CHAPTER-7 ICT DIFFUSION AND DIGITAL DIVIDE IN INDIA

CHAPTER-7 ICT DIFFUSION AND DIGITAL DIVIDE IN INDIA ICT sector has experienced phenomenal growth due to developments in internet technologies and their extensive applications. The rapid growth and proliferation of ICT has accelerated the economic and social change across all the areas of human activity. ICTs have witnessed massive growth across sectors including education, healthcare, financial services, Business Process Organization (BPO) sector, Knowledge Process Organization (KPO) etc. ICT diffusion has a very important role in promoting various socio-economic objectives such as universal education, universal access to healthcare, sustainable development etc. (Saith: 2004). Thus, in future the digital divide will be an additional hurdle in bridging inter-country as well as intra-country socio-economic divide. However, the global disparities in access to ICT technologies have given rise to the problem of a digital divide. OECD(2001) defines, the term digital divide refers to the gap between individuals, households, businesses, and geographic areas at different socioeconomic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies and to their use of internet for a wide variety of activities (Lopez and Vicente:2011). The benefits of ICTs, however, have not been reaped equally either by countries across the world and by sectors of the economy and sections of the society within countries. The sharp divide between the countries in terms of ICTs access has been termed as international digital divide. Apart from that intra-national digital divide that refers to extreme inequality across the regions, sectors and sections within a country in terms of their ICTs access is an equally acute problem. Further, the term digital divide refers to describe situations in which there is a marked gap in access to the use of ICTs devices measured, for example, by the number of fixed line phones per hundred inhabitants or number of mobile phone users or the internet users in the population (Singh : 2010). The present chapter is focussed on the concept and measurement of digital divide in the Indian context and highlights the challenges in bridging rural-urban and 177

inter-state digital divide. In order to determine the inter-state diffusion of ICTs across Indian states, telecom diffusion index has been constructed by using three indicators-cellular subscribers per 100 persons, teledensity of states, and percentage of villages under village public telephones using Obricom methodology. For that matter, 18 major states have been considered for analysis at three points of time i.e., 2001, 2006 and 2012. In order to measure the impact of the variables (including population (million), per capita electricity consumption, NSGDP per capita and literacy rate) on telecom development in various states, pooled regression analysis has been used for 18 major states at three points of time i.e., 1991, 2001 and 2011. Concept of Digital Divide The term Digital divide seems to have its origin in the United States of America. Many considered Andy Grove one of the creators of digital divide network coined the term. Few others say the credit goes to Larry Irvin. According to Benton Foundation, former President Bill Clinton first used the term in the discussions of the National Information Infrastructure in 1993. Though there is no consensus regarding who coined the term of digital divide, but it is generally accepted that gap between information haves and information have-nots, has increased over time (Tharayil and Kumar: 2002). Digital divide basically refers to differences in individuals access and capabilities to use digital technologies and gadgets such as mobile phones, television, internet, PCs, laptops etc. The differences in access and capabilities depend upon a large number of factors including economic status, literacy, technological skills, residence location(rural/urban/far off places), race, gender and even age (Rao: 2005). Digital divide can also be categorized as global, national and regional. (I) Global digital divide: The concept of global digital divide focuses on inequalities in computer and Internet penetration across countries, particularly at differences between developed and developing countries (Singh.et al:2013). (II) Regional digital divide: This refers to differences among countries within a region. For example, there are wide variations in access to information and communication technologies within Asia. Countries like South Korea, China are far ahead of India and Pakistan in internet usage. 178

(III) National digital divide: At the national level, there is often an urban-rural divide. There are also inter-state differences in information technology access and usage within India (Rao: 2005, Furuholt and Kristiansen: 2007). The measurement of digital divide across countries has been explored by several multilateral organizations like OECD and International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Studies on inter-state digital divide in India are sparse due to lack of data on ICT indicators in India. In case of India, inter-state data on internet users and computer users is not available on time series basis. In this study digital divide has been measured by using Telecom Diffusion index. Rural Urban and Inter-State Digital Divide in India No doubt, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have a crucial role to play in socio-economic development process and in changing the pattern of people s lives. But the potential to exploit the benefits of ICTs largely depends upon access and adoption of these technologies. The issue here is that adoption of ICTs varies significantly not only across the countries but also within a country that is intra-national digital divide. In case of India there is large urban rural digital divide as indicated by the indicators of teledensity, mobile users and internet users. 1. Teledensity Divide One major reason for persistent gap between rural and urban areas in a country is telecommunications infrastructure gap, which results in information gap between rural and urban areas. It is clear from table 7.1 that rural and urban teledensity divide is widening over time. Although there is an increase in rural teledensity since 2000, but that increase is much less if we compare it with urban teledensity. Thus rural-urban teledensity gap has increased from 7.58 in 2000 to 109.40 in 2012, thereby indicating that information revolution in case of India is more of an urban phenomenon. 179

Table 7.1: Rural-Urban Teledensity Year Rural Teledensity Urban Teledensity Difference 2000 0.68 8.36 7.58 2001 0.93 10.21 9.28 2002 1.21 12.20 10.99 2003 1.49 14.32 13.83 2004 1.57 20.74 19.17 2005 1.73 26.88 25.15 2006 2.34 38.28 35.94 2007 5.89 48.10 42.31 2008 9.46 66.39 57.94 2009 15.11 88.84 73.73 2010 21.19 110.69 89.40 2011 37.5 167.21 129.71 2012 39.9 149.30 109.40 Source: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Annual Report, various issues, New Delhi 2. Internet Divide Internet came into India in the early nineties. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) introduced internet in India via dial up in six cities in 1995. National Telecom Policy 1999 created a lot of opportunities for many small and large internet service providers which resulted in improvement of services and decline in price. Table 7.2 shows that penetration of internet is very low in India. Internet penetration was only 0.1 percent in 1999; however it has increased to 11.4 percent in 2012. Table 7.2: Internet Penetration in India Year Users(numbers) % Penetration 1999 1400000 0.1 2000 2800000 0.3 2001 5500000 0.5 2002 7000000 0.7 2003 16500000 1.6 2004 22500000 2.1 2005 39200000 3.6 2006 50600000 4.5 2007 40000000 3.6 2008 42000000 3.7 2009 81000000 7.0 2010 81000000 6.9 2011 100000000 8.5 2012 137000000 11.4 Source: www.itu.org 180

But internet usage is more concentrated in metros of India and not in small towns or rural areas. Almost 70 percent of the total internet users are coming from top seven cities-mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Kolkata and Pune and only 30 percent access are from all other areas. Apart from that disparity among the rural and urban areas is also very high. It is shown in Table 7.3 (Juxtaconsult.india.online). Table 7.3: Urban-Rural Internet Users (millions) Internet user ship in India Urban-internet using individuals(regular) Urban internet using individuals(occasional) Urban internet using individuals(total) Rural-internet using individuals(regular) Rural-internet using individuals(occasional) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 17.63 21.95(24%)* 25.17(14%) 30.03(19%) 33.15(10%) 5.20 1.65(68%) 5.15(100%) 10.31(100%) 5.85(-43%) 22.83 23.60(3%) 30.32(33%) 40.34(33%) 39(-3%) Na Na Na 5.06 5.42(7%) Na Na Na 4.00 2.07(-48%) Rural-internet using Na Na Na 9.06 7.49(-17%) individuals(total) Source: juxtaconsult.online, 2009, * figures in brackets show yearly growth. It is clear from the Table 7.3 that growth rate of urban internet users is higher as compared to that of rural internet users. It is interesting to note that rural internet usage was estimated for the first time in 2008. Further there is a definite slowdown in the growth of internet usage, both in urban as well as in rural internet usage. 181

States Table 7.4: State-Wise Indicators of ICT Diffusion Teledensity (per 100) 2012 Wireless Phones (per 100 persons) 2012 % of village telephones to overall (2012) % of households having computer (2005-06) Internet subscribers per 100 of population (2005-06) Andhra 76.88 74.11 38.55 0.093 0.53 Pradesh Assam 46.50 45.85 54.95 0.004 0.11 Bihar 46.53 46.10 49.90 0.000 0.10 Gujarat 85.19 82.26 35.83 0.326 0.77 Haryana 76.72 74.50 47.57 0.206 0.74 HP 102.70 98.38 63.09 0.079 0.02 J&K 58.41 56.72 44.85 - - Karnataka 91.26 87.20 29.25 0.069 1.02 Kerala 100.76 91.92 46.30 0.400 1.19 MP 52.23 51.09 41.33 0.073 0.36 Maharashtra 72.62 69.96 45.73 0.465 1.86 Orissa 59.70 58.72 51.96 0.049 0.16 Punjab 101.92 97.29 36.81 0.117 1.02 Rajasthan 68.31 66.75 47.63 0.092 0.48 Tamilnadu 109.64 105.13 23.93 0.071 1.23 Uttar 56.20 45.02 0.034 0.20 Pradesh 55.42 West 56.85 62.09 0.100 0.55 Bengal 55.75 Delhi 220.21 205.00 5.10 - - Source: (a) Department of Telecommunication, Annual Report, 2012-13 (b)cmie report on infrastructure It is evident from the Table 7.4 that the level of ICT diffusion is more in states like Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Punjab. Among all the indicators the mobile phone diffusion is higher in all the states than other indicators. Therefore, Table 7.4 reveals that diffusion of telecommunication is more in comparison to the diffusion of internet and computers. It is because investment in such technology requires huge expenditure. Moreover, a large chunk of population in India is not educated enough to use computer. Hence, education at the grassroots level is a pre-requisite for the penetration and use of internet and computers. Determinants of Digital Divide in India From the above analysis it is clear that there is a huge rural-urban and interstate digital divide in India. Rural India is lagging behind urban India in the use of ICTs. Similarly many states like north-eastern states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, 182

Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Assam lag behind other states in the use and development of ICTs. India is a multi-cultural, multi-language and multi-religion country with complex socio-economic conditions. The use of computers and internet technology correlates with poverty (family income), educational qualification, and level of electrification. Poverty: Most of the poor in rural areas are self-employed households and landless labourers. In rural areas people are facing the problem of vicious circle of poverty. They are not able to meet their both ends properly, how can they think about the use of technology. More appropriately, when people have low income they cannot afford technology even if they have access of mobiles and internet. The data in Table 7.5 shows inter-state proportions of population below poverty line in rural and urban areas. It is clear from the data that technologically backward states also have higher incidence of poverty. Table 7.5: People below Poverty Line (BPL) in Rural-Urban India (2011-12) State Rural(% of people Urban(% of Combined(% BPL) people BPL) of people BPL) Andhra Pradesh 10.96 5.81 9.20 Assam 33.89 20.40 31.98 Bihar 34.06 31.23 33.74 Gujarat 21.54 10.14 16.63 Haryana 11.64 10.28 17.16 Himachal Pradesh 8.48 4.33 8.06 J&K 11.54 7.02 10.35 Karnataka 24.53 15.25 20.41 Kerala 9.14 4.97 7.05 Madhya Pradesh 35.74 21.00 31.65 Maharashtra 24.22 9.12 17.35 Orissa 35.69 17.29 32.59 Punjab 7.66 9.24 8.26 Rajasthan 16.05 10.69 14.71 Tamil Nadu 15.83 6.54 11.25 Uttar Pradesh 30.40 26.26 29.43 West Bengal 22.52 7.71 19.98 Delhi 12.92 9.84 16.96 Source: www.planingcomission.com Education: Education is strong compliment to the use of technologies like internet and the relevant education levels are secondary and tertiary levels as they are expected to upgrade the national capacity for adaptation and innovation. Like many 183

other developing countries, the main emphasis of the Indian government is to boost the primary education. However to bridge digital divide higher education has a more significant role to play. Table 7.6: State-wise Rural- urban and Total Literacy Rates in India, 2011 States Rural (%) Urban (%) Literacy (%) Andhra Pradesh 61.14 80.54 61.11 Assam 70.44 88.88 64.28 Bihar 61.83 78.75 47.73 Gujarat 73.00 87.58 69.75 Haryana 72.74 83.83 68.59 Himachal Pradesh 82.91 91.39 77.13 Jammu & Kashmir 64.97 78.19 67.76 Kerala 92.92 94.99 90.92 Karnataka 68.86 86.21 75.60 Madhya Pradesh 62.29 84.09 64.11 Maharashtra 77.09 89.84 77.27 Orissa 70.78 86.45 73.45 Punjab 72.45 83.70 69.75 Rajasthan 62.34 80.73 61.03 Tamil Nadu 73.80 87.24 73.47 Uttar Pradesh 67.55 77.01 57.36 West Bengal 72.97 85.54 69.25 Delhi 82.87 86.43 81.82 Source; Census of India, 2011 Knowledge divide: Another important factor contributing towards digital divide in India is knowledge divide. The concept of knowledge divide is used to describe the gap in living conditions between those who can find manage and process information and knowledge and those who are impaired in this process. Knowledge divide is directly related to digital divide. More educated people with computer knowledge and English language proficiency are able to access new technologies. Given the high levels of literacy in rural India and very low levels of English speaking and computer savvy population, there is a dire need to develop softwares in local languages in order to ensure higher and faster adoption of internet in rural areas. (Singh: 2010). In current scenario an understanding and command over English language is an important determinant of access to higher education, 184

employment possibilities and social opportunities. National Knowledge Commission (NKC) recommended that the teaching of English as a language should be introduced along with first language of child. Further, in a multilingual country translation should play a critical role in making knowledge available to different linguistic groups. NKC has recommended developing translation as an industry and setting up of National Translation Mission with a focus on promoting translation activities (National Knowledge Commission Report :2006-2009) Electrification: Electricity is the most basic condition for using information and communication technologies. There is close relationship between the level of electrification and digital divide. Rural India has low electricity coverage in comparison to urban India as shown in the Table 7.7. Further the cost of electricity is very high. In such conditions one cannot afford the use of computers and internet. Table 7.7: State-wise Reported Status of Rural Electrification States Village Electrification (%) 2012 Per capita Electricity consumption(kwh),2009 Andhra Pradesh 100 650.5 Assam 96.1 - Bihar 89.9 117.48 Gujarat 99.8 1558.58 Haryana 100 1491.37 Himachal Pradesh 99.8 1144.94 J&K 98.2 968.47 Kerala 100 536.78 Karnataka 100 873.05 Madhya Pradesh 97.2 618.1 Maharashtra 99.9 1054.1 Punjab 100 1663.01 Orissa 78.9 837.55 Rajasthan 96.2 811.12 Tamil Nadu 100 1210.81 Uttar Pradesh 88.3 386.93 West Bengal 99.7 515.08 Delhi 100 1447.72 Sources: 1.Government of India (2013-14), Statistical Year Book of India. Ministry of Statistics Programme Implementation, New Delhi 2. Government of India (2013), Infrastructure Statistics 2013, Ministry of Statistics Programme Implementation, New Delhi 185

Telecom Diffusion Index The Telecom Diffusion Index values for the three years 2001, 2006 and 2012 are reported in the Table 7.8. The ranks are in descending order from best to worst. From the analysis, it is clear that the diffusion of telecommunication is not same for all the states and the differences among the states persist. First step is to form the states into different groups by keeping the reference value. Here we have considered the overall averages for the three year as the reference value (Obricom:2003). We have divided the eighteen states into three groups as high, medium and low for the years 2001, 2006 and 2012 respectively. The overall average index value for the year 2001 and 2006 and 2012 is 0.244, 0.245 and 0.287 respectively. The states that score more than 0.244 are deemed as the high group states and remaining are the medium and low group states for the year 2001. Again we estimated the average index value of remaining states and the states having indices greater than average are categorized as medium states while the remaining are low states for the year 2001. Same procedure has been followed for 2006 and 2012. We describe here the grouping of states in detail in Tables 7.9, 7.10 and 7.11. For 2001, five states (Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu) are coming under high index values group. The minimum Index value in high group states is 0.280 and the maximum value is 0.998. In the year 2006, six states are coming under low group and 6 under medium group. The respective minimum index values for medium and low group are 0.151 and 0.090 while the maximum index values are 0.200 and 0.200. Similarly in 2006, eight states (Delhi, Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat) are coming under high group. The maximum and minimum index values are 0.993 and 0.247 respectively. Further, four states are coming under medium group and six under low group. Further, in 2012, six states (Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab and Karnataka) are coming under high group. The minimum and maximum index values for the high group are 0.360 and 1.00 respectively. For the medium and high group, the minimum and maximum values are 0.114 and 0.190, 0.167 and 0.274 respectively. Categorisation of states indicates that over a period of 2001 to 2012 inter-state digital divide has been narrowed down. Results show that in 2012 186

Table 7.8:Inter-State Telecom Diffusion Index for 2001, 2006 and 2012 States Index(2001) Rank Index(2006) Rank Index(2012) Rank Andhra Pradesh 0.189175 9 0.200163 9 0.211889 10 Bihar 0.076611 15 0.094169 17 0.114638 18 Assam 0.007306 17 0.123307 13 0.135327 16 Gujarat 0.237594 7 0.247697 8 0.195657 12 Haryana 0.238522 6 0.300202 6 0.27464 7 Himachal Pradesh 0.219314 8 0.327827 5 0.41461 3 Jammu &Kashmir - - 0.088219 16 0.190329 11 Karnataka 0.496727 2 0.331857 4 0.360662 6 Kerala 0.383373 3 0.395014 3 0.398832 4 Madhya Pradesh 0.173959 10 0.09099 18 0.163254 14 Maharashtra 0.160738 11 0.178365 10 0.214707 9 Orissa 0.054482 16 0.103591 14 0.133943 17 Punjab 0.340328 4 0.45968 2 0.390961 5 Rajasthan 0.10061 13 0.070566 15 0.22423 8 Tamil Nadu 0.280494 5 0.299366 7 0.456901 2 Uttar Pradesh 0.121612 12 0.151684 12 0.167146 13 West Bengal 0.088877 14 0.162035 11 0.14315 15 Delhi 0.998388 1 0.993471 1 1.004663 1 Average values 0.244 0.245 0.287 Authors calculation Note: Data for the Jammu & Kashmir is not available for the period 2001 Data for 2001 has been taken for the month of March from the CMIE Report, Infrastructure, 2002 187

only one state that is Himachal Pradesh has shifted from medium category to high category. States in low category are same except that Rajasthan has shifted to medium category in 2012. Overall results indicate that the inter-state digital divide persists in India throughout the study period. Table 7.9: Categorisation of States Group Number of states Number of states Number of states (2001) (2006) (2012) High 5 8 6 Medium 6 4 6 Low 6 6 6 Source: Author s calculations, Note: J&K has not been included in 2001 due to unavailability of data Table 7.10: Diffusion Index Values for 2001, 2006 and 2012 Group 2001 Minimum index value 2001 Maximum index values 2006 Minimum index value 2006 Maximum index value 2012 Minimum index value 188 2012 Maximum index value High 0.280 0.998 0.247 0.993 0.360 1.00 Medium 0.160 0.238 0.151 0.200 0.190 0.274 Low 0.007 0.121 0.090 0.200 0.114 0.167 Authors calculation Table 7.11: Categorisation of States under High, Medium and Low Values of Diffusion Index Year Low Medium High 2001 Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan West Bengal, Orissa Bihar, Assam 2006 Assam, Orissa,, Madhya Pradesh, J&K, Rajasthan,Bihar 2012 Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar Authors calculation Haryana, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra,, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh Haryana, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, J& K Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, and Tamil nadu Delhi, Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat Delhi, Tamil nadu, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Punjab and Karnataka

Table 7.12: Average Index Value for each Group of States Group Average Index value 2001 Average Index value 2006 Average Index value 2012 Percentage change over (2001-2006) Percentage change over (2006-2012) High 0.499 0.418 0.503 16.23 20.33 Medium 0.202 0.172 0.218 14.85 26.74 Low 0.074 0.094 0.142 27.02 51.06 All States 0.244 0.245 0.287 0.409 17.14 Authors calculation The average index values for the three groups are presented in Table 7.12. The immediate observation from Table 7.12 is that the index value for all the groups has decreased in 2006 in comparison to 2001 value. However, Index value has increased in 2012 in case of medium and low group states. Second, the percentage change shows that the low groups and medium groups have made more progress in reducing digital gap and high group grew less comparatively. Table 7.13: Magnitude of Inter-State Digital Divide Difference Magnitude of Digital Divide Changes in Digital Divide Changes in Digital Divide 2001 2006 2012 2001-2006 2006-2012 High- low 0.427 0.379 0.361-0.048-0.018 High- 0.299 0.288 0.285-0.011-0.003 Medium Medium- Low 0.128 0.091 0.076-0.037-0.015 Authors calculation To find out whether the differences between the states is growing or shrinking, changes in the digital divide over time were computed by subtracting the 2001 normalized index values from the 2006 corresponding values and 2012 index values from 2006 corresponding values. To get the exact figure of digital divide, we have deducted the low groups from the high groups. The second column of Table 7.13 shows the difference between the three groups for respective years. In addition, column 3 and 4 provide the final result of changes in digital divide, i.e. the difference between the 2001 and 2006 as well as between 2006 and 2012. Looking at this table, 189

the main results can be summarized that the magnitude is shrinking between high groups and low groups as well as between high groups and medium groups. From all the three groups, the magnitude is less between low and medium. For medium and low groups, the difference in the magnitude of the digital divide is -0.015 which means that the digital divide between those two groups has also declined. As the changes in digital divide are coming negative between rest two groups, it implies that the digital divide among the groups is shrinking. Hence, when we apply Obricom methodology we find that inter-state digital divide is actually narrowing down in India. Pooled Regression Results of Inter-State Telecom Development Teledensity is the best available indicator of telecommunication development in various states and India as a whole. Telecom development of a region is determined by a large number of factors, of which the measurable ones include population, per capita income, literacy rate and per capita electricity consumption. In case of India there was a major policy shift in 1991 and in case of telecom sector it came with NTP of 1994 when this sector was liberalized, privatized and FDI in telecom sector was allowed. In order to measure the impact of these variables on telecom development in various states, multiple regression analysis has been used for 18 major states. Table 7.14: Results of Pooled Regression Analysis Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-statistic Prob. C -35.16916 1.755147-20.03773 0.0000 X1 0.001258 3.38E-05 37.26041 0.0000 X2 0.173081 0.017438 9.925356 0.0000 X3-0.000181 4.87E-05-3.720325 0.0002 X4-0.026864 0.005442-4.936112 0.0000 X5 29.30017 1.405746 20.84315 0.0000 R-squared 0.569364 Mean dependent var 27.58585 Adjusted R-squared 0.568558 S.D. dependent var 40.81723 S.E. of regression 27.72696 Akaike info criterion 9.484782 Sum squared resid 2195648. Schwarz criterion 9.497275 Log likelihood -13566.72 F-statistic 668.8247 Durbin-Watson stat 1.902164 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000 190

The results of the Table 7.14 indicate that 5 explanatory variables explain about 57 percent of telecom sector growth in various states. Telecom sector growth has been positively affected by population and per capita NSDP and dummy variables. Thus, fast telecom sector development in India is caused by these three major factors. Teledensity is negatively related to literacy and per capita power consumption. This can be explained by the fact that most of the telecom development during the post-1991 period has taken place in case of mobile telephones which are not much dependent on education and power consumption. Reason being low cost of mobile handsets, low mobile phone tariffs, easy to use and operate technology of mobile phones and availability of mobile phone services in all places of the country. Conclusion Results of the telecom diffusion index indicate decline in inter-state digital divide in India. Further, the results of telecom diffusion index shows that magnitude of digital divide is shrinking between high groups and low groups as well as between high groups and medium groups. From all the three groups, the magnitude is less between low and medium. The changes in the magnitude of digital divide is negative for all categories of states during 2001-06 as well as 2006-12, thereby indicating that digital divide is narrowing down overtime. The lagging states coming under low groups during the entire period including Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar and Assam need to develop their socio-economic infrastructure so as to reap the benefits of digital technologies.. 191