female IMR is 65 compared to 55 for males and female U5MR is 87 compared to 72 for males. This pattern is also seen by residence as female IMR and U5MR is higher than male IMR and U5MR in both urban and rural areas of Rajasthan.

Figure 7 : Infant (IMR) and Under-Five Mortality (U5MR) by Gender and Residence in Rajasthan, 2007-09

6055

65 6459

69

4338

49

79

72

87 85

79

92

57

50

65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Total Rural Rural Urban Urban

IMR U5MR



In case of infant mortality rate in the districts of Rajasthan, Jalore has been reported to be the highest (79 infant deaths per thousand live births) and Kota the lowest (36 infant deaths per thousand live births).

Figure 8 : IMR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

79

72

68

68

67

67

65

65

65

63

62

62

62

62

62

60

60

59

59

58

57

57

56

55

55

55

55

54

54

54

54

51

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Jalor

Barmer

Bhilwara

Karauli

Dungarpur

Sawai Madhopur

Bundi

Jhalawar

Rajsamand

Dhaulpur

Banswara

Baran

Chittaurgarh

Sirohi

Udaipur

Rajasthan

Ganganagar

Alwar

Nagaur

Jaisalmer

Ajmer

Dausa

Sikar

Bharatpur

Churu

Jaipur

Pali

Bikaner

Hanumangarh

Jhunjhunun

Jodhpur

Tonk

Kota



Neonatal Mortality Rate (NNMR) : In case of neonatal mortality rate in the districts of Rajasthan, Jalore has been reported to be the highest (58 neonatal deaths per thousand live births) and Kota the lowest (25 neonatal deaths per thousand live births).

Figure 9 : Neonatal Mortality Rate in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

58

54

48

47

46

45

45

44

43

42

42

41

41

41

41

40

40

39

39

39

39

37

36

36

35

35

35

34

33

33

32

30

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Jalor

Barmer

Bhilwara

Jhalawar

Sawai Madhopur

Bundi

Chittaurgarh

Karauli

Dungarpur

Bharatpur

Nagaur

Banswara

Baran

Rajsamand

Sirohi

Rajasthan

Udaipur

Ganganagar

Jaipur

Jhunjhunun

Pali

Bikaner

Churu

Dhaulpur

Alwar

Hanumangarh

Jodhpur

Ajmer

Dausa

Tonk

Sikar

Jaisalmer

Kota



Post Neonatal Mortality Rate (PNMR) : In case of post neonatal mortality rate in the districts of Rajasthan, Jaisalmer has been reported to be the highest (28 post neonatal deaths per thousand live births) and Kota the lowest (10 post neonatal deaths per thousand live births).

Figure 10 : Post Neonatal Mortality Rate in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

28

26

24

24

24

24

23

23

22

22

21

21

21

21

21

21

20

20

20

20

20

19

18

18

18

18

17

17

17

16

16

13

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Hanumangarh

Bikaner

Bharatpur

Bundi

Churu

Nagaur

Dhaulpur

Rajsamand

Jhunjhunun

Pali

Ajmer

Chittaurgarh

Jaisalmer

Jalor

Sawai Madhopur

Tonk

Rajasthan

Alwar

Ganganagar

Karauli

Kota

Baran

Banswara

Jaipur

Jodhpur

Udaipur

Dungarpur

Jhalawar

Sikar

Barmer

Dausa

Bhilwara

Sirohi



Under Five Mortality Rate (U5MR) : Among the districts in Rajasthan, Jalore (99) and Banswara (99) have reported to having the highest under five mortality and the urbanized district of Kota has the lowest U5MR (45).

Figure 11 : U5MR in the districts of Rajasthan, AHS, 2007-09

99

99

89

88

87

87

86

85

85

82

82

82

81

80

79

79

79

78

78

78

77

77

75

75

75

74

74

73

73

72

71

69

45

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Banswara

Jalor

Rajsamand

Udaipur

Dausa

Dungarpur

Barmer

Bhilwara

Sirohi

Alwar

Jhalawar

Sikar

Bundi

Karauli

Rajasthan

Baran

Ganganagar

Jaisalmer

Pali

Sawai Madhopur

Ajmer

Dhaulpur

Bharatpur

Chittaurgarh

Nagaur

Jaipur

Jhunjhunun

Hanumangarh

Tonk

Bikaner

Jodhpur

Churu

Kota



Demographic Transition in Rajasthan and Kerala Demographic transition is the model of population change over a period of time in terms of the nations’ transformation from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates. The difference between the birth rate and death rate is called the crude rate of natural increase. This transition involves four stages. In stage 1, high death rates balance high birth rates with no or slow population growth, while in stage 2, the death rates begin to drop with birth rates still remaining high leading to increasing rates of population growth. In stage 3, birth rates decline resulting in decline in population growth and in stage 4, both birth and death rates are low and as a result, population growth slows, stops or declines. The birth and death rates from 1972 to 2010 in Rajasthan and a demographically good state of Kerala have been presented in the graphs below. According to this, Rajasthan seems to be in the early third stage of the demographic transition, where the birth rate has dipped from a high of 42.4 in 1972 to 26.7 in 2010 and death rate has dipped from 16.8 to 6.7 per thousand mid-year population, while Kerala is in the fourth stage, where the birth rate has declined from 31.2 per thousand mid-year population to 14.8 during the same period and death rates have declined from 9.2 to 7.0 per thousand mid-year population (See Graphs below). It is alarming that the natural growth rate is 20.0 in case of Rajasthan compared to 7.8 in case of Kerala.

Figure 11a : Classic Phases of Demographic transition

Source : World Population Datasheet, 2011


Figure 11b : Demographic transition in Rajasthan, 1972-2010

42.4

26.7

16.8

6.7

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

CBR CDR

Source : SRS, 1972-2010

Figure 11c : Demographic transition in Kerala, 1972-2010

31.2

14.8

9.2 7.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

CBR CDR

Source : SRS, 1972-2010


Human Development Index (HDI) India and States According to the recently released India Human Development Report 2011 : Towards Social Inclusion, by the Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, the HDI rank of Rajasthan has declined from a rank of 14 (0.387) in the year 1999-2000 to 17 in the year 2007-08 (0.434) among 29 states, where seven north eastern states have been combined excluding Assam. Kerala has gained the number one rank in 2007-08 from a number 2 in 1999-2000. Chhatisgarh is at the bottom of the tally of States at 23rd rank. The seven EAG states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Chhattisgarh and Assam are at the bottom of the ranking distribution. The State and district-wise HDI has been presented as follows: Table 5a : Human Development Index (HDI) Rank in 1999-2000 and 2007-

08 Sl. No.

State Rank 1999-2000

Rank 2007-08

1 Kerala 2 1 2 Delhi 1 2 3 Himachal Pradesh 4 3 4 Goa 3 4 5 Punjab 5 5 6 North Eastern States (excluding

Assam) 9 6

7 Maharashtra 6 7 8 Tamil Nadu 8 8

9 Haryana 7 9 10 Jammu and Kashmir 11 10 11 Gujarat 10 11 12 Karnataka 12 12 13 West Bengal 13 13 14 Uttaranchal 16 14 15 Andhra Pradesh 15 15 16 Assam 17 16 17 Rajasthan 14 17

18 Uttar Pradesh 18 18

19 Jharkhand 23 19

20 Madhya Pradesh 20 20

21 Bihar 19 21

22 Orissa 22 22

23 Chhattisgarh 21 23

Source : India Human Development Report 2011 : Towards Social Inclusion, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, GoI


Figure 12 : Human Development Index (HDI) Rank in 1999-2000 and 2007-08

0

5

10

15

20

25

Kerala

Delhi

Himachal Pradesh

Goa

Punjab

NE (excluding Assam)

Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu

Haryana

Jammu and Kashmir

GujaratKarnatakaWest Bengal

Uttaranchal

Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Rajasthan

Uttar Pradesh

Jharkhand

Madhya Pradesh

Bihar

Orissa

Chhattisgarh

Rank

1999-2000

Rank

2007-8

Source : India Human Development Report 2011 : Towards Social Inclusion, Institute of Applied Manpower Research, Planning Commission, GoI

HDI in the districts of Rajasthan

As pe the report of the Rajasthan Human Development Report 2002, the tribal district of Dungarpur had the lowest HDI, which has not changed in 2007. Sri Ganganagar has remained the best HDI district in two periods of 2002 and 2007.


Figure 13

0 .6 5 60 .6 4 4

0 .6 1 30 .6 0 7

0 .5 9 20 .5 9 20 .5 8 9

0 .5 8 40 .5 8 30 .5 8 10 .5 7 80 .5 7 4

0 .5 6 70 .5 6 10 .5 6 1

0 .5 4 70 .5 4 4

0 .5 3 70 .5 3 10 .5 3 1

0 .5 2 70 .5 2 6

0 .5 2 00 .5 1 70 .5 1 7

0 .5 1 10 .5 0 30 .5 0 30 .5 0 0

0 .4 7 20 .4 6 1

0 .4 5 6

0 .0 0 0 0 .1 0 0 0 .2 0 0 0 .3 0 0 0 .4 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 .6 0 0 0 .7 0 0

G A N G A N A G A R

HA N U M A N GA RH

K O TA

JA IP U R

A L W A R

BIK A N ER

JHU N JHU N U

K A RA U L I

SA W A I M A D HO P U R

A JM ER

BA RA N

DA U SA

JO D HP U R

SIK A R

BHA RA TP U R

BU N DI

N A GA U R

C H U RU

P A L I

TO N K

C H ITTO RG A RH

RA JSA M A N D

SI RO H I

JA ISA L M ER

BHI L W A RA

JHA L A W A R

U DA IP U R

DH O L P U R

JA L O R

BA N SW A RA

BA R M ER

D U N G A RP U R

Source : Rajasthan Human Development Report, 2002

Figure 14

0.8090.787

0.7790.778

0.7610.744

0.7110.698

0.6860.6770.673

0.6530.6490.645

0.6330.6140.6100.6060.604

0.5950.5780.5780.5760.5710.5660.5610.558

0.5470.527

0.4970.425

0.409

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900

Ganganagar

Kota

Bikaner

Jaipur

Hanum angarh

Alwar

Jhunjhunun

Sikar

Jodhpur

Ajmer

Jaisalmer

Baran

Bundi

Sirohi

Bhilwara

Jhalawar

Nagaur

Churu

Bharatpur

Udaipur

Barmer

Rajsamand

Dausa

Tonk

Karauli

Sawai M adhopur

Chittaurgarh

Pali

Jalor

Dhaulpur

Banswara

Dungarpur

Source : Rajasthan Human Development Report- An update, 2008


Figure 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

AjmerAlwar

BanswaraBaran

Barmer

Bharatpur

Bhilwara

Bikaner

Bundi

Chittaurgarh

Churu

Dausa

Dhaulpur

DungarpurGanganagar

HanumangarhJaipur

JaisalmerJalor

Jhalawar

Jhunjhunun

Jodhpur

Karauli

Kota

Nagaur

Pali

Rajsamand

Sawai Madhopur

Sikar

SirohiTonk

Udaipur

2002 2007


Chapter 2 : Population Projections and estimations of vital statistics


Chapter 2 Population Projections and estimations of vital statistics

Population projections are required for planning purposes. It is carried out through three methods, which are as follows : 1. Mathematical methods, 2. The Cohort Component method and 3. The Ratio method. For the use in vital statistics to compute expected events of births and deaths and to enable the computation of the per capita income of the state and districts, an attempt has been made to project the population of Rajasthan based on the recent provisional Census results upto 2021 as on 1st July and 1st October. The preferred method for projection is the Cohort Component Method at the state and national level. But due to unavailability of age-wise and sex-wise data from the recent census of 2011, the next suitable mathematical method of exponential growth function has been used to project the State’s population. As one single growth rate could not be used for a long period of one decade, alternatively, the annual exponential growth rates for the last 3 decades of 1981-2011 has been used to project the exponential growth rates of the future years of 2012-2021. The projected exponential growth rate has been used to project the state population. The district level projections have been carried out by the ratio method. This has been done keeping in view, the urgent demand for vital and finance statistics. Exponential growth refers to the situation where growth compounds continuously– at every instant of time. Accordingly, it is sometimes called ‘instantaneous growth’. Geometric growth is a special case of exponential growth because compounding occurs at intervals much longer than an instant. Population changes at each instant of time. Every second or a minute there is a birth happening somewhere. Population does not only compound annually, it grows every moment. In larger populations, changes may occur almost continuously – not just at yearly intervals. Recognition of this led to a focus on exponential growth, which more accurately describes the continuous and cumulative nature of population growth.

Comparison of Population projections by GoI and GoR for Rajasthan

Year

Projected Population as on 1st July (‘000) Projected Population as on 1st October (‘000)

This Report RGI, GoI*

DES, Rajasth

an**

% Diff-erence

(2-3)/3*10

0

% Diff-erence (2-4)/

4*100 This

Report RGI, GoI*

DES, Rajasthan

**

% Diff-erence (7-8)/8 *100

% Diff-erence (7-9)/ 9 *100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2011 69067 68194 71198 1.3 -3.0 69403 68468 71583 1.4 -3.0

2012 70314 69250 72747 1.5 -3.3 70656 69519 73137 1.6 -3.4 2013 71584 70293 74316 1.8 -3.7 71933 70559 74712 1.9 -3.7

2014 72877 71315 75906 2.2 -4.0 73232 71576 76307 2.3 -4.0

2015 74193 72311 77517 2.6 -4.3 74554 72566 77923 2.7 -4.3

2016 75533 73276 79149 3.1 -4.6 75901 73523 79560 3.2 -4.6

2017 76897 74253 80802 3.6 -4.8 77272 74500 81218 3.7 -4.9

2018 78286 75207 82475 4.1 -5.1 78667 75450 82896 4.3 -5.1

2019 79700 76146 84168 4.7 -5.3 80088 76385 84595 4.8 -5.3

2020 81140 77071 85883 5.3 -5.5 81535 77307 86315 5.5 -5.5

2021 82605 77984 87618 5.9 -5.7 83007 78216 88055 6.1 -5.7 Source : *Technical Group on Population Projections, National Commission on Population, RGI, GoI, ** Population Projections, Rajasthan, 2001-2021, DES Rajasthan, 2002


In order to compute the percentage of birth and death registration, in the State, the district level projections carried out by Directorate of Economics & Statistics (DES) are being used. The State level projections by DES from 2002-2021 have been carried out by fitting a multinomial curve to census population of the State from 1951 to 2001. The district level projections have been carried out by the Ratio method using the ratios from census population of 1971-2001. The earlier, population projections had been done from 1991-2011, 1991-2001 and 1971-81. At the all India level, the expected events are based on the projections by the RGI, GoI for the States. The comparison of the population projections by GoI and GoR with the current projections has been done in the above table, where it is observed that the RGI projections are on a lower side and the DES projections are on a higher side.

Table 6 : Projected Population as on 1st July from 2011 to 2021 (Provisional)

STATE/ DISTRICTS

Actual Projected as on 1st July (‘000)

Census 2001 as on 1st March


(Provisional) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Rajasthan 56507188 68621012 69067 70314 71584 72877 74193

Ajmer 2178447 2584913 2600 2647 2694 2743 2793

Alwar 2991552 3671999 3697 3764 3832 3901 3972

Banswara 1420601 1798194 1812 1845 1878 1912 1947

Baran 1021473 1223921 1231 1254 1276 1299 1323

Barmer 1964835 2604453 2629 2676 2725 2774 2824

Bharatpur 2100020 2549121 2566 2612 2659 2707 2756

Bhilwara 2020969 2410459 2425 2468 2513 2558 2605

Bikaner 1902110 2367745 2385 2428 2472 2517 2562

Bundi 962620 1113725 1119 1139 1160 1181 1202

Chittaurgarh 1330360 1544392 1552 1580 1609 1638 1667

Churu 1696039 2041172 2054 2091 2129 2167 2206

Dausa 1323002 1637226 1649 1679 1709 1740 1771

Dhaulpur 983258 1207293 1216 1238 1260 1283 1306

Dungarpur 1107643 1388906 1399 1425 1450 1477 1503

Ganganagar 1789423 1969520 1975 2011 2047 2084 2122

Hanumangarh 1518005 1779650 1789 1821 1854 1888 1922

Jaipur 5251071 6663971 6717 6838 6962 7087 7215

Jaisalmer 508247 672008 678 690 703 716 729

Jalor 1448940 1830151 1844 1878 1912 1946 1981

Jhalawar 1180323 1411327 1420 1445 1472 1498 1525

Jhunjhunun 1913689 2139658 2147 2186 2226 2266 2307

Jodhpur 2886505 3685681 3716 3783 3851 3921 3991

Karauli 1205888 1458459 1468 1494 1521 1549 1577

Kota 1568705 1950491 1965 2000 2036 2073 2111

Nagaur 2775058 3309234 3329 3389 3450 3512 3576

Pali 1820251 2038533 2046 2083 2121 2159 2198

Pratapgarh 706807 868231 874 890 906 922 939

Rajsamand 982523 1158283 1165 1186 1207 1229 1251

S.Madhopur 1117057 1338114 1346 1371 1395 1420 1446

Sikar 2287788 2677737 2692 2740 2790 2840 2892

Sirohi 851107 1037185 1044 1063 1082 1102 1122

Tonk 1211671 1421711 1429 1455 1481 1508 1535

Udaipur 2481201 3067549 3089 3145 3202 3260 3319


The projected population from the RGI projections upto 2026 by the Technical Group On Population Projections, National Commission on Population, RGI, GoI at the state level, could not be used as it is based on census 2001 and the projected population as on 1st July 2011 is 6.82 crore and as on 1st October 2011 is 6.85 crore, which is less than the provisional census population as on 1st March, 2011 (6.86 crore) from the recent census.

Table 6 : Projected Population as on 1st July from 2016 to 2021 Provisional (Contd…)

STATE/ DISTRICTS

Projected as on 1st July (‘000)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Rajasthan 75533 76897 78286 79700 81140 82605 Ajmer 2843 2894 2947 3000 3054 3109 Alwar 4043 4116 4191 4266 4343 4422 Banswara 1982 2018 2054 2091 2129 2168 Baran 1347 1371 1396 1421 1447 1473 Barmer 2875 2927 2980 3033 3088 3144 Bharatpur 2806 2857 2908 2961 3014 3069 Bhilwara 2652 2700 2748 2798 2848 2900 Bikaner 2608 2655 2703 2752 2802 2853 Bundi 1224 1246 1268 1291 1315 1338 Chittaurgarh 1697 1728 1759 1791 1823 1856 Churu 2246 2287 2328 2370 2413 2456 Dausa 1803 1836 1869 1903 1937 1972 Dhaulpur 1329 1353 1378 1403 1428 1454 Dungarpur 1530 1558 1586 1615 1644 1674 Ganganagar 2160 2199 2239 2280 2321 2363 Hanumangarh 1957 1992 2028 2065 2102 2140 Jaipur 7346 7478 7614 7751 7891 8034 Jaisalmer 742 755 769 783 797 811 Jalor 2017 2054 2091 2128 2167 2206 Jhalawar 1553 1581 1609 1638 1668 1698 Jhunjhunun 2348 2391 2434 2478 2523 2568 Jodhpur 4064 4137 4212 4288 4365 4444 Karauli 1605 1634 1664 1694 1724 1755 Kota 2149 2187 2227 2267 2308 2350 Nagaur 3640 3706 3773 3841 3911 3981 Pali 2238 2278 2319 2361 2404 2447 Pratapgarh 956 973 991 1009 1027 1046 Rajsamand 1274 1297 1320 1344 1368 1393 S.Madhopur 1472 1499 1526 1553 1582 1610 Sikar 2944 2997 3051 3106 3162 3219 Sirohi 1142 1162 1183 1205 1227 1249 Tonk 1563 1591 1620 1649 1679 1709 Udaipur 3379 3440 3502 3565 3629 3695


The State level projections by DES from 2002-2021 could not be used for the same reason that it is based on the last census of 2001.

Table 7 : Projected Population as on 1st October from 2011 to 2021 (Provisional)

STATE/ DISTRICTS

Actual Projected as on 1st October (‘000)



(Provisional) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Rajasthan 56507188 68621012 69403 70656 71933 73232 74554 Ajmer 2178447 2584913 2611 2658 2706 2755 2805 Alwar 2991552 3671999 3716 3783 3852 3921 3992 Banswara 1420601 1798194 1823 1856 1889 1924 1958 Baran 1021473 1223921 1237 1259 1282 1305 1329 Barmer 1964835 2604453 2647 2695 2743 2793 2843 Bharatpur 2100020 2549121 2578 2625 2672 2720 2769 Bhilwara 2020969 2410459 2435 2479 2524 2570 2616 Bikaner 1902110 2367745 2398 2441 2486 2530 2576 Bundi 962620 1113725 1123 1143 1164 1185 1207 Chittaurgarh 1330360 1544392 1558 1586 1615 1644 1673 Churu 1696039 2041172 2063 2101 2139 2177 2216 Dausa 1323002 1637226 1658 1688 1718 1749 1781 Dhaulpur 983258 1207293 1222 1244 1266 1289 1313 Dungarpur 1107643 1388906 1407 1433 1459 1485 1512 Ganganagar 1789423 1969520 1980 2016 2052 2089 2127 Hanumangarh 1518005 1779650 1796 1829 1862 1895 1929 Jaipur 5251071 6663971 6757 6879 7003 7130 7258 Jaisalmer 508247 672008 683 695 708 721 734 Jalor 1448940 1830151 1855 1889 1923 1958 1993 Jhalawar 1180323 1411327 1426 1452 1478 1505 1532 Jhunjhunun 1913689 2139658 2153 2192 2232 2272 2313 Jodhpur 2886505 3685681 3738 3806 3875 3945 4016 Karauli 1205888 1458459 1475 1501 1528 1556 1584 Kota 1568705 1950491 1975 2011 2047 2084 2122 Nagaur 2775058 3309234 3343 3404 3465 3528 3592 Pali 1820251 2038533 2052 2089 2126 2165 2204 Pratapgarh 706807 868231 879 895 911 927 944 Rajsamand 982523 1158283 1169 1191 1212 1234 1256 S.Madhopur 1117057 1338114 1352 1377 1402 1427 1453 Sikar 2287788 2677737 2702 2751 2801 2851 2903 Sirohi 851107 1037185 1049 1068 1087 1107 1127 Tonk 1211671 1421711 1435 1461 1487 1514 1541 Udaipur 2481201 3067549 3106 3162 3219 3277 3336


Table 7 : Projected Population as on 1st October from 2016 to 2021 Provisional (Contd…)

STATE/ DISTRICTS

Projected as on 1st October (‘000)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Rajasthan 75901 77272 78667 80088 81535 83007 Ajmer 2855 2907 2959 3013 3067 3123 Alwar 4064 4137 4212 4288 4366 4445 Banswara 1994 2030 2066 2104 2142 2180 Baran 1353 1377 1402 1427 1453 1479 Barmer 2895 2947 3000 3055 3110 3166 Bharatpur 2819 2870 2922 2975 3029 3083 Bhilwara 2663 2711 2760 2810 2861 2913 Bikaner 2623 2670 2718 2767 2817 2868 Bundi 1228 1250 1273 1296 1319 1343 Chittaurgarh 1704 1734 1766 1798 1830 1863 Churu 2257 2297 2339 2381 2424 2468 Dausa 1813 1846 1879 1913 1947 1983 Dhaulpur 1336 1360 1385 1410 1435 1461 Dungarpur 1539 1567 1595 1624 1653 1683 Ganganagar 2165 2204 2244 2285 2326 2368 Hanumangarh 1964 2000 2036 2073 2110 2148 Jaipur 7389 7523 7659 7797 7938 8081 Jaisalmer 747 760 774 788 802 817 Jalor 2029 2066 2103 2141 2179 2219 Jhalawar 1560 1588 1616 1646 1675 1706 Jhunjhunun 2355 2397 2441 2485 2530 2575 Jodhpur 4088 4162 4237 4314 4392 4471 Karauli 1613 1642 1672 1702 1733 1764 Kota 2160 2199 2239 2280 2321 2363 Nagaur 3656 3722 3790 3858 3928 3999 Pali 2244 2284 2325 2367 2410 2454 Pratapgarh 961 978 996 1014 1032 1051 Rajsamand 1279 1302 1326 1349 1374 1399 S.Madhopur 1479 1506 1533 1560 1589 1617 Sikar 2955 3009 3063 3118 3175 3232 Sirohi 1147 1168 1189 1211 1233 1255 Tonk 1569 1598 1627 1656 1686 1716 Udaipur 3396 3458 3520 3584 3649 3714


Table 8 : Annual Exponential, Geometric and Arithmetic Growth rates (2001-2011) (%) (Provisional)

INDIA/ RAJASTHAN/ DISTRICTS

Census 2001 Census 2011 Provisional

Annual Exponential growth rate

(2001-2011) (%)

Annual Geometric growth rate

(2001-2011) (%)

Annual Arithmetic growth rate

(2001-2011) (%)

Rajasthan 56507188 68621012 1.94 1.96 2.14

Ajmer 2178447 2584913 1.71 1.73 1.87

Alwar 2991552 3671999 2.05 2.07 2.27

Banswara 1420601 1798194 2.36 2.39 2.66

Baran 1021473 1223921 1.81 1.82 1.98

Barmer 1964835 2604453 2.82 2.86 3.26

Bharatpur 2100020 2549121 1.94 1.96 2.14

Bhilwara 2020969 2410459 1.76 1.78 1.93

Bikaner 1902110 2367745 2.19 2.21 2.45

Bundi 962620 1113725 1.46 1.47 1.57

Chittaurgarh 1330360 1544392 1.49 1.50 1.61

Churu 1696039 2041172 1.85 1.87 2.03

Dausa 1323002 1637226 2.13 2.15 2.38

Dhaulpur 983258 1207293 2.05 2.07 2.28

Dungarpur 1107643 1388906 2.26 2.29 2.54

Ganganagar 1789423 1969520 0.96 0.96 1.01

Hanumangarh 1518005 1779650 1.59 1.60 1.72

Jaipur 5251071 6663971 2.38 2.41 2.69

Jaisalmer 508247 672008 2.79 2.83 3.22

Jalor 1448940 1830151 2.34 2.36 2.63

Jhalawar 1180323 1411327 1.79 1.80 1.96

Jhunjhunun 1913689 2139658 1.12 1.12 1.18

Jodhpur 2886505 3685681 2.44 2.47 2.77

Karauli 1205888 1458459 1.90 1.92 2.09

Kota 1568705 1950491 2.18 2.20 2.43

Nagaur 2775058 3309234 1.76 1.78 1.92

Pali 1820251 2038533 1.13 1.14 1.20

Pratapgarh* 706807 868231 2.06 2.08 2.28

Rajsamand 982523 1158283 1.65 1.66 1.79

S.Madhopur 1117057 1338114 1.81 1.82 1.98

Sikar 2287788 2677737 1.57 1.59 1.70

Sirohi 851107 1037185 1.98 2.00 2.19

Tonk 1211671 1421711 1.60 1.61 1.73

Udaipur 2481201 3067549 2.12 2.14 2.36


Projection of IMR & MMR upto 2012 Based on the ten years of data on IMR from CRS and SRS from 2001 to 2010, the future level of IMR has been projected. According to the linear curve fitted to the model, the IMR of Rajasthan is projected to decline to 51 by 2012. The model has an R Square of 0.947, which means that the model explains 94.7 percent of the total variance in case of CRS data and an R Square of 0.906 in case of SRS data, which means that the model explains 87.2 percent of the total variance. The Linear Curve Fitting Equation is in the form of : Y=a(1+bt)

Figure 16: Projection of IMR : 2011-2012

80

51

11

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Linear curve fitting estimate of SRS Linear curve fitting estimate of CRS

Similarly, based on the nine years of data on MMR from CRS and SRS from 2001-09, the future levels of MMR has been projected through an exponential curve fitting equation. According to the exponential curve fitted to the model, the MMR of Rajasthan is projected to decline to 272 by 2012. The increase in MMR as per CRS may be due to the fact that the reporting levels are improving though not at the expected pace. The model has an R Square of 0.992, which means that the model explains 99.2 percent of the total variance in case of CRS data and a similar R Square in case of SRS data, which means that the model explains 98.9 percent of the variance. The Exponential Curve Fitting Equation is in the form of : Y=a exp(bt)


Conversion factor for MMR has not been computed as the CRS data shows a trend opposite to SRS trend. This can be attributed to higher levels of reporting due to pressure on the reporting system to report maternal deaths.

Table 9 : CRS, SRS and Linear estimates of IMR (2011-2012)

Year SRS Linear curve fitting

estimate of SRS CRS Linear curve fitting estimate

of CRS

2001 80 - 12 -

2002 78 - 11 -

2003 75 - 9 -

2004 67 - 8 -

2005 68 - 8 -

2006 67 - 5 -

2007 65 - 6 -

2008 63 - 5 -

2009 59 - 5 -

2010 55 - 5 -

2011 - 54 - 3

2012 - 51 - 2 The CRS and SRS data are not strictly comparable as the CRS data has not been classified by the place of residence as in case of SRS. So, the estimate obtained will refer to the place of event only.

Table 10 : CRS, SRS and Exponential estimates of MMR (2010-2012)

year SRS Exponential curve

fitting estimate of SRS CRS Exponential curve fitting

estimate of CRS 2001-03 445 - 50 -

2004-06 388 - 44 -

2007-09 318 - 37 -

2010-12 - 272 -

32

The CRS and SRS data are not strictly comparable as the CRS data has not been classified by the place of residence as in case of SRS. So, the estimate obtained will refer to the place of event only. Table 11 : Conversion factors for CRS for IMR for the years 2011 & 2012 and

MMR for the period of 2010-12 Indicators Conversion Factor per live birth

(From CRS to SRS), 2011 Conversion Factor per live birth

(From CRS to SRS), 2012 IMR 0.0180 0.0255 Conversion Factor per live birth (From CRS to SRS), 2010-12 MMR 0.00009

If we use these conversion factors to the future levels of IMR computed from CRS data, we can get a fairly good estimate of IMR comparable to SRS. For example, if the IMR is 4 in CRS for 2011, the converted IMR will be 4 x 0.0180 x 1,000 = 54 per 1,000 live births and for 2012, it will be 51. If the MMR for years 2010-12 is 32 in CRS, the corresponding MMR figure will be 32 x 0.00009 x 100,000 = 272 per 100,000 live


births for the period of 2010-12. A matter of caution here is that the CRS and SRS data are not strictly comparable as the CRS data has not been classified by the place of residence as in case of SRS. So, the estimate obtained will refer to the place of event only.

Figure 17 : Projection of MMR : 2010-2012

445

272

50

32

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2001-03 2004-06 2007-09 2010-12

Exponential curve fitting estimate of SRS Exponential curve fitting estimate of CRS

These estimations have been carried out to indicate that with improved reporting and the reclassification of the events by the place of residence, reliable estimates can be obtained from CRS. Some limitations of the data quality are as follows:

1. Gross under reporting of data on infant and maternal deaths 2. Data on delayed registration could not be considered as the data is not entered

or published in this regard 3. Probability of duplication of registration of the vital events at two different

places is there 4. Identification of maternal deaths

The civil registration system for the year 2010 in Rajasthan registers more than 17 lakh births and more than 3 lakh deaths. This data is a rich source, which could be used to generate estimates of fertility and mortality below State level, upto which data is provided by SRS. But, due to the reporting issues, it is not being used to estimate vital rates. This is an attempt to estimate vital rates from this data. We hope this exercise will surely help in generating the much needed awareness to improve the level of reporting in this data, which will in turn help in generating estimates at sub-state level for use in the planning, implementation, monitoring of development programmes.


Chapter 3 : Analytical insights into Demography, Health and Education issues


Chapter 3 Analytical insights into Demography, Health and Education issues

Introduction

This chapter describes the insights into the data from different secondary sources of data like; Census 2001 and 2011 provisional, Sample Registration System (SRS), Annual Health Survey (AHS), District Level Household Survey (DLHS), National Family Health Survey (NFHS) and other administrative sources. It discusses about the outcome indicators of IMR and literacy and their relationship, the issue of population stabilization, family planning and contraceptive prevalence and the factors affecting the use of contraceptives, the status of MDGs in a nutshell, the status of the monitorable targets of 11th five year plan, 2007-12. It focuses mostly on the issues of health and education.

Analysis of the relationship between Literacy and IMR: A simple linear regression was carried out between IMR from Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, and the female literacy rate from the provisional results of Census 2011, which reveals a negative relationship between the two. With increase in female literacy, there is a decline in IMR. The regression model with the independent variable of female literacy explains 45.0 percent of the variance in the dependent variable, which in this case is the IMR. The regression equation also denotes that an increase of one unit in the female literacy rate will result in a decline of 0.671 units in the IMR and it is significant at 1 percent level of probability. This indicates that increase in female literacy may increase the likelihood in the reduction of IMR.

Table 12 : Results of Simple Linear Regression between IMR, 2007-09, AHS and Female Literacy, Census 2011 Provisional

Variables R Square*100 Standardized beta

coefficients

IMR and Female Literacy 45.0 -0.671**

The current female literacy rate of Rajasthan based on Census 2011 is the lowest amongst all the States in India. Once the woman is educated, she will be aware of the family planning methods and would be empowered to use them to reduce unwanted pregnancies and unwanted births and the risk of pregnancy related maternal deaths could be avoided. So, there is a need to focus on improvement in female literacy and reduction in IMR and MMR, which are at unacceptably high levels in the State. It is interesting to note that the district with the highest total literacy is the district with the lowest Infant Mortality Rate and vice-versa as presented below:

Table 13 : Highest and Lowest Literacy and IMR in districts of Rajasthan

District Literacy, Census 2011 IMR, AHS, 2007-09 Kota Highest (77.48%) Lowest (36 per thousand LBs) Jalore Lowest (55.58%) Highest (79 per thousand LBs)

As these data are from two different sources like; Census 2011 and Annual Health Survey, both conducted by the Registrar General of India, GoI, the


inference is indicative. The status of literacy of India, Rajasthan and its districts has been presented in the following graphs: Literacy Rate in India and Rajasthan: Rajasthan fares lower than the all India

level, in case of total, male and female literacy rates of Rajasthan compared to the all

India average.

Figure 18 : Literacy Rates in India and Rajasthan by Gender, Census 2011

Provisional (%)

74.04

82.14

65.4667.06

80.51

52.66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Total Male Female

India Rajasthan

Source : Census of India, 2011 (Provisional)


Literacy Rate in the various States of India and Rajasthan: The total and

female literacy of Kerala is highest among all the 35 States and Union territories (UTs)

in India. The Union territory of Lakshadweep is highest in male literacy. Bihar is the

lowest in total and male literacy rates in India, while Rajasthan fares the lowest in

female literacy among all the states and UTs in India.

Figure 19 : Total Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census

2011 Provisional (%)

93.9192.28

91.5887.75

87.487.0786.5586.4386.3486.27

83.7882.9182.2

80.3380.1179.8579.63

79.3177.6577.0876.6876.64

75.6

75.4874.0473.4573.18

71.0470.63

69.72

68.7467.6667.6367.0666.95

63.82

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kerala

Lakshadweep#Mizoram

TripuraGoa

Daman & Diu#Puducherry#

Chandigarh#NCT of Delhi#

Andaman & Nicobar Islands#Himachal Pradesh

MaharashtraSikkim

Tamil Nadu

NagalandManipur

UttarakhandGujarat

Dadra & Nagar Haveli#West Bengal

PunjabHaryana

KarnatakaMeghalaya

INDIAOrissaAssam

ChhattisgarhMadhya Pradesh

Uttar PradeshJammu & Kashmir

Andhra PradeshJharkhandRajasthan

Arunachal PradeshBihar

Source : Census of India, 2011 Provisional

#Union Territories and NCT


Figure 20 : Male Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census


96.1196.02

93.7292.81

92.1892.1291.4891.0390.8390.54

90.1189.82

88.3387.2987.2386.8186.49

86.4685.38

83.2982.8582.6782.4

82.1481.4881.4580.5380.51

79.2478.81

78.4578.26

77.1775.56

73.6973.39

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Lakshadweep#

KeralaMizoram

GoaTripura

Puducherry#Daman & Diu#

NCT o f Delhi#Himachal Pradesh

Chandigarh#Andaman & Nicobar Islands#

MaharashtraUttarakhand

Sikkim

GujaratTamil Nadu

ManipurDadra & Nagar Haveli#

HaryanaNagaland

KarnatakaWest Bengal

OrissaINDIAPunjab

ChhattisgarhMadhya Pradesh

RajasthanUttar Pradesh

AssamJharkhand

Jammu & KashmirMeghalaya

Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal PradeshBihar

Source : Census 2011 Provisional



Figure 21 : Female Literacy Rates in India, States and Union Territories, Census


91.9889.4

88.2583.15

81.8481.8481.3881.2280.93

79.59

76.6976.676.4375.48

73.8673.7873.17

71.3471.1670.7370.7

68.1367.27

66.7765.9365.46

64.3660.5960.0259.74

59.5759.26

58.0156.21

53.3352.66

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kerala

MizoramLakshadweep#

TripuraGoa

Andaman & Nicobar Islands#Chandigarh#

Puducherry#NCT of Delhi#Daman & Diu#

NagalandHimachal Pradesh

SikkimMaharashtra

Tamil NaduMeghalaya

ManipurPunjab

West BengalGujarat

UttarakhandKarnataka

AssamHaryana

Dadra & Nagar Haveli#INDIAOrissa

ChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshAndhra Pradesh

Arunachal PradeshUttar Pradesh

Jammu & KashmirJharkhand

BiharRajasthan




Literacy Rate in the districts of Rajasthan: The total and female literacy of Kota

is highest among all the 33 districts of Rajasthan. The district of Jhunjhunun is highest

in male literacy. Jalor district fares the lowest in both total and female literacy among

all the districts in Rajasthan, while the newly created district of Pratapgarh is lowest in

male literacy.

Figure 22 : Total Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011

Provisional (%)

77.48

76.44

74.72

72.9871.68

71.16

70.46

70.2570.14

69.17

68.37

67.4667.38

67.34

67.09

67.0666.19

65.92

64.08

63.9363.23

62.74

62.71

62.51

62.4662.31

62.13

60.78

58.0457.49

57.20

56.30

56.0255.58

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00

Kota

Jaipur

Jhunjhunun

SikarAlwar

Bharatpur

Ajmer

GanganagarDhaulpur

Dausa

Hanumangarh

ChuruBaran

Karauli

Jodhpur

RajasthanS Madhopur

Bikaner

Nagaur

RajsamandPali

Udaipur

Bhilwara

Chittaurgarh

TonkBundi

Jhalawar

Dungarpur

JaisalmerBarmer

Banswara

Pratapgarh*

SirohiJalor

Source : Census 2011 Provisional, RGI, GoI


Figure 23 : Male Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011

Provisional (%)

87.88

87.63

87.27

86.6685.70

85.08

84.54

83.9382.9682.72

82.53

81.2380.51

80.46

79.95

79.5279.33

78.90

78.8278.2778.16

77.74

77.16

76.90

76.5276.47

75.91

74.6673.09

72.32

71.83

71.09

70.8070.13

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Jhunjhunun

Kota

Jaipur

SikarBharatpur

Alwar

Dausa

AjmerKarauli

S Madhopur

Dhaulpur

BaranRajasthan

JodhpurChuru

RajsamandGanganagar

Nagaur

Hanumangarh

TonkPali

Chittaurgarh

BhilwaraBikaner

BundiJhalawar

Udaipur

Dungarpur

JaisalmerBarmer

Jalor

Sirohi

BanswaraPratapgarh*



Figure 24 : Female Literacy Rates in Rajasthan and Districts, Census 2011

Provisional (%)

66.32

64.63

61.15

60.0758.76

56.91

56.78

56.4255.45

54.63

54.25

53.7752.66

52.57

52.48

52.3349.18

49.10

48.63

48.44

48.3547.93

47.80

47.06

47.0046.98

46.98

46.01

43.4742.40

41.03

40.23

40.1238.73

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

Kota

Jaipur

Jhunjhunun

GanganagarSikar

Hanumangarh

Alwar

AjmerDhaulpur

Bharatpur

Churu

BikanerRajasthan

Jodhpur

Baran

DausaKarauli

Udaipur

Nagaur

RajsamandPali

Bhilwara

S Madhopur

Jhalawar

BundiChittaurgarh

Dungarpur

Tonk

BanswaraPratapgarh*

Barmer

Jaisalmer

SirohiJalor


Family Planning and Contraceptive Prevalence Rate India is the one of the first countries in the world to adopt a family planning programme way back in 1951. But it has yet to achieve net replacement levels of fertility in all states. Family planning in India has also undergone several transformations. It started with a target approach, which was criticized a lot giving way to the Community Needs Assessments (CNA) approach. ICPD in 1994 and the Beijing Women’s Conference in 1995 have also catalyzed this process of policy change. In 1996, the government took the radical decision of abolishing method-specific contraceptive targets, replacing it with what was initially called the Target-free Approach, where


health workers’ case loads would be determined by needs identified at the community level, rather than centrally-assigned. In 1997, to avoid misconceptions and to direct the programme more towards addressing clients’ needs, the Target-free Approach was renamed as the CNA Approach. With regards to knowledge of contraceptive methods, the knowledge of spacing methods is lower than the knowledge of terminal methods of contraception. The contraceptive prevalence rate for any method at the national level is 56 percent according to NFHS-3, 2005-06. According to the same survey, the contraceptive prevalence rate for any method was 47 percent. According to the third District Level Household Survey (2007-08), the percentage of women currently using any contraceptive method has shown an increase to 58.0 percent. The contraceptive prevalence rate for any method in the State has shown an absolute increase of 25 percent in a period of about 16 years from 1992-93 to 2007-08 (NFHS-1, 2, & 3, 1992-2006 and DLHS-3, 2007-08). The absolute increase in case of any modern method from 1992-93 to 2007-08 is 23 percent (NFHS-1, 2, & 3, 1992-2006 and DLHS-3, 2007-08). According to the goal of Rajasthan Population Policy 1999, it has been projected that Rajasthan will achieve a Contraceptive Prevalence Rate of 68.0 percent by 2016. This is one of the most important aspects which need to be looked into considering the high TFR of Rajasthan (3.3, SRS, 2009) and rapid population growth, which is pulling down the impact of developmental activities. Contraception not only helps in curbing rapid population growth, it also helps to reduce unwanted pregnancies through family planning, which in turn will reduce the risk caused by pregnancy related maternal deaths. The contraceptive prevalence is computed as follows:

Contraceptive Method Mix : The contraceptive method mix in the state is in favour of the limiting or terminal methods similar to the all India level. According to the third District Level Household Survey (DLHS-3), 2007-08, the percentage of female sterilization is 43 percent. The percentage of spacing method of pills, IUD and condom are 3 percent, 1 percent and 8 percent respectively.

Unmet need for Family Planning2 : According to the District Level Household Survey (DLHS-3), 2007-08, the unmet need for both spacing and limiting is 17.9

2 Definition I: Unmet need for spacing includes the proportion of currently married women who are neither in menopause or had hysterectomy nor are currently pregnant who want more children after two years or later and are currently not using any family planning method. The women who are not sure

about whether and when to have next child are also included .Unmet need for limiting includes the proportion of currently married women who are neither in menopause or had hysterectomy nor are currently pregnant and do not want any more children but are currently not using any family planning method(These definitions are same as DLHS-2).

Definition II: Unmet need for spacing includes fecund women who are neither pregnant nor amenorrhoeic, who are not using any method of family planning, and say they want to wait two or more years for their next birth. It also includes fecund women who are not using any method of family planning,

and say they are unsure whether they want another child or who want another child but are unsure when to have the birth. Unmet need for limiting includes fecund women who are neither pregnant nor amenorrhoeic, who are not using any method of family planning, and who want no more children (These definitions are similar to NFHS-3).


percent according to the definition I, which has declined from 22.1 percent during DLHS-2, 2002-04, with a little higher unmet need in the rural areas (18.5 Percent) compared to 15.3 percent in the urban areas. The unmet need for limiting methods is 10.2 percent and 7.7 percent for spacing methods. District-wise, the total unmet need for family planning varies from 8.7 in Banswara to 31.4 percent in Dholpur according to DLHS-3, 2007-08. With regards to the unmet need for limiting, it varies from 4.6 percent in Banswara to 20.7 percent in Dholpur. In case of the unmet need for spacing, it varies from a low of 3.2 percent in Ganganagar to 10.7 percent in Dholpur. According to the definition II, the total unmet need is 11.4 percent, which is comparable to the definition in NFHS-3. So, according to this the unmet need has also decreased from 15 percent during NFHS-3, 2005-06 to 11 percent during DLHS-3, 2007-08. The unmet need is computed as follows:


Factors influencing contraceptive use furthering population stabilization In order to arrive at the factors affecting contraceptive use among the currently married women in Rajasthan, a multivariate analysis was performed in SPSS software. It was carried out to control for the effects of other correlated factors, as results from bivariate analyses could be thoroughly misleading. For example, contraceptive use could be higher in urban areas not because the type of place of residence has something to do with contraceptive use, but because urbanites are more educated and have a higher standard of living. So, in order to arrive at the true significance of each factor independently keeping all other at their mean values, it is necessary to control or nullify the effects of other factors. In this way, multivariate analyses helps to separate out the independent effect of a factor from the effects of other correlated factors or covariates. For analysis purpose, a sample of respondents was selected from the two states of those who are either currently using condom or those who are not using any contraceptive method amongst currently married woman. So, as the dependent variable is categorical and dichotomous in nature with two categories; non-use of any contraceptive method=0 and current use of any contraceptive=1, Binomial or Binary Logistic regression was carried out to explore factors influencing or enabling condom use. Logistic regression can be used to predict a dependent variable on the basis of independent variables and to determine the percent of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independents; to rank the relative importance of independents; to assess interaction effects; and to understand the impact of covariates. The logit model can be expressed as:

• p is the probability that the event Y occurs, p(Y=1)

• p/(1-p) is the “odds ratio”

• ln[p/(1-p)] is the log odds ratio, or “logit” • β1, β2, βi here refers to beta coefficients.

• X1, X2, Xi here refers to the independent variables. • e is the error term

• Interpretation of bi o Increase in log-odds for a one unit increase in Xi with all the other

Xis constant o Measures association between Xi and log-odds adjusted for all

other Xi

The Binary Logistic Regression analysis of Rajasthan NFHS-3, 2005-06 data also reveals that those who watch family planning messages on TV have a 1.450 times higher likelihood of using a method of family planning (See table 14, data analysed by the author). The other significant factors determining the likelihood of current use of contraception are the woman’s current and previous residence, work status, wealth quintile and whether the living child is male or female. Those who are staying in urban areas, working currently and those who belong to higher wealth quintiles denoted by the possession of certain assets have a higher likelihood of using a method of family planning after controlling for other socio-demographic background characteristics. It is interesting to note that those who have a living male child are more likely to use contraception compared to those who have a female living child. That means those who have a male child are less likely to go for further children, while those who have a female child, are more likely to go for children indicating son preference. The overall

e++++=

ii2211

xβ ... xβ xβαP-1

P ln


model alongwith the independent variables considered, explain 35.5 percent of the variance in the dependent variable.

Table 14 : Odds Ratios from Multivariate Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of

the likelihood of contraceptive use among currently married women in the reproductive age of 15-49 years, Rajasthan (NFHS-3, 2005-06)

Dependent Variable : Current use of Contraception (0= non use and 1 = current use) N=3,044

Covariates Categories Odds Ratios (CI) Background - Community Level

Current Residence 0 for Rural® 1 for Urban 1.788** (CI : 1.380 - 2.317) Previous Residence 0 for countryside® 1 for City/ town 1.391** (CI : 1.087 - 1.780) Background - Household Level

Wealth Index 0 for Poorest ® 1 for Poorer 2 for Middle 3 for Wealthier 4 for Wealthiest

1.589** (CI : 1.206 – 2.094)

1.671** (CI : 1.281 – 2.179) 1.758** (CI : 1.289 – 2.397) 2.311** (CI : 1.578 – 3.383)

Religion 0 for Hindu® 1 for Muslim 0.552** (CI : 0.415 - 0.736)

2 for Other Religions 1.383 (CI : 0.607 – 3.152)

Background - Individual Level

Demographic If the male child is alive 0 for son is dead ® 1 for son is alive 11.934** (CI : 9.133 – 15.593) If the female child is alive 0 for daughter is dead ® 1 for daughter is alive 2.373** (CI : 1.944– 2.897) Socio-economic Woman’s current work status 0 for not working currently ® 1 for working currently 1.511** (CI : 1.263– 1.807) Communication Covariates Reading Newspaper 0 for Does not read® 1 for Reads 1.083 (CI : 0.764 – 1.535) Listening to Radio 0 for Does not listen ® 1 for Listens 1.187 (CI : 0.903 – 1.562) Watching TV 0 for Does not watch ® 1 for Watches 1.346* (CI : 1.005– 1.801) Read about Family Planning in Newspaper

0 for Has not read®

1 for Read 1.102 (CI : 0.747– 1.626) Heard about Family Planning on Radio

0 for Has heard ®

1 for Not heard 1.069 (CI : 0.766– 1.492) Seen about Family Planning on TV

0 for Has seen®

1 for Has not seen 1.450* (CI : 1.072 – 1.960) Pseudo R2 x 100 35.5

*: Significant at 5% level **: Significant at 1% level. ®-Refers to Reference Category, CI : Confidence

Interval


Communication as a means to promote the use of family planning : Mass and Interpersonal Media have a strong link in promotion of family planning, which has been demonstrated in a lot of studies (Oddens et al.1997, Saksena et al. 1998, Srivastava, 1998, Kabir et al 2000, Sohail et al. 2002, Raut et al. 2006, Raut et al. 2008). An well conceived Communication strategy including traditional folk media, pretested print and audio-visual media taking into consideration the local cultural values, perceptions and attitudes could be in place to promote use of family planning methods. According to Census 2011, 37 percent of the households in Rajasthan possess a TV. Promotional campaigns could be aired on Television to improve the use of family planning methods. The Logistic Regression analysis of Rajasthan NFHS-3, 2005-06 data also reveals that those who watch family planning messages on TV have a 1.450 times higher likelihood of using a method of family planning.

Table 15 : Profile of Rajasthan, Kerala and India

Sl. No.

Indicators Rajasthan India Kerala

2001 2011* 2001 2011* 2001 2011*

1 Population (in crores) 5.65 6.86 102.9 121 3.18 3.34

2 Decadal Growth Rate (%) 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

28.41 21.44 21.54 17.64 9.43 4.86

3 Population Density (Persons per sq km) 165 201 325 382 819 859

4 Overall Sex Ratio (all age groups, females per thousand males)

921 926 933 940 1,058 1,084

5 Child Sex Ratio (0-6 years) 909 883 927 914 960 959

6 Sex Ratio (7+ years, girls per thousand boys)

923 935 934 944 1,072 1,099

7 Sex ratio at Birth(females per thousand males)

855 870 883 904 892 964

8 Literacy Rate (%) 60.41 67.06 64.83 74.04 90.86 93.91

9 Male Literacy Rate (%) 75.70 80.51 75.26 82.14 94.24 96.02

10 Female Literacy Rate (%) 43.85 52.66 53.67 65.46 87.72 91.98

11 Total Fertility Rate(2001) and (2009) (Births per woman)

4.0 3.3 3.1 2.6 1.8 1.7

12 Infant Mortality Rate (Infant deaths per thousand live births) (2001) and (2010)

79 55 66 47 11 13

13 Maternal Mortality Ratio (Maternal deaths per one lakh live births) (2001-03) and (2007-09)

445 318 301 212 110 81

*Provisional figures, *For calculation of sex ratio, others have been considered as males.

Sources : Census 2001, 2011 (Provisional) and SRS


The Status of MDGs in the State The Millennium Development Goals and targets come from the Millennium Declaration, signed by 189 countries, including 147 heads of State and Government, in September 2000. There are eight MDGs, 21 targets and 60 indicators. The goals, targets and indicators as developed in 2002 were used until 2007 to measure progress towards the MDGs. In 2007, the MDG monitoring framework was revised to include four new targets agreed by member states at the 2005 World Summit. The current official MDG framework supersedes the previous version, which had been effective since 2003. The eight MDGs are as follows:

• MDG 1 : Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger • MDG 2 : Achieve Universal Primary Education

• MDG 3 : Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women • MDG 4 : Reduce Child Mortality

• MDG 5 : Improve Maternal Health

• MDG 6 : Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other diseases • MDG 7 : Ensure Environmental Sustainability • MDG 8 : Develop a Global Partnership for Development

MDG 4 & 5 : Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) One of the most sensitive indicators of health of a nation namely IMR, which is an important indicator of the fourth MDG of reducing child mortality is at a high level in the State. The MDG target 4A is to reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate. Under this, the indicator no. 14 is IMR. The current IMR of the State stands at 55 infant deaths per 1,000 live births compared to 47 infant deaths per 1,000 live births for India (SRS, 2010). The eleventh plan goal is to achieve a level of 33 infant deaths per 1,000 live births (Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), Vol. 2, Social Sector, Planning Commission) The MDG target 5A is to reduce by three quarters (75 percent), between 1990 and 2015, the Maternal Mortality Ratio. According to the latest special bulletin on maternal mortality, 2007-09, the MMR of India is 212 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births and that of Rajasthan is 318 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The eleventh plan goal is to achieve a level of 148 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), Vol. 2, Social Sector, Planning Commission). Though Rajasthan is little offtrack in the achievement of MDGs, the MDGs 4 and 5 need a lot of attention with high levels of under five, infant and maternal mortality (See Table 16).


Table 16 : Progress of Selected Millennium Development Goals of 1-6 (1990-2015) for Rajasthan, 2012

MDG Goals

Indicators Base Year

Base Value

Latest Year

Latest Value

MDG Target value for 2015*

MDG 1 Poverty Head Count Ratio (%) 1993-94 27.4 2009-10

24.8 15.67**

Proportion of underweight children (%)

1998-99 47 2005-06

37 -

MDG 2 Literacy Rate of 15-24 years old (%)

1991 48.6 2001 72.0 100.0

MDG 3 Ratio of Female to Male Literates (15-24 years) (in proportion)

1991 0.33 2001 0.55 1.00

MDG 4 U5MR (per 1,000 live births) 1991 110 2009 74 37 IMR (per 1,000 live births) 1990 84 2010 55 28

MDG 5 MMR (per 100,000 live births) 1997-98 508 2007-09

318 127

MDG 6 Prevalence of Medically treated TB per 100,000 population

1992-93 724 2005-06

359 293***

Sources : Planning Commission, NACO, NFHS, SRS. * MDG target values computed by author, **-MDG target as per the MDG Report 2011 published by CSO, MoS&PI, GoI. *** incidence

The Status of selected monitorable targets of 11th Five year Plan, 2007-12 The major feature of the inclusive growth strategy of the Eleventh Plan is that growth of GDP should not be treated as an end in itself, but only as a means to an end. This is best done by adopting monitorable targets, which would reflect the multi-dimensional economic and social objectives of inclusive growth. Furthermore, to ensure efficient and timely implementation of the accompanying projects and programmes, these targets need to be disaggregated at the level of the States, which implement many of the programmes. Achieving these targets is in a great way dependent on governance at various levels. Following this approach, 27 monitorable targets were identified at the national level. 13 of the national targets have been disaggregated into appropriate targets for individual States. These are: (i) GDP growth rate, (ii) Agricultural growth rate, (iii) New work opportunities, (iv) Poverty ratio , (v) Dropout rate in elementary schools, (vi) Literacy rate, (vii) Gender gap in literacy rate, (viii) Infant mortality rate (IMR), (ix) Maternal mortality ratio (MMR), (x) Total Fertility Rate (TFR), (xi) Child malnutrition, (xii) Anaemia among women and girls, (xiii) Sex-ratio. A few of the selected ones have been presented here: The status of the selected monitorable targets reveal though the progress on the economic front is good, the progress on the health front is not so impressive.


Table 17 : Progress of Selected Monitorable Targets of Eleventh Plan (2007-12) for India and Rajasthan

Goal Current Status

Sl. No.

Social indicators

All India

Rajasthan Reference Period

Source Unit India Rajasthan

1 Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)

28 33 2010 SRS Per Thousand live births

47 55

2 Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR)

100 148 2007-09 SRS Per lakh live births

212 318

3 Total Fertility Rate (TFR)

2.1 2.6 2009 SRS Births per Woman

2.6 3.3

4 Malnutrition of Children (0-3 years)

23.5 25.3 2005-06 NFHS-3 Percentage 40 37

5

Anemia among currently married women (15-49 years)

25.9 24.3 2005-06 NFHS-3 Percentage of any Anemia

55.3 53.1

5a

Anemia among ever married women (15-49 years)

- - 2005-06 NFHS-3 Percentage of any Anemia

56.2 53.8

6 Sex ratio (0-6 years)2

935 917 2011 Census Girls per thousand Boys

914 883

7 Drop-out Rate in Elementary Education

20.00 29.47 2010-11 (P)

DISE Percentage (Class I-V)

- 10.8

8 Male Literacy Rate3

89.80 91.89 2011 Census Percentage 82.14 80.51

9 Female Literacy Rate2


10 Total Literacy Rate2


11 Gender gap in Literacy Rate


12 GDP Growth Rate

9.0 7.4 2007-08 to 2010-11

DES, Rajasthan

Percentage 8.2 7.7

13 Agricultural Growth Rate

4.1 3.5 2007-08 to 2010-11

DES, Rajasthan

Percentage 3.5 7.7

14 Poverty Ratio (Lakdawala Method)

- - 2004-05 Planning Commission

Percentage 27.5 22.1

15 Poverty Ratio (Tendulkar Method)



16 Poverty Ratio4 (Tendulkar Method)



Sources: Census, SRS, NFHS, Planning Commission, Economic Survey of India, 2011-12, CSO, MoS&PI, GoI

3 Provisional


Status of GoI-UNJPC districts in Rajasthan

The Government of India United Nations Joint Programme on Convergence (GoI-UNJPC) is being jointly implemented by Planning Commission, GoI and is supported by UNICEF, UNDP and UNFPA. It covers Five BRGF districts namely Barmer, Chittorgarh, Sawai Madhopur, Sirohi and Udaipur. The objectives of this programme are to assist the State in attaining MDG by 2015 at the district level, making District Plan inclusive and participatory, Improve service delivery in important sectors viz. Education, Health and Livelihood and Empower district Panchayats for more effective service delivery and meet the MDGs. The trends in major demographic and health indicators of these districts have been presented in tables 18-19.

Table 18 : GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance : Population and sex ratio according to Census 2001, Fertility and Mortality

indicators estimated from Census 2001 Sl. No.

State / District

Population, Census 2001 (in lakh)*

Decadal Growth Rate (1991-2001)

(%)*

Overall Sex Ratio

(Females per 1,000 Males)*

Child Sex Ratio

(Females Per 1,000 Males*

RAJASTHAN 565.07 28.41 921 909

1 Barmer 10.21 36.90 892 919

2 Chittaurgarh

13.30

20.44 966 926

3 Sawai Madhopur 11.17

27.55 889 902

4 Sirohi 8.51 30.13 943 918

5 Udaipur 24.81 27.09 969 947

Source : *Census 2001

Table 19 : GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance : Population and sex ratio according to Census 2011 provisional, Fertility

and Mortality indicators according to Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 Sl. No.

State / District

Population, Census 2011

provisional (in lakh)*

Decadal Growth

Rate (2001-

2011) (%) Provisional

Overall Sex

Ratio (Females

per 1,000 Males)

Child Sex

Ratio (Females

Per 1,000 Males*

Crude Birth Rate

(births per

1,000 MYP)**

Crude Death Rate

(deaths per

1,000 MYP)**

RAJASTHAN 686.21 21.44 926 883 24.7 6.6

1 Barmer 26.04 32.55 900 899 32.5 6.4

2 Chittaurgarh

15.44

16.09 970 903 21.4 5.7

3 Sawai Madhopur 13.38

19.79 894 865 27.4 7.4

4 Sirohi 10.37 21.86 938 890 24.1 6.9

5 Udaipur 30.68 23.63 958 920 29.9 8.2

Sources : *Census 2011 provisional, RGI and ** Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, RGI


The convergence districts are mostly backward districts. But, during the last decade, noticeable improvements have been observed in these districts in the outcome indicators of IMR and Under Five Mortality Rate. There is no impressive improvement in the literacy levels in these districts. Table 19a : GoI-UNJPC-GoR Convergence Districts of Rajasthan at a Glance

: Education and Health indicators according to Census 2011 provisional and Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

Sl.

No.

State /

District

Education Health

MDG 1 MDG 4

2001* 2011* 2001* 2007-09**

Total literacy Rate (%)

Total literacy Rate (%)

Infant Mortality Rate (q1) (infant deaths

per 1,000 LBs)**

Under Five Mortality Rate (q5)

(deaths per 1,000 LBs)**

Infant Mortality

Rate (infant

deaths per 1,000 LBs)**

Under Five

Mortality Rate

(deaths per 1,000

LBs)**

RAJASTHAN 60.41 67.06 76 110 60 79

1 Barmer 58.99 57.49 76 110 72 86

2 Chittaurgarh 53.99 62.51 96 145 62 75

3 Sawai Madhopur

56.67 66.19 89 131 67 78

4 Sirohi 53.94 56.02 85 124 62 85

5 Udaipur 59.77 62.74 94 141 62 88

Sources : *Census 2001, 2011 provisional, RGI and ** Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, RGI


Chapter 4 : Conclusions and Way Forward


Chapter 4 Conclusions & Way Forward

Introduction

The demographic and health scenario of Rajasthan is characterized by high growth rate of population and high levels of fertility and mortality especially infant and maternal mortality. There is a need to understand the factors affecting these and strategies and best practices elsewhere in this regards undertaken to improve this situation. Some of the successful strategies have been presented here.

Review of Interventions to improve maternal and neonatal health and reduce neonatal and maternal mortality Considering that the IMR of 55 in Rajasthan is composed of 75 percent neonatal deaths, there is a need to address this on a priority basis. Moreover, achievement of Millennium Development Goal 4 to reduce under-5 mortality by two thirds by the year 2015 is critically dependent on a substantial reduction in neonatal mortality over the next decade. In a review of 41 studies on neonatal health interventions around the world by Haws et al., 2007 have suggested the following recommendations like;

• Education about danger-sign recognition (Kapoor et al. 1991; Srinivasan et al. 1995)

• Accompanied referral (Greenwood et al. 1990; Bartlett et al. 1991) • Strengthening the capacity of health services to handle referred cases

(Manandhar et al. 2004)

• Ensuring the referred cases were within the capacity of referral centres to handle (Bartlett et al. 1991)

A meta-analytical review of evidence of 186 community level interventions to improve perinatal and neonatal health in developing countries by Bhutta et. al. 2005 recommend an integrated approach to safe motherhood and newborn health. According to them, studies strongly indicate that maternal educational level is clearly associated with improved perinatal and neonatal survival. Thus, building the capacity of mothers through basic education is a key long-term strategy to improve perinatal and neonatal health in developing-country communities. Kapoor et al., have shown that there was a gradual and sustained reduction in the neonatal mortality rate from 42.3 per 1,000 live births in 1972 to 17.9 per 1000 in 1987. During this period, neonatal deaths due to tetanus disappeared (14.6 per 1,000 live births in 1972, 0 per 1,000 in 1987). A 22 percent reduction in Neonatal Mortality (NMR) occurred after the introduction of birth kits; there is a mixed impact of birth kits and Tetanus Toxoid (TT) vaccine. In north-western India, in SEARCH, CHWs were trained in essential newborn care (clean cord cutting, maintenance of warmth, breastfeeding promotion); identification and special care, including referral when indicated, of at-risk infants; and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation of asphyxiated infants. The NMR fell 25 percent, from 51.9 to 38.8 per 1,000 live births, during the 2 years of the study, with 18 percent of deaths attributed to asphyxia. In another trial of home-based neonatal essential and emergency care, including resuscitation of asphyxiated newborns by trained CHWs, Bang et al., reported a 48 percent reduction in asphyxia-specific neonatal mortality. A significant decline in neonatal mortality due to pneumonia (44 percent) was noted.


Here, VHWs were trained in intervention areas to provide a package of home-based neonatal care, including health education to pregnant women, diagnosis and management of birth asphyxia, identification of high-risk (premature and LBW) neonates for more intensive surveillance, temperature maintenance, promotion of breastfeeding, administration of vitamin K, treatment of skin infections, and identification of sick newborns suspected of having septicemia, meningitis, and/or pneumonia and administration of antibiotics (oral co-trimoxazole and Intra Muscular gentamicin) in the home. Neonatal mortality due to sepsis was reduced 76 percent and overall neonatal mortality declined by 62 percent, compared with the control, non-intervention area. Evidence from several countries suggests that a three-fourths or 75 percent decline can be achieved. During the past 40 years, Thailand has substantially reduced its maternal mortality ratio from more than 400 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960, to 50 per 100,000 live births in 1984. Malaysia and Sri Lanka have also seen declines in the maternal mortality ratio of more than 50 percent during this period. In Sri Lanka, maternal mortality has declined from a level of over 1500 per 100,000 live births during 1940-45 to 555 per 100,000 in 1950-55 and 95 per 100,000 by 1980. As per the recent estimates, it is 58 per 100,000 live births (Maternal Mortality 2005). Most of it is attributed to births attended by skilled personnel. By the end of 1980s, over 85 percent of the births were attended by skilled personnel. A substantial decline has also taken place in Matlab, Bangladesh, a rural area receiving intense health and family planning services. The maternal mortality ratio declined from around 600 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1976 to 200 per 100,000 live births in 2001. These recommendations focus on addressing the traditional three delays of identification of danger signs, arrangement of referral transport, identification of comprehensive emergency obstetric care centres. A focus on health emergency transport services through the involvement of NGOs/ CBOs and establishment of Emergency Control Rooms (ECRs) to route calls, especially for high risk and complicated cases of pregnant mothers, availability of blood facilities and operationalisation of comprehensive emergency obstetric care centres are strategies that can facilitate the improvement in maternal health. This delay factor is also inbuilt in the Critical Link Methodology (CLM), which assesses health care through three dimensions namely; clinical performance (delays, omissions, and compliance with quality standards compared to established guidelines), internal hospital organization and continuity of care between health-care facilities. One such example is provided by a CLM study of women with post-partum haemorrhage who died as they were transferred from community hospitals to referral hospitals. The assessment identified the lack of stabilization of women prior to transportation as a fatal omission. In the seven states where the percentage of maternal deaths due to post-partum haemorrhage was above the national average, up to 60 per cent of maternal deaths occurred while transporting patients to larger hospitals (Extract from The State of the World’s Children 2009). When ambulances and trained personnel were provided in one of those health districts, the maternal mortality rate from post-partum haemorrhage fell by 30 per cent the following year. A pilot study by IRMS, ICMR on estimating MMR in India and States reveals that most maternal deaths occurred during the post natal or post partum period (69 percent). This implies that more emphasis needs to be put on post partum visits by ANMs and ASHAs. In order to bridge the connectivity gap between the high risk pregnant women, the referral transport systems and referral


health centres, the connectivity options available to ANMs and ASHAs may be enhanced through the use of mobile phone connectivity. This study also reveals that 59 percent of the maternal deaths had occurred in the hospital, 16 percent on the way to the hospital and rest 25 percent at home. This also points to the fact that there is a delay in referral and delay in identifying and getting proper transport to the health facility. These efforts may become instrumental in improving the status of these neonatal and maternal health indicators of the State in the future. In addition to this, in order to identify critical factors and links at the sub-state level, there is a need for more and more analysis at the sub-state level. The need for district and block level analysis is the need of the hour considering the vast regional diversities in the State. This issue has been taken up in the Rajasthan State Strategic statistical Plan (RSSSP) under the India Statistical Strengthening Project (ISSP) being implemented by the Central Statistical Organization (CSO), Govt. of India, the nodal agency in the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoS&PI) as part of the follow up of the some of the measures suggested by the National Statistical Commission (NSC) with the assistance from the World Bank for strengthening of Indian Statistical System and in the implementation plan of the Thirteenth Finance Commission recommendations to improve the statistical system at the State and district levels. Conclusions A district area specific focus is expected in the State, especially a tribal focus on districts like Banswara and Dungarpur and focus on the low density border and desert districts like Jaisalmer with a density of 17 persons per sq. km., Bikaner (78 persons per sq.km.) and Barmer (92 persons per sq.km.) to address the imbalances in the various health indicators, which are influencing the State average. Though there is a decline in the TFR and an increase in contraceptive prevalence rate, certain demographic and health indicators have still to improve like the declining sex ratio at birth and child sex ratio, infant and maternal mortality, which is still at a high level in the State. A lot of effort is underway under NRHM 2005-2012 in India as well as in Rajasthan being a high focus State under NRHM to increase the use of family planning methods to reduce unwanted pregnancies and reduce the risk of pregnancy or child birth related maternal deaths and increase safe as well as institutional deliveries. There is a need to focus on the health indicators, especially of child, infant and maternal mortality in the State, which will accelerate the progress towards the achievement of the five year plan goals and MDGs and the population and health status in the State. There is a need for more area specific strategies like focus on the tribal and scattered population, interdepartmental coordination and involvement of PRIs in the planning, implementation and monitoring process. There is a need to focus on the health indicators, especially of child, infant and maternal mortality in the State, which will accelerate the progress towards the achievement of the focal MDGs in the State.

***


References

Bang A, Bang R, Baitule S, Reddy M, Deshmukh M. 1991. Effect of homebased neonatal care and management of sepsis on neonatal mortality: field trial in rural India. Lancet. 1999;354:1955–1961.

Bartlett A, Paz De Bocaletti M, Bocaletti A. 1991. Neonatal and early postneonatal morbidity and mortality in a rural Guatemalan community: the importance of infectious disease and their management. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 10: 752–7.

Bhutta, Zulfiqar A., Darmstadt, Gary L., Hasan, Babar S and Haws, Rachel A. 2005. Pediatrics 2005;115;519-617

Department of Family Welfare. 1999. Population Policy of Rajasthan. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Rajasthan, 2001. Janm Mrityu Registrikaran, :

Varshik Prativedan, Varsh 2001 (Annual Report on Birth and Death Registration, 2001).

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Rajasthan, 2002. Population Projections : Rajasthan (2001-2021) Provisional.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Rajasthan, 2002. Janm Mrityu Registrikaran, : Varshik Prativedan, Varsh 2002 (Annual Report on Birth and Death Registration, 2002).









Greenwood A, Bradley A, Byass P et al. 1990. Evaluation of a primary health care programme in The Gambia. I. The impact of trained traditional birth attendants on the outcome of pregnancy. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 93: 58–66.

Guilmoto, C. Z and Rajan, S. I. 2002. District Level Estimates of Fertility from India’s 2001 Census, Economic and Political Weekly, 665-672.


Haws, R.A., Thomas, A.L., Bhutta, Z.A. and Darmstadt, G.L. 2007. “Impact of Packaged Interventions on Neonatal Health : A Review of the Evidence”, Health Policy and Planning, 22 : 193-215.

International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, 2008. DLHS-3, Fact sheet Rajasthan.

International Institute for Population Sciences and Macro International. 2007. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06 : India : Volume I, Mumbai, IIPS.

Irudaya Rajan et. al. 2008. Infant and Child Mortality in India : District Level Estimates by Population Foundation of India.

Jackson, W. A. 1998. Political Economy of Population Ageing. Cheltenham, United Kingdom; and Northampton, Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Kabir, M. and Islam, M.A. 2000. “The impact of mass media family planning programmes on current use of contraception in urban Bangladesh”. Journal of Biosocial Science, 32 (3): 411-419.

Kapoor S, Anand K, Kumar G. 1994. Risk factors for stillbirths in a secondary level hospital at Ballabgarh, Haryana: a case control study. Indian J Pediatr. 1994;61:161–166

Manandhar D, Osrin D, Shrestha B et al. 2004. Effect of a participatory intervention with women’s groups on birth outcomes in Nepal: cluster-randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 364: 914–15.

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt.of India. 2000. National Population Policy, 2000, MoHFW.

Oddens, B.J, and Lehert, P. 1997. Determinants of contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in Great Britain and Germany. I: Demographic Factors, Journal of Biosocial Science, 29 (4): 415-435.

Office of the Registrar General of India. 1993. Handbook of Civil Registration. Office of the Registrar General of India. 2001. Census Info Version 2. Office of the Registrar General of India. 1999. Medical Certification of Cause of Deaths,

1999. Office of the Registrar general of India. 2001. Maternal Mortality in India: 1997-2003 -

Trends, causes and risk factors, Registrar General of India, New Delhi, in collaboration with Centre for global health research University of Toronto, Canada

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2006. Population Projections for India and States, Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections Constituted by the National Commission on Population.

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2009. Vital Statistics of India Based on Civil Registration System : Special Report : 1996-2001

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2009. Vital Statistics of India Based on Civil Registration System : Special Report : 2002-2005

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2009. Special Bulletin on Maternal Mortality in India, Sample Registration System : 2004-2006

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2007. Agenda Notes of the National Conference of Chief Registrars of births and deaths – 2007, ORGI, Govt. of India)

Office of the Registrar general of India. 2009. Agenda Notes of the National Conference of Chief Registrars of births and deaths – 2009, ORGI, Govt. of India).

Population Foundation of India. And Population Reference Bureau 2007. The Future Population of India : A Long Range Demographic view.

Preston, Samuel H., Heuveline, P. and Guillot, M. 2003. “Demography : Measuring and Modelling Population Processes”, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. UK.


Ram, F., Shekhar, C. and Mohanty, S.K. 2005. Human Development : Strengthening District Level Vital Statistics in India. International Institute for Population Sciences, Sponsored by UNDP, New Delhi.

Raut, M.K. and Murthy, P.K. 2006. Communication and Contraceptive Behaviour : Insights and Evidences from India and Bangladesh, Unpublished Term Paper, International Institute for Population Sciences.

Raut, M.K., Sebastian, D. and Sahu, S. 2008. Enabling condom as a means of contraception : Insights from Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, NFHS-3 (2005-06), paper accepted for oral presentation at the National Seminar on Population, Environment and Development in Uttarakhand, organized by International Institute for Population Sciences, at Hotel Aketa, Dehradun, March 17-19, 2008.

Raut, M.K. and DES. Civil Registration System in Rajasthan : 2001-08, Published by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Rajasthan.

Raut, M.K. and DES. A brief analytical note on the Provisional Population Totals of Census 2011 for Rajasthan, 2011. Published by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Rajasthan.

Raut, M.K. and DES. A Decade of Medical Certification of Cause of Deaths in Rajasthan : 1999-2008, Published by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Govt. of Rajasthan.

Raut, M.K. and Sebastian, D. Computation of Indicators from the Civil Registration System for the years 2001-2008 in Rajasthan State, India, paper presented, titled at the First Conference of the Asian Population Association (APA), organized by APA, November 16-20, 2010

Saksena, D.N., and Rastogi, S.R. 1988. “The reach and effectiveness of media for popularizing the family planning programme”, Journal of Family Welfare, 35 : 26-38.

Sohail, A and Rossem, R.V. 2002. “Impact of Mass Media Campaigns The Female Condom in Tanzania”. International Family Planning Perspectives 28, (3) : 151-158.

Srinivasan V, Radhakrishna S, Sudha R et al. 1995. Randomized controlled field trial of two antenatal packages in rural south India. Indian Journal of Medical Research 102: 86–94.

Srivastava, H.C. 1988. “The role of mass media in interspouse communication among urban momin and kokni muslims”, Journal of Family Welfare, 35 : 50-60.

Shryock, H.S. and Jacob S. Siegel. "The methods and materials of Demography.". 1978. Academic Press, New York.

UNICEF 2009. The State of World’s Children 2009, Maternal and Newborn Health. United Nations. 1983. Manual X : Indirect Techniques for Demographic Estimation. Walker, A. 1990. The economic “burden” of ageing and the prospect of

intergenerational conflict. Ageing and Society, vol. 10, No. 4 (December). WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank. 2005. Maternal Mortality in 2005,

estimates developed by WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank.


Annexure 1 : Ranking of States and UTs in India


Table 20 : Reorganization of districts in India and States between Census 2001 and 2011

Sl. No.

India/State/ Union Territory#

No. of districts,

2001

No. of districts,

2011

No. of New

Districts in 2011

No. of Districts affected due to Carving out of new districts

No. of Districts affected due to Geographical changes only

1 India 593 640 47 53 76

1 A& N Islands# 2 3 1 1 0

2 And. Pradesh 23 23 0 0 0

3 Aru. Pradesh 13 16 3 3 0

4 Assam 23 27 4 7 1

5 Bihar 37 38 1 1 2

6 Chandigarh# 1 1 0 0 0

7 Chhattisgarh 16 18 2 2 0

8 Dadra &N. Haveli#

1 1 0 0 0

9 Daman& Diu# 2 2 0 0 0

10 Goa 2 2 0 0 0

11 Gujarat 25 26 1 1 4

12 Haryana 19 21 2 2 0

13 Hima. Pradesh 12 12 0 0 0

14 Jammu &Kash. 14 22 8 8 1

15 Jharkhand 18 24 6 6 3

16 Karnataka 27 30 3 3 0

17 Kerala 14 14 0 0 0

18 Lakshadweep# 1 1 0 0 0

19 Madhya Pradesh

45 50 5 5 4

20 Maharashtra 35 35 0 0 4

21 Manipur 9 9 0 0 0

22 Meghalaya 7 7 0 0 3

23 Mizoram 8 8 0 0 4

24 Nagaland 8 11 3 2 2

25 NCT of Delhi # 9 9 0 0 0

26 Orissa 30 30 0 0 4

27 Puducherry# 4 4 0 0 0

28 Punjab 17 20 3 4 5

29 Rajasthan 32 33 1 3 11

30 Sikkim 4 4 0 0 0

31 Tamil Nadu 30 32 2 3 2

32 Tripura 4 4 0 0 2

33 Uttar Pradesh 70 71 1 1 22

34 Uttarakhand 13 13 0 0 2

35 West Bengal 18 19 1 1 0

#Union Territories Source : Census


Table 21 : Percentage Share of Population by residence in Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census 2011

Code India/ State/ UTs Percentage Share

of Population, 2001

Percentage Share of Population, 2011

Rural Urban Rural Urban INDIA 72.19 27.81 68.84 31.16

01 Jammu & Kashmir 75.19 24.81 72.79 27.21 02 Himachal Pradesh 90.20 9.80 89.96 10.04

03 Punjab 66.08 33.92 62.51 37.49 04 Chandigarh * 10.23 89.77 2.75 97.25 05 Uttarakhand 74.33 25.67 69.45 30.55 06 Haryana 71.08 28.92 65.21 34.79

07 NCTof Delhi* 6.82 93.18 2.50 97.50 08 Rajasthan 76.61 23.39 75.11 24.89 09 Uttar Pradesh 79.22 20.78 77.72 22.28 10 Bihar 89.54 10.46 88.70 11.30 11 Sikkim 88.93 11.07 75.03 24.97

12 Arunachal Pradesh 79.25 20.75 77.33 22.67 13 Nagaland 82.77 17.23 71.03 28.97 14 Manipur 74.89 25.11 69.79 30.21 15 Mizoram 50.37 49.63 48.49 51.51 16 Tripura 82.94 17.06 73.82 26.18

17 Meghalaya 80.42 19.58 79.92 20.08 18 Assam 87.10 12.90 85.92 14.08 19 West Bengal 72.03 27.97 68.11 31.89 20 Jharkhand 77.76 22.24 75.95 24.05 21 Orissa 85.01 14.99 83.32 16.68

22 Chhattisgarh 79.91 20.09 76.76 23.24 23 Madhya Pradesh 73.54 26.46 72.37 27.63 24 Gujarat 62.64 37.36 57.42 42.58 25 Daman & Diu* 63.75 36.25 24.84 75.16 26 Dadra & Nagar Haveli* 77.11 22.89 53.38 46.62 27 Maharashtra 57.57 42.43 54.77 45.23 28 Andhra Pradesh 72.70 27.30 66.51 33.49 29 Karnataka 66.01 33.99 61.43 38.57 30 Goa 50.24 49.76 37.83 62.17 31 Lakshadweep * 55.54 44.46 21.92 78.08 32 Kerala 74.04 25.96 52.28 47.72 33 Tamil Nadu 55.96 44.04 51.55 48.45 34 Puducherry* 33.43 66.57 31.69 68.31 35 Andaman & Nicobar

Islands * 67.37 32.63 64.33 35.67

*Union Territories Source : Census


Table 22 : Population and decadal growth rate of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census

2011

Rank

India/State/ Union Territory #

Total population

Rank India/State/ Union Territory #

Decadal growth rate (%)

INDIA 1,210,193,422 1 Dadra & Nagar Haveli # 55.50

1 Uttar Pradesh 199,581,477 2 Daman & Diu # 53.54

2 Maharashtra 112,372,972 3 Meghalaya 27.82

3 Bihar 103,804,637 4 Puducherry # 27.72

4 West Bengal 91,347,736 5 Arunachal Pradesh 25.92

5 Andhra Pradesh 84,665,533 6 Bihar 25.07

6 Madhya Pradesh 72,597,565 7 Jammu & Kashmir 23.71

7 Tamil Nadu 72,138,958 8 Mizoram 22.78

8 Rajasthan 68,621,012 9 Chhattisgarh 22.59

9 Karnataka 61,130,704 10 Jharkhand 22.34

10 Gujarat 60,383,628 11 Rajasthan 21.44

11 Orissa 41,947,358 12 NCT of Delhi # 20.96

12 Kerala 33,387,677 13 Madhya Pradesh 20.30

13 Jharkhand 32,966,238 14 Uttar Pradesh 20.09

14 Assam 31,169,272 15 Haryana 19.90

15 Punjab 27,704,236 16 Uttarakhand 19.17

16 Chhattisgarh 25,540,196 17 Gujarat 19.17

17 Haryana 25,353,081 18 Manipur 18.65

18 NCT of Delhi # 16,753,235

INDIA 17.64

19 Jammu & Kashmir 12,548,926 19 Chandigarh # 17.10

20 Uttarakhand 10,116,752 20 Assam 16.93

21 Himachal Pradesh 6,856,509 21 Maharashtra 15.99

22 Tripura 3,671,032 22 Karnataka 15.67

23 Meghalaya 2,964,007 23 Tamil Nadu 15.60

24 Manipur 2,721,756 24 Tripura 14.75

25 Nagaland 1,980,602 25 Orissa 13.97

26 Goa 1,457,723 26 West Bengal 13.93

27 Arunachal Pradesh 1,382,611 27 Punjab 13.73

28 Puducherry # 1,244,464 28 Himachal Pradesh 12.81

29 Mizoram 1,091,014 29 Sikkim 12.36

30 Chandigarh # 1,054,686 30 Andhra Pradesh 11.10

31 Sikkim 607,688 31 Goa 8.17

32 Andaman & Nicobar Islands #

379,944 32 Andaman & Nicobar Islands #

6.68

33 Dadra & Nagar Haveli #

342,853 33 Lakshadweep # 6.23

34 Daman & Diu # 242,911 34 Kerala 4.86

35 Lakshadweep # 64,429 35 Nagaland -0.47

#Union Territories Source : Census 2011


Table 23 : Population density of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census 2011

Rank India/State/ Union Territory #

Density (Per sq.km)

1 NCT of Delhi # 11,297

2 Chandigarh # 9,252

3 Puducherry # 2,598

4 Daman & Diu # 2,169

5 Lakshadweep # 2,013

6 Bihar 1,102

7 West Bengal 1,029

8 Kerala 859

9 Uttar Pradesh 828

10 Dadra & Nagar Haveli # 698

11 Haryana 573

12 Tamil Nadu 555

13 Punjab 550

14 Jharkhand 414

15 Assam 397

16 Goa 394

INDIA 382

17 Maharashtra 365

18 Tripura 350

19 Karnataka 319

20 Andhra Pradesh 308

21 Gujarat 308

22 Orissa 269

23 Madhya Pradesh 236

24 Rajasthan 201

25 Uttarakhand 189

26 Chhattisgarh 189

27 Meghalaya 132

28 Jammu & Kashmir 124

29 Himachal Pradesh 123

30 Manipur 122

31 Nagaland 119

32 Sikkim 86

33 Mizoram 52

34 Andaman & Nicobar Islands # 46

35 Arunachal Pradesh 17

#Union Territories Source : Census 2011


Table 24 : Total, Male and Female Literacy of India, States and UTs arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census 2011 (%)

Rank

Persons Rank

Males Rank

Females

1 Kerala 93.91 1 Lakshadweep# 96.11 1 Kerala 91.98

2 Lakshadweep# 92.28 2 Kerala 96.02 2 Mizoram 89.40

3 Mizoram 91.58 3 Mizoram 93.72 3 Lakshadweep# 88.25

4 Tripura 87.75 4 Goa 92.81 4 Tripura 83.15

5 Goa 87.40 5 Tripura 92.18 5 Goa 81.84

6 Daman & Diu# 87.07

6 Puducherry# 92.12

6

Andaman & Nicobar Islands#

81.84

7 Puducherry# 86.55 7 Daman & Diu# 91.48 7 Chandigarh# 81.38

8 Chandigarh# 86.43 8 NCT o f Delhi# 91.03 8 Puducherry# 81.22

9 NCT of Delhi# 86.34 9 Himachal Pradesh 90.83 9 NCT of Delhi# 80.93

10 Andaman & Nicobar Islands#

86.27 10

Chandigarh# 90.54 10

Daman & Diu# 79.59

11 Himachal Pradesh 83.78

11 Andaman & Nicobar Islands#

90.11 11

Nagaland 76.69

12 Maharashtra 82.91

12 Maharashtra 89.82

12 Himachal Pradesh

76.60

13 Sikkim 82.20 13 Uttarakhand 88.33 13 Sikkim 76.43

14 Tamil Nadu 80.33 14 Sikkim 87.29 14 Maharashtra 75.48

15 Nagaland 80.11 15 Gujarat 87.23 15 Tamil Nadu 73.86

16 Manipur 79.85 16 Tamil Nadu 86.81 16 Meghalaya 73.78

17 Uttarakhand 79.63 17 Manipur 86.49 17 Manipur 73.17

18 Gujarat 79.31 18 Dadra & Nagar Haveli# 86.46 18 Punjab 71.34

19 Dadra & Nagar Haveli# 77.65 19 Haryana 85.38 19 West Bengal 71.16

20 West Bengal 77.08 20 Nagaland 83.29 20 Gujarat 70.73

21 Punjab 76.68 21 Karnataka 82.85 21 Uttarakhand 70.70

22 Haryana 76.64 22 West Bengal 82.67 22 Karnataka 68.13

23 Karnataka 75.60 23 Orissa 82.40 23 Assam 67.27

24 Meghalaya 75.48

INDIA 82.14 24 Haryana 66.77

INDIA 74.04 24

Punjab 81.48 25

Dadra & Nagar Haveli#

65.93

25 Orissa 73.45 25 Chhattisgarh 81.45

INDIA 65.46

26 Assam 73.18 26 Madhya Pradesh 80.53 26 Orissa 64.36

27 Chhattisgarh 71.04 27 Rajasthan 80.51 27 Chhattisgarh 60.59

28 Madhya Pradesh 70.63

28 Uttar Pradesh 79.24

28 Madhya Pradesh

60.02

29 Uttar Pradesh 69.72 29 Assam 78.81 29 Andhra Pradesh 59.74

30 Jammu & Kashmir 68.74

30 Jharkhand 78.45

30 Arunachal Pradesh

59.57

31 Andhra Pradesh 67.66 31 Jammu & Kashmir 78.26 31 Uttar Pradesh 59.26

32 Jharkhand 67.63

32 Meghalaya 77.17

32 Jammu & Kashmir

58.01

33 Rajasthan 67.06 33 Andhra Pradesh 75.56 33 Jharkhand 56.21

34 Arunachal Pradesh 66.95 34 Arunachal Pradesh 73.69 34 Bihar 53.33

35 Bihar 63.82 35 Bihar 73.39 35 Rajasthan 52.66

#Union Territories Source : Census


Annexure 2 : Ranking of Districts in Rajasthan


Table 25a : Geographical area in sq. km. in Rajasthan and districts according to Census 2001 in descending order

Rank Name of State/ District Area in Sq.Km.

Rajasthan 342239

1 Jaisalmer 38401

2 Barmer 28387

3 Bikaner 27244

4 Jodhpur 22850

5 Nagaur 17718

6 Churu 16830

7 Udaipur 13419

8 Pali 12387

9 Jaipur 11143

10 Ganganagar 10978

11 Chittorgarh 10856

12 Jalore 10640

13 Bhilwara 10455

14 Hanumangarh 9656

15 Ajmer 8481

16 Alwar 8380

17 Sikar 7732

18 Tonk 7194

19 Baran 6992

20 Jhalawar 6219

21 Jhunjhunu 5928

22 Bundi 5776

23 Karauli 5524

24 Kota 5217

25 Sirohi 5136

26 Bharatpur 5066

27 Banswara 5037

28 S.Madhopur 4498

29 Rajsamand 3860

30 Dungarpur 3770

31 Dausa 3432

32 Dholpur 3033

Source : Census 2001


Table 25b : Administrative units in Rajasthan according to Census 2001

and Provisional results of Census 2011

State/ District Code

State/Di s tri ct

2,001 2,011

Sub- Districts

No. of Towns

Villages#

Sub- Dis-tricts

No. of Towns

Villages#

Sta- tutory Towns

Census Towns

Sta- tutory Towns

Census Towns

Rajasthan 241 184 38 41,353 244 185 112 44,672

01 Ganganagar 9 10 2 3014 9 10 6 3,018

02 Hanumangarh 7 6 - 1905 7 6 - 1,907

03 Bikaner 7 3 - 778 8 4 2 919

04 Churu 7 11 - 979 6 10 - 899

05 Jhunjhunun 6 12 1 859 6 12 6 927

06 Alwar 12 6 3 1994 12 7 9 2,054

07 Bharatpur 10 9 - 1472 10 9 1 1,524

08 Dhaulpur 5 3 - 802 5 3 1 819

09 Karauli 6 3 - 798 6 3 1 888

10 Sawai Madhopur

7 2 2 794 7 1 2 814

11 Dausa 5 3 2 1058 5 3 2 1,109

12 Jaipur 13 11 - 2131 13 11 8 2,180

13 Sikar 6 9 - 992 6 9 6 1,167

14 Nagaur 10 10 2 1500 10 10 8 1,589

15 Jodhpur 7 4 - 1063 7 4 3 1,838

16 Jaisalmer 3 2 - 637 3 2 - 799

17 Barmer 8 2 - 1941 8 2 2 2,460

18 Jalore 7 3 - 706 7 3 1 801

19 Sirohi 5 5 - 462 5 5 4 477

20 Pali 9 9 2 949 9 9 2 1,030

21 Ajmer 9 8 1 1038 9 8 3 1,111

22 Tonk 7 6 1 1093 7 6 2 1,183

23 Bundi 5 6 1 849 5 6 3 873

24 Bhilwara 12 7 1 1745 12 7 2 1,834

25 Rajsamand 7 4 1 987 7 4 5 1,050

26 Dungarpur 4 2 1 858 5 2 2 976

27 Banswara 5 2 1 1504 10 2 2 1,513

28 Chittaurgarh 13 8 - 2395 5 6 1 1,730

29 Kota 5 4 7 892 8 4 7 874

30 Baran 8 4 2 1207 7 4 4 1,221

31 Jhalawar 7 5 3 1600 11 5 4 1,606

32 Udaipur 10 5 5 2351 4 5 12 2,479

33 Pratapgarh* - - - - 5 2 1 1,003

#Includes uninhabited villages *Newly created district carved out of three erstwhile districts of Banswara, Chittaurgarh and Udaipur



Table 25c : Division and District-wise population and decadal growth rate in Rajasthan according to Census 2001 and Provisional results of Census 2011

Sl. No.

State/ District Total Population Decadal Growth Rate (%)

2001 2011 1991-2001 2001-2011

1 Rajasthan 56507188 68621012 28.41 21.44

I Ajmer - Division

1 Ajmer 2178447 2584913 26.17 18.66

2 Bhilwara 2020969 2410459 26.39 19.27

3 Nagaur 2775058 3309234 29.38 19.25

4 Tonk 1211671 1421711 24.27 17.33

Division Total 8182188 9726317 - 18.87

II Bikaner - Division

5 Bikaner 1902110 2367745 37.71 24.48

6 Churu 1696039 2041172 23.51 20.35

7 Ganganagar 1789423 1969520 27.59 10.06

8 Hanumangarh 1518005 1779650 24.39 17.24

Division Total 6905577 8158087 - 18.14

III Jaipur - Division

9 Jaipur 5251071 6663971 35.06 26.91

10 Alwar 2991552 3671999 30.31 22.75

11 Dausa 1323002 1637226 32.40 23.75

12 Jhunjhunun 1913689 2139658 20.93 11.81

13 Sikar 2287788 2677737 24.14 17.04

Division Total 13762203 16790591 - 22.01

IV Bharatpur - Division

14 Bharatpur 2100020 2549121 27.22 21.39

15 Dhaulpur 983258 1207293 31.19 22.78

16 Karauli 1205888 1458459 30.41 20.94

17 S.Madhopur 1117057 1338114 27.55 19.79

Division Total 5411122 6552987 - 21.10

V Jodhapur - Division

18 Jodhpur 2886505 3685681 34.04 27.69

19 Barmer 1964835 2604453 36.90 32.55

20 Jaisalmer 508247 672008 47.52 32.22

21 Jalor 1448940 1830151 26.81 26.31

22 Pali 1820251 2038533 22.46 11.99

23 Sirohi 851107 1037185 30.13 21.86

Division Total 9479885 11868011 - 25.19

VI Udaipur - Division

24 Udaipur 2481201 3067549 27.09 23.63

25 Banswara 1420601 1798194 29.62 26.58

26 Chittaurgarh 1330360 1544392 20.44 16.09

27 Dungarpur 1107643 1388906 26.65 25.39

28 Rajsamand 982523 1158283 19.96 17.89

29 Pratapgarh* 706807 868231 27.61 22.84

Division Total 8033092 9825555 - 22.31

VII Kota - Division

30 Kota 1568705 1950491 28.52 24.34

31 Baran 1021473 1223921 26.08 19.82

32 Bundi 962620 1113725 24.98 15.70

33 Jhalawar 1180323 1411327 23.34 19.57

Division Total 4733121 5699464 - 20.42


Table 26 : Population and population density of Rajasthan and districts arranged in descending order according to Provisional results of Census

2011

Rank District Population Rank District Population density (Persons per sq km)

Rajasthan 68621012 1 Jaipur 598

1 Jaipur 6663971 2 Bharatpur 503

2 Jodhpur 3685681 3 Dausa 476

3 Alwar 3671999 4 Alwar 438

4 Nagaur 3309234 5 Banswara 399

5 Udaipur 3067549 6 Dhaulpur 398

6 Sikar 2677737 7 Kota 374

7 Barmer 2604453 8 Dungarpur 368

8 Ajmer 2584913 9 Jhunjhunun 361

9 Bharatpur 2549121 10 Sikar 346

10 Bhilwara 2410459 11 Ajmer 305

11 Bikaner 2367745 12 Rajsamand 302

12 Jhunjhunun 2139658 13 Sawai Madhopur 297

13 Churu 2041172 14 Karauli 264

14 Pali 2038533 15 Udaipur 242

15 Ganganagar 1969520 16 Bhilwara 230

16 Kota 1950491 17 Jhalawar 227

17 Jalor 1830151 18 Pratapgarh* 211

18 Banswara 1798194 19 Sirohi 202

19 Hanumangarh 1779650 Rajasthan 201

20 Dausa 1637226 20 Tonk 198

21 Chittaurgarh 1544392 21 Chittaurgarh 193

22 Karauli 1458459 22 Bundi 193

23 Tonk 1421711 23 Nagaur 187

24 Jhalawar 1411327 24 Hanumangarh 184

25 Dungarpur 1388906 25 Ganganagar 179

26 Sawai Madhopur 1338114 26 Baran 175

27 Baran 1223921 27 Jalor 172

28 Dhaulpur 1207293 28 Pali 165

29 Rajsamand 1158283 29 Jodhpur 161

30 Bundi 1113725 30 Churu 148

31 Sirohi 1037185 31 Barmer 92

32 Pratapgarh* 868231 32 Bikaner 78

33 Jaisalmer 672008 33 Jaisalmer 17

*Newly created district Source : Census 2011


Table 27 : Percentage Share of Population by residence in Census 2001 and

Provisional results of Census 2011


India/Rajasthan/District Percentage share of Total Population 2001

Percentage share of Total Population 2011

Rural Urban Rural Urban INDIA 72.19 27.81 68.84 31.16

RAJASTHAN 76.61 23.39 75.11 24.89

1 Ganganagar 74.66 25.34 72.80 27.20

2 Hanumangarh 80.00 20.00 80.29 19.71

3 Bikaner 66.35 33.65 66.05 33.95

4 Churu 71.04 28.96 71.76 28.24

5 Jhunjhunun 79.35 20.65 77.09 22.91

6 Al war 85.46 14.54 82.18 17.82

7 Bharatpur 80.53 19.47 80.59 19.41

8 Dhaulpur 82.04 17.96 79.49 20.51

9 Karauli 85.74 14.26 85.01 14.99

10 Sawai Madhopur 80.96 19.04 80.10 19.90

11 Dausa 89.73 10.27 87.62 12.38

12 Jaipur 50.64 49.36 47.49 52.51

13 Sikar 79.35 20.65 76.35 23.65

14 Nagaur 82.80 17.20 80.83 19.17

15 Jodhpur 66.15 33.85 65.70 34.30

16 Jaisalmer 84.97 15.03 86.72 13.28

17 Barmer 92.60 7.40 93.00 7.00

18 Jalor 92.41 7.59 91.70 8.30

19 Sirohi 82.27 17.73 79.87 20.13

20 Pali 78.53 21.47 77.44 22.56

21 Ajmer 59.85 40.15 59.91 40.09

22 Tonk 79.11 20.89 77.64 22.36

23 Bundi 81.35 18.65 80.06 19.94

24 Bhilwara 79.47 20.53 78.71 21.29

25 Rajsamand 86.90 13.10 84.07 15.93

26 Dungarpur 92.70 7.30 93.61 6.39

27 Banswara 92.44 7.56 92.89 7.11

28 Chittaurgarh 82.17 17.83 81.53 18.47

29 Kota 46.54 53.46 39.70 60.30

30 Baran 83.16 16.84 79.21 20.79

31 Jhalawar 85.75 14.25 83.74 16.26

32 Udaipur 80.66 19.34 80.15 19.85

33 Pratapgarh* 91.15 8.85 91.74 8.26

*Newly created district

Source : Census 2001 & 2011


Table 28 : Overall Sex Ratio and Child Sex Ratio in the Districts of Rajasthan, arranged in descending order according to the provisional

results of Census 2011

Rank District

Overall Sex ratio

(Females per thousand Males) Rank District

Child Sex ratio (0-6 years)

(Female Children per

thousand male children)

1 Dungarpur 990 1 Pratapgarh* 926

2 Rajsamand 988 2 Banswara 925

3 Pali 987 3 Udaipur 920

4 Pratapgarh* 982 4 Bhilwara 916

5 Banswara 979 5 Dungarpur 916

6 Chittaurgarh 970 6 Jhalawar 905

7 Bhilwara 969 7 Chittaurgarh 903

8 Udaipur 958 8 Baran 902

9 Jalor 951 9 Bikaner 902

10 Jhunjhunun 950 10 Barmer 899

11 Ajmer 950 11 Churu 896

12 Tonk 949 12 Pali 895

13 Nagaur 948 13 Ajmer 893

14 Jhalawar 945 14 Jalor 891

15 Sikar 944 15 Rajsamand 891

16 Sirohi 938 16 Jodhpur 890

17 Churu 938 17 Sirohi 890

Rajasthan 926 18 Kota 889

18 Baran 926 19 Nagaur 888

19 Bundi 922 20 Bundi 886

20 Jodhpur 915 Rajasthan 883

21 Jaipur 909 21 Tonk 882

22 Kota 906 22 Hanumangarh 869

23 Hanumangarh 906 23 Jaisalmer 868

24 Dausa 904 24 Sawai Madhopur 865

25 Bikaner 903 25 Bharatpur 863

26 Barmer 900 26 Alwar 861

27 Sawai Madhopur 894 27 Dausa 859

28 Alwar 894 28 Jaipur 859

29 Ganganagar 887 29 Dhaulpur 854

30 Bharatpur 877 30 Ganganagar 854

31 Karauli 858 31 Karauli 844

32 Jaisalmer 849 32 Sikar 841

33 Dhaulpur 845 33 Jhunjhunun 831 *Newly created district Source : Census 2011


Table 29 : Total, Male and Female Literacy in the Districts of Rajasthan, arranged in

descending order according to the provisional results of Census 2011

Rank

State/ District

Total Literacy

Rate (%)

Rank State/ District

Male Literacy

Rate (%)

Rank State/ District

Female Literacy

Rate (%)

1 Kota 77.48 1 Jhunjhunun 87.88 1 Kota 66.32

2 Jaipur 76.44 2 Kota 87.63 2 Jaipur 64.63

3 Jhunjhunun 74.72 3 Jaipur 87.27 3 Jhunjhunun 61.15

4 Sikar 72.98 4 Sikar 86.66 4 Ganganagar 60.07

5 Alwar 71.68 5 Bharatpur 85.70 5 Sikar 58.76

6 Bharatpur 71.16 6 Alwar 85.08 6 Hanumangarh 56.91

7 Ajmer 70.46 7 Dausa 84.54 7 Alwar 56.78

8 Ganganagar 70.25 8 Ajmer 83.93 8 Ajmer 56.42

9 Dhaulpur 70.14 9 Karauli 82.96 9 Dhaulpur 55.45

10 Dausa 69.17 10 S Madhopur 82.72 10 Bharatpur 54.63

11 Hanumangarh 68.37 11 Dhaulpur 82.53 11 Churu 54.25

12 Churu 67.46 12 Baran 81.23 12 Bikaner 53.77

13 Baran 67.38 Rajasthan 80.51 Rajasthan 52.66

14 Karauli 67.34 13 Jodhpur 80.46 13 Jodhpur 52.57

15 Jodhpur 67.09 14 Churu 79.95 14 Baran 52.48

Rajasthan 67.06 15 Rajsamand 79.52 15 Dausa 52.33

16 S Madhopur 66.19 16 Ganganagar 79.33 16 Karauli 49.18

17 Bikaner 65.92 17 Nagaur 78.90 17 Udaipur 49.10

18 Nagaur 64.08 18 Hanumangarh 78.82 18 Nagaur 48.63

19 Rajsamand 63.93 19 Tonk 78.27 19 Rajsamand 48.44

20 Pali 63.23 20 Pali 78.16 20 Pali 48.35

21 Udaipur 62.74 21 Chittaurgarh 77.74 21 Bhilwara 47.93

22 Bhilwara 62.71 22 Bhilwara 77.16 22 S Madhopur 47.80

23 Chittaurgarh 62.51 23 Bikaner 76.90 23 Jhalawar 47.06

24 Tonk 62.46 24 Bundi 76.52 24 Bundi 47.00

25 Bundi 62.31 25 Jhalawar 76.47 25 Dungarpur 46.98

26 Jhalawar 62.13 26 Udaipur 75.91 26 Chittaurgarh 46.98

27 Dungarpur 60.78 27 Dungarpur 74.66 27 Tonk 46.01

28 Jaisalmer 58.04 28 Jaisalmer 73.09 28 Banswara 43.47

29 Barmer 57.49 29 Barmer 72.32 29 Pratapgarh* 42.40

30 Banswara 57.20 30 Jalor 71.83 30 Barmer 41.03

31 Pratapgarh* 56.30 31 Sirohi 71.09 31 Jaisalmer 40.23

32 Sirohi 56.02 32 Banswara 70.80 32 Sirohi 40.12

33 Jalor 55.58 33 Pratapgarh* 70.13 33 Jalor 38.73

*Newly created district



Table 30 : Total, Rural and Urban Population by Gender in the Districts of Rajasthan,

according to the provisional results of Census 2011 STATE/DISTRICT TRU Population

Persons Males Females

RAJASTHAN Total 68,621,012 35,620,086 33,000,926

RAJASTHAN Rural 51,540,236 26,680,882 24,859,354

RAJASTHAN Urban 17,080,776 8,939,204 8,141,572

Ganganagar Total 1,969,520 1,043,730 925,790

Ganganagar Rural 1,433,858 758,529 675,329

Ganganagar Urban 535,662 285,201 250,461

Hanumangarh Total 1,779,650 933,660 845,990

Hanumangarh Rural 1,428,884 749,080 679,804

Hanumangarh Urban 350,766 184,580 166,186

Bikaner Total 2,367,745 1,243,916 1,123,829

Bikaner Rural 1,564,009 822,098 741,911

Bikaner Urban 803,736 421,818 381,918

Churu Total 2,041,172 1,053,375 987,797

Churu Rural 1,464,691 756,279 708,412

Churu Urban 576,481 297,096 279,385

Jhunjhunun Total 2,139,658 1,097,390 1,042,268

Jhunjhunun Rural 1,649,538 843,536 806,002

Jhunjhunun Urban 490,120 253,854 236,266

Alwar Total 3,671,999 1,938,929 1,733,070

Alwar Rural 3,017,711 1,589,143 1,428,568

Alwar Urban 654,288 349,786 304,502

Bharatpur Total 2,549,121 1,357,896 1,191,225

Bharatpur Rural 2,054,400 1,095,085 959,315

Bharatpur Urban 494,721 262,811 231,910

Dhaulpur Total 1,207,293 654,344 552,949

Dhaulpur Rural 959,673 521,401 438,272

Dhaulpur Urban 247,620 132,943 114,677

Karauli Total 1,458,459 784,943 673,516

Karauli Rural 1,239,798 668,812 570,986

Karauli Urban 218,661 116,131 102,530

Sawai Madhopur Total 1,338,114 706,558 631,556

Sawai Madhopur Rural 1,071,780 566,817 504,963

Sawai Madhopur Urban 266,334 139,741 126,593

Dausa Total 1,637,226 859,821 777,405

Dausa Rural 1,434,533 753,670 680,863

Dausa Urban 202,693 106,151 96,542

Jaipur Total 6,663,971 3,490,787 3,173,184

Jaipur Rural 3,164,767 1,648,975 1,515,792

Jaipur Urban 3,499,204 1,841,812 1,657,392

Sikar Total 2,677,737 1,377,120 1,300,617

Sikar Rural 2,044,437 1,049,331 995,106

Sikar Urban 633,300 327,789 305,511

Nagaur Total 3,309,234 1,698,760 1,610,474

Nagaur Rural 2,674,804 1,371,733 1,303,071

Nagaur Urban 634,430 327,027 307,403

Source : www.censusindia.gov.in, Registrar General of India, GoI


Table 30 : Total, Rural and Urban Population by Gender in the Districts of Rajasthan, according to the provisional results of Census 2011 (Contd…)

STATE/DISTRICT TRU Population


Jodhpur Total 3,685,681 1,924,326 1,761,355

Jodhpur Rural 2,421,621 1,260,206 1,161,415

Jodhpur Urban 1,264,060 664,120 599,940

Jaisalmer Total 672,008 363,346 308,662

Jaisalmer Rural 582,798 313,750 269,048

Jaisalmer Urban 89,210 49,596 39,614

Barmer Total 2,604,453 1,370,494 1,233,959

Barmer Rural 2,422,037 1,274,070 1,147,967

Barmer Urban 182,416 96,424 85,992

Jalor Total 1,830,151 937,918 892,233

Jalor Rural 1,678,248 858,833 819,415

Jalor Urban 151,903 79,085 72,818

Sirohi Total 1,037,185 535,115 502,070

Sirohi Rural 828,375 424,973 403,402

Sirohi Urban 208,810 110,142 98,668

Pali Total 2,038,533 1,025,895 1,012,638

Pali Rural 1,578,682 787,974 790,708

Pali Urban 459,851 237,921 221,930

Ajmer Total 2,584,913 1,325,911 1,259,002

Ajmer Rural 1,548,574 790,215 758,359

Ajmer Urban 1,036,339 535,696 500,643

Tonk Total 1,421,711 729,390 692,321

Tonk Rural 1,103,868 569,040 534,828

Tonk Urban 317,843 160,350 157,493

Bundi Total 1,113,725 579,385 534,340

Bundi Rural 891,623 464,347 427,276

Bundi Urban 222,102 115,038 107,064

Bhilwara Total 2,410,459 1,224,483 1,185,976

Bhilwara Rural 1,897,292 957,879 939,413

Bhilwara Urban 513,167 266,604 246,563

Rajsamand Total 1,158,283 582,670 575,613

Rajsamand Rural 973,822 487,758 486,064

Rajsamand Urban 184,461 94,912 89,549

Dungarpur Total 1,388,906 698,069 690,837

Dungarpur Rural 1,300,129 652,478 647,651

Dungarpur Urban 88,777 45,591 43,186

Banswara Total 1,798,194 908,755 889,439

Banswara Rural 1,670,368 843,391 826,977

Banswara Urban 127,826 65,364 62,462

Chittaurgarh Total 1,544,392 784,054 760,338

Chittaurgarh Rural 1,259,090 637,086 622,004

Chittaurgarh Urban 285,302 146,968 138,334

Kota Total 1,950,491 1,023,153 927,338

Kota Rural 774,286 401,931 372,355

Kota Urban 1,176,205 621,222 554,983



Table 30 : Total, Rural and Urban Population by Gender in the Districts of Rajasthan, according to the provisional results of Census 2011 (Contd…)

STATE/DISTRICT TRU Population


Baran Total 1,223,921 635,495 588,426 Baran Rural 969,490 503,368 466,122

Baran Urban 254,431 132,127 122,304

Jhalawar Total 1,411,327 725,667 685,660 Jhalawar Rural 1,181,889 606,823 575,066

Jhalawar Urban 229,438 118,844 110,594

Udaipur Total 3,067,549 1,566,781 1,500,768 Udaipur Rural 2,458,658 1,250,880 1,207,778

Udaipur Urban 608,891 315,901 292,990

Pratapgarh Total 868,231 437,950 430,281 Pratapgarh Rural 796,503 401,391 395,112

Pratapgarh Urban 71,728 36,559 35,169



Table 31 : Population by Gender, Overall Sex Ratio, Child Sex Ratio and Literacy Rate in the cities of 1 lakh and above in Rajasthan according to the

provisional results of Census 2011 Name of City

Population Overall Sex Ratio (females per thousand males)

Child Sex Ratio

(females per

thousand males)

Effective Literacy Rate (7+ Pop) (%)

Persons Males Females Persons Males Females

Ganganagar (M Cl)

224,773 120,929 103,844 859 814 83.22 88.9 76.65

Hanumangarh (M Cl)

151,104 79,817 71,287 893 848 78.32 85.42 70.42

Bikaner (M Corp.)

647,804 340,894 306,910 900 901 79.86 87.15 71.77

Churu (M Cl) 119,846 61,771 58,075 940 919 75.11 86.48 63.07 Sujangarh (M) 101,528 52,078 49,450 950 894 74.55 85.58 63.06 Jhunjhunun (M Cl)

118,966 61,906 57,060 922 864 74.4 84.8 63.22

Alwar (M Cl) 315,310 166,900 148,410 889 833 86.78 93.72 79.05 Bhiwadi (M) 104,883 59,757 45,126 755 859 80.67 88.2 70.44 Bharatpur (M Cl)

252,109 134,088 118,021 880 829 82.13 90.41 72.8

Dhaulpur (M) 126,142 67,740 58,402 862 818 76.56 84.22 67.74 Hindaun (M) 105,690 56,178 49,512 881 852 76.58 87.79 63.94 Gangapur City (M)

119,045 62,910 56,135 892 852 79.78 90.8 67.52

Sawai Madhopur (M)

120,998 63,223 57,775 914 871 80.85 91.62 69.16

Jaipur (M Corp.)

3,073,350

1,619,280 1,454,070 898 854 84.34 90.61 77.41

Sikar (M Cl) 237,579 123,156 114,423 929 868 77.13 86.29 67.37

Nagaur (M) 100,618 52,220 48,398 927 876 73.05 82.06 63.42 Jodhpur (M Corp.)

1,033,918

544,057 489,861 900 898 81.56 88.42 73.93

Pali (M Cl) 229,956 120,008 109,948 916 880 78.67 89.35 67.08 Ajmer (M Corp.)

542,580 278,786 263,794 946 884 87.53 93.26 81.53

Beawar (M Cl) 145,809 74,946 70,863 946 880 85.96 93.44 78.12 Kishangarh (M Cl)

155,019 80,343 74,676 929 876 80.15 89.19 70.52

Tonk (M Cl) 165,363 84,927 80,436 947 883 69.47 78.7 59.85 Bundi (M) 102,823 53,299 49,524 929 877 83.15 90.96 74.81 Bhilwara (M Cl)

360,009 187,952 172,057 915 893 84.27 91.8 76.08

Banswara (M) 100,128 51,240 48,888 954 855 86.98 92.76 81.01 Chittaurgarh (M)

116,409 60,229 56,180 933 882 84.96 92.17 77.28

Kota (M Corp.) 1,001,365

529,795 471,570 890 876 83.65 90.56 75.9

Baran (M) 118,157 61,360 56,797 926 893 81.19 90.08 71.64 Udaipur (M Cl) 451,735 234,681 217,054 925 869 90.66 95.56 85.39



Table 32 : Child Sex Ratio (0-6 years) by Residence in the districts of

Rajasthan according to the provisional results of Census 2011 State/

District Code

India/Rajasthan/District Child Sex Ratio (0-6 Years)

2001 (female children per thousand male

children)

Child Sex Ratio (0-6 Years)

2011 (female children per thousand male children)

Total Rural Urban Tot al Rural Urban

INDIA 927 934 906 914 919 902

0 RAJASTHAN 909 914 887 883 886 869

1 Ganganagar 850 861 814 854 859 841

2 Hanumangarh 872 876 854 869 875 845

3 Bikaner 920 921 917 902 902 901

4 Churu 906 910 898 896 897 893

5 Jhunjhunun 863 865 852 831 825 852

6 Alwar 887 894 837 861 864 844

7 Bharatpur 879 882 864 863 867 840

8 Dhaulpur 860 863 839 854 858 837

9 Karauli 873 871 890 844 842 855

10 Sawai Madhopur 902 901 906 865 866 862

11 Dausa 906 908 880 859 861 842

12 Jaipur 899 911 884 859 865 852

13 Sikar 885 882 898 841 836 860

14 Nagaur 915 916 913 888 886 894

15 Jodhpur 920 926 902 890 889 895

16 Jaisalmer 869 870 860 868 868 871

17 Barmer 919 920 896 899 900 891

18 Jalore 921 922 910 891 891 888

19 Sirohi 918 931 847 890 895 859

20 Pali 925 927 914 895 899 876

21 Ajmer 922 930 906 893 898 883

22 Tonk 927 929 920 882 887 863

23 Bundi 912 916 888 886 886 887

24 Bhilwara 949 959 903 916 921 894

25 Rajsamand 936 939 911 891 893 880

26 Dungarpur 955 959 877 916 919 850

27 Banswara 962 967 868 925 928 863

28 Chittaurgarh 926 930 904 903 907 881

29 Kota 912 922 901 889 899 881

30 Baran 919 921 910 902 906 887

31 Jhalawar 934 941 885 905 909 888

32 Udaipur 947 957 879 920 927 872

33 Pratapgarh* 953 959 876 926 929 883



Table 33 : Total Literacy Rate by Residence in the districts of Rajasthan

according to the provisional results of Census 2011 (%)


India/Rajasthan/District Literacy Rate (Persons)

2001

Literacy Rate (Persons)

2011

Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban

INDIA 64.83 58.74 79.92 74.04 68.91 84.98

0 RAJASTHAN 60.41 55.34 76.20 67.06 62.34 80.73

1 Ganganagar 64.74 60.46 76.99 70.25 66.76 79.43

2 Hanumangarh 63.05 60.50 73.03 68.37 65.79 78.78

3 Bikaner 57.36 47.41 75.34 65.92 58.95 78.65

4 Churu 67.59 65.69 72.09 67.46 64.98 73.63

5 Jhunjhunun 73.04 72.72 74.24 74.72 73.95 77.33

6 Alwar 61.74 58.17 81.37 71.68 68.83 84.25

7 Bharatpur 63.58 60.79 74.49 71.16 68.87 80.19

8 Dhaulpur 60.13 58.59 66.80 70.14 69.20 73.64

9 Karauli 63.40 62.41 69.24 67.34 66.15 73.93

10 Sawai Madhopur 56.67 52.64 73.32 66.19 62.68 79.96

11 Dausa 61.81 60.11 76.03 69.17 67.43 81.04

12 Jaipur 69.90 62.15 77.46 76.44 68.43 83.48

13 Sikar 70.47 69.86 72.74 72.98 71.83 76.64

14 Nagaur 57.28 54.99 68.15 64.08 62.16 72.11

15 Jodhpur 56.67 46.21 75.54 67.09 59.79 80.23

16 Jaisalmer 50.97 46.78 73.00 58.04 54.61 78.91

17 Barmer 58.99 57.55 75.76 57.49 55.72 79.52

18 Jalor 46.49 44.81 66.18 55.58 54.05 71.97

19 Sirohi 53.94 48.51 77.60 56.02 49.77 79.24

20 Pali 54.39 49.95 70.23 63.23 59.21 76.78

21 Ajmer 64.68 52.72 81.26 70.46 60.22 85.05

22 Tonk 51.97 47.52 68.51 62.46 58.86 74.78

23 Bundi 55.57 51.37 73.11 62.31 58.13 78.67

24 Bhilwara 50.71 44.29 74.72 62.71 57.17 82.63

25 Rajsamand 55.73 51.95 79.69 63.93 60.23 82.71

26 Dungarpur 48.57 46.02 78.14 60.78 58.95 85.79

27 Banswara 45.54 42.07 84.27 57.20 54.78 86.58

28 Chittaurgarh 53.99 48.27 79.81 62.51 57.63 83.60

29 Kota 73.52 66.27 79.59 77.48 69.54 82.61

30 Baran 59.50 56.62 73.46 67.38 64.29 78.86

31 Jhalawar 57.32 53.55 79.33 62.13 58.24 81.82

32 Udaipur 59.77 53.05 85.48 62.74 55.85 88.45

33 Pratapgarh* 48.25 44.61 83.01 56.30 53.50 85.46



Table 34 : Birth and Death Rates in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in

descending order of value, Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 (2007-09)

State / District Crude Birth Rate (CBR) (Births per thousand mid-year

population)

State / District Crude Death Rate (CDR) (Deaths per

thousand mid-year population)

Barmer 32.5 Rajsamand 8.7

Banswara 30.8 Udaipur 8.2

Udaipur 29.9 Bundi 7.8

Dhaulpur 29.1 Jhalawar 7.8

Rajsamand 28.1 Banswara 7.7

Dungarpur 28.0 Tonk 7.6 Jalor 27.9 Bhilwara 7.5

Karauli 27.5 Jalor 7.4

Sawai Madhopur 27.4 Sawai Madhopur 7.4

Baran 25.7 Sirohi 6.9

Jhalawar 25.0 Baran 6.8

Bikaner 24.9 Pali 6.8 RAJASTHAN 24.7 Jaisalmer 6.7 Jaisalmer 24.2 Rajasthan 6.6

Sirohi 24.1 Dausa 6.6

Sikar 24.0 Dungarpur 6.5

Jodhpur 23.9 Nagaur 6.5

Ajmer 23.8 Ajmer 6.4

Bharatpur 23.8 Barmer 6.4

Bundi 23.7 Bikaner 6.4 Hanumangarh 23.6 Churu 6.3 Pali 23.5 Ganganagar 6.3 Churu 23.4 Hanumangarh 6.3 Nagaur 23.4 Jodhpur 6.3

Jhunjhunun 23.3 Karauli 6.2

Tonk 23.3 Sikar 6.1 Jaipur 23.1 Bharatpur 6.0

Alwar 22.9 Alwar 5.9

Ganganagar 22.7 Dhaulpur 5.9

Bhilwara 22.4 Jaipur 5.9 Dausa 22.4 Jhunjhunun 5.9

Kota 22.0 Chittaurgarh 5.7 Chittaurgarh 21.4 Kota 5.7



Table 35 : Child Mortality Rates per thousand live births in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in descending order of value, Annual Health Survey,

2010-11 (2007-09) State / District

Neonatal Mortality

Rate (NNMR)

State / District

Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)

State / District

Under Five Mortality

Rate (U5MR)

Jalor 58 Jalor 79 Banswara 99

Barmer 54 Barmer 72 Jalor 99

Bhilwara 48 Bhilwara 68 Rajsamand 89

Jhalawar 47 Karauli 68 Udaipur 88

Sawai Madhopur

46 Dungarpur 67 Dausa 87

Bundi 45 Sawai Madhopur

67 Dungarpur 87

Chittaurgarh 45 Bundi 65 Barmer 86

Karauli 44 Jhalawar 65 Bhilwara 85

Dungarpur 43 Rajsamand 65 Sirohi 85

Bharatpur 42 Dhaulpur 63 Alwar 82 Nagaur 42 Banswara 62 Jhalawar 82

Banswara 41 Baran 62 Sikar 82

Baran 41 Chittaurgarh 62 Bundi 81

Rajsamand 41 Sirohi 62 Karauli 80

Sirohi 41 Udaipur 62 Rajasthan 79

Rajasthan 40 Rajasthan 60 Baran 79

Udaipur 40 Ganganagar 60 Ganganagar 79

Ganganagar 39 Alwar 59 Jaisalmer 78

Jaipur 39 Nagaur 59 Pali 78 Jhunjhunun 39 Jaisalmer 58 Sawai

Madhopur 78

Pali 39 Ajmer 57 Ajmer 77

Bikaner 37 Dausa 57 Dhaulpur 77 Churu 36 Sikar 56 Bharatpur 75

Dhaulpur 36 Bharatpur 55 Chittaurgarh 75 Alwar 35 Churu 55 Nagaur 75

Hanumangarh 35 Jaipur 55 Jaipur 74

Jodhpur 35 Pali 55 Jhunjhunun 74

Ajmer 34 Bikaner 54 Hanumangarh 73 Dausa 33 Hanumangarh 54 Tonk 73

Tonk 33 Jhunjhunun 54 Bikaner 72

Sikar 32 Jodhpur 54 Jodhpur 71

Jaisalmer 30 Tonk 51 Churu 69

Kota 25 Kota 36 Kota 45



Table 36 : Indicators of sex composition in the Districts of Rajasthan arranged in descending order of value, Annual Health Survey, 2010-11

(2007-09) State / District Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB)

female births (per thousand male births)

State / District

Overall Sex Ratio (females per

thousand males) Bhilwara 968 Jalor 1055

Banswara 927 Rajsamand 1030

Tonk 925 Sirohi 1002

Baran 923 Dungarpur 1001

Barmer 922 Barmer 986

Jhunjhunun 914 Pali 983

Chittaurgarh 912 Udaipur 982

Jodhpur 909 Banswara 975

Bikaner 905 Churu 965

Bundi 894 Jhunjhunun 961 Churu 894 Sikar 960 Ganganagar 889 Bhilwara 952 Ajmer 887 Chittaurgarh 951 Sirohi 887 Ajmer 938

Pali 883 Baran 929

Alwar 882 Jhalawar 928

Jalor 882 Rajasthan 925 Rajasthan 878 Nagaur 922

Hanumangarh 874 Jodhpur 913

Dungarpur 872 Bikaner 911

Udaipur 870 Bundi 908 Bharatpur 865 Kota 906 Jhalawar 864 Tonk 905

Sikar 856 Dausa 889

Jaipur 846 Hanumangarh 883 Kota 846 Alwar 882

Nagaur 844 Ganganagar 882

Dausa 841 Jaipur 881 Jaisalmer 841 Bharatpur 874

Rajsamand 836 Sawai Madhopur

872

Karauli 830 Jaisalmer 851

Dhaulpur 820 Karauli 827

Sawai Madhopur 782 Dhaulpur 822 Source : Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, RGI, GoI


Table 37 : Selected Indicators of Annual Health Survey-Rajasthan, 2010-11 (2007-09)

Sl. No.

Indicator Unit Rajasthan Rajasthan’s Rank

among eight EAG

States

State-Highest/ Lowest

Division-Highest/ Lowest

District-Highest/ Lowest

1 Overall Sex Ratio

Females per thousand Males

925 7th Odisha/ Madhya Pradesh

Jalore/ Dhaulpur

2 Sex Ratio at Birth

Female birth per thousand male births

878 7th Chhatisgarh/ Uttarakhand

- Bhilwara/ Sawai

Madhopur 3 Crude

Birth Rate Births Per Thousand Mid-Year Population

24.7 4th Bihar/ Uttarkhand

- Barmer/ Chittorgarh

4 Crude Death Rate

Deaths Per Thousand Mid-Year Population

6.6 7th Uttar Pradesh/ Jharkhand

- Rajsamand/ Chittorgarh

5 IMR Infant deaths per thousand live births

60 4th Uttar Pradesh/ Jharkhand

- Jalore/ Kota

6 NNMR Neonatal deaths per thousand live births

40 4th Uttar Pradesh/ Jharkhand

- Jalore/ Kota

7 PNMR Post neonatal deaths per thousand live births

20 - - - Jaisalmer/ Kota

8 U5MR Under-five per thousand live births

79 4th Uttar Pradesh/ Uttarakhand

- Jalore/ Kota

9 MMRatio Maternal deaths per lakh live births

331 2nd Uttar Pradesh/ Uttarakhand

Udaipur/ Bharatpur

-

10 MMRate Maternal deaths Per lakh women 15-49 years

33 - - Udaipur/ Jaipur

-

11 Life Time Risk of Maternal Death

Percentage 1.15% - - - -



Table 38 : Profile of Rajasthan and India (Selected Indicators)

Sl. No.

Indicator Reference Period


I Rank in Human Development Index

2001 Planning Commission

Rank 15 states 9

II Rank in Human Development Index

2007-08 IAMR, Planning Commission

Rank 29 States (7 NE states

combined in ranking making the ranks 23)

17

III Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index

2011 UNDP Rank 19 states 13

IV Public expenditure as a share of GSDP

2004-05 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Percentage - 0.98

V Public expenditure as a share of State expenditure

2004-05 Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

Percentage - 3.90

1.00 Demographic

1.10 Area 1.3.2001 Census Lakh Sq. Km. 32.87 3.42

1.20 Divisions 2011 Census Number - 7

1.30 Districts 2011 Census Number 640 33

1.40 Villages 2011 Census Number 640867 44672

1.50 Population 2011 Census Crore 121.02 6.86

1.60 Decadal Growth Rate 2001-2011 Census Percentage 17.64 21.44

1.70 Percentage Urban 2011 Census Percentage 31.16 24.89

1.80 Net Migration Rate 1991-2001 Census Percentage - -0.08

1.90 Population Density 2011 Census Persons per Sq. Km. 382 201

1.10 Overall Sex Ratio 2011 Census Females per thousand Males

940 926

1.11 Child Sex Ratio 2011 Census Girls per thousand Boys

914 883

1.12 Sex Ratio at Birth 2007-09 SRS Female births per thousand male births

906 875

2.00 Health

2.10 Contraceptive Prevalence Rate (Any Method)

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 54.0 57.0

2.20 Crude Birth Rate 2009 SRS Per Thousand Mid-Year Population

22.5 27.2

2.30 Crude Death Rate 2009 SRS Per Thousand Mid-Year Population

7.3 6.6


Sl. No.



2.40 General Fertility Rate 2006-08 SRS Per thousand women 15-49 years

90.3 116.3

2.50 Gross Reproduction Rate 2009 SRS Average no of female children

1.2 1.6

2.60 Total Fertility Rate 2009 SRS Births per Woman

2.6 3.3

2.70 Total Marital Fertility Rate 2009 SRS

Births per Woman 4.4 4.4

2.80 Adolescent Fertility Rate

2009 SRS

Births per 1,000 women 15-19 years of age 38.5 43.4

2.90 Life Expectancy at Birth 2002-06 SRS Years 63.5 62 2.1.0 Child Health

2.1.1 Anaemia in Children (6-59 months) 2005-06 NFHS Percentage of any Anaemia

69.5 69.7

2.1.2 Neonatal Mortality Rate 2009 SRS Per Thousand live births

34 41

2.1.3 Post Neonatal Mortality Rate 2009 SRS Per Thousand live births

16 18

2.1.4 Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) 2010 SRS Per Thousand live births

47 55

2.1.5 Under Five Mortality Rate 2009 SRS Per Thousand live births

64 74

2.2.0 Maternal Health

2.2.1 Percentage of Institutional deliveries 2009 CES Percentage 72.9 70.4

2.2.2 Percentage of Skilled birth attendance

2009 CES Percentage 76.2 75.8

2.2.3 Ever-married women age 15-49 who are anaemic (%)

2005-06 NFHS Percentage 56.2 53.8

2.2.4 Pregnant women age 15-49 who are anaemic (%) 2005-06

NFHS Percentage

57.9 61.7 2.2.5 Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR)

2007-09 SRS Per lakh live births 212 318

2.2.6 Maternal Mortality Rate (MMRate)

2007-09 SRS

Per 1 lakh women 15-49 years 16.3 35.9

2.2.7 Lifetime Risk of Maternal Death

2007-09 SRS Percentage 0.6 1.2 3.00 Family Planning

3.10 Any Method

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 54.0 57.0 3.11 Any Modern Method

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 47.1 54.0 3.12 Female Sterilization

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 34.0 40.5 3.20 Male Sterilization

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 1.0 0.5


Sl. No.



3.30 IUD

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 4.2 3.2 3.40 Pill

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 1.9 1.4 3.50 Condom

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 5.9 8.3 3.60 Any Traditional Method

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 6.7 2.8 3.70 Rhythm/ Safe Period

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 4.6 1.7 3.80 Couple using spacing method for

more than 6 months 2007-08 DLHS Percentage 9.2 9.6 3.90 Ever used Emergency Contraceptive

Pills (ECP) 2007-08 DLHS Percentage 0.6 0.5 3.91 Total unmet Need for family

5planning 2007-08 DLHS Percentage 14.4 11.4 3.92 Unmet Need for Spacing

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 5.2 4.4 3.93 Unmet Need for Limiting

2007-08 DLHS Percentage 9.2 7.0 4.00 Poverty and Livelihood

4.10 Head Count Ratio (Percentage of Population below poverty line (Lakdawala Method)

2004-05 Planning Commission


4.20 Head Count Ratio (Percentage of Population below poverty line (Tendulkar Method)



4.30 Head Count Ratio (Percentage of Population below poverty line (Tendulkar Method)



4.40 Rural unemployment rate 2004-05 NSSO Per Thousand 39 31

4.50 Urban unemployment rate 2004-05 NSSO Per Thousand 60 41

5.00 Education

5.10 Total Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

74.04 67.06

5.20 Male Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

82.14 80.51

5.30 Female Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

65.46 52.66

5 Definition II: Unmet need for spacing includes fecund women who are neither pregnant nor amenorrhoeic, who are not using any method of family planning, and say they want to wait two or more years for their next birth. It also includes fecund women who are not using any method of family

planning, and say they are unsure whether they want another child or who want another child but are unsure when to have the birth. Unmet need for limiting includes fecund women who are neither pregnant nor amenorrhoeic, who are not using any method of family planning, and who want no more children (These definitions are similar to NFHS-3).


Sl. No.



5.40 Absolute difference between Male and Female literacy

2011 Census

Percentage 16.68 27.85 5.50 Net Enrolment Ratio for Primary 2009-10

DISE Percentage 98.28 89.6

6.00 Finance*

6.10

GDP at Current Prices* 2010-11 CSO,

MoSP&I

Rs. in trillion

71.57 3.24

6.20

GDP at Constant Prices* 2010-11 -do- Rs. in trillion 48.86 2.04

6.30

NDP at Current Prices* 2010-11 -do- Rs. in trillion 64.04 2.86

6.40

NDP at Constant Prices* 2010-11 -do- Rs. in trillion 43.21 1.78

6.50 GDP growth rate at constant prices* 2010-11

-do- Percentage 8.39 10.97

6.60

Per capita income at constant prices*

2010-11 -do-

In Rs. 35,993 26,436

6.70

GDP at Current Prices* 2011-12 CSO, & DES Rajasthan

Rs. in trillion 82.80

3.68

6.80

GDP at Constant Prices** 2011-12 -do- Rs. in trillion 52.22

2.15

6.90

NDP at Current Prices** 2011-12 -do- Rs. in trillion 74.11

3.25

6.91

NDP at Constant Prices** 2011-12 -do- Rs. in trillion 46.11

1.88

6.92

GDP growth rate at constant prices**

2011-12 -do-


6.93

Per capita income at constant prices**

2011-12 -do-

In Rs. 38,005 27,421

7.00 District Wise Variations

Range

7.10

Area 1.3.2001 Census

Sq. Km.

- Jaisalmer-38,401-

Dholpur-3,033

7.20

Population 2011 Census

Lakh

- Jaipur-66.64-

Jaisalmer-6.72

7.30

Decadal Growth Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

- Barmer-32.55-

Ganganagar-10.06

7.40

Population Density 2011 Census Persons per Sq. Km.

- Jaipur-598-Jaisalmer-17

7.50

Total Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

- Kota-77.48-Jalore-55.58

7.60

Male Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage

Jhunjhunun-87.88-

Pratapgarh-


Sl. No.



70.13

7.70 Female Literacy Rate 2011 Census

Percentage Kota-66.32-

Jalor-38.73

7.80 Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) 2007-09 AHS Per Thousand

live births - Jalore-79-

Kota-36

Sources : CSO,MoSP&I, Planning Commission, Census, SRS, NFHS, DISE, DLHS, AHS, NSSO, CES, DES Rajasthan *Quick estimates for 2010-11, **Advance Estimates for 2011-12, Constant : 2004-05 prices

Table 39 : Estimated Number and Percentage of Live births, Infant and maternal deaths in India and EAG States, 2009

India and EAG States

IMR MMR

Infant mortality

rate, SRS,

20096

CBR, SRS

20097

Projected Population of 1st July 2009, RGI

Estimated live births based on Projected

Population of 1st July

2009

Estimated Number of infant deaths

Percentage of infant deaths in the

country

SRS-MMR-2007-098

Estimated Number

of Maternal Deaths

Percentage of

maternal deaths in the

country (%)

National 50 22.5 1166228000 26240130 1,312,007 100.00 212 55629 100.00

Uttar Pradesh9

63 28.7 194948000 5595008 352,485 26.87 359 20772 37.34

Bihar10 52 28.5 95496000 2721636 141,525 10.79 261 9158 16.46

Madhya Pradesh11

67 27.7 70288000 1946978 130,447 9.94 269 6877 12.36

Rajasthan 59 27.2 66026000 1795907 105,959 8.08 318 5711 10.27

Orissa 65 21.0 40149000 843129 54,803 4.18 258 2175 3.91

Uttarakhand 41 19.7 9705000 191189 7,839 0.60

Chhatisgarh 54 25.7 23712000 609398 32,908 2.51

Jharkhand 44 25.6 30756000 787354 34,644 2.64

Total for all India 1166228000 26240130 1,312,007

55,629

Total for 8 EAG states 531,080,000 14,490,598 860,610

44,694

% of 8 EAG States out of India Total

46 55 66

80

Sources : SRS, Census. Author’s estimations

6 Infant deaths Per thousand live births 7 Births Per thousand mid-year population 8 Maternal deaths Per lakh live births 9 For MMR, Uttar Pradesh includes Uttarakhand 10 For MMR, Bihar includes Jharkhand 11 For MMR, Madhya Pradesh includes Chhatisgarh


Table 40 : Status of Selected MDG indicators for Rajasthan

Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs)

Available

Indicator

Base Year Base Value Target Current

Indicator

Value

Unit Source Reference

Period for

current

value

Goals and Targets

(from the

Millennium

Declaration)

Indicators for

monitoring

progress

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and

hunger

Target 1.A: Halve,

between 1990 and 2015,

the proportion of people

whose income is less

than one dollar a day

1.1 Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per dayi

1.2 Poverty gap ratio

1.3 Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

Head Count

Ratio

1993-94

(Lakdawala

Method)

-

-

27.4

-

-

13.7

-

-

24.8

(Tendulkar

Method)

-

-

Per cent Plannin

g

Commi

ssion

2009-10

Target 1.C: Halve,

between 1990 and 2015,

the proportion of

people who suffer from

hunger

1.4 Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age

Prevalence of

underweight

children

under-five

years of age

1998-99 46.7 23.35 40.0 Per cent NFHS 2005-06

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary

education

Target 2.A: Ensure that,

by 2015, children

everywhere, boys and

girls alike, will be able to

complete a full course of

primary schooling

2.1 Net enrolment ratio in primary education

2.2 Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last grade of primary

2.3 Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

Net

enrolment

ratio in

primary

education

Literacy rate

of 15-24 year-

olds, women

and men

1991

0.33

100.0

97.1

0.55

Per cent

Per cent

DISE

Census

2009-10

2001

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and

empower women

Target 3.A: Eliminate

gender disparity in

primary and secondary

education, preferably by

2005, and in all levels of

3.1 Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education

Gender Parity

Index in

Primary

- - 1.0

1.0

0.95

0.58

Ratio “Select

ed

Educat

ion

2007-08



(MDGs)

Available

Indicator


Indicator

Value


Period for

current

value

education no later than

2015

Secondary

tertiary

education

1.0 0.73 Statisti

cs”,

Minist

ry of

Huma

n

Resour

ce

Develo

pment,

Gover

nment

of

India

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 4.A: Reduce by

two-thirds, between

1990 and 2015, the

under-five mortality rate

4.1 Under-five mortality rate

4.2 Infant mortality rate

4.3 Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised against measles

Under-five

mortality rate

Infant

mortality rate

Proportion of

1 year-old

children

immunised

against

measles

1991

1990

-

110

84

-

37

29

-

74

55

65.6

Under

five

deaths

per

thousan

d live

births

Infant

deaths

per

thousan

d live

births

Per cent

SRS

SRS

CES

2009

2010

2009

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5.A: Reduce by

three quarters, between

1990 and 2015, the

maternal mortality ratio

5.1 Maternal mortality ratio

5.2 Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel

Maternal

mortality

ratio

Proportion of

births

attended by

skilled health

personnel

1997-98

1988-89

508

21.8

127

318

75.8

Matern

al

deaths

per

thousan

d live

births

Per cent

SRS

CES

2007-09

2009

Target 5.B: Achieve, by

2015, universal access to

reproductive health

5.3 Contraceptive prevalence rate

5.4 Adolescent birth rate

Contraceptive

prevalence

rate

Adolescent

-

-

-

-

-

-

58

43.4

Per cent

Per

thousan

d

women

DLHS

SRS

2007-08

2009



(MDGs)

Available

Indicator


Indicator

Value


Period for

current

value

5.5 Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least four visits)

5.6 Unmet need for family planning

birth rate

Antenatal

care coverage

(1 visit)

Antenatal

care coverage

(2 visit)

Antenatal

care coverage

(3+ visit)

Unmet need

for family

planning

-

-

-

-

7.4

21.1

27.6

17.9

15-19

years of

age

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

Per cent

DLHS

DLHS

DLHS

DLHS

2007-08

2007-08

2007-08

2007-08

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and

other diseases

Target 6.A: Have halted

by 2015 and begun to

reverse the spread of

HIV/AIDS

6.1 HIV prevalence among population aged 15-24 years

6.2 Condom use at

last high-risk

sex

6.3 Proportion of

population aged

15-24 years with

comprehensive

correct

knowledge of

HIV/AIDS

HIV

prevalence

among ANC

attendees, 15-

24 years

Condom use

during last

sex with non-

regular

partner

Proportion of

population

aged 15-24

years with

comprehensiv

e correct

knowledge of

HIV/AIDS

- - - 0.22

56.5

27.9

Annual

Sentine

l

Surveill

ance,

NACO,

MoHF

W,

Govt. of

India

BSS

BSS

2007

2006

2006

Goal 7: Ensure environmental

sustainability



(MDGs)

Available

Indicator


Indicator

Value


Period for

current

value

Target 7.A: Integrate the

principles of sustainable

development into

country policies and

programmes and reverse

the loss of

environmental resources

Target 7.B: Reduce

biodiversity loss,

achieving, by 2010, a

significant reduction in

the rate of loss

7.1 Proportion of land area covered by forest

Proportion of

land area

covered by

forest

- - - 4.69 Per cent India

State of

the

Forest

Report

2007

Target 7.C: Halve, by

2015, the proportion of

people without

sustainable access to safe

drinking water and basic

sanitation

7.2 Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source

7.3 Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility

Proportion of

population

using an

improved

drinking

water source

Proportion of

population

using an

improved

sanitation

facility

- - - 82.8

25.1

Per cent

Per cent

DLHS-

3

DLHS-

3

2007-08

2007-08

Target 7.D: By 2020, to

have achieved a

significant improvement

in the lives of at least 100

million slum dwellers

7.4 Proportion of urban population living in slumsii

Proportion of

urban

population

living in

slumsiii

- - - 9.8 Per cent Census 2001

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Target 8.F: In

cooperation with the

private sector, make

available the benefits of

new technologies,

especially information

and communications

8.1 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants

8.2 Mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

8.3 Internet users per 100 inhabitants

Fixed

telephone

lines per 100

inhabitants

Internet users

per 100

inhabitants

-

-

-

-

-

-

57.92

1.05

Telepho

ne lines

per 100

inhabita

nts

Internet

users

per 100

inhabita

nts

Reports

of

Teleco

m

Regulat

ory

Authori

ty of

India

(TRAI)

-do-

2010 (as on

Sep 30,

2010)

2010 (as on

Sep 30,

2010)

The Millennium Development Goals and targets come from the Millennium Declaration, signed by 189 countries, including 147

heads of State and Government, in September 2000 (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm) and from further

agreement by member states at the 2005 World Summit (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - A/RES/60/1,


http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/60/1). The goals and targets are interrelated and should be seen as a

whole. They represent a partnership between the developed countries and the developing countries “to create an environment – at

the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and the elimination of poverty”.


Official list of MDG indicators All indicators should be disaggregated by sex and urban/rural as far as possible.

Effective 15 January 2008

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

Goals and Targets (from the Millennium Declaration)

Indicators for monitoring progress

Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Target 1.A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the

proportion of people whose income is less than one

dollar a day

1.5 Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per dayiv 1.6 Poverty gap ratio 1.7 Share of poorest quintile in national consumption

Target 1.B: Achieve full and productive employment

and decent work for all, including women and young

people

1.8 Growth rate of GDP per person employed 1.9 Employment-to-population ratio 1.10 Proportion of employed people living below $1 (PPP)

per day 1.11 Proportion of own-account and contributing family

workers in total employment

Target 1.C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the

proportion of

people who suffer from hunger

1.12 Prevalence of underweight children under-five years of age

1.13 Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption

Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education

Target 2.A: Ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere,

boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full

course of primary schooling

2.4 Net enrolment ratio in primary education 2.5 Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach last

grade of primary 2.6 Literacy rate of 15-24 year-olds, women and men

Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Target 3.A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and

secondary education, preferably by 2005, and in all

levels of education no later than 2015

3.2 Ratios of girls to boys in primary, secondary and tertiary education

3.3 Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector

3.4 Proportion of seats held by women in national parliament

Goal 4: Reduce child mortality

Target 4.A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and

2015, the under-five mortality rate

4.4 Under-five mortality rate 4.5 Infant mortality rate 4.6 Proportion of 1 year-old children immunised against

measles

Goal 5: Improve maternal health

Target 5.A: Reduce by three quarters, between 1990

and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio

5.7 Maternal mortality ratio 5.8 Proportion of births attended by skilled health

personnel

Target 5.B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to

reproductive health

5.9 Contraceptive prevalence rate 5.10 Adolescent birth rate 5.11 Antenatal care coverage (at least one visit and at least

four visits) 5.12 Unmet need for family planning

Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Target 6.A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse

the spread of HIV/AIDS

6.4 HIV prevalence among population aged 15-24 years

6.5 Condom use at last high-risk sex

6.6 Proportion of population aged 15-24 years with

comprehensive correct knowledge of HIV/AIDS

6.7 Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school

attendance of non-orphans aged 10-14 years





Target 6.B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to

treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it

6.8 Proportion of population with advanced HIV infection with access to antiretroviral drugs

Target 6.C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse

the incidence of malaria and other major diseases

6.9 Incidence and death rates associated with malaria 6.10 Proportion of children under 5 sleeping under

insecticide-treated bednets 6.11 Proportion of children under 5 with fever who are

treated with appropriate anti-malarial drugs 6.12 Incidence, prevalence and death rates associated

with tuberculosis 6.13 Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured

under directly observed treatment short course

Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable

development into country policies and programmes

and reverse the loss of environmental resources

Target 7.B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by

2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss

7.5 Proportion of land area covered by forest 7.6 CO2 emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) 7.7 Consumption of ozone-depleting substances 7.8 Proportion of fish stocks within safe biological limits 7.9 Proportion of total water resources used 7.10 Proportion of terrestrial and marine areas protected 7.11 Proportion of species threatened with extinction

Target 7.C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people

without sustainable access to safe drinking water and

basic sanitation

7.12 Proportion of population using an improved drinking water source

7.13 Proportion of population using an improved sanitation facility

Target 7.D: By 2020, to have achieved a significant

improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum

dwellers

7.14 Proportion of urban population living in slumsv

Goal 8: Develop a global partnership for development

Target 8.A: Develop further an open, rule-based,

predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial

system

Includes a commitment to good governance,

development and poverty reduction – both nationally

and internationally

Target 8.B: Address the special needs of the least

developed countries

Some of the indicators listed below are monitored

separately for the least developed countries (LDCs), Africa,

landlocked developing countries and small island

developing States.

Official development assistance (ODA)

8.4 Net ODA, total and to the least developed countries, as percentage of OECD/DAC donors’ gross national income

8.5 Proportion of total bilateral, sector-allocable ODA of OECD/DAC donors to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water





Includes: tariff and quota free access for the least

developed countries' exports; enhanced programme of

debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC)

and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more

generous ODA for countries committed to poverty

reduction

Target 8.C: Address the special needs of landlocked

developing countries and small island developing

States (through the Programme of Action for the

Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing

States and the outcome of the twenty-second special

session of the General Assembly)

Target 8.D: Deal comprehensively with the debt

problems of developing countries through national and

international measures in order to make debt

sustainable in the long term

and sanitation) 8.6 Proportion of bilateral official development assistance

of OECD/DAC donors that is untied 8.7 ODA received in landlocked developing countries as a

proportion of their gross national incomes 8.8 ODA received in small island developing States as a

proportion of their gross national incomes Market access

8.9 Proportion of total developed country imports (by value and excluding arms) from developing countries and least developed countries, admitted free of duty

8.10 Average tariffs imposed by developed countries on agricultural products and textiles and clothing from developing countries

8.11 Agricultural support estimate for OECD countries as a percentage of their gross domestic product

8.12 Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity

Debt sustainability

8.13 Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their HIPC completion points (cumulative)

8.14 Debt relief committed under HIPC and MDRI Initiatives

8.15 Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services

Target 8.E: In cooperation with pharmaceutical

companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs

in developing countries

8.16 Proportion of population with access to affordable essential drugs on a sustainable basis

Target 8.F: In cooperation with the private sector,

make available the benefits of new technologies,

especially information and communications

8.17Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants 8.18 Mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 8.19 Internet users per 100 inhabitants

The Millennium Development Goals and targets come from the Millennium Declaration, signed by 189 countries, including 147 heads of State and Government, in September 2000 (http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm) and from further agreement by member states at the 2005 World Summit (Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - A/RES/60/1, http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=A/RES/60/1). The goals and targets are interrelated and should be seen as a whole. They represent a partnership between the developed countries and the developing countries “to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and the elimination of poverty”.


Background Note on the Annual Health Survey, Rajasthan

The Annual Health Survey was conceived during a meeting of the National Commission of Population held in 2005 under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister wherein it was decided that "there should be an Annual Health Survey of all districts which could be published / monitored and compared against benchmarks". The objective was to monitor the performance and outcome of various health interventions of the Government including those under NRHM at closer intervals through these benchmark indicators. The main features of this survey are as follows:

1. AHS is the largest demographic survey in the world and is two and half times that of the Sample Registration System.

2. 284 districts in 8 EAG states (Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Rajasthan) and Assam for a three year period during XI Five Year Plan period.

3. Sample size of about 18 million population and 3.6 million households in the nine states and 17.84 lakh population in Rajasthan were covered

4. Conducted by RGI on behalf of MoHFW 5. Four schedules: (i) House-listing Schedule, (ii) Household Schedule, (iii) Woman

Schedule and (iv) Mortality Schedule. 6. In addition to the background information, the following issues were covered are

Disability, Morbidity (Injuries, Acute illness, Chronic illness) and Personal habits (like Chewing, Smoking and consumption of Alcohol).

7. Woman Schedule has two sections. a. Section-I was administered to each and every ever married woman and

information relating to the outcome of pregnancy(s) (live birth/still birth/abortion), birth history, type of medical attention at delivery, details of maternal health care (ante natal/natal/post natal), immunization of children, breast feeding practices including supplements, occurrence of child diseases (Pneumonia, Diarrhoea and fever), registration of births, etc.

b. Section II focused on information on pregnancy; use, sources and practices of family planning methods; details relating to future and unmet need, awareness about RTI/STI, HIV/AIDS, administration of HAF/ORT/ORS during diarrhoea and danger signs of ARI/Pneumonia from Currently Married Woman.

8. The reference period is 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2009 9. The first set of data is being released in the form of a State-wise bulletin, which contains

the district level data on : 1. crude birth rate 2. crude death rate 3. natural growth rate 4. infant mortality rate 5. neo-natal 6. post neonatal mortality rate 7. under 5 mortality rate 8. sex ratio at birth 9. sex ratio (0-4 years) and 10. overall sex ratio

The data on all other parameters covered under AHS would be released subsequently in the form of district level factsheets.


The district-wise sample is as follows:

Table 41 : District-Wise Sample of Annual Health Survey, 2010-11 for

Rajasthan

District

Number of Sample Units

Population (in '000')

Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Rajasthan 1,841 1,294 547 1,784 1,483 301

1 Ganganagar 88 57 31 63 46 17 2 Hanumangarh 58 42 16 56 49 7 3 Bikaner 57 31 26 45 32 13 4 Churu 51 32 19 51 41 10 5 Jhunjhunun 84 60 24 102 87 15 6 Alwar 61 48 13 62 55 7 7 Bharatpur 76 55 21 78 68 10 8 Dhaulpur 42 31 11 43 34 9 9 Karauli 32 25 7 35 30 5 10 Sawai Madhopur 34 25 9 33 27 6 11 Dausa 45 38 7 53 49 4 12 Jaipur 82 33 49 65 36 29 13 Sikar 81 58 23 84 72 12 14 Nagaur 66 50 16 74 66 8 15 Jodhpur 66 37 29 64 50 14 16 Jaisalmer 48 37 11 39 32 7 17 Barmer 57 50 7 53 49 4 18 Jalor 56 49 7 68 64 4 19 Sirohi 52 39 13 54 49 5 20 Pali 64 45 19 70 59 11 21 Ajmer 69 34 35 61 43 18 22 Tonk 55 39 16 62 51 11 23 Bundi 56 41 15 50 40 10 24 Bhilwara 41 29 12 35 30 5 25 Rajsamand 38 31 7 43 37 6 26 Udaipur 42 31 11 36 29 7 27 Dungarpur 64 57 7 77 73 4 28 Banswara 44 39 5 49 47 2 29 Chittaurgarh 56 43 13 45 38 7 30 Kota 68 25 43 43 23 20 31 Baran 52 39 13 46 39 7 32 Jhalawar 56 44 12 45 38 7

Source : Bulletin of the Annual Health Survey, 2010-11, Rajasthan


D E F I N I T I O N S

Demography : The term DEMOGRAPHY is derived from the Greek word ‘demos’ meaning human being. Demography in narrow terms is defined as ‘ the scientific study of populations’ primarily with respect to their size, their structure and their development (Van de Walle, 1982). In the wider perspective, demography overlaps with a number of other disciplines such as economics, sociology, social psychology, law, political science and reproductive physiology (Bogue, 1969; UN, 1958)

Live birth : Live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached; each product of such a birth is considered liveborn.

Stillbirth : A stillbirth occurs when a fetus which has died, in the uterus or during labor or delivery, exits a woman's body.

Death : Death is the termination of the biological functions that define a living organism. It refers to both a particular event and to the condition that result thereby.

Fertility: It is the production of a live birth

Gravidity : The number of pregnancies a woman has had whether or not they produce a live birth

Fecundity : Physiological capacity to conceive (Reproductive Potential)

Infecundity: Inability of a woman to conceive a pregnancy

-Primary Sterility : Never able to conceive a pregnancy

-Secondary Sterility : Inability to conceive after one or more children have been born

Fecundability : Probability that a woman will conceive during a menstrual cycle

Children Surviving (CS): The total number of children, which a woman has both as live births and they are still alive is called the number of children surviving in certain situation, children alive but they do not stay with the woman (mother), must be counted in the number of children surviving to a woman.

Children Ever Born (CEB): This is a cohort measure of fertility. CEB is the total number of children a woman has born till the date of survey. This also includes those children, which a woman has, born as live births but they died (CD) at any time later. Therefore, CEB = CS + CD.

Parity : It refers to the number of birth a woman has had i.e., if a woman has not given any birth she is referred as zero-parity woman. Therefore, a woman who has n number of births is called n-parity woman.


Birth Order: This refers to live birth a woman has had i.e., if a woman has two births the order of the last birth will be second. Therefore, Birth Order starts with one whereas, Parity starts from zero. Symbolically, to analyse the nth order birth, woman with (n-1)th the parity should be considered.

Parity : 0 1 2… n-1

Birth Order: 1 2 3… n

Total Fertility Rate (TFR) : The average number of children that would be born to a woman by the time she ended child bearing if she were to pass through all her child bearing years conforming to the age specific fertility rates of a given year.

Gross Reproduction Rate : This refers to the average number of daughters that would be born to a woman (or a group of women) if she survived at least to the end of the reproductive life span and conformed to the age-specific fertility rate of a given year. It is often regarded as the extent to which the generation of daughters replaces the preceding generation of females. This rate is similar to the net reproduction rate but it ignores the fact that some women will die before completing their childbearing years. The GRR is particularly relevant where sex ratios are significantly affected by the use of reproductive technologies.

Crude Birth Rate (CBR) : Crude Birth Rate can be defined as the number of live births per 1,000 mid-year Population in a given year.

Crude Death Rate (CDR) : Crude Death Rate can be defined as the number of deaths per 1,000 mid-year Population in a given year.

Infant Mortality Rate : Infant Mortality Rate can be defined as the number of deaths of infants under age 1 per year per 1,000 live births in the same year. It is composed of neonatal and a post-neonatal period.

Under-Five Mortality Rate : It is the probability of deaths under five years of age per year per 1,000 live births in the same year.

Maternal Death : In the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, 1992 (ICD-10), WHO defines maternal death as “The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes”.

Maternal Mortality Rate : It is computed as the number of women who die as a result of complications of pregnancy or child bearing in a given year per 100,000 women of childbearing age in the population in that year. It represents both the obstetric risk and the frequency with which women are exposed to this risk.

Maternal Mortality Ratio: It is computed as the number of women who die as a result of complications of pregnancy or child bearing in a given year per 100,000 live births in that year.


Formula for Linear, Geometric and Exponential methods of population Projections

Selected Methods

• Linear : Pt = P0 ( 1 + rt)

• Geometric : Pt = P0 ( 1 + r)t

• Exponential : Pt = P0 ert

Where:

P0 : Population at the initial

time 0

Pt: Population at time t

r : annual growth rate

t : time difference in years

e : base of the natural

logarithm

Growth Rates

• Linear GR : r = (((Pt-P0)/t)/P0) * 100

• Geometric GR : r = (((Pt /P0)^ (1/t)-1) * 100

• Exponential GR : r = ((ln (Pt /P0)/t) * 100

Where:

P0 : Population at

the initial time 0

Pt: Population at

time t

r : annual growth

rate

t : time difference in

years

ln : Logarithm to

base e


i For monitoring country poverty trends, indicators based on national poverty lines should be used, where available.

ii The actual proportion of people living in slums is measured by a proxy, represented by the urban population living in households with at least one of the four characteristics: (a) lack of access to improved water supply; (b) lack of access to improved sanitation; (c) overcrowding (3 or more persons per room); and (d) dwellings made of non-durable material. iii The actual proportion of people living in slums is measured by a proxy, represented by the urban population living in households with at least one of the four characteristics: (a) lack of access to improved water supply; (b) lack of access to improved sanitation; (c) overcrowding (3 or more persons per room); and (d) dwellings made of non-durable material. iv For monitoring country poverty trends, indicators based on national poverty lines should be used, where available. v The actual proportion of people living in slums is measured by a proxy, represented by the urban population living in households with at least one of the four characteristics: (a) lack of access to improved water supply; (b) lack of access to improved sanitation; (c) overcrowding (3 or more persons per room); and (d) dwellings made of non-durable material.

Percentage Share of Population of districts in Rajasthan, 2011

Ajmer, 3.8

Alwar, 5.4

Banswara, 2.6

Baran, 1.8

Barmer, 3.8

Bharatpur, 3.7

Bhilwara, 3.5

Bikaner, 3.5

Bundi, 1.6

Chittaurgarh, 2.3

Churu, 3.0

Dausa, 2.4

Dhaulpur, 1.8

Dungarpur, 2.0

Ganganagar, 2.9

Hanumangarh, 2.6Jaipur, 9.7

Jaisalmer, 1.0

Jalor, 2.7

Jhalawar, 2.1

Jhunjhunun, 3.1

Jodhpur, 5.4

Karauli, 2.1

Kota, 2.8

Nagaur, 4.8

Pali, 3.0

Pratapgarh*, 1.3

Rajsamand, 1.7

S.Madhopur, 2.0

Sikar, 3.9

Sirohi, 1.5Tonk, 2.1

Udaipur, 4.5


the demographic & health scenario of rajasthan...

Documents