BharatNotes Rajasthan was worse than the national average on child mortality in NFHS-4 and is better on all three measures in NFHS-5. Neonatal mortality 20.2 against 24.9, infant mortality 30.3 against 35.2 and under-five mortality 37.6 against 41.9. That reversal is the single most examinable thing in this chapter.
Two figures on this page moved the wrong way and are printed as plainly as the rest. The Gross Enrolment Ratio at primary level fell 6.8 percentage points in one year, and anaemia among pregnant women improved by 0.3 points, which is to say it did not really improve at all.
1. Health indicators, Rajasthan against India
| Indicator | Rajasthan NFHS-4 (2015-16) | Rajasthan NFHS-5 (2019-21) | India NFHS-4 | India NFHS-5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neonatal Mortality Rate, per 1,000 live births | 29.8 | 20.2 | 29.5 | 24.9 |
| Infant Mortality Rate, per 1,000 live births | 41.3 | 30.3 | 40.7 | 35.2 |
| Under-Five Mortality Rate, per 1,000 live births | 50.7 | 37.6 | 49.7 | 41.9 |
| Institutional births, % | 84.0 | 94.9 | 78.9 | 88.6 |
| Full immunisation, % | 54.8 | 80.4 | 62.0 | 76.4 |
| Anaemia in pregnant women, 15-49, % | 46.6 | 46.3 | 50.4 | 52.2 |
| Total Fertility Rate | 2.4 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.0 |
| Children under 5 stunted, % | 39.1 | 31.8 | 38.4 | 35.5 |
| Children under 5 wasted, % | 23.0 | 16.8 | 21.0 | 19.3 |
| Children under 5 underweight, % | 36.7 | 27.6 | 35.8 | 32.1 |
GovtSource: Government of Rajasthan, Economic Review 2025-26 (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, published with Budget 2026-27), table 2.1, citing the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21). Full immunisation covers children aged 12-23 months, by vaccination card or mother's recall. NFHS-5 fieldwork ended in 2021, so these are the latest NFHS figures and are now several years old.
The reversal is the headline. On NNMR, IMR and U5MR, Rajasthan was slightly worse than India in NFHS-4 and is clearly better in NFHS-5. The state improved faster than the country on all three.
Rajasthan improved faster on almost every line. Full immunisation rose 25.6 points, from 54.8 to 80.4, while India rose 14.4. Institutional births rose 10.9 points to 94.9, above the national 88.6.
But read the anaemia row carefully, because it is the trap. Rajasthan is 5.9 points better than India, at 46.3 against 52.2. That is not because Rajasthan improved. Rajasthan fell 0.3 points, from 46.6 to 46.3, which is effectively flat. India got worse, from 50.4 to 52.2. The favourable gap is the national figure deteriorating, not the state figure improving, and an answer that credits state policy for it has misread the table.
Fertility has reached the national level. TFR fell from 2.4 to 2.0, matching India's 2.0. The Review notes replacement-level fertility is about 2.1, so Rajasthan is now below replacement.
| Maternal Mortality Ratio, per lakh live births | 2018-20 | 2021-23 |
|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan | 113 | 86 |
| All India | — | 88 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 2.2, citing the Sample Registration System. This is SRS data, not NFHS, and its period (2021-23) is different from the NFHS table above. Do not quote the two as one series.
Rajasthan's MMR fell 27 points to 86 and is now just below the all-India 88. The margin is two points, which is close enough that it should be stated as "marginally below" rather than as a decisive lead.
2. The health schemes
| Mukhyamantri Ayushman Arogya Yojana | Number | ₹ crore |
|---|---|---|
| Treated patients | 15,32,780 | — |
| Claims submitted | 62,75,311 | 2,955.16 |
| Claims paid | 40,15,705 | 2,245.53 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 2.5, read directly.
Two ratios are worth carrying and both are arithmetic. About 64 per cent of claims submitted have been paid by number, but about 76 per cent by value. The gap between the two means smaller claims are being rejected or are still pending at a higher rate than large ones, which is the kind of observation a Mains answer can use.
| Scheme | What it provides |
|---|---|
| Mukhyamantri Nishulk Nirogi Rajasthan (DAWA) | Free essential medicines: 1,238 medicines, 428 surgical items, 156 sutures. 15.73 crore patients benefited, ₹1,312.19 crore spent in 2025-26 to December |
| Rajasthan Government Health Scheme (RGHS) | Cashless care for about 13.65 lakh families of government employees and pensioners. 741 empanelled private hospitals and 3,748 private pharmacy stores in the state, 39 hospitals outside. ₹2,440.69 crore for 92.76 lakh claims in 2025-26 to December |
| Ayushman Vay Vandan | Launched 29 October 2024; cashless treatment for senior citizens aged 70 and above |
| Mukhyamantri Bal Sambal Yojana | For children with rare diseases. 224 children certified, ₹65 lakh spent |
| Adarsh Primary Health Centres | Designated rural PHCs. About 9 lakh patients treated monthly and 4,000 deliveries a month |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, chapter 2, read directly. All 2025-26 progress figures run to December 2025 and are therefore nine-month figures. RGHS covers ministers, MLAs, former MLAs, serving and retired All India Service officers, state employees and pensioners and their dependants, with registration through Jan Aadhaar, and extends to Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Unani and Siddha treatment.
The DAWA figure of 15.73 crore patients is a count of patient visits, not of people, in a state of about 8 crore. It cannot mean that every resident was treated twice, and it is quoted here as the Review presents it: beneficiaries of the initiative over nine months.
3. Education: the five UDISE+ indicators
All five indicators below come from the same source and the same two years, which makes them directly comparable with each other.
| Gross Enrolment Ratio | Primary (1-5) | Upper Primary (6-8) | Elementary (1-8) | Secondary (9-10) | Higher Secondary (11-12) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 95.1 | 90.9 | 93.6 | 80.2 | 62.0 |
| 2024-25 | 88.3 | 92.1 | 89.7 | 82.2 | 66.1 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 3.1, citing UDISE+ 2023-24 and 2024-25, Ministry of Education. The Review states the primary GER "decreased by 6.8 percentage points" and does not explain why.
The primary GER fell 6.8 points in a single year, from 95.1 to 88.3. Upper primary rose 1.2 and higher secondary rose 4.1, so the fall is confined to the primary stage. The Review reports it without an explanation, and none is offered here either, because none was found in the document.
Higher secondary GER remains the weakest at 66.1, meaning about a third of the relevant age group is not enrolled at that stage even after a 4.1-point rise.
| Pupil Teacher Ratio | Primary | Upper Primary | Secondary | Higher Secondary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 20 | 12 | 11 | 15 |
| 2024-25 | 18 | 12 | 11 | 15 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 3.2, citing UDISE+.
Only the primary ratio moved, from 20 to 18. Note that the ratio improves as the level rises, which is the opposite of what most people assume: secondary has the most favourable ratio at 11 and primary the least at 18.
| Transition Rate | Primary to Upper Primary | Upper Primary to Secondary | Secondary to Higher Secondary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 90.7 | 87.6 | 82.6 |
| 2024-25 | 93.8 | 90.2 | 88.2 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 3.3, citing UDISE+.
| Retention Rate | Primary (1-5) | Elementary (1-8) | Secondary (1-10) | Higher Secondary (1-12) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 82.5 | 75.3 | 59.1 | 48.9 |
| 2024-25 | 83.1 | 78.7 | 55.9 | 51.9 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 3.4, citing UDISE+. The Review highlights the elementary and primary improvements and does not comment on the secondary figure, which fell.
Retention at secondary fell from 59.1 to 55.9 while every other retention figure rose. The Review notes the improvements at primary and elementary and passes over the secondary decline, and this page states it because a table that only reports the good direction is not usable for an answer.
Retention at higher secondary is 51.9, so about half of those who start class 1 are still enrolled at class 12.
| Dropout Rate | Primary (1-5) | Upper Primary (6-8) | Secondary (9-10) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 7.6 | 6.8 | 11.1 |
| 2024-25 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 7.7 |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, table 3.5, citing UDISE+.
Dropout roughly halved at primary and upper primary in one year, and fell 3.4 points at secondary. Secondary remains more than double the other two at 7.7.
Hold the definitions, because RPSC asks what the indicator measures rather than its value.
| Indicator | What it measures |
|---|---|
| Gross Enrolment Ratio | Total enrolment at a level, regardless of age, as a percentage of the official age group for that level |
| Pupil Teacher Ratio | Average number of pupils per teacher at a given level in a school year |
| Transition Rate | Proportion progressing from the final grade of one level to the first grade of the next |
| Retention Rate | Percentage of a cohort entering the first grade of a level who are expected to reach its last grade |
| Dropout Rate | Proportion enrolled at a level in one year who are no longer enrolled at any grade the following year |
GovtSource: Economic Review 2025-26, chapter 3, footnote definitions, read directly.
The "regardless of age" clause in the GER definition is why a GER can exceed 100, and it is the most commonly asked feature of the measure.
4. Nowadays — what changed in 2026
Covering 1 January to 30 August 2026. Updated every month until Prelims and Mains.
The health indicators on this page are not new figures
NFHS-5 fieldwork ended in 2021 and no NFHS-6 result appears in the Economic Review 2025-26. The health indicator table is therefore five years old at its most recent point, and it is the latest the state publishes. Nothing read for this chapter announces an NFHS-6 release for Rajasthan. That is an absence, not a denial.
The maternal mortality figure is more recent, covering 2021-23 from the Sample Registration System, and is the newest health outcome number on this page.
The education indicators moved one year forward
UDISE+ 2024-25 is the current edition, and it is what the tables in section 3 use. The 2023-24 comparison is the previous edition of the same source.
What has not changed
The state's health scheme architecture is unchanged: Mukhyamantri Ayushman Arogya Yojana for the general population, RGHS for government employees, DAWA for free medicines, with Ayushman Vay Vandan for those aged 70 and above still dating to 29 October 2024.
The essential drug list is still 1,238 medicines, 428 surgical items and 156 sutures.
Important for RAS
Prelims Focus
- NFHS-5 (2019-21), Rajasthan against India: NNMR 20.2 v 24.9, IMR 30.3 v 35.2, U5MR 37.6 v 41.9 — Rajasthan better on all three, having been worse on all three in NFHS-4
- Institutional births 94.9% (India 88.6%); full immunisation 80.4% (India 76.4%)
- Anaemia in pregnant women 46.3% against India's 52.2% — but Rajasthan improved only 0.3 points while India worsened
- TFR 2.0, down from 2.4, matching India; replacement level is about 2.1
- Stunted 31.8%, wasted 16.8%, underweight 27.6% — falls of 7.3, 6.2 and 9.1 points
- MMR 86 per lakh live births in 2021-23, down from 113 in 2018-20 (SRS); all-India 88
- Mukhyamantri Ayushman Arogya Yojana: 15,32,780 patients treated; 40,15,705 claims paid worth ₹2,245.53 crore
- DAWA free medicines: 1,238 medicines, 428 surgical items, 156 sutures; 15.73 crore beneficiaries, ₹1,312.19 crore
- RGHS covers about 13.65 lakh families; 741 empanelled private hospitals in state, 39 outside; ₹2,440.69 crore for 92.76 lakh claims
- Ayushman Vay Vandan launched 29 October 2024 for those aged 70 and above
- GER 2024-25: primary 88.3, upper primary 92.1, elementary 89.7, secondary 82.2, higher secondary 66.1
- Primary GER fell 6.8 points in one year; higher secondary rose 4.1
- PTR 2024-25: primary 18, upper primary 12, secondary 11, higher secondary 15 — the ratio improves as the level rises
- Transition rates 2024-25: 93.8, 90.2, 88.2
- Retention 2024-25: primary 83.1, elementary 78.7, secondary 55.9, higher secondary 51.9 — secondary retention fell
- Dropout 2024-25: primary 3.6, upper primary 3.6, secondary 7.7, roughly halved at the first two
- GER counts enrolment regardless of age, which is why it can exceed 100
Interview and Mains Angles
- Rajasthan overtook the national average on all three child mortality measures between NFHS-4 and NFHS-5 while barely moving on anaemia. What explains an improvement concentrated in mortality and absent in nutrition-related morbidity?
- Primary enrolment fell 6.8 points in a year while primary dropout halved. Can both be true, and what would you need to see to reconcile them?
- Retention to class 12 is about half. Where does the cohort actually leave, and does the transition-rate data point to the same stage the retention data does?
- Two-thirds of claims under the state health assurance scheme are paid by number but three-quarters by value. What does that pattern suggest about which claims are being questioned?
- The pupil-teacher ratio is most favourable at secondary and least at primary. Is that the right way round for learning outcomes?
Aggregator Watch
Claims below circulate in coaching notes, question banks and aggregator sites for this topic. They are listed only where they are either absent from this chapter or in conflict with it. None has been confirmed against a primary source by us. Carry them as "what the aggregators say" so an option in a paper does not surprise you — do not treat them as established, and do not build a Mains answer on them.
| Aggregator claim | Status here |
|---|---|
| NFHS-6 figures for Rajasthan | No NFHS-6 result appears in the Economic Review 2025-26. The latest NFHS data the state publishes is NFHS-5, fieldwork ending 2021. Any figure attributed to NFHS-6 could not be verified here and is not reproduced |
| Anaemia in Rajasthan has improved substantially | It has not. 46.6 to 46.3 is a fall of 0.3 points across roughly five years. Rajasthan looks better than India only because India worsened, from 50.4 to 52.2. The favourable comparison is real; the improvement is not |
| MMR figures for Rajasthan other than 86, or attributed to NFHS | MMR here is SRS data for 2021-23, not NFHS. The Review gives 86 against 113 in 2018-20. Mixing the SRS maternal series with the NFHS child series is a common error, and the two cover different periods |
| Rajasthan's MMR is well below the national average | It is two points below. 86 against an all-India 88 for the same period. That is marginal, and describing it as a decisive lead overstates the source |
| Primary GER of 95 or above for 2024-25 | That is the 2023-24 figure. UDISE+ 2024-25 gives 88.3, a fall of 6.8 points the Review states but does not explain. Both years are on this page |
| Retention or dropout improvements described as across the board | Secondary retention fell, from 59.1 to 55.9, while every other retention figure rose. The Review comments on the improvements and not on this decline, and it is stated here |
| Health institution counts — numbers of sub-centres, PHCs, CHCs or district hospitals | Not carried on this page. The Review's tables 2.4 and 2.7 cover Ayurveda institutions and urban health facilities specifically, and a consolidated statewide count of the rural health infrastructure was not extracted for this chapter. No figure is given rather than an approximate one |
| District-wise health or education indicators | Not carried. Chapters 2 and 3 of the Review report these at state level against the national figure, and no district break-up was located in the pages read |
Practice
- Practice: Basic Social Services: Education and Health — 45 exam-style questions on the NFHS reversal, maternal mortality, the health schemes and the five UDISE+ indicators, every answer traced to this chapter.
- Every RAS Prelims Geography question, 2013–2024 — the geography unit's official questions, several of which draw on the same Economic Review.
More in This Series
- Economy of Rajasthan — the unit index
- Rajasthan's Macro Economy and the State Budget — the budget these services are funded from
- Rural Development, Panchayati Raj and the State Finance Commission — sanitation and the rural delivery machinery behind several of these outcomes
- Caution for Readers — the claims across this site that are genuinely unsettled
Sources & Verification
Written on 30 August 2026. Every figure on this page is read from the Economic Review 2025-26 directly, from chapter 2 on health and well-being and chapter 3 on education, including tables 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. No coaching source or compilation supplied any figure here.
1. Three different data sources appear on this page and are not interchangeable. The health indicator table is NFHS, with NFHS-5 fieldwork ending in 2021. Maternal mortality is Sample Registration System data for 2021-23. All education indicators are UDISE+ for 2023-24 and 2024-25. Each table names its source and its period, because quoting an NFHS period against an SRS period is the commonest error in this topic.
2. Indicators that moved the wrong way are printed with the same prominence as those that improved. Primary GER fell 6.8 points; secondary retention fell 3.2 points; anaemia among pregnant women fell only 0.3 points. The Review comments on the first and passes over the second, and this page states both, because a table reported in one direction only cannot be used to answer a question.
3. One favourable comparison is explained rather than simply repeated. Rajasthan's anaemia figure is 5.9 points better than India's because the national figure deteriorated, not because the state's improved. The page says so where the figure appears.
4. Two ratios on the page are arithmetic and are marked as arithmetic. That about 64 per cent of health-scheme claims are paid by number against about 76 per cent by value, and that about half a cohort remains enrolled at class 12, are divisions of figures printed above them. Neither is a published figure.
5. A count deliberately not given. A consolidated statewide count of sub-centres, primary health centres, community health centres and district hospitals is not on this page, because the Review's tables read for this chapter cover Ayurveda institutions and urban facilities specifically rather than the whole rural network. An approximate figure would be worse than none, and the omission is recorded in the Aggregator Watch.
Links were checked and resolving on 30 August 2026, each against its final URL rather than its first.
Not asserted here: any NFHS-6 figure, which does not appear in this Review; district-wise health or education indicators; a consolidated count of rural health institutions; higher-education enrolment, which chapter 3 covers in forms not extracted here; and any explanation for the primary GER fall, which the Review reports without one.
