“A thing of beauty is a joy forever”. So said the romantic poet John Keats. Then why not make Kolkata beautiful? But whose responsibility is it to make the city beautiful – the government, the community or the corporate sector? Or is it all those who live and work in the city to benefit from it?
All over the developed world the community participates to build the city. Then why cannot India do the same? After all we are on our path to globalization and ought to be in a comparable position. Today cities are expanding rapidly. While we do compare nations for economic development, we relate more to cities globally as one travels from one city to another. These are the gateways for global prosperity. But Kolkata with its poor infrastructure lags way behind most of the major cities of the world. The Honourable Chief Minister aspires to convert Kolkata to London. There is nothing wrong in aiming high. But can the government do so merely by only wishing? Kolkata needs total overhauling to be rated as a global city.
Democratic decentralization is the only solution to such a proposition. In fact, now that the present government is showing its enthusiasm in refurbishing the city, it is the right time to take a few bold steps to prop up the city. In fact why cannot Kolkata be a pioneer in introducing ‘neighbourhood planning’ in India where all participate, the government, the corporate sector and the community? We talk of PPP in many of our activities. Is it meant to be only on paper? Why do we not do so for building and organizing our neighbourhoods where we live? A satisfied resident is far more productive than an unhappy one facing lack of basic utilities.
Let us draw an example. We all know that Kolkata does not have a Master Plan (subsequently, of course, KMDA did work out a few master (?) plans). In 1968 the Ford Foundation had helped Kolkata to formulate a Strategic Plan and called it as the Basic Development Plan. At the end of the plan period members of the Ford team had re-visited Kolkata in 1986 to review the situation. By then it was realized that given the existing physical developments that had happened without much landuse planning, Kolkata has no other option but to continue with the strategic plan concept, as so much of indigenous growth cannot be erased and the city rebuilt. However, suggestions were given to systematize developments; for example, if rural-urban migration was to be accepted, there should be at least some semblance of organizing low income housing. Hence it was suggested that slum development should be guided and specific land allocated for informal housing. The issue was of bringing order to chaotic development and guiding future growth. Now, if that had been followed, then how is Kolkata in such a mess today with no drainage and sewerage and shacks and encroachments on practically every pavement, so that people have to walk in the middle of the road defying traffic norms? One strong shower and the entire city is flooded, creating traffic snarls and difficulties for commuters? Why have systems not formed since then? Many planners give an excuse of Kolkata having spontaneous growth. But can we leave a city at the mercy of haphazard growth? After all, the very concept of a city means organizing of non-agricultural activities within a limited area!
City infrastructure in Kolkata is so despicable that often people inquire if utilities exist in the residential area where one has bought a house or apartment. I have myself bought a flat on the on the E.M.Bypass where there is no potable water, no drainage, no streets and no sewerage. The only utility available is electricity, being supplied by CESC, which is a private company. Should approval of plans, by the local government, come before or after the development of utilities? Moreover, in a developing area, how long does it take to build the utility infrastructure, given the fact that development money is charged from every developer while sanctioning the plan? And in anticipation of development, encroachments of public land alongside roads begin, for providing informal services, making the neighbourhood as unattractive as one can imagine. We all know that prevention is better than cure! Why not stop encroachment instead of clearing such unruly developments that are cancerous for the city dynamics. The encroachers have no toilets, no water, not even electricity, which they steal, all because of the Municipal Corporation’s neglect and lack of vigilance. It is so much easier to plan ‘greenfield sites’ than to uproot the squatters and turn it into a political dilemma.
A concept that can be suggested to correct such a predicament is that of ‘neighbourhood planning’ where residents of a given area take the lead, with the support of the local government, to organize and develop their own neighbourhoods for happy living. In a democratic country like India this should not be a problem at all. Area representatives of the local government can help citizens’ forums/the civil society to develop and reorganize areas to their liking and convenience. After all it is the residents who would ultimately live in the area. Unless protested, the community (the actual vote banks) is being totally ignored until election time when false promises are made for the sake of the impending elections. Once elected, the councillors forget their promises and let go of organized development to suit their own benefits.
‘Neighbourhood planning’ is the best form of planning in a city like Kolkata that is bereft of a Master Plan. It is a PPP in action. So why not start it immediately to save Kolkata from further deterioration. The Indian Constitution has already approved of democratic decentralization through its 74th Amendment way back in 1992. Then, why is there a delay? If Kolkata is to be converted into London, ‘neighourhood planning’ is the most appropriate strategy:
• It takes care of the needs of the residents who would be living there.
• It brings in a sense of responsibility to citizens.
• It inculcates the pride of living well.
• It brings in happiness and a smile on the face of every human being.
• It includes the needs and desires of the community and contributes to good governance.
• It is a proactive method using personal contacts to provide a human touch to planning.
• It is a plan done for a small area, taking into account the problems and issues that arise at the time of development of an area.
• It relieves the local government from the arduous task of planning and managing every nook and corner of the city.
Let Kolkata be a pioneer and teach the rest of India as to how to do ‘neighbourhood planning’ and bring joy to its citizens. ‘Neighbourhood planning’ is a democratic method of planning to build social capital that will help the local government to plan the city well. Thus ‘neighbourhood planning’ as a process of development is rarely questioned or contested, as it is done by the will of the people for the people.
Though defining a ‘neighbourhood’ is arbitrary, it is done through logical discussions, keeping in mind logical and practical issues of administration and management of a given area. Normally it is a homogenous area with common problems and similar characteristics that facilitates easy solutions to problems. Since it is done through a consultative process, the size of a neighbourhood ought to be manageable and easily accessible. It leads to “deliberative democracy”. By definition, a neighbourhood is a small area surrounding one’s residence, having familiar associations. It was introduced by Park and Burgess, in 1915, as an ecological concept with urban planning implications. It is greater than the household or the street, but smaller than the city. It was evolved to improve city environments soon after the industrial revolution in UK, when urban conditions deteriorated. Today it is also used to develop ‘greenfield’ sites with first time development problems and issues. It is a component of urban planning. It takes into consideration area, major roads, population, administrative units, etc. for demarcating an area/neighbourhood. Familiarity with the community and the area is very important.
A ‘neighbourhood plan’ is done democratically in conjunction with city officials (in case of India/Kolkata will have to be with the ward councillor). Its aim is good governance for the comfort of the residents of a neighbourhood and to improve the quality of life of the people.
A ‘neighbourhood plan’ coordinates with different agencies to produce a holistic picture of the area and merges its plan with that of the city.
• It focuses on sustainability.
• There can be long-term and short-term plans.
• It combines the planning of all utilities such as energy, water, roads, drainage, sewerage, transportation, landuse, etc. of an area to provide a holistic picture.
• It inculcates ownership and accountability to the community.
• It provides guidelines for the use of land, revenue and infrastructure.
• It is basically an approach toward integrated planning.
In other words, it helps the municipality to do its job well and monitor services for the upkeep of the city. Moreover, a plan done by the people is close to their heart and is easily acceptable. Chances of going wrong are less.
Issues of ‘neighbourhood planning’ can be several. Some are besides highways and not safe for children, some do not have drainage and sewerage, some are deficient in potable water, some do not have properly tarred roads and so on. There are also the problems of encroachment, car parking, illegal commercial developments, security and what have you. The issues or problems are not just reactive. There are proactive issues of cultural enhancement, setting up of nursery schools, developing parks and playgrounds and the like. It is promoted for social bonding, safety and active citizenry. It is actually done to help the local government in organizing the city and in promoting a sense of pride and ownership that helps to improve the quality of life, which is the aim of every government. There are different stages of ‘neighbourhood planning’. However, that is influenced by the requirements of the neighbourhood.
A collection of neighbourhoods make a city or a region within the city and helps the municipality and other line agencies to build the city systematically, where the role of the government is only to facilitate. Thus it reduces the load off the local government and yet helps in building the city into a well-planned home for its citizens.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Kolkata as I see
I came to Kolkata after my retirement not because I was a Bengali, but because real estate prices were comparatively lower than other metropolitan cities and also because after Delhi this was the only city I was familiar with, perhaps because my maternal grandmother lived here and we visited her regularly. I have spent most of my work-life in Delhi. But each time I wanted to buy an apartment, I could never find an appropriate one in Delhi, in which I would like to spend the autumn years of my life. Whereas, every time I looked for a flat in Kolkata, I always found one. This obviously indicated that Kolkata would be a more comfortable place to live! But lo and behold! I was in for a rude shock! I had booked a builder’s flat bang on the Eastern Metro Bypass, adjacent to Hiland Park, thinking such a location would give me an easy connectivity to the airport. That it did. But when I came to occupy the apartment in 2010 after three years from booking, I found the place had deteriorated. The metalled road had eroded through repeated use by trucks bringing in building materials (for this is an upcoming area), the promised Ganga water had not reached and the sewerage and the drainage systems were not in place. Moreover, no one in the neighbourhood knew when it would get done. Obviously, my immediate reaction was that of repulsion and regret for having come to the city. In three years’ time the place had not developed. The question that came to my mind is, “how long does it take for a residential neighbourhood to develop in Kolkata”? While the city boasts of spontaneous growth, where is the spontaneity? Why does the Local Government sanction plans and give Completion Certificates if it cannot provide the civic amenities, especially when a development fee is charged from each developer/owner? Other than electricity this area called Sammilani Park had nothing. The roads and the lanes were not metalled, there was no drainage or sewerage, nor filtered water. Normally cities are supposed to have the basic utility infrastructure and that too in a metropolitan city. In my estimation Kolkata appeared a virtual slum with residents very complacent about the lack of such amenities. A typical Bengali is very quick in retorting back with a rude answer to anything amiss; but not when it comes to hard work and leadership for improvement. The latter is reserved only for gaining political mileage. It really surprised me, for in my younger days Kolkata used to be clean, streets were washed twice a day (the only other city where I found streets being washed was Paris), and people were polite and friendly and culturally rich. There was an air of sophistication. Residential neighbourhoods had wonderful communities and the city was reasonably safe. Today residents do not care to know each other, extending any help is remote and the city teaming with thugs and thieves. Morning newspapers are full of crime reports. What has made Kolkata so? Was Calcutta better than Kolkata? Was colonialism better than democracy? The controversy I found was in lack of leadership in development and management, though here every issue is politicised! At that time leadership is not in short supply!
However, all this is passé now that the government has changed! One is now looking with hope towards the new government. With wonderful promises made, will development happen with speed? My part of the city (ie where I live) cannot be called peripheral anymore. Or does it take a lifetime to cross the transition? In planning norms thirty years is considered to be one generation? By then a young person grows old and an old person dies! Do we really have to wait till death for the city or the neighbourhood to develop? No wonder real estate prices do not rise in Kolkata; for initially an area is under-developed; and by the time it develops the place becomes so congested that people do not like to move into such areas. So, what happens then? Residents continue to live in under-developed pockets with lack of sanitation, deprived of water, using unmetalled roads where water collects during rains. Is this urban living? As a citizen I feel ashamed of myself and my country for being unable to help it grow decently, especially when I visit other countries and see the advanced development. We have no pride in ourselves. Our government does not work up to our expectations. It is a sad situation, with upper middle class people with high aspirations living in squalor. And, of course, the government or the management will always accuse the citizens of apathy after what we go through!
However, all this is passé now that the government has changed! One is now looking with hope towards the new government. With wonderful promises made, will development happen with speed? My part of the city (ie where I live) cannot be called peripheral anymore. Or does it take a lifetime to cross the transition? In planning norms thirty years is considered to be one generation? By then a young person grows old and an old person dies! Do we really have to wait till death for the city or the neighbourhood to develop? No wonder real estate prices do not rise in Kolkata; for initially an area is under-developed; and by the time it develops the place becomes so congested that people do not like to move into such areas. So, what happens then? Residents continue to live in under-developed pockets with lack of sanitation, deprived of water, using unmetalled roads where water collects during rains. Is this urban living? As a citizen I feel ashamed of myself and my country for being unable to help it grow decently, especially when I visit other countries and see the advanced development. We have no pride in ourselves. Our government does not work up to our expectations. It is a sad situation, with upper middle class people with high aspirations living in squalor. And, of course, the government or the management will always accuse the citizens of apathy after what we go through!
Neighbourhood Planning
The CM wants to convert Kolkata into London – a desire too far fetched unless concerted efforts are made for all parts of the city and for different aspects of development! With years of deterioration and neglect, the city requires intense social, environmental, physical and technological enhancement. While upgrading infrastructure for the city as a whole will have to be done by the development agencies of the State Government, planning for the smaller areas, the neighbourhoods, can be delegated to the community and the ward councillors.
Kolkata’s concept of “para” was once very popular. It encouraged the “adda” of the young and the old, scouting on the sit-outs of residential buildings. The latter has always been a space for socializing (in India) from the olden times. But today with globalization, that culture has waned off. In the din of daily life, everyone is busy trying to make a fast buck. No one has the time to socialize with neighbours. Life has become more self-centered. This demand on time is more due to the struggle for our daily existence. It has become so difficult to put our body and soul together, that we have started ignoring even our neighbours. Yet, in times of difficulty it is the neighbours who come to your rescue (perhaps I am wrong in the context of Kolkata!).
As a Bengali from outside Kolkata (I moved to the city a year ago), I find a pronounced anonymity in the residential neighbourhoods of the city. The once friendly neighbourhoods where children played in the streets are gone. What could be the reason? Is it because the open spaces have been filled with buildings, or is it because there is no proper landuse and commerce has taken over all the nooks and corners where residents used to hang around for small talks, thereby adding anonymity and crime? Why are residents of a neighbourhood not able to relate to each other? What features or characteristics are lacking for common interests? I hear from many friends that people who go for morning walks in parks or where children who play in the few playgrounds that remain in the city have something in common. Is it then the lack of open space?
Given the city conditions today, two types of planning are required to make a city more safe and functional. At the macro-level a city requires major roads, large commercial complexes (to cater to trends in globalization), educational institutions and entertainment. At the local-level neighbourhoods need to be planned. A city belongs to its citizens. So it is the duty of every citizen to look after the city, for it is they who use it. A common complaint to be heard frequently in India is that the Government does nothing! But very few think of joining hands with the Government to build the city. This is because we have not developed in us a sense of ownership that nurtures a sense of responsibility. We litter our roads, spit everywhere and urinate at all street corners. If objected, we even go to the extent of beating up for social policing or murdering those who point out our mistakes (Times of India, July 2011). Does this happen in any other country? The Government elsewhere has built a system of control and regulation that people abide by. When will we change? The same person who litters the road or urinates in the roadside, in India, abides by all rules and regulations outside the country. Or is it because we have no rules at all?
Kolkata does not have a Master Plan. What Kolkata has is a Basic Development Plan, which was just a strategic plan brought together with the help of Ford Foundation way back in 1966. Hence unless we do some physical planning, Mamata Bannerjee’s efforts will only remain as piece-meal efforts at improving the metropolis. Kolkata’s landuse is in a mess. We need to organize some of our areas to bring some semblance of order in the city. As for the neighbourhoods, give it over to communities to fend for themselves; of course with the support of the city machinery. Ward-level planning has already been legalized by the 74th Amendment of the Constitution. Decentralization has been propagated by the Government. The boroughs and the wards already exist. It is just that it does not relate to the citizens. The Nagarik Committees also exist, but without much effect. Why cannot we systematize neighbourhood planning and make our citizens safer and more content in their own houses and on the road? Only Kolkata will have to choose what it wants to do!
Neighbourhood planning is done in many countries the world over. Europe, the US, Canada and several other developed countries have taken to it. In fact, neibourhood planning can be found even in Delhi, with a slight deviation – that it is the Government that takes the initiatives. But Kolkata being not a planned city, neighbourhood planning can be initiated by the community. It will be an introduction to a new phenomenon, which all other Indian cities can emulate. Let us join hands and initiate something new that we would later be proud of! Bengal has always been a pioneer. Why not now?
Kolkata’s concept of “para” was once very popular. It encouraged the “adda” of the young and the old, scouting on the sit-outs of residential buildings. The latter has always been a space for socializing (in India) from the olden times. But today with globalization, that culture has waned off. In the din of daily life, everyone is busy trying to make a fast buck. No one has the time to socialize with neighbours. Life has become more self-centered. This demand on time is more due to the struggle for our daily existence. It has become so difficult to put our body and soul together, that we have started ignoring even our neighbours. Yet, in times of difficulty it is the neighbours who come to your rescue (perhaps I am wrong in the context of Kolkata!).
As a Bengali from outside Kolkata (I moved to the city a year ago), I find a pronounced anonymity in the residential neighbourhoods of the city. The once friendly neighbourhoods where children played in the streets are gone. What could be the reason? Is it because the open spaces have been filled with buildings, or is it because there is no proper landuse and commerce has taken over all the nooks and corners where residents used to hang around for small talks, thereby adding anonymity and crime? Why are residents of a neighbourhood not able to relate to each other? What features or characteristics are lacking for common interests? I hear from many friends that people who go for morning walks in parks or where children who play in the few playgrounds that remain in the city have something in common. Is it then the lack of open space?
Given the city conditions today, two types of planning are required to make a city more safe and functional. At the macro-level a city requires major roads, large commercial complexes (to cater to trends in globalization), educational institutions and entertainment. At the local-level neighbourhoods need to be planned. A city belongs to its citizens. So it is the duty of every citizen to look after the city, for it is they who use it. A common complaint to be heard frequently in India is that the Government does nothing! But very few think of joining hands with the Government to build the city. This is because we have not developed in us a sense of ownership that nurtures a sense of responsibility. We litter our roads, spit everywhere and urinate at all street corners. If objected, we even go to the extent of beating up for social policing or murdering those who point out our mistakes (Times of India, July 2011). Does this happen in any other country? The Government elsewhere has built a system of control and regulation that people abide by. When will we change? The same person who litters the road or urinates in the roadside, in India, abides by all rules and regulations outside the country. Or is it because we have no rules at all?
Kolkata does not have a Master Plan. What Kolkata has is a Basic Development Plan, which was just a strategic plan brought together with the help of Ford Foundation way back in 1966. Hence unless we do some physical planning, Mamata Bannerjee’s efforts will only remain as piece-meal efforts at improving the metropolis. Kolkata’s landuse is in a mess. We need to organize some of our areas to bring some semblance of order in the city. As for the neighbourhoods, give it over to communities to fend for themselves; of course with the support of the city machinery. Ward-level planning has already been legalized by the 74th Amendment of the Constitution. Decentralization has been propagated by the Government. The boroughs and the wards already exist. It is just that it does not relate to the citizens. The Nagarik Committees also exist, but without much effect. Why cannot we systematize neighbourhood planning and make our citizens safer and more content in their own houses and on the road? Only Kolkata will have to choose what it wants to do!
Neighbourhood planning is done in many countries the world over. Europe, the US, Canada and several other developed countries have taken to it. In fact, neibourhood planning can be found even in Delhi, with a slight deviation – that it is the Government that takes the initiatives. But Kolkata being not a planned city, neighbourhood planning can be initiated by the community. It will be an introduction to a new phenomenon, which all other Indian cities can emulate. Let us join hands and initiate something new that we would later be proud of! Bengal has always been a pioneer. Why not now?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
WHO SHOULD TAKE CARE OF OUR CITIES?
Newspapers frequently report on conferences being held (in our metro cities, the most recent being in Mumbai) to promote urban redevelopment. That there is a need to do so is emphasized repeatedly. I am glad that we have finally felt the need for it! Numerous suggestions are given on what ought to be done. But nobody ever talks of who should do what! When it comes to identifying different roles for city managers, a blame game follows regarding responsibilities and problems. Nobody wants to actually take up the cudgels and perform the task earnestly and urgently.
We have in India two major city development organisations, the Municipality and the Development Authority, and often a separate Planning Board, over and above an entire gamut of agencies like the PWD, the Urban Arts Commission, the Archaeological Survey of India, all of which work independently and create more confusion in the city than plan and provide services. To add to our woes we also have the Water and Sanitation Boards, the Electricity Boards, the Telecom agencies and all the special Commissions and Authorities to promote ad hoc programmes and projects, rarely with any coordination among them. Above all, we have the Government of India’s Ministry of Urban Development to take care of our cities nationally!
Yet, a visit to any Indian city frustrates a common man, to find each of our cities in utter chaos, be it our mega or metro cities or our small towns. Travel to any city and what first meets your eyes is filth along the railway tracks that welcome each visitor. Enter the city and you find roads with potholes, broken pavements encroached by peddlers and petty businesses, cows and stray dogs running amok on the roads, congested and confused landuse, no street lights, no public toilets or sanitation facilities, with the city’s garbage strewn all over and what have you to add to the disgrace! Even the national capital, Delhi, is not spared of such unpleasantness. As for city aesthetics and landscaping, we Indians do not believe in such ideology! We clean our houses and throw the garbage onto the streets. After all it is not our property; and neither is it our duty to keep the city clean. We pay our taxes to the municipality to do so. Then why should the local government not clean up the city for us, irrespective of how much we dirty it! We feel it is our birthright to misuse public places and shift all responsibility to the government for maintenance.
I sometimes wonder as to when will Indians (and I am one of them) learn to take care of the place where they live? We all appreciate cities of developed countries, their order, their cleanliness, their systems and their aesthetics. But why are we not able to move forward beyond conference halls and board room discussions and repair our own cities? What is in our psyche that makes us ignore the upkeep of the city? Where do we go wrong? What is lacking in our character that prevents us from taking care of our cities? Why do we take pride in disobeying rules? Why do we encroach pavements that are meant for pedestrians to walk? Why do we spit on the roads? And why do we use every street corner as a urinal? So, what should we do to bring some sanity into our cities and urban living? Where do we begin? Should we start with sanitation and infrastructure or with housing and area planning?
Such city conditions only go to prove that there is something very fundamentally wrong with our culture. We do not love our habitats, and of course, we have no respect either for our cities or our fellow citizens, for we never ever think of keeping the place clean, leave alone following rules or abiding by regulations. How many of us ever think that an act of mine might trouble another? We are selfish down to the core. As long as an individual is satisfied, why bother about others! Irregular parking of cars in unauthorized places is a live example.
Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Who lives in a city? Why do we live in a city? Who uses the city’s infrastructure? Who earns a livelihood from the city; or does business in a city to earn a profit? Who comes to the city for recreation, studies and medical care? Each one of us who come to the city to gain from it should look after the city. The common expectation is to seek government help. But do individuals not use or enjoy city benefits? If so, how much are we contributing to its upkeep or development? The poor are unable to pay the taxes; the middle income group wants their taxes to be minimal; and the corporate sector wants all infrastructural services free of cost. We do not want to give. We only believe in receiving. As for following regulatory measures, we feel proud to break rules and revel at one-upmanship. We do not want to acknowledge social prudence. We wonder why people cannot mind their own business!
Leave aside personal attitudes that are a function of our surroundings and upbringing. I feel we need to be more professional and introduce systematic and mandatory area development. India is well advanced in framing laws and rules. We already have in place provisions for area planning and development through the 74th amendment of our Constitution. We elect our local government representatives who misuse the powers bestowed on them. We have contemplated adequately on public-private partnerships in practically all our policy documents to emulate the West. We have defined roles of agencies and assigned responsibilities to various actors and players meticulously. Then where have we failed? I think each one of us should search our hearts to find if we have been good to our city and have contributed to our city’s development or upkeep. Let each one of us take a vow to do one good act everyday for our city. Citizens should be the foremost caretakers.
As for the planning and the administrative agencies, each operates for themselves. We are unable to coordinate. All have their priorities and are insensitive to wasting time and resources in duplicating activities. A PWD or the municipality paves a road, which is dug up the very next day to lay sewerage pipes or telecom cables and then left in an unkempt condition for the municipality to repair. The road continues to be a public hazard for months together or sometimes even for years! Again, when streets are swept, the garbage is collected by another agency or division that takes their own time to lift it. By then the garbage is scattered by the wind all over again. I sometimes wonder as to who created our systems? Or perhaps, who spoilt our systems that were in place once upon a time! It sounds like a fairytale today! Are we a pack of illogical citizens with no common sense at all? I am refraining from talking of intelligence. That is confined only to our conference halls and board rooms! We are happy with our malls and supermarkets. We think that is development; not building systems that work. I thought development brings about refinement; sympathy for others; consideration for fellow citizens. Does that hold good for Indians? Everyone feels s/he should get priority in enjoying all the privileges found in a city.
But there was a time when we did things together as a community, joined hands for a common cause, gave succor to the needy and followed rules and regulations. Where have all our virtues gone? There are times when one feels that though underdevelopment gave us a fear psychosis to obey, it at least nurtured the sincerity to follow rules. Today with a sense of independence and confidence we do not care for others. As long as individual needs are satisfied, we are happy. Competition has made us very insensitive to our surroundings. In an effort to survive, we are prepared to knowingly harm others. We want quality time only for ourselves, disregarding how our activities would impact on others. Some are careless, some are defiant, some do not want to interfere and some are frustrated and disinterested. That is our present state of human and social quality. So, do we blame each other or start thinking afresh? Do we take upon ourselves the responsibility to look after our cities or treat them as somebody else’s property? In that case, what right do we have to take from the city the services we enjoy?
I think we need to have urban managers along with our city/urban planners to strategically operationalise implementation. Needless to say legislations might have to be modified or changed to suit the context. Regulators will have to be more ethical and not succumb to political pressures. The strength to do so should come from strict administration. Most of all, the urge to improve the city should come from the common man. Unless we have a sense of ownership (and we all realize that) we will not reach our goals. If each one of us is sincere, we are bound to succeed. But the question is how do we do so?
An effort has to be made to put in place a system that would have adequate flexibility to include modifications with population expansion. We need to take up area development practices step by step and not dig up the entire city at one go and thereby create confusion. We need to decide on the FAR zone-wise (which I think we already have) and stick to the building by-laws. We need to weed out encroachment and corruption for which a lot of cooperation, coordination and courage are required. We need a one window solution for permissions and guidelines to speed up city development activities. Above all, we need community participation, at any cost. This should be made mandatory and fool proof for every residential and commercial area. There are different ways of doing so. Habit formation and awareness will have to be part of the implementation and management processes. We need some social mentors to make things happen. Public-private and community partnerships should be introduced urgently.
All these require discipline and an attitudinal change. If not done willingly it has to be forced on citizens. If we are fined for breaking traffic rules, why are we not penalized for spitting on the roads? I think community organisations will have to become operative to impart such knowledge to people. This has to be done at all income and education levels. Our real problems are not as much of lack of services, as of indiscipline. However, all arrangements will have to be made befitting the culture of the place. The ideology behind any urban renewal process is to do a need assessment of the community, or the users, before estimating to provide and plan.
So far the corporate sector has paid little attention to city development. If citizens, who pay their taxes, can contribute to city improvement (I suggest all citizens to be alert), why cannot the corporate sector take up city development as part of their obligation to the city that houses them and their employees who draw services from the city? Once an industry or a firm is set up, a city provides housing, education, healthcare, recreation, etc. to all its employees. Should the corporate sector then not assist in real estate development for their employees? I would suggest industrial areas or SEZs to be promoting housing complexes for their employees along with adequate social facilities. Townships built by large industries (especially in newly planned cities) are not uncommon in India. Many public sector industries and large business houses (Tata’s, SAIL, BPCL, etc.) have already done so. If immediate requirements of employees are taken care by the employers, the government can look after the interstitial areas by providing and maintaining the connecting infrastructure. What is required is an immense amount of dedication to do so. Why not we give a try at public-private-community partnerships and make our cities better! What is ultimately required is a strong will to attain success; and this will emanate only if we love our cities and towns.
However, ad hocism will have to be eliminated. A careful, meticulous implementation strategy will have to be formulated to make city management efficient. The area development process should be adopted to avoid confusion. This is possible when wardwise development is promoted by the elected councilors. Above all, there is need to train city managers to do their tasks sincerely. Upgrading city infrastructure should be a continuous process with efficient monitoring. This has to be done by one and all and not just the assigned agencies of the city government. Conferences and seminars will then be replaced by action research, planning and management.
We have in India two major city development organisations, the Municipality and the Development Authority, and often a separate Planning Board, over and above an entire gamut of agencies like the PWD, the Urban Arts Commission, the Archaeological Survey of India, all of which work independently and create more confusion in the city than plan and provide services. To add to our woes we also have the Water and Sanitation Boards, the Electricity Boards, the Telecom agencies and all the special Commissions and Authorities to promote ad hoc programmes and projects, rarely with any coordination among them. Above all, we have the Government of India’s Ministry of Urban Development to take care of our cities nationally!
Yet, a visit to any Indian city frustrates a common man, to find each of our cities in utter chaos, be it our mega or metro cities or our small towns. Travel to any city and what first meets your eyes is filth along the railway tracks that welcome each visitor. Enter the city and you find roads with potholes, broken pavements encroached by peddlers and petty businesses, cows and stray dogs running amok on the roads, congested and confused landuse, no street lights, no public toilets or sanitation facilities, with the city’s garbage strewn all over and what have you to add to the disgrace! Even the national capital, Delhi, is not spared of such unpleasantness. As for city aesthetics and landscaping, we Indians do not believe in such ideology! We clean our houses and throw the garbage onto the streets. After all it is not our property; and neither is it our duty to keep the city clean. We pay our taxes to the municipality to do so. Then why should the local government not clean up the city for us, irrespective of how much we dirty it! We feel it is our birthright to misuse public places and shift all responsibility to the government for maintenance.
I sometimes wonder as to when will Indians (and I am one of them) learn to take care of the place where they live? We all appreciate cities of developed countries, their order, their cleanliness, their systems and their aesthetics. But why are we not able to move forward beyond conference halls and board room discussions and repair our own cities? What is in our psyche that makes us ignore the upkeep of the city? Where do we go wrong? What is lacking in our character that prevents us from taking care of our cities? Why do we take pride in disobeying rules? Why do we encroach pavements that are meant for pedestrians to walk? Why do we spit on the roads? And why do we use every street corner as a urinal? So, what should we do to bring some sanity into our cities and urban living? Where do we begin? Should we start with sanitation and infrastructure or with housing and area planning?
Such city conditions only go to prove that there is something very fundamentally wrong with our culture. We do not love our habitats, and of course, we have no respect either for our cities or our fellow citizens, for we never ever think of keeping the place clean, leave alone following rules or abiding by regulations. How many of us ever think that an act of mine might trouble another? We are selfish down to the core. As long as an individual is satisfied, why bother about others! Irregular parking of cars in unauthorized places is a live example.
Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Who lives in a city? Why do we live in a city? Who uses the city’s infrastructure? Who earns a livelihood from the city; or does business in a city to earn a profit? Who comes to the city for recreation, studies and medical care? Each one of us who come to the city to gain from it should look after the city. The common expectation is to seek government help. But do individuals not use or enjoy city benefits? If so, how much are we contributing to its upkeep or development? The poor are unable to pay the taxes; the middle income group wants their taxes to be minimal; and the corporate sector wants all infrastructural services free of cost. We do not want to give. We only believe in receiving. As for following regulatory measures, we feel proud to break rules and revel at one-upmanship. We do not want to acknowledge social prudence. We wonder why people cannot mind their own business!
Leave aside personal attitudes that are a function of our surroundings and upbringing. I feel we need to be more professional and introduce systematic and mandatory area development. India is well advanced in framing laws and rules. We already have in place provisions for area planning and development through the 74th amendment of our Constitution. We elect our local government representatives who misuse the powers bestowed on them. We have contemplated adequately on public-private partnerships in practically all our policy documents to emulate the West. We have defined roles of agencies and assigned responsibilities to various actors and players meticulously. Then where have we failed? I think each one of us should search our hearts to find if we have been good to our city and have contributed to our city’s development or upkeep. Let each one of us take a vow to do one good act everyday for our city. Citizens should be the foremost caretakers.
As for the planning and the administrative agencies, each operates for themselves. We are unable to coordinate. All have their priorities and are insensitive to wasting time and resources in duplicating activities. A PWD or the municipality paves a road, which is dug up the very next day to lay sewerage pipes or telecom cables and then left in an unkempt condition for the municipality to repair. The road continues to be a public hazard for months together or sometimes even for years! Again, when streets are swept, the garbage is collected by another agency or division that takes their own time to lift it. By then the garbage is scattered by the wind all over again. I sometimes wonder as to who created our systems? Or perhaps, who spoilt our systems that were in place once upon a time! It sounds like a fairytale today! Are we a pack of illogical citizens with no common sense at all? I am refraining from talking of intelligence. That is confined only to our conference halls and board rooms! We are happy with our malls and supermarkets. We think that is development; not building systems that work. I thought development brings about refinement; sympathy for others; consideration for fellow citizens. Does that hold good for Indians? Everyone feels s/he should get priority in enjoying all the privileges found in a city.
But there was a time when we did things together as a community, joined hands for a common cause, gave succor to the needy and followed rules and regulations. Where have all our virtues gone? There are times when one feels that though underdevelopment gave us a fear psychosis to obey, it at least nurtured the sincerity to follow rules. Today with a sense of independence and confidence we do not care for others. As long as individual needs are satisfied, we are happy. Competition has made us very insensitive to our surroundings. In an effort to survive, we are prepared to knowingly harm others. We want quality time only for ourselves, disregarding how our activities would impact on others. Some are careless, some are defiant, some do not want to interfere and some are frustrated and disinterested. That is our present state of human and social quality. So, do we blame each other or start thinking afresh? Do we take upon ourselves the responsibility to look after our cities or treat them as somebody else’s property? In that case, what right do we have to take from the city the services we enjoy?
I think we need to have urban managers along with our city/urban planners to strategically operationalise implementation. Needless to say legislations might have to be modified or changed to suit the context. Regulators will have to be more ethical and not succumb to political pressures. The strength to do so should come from strict administration. Most of all, the urge to improve the city should come from the common man. Unless we have a sense of ownership (and we all realize that) we will not reach our goals. If each one of us is sincere, we are bound to succeed. But the question is how do we do so?
An effort has to be made to put in place a system that would have adequate flexibility to include modifications with population expansion. We need to take up area development practices step by step and not dig up the entire city at one go and thereby create confusion. We need to decide on the FAR zone-wise (which I think we already have) and stick to the building by-laws. We need to weed out encroachment and corruption for which a lot of cooperation, coordination and courage are required. We need a one window solution for permissions and guidelines to speed up city development activities. Above all, we need community participation, at any cost. This should be made mandatory and fool proof for every residential and commercial area. There are different ways of doing so. Habit formation and awareness will have to be part of the implementation and management processes. We need some social mentors to make things happen. Public-private and community partnerships should be introduced urgently.
All these require discipline and an attitudinal change. If not done willingly it has to be forced on citizens. If we are fined for breaking traffic rules, why are we not penalized for spitting on the roads? I think community organisations will have to become operative to impart such knowledge to people. This has to be done at all income and education levels. Our real problems are not as much of lack of services, as of indiscipline. However, all arrangements will have to be made befitting the culture of the place. The ideology behind any urban renewal process is to do a need assessment of the community, or the users, before estimating to provide and plan.
So far the corporate sector has paid little attention to city development. If citizens, who pay their taxes, can contribute to city improvement (I suggest all citizens to be alert), why cannot the corporate sector take up city development as part of their obligation to the city that houses them and their employees who draw services from the city? Once an industry or a firm is set up, a city provides housing, education, healthcare, recreation, etc. to all its employees. Should the corporate sector then not assist in real estate development for their employees? I would suggest industrial areas or SEZs to be promoting housing complexes for their employees along with adequate social facilities. Townships built by large industries (especially in newly planned cities) are not uncommon in India. Many public sector industries and large business houses (Tata’s, SAIL, BPCL, etc.) have already done so. If immediate requirements of employees are taken care by the employers, the government can look after the interstitial areas by providing and maintaining the connecting infrastructure. What is required is an immense amount of dedication to do so. Why not we give a try at public-private-community partnerships and make our cities better! What is ultimately required is a strong will to attain success; and this will emanate only if we love our cities and towns.
However, ad hocism will have to be eliminated. A careful, meticulous implementation strategy will have to be formulated to make city management efficient. The area development process should be adopted to avoid confusion. This is possible when wardwise development is promoted by the elected councilors. Above all, there is need to train city managers to do their tasks sincerely. Upgrading city infrastructure should be a continuous process with efficient monitoring. This has to be done by one and all and not just the assigned agencies of the city government. Conferences and seminars will then be replaced by action research, planning and management.
Friday, February 26, 2010
CULTURE, EMPLOYMENT AND ADJUSTMENT TO WORKPLACE
Low Income Group
The poor still attach more importance to boys. Hence the size of the family gets determined by gender and not by number. This is partly because of lineage and partly for economic reasons. In India girls from traditional homes get married and go to live in their in-laws’ house. They are expected to completely give up their identity and merge with her husband’s family and play a subordinate role in the recipient family until she matures into a member of the new family after childbirth. Her claim as a member of the family is strengthened by her becoming the mother of her husband’s child. A male child is given all the privileges for self-development vis-à-vis a girl. When a son is born after many daughters, the sisters look after the brother who is provided with more privileges than the sisters. This importance is also given to the son in expectation of his contributing to the economic welfare of the family. While interviewing households to learn about child-rearing practices, this element of family structure emerged very strongly not only in the villages, but also among the low income groups in cities.
Migration from low-income families is mostly of boys and not of girls. The latter leaves home only after marriage. An emphasis is put on girls to learn domestic work and remain at home to help the mother in housework and bring up younger siblings. They are not sent to distantly located schools for education; whereas boys are sent to better schools away from home. They commute by public transport or bicycles to schools and colleges and are often expected to help the father with work outside home. Thus gender determines the role to be played, which has a massive impact on personality development. A girl is not exposed to the outside world like a boy and is expected to remain submissive and subordinate to the elders and the male members of the family.
When a girl moves out of her parental home into that of her in-laws, she is expected to adapt to the cultures of the recipient family. Whereas, when boys move out of home to work, they have to adjust to the culture of the workplace. In the case of a girl, adjustment is conditioned by the conduct and openness of the other members of the family. In the case of boys, the economic factor rules the roost. It has been found that adjustment is better when financial status is good, ie when a person is satisfied with the salary or earnings s/he is able to adjust better. But if financially unstable, emotional attachment to the family is stronger.
The poor who come to the city for work/livelihood stay with friends or kin from the same village or State as they can relate to each other. In India this is all the more common because of language differences of the States. They usually leave their conjugal family behind for want of adequate economic support in the city. It is universally known that living expenses in a city are more than that of the village. With part of the basic family living in the parental home or native place, the male earner is inclined to make frequent visits, whenever he gets a chance to go home, be it for festivals or in times of need, especially during illnesses.
For those who are economically sound, ie. the section that is able to reach the upper rungs of the ladder, the process of adjustment is easier, as they can afford to bring to the city their immediate family. For such families, aspirations change. They begin to appreciate the greater advantages of cities, especially higher education for their children. Parents with less education want their children to have better education than themselves and develop into professionals or earn higher salaries. They get attuned to city culture with a much more open mind and plan to settle down in the same city and adopt urban ways of living. Children of such parents grow up as urbanites and take advantage of the opportunities available in the city. These are then the long-term migrants who do not return to their native place and contribute to the urban human capital. Such people subsequently move from one city to another, instead of from the village to the city and back.
Traditions of the poor often become a burden on them, eg. gifts during marriages of relatives often become unaffordable. Yet they try to maintain such tradition for the sake of emotional support.
Middle Income Group
The middle income group mostly holds professionals. These could be either from the rural or urban areas. Primary data reveals that those who come from the village in search of a job/livelihood do not fall into this category. It normally includes people who come to the city for higher education and then stay back for jobs, as urban education changes their outlook towards life and they either become more ambitious or are unable to adjust back into the village. If they succeed in doing what they want to do, they adjust well both in their workplace, as well as to an urban way of life. But if their achievements fall short of their aspirations, they tend to get homesick or depressed and develop a sense of insecurity that goads them to return to their native place. But generally, urban living is so infectious, that very few want to return, except those who have left their families in the village to initially cope with the higher city expenses which they are unable to meet. Solvency makes people enjoy life and get adjusted to the workplace because of higher remunerations and to a city life when their purchasing power improves. It is then that extended families are formed with parents coming to stay with children working in the city. This is true for all the sub-categories of the middle income group.
The middle income group does not live away from their conjugal families, as it often happens with the poor, who are unable to afford a city life because of higher expenses. Hence there is no desire or attraction to go back to their parental home. Children from middle income groups of villages and small towns, on the contrary, try to settle down in larger cities to benefit from city opportunities and do well in life. Very often their aspirations and exposure to modern prospects open for them new avenues of work and living, leading to globalization, so that their next migratory move is to explore different countries of the world; so that while bonding with the immediate family remains, ties with distant relatives weaken, unless nurtured by their parents. In such cases the parents act as a link between tradition and modern. The family cultures that are instilled in the modern generation are mostly through parents and sometimes by grandparents in case of extended families. Under the circumstances family ties certainly get diluted despite retention of all middle class values and traditions of the Indian society.
Upper Income Group
This group is more mobile, both socially and physically. With enough money to fulfill all desires, the upper income group moves in and out of villages very easily and frequently. Initially they move out of their native place to study. Having done so, they stay back in cities, but keep visiting their ancestral home now and then during holidays. They maintain properties both in the city and the village. Cultivation of their agricultural land is done by hired managers and labour and they visit the village collectively with their families during festivals. These people become total urbanites and lead an urban way of life. They renovate their village homes for visits and establish themselves in their jobs or businesses in the city or even outside the country. The rich, therefore, adjust themselves very well, as it is mostly on their own terms and conditions. Hence even though they are migrants, adjustment to work and place is not an issue for them. Neither is migration an important element in their life.
Traditions that keep such families bound together are not for purposes of survival or economic support, but to distinguish themselves in their peer group. They hold their culture with pride and do not let it be a burden on them.
Summary
The poor often do not adjust well to the city and the workplace for want of better economic security. This calls for a social support to compensate for the shortcoming. They are frequently exploited in their workplace, whether rural or urban.
The middle income group adjusts well if they are economically sound and satisfied with their place of work. Though intense professionalism dilutes bonds, for want of time for interaction, they are happy with their place of work and compromise on family interaction and traditions for want of time.
The rich are their own masters. They adjust well wherever they go, as they do so on their own terms.
Acknowledgement
The write-up is based on primary data collected from 200 households of A.P., M.P. Bihar, Delhi and the NCR for an in-house research project of IWSB, in which the author is involved.
The poor still attach more importance to boys. Hence the size of the family gets determined by gender and not by number. This is partly because of lineage and partly for economic reasons. In India girls from traditional homes get married and go to live in their in-laws’ house. They are expected to completely give up their identity and merge with her husband’s family and play a subordinate role in the recipient family until she matures into a member of the new family after childbirth. Her claim as a member of the family is strengthened by her becoming the mother of her husband’s child. A male child is given all the privileges for self-development vis-à-vis a girl. When a son is born after many daughters, the sisters look after the brother who is provided with more privileges than the sisters. This importance is also given to the son in expectation of his contributing to the economic welfare of the family. While interviewing households to learn about child-rearing practices, this element of family structure emerged very strongly not only in the villages, but also among the low income groups in cities.
Migration from low-income families is mostly of boys and not of girls. The latter leaves home only after marriage. An emphasis is put on girls to learn domestic work and remain at home to help the mother in housework and bring up younger siblings. They are not sent to distantly located schools for education; whereas boys are sent to better schools away from home. They commute by public transport or bicycles to schools and colleges and are often expected to help the father with work outside home. Thus gender determines the role to be played, which has a massive impact on personality development. A girl is not exposed to the outside world like a boy and is expected to remain submissive and subordinate to the elders and the male members of the family.
When a girl moves out of her parental home into that of her in-laws, she is expected to adapt to the cultures of the recipient family. Whereas, when boys move out of home to work, they have to adjust to the culture of the workplace. In the case of a girl, adjustment is conditioned by the conduct and openness of the other members of the family. In the case of boys, the economic factor rules the roost. It has been found that adjustment is better when financial status is good, ie when a person is satisfied with the salary or earnings s/he is able to adjust better. But if financially unstable, emotional attachment to the family is stronger.
The poor who come to the city for work/livelihood stay with friends or kin from the same village or State as they can relate to each other. In India this is all the more common because of language differences of the States. They usually leave their conjugal family behind for want of adequate economic support in the city. It is universally known that living expenses in a city are more than that of the village. With part of the basic family living in the parental home or native place, the male earner is inclined to make frequent visits, whenever he gets a chance to go home, be it for festivals or in times of need, especially during illnesses.
For those who are economically sound, ie. the section that is able to reach the upper rungs of the ladder, the process of adjustment is easier, as they can afford to bring to the city their immediate family. For such families, aspirations change. They begin to appreciate the greater advantages of cities, especially higher education for their children. Parents with less education want their children to have better education than themselves and develop into professionals or earn higher salaries. They get attuned to city culture with a much more open mind and plan to settle down in the same city and adopt urban ways of living. Children of such parents grow up as urbanites and take advantage of the opportunities available in the city. These are then the long-term migrants who do not return to their native place and contribute to the urban human capital. Such people subsequently move from one city to another, instead of from the village to the city and back.
Traditions of the poor often become a burden on them, eg. gifts during marriages of relatives often become unaffordable. Yet they try to maintain such tradition for the sake of emotional support.
Middle Income Group
The middle income group mostly holds professionals. These could be either from the rural or urban areas. Primary data reveals that those who come from the village in search of a job/livelihood do not fall into this category. It normally includes people who come to the city for higher education and then stay back for jobs, as urban education changes their outlook towards life and they either become more ambitious or are unable to adjust back into the village. If they succeed in doing what they want to do, they adjust well both in their workplace, as well as to an urban way of life. But if their achievements fall short of their aspirations, they tend to get homesick or depressed and develop a sense of insecurity that goads them to return to their native place. But generally, urban living is so infectious, that very few want to return, except those who have left their families in the village to initially cope with the higher city expenses which they are unable to meet. Solvency makes people enjoy life and get adjusted to the workplace because of higher remunerations and to a city life when their purchasing power improves. It is then that extended families are formed with parents coming to stay with children working in the city. This is true for all the sub-categories of the middle income group.
The middle income group does not live away from their conjugal families, as it often happens with the poor, who are unable to afford a city life because of higher expenses. Hence there is no desire or attraction to go back to their parental home. Children from middle income groups of villages and small towns, on the contrary, try to settle down in larger cities to benefit from city opportunities and do well in life. Very often their aspirations and exposure to modern prospects open for them new avenues of work and living, leading to globalization, so that their next migratory move is to explore different countries of the world; so that while bonding with the immediate family remains, ties with distant relatives weaken, unless nurtured by their parents. In such cases the parents act as a link between tradition and modern. The family cultures that are instilled in the modern generation are mostly through parents and sometimes by grandparents in case of extended families. Under the circumstances family ties certainly get diluted despite retention of all middle class values and traditions of the Indian society.
Upper Income Group
This group is more mobile, both socially and physically. With enough money to fulfill all desires, the upper income group moves in and out of villages very easily and frequently. Initially they move out of their native place to study. Having done so, they stay back in cities, but keep visiting their ancestral home now and then during holidays. They maintain properties both in the city and the village. Cultivation of their agricultural land is done by hired managers and labour and they visit the village collectively with their families during festivals. These people become total urbanites and lead an urban way of life. They renovate their village homes for visits and establish themselves in their jobs or businesses in the city or even outside the country. The rich, therefore, adjust themselves very well, as it is mostly on their own terms and conditions. Hence even though they are migrants, adjustment to work and place is not an issue for them. Neither is migration an important element in their life.
Traditions that keep such families bound together are not for purposes of survival or economic support, but to distinguish themselves in their peer group. They hold their culture with pride and do not let it be a burden on them.
Summary
The poor often do not adjust well to the city and the workplace for want of better economic security. This calls for a social support to compensate for the shortcoming. They are frequently exploited in their workplace, whether rural or urban.
The middle income group adjusts well if they are economically sound and satisfied with their place of work. Though intense professionalism dilutes bonds, for want of time for interaction, they are happy with their place of work and compromise on family interaction and traditions for want of time.
The rich are their own masters. They adjust well wherever they go, as they do so on their own terms.
Acknowledgement
The write-up is based on primary data collected from 200 households of A.P., M.P. Bihar, Delhi and the NCR for an in-house research project of IWSB, in which the author is involved.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
MIGRATION AND CHILD REARING
Migration Trends
The need for migration arises under complex conditions. In the rural areas it is deeply influenced by the availability of livelihoods that is related to agricultural productivity and market conditions. It is also a consequence of the lack of social services, especially education and healthcare. The urge for self development often drives people out of villages. These are all centrifugal forces affecting the family structure, agricultural productivity and rural development. Lack of scope for human development in the rural areas is a major drawback instigating villagers to move out of their homeland. Thus migration from rural to urban is both reactive and proactive.
Urban to urban migration, on the other hand, is mostly aspiration-based and is proactive. With growing knowledge and scope for employment and development, urbanites are not just moving from one city to another, they are also going abroad to foreign lands for higher education, self-development and also for better jobs. All such movements certainly have a profound influence on child-rearing or vice versa.
1.Rural to Urban Migration
When a child is sent for education to the city from a rural area, s/he faces a major cultural change adjusting to the urban way of life that is very different from what s/he is used to. The child has to adjust to factors of anonymity, different technologies and a totally new living environment of small houses (as urban land is scarce) in congested neibourhoods. Here the equation with neighbours is very different. Such circumstances inculcate isolation and a child coming from a joint family or living amongst kin becomes homesick and visits home frequently, especially when it is individual migration in search of a job or for education. However, often children from low-income groups prefer to go for shared living that gives them a sense of collectivity and security. Such migrants have very strong emotional ties with their families and visit home for every festival or in times of need. In cases where monetary remittances have to be made, the ties are even stronger.
However, as young migrants grow and develop and settle down permanently in cities/towns, they tend to marry and have their own nuclear families, until which time they remain a part of the original conjugal/joint family. The second generation of migrant families is born urbanites, with less direct links with the village. They consider their parents’ families as relatives and often find it uncomfortable to visit villages because of their getting used to an urban way of life. Such children see better scope for development in cities. Their aspirations also change because of the exposure to the variety available in the city.
As revealed from primary data assessment, the younger generation from villages even otherwise does not want to pursue agriculture. Cities, therefore, attract all the more, even though they often face difficulties. Hence, the will to adjust is intense; it becomes almost an issue of survival of the fittest! The poor come for survival and adjust to urban ways of life.
2.Urban to Urban Migration
In the case of urban to urban migration, aspirations become more prominent. The issue here is of scope for still higher achievements. If scope does not match aspirations, children are sent away from home to live in hostels to fulfill their desires (could be of the children or their parents). The pressure on self-development and professional development is so high that children get isolated from the family. Though in their early childhood they miss home, they get so naturalized into an urban way of life, with all its speed, that they drift gradually from family cultures and ties. Visiting home becomes rare, though technology helps them to keep in touch with parents, ties with relatives get diluted, more so after marriage.
The urban poor follow a rural pattern of interaction with the parent family. For the poor the family remains a source of emotional support. Since many of them come from rural areas, visits to villages are frequent. Living in low-income group housing, there is hardly any social mobility. Hence ties do not get diluted as much as it does with typical modern living.
Summary
Distance and aspirations are two major components diluting family ties. In the case of the rural poor, migration is more in search of livelihood for survival, though aspirations do play an influencing role. As mentioned, the younger generation does not want to cultivate their land anymore. Given the vicissitudes of rainfed agriculture, which is still prevalent in many parts of India, agricultural productivity is very uncertain and cannot be economically relied upon. This encourages migration further.
For the rural rich, the pattern follows that of an urban to urban migration. It is actually a change in the scale from that of rural migration. While the poor migrate for survival, the rich migrate to enhance their career. Economic conditions play a very dominant role, as any migration is influenced by better earnings or scope for better jobs.
When children move from one place to another, the impact of the culture of the place has less impression on them. Identifying themselves to a specific place does not occur. Neither are they able to assimilate the culture of a particular place, which they can call their home. As they drift from one place to another, they do not develop roots that were traditionally so common in the past. In olden times, in the south of India, place names were added to an individual’s name to establish identity and to relate. That is absent today. Moreover, the western culture of addressing an individual by his/her first name rules out further possibility of collectivism and acknowledges individualism and competitiveness. Hence migration brings about a move from dependency to independence.
The need for migration arises under complex conditions. In the rural areas it is deeply influenced by the availability of livelihoods that is related to agricultural productivity and market conditions. It is also a consequence of the lack of social services, especially education and healthcare. The urge for self development often drives people out of villages. These are all centrifugal forces affecting the family structure, agricultural productivity and rural development. Lack of scope for human development in the rural areas is a major drawback instigating villagers to move out of their homeland. Thus migration from rural to urban is both reactive and proactive.
Urban to urban migration, on the other hand, is mostly aspiration-based and is proactive. With growing knowledge and scope for employment and development, urbanites are not just moving from one city to another, they are also going abroad to foreign lands for higher education, self-development and also for better jobs. All such movements certainly have a profound influence on child-rearing or vice versa.
1.Rural to Urban Migration
When a child is sent for education to the city from a rural area, s/he faces a major cultural change adjusting to the urban way of life that is very different from what s/he is used to. The child has to adjust to factors of anonymity, different technologies and a totally new living environment of small houses (as urban land is scarce) in congested neibourhoods. Here the equation with neighbours is very different. Such circumstances inculcate isolation and a child coming from a joint family or living amongst kin becomes homesick and visits home frequently, especially when it is individual migration in search of a job or for education. However, often children from low-income groups prefer to go for shared living that gives them a sense of collectivity and security. Such migrants have very strong emotional ties with their families and visit home for every festival or in times of need. In cases where monetary remittances have to be made, the ties are even stronger.
However, as young migrants grow and develop and settle down permanently in cities/towns, they tend to marry and have their own nuclear families, until which time they remain a part of the original conjugal/joint family. The second generation of migrant families is born urbanites, with less direct links with the village. They consider their parents’ families as relatives and often find it uncomfortable to visit villages because of their getting used to an urban way of life. Such children see better scope for development in cities. Their aspirations also change because of the exposure to the variety available in the city.
As revealed from primary data assessment, the younger generation from villages even otherwise does not want to pursue agriculture. Cities, therefore, attract all the more, even though they often face difficulties. Hence, the will to adjust is intense; it becomes almost an issue of survival of the fittest! The poor come for survival and adjust to urban ways of life.
2.Urban to Urban Migration
In the case of urban to urban migration, aspirations become more prominent. The issue here is of scope for still higher achievements. If scope does not match aspirations, children are sent away from home to live in hostels to fulfill their desires (could be of the children or their parents). The pressure on self-development and professional development is so high that children get isolated from the family. Though in their early childhood they miss home, they get so naturalized into an urban way of life, with all its speed, that they drift gradually from family cultures and ties. Visiting home becomes rare, though technology helps them to keep in touch with parents, ties with relatives get diluted, more so after marriage.
The urban poor follow a rural pattern of interaction with the parent family. For the poor the family remains a source of emotional support. Since many of them come from rural areas, visits to villages are frequent. Living in low-income group housing, there is hardly any social mobility. Hence ties do not get diluted as much as it does with typical modern living.
Summary
Distance and aspirations are two major components diluting family ties. In the case of the rural poor, migration is more in search of livelihood for survival, though aspirations do play an influencing role. As mentioned, the younger generation does not want to cultivate their land anymore. Given the vicissitudes of rainfed agriculture, which is still prevalent in many parts of India, agricultural productivity is very uncertain and cannot be economically relied upon. This encourages migration further.
For the rural rich, the pattern follows that of an urban to urban migration. It is actually a change in the scale from that of rural migration. While the poor migrate for survival, the rich migrate to enhance their career. Economic conditions play a very dominant role, as any migration is influenced by better earnings or scope for better jobs.
When children move from one place to another, the impact of the culture of the place has less impression on them. Identifying themselves to a specific place does not occur. Neither are they able to assimilate the culture of a particular place, which they can call their home. As they drift from one place to another, they do not develop roots that were traditionally so common in the past. In olden times, in the south of India, place names were added to an individual’s name to establish identity and to relate. That is absent today. Moreover, the western culture of addressing an individual by his/her first name rules out further possibility of collectivism and acknowledges individualism and competitiveness. Hence migration brings about a move from dependency to independence.
Monday, January 18, 2010
RURAL LIVELIHOODS
GeNext of rural households do not want to live in villages anymore. The nation’s effort to spread education has finally enticed them to go to school and acquire knowledge, only to leave their homesteads for more remunerative livelihoods of cities. Very few of the younger generation of rural areas want to follow their heritage livelihoods of being farmers and agriculturists. Neither do they want to follow the traditional non-farm jobs of their parents, if any. They are all leaving their village homes to migrate to cities for non-farm unskilled jobs, where they encounter considerable difficulties in adjusting to an alien urban life. Yet they prefer such employment against farm practices or traditional village jobs, as urban wages are far more attractive than rural wages. Moreover, because of the global warming process leading to climate changes, farmers do not want to face the risk of weather vicissitudes and the instability of rainfed agriculture. The senior generation in the villages is, therefore, not persuading their children anymore to stay back in the villages to eke out a hand-to-mouth existence. On the contrary, they are encouraging their children to go out and earn a better living for themselves and/or to support the family back home. This is creating a serious void of agriculture labour in rural areas. The casual labour of villages or the farm labours today prefer to work in the city where the daily wages are higher. Moreover, accessibility these days is not that difficult. Villages are mostly well-connected and villagers can commute daily to nearby cities.
In contrast, urban children are more often than not following their parents’ footsteps and family professions, under very close parental guidance. Globalization has thrown open to them a plethora of choices to fancy and to practice. For villagers the compulsions of leaving home are more economic than social. Rural parents are unable to convince their children of the benefits of agriculture because they themselves are facing the changing trends in the climate and in the government policies. The dilemma is that villagers are unsure of the returns from their land even though the country as a whole is self-sufficient in foodgrains. Or is it that modern living and the employment scope in cities are pulling people out of villages?
Of the school going children in the villages, more boys are getting educated in the high schools than the girls (though there is a steady rise in their number, the percentage is still lower). This is because of a gender bias, with the boys being in an advantageous position than the girls, pertaining to commuting to schools distantly located either by cycling or in public transport. The girls, because of personal security are not permitted to commute long distances (unaccompanied) in public transport or to cycle down to schools far away from home. Thus parents prefer girls to study in the village school, which generally functions as a middle school. However, private education is becoming very popular, as learning English for better communication, to widen the scope for employment, is now being valued and is becoming popular. The private market in education is providing this scope to village children, which is supported by improvements in road transportation, whereby students from the villages are picked up and dropped back home (though at a cost) by the school vehicle.
Ambitions have also risen because of exposure to modern trends in education and living. Young boys now want to learn computers and work outside the village, as IT jobs have not yet penetrated villages. From a survey done on Child Rearing Practices (by Indus World School of Business) we found that boys would like to venture into diversified activities; whereas any village girl wanting to go for higher studies opted to become a doctor! Such thinking indicates lack of awareness of modern employment opportunities because of less exposure to the outside world.
The parents of these children are also going through a transition. While on the one hand they are becoming aware of the enlarged scope for livelihoods (often from their children) in the cities, they are unable to leave their homesteads and assets (which is basically immovable property) to settle in urban areas for better earnings. The reasons, however, are more social than economic. With changing trends of consumption, those who are diversifying their agriculture from foodgrains to cash crops are surviving the onslaught of modernism, including policy changes. But for those who do not have the scope to diversify, subsistence farming is the only option. Because of the rising costs of farm labour (as migration has become rampant) and low government levies for foodgrains, it is often not economical for many agriculturists to grow foodgrains anymore. Hence farmers, who grow only foodgrains, produce mostly for home consumption, even though marketing foodgrains have become easy with the development of “mandies” (markets) nearby, where their produce can be easily transported and sold. Growing cereals is, therefore, not remunerative anymore, unless they cater to a more diversified market of flowers, fruits, vegetables or other value-added cash crops such as soya beans, spices or cotton. With changing culinary habits, agribusiness in livestock is also becoming popular. Moreover, division of farmland from heritage adds to the woes of small farmers. Subdivision of agricultural land takes its toll on the income of those who own such land.
Another set of subsistence farmers are those who during their employable days go to the city to earn non-farm livelihoods or to do some stable public sector jobs (while their older generation looks after the land) and then come back home after retirement from an organized sector to lead a more peaceful life and follow the same occupation as their forefathers, to sustain themselves. Such “first time” farmers tend to only fend for themselves with the help of one or two not so well educated children who cannot work in cities because of lack of education and are compelled to stay in the villages with parents and work for agriculture. In such families the rest of the members of the third generation, especially the sons, follow the footsteps of their fathers in getting employed in urban areas, but keeping in touch with home through frequent visits. Such families do not cultivate their land for doing business. They are satisfied if they do not have to buy their daily requirement of foodgrains.
Two types of villagers migrate to cities: (i) those who are rich enough to avail of higher education in cities, on completion of which aspirations change and they do not return to the villages, but remain in the city doing urban jobs and (ii) those who are forced to migrate to the city as a survival strategy to earn a living. It is the second group of villagers who face difficulties in settling down in a city for want of money or fixed assets, as a result of which they live in slums, but soon get attuned to urban life. They earn a living, save some money and send remittances back home to support their kin in the villages. They have close ties with their families living in the villages and visit “home” frequently, especially during festivals or ceremonies. The richer class makes the city their home and do not come back to the village. They normally appoint a manager to take care of their cultivation and immovable properties.
A category of villagers who depend on rainfed agriculture often believe in dual livelihoods, with one non-farm livelihood as a standby under difficult climatic conditions. These people normally acquire one skill or the other which they use in times of need. For example (as witnessed in another of my field trips while working for an ADB TA), many farmers of North Bengal are also weavers, who earn from weaving when crops fail or during lean periods. Close to a city, farmers take up skilled or semi-skilled jobs of truck-drivers or auto-rickshaw drivers, carpenters, masons, potters, etc. when they cannot work in the field. In some cases many live in villages adjacent to urban areas and work in the city. We found cases of carpenters and public-sector workers near Bhopal who live in the village and commute for their daily work. They have very small pieces of land that they till, but cannot depend for their living totally on the soil. This pattern, however, is based on the conditions of water shortage for irrigation or on monsoon failures.
The 2008 World Development Report on Agriculture mentions that GDP growth generated in agriculture has large benefits for the poor and is twice as effective as growth generated in the other sectors. Hence promoting agriculture is still a viable solution to economic growth as it reduces poverty. But at the same time, as countries get richer, contribution of agriculture to the country’s development diminishes. However, rural poverty can only reduce when there is a decline in the rural population and or when agribusinesses increase with urbanization. Actually it is growth in non-farm economy and increase in agriculture productivity that will help rural areas to come out of poverty. In the urbanized economies, agriculture works like any other tradable sector and predominates in some locations (World Development Report on Agriculture, 2008). As our ex-President Dr. Abdul Kalam Azad has said in his PURA concept, growth is possible only when export-oriented productivity increases.
There are two sectors of agriculture – the non-tradable staple crops sector that provide the domestic markets and the tradable non-staple sector that export products for improved income. Staple crop sector is price inelastic (World Development Report on Agriculture, 2008). Moreover in India the government has imposed regulations whereby a certain portion of the grains will have to be compulsorily sold to the Food Corporation of India to provide for the PDS, at a very low levy fixed by the government. Consequently because of less profit, cultivators are reluctant to grow staple crops, thereby posing a serious threat to food security. Corruption here is rampant and producers are loosing patience with the government system to contribute to food security. This has been reported from all large-scale producers of foodgrains. Farmers and cultivators are, therefore, changing over to market-oriented agriculture such as cotton, flowers, other cash crops or even livestocks to fetch them more money to either make profits or breakeven with their investments made in farming. In M.P. a major cash crop is soya beans. Horticulture and floriculture are also becoming popular, especially in villages around cities, where marketing is easy and transport is not a major problem anymore of transferring the produce.
Given the situation India should move towards such agriculture that will enhance growth of other sectors through production and consumption links. Agro-processing and food-marketing can be tried and promoted within the villages. Other agribusinesses like herbicides and fertilizers are yet another solution. At the same time, it is to be remembered that growing food grains is essential to maintain food security. The issue that comes up is whether rural to urban migration is good for the economic development of India at this stage? Does providing unskilled labour to the city outweigh the need for rural productivity? What kinds of skills are required in the city that can be contributed by villagers? Or should there be a reverse process of skill-training of villagers to introduce agribusinesses in villages?
As the World Development report says, agriculture has, in many countries, not been used to its full potential for growth because of its anti-agriculture policy biases and underinvestment, and often compounded by misinvestments and donor neglect, with high costs in human sufferings. But the challenge today is of smallholder-driven approach to agricultural growth that reconciles to economic, social and environmental functions of agriculture. The dilemma is of sustaining productivity and income growth in the face of declining prices for grains and traditional exports. However, rising demands for high-value horticultural and livestock products in these rapidly growing economies offer farmers opportunities to diversify into new markets.
The World Bank report also mentions that agriculture’s performance has been impressive in the recent past. From 1980 to 2004, the gross domestic product (GDP) of agriculture expanded globally on an average of 2.0 per cent a year, which is more than the population growth of 1.6 per cent a year. This growth, driven by increasing productivity, pushed down the real price of grains in the world market by 1.8 per cent a year over the same period. Developing countries achieved much faster agricultural growth (2.6 per cent a year) than industrial countries (0.9 per cent a year) in 1980 – 2004. Developing countries accounted for 79 per cent of overall agricultural growth during this period. Their share of world agriculture in the GDP rose from 56 per cent in 1980 to 65 per cent in 2004. In contrast they accounted for only 21 per cent of non-agricultural GDP in 2004. The transforming economies of Asia (of which India is a part) accounted for 2/3rd of the developing world’s agricultural growth. The major contributor to growth in Asia and the developing world in general was productivity gains, rather than expansion of land devoted to agriculture. But the dilemma is that due to rising productivity, prices have been declining for cereals – especially for rice, which is the developing world’s major staple food – and for traditional developing-world export products such as cotton and coffee. Improvement has been due to the use of better technology, better policy and the application of widespread irrigation, improved variety of crops and the use of fertilizers, although crop improvements have extended well beyond the irrigated areas to embrace huge areas of rainfed agriculture. Another reason for expansion has been the growth in livestock. So is the case with horticulture and aquaculture. In India there has been a real revolution in the production and marketing of milk.
Acknowledgement
This write up is based on the field experience I gathered from an IWSB research project for which I visited the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, to work on Culture and Child-rearing Practices.
In contrast, urban children are more often than not following their parents’ footsteps and family professions, under very close parental guidance. Globalization has thrown open to them a plethora of choices to fancy and to practice. For villagers the compulsions of leaving home are more economic than social. Rural parents are unable to convince their children of the benefits of agriculture because they themselves are facing the changing trends in the climate and in the government policies. The dilemma is that villagers are unsure of the returns from their land even though the country as a whole is self-sufficient in foodgrains. Or is it that modern living and the employment scope in cities are pulling people out of villages?
Of the school going children in the villages, more boys are getting educated in the high schools than the girls (though there is a steady rise in their number, the percentage is still lower). This is because of a gender bias, with the boys being in an advantageous position than the girls, pertaining to commuting to schools distantly located either by cycling or in public transport. The girls, because of personal security are not permitted to commute long distances (unaccompanied) in public transport or to cycle down to schools far away from home. Thus parents prefer girls to study in the village school, which generally functions as a middle school. However, private education is becoming very popular, as learning English for better communication, to widen the scope for employment, is now being valued and is becoming popular. The private market in education is providing this scope to village children, which is supported by improvements in road transportation, whereby students from the villages are picked up and dropped back home (though at a cost) by the school vehicle.
Ambitions have also risen because of exposure to modern trends in education and living. Young boys now want to learn computers and work outside the village, as IT jobs have not yet penetrated villages. From a survey done on Child Rearing Practices (by Indus World School of Business) we found that boys would like to venture into diversified activities; whereas any village girl wanting to go for higher studies opted to become a doctor! Such thinking indicates lack of awareness of modern employment opportunities because of less exposure to the outside world.
The parents of these children are also going through a transition. While on the one hand they are becoming aware of the enlarged scope for livelihoods (often from their children) in the cities, they are unable to leave their homesteads and assets (which is basically immovable property) to settle in urban areas for better earnings. The reasons, however, are more social than economic. With changing trends of consumption, those who are diversifying their agriculture from foodgrains to cash crops are surviving the onslaught of modernism, including policy changes. But for those who do not have the scope to diversify, subsistence farming is the only option. Because of the rising costs of farm labour (as migration has become rampant) and low government levies for foodgrains, it is often not economical for many agriculturists to grow foodgrains anymore. Hence farmers, who grow only foodgrains, produce mostly for home consumption, even though marketing foodgrains have become easy with the development of “mandies” (markets) nearby, where their produce can be easily transported and sold. Growing cereals is, therefore, not remunerative anymore, unless they cater to a more diversified market of flowers, fruits, vegetables or other value-added cash crops such as soya beans, spices or cotton. With changing culinary habits, agribusiness in livestock is also becoming popular. Moreover, division of farmland from heritage adds to the woes of small farmers. Subdivision of agricultural land takes its toll on the income of those who own such land.
Another set of subsistence farmers are those who during their employable days go to the city to earn non-farm livelihoods or to do some stable public sector jobs (while their older generation looks after the land) and then come back home after retirement from an organized sector to lead a more peaceful life and follow the same occupation as their forefathers, to sustain themselves. Such “first time” farmers tend to only fend for themselves with the help of one or two not so well educated children who cannot work in cities because of lack of education and are compelled to stay in the villages with parents and work for agriculture. In such families the rest of the members of the third generation, especially the sons, follow the footsteps of their fathers in getting employed in urban areas, but keeping in touch with home through frequent visits. Such families do not cultivate their land for doing business. They are satisfied if they do not have to buy their daily requirement of foodgrains.
Two types of villagers migrate to cities: (i) those who are rich enough to avail of higher education in cities, on completion of which aspirations change and they do not return to the villages, but remain in the city doing urban jobs and (ii) those who are forced to migrate to the city as a survival strategy to earn a living. It is the second group of villagers who face difficulties in settling down in a city for want of money or fixed assets, as a result of which they live in slums, but soon get attuned to urban life. They earn a living, save some money and send remittances back home to support their kin in the villages. They have close ties with their families living in the villages and visit “home” frequently, especially during festivals or ceremonies. The richer class makes the city their home and do not come back to the village. They normally appoint a manager to take care of their cultivation and immovable properties.
A category of villagers who depend on rainfed agriculture often believe in dual livelihoods, with one non-farm livelihood as a standby under difficult climatic conditions. These people normally acquire one skill or the other which they use in times of need. For example (as witnessed in another of my field trips while working for an ADB TA), many farmers of North Bengal are also weavers, who earn from weaving when crops fail or during lean periods. Close to a city, farmers take up skilled or semi-skilled jobs of truck-drivers or auto-rickshaw drivers, carpenters, masons, potters, etc. when they cannot work in the field. In some cases many live in villages adjacent to urban areas and work in the city. We found cases of carpenters and public-sector workers near Bhopal who live in the village and commute for their daily work. They have very small pieces of land that they till, but cannot depend for their living totally on the soil. This pattern, however, is based on the conditions of water shortage for irrigation or on monsoon failures.
The 2008 World Development Report on Agriculture mentions that GDP growth generated in agriculture has large benefits for the poor and is twice as effective as growth generated in the other sectors. Hence promoting agriculture is still a viable solution to economic growth as it reduces poverty. But at the same time, as countries get richer, contribution of agriculture to the country’s development diminishes. However, rural poverty can only reduce when there is a decline in the rural population and or when agribusinesses increase with urbanization. Actually it is growth in non-farm economy and increase in agriculture productivity that will help rural areas to come out of poverty. In the urbanized economies, agriculture works like any other tradable sector and predominates in some locations (World Development Report on Agriculture, 2008). As our ex-President Dr. Abdul Kalam Azad has said in his PURA concept, growth is possible only when export-oriented productivity increases.
There are two sectors of agriculture – the non-tradable staple crops sector that provide the domestic markets and the tradable non-staple sector that export products for improved income. Staple crop sector is price inelastic (World Development Report on Agriculture, 2008). Moreover in India the government has imposed regulations whereby a certain portion of the grains will have to be compulsorily sold to the Food Corporation of India to provide for the PDS, at a very low levy fixed by the government. Consequently because of less profit, cultivators are reluctant to grow staple crops, thereby posing a serious threat to food security. Corruption here is rampant and producers are loosing patience with the government system to contribute to food security. This has been reported from all large-scale producers of foodgrains. Farmers and cultivators are, therefore, changing over to market-oriented agriculture such as cotton, flowers, other cash crops or even livestocks to fetch them more money to either make profits or breakeven with their investments made in farming. In M.P. a major cash crop is soya beans. Horticulture and floriculture are also becoming popular, especially in villages around cities, where marketing is easy and transport is not a major problem anymore of transferring the produce.
Given the situation India should move towards such agriculture that will enhance growth of other sectors through production and consumption links. Agro-processing and food-marketing can be tried and promoted within the villages. Other agribusinesses like herbicides and fertilizers are yet another solution. At the same time, it is to be remembered that growing food grains is essential to maintain food security. The issue that comes up is whether rural to urban migration is good for the economic development of India at this stage? Does providing unskilled labour to the city outweigh the need for rural productivity? What kinds of skills are required in the city that can be contributed by villagers? Or should there be a reverse process of skill-training of villagers to introduce agribusinesses in villages?
As the World Development report says, agriculture has, in many countries, not been used to its full potential for growth because of its anti-agriculture policy biases and underinvestment, and often compounded by misinvestments and donor neglect, with high costs in human sufferings. But the challenge today is of smallholder-driven approach to agricultural growth that reconciles to economic, social and environmental functions of agriculture. The dilemma is of sustaining productivity and income growth in the face of declining prices for grains and traditional exports. However, rising demands for high-value horticultural and livestock products in these rapidly growing economies offer farmers opportunities to diversify into new markets.
The World Bank report also mentions that agriculture’s performance has been impressive in the recent past. From 1980 to 2004, the gross domestic product (GDP) of agriculture expanded globally on an average of 2.0 per cent a year, which is more than the population growth of 1.6 per cent a year. This growth, driven by increasing productivity, pushed down the real price of grains in the world market by 1.8 per cent a year over the same period. Developing countries achieved much faster agricultural growth (2.6 per cent a year) than industrial countries (0.9 per cent a year) in 1980 – 2004. Developing countries accounted for 79 per cent of overall agricultural growth during this period. Their share of world agriculture in the GDP rose from 56 per cent in 1980 to 65 per cent in 2004. In contrast they accounted for only 21 per cent of non-agricultural GDP in 2004. The transforming economies of Asia (of which India is a part) accounted for 2/3rd of the developing world’s agricultural growth. The major contributor to growth in Asia and the developing world in general was productivity gains, rather than expansion of land devoted to agriculture. But the dilemma is that due to rising productivity, prices have been declining for cereals – especially for rice, which is the developing world’s major staple food – and for traditional developing-world export products such as cotton and coffee. Improvement has been due to the use of better technology, better policy and the application of widespread irrigation, improved variety of crops and the use of fertilizers, although crop improvements have extended well beyond the irrigated areas to embrace huge areas of rainfed agriculture. Another reason for expansion has been the growth in livestock. So is the case with horticulture and aquaculture. In India there has been a real revolution in the production and marketing of milk.
Acknowledgement
This write up is based on the field experience I gathered from an IWSB research project for which I visited the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, to work on Culture and Child-rearing Practices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
