Uneven Development – Historical perspective and evidence
Agriculture Development Chronology:-
- Mehrgarh in the Kachhi plain (now in Pakistan) experienced early agricultural activities before 6,000 B.C
- Indus region experienced it in the 4000-3000 B.C
- Gangetic valley saw the advent of agriculture at Koldihwa (U.P) in 5000 B.C., at Chirand (Bihar) in the second half of the 3rd millennium B.C
- Atranjikhera (in the Doab) in the first half of the 2nd millennium B.C
In the Ganga valley, however, the beginning of full-fledged, settled agricultural activity, farming villages and the other associated traits like the emergence of towns, trade and the state system go back to the middle of the first millennium B.C.
River basins of the Ganga, Godavari, Krishna and Kaveri agricultural communities flourished and came forward the civilizational process. At the same time, however, large pockets in areas such as Assam, Bengal, Orissa, Gujarat and Central India, being relatively isolated or isolated regions, remained for a long time in a stage of primitive economy, largely untouched by any such development. Finally, when the transition to the historical period took place in some of the relatively isolated regions there was not only a time gap but also perceptible differences in the nature and formation of the regions.
Uneven Patterns of the emergence of Historical Regions- Geography Shaping the cultures :-
- The uneven development of regions can be demonstrated through interesting historical situations.For example in the second half of the third millennium B.C. one encounters mesolithic cultures in Gujarat and at the same time neolithic cattle-keepers were traversing the landscape of the Deccan. What is striking is that the mature, advanced Harappan civilization coexisted with these cultures in other regions.
- Consequently there is evidence for interaction between cultures and regions at different levels of growth. Such tendencies have persisted all through Indian history. To put it differently, while the Indus and Saraswati basins were colonized in the third millennium B.C., the first large scale agricultural communities of the Deccan,Andhra, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Gujarat belong essentially to the Iron Age, and can be placed in the second half of the first millennium B.C.
Ceramic Evidence /Pottery , helping classify cultures :-
- Ochre-Coloured Pottery Ware (OCP) -earlier then 1000 B.C
- Black and Red Ware (BRW) – 1000 -800 B.C.
- Painted Grey Ware (PGW) – between 800-400 B.C.
- Northern Black Polished (NBP) Ware – between 500-100 B.C
OCP,BRW & PGW basically encountered in the Indo-Gangetic divide and the upper Ganga valley, including the Doab .
NBP has its centre of origin in the middle Gangetic plain and spread out into Central India and the Deccan during the Mauryan period.
The The distribution of pottery types gives us some idea of the territorial limits of a culture and the stages of its expansion. The Indo-Gangetic divide and upper Ganga basin experienced, the emergence of a new cultural pattern first in the second half of the second millennium B.C. and then there was a gradual eastward spread which, during the Mauryan period, seems to have gone beyond the Gangetic heart land.
Literary Evidence of Cultural pattern:-
- The geographical focus of the Rig Vedic period was the Saptasindhu (land of the Indus and its tributaries) and Indo-Gangetic divide. In the Later Vedic period the Doab became the epicentre and in the Age of the Buddha the middle Gangetic valley (Kosala and Magadha) came into prominence.
- The term Rastra in the sense of territory came into use in the Later Vedic period and we see the rise of small monarchies and states in areas suchas Kuru and Panchala.
- In the Age of the Buddha (6th century B.C.) the sixteen Mahajanapadas (large territorial kingdoms) emerged
- With the exception of Gandhara in the North-West, Avanti in Malwa and Asmaka in the Deccan the Mahajanaopadas were mostly concentrated in the upper and middle Gangetic valley.
- Regions such as Kalinga (ancient coastal Orissa), Andhra, Vanga (ancient Bengal), Rajasthan and Gujarat find no mention in literature focusing on that period, suggesting thereby that they were pt to emerge on the historical stage .
- Kingdoms to the south of the Vindhyas like Kalinga were mentioned for the first time by Panini in the 5th (century B.C.)
The emergence and formation of the various regions, therefore, was a long drawn out process. “Hence it is not surprising that this difference in the technology and socio-economic development of the various regions should have been at the root of the later cultural divergences.
Q:-Why we have good deal of evidence of Chalcolithic culture but have poor evidence of Neolithic culture.Also mention where and how these cultures flourish ? Compare and contrast their similarities and dissimilarities.
Answers:-
Chalcolithic culture have good deal of evidence becuase:-
- The culture developed around a sedentary agricultural community.
- Confinement people to a particular region leaves longer and greater trace of their activities.
- Pockets of chalcolithic cultures makes it easier to decipher than deciphering ever moving pastoralists.
- Sedentary life style gave enough leisure for the community to engage in creative activities , thus emergence of Painter pottery , common and peculiar (unidirectional) burial ground etc.
- They used both stone and copper tools , thus making their mark profound.
- Sites:- Daimabad(Maharashtra) (situated on the left bank of the Pravara River )
Different Chalcolithic culture:-
-
Ahara Culture: The sites of Ahar Culture were Aahar (Rajasthan), balathal, Gilund etc. The distinctive feature is black and red ware.
-
Kayatha Culture: Located in Chambal and its tributaries, the sturdy red slipped ware with chocolate designs is main feature.
-
Malwa Culture: Narmada & its tributaries in Gujarat. One of the largest Chalcolithic settlements
- Prabhas & Rangpur Culture: Both of them are derived from the Harappa culture. The polished red ware is the hall mark of this culture
-
Svalda Culture: The well-known sites are in Dhulia district of Maharashtra.
Neolithic Culture have poor evidence because :-
- Neolithic phase was a transition phase from Paleolithic hunting-gathering to neolithic Food-producing.Most remained Pastoralist while few became agriculturalist.Being a transition phase it had mixture of both.
- They moved from place to place in search of pasture land.
- They only used stone as tools , so leaving no distinctive mark.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)