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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
THE PURA MODEL
Population growth and economic activities have expanded many cities into metropolises and conurbations (a conglomeration of urban settlements) that have often become difficult to manage because of their large size and consequent complexities. Peri-urban, as well as rural areas have therefore been removed very far away from city centres, with a distance-decay function affecting the provision of urban facilities in rural areas. The net result has been a vicious cycle of centripetal city force attracting rural migrants to take advantage of urban benefits, which include employment, connectivity, education, medical facilities, recreation and often floating population visiting cities for purchasing higher order goods and services. This growth within a city is the impact of agglomeration economies that result from the consolidation of basic infrastructure supporting economic activities and business that leads to a kind of snowballing effect that turns into an urban malady of pollution from congestion and shortage of utilities as the population grows, which heighten the dichotomy between the urban and the rural and encourage further migration. While the rural areas of India suffer from inadequate infrastructure, they are blessed with pollution-free environment, contrary to urban areas that enjoy the benefits of efficient infrastructure, but suffer from congestion and the resulting environmental pollution. In 2001 India had a population of 1,028,610,328 with an urban share of about 28% with a density of around 3664/km2 in contrast to a rural share of 72% population and a density of 238/km2
To overcome this sharp differentiation between the rural and the urban and to make the country more productive, our former President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam had suggested the PURA programme to Provide Urban Amenities in Rural Areas, so that people are less amenable to migration and are also economically more productive, for a sustained growth of the country. His idea was to eliminate migration, so that rural areas remain rich in human resource and do not fall a victim to the maladies of migration and urban congestion. PURA emphasized on “a multiple-connectivity approach” of physical, electronic, knowledge and economic connectivity. It does away with the misnomer that the less educated rural inhabitants should always depend on low remunerative economic activities like handicrafts and household industries. A fact that has always been overlooked while drawing programmes for rural areas is that villages cannot import highly-priced consumables that are common in urban areas, unless their purchasing power improves, and which is best developed by an increase in exports. Economic law says that the higher the income from export, the more will be the capacity to import and the greater will be the purchasing power.
PURA differs from the traditional rural development in several ways:
It aims at a comprehensive development of rural areas, and not mere poverty alleviation
It plans for an investment at urban levels
It aims to halt migration and generate employment in rural areas, often to reverse rural-urban migration
It treats quality infrastructure as a prerequisite and not as a consequence of development
It seeks modern industrial development instead of rural handicrafts and suggests commercialization of services
It aims at private investments and to promote partnerships and not to depend on subsidies
In other words, the focus is to eliminate the need to migrate. However, President Kalam also aspired for a reverse process, which in technical terms is called the process of ‘suburbanization’. All developed countries have gone through this phenomenon. It comes with the development of efficient public transportation and the installation of basic utilities that include telecommunications, water and sanitation, medical assistance, education and electricity, as multiple-connectivity is the essence of development.
Keeping in mind this rural-urban dichotomy, the PURA Model is designed to improve the quality of life in rural areas (built on the concept of elimination of poverty through an even distribution of infrastructure development) with 10-15 villages in approximately 60 km2 area with access to transport arteries within a range of 1 km. PURA focuses on multiple-connectivity, with physical, economic, electronic and knowledge connectivity. It reflects a proactive attitude towards a competitive business environment supported by comprehensive area development, so that henceforth rural development programmes should not be based solely on poverty alleviation and wage-earning, but formulated for a larger context of economic sustainability. PURA is designed:
To benefit from social services, without much commuting, including health and education
To be economically viable, with adequate export-oriented investments and productivity
To be culturally close to one’s roots
To travel the minimum with maximum benefits
To promote private-public-community partnerships.
The model actually focuses on comprehensive area development with backward and forward economic, social and physical linkages, supported by electronic and knowledge connectivity. As our ex-President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had written “India can launch itself into a developed status only when the economic machinery starts “real movement through the infrastructure”.
Dr. Madhusree Mazumdar
Professor, IWSB, Greater Noida
To overcome this sharp differentiation between the rural and the urban and to make the country more productive, our former President A. P. J. Abdul Kalam had suggested the PURA programme to Provide Urban Amenities in Rural Areas, so that people are less amenable to migration and are also economically more productive, for a sustained growth of the country. His idea was to eliminate migration, so that rural areas remain rich in human resource and do not fall a victim to the maladies of migration and urban congestion. PURA emphasized on “a multiple-connectivity approach” of physical, electronic, knowledge and economic connectivity. It does away with the misnomer that the less educated rural inhabitants should always depend on low remunerative economic activities like handicrafts and household industries. A fact that has always been overlooked while drawing programmes for rural areas is that villages cannot import highly-priced consumables that are common in urban areas, unless their purchasing power improves, and which is best developed by an increase in exports. Economic law says that the higher the income from export, the more will be the capacity to import and the greater will be the purchasing power.
PURA differs from the traditional rural development in several ways:
It aims at a comprehensive development of rural areas, and not mere poverty alleviation
It plans for an investment at urban levels
It aims to halt migration and generate employment in rural areas, often to reverse rural-urban migration
It treats quality infrastructure as a prerequisite and not as a consequence of development
It seeks modern industrial development instead of rural handicrafts and suggests commercialization of services
It aims at private investments and to promote partnerships and not to depend on subsidies
In other words, the focus is to eliminate the need to migrate. However, President Kalam also aspired for a reverse process, which in technical terms is called the process of ‘suburbanization’. All developed countries have gone through this phenomenon. It comes with the development of efficient public transportation and the installation of basic utilities that include telecommunications, water and sanitation, medical assistance, education and electricity, as multiple-connectivity is the essence of development.
Keeping in mind this rural-urban dichotomy, the PURA Model is designed to improve the quality of life in rural areas (built on the concept of elimination of poverty through an even distribution of infrastructure development) with 10-15 villages in approximately 60 km2 area with access to transport arteries within a range of 1 km. PURA focuses on multiple-connectivity, with physical, economic, electronic and knowledge connectivity. It reflects a proactive attitude towards a competitive business environment supported by comprehensive area development, so that henceforth rural development programmes should not be based solely on poverty alleviation and wage-earning, but formulated for a larger context of economic sustainability. PURA is designed:
To benefit from social services, without much commuting, including health and education
To be economically viable, with adequate export-oriented investments and productivity
To be culturally close to one’s roots
To travel the minimum with maximum benefits
To promote private-public-community partnerships.
The model actually focuses on comprehensive area development with backward and forward economic, social and physical linkages, supported by electronic and knowledge connectivity. As our ex-President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam had written “India can launch itself into a developed status only when the economic machinery starts “real movement through the infrastructure”.
Dr. Madhusree Mazumdar
Professor, IWSB, Greater Noida
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
