Table 2 shows the diverging hazard functions for STs and non-STs. During the first year, STs’ and non-ST’s probabilities of survival do not differ significantly i.e. there is no significant difference in their infant mortality rates (IMRs). But during the second year the gap between the Adivasi and non-Adivasi children’s chances of dying widens and becomes statistically significant.

|**Table 2: ST-Non-ST gap in**<br>|**relative hazard ra**<br>|**te**<br>|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Neonatal|Post-neonatal|Infant|Child|Under-5|
|_Relative hazard rate_|||||
|Non-ST<br>1.01|0.98|0.99|0.92|0.98|
|ST<br>0.96|1.17|1.06|2.25|1.26|
|_Test of significance of differe_|_nce_||||
|Wald chi2(1)<br>1.69|1.85|0.78|36.77|16.44|
|Pr>chi2<br>0.194|0.174|0.378|0.000|0.000|

_Source_ : Authors’ calculations based on NFHS 2005-2006.

The initial parity in mortality outcomes between Adivasi children and others is perhaps related to the cultural and environmental practices, including birth spacing, feeding and weaning that the former follow (Maharatna 1998; 2000). These sustainable practices also seem to help when access to formal medical care for children and their mothers is difficult and/or costly. It is as the tribal child grows up and is weaned – particularly in the age 1-5 years – that she or he is substantially more at risk than children from other categories. This is also the age when perhaps formal medical care (e.g. proper and timely treatment of diarrhea and acute respiratory infections) is critical and reliance on traditional mechanisms alone does not work. And it is here that the chasm between the tribals and the rest begins to appear and widen.

Not all regions and tribes have the same patterns of diverging mortality rates between tribal and non-tribal children with increasing age. Some studies report a higher infant mortality rate for tribal groups, while others show a distinct advantage over the non-tribal population in the same location (Maharatna 2005). For instance, a survey in Panchmahals district of Gujarat, the results of which were published in 1992 (Gujral et al, 1992) showed inordinately high rates of <u>infant</u> mortality for tribals, with the tribal/non-tribal differential declining with increasing age. While in the aggregate sex ratios of tribal children are better than those for non-tribals, this study found the reverse to be true for Panchmahals.

**If you control for poverty, does the “tribal effect” on mortality go away?  The answer is no!** Our multivariate results – presented in Annex 1 – are in keeping with the trends described earlier.  We find that even in the presence of controls, the disparity between ST and non-STs in terms of mortality rates is robust at older ages (1-4 and under five).  During the neonatal, postneonatal, and infant periods, ST and non-ST children have more or less similar odds of dying. _Yet between the age of one and four and overall under age five, mortality trends among the tribal and non-tribal children diverge: ST children face much higher (more than two times higher) odds of dying than general caste children._

This finding is striking for a variety of reasons. As pointed out earlier, most analysis lumps all under five mortality together and finds that poverty status explains most of the differential in mortality for SCs and STs (in comparison with other social groups). A World Bank study in 6