Archive | Data Visualisation RSS feed for this section

The Age of India

Census of India released its year-wise age data from 2011 last Friday. Data is available for India and all states. The Transition State takes a look at how India and its states have been ageing.

The median age of India in 2011 was a young 24 years, with the median age ranging from 19 years in Meghalaya, 20 in Bihar and UP to 31 years in Kerala. This is good news for India as even it’s most aged state is still younger than China or the United States. Below is a map of median ages of individual states.

Median Age in India 2011

Median Age in India, 2011. Map made using Gramener’s free mapping tool.

What the above spread of values also shows is that India’s youngest states could be as much as 25 years behind its most aged states in terms of their demographic profiles. In theory, this gives states a good amount of time to learn from each other’s employment and economic policies to do their best in taking advantage of the upcoming ‘demographic dividend’.

Plenty has been said about the idea of a demographic dividend that India needs to take advantage of. I will just reprint an excerpt from a good article by Kaushik Basu several years ago on the subject:

In the year 2004 India had a population of 1,080 million, of whom 672 million people were in the age-group 15 to 64 years. This is usually treated as the “working age population”. Since outside of this age group very few people work, it is reasonable to think of the remainder, that is, 408 million people, as the “dependent population”.

A nation’s “dependency ratio” is the ratio of the dependent population to the working-age population. In the case of India this turns out to be 0.6.

What is different about India is the prediction that it will see a sharp decline in this ratio over the next 30 years or so. This is what constitutes the demographic dividend for India. [Kaushik Basu, BBC]

If we plot the working age population (anyone between the ages of 15 and 64) versus the median age, what we get is a tight correlation between the two. This implies that most Indian states are yet to reach their maximum working age population ratios. The possible exception to this might be Kerala, which might have already peaked.

Median Age and Working Age Population

The age structure profiles of Bihar, India and Kerala also illustrate the different stages of demographic development India’s states are: from a very young, bulging child population in Bihar to a more youth/young-adult heavy national population, to a far older population in Kerala.

India Age Structures 2011

If you were wondering what those spikes in the above graphs were, it pays to remember that the Census records reported ages and not actual ages. Ordinarily, such age structures must be quite smooth if accurate – there is no cause for spikes unless for some strange reason people decided to have a lot more kids in a particular year. Usually one member of a household (who is at home) is asked to provide the age of everyone in that household – and predictably, certain numbers get rounded up.

The graph below shows you that people round up ages to numbers 10, 12,18, 20 and every subsequent multiple of five. Curiously enough, the mis-reporting of ages is much lower in Kerala than the rest – showing that the state’s higher literacy has at least resulted in people knowing the age of their immediate relatives a lot better.

Reported Age 2011

PS. Do not miss the slides of Dr. Mukul Asher’s keynote ‘Preparing for an Ageing India‘, which he gave at the IIMB CPP conference a few years ago. Data used in this post can be accessed here.

Addendum. Census of India also released their own presentation on the age data on their website today. However, many of the numbers that they have put up (like % people in working age population) do not match up with what can be calculated from the raw data. (Hat-tip to Rukmini Srinivasan for directing me to it.)

Comments { 56 }

The Centralisation of Public Expenditure

The Ministry of Finance released the Indian Public Finance Statistics 2012-13 earlier today on their website. Drafted by a team under the direction of the Chief Economic Advisor to the Finmin (currently the RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan), the statistics are of very high value as they are a collation of union and state government expenditures and revenues from the past several years.

When we hear the union budget every March, we get only a partial picture of what is planned for India in the coming year, as states play a significant role in allocating public resources.

Today I take a quick look at the decentralisation of public expenditure in India, between the union government and the states. Local bodies are outside the purview of the current analysis. Below is a graph of share of union and states in the total public expenditure in India.

Public Expenditure Centre and States

A few things stand out. The union government used to be a massive 65 percent of the overall government expenditure in 1990-91, which was continuously declining for the subsequent decade, until 2003-04. This is good evidence of financial decentralisation. However, the union government share started increasing from 2004-05 onwards, around the time the first UPA government came into power. The latest two years’ numbers are tentative as they refer to budget and revised estimates rather than actual expenditure, therefore we can say that union share has shot up to around 55% of the total in the recent past.

Below is a second graph, this time on the union-state shares of the total development expenditure over the past two decades. Development expenditure refers to expenses on infrastructure, health, education, agriculture, power and more; and leaves out defence, police, administration, interest repayments and several other items.

Development Expenditure - Centre and State

On the whole, union government expenditures are lower here because a few big-ticket, union-only expenses don’t get counted: defence and interest payments being the largest of them. The trends here are a little different.

While the union government share reduced from about 47 percent in 1990-91 to about 37 percent in 1996-97, it started steadily increasing from then to about 2006-07. It has spiked up even more since then, and it is notable that union government share was highest in the last 23 years in 2008-09 at 49.7 percent. This is strong evidence that fiscal decentralisation as a national policy is dead in the water.

Many commentators have noted the relentless centralisation of financial flows in the past few years, with ‘centrally sponsored schemes’ becoming bigger and more numerous by the year. The components that have contributed to this union government expenditure need to be unpacked further to understand what exactly is happening.

Government for 1.2 billion people needs as much flexibility and adaptability as one can give, and this dangerous re-centralisation of public expenditure needs to be reversed.


  1. Data collated from Indian Public Finance Statistics Reports 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2012-13.
  2. Data is unavailable for the years 1991-92 to 1994-95.
  3. 2012-13 numbers are budget estimates and 2011-12 numbers are revised budget estimates, so they must be interpreted with care. The rest are actual expenditures.
  4. The y-axes were cropped in the graph to better illustrate the changing trends in the union/state expenditure share.
Comments { 16 }

Surveying Opinions on Scientific Issues

Last week, I wrote a short post on how someone’s combined views on climate change, nuclear safety and GMOs are a good indicator of their scientific temper and ideological biases. Subsequently, my colleague and fellow blogger Karthik Shashidhar ran a short online survey on the same three questions to solicit responses. Survey participants were given five choices ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Karthik has analysed the survey results on the RQ blog that I would urge all readers to check out.

Firstly, we will look at the individual responses to each of the three questions:

…this shows that opinion in favour of global warming is fairly strong.

While a majority of the people believe that health risks from nuclear power have been exaggerated, the opinion is not as overwhelming as it is on the global warming front. There still exist a significant number of doubters of safety of nuclear energy.

When it comes to GM crops, however, public opinion is largely divided. As many people agree that GM crops are safe, as do people who believe they are unsafe. [RQ on INI]

The survey was designed to be quick and dirty – participants were largely those who found the survey on Twitter and Facebook and essentially selected themselves into entering the survey. Ergo, there are no claims made here that these responses are representative of any ‘universal’ population.

Taking a venn-diagram approach to analysing the survey responses, I was able to generate the chart below. I divided the 5 options for each questions into two categories: neutral or disagree, versus agree or strongly agree. Therefore, all those who have either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that 20th century climate change is anthropogenic come under the orange coloured ellipse, and all those who haven’t come outside of it. Note that the ellipses in the venn diagram have been drawn in proportion to the number of respondents who fall under that category.

Scientific Temper

The largest set of respondents (29 percent) are those who, according to my metrics, can be classified as “left wing”, those only agreeing to the climate change question while disagreeing with nuclear or GMO safety. The second largest (23 percent) is a curious set: they do not think that GMOs are safe, but agree both on nuclear safety and climate change. Without commenting on ideological biases, it is possible to look at this set as a people who are “climate change realists” – people who understand that we do not have the option to burn dirty fossil fuels endlessly, and that nuclear power has a role to play in reducing our fossil fuel dependence.

Some 19 percent of the respondents are those I would consider as being most sensitive to scientific evidence, but readers can feel free to disagree with me on that. About 10 percent of the respondents are classically right wing – the notion that ‘most environmental fears are overblown’ can explain their stance on all three questions.

About 9% agree that climate change is anthropogenic and that GMOs are safe – but are not convinced about nuclear safety. They form a subset that I find rather curious. In a sense, there is indeed a connection between the two topics. GMOs form an essential tool in retaining and improving agricultural productivity in the face of climate change and uncertainty – not just in creating drought and flood-resistant varieties, but also in converting C3 plants into C4 plants, the latter of which are far superior at tolerating high temperatures and making use of increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. It is difficult to comment, however, that  this knowledge indeed informs their opinions.

The initial hypothesis was that asking for opinions on anthropogenic climate change, nuclear safety and GMO safety would broadly give us three categories of respondents: left wing, right wing and those “biased to evidence”. When tested, it gave us four or five major categories of people, including those who disagree only with nuclear safety, or only with GMO safety.

Comments { 5 }

How much is Water Supply subsidised in Bangalore?

Continuing from yesterday’s post about introducing crisis pricing of water in Bangalore, here’s the real picture of how water gets subsidised for all residents of the city who receive municipal supply.

Subsidised Water in Bangalore

It turns out that a family of five using the national norm for urban water supply – 135 litres per person per day (LPCD) receives a whopping subsidy of Rs. 9,500 a year! A household using 200 litres per person per day in the city – quite common – receives an even higher subsidy Rs. 13,790 a year! Compare this to the LPG subsidy that the same households will receive: it clocks in at a much lower Rs. 2,800 a year (at Rs. 320 subsidy per cylinder of LPG and 9 cylinders per year). While LPG subsidies need to be reduced and its prices rationalised, I’ll leave it to the readers to see how much air time each issue has received thus far.

As the chart shows, even the maximum price of water levied is lower than the operational costs, so the more profligate a consumer, the higher the subsidy they receive. And this is a rather conservative estimate – one that does not include how the city’s sewerage is also subsidised, nor the heavy capital costs that go into building the infrastructure for the city’s water supply.

And we wonder why we have a crisis around water almost everywhere in the country.

Water tariffs from the BWSSB are available here, and this is the source of the operational cost of  water provision in Bangalore.

Comments { 1 }

In Search of a New Village

The south Indian state of Karnataka has over 29,000 villages spread across a 190,000 square kilometres. Anyone who travels a little in the state quickly realises that there are common village names that keep recurring. Using the Census 2011 village directory for the state, here’s a comprehensive look at the most common village names in Karnataka.

It turns out that the most common village name in Karnataka is Hosahalli – or simply, ‘New Village’. Hosahalli is the complete name of about 108 villages, and forms a part of the name for another 82 (For example, Chikkahosahalli, which means ‘small new village’). Curiously enough, the second most village name is Hosur, which is a variant of the former and also means ‘New Village’. A possible reason as to why this has come about is that as villages grew in size, people might have shifted to an adjacent site and created a new settlement, perhaps a couple of miles from the original village. In conversation, this new settlement would be referred to as just that – new village or new place –  until one day the name got formalised in an inscription or an agreement, and the name Hosahalli or Hosur became permanent.

Other common village names include Bommanahalli, Gollahalli (village of cowherds), Kurubarahalli (village of shepherds), Siddapura and Basavanahalli (dedicated to the reformer Basavanna).

Most Common Village Names in Karnataka

Different words are used to denote a village or settlement as well – from hallis to puras to nagaras. Of these, halli and ooru are of a Dravidian origin, with halli being equivalent of palli in Tamil, while most of the others are borrowed or adapted from Sanskrit. Pura is said to denote a walled town and nagara a town or a city, but they were often used quite interchangeably while naming villages and towns, even historically. Villages are also named after local features like lakes (kere, sandra) and fortresses (kote), as well as after gods and goddesses.

Most Common types and Parts of Village Names in Karnataka

So there you have it. If you are thinking of starting a new settlement in Karnataka, you couldn’t go wrong by calling it the unimaginative, but eminently serviceable Hosahalli or Hosuru. I’ll take them over the Residencies, Enclaves and Gardens that have come up in Bangalore, any day.

Many thanks to Shreevatsa and Mohan KV for an erudite discussion on the meaning of village names, their origins and their use. Kudos to Karthik for suggesting the perfect name for the post.

Addendum. This post drew a flurry of fascinating conversations on twitter and elsewhere today. On popular demand, below is a more complete (and revised!) list of suffixes in village names in Karnataka. You can also download the raw data used in this post from here.

Most Common suffixes and prefixes of Village Names in Karnataka


Comments { 4 }

Bangalore refuses to turn up and vote

[This post used data from the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Karnataka, which was subsequently revised the next day. As per the revised numbers, Bangalore urban showed a turnout of 57.4%, a full 7.5 percentage points greater than the 2008 assembly elections. This improvement cannot be disregarded as trivial, thus the argument made by the original post is no longer valid.]

In the face of high expectations, the residents of Bangalore yet again failed to turn up and vote in large numbers in yesterday’s assembly elections. With 52.8% of the Bangalore Urban district’s voters casting their vote yesterday, it was only a marginal improvement over 2008 – when 46.9% of the district’s voters had turned up. This is but a marginal increase of 5.9 percentage points, which can perhaps be explained away to a great extent by the simple fact that the elections took place on a Sunday.

Voter Turnout 2013 Karnataka Assembly Elections

The capital city’s voter turnout was well below the state average of 70.2 percent. Curiously, the maximum turnout was seen in the adjoining Bangalore Rural district – at 77.95 percent. The only other districts with their polling numbers in 50s and early 60s percentages were Bidar, Gulbarga, Yadgir, Bijapur and Raichur – something that could be because of the high summer temperatures there.

The map was created using Gramener’s excellent map tool. Polling data was obtained from the Karnataka Election Commission website courtesy of Citizen Matters.

Update. As my fellow blogger Karthik pointed out, the previous assembly elections in Bangalore took place on a Saturday. Therefore, the weekend explanation for a greater turnout could be invalid. Also – while Bangalore as a whole shows a low turnout, it is certainly possible that individual constituencies showed much higher turnouts. It will be interesting to watch the numbers for constituencies with candidates endorsed by BPAC and those with strong Loksatta campaigns and see how well they fared.

Comments { 5 }

Wahabism, Wahhabism and Salafism

My fellow blogger Karthik Shashidhar along with Narayan Ramachandran took a quick look at the use of wahhabi and salafi as terms that describe a particularly conservative branch of Sunni Islam.

Their hypothesis was the following: that wahhabi was a dominant term used after 9/11, with its use waning over the years and being replaced by the term salafi.

By looking at Google Trends, they found that Salafi was a far more popular search term since 2005 globally, but wahhabi was about as popular a term in the United States as salafi in 2005, with the steady decline in the former since then. [Graphs]

However, wahhabi is a term that can be spelled in other ways as well – the simplest being wahabi. By looking at the Google Trends search indices for all three terms, we get a slightly different picture.

Worldwide, Salafi is a term that is more prominent than both wahabi and wahhabi combined, but wahabi appears to be increasingly in use, especially since 2009. In the US, the difference between the use of either terms is less marked.

Google Trends gives us a sense of the extent of interest in these multiple terms, by examining how often people search for them. But how often are they used in writing? Another tool by Google, the excellent Ngram viewer, lets us look at how often terms are used in all books indexed in the Google Books database.

If one compares the use of wahabi, wahhabi and salafi in all books, salafi comes out as the clear victor. However, these searches are case-sensitive. Turns out that capitalised versions of all three terms are used a lot more often in books than un-capitalised versions! And with them, the trends are completely different. A comparison of Wahabi, Wahhabi and Salafi tells us that Wahhabi is the most used term in books – and it always was. It also tells us that since 9/11, more was written about both Wahhabism and Salafism. And while slow on the start, there certainly is some evidence for how Salafi is being increasingly used in books today.

Comments { 0 }

Toilets in Rural Karnataka – A peer effect?

In my previous post, I had taken a look at how sanitation improved in rural Karnataka and India over the decade of 2001 to 2011. Three broad categories of districts had emerged in Karnataka, and a relationship was visible between a district’s starting position on toilet ownership and how well it improved.

Going by the spirit that drove the previous analysis, I go a level deeper and more granular, and take a look at Karnataka’s taluks (or sub-district units) to see how things are changing in rural sanitation.

Karnataka Rural Sanitation - Improvement in Districts and Taluks

The above graph tries to see just that: where taluks and districts were in 2001, and how much they improved over 2001-2011. It is immediately apparent that taluks follow the districts of Karnataka in their behaviour: there again appears to be a strong link between where a taluk is starting from in terms of toilet ownership, and how much it has improved in the past 10 years.

If we simplify the first graphic by removing the district data points,  the positions of all 176 taluks of Karnataka are more clearly visible.

Karnataka Rural Sanitation - Sanitation Trap

What one can see is that when the starting point of a taluk is below 15% toilet ownership, the improvements are never phenomenal. When the starting point crosses about 20%, many more high performers become visible. It is possible that taluks and districts have to get out of a “poor sanitation trap” before being able to improve significantly.

Complementing the trend, every district that started with 40% toilet ownership or higher, improved by at least 20 percentage points, underscoring the relationship between the two. While the trends are easy enough to visualise and comprehend, the reasons for them may be complex and difficult to be certain of.

One reason for this link between starting position and improvement in sanitation could be the peer effect. The peer effect is where someone’s behaviour is influenced by those around them. It has been well studied in the field of education, where it’s been found that a student’s educational outcome is strongly linked to his or her peer group and the group of friends. ‘Peer pressure’  is a form of this as well, although mostly with negative connotations, where people pick up habits and mannerisms from their peers.

Coming to toilets in Karnataka, imagine the 15-20% mark: it’s where 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 houses have a toilet. At those numbers, most people have a neighbour who owns a toilet and uses it. People who are still defecating in the open can not only imagine, but also see what the benefits and comforts of owning a toilet can do. Possibly, even the transition to using toilets (and cleaning them!) can become easier as people can learn from each other. Toilets also possibly become aspirational objects – in effect nudging more households to avail what subsidies come their way.

An alternate reason could be a lot more mundane: the link could simply be a result of the Nirmal Gram Puraskar award and the programmatic design of the government’s total sanitation campaign. A large focus of the campaign was to take villages that were doing reasonably well on sanitation – and push them to near-complete toilet ownership, making them “Open Defecation Free” (at least in theory). Here, individual toilet subsidies were coupled with a cash award to villages (and their panchayats) which managed to go open-defecation-free. While it is possible for the NGP to have had an effect on the correlation, it is unlikely that it can explain it entirely.

One way to decide between the two (and other!) possible reasons for the pattern of rural sanitation improvement is to go deeper once more look at it at the habitation level – at villages and hamlets and how they improved. Unfortunately, this isn’t possible with Census data. Either way, these results have a significant bearing on how we can improve rural sanitation in the coming decade, where we have to achieve a high, sustained improvement in sanitation but with reasonable public investment.

Data used in this post are available here: Karnataka Districts | Karnataka Taluks.

Comments { 1 }

Sanitation in Rural India and Karnataka – How has the needle moved?

Sanitation is among the most dismal and depressing topics in India, across the country. While sanitation in our cities comes with its own set of problems, rural sanitation in India is stuck a primitive stage where too few people have access toilets.

To promote toilet construction in villages, a ‘Total Sanitation Campaign’ was launched by the Government of India in 1999 where subsidies were given to households to construct individual toilets. By means of the subsidy, cash incentives for village leaders and other communication campaigns, the state has tried to promote toilet construction and the need for adequate sanitation for over a decade now. As one can expect, several problems such as  inadequate subsidies, red tape, corruption, plus a lack of demand for good sanitation have all plagued the campaign.

After the Census results came out last summer, there was a major controversy as the census numbers for toilet ownership violently disagreed with numbers that the government campaign was putting out.

This post takes a look at how the needle has moved on toilets and sanitation – be it because of the government scheme or in spite of it  –  in rural India and in rural Karnataka.

As of 2001, only 21.9% of rural Indian households had toilets. After a decade, the percentage of households increased to 30.7% – an increase of less than 10 percentage points. Below is a graph of how toilet ownership has improved across all states of India, arranged in an ascending order based on how things were in 2011.

Sanitation in Rural India - The Transition State

While Kerala, Manipur, Mizoram and Sikkim are states that are ahead of the rest on rural toilet ownership, it is important to note that Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim and Goa have improved the most in toilet ownership between 2001 and 2011. It is also interesting to note that relatively well-off states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka actually fall below the national average, with Andhra Pradesh barely doing better.

The above performance, however, has been talked of quite a few times by journalists, policymakers and other sectoral experts. To really understand how rural sanitation is improving, one needs to dig deeper and go more granular. This blog makes a preliminary attempt at doing so by looking at all the districts of the southern state of Karnataka.

As shown in the graph above, toilet ownership in rural Karnataka increased from 17.4% in 2001 to 28.4% in 2011. The spread of this growth across districts can be seen in the graph below.

Sanitation in Rural Karnataka - The Transition State

At the district level, a lot of fascinating trends emerge. Firstly, there’s a curious change in the gross “shape” of the graph, compared to the first graph of states. There appear to be three distinct types of districts in 2011: the poor, the middling, and the stellar performers.

The poor performers are the bottom 10-15 districts, that had a low base of toilets to begin with, and improved by only a few percentage points in the last decade. The middling performers are those that had between 10 and 20% toilet ownership in 2001, and all improved by about 10 percentage points since then – similar to the state average. The third type are the stellar performers, who had more than 20% toilets to begin with, and improved significantly over the decade.

However, the most prolific district in Karnataka is undoubtedly Bangalore (Rural) making a phenomenal leap of almost 50 percentage points in toilet ownership. This performance is perhaps attributable, at least in part, to a very proactive civil servant, Manjula Naik, who was the CEO of the district Zilla Panchayat for a while.

One can also posit that how well a district improves is also incumbent on what its starting position is. It is possible that districts with about 20-30% rural toilet ownership have reached a certain stage of socio-economic development, where the prosperity, aspirations, governance quality and cluster effects of some households having toilets spurs the rest in building toilets. If that is so, then the middling districts of Karnataka – Hassan, Mysore, Mandya, Davangere, Ramanagara and Haveri are all ripe for rapid improvements in rural sanitation.

Let us hope that smarter policies and better economic growth result in far greater improvements in the coming decade.

Some of the ideas in this post came about due to several conversations with my colleague, Vijay Krishna

Notes. While this post tracks the percentage of households with individual toilets, a small portion of rural households also has access to community toilets. It is the remainder of households who continue to practice open defecation, along with a subset of the former households who may not be using their toilets.

Data used in this post are available here: States | Karnataka Districts.

Comments { 1 }

Visualising Karnataka’s municipal elections 2013

Urban Karnataka took to the polling booth earlier this month to vote for their corporators and municipal councillors. The elections were to be a four-way contest, with the Indian National Congress (INC), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Janata Dal (Secular) and Karnataka Janata Party (KJP) being the large political parties in the fray. Congress had a significant victory in the elections, securing 1960 of the 4976 seats contested: over 39% of the total. BJP and JDS were far behind, securing but 905 seats each, about 18% a piece of the total seats. The breakaway former Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa’s new party the KJP could manage only 274 seats, less than 6% of the total. Independents won a significant portion of the seats as well.

The Karnataka municipal elections are happening at a rather critical time, with state assembly elections due in a few months and with the national parliamentary elections due in 2014. The results here will have a significant impact on both the impending elections. Twitter and other social media are already abuzz with speculations and assertions on what this would mean for the coming elections, on whether the municipal voters represent the entire state’s dispositions, on the signaling value of Congress’s early win, on anti-incumbency as a driver within the state, and much more. This article limits itself to a brief analysis of the municipal elections and their results, with an attempt to understand who will be governing much of urban Karnataka over the next five years.

Out of a total of 61 million residents of Karnataka, 208 cities and towns with a total of 13.9 million residents had local elections this month. At 22.8% of the state’s population, this covered all of urban Karnataka with the exception of Bangalore and a few minor towns. While most news stories are talking about the total number of corporator/councilor seats won by political parties, what matters is who has been able to win a majority of seats in individual local bodies such that they can form the local government there. Like in assembly and parliamentary elections, city mayors are elected indirectly by allowing elected municipal councilors to select their mayor.

The above graphic shows how many cities and towns of different sizes have been won by individual political parties. Overall, the Congress won 79 of the total 208 seats, with JDS and BJP with 25 and 24 each. The KJP managed only 5 seats, but it is interesting to note that there were 12 urban local bodies where all independents put together won a majority of the seats. Also, a good 30% of the local bodies had no clear victors. These 62 cities and towns will be where a lot of negotiations will take place over the next few weeks so that coalitions can be cobbled together to reach a simple majority.

Click on the map to know more about election results in individual towns.

A quick look at the above map tells us about the geographical spread of each party’s victories in Karnataka’s municipal elections. The congress (blue) appears to be well spread out throughout the state. The majority of JDS victories (green) are clustered in Southern Karnataka, conforming with their traditional strength in the Old Mysore region. The BJP (red) appears to have won towns in the eastern half of Karnataka – ranging from Belgaum and Bagalkote all the way down to Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu.

In all, the Congress has won a significant victory in Karnataka – be it in the number of corporator seats won, cities with majorities and their size. Below is a set of major cities and towns won by each of the political parties in the fray.

Notes. In this article, victors have been declared if they have won more than 45% of the seats in any given town or city. This is with the assumption that by taking on board one or two independents, the party can attain a simple majority. As of writing of this article, 24 seats out of the total 4976 are yet to be declared on the NIC website: most of which are seats from Terdal TMC, Bagalkot district. 

Data used in this post is available here.

You can also take a look at my fellow blogger Karthik Shashidhar‘s work for other visualisations of the election results: Congress Sweep |  Overall resultsDistrict-wise results | Party-wise performance on a district map | 

Comments { 4 }