For first time since 1921, India's urban population goes up by more than its rural
Is distress migration on a massive scale responsible for one of the most striking findings of Census 2011: that for the first time since 1921, urban India added more numbers to its population in a decade than rural India did?
At 833.1 million, India's rural population today is 90.6 million higher than it was a decade ago. But the urban population is 91 million higher than it was in 2001. The Census cites three possible causes for the urban population to have risen by more than the rural: ‘migration,' ‘natural increase' and ‘inclusion of new areas as ‘urban.' But all three factors applied in earlier decades too, when additions to the rural population far outstripped those to the urban. Why then is the last decade so different? While valid in themselves, these factors cannot fully explain this huge urban increase. More so in a census in which the decadal growth percentage of population records “the sharpest decline since India's independence.”
Take the 2001 Census. It showed us that the rural population had grown by more than 113 million since 1991. And the urban by over 68 million. So rural India had added 45 million people more than urban. In 2011, urban India's increase was greater than that of rural India's by nearly half a million, a huge change. The last time the urban increase surpassed the rural was 90 years ago, in 1921. Then, the rural total actually fell by close to three million compared to the 1911 Census.
However, the 1921 Census was unique. The 1918 Influenza epidemic that killed 50-100 million people worldwide, ravaged India. Studies of the 1921 Census data say it records between 11 and 22 million deaths more than would have been normal for that decade. There was also the smaller impact of World War I in which tens of thousands of Indian soldiers died as cannon fodder for Imperial Britain in Europe and elsewhere.
If Influenza left its fatal imprint on the 1921 enumeration, the story behind the numbers of the 2011 Census speaks of another tragedy: the collapse of millions of livelihoods in agriculture and its related occupations. And the ongoing, despair-driven exodus that this sparked in the countryside.
The 2011 Census captures only the tip of an iceberg in terms of rural upheaval. The last time urban India added more numbers to its population than rural India was 90 years ago and that followed giant calamities in public health and war. Yet, without such conditions, urban India added 91 million to its 2001 total, against rural India's 90.6 million. (Table 1). Nor can this reversal be fully captured by the factors Census 2011 cites as driving the urban increase. Take ‘migration.' In public debate, ‘urban' is often equated with big metros. This conjures images of massive waves of people from villages heading straight for the big metros. And this flow, you will be assured, is falling. (Vital data on this will emerge only next year and might surprise us).
The Census data, however, do not convey the harshness and pain of the millions trapped in “footloose” migrations. That is, the desperate search for work driving poorer people in many directions without a clear final destination. Like Oriya migrants who work some weeks in Raipur. Then a couple of months at brick kilns in Andhra Pradesh. Then at construction sites in diverse towns in Maharashtra. Their hunger, and contractor, drive them to any place where there is work, however brief. There are rural migrations to both metros and non-metro urban areas. To towns and smaller cities. There are also rural to rural migrations. There are urban-urban migrations. And even, in smaller measure, urban to rural migrations.
Flight from agriculture
Neither the Census nor the National Sample Survey is geared to capture the complexity of India's migrations. A migrant in the Census is someone counted at a place other than his or her last place of residence. This records a single move — not multiple migrations. So it sees only the tip of the mobility iceberg, missing footloose migrations altogether. What we do know from Census 2001 is of the flight from agriculture. Between 1991 and 2001, over seven million people for whom cultivation was the main livelihood, quit farming. That is a mind-boggling figure. It suggests that, on average, close to 2,000 people a day abandon farming in the country. Where do they go? Nothing in employment data suggests they get absorbed in decent work in bustling cities.
What about ‘natural increase' (the difference between the numbers of births and deaths in a population)? That does not explain the switch around in rural-urban increases either. Indeed, the rate of natural increase has declined in both rural and urban areas. Still the urban population and towns get bigger and bigger.
As Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India Dr. C. Chandramouli puts it: “Fertility has declined across the country. There has been a fall in numbers even in the 0-6 age group, as a proportion of the total population. In fact, in absolute numbers too, this group (now 158.8 million) has declined by five million, compared to the previous Census. This would suggest migrations as a significant factor in urban growth. But what kind of migrations we can only ascertain or comment on when their patterns emerge more clearly. The Census in itself is not structured to capture short-term or footloose migrations.”
We also get an extraordinary picture when viewing what demographers call the ‘Urban-rural growth differential.' The URGD is simply the difference between the rates at which rural and urban populations expanded in each decade. It is also a rough and ready index of the extent of rural-urban migrations. The URGD in the 2011 Census is 19.8, the highest in 30 years.
‘Natural increase' does not then account for the growth in urban numbers. Certainly not for the 30 per cent rise in urban population in the States. Thousands of towns today have far larger populations than they used to have — but not due to natural increase. The reason is migrations on a massive scale. Rural folk still outnumber urban people by more than two to one. In the 2001 Census, rural family size (5.4) remained bigger than urban family size (5.1). Also striking, States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar show massive falls in growth rates in 2011. In the 2001 Census, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were “the two States with largest number of net migrants migrating out of the state.”
The other factor cited by the current Census for the turnaround is interesting. “Inclusion of new areas under ‘Urban'.” The number of ‘statutory towns' has gone up by a mere 241 since 2001. Compare that with the preceding decade when they rose by 813, or more than three times that number. (A ‘Statutory town' is an urban unit with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee.)
There is, however, a boom in the number of ‘Census towns.' In the decade 1991-2001, Census towns actually declined from 1,702 to 1,361. In the 2011 Census, they nearly tripled to 3894. That is stunning (Tables 2 and 3). How did this happen? And what is a ‘Census town?' This is a village or other unit declared as a town when: its population crosses 5,000; when the number of male workers in agriculture falls to less than 25 per cent of the total; and where population density is at least 400 per square kilometre.
At the very least, this means the male workforce in agriculture has collapsed in thousands of villages, falling to less than a quarter of all workers. So the farm exodus continues. What might the 2011 data on cultivators show us when it is out late next year? It could show us that the numbers quitting cultivation since 2001 might equal or exceed the over seven million dropouts of the previous decade.
Next: Decadal journeys: Debt and despair spur urban growth
Keywords: rural distress, census findings, Census 2011, National Sample Survey, migrant workers, agricultural sector, growth rates, Urban-rural growth differential, URGD
All of us are speak about the problems created by green revolution and new economic policy. Everything has both bad and good. why do we always waste our time in discussing the negative side of the things. Let's talk about the positive side. New changes since 1960s have actually brought in more opportunity to the people. We have to correct the lacunas in the agriculture. Instead of criticising the state policies, one can help the government to modify it's policies to suit to the needs of the people.
India is not a diktat run country like China. Its people need to become enlightened on the dangers of urbanisation if steps are not taken to stem the flow to urban areas. Most importantly, rural income from agriculture and rural industries needs to be be increased through better opportunities and self help. Food is critical as evidenced by the increase in food prices. Stop reducing prime agricultural land. Improve transport from rural areas so that cheap food can be brought to the towns and cities by the farmers. Get the people to rear chicken, cows and goats to provide eggs, milk and meat as food. Villages have space to get people to grow own food even in their backyard. Surplus can be sent to the market. Simple but novel solutions can be found to get surplus food to the market. Build simple rail tracks that can use simple contraptions to get the produce to the markets from the outskirts. Protect land for agriculture from conversion to non agriculture. There lies the challenges.
It significantly justifies the fact that the farmers are no longer depending on the agriculture.In this changing world and global scenario, they also want the change and that's why they are migrating towards the cities.The increase in the suicide cases of the farmers is a great cause of concern for the government and for the agricultural ministry.The government should rethink on it's policy to avoid this crisis, otherwise the day is not so far when the country will be trapped in the FOOD CRISIS. We should know, what are the main cause for these transformation?why are the farmers making suicide after so much continuous effort by the government?The answer is that either the government is busy in increasing the country's economy by the industrial growth or the policy formed for the eradication of these problems are not implemented in a compact way. MNREGA is such a prime example.
The level of urbanization In India in 2011 figured at 31.16 per cent, reporting an increase of 3.38 per cent over the 2001 level and not an increase of 30 per cent. India’s urban population has recorded an annual growth rate of 2.76 per cent during 2001-11, which is higher than that of the previous decade of 2.73 per cent only in the second decimal point. The growth rate of urban population comes down significantly if one calculates the same after deducting the new towns.
It is strange that the author draws inferences regarding migration from the data on total population from 2011 Census. If adjusted for the huge crop of new towns, the rate of urban growth falls much below that of the previos Census. The author is not aware of the National Sample Survey data which shows a significant decline in rural urban migration of adult males during 2000-08.
The crisis in agricultural alone is not the cause for this, there are other factors involved too. With increasing population and decreasing agricultural resources like land, water, etc, the only way to ensure food security is more efficient use of those resources. This might sound very draconian, but mechanisation of agriculture is the only choice. The process of mechanising farming has started...and it is inevitable! Historically, in the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution in Britain mechanised production and replaced hand-made Indian articles, which is what led to mass migration of Indian artisans to rural areas, becoming landless agri-labourers.
Now, our Govt's is to ensure that there are enough employment opportunities either in rural or urban areas, because failure to do so will result in millions of rural ppl with absolutely nothing in hand.
If we Indians want to change this, Agriculture has to be changed form the perception from being an mere occupation to a successful lucrative business. For this I have a very good efficient model for the upliftment of the rural women and to make them selfemployed and serve in the cause of raising the GDP. Please the persons concerned and the policy making people have to consult others who are in line and draft agriculture policies. If that happens sure India will be the Big Brother in the world scene.
There is no growth in jobs (employment generation actually decreased sharply between 2004-05 and 2009-10-ref India’ statistical survey July09-Jun10) s and there is 'despair driven exodus' from rural areas ,all in a period of very rapid GDP expansion ! Then whom is the 8-10 % GDP growth really benefitting ?
Those in the Govt, the most (the average asset worth of a union minister rose from Rs.7.3 crore to Rs.10.6 crore in 28 months. Adding a modest million a month on average through 28 months.Ref the article "Indian cabinet gets healthier "),then the Corporates and trickling down to the Indian middle class . The same decade or let us say past 7-8 years , also has seen a period of mind boggling corruption & sell-off of the national resources ,under a Govt that came to power calining “working for the poor”. Even after 65 years of Independence of which 60 years were under the Congress , majority Indians are still kept deprived and desperate . Most Indians still struggle to obtain basic public services that wealthier , more secure countries take for granted . The total slum population of the country, which was 7.52 crore in 2001, has grown to 9.3 crore in 2011 (the NSSO-National Sample Survey Organisation report ). Meanwhile the Planning Commission in Sept 2011, redefined “below the poverty line “ for Indians to below Sub- Saharan levels to artificailly suppress the growing number of poor in the country !!. But the Govt claims "India is rising", with deception at the heart of this publicity campaign . The only major growth achieved was Illegal outflows from the country that grew exponentially and in just five years from 2004-08 alone, the country lost roughly Rs.4.3 lakh crores to such outflows (GFI report). I request Sainath and similiar journalists to question through the media “DOES INDIA NEED THIS KIND OF GDP GROWTH ?”
Well written article by Sainath. I have been to fieldwork as part of my curriculum at Institute of Rural Management, Anand (IRMA), and we have seen different types of migration in our village. The people whom you see begging on urban roads, are one of the richest people in their village. We saw people who migrate because they studied well and couldn't find a decent job in their village though he owns a land of 5 acres. We saw young boys running away from houses to work in urban construction sites, just to escape education. There are hundreds of such cases Mr Sainath, and these are not distress migration cases. How do you justify them???
Dear Mr Sainath, before you don your rock star activist suit and start tearing into census data please help me understand this: The global proportion of urban population was 13% in 1900, it became 29% in 1950 and in 2005 this jumped to 50%. This is going to jump to 60% in 2030. This data is from UN world urbanization report. So if I follow the logic of your article then it seems that the urban power centers OF THE WHOLE WORLD NOT JUST INDIA somehow conspired to create conditions of rural distress to decimate rural population. To me that is just fantastical conspiracy theory. How about a simple explanation that people will go where there is more economic activity. Indian agriculture contributes 14.5% of India's GDP and employs 50% of the workforce.It is but natural that people will move to sectors like services and manufacturing which provide better economic opportunity. To me it appears that you are creating a spin on this simple fact to burnish your credentials as a champion of poor.
We need to monitor demographic trends of countries such as Thailand and Malaysia that have made the transition from endemic poverty to a more prosperous society. What's common in those countries is that they have shifted from a mostly agro economy to an economy that has found a better balance between agriculture, services and manufacturing. I think we are beginning to see that mix in Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Goa, Haryana/Punjab and portions of Maharashtra /Gujarat. It is instructive to look at states like Tamil Nadu which have managed to usher in such a mix while improving overall HDI across the board. The key lies in education and nutrition. If these two are addressed to some degree at the primary and secondary school levels then the population is better equipped to avail of all the opportunities. This need not come at the expense of food security, as there is ample room to improve crop yields in most parts of India.
There are so many other reasons also for people migration from rural areas to urban areas like, now the people of young age wants to take up all the luxuries and they also want to enjoy their life in mega cities.As life of big cities attract them.So they dont want to carry their ancestors profession whatever it is they want to live their life as they want.
At one point (here & in other articles) he says farmers in villages are in distress. And here farmers are migrating. So why is it surprising that farmers are migrating? Rather than talk about encouraging (or forcing) farmers to stay back and farm (as he has in the past & will likely do so in the followup articles), the goverment & people would be better served making life easier for migrants: ensuring development is spread across mulitple cities in a state rather than just one city, ensuring migrants get schooling for their children, ensuring there are no legislative hindrances on where people want to move (like China which is trying to force people back to villages by denying them city permits.) Long term India will endu p with about 70-80% urban population, like most countries do. Agriculture is not going to die as it has thrived in even the most industrial/urban countries. It is best if we prepare our cities for this influx and also have adequate cities to absorb this movement.
I follow the articles of Mr.Sainath and used to wonder in some parts of India this wretchedness must be existing because our villages are situated 120 kms from Chennai in the northwest direction. Our youngsters have migrated to Chennai/Bangalore and also to Sriperumbudur/vellore industrial area. We also have ancillary industrial units in nearby areas. Lot of jobs are available in our area. Our villages have mostly elderly persons and permanent residents engaged in powerloom industries and trades.
I have also watched the migrant laborers from Orissa and Bihar sitting in groups at Central Station waiting for their contractors. Looks like disparities are plenty.
Itz realy shocking! the villages repersnt the true picture of our Mother india and so it is realy unfortunate on the part of our govt to obtain such a census report..!!!
Reading some of the comments made over here helps me understand why this issue is so vastly under-appreciated.
Imagine if you had no permanent job, no guarantee that your wages would be paid on time, not enough leisure and an obligation to feed your kids at least once a day. That would be too much to take, at least to me. If you owe some money too, that is a bonus. Now, this is aptly called 'Distress' and this diatribe should end with an immediate action. No human should endure such a tough battle for survival. They ought to be helped.
Livelihood of rural Indians is very pathetic. Causes are very deeply rooted, but we can invent an innovative solutions. Scientists and intellectuals are busy in solving the problems of wealthy people.....The need of the hour is young talent should dedicated to solve the miseries of the 'poor'.
It's a natural that agriculture will employ less number of people and it will be more mechanized with the development. In a county like USA only 4% of people are engaged in agriculture. That shift happened in developed counties during the industrial revolution. The jobs will be in manufacturing and service sector. But the issue is that factories are being setup in cities. If the infrastructure is properly developed rural areas can provide the labor relatively inexpensively and the people can still live where they were before. Massive migration to cities with affordable housing only makes things worse.
Very well articulated but I wished you came up with some suggestions to this problem too. The very mode of capitalism is going to take over. The concept of 'survival of the fittest' by Darvin holds true. How can one expect a farmer to work in his field when he cannot sustain his family with the limited income he gets from the field. If you rise the vegetable size, people will blame the govt. for inflation but if you do not, then the farmer suffers. Needless to speak about the marginal farmers, they are nowhere. Perhaps the large farmers also quitting agriculture. The farmers cannot hire workers into their field as because the NREGA wage is much higher than that of the farming wage in a rural set up. If the land lord starts paying as much as the NREGA wage then he has to face a huge loss. Therefore, I think there has to be an integrated and holistic approach to tackle this social problem. Just think, if the rural migrants did not come to Bombay then who would do the work of a maid?
Thankfully,so far,the State cauldron has failed to brew an instant equation authorising direct relation between 'invisibility and non-existence(may be patience pays).If 8 million (as per 2001 data) are driven out of agriculture,it demands an imperative performance assessment of a 40,000 investment affair,trumpcard in the UPA arsenal-MNREGA.Can 100 days of work/household/financial year(when realistically a rural household comprises of minimum 5 members) an effective buffer/disincentive for distress driven migration when it fails to quench hunger round the year?True,NREGAs are eufunctional in many states(like Kerala,Karnataka etc where a wage labourer earns well above Rs.150/day-much above NREGA remuneration). If 1921 witnessed a massive erasure by anomy driven deaths,the present statistical marvel solely belongs to the cadre of policy driven disasters. Its high time we script our policies in a more anthropocentric and demand sensitive manner or absurd demographic surrogacy awaits!
It is natural for a country that is growing rapidly to urbanize.
People are going to urban areas to find better work. Population in my
village has gone drastically over the last decade because young people
found better work in IT, Engineering etc.
This article shows what Hindu stands for: anti-open market and
antediluvian ideals. Instead of inferring that urbanization is a
natural consequence of growth, you go all teary-eyed over the
migration.
I agree the population growth in urban area is mainly due to migration from rural india. As rural India depends mainly on agriculture economy and nowdays it is collapsed. This is due to poorer agriculture policy handled by various agencies mainly government. This is alrming of major crisis in future that will cause huge life toll. It may be epidemic disease due to poor management of hygenity in urban areas, Food deprivation, environmental pollution. One has to give importance for rural India, will itself control several crisis.
,
A very good article...
Decline in agriculture leads to decline in productivity and increase in unemployment. Decline in productivity leads to food price rise in turn inflation. Decline in unemployment leads to illegal activities.so much importance should be given to agriculture, many agriculture related universities must be opened and jobs need to be created. Agriculture lands must be protected.
The article is revealing. We give scant respect to agriculture. Poor renumerative prices for their produce, high debts, monsoon failure and poor infrastructure facilities have led many farmers to commit suicides. Inspite of it it is desperate that the government do not encourage the agriculture sector. The farmers exodus from the rural to urban in search of good employment should be discouraged. Since MGREGP has not paid the expected divided there is exodus. A Committee should be set to go into the grievances of farmers. Farmers lot should be addressed or else food stuffs will become a scarce commodity.
The findings are rather odd for today most rural people have work through the MGNREGP, and if the findings are ACCURATE then where is the money going and why are rural people flocking to urban areas when they can get employment in their villages? Is this too another scam?
The main reason is the effect of more rural people getting the benefits of schooling and education. Communication by way of roads and phones had gone substantially up.TVs and films shown through TVs had encouraged rural people,especially younger generation to migrate to cities leaving behing traditional rural employment.The political influence for earning easy but lot of money is an added attraction to the village youngsters.But all these had affected the character of people both rural and urban connected,in running after money and leaving behind traditional values bacis to Indian culture.Unfortunately, we do not have statistics in the survey to show the increase or decrease in the values either in rural or urban locations. Seshachalam gopalakrishnan Chennai
A brilliant and timely article by P.Sainath. Census data on migration does not capture the distress experienced by this vulnerable group.They live in sub human conditions, without access to the basic facilities of water and sanitation. Being away from their families they take to alcohol and drugs. Migrant families are the worst sufferers. Children loose out on education, women become vulnerable to physical and sexual violence. This group cannot access government subsidies due to their changing locations.The best government can do is to stall this migration by creating sustainable livelihoods in rural areas. Equity in development should be the approach and not concentrate everything in the urban areas.
The massive new addition in Jobs has been in the Urban areas be it IT, retail, banking etc and At least i can vouch for my village where hardly any people below 30 is there as most have migrated to city as there is no job there for the educated. This is not a distress migration as cities pay you more, provide you with more amenities than the rural area. This is applicable for all category of workers, educated or uneducated, farmers or professionals. Another interpretation would be to see the GDP (PPP) at 2001 and 2011 from the Urban Vs rural and I am sure that the proportion in urban population growth will be proportional to the GDP(PPP) growth in urban areas. Again it is just the incentive of higher standard of living compared to rural area which is driving it and may not be just distress migration.
I agree with you, Mr.Sainath. To corroborate your point that rural distress has caused an upsurge in urban population, is the fact that bulk of the rise in urban population is at the low end. Alongside urban population, the numbers of urban poor has soared. Urban poor figures are over 50% in Chhattisgarh!
Government with support of the opportunistic middle class has embarked on the path in dismantling social security and rationing system in a planned way,while telling marketing glib talks regarding growth of economy. After the loot in telecom, now the propaganda machines are directed towards the insecurity in border and need of defence modernisation through large scale purchases of items from abroad,without any open clean discussions regarding utility of such items.
While the indigeneous organisations are systematically squeezed towards non utilization of talents, pliable people are promoted to safeguard such nefarious interests of the middlemen's lobby.
It is a nicely written fact about Indian rural and urban population...and why the urban population is increasing day by day..
Our crorepati politicians look at these people with a jaundiced eye.
It is true that we are neglecting the agriculture sector. This is not good for a healthy development. It is time that we concentrate on the agriculture sector before it is too late and thus prevent the rural exodus to the urban.
The successive governments are insensitive to the sufferings of the poor. They only concentrate on how to attract the votes of the people.
This must be because the mortality rate in Villages is very high and migration to urban areas-both due to abject poverty caused by decades of neglect by our corrupt politicians which has reached the summit now. These politicians, most of them, can be termed as anti-nationals.
If I had enough land in the village, I would have taken up agriculture, rather than the any other jobs in the city.
Shift from rural to urban is [1] growth in software industry, which is basically urban /metro oriented [2] Agriculture / Allied sector is back bone of the country & is not getting due share from the Government .Most "NEGLECTED "
Unless due attention is given by the government ,there is every possiblity of continueing the trend may lead to critical situations. So there is urgent need to arrest this trend by giving due share to agriculture and allied activities.
Are you going to live with census alone? Please prepare the data of
cultivable lands for 6 lakh villages, watch how many of them are
cultivated and how many times in a year, how many work force employed,
yield from each field, how many of them converted to other purposes,
how many newly added for cultivation, how many families deserted
cultivation and why and what they need to return to farming, how many
new generations are entering farming etc. This must be gathered and
posted online. We can not depend upon for these data once in 10 years.
This must be day to day affair to feed 1.2 billion plus mouths. It is
not joke but serious.
Census findings hardly surprising. Quality of life of the poor masses bound to degrade with the ruling Congress bent on protecting scamsters and protecting their black money a/cs and the results of Inflation kicking up. People need to kick this congress govt if they want to improve their quality of life.
Very simple : With TV, mobile phone & better physical infrastructure / connectivity etc. people are aware of the opportunity. I do not think this requires so much research and analysis.
Interesting statistics. Rural to urban migration- is it really bad, as has been depicted in the article? It is bound have happened. Millions of rural folks who were partially employed in agricultural activities (which was nothing more than disguised unemployment)have now shifted to urban areas with some gainful employment. This not bad in itself. However, such kind of massive migrations cause new issues to the fore, urban housing, urban poverty, eradication of slums, education facilities for the urban poor, which we should tackle. Hopefully, the new generations of these migrants will have a better future than their ancestors had.
Very good analysis as it takes census data to show what is a common
fact in most villages. The agricultural coolie family system is dead.
It is good as exploitation of poor people has gone but the lack of
agricultural labor is threatening the food security of the country.
This is the biggest problem India faces today. I just do not know why
Newspapers do not write on this. The conclusion of the author that
poverty is driving people from place to place is also not correct. I
believe that people get a far higher salary while working in sectors
other than Agriculture and this is what makes them to wander to
different places Also the labor cost alone for agricultural farmers
(agri business units) has come to about 40 per cent today and this is
some thing the land owning farmers are not willing to pay. They are
used to give low wages for decades. The problem is this is going to
result in massive price increases of food items. Common folks will
suffer. This is the problem of India today.
It's a natural consequence to the development of India, the same happened in every
developed country's history. This will only accelerate every year, hence it is extremely
urgent that we take stock of our cities and invest today in infrastructure and planned
development.
When viewed as a purely economic activity, agriculture is constrained
by two factors.
a) The price of food-grains has to be such that it is affordable for
the vast majority of the population. While there is food insecurity
and hunger in India, we do not have starvation at a mass scale because
food is a unaffordable.
b) The agricultural output is limited by what the land can produce.
Which in turn is governed by rainfall, irrigation, fertility etc.
The bottom-line is we have had a disproportionate share of the
population engaged in agriculture, an activity, which is not as
renumerative economically as services or manufacturing. An econo-
demographic correction is in order.
If such a migration happens because they got educated and get better
jobs it would be fine. The tragedy is that this has probably happened
out of desperation. Large sections of population with limited skills
have moved to urban areas to get whatever jobs they can, contributing
to "foot-loose" migration.
Every country went through this. As countries develop, urban population increases
everywhere. Why does it necessarily have to do with distress?
whatever may the reason behind the increase in the urban population,
one fact we have to observe is that migration from rural areas to
urban area is increasing day by day. This is only because of, no
profit for agricultural products, no work and lack of education
facilities for children. The population per square foot is increasing
in urban area which is leads to number of slums. The only solution to
stop migration is, government should encourage the agriculture by
providing proper returns to farmers and by improving the social and
economic status of rural people.
Yes no doubt why else would people uproot their existence from known environment to new unknown destinations. Poverty, lack of education, non-working government schemes, systemic failure to enable growth, excessive swingling of natural resources, failure to share resources across borders, protectionism in the name of caste, region, religion and social stigma all of these are contributos to this exodus. An imbalance between rural and urban population would lead to significant challenges that will choke us further. As a country if we need to succeed we have to enable industrial growth of rural areas to compete and be the feeder points, that includes farming as an important activity.
Sad reading. Mr.Sainath, battling lonesome for the deprived poor, presents an
analysis, the outcome of which had been staring at us throughout the Unlucky
Decade, qualitatively though. When will the Government and the Planning
Commission tailor their hydra-headed schemes to the needs of the poor?
It seems that migration to urban area is not only for livelihood but because increased industrialisation in newly created townships.Lots of factories do not find labourers becuase of switching of many elsewhere due to better opportunities.Increase of new towns is the main reason of increase in population.
When the state follows a policy of 'moving people out of agriculture',
such distress and 'footloose' migration is a natural consequence. The
truth is that in the last decade our government has followed policies
that have made agriculture more and more difficult, while little non-
farm employment has been generated in rural areas. One can google
"Rural Non Farm Employment India China" to get an appraisal of our
failures in this regard.
A commendable article. I especially like the way Mr. Sainath poses
pertinent questions to social scientists and the general public using
a combination of his own journalistic work and census data.
The way indian population has increased last three decade and the way migrated towards rural to urban has raised the eyebrow of the policy makers.Move from the people from primary to tertiary is also a issue of concern.we talk about sustainable development,how it will be possible to maintain with such a large population to feed,to educate them to not migrate from rural to urban,to maintain sex ratio with ecological balance till next census?This is a real failure of government policy running from last decades to eradicate them.I think now the common people of india have to think about this.the govt.can only make policy but to follow them its upto us.But the real problem is nearly 30 % people are still uneducated,below poverty line. they only want to feed themselves and come to urban areas.Who will tell them that all glitters are not gold and the question remains the same will indias next census will have less growth rate,les exodus from rural to urban,have equal sex ratio...........
The Census data validates Sainath's work over this past decade to bring us the "harshness and pain" behind the data. It also reaffirms the need to have more journalism on the rural worlds. What would be very useful is to have more reporting from the "Census towns" - what does it mean for the inhabitants of these spaces to be yoked to cities? Or is this a case of redefinition by administrative fiat, with no appreciable difference on the ground, as when the government played with (or "revised") the poverty line and declared, by fiat again, that many millions were no longer poor?
very rightly the growing urban population can be clearly attributed to
the growing social disparity and the urban rural divide.despite the
fall in total fertility rates, the urban population has risen.so the
point underlying this,is the growing poverty among the poor, who are
losing there livelihood due to unremunerative agriculture and thus are
forced to migrate and live a life of misery.government needs to address
the issue for the sake of the rural majority of our population and for a
balanced national growth.
This is another revealing well researched writing from P . Sainath. More to follow from him. The villages are now inhabited by old people, women and children. Even children are migrating as child labour. Some times the old people are migrating to join their relatives to do some petty jobs. There are some villages in Ganjam district of Orissa hosts of dogs greet when you enter there. The Governments of host states care least about their migrated people to other states of India. Previously the Money order economy now the money transfer SMS is an helping the host states with out taking any responsibility of the migrant workers.More over the AIDs are too spreading to the villages by the migrant workers and there are no way to prevent it. The continuous droughts in state like Odissa are not only compelling the migration to other state but is swelling.
Under this circumstances it is becoming easy to acquire the land at very low prices resulting in concentration of land in few hands
Please Email the Editor