Miseries of the Red Corridor Region of India: What Do the Data Tell Us?

  • Jyoti Prasad Mukhopadhyay
  • Nilanjan Banik
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)


The fifth chapter of this volume has revealed a very interesting development-disparity landscape in India, where authors have compared some broad development indicators between the two contrasting regions of India, viz., the ‘Red Corridor’ region and its complement. While clustering these regions, they have gone beyond the state boundary and have taken districts, which are affected by the rising trend of Left-Wing Extremism and have experienced unrest and conflict for a persistent period of time. Such cluster of districts is being compared with another, which is free from such violence. This distinction has been made to explore the difference in the degree of underdevelopment of the ‘Red Corridor’ region of India vis-à-vis the rest of India (ROI). The popular notion based on mostly anecdotal evidence says that the ‘Red Corridor’ region consists of most backward areas, where socio-economic development has been abysmal since independence. Such a situation is a reflection of pro-longed feudal structure and exploitation of the natural resources of the powerful groups and marginalizing various indigenous communities. As a result, the extremists been able to win the confidence of the deprived sections of the population living here and have organized them to revolt against the state. Such anecdotal evidence lacks statistical rigour, which clearly can justify such development disparity. This chapter therefore, fills the gap in the existing literature by statistically analysing average outcomes of some key dimensions of development: access to health facilities, education, finance of the ‘Red Corridor’ region vis-à-vis other parts of India, where such extremism is absent. The results stunningly reflect that the ‘Red Corridor’ region is indeed impoverished and poor compared to the ROI in terms of average outcomes of the aforementioned development dimensions. Such detail empirical analyses is helpful for policy recommendations process and endorsing the need for voice representation to ensure justice and also to bridge the gaps between these two very contrasting regions in India.


Gross Domestic Product National Rural Health Mission Common Property Resource Headcount Ratio Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Banerjee, K., and P. Saha. 2010. The NREGA, the maoists and the development woes of the Indian state. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (28): 42–47.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee, S. 1980. In the wake of Naxalbari: a history of the naxalite movement in India. Calcutta: Subarnarekha.Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, S. 2008. On the naxalite movement: a report with a difference. Economic and Political Weekly 43 (21): 10–12.Google Scholar
  4. Banik, N. 2009. Trade and social development: the case of Asia. Asia- Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade Working Paper Series No.68.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, C., and S. V. Dillen. 2012. How does India’s rural roads program affect the grassroots? The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No.6167, South Asia Region.Google Scholar
  6. Chaudhuri, S., and N. Gupta. 2009. Levels of living and poverty patterns: a district-wise analysis for India. Economic and Political Weekly 44 (9): 94–101.Google Scholar
  7. Debroy, B. 2003. Introduction. In District-level deprivation in the new millennium, eds. B. Debroy and L. Bhandari, 8–11. New Delhi: Konark Publishers and Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies.Google Scholar
  8. Editorial. 2008. Widening debate on the naxalite movement. Economic and Political Weekly 43 (19): 5–6.Google Scholar
  9. Guha, R. 2007. Adivasis, naxalite and Indian democracy. Economic and Political Weekly 42 (32): 3305–3312.Google Scholar
  10. Khandker, S. R., H. A. Samad, R. Ali, and D. F. Barnes. 2012. Who benefits most from rural electrification? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6095.Google Scholar
  11. Kochar, K., U. Kumar, R. Rajan, and A. Subramanian. 2006. India’s patterns of development: What happened, What follows. NBER Working Paper No. 12023. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  12. Kujur, R. K. 2009. Naxal conflict in 2008: an assessment. Issue Brief No. 93, New Delhi: Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.Google Scholar
  13. Kumar, H. 2009. Who is the problem, the CPI (Maoist) or the Indian state? Economic and Political Weekly 44 (47): 8–12.Google Scholar
  14. Kurian, J. N. 2000. Widening regional disparities in India: some indicators. Economic and Political Weekly 35 (7): 538–550.Google Scholar
  15. Mankiw, N. G., D. Romer, and D. N. Weil. 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (2): 407–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mukherji, N. 2010. Arms over the people: what have the maoists achieved in Dandakaranya? Economic and Political Weekly 45 (25): 16–20.Google Scholar
  17. Navlakha, G. 2006a. Days and nights in the maoist heartland. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (16): 38–47.Google Scholar
  18. Navlakha, G. 2006b. Maoists in India. Economic and Political Weekly 41 (22): 2186–2189.Google Scholar
  19. Planning Commission. 2008. Development challenges in extremist affected areas. Government of India, Available via Accessed 30 Jan 2012.
  20. Planning Commission. 2010a. District level per-capita income. New Delhi: Government of India.Google Scholar
  21. Planning Commission. 2010b. Evaluation study on Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana (RSVY). Government of India.Google Scholar
  22. Purfield, C. 2006. Mind the gap—is economic growth in India leaving some states behind? International Monetary Fund Working Paper No. 06/103, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  23. Ramana, P. V. 2011. Measures to deal with left-Wwng extremism/naxalism. Occasional Paper No.20, New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.Google Scholar
  24. Romer, P. 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy 98 (5): 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh, P. 2006. The naxalite movement In India. New Delhi: Rupa and Co.Google Scholar
  26. Subramanian, K. S. 2005. Naxalite movement and the Union Home Ministry. Economic and Political Weekly 40 (8): 728–729.Google Scholar
  27. Subramanian, K. S. 2010. State response to maoist violence in India: a critical assessment. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (32): 23–26.Google Scholar
  28. Tendulkar, D. S. 2010. Inequality and equity during rapid growth process. In India’s economy: performance and challenges, eds. S. Acharya and R. Mohan. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. World Development Indicators. 2012. Published by the World Bank. Accessed 5 July 2013.

Copyright information

© Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Financial Management and ResearchChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Mahindra École CentraleHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations