Indian Streams Research Journal

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
OF NAGRAKATA BLOCK OF JALPAIGURI AND DINHATA-II
BLOCK OF COOCHBEHAR DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL

SANJAY BISWAS
Research scholar, Department of Geography and Applied Geography,
University of North Bengal

Abstract:
Nagrakata is a northern foothill block of Jalpaiguri district adjacent to Bhutan
Himalaya. Dinhata-II is a southern plainly block of Coochbehar district of West Bengal
adjacent to Bangladesh. Both Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar is two neck to neck district of
West Bengal. There is a vast difference of physical factors between two blocks. There are
also some differences in political condition with two different countries. I want to find out
their effects on socio-economic condition of two blocks.

KEY WORDS -
Physical differences, socio-economic effects.

INTRODUCTION
Jalpaiguri and Coochbehar are two northern most district of West Bengal. The Nagrakata block is
situated at northern part of Jalpaiguri District adjacent to Bhutan. Northern parts of Jalpaiguri district are
called Duars major parts of Duars are covered with tea gardens and forest. Nagrakata is also covered with
lots tea garden. Nagrakata is mainly foothill area with gentle slope. Two main rivers of the area are river
Jaldakha at western part and river Daina in the eastern part. NH 34 and a railway line passes through the
area. Some doors of Bhutan are also situated in this area. Dinhata-II block is a southern most block of
Coochbehar district adjacent to Bengladesh. Physically the area is a plain area with lots of agricultural
lands. Some state way and a railway line passes through this area. Both Nagrakata and Dinhata-II blocks are frontier area of two separate adjecent countries of India. But there is a difference in physical characteristics of two blocks. Nagrakata is foothill block of Bhutan Himalaya and Dinhata-II is a plain area. Both, Nagrakata and Dinhata-II are situated in the same climatic condition. Political and physical factors affect on their socio-economic condition.
METHODOLOGY:
Whole research work mainly based on Secondary and primary data. Secondary data collected
from statistical hand books of both districts. Some sample survey has been done differently in different
places of both blocks. Sample survey of Nagrakata block has been done in November 2011 and at Dinhata
–II in June 2012. Primary data collected through random sampling method. Sample survey is done on 497
populations of 94 families of Nagrakata block and 675 populations of 163 families of Dinhata-II block. To
determine locations of house hold survey area GPS locator software has used.

OBJECTIVES:
There are some objectives associated with this study-
1.To find out the basic differences of socio-economic condition of two study area.
2.To analysis the factors responsible for differences.
3.To know how physical condition effects on socio-economic condition of study area.
4.To know is there any effects of political situation on socio-economic condition.
STUDY AREA:
Nagrakata is a northern foothill block of Jalpaiguri district adjacent to Bhutan Himalaya.
Nagrakata block is located between 26048' to 27000'N parallels of latitude and between 88o48' to 89o00'E longitude. But house hold survey area of Nagrakata block is situated between 26053'03” to 26053'12”Nlatitude and between 88054'34” to 88054'49”E longitude. Main two village of Nagrakata block is Subash pally and Sulkapara. Dinhata-II is a southern block of Coochbehar district of West Bengal adjacent to Bangladesh. Dinhata-II block is located between 25057' to 26014'N parallels of latitude and between 89o28' to 89o40'E longitude. House hold survey area of Dinhata-II block is situated between 26007'03” to 26007'14”N latitude and between 89034'32” to 89035'57”E longitude. Main two village of Dinhata-II block is Kharubhanj and Sahebganj.
DEMOGRAPHIC CONDITION:
Total population of Nagrakata block was 115907 in 2001 with 292 population density. Male
population was 58790 and female population was 57117. Nagrakata covered 3.41 % population of
Jalpaiguri district. Sex ratio of Nagrakata is 971 female/ 1000 male with male-female ratio of 50.72% and
49.28%. Sample survey population was 497 with 262 male and 235 female. Sex ratio was 896 female/ 1000
male. Male- female ratio is 52.71% and 47. 27%. Other hand total population of Dinhata-II was 205546 in
2001 with 832 population density. This block shears 8.29% population of Coochbehar district. Sex ratio of
Dinhata-II is 964 female /1000 male. Male population was 104627 and female population was 100919 with
50.9% and 49.1% respectively. Total sample population was 675. Male population was 359 and female
population was 316 with 53.19% and 46.81% respectively. Sex ratio of this block is 880 female /1000
male.

CASTE DISTRIBUTION:
According to district statistical hand book there are 13777 scheduled castes population found in
2001 census in Nagrakata which is 11.87%. Among them 7021 male population and 6756 female
population which is 50.96% and 49.04% respectively. Through sample survey 98 scheduled caste
population found in 497 which is 19.71%. There is 92470 scheduled caste population found in Dinhata-II
block in 2001 census which is 44.99% of blocks among them 47116 male and 45354 female populations
with 50.95% and 49.05% respectively. According to sample survey, there is 146 scheduled caste population
According to district statistical hand book there are 13777 scheduled castes population found in
2001 census in Nagrakata which is 11.87%. Among them 7021 male population and 6756 female
population which is 50.96% and 49.04% respectively. Through sample survey 98 scheduled caste
population found in 497 which is 19.71%. There is 92470 scheduled caste population found in Dinhata-II
block in 2001 census which is 44.99% of blocks among them 47116 male and 45354 female populations
with 50.95% and 49.05% respectively. According to sample survey, there is 146 scheduled caste population

found in 675 sample population which is
21.63%. Out of 205546 total populations 57325(49.47%) scheduled tribe population belongs in
Nagrakata block. There is 28914 male population and 28411 female population found in ST population
with 50.44% and 49.56% respectively. Other hand 126 scheduled tribe population found in 497 sample
population which is 25.35% of sampled population. According to 2001 census 896 scheduled tribe
population found in Dinhata-II block which is only 0.44%. There are 473(52.79%) male and 423(47.21%)
female population. According to sample survey, only 4 scheduled tribe population found in 675 which is
0.59%. In district statistical hand book only SC and ST population shown. If we add SC and ST population
then may calculate the General and OBC population. Through this, there are 44805 general & OBG
population belongs in Nakrakata block in 2001 which is 38.66% of block's population. According to sample
survey there is 45(48.89%) General population and 30(6.04%) OBC population in 497 sampled population.
In Dinhata-II block 112180 General and OBC population found in 2001 census which is 54.58% of block's
population. Through sample survey, there are 173(25.63%) General population and 352(52.15%) OBC
population found in 675 sampled population.
RELIGIOUS STATUS:
According to census report there is 83.30% Hindus, 10.85% Muslim and 4.34% Christian belongs
in Jalpaiguri district. Through the sample survey we have found 427 Hindus, 11 Muslims and 59 Christians
in 497 sample population which is 85.92% Hindus, 2.2% Muslim and 11.87% Christian in Nagrakata block.
Other hand, in Coochbehar district 75.5% Hindus, 24.24% Muslims and 0.9% Christians belongs.
According to sample survey there is 573 Hindus and 102 Muslim populations found in Dinhata-II block
which is 84.89% and 15.11% respectively.
EDUCATIONAL STATUS:
To observe about education status, some secondary data from district statistical hand books and
some primary data collected by house hold survey are used. Following tables shoes the educational status of
both blocks.

There are 53 primary schools in Nagrakata block with 12887 students guided by 148 Teachers and
6 high schools, 1 higher secondary school with 5570 student and 1798 student respectively guided by 78
and 22 teachers. According to sample survey, there are 199 illiterate people and 298 literate people belong
in Nagrakata block. Among them, 129 is studying or passed primary, 75 M.P. passed, 51 H.S. passed, 37
Graduate passed and 6 post-graduate passed.

There are 168 primary schools in Dinhata-II block with 28600 students guided by 528 Teacher and
9 high school, 5 higher secondary school with 10906 student and 11172 student respectively guided by 105
and 94 teacher. According to sample survey, there are 114 illiterate people and 561 literate people belong in
Dinhata-II block. Among them, 161 is studying or passed primary, 123 eight passed, 153 M.P. passed, 76
H.S. passed, 36 Graduate passed and 12 post-graduate passed.
FAMILY SIZE:
There is no available data about family size in district statistical hand books. To find out family
sizes of two blocks, researcher has done a house hold survey.According to sample survey, there is 17 family found in Nagrakata block below 3 member, 38
family between 4 to 5 member, 33 family between 6 to 7 member and 6 family found above 8 ,ember. Mean
family size in Nagrakata block is 5.29 members. Through sample survey, there is 45 family found in
Nagrakata block below 3 member, 95 family between 4 to 5 member, 15 family between 6 to 7 member and 8 family found above 8 ,ember. Mean family size in Dinhata-II block is 4.14 members.
WORK DISTRIBUTION:
Work distribution pattern of both Nagrakata and Dinhata-II block is shown through secondary and
primary data. Both secondary and primary data given below-

According to district statistical hand book total population of Nagrakata block is 115907.
Dependent population of this block is 69680 which are 60.1% of total population. Total worker of
Nagrakata block is 46227 which are 39.9 % of total population of block. Among total workers 29.5 % main
and 10.4 % marginal worker is found in Nagrakata. In total workers 10.9% cultivators, 11.8% agricultural
labour, 0.8% household industry and 76.5% others worker is found. Although there is no division in others
workers, but their major part of this is engaged in tea worker in Nagrakata block. Other hand, total
population of Dinhata-II block is 205546. Dependent population of this block is 105922 which are 51.5% of total population. Total worker of Dinhata-II block is 99624 which are 48.5 % of total population of block.Among total workers 31.8 % main and 16.7 % marginal worker is found in Dinhata-II. In total workers 37.6% cultivators, 39.6% agricultural labour, 4.3% household industry and 18.5% others worker is found. In Dinhata-II block main occupation is agriculture sharply found through this table. Physically Dinhata-II block is a fertile plainly area.

PER CAPITA INCOME:
Lack of secondary data, income status of both blocks is shown through primary data. Founded
sample survey data is shown by table below-

According to sample survey, there are 28 families belongs with monthly income of below 2000
which is 29.79% of total families. 40 families are found whose monthly income is between 2000 - 5000
which 42.55% of total families are. 17 families belong with monthly income of 5000 to 10000. 9 families
are found above 10000 monthly incomes which is 9.57% of total families. Through the sample survey, there
are 14 families belongs with monthly income of below 2000 which is 8.59% of total families. 58 families
are found whose monthly income is 2000 to 5000 which 35.58% of total families are. 56 families belong
with monthly income of 5000 to 10000. 35 families are found above 10000 monthly incomes which is
21.47% of total families.

CONCLUSION:
Through this study, there are lots of some socio-economic differences found. At first, sharp
differences found in population density of both places. It is mainly for their physical situation. Nagrakata is
a foothill block where agricultural land is not available except tea cultivation. Physically plain area of
Dinhata-II affects on general cultivation and high population density also. Caste distribution is also affected
by physical factors. In Nagrakata block mainly ST population dominated but in Dinhata-II block SC and
OBC population dominated. Distribution of religion in Nagrakata is vast differ from Dinhata-II block.
Mainly Hindus are majority in both blocks. Some parts of Nagrakata dominated by Christian population.
Because a part of ST population is attractive to Christian religion. Other hand some parts of Dinhata-II
block is Muslim population dominated. Literacy rate of Dinhata-II is higher than Nagrakata block.
Institution and student- teacher ratio is also better in Dinhata-II block. Differences found in work
distribution patterns also. Mainly Dinhata-II is cultivator and agricultural labour dominated block where
Nagrakata block is Tea labour dominated area. Through sample survey, it is not clearly found. Because the
places of house hold survey was near a market area. After all discussion we may said that mainly physical
factors of Nagrakata and Dinhata-II affects on their socio-economic differences.
REFERENCES
District Statistical Handbook, West Bengal, 2008, pp. 18-19, 65.
District Statistical Handbook, Jalpaiguri , 2004,pp. 2-14, 92-105.
District Statistical Handbook, Coochbehar, 2004, pp. 2-14, 92-105,85-89.
West Bengal Administrative atlas, Directorate of census operations, west Bengal, census of india 2001,
pp.24-33, 52-71.
Sarkar B.C., 2011: Nature and changes of agricultural practices & production in Jalpaiguri district, West
Bengal, Research Analysis and Evaluation, pp. 77.
Banerjee S.S., Saha M., Chakraborty S., Poddar B.C., 2003: Environmental Hazard of Tea garden belt in
Jalpaiguri district, West Bengal.

Indian Streams Research Journal

POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER IN UNITED
COALITION GOVERNMENT

BABURAYA.C.SAGAR
Guest Lecturer
Dept. of Political Science

Abstract:
The working of parliamentary democracy in India during the last six decades
has witnessed many important developments. One of these developments has been the
emergence of coalition politics at the centre. With the decline of Congress as a dominant
force and the subsequent emergence of some national and regional parties as powerful
actors, multi-party system becomes severely competitive party system in the 1990s. This
ushered a new era of coalition politics at the centre.

INTRODUCTION
Since 1996 coalition Governments have been working at the centre. The working of coalition
Governments has influenced the Parliamentary system in India. One of the offices which is directly
influenced by the coalition Governments is the office of Prime Minister. In a Parliamentary form of
government, the office of Prime Minister is of great significance. He is the real executive head and the entire
administration revolves around him. There is no administrative action which can be taken against the
wishes of the Prime Minister. Richard Crossman has named the parliamentary form of government as the
“Prime Ministerial form of Government”.
While expressing his views about the position of the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar
has said, “If any functionary under our constitution can be compared with the President of the United States,
he is the Prime Minister and not the President.” The position, of the Prime Minister is like the 'Captain of the
ship of the state'. He is like sun around which all the planets revolve. The Prime Minister is in the words of
Jawaharlal Nehru, “the linch-pin of the Government.” He is the manager-in-chief of the Government's
business and in a real sense; he carries on his shoulders the responsibility for the formulation and execution
of the government's policy. But the working of the coalition Governments since 1996 has adversely affected
the position and functioning of the Prime Minister. Even the appointment of Prime Minister has come under
the influence of coalition compulsions. According to the parliamentary practice the leader of the majority
party in parliament becomes the Prime Minister and he in turn selects his colleagues in the Council of
Ministers. In coalition politics, the leader of the leading party is usually elected as the leader of the
parliamentary party of the coalition, but he should be acceptable to the allies as well. Sometimes the leader
of a minority party is chosen by the Coalition partners to lead the government. This happened in United
Front coalition Government 1996-1997 when first H. D. Deve Gowda and then I. K. Gujral was elected as
Prime Minister. The general principle seems to be that the head of the Cabinet, whatever the degree of
standing he has in his own party, shall be acceptable to all partners of the coalition whose will may turn out
to be decisive in the matter of electing the Prime Minister.
As regards the formation of the Council of Ministers, Article 75(1) of the Constitution states that
the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other ministers shall be appointed by the
President on the advice of the Prime Minister. The traditional practice is that the Prime Minister will choose
the ministers by paying due weightage to various factors. But under the impact of coalition politics, Prime
Minister is not free in the formation, re-organisation and the removal of any minister. In this respect he has

to take the approval from the partner parties.
After the eleventh parliamentary elections held in 1996, BJP under the leadership of Atal
Behariajpayee formed its government and resigned only after 13 days due to lack of majority support. Then
a coalition government of United Front with the outside support of Congress, led by H.D Deve Gowda was
formed. Since Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda was a compromise leader of a motley crowd, he did not
enjoy the usual Prime Ministerial freedom to select his own Cabinet colleagues. Deve Gowda's own Janata
Dal with 46 members in the Lok Sabha bagged 10 Cabinet berths; Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi
Party with 17 MPs got 4, while DMK with as many seats got only two. So, did its poll ally Tamil Manila
Congress (TMC) with 20 seats, but Chandrababu Naidu's TDP with 16 seats got 3 ministerial berths.
Baiwant Singh Ramoowalia, who was not a member of either House of Parliament, was a surprise inclusion
for giving representation to Punjab. The CPI and the Asom Gana Panshad (AGP) joined the Government on
June 18, 1996 and with this the contours of a real federal structure appeared to be emerging at the centre.
The United Front witnessed pulls and pressures in the appointment of senior Janata Dal leader S. R.
Bommai whose name figured in the Jam diaries, but another leader Sharad Yadav, who had been chargesheeted
in the Hawala Scam was kept out. To maintain a balance among coalition partners, Sharad Yadav
was mollified later by elevating him to the position of working president of the Party, a special post created
for him. S.R. Bombai's inclusion in the ministry was again a compromise for preventing him from
interfering in the politics of Karnataka, where J. H. Patel, considered close to Hegde, had become Chief
Minister against the wishes of the Prime Minister.
After the formation of Council of Ministers, distribution of portfolios posed another problem for
the coalition Government. P. Chidambram, a former Congressman and now TMC MP was given finance
with the assurance to the Congress that economic reforms started by it would continue. Mulayam Singh
Yadav, former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister was keen on Home department but was given Defence
Department. When the CPI decided to join the ministry, it too wanted home department for its nominee but
the Congress objected on the plea that the Communists could not be trusted with the sensitive information
in that department. However, finally Inderjit Gupta of the CPI did get the coveted portfolio. Ram Vilas
Paswan was said to be eyeing the foreign office, but agreed to let Inder Kumar Gujral become foreign affairs
minister. In return, besides Railways, he was given the charge of Parliamentary Affairs. The Prime Minister
had to relent on many counts and his prerogative of distributing the portfolios got circumscribed by the
presence of large number of important leaders of the coalition parties. Instead of being the centre of Council
of Minister, he had to feel content by becoming first among several leaders. It was otherwise not easy for
Deve Gowda to lead a Government that he did not have full control over.
This coalition government however, could last only about a year when the Congress under the
presidentship of Sitaram Kesri withdrew its support in March 1997. However the prospect of a mid-term
poll apparently forced both the Congress and the United Front to come to rapprochement. In this process on
April 20, 1997 Gujral was elected leader of the United Front Parliamentary Party and on the same day, the
United Front Steering Committee notified the President of India of its decision. The President, however,
appointed Gujral as Prime Minister only after receiving assurance from Congress President Sitaram Kesri
about his party's support to the United Front. On April 22,1997 the second United Front coalition
Government headed by I.K. Gujral won the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha. Thus the second United
Front coalition Government was installed and the coalition system Of governance got a new lease of life.
The composition of the new Council of Ministers and the allocation of portfolios was again a difficult task
which threatened to rupture the United Front. The initial idea was that I. K. Gujral alone would take the oath
on April 21 as Prime Minister and the selection of ministers could be taken up later. The CPI (M) Politburo
member Sitaram Yechury played a crucial mediating role in resolving the crisis. He made a simple
proposal: swear in the old team in its near entirety with the exception of Deve Gowda, of course with slots
kept vacant for the TMC ministers to return and send out a message of continuity and stability. The
redistribution of ministerial portfolios could be taken up later as part of an overall political review
However, the proposal was not acceptable to Laloo Prasad Yadav who attempted to scoop the process by
first asking for the droping of ministers close to Deve Gowda and then also excluding C.M. Ibrahim, D.P.
Yadav and Srikant Jena. The Left criticised the idea, pointing out that any such change in the ministry would
serve only the Congiess by weakening the United Front. Thwarted, Laloo Prasad Yadav demanded the
inclusion of his man, Sharad Yadav tainted by involvement in the lain hawala scam, in the new Ministry.
The Left pointed out that Sharad Yadav was not merely implicated in the scam but had also admitted in
public that he was a recipient of hawala funds from the Jams. His elevation to the Union Cabinet would
discredit the United Front's anti-corruption credentials and give the Congress a lever to put pressure on the
minority Government for soft-pedaling other corruption cases. Ultimately, after long arduous negotiations
the United Front leaders succeeded in blocking Laloo Prasad's aggressive demand; but for D.P. Yadav's
sacrifice, the United Front decided to induct practically the whole of the old team.On the swearing-in day, the Prime Minister designate Gujral learnt that not just himself, but all the
other Ministers were going to be sworn in. The President and the cabinet secretary were informed about the
last minute change in the arrangements. Ironically for the first time since independence, India had a Prime
Minister who had borrowed his entire Council of Ministers from his predecessor, under the compulsions of
coalition politics. The prerogative of appointing ministers to the union cabinet in fact, was enjoyed by the
Chief Ministers of states and not the new Prime Minister. Laloo Prasad Yadav made no effort to hide the fact
that it was he who had insisted on Devendra Prasad Yadav being removed from the Council of Ministers.
The compulsions of coalition compelled the Prime Minister to transfer the CBI Director Joginder
Singh to the Ministry of Home Affairs as Special Secretary. Actually CBI had decided to prosecute Laloo in
the fodder scam and also it named Rajiv Gandhi as chief conspirator in the Bofors bribery scandal. Gujral's
dependence on the Bihar unit of the Janata Dal for his seat in the Parliament on the one hand and the lifeline
of the Government- Congress became compulsions of the Prime Minister to affect this transfer.
Commenting upon the transfer Prime Minister explained that his transfer was in fact a promotion.
The India's experience with coalitions had shown that the politics of consensus threw up helpless
leaders'and Gujral made no efforts to hide this fact. In October 1997, Prime Minister transferred Probir Sen
Gupta, Chainnan of Maruti Udyog Limited as Secretary in the Department of Petroleum, the Industry
Minister M. Maran protested against this decision and refused to attend the cabinet meeting, with the result
that the Prime Minister had to reverse his decision.''Similarly the opinion of the Prime Minister in the Lok
Sabha on the bill granting 33% reservation to women in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, was
criticised by his own party president Sharad Yadav.
Similarly under the compulsions of coalition politics, the Prime Minister I. K Gujral,
recommended the President to impose constitutional emergency in UP under Article 356 and dismiss the
Kalyan Singh led BJP Government, which secured vote of confidence in the assembly with the help of
Loktantrik Congress a breakaway group from the Congress.
Earlier the BSP withdrew support to the BJP Government led by Kalyan Singh with the result that
Government lost majority in the assembly. However, 37 members Congress Legislative Party split and
supported the BJP Government. The split came as a rude shock to the Congress President Sitaram Kesri. He immediately conveyed to the Prime Minister I. K. Gujral that the Kalyan Singh Government be dismissed
and the President's rule be imposed in UP. The Prime Minister was against such move. Even the legal
experts were against dismissing a Government after its leader had demonstrated his strength on the floor of
the House. But it was the time for the Congress President to get reward for his outside support to the United
Front Government. He made it clear to Gujral that the choice was between Kalyan Singh and his own
survival as Prime Minister. Under the compulsion of survival, Prime Minister decided to recommend to the
President to impose constitutional emergency in UP under Article 356 of the Constitution. However,
President sent the recommendation back to the cabinet for reconsideration. Yielding to unprecedented
intervention by the President K.R. Narayanan and strong internal opposition, the union cabinet reversed its
recommendation on imposing central rule in UP and decided to allow Kalyan Singh to continue as Chief
Minister. The UP crisis was however, over but it left a severe dent in the credibility of United Front
Government in general and the office of Prime Minister in particular. In the meeting of United Front's
Steering Committee, the members criticized the Prime Minister and argued that the attempt to in oke Article
356, after the floor test was held in UP was misconceived.
During one party dominant system Prime Minister is treated not as equal to any other minister but
at a much higher pedestal. His pre-eminence rests on his commanding position in the cabinet, coupled with
fact that he is the leader of the majority party. During the Congress rule at the centre the Prime Minister was
usually the President of his party, the major campaigner in the elections; all these positions of power when
combined in one person make his rank much above an ordinary minister. But in case of United Front
Coalition Government first H. D. Deve Gowda and then I. K. Gujral was selected to be appointed as Prime
Ministers as a compromise among the United Front partners. They even did not enjoy full control over their
party members. More so their party Janata Dal created problems in the way of successful functioning of the
coalition Government.
So under the impact of coalition politics the position of Prime Minister has underwent a big
change. He is no longer a sun around which all the planets revolve. He has become first among equals. He
does not enjoy free will. He is bound to follow common minimum programme of the coalition Government.
Moreover with the establishment of an extra-constitutional body, the Steering Committee, the powers shift
from cabinet and its leader Prime Minister to this committee. Prime Minister has to endure its decisions as
its displeasure can cause the fall of the Government. Hence, the position of real executive head under the
impact of coalition Governments has undergone changes in tenns of strength, stature, influence and
authority.