21CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN

RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA:VISION FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Mahalaya ChatterjeeCalcutta University, Kolkata

Email: mahalayac@hotmail.com;mcerco@caluniv.ac.in;cuessuc@gmail.com

AbstractIndia is traditionally treated as a ‘country of villages’, despite thefact it has a long history of urbanization. The structure of the countrywith self-sufficient village economy was destroyed due to twocenturies of colonial rule and the metropolitan cities (the three portcities and the imperial capital) became the face of urbanization inIndia. A the time of the independence, more than 70 percent of thepeople were directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture andalmost an equal proportion of the Gross Domestic Product came fromthe primary sector. Planned effort of development was mostlydirected towards rural sector consisting of the agriculture and a smallartisan-based handicrafts sector. The rural-urban dichotomy wassynonymous with the agriculture-industry divide. The issue of ‘termsof trade’ and rural-urban linkage was also discussed on thatassumption. But after four decades of planned development effortsand two decades of opening up, the time has come revise the wholeidea. This paper argues that the dichotomous approach to developmenthas harmed both the sectors. Now the composition of the GrossDomestic Product is dominated by contribution from the tertiarysector and as far as occupational structure is concerned, the service

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA2

sector has grown at the cost of the agricultural sector, with an almoststagnant secondary sector sandwiched in between. This change hasaffected the rural-urban structure and relationship in a big way. Thebigger urban areas have grown in number and size at the cost ofsmaller towns-breaking the basic link between the village and town.The diseconomies of unmanageable growth of big cities are showingprominently but there is no approach to make the smaller centresmore sustainable and livable. On the other hand, non-remunerativeagriculture is pushing the rural unskilled mass to the informal sectorof the cities. The paper concludes by listing the immediate prioritiesfor the days to come – skill development for the emerging sectors,removing the information gap between the rural and urban throughinnovative use of ICT and integrated settlement planning.

Keywords: Rural-Urban Linkage, Rural-Urban Dichotomy,Urban Hierarchy, Occupational Structure, Integrated SettlementPlanning

IntroductionIndia has been generally held as a country of villages and thedevelopment process was more focused towards rural developmentand the welfare of the rural mass. This was normal considering thefact that at the turn of the last century, only 10 percent of the totalpopulation lived in urban areas. A major part of the Gross domesticProduct came from the primary sector, especially agriculture andmore that ninety percent of the population derived their employmentand livelihood from the sector. After a century only another 18 percentwas added to the urban population of the country. So, most of ourdevelopment efforts, since independence, had been directed towardsthe rural sector. Despite the massive drive for industrialization duringthe Second Five Year Plan (1956-61), the agricultural sector alwaysgot the priority.

However, at the same time, the ‘over-urbanization hypothesis’proclaimed that the level of urbanization of the country did not matchwith its economic structure. The ‘theory of urban bias’ also blamedthe government for prioritising the ‘urban sector’ for its meagreinvestments. It should be noted that both these ideas were results ofthe visibility of the metropolitan centres. The migration of the poor

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 3

people to the biggest cities of the country and joining the informalsector there along with massive transport and infrastructure-relatedprojects in the cities added support to both of these ideas. But inreality, it should be admitted that urban planning and developmentdid never get the attention in Indian development priorities. Theconcentration of opportunities and amenities in bigger cities led to atop-heavy urban structure in the country.

The deficiencies in infrastructure and service level became moreapparent with the opening up of the economy in 1991. The state waswithdrawing its classical role of providing public goods and invitingprivate participation of various forms to fill in the gap. On the otherhand, with the 73rd and 74th Amendment of the Constitution (1992),the responsibilities listed for the third tier of the government (inboth rural and urban sectors) were not at all matching with theirfinancial and human resource capabilities. The response of the Centralgovernment was in terms of some ‘missions’ and ‘yojanas’ againmainly directed towards bigger urban centres.

Given this background, the results of 2011 Population Censusregarding the urban sector came as big surprise. Not only the rate ofurbanisation picked up, it has crossed the rural rate for the first timein the post-independence period. And it has been accompanied bythe emergence of more than 2500 new towns in different parts of thecountry. The number is exceptionally high if we remember that almostequal number of new towns emerged during the last century (1901-2001). All these have compelled us to think about the rural-urbanrelations in the country from a new perspective.

This paper is subdivided into following sub-sections. The secondsection describes changing dimension of rural-urban relationship. Itis followed by a section on the changes in the urban scenario and itsimpact on the rural-urban relationship. The final section is about thepolicies for the future.

Changing Dimensions of Rural-Urban RelationshipIndia had a long history of urbanization. India can boast of superbly-planned urban areas from the days of Indus Valley civilization. Therewere trading towns, seats of governance and pilgrimage centresscattered all over the country, from the ridges of the Himalayas to

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA4

the long sea cost. The villages were almost self-sufficient for theirdaily needs and the rulers in different stages of hierarchy weresatisfied with the fiscal returns. During her long history, there is nonotable evidence of rural-urban conflict.

The advent of European traders five centuries ago culminatedin colonial rule for almost two centuries. The imperial economicpolicies of colonizing country found the country as a market for themass produced goods of the Industrial Revolution and a source ofraw materials for their factories. The symbiotic rural-urban relationshipchanged to a conflicting one. The cities (especially the four metros)were thought as exploiting the countryside – ‘all the blood isaccumulating at the face whereas the body is anemic’. Two of themoist influential thinker of India, Mahatma Gandhi and RabindraNath Tagore talked and worked for rural regeneration throughagricultural development and revival of handicrafts. However, theplight of the toiling workers in the miniscule factory sector also didnot escape their attention. Nevertheless, independent India’s trystwith destiny started with a focus on the rural vis-s-vis agriculturalsector. It was pertinent as more than half of the Gross DomesticProduct in 1950-51 originated from that sector. The manufacturingsector contributed only 14 percent and the rest came from a smalltertiary sector. The last two were in most cases located in the urbanareas and thus there was a clear divide between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’in terms occupational decomposition also. The advent of the‘industrial’ products from abroad almost killed the rural non-farmartisan sector. And thus, the urban-rural linkages changed. The typicalidea of physical, financial and human flows would look like thefollowing Table.

As the Table shows, the rural-urban was almost synonymouswith the agriculture-industry. Gradually, with the deepening of thecapitalist system of production and strengthening of the state power,the third sector (i.e. the tertiary) developed and spread. Butessentially, this sector was also considered as urban as far as locationand employment was concerned. The relationship between the ruraland urban was expressed in terms of the ‘terms of trade’ – the ratioof the prices between rural and urban goods. And the exploitativerelationship emerged as the ‘terms of trade’ was always against therural sector. The rural farmers and artisans had to sell their products

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 5

(mostly distress sells) at a very low price but they had to buy urbangoods and services at a high price apart from paying taxes and otherdues to the government. It was also thought that urban producerscould manipulate their prices because of their nearness to the power.On the other hand, according to the Marxian school of thought, theperiodic crisis of the capitalism emerged due to the lack of purchasingpower of the rural mass, the industrial products and other servicesdid not find markets in the impoverished rural areas.

The situation began to change with the deepening of capitalismin the industrialized countries. With the deepening of capitalism andexpanding industrial sector, there was a demographic transformationalso. The population growth rate slowed down, ‘pull’ of the citiestook away the surplus labour from the villages leading to moremechanization in agriculture. These sectors also became capital-intensive and remuneration of the people engaged in these sectors

Table 1: A Tabular Representation of Rural-Urban Flows and Linkages

Types of Flow Rural to Urban Urban to Rural Type of linkage

Goods Flow

1. Final Cereals, pulses, Textile, Garments, Income-consumer goods vegetables, Medicine, Cinema consumptionand services plantation and linkages

product, milk,other food items

2. Intermediate Jute, cotton, wool, Fertiliser, Machines, Production/input-goods and fruits and fish for pesticides, electricity output linkagesraw materials processing transport services

Flow of factors/ factor services

1. Flow of labour Migrants from Migrants from Factor-marketrural to urban - urban to rural (for linkages (Labour-seasonal, weekly, permanent, jobs market linkages/daily (commuters) and services) Migration)

2. Flow of physical Urban capital Rural capital Factor marketcapital (services) (machines and serving urban areas linkages

instruments) (Capital goodsworking in rural service marketareas linkage)

3. Flow of financial Rural savings in Urban credit to Capital marketcapital (savings) urban areas rural sector linkages

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA6

increased over time. Thus, an intersectoral balanced growth patternemerged in the advanced capitalist countries. But this was not thecase for the developing countries.

In most of the developing countries including India, the colonialpattern of industrialization and the underdeveloped agriculturalsector failed to absorb the growing labour force. As an alternative,the out migrants from the villages increased the size of the informaltertiary sector in the big cities and towns. The ‘over-urbanizationhypothesis’ in the fifties of the last century was based on this idea.During the period 1951-91, India tried to follow a balanced path ofgrowth either going for a massive drive for industrialisation (forbasic and heavy industries in the Second Five Year Plan 1956-61) orfor agricultural growth (Green Revolution after two sever draughtin the mid sixties Fourth Five Year Plan 1966-71). But the basicdichotomy between ‘rural-urban’ and ‘agriculture-industry’ remainedas before.

The most glaring manifestation of this dichotomy was in termsof provision of infrastructure and amenities for the people. Some ofthe services were thought as purely ‘urban’ – for privileged citizens.The constricted nature of the slow-growth economy also prohibitedthe creation of the facilities in all sorts of settlements – irrespectiveof ‘rural’ or ‘urban’. The much debated theory of ‘urban bias’ cameout in the late sixties. It proclaimed that the ‘urban areas’ in thedeveloping countries managed to get the lion’s share of publicinvestment because of their visibility and connections.

The dichotomy prevailed in the provision of amenities also. Someof the amenities were thought ‘civic’, meant for the ‘urban’ areasonly. And the ‘urbanness’ of a settlement was judged in terms of theavailability of these infrastructure (Sengupta, 1988). The myopic ideathat the ‘citizens’ will get filtered water, concrete drains and pavedroads among others did not even bring the provision of theseamenities even in the priority list of the planners and the policy-makers.

The worst sufferer of this dichotomous approach to plan andpolicy is the state of the settlements, both rural and urban. Economicgrowth brings in sectoral shifts in occupation and that is followed bylocational shift of the population. This is the basis of increasedurbanization and rise in the level of urban population. But the rural-

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 7

urban divide prohibits the country to have any composite orperspective planning for the settlement, irrespective of rural or urban.So, the plan for infrastructure and amenities are for urban areas andrural areas would get ‘irrigation’ of ‘flood control’ programmes. Therewas no perspective vision that ‘rural’ areas would transform into‘urban’ areas, either by its own dynamics or through administrativedecisions. Till now, the ‘rural’ areas do not need any building plan tobe sanctioned before construction not to talk of the complimentaryplans for drainage and sanitation or water supply. As long as thepopulation density is low and the other demands for land use arenot there, there will be no problem. But with increasing urbanizationand its spatial spread, things become difficult. A study by Food andAgricultural Organization on the comparative rural dynamics andpoverty in India and China showed that in China urban income, urbanpoverty and rural income and rural poverty are correlated. However,in India, rural poverty is correlated only with rural income and urbanpoverty is correlated with urban income. This clearly shows that thepresent rural-urban linkage in India is not very strong. Again, a recentWorld Bank Study shows urbanization has a negative relationshipwith poverty in general. The states having higher level of urbanizationand higher rates of urban growth has a higher rate of povertyreduction. The implication of this finding is quite strong as far aspolicy prescription is concerned. Unless a particular settlementbecomes urban, it is unable to take the advantage of the public policiesand reduce poverty.

Of late, the Central government started a number of projects invillages (e.g. MNREGA) to provide employment and income to thepeople. One of the objectives of such programme is to stop migrationto the urban areas and create public goods in the villages. It is beyonddoubt that, it has enhanced the purchasing power of at least a certainsection of the rural population. But, there is no strong evidence thatit has strengthened the rural-urban links by enhancing the market ofthe urban product. And one can easily understand without the realincrease in rural productivity in the long run, the increase inpurchasing power is not sustainable.

Again, it is now well recognised that poverty is multi-dimensional. Enhancement of income is not the only solution. A recentUNDP study (Kundu et.al.) showed that inequality in terms of accessto health services and education is more intense compared to incomeinequality.

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA8

Urbanization and Urban Growth in India: Impact on the Rural-Urban RelationUrbanization in India has an uneven growth, especially in the post-independence period. In 1951, the level of urbanization was only 17percent. After almost six decades, it just crossed 30 percent. Table 2below gives an idea about the changes in the urban scenario of India.

The first Census in the post-independence period saw an upsurgein urban population, caused by the partition of the country andconsequent large-scale migration. The displaced population headedtowards the urban centres with the belief that jobs would be moreabundant there. But after that for the two consecutive decades, therewas no notable change in the level of urbanization. The decadal growthagain picked up in 1971-81. This increase was due to the combinationof multiple factors. On the one hand, a number of new (planned)towns were created for locating public sector units of variouscategories and their high growth rate of population added to theurban population. On the other hand, two famines in the sixties sentthe distressed rural population to the urban areas in search of foodsand jobs. After that there is nothing noticeable about the level orrate of urbanization. The opening of the economy in the nineties alsodid not have much impact on the rural-urban distribution ofpopulation. This period witnessed a sectoral shift in occupational

Table 2: Trends in Urbanization in India 1901-2011

Census Number of Urban Per cent Decadal AnnualYear UAs/towns Population Urban Growth Exponential

(in Million) Rate Growth Rate

1901 1,915 25.85 10.841911 1,864 25.94 10.29 0.36 0.031921 2,018 28.07 11.17 8.20 0.791931 2,188 33.64 11.99 19.20 1.711941 2,392 44.15 13.86 31.97 2.771951 3,035 62.44 17.29 41.42 3.471961 2,657 78.94 17.97 26.41 2.341971 3081 109.11 19.91 38.23 3.241981 3,891 159.46 23.34 46.14 3.791991 4,615 217.18 25.72 36.19 3.092001 5,161 286.12 27.86 31.74 3.112011 7,935 377.11 31.16 31.80 2.76

Source: Calculated from relevant Census documents of various years.

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 9

structure (from primary to tertiary) and change in the compositionof the Gross Domestic Product (again from primary to tertiary), butthat was not reflected the changes in urban parameters. The urbangrowth rate surpassed the rural growth rate in the last decade (2001-11) for the first time in the post-independence period. This is reflectedvery strongly in the number of towns in 2011. Almost 2500 new townsemerged in a single decade. This is an enormous number if weremember the total addition of new towns in the whole century (1901-2001) was almost the same. But surely, there was change in the urbansector. The size-distribution and share of population in different size-classes of the urban areas was totally reversed during the century.

The standard theoretical discussion on settlement pattern andcity-size distribution in a country talks about a pyramid-like structure.There are numerous small villages the base of the pyramid and asyou go up in the size-hierarchy, the number of settlement decreases.At the top, there would be one or two cities of largest size. Statisticallyspeaking, it follows the Pareto distribution. Now, let us have a lookinto the city-size distribution of the country in terms of percentageof population and number of towns.

It can be clearly seen that in 1901 he size-class structure in Indianurban scenario has undergone a drastic change in the last century,especially after 1951. The percentage share of the population in townsof Class II and III has remained almost constant, but the percentageshare of their number increased notably. In fact, there is a positivecorrelation. But for the other three size classes, there is a positivecorrelation between the two. For the highest class, both the sharesincreased. In 1901, the percentage share for numbers for Class I citywas only 1.25 percent and it contained 21 percent of urban population.By the last Census, the first has increased to 8.5 percent, whereasnow 62 percent of total urban population resides in Class I cities.This is at the cost of the last three size classes. The number share andpopulation share for Class V and VI towns fell for the whole timeperiod under consideration. Interestingly for the Class IV towns, thenumber share increased but the population share fell. And the changeswere most notable in the post-independence period.

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA10

Tabl

e 3:

Per

cent

age

Dis

trib

utio

n of

Pop

ulat

ion

of U

rban

Are

as a

nd T

heir

Num

bers

acr

oss

Size

-cla

sses

, 190

1-20

01

Cen

sus

Perc

enta

ge S

hare

of

Popu

latio

n a

cros

s si

ze-c

lass

es

Pe

rcen

tage

Dis

trib

utio

n of

Num

ber

of T

owns

Yea

r

of u

rban

are

as

a

cros

s si

ze- c

lass

es

I

II

III

IV

V

V

I

I

II

III

IV

V

V

I

1901

21.6

811

.47

16.9

222

.76

20.7

56.

421.

252.

307.

4722

.30

40.2

626

.27

1911

23.3

89.

6318

.92

20.9

720

.21

6.88

1.34

2.04

8.42

20.8

239

.91

27.3

119

2124

.17

11.3

418

.26

19.4

019

.42

7.41

1.39

2.43

8.47

19.5

738

.01

29.9

819

3124

.12

12.5

419

.83

19.7

518

.12

5.65

1.37

2.70

9.92

21.8

038

.67

25.4

119

4131

.64

12.9

718

.41

17.5

415

.99

3.45

2.01

3.64

11.4

123

.04

40.8

018

.98

1951

37.8

812

.18

17.9

315

.05

13.6

53.

302.

473.

6212

.32

22.1

439

.14

20.3

019

6144

.34

12.1

620

.08

14.3

58.

051.

033.

955.

2319

.46

30.7

131

.69

8.96

1971

48.7

813

.59

18.3

512

.87

5.62

0.79

4.84

7.11

21.0

631

.97

26.0

68.

9619

8152

.57

14.0

917

.08

11.2

44.

340.

685.

768.

3522

.56

31.8

723

.13

8.33

1991

56.6

813

.33

16.3

59.

773.

430.

456.

989.

1225

.16

31.4

421

.04

6.26

2001

62.2

912

.04

14.7

27.

902.

760.

298.

549.

6126

.87

30.3

020

.19

4.48

Sour

ce: C

alcu

late

d fr

om r

elev

ant

Cen

sus

docu

men

ts o

f va

riou

s ye

ars.

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 11

This top-heavy urbanization pattern of India, increased thepressure on the Class I cities in terms of provision of infrastructureand civic amenities. The stagnation in the organized manufacturingsector and ‘elite’ service sector could not absorb the increasing labourforce. The informal sector bulged to provide livelihood to 80 percentof the population and the people flocked in substandard houseswithout water and sanitation. This part of the story of urbanizationis known to us. They are always under media coverage and otherforms of scrutiny.

But the less-discussed part of the story is the story of brokenlinkage between the rural and the urban. As one can see the smallertowns (Class IV and V) in 1901, shared 60 percent of the total townsin number and contained 40 percent of urban population. Towns ofthese two size-classes were the mainstay of the rural-urban linkagein India. The rural products (mainly agricultural and artisan) weredistributed throughout the country through these smaller towns. Also,the urban commodities were dispersed through these smaller towns.Now, a pertinent question would be what happened to the small andmedium towns in the last fifty years. Why they are losing their placein the urban hierarchical structure in the share of number andpopulation. In the following paragraphs, we have tried to list someof them.

(i) The emergence of small towns depends on the buoyancyof the local economy. The backwardness of agriculture inmost parts of the country almost stopped this process. Theareas which had some amount of rural prosperity (due toGreen Revolution and similar other development) saw theemergence of smaller towns with dispersed urbanization(e.g. Punjab in the seventies). Otherwise, theindustrialization-driven growth paradigm followed in Indialed to appearance of bigger settlements, mainly within theurban agglomerations.

(ii) It must be remembered that there is a dual structure forthe urban centres in India. The statutory towns are underthe governance of a local body, whereas the Census towns(previously called the non-municipal urban) are under therural administration.

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA12

(iii) The constitutional recognition for the third tier ofgovernment came only in 1992. Till then the localgovernments (both urban and rural) were just used formanaging daily affairs. The devolution of power anddecentralisation of administration was not there. The localbodies were financially dependent, weak in terms ofcapacity (human resource). Here was no comprehensiveplan for the smaller towns for provision of civic amenitiesand supporting infrastructure. The livability of the smallertowns was deteriorating day by day. So, the well-to-do (arural affluent class did emerge in India) moved to the townsof higher order for better living.

(iv) There is a common perception that the rural areas get morepublic endowment under different government/semi-government schemes. So, there is less demand for orderingthe civic entities through municipalisation.

(v) It must be admitted that the administrative structure inIndia has spread its tentacles all over the country in thepost-independence welfare state. The administrative head-quarters for newly-created states/districts and smaller unitssurely added number to the urban structure of the country.Planned industries and educational institutes also addedto the number of townships. But all these additions hadlittle linkage to the settlements of lower order. They weremore attached with the higher-order centres for theirsurvival and dependence.

(vi) The distributive network of the colonial period wasreplaced by different varieties of government/parastatalbodies (e.g. Food Corporation of India). Now, these bodiescreated a hierarchical structure of their own ignoring theexisting urban hierarchy.

(vii) The overall development of infrastructure was in adeplorable state. The minimum transport linkage of thesmall towns on both the sides broke down over time. Thismade the small towns more isolated.

(viii) There was no comprehensive settlement plan in the country,which can place in each settlement, irrespective of rural orurban in proper perspective of its size, function orpopulation composition.

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 13

(ix) The opening up of the economy along with the gradualwithdrawal of the government support in the last twodecades was more fatal to the smaller towns. The case ofWest Bengal can be cited as an example. The policies ofdecentralized development and land reform pursued bythe Left Front government in from the late seventies of thelast century, led to a high growth of small towns in WestBengal in the following decade. But, it showed a drasticslow-down in the following decades.

(x) On the whole agriculture is becoming non-remunerative inthe country. The contribution of the primary sector to thedomestic product of the country is declining. The absolutenumber of the persons dependent on agriculture is alsocoming down. The present paradigm of service-led growthgenerates agglomerative tendencies.

All these factors taken together, it can be said that the smalltowns lost their relevance both as place of living and also theirfunctionality. The urban goods get distributed to the rural areasthrough private distributive channels and the rural goods come tothe urban areas through semi-private government guided network.But, one can understand that the situation is not ideal. If balanceddevelopment is still an issue then a balanced hierarchical structure ofsettlements is equally necessary. So, it is high time to rethink aboutthe rural-urban relationship in the context of changing situation inboth towns and villages of present-day India.

The Road AheadLet us take an account of what has changed in rural India, especiallyafter the two decades of globalization. A similar list can be constructedfor the urban areas. And with both the lists, we can set out a newagenda for rural-urban relationship.

a) Rural non-farm sector has come in a big way in thecountry. There are two distinct parts of it. Firstly, due torestrictions related to pollution and similar others, thereis a locational shift of manufacturing industry to the ruralareas. This has happened more for the villages contiguousto the bigger cities. A second component of the non-farm

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA14

sector is in terms of growth of the household industry ofdifferent types. These household industries are sometimesrevived old artisan products (like the zari industry ofHowrah in West Bengal), sometimes agro-based products(making jams and pickles or even beedi- the countrycigarette) or sometimes an entirely alien product (sportsgoods). These industries generally run on a ‘putting-out’system and the involvement of the women folk isnoticeable in all the phases of production.

b) With the development of transport infrastructure, thevillages are being brought into the commercial networkof the country. The advent and spread of cellular phonesalso added to the process. In a dense, the commercialnetwork created by private initiative has become moreinclusive than the government network. Now-a-days, onecan find different types of ‘urban’ commodities (e.g. foodproducts of various types, garments, electronic products)in the roadside village stalls. Internet kiosks and bankATMs has also become a familiar site. Video parlours (formovie shows) have also proliferated into the rurallandscape.

c) The transport network has spread over time. Differentschemes have added the road network of the country. Ifwe do not go into the issue of the quality, even then wecan say it by the available data on road length. Time andagain studies have shown that distance has a strongrelationship with any positive indicator of development.However, it is also to be noted that the ‘vehicles’ on theroad has also increased. There is, of course, commercialproduction of different types of vehicles (2/3/4 wheelersfor passenger and goods transportation). But apart fromthat, there is innovation like van-rickshaw or country-boars fitted with motor. These have been innovated anddeveloped by the users to suit the local needs. And theend result is increased mobility of the people resulting inincreased interaction.

d) Traditionally, the work participation rate of the ruralwomen is much higher than their urban counterparts. But

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 15

that was due to the traditional sharing of jobs inagricultural and pastoral activities. But in contemporaryIndia, due to increased mobility and opportunities, thenumber of ‘working women’ has increased further. Wehave already said about the involvement of women in‘household industries’. The demand for domestic workersand care-givers (nurses, ayas) has increased with moreand more families becoming nuclear and women of higherincome classes going out. But the new job opportunities,which need no formal skill but just short term traininglike jobs in beauty parlour, retail shops are opening upnew opportunities for girls from small towns and villages.

e) Social sector, comprising of the education and healthservice sector, is important any socio-economic set up.One cannot talk about a very impressive record of thecountry in either of the sector. But both the sectors havedeveloped a hierarchical structure all over the country.In both the sectors, a dual structure exists as far as servicedelivery is concerned. Not only, there are private andpublic hospitals and schools, but also religious, charitabletrusts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are alsothere in different sizes and capacities. After 1991, thegovernment has either withdrawn direct services orentered into partnership with private entrepreneurs (e.g.electronic imaging services in government hospitals). Onthe other hand, new investments are coming from thegovernment in some ambitious programmes [like SarbaSiksha Aviyyan (an attempt to send all the children up tothe age of 14 to schools along with arrangements for midday meal) or immunizations programmes for polio andother diseases] are opening up new job opportunities forboth rural and urban literate youth. The rural schools,technological institutes, para-medical training institutesare recruiting qualified urban people for teaching andother related jobs.

f) The general increase in the income level has expandedthe aspirations of people in general, and the rural peopleare no exception to that. Mobile towers and dish antennas

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA16

have become part of rural landscape also. Governmentprojects like ‘Swajaldhara’ for supplying filtered tap waterto villages or ‘Nirmal Gram’ (for constructing sanitarytoilets in villages) has increased the need for trainedpeople for installation and regular servicing (like repairand maintenance). Till now, the urban sector is providingsuch services.

The list is just indicative and not exhaustive by any means. Butwhat it indicates that the rural-urban linkages cannot be lookedthrough the agriculture-industry duality. Admitting the fact that stilla major portion of the demand for food is met by domestic production,agriculture is losing its place as the prime provider of job in the ruralsector. It is being taken up different forms of non-farm activities andservices of different types. And agricultural production system alongwith diversification products is also undergoing a change withopening up of the economy. Horticulture (like vineyards forproduction of world-class wines), floriculture, dairy farming (forproduction of milk and milk-products like cheese), organic farming,eco-tourism are catching up educated entrepreneurs as attractiveprofessions. With this perspective, one has to think of forming a newparadigm for rural-urban relationships and linkages. It may lead to arethinking on the terms of trade between the villages and towns.Given this, we may now think in terms of the policy prescriptions.

India is a country with no dearth of ‘national’ policies and plans(yojanas) and of late, ‘missions’. But to go for balanced developmentwith rural-urban symbiosis, three aspects need immediate attention.

I. Skill Formation to Meet the New ChallengesIt is clear from the above discussion that new opportunities havecome in the new millennium and the people have shown theireagerness to adopt it. The internal mobility within the country,especially inter-state rural-urban movement has increased. Migrationdata shows ample evidence of it. In some of the southern states,demographic changes enhanced the demand for manual labour.Commuting daily to nearby urban areas, even by female workershas also increased. But it must be remembered that till now, morethan 80 percent of our workers belong to the unorganized sector.

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 17

The plight of the unorganized workers in terms of lack of socialsecurity has been discussed extensively and I must be admitted thatsome amount of measures have been taken by the central and stategovernments. But another important aspect of this unorganized labourforce is that they do not have any scope of acquiring skills. Entry toITI requires formal education up to a certain standard. But for others,skill is generally imparted at the time of unpaid apprenticeship, mostlywithin family. But with technological improvement, the traditionalskills of say plumbers are becoming inadequate. This issue has to betaken up seriously. It is alleged that the education system of thecountry is more biased towards the tertiary sector jobs. But, it ishigh time to admit that we need these essential skills and ourorientation should be changed. There must be some scopes for theformal training of such jobs (without much entry barrier in the formof formal educational qualification), a formal support system duringapprenticeship and access to venture capital. This may be an effectiveway to decrease the number of ‘educated unemployed’. Lots of ruralyouth can find effective ways of employment and income outsidethe agricultural sector improving the land-man ratio.

II. Strengthening and enhancements of Transport andCommunication Networks

Information- Communication-Technology (ICT) has opened up manynew avenues. Physical distance is no longer a barrier for the flow ofinformation. Now, we have already discussed the cellular phone anddish antennas have invaded the rural landscape. But if both of themare used in a more innovative manner, it can be cost-effective way tobreak the rural-urban divide. One would expect with SSS (Sarba SikshaAviyaan) and RUSA (Rashtriya Uchhatoro Siksha Aviyaan), thegeneral level of education would be higher even in the remote areas.So, the potential number of users would increase over time. If kioskswith composite services like information dissemination and bankingetc. can be established (may be through PPP model) all over thecountry, the rural-urban divide in terms of information lag will reduceand the villagers can get the real benefit of modern amenities likeKisan Credit Card and not to talk about relevant information (weatherprediction, schemes of crop insurance etc.).

CITIES - THE 21ST CENTURY INDIA18

III. Integrated Settlement PlanningThis is an area where one has to pay serious attention. According tomost of the predictions, India has entered the urban age. And theurban population of the country will be more than 50 percent byanother fifty years. The dual objective in this regard will be to housethe incremental population in settlements with proper amenities andat the same time to preserve agricultural and ecologically sensitiveland. This will not be an easy task without integrated settlementplanning. The ‘Urban Strategy Plan’ (2012-17) and the HPOECCommittee under the chairmanship of I.J. Ahluwalia have clearlyshown the condition of the existing urban areas in terms of servicedeliveries. The statutory towns (specially the smaller ones) aresuffering from lack of finance and trained manpower. The 74th CAAand the establishment of State Finance Commissions have not helpedthem in a big way in the last twenty years. The other towns (Censustowns without municipal status) are under the rural administrationwithout any priority of service delivery or supply of amenities. Butit should be remembered that these towns will grow in size overtime and with rise in income the demand for better infrastructureand amenities will increase. But then the main constraint will be theavailability of space. With narrow roads with bends, it will be difficultto lay pipelines or use a mechanized sweeper for street cleaning.Without a zoning plan, incompatible mixed land use sill makes thesettlements vulnerable in terms of environment. Uncontrolled privatedevelopment will not take care of natural water bodies and otherecologically sensitive areas. The peri-urban areas with no properauthority for these controls are mostly at stake. But in some futuredate, they will be part of bigger entities with changes in administrativeboundaries. So, settlement planning in general and land use planningin particular should take into account the rural-urban continuum andnot the rural-urban divide. The average density of the urban areas inthe country is almost twenty times greater than that of the ruralarea. And it is seen that the urban density is increasing rapidly notonly for Class I cities but also for towns in the lower tier. But thisdensification is just for Malthusian pressure and not preventingunplanned urban sprawl. So, there should be integrated settlementplanning aiming for ‘compact densification’ with proper infrastructureand supply of amenities.

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-URBAN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA: 19

By the prediction of most of the international agencies, India isgoing to emerge as an economic superpower by 2050. If immediateattention is not paid into the balanced demographic distributionamong various types of settlement and complemented by integratedsettlement planning, sustainable development of the country will beat stake.

ReferencesBhagat, RB and Soumya Mohanti (2008), Trends and Patterns of India’s Urbanisaion:

A Demographic Assessment, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of ThePopulation Association of America.

Census of India: Relevant table from official website www.censusindia.gov.in.

Fan, Shegen, Connie Chang-kang and Anit Mukherjee (2005), Rural and UrbanDynamics and Poverty; Evidence from India and China FCND Discussion PaperNo. 196. International Food Policy research Institute, Food and NutritionDivision.

Kundu Amitabh, P.C. Mohanan and K Varghese (2013) Spatial and SocialInequalities of Human Development; India in the Global Context, UnitedNations Development Programme (web edition).

Mylliot Elizabeth (n.d,), Urban-Rural Connections: A Review of the Literature (webedition).

Sengupta S (1988), ‘How Urban is Urban West Bengal’, in Biplab Dasgupta editedUrbanisation, Migration and Rural Change, A Mukherjee and Co., Kolkata.

Tacoli Cecilia (1998), Rural-Urban Interactions: A Guide to Literature, Environmentand Urbanization, 10(1).

The World Bank (2013), Urbanization beyond Municipal Boundaries: NurturingMetropolitan Economies and Peri-urban Areas in India.