NOTES 75 its second position in 1948-49. The upper and lower boundaries of Meghalaya's per capita income should be between 80% and 60% of Assam's per capita income. If we take the per capita income of Meghalaya at 60% of Assam's figure, the per capita income of Meghalaya works out at Rs 235 on the basis of a 3-year ( 1963-66 ) average. The figures on the basis of 70% and 80% of Assam's figures come to Rs 275 and Rs 314 respectively* The first two figures would make Meghalaya the poorest state in India while the latter figure would also keep Meghalaya well below the corresponding all-India figure.2 Nor is this situation something new. It has been a long-term trend. If we look at the family expenditure in the Garo Hills for 1962, we find that food items constituted 75.26 per cent, of which over half was obtained in kind.3 Cash purchases, however, predominated with regard to non-food items (11.63 per cent). The remaining 13.11 per cent was spent on clothing and other purchases, again mainly in cash. The income figures show that 71.46 per cent of the income was from agriculture and animal husbandary.4 Trade, transport, etc., contributed only 12.01 per cent, of which handicrafts constituted only 2.60 per cent. The rest had to be made up by wage labour, which constituted 16.53 per cent of the income. That this was inadequate is brought out by the fact that, while the average net income was Rs 862.56, the expenditure amounted to Rs 883.10. The expenditure on food items alone was Rs 664.63 while the income from agriculture and animal husbandary (including that consumed at home) was Rs 645.15. Further, 75.89 per cent of the total number of loans taken were for family maintenance, constituting 69.21 per cent of the amount.5 It is clear, therefore, that the subsistence economy of the tribals was being eroded and even wage labour did not provide enough to meet their budgetary requirements. Nor were the burdens being equally distributed, for we find that while 67.23 per cent of the families were living below the 'average'gross income, there was a class of 2.05 per cent earning above Rs 3.000, of whom only a handful of contractors earning fortunes on an all-India scale dominated the economy.6 Nor has the situation improved if we look at the employment figures with 1966 as a base.7 While the major profits, especially from forestry, grain trade and the illegal Indo-BangIa Desh smuggling which has increased six times in the last year, go to the private sector, its role as an employer has been deplorable, especially in predominantly tribal areas like the Garo Hills. Taking March 1966 as 100, the private sector employment index fell to 79.8 in 1967, 68.4 in 1969, and remained static in 1970. There was improvement in 1971 (the index being 110.7 with 1969 as 100) which has declined once more to 97 even in relation to 1969. Thus there has been a stready decline in the employment opportunities in the private sector since 1966. The public sector, in spite of its attempts to bale out the private