Jharkhand’s Poverty Success Hides a Harder Reality

By Prof. Anant Kumar

In 2015-16, 42 out of every 100 people in Jharkhand lived in multidimensional poverty, deprived of income, basic nutrition, schooling, clean cooking fuel, sanitation, or a proper roof over their heads. By 2019-21, that number had fallen to 29 per 100. This data comes from NITI Aayog’s National Multidimensional Poverty Index, developed jointly with the UNDP and Oxford’s Poverty and Human Development Initiative, based on the National Family Health Survey. Even after that decline, Jharkhand still has the second-highest rate of multidimensional poverty among Indian states, behind only Bihar. Nearly three in ten people in the state remain poor, according to a measure that looks well beyond income, including whether a child is stunted, whether a household has a toilet, and whether anyone in the family has ever been to school.

This is exactly what Sustainable Development Goal 1 asks us to track. SDG target 1.2 commits India to halving poverty ‘in all its dimensions’ by 2030. On paper, Jharkhand appears to be on this path. NITI Aayog’s SDG India Index gave the state a composite score of 62 in its 2023-24 edition, placing it in the ’Performer’ category, ahead of Bihar’s 57. What the state-level number obscures is where poverty actually lies. A recent district-wise analysis of Jharkhand’s own MPI data found that poverty is not evenly spread across the state. Districts like Pakur, Sahebganj, and West Singhbhum continue to record high poverty rates, while Ranchi, East Singhbhum, and Bokaro perform considerably better. This means that a state average of 29 percent masks districts where poverty is far worse than that number suggests, and others where it is far better. Pakur and Sahebganj lie along Jharkhand’s northeastern border with West Bengal and Bihar, with large tribal populations, poor road connectivity, and limited industrial presence compared to the mineral-rich belt around Ranchi and Bokaro. A single state score cannot capture this gap, and policy built only around the state average risks leaving these districts exactly where they were.

There is also a quieter warning in the national MPI data that Jharkhand’s planners should not ignore. Much of India’s national poverty reduction over this period came from improvements in the index’s ‘standard of living’ indicators, which include cooking fuel, electricity, sanitation, housing, and bank accounts, largely through schemes like Ujjwala, Swachh Bharat, and Jan Dhan. These are real and valuable gains, but they are also the easiest to achieve, as they depend mostly on government supply-side delivery, such as building toilets, providing gas cylinders, and opening accounts. The harder dimensions, health and education, have moved far more slowly nationally, and there is no reason to think Jharkhand is an exception. A family with a toilet and a gas connection can still be poor if a child is stunted or has never attended school regularly. Counting the easy wins and calling the job done would be a mistake.

None of this opposes celebrating real progress. It calls for a clear definition of ‘halving poverty’ by 2030 and a focus on the last mile, the poorest districts, and the toughest indicators, not just the easy wins. This requires three priority areas. First, Jharkhand needs district-specific poverty plans rather than a single statewide approach, as Pakur and Ranchi face different issues. Second, health and education indicators, which lag infrastructure, must be tracked and reported separately to ensure progress in one area isn’t mistaken for gains in another. Third, because tribal districts often perform poorly, poverty reduction must be integrated with tribal welfare and rural connectivity programmes, planned together rather than separately.

Jharkhand has already halved its poverty rate. The next half will be harder, as the remaining poverty is concentrated in districts such as Pakur and Sahebganj, where reducing poverty will require concerted efforts, strong political will, and a deliberate push to overcome resistance to change.

The author is a Professor at Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi. The views expressed are personal.
Email: pandeyanant@hotmail.com