INFRASTRUCTURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING...

80

CHAPTER VI

INFRASTRUCTURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING STATUS Indian town and cities are struggling with serious challenges such as congestion,

increasing incidence of urban poverty, inadequate access to shelter and basic services, squatter

settlement with overall deterioration in quality of life, despite having impacts of globalization

in recent years. The inadequacy of infrastructure restricts the mission of sustainability of town

and cities consequently experiences very low quality of life. This chapter deals with the

existing situation of infrastructure in the towns and cities of Murshidabad district of West

Bengal in particular as an epitome of Indian cities and towns of same size. Unprecedented

population growth made it difficult for civic institution to maintain pace, expand and augment

the supply of utility infrastructure and also social infrastructure. There is a growing concern

about how to make our cities safe and sustainable. Keeping these facts in mind an attempt has

been made in this chapter to evaluate the existing status of infrastructure like water, sanitation

and waste management, road and transportation, power supply, education and health facilities

of the city and towns of Murshidabad district of West Bengal. Assessment of the status of

infrastructure has been made on the basis of selected indicators. This chapter also aims at

formulating composite infrastructure index (CII) for the cities and towns of the district which

has then meaningfully been applied to unravel the variations in the level of infrastructural

facilities among the towns of Murshidabad.

6.1 METHODOLOGY FOR FORMULATION OF COMPOSITE

INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX (CIICIICIICII)

In this study the researcher has selected definite indicators covering six sector of

urban infrastructure like water supply, sewerage and waste management, road and

transportation, power supply, education, health.

In order to capture as far as possible the actual situation, researcher has used different

indicators for each of the six sectors of infrastructure. For example in order to assess the

infrastructure related to water supply facilities a set of parameters have been used. Then each

of these indicators or parameters selected for an infrastructure sector is defined as a dimension

with the value between 0 and 1 with reference to maximum and minimum value among them.

81

The general formula for calculating dimension value is transformed by using equation of the

form:

Dimension Value =Actual Value – Minimum value/Maximum value – Minimum Value

In this way researcher has calculated the dimension value for all the indicators covering

six sector of infrastructure (of which four are physical infrastructure such as water supply, road

transportation, power supply and sewerage and sanitation and two are social infrastructure i.e

educational facilities and health facilities) for all the towns for 1971 and 2001 census.

Following the practice adopted in the calculation of the Human Development Index (HDI),

researcher has taken the simple arithmetic mean of the dimension values of the selected

indicators of the relevant infrastructure sector (e.g. water, road and transportation) for each

town to construct Composite Dimension Index (CDI).

The towns of the district in the respective census years have been ranked on the basis

of composite dimension index from lowest to highest i.e. lowest rank has been given to that

town which has the minimum composite dimension index and highest rank to the town having

the maximum of it.

In the final step, the calculation of Composite Infrastructure Index (CII) involved a

very simple procedure. We have taken the simple arithmetic mean of the rank of CDI of all the

six sector selected for study for each town.

��

��

��

Where CII = Composite Infrastructure Index VR = Rank of variable i i = Composite Dimension Index (CDI) N = Total number of indicators.

6.2 STATUS OF URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE GOVERNANCE:

ISSUES IN INDIA.

Till 1992, Urban Local Bodies (ULB) were creatures of the State legislations following

the provision in the “Directive principle” of the constitution of India. This resulted in

heterogeneity in the municipal legislations and administration in various parts of the country.

The ULBs had no constitutional footing and therefore were left to mercy of the state

legislatures. The recommendations of the National Commission on Urbanization and growing

consciousness to the fact that the lion’s share of G.D.P. of the country is the contribution of the

urban areas and they are really in a mess, led the Government of India to constitute a

82

Parliamentary Standing Committee based on whose recommendations came up 74th

constitutional amendment act (CAA) which marked a turning point in the history of urban

administration in India (Balacharan.G,2002) The amendment provides some fundamental

changes in the system of municipal governance. Firstly, it mandates that where a local

government is dissolved, it shall be reconstituted by holding elections with six months.

Secondly a framework is provided for earmarking functions for municipalities through the 12th

schedule. Thirdly, the states are required to set up Finance Commission to recommend state-

local revenue sharing and improving the resources and functioning of municipalities. Lastly,

the constitution of Metropolitan and District Planning Committees with critical role assigned to

elected representatives in the preparation of development plans is mandatory. West Bengal has

translated all the major provisions of the 74th constitutional amendment act (CAA) into action.

6.3 FUNCTIONAL DECENTRALIZATION

The 12th Schedule of the constitution provides an illustrative list of 18 municipal

functions. The various functions that a municipality may have to perform may be classified in

the following categories (a) Essential management functions (b) Environment management

functions (c) Planning functions (d) Other functions:

Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India

1. Urban Planning, including town planning.

2. Regulation of land use and construction of buildings.

3. Planning for economic and social development.

4. Roads and Bridges.

5. Water supply for domestic, industrial and commercial purposes.

6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management.

7. Fire service.

8. Urban forestry, protection of environment and promotion of ecological aspects.

9. Safeguarding the interests of weaker sections of society including the disabled and

mentally retarded.

10. Slum improvement and upgrading.

11. Urban poverty alleviation.

12. Provision of urban amenities and facilities such as parks gardens playgrounds.

13. Promotion of cultural, educational and aesthetic aspects.

14. Burials and burial grounds, cremations, cremation grounds, and electric

crematoriums.

15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals.

16. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths.

17. Public amenities including, parking tots, bus stops, and public conveniences.

83

18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries.

Local governments are in the best position to improve service delivery as they allow for

increasing efficiency through better matching of public services to local preferences as well as

productive efficiency through increased accountability of local governments to its citizens.

6.4 ROLE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

The constitutional and legal authority of Government of India is limited only to Delhi and

other Union Territories and subjects which state legislatures authorize the Union Parliament to

legislate (Savege and Dasgupta, 2006). Within this framework the government of India

through the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) and the Ministry of Urban Development

and Poverty Alleviation has been playing a significant role in policy making and guidance.

Various national policy issues are decided by the government of India which also allocates

resources to the state governments through various centrally sponsored schemes, assist in

making available debt finance through national financial institutions.

6.5 URBAN WATER SUPPLY Concern for the provision of safe and potable drinking water is universal. It is not only

an essential good for survival and a part of the life support system, but also is not a

“substitutable” good or rather said its substitutability factor is “near-zero” (NIUA,1992).

6.5.1 RIGHT TO WATER – INTERNATIONAL AGENDA

For the first time, the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its twenty-ninth session, (General Comment No.-15)

has explicitly declared right to water as a fundamental right under right to life and placed

several obligations on state parties to ensure and enable the citizens to realize the right (UN,

2002, General Comment 15). It is clearly stated that safe drinking water is fundamental for life

and health and it “is a precondition for the realization of all human rights (General Comment

15, UN, 2002). Every citizen is entitled “to safe, sufficient, affordable and accessible drinking

water that is adequate or individual requirements (drinking, household sanitation; food

preparation and hygiene” Further “the manner of the realization of the right to drinking water

must also be sustainable, ensuring that the right can be realized for present future generations

(United Nations, 2002).

6.5.2 RIGHT TO LIFE AND RIGHT TO WATER IN INDIA

The positive impact of the international declarations, knocking by the civil society

groups at the door of the justice, and judicial interventions by the Supreme Court and several

High Courts created a favourable atmosphere for considering access to drinking water a right

in India. Consequently the Supreme Court breathed life into the words of Article 20 (personal

life and liberty) as “life with human dignity, with all faculties intact. (Venugopal, 2003). In

84

course of time this concept has been expanded to include several other vital aspects of human

life, like “Pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life, health, environment housing

etc (ILR, 2001). The court recently reiterated again that “the right to access to clean drinking

water is fundamental to life and there is a duty on state under Article 21 to provide clean

drinking water to its citizens” (ILR, 2001).

6.5.3 INSTITUTIONAL SET UP FOR URBAN WATER SUPPLY

Water is constitutionally a state subject and the role of the central government is limited to

defining norms for the sector (Through the Central Public Health Environment Organization

(CPHEEO,1991) and Ministry of Urban Development, GOI) providing guide lines, and

technical assistance to the states. It also intervenes through some centrally funded special

programmes of the Ministry of Urban Developments. Similarly, the Planning Commission

plays a role in evaluating financial requirements for the quinquennial plans and has an advisory

role in policy making. The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (As amended by the West

Bengal Municipal Act 2006) laid down in section 226, that “It shall be the duty of every

municipality to provide supply of wholesome water for the domestic use of inhabitants” (West

Bengal Municipal Act, 2006). In the main, institutional set up for urban water supply (UWS)

can be identified in the study area as that the management of the distribution network,

operation, maintenance and revenue collection is the responsibility of ULB and the

responsibility source development and capital investment in the network system remain with a

State department (in most cases Public Health Engineering Department (PHE).

6.5.4 EXISTING STATUS OF URBAN WATER SUPPLY

In order to assess the present status of urban water supply in the city and towns of

Murshidabad district, a comprehensive catalogue of indicators (Table 17), related directly or

indirectly towards the status of water supply are determined. These are as follows:

6.5.4.1 Household level coverage of direct water supply connection

Despite an improvement in figures and statistics compiled by the Government of India

and research institutions over the last decades on universal coverage of the population as far as

the water is concerned still an unmet goal (Zerah 2006). Data related to household level

coverage of direct water supply connection provides a robust idea of the discrepancies in

service access in the district. Household level coverage of water supply varies widely from 71

percent in Farraka to 0 percent in Jatkamal, Khodarampur. On an average, 7 percent of house

hold is connected through pipe line water supply. At this juncture, it may be pointed out here

that the overall performance of ULB is best judged by their capacity to provide adequate and

safe drinking water to the population falling within their jurisdiction.

85

TABLE 17: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF WATER FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF

MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Indicator Unit Definition

1. Household level coverage of direct water supply Connections.

Percent

1. Total number of households in the service area that are connected to the water supply network with a direct service connection, as percentage of total number of households in that service area. The service area is ULB as a whole.

2. Per capita quantum of water supplied

liters per capita

per day (lpcd)

2. Total water supplied into the distribution system (ex-treatment plant and including purchased water, if any) expressed by population served per day.

3. Continuity of water supply

Hours per day

3. Continuity of supply is measured as - average number of hours of pressurized water supply per day. Water pressure should be equal to or more than a head of 7 meters at the ferrule point / meter point for the connection. [7 m head corresponds to ability to supply to a single storey building]

4. Total length of the pipe line.

kilometer Total length of the pipe line from the reservoirs or distribution system or treatment plant to service area of the concerned ULB as a whole.

5. Number of tube well per 1000 of population.

Ratio It includes the total number of tubewell sunk by ULB. The ratio can be obtained by using the following formula Total number of tubewell/Total population of ULB x1000

6. Capacity of overhead reservoir.

Million liters

Total capacity of all functioning overhead reservoir within the ULB concerned.

7. Utilization ratio of source water.

Percent It can be obtained by using following formula ; Availability of water from various sources /Total installed capacity of source X 100

8. Number of stand post per 1000 population.

Ratio It includes the road side stand post; metered and non- metered.

Source: Compiled by the researcher from Planning Commission India, GOI, Ministry of Urban Development, United Nations; Hand Book of Benchmarks, TCPO, CPHEEO.

86

TABLE 18: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF WATER FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Compiled by the researcher

Description of the indicators according to serial number 1. Coverage of the household level water supply connection (in percent). 2. Per capita quantum of water supplied (LPCD). 3. Continuity of water supply (hours/day). 4. Total length of the pipe line (in kilometer). 5. Number of tube well per 1000 of population. 6. Capacity of overhead reservoir (in MLD). 7. Utilization ratio of source water (in percent). 8. Number of stand post per 1000 population.

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Dhulian M 5.8 7 5 7.2 8.1 450000 58 2.2 2. Jangipur M 14 36 6 145 53 900000 60 2.8 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 2.5 36 7 29.7 19.1 460000 50 2.6

4. Murshidabad M 8.7 20 6 16 25.2 500000 60 4.4 5. Berhampore M 9.0 28.8 7 360 11.6 1420000 62 4.4 6. Kandi M 22 24 7 29 4.6 363200 62 9.0 7. Beldanga M 5 22 6 16 9.7 562500 61 5.2 8. Farakka CT 71 67 6 10 13 1485000 65 10.6 9. Anupnagar CT 0.4 5 6 5 11.1 0 48 1.8 10. Dhusaripara CT 0.2 6 6 6 10 0 51 2.2 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.2 5 6 4 17 0 45 0.48

12. Kankuria CT 0.1 5 6 5 4.3 0 46 1.3 13. Chachanda CT 0.0 0 0 0 10.4 0 45 0 14. Serpur CT 4.9 10 7 6 11.6 0 47 4.3

15. Fattelapur CT 0.4 7 6 4 10.9 0 42 0.6 16. Jagtaj CT 0.4 8 7 7 6.2 0 43 11.4 17. Arungabad CT 2.3 10 7 7 3.8 0 45 2.2 18. Dafahat CT 1.1 7 6 4 7.1 0 41 3.7 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.1 7 6 6 3.5 0 40 3.7

20. Ghorsala CT 3.9 8 7 8 10 0 44 0.3 21. Charka CT 1 8 6 4 8.6 0 43.0

5 0.3

22. Srikantabati CT 2.2 10 7 8 5.7 0 43.07

4.8

23. Jatkamal CT 0 0 0 0 8.5 0 39.8 0 24. Sahajadpur CT 0.2 6 6 3 4.8 0 39 0.31 25. Khodarampur CT 0 0 0 0 9.4 0 40 0 26. Harthariachak CT 3.1 8 7 9 7.4 345000 49 7.7 27. Kasimbazar CT 1.5 12 7 9 5.1 0 42.0

8 0.4

28. Goaljan CT 3 7 6 3 7.1 0 44.06

0.4

29. Gorabazar CT 4 10 7 8 6.0 0 48 1.8

87

TABLE 19: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS SELECTED FOR WATER

FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Dhulian M 0.081 0.104 0.714 0.02 0.092 0.092 0.730 0.192 2. Jangipur M 0.197 0.537 0.857 0.40 1 0.486 0.807 0.245 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.035 0.537 1 0.082 0.315 0.100 0.423 0.220

4. Murshidabad M 0.122 0.298 0.857 0.052 0.438 0.135 0.807 0.385 5. Berhampore M 0.126 0.429 1 1 0.163 0.942 0.884 0.385 6. Kandi M 0.309 0.358 1 0.080 0.022 0.015 0.884 0.789 7. Beldanga M 0.070 0.328 0.857 0.044 0.125 0.090 0.846 0.456 8. Farakka CT 1 1 0.857 0.027 0.191 1 1 0.929 9. Anupnagar CT 0.005 0.074 0.857 0.013 0.153 0 0.346 0.157 10. Dhusaripara CT 0.002 0.089 0.857 0.016 0.131 0 0.461 0.192 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.002 0.074 0.857 0.011 0.272 0 0.230 0.042

12. Kankuria CT 0.001 0.074 0.857 0.013 0.016 0 0.269 0.114 13. Chachanda CT 0 0 0 0 0.139 0 0.230 0 14. Serpur CT 0.06 0.149 1 0.016 0.163 0 0.307 0.377

15. Fattelapur CT 0.005 0.104 0.857 0.011 0.149 0 0.115 0.052 16. Jagtaj CT 0.005 0.119 1 0.019 0.054 0 0.153 1 17. Arungabad CT 0.03 0.089 1 0.019 0.006 0 0.230 0.192 18. Dafahat CT 0.015 0.104 0.857 0.011 0.072 0 0.076 0.324 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.001 0.104 0.857 0.016 0 0 0.038 0.324

20. Ghorsala CT 0.05 0.119 1 0.022 0.131 0 0.192 0.026 21. Charka CT 0.014 0.119 0.857 0.011 0.103 0 0.153 0.026 22. Srikantabati CT 0.030 0.149 1 0.022 0.044 0 0.180 0.421 23. Jatkamal CT 0 0 0 0 0.101 0 0.030 0 24. Sahajadpur CT 0.002 0.089 0.857 0.008 0.026 0 0 0.027 25. Khodarampur CT 0 0 0 0 0.119 0 0.038 0 26. Harthariachak CT 0.043 0.119 1 0.025 0.078 0 0.384 0.675 27. Kasimbazar CT 0.021 0.179 1 0.025 0.032 0 0.146 0.035 28. Goaljan CT 0.042 0.104 0.857 0.003 0.072 0 0.215 0.035 29. Gorabazar CT 0.056 0.149 1 0.022 0.020 0 0.346 0.157

88

TABLE 20: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDI)CDI)CDI)CDI) FOR WATER FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Calculated by the researcher

Sl.no. Name of the Town

Status CDI Rank

1 Dhulian M 0.253 18 2 Jangipur M 0.566 27 3 Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.339 23

4 Murshidabad M 0.386 25

5 Berhampore M 0.616 28

6 Kandi M 0.432 26 7 Beldanga M 0.352 24 8 Farakka CT 0.750 29 9 Anupnagar CT 0.200 15 10 Dhusaripara CT 0.276 20 11 Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.186 11

12 Kankuria CT 0.168 08 13 Chachanda CT 0.046 03

14 Serpur CT 0.259 19 15 Fattelapur CT 0.161 06 16 Jagtaj CT 0.293 22 17 Arungabad CT 0.195 14

18 Dafahat CT 0.182 10 19 Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.191 12

20 Ghorsala CT 0.192 13 21 Charka CT 0.160 05 22 Srikantabati CT 0.230 17

23 Jatkamal CT 0.016 01 24 Sahajadpur CT 0.126 04 25 Khodarampur CT 0.019 02 26 Harthariachak CT 0.290 21 27 Kasimbazar CT 0.179 09

28 Goaljan CT 0.166 07 29 Gorabazar CT 0.218 16

89

But, the condition of household level coverage of water supply in the towns of Murshidabad

district is very critical. Not a single towns and cities are able to attain the national average of

73 percent coverage (NSSO, 2003). The highest percentage of coverage is recorded as 72

percent in Farraka followed by 22 percent in Kandi municipality. Near about 90 percent of the

towns are only able to serve below 10 percent of its household through piped water supply

connection. The condition of only one class I town of the district is even worse than the many

towns of below category. Twenty two towns (75 percent of the towns) out of 29 towns of the

study area have the capacity to supply water only below 5 percent of its household through

household connection of piped water supply. The highest percentage (71 percent) of

household connection of piped water supply in the district is recorded by Farraka, a census

town. This is an exceptional case. The reason of high percentage household connection in

Farraka is the location of a NTPC plant. Latest data provided by 58th round of the National

Sample Survey specify the disparities in modes of access for water supply across the states.

This information is corroborated by the figures calculated by McKenzie and Ray (2004) from

the National Family Health Survey (NFHS). According to NSS 58th Round West Bengal

provides tap water to its 59.5 percent of its household. On the other hand, data from NFHS

(1998-99) specify 66 percent of household of West Bengal have an access to urban piped water

supply.

So, it is clear from the analysis that not a single town in the district attains the status

of national or state average of household connections of piped water supply but also stay

far away from it (Fig. 11).

6.5.4.2 Per Capita Supply of water

Quantity of water supplied is another indicator to assess the existing status of Urban Water

Supply (UWS). An examination of data in Table 18 shows low per capita availability of water

across the towns and cities of Murshidabad. As would be seen from the table per capita water

supply through distribution system ranged between 67 liters / day for Farraka and 0 liter for

Chachanda, Jatkamal and Khodarampur. It needs to be pointed out here that no city or towns

can touch the norm laid down by Zakaria Committee (1963). According to the norms, the

average availability should vary between 67.5 liters per capita per day (lpcd) for town in the

population group of 20,000 – 50,000, 112.5 lpcd for town in the population range of 50,000 –

100,000 and 157.5 lpcd for cities in the population range of 100000 and one million. None of

the towns or cities except only one namely Farraka comes closer to these norms. The Class I

town of the district provides only 28.8 lpcd to its people which is less than the ¼th of the norms

of 135 lpcd laid down by National Commission on Urbanization (NCU) and also far from the

norms (157.5 – 202.5 lpcd) laid down by Zakaria Committee (1963). for class I city.


TABLE 21: DEMAND SUPPLY GAP (2001) OF WATER SUPPLY IN URBAN MURSHIDABAD

SIZE CLASS OF URBAN

CENTER TOTAL CENTERS WITH

SUPPLY BELOW

CLASS I 01 CLASS II 03 CLASS III 07 OTHER IV-VI 18 TOTAL 29


In this connection, it may be referred that in 1996, the Government of

of 241 surveyed towns with population between 50,000

one third could not provide more than 100 lpcd (GOI 1996). The condition of class I and Class

II towns in Murshidabad in this regard is much

59 percent of towns are not able to provide even 10 lpcd water to its citizen. Most of them are

class IV to VI category towns. It is to be pointed out here that 10 liters is near about 1/13

the norm of 135 lpcd laid down by National Commission on Urbanization. So, it is clear from

the Table 18 that none of the cities or towns in the district maintains the levels of water supply

as per norms (Table 22) stipulated by different agencies at

huge demand-supply gap (Table 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

INDIA

PERC

ENT

FIG. 11: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD LEVEL WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION IN URBAN AREAS OF INDIA, WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD, 2003

90


DEMAND SUPPLY GAP (2001) OF WATER SUPPLY IN URBAN MURSHIDABAD (USING CPHEE NORMS)

URBAN

CENTERS WITH SUPPLY BELOW

NORMS

QUANTITY OF WATER SUPPLIED

(MLD)

DEMAND AS PER NORM

DEMAND SUPPLY GAP

IN (MLD)

01 4.61 11.21 6.603 4.39 13.83 9.4407 5.16 15.57 10.4118 5.58 10.68 5.129 19.74 51.29 31.55

Source: Compiled by the researcher. Note: MLD – Million Liters Per Day.

In this connection, it may be referred that in 1996, the Government of India estimated that out

of 241 surveyed towns with population between 50,000 – 100,000 (Class II town), more than


II towns in Murshidabad in this regard is much worse than national average. Approximately


class IV to VI category towns. It is to be pointed out here that 10 liters is near about 1/13

down by National Commission on Urbanization. So, it is clear from

hat none of the cities or towns in the district maintains the levels of water supply

stipulated by different agencies at different point of time.There i

(Table 21) in the availability of water in the towns of the district.

WEST BENGAL MURSHIDABAD

FIG. 11: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD LEVEL WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION IN URBAN AREAS OF INDIA, WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD, 2003

DEMAND SUPPLY GAP (2001) OF WATER SUPPLY IN URBAN MURSHIDABAD

DEMAND SUPPLY GAP

IN (MLD)

% OF GAP IN

DEMAND SUPPLY

6.6 58.88 9.44 68.25

10.41 66.86 5.1 47.75

31.55 61.51

India estimated that out

100,000 (Class II town), more than


worse than national average. Approximately


class IV to VI category towns. It is to be pointed out here that 10 liters is near about 1/13th of

down by National Commission on Urbanization. So, it is clear from

hat none of the cities or towns in the district maintains the levels of water supply

different point of time.There is a

) in the availability of water in the towns of the district.

FIG. 11: PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD LEVEL WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION IN

PERCENTAGE OF WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION

91

TABLE 22: NORMS AND STANDARDS OF WATER SUPPLY

Agency Physical Standard

a. Manual on water supply and Urban Development, Govt. of India, 1991

Small: 70-100 Ipcd" Large: 150-200 Ipcd Public stand Posts: 40 Ipcd (PSP)

b. National Master Plan (NMP), India, International Water Supply and Sanitation Decade, 1981-90, Ministry of Urban Development, 1983

House connections: 70-250 lpcd with average of 140 lpcd Public stand Posts: 25-70 lpcd with average 40

lpcd c. Basic Minimum Services Under Minimum Needs Programme, 9th Five Year Plan, Government of India, 1997-2002 (1999)

100% coverage by safe drinking water in urban areas.

With Sewerage: 125 lpcd Without Sewerage: 70 lpcd With spot sources & Public stand posts: 40 lpcd. Remark: One source for 20 families within a walking distance 100 metres maximum

d. Report on Norms and Space Standards for Planning Public Sector Project Towns, TCPO, Ministry of Works & Housing, Government of India, 1974

180 Ipcd

e. Committee on Plan Projects for Industrial Townships (COPP), 1973

180-225 Ipcd

f. Zakaria C.ommittee (ZC on Augmentation of Financial Resources of Urban Local Bodies, 1963.

Small: 45 Ipcd Medium: 67.5 - 112.5 Ipcd Large : 157.5-202.0 Ipcd Super metropolitan: 270 lpcd

g. Operations Research Group (ORG), Delivery and Financing of Urban Services, 1989

Small: 80 lpcd Medium: 80-150 lped Large: 180 lped

h. NIUA; Maintaining Gujarat Municipal Services - A Long Range Perspective, 1987

Small: 95-125lpcd Medium: with Industrial

base - 150 lpcd Problem areas: 90 lpcd; Average: 80-150 lpcd Large: With Industrial base 170-210 lpcd Problem Areas: 120-125 lpcd Average: 115-210 lpcd

i. Agency Physical Standard Cost of provision (Rs.per capita at 2004- 05 prices) Cost of 0 & M (Rs.per Capita/ annum, at 2004-05 prices) i. NIUA; Costs of Urban Infrastructure, 1995 (based on DWSSDU, HUDCO & CIDCO Estimates)

Urban: Not suggested Rural: Not suggested

j. Government of Gujarat (GOG); Gujarat 2005 (papers on Perspective Plan), 1989.

Small: 100 lpcd Medium & Large: 140 Ipcd Scarcity Season: 13 lpcd

K. CPHEEO,2003 Towns without sewerage system: 70 lpcd Towns with sewerage system:135 lpcd

Source: Compiled by the researcher.

92

Using the norms recommended by CPHEEO (Table 21), which takes into account the needs of

sewerage system, the result of the survey indicates that the water supply situation in urban

Murshidabad is alarming with almost 100 percent of urban centers not getting adequate water

supply which is far below the recommended norm. A further disaggregation by size class of

urban centers indicates that the highest shortage (68.25 percent) of water supply is recorded by

class II towns of the district. On an average, 61 percent gap is recorded in the supply of water in

the towns and cities of the district.

6.5.4.3 Continuity of water supply

One of most disconcerting features of the public water supply system is the limited

duration for which water is supplied. It is clear from the Table 18 that in the study area piped

water is supplied for as low as 5 hours per day to as high as 7 hours per day. However, due to

variation in pressure all households are not able to draw water for entire duration of supply.

Survey shows that the different localities get water on hourly shift. People have to make

necessary adjustments to collect piped water at a specified hour. This speaks of the

inconvience caused to the public in procuring the most basic necessity of life. They have to

adjust their daily routine to the schedule laid down by the public authorities. Also, it is

necessary for them to arrange supplementary source of water in the form of hand pumps or

bore well at private level. This involves considerable investment in their installation and

maintenance. Moreover, the water they get is impure or untreated and likely to cause various

diseases. In this connection, it may be highlighted that limited number of hours and even

alternate day water supply is characteristics of all Indian cities. The level of service is even

more unreliable if one takes into account the pressure of supply, regularity of timings and

quality of water.

6.5.4.4 Length of pipe line

Water is supplied through pipe line. From this point of view, the length of pipe line to

cover the entire urban local bodies (ULB) is a very important indicator to assess the

performance of urban local bodies (ULB) regarding the access to piped water supply. There

should have a similarity between length of the road and length of the pipe line. Most of the

towns in the study area have not the required similarity. Length of pipe line for class I town in

the district was 360 km which was far from the length of road and this indicates low coverage

of service in terms of pipe line. Close study of the data in Table 18 reveals the decreasing

length of pipe line from class I to class V category of towns. The length of the pipe line in

most of census town is far from the expectation. Pipe line in census towns is available mainly

along the main road and is very limited to cover the entire town. The result is that the tap

facilities only available along the main road side and people have to travel a distance to collect

water.

93

6.5.4.5 Number of tube well per 1000 of population

Since piped water supply is limited in quantity and restricted in hours of distribution in

the study area, people have to make their own private arrangements to supplement the public

supply of water. Installation of hand pump or bore well is common. As compared to 36.5

percent of household in West Bengal (2001) collect water from tube well or hand pump

(Mckenzie and Roy 2004), more than 87 percent of population in the study area collect water

either from their own or ULB supplied tube well or hand pump. At the same time, data (Table

18) shows that the number of tube well supplied by ULB per 1000 of population is not

adequate, as it varies widely from highest as 53 in Jangipur to lowest as 35 in Paschim

Purnapara, a census town. The number of tube well per 1000 population reveals the

inadequacy in the supply of tube well. It may be pointed out here that approximately 70

percent of towns in the district just touch the norms of 1tube well per 150 persons (GOI, India).

The population-tube well ratio is very low in Dhulian, Kandi, Beldanga among the

municipal towns. It should be kept in mind that the number of tube well per 1000 population is

a gross generalization. Detailed study regarding the distribution of tube wells shows that there

is very much discrepancies in this regard. Slum areas of the urban centers records very few

number of tube wells.

6.5.4.6 Number of stand post per 1000 population

Public provision of water does not necessarily mean that the population or the

households served through domestic connection of piped water. The portion of populations

who are not the beneficiaries of the public provision are dependent for their water supply either

on “stand post” or on tube well supplied by ULB. It is important to note that those who

receive their supplies through stand post are relatively poorer section of the population. But,

the survey shows that the number of stand post in slum areas is very negligible. The

population- standpost ratio in the slum areas is much lower than the average. As a result,

pressure of population per stand post is high in slum areas. In many census towns the value of

this ratio is some time less than one signifies the fact of very high population pressure per

stand post. A close study of the data (Table 18) discloses that the average number of stand

post (five numbers) per1000 population in the district is below the norm (150 people per tap)

prescribed by GOI, India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment. The average number of

stand post per 1000 population in the study area is only 2.

6.5.4.7 Utilization ratio of source water

Supply of water in urban areas is basically determined by the sources of water

(Table 23) itself, these being the flow sources such as the rivers or stream (surface source) and

the under surface source which includes tube well, deep wells and so forth. Many urban

settlements use combination of the surface and under surface sources.

94

The towns and cities in the study area have an access to a variety of sources of impure

water which includes river Bhagirathi, tube well and dug well. The survey noted wide

fluctuation in the overall availability of water in the urban centers of the district. More

important than the fluctuations in the availability of water is the fact that the amount of water

that can be available from various sources is not fully utilized for augmenting the urban water

supply system due to low utilization ratio in the source of water. The utilization ratio of raw

water ranged between 39 percent and 65 percent in the study area. The survey shows that apart

from supply constraint (e.g. Dying up of well, lowering down the underground water table

which restrict the fuller utilization of the installed capacities, there are at least three other

reasons for comparatively lower utilization ratios. These are (a) Irregular and inadequate

supply of electricity (b) Non availability of stand by pump sets and (c) Absence of repair

facilities for pump. It may be pointed out here that higher the utilization ratio higher will be

the availability of water for supply to its citizen and vice versa. The condition of municipal

towns is slightly better than the district average utilization ratio. On the other hand, conditions

of census towns are very poor as these towns record below 50 percent utilization ratio.

TABLE 23: DITRIBUTION OF ALL URBAN HOUSEHOLD (IN PERCENTAGE) ACCORDING TO MAJOR SOURCES

OF WATER: INDIA, WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD

SOURCES MURSHIDABAD WEST BENGAL INDIA

TAP 07 59.5 73.6 TUBEWELL/ HAND PUMP

87.5 36.5 19.6

WELL 2.5 2.9 5.1 OTHER 03 1.1 1.7

Source: Compiled by the researcher from NSSO, 2003 and various Muninicipal Journal of Murshidabad, West Bengal

6.5.5 SPATIAL VARIATION IN “CDI” FOR WATER SUPPLY

Table 20, gives some notable characteristics regarding level of infrastructure in the

towns and city of Murhsidbad district. In 2001, CDI of Water supply ranges from 0.016 to

0.75. On the basis of CDI, four categories of spatial patterns of infrastructural facilities (water

supply) are obtained in 2001; very high level (CDI Over 0.57) high level (CDI between 0.39

and 0.57) medium level (CDI ranges between 0.21 and 0.39) and low order (CDI below 0.21).

On regional consideration, there are only two urban units (6.9 percent of towns) namely

Berhampore and Farakka which show maximum level in supply of water facilities, followed by

Jangipur, Kandi municipal town. Ten towns (34.48 percent) out of 29 towns show medium

intensity level and 15 towns (51.72 percent of towns) show low intensity level regarding water

supply facilities. It can be said that 86.20 percent of towns show medium to low level of water

supply facilities in the study area.

95

6.6 URBAN SANITATION Sanitation is defined as the safe management of human and other domestic excreta,

including its safe confinement, treatment, and disposal and associated hygiene related

practices. Sanitation also depends on other elements of “environmental sanitation” i.e. solid

waste management, generation of industrial and other specialized hazardous waste, drainage as

also the management of drinking water supply (NUSP, 2008)

Sanitation itself is in crisis not only in India but throughout the world. Among of 2.6

billion people i.e. 40 percent of the world’s population do not have a toilet. Despite the fact

5,000 children die every day from diarrhea diseases (UNDP, 2006). The Millennium

Development Goal (MDG) clearly stated the importance of water and sanitation. Water and

sanitation are the most neglected and most off-tract of the UN millennium development goals

(UNDP, 2006).

6.6.1 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Government of India recognizes that sanitation is a state subject and on ground

implementation and sustenance of public health and environmental outcomes requires strong

city level institutions and stakeholders. “State urban sanitation must ensure clear ULB

responsibility as envisaged in the 74th constitutional amendment act (CAA) where this is partial

or incomplete, states will need to make concerted efforts to develop power, roles and

responsibilities along with financial and personnel resources necessary for ULB’s to discharge

their functions” (NUSP, 2008). The West Bengal Municipal Act 1993 (As amended by the

West Bengal Municipal Act 2006) lays down in section 245 that “the Municipality shall

provide and maintain a system of drainage or sewerage as well as a safe and sufficient out

falls or out the municipal area (West Bengal Municipal Act 2006).

6.6.2 EXISTING STATUS OF URBAN SANITATION

In order to assess the present status of urban sanitation facilities in the cities and towns

of Murshidabad district, a comprehensive catalogue of indicators either directly or indirectly

related with the status of sewerage and waste management are determined. The main

indicators are given below (Table 24).

96

TABLE 24: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEWERAGE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


1. Coverage of waste water network services.

Percent

1. This indicator denotes the extent to which the underground sewerage (or waste water collection) network has reached out to individual properties across the service area. Properties include those in the category of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction in which service is required to be provided, either an electoral ward or the ULB as a whole.

2. Coverage of toilets. Percent

2. This indicator denotes the extent to which citizens have access to a toilet (whether individual or community) in a service area. The toilets would include those in the category of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional properties. Service area implies a specific jurisdiction in which the service is required to be provided i.e ULB as a whole. 3. Efficiency in collection

of waste water.

Percent

3. This indicator is measured as - Quantum of wastewater collected as a % of normative waste water generation in the ULB. Water generation is linked to quantum of water supplied through piped systems, and other sources such as bore-wells, when they are very extensively used. Data should be aggregated from multiple points across the ULB.

4. Extent of recycling or reuse of waste water.

Percent

4. Percentage of wastewater received at the treatment plant that is recycled or reused for various purposes. This should only consider water that is directly conveyed for recycling or reuse, such as use in gardens and parks, use for irrigation, etc. Water that is discharged into water bodies, which is subsequently used for variety of purposes should not be included in this quantum. While measurements are done at treatment plants inlets and outlets, the indicator should be reported at the city / ULB level as a whole.

5. Adequacy of capacity for treatment of waste water.

Percent

5. Adequacy is expressed as - Secondary treatment (i.e. removing oxygen demand as well as solids, normally biological) capacity available as a percentage of normative waste water generation, for the same time period.

6. Household level coverage of SWM services through door-to-door collection of waste.

Percent

6. Percentage of households and establishments that are covered by daily door-step collection system.

7. Collection Efficiency. Percent

7. Total waste collected by ULB and authorized service providers versus the total waste generated within the ULB excluding recycling or processing at the generation point. [Typically, some amount of waste generated is either recycled or reused by the citizen itself. This quantity is excluded from the total quantity generated, as reliable estimates will not be available for these.]

97


8. Extent of Segregation of waste.

Percent

8. Percentage of households and establishments that segregate their waste. Segregation should be at least separation of wet and dry waste at the source, i.e. at household or establishment level. Ideally, the separation should be in following categories: bio-degradable waste, that is non-biodegradable, and hazardous domestic waste such as batteries, etc. It is important that this indicator is based on measurement of waste arriving in segregated manner at the treatment / disposal site, rather than measuring the same at collection point.

9. Extent of recovery of waste collected.

Percent

10. This is an indication of the quantum of waste collected, which is either recycled or processed. This is expressed in terms of percentage of waste collected.

10. Extent of scientific disposal of waste in landfill Sites.

Percent

10. Amount of waste that is disposed in landfills that have been designed, built, operated and maintained as per standards lay down by Central agencies. This extent ofcompliance should be expressed as percentage of total quantum of waste disposed at landfill sites, including open dump sites.

11. Coverage of storm water drainage network.

Percent

11. Coverage is defined in terms of percentage of road length covered by storm water drainage network.

11. Aggregate number of incidents of water logging reported in a year.

Nos. per year.

11. Number of times water logging is reported in a year, at flood prone points within the city.

Source: Compiled by the researcher from Planning Commission India, GOI, Ministry of Urban Development, United Nations; Hand Book of Benchmarks, TCPO, CPHEEO.

98

TABLE 25: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF SEWERAGE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Compiled by the researcher Description of the indicators according to serial number 1. Coverage of waste water network services. 2. Total length of sewer line. 3. Coverage of toilets. 4. Efficiency in collection of waste water. 5. Extent of recycling or reuse of waste water. 6. Household level coverage of SWM service through door-to-door collection of waste. 7. Collection efficiency. 8. Extent of Segregation of waste. 9. Extent of recovery of waste collected. 10. Number of conservancy staff per 1000 population. 11. Average number incidents of water logging reported in a year.

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Dhulian M 0 20 33 0 0 0 49 0 0 0.82 15 2. Jangipur M 0 138 68.4 71 75 25 72 20 20 1.27 10 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0 46 63.2 75 70 20 65 15 0 1.00 12

4. Murshidabad M 0 35 65 0 0 10 64 0 0 2.16 9 5. Berhampore M 0 950 86 0 0 30 82 28 22 2.22 8 6. Kandi M 0 27 76 0 0 22 70 13 15 2.74 7 7. Beldanga M 0 38 90 0 0 18 72 12 0 1.97 7 8. Farakka CT 0 5 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9. Anupnagar CT 0 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10. Dhusaripara CT 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0 2.5 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

12. Kankuria CT 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13. Chachanda CT 0 2.5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 14. Serpur CT 0 3 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

15. Fattelapur CT 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 16. Jagtaj CT 0 3 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 17. Arungabad CT 0 3.5 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18. Dafahat CT 0 2.5 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

20. Ghorsala CT 0 3.5 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 21. Charka CT 0 2.5 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 22. Srikantabati CT 0 4 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 23. Jatkamal CT 0 4 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 24. Sahajadpur CT 0 4 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 25. Khodarampur CT 0 3 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 26. Harthariachak CT 0 3.5 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 27. Kasimbazar CT 0 5 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28. Goaljan CT 0 4.5 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 29. Gorabazar CT 0 15 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

99

TABLE 26: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS OF SEWERAGE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Calculated by the researcher.

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Dhulian M 0 .018 .270 0 0 0 .597 0 0 .299 1 2. Jangipur M 0 .643 .687 0 1 .833 .847 .714 .909 .463 .545 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0 .046 .625 1 0 .666 .792 .535 0 .364 .727

4. Murshidabad M 0 .034 .647 0 0 .333 .780 0 0 .788 .454 5. Berhampore M 0 1 .894 0 0 1 1 1 1 .810 .363 6. Kandi M 0 .026 .776 0 0 .733 .853 .464 .681 1 .272 7. Beldanga M 0 .037 .941 0 0 .600 .878 .428 0 .718 .272 8. Farakka CT 0 .003 .788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 9. Anupnagar CT 0 0 .105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 10. Dhusaripara CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0 0 .035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181

12. Kankuria CT 0 0 .035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 13. Chachanda CT 0 0 .070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 14. Serpur CT 0 .001 .235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Fattelapur CT 0 0 .047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .272 16. Jagtaj CT 0 .001 .294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 17. Arungabad CT 0 .001 .435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 18. Dafahat CT 0 0 .164 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0 0 .070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Ghorsala CT 0 .001 .352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21. Charka CT 0 0 .223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 22. Srikantabati CT 0 .002 .470 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 23. Jatkamal CT 0 .002 .376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .181 24. Sahajadpur CT 0 .002 .482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 25. Khodarampur CT 0 .001 .211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .272 26. Harthariachak CT 0 .001 .564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .090 27. Kasimbazar CT 0 .003 .847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28. Goaljan CT 0 .002 .635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Gorabazar CT 0 .013 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100

TABLE 27: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDI) FOR SEWERAGE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Calculated by researcher

Sl. No. Name of the Town

Status CDI Rank


Azimganj M 0.432 26

4 Murshidabad M 0.276 24

5 Berhampore M 0.642 29

6 Kandi M 0.436 27 7 Beldanga M 0.352 25 8 Farakka CT 0.088 21 9 Anupnagar CT 0.017 04

10 Dhusaripara CT 0.008 02

11 Uttar Mahamadpur

CT 0.0196 06

12 Kankuria CT 0.019 05 13 Chachanda CT 0.014 03 14 Serpur CT 0.021 07 15 Fattelapur CT 0.029 09 16 Jagtaj CT 0.043 12 17 Arungabad CT 0.056 17 18 Dafahat CT 0.031 10 19 Paschim


20 Ghorsala CT 0.032 11 21 Charka CT 0.028 08 22 Srikantabati CT 0.051 15

23 Jatkamal CT 0.050 14 24 Sahajadpur CT 0.052 16 25 Khodarampur CT 0.044 13

26 Harthariachak CT 0.059 19

27 Kasimbazar CT 0.077 20

28 Goaljan CT 0.057 18 29 Gorabazar CT 0.092 22

101

6.6.2.1 Coverage of waste water network service

Although, nearly 50 percent of urban population in India is covered with sanitation

services, only and 28 percent of urban households are connected to the public sewerage

system. The situation in Murshidabad is also very hopeless. No one of the towns including

class I town is connected with underground sewerage network whereas in West Bengal near

about 11 percent of household in urban areas is connected with underground sewerage

network. Despite recent progress, access to improved sanitation remains far lower in India

compared to many other countries with similar or even lower per capita gross domestic

product. The Table, 28 below depicts the status of household connection to sewerage network

in India, West Bengal and study area.

TABLE 28: PERCENTAGE OF URBAN HOUSEHOLD CONNECTED TO SEWERAGE SYSTEM

IN INDIA, WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD, 2001 Source: NSSO, 2003 and various Muninicipal Journal of Murshidabad and Urban West Bengal, 2003. 6.6.2.2 Length of sewer line

Length of sewer line or drain to cover the entire ULB is a very important indicator to

assess the performance of ULB regarding sanitation facilities. There should have a similarity

between length of the road and length of the drain. Most of the towns in the study area have

not attained the required similarity. The only exception is Berhampore, a class I town, where

the similarity between length of road and length of drain is found. Close study of the data in

Table 25 reveals the decreasing length of drain in municipal towns and non municipal towns.

The length of the drain in most of the census town is far from the norms and only available

along main roads. More than 90 percent of the total drain in the study area is open. Survey

shows that drainage facilities in slum areas in the district are not only very poor but also

inadequate.

6.6.2.3 Efficiency in collection of waste water

The performance of indicators related to collection efficiency of waste water signifies

the effectiveness of the network in capturing and discharging it to the treatment plants. This

indicator is measured as quantum of waste water collected as a percentage of waste generation

in the ULB. In India, approximately 300 urban centers have a sewerage system; only 70 of

them have sewerage treatment facilities (NIUA, 2007). Regarding norms and standards of

INDIA 28 PERCENT

WEST BENGAL 11 PERCENT

MURSHIDABAD 0

102

sewerage and sanitation system, Ninth Plan, Govt. of India (1997 – 2002) stated that there

should be full coverage by sewerage with proper treatment facilities in large and metro cities.

Whereas, in case of Murshidabad, the class I town have no such provision. Only two, out of

seven municipal towns namely Jangipur and Jiaganj-Azimganj have such provision partially;

whereby, 71 percent and 75 percent of waste water repectively arecollected for treatment

respectively. It is clear from above analysis that 93 percent of the towns of Murshidabad

district do not have the capacity to collect waste water for treatment. The Table 29 below

depicts the place of discharge of waste water.

TABLE 29: PLACES OF DISCHARGE OF WASTE WATER – CLSS SIZE DISTRIBUTION,

MURSHIDABAD

Source: Bulletin published by various municipalities and various B.D.O. offices of Murshidabad district Data in the Table 29 shows that only 17.24 percent of the towns discharge waste water

into water body; while 68.97 percent on open land. Small towns including census towns

mainly discharge their waste water on land. Nearly 13.97 percent of urban centers use both

land and water body for discharging waste water. The place of waste disposal depends on

option selected by concerned authority which may be based on local and financial

consideration.

6.6.2.4 Extent of Recycling or Reuse of Waste Water

For sustainable water management, it is desirable that waste water is recycled or reused

after appropriate treatment. Water can be directly reused in a number of areas such as used in

parks and gardens, supplied for irrigation purpose for farm land or city periphery etc. At the

start of the Ninth Five Year Plan (1997), although 49 percent of population had provision for

sanitary excreta disposal facilities with only 28 percent had sewerage systems. Whereever

sewers were present; they generally did not have adequate treatment facilities. Studies

conducted by CPCB during 1994 – 95 showed that the total waste water generated in 300

Class-I cities is around 15,800 million liters a day (MLD), while treatment capacity is hardly

3750 MLD. Of the total waste water generated in the four metros (Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and

Chennai) hardly covers 30 percent and it is treated before its disposal. This untreated and

PLACE OF DISCHARGE

CLASS I TOWN

CLASS II TOWN

CLASS III TOWN

OTHER TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL TOWNS

PERCENTAGE OF TOWN

LAND - - 02 18 20 68.97 WATER BODY 01 02 02 - 05 17.24 LAND AND WATER BODY

- 01 03 - 04 13.79

TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

103

partially treated waste water eventually finds its way into fresh water resources as river, lake,

and ground water (India Assessment, 2002).

As per assessment made by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on the status

of waste water generation and treatment in Class I cities and Class II towns during 2003-04,

about 26254 MLD of waste water is generated in 921 Class I cities and class II towns in India.

The waste water treatment capacity developed so far as about 7044 MLD account for only 27

percent of waste water generated in these two classes of urban centers (11th five year plan.GOI,

2007 – 2012).

In the study area, situation is not an exceptional one. Only two towns have the

capacity to recycle the waste water. No other towns and cities including class I city have the

capacity to reuse their water after treatment.

6.6.2.5 Coverage of toilet

Data on sanitation services from 54th round of the National Sample Survey (NSS)

indicate considerable state wise variations. Sanitary standards are abysmally low in the urban

areas of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh where more than 45 percent of the population have no

access to any type of latrine. The position of West Bengal is better with only 15.2 percent of

urban household without latrine facilities. On an average, 26 percent of urban household in

India have no latrine facilities.

Data in Table 25, related to household level coverage of toilet facilities provide an idea

of discrepancies in service access across the study area. Household level coverage of toilet

facilities varies from as low as 10 percent in Dhusaripara to as high as 95 percent in Gorabazar

which is a census town. Approximately 90 percent of towns, i.e. 26 out of 29 towns do not

reach the state average on coverage of toilet facilities as more than 15.2 percent of population

do not have privilege of toilet facilities of their own. A very large percentage of population in

census towns have no access to household level toilet facilities. The condition of municipal

towns is also bad whereby on an average 32 percent of their household do not have access to

toilet facilities (Fig. 12). Close study of the data reveals that household level access to toilet

facilities is a function of the size class of the city with some minor exception. Larger the town

more people will have an access to toilet facilities and vice versa.

At this juncture, one thing may be pointed out that “far more people in India have

access to a cell phone than to toilet and improved sanitation according to UN expert who

published a 9-point prescription for achieving the world’s Millennium Development Goal

for sanitation by 2015 (www.inweh.unu.edu).

http://www.inweh.unu.edu/

6.6.2.6 Household level coverage of solid waste management (SWM) service through

This indicator provides information about the coverage of door

collection services. Door step level collection is an essential and critical starting point in the

entire chain of scientific solid waste management services. Having waste free clean roads and

drains, scientific treatment of waste so as to maximize treatment, recycling

all be achieved in a sustainable manner only if door

Source: UrbanMurshidabad district.

The condition of most of the towns in the district in this regard is pitiful. Percentage of

household covers by this service range

Murshidabad town. Population of census towns in the district is totally dep

facility. The waste discharged here and there is later collected by municipal sanitation workers

through street sweeping, drain cleaning etc. Street sweeping has thus become the principal

method of primary collection. On an average 20 perc

door collection in the district.

6.6.2.7 Waste collection efficiency

Collection efficiency of solid waste has been used for long time as an indicator of

urban health. Collection efficiency should measure waste col

SWM system. Typically the uncollected waste tends to gradually find its way into recycling,

or is strewn along the road side, clogs the drains or in case of bio

putrefied and degrades. Therefore col

68%

FIG 12: PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF TOILET FACILITIES IN MUNICIPAL TOWNS OF

104

Household level coverage of solid waste management (SWM) service through door-to-door collection of waste

This indicator provides information about the coverage of door

ices. Door step level collection is an essential and critical starting point in the


drains, scientific treatment of waste so as to maximize treatment, recycling

all be achieved in a sustainable manner only if door-to-door collection of waste is sustained.

Urban West Bengal 2003-04, Bulletin published by various Municipalities of

condition of most of the towns in the district in this regard is pitiful. Percentage of

household covers by this service ranges between 30 percent in Berhampore and 10 percent in

Murshidabad town. Population of census towns in the district is totally dep



method of primary collection. On an average 20 percent of household is served by door to

door collection in the district.

Waste collection efficiency


. Collection efficiency should measure waste collected in normal course by the


or is strewn along the road side, clogs the drains or in case of bio-degradable waste it

putrefied and degrades. Therefore collection efficiency is a key performance indicator. It is

32%

FIG 12: PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF TOILET FACILITIES IN MUNICIPAL TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD ,2001

HAVING NO TOILET

HAVING TOILET

Household level coverage of solid waste management (SWM) service through

This indicator provides information about the coverage of door-to-door solid waste

ices. Door step level collection is an essential and critical starting point in the


drains, scientific treatment of waste so as to maximize treatment, recycling, and disposal, can

door collection of waste is sustained.

Bulletin published by various Municipalities of

condition of most of the towns in the district in this regard is pitiful. Percentage of

between 30 percent in Berhampore and 10 percent in

Murshidabad town. Population of census towns in the district is totally deprived of this



ent of household is served by door to


lected in normal course by the


degradable waste it gets

lection efficiency is a key performance indicator. It is

FIG 12: PERCENTAGE COVERAGE OF TOILET FACILITIES IN MUNICIPAL TOWNS OF

HAVING NO TOILET

HAVING TOILET

105

estimated that about 115000 MT of municipal solid waste is generated daily in the country.

Per capita waste generation in cities varies from 0.2 Kg to 0.6 Kg per day depending upon the

size of population and nature of town. The collection efficiency ranges between 70 to 90

percent in major metro cities, whereas in several smaller cities it is below 50 percent (CPCB,

2000).

The waste generation rates in India are lower than the low income countries (Table 30)

in other parts of the world and much lower compared to the developed countries

(World Bank, 1997).

The survey of the cities and towns of Murshidabad district substantiated the general

trends of per capita waste generation which is a factor of city function and size. As would be

noted that the maximum amount of per capita waste of 400 gram/day is registered for

Berhampore, district headquarters, a city of more than 1,63,000 population. In case of other

town, per capita waste generation varies between 180 gram and 230 gram. On an average, the

TABLE 30: WASTE GENERATION RATES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Source: World Bank, 1997

cities and towns of Murshidabad district generate 210 gram of waste per day. Table below

compares the quantity of waste generated in National level, State level and study area

(Fig, 13).

Sl.No. Country Generation of waste (Kg/Capita/Day

Low income 0.64 1. Nepal 0.50 2. Bangladesh 0.49 3. Myanmar 0.45 4. Vietnam 0.55 5. Mongolia 0.60 6. India 0.46 7. Lao PDR 0.69 8. China 0.79 9. Srilanka 0.89 Middle income 0.73 1. Indonesia 0.76 2. Philippines 0.52 3. Thailand 1.10 4. Malaysia 0.81 High income 1.64 1. Korea Republic of 1.59 2. Hong Kong 5.07 3. Singapore 1.10 4. Japan 1.47

106

If we closely follow the data in Table 25 then it will be clear that there is a gap

between quantum of waste that are generated and which are collected and disposed. The data

reveals that percentage of waste collected varies between 49 percent in case of Dhulian and 82

percent in case Berhampore. On an average, district as a whole 67 percent of generated waste

is collected for disposal. The percent of waste collection is below the state as well as national

average. It will be clear from the Figure 14.

Source: CPCB, 2000 and Municipal Statistics of West Bengal 2003-04, Bulletin published by various Municipalities of Murshidabad district.

Source: Nema,A.K, 2004, Municipal Statistics of West Bengal 2003-04, Bulletin published by various Municipalities of Murshidabad district.

0.376

0.321

0.21

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

INDIA WEST BENGAL MURSHIDABAD

KILO

GRA

M

FIG. 13: RATE OF WASTE GENERATION (IN KG) IN INDIA,WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD, 2001

RATE OF WASTE GENERATION

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76


PERC

ENT

FIG 14 : WASTE COLLECTION EFFICIENCY( IN PERCENT) OF INDIA ,WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD,2001

PERCENTAGE WASTE COLLECTION

107

The balance remains uncollected, which is one of the biggest sources of environmental

degradation in the urban areas. Three municipal towns out of seven municipal towns is

recorded over 70 percent collection efficiency. Data on collection efficiency (Table 25)

reveals that there is no solid waste management facility in the census towns and inclusive of

class II towns in Murshidabad district.

Survey shows that there is no public system of primary collection from source of waste

generation. Even street sweeping is not carried out on a day to day basis. Table below

(Table 31) depicts the frequency of waste collection in the towns of Murshidabad district with

class size variation.

TABLE 31: CLASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE COLLECTION FREQUENCY IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT

COLLECTION FREQUENCE

CLASS I TOWN

CLASS II TOWN

CLASS III TOWN

OTHER TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL TOWN

PERCENTAGE OF TOWN

Once daily 01 02 - - 03 10.34 Six days in a

week - - 02 - 02 6.89

Alternate day

- 01 02 - 03 10.34

No service at all

- - 03 18 21 72.43

Total town 01 03 07 18 29 100 Source: Bulletin published by various municipalities of Murshidabad district

It is clear from the Table 31 that only in 10.34 percent of towns in the district the

day to day basis sweeping is carried out. At the same time, 72 percent of towns record no

service at all. Wherever, the facilities are available, generally commercial and main roads or

important roads are swept carefully, neglecting the other streets. Traditional handcarts or

tricycles are used for collection.

6.6.2.8 Extent of segregation of waste collected

Segregation of waste is a critical requirement for sustainable solid waste management.

Segregation enables recycling, reuse, treatment, and scientific disposal of different component

of wastes. Segregation of waste should ideally be at source, and should then also be transported

in a segregated manner up to the point of treatment or disposal. Data in Table 25 shows very

poor performance of the district in this regard. Percentage of segregation varies between 12

percent for Beldanga and 28 percent in case of Berhampore. At this juncture, a comparison

can be made with state and national average of segregation of waste at source in class I town.

The Table 32 depicts the figure.

108

TABLE 32: SEGREGATION OF WASTE IN CLASS I TOWN.

(FIGURE IN PERCENT)

Source: Asnani (2004) and Municipal bulletins, Murshidabad.

On the other hand, on an average, only 17 percent of waste generated in the towns of

Murshidabad is collected in a segregated manner. System of Segregation is available in five

municipal towns out of seven municipal towns, though the percentage is very low. In the

remaining urban centers, this system is totally nonexistent. So, it is clear that the citizens have

not been educated adequately to keep domestic, trade, and institutional bin for storage of waste

at source. Survey shows that in most of the urban centers bins are common for both

decomposable and non-decomposable waste, and waste is disposed at community disposal

center placed along the road.

6.6.2.9 Extent of recovery of waste collected

Environmental sustainability demands that maximum extent of waste should be

recycled, reused or processed. Measurement of this indicator is critical. The bench mark value

for this indicator will depend on the amount of inert matter comprised in the waste collected by

the ULB. Waste composition is typically unique for each city and town. Generally no large

scale processing of municipal solid waste is done in the country (Asnani, 2006). Only a few

cities have been practicising decentralized or centralized composting on a limited scale using

aerobic or anaerobic system of composition.

In Murshidabad, only 10 percent of urban local bodies practicing very limited scale of

the task of recovery of waste. The percentage of extent of recovery in Murshidabad varies

between 10 percent and 22 percent. On an average, only 9 percent of waste collected is

recycled or reused in the district.

6.6.2.10 Number of conservancy staff per 1000 population

Solid waste management is a labour intensive service and one of the problems that

most of the ULB face is shortage of staff. It is important to point out that staff norm has been

set in relation to population but these bear no link whatsoever with either the areal size of cities

or the quantum of refuse generated both of which can make a noticeable differences to the

efficiency level of staff and in turn of the municipal bodies. In spite of the higher ratio of staff,

work load (in Kg.) may be higher as compared to having lower staff ratio (NIUA, 1992). It

means that an important part of the problem with respect to waste collection and disposal rests

on the work load (in Kg.) within the cities rather only the number of sanitary staff. A norm of

India 36.47

West Bengal 34.3

Murshidabad 28

109

2.8 sanitary workers per 1000 person is considered necessary to take care of the refuse load in

the urban areas (NIUA, 1992).

TABLE 33: CLASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SANITARY WORKERS PER 1000 POPULATION

IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSIDABAD, 2001

Source: Compiled by the researcher from bulletin published by various municipalities of Murshidabad district.

The present survey indicates that in Murshidabad no city and town is able to meet the

norm as it varies sharply between 0.82 in Dhulian and 2.74 in Kandi. The class I town of the

district records a figure of 2.22. At this juncture, it can be pointed out that a very few cities in

the country meet the norm in this regard. No census towns in the district have sanitary

workers. The Table 33 depicts the class size wise number of sanitary worker per 1000 of

population.

It is clear from the Table 33 that the average sanitary worker per 1000 of population in

2001 for Class I town is 2.2 whereas this figure for Class II town is 1.61 and for Class III is

1.71. It is also pointed out here that 75.86 percent of towns have no sanitary worker at all.

Inadequate number of sanitary workers for the area and population covered affects the

collection efficiency of solid waste.

6.6.2.11 Average number of water logging reported in a year

This indicator provides a picture of the extent to which water logging and flooding is

reported in the ULB of Murshidabad district within a year, which has affected significant

number of person’s normal life and mobility. Recurrence of water logging also provides an

assessment of the impact of outcome of drainage system. The highest and lowest number of

water logging case is reported as 15 times and 4 times respectively. It is clear from table 20

that number of cases of water logging is less in census town and high in case of municipal

town may be attributed to variations in density of settlement and lack of proper drainage

system as well as proper maintenance of drainage system in municipal town.

SANITARY WORKERS PER 1000

POPULATION

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN

NO. OF CLASS II

TOWN

NO. OF CLASS III

TOWN

NO. OF OTHER TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

<2 - 02 02 - 04 13.86 2 TO <3 01 01 01 - 03 10.38 3 TO <4 - - - - - - NO SANITARY WORKERS

- - 04 18 22 75.86

TOTAL 01 03 07 29 29 100 AVERAGE 2.22 1.61 1.71 00 1.74

110

6.7 URBAN TRANSPORTATION 6.7.1 INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Under the constitution of India, responsibility for urban development inclusive of

urban transport rests with the state government. But the role of central government is also

important in many respects. The main legislation that regulates road transport, the Motor

vehicle Act, is administered by the central government. Production and quality specification of

Petroleum rests with central agencies. Finally, the central government alone has the financial

muscle to support investments in mass transit infrastructure. Unfortunately, there is no clear

allocation of the subject of urban transport to a particular department within the state. In some

states the transport department undertakes urban transport planning, in others, it is done by the

department responsible for urban development or municipal administration. Bengal Municipal

Act, 1993 (as amended in 2006) in section 166 vested power on municipal administration to

classify public and private street. According section 168 of this Act “All public streets,

transportation terminal ………… shall be under the control of the Board of Councilor who

shall cause the same to be maintained, controlled and regulated”(West Bengal Municipal Act,

2006).

6.7.2 PRESENT STATUS OF ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

In order to assess the present status of urban transportation in the cities and towns of

Murshidabad district the following indicators (Table 34) are determined.

6.7.2.1 Length of the roads

Major roads and intersections are the core elements of the overall road transport system

in an urban area. They provide links between various landuses and communities. Their

function is to provide a safe, reliable, efficient, convenient transport route for all types of

vehicles and cyclists. The maximum length of an access street should ensure its status as a

residential place is retained, where the traffic in terms of speed and volume will enable the

integration of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular movements. Total length of the road in the

town includes i.e. arterial, sub - arterial road network or public transport corridors on both

sides.

In Murshidabad, total length of roads in urban areas varies between as low as 5 Km. in

Serpur, a census town to as high as 950 Km. in Berhampore, a class I town in the district.

Most of the census towns have unmettaled road. Even in the municipal towns about 35 percent

road length is of cement concrete. Survey shows that in class I town about 32 percent of the

road length till now is cemented and 77 percent of road length is motorable.

111

TABLE 34: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Indicator Unit Definition 1.Total length of the road

Km

1. Total length of the road in Kilometer including main road arterial road, sub arterial road, access road of the concerned ULB. The roads include both surfaced and un surfaced road.

2. Average width of the road in feet.

feet 2. The data is collected from authority of concerned ULB. They have obtained this average by using the following formula Total width of individual road/ Total number of road

3. Average speed on the road

Km/Hour 3. The data is collected from authority of concerned ULB. They have obtained this average by using the following formula Total of the speed recorded on the selected road at peak time/ Number of selected road

4.Number of parking lot

Number 4. The number includes only those parking lots which are determined by concerned ULB.

5.Percentage of trips by public transport

Percent 5. Public transport system will only include rail or organised bus based systems. The figure can be obtained by using the following formula Total number of trips generated by public transport in a time period / Total number of trips generated on that time period × 100

6. Percentage of trips by IPT modes.

Percent 6. IPT modes include autorickshaw (3 seated), motor cycle rickshaws (4 seated), tongas (Horse drawn vehicle), tempos, cycle rickshaw ctc. The figure can be obtained by using the following formula Total number of trips generated by IPT modes in a time period / Total number of trips generated on that time period × 100

7.Separate lane for non motorised vehicle

Foot 7. Width of lane used for non motorised vehicle if available.

8.Number of vehicle per 1000 of population

Ratio 8.This ratio can be obtained by using the following formula Total number registered vehicle in concerned ULB / Total number of population of the concerned ULB × 1000

Source: Compiled by the researcher from Planning Commission India ,GOI, National Urban Transport Policy, United Nations; Hand Book of Benchmarks, SLBs for Urban Transport- MoUD, Government of India, NIUA.

112

TABLE 35: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Compiled by the researcher. Description of the indicators according to serial number 1. Total length of the road. 2. Average width of the road in feet. 3. Average speed on the road 4. Number of parking lot. 5. Percentage of trips by public transportation 6. Percentage of trips by IPT mode. 7. Separate lane for non motorized vehicles. 8. Number of vehicle per 1000 population.

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Dhulian M 126 8 10 00 0 46 0 15 2. Jangipur M 86 9 12 03 0 45 0 17 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 92 9 13 02 0 43 0 12

4. Murshidabad M 135 9 13.6 02 0 44 0 14 5. Berhampore M 950 12 15 05 0 54 0 23 6. Kandi M 125 8 12 02 0 48 0 12 7. Beldanga M 24 8 13 00 0 51 0 14 8. Farakka CT 40 7 12.6 01 0 40 0 12 9. Anupnagar CT 5 7 15.2 00 0 20 0 09 10. Dhusaripara CT 7 6.5 15 00 0 25 0 11 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 6 7 14.4 00 0 28 0 09

12. Kankuria CT 10 6 15 00 0 30 0 11 13. Chachanda CT 7 6.5 15 00 0 35 0 10 14. Serpur CT 5 7 14 00 0 35 0 09

15. Fattelapur CT 7 6 13.4 00 0 30 0 10 16. Jagtaj CT 8 6 12.5 00 0 29 0 09 17. Arungabad CT 10 7 13 00 0 37 0 11 18. Dafahat CT 7 7 13 00 0 27 0 09 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 22 8 14 00 0 38 0 12

20. Ghorsala CT 33 8 13.2 00 0 27 0 08 21. Charka CT 17 8 15 00 0 29 0 09 22. Srikantabati CT 50 8.5 14 00 0 29 0 09 23. Jatkamal CT 10 6 14 00 0 28 0 08 24. Sahajadpur CT 12 7 13.5 00 0 32 0 10 25. Khodarampur CT 10 7 15 00 0 27 0 09 26. Harthariachak CT 9 6.5 15 00 0 31 0 08 27. Kasimbazar CT 39 8 14 01 0 52 0 15 28. Goaljan CT 10 8 13.5 00 0 46 0 11 29. Gorabazar CT 85 9 15 01 0 49 0 17

113

TABLE 36: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Dhulian M 0.128 0.33 0 0 0 0.764 0 0.466 2. Jangipur M 0.085 0.500 0.384 0.600 0 0.735 0 0.600 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.092 0.500 0.576 0.400 0 0.676 0 0.266

4. Murshidabad M 0.137 0.500 0.692 0.400 0 0.705 0 0.400 5. Berhampore M 1 1 0.961 1 0 1 0 1 6. Kandi M 0.126 0.333 0.384 0.400 0 0.823 0 0.266 7. Beldanga M 0.020 0.333 0.576 0 0 0.911 0 0.400 8. Farakka CT 0.037 0.166 0.500 0.200 0 0.588 0 0.266 9. Anupnagar CT 0 0.166 1 0 0 0 0 0.066 10. Dhusaripara CT 0.002 0.083 0.961 0 0 0.147 0 0.200 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.001 0.166 0.846 0 0 0.235 0 0.066

12. Kankuria CT .005 0 0.961 0 0 0.294 0 0.200 13. Chachanda CT 0.002 0.083 0.961 0 0 0.441 0 0.133 14. Serpur CT 0 0.166 0.769 0 0 0.441 0 0.066

15. Fattelapur CT 0.002 0 0.653 0 0 0.294 0 0.133 16. Jagtaj CT 0.003 0 0.480 0 0 0.264 0 0.066 17. Arungabad CT 0.005 0.166 0.576 0 0 0.500 0 0.200 18. Dafahat CT 0.002 0.166 0.576 0 0 0.205 0 0.066 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.017 0.333 0.769 0 0 0.529 0 0.266

20. Ghorsala CT 0.029 0.333 0.615 0 0 0.205 0 0 21. Charka CT 0.012 0.333 0.961 0 0 0.264 0 0.066 22. Srikantabati CT 0.047 0.416 0.769 0 0 0.264 0 0.066 23. Jatkamal CT 0.005 0 0.769 0 0 0.235 0 0 24. Sahajadpur CT 0.007 0.166 0.673 0 0 0.352 0 0.133 25. Khodarampur CT 0.005 0.166 0.961 0 0 0.205 0 0.066 26. Harthariachak CT 0.004 0.083 0.961 0 0 0.323 0 0.066 27. Kasimbazar CT 0.035 0.333 0.769 0 0 0.941 0 0.466 28. Goaljan CT 0.005 0.333 0.673 0 0 0.764 0 0.200 29. Gorabazar CT 0.084 0.500 0.961 0 0 0.852 0 0.600

114

TABLE 37: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDI) FOR ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT 2001

Sl. No Name of

the Town Status CDI Rank


Azimganj M 0.313 24

4 Murshidabad M 0.354 26 5 Berhampore M 0.745 29


10 Dhusaripara CT 0.174 09 11 Uttar




20 Ghorsala CT 0.147 05 21 Charka CT 0.204 17 22 Srikantabati CT 0.195 15 23 Jatkamal CT 0.126 02 24 Sahajadpur CT 0.166 08 25 Khodarampur CT 0.175 10 26 Harthariachak CT 0.179 11 27 Kasimbazar CT 0.318 25 28 Goaljan CT 0.246 21 29 Gorabazar CT 0.374 28


The Table 38 depicts the distribution of road length under various categories according to size

class of the towns in the district.

115

TABLE 38: DISTRIBUTION OF ROAD UNDER VARIOUS CATEGORIES (IN PERCENT) IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD

CLASS SIZE

OF TOWNS

TOTAL

LENGTH OF

ROAD(Km)

WATER

BOUND

MACADAM

BLACK TOP CEMENT

CONCRETE

MOTORABLE NON

MOTORABLE

CLASS I 950 11 40 32 10 7

CLASS II 337 26.6 27.3 29.4 7.8 8.9

CLASS III 284 33.18 37.5 18.12 2 9.2

OTHER IV-VI 337 10 20.2 25.8 19 25

Source: Urban West Bengal 2002 and various B.D.O. office of Murshidabad district.

The table above discloses that percentage of non motorable road in class II town is

more than the class I town. Highest percentage of cement concrete road is available in class I

town in the district followed by class II category: Highest percentage of non motorable road is

available is class I town in the district followed by class II category: Highest percentage of non

motorable road is contributed by categories of towns IV – VI, mainly found in the census town

come. It is also clear from the table that there is relationship between length of the road and

class size of town i.e. higher the size of the town higher will be the length of the road.

6.7.2.2 Average width of the road

In the context of the present socio-economic realities of most developing countries,

pedestrians, bycyclists and other slow moving vehicles can’t be eliminated from the urban

landscape. If the infrastructure design does not meet the requirements of these elements then

all modes of transport will operate in sub-optional condition. So, it is clear from discussion

that improved speed of vehicle, increased capacity of vehicle (motorized and non-motorized)

and reduced congestion; increased safety are all related with the width of the roads available.

In general, a “travel lane” is 9 – 10 feet. The rationale for wider than 20 feet is needed to

accommodate parking, two way traffic as well as emergency vehicles

(www.pioneerinstitute.org.).

The highest width of roads in urban areas of Murshidabad district is recorded as 12 feet

in Berhampore whereas lowest width is recorded as 6.5 feet in Chachanda and Dhusaripara.

Both are census towns. So, it is clear from the Table 35 that no town in the district is able to

meet the minimum width of road required for smooth movement of mixed traffic. The highest

width of road as recorded by Berhampore is the only 60 percent of minimum width required.

No roads in the towns of district have separate lanes for motor and non motor traffic. About 51

percent of towns in Murshidabad have not even minimum width required (8 feet) for non

motor vehicle. The condition of sub arterial road in municipal areas is also poor. The width is

less than the main road. The widths of subarterial road in census towns are also having same

conditions as municipal towns.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/

116

6.7.2.3 Average speed on the road

Average Speed is defined in terms of average travel speed of all vehicles - public or

private on key roads. It gives us an indirect indication about the number of vehicles (both

public and private, non-motors vehicles) along the roads, average intersection delay, presence

of segregation of lanes of public transport and non motor vehicles along the road.

Towns of Murshidabad district is characterized by heterogeneous traffic (a mix of

motorized vehicles and non - motorized vehicles). Non motorized vehicles are owned and

used by a large section of the population. So, variety of vehicle types share the same road

space in towns of Murshidabad as there is no separate lanes for motorized and non motorized

vehicles. This causes the low average speed in the towns of Murshidabad district. Average

speed for all vehicles in the district varies between as high as 15.2 Km/h in Anupnagar, a

census town and as low as 10 Km/h in Dhulian, a municipal town. Berhampore, a Class I town

records a speed of only 15 Km per hour. It can be noticed that average speed of vehicles in the

census town is slightly higher than the municipal town as the vehicle density is lower in the

census towns.

6.7.2.4 Number of parking lot

India is going through a rapid economic development. One of the consequences of this

development is the rapid growth of car ownership and car traffic. Along with the increase in

the number of car there is also a sharp increase in number of two wheelers; making it a

complicated situation regarding parking facilities. It has been observed that the road length

used for street parking on major network ranges from 14 percent to 61 percent with an average

of 41 percent (Wilbur smith Associate and Ministry of Urban Development May, 2008).

Parked vehicles on road side impede the smooth flow of traffic. There should be availability of

parking lot along the arterial road, sub arterial roads in the urban areas.

From the Table 35, it is clear that in Murshidabad, most of the towns do not have the

parking facilities. Five municipal towns, out of seven have minimum number of parking lot

which varies between two and five. Even the available parking lot is not designed on the basis

of norms and standard laid down by various agencies. So, scarcity of parking lot causes huge

congestion in peak hours which in turn affects the speed of the vehicle in these towns.

6.7.2.5 Percentage of trips by public transport

Public transport system will only include rail or organized bus based systems. Public

transport systems are characterized by fixed origins and destinations, fixed routes and

schedules, fixed stoppage points and fixed fares. It is well known that public transport

occupies less road space and causes less pollution per passenger/Km than personal vehicles.

As such public transport is more sustainable form of transport. But, it is very unfortunate that

117

in Murshidabad district no towns including one class I town have the facilities of public

transport system.

6.7.2.6 Percentage of trips by intermediate public transport (IPT) mode

The intermediate public transport (IPT) modes include auto rickshaws (3 wheelers),

motorcycle rickshaws (4 seated), tongas (horse drawn vehicle), tempos, cycle rickshaws and so

on. Although, the conventional buses provide the cheapest form of urban transport, their use

by the public is determined by the adequacy and quality of service. Buses ply on fixed routes

run at scheduled timings and cannot attain much speed due to distance graduated stops on the

way. On the other hand, the IPT modes give service from the request point to the destination

and are available at any time and work out faster for short distances. This mode is most

suitable for small and medium town where buses are not available.

In Murshidabad, as there is no public transport system available, IPT mode and

personalised mode of transport is significant. Percentage of trips generated by IPT mode in the

towns and cities of Murshidabad district varies between 20 percent in Arupnagar and 54

percent in Berhampore. All the municipal towns have recorded above 45 percent of trips by

IPT mode. On the other hand, most of the census towns recorded below 40 percent of trips by

IPT mode. The Table 39 below reveals the percentage of town under various category of IPT

mode.

TABLE 39: CLASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF IPT MODE OF TRANSPORT SYSTEM (IN PERCENT) IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD

RANGE IN PERCENT

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN

NO. OF CLASS II TOWN

NO. OF CLASS III TOWN

NO. OF OTHER

TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

80 AND ABOVE

0 0 0 0 0 0

60 – 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 – 60 01 03 04 03 11 37.93

BELOW 40 0 0 03 15 18 62.07 TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

Source: Bulletin published by various municipalities and various B.D.O. office of Murshidabad district

It is clear from the Table 39 that 37.93 percent of the towns falls in the category of 40 –

60 percent group using IPT mode and more than 62 percent of the towns is using IPT mode

below 40 percent group. People in these towns prefer to rely on personalised transport

especially bicycle due to absence of IPT modes of transport.

6.7.2.7 Separate lane for non motorized vehicle

The existing road design in the urban centers of the district does not cater to the needs

of pedestrian – bicycles or any slow moving traffic. Footpaths are either not present or poorly

maintained. In some roads though foot path is there but occupied by hawkers. Moreover,

118

there is no separate lane for slow moving vehicle like bicycles and rickshaws and motorized

vehicles. Consequently, all road users have to share the same carriage way. This often leads to

unsafe condition for pedestrian and also moving vehicle and congested conditions for

motorised vehicles.

6.7.2.8 Vehicle per 1000 population

Number of vehicles per 1000 population can throw some light on the adequacy of

vehicle in the urban areas of Murshidabad district of West Bengal. According to World Bank

document the measure of adequacy of bus system in the developing countries is one bus for

every 2000 person or 50 buses for every one lakh person. The Ministry of Urban Development

in India places this norm at 75 buses for every one lakh persons (NIUA, 1992). In

Murshidabad, there is no bus system for intra urban areas. So, vehicles calculated include

main vehicles in IPT mode. Data shows (Table 35) that the number of vehicle per 1000

population in the towns of Murshidabad is very low as it ranges between 08 and 23. The

highest ratio is recorded in Berhampore. It can also be noted that municipal towns are recorded

slightly higher number of vehicles than census towns. So, the situation is very complex. In

one hand, there is a shortage of vehicles per 1000 population, on the other hand existing

number of vehicles is creating congestion due to unscientific road networks.

6.7.3 SPATIAL VARIATION IN “CDI” FOR TRANSPORTATION


towns and city of Murshidabad district. In 2001, CDI for road and transportation ranges from

0.16 to 0.745. On the basis of CDI for road and transportation four categories of spatial pattern

of infrastructural facilities are obtained in 2001; very high level (CDI over 0.58) high level

(CDI between 0.42 and 0.58) medium level (CDI ranges between 0.21 and 0.39) and low order

(CDI below 0.26). On regional consideration, there is only one urban unit which shows

maximum level of road and transportation facilities. There is no town or cities in high level

category in this regard. Seven towns (24.13 percent) out of 29 towns show medium level and

more than 72 percent of town show low level of facilities regarding road transportation.

6.8 URBAN POWER SUPPLY There is no controversy that energy is a vital component of urban infrastructure.

Without power it will not be possible to execute other infrastructural development. Without

electricity it will not be possible to continue water supply, sewerage network service,

transportation etc. Most common form of energy used in India is electricity, others are oil and

119

gas. Per Capita consumption of fossil fuel is still very low in urban India as compared to other

developed countries. The supply of electricity is not equal throughout India. From

educational institution to hospital from commercial establishment to household, insufficient

power supply causes tremendous hardship in several major cities across the country (Kalra,

Shekhar. 2006). With the increasing income the demand for energy from basic energy and

uses such as cooking and lighting to mobility, communication etc has increased manyfold. In

this situation it is very necessary to examine the coverage of supply of electricity in the towns

of Murshidabad.

6.8.1 PRESENT STATUS OF POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES IN STUDY AREA

To assess the existing condition of power supply in urban areas of Murshidabad district

the following indicators (Table 40) are selected.

TABLE 40: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


1. Household using electricity as a source of power.

Percent

1. A group of persons normally living together and taking food from a common kitchen constitutes a household. Percentage of household having major use of electricity as a source of power.

2. Household using kerosene as a source of power.

Percent

2. Percentage of household having major use of kerosene as a source of power.

3. Number of light post on each 30 meters on road.

Number 3. Total number of light post on each 30 meters on road. It can be obtained by using following formula

Total length of road of a town ------------------------------------------------- X 30 Total number of light post of that town

4. Number of industrial and commercial connection.

Number 4. Number of industrial and commercial connection of town as defined by census of India 1971 and 2001.


120

TABLE 41: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4

1. Dhulian M 23.87 75.68 0.143 720 2. Jangipur M 63.91 35.37 0.490 1497 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 56.76 42.39 0.461 1005

4. Murshidabad M 46.98 49.96 0.316 527 5. Berhampore M 76.66 23.30 0.378 3282 6. Kandi M 60.85 37.80 0.316 1361 7. Beldanga M 71.97 27.18 1.11 1276 8. Farakka CT 71.26 28.15 0 300 9. Anupnagar CT 13.89 85.40 0 16 10. Dhusaripara CT 2.74 97.26 0 15 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 8.60 91.40 0 106

12. Kankuria CT 8.27 91.58 0 9 13. Chachanda CT 1.09 99.91 0 12 14. Serpur CT 37.16 62.16 0.072 20

15. Fattelapur CT 11.25 88.34 0 9 16. Jagtaj CT 22.20 77.69 0 11 17. Arungabad CT 42.10 51.28 0.123 370 18. Dafahat CT 31.01 68.73 0 14 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 11.36 88.29 0 10

20. Ghorsala CT 42.92 57.08 0 28 21. Charka CT 19.58 80.24 0 22 22. Srikantabati CT 35.35 63.49 0 107 23. Jatkamal CT 36.02 63.89 0 16 24. Sahajadpur CT 33.79 65.87 0 145 25. Khodarampur CT 2.85 97.15 0 8 26. Harthariachak CT 51.12 48.23 0 65 27. Kasimbazar CT 62.12 36.16 0 45 28. Goaljan CT 70.15 29.85 0 75 29. Gorabazar CT 94.32 5.62 0 55

Source: Compiled by the researcher from District Statistical Hand Book, 2003 and NSSO 61ST

round, 2004.

Description of the indicators according to serial number

1. Household using electricity as a source of power 2. Household using kerosene as a source of power 3. Number of light post on each 30 meters of road 4. Number of industrial and commercial connection

121

TABLE 42: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS SELECTED FOR POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4

1. Dhulian M 0.244 0.743 0.068 0.217 2. Jangipur M 0.673 0.315 0.402 0.457 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.597 0.389 0.374 0.304

4. Murshidabad M 0.492 0.470 0.235 0.158 5. Berhampore M 0.810 0.187 0.294 1 6. Kandi M 0.640 0.341 0.235 0.413 7. Beldanga M 0.760 0.228 1 0.387 8. Farakka CT 0.752 0.239 0 0.089 9. Anupnagar CT 0.137 0.846 0 0.002 10. Dhusaripara CT 0.017 0.971 0 0.002 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.080 0.909 0 0

12. Kankuria CT 0.077 0.911 0 0 13. Chachanda CT 0 1 0 0.001 14. Serpur CT 0.386 0.593 0 0.003

15. Fattelapur CT 0.108 0.877 0 0 16. Jagtaj CT 0.226 0.764 0 0 17. Arungabad CT 0.439 0.484 0.049 0.110 18. Dafahat CT 0.320 0.669 0 0.001 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.110 0.876 0 0

20. Ghorsala CT 0.448 0.545 0 0.006 21. Charka CT 0.198 0.791 0 0.004 22. Srikantabati CT 0.367 0.613 0 .0030 23. Jatkamal CT 0.374 0.617 0 0.002 24. Sahajadpur CT 0.350 0.638 0 0.041 25. Khodarampur CT 0.018 0.670 0 0 26. Harthariachak CT 0.536 0.451 0 0.017 27. Kasimbazar CT 0.660 0.323 0 0.111 28. Goaljan CT 0.740 0.256 0 0.020 29. Gorabazar CT 1 0 0 0.014

122

TABLE 43: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDI) FOR POWER SUPPLY FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF

MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Calculated by the researcher 6.8.1.1 Percentage of household connection

One of the ways to measure the access of the coverage is household level connection of

electricity. If we closely follow the household level connection of electricity supply (Table 41)

then it will be clear that there is wide variation among the towns in this regard as it varies as

high as 94.32 percent to as low as 1.09 percent.

From the Table 44, it is clear that only 3.44 percent of towns have above 80 percent

household level connection of electricity. In another way, we can say 27.58 percent of the

Sl.no. Name of the Town

Status CDI Rank


Azimganj M 0.416 26

4 Murshidabad M 0.338 24 5 Berhampore M 0.572 28 6 Kandi M 0.407 25 7 Beldanga M 0.593 29 8 Farakka CT 0.270 21 9 Anupnagar CT 0.246 06 10 Dhusaripara CT 0.247 11 11 Uttar




20 Ghorsala CT 0.249 14 21 Charka CT 0.248 13 22 Srikantabati CT 0.245 02 23 Jatkamal CT 0.248 12 24 Sahajadpur CT 0.257 19 25 Khodarampur CT 0.172 01 26 Harthariachak CT 0.251 16 27 Kasimbazar CT 0.273 22 28 Goaljan CT 0.254 18 29 Gorabazar CT 0.253 17

123

towns of the district have household connection of electricity between 60 – 100 percent. More

important is that more than 55 percent of the towns have household connection below 40

percent and some cases only 1.09 percent recorded by Chachanda, a census town.

TABLE 44: HOUSEHOLD CONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY (IN PERCENT) IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD

Source: Compiled by the researcher from District Statistical Hand Book, 2003 and NSSO 61st

round, 2004. 6.8.1.2 Percentage of household using Kerosene Oil, especially Kerosene is still important sources of energy in many urban areas of

India. Due to inadequate supply and unequal distribution of electric supply people have to

depend on Kerosene oil for lighting and cooking. So, we can get an idea about supply

efficiency of electricity from the percentage of people using Kerosene for lighting and cooking

purpose. If we closely study the Table 41, showing distributional pattern of Kerosene user

among the towns of Murshidabad, then it will be clear that percentage of household using

Kerosene ranges between 60 percent and 100 percent. So, it may be said that a high percentage

of household use Kerosene as source of lighting. Households using Kerosene are found mostly

in census town and small towns (more than 50%) where there is shortage of electric supply.

6.8.1.3 Connection of electricity for commercial and industrial purpose

Another indicator of efficiency regarding the supply of power is the connection for

commercial and industrial purposes. The highest connection is recorded in Berhampore and

lowest number of connection recorded as 09 by Kankuria, a census town. Table 41 reveals that

number of electricity connection is higher in case of Municipal towns in the district than the

census towns. Only 13 percent of census town has recorded commercial connection just above

100 in number and remaining 87 percent have the connection even below 100 in number.

6.8.1.4 Road lighting facilities

There is a need to examine the road lighting facilities in the towns of Murshidabad

district. The standard distance between two light posts as determined by various agencies is

30m. So, there should be one light post between 30m of distance. But, the number of light

post per 30m of distance in the urban centers of Murshidabad exhibits inadequacy in this

RANGE IN PERCENT

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN



NO. OF OTHER TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

80 AND ABOVE

00 00 00 01 01 3.44

60 – 80 01 02 02 02 07 24.14 40 – 60 00 00 03 02 05 17.24 20 - 40 00 01 00 07 08 27.59 BELOW 20 00 00 02 06 08 27.59

124

regard. Only 31 percent of towns have the road lighting facilities in Murshidabad. Only 1

town, out of 29 towns, is able to cross the norms. In the remaining town where road lighting

facilities are available is far below the norm.

6.8.2 SPATIAL VARIATION IN “CDI” FOR POWER SUPPLY


towns and cities of Murshidabad district. On the basis of CDI for Power supply, four categories

of spatial pattern of infrastructural facilities are obtained in 2001; very high level (CDI over

0.48) high level (CDI over between 0.37 and 0.48) medium level (CDI between 0.26 and 0.37)

and low order (CDI below 0.26). On regional consideration, two urban centers namely

Berhampore and Beldanga shows maximum CDI score, followed by Jangipur, Jiaganj and

Kandi which shows high level and all are municipal town. Twenty four towns (82 percent of

towns) exhibit medium to low level of the facilities.

6.9 URBAN EDUCATION


After independence education became the responsibility of the states. The central

government’s only obligation was to co-ordinate the technical and higher education with

specified standards. This continued till 1976, when the education became a joint responsibility

of the state and the center. Further commitments to the universalization of education as well as

the legal, administrative and financial framework for the government funded education are

found in two main sources. There are ongoing series of Five Year Plans for national

development and National Policy and Education (NPE) (1986) with its programme of action

(1992). The Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resource Development,

executed the central governments responsibilities in educational matters. State level education

minister coordinates education programmes at local levels. City school boards are under the

supervision of the state education ministry and associated departments as well as the municipal

bodies. Structure of schooling system in urban areas of Murshidabad can be summarized as

below (Fig. 15).

In India, a school is that in which the course(s) of study followed is / are prescribed or

recognized by the government (Central / State) or a university or a Board constituted by law or

by any other agency authorized on this behalf by the central or state government and which

satisfies one or more of authorities e.g. Directorate of Education, Municipal Corporation /

Committee, Board etc. in regard to its standard of efficiency (NCERT, 2002).

125

FIG. 15: SCHOOLING SYSTEM IN URBAN MURSHIDABAD

School

Recognised Non- recognised

Public Private Unaided Aided Unaided Central State Local Others Govt Govt Govt Source: Compiled by the researcher using data from department of Education, Govt. of West Bengal

6.9.2 PRESENT STATUS OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

In order to assess the present status of educational facilities in the city and towns of

Murshidabad district the following indicators (Table 45) are chosen.

6.9.2.1 Percentage of literate People

One of the basic indicators of educational attainment is literacy rate because of its

ability to affect the well-being of future generation. It also gives us some clues indirectly

about the educational facilities available in the urban areas of the district. Literacy among the

towns of Murshidabad varies between 38.6 percent in Dhusaripara, a census town and 94

percent in Gorabazar, also a census town. About 85.8 percent of people is literate in

Berhampore. Literacy rate in West Bengal according to 2001census is 81.25 percent.

Murshidabad district records a figure of 69.03 percent of literate which is below the state as

well as national average (Fig. 16). Only 4 towns i.e. 13 percent of towns in the district records

literacy rate higher than the state average of 81.25 percent (Urban West Bengal, 2003). Eleven

towns have recorded higher than the district’s average of urban literacy (69.03 percent). The

Table 49 depicts class-size wise distribution of literacy rate under various categories.

126

TABLE 45: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


1. Percentage literate people

Percent

1. A person who can both read and write with understanding in any language is taken as literate. A person who can merely read but cannot write is not a literate. We can get the value by using the following formula Total literate population of the ULB/ Total population of the ULB X100

2. Number of recognized school per 1000 population of 6 to 17 years of age.

Ratio

2. In India, a school is that in which the course(s) of study followed is/are prescribed or recognized by the Government (Central/State) or a University or a Board constituted by law or by any other agency authorized in this behalf by the Central or Stat Government. We can get the value by using the following formula, Total number recognized School/Total population of age group of 6 to 17 years x1000.

3. Percentage of recognized school run by local body.

Percent

3. It can be obtained by using the following formula Total number of school run by ULB/Total number of recognized school in the area of concerned ULB x100

4. Number of degree colleges/Universities

Number 4. Number of degree colleges/University recognized by the Government (Central/State) or by any other agency authorized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.

5. Number of Technical and professional Institutions

Number 5. Number of Technical and professional Institutions recognized by the Government (Central/State) or a University or a Board constituted by law or by any other agency authorized in this behalf by the Central or Stat Government.

6.Over all enrolment ratio (OAER) for primary, upper primary, high, higher secondary school

Ratio 6. The first indicator of the coverage is the over-all enrolment ratio (OAER), which presents an overall picture or a bird’s eye-view of the entire education system. In the numerator, total enrolment in Grades I-XII is considered irrespective of the age but in the denominator, corresponding school-age population is considered. Because of this, enrolment ratio in a few locations may even cross hundred.

127


7. Pupil teacher ratio (PTR).

Ratio 7. It is simply the division of the total enrolment (Class I to Class XII) to total number of teachers for class I to class XII.

8. Pupil teacher ratio (PTR) in degree colleges/Universities.

Ratio 8. It is simply the division of the total enrolment (in degree colleges/Universities) to total number of teachers.

9. Space utilization rate (SUR).

Ratio 9. ‘Space Utilisation Rate’ is used which relates average students who utilise room to its maximum capacity. SUR = Average number of students per room/ Room capacity x100

Source: Compiled by the researcher from Planning Commission India,GOI,Ministry of Urban Development, United Nations; Hand Book of Benchmarks, GOI,Ministry of HRD.

Source: Census of India, 2001.

79.9281.25

69.03

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84


PERC

ENT

FIG 16: URBAN LITERACY RATE (IN PERECNT) IN INDIA, WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD, 2001

PERCENT LITERATE

128

TABLE 46: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Source: Calculated by the researcher using the data of Seventh All India School Education Survey and DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad., Educational Statistics 04, GOI Description of the indicators according to serial number

1. Percentage literate people. 2. Number of recognized school per 1000 population of 6 to 17 years of age. 3. Percentage of recognized school run by urban local body. 4. Number of degree colleges/Universities. 5. Number of Technical and Professional Institutions. 6. Number of non-formal education and special education center 7. Over all enrolment ratio (OAER) for Primary, upper primary, high, higher secondary

school. 8. Pupil teacher ratio (Primary, upper primary, high, higher secondary school). 9. Pupil teacher ratio (PTR) in degree colleges/Universities. 10. Space utilization rate (SUR).

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Dhulian M 48.1 1.44 0 0 0 0 51.11 90 0 55 2. Jangipur M 73.3 2.04 82.5 01 0 1 80.74 89 44.61 61 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 75.7 2.30 0 02 02 0 61.46 45 48.88 58

4. Murshidabad M 74.7 3.06 0 01 0 1 83.71 46 11.25 60 5. Berhampore M 85.8 1.73 6.25 03 04 6 46.38 33 45.71 67 6. Kandi M 75.4 2.76 0 02 01 0 77.36 48 25.17 62 7. Beldanga M 76.2 2.37 0 01 0 0 88.69 56 47.39 60 8. Farakka CT 77.5 0.56 0 01 0 0 32.07 42 0 48 9. Anupnagar CT 41.6 0.93 0 0 0 0 27.59 118 0 45 10. Dhusaripara CT 38.6 2.32 0 0 0 0 81.22 95 0 49 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 43.3 1.55 0 0 0 0 48.95 126 0 45

12. Kankuria CT 39.5 1.98 0 0 0 0 94.85 106 0 57 13. Chachanda CT 45.5 1.34 0 0 0 0 52.66 106 0 56 14. Serpur CT 48.1 2.92 0 0 0 0 180 84 0 75

15. Fattelapur CT 61.9 3.73 0 0 0 0 160 90 0 69 16. Jagtaj CT 44.5 1.21 0 0 0 0 41.52 85 0 63 17. Arungabad CT 51.9 1.59 0 01 0 0 93.03 105 0 72 18. Dafahat CT 44.5 0.39 0 0 0 0 14.67 92 0 65 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 44.3 1.97 0 0 0 0 68.71 90 0 75

20. Ghorsala CT 61.1 0.60 0 0 0 0 25.44 104 0 45 21. Charka CT 50.9 2.42 0 0 0 0 69.50 67 0 44 22. Srikantabati CT 63.7 2.11 0 0 0 0 125.45 80 0 64 23. Jatkamal CT 67.6 1.19 0 0 0 0 108.45 82 0 47 24. Sahajadpur CT 55.1 1.56 0 0 0 0 81.69 87 0 62 25. Khodarampur CT 55.7 1.66 0 0 0 0 55.65 83 0 43 26. Harthariachak CT 76.4 2.21 0 0 0 0 119.37 63 0 66 27. Kasimbazar CT 84.9 1.66 0 0 0 1 87.90 42 0 69 28. Goaljan CT 83.5 0.02 0 0 0 0 140.2 51 0 65 29. Gorabazar CT 94 0.05 0 0 0 0 57.00 43 0 58

129

TABLE 47: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS SELECTED FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

Sl. No

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Dhulian M 0.17 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.612 0 0.37 2. Jangipur M 0.62 0.54 1 0.33 0 .16 0.36 0.602 0.88 0.56 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.66 0.61 0 0.66 .33 0 0.23 0.129 1 0.46

4. Murshidabad M 0.64 0.81 0 0.33 0 .16 0.38 0.139 0 0.53 5. Berhampore M 0.85 0.46 0 1 1 1 0.16 0 0.91 0.75 6. Kandi M 0.66 0.73 0 0.66 0 0 0.33 0.161 0.36 0.59 7. Beldanga M 0.67 0.63 0 0.33 0 0 0.41 0.247 0.96 0.53 8. Farakka CT 0.70 0.14 0 0.33 0 0 0.04 0.096 0 0.15 9. Anupnagar CT 0.05 0.24 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.913 0 0.06 10. Dhusaripara CT 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.666 0 0.18 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0.08 0.41 0 0 0 0 0.15 1 0 0.06

2 12. Kankuria CT .018 0.52 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.748 0 0.43 13. Chachanda CT 0.12 0.35 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.784 0 0.40 14. Serpur CT 0.17 0.78 0 0 0 0 1 0.548 0 1

15. Fattelapur CT .42 1 0 0 0 0 0.87 0.612 0 0.81 16. Jagtaj CT 0.10 0.32 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.559 0 0.62 17. Arungabad CT 0.24 0.42 0 0.33 0 0 0. 0.774 0 0.90 18. Dafahat CT 0.10 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0.634 0 0.68 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0.10 0.52 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.612 0 1

20. Ghorsala CT 0.40 0.15 0 0 0 0 .004 0.763 0 0.06 21. Charka CT 0.22 0.64 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.365 0 0.03 22. Srikantabati CT 0.45 0.56 0 0 0 0 0.64 0.505 0 0.65 23. Jatkamal CT 0.52 0.31 0 0 0 0 0.53 0.526 0 0.12 24. Sahajadpur CT 0.29 0.41 0 0 0 0 0.36 0.580 0 0.59 25. Khodarampur CT .30 0.44 0 0 0 0 0.19 0.537 0 0 26. Harthariachak CT 0.68 0.59 0 0 0 0 0.60 0.322 0 0.71 27. Kasimbazar CT 0.83 0.44 0 0 0 .16 0.40 0.096 0 0.81 28. Goaljan CT 0.84 0 0 0 0 0 0.74 0.193 0 0.68 29. Gorabazar CT 1 0.00 0 0 0 0 0.20 0.107 0 0.46


130

TABLE 48: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDICDICDICDI) FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001


It is clear from the Table 49 that only 13.8 percent of towns have a literacy rate between 80

percent to 100 percent range while more than 41 percent of towns falls under the category of

40 to 60 percent range.

Sl. No Name of the Town

Status CDI Rank


Azimganj M 0.411 27



10 Dhusaripara CT 0.183 11

11 Uttar Mahamadpur

CT 0.171 08



20 Ghorsala CT 0.139 02 21 Charka CT 0.155 06 22 Srikantabati CT 0.282 19 23 Jatkamal CT 0.202 13 24 Sahajadpur CT 0.225 15 25 Khodarampur CT 0.148 04

26 Harthariachak CT 0.291 20 27 Kasimbazar CT 0.275 18 28 Goaljan CT 0.246 16 29 Gorabazar CT 0.179 10

131

TABLE 49: CLASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF LITERACY RATE IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

PERCENT LITERATE

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN

NO. OF CLASS II

TOWN

NO. OF CLASS III

TOWN

NO. OF OTHER

TOWN, IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

100 01 80-100 02 03 04 13.8 60-80 01 04 04 10 34.5 40-60 02 09 12 41.4 Below 40 01 02 03 10.3 TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

Source: District Census Hand Book, Town Directory, 2001. 6.9.2.2 Number of recognized school per 1000 population of 6 to 17 years of age

The level of educational infrastructure is reflected in indicators like number of

recognised institution. School is an essential component of education. If we provide schools

to the children then only we can think of fulfilling the goal of universal education.The ratio is

measured against the population of age group of 6 – 17 years which reflects the age of primary,

upper primary, and secondary. So far as the population norm is concerned habitation having

population of 500 and more are entitled to have a primary and upper primary school within a

distance of one and three kilometer. The distance and population norms vary from state to

state (Meheta, 1999). As per the norm stated, there should be more than 2 primary schools per

1000 of population of 6 to 17 years of age.

It is clear from the Table 46 that the number of recognized school per 1000 of

population of 6 – 17 years age group in Murshidabad varies from 0.02 of Goaljan to 3.73 of

Fattelapur. Both are census towns. The Table 50 below depicts number of recognized school

under various categories of towns.

TABLE 50: NUMBER OF RRECOGNISHED SCHOOL PER 1000 OF POPULATION IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001

NUMBER OF

SCHOOLS

NO. OF

CLASS I

TOWN

NO. OF

CLASS II

TOWN

NO. OF

CLASS III

TOWN

NO. OF

OTHER

TOWN, IV-VI

TOTAL NO.

OF TOWN

PERENTAGE

OF TOWN

2 AND ABOVE

- 02 03 06 11 37.93

1-2 01 01 03 07 12 41.38 BELOW 1 - - 01 05 06 20.69

TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

Source: Compiled by researcher using the data of Seventh All India School Education Survey and DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad.

Close study of the table above reveals that 37.93 percent towns in Murshidabad have

more than 2 schools per 1000 population and 41.38 percent towns have 1-2 schools per 1000

132

population. Data also reveals that 20 percent of towns suffer from non-availability of school as

per basic requirement.

6.9.2.3 Percentage of recognized school run by Urban Local Bodies

All institution run by Municipal Corporation, municipal committees, notified area

committees, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samities, and Canton board, etc we treated as local

body institution (NSSO, 61th round, 2006). According to DISE data (Mehta 2007), out of total

1, 24,033 schools teaching at elementary level across 604 districts, about 223158 (19.85

percent) are run by local body management. In few states, the percentage of such schools are

higher than the all India average, for example, in Andhra Pradesh this percentage is high as

72.8 percent; 71 percent in Gujarat, 56.3 percent in Tamil Nadu. The district of Murshidabad

is no exception in this regard. Out of 29 towns only in two towns, schools are managed by

urban local body (ULB). One of them is Jangipur which crosses the national average with 82.5

percent of its schools run by ULB. The condition of Berhampore, Class-I town is hopeless as

only 6.25 percent of school in Berhampore is run by the Municipality.

TABLE 51: DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL BY MANAGEMENT IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001(IN PERCENT)

MANAGEMENT STATUS PRIMARY

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

HIGH

SCHOOL

GOVERNMENT 83.32 0.22 0.22

LOCAL BODY 11 00 00

PRIVATE AIDED 0.28 94.88 94.88

PRIVATE UNAIDED 5.4 5.2 4.9

TOTAL 100 100 100

Source: Compiled by researcher using the data of DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad

TABLE 52: DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL BY MANAGEMENT IN URBAN CENTERS OF INDIA, 2001-2002

MANAGEMENT STATUS PRIMARY

SCHOOL

MIDDLE

SCHOOL

HIGH SCHOOL

GOVERNMENT 47.5 47.4 36.2

LOCAL BODY 43.5 29.1 6.3

PRIVATE AIDED 3.1 7.8 34.0

PRIVATE UNAIDED 6.00 15.8 23.6

TOTAL 100 100 100

Source: GOI 2003

133

A close study of the Table 51 reveals that a large majority of middle and high schools

in the district constitute private aided schools that are similar to the government school in

terms of salaries, regulation, and procedures that they have to follow. In case of India,

(Table 52) this figure is very low as 7.8 percent for middle and 34 percent for high schools.

On the otherhand, 83.32 percent of the primary school in the district is run by government and

11 percent of primary school is run by ULB. Whereas, in case of India this figure for primary

school is 47.5 percent and 43.5 percent respectively.

Number of Degree College in urban areas of Murshidabad district varies between 1 and

3 and is distributed over only 8 towns out of 29 towns leaving no degree college in the

remaining 21 towns. Out of 8 towns, five towns have 1 degree college in each. Berhampore

alone has three degree colleges. So, pressure of students on each institution is naturally

become very high. This problem is again aggravated by increasing enrolment on every

academic year. There is no degree college in Dhulian, though it is a class II town having a

population of 72850.

In Murshidabad, the ratio of number of college and population of 18 – 24 age group is

near about the same as national figure. Moreover, students from the 22 towns where there is

no college at all, have to travel a long distance for higher education. Some time they have to

stay in a rented house in order to avoid long journey. Due to this, higher education becomes

costly for the poor family.

6.9.2.4 Number of Technical and Professional Institutions

It includes number of professional and technical school, colleges, and universities.

Number of professional institution in the town of Murshidabad is very limited. Out of 29

towns, only 3 towns (10.34 percent) have only 7 institutions. It is very unfortunate that all the

municipal towns have not this type of institution. Class I town, Berhampore accounts the

highest number of technical and professional institutions. At this juncture, it may be pointed

out that technical education is crucial component of human resource development with great

potential for adding value to products and services and contributing to the national economy.

Five year plans have laid great emphasis on the development of technical education. During

the past five decades, there has been a phenomenal expansion of technical education sector in

the country. Apart from government sector, private and voluntary organizations were involved

in setting up of technical and management institute. From 43 diploma level poly techniques

with an intake of 3400 students at the time of independence, the number has grown to 1128

polytechnique in 1997 (India Infrastructure Report, 2006).

6.9.2.5 Number of non formal school per 1000 population

Non-formal education unlike any other organized systematic educational activity

provides selective type of learning to particular group of learners both adult and children

134

outside the frame work of the formal school system. A large number of children in the age

group of 6 – 14 continue to remain outside the formal system due socio-economic constraints.

These include working children who assist in domestic chores like fetching fuel, fodder, graze

cattle etc. children from slum areas, overage children etc. Non formal education is flexible and

organized learning activity takes place at the learners place, pace and time. It is also need

oriented and interest based. It provides a second chance to dropouts and enables the under-

privileged section of society to acquire relevant knowledge and skills (The National Policy on

Education, NPE, 1986). Non formal education is essentially functional education. It is mainly

intended for the development of the deprived section of society. So, number of non formal

education is very important for a town or city. But, the facilities of non formal education are

very critical in the urban areas of the district. There are only 9 such institutions in urban

Murshidabad. Moreover, the distribution of these institutions is very unfair. Out of 9

institutions 6 are situated in Berhampore. Remaining three are distributed over three towns.

So, 86 percent of the towns have no institution on non formal education.

6.9.2.6 Overall Enrolment Ratio (OAER) for primary, upper primary, high, higher

secondary schools

OAER is the first indicator of the coverage of educational facilities. It presents an

overall picture of the entire education system. The OAER is simply the division of total

enrollment in Grades I – XII to the corresponding school age population between 6 to 17 years.

In the numerator, total enrollment in Grades X – XII is considered irrespective of the age but in

the denominator corresponding school age population is considered. Because of this enrolment

ratio in few locations may even cross hundred. This is because of the over-age and under-age

children included in the enrollment of Grades I – XII. OAER in towns and city of Murshidabad

district varies between as low as 14.67 and as high as 180 percent. Numbers of towns have

recorded OAER above the national average is 14 (48.27 percent of towns). The national

average is 76.20 percent (Educational statistics at a glance, 2004 – 05, GOI). The average

OAER in the urban areas of the district is 67.77 which is below both state as well as nation

(Fig 17).

135

Source: Seventh All India School Education Survey and DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad, Educational Statistics, 2004, GOI.

The Table 53, below depicts the distribution of class size wise OAER under

different percent category.It is clear from the table that 44.83 percent of the towns have

recorded more than 80 percent OAER. In another way, we can say that about 62.07 percent

towns have recorded OAER above 60 percent.

TABLE 53: OAER IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001

RANGE IN PERCENT

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN



NO. OF OTHER TOWN

IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

80 AND ABOVE

00 01 04 08 13 44.83

60 – 80 00 01 02 02 05 17.24

40 – 60 01 01 00 05 07 24.14

BELOW 40 00 00 01 03 04 13.79

TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

Source: Compiled by researcher using the data of DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad, and District Statistical

Hand Book, Murshidabad, 2003

6.9.2.7 Pupil teacher ratio, (PTR) (Primary to higher Secondary School)

Teacher plays an important role in the functioning of school and in imparting

education. An important aspect related to teacher is their work load which can be assessed

from pupil teacher ratio (PTR). The ratio can also highlight the adequacy of educational

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

PERC

ENT

FIG 17: OAER IN INDIA , WESTBENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD

INDIA

WEST BENGAL

MURSHIDABAD

136

institution in terms of enrolment. For example higher PTR indicates that the increase in

enrolment at each level is comparatively more than the increase in number of teachers.

The PTR in the towns and city of Murshidabad district is alarming. On an average,

PTR in the district is 83.19, which is above the national average of 38.37 and also above the

state average of 52.59 (Fig. 18).

Source: Seventh All India School Education Survey and DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad, Educational Statistics, 2004, GOI

The value of PTR in the towns of Murshidabad district varies between 27.59 in

Berhampore and 126 in Uttar Mahamadpur, a census town. Some towns have the PTR below

the state average. Class-I town Berhampore has recorded PTR below the national average of

38.37.

TABLE 54: CLASS SIZE DISTRIBUTION PUPIL TEACHER RATIO IN URBAN CENTERS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001

RANGE IN PERCENT

NO. OF CLASS I TOWN



NO. OF OTHER

TOWN IV-VI

TOTAL NO. OF TOWN

PERENTAGE OF TOWN

80 AND ABOVE

00 02 03 13 18 62.07

60 – 80 00 00 00 02 02 6.90 40 – 60 00 01 04 02 07 24.14 BELOW 40 01 00 00 01 02 6.89 TOTAL 01 03 07 18 29 100

Source: Compiled by researcher using the data of DISE Report 2003, Murshidabad.

38.376

52.59

83.19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


PERC

ENT

FIG. 18: PUPIL TEACHER RATIO IN URBAN CENTERS OF INDIA ,WEST BENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD,2001

PUPIL TEACHER RATIO

137

A close study of Table 54, discloses that more than 62 percent towns of the district

have very high (80 percent and above) pupil teacher ratio. Some of them have even double or

tripple the national average of PTR. Only 6.89 percent of towns have PTR below 40.

6.9.2.8 PTR in Higher Education

There has been huge increase in the demand for higher education since the

independence. However, the increase in demand has not been matched by corresponding

increase in the educational infrastructure in terms of institution and teacher and other facilities.

This leads to situations where institutions are required to manage more students beyond

capacity leading pressure on various facilities and workloads on teacher (Sukkadeo Thorat,

2006). So, it is very relevant to assess the PTR in higher education in the district. PTR in

Degree College and University in the towns of Murshidabad district vary between 11.25 for

Murshidabad and 48.88 for Jiaganj Azimganj Municipality. It has already been stated that only

six towns out of 29 possess degree colleges. Only two towns, out these six towns have the

PTR close to the national figure of 1:25 (Selected Educational Statistics 2004 – 05, GOI)

Remaining four towns have recorded PTR higher than the both State (1:30) as well as national

(1:25) ratio.

6.9.2.9 Space Utilisation Ratio (SUR)

Diagnosis of the existing situation includes school buildings and equipments. The

analysis of equipments will help to identify disadvantaged areas and will also help to assess the

true capacity of the schools so that schools which are underutilized or over loaded can be

identified. One of the indicators used for the above purpose is Space Utilisation Ratio (SUR).

For example, 5 rooms are built in a school to accommodate 800 students but in reality the

rooms on an average are occupied by only 400 students. So, SUR will come out to be only 50

percent (400 / 800 * 100).

The highest SUR is recorded in the district as 75 by Paschim Purnapara, a census town

and lowest SUR is recorded as 43 by Khodarampur, also a census town. Seventy two percent

of towns have recorded more than fifty percent SUR. So, it can be said till now 28 percent

schools of towns have the capacity to intake 50 percent of their present enrollment. There is no

such school in the district which is over loaded. Survey shows that it is after the initiation of

Sarva Shiksha Avhiyan (SSA) in 2000 the number of rooms has increased. One of the main

goals of SSA was to bring those who are out of school and for this purpose ACR (Additional

Class Room Grant) were released to increase the number of rooms.

6.9.3 SPATIAL VARIATION IN “CDI” FOR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES

In 2001, CDI for educational facilities ranges from 0.129 to 0.614 (Table 48). On the basis of

CDI; four categories of spatial patterns of infrastructural facilities (education) are obtained in

138

2001. Very high (CDI over 0.49) high level (CDI between 0.37 and 0.49), medium level (CDI

ranges between 0.25 – 3.7) and low order (CDI below 0.25).On regional consideration, there

are two urban centers, namely Berhampore and Jangipur shows maximum intensity in the

level of educational facilities followed by Jiaganj, Beldanga, Fattlapur. Remaining 24 towns,

i.e.82.7 percent of the towns, show medium to low level of educational facilities.

6.10 URBAN HEALTH FACILITIES


Health care service in India is divided under State list and concurrent list. It is due to

India’s federal nature. While, some items such as public health, hospitals and sanitation fall in

the state list, others such as population control and family welfare medical education,

prevention of food adulteration and quality control, manufacture of drugs are included in

concurrent list.

The institutional arrangements in respect of health services are divided into two parts

namely arrangement for (i) Preventive services (ii) Curative services. The statutory

responsibility for preventative service in the urban areas rests with municipal bodies. Thus, all

municipal legislations including West Bengal lay down that municipal bodies will provide

vaccinations and take such measures as may be required for the prevention and control of

communicable and infectious diseases.

The statutory provision with respect to curative health services vary widely as it is only

in some states that the municipal bodies have the responsibility of running and managing the

hospitals, dispensaries and other health outposts.

In some states, health services are considered higher level functions and therefore fall

outside the ambit of municipal governments. In West Bengal, it is the obligatory functions of

municipalities to maintain the public health or dispensaries and child welfare centers.

Hierarchy of health services in urban areas of murshidabad is described in Figure 19.

139

FIG. 19: HIERARCHY OF HEALTH SERVICES IN URBAN

AREAS OF MURSHIDABAD

The Health Care System

Public Sector Private Sector State Government Urban Local Body Professional Charity mission Or Organisation Hospitals Dispensaries / Hospital Hospital Clinic Dispensaries / Sub centers Nursing Home Nursing Home Mother and Child care centers Sub centers Private Clinic and dispensaries Source: Compiled by the researcher from Department of Health Govt. of West Bengal, Statistical Hand Book of Murshidabad, 2007.

6.10.2 EXISTING STATUS OF URBAN HEALTH FACILITIES

In order to assess the present status of educational facilities in the city and towns of

Murshidabad district the following indicators (Table 55) are chosen.

Number of hospital (including maternity hospital) per 5000 population

As far as number of hospital (including maternity hospital) per 5000 population is concerned, it

varies between as high as 0.31 in Jiaganj, Azimganj to as low as 0.067 in Jangipur. Class I

town Berhampore have recorded 0.15 hospital per 5000 population. All the hospitals situated

in the urban areas of Murshidabad are run by state government. If we consider number of

hospital per 20,000 population then only one town can touch the 1 hospital per 20,000

populations. On the other hand, on an average, there is 1 hospital for 11,744 people as the

national average (Central Bureau of Intelligence, 2003). In Murshidabad, hospitals situated in

urban areas not only serve the urban population but also serve the population of the adjoining

rural areas. So, it can be said that number of hospitals in relation to number of population is

not adequate in the district. It is also clear from the Table 56 that no census towns have any

kind of hospital facilities within their area. People of these census towns either have to go to

the nearby primary health center or to sub divisional hospitals for better treatment.

140

TABLE 55: INDICATORS SELECTED FOR ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH FACILITIES

Source: Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, GOI, Department of Health and Family Welfare, NIUA

Indicator Unit Definition 1. Number of hospital including maternity hospital per 5000 population.

Ratio Number of hospital includes hospital run by health and family welfare department of west Bengal, Government of India and other department of west Bengal, Urban Local Bodies within the area of concerned ULB. The ratio can be obtained by using the following formula; Total number of hospital within the area of concerned ULB/Total population x 5000.

2. Number of NGO/Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 population

Ratio Number of hospital includes hospital run by NGO/Private Bodies within the area of concerned ULB.

3. Number of bed per 1000 population.

Ratio We can obtained it by using the following formula; Total number of beds including beds of Government Hospital, Private Hospital, Nursing Home /Total population of the concerned ULB x1000

4. Number of dispensaries per 1000 population.

Ratio We can obtained it by using the following formula; Total number of dispensaries including Government and Private /Total population of the concerned ULB x1000

5. Number of Health Center per 1000 population.

Ratio It includes Block Health Center, Primary Health Center run by public and private organization. We can obtained ratio value by using the following formula; Total number of health centers /Total population of the concerned ULB x1000

6. Number of family welfare center per 1000 population.

Ratio We can obtained the ratio value by using the following formula; Total number of family welfare centers including public and private organization / Total population of the concerned ULB x1000

7. Number of T.B. clinic

Number It includes Block Health Center, Primary Health Center run by public and private organization

8. Percentage of Medical Institution runs by urban local bodies.

Percent It can be obtained by using the following formula; Total number of Medical Institution run by ULB/Total number of Medical Institution within the area of concerned ULB x100

9. Number of doctor per 1000 population

Ratio Number of doctor includes total number of doctors serving public, private hospital and other medical institution of the ULB concerned.

10. Number of patient treated in a year per doctor.

Number We can obtained the ratio value by using the following formula; Total number of patient treated in public, private hospitals of the ULB in a year / Total number of doctors in that year.

141

TABLE 56: INDICATORS FOR ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT 2001


Description of the indicators according to serial number 1. Number of hospital including maternity hospital per 5000 population. 2. Number of NGO/Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 population. 3. Number of bed per 1000 population. 4. Number of dispensaries per 1000 population. 5. Number of Health Center per 1000 population. 6. Number of family welfare center per 1000 population. 7. Number of T.B. clinic. 8. Percentage of Medical Institution runs by urban local bodies. 9. Number of doctor per 1000 population 10. Number of patient treated in a year per doctor

Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Dhulian M 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.033 0.33 0 0 0.058 1 2. Jangipur M 0.21 0.09 0.39 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.574 0.22 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 1 0.14 0.17 0.09 0.053 0.53 0 1 0.211 0.33

4. Murshidabad M 0.43 0.94 0.78 0.01 0 0.69 0 0 1 0.16 5. Berhampore M 0.48 1 1 0.01 0 0.25 1 0 0.042 0.15 6. Kandi M 0.63 0.13 0.60 0.00 0.048 0.48 0 0 0.765 0.13 7. Beldanga M 0.63 0.27 0.30 0.50 0.099 1 0 0 0.505 0.59 8. Farakka CT 0.72 0 0 0 0.115 0 0 0 0.128 0.18 9. Anupnagar CT 0 0 0 0.20 0.255 0 0 0 0.285 0.09 10. Dhusaripara CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0 0 0 0 0.411 0 0 0 0.23 0.08

12. Kankuria CT 0 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. Chachanda CT 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. Serpur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Fattelapur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. Jagtaj CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Arungabad CT 0 0 0 0 0.079 0 0 0 0.044 0.27 18. Dafahat CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Ghorsala CT 0 0 0 0 0.406 0 0 0 0.22 0.09 21. Charka CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. Srikantabati CT 0 0 0 0 0.258 0 0 0 0.144 0.10 23. Jatkamal CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Sahajadpur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25. Khodarampur CT 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.558 0.05 26. Harthariachak CT 0 0 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Kasimbazar CT 0 0 0 0.75 0.792 0 0 0 0.14 0.13 28. Goaljan CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Gorabazar CT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

142

TABLE 57: DIMENSION INDEX VALUE OF INDICATORS SELECTED FOR HEALTH FACILITIES OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001


Sl. No.

Name of the Town

Status INDICATORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Dhulian M 0.06 0.068 0.27 0.013 0.013 0.01 0 0 0.041 43476

2. Jangipur M 0.06 0.067 3.35 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.402 9832 3. Jiaganj-

Azimganj M 0.31 0.105 1.48 0.190 0.021 0.02 0 25 0.148 1453

7 4. Murshidabad M 0.13 0.676 6.65 0.027 0 0.02 0 0 0.70 7224 5. Berhampore M 0.15 0.718 8.49 0.024 0 0.01 1 0 0.59 6551 6. Kandi M 0.19 0.099 5.16 0.019 0.019 0.01 0 0 0.536 6061 7. Beldanga M 0.19 0.197 2.56 0.985 0.039 0.03 0 0 0.354 2582

5 8. Farakka CT 0.22 0 0 0 0.045 0 0 0 0.090 7850 9. Anupnagar CT 0 0 0 0.401 0.100 0 0 0 0.200 4000 10. Dhusaripara CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. Uttar

Mahamadpur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0.161 3500

12. Kankuria CT 0 0 0 0.072 0 0 0 0 0 0 13. Chachanda CT 0 0 0 0.291 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. Serpur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15. Fattelapur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16. Jagtaj CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. Arungabad CT 0 0 0 0 0.031 0 0 0 0.031 1200

0 18. Dafahat CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19. Paschim

Purnapara CT 0 0 0 0.032 0 0 0 0 0 0

20. Ghorsala CT 0 0 0 0 0.159 0 0 0 0.159 4000 21. Charka CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22. Srikantabati CT 0 0 0 0 0.101 0 0 0 0.101 4500 23. Jatkamal CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24. Sahajadpur CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 25. Khodarampur CT 0 0 0 0 0.391 0 0 0 0.391 2500 26. Harthariachak CT 0 0 0 0.474 0 0 0 0 0 0 27. Kasimbazar CT 0 0 0 1.473 0.098 0 0 0 0.098 6000 28. Goaljan CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29. Gorabazar CT 0 0 0 1.942 0 0 0 0 0 0

143

TABLE 58: COMPOSITE DIMENSION INDEX (CDI) FOR HEALTH FACILITIES OF

TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD, 2001

Sl. No Name of the Town

Status Composite index

Rank


Azimganj M 0.355 26



10 Dhusaripara CT 0 09

11 Uttar Mahamadpur

CT 0.072 17

12 Kankuria CT 0.003 11 13 Chachanda CT 0.014 12 14 Serpur CT 0 08 15 Fattelapur CT 0 07 16 Jagtaj CT 0 06 17 Arungabad CT 0.039 14 18 Dafahat CT 0 05 19 Paschim


20 Ghorsala CT 0.071 16 21 Charka CT 0 04 22 Srikantabati CT 0.050 15 23 Jatkamal CT 0 03 24 Sahajadpur CT 0 02

25 Khodarampur CT 0.161 21

26 Harthariachak CT 0.024 13

27 Kasimbazar CT 0.182 23

28 Goaljan CT 0 01 29 Gorabazar CT 0.1 19

Source: Calculated by researcher

Number of NGO / Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 population.

The presence of private sector in the provision of curative health service is pervasive

and overwhelming. Moreover, it is growing rapidly in most of the urban areas in response to

market determined forces such as the fast increasing urban population, the inability of public

institutions to augment the supply of health network and increasing dissatisfaction in most

places with the public network of curative service (NIUA, 1992). In the towns of Mursh

district, number of NGO / Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 is greater than

public hospitals as it varies between as high as 0.718 for Berhampore, Class I town and as low

as .0067 in case of Jangipur a municipal town. It is also clear

number of private hospitals

1000 is greater. Again, it is very unfortunate that there is no nursing home facility in the

census towns of Murshidabad district.

Number of Bed per 1000 population

A succinct indicator of health infrastructure is the number of beds and dispensaries per 1000

population. In India, between 1961

increased but there have

dispensaries per 100000 population (Laveesh Bhandari

per 100000 population in India and number of bed per 1000 population in urban India is 1.74

(according to 2001 census)

Source: Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, 2003 and District Statistical Hand book, 2003, Murshidabd.

In the study area, the ratio varies between as low as 0.27 in case of Dhulian and as high

as 8.49 in case of Berhampore, class I town and district head quarters. Only Berhampore has

crossed the national average of 1.74 beds per 1000 population (Central Bureau of Health

Intelligence, 2003). All the other municipal towns are far

average in this respect (Fig.20)

towns. So, there is no question of beds in census towns of the district.

1.74

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

INDIA

NU

MBE

R

FIG. 20 : NUMBER OF HOSPITALS BEDS PER 1000 OF POPULATION IN URBAN CENTERS OF INDIA ,WESTBENGAL AND MURSHIDABAD,2001

144


places with the public network of curative service (NIUA, 1992). In the towns of Mursh

number of NGO / Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 is greater than

as it varies between as high as 0.718 for Berhampore, Class I town and as low

as .0067 in case of Jangipur a municipal town. It is also clear from the

hospitals is less in those towns where the number of public hospitals per

it is very unfortunate that there is no nursing home facility in the

census towns of Murshidabad district.

Number of Bed per 1000 population


population. In India, between 1961 – 1998 in urban areas, the number of hospitals has

not been a corresponding increase in the number of beds and

dispensaries per 100000 population (Laveesh Bhandari, 2006). There are only 67 hospital beds


(according to 2001 census).


the ratio varies between as low as 0.27 in case of Dhulian and as high



elligence, 2003). All the other municipal towns are far below the state

(Fig.20). There is no public or private hospital facility in the census

. So, there is no question of beds in census towns of the district.

2.24

0.31



NO. OF BEDS PER 1000 POPULATION


places with the public network of curative service (NIUA, 1992). In the towns of Murshidabad

number of NGO / Private Bodies hospital (Nursing Home) per 5000 is greater than

as it varies between as high as 0.718 for Berhampore, Class I town and as low

from the Table 56 that the

is less in those towns where the number of public hospitals per

it is very unfortunate that there is no nursing home facility in the


the number of hospitals has

sponding increase in the number of beds and

re only 67 hospital beds



the ratio varies between as low as 0.27 in case of Dhulian and as high



state as well as national

There is no public or private hospital facility in the census


NO. OF BEDS PER 1000 POPULATION

145

Number of dispensaries per 1000 of population

Number of dispensaries in the urban areas varies between as high as 1.942 in case of

Gorabazar, a census town and as low as 0.013 in case of Dhulian, a municipal town.

Berhampore, only class I town and also district head quarters records a very low ratio of 0.024

in this regard. This is because of the existence of number of public and private hospitals and

clinic in the town. On the other hand 8 census towns out of 22 census town have dispensary

facilities. Only 2 municipal towns (28.5 percent of the towns) out of 7 municipal towns are

able to reach the national average of 0.05 dispensaries per 1000 population (Central Bureau of

Health intelligence, 2003). On the other hand, only 27 percent of census towns have reached

the national average in this regard in 2001.

Number of health center per 1000 population

Unlike the three tier primary health care system of subcenters, primary health centers

and community health centers in the rural areas, a primary health care system in the urban

areas does not exist. Although a number of health centers as a part of rural health care system

are located in the urban areas especially serving the population of urban areas also. In case of

Murshidabad a number of health centers are found in urban areas. Besides, many towns have

sub centers in ward level. One point has to be clear here that health centers include Block

Health centers, Primary Health Center, Urban-Sub center run by both public and private

organization. The number of health centers per 1000 population in urban areas of

Murshidabad varies between as low as 0.013 for Dhulian and as high as 0.391 for

Khodarampur, a census town and category V town. Survey shows that people of census town

mainly depend on health center than the hospitals because to avail the hospital facilities they

have to travel a longer distance to reach sub-divisional or district hospital.

Number of family welfare center per 1000 population

Family welfare center plays a very important role to keep the public health care system

very effective whether in rural areas or in urban areas. In the towns of Murshidabad district,

the number of family welfare center per 1000 population varies between as low as 0.01 in case

of Berhampore and as high as 0.039 in case of Beldanga, a municipal town. No other census

town has recorded any family welfare center. So, it is clear from statistics on family welfare

center that these centers are not adequate in the study area.

Number of T.B. Clinic

About quarter of urban residence live in slum characterized by open drains, lack of

adequate sewerage, lack of municipal facilities and overall poor living condition etc combined

with a high concentration of population. Conditions are likely to favour a greater incidence of

communicable diseases like whooping cough, T.B., Chicken pox etc. Number of T.B. Clinic is

146

important as it can indicate the degree of facilities for fighting against communicable diseases.

But, the situation is very unfortunate as only one town records only one T.B. Clinic.

Percentage of Medical Institution run by Urban Local Bodies

West Bengal has experience of implementing successful urban health programmes in

several parts of the state. However, the state does not have well structured and clearly

articulated state wide urban health strategy. A multitude of health care system exists with

different jurisdictional areas and varying statutory responsibilities (The Urban Health Strategy,

2008, WB). The above observation is applicable in case of Murshidabad district also. Jiaganj-

Azimganj, the only municipality in the district has its own medical institution. No other towns

including municipal towns of the district have medical institutions run by the concerned ULB.

Number of doctor per 1000 population

Another important indicator to assess the status of health infrastructure is the number

of doctor per 1000 population. This indicator indicates about work load of a doctor which has

an effect on the service rendered by a doctor. In the study areas, this ratio varies from 0.031 in

case of Augangabad, a census town to as high as 0.70 in case of Murshidabad, a municipal

town. Only 10 percent of towns (three in number) in the district are able to reach the national

average of 0.59 doctors per 1000 population (Central Bureau of Health Intelligence, 2004).

Moreover, about 48 percent of towns in the district have no registered doctors at all. So, if

there is a shortage of doctors per 1000 population, then the work load for a doctor naturally

will be high.

Number of patient treated in a year per doctor

Number of patient treated in a year per doctor can highlight the work load of a doctor

per year and also pressure of patient per year per doctor. The number varies between as high

as 43,476 for Dhulian, a municipal town, to as low as 2500 for Khodarampur, a class V town.

Among the census towns, Aurangabad have recorded highest number of patient treated in a

year per doctor. It is clear from the data that municipal towns exhibit greater number of patient

than census towns. So, it can be said that the work load per doctor in municipal town is much

greater than the census towns because of existence of block hospital, sub divisional hospital

and some time district hospital in the municipal area. People come to these hospitals for better

treatment.

147

6.11 COMPOSITE INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX (CII), 2001


towns and city of Murshidabad district.

TABLE 59: COMPOSITE INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX (CII)CII)CII)CII) OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT OF WEST BENGAL, 2001

Sl.no. Name of the Town Status RANK OF CDI Composite Index(CII) WI SSI RTI PI EI HI

1 Dhulian M 18 23 18 23 9 22 18.83 2 Jangipur M 27 28 27 27 28 24 26.83 3 Jiaganj-Azimganj M 23 26 24 26 27 26 25.33 4 Murshidabad M 25 24 26 24 21 29 24.83 5 Berhampore M 28 29 29 28 29 28 28.5 6 Kandi M 26 27 23 25 24 25 25 7 Beldanga M 24 25 22 29 26 27 25.5 8 Farakka CT 29 21 19 21 3 20 18.83 9 Anupnagar CT 15 4 6 6 1 18 8.33

10 Dhusaripara CT 20 2 9 11 11 9 10.33 11 Uttar Mahamadpur CT 11 6 7 10 8 17 9.6 12 Kankuria CT 8 5 14 9 14 11 10.16 13 Chachanda CT 3 3 16 15 12 12 13 14 Serpur CT 17 7 13 3 23 8 11.83 15 Fattelapur CT 6 9 4 5 25 7 16 16 Jagtaj CT 22 12 1 8 7 6 9.33 17 Arungabad CT 14 17 12 20 22 14 16.5 18 Dafahat CT 10 10 3 7 5 5 6.66 19 Paschim Purnapara CT 12 1 20 4 17 10 10.66 20 Ghorsala CT 13 11 5 14 2 16 10.16 21 Charka CT 5 8 17 13 6 4 8.83 22 Srikantabati CT 17 15 15 2 19 15 13.83 23 Jatkamal CT 1 14 2 12 13 3 7.5 24 Sahajadpur CT 4 16 8 19 15 2 10.66 25 Khodarampur CT 2 13 10 01 4 21 8.5 26 Harthariachak CT 21 19 11 16 20 13 16.66 27 Kasimbazar CT 9 20 25 22 18 23 19.5 28 Goaljan CT 7 18 21 18 16 1 13.5 29 Gorabazar CT 16 22 28 17 10 19 18.66

Source: Compiled by the researcher WI Water Indicators CDI Composite Dimension Index SSI Sewerage and Solid Waste Indicators RTI Road and Transportation Indicators PI Power Supply Indicators EI Education Indicators HII Health Indicators

148

MAP 13: COMPOSITE INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX OF TOWNS OF MURSHIDABAD DISTRICT, 2001

In 2001, CII (Composite Infrastructure Index) ranges from 6.66 to 28.5. On the basis of CII;

four categories of spatial pattern of infrastructural facilities are obtained in 2001; very high

level CII over 20.65, high level (CII between 15.30 and 20.65) medium level (CII ranges

between 9.65 and 15.30) and low level CII below 9.65. On regional consideration, there are six

urban units namely Berhampore, Jangipur, Beldanga, Jiaganj-Azimganj, Kandi, Murshidabad

149

showing very high level of infrastructural facilities. In percentage term, only 20.68 percent of

the towns show very high level of infrastructural facilities. Municipal towns are in general

well-off in this regard. Again, there are 7 towns namely Kasimbazar, Dhulian, Farrakka,

Gorabazar, Harthariachak, Aurangabad, Fattelapur, showing high level of infrastructural

development. Near about 24.13 percent of the towns shows high level of infrastructural

development. These are mostly census towns and are situated nearer to Municipal towns.

Remaining 16 towns (55.17 percent of the towns), show medium to low level of infrastructural

facilities. All the towns in these categories are census towns. So, it is clear from the preceding

analysis that there is a gap in the level of infrastructural facilities between Municipal towns and

census towns. At the same time, there is also spatial variation in the levels of infrastructural

facilities among the municipalities. Historically, the grass root level institutions in both urban

and rural areas have developed under different circumstances. The municipal governments for

towns and cities have passed through a long period of evolution and development, while the

introduction of systematic and organized panchayat institutions (Village Administration) in

rural areas is relatively of recent origin. At this juncture, one point is to be noted that the

administration for the census towns in the study area comes under the jurisdiction of panchayat

(Village Administration) institution. Irrespective of towns or village the functions of the grass

root level administration remains more or less the same with size and scale variation. But,

urban local administration recognizes planning and development as the major functions of

town and cities. Whereas, in case of rural governance, such recognition does not exist. While,

there are multiple organizations working on urban front, there are no clearly defined

organizations in panchayat areas. Consequently (a) there is a lack of conceptual clarity on

development programmes (b) lack of development management tools and techniques for

implementation of development programmes. This has lead to the differences in the level of

infrastructural development between municipal towns and census towns. As far as spatial

variations in the levels of infrastructural facilities among the municipalities are concerned,

there is a rough relationship between size classes of the town and levels of infrastructural

development. Again, all the municipal towns are not equally always selected for state or central

sponsored development programmes or grant. At the same time, there is variation in the

performances regarding the implementation of development programmes among the

municipalities which are also responsible for the variation in the levels of infrastructural

facilities among the towns.

REFERENCES:

Asnani, P. U. (2004): United States- Asia Environmental Partnership Report, United States Agency for

International Development, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology, 2004,

Ahmedabad.P-65

150

Asnani, P.U. (2006): Solid waste Management, India Infrastructure Report, 2006, Urban Infrastructure,

Oxford University press, 2006, New Delhi.

Balachandhran, G., (2002): Urban Decentralization in West Bengal, Urban India, Volume - XXVIII 2008,

ILGUS, West Bengal.

Census of India (2001): Census of India 2001, Government of India, New Delhi.

Census of India (2001): Town Directory Murshidabad district, Census of India 2001,GOI.

Central Bureau of Health Intelligence (2003): Health Information India 2003, Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare. GOI, New Delhi

CPCB (2000): Status of Municipal Solid waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and disposal in Class I

cities, Central Pollution Control Board, Series-ADSOR BS/31/1999, Ministry of Environment and

Forests, GOI, New Delhi.

CPHEEO, GOI (1991): Ministry of Urban Development Government of India, Manual on Water Supply and

Treatment, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization, 1991,New Delhi,

India.

Educational Statistics (2005): Selected Educational Statistics 2004 - 05, GOI, Ministry of HRD, Department

of Higher Education, Statistics Division, New Delhi, 2007.

GOI (1996): Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlement Habitat II. Istambul, 1996. India

National Report, Ministry of Urban affairs and Employment, Department of Urban Employment and

Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi.

GOI (1999): Ninth Five Year Plan, 1999 - 2002, Planning Commission, Govt. of India, Volume - II & I,

New Delhi.

GOI, (1997): Ninth Five Year Plan, 1997, Social Sector, Volume - II, Planning Commission of India, GOI,

GOI, (2007): Eleventh Five Year plan 2007 - 2012, Social Sector Volume - II, Planning Commission of

India, GOI, Oxford University, 2008, New Delhi.

Government of West Bengal (2006): The West Bengal Municipal Act, 2006, Section 245.

ILR (2001): The Indian Law Reports, Andhra Pradesh Series, Volume II, Part 1, Hyderabad.

India Assessment (2002): A WHO - UNICEF Sponsored Study - India Assessment, 2002 Planning

Commission of India. GOI, New Delhi.

India Infrastructure Report (2006): Social Infrastructure: Urban Health and Education: Laveesh Bhandari,

2006, Oxford University Press, 2006, New Delhi.

Kalra.Prem.K and Shekhar,Rajib.,(2006): Urban Energy Management, India Infrastructure Report, Oxford

University Press, 2006, New Delhi.

Laveesh Bhandari (2006): Social Infrastructure Urban Health and Education, India Infrastructure Report,

2006, Oxford University Press, 2006, New Delhi.

Mc Kenzie, D. and I.Ray (2004): "Drinking water options for India”, paper prepared for the 5th Stanford

Conference on India Economic Development, 3 - 5 June.

Meheta (1999): Indicators of Educational Development with focus on Elementary Education: Concept and

Definitions, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, NIEPA, New Delhi

1999.

Meheta A (2007): Elementary Education in India Progress Towards & UEE: Analytical Report 2005 - 06,

National University of Educational Planning and Administration, NUEPA, New Delhi.

151

Ministry of Urban Development (2008): National Urban Sanitation Policy, MOUD, Govt. of India, New

Delhi.

Municipal Statistics of West Bengal (2004): Municipal Statistics of West Bengal, Bureau of Applied

Economics and Statistics, Government of West Bengal, 2003 – 04, Kolkata.

National Commission on Urbanization (1988): Report Volume II, NCU, Government of India, New Delhi,

1988.

NCERT (2002): Seventh All India School Education Survey: Guide line for Survey Officer, Department of

Educational Survey and Data processing, 2002, New Delhi.

Nema, A.K. (2004): Collection and Transport of Municipal Solid Waste: Training Program on Solid Waste

Management, Springer, Delhi, India.

NIUA (1992): Public-Private Provision of Urban Services, National Institute Urban Affairs, Research Study

Series Number 50, New Delhi.p-60

NIUA (2002): Public-Private Provision of Urban Services, Research Study Series 50, NIUA, PP-72 - 83.

NIUA, (2007): Norms and Standards of Municipal Basic Services in India, National Institute Urban Affairs,

2007, New Delhi, p-40.

NSSO (2003): Housing Condition in India: Household Amenities and Other characteristics, 58th Round

National Sample Survey Organization, Report No 489, Department of Statistics, Government of

India, New Delhi.

NSSO (2005): Energy Sources of Indian Household For Cooking and Lighting, 2004 – 05, Report No.-

511(61/10/4), GOI, New Delhi.

NSSO (2006): Status of Education and Vocational Training in India, 2004 – 05, NSSO 61th Round, GOI,

Dec, 2006, New Delhi.

NUSP (2008): National Urban Sanitation Policy, Ministry of Urban Development, GOI, New Delhi, 2008.

Savage, D. and Dasgupta, S. (2006): Governance Framework for Delivery of Urban Services, India

Infrastructure Report, 2006, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Section 226 (2006): West Bengal Municipal Act, 2006, Section 226, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata.

Sukkadeo Thorat (2006): Higher Education in India: Emerging Issue Related to Access, Inclusiveness and

Quality, New Delhi, Nehru Memorial Lecture, University of Mumbai, Novermber 24, 2006.

UNDP (2006): Human Development Report 2006, UNDP, hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/

United Nations (2002): Economic and Social Council, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

Twenty-ninth Session, Geneva, 11 - 29 November, General Comment No. 15. WWW.Citizen,

Org/documents/therightowater.pdf.

University of Birmingham, (1999): The Role of Government in Adjusting Economics, Paper 35, India,

Urban Water Supply, International Development Department, School of Public Policy, 1999.

Urban Health Strategy (2008): The Urban Health Strategy, Govt. of West Bengal, Department of Health

and Family Welfare and Department of Municipal Affairs, 2008, Kolkata.

Urban West Bengal (2002): Urban West Bengal 2002, Institute of Local Government and Urban Studies,

Govt. of West Bengal,Kolkata.

Urban West Bengal (2003): Urban West Bengal, 2003, Institute of Local Government and Urban Studies,

Govt. of West Bengal,Kolkata.

Venugopal, K.K. (2003): Supreme Court and the Common man, The Hindu, 19 December.

152

West Bengl Municipal Act (2006): The West Bengal Municipal act, 1993 (As amended by the West Bengal

Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006), wbdma.gov.in/PDF/MunicipalAffairs_MunicipalAct.pdf

Wilbur Smith Associate (2008): Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and (Final Report) Strategies

in Urban Areas in India, Wilbur Smith Associates and Ministry of Urban Development, May 2008,

New Delhi.

Word Bank (1997): What a waste, World Bank, Washington, D.C. www.worldbank.org.

World Bank (2006): World Development Indicator World Bank, 2006, Washington, D.C.

Zakaria Committee (1963): Augmentation of Financial Resources of Urban Local Bodies, Report of The

Committee of Ministers, constituted by the Central Council of Local Self Government, Government

of India, New Delhi.

Zerah, Marie-Helene (2006): Urban Water and Waste Water, India Infrastructure Report, 2006, Oxford

University Press, 2006, New Delhi.

INFRASTRUCTURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING...

Documents

Transcript of INFRASTRUCTURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING...