Talk:List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index

Totally inaccurate
Kerala education index is quoted as HDI. Source for HDI is not listed. UN estimate of HDI is higher than India's planning commission estimates. One should refer to Planning commission HDI report : http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780198077589.do, whose summary can be found here http://www.im4change.org/docs/340IHDR_Summary.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pionshivu (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is completely vandalized
I agree with the comments of user 117.199.5.215. This article is misleading. People are comparing the 2005 data with 2011 data. The methodology used in 2005 and 2011 are NOT the same. Kerala's HDI is now near the United States'. Only a fool would come to a conclusion of that nature. How amusing.

Please restore the correct version to that of last edit by user User:Kkm010. All data are biased and no source are given. Request protection--117.199.5.215 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

i know freaking sources are given. the ones that are given are dead for example the 2001 National Human Development Report source is dead.99.255.218.2 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is out of date (2005) data and is invalid in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.83.200 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the state comparisons to countries in the previous versions, as they were clearly inaccurate. Unless someone comes up with a realistic comparisons (i.e. one where Kerela is not compared to US, or netherlands), I will continue to remove any comparisons that are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the comparisons of the Very High Human development, medium development, and low development, because the cut-offs are based upon the new HDI system, while the rankings are based upon the old HDI system. It is inaccurate and VERY misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is obviously wrong
This article is obviously wrong. It is ridiculous to believe (for anyone who has actually visited or seen pictures of Kerala) that if Kerala were a country, it would be the 3rd most developed in the world.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha, don't take tech into consideration but it is hard to believe Kerala's high development rates it is odd, if it is real then the skyline would be different and also there would be too many hospitals, schools, public transport service centers and also numerous currecy exchange services for tourists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.195.255 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at Kerala's raw numbers make this obvious. HDI is the mean of life expentancy index, education index, and income index. Life expectancy in Kerala is on par with the US, obviously way poorer than the US, and has a lower literacy rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.58.211 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Making the article useful
Two questions: is the "third party organisation" the Indian government? If so, it should say so. Also, is there any data for the IHDI, the inequality adjusted human development index? This is far more useful. In fact, I think there's a growing consensus that the HDI, raw as it is, is pretty useless. The fact that New Delhi stands at .7-something shows it.  Wik idea  06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article is vandalised
This article show Gujarat at 2nd rank in HDI with HDI .750. But in reference to "Union Budget & Economic Survey, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. pp. 310–311." it is 11th rank with HDI of .527

My belief is that this page is intentionally vandalized. Please check and confirm the entry regarding Gujarat. Thanks

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettukal (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article is tampered
This article has been of great use to me and lots but someone has tampered with the fact. The HDI of India ( National Avg. ) has been tampered with. Please check back and edit as required. It is 0.547 not 0.467 as here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.231.9 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

UNDP, Planning commision etc
Each source has been discussed here Talk:Kerala. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305055724/https://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf to http://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305055724/https://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf to http://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305055724/https://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf to http://www.iamrindia.gov.in/ihdr_book.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dubious source of data in HDI table for year 2015
The numbers of the year 2015 in the table come from an article on Live Mint based on the news organization's own calculations. While Live Mint is a fine and reliable news source, I do not think that they can be deemed as a good primary source for HDI calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffeomorphicvoodoo (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303200644/http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/sel_socio_eco_stats_ind_2001_28oct11.pdf to http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/sel_socio_eco_stats_ind_2001_28oct11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Add another range to your map
Moved from File talk:Indian States and Union Territories by HDI (2018) (3).png I suggest you to as in the older image file. And you were suppose to discuss this in the talk page before straight out removing the older image - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * add another range 75.0–79.9 at the top and change the current top one to 70.0–74.9.
 * add the state boundaries.

another range isn't needed, > 0.700 is high HDI

i will add state borders, i impromptu decided not to because the no border map looked a bit more pleasing and easier to digestAbh9850 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Add the range or it will be reverted as you didn't propose it in the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

why? it makes no sense to add another range for 2 states when according to UNDP > 0.700 is high HDI Abh9850 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Then what was the purpose of lower ranges? I suggest you do that for now since your primary concern was that the file was in Telugu which you corrected. As for two slabs upwards of .700, raise a concern in the talk page and wait. People have agreed on the old image for some reason. You cannot come and change all in one day. That needs consensus - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

So, people agreed to use old image which was in telugu? that doesn't make sense mate. The purpose of the lower ranges is that there are a lot of states and UT covered by them (13 in 1st tier, 13 in second tier, 10 in third and fourth. It makes the map and the color coding easier to read, but if you're so troubled by not having 2 states in another tier, ill change it back Abh9850 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do so. You know what, Wikipedia is not a personal blog. There are cases in which a mere mention of "cause of death" in the infobox required all sorts of administrative interventions. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I know mate but your map is completely arbitrary too and makes no sense either. Btw, I didn't see any talk page or discussion on the map either so dunno Abh9850 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen, the ranges should be fixed. There are .05 jumps, why not create another range. Just because there are lesser number of states above .75 now doesn't mean there wouldn't be in future. If you want your image to be in the article for longtime, you should keep the ranges fixed so that something is kept as a standard and people can make edits on it not delete it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UNDP2019": From Human Development Index:  From List of countries by Human Development Index:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong HDI table
The current HDI table seems wrong. Could anyone update the table? Here in the table, the HDI for Kerala is 0.911, while the HDI on the infobar of Kerala says it is 0.779... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Temptation115 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Large removal of sourced content in Trends table
In this edit, 11 kb of content comprising the table was removed, with the edit summary: "This is a very inaccurate list. No need to keep it."  This was previously sourced with note 7. That's a lot of material removed, and not a lot of explanation in the edit summary. User:संयुक्त अरब अमीरात, can you elaborate on your reasons for this removal, what was inaccurate about it, and whether there was a problem with the sourcing? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The data there for Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand was incorrect. संयुक्त अरब अमीरात (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Also the data for Telangana was incorrect. संयुक्त अरब अमीरात (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The data for the union territories looked fabricated as well. संयुक्त अरब अमीरात (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would also add that the reason that some of those states have incorrect data is because they are relatively new states, and whoever made that chart was too lazy to research the HDI data from before those states were created so they just made up numbers. संयुक्त अरब अमीरात (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I recently made an edit adding the table back in with updated figures. A lot of the numbers differed from the source for ALL the states, and I thought that was what @संयुक्त अरब अमीरात had been referring to when he originally removed the table. However, I'm only now seeing the discussion here, and apparently the issue @संयुक्त अरब अमीरात raised was not with the data matching the source from GlobalDataLab, but rather the integrity of the GlobalDataLab data itself, particularly for the newer states and the union territories. This is actually a somewhat valid point, since some of these territories were not even in existence for some of the earlier years (for example, Chhattisgarh was formed in 2000, so but GDL has number for it extending back to 1990). However, I think that removing the entire table on that basis is an extreme response. You could possibly argue for removing data for territories that didn't exist during certain years (like Chhattisgarh pre-2000). However, you could also argue that the purpose of this table is simply to present the data from the original source (GDL) in a readable, readily-accessible format, and makes no further claim as to the original data's legitimacy (although GDL is generally well reputed, as far as I know). Also, the union territory data may not be fabricated. For example, just googling "lakshadweep hdi" reveals this paper as the second result, and perhaps GDL used such sources in determining the numbers. Anyways, the easiest solution is to just keep all the data, but I understand the concern regarding the source data legitimacy. Those are my layman's thoughts. Chimney6 (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking this on. Are you satisfied that the restored table with the updated figures is accurate with respect to the GDL source? Also, definitely agree that the separate cells are better; I see no reason to merge them, so that was an improvement as well. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'm personally satisfied with the table as is. My main issue with removing the data for certain states/UTs is that I just worry about using an improper standard to determine what GDL data is "incorrect" and what isn't. For example, if we simply used the date of the state/UT being established as the criterion, how do we know that covers all cases? Puducherry's HDI figures look suspiciously stable from 1990 to 2019, as do many of the other UTs. One might suspect that these figures were fabricated. However, these UTs were created in the 50s and 60s, long before 1990. So how do we KNOW that the data is incorrect? The other solution is to only remove the data for states before their creation and simply ignore the cases we're unsure about (like the UTs). However, how do we know these numbers were just completely made up? Perhaps GDL has access to some advanced methods for estimating the life expectancy, mean years of schooling, and GNI per capita (the three components of HDI) that are reasonably close to what the true values would have been. Some of these states, similar to the UTs, have suspiciously stable values (such as Telangana), but again, that's not a proof that the data is incorrect. What if the values were different, such that they "looked" less stable and more similar to the other states in their rate of change, would that change our decision to remove the data? It shouldn't, but I suspect that it would, since the only reason we're having this conversation to begin with is because someone thought the data for these states "looked fabricated". That's why I believe the best course is to just take the neutral position. The table doesn't make any claim regarding the legitimacy of the data, it's simply presenting what GDL has come up with. Chimney6 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to rephrase what I said at the end there, we of course want to present data we believe to be correct. However, without proof of inaccuracy, we can't assume the data is incorrect, especially since the source has a track record of being accurate for other countries/subregions. Chimney6 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I used the word "correct" above; that may have been misleading. I think that word choice came about due to replies I was making to an edit by another editor who used its antonym. In any case, my point is this: Wikipedia is not about Truth&mdash;it's about faithfully conveying what the reliable sources say (true or not). So my comment about "correct" wasn't about whether GDL can be trusted (that's a separate issue that could be raised, were there any doubts about it, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard). What I really meant by "correct", is "does it faithfully/correctly convey the source", and I think you've answered that already with a "yes". I was in no way challenging the reliability of GDL. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for the confusion! I had been referring to @संयुक्त अरब अमीरात when I was talking about correctness, not you. I was saying that @संयुक्त अरब अमीरात seemed to be challenging the reliability of GDL, and I was arguing why that might open the door to other issues. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I myself wasn't sure what the right course of action should be taken in this situation, I just made an argument for what I personally thought might be best. However, your statement (and the page you linked) of the purpose of Wikipedia not being about truth, but rather faithfully conveying what reliable sources say, eliminates any further doubt in my mind that keeping the table as is is the correct decision, so thanks for clarifying that. What you wrote is a much more concise, clearer argument for settling this issue than what I had written! Chimney6 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also note that HDI is not something that requires significant qualitative research to determine. It's computed with a formula involving life expectancy, mean/expected years of schooling, and GNI per capita, which are all generally easily accessible figures for most regions of the world, including subregions of countries. So it's likely that GDL obtained these statistics for the union territories and the newer states the same as they did for the other states of India, and the same as they do for every other country. Again, the only possible issue here would be for newer states and UTs for the years before they were created. Chimney6 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That should be fine, I believe, as long as all three statistics are found in a single source, in order to avoid possible WP:SYNTH issues. Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism
Following persistent vandalism by a serial IP-hopping vandal in the range 42.105.176.0/23, this article has been accorded semi-protection in this request until 18:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC). Please monitor this article for vandalism when protection expires, and add it to your Watchlist. This applies also to List of Indian states and union territories by poverty rate. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Alternate HDI Calculation added
For many years, the main source of the HDI values for Indian states/UTs on this page has been Global Data Labs (GDL), which is also the source for many other sub-national HDI pages on Wikipedia. Specifically, that data can be found here. Global Data Labs estimates the HDI for sub-national regions using the same methodology that the UNDP uses for calculating the HDI for countries as a whole, as stated here.

However, on January 23, 2023, a user named Indo British Wikipedian modified the HDI values in the List section, citing this source. This page, in turn, gets it's data from this paper published by India's National Statistical Commission (NSC). On page 9 of that document, section 2.5 states the following:

''For HDI, the UNDP HDR uses "Gross National Income Per Capita" in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) US$ to measure Dimension-3: "A Decent Standard of Living". However, for preparing this index for sub-national units viz., States/UTs, the common national currency has been deemed to be suitable. Per-capita Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has been used as a measure of "Dimension 3: A Decent Standard of Living". Per-capita GSDP was finalized in discussion with HDRO.''

Thus, the NSC's method for calculating HDI for Indian states/UTs, which is what the new values use, differs from the UNDP's method, which is what the old values (from GDL) use.

In my opinion, the old GDL values should be reinstated. If other users believe that the NSC values should be kept alongside the old values, I would suggest moving them to a new, separate section and emphasizing that those values are calculated using a non-standard method. This needs to be made clear so that viewers of the page don't mistakenly compare the NSC values on this page with GDL values on another sub-national region's page, or compare them with the UNDP HDI values for countries, believing them to have been calculated in the same manner, which they are not.

As a real-world example, the List of Philippine provinces and regions by Human Development Index has a similar scenario, since the government (Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)) has their own method of calculating HDI. That page's solution was to have two columns, one for the GDL-sourced HDI values, and another for HDI values sourced from PSA. Something similar could be done for this page, or there could be two separate sections for GDL/NSC, or the NSC data could be removed entirely. However, whatever the solution, I strongly recommend that the GDL values be restored. I welcome other users' thoughts. Chimney6 (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just made a contribution that addresses this issue. I added a separate section for the NSC-sourced HDI values and noted the difference in the method of calculation. Chimney6 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. But the values you’ve added are inaccurate. The last data for state HDIs in the source you’ve listed are from 2018 but the values you’ve added are from a much older date. 2603:8080:6B01:991C:4A0:54F1:7857:4B0D (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed “NSC” values
HDI values are calculated using a standard methodology across the world and that is what we should be using. Stop adding subjective, inaccurate values. 2603:8080:6B01:991C:4A0:54F1:7857:4B0D (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It is very good
Nice 47.15.38.10 (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Update needed
The article is out of date. The country comparisons do not match anymore. An update in the country comparisons is required.

Thanks. I'm Here to Help You (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)