A+| A| A-

Sixteenth Assembly Elections in Uttar Pradesh

p ercentage points indicating a high seats- Sixteenth Assembly Elections vote disproportionality in SP

p ercentage points indicating a high seats-

Sixteenth Assembly Elections

vote disproportionality in SP’s favour. (Over the years, UP has seen multi-corin Uttar Pradesh nered contests where the leading party

A
seven-phased election for 403 a ssembly seats in Uttar Pradesh was held on 8, 11, 15, 19, 23 and 28 of February 2012, and 3 March 2012. At 60%, the voters' turnout was the highest ever in the state, and 14 percentage points higher than the previous assembly election. The increase in voters compared to 2007 was 45%, indicating that the rise in turnout was not a mere statistical correction. The turnout of women was higher than that of men and went up by 18 percentage points compared to 2007. The number of contestants increased to 6,839, an increase of 12 percentage points over the last assembly election (Table 1A).

Table 1A: Summary Electoral Participation: Electorate, Turnout and Number of Candidates Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Assembly Election Change from
2012 2007 (%)
Total electorate 12,58,10,314 +10.6
Male electorate 6,92,75,608 +12.4
Female electorate 5,65,29,768 +8.8
Other electorate 4,938 -
Total voters 7,58,29,264 +45.3
Total turnout 60.3% +14.3
Male turnout 58.8% +9.5
Female turnout 60.3% +18.4
Number of candidates 6,839 +12.4

For electorate, voters and candidates the change is in %, with 2007 as the base. Change in turnout is computed in

has benefited from the seat-vote dispro

portionality, as the BSP did in 2007. This the 2007 assembly elections, and secured time in the case of the SP it was even 29.15% of the vote, a gain of nearly 4 per-higher.) The BJP finished third with 47 centage points since 2007 (in terms of seats and 15% of the vote, a decline of seats, this was the best performance by four seats and 2% votes respectively since any party since the Congress’ victory in 2007. The Congress managed to win 28 1985 when it won 269 of the 425 seats of seats, a marginal increase of six seats since undivided Uttar Pradesh). On the other 2007 and garnered nearly 12% of the hand, its main rival, the incumbent BSP vote, up 3 percentage points. Its alliance performed poorly. From the 2007 high of partner the RLD won nine seats with 2% 206 seats, the BSP crashed to just 80 of the total vote, a drop of one seat and seats, a massive drop of 126. The party 1% vote, respectively. Among the smaller s ecured almost 26% of the vote, down 4.5 parties, the Peace Party was the best percentage points since 2007. The gap p erformer winning four seats (all gains, between the SP and the BSP in terms of since it was contesting for the fi rst time) vote share however was that of just 3 and securing 2% of the vote (Table 1B).

Table 1B: Summary Results: Seats Contested, Won and Votes Secured by Major Parties in Alliances, Compared to the Assembly Election (2007)

Seats Seats Gain/Loss Vote Share Vote % Vote Swing
Contested Won of Seats (%) Per Seat Since 2007
since 2007 Contested (% Points)
Indian National Congress+ (INC+) 401 37 +5 13.96 14.01 +1.65
Indian National Congress (INC) 355 28 +6 11.63 13.22 +3.02
Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) 46 9 -1 2.33 20.01 -1.37
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) 398 47 -4 15 15.19 -1.97
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) 403 80 -126 25.91 25.91 -4.52
Samajwadi Party (SP) 401 224 +127 29.15 29.27 +3.72
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) 127 1 +1 0.33 1.05 +0.23
Peace Party (PP) 208 4 +4 2.35 4.53 +2.35
Quami Ekta Dal (QED) 43 2 +2 0.55 5.31 +0.55
Apna Dal (AD) 76 1 +1 0.90 4.86 -0.16
Communist Party of India (CPI) 51 0 0 0.13 1.06 +0.04
Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI(M) 17 0 0 0.09 2.13 -0.21
All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) 145 0 0 0.36 0.99 +0.36

percentage points, compared to turnout in 2007.

Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) 219 0 -1 0.36 0.66 -0.06

Source: Figures available from the official website of the

Lok Janshakti Party 212 0 0 0.23 0.43 +0.07

chief electoral officer, Uttar Pradesh; http://ceouttarpradesh.nic.in/, and Election Commission Others 2,449 1 -6 7.45 – +1.71

of India website http://eci.nic.in; accessed on 9 March 2012; Data aggregated and recomputed by the CSDS data unit.

Most of the major parties in the state, namely, the incumbent Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Samajwadi Party (SP), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) went into the election on their own. The I ndian National Congress (INC/Congress) however contested in an alliance with the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD). While the Congress fielded candidates in 355 seats,

Independents 1,689 6 -3 3.21 – -3.76

Total 6,839 403 0 100 –

  • (1) “Others” in 2012 include Shiv Sena, Janata Dal Secular, Forward Bloc, Republican Party of India, Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist (Liberation) and other parties. “Others” in 2007 included Shiv Sena, Janata Dal Secular, Forward Bloc, Republican Party of India, Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist (Liberation), Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Congress and other parties.
  • (2) INC and RLD contested separately and not as an alliance in 2007, but for purposes of comparison with 2012, their vote share and seats have been added up. Source: Detailed constituency level results downloaded from Election Commission of India website, http://eciresults. ap.nic.in/; accessed on 9 March 2012. Data aggregated and recomputed by CSDS data unit.
  • Table 1C: Comparative Analysis of Seats Won by Different Victory Margins: Assembly Elections

    (2007 and 2012)

    Victory Margins (Votes) Total Seats Cong+RLD BJP BSP SP Others 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012

    the RLD contested 46 seats. Up to 1,000 27 24 2 1 5 3 9 5 10 14 1 1
    The final outcome, a clear mandate for the SP and a substantial decline of the BSP, was widely seen to be a surprise. SP recorded its best-ever performance winning a total of 224 seats, 127 more than 1,001-5,000 122 65 7 8 15 5 5,001-10,000 115 92 6 11 16 13 10,001 and above 139 222 17 17 15 26 Total 403 403 32 37 51 47 “Others” in this table include other smaller parties and independents. Source: As in Table 1B. 55 64 78 206 20 26 29 80 38 25 24 97 29 36 145 224 7 4 5 17 3 6 5 15
    80 April 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14 Economic & Political Weekly
    EPW

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    If we analyse the result in terms of Table 2A: Region-wise and District-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties

    victory margins, we fi nd that the number

    Regions/Districts Total Turnout Congress+RLD BJP SP BSP Independents Others of seats that were won by a margin of Seats (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

    over 10,000 votes went up from 139 in Rohilkhand 52 65.0 2 12.8 8 18.9 29 28.9 11 22.7 0 1.9 2 14.7

    the previous election to 222 this time Bijnor 8 65.1 0 14.5 2 20.4 2 20.8 4 30.0 0 1.3 0 13.0 and two-thirds of such seats were won

    Moradabad 9 65.5 0 10.8 1 24.1 7 29.9 0 19.2 0 1.7 1 14.3

    Rampur 5 60.7 2 23.4 0 14.9 2 30.5 1 17.0 0 1.6 0 12.6

    by the SP. Moreover, SP won a majority of

    Jyotiba Phule Nagar 4 70.4 0 10.5 0 15.7 4 33.3 0 24.3 0 1.1 0 15.1

    its seats by huge margins. Sixty-fi ve per

    Budaun 7 61.4 0 16.2 0 8.2 5 35.8 2 24.6 0 1.7 0 13.4

    cent of the seats won by the SP were won

    Bareilly 9 65.5 0 4.5 3 23.2 3 26.1 2 20.2 0 2.9 1 23.2

    by margins of over 10,000 votes. In

    Pilibhit 4 68.6 0 13.1 1 27.7 3 25.3 0 17.6 0 2.3 0 13.9

    2007, the BSP had won only 38% of its

    Shahjahanpur 6 65.7 0 14.9 1 14.2 3 31.7 2 27.5 0 2.4 0 9.3 total 206 seats by such huge margins. Awadh 73 61.0 4 14.4 3 10.8 55 32.9 8 25.7 2 4.7 1 11.5

    Both the Congress-RLD alliance and the Kheri 8 65.0 0 13.3 1 13.0 4 32.1 3 25.7 0 4.5 0 11.5

    BJP also won most of their seats this time Sitapur 9 65.6 0 17.3 0 6.4 7 34.3 2 32.0 0 2.1 0 7.9

    Hardoi 8 61.7 0 8.0 0 4.6 6 37.2 2 33.0 0 2.8 0 14.4

    by huge margins. Contrary to popular

    Unnao 6 60.3 0 10.9 0 17.4 5 33.2 1 27.3 0 4.0 0 7.1

    impression, the seats which were decided

    Lucknow 9 57.9 1 16.5 1 16.7 7 29.7 0 21.4 0 1.6 0 14.1

    by very small margins (up to 1,000

    Rae Bareli 7 60.7 1 24.2 0 5.4 5 32.2 0 17.8 0 3.0 1 17.4

    votes) were shared in the same propor-

    Sultanpur 8 58.4 1 14.9 0 10.0 7 35.8 0 24.3 0 5.5 0 9.6

    tion as the rest. The SP did not benefi t

    Pratapgarh 7 54.2 1 12.5 0 10.9 4 20.5 0 23.5 2 18.9 0 13.7 from smaller margins (Table 1C, p 80). Barabanki 7 65.2 0 14.6 1 12.6 6 35.2 0 24.5 0 3.4 0 9.6

    Out of the seven regions of Uttar Faizabad 4 60.5 0 9.1 0 13.0 4 39.4 0 24.4 0 4.9 0 9.2

    Pradesh as classified by Centre for the East 81 57.3 4 8.1 6 10.5 52 32.4 13 27.9 3 5.0 3 16.1 Kaushambi 3 58.8 0 8.9 1 11.5 0 29.8 2 33.5 0 6.4 0 9.9

    Study of Developing Societies (CSDS),

    Allahabad 12 56.0 1 9.1 0 8.8 8 28.7 3 28.6 0 7.4 0 17.4

    the SP was ahead of its rivals in fi ve

    Ambedkar Nagar 5 63.0 0 5.9 0 4.3 5 46.9 0 34.2 0 2.4 0 6.4

    (Rohilkhand, Awadh, east, Doab and

    Azamgarh 10 55.0 0 6.9 0 10.2 9 39.0 1 30.0 0 2.0 0 11.9

    north-east) both in terms of votes and

    Mau 4 56.6 0 7.5 0 4.8 2 28.9 1 28.0 0 1.8 1 29.1

    seats. It was only in west and Bundelkhand

    Ballia 7 54.0 0 6.6 1 15.5 5 29.3 1 23.1 0 4.0 0 21.5 that the BSP managed to gain an upper Jaunpur 9 55.6 1 7.5 1 14.4 7 33.8 0 27.3 0 6.0 0 11.2

    hand, but here too the party had to suffer Ghazipur 7 57.6 0 3.9 0 6.0 6 36.1 0 27.6 0 2.0 1 24.4

    losses compared to 2007 and this was Chandauli 4 61.4 0 3.6 0 9.2 1 28.4 1 29.8 2 16.4 0 12.7 largely due to some impressive gains Varanasi 8 58.2 1 18.1 3 16.1 1 20.4 2 21.1 0 2.0 1 22.5

    Sant Ravidas Nagar 3 56.3 0 2.8 0 7.2 3 45.1 0 31.7 0 1.7 0 11.5

    made by SP. Of the five regions where SP

    Mirzapur 5 62.4 1 13.3 0 10.9 3 32.8 1 28.1 0 2.1 0 12.8

    was ahead, the party registered its best

    Sonbhadra 4 58.7 0 6.5 0 12.7 2 27.6 1 26.1 1 17.3 0 9.9

    performance in the region of Awadh win-

    West 44 62.8 8 23.7 9 17.3 10 20.5 17 29.2 0 2.8 0 6.4

    ning 55 of the 73 seats on offer and accu-

    Saharanpur 7 71.6 1 30.2 1 11.2 1 21.1 4 30.6 0 4.3 0 2.6

    mulating a total vote share of 33%. With-

    Muzaffarnagar 9 61.2 2 22.3 2 20.0 2 22.1 3 27.8 0 3.0 0 4.9 in Awadh, the party did particularly well Meerut 7 65.4 0 20.2 4 24.0 3 25.0 0 23.3 0 1.8 0 5.7

    in Faizabad wining all the four seats in Baghpat 3 58.8 1 37.3 0 3.9 0 15.5 2 35.5 0 1.2 0 6.6

    the district. In Lucknow district the party Ghaziabad 8 59.7 2 22.8 0 20.0 2 18.0 4 32.3 0 2.2 0 4.7 Gautam Buddha Nagar 3 56.5 0 20.6 1 21.7 0 17.1 2 33.7 0 2.3 0 4.5

    ended up with seven of the nine seats,

    Bulandshahar 7 62.2 2 20.0 1 13.5 2 19.6 2 27.4 0 3.7 0 15.7

    whereas in Unnao it won five of the six

    Doab 73 61.1 8 14.5 8 16.5 41 29.4 15 26.8 1 3.7 0 9.1

    seats. In Rae Bareli and Sultanpur,

    Aligarh 7 63.0 3 26.3 0 12.8 4 19.9 0 24.6 0 3.2 0 13.2

    pocket-boroughs of the Nehru-Gandhi

    Mahamaya Nagar 3 62.2 0 14.6 0 10.2 1 33.9 2 35.4 0 2.6 0 3.2

    family, the SP won 12 of the 15 seats and

    Mathura 5 65.2 4 36.2 0 14.6 0 8.3 1 25.7 0 4.1 0 11.0 the Congress managed to win just two. In Agra 9 62.1 0 12.8 2 18.2 1 25.0 6 33.1 0 5.6 0 5.3

    east, the SP won 52 out of the 81 seats in Firozabad 5 64.7 0 2.9 1 15.2 3 41.8 1 29.3 0 6.4 0 4.4

    the region with a vote share of 32%. SP’s Etah 7 61.7 0 9.7 0 9.1 6 32.5 1 22.7 0 2.6 0 23.4 performance in Ambedkar Nagar where Mainpuri 4 60.0 0 9.1 0 10.7 4 42.7 0 26.7 0 2.3 0 8.5

    Farrukhabad 4 58.9 0 11.2 0 17.8 3 26.4 0 14.9 1 9.8 0 20.0

    it won all five seats and in Azamgarh

    Kannauj 3 58.4 0 4.3 0 22.0 3 39.5 0 26.5 0 2.6 0 5.1

    where it won nine of the 10 seats was

    Etawah 3 61.2 0 4.3 0 12.3 3 47.1 0 30.2 0 0.4 0 5.8

    particularly impressive. In north-east

    Auraiya 3 60.4 0 5.6 0 21.4 3 38.6 0 28.7 0 1.0 0 4.7

    (southern Terai region bordering Nepal),

    Kanpur Dehat 4 63.7 0 11.5 0 14.5 3 32.7 1 30.7 0 5.2 0 5.6

    SP won 32 of the 61 seats with a vote

    Kanpur Nagar 10 55.9 1 19.6 4 25.8 5 26.9 0 22.3 0 2.0 0 3.3 share of 28%. In terms of seats, the BJP Fatehpur 6 60.7 0 14.9 1 19.7 2 24.5 3 26.4 0 2.7 0 11.8

    finished second in this region winning Bundelkhand 19 62.8 4 18.6 3 18.9 5 25.3 7 26.2 0 4.1 0 7.0

    10 seats, half of which came from (Contd)

    EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    Table 2A: Continued Gorakhpur and Bahraich districts. In Doab,

    Regions/Districts Total Turnout Congress+RLD BJP SP BSP Independents Others

    with 73 seats, the main contest was bet-

    Seats (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

    ween the SP and the BSP with the former

    Jalaun 3 61.5 1 18.9 0 14.9 1 23.9 1 26.6 0 1.3 0 14.5

    emerging ahead with 41 seats. Within

    Jhansi 4 64.6 0 16.1 1 20.9 2 27.9 1 28.4 0 3.0 0 3.7

    this region, the SP swept the districts

    Lalitpur 2 73.6 0 12.9 0 22.5 0 24.8 2 27.5 0 6.9 0 5.3

    of Etawah, Kannuaj, Etah, Mainpuri,

    Hamirpur 2 59.9 1 26.7 1 17.0 0 22.7 0 22.1 0 5.0 0 6.5

    Farrukhabad, Auraiya and Kanpur Dehat.

    Mahoba 2 62.9 0 17.2 1 26.5 0 23.2 1 23.3 0 4.3 0 5.5

    The BSP performed best in Agra, and in

    Banda 4 57.5 2 24.8 0 15.1 1 24.2 1 26.0 0 3.3 0 6.6 Chitrakoot 2 61.7 0 12.0 0 18.0 1 30.2 1 26.7 0 7.9 0 5.2 Mathura district it was the RLD-Congress

    North-east 61 55.9 7 12.2 10 17.7 32 28.1 9 22.7 0 5.9 3 13.4 alliance which emerged on top. In

    Bahraich 7 59.9 2 21.1 2 20.0 2 21.5 1 21.0 0 6.6 0 9.9 Rohilkhand with 52 seats, the main con-

    Shrawasti 2 61.7 0 17.9 0 20.2 2 33.0 0 19.5 0 5.0 0 4.5 test was between the SP, BSP and the BJP. Balrampur 4 50.1 0 12.4 0 15.5 4 31.6 0 20.1 0 5.4 0 15.0

    Here the SP won 29 seats giving its best

    Gonda 7 57.3 0 7.0 1 17.4 6 35.4 0 25.2 0 6.7 0 8.2

    performance in the districts of Moradabad,

    Siddharthnagar 5 53.0 0 10.1 1 17.3 3 30.9 0 21.2 0 4.7 1 15.9

    Budaun and Pilibhit. In west where the

    Basti 5 58.3 1 17.9 0 9.0 2 30.2 2 31.5 0 2.6 0 8.7

    BSP finished ahead of the rest, the party

    Sant Kabir Nagar 3 54.4 0 6.5 0 19.1 2 25.0 0 22.5 0 2.8 1 24.1

    won most of its seats in the districts of

    Maharajganj 5 61.5 1 16.3 1 18.6 2 26.9 1 18.9 0 1.9 0 17.4

    Saharanpur, Baghpat, Gautam Buddha

    Gorakhpur 9 53.1 0 4.4 3 21.4 1 24.9 4 25.6 0 7.6 1 16.1

    Nagar and Ghaziabad. The BJP did well

    Kushinagar 7 57.4 2 14.6 1 15.8 3 25.0 1 20.0 0 7.6 0 17.0 Deoria 7 52.2 1 10.3 1 18.8 5 30.3 0 21.3 0 9.1 0 10.2 in the district of Meerut winning four of

    Total 403 60.3 37 13.9 47 15.0 224 29.2 80 25.9 6 4.1 9 11.9 the seven seats, the rest going to SP. For

    “Others” in this table and in Tables 2B and 2C include other smaller parties and independents.

    the Congress-RLD alliance which was

    Source: As in Table 1B.

    expected to do well in this region, the

    Table 2B: Category-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties victories were few and far between. In by Reserved and General Constituencies

    fact the only region where the Congress

    Category Total Turnout Congress+RLD BJP SP BSP Independents Others Seats (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) seems to have put up a good fi ght is

    Reserved (SC) 85 59.5 7 13.2 3 14.4 58 31.6 15 27.3 2 3.6 0 9.9 Bundelkhand, where the party won four

    General 318 60.5 30 14.1 44 15.2 166 28.5 65 25.5 4 4.3 9 12.4 of the 19 seats on offer and fi nished third

    Total 403 60.3 37 13.9 47 15.0 224 29.2 80 25.9 6 4.1 9 11.9 behind the BSP and the SP (Table 2A, p 81). Source: As in Table 1B.

    Of all the 70 districts in the State, Lalitpur

    Table 2C: Locality-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties district in Bundelkhand recorded the by Rural-Urban Nature of Constituency

    highest voter turnout at 74%. If we com-

    Locality Total Turnout Congress+RLD BJP SP BSP Independents Others

    pare the turnout across regions, it was

    Seats (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)

    Rural 308 61.0 28 13.7 21 12.3 183 30.3 64 26.6 5 4.5 7 12.7 the highest in Rohilkhand at 65% and

    Semi-urban 60 59.8 5 13.2 6 19.3 32 26.9 14 26.1 1 3.6 2 10.8 lowest in north-east at 56%.

    Urban 35 55.0 4 18.2 20 32.4 9 22.8 2 19.3 0 1.6 0 5.6 The electoral trend in favour of SP was

    Total 403 60.3 37 13.9 47 15.0 224 29.2 80 25.9 6 4.1 9 11.9

    Rural constituencies are those constituencies where less than 25% electors live in urban areas. Semi Urban constituencies are those constituencies where 25% and more but less than 75% of electors live in urban areas. Urban constituencies are those constituencies where 75% or more electors live in urban areas. The classification of constituencies is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002 read with the urban/rural location indicated on the top sheet of electoral rolls for each Polling Booth Area. Computation and classification has been

    done by the CSDS data unit. Source: As in Table 1B.

    Table 2D: Muslim Concentrated Seats-wise Analysis: Turnout and Performance of Major Alliances and Parties

    Seats with Muslim Total Turnout Congress+RLD BJP SP BSP ‘Muslim Parties’ Independents
    Population Seats (%) and Others
    Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%) Won Vote (%)
    Up to 10% 121 60.3 11 12.4 8 12.5 66 31.0 33 27.5 0 1.4 3 15.1
    10.1% to 20.0% 139 59.1 12 12.8 13 14.3 86 29.8 21 26.8 2 3.4 5 13.1
    20.1% to 30.0% 70 59.8 8 15.6 9 15.4 37 28.1 13 24.0 3 6.1 0 10.7
    30.1% and above 73 62.9 6 17.3 17 20.1 35 25.8 13 23.4 2 4.0 0 9.5
    Total 403 60.3 37 13.9 47 15.0 224 29.2 80 25.9 7 3.4 8 12.6

    quite strong and pushed the BSP to the margins in the reserved scheduled caste (SC) constituencies (which tend to only marginally have a higher proportion of SCs). SP won 58 of the 85 SC seats on offer, leaving the BSP, which is considered to have an advantage in such seats, with only 15. This is a signifi cant turnaround considering that in 2007 (pre-delimitation), the BSP had won 61 of 89 reserved

  • (1) “Muslim parties” in the Table include Peace Party, Quami Ekta Dal, Ittehad-e-Milat Council and Rashtriya Ulama Council.
  • (2) Independents and Others in the Table include Independents and other smaller parties.
  • (3) The classification of constituencies by religious groups is based on Census 2001 and description of constituency boundary provided by the Delimitation Commission 2002. However, it may be noted that Census does not provide information on religion below Tehsil/Taluka/Block level and that a constituency often cuts across these administrative units. So, in order to arrive at constituency level estimates of religious groups, the “principle of proportionality” was used to aggregate and disaggregate population below these administrative units. Source: As in Table 1B.
  • April 7, 2012

    SC seats and the SP had managed to win just 13 (Table 2B). If we analyse in terms of locality, then it was in the rural and semi-urban areas where the SP performed the best. The party won 183 of the 308 almost entirely rural seats (59%) and 32 of the 60 semi-urban seats (53%). However in almost entirely urban areas of Uttar Pradesh, it was the BJP that retained its dominance winning 20

    vol xlviI no 14

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    of the total 35 seats. The Congress-RLD Table 3: Social Basis of Voting: Survey-based Estimates of Vote for Major Alliances/Parties by Gender, Age, Education, Locality, Class and Caste/Community in Assembly Elections (2007 and 2012)

    alliance too did reasonably well here in

    Congress BJP BSP SP RLD Others N for terms of votes (Table 2C, p 82). 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2012

    An analysis of the results by propor-Age groups Up to 25 years 10 15 19 15 28 23 27 30 4 1 13 16 1,167

    tion of Muslim population in constituen

    26-35 years 8 11 19 16 30 26 26 29 4 3 13 14 1,879

    cies reveals that contrary to popular im

    36-45 years 8 11 18 13 32 29 24 27 3 2 14 18 1,661

    pression, the SP’s performance in terms

    46-55 years 8 11 18 16 31 24 25 30 5 2 13 17 844

    of votes was much better in constituen

    56 years and above 9 11 18 15 30 26 24 31 3 3 15 15 1,061

    cies without any significant Muslim pop-Gender Men 9 11 19 16 30 27 25 28 4 3 13 16 3,940

    ulation than in constituencies where

    Women 8 12 18 14 32 25 26 31 3 2 13 16 2,673

    Muslims are present in high numbers.

    Level of education

    For instance, while the SP secured

    Non-literate 7 10 13 10 37 33 25 30 4 2 15 16 2,217

    around 31% of the total vote in the 260

    Up to primary 9 10 17 15 30 26 27 34 4 2 13 13 1,025 seats where Muslims constitute below Up to matric 9 10 20 16 28 26 27 28 4 3 12 18 1,665

    20% of the population, it could manage College and above 11 17 27 21 22 17 23 27 4 3 12 15 1,693

    lesser votes in seats with a larger con-Locality Rural 8 10 18 14 32 27 26 29 4 3 13 16 5,438

    centration of Muslims. In constituencies

    Urban 16 18 21 18 21 20 23 29 2 1 18 14 1,174

    where Muslims are over 20% of the total

    Class

    population, the SP faced some stiff com

    Upper 12 16 30 17 14 21 25 27 6 5 14 15 1,487 petition in terms of votes from the BSP, Middle 10 9 24 15 24 26 28 33 5 1 10 16 2,086

    the BJP and other parties like the Peace Lower 10 12 15 15 33 26 25 28 2 2 15 18 1,916

    Party and the Quami Ekta Dal. But here Poor 5 10 12 12 41 33 23 28 4 2 15 15 1,123

    too it ended up winning many more Caste community Brahmin 19 13 44 38 16 19 10 19 3 1 8 11 522

    seats (Table 2D, p 82).

    Rajput 9 13 46 29 12 14 20 26 5 2 9 16 565

    Survey-based estimates of vote by social

    Vaishya 10 21 52 42 14 15 12 12 0 0 12 10 67*

    background reveal that while both the SP

    Other Upper Caste 12 13 41 17 15 17 17 15 1 4 14 34 450

    and the BSP continue to get an over

    Jats 2 11 18 7 10 16 8 7 61 45 2 15 132 whelming proportion of their total votes Yadav 4 4 5 9 7 11 72 66 1 1 10 10 657

    from Yadavs and Jatavs, respectively Kurmi/Koeri 6 13 42 20 16 19 17 35 4 1 16 12 389

    (their core voters), they were unable to Other OBC 9 12 17 17 30 19 20 26 6 3 19 23 768 Jatav 2 5 3 5 86 62 4 15 1 2 4 12 817

    retain their 2007 dominance among

    Balmiki 4 12 11 3 71 42 2 9 4 0 9 34 59*

    these sections. While the SP saw a 6 per-

    Pasi/Pano 7 7 12 4 53 57 16 24 0 0 11 9 178

    centage point vote drop among Yadavs

    Other SC 4 17 9 11 58 45 16 18 1 1 13 8 344

    and Muslims, the BSP’s decline among

    Muslim 14 18 3 7 17 20 45 39 8 1 13 15 1,105 Jatavs was even bigger. The extraordinary Others 12 9 14 16 30 23 23 31 3 0 18 21 559

    polarisation of Jatav votes that was witnessed in favour of BSP in 2007 came down this time, with 62% of Jatavs voting for Mayawati’s party, a drop of 24 percentage points. While these fi gures may surprise many, it must be pointed out that this is a trend which was already noticed by a CSDS survey conducted in Uttar Pradesh in July 2011 when 66% of Jatavs had said they will vote for the BSP in the event of an immediate election. Among other dalit categories too (except the Pasis) the BSP lost votes this time compared to 2007.

    The party’s votes declined by 29 percentage points among Balmikis, and 19 percentage points among Dhobis. The BSP’s loss of votes among dalits seems to have benefi ted SP the most. In fact, SP’s gains were most impressive among communities that are not considered as its

  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ are in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row. In some cases the sample size is too small and figures indicated with * need to be read with caution.
  • (3) Educational categories: are defined as follows. Non-literate: A person who can neither read nor write in any language. Up to Primary: It includes the persons who received formal schooling; either completed the whole primary cycle (I-V) or completed one or other grades of it. Up to Matric: It includes persons ranging from those who received schooling beyond the primary cycle to those who actually completed the 10th standard. College and above: It includes persons who went to college but could not receive a degree and those who completed five years of education in college and persons who received education beyond graduation either in general education or in specialised streams/courses.
  • (4) The class scheme used here takes into account two elements of material wealth – durable household assets and monthly household income. Upper are those who had a car/jeep/tractor or colour TV, scooter, telephone, fridge, air conditioner, pumping sets (rural) and LPG (rural), or whose monthly household income was above Rs 20,000. Middle class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as telephone, colour TV, scooter/motorcycle and fridge in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 5,000 and up to Rs 20,000. Lower class respondents are those who had any three out of four assets such as B/W TV, electric fan, bicycle and LPG in their households or whose monthly household income was above Rs 2,000 and up to Rs 5,000. Poor are those who had no more than two out of the household assets or whose monthly household income was Rs 2,000 and less.
  • (5) Since the analysis uses data-file weighted by actual vote shares, it holds on the assumption that any discrepancy between the reported vote in the post-poll survey and the actual vote share is evenly distributed across, all the social groups.
  • (6) “Others” in this Table (column) include other smaller parties and Independents.
  • (7) Special care should be taken in reading these figures as in Uttar Pradesh there was an unusually large gap between reported and actual vote share for the two major parties (the survey raw data overestimated the lead for the SP by seven percentage points). The figures presented here have been weighed by actual vote shares on the assumption that over-reporting for SP was spread evenly across all social categories. The pattern reported here may not hold if overreporting for SP was substantially higher among some social groups. Source: All figures are based on a post-poll surveys carried out by CSDS in 2007 and 2012. Total sample size in 2007 was 11,331. Total sample size in 2012 was 7,291; In these surveys the respondents were asked to indicate who they voted for by using a ballot paper that carried the list of candidates their party names and symbols as on the EVM in their constituency. Figures reported here are for respondents who said they voted. The investigators checked if these respondents carried a mark on their finger. Those without a finger mark have been excluded from this analysis. The raw survey figures were weighed by actual vote share obtained by major alliances/parties in the final results.
  • EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    Table 4A: Level of Satisfaction with the Incumbent Government (2007 and 2012)

    Satisfaction with Incumbent SP Govt BSP Govt N in Government 2007 2012 2012

    Satisfied with performance 49 49 3,576 Dissatisfied with performance 35 39 2,860 No opinion 16 12 855

  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row.
  • (3) Question asked in the surveys – What is your assessment of the work done by the government in during the last four/ five years? Would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with it? (Probe further whether “fully” or “somewhat” satisfied or dissatisfied). Categories of “Fully satisfied” and “Somewhat satisfied” have been merged together as ‘Satisfied’; categories of “Fully dissatisfied” and “Somewhat dissatisfied” have been merged together as “Dissatisfied”. Source: All figures are based on post-poll/pre-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Total sample in 2007 was 4,988.
  • core supporters. Among brahmins for instance the SP secured 19% of the votes, up 9 percentage points since 2007. Among Rajputs its vote share went up by 6% and among Kurmi and Koeris its votes more than doubled. Not just that, SP gained across categories of age, education, gender, class and locality. Among men, women, poor, rich, rural and u rban voters, SP’s gains were in the range of 3 to 5 percentage points since 2007. While the BSP lost a significant chunk of its core, it seems to have held on to some of its gains among upper castes and Muslims in 2007. However among lower OBCs who had also given BSP an advantage in 2007,

    Table 4B: Citizen's Assessment of the Work Done by Governments during Their Tenure for Various Public Goods and Services

    Assessment of Governance Issues… BSP Government 2012 SP Government 2007 Improved Remained Same Deteriorated Improved Remained Same Deteriorated

    the party lost 11% votes. It’s not just the BSP, but the BJP too which lost its grip over its traditional voters, namely, the brahmins, Rajputs and other upper castes. While the party came down 6 percentage points among brahmins, the losses among Rajputs and other upper castes were much bigger at 17 and 24 percentage points, respectively. Economically well off voters and college educated voters, core supporters of the BJP for a long time, also seem to have moved away from the party. In urban areas however, where the BJP has done well in the past, the party suffered only marginal losses. As for the Congress, while its performance was way below expectation, it did improve its performance among some

    Table 4G: Most Important Election Issue

    Development of UP 32 43 11 39 26 18 in Uttar Pradesh

    Control of corruption 22 49 15 20 30 31 Price rise 36

    Electricity supply 24 46 15 26 32 27 Condition of roads

    Hospital facilities 27 45 14 30 34 20 Farmers’ problems 14
    School/college facilities 31 41 12 34 28 18 Unemployment 7
    Condition of roads 20 49 16 42 27 19 Corruption 7
    Security of common man’s life/property 26 45 14 19 29 31 Electricity, water, etc 3
    Hindu Muslim brotherhood 25 45 14 22 29 23 Development of state 2

    (1) All figures in % and rounded off; rows do not add up to 100 as those who said “Don’t know” have not been reported here.

    Law and order

    the last four/five years. Do you think the condition of the following has improved, deteriorated or remained same? (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the

    Source: All figures are based on a post-poll/pre-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of respondents had no opinion

    major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2007 pre-poll survey: 4,988. (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will read out certain issues. Please tell me how important were they to you

    Table 4C: Popularity of Incumbent Governments Table 4E: Trend in Popularity of Major Political while voting – very much, somewhat or not at all? Once

    in Assembly Elections (2007 and 2012) Leaders as Most Preferred CM (2002-12) the respondent had given an answer to each of the issues (2) Question asked in surveys – Now I will ask you about the assessment of the work done by the government in the state in

    Should the Government Get SP BSP N in Chief Minister Choices 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012 Another Chance? Government Government 2012Mulayam Singh Yadav 27 33 28 25 33 2007 2012

    Mayawati 19 23 30 26 24

    Yes 37 27 1,968

    Rajnath Singh 21 7 2 10 8 No 47 48 3,514 Rahul Gandhi NA 1 7 4 7

    Can’t say/No opinion 17 25 1,808

  • (1) All figures except ‘N’ in % and rounded off.
  • (2) ‘N’ stands for sample size for the relevant row.
  • (3) Question asked in the survey: Should the current BSP government in Uttar Pradesh get another chance? Source: All figures are based on a post-poll/pre-poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2007: 4,988
  • Table 4D: Comparison of BSP Government (2007-12) and SP Government (2003-07)

    Comparing Governments All
    BSP government better than
    previous SP government 25
    Previous SP government better than
    BSP government 46
    Both equally good/bad 13
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off. Rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: If we compare the previous SP government (2003-07) with the present BSP government (2007-12), then which government according to you had been better? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS. Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • Akhilesh Yadav NA 0 1 1 2

  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; Respondents who said “Don’t know” or gave other choices have been excluded; Responses above are to an open ended question.
  • (2) Question asked in the surveys – After this election, who would you prefer as the next chief minister of Uttar Pradesh? (No names were offered to those being interviewed; all responses are spontaneous and were post-coded).
  • (3) NA: Not applicable. Source: All figures are based on post-poll/pre poll surveys carried out by CSDS. Data sets weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2002 was 2,552; Sample size in 2004 was 1,760; Sample size in 2007 was 11,334; Sample size in 2009 was 2,841; Sample size in 2012 was 7,291.
  • Table 4F: Citizens’ Choice for Chief Minister if Samajwadi Party Wins

    Who Should Be Chief Minister If SP Wins? All SP Voters
    Mulayam Singh 48 65
    Akhilesh Yadav 20 16
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents either opted for Azam Khan or said someone else or had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: If the SP wins this Assembly elections, then who according to you should become chief minister – Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Azam Khan or someone else? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • April 7, 2012

    put before him/her, a follow up question was asked to the respondent where only those answer categories where the respondent had said “very much” in the first question were read out again, and the respondent was asked to choose from among them the single most important election issue. The follow up question was not applicable to those who did not say “very much” for any of the issues that we put before him/her. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.

    Table 4H: Citizens’ Opinion on Division of Uttar Pradesh

    Opinion on Division of UP in… Support Oppose
    Division Division
    2011 2012 2011 2012
    Overall 29 37 32 35
    Poorvanchal 28 36 30 38
    Awadh 29 31 36 45
    Bundelkhand 20 32 22 27
    Paschim 32 42 36 30
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the surveys: I will read out a statement to you. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with it (Probe further whether fully or somewhat agree or disagree) – Uttar Pradesh should be divided into smaller states. Categories of “Fully agree” and “Somewhat agree” have been merged together as “Agree”; categories of “Fully disagree” and “Somewhat disagree” have been merged together as “Disagree”. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll/special survey carried out by CSDS; Data set for 2012 weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. Sample size in 2011: 2,502.
  • vol xlviI no 14

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS

    Table 4I: Citizens’ Opinion on Statues Built by BSP Government

    respondents were specifically asked to

    Statements All Dalits

    compare the two governments in the

    Agree Disagee Agree Disagee

    EC was right in covering statues of Mayawati and elephants during elections 48 16 37 23

    BSP government has wasted money on building statues and parks 51 25 45 28

  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; These were two separate questions, rest of the respondents had no opinion
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: I will read out a statement to you. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with it (Probe further whether fully or somewhat agree or disagree) – (a) EC was right in covering statues of Mayawati and Elephants during elections. (b) BSP government has wasted money on building statues and parks. Categories of “Fully agree” and “Somewhat agree” have been merged together as “Agree”; categories of “Fully disagree” and “Somewhat disagree” have been merged together as “Disagree”. Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major
  • parties/alliances.

    sections. The party made gains among dalits, Kurmis and Koeris, Muslims, Poor, Young (18-25 years) and the college educated compared to 2007. That said, it had done much better among these sections in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections and was s imply unable to retain that same level of support. While age was not much of a factor this time, Gender certainly was with the BSP losing the edge it had among women in 2007. While 32% of the women had voted for BSP in 2007, this time only 25% voted for the party. In terms of locality, most of BSP’s losses came among rural voters. The SP, on the other hand, gained among both rural and urban voters in equal measure. In terms of class, the BSP improved in the upper and middle sections but lost substantially among the lower sections and the poor. The SP gained across classes, whereas the BJP saw its support drop among the

    Table 4J: Citizens’ Awareness and Support for 4.5% Quota for Minorities within OBC Quota

    Reservation Issue All Muslims
    Those who have heard of 4.5% quota for minorities within OBC quota 42 51
    Support 4.5% quota for minorities within OBC quota (among those who have heard) 48 60
  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; these were two back to back questions; rest of the respondents had not heard/did not support or no opinion.
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Have you heard about the following issue – 4.5% reservation for minorities within the OBC quota? (If heard) Do you support it? Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances.
  • Table 4K: Party of Second Preference

    Party of Second Preference %

    Congress 18

    upper and middle classes. The Congress which did well mostly among the upper class in 2007, made some gains among the lower economic sections this time (Table 3, p 83).

    The CSDS post poll survey fi ndings show that the satisfaction of people with the BSP government was exactly the same as the satisfaction expressed by voters with the SP government in 2007 when a similar survey was conducted (Table 4A, p 84). Even on issues of governance, there was very little difference on how people assessed the performance of the BSP government and the SP government in 2007. While on the issue of controlling corruption and maintaining peace and security, the BSP government was rated better than what the SP government had been rated in 2007, but it was seen to have performed much worse as far as the condition of roads was concerned (Table 4B, p 84).

    The Mayawati-led BSP government it seems was also as unpopular as the previous SP government led by Mulayam Singh Yadav. When voters were asked whether the government should get another chance to rule, nearly half of them (48%) said no and only 27% were willing to give it another chance. When the same question was asked during a similar survey in 2007, 47% had wanted the then Mulayam Singh government to go and 37% had said it should get another chance (Table 4C, p 84). However when post-poll survey this time, nearly half of them (46%) said that the previous SP government had been better and only 25% said the BSP government was better (Table 4D, p 84).

    The survey reveals that the most popular leader in Uttar Pradesh at present is Mulayam Singh Yadav and by a wide margin. While 33% wanted him to be the next chief minister of the state, 24% wanted Mayawati to continue as chief minister. Rajnath Singh and Rahul Gandhi were the choice of 8% and 7% voters respectively. Akhilesh Yadav was the choice of 2% of the respondents (Table 4E, p 84). When respondents were asked who they would prefer as chief minister if the SP came to power, Mulayam Singh or his son Akhilesh, nearly half of them opted for father. Among SP voters, two-thirds preferred Mulayam Singh (Table 4F, p 84).

    The survey revealed that price rise was the most important issue for voters (36%) during the election. Condition of roads emerged as the second most important issue (26%), followed by farmers’ problems (14%). Corruption was an issue for 7% of the voters (Table 4G, p 84).

    On the issue of dividing Uttar Pradesh into smaller states, there is greater support for division today than it was seven months ago. While 37% of the respondents agreed with the statement that “ Uttar Pradesh should be divided into smaller states”, a slightly lesser proportion 35% disagreed. When the same question was asked during a survey conducted by CSDS in July 2011 (before the proposal by the Mayawati government to divide Uttar Pradesh into four smaller states), those in favour of dividing UP were marginally lesser than those against it, across regions. The 2012 post-poll

    Table 4L: Citizens’ Choice of Future Leader: Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Jayant Chaudhury or Varun Gandhi

    SP 13

    Those Who Have Faith in... All Among Cong+ Among SP Among BJP Among Voters

    Voters Voters Voters of Other Parties

    BJP 9

    Rahul Gandhi as a future leader 38 64 31 33 37

    BSP 5

  • (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the Akhilesh Yadav as a future leader 20 7 36 12 15 respondents gave other party preferences or had no opinion. Jayant Chaudhury as a future leader 4 8 2 3 4
  • (2) Question asked in the survey: Suppose you are not
  • Varun Gandhi as a future leader 7 3 3 23 4

    able to vote for your favourite party/party of first choice because of a bad/unsuitable candidate fielded by it, then in

    (1) All figures are in % and rounded off; rest of the respondents had no opinion.

    (2) Question asked in the survey: Now I will ask you to compare four young leaders – Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Jayant Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out Chaudhury and Varun Gandhi. In your opinion who among them do you trust the most as a future leader? by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major Source: Figures are based on a post-poll survey carried out by CSDS; Data set weighted by actual vote share of major parties/alliances. parties/alliances.

    such a situation which other party would you vote for?

    Economic & Political Weekly

    EPW
    april 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14 85

    survey reveals that while most people in Poorvanchal and Awadh oppose the idea of division, in Bundelkhand and Paschim there are more people who are in support of the idea than those who are against it (Table 4H, p 84).

    Nearly half the respondents were of the view that the Election Commission did the right thing by ordering the covering of the statues of Mayawati and the Elephant during the elections. Only 16% said it was a wrong decision. Even among dalits most felt the EC did no wrong. Majority of the respondents (51%) were also of the view that the BSP government had wasted money on building statues and parks (Table 4I, p 85).

    Less than half the respondents had heard of the recent announcement by the central government of giving reservation to minorities within the OBC quota. However many of those who had heard about the move supported it (48%) (Table 4J, p 85).

    The Congress Party may have performed below expectations but appears to have created some potential for itself for the future by emerging as the second preference party among voters. When people were asked which party would they vote for if the party of their fi rst choice put up a bad candidate, most (18%) said Congress (Table 4K, p 85).

    Another reason for hope for the Congress is that more people have faith in R ahul Gandhi as a future leader compared to Akhilesh Yadav, Jayant Chaudhury and Varun Gandhi. When asked who among the four would make the best leader in the future, 38% said Rahul Gandhi and 20% opted for Akhilesh Yadav. Even among SP voters, Rahul Gandhi did rather well on this question (Table 4L, p 85).

    Survey Methodology

    The findings presented here are based on a postpoll survey conducted by the CSDS, Delhi, in Uttar Pradesh. A total of 7,291 persons randomly selected from the latest electoral rolls were interviewed, from the second week of February 2012 till the first week of March (after polling but before counting of votes) in 399 locations in 101 constituencies spread across the state. The assembly constituencies and four polling booths within each sampled constituency were selected using the systematic random sampling technique. The respondents were sampled randomly (oversampling to allow for non-completion) from the updated electoral rolls of the selected polling booths. Of the 12,768 sampled respondents, 7,291 could be interviewed within the stipulated time.

    The social profile of the respondents interviewed largely matched the demographic profile of the state, except for women (Table 5). The interviews were conducted by specially trained field investigators. The respondents were interviewed in the face-to-face interview situation using a structured interview schedule in Hindi. Respondents were mostly interviewed at their home, preferably alone. The voting question was asked using a dummy ballot paper and dummy ballot box.

    Table 5: Sample Profile

    Social Background Census 2001 Survey 2012
    Women 47.3 40.4
    Rural 79.2 81.8
    Muslim 18.1 17.2
    SC 21.2 21.1

    All figures are in %.

    The fieldwork of the survey in Uttar Pradesh was coordinated by A K Verma (Christ Church College, Kanpur), Mirza Asmer Beig (Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh) and Sudhir Khare (DAV Postgraduate College, Azamgarh). The survey was designed and analysed by a team of researchers at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi which included Banasmita Bora, Dhananjai Kumar Singh, Himanshu Bhattacharya, Jyoti Mishra, K A Q A Hilal, Kanchan Malhotra, Kinjal Sampat, Rupali Warke, Shreyas Sardesai, Sohini Mookherjee, Vibha Attri, and Yogendra Yadav. Sanjay Kumar of the CSDS directed the survey.

    EPWRF’s Online Data Base Services

    www.epwrſts.in

    India Time Series

    The EPW Research Foundation has introduced an online database service christened as the `India Time Series’, (www.epwrſts.in) as a part of the project funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and executed by the EPW-EPWRF and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

    This service is particularly for the beneſt of students, research scholars, professionals and the academic community, both in India and abroad.

    The service envisages dissemination of data in 16 modules displaying time series on a wide range of macroeconomic and ſnancial sector variables in a manner convenient for research and analytical work.

    EPWRF has so far released six modules since early 2011-12: (i) Financial Markets; (ii) Banking Statistics;

  • (iii) Domestic Product of States of India; (iv) Price Indices; (v) Agricultural Statistics; and (vi) Power Sector. Seven more modules will be released soon: (i) Industrial Production; (ii) Finances of Government of India;
  • (iii) Finances of State Governments; (iv) Combined Government Finances; (v) National Accounts Statistics;
  • (vi) Annual Survey of Industries; and (vii) External Sector.

    The other three modules, (i) Education; (ii) Health; and (iii) Insurance will be added thereafter.

    The demo version can be accessed by free registration. The existing members already registered with us and accessing member services at www.epwrf.in will require no fresh registration. To gain full access, very affordable subscription rates are available on our website.

    For any further details or clariſcations, please contact: The Director, EPW Research Foundation, C-212, Akurli Industrial Estate, Akurli Road, Kandivli (East), Mumbai - 400 101 (phone: 91-22-2885 4995/4996) or mail: epwrf@vsnl.com

    April 7, 2012 vol xlviI no 14

    To read the full text Login

    Get instant access

    New 3 Month Subscription
    to Digital Archives at

    ₹826for India

    $50for overseas users

    Comments

    (-) Hide

    EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

    SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS SPECIAL STATISTICS: 2012 STATE ELECTIONS contestants, from 1,045 last time to 1,078 Fourteenth Assembly...

    seats since the previous election. How- Third Assembly Elections Uever in terms of vote share, both the parties ended up adding votes. The in...

    failed to open its account. Five inde- Sixth Assembly Elections in Goa pendent candidates were elected to the Asingle day poll for 40 assembly...

    vote share secured by all the PDF con sti- Tenth Assembly Elections tuents (MPP, RJD, NCP, JD(U) and CPI(M)) in Manipur Asingle day poll for 60...

    Back to Top