Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Friends, so today again we are going to talk about urbanization. In the first lecture,
I defined what urban population is? How is an urban locality defined in censuses of deferent
countries? Then I also talked about measures of urbanization, which are used for measuring
say level of urbanization or degree of urbanization and speed of urbanization. I suggested usual
urban by total into 100 as a level of urbanization measures, then ariyaga’s index, Kinsley
Davis’s index. I also talked little bit of rank size rule and in the previous lecture
we discussed, how urban population in India has grown over the years?
I showed you the trend in the level of urbanization from 1901 to 2001 on the basis of census data.
We also talked little bit about causes of urban growth, natural growth and migration
push and pull factors and the major causes of rural to over migration as based on census
data. Let us expend some more time on urbanization and today try to link urbanization with general
developmental issues. So, today we are focusing on theories of urbanization and development.
Let to begin with, I can say and wherever you feel like you can ask yourselves, you
can ask for clarification. If you want to add something you can add; in demographic
and economic literature, urbanization is frequently used as an indicator of development. By this
I mean that in empirical theories of fertility, mortality, morbidity, *** aids or health in
general; wherever we use some development indicators as independent wherever is in doing
causal analysis, say causal analysis of declining fertility or causal analysis of declining
morbidity or changes in sex ratios, and we need development as an independent wherever.
There urbanization is frequently used as a proxy variable of development that you all
know. Although development has a larger connotation and as you are familiar with human development
reports. Their development is defined in more in terms of longevity or life expectancy,
literacy, endorsement rates and income. But in demographic literature you see if you read
articles and population and development reviews for our Indian journals journal of family
welfare or demography in India. Or population studies international journal quite often
in studies of demographic transition or even migration we use urbanization as an indicator
of development. Now is it true that urbanization is an indicator of development? We will look
at this relationship. Let me today I want to have a discussion on,
is it possible a country that is urbanized but, not developed or is it possible that
a country is not urbanized and is still developed or a country with highly urbanization or undeveloped
or a country is not urbanization and also not developed? So, there are all kinds of
permutations and possibilities. Are they equally likely or you guess that countries which are
more urbanized are also economically more developed? May be because urbanization has
promoted development or may be that development promoted urbanization. But the two go together,
they are concomitant. Now, the state of world population 2009 gives
you data on urban populations for different countries, it shows that the more developed
countries are all highly urbanized countries also. And the least developed countries are
all low on urbanization, suggesting that perhaps there is a link between urbanization and development.
This is how empirically we work on issues of sociological nature that if we find that
wherever there is x there is also y. So maybe there is a reason to believe that there is
some connection, now since according to data all the developed countries and these developed
countries are developed in the sense that they are very high per capita income
They have very high life expectancy, they have very high school enrolment and adult
literacy. Whatever indictor of development you take? The countries of Europe, northwest
Europe more and Eastern Europe after that United States and Australia and New Zealand
and some emerging countries of Asia and Africa like Japan or eastern Asian countries. They
are also developed countries and there too level of urbanization is very high seventy
percent, eighty percent, ninety percent of the entire population of the country is living
in so called urban areas. And in the least developed countries the levels of urbanization
are low and this size has that perhaps there is a link between the two.
But perhaps there is no simple relationship; there is a relationship but, what kind of
relationship? Symmetrical, asymmetrical, direct, indirect or through some mediating variants
or if there are some moderator variables to use the language of research methods. Then
we have to identify what kind of relationship is this and there is certain changes which
are going to limit the strength of this relationship. For example the level of urbanization in a
more developed country as almost is stabilized. In the less developed countries on the other
hand urbanization is occurring at a fast rate and this is because we have seen that urbanization
follows in logistics growth model.
With time, proportion of population or percentage of population living in urban areas grows
like this. So initially these are least developed countries, in these least developed countries
not only the level of urbanization is growing but, the rate of growth of urban population
or the speed of urbanization is also low. Then you have developing country, in developing
countries levels of urbanization is modest. But, the speed of urbanization in this part
of the logistic is quite high, as time changes then the developing country are also increasing
at higher rates of growth of urban population. And developed countries which have already
achieved a high level of urbanization say around 75 percent, here least developed countries
15 percent, developing countries say in the range of 20 to 40 percent.
So, these developed countries which have already reached the level of urbanization 75 percent
or more. Their level of urbanization is still growing, but their rate of growth of urban
population and also of the level of urbanization is rather slow. So that means in the future
in developed countries there may be more development, per capita income may rise further, life expectancy
may rise further. One day when we are talking about mathematical models I showed that how
a demographer shows that? In the future, it is still possible to raise life expectancy
beyond 82 years and he gives some reasons that by reducing smoking practices. For example,
we can reduce chances of dying in certain ages then life expectancy can be increased.
Education has already reached a high level in developed countries that may not increase
further but, it still there is some optimism that developed countries can develop further.
And the level of urbanization may not grow further so, the relationship between development
and urbanization can break down there. General assumption is that there is a positive
relationship between urbanization and development of course, but, the human development index
prepared by some stail. The states like west Bengal and Kerala he say that it is something
different, because in Kerala urbanization is very low. But, there is same time if you
consider that development indications like commodity, mortality, fertility, life expectancy
is high. So yesterday also one report published by ministry of family health or family welfare,
it say that in Kerala life expectancy by 2020 even the 6 years more than the national awards.
But, in Kerala urbanization is very low, state like in Himachal Pradesh also this urbanization
is very low but, if you consider the indicators of development they are high.
Yes, you are right. Earlier we only talking about Kerala model of development, we are
per capita Kerala model of development implied low per capita income. But high social development,
empowerment of women, education literacy and low fertility, low mortality. Now, of course,
Kerala also has high per capita income it is not as low as much it was in the past.
But not much urbanized. But not much urbanized, because there is no
industrialization of them lack Kerala lacks industrialization and urbanization but, in
terms of other indicators of development it say developed state. And then demographers
used to said that it is social development in Kerala which is responsible for reduction
in fertility. Now, you have another equally interesting case that is of Himachal Pradesh.
We can see state Uttarakhand also the same condition is going on there and like the industrialization
and this agricultural activities are not that. Yes, Uttarakhand may follow the Himachal model,
so. Both after Kerala Himachal and Uttarakhand
is coming in every aspect increasing. Good education, low domestic violence, empowerment
of inefficiently data show that in Himachal Pradesh the degree of domestic violence is
one of the lowest Jammu Kashmir. So, there are that means there can be different models
of development and urbanization, it is not necessary that for development you need a
high level of urbanization. And that is why? The last you know the concept of urbanization,
urban, rural plus urban, that makes sense in the Indian context, you need not promote
urbanization or industrialization further. A mixture of urban and rural and urban outgrowth
and suburban populations and development of rural areas can pave the way for social development,
demographic transition, equality empowerment of women. Normally, we define development
in the economic sense that we are that is a problem we redefine this, all that you said
that indicators like commodity law of fertility, law mortalities are considered as the indicators
of development. But, our general assumption is not developing, there is something economic
sense that is of socio redefine, we redefine. So, we also distinguished between economic
development and social development. Normally, we expect that for social development some
minimal degree of economic development is necessary. But they are the two are not the
same thing see you can have situations in which you can have high economic development,
but low social development. There are many gulf countries where level of income is very
high and that is because of natural resource of petroleum. But social development is low
so that is why? They are not categorized as developed country. Despite high level of per
capita income, inequality is high, illiteracy is high, empowerment of women is low, fertility
is high mortality is also high, so infrastructure rural, infrastructure is poor.
So, there are many permutations and combinations and we make a distinction between development,
economic development, social development. So, that means you are rising an interesting
question, an interesting research question also, that if you want to relate development
to urbanization. To what aspect of development urbanization will related to economic development
or to social development? Yes, it is still interesting.
We can combine both aspects to know exactly. Or we can combine the two.
Yes. As it varies from culture to culture in society,
which society? So, like any other concept in sociology development
is also or can be seen as a subjective and a culture specific contact is specific concern.
Now, coming back to developed and developing countries, in developed countries population
of urban areas has almost stabilized. You see also because the natural growth is very
low due to low fertility or below replacement level fertility, the rate of growth of urban
population is very low. And, whatever growth is occurring, that is because of rural to
urban migration or because of migration from other countries. In least developed countries,
urban populations are growing fast due to both high natural increase, high fertility
and also due to rural to urban migration. Now, several of them are urbanizing at a rate
which is higher than the rate at which the developed countries historically urbanized.
When they were at the similar level of urbanization, so there are two ways of looking at a speed
of urbanization in a country like India, you saw that according to 2001 census India was
27 percent of urban and the speed of urbanization was 0.8. One can so 0.8 is a small increase
in urbanization and one can say that India is not urbanizing as fast as it was expected.
But, if you compare the speed of urbanization at which today developed countries grows when
they have level of urbanization 27 percent. Then you find that India or less developed
countries at corresponding levels of urbanization are urbanizing much faster. And that is because
of both natural increase and transfer of population from rural to urban areas. Several of the
least developed countries are growing at a rate which is higher than the rate at which
this is the meaning of this statement. There many other and new factors that affects development,
in the present day developing countries which were absent when today’s developed countries
were urbanizing.
This report when appear a report also show some other interesting facts or data shows
data on urbanization. That in year 2009 first time the world becomes nearly 50 percent urban,
in the history of mankind you know we are in that era when world for the first time
become 50 percent urban. The level of urbanization in the more developed country is 75, in less
developed country it is 45. And in the least developed countries in the category of developing
country, certain countries have been identified as the least developed, there the level of
urbanization is 29. Merely looking at this figures one would say that development that
cause urbanization more development, more urbanization.
The urban population in the world is growing at 2 percent rate per year; the urban population
in the more developed countries however is growing at 0.6 percent per year only. Low
natural increase and lots of restrictions on migration. The urban population in the
less developed countries is growing at 2.6 percent per year, mainly because of natural
increase and the urban population in least developed country is growing at 4.1 percent
per year, very high 4 percent. That means in about 16 17 years time population of their
cities is more than doubling. It is a big problem for them, urban population is growing
at 4 percent per year and doubling 16 17 years time, you have to provide for infrastructure
and. In the less developed country this around
2.6 percent. Yes
In India is the below two. No, when I said speed of urbanization was
0.8 that was the percentage change on per year basis in the level of urbanization. Otherwise
in the case of India growth of urban population as such is slightly more than this. India
is urbanizing at a higher rate than 2.6 growths of we must distinguish between rate at which
urban population is growing and the rate at which level of urbanization is increasing.
So this figure of this figure of 2.6 or 0.6 for developed countries and 2.6 for less developed
countries refers to growth of urban population, cities, medium sized towns.
So, this 2009 is very important, first time we become 50 percent urban, more on nature
on relationship urbanization, industrialization and development are concomitant processes.
It is difficult to say what exactly is the cause of what the changes may be symmetrical?
How? Because agricultural society is a village society and it was with industrialization
and creation of new opportunities for employment. Better opportunity, more productivity more
lucrative wages, more security, more modern values, western, in dualism, freedom autonomy,
secularism and independence from several primordial loyalties caste can shift this and that attracted
people towards cities or urban areas. Here it must be said that at this point it
was last time that the urbanization in developed countries and urbanization in less developed
countries are qualitatively two different phenomena. When we say that industrialization
and economic development promoted urbanization and city was a source of modernization that
applies more to developed countries. In our country demographic pressure in rural areas
has been a major source of urbanization and then colonial policies in all in all countries
of Asia, Africa and Latin America, there urbanization is started not as a spontaneous process or
concomitant of development and social development. But as a result of colonial policies by which
they are trying to sell their projects of developed countries industries of developed
countries and buying primary goods and agricultural goods at cheaper rate from internet.
So, you find that more developed countries which is started urbanizing in nineteen century
are the most urbanized countries today. Economic development and industrial development have
done this, less developed countries most of which are the colonies developed countries
did not experienced industrialization and remain less urbanized. We have lots of statistics
to show that during the British period level of industrialization in India fail from reasonably
good layer. At one time industry of India was famous worldwide, textile, Indian textile,
muslin, India‘s irrigation societies, India’s metal industries.
India was doing good in many non agricultural or allied activities also, but during the
colonial times industrial activities, artisanal activities and also in industry declines,
so the level of industrialization went down. And perhaps that was the reason why urbanization
also did not increased to that level. You have seen when I presented sensor data on
organization that initially in the last century in India urbanization sometimes rose sometimes
fails there was a fluctuation in the level of urbanization. Because we did not have expansion
of industry, we did not have expansion of cities it was only at the second half of 20th
century, when they became independent that destroyed Asia, Africa, Latin America tired
of these countries. Then they have started building infrastructure
providing various services to their population and developing industry. So in India after
independence, we had big industry big educational institution, big dams hospitals, special research
centers in health and associated growth of banking transport and communication and information.
So, they now the less developed country started urbanizing several of their city is now developed
as business service and administrative cities. Sometimes we make a functional classification
of cities whether there are religious towns or business towns or industrial towns or cities
or service towns. Many cities in less developed countries are developing as business service
and administrative cities along with industrial cities.
One can also say that there is a symmetrical relationship in the sense not only economic
development would promote urbanization. Urbanization can also promote economic development. How?
How will cities promote development and industrialization? The reasons are associated with the following
high density of population, urban areas have high density of population by definition they
have high density of population. You are saying about Kerala or something, you know although
Kerala is rural, but Kerala has the highest high density of population in India. So, the
remaining rural they are benefitting from this high density thing and from the economic
of scale. In other state where high density of population
in rural areas is low, urbanization of those states will produce more density of population
at places of concentration cities, outgrowth, and suburban areas. And, so the industry business
and service can benefit from economy of scale. Initially you said that the urbanization,
the density of population link to the industry of but, in Kerala it is something different,
not industry but, the service sector. Transport communication house endings roads
education hospital urbanization is also contusive to cultural change and it promotes more creativity
and innovation cities. And towns are places of creativity and innovation; rural populations
are mostly traditional and urban areas free individuals from traditional institutions.
Change you see he change from joint family to nuclear family changes in kingship pattern,
changes in relationship with church or in case of Hinduism, rituals, supernatural believes
or religious practices [FL] Then there is greater participation in global
processes, urban populations are more mobile. They move more from one urban area to another
within the district or within the state or between the states or between countries. And
they have better transport and communication facilities better infrastructure and conditions
that more need for achievement. In physiological sense also urban areas can lead to development,
because they have positive values on things like meet for achievement. Why need for achievement?
you see long back when we started theorizing about development social theories development
in their own way, physiologic theories developed in their own way anthropologies and others
look at their development in their own way in respective dissipate their own work.
McMillan, one physiologist came to India to study what are causes of development under
development? And, after expending quiet sometime in Indian industry, he found that one thing
in which Indians are lacking is the need for achievement. From that physiological prospective
India is not developed mainly because Indians lack in need for achievement. And he also
defined need for achievement in an interesting way. Somebody who is incapable? And has high
aspirations, high ambitions, high dreams, he does not have high need for achievement.
Somebody who has very high level of competent and therefore, he also has high aspirations
that may also not be necessarily a fit case for high need for achievement.
For McMillan need for achievement was defined as a characteristics of taking calculated
basis, calculated a little more, with the with full assessment of our capabilities if
we want to achieve a little more, ability to take risk calculated risk say image in
that there is some friends of yours from you villages and town a useless fellow. Throughout
spending 2 years 3 years in his class and passing high school after 2 3 year time with
third division intermediate third division B A third division and preparing for civil
service exam. We will not say that this person has high need for achievement he is not taking
calculated risk, he is a fool. And somebody who have lot of potential, you
can also find in several such friends who are extremely good throughout first class,
very good scholastic achievement. And they are contained type Indian culture produces
constrained type people, so they also have low need for achievement, even when they are
doing better than others. Need for achievement is the ability to take calculated risk. And
urban populations are obviously much better in developing these psychological characteristic
among people as compared to rural population. Rural populations make you traditional, you
have borned in a tradition and you remain in tradition.
You follow traditional occupation, you follow traditional believe system, you remain at
the place where you born. Urban populations by making you free from traditional institutions
and making you a participant in global processes by exposing you to new ideas. And by also
creating some kind of insecurity, because the traditional security tradition was bad
but, tradition was also good. Tradition was a source of security in urban areas traditional
security has gone so you become a little insecure. Now, in presence of all these factors you
develop high need for achievement and that is good for economic development and modernization.
And, yet there is a difference in urbanization and development when we use these terms in
population sociology. Urbanization is quintessentially a demographic phenomenon while development
is an economic and social phenomenon. Urbanization is merely a process of population concentration,
when people move from rural areas where density of population is lower to urban areas where
density of population is higher. Urbanization takes place as simple as looked at from this
perspective when wanderers and food gatherers developed settled agriculture and started
living in villages, urbanization started. Today we project rural population as something
oppose to urbanization, but actually it was settling down rural villages that pave the
way for urbanization, because they are settling down in rural areas, in villages, where the
first from of concentration of population.
Gradual increase in the size of village habitation led to more urbanization in the developing
countries where urbanization is occurring quiet fast. This is because people are moving
from rural areas to urban areas and also from smaller urban areas to big cities. There are
both types of movements from rural to urban and also from smaller places to bigger place,
that if you look at the class composition of the students present here. You will find
that most students have moved from smaller towns or moderate sized towns smaller cities
to bigger cities. On the other hand development requires huge investments and improvement
in productivity.
So, far we saw that there is a integral and positive link whether relationship is from
urbanization to development side or development to urbanization side. But, there is a definite
relationship which is positive, thus some sociologist have also looked at rural urban
relationship as the relationship of conflict. And as a relationship in which urban areas
are exploiting rural areas or urban areas are preventing growth of rural areas or large
cities or urban agglomerations are preventing growth of nearby urban population nearby’s
towns and cities. Some political analyst sees this relationship
between urban and rural areas as exploitative. They focus on urban rural conflict and ways
in which urban areas grow at the expense of rural areas. According to this thesis growth
of urbanization may not lead to development and growth of all urban areas will grow and
rural areas will decay. Now to some extent this kind of observation has been mired in
our 5 year plans one after another in all including your eleventh 5 year plan inclusive
growth. They say that we have developed a lot we have grown we have urbanized we have
industry But, the rural populations have not grown
or sometime the structural processes of growth have been such that rural and tribal populations
have suffered as a consequence of development of the whole country. So expansion of urbanization
may rather lead to marginalization and exploitation of rural masses, relations of conflict.
Can we say the relations between urbanization relations? The first process I do not know
whether. You know the first process, you say that it is migration, it may lead to urbanization.
Yes. So, in this case as you mention if urbanization
means the concentration of population. Yes.
So some need of insecurity will arise which means the need the achievement. So, some industry
will start that these are industrialization, then the next process would be the development
if people are developing, I think it will lead to modernization, I do not.
Modernization, yes, you are right. Migration led to urbanization.
Yes. Like I do not know may be.
No, you are right. What you have in mind is? Yes you are right, that sometime rural to
urban migration may be caused by push factors. But, then it leads to greater concentration
of population in urban areas, makes people insecure and look for all kinds of awareness,
opportunities, alternatives and the entrepreneurs and industrialist or organizers of informal
labor market can take advantage of people. And economic activities start, which leads
to economic development and also to urbanization. Yes and by changing need for achievement or
various others types of needs, need for power, locus of control, urbanization can change,
locus of control in place of activating your successes and failures to some outside thing
or god or religion or some super natural entity. The moment you start activating your successes
and failures to yourselves, you have high locus of control and we believe that urban
areas are more conducive to create internal locus of control. Now, for students of sociology
another interesting question would be the relationship between demographic transition
and urbanization. Because we are passing through the secular stage of demographic transition.
What are possibilities here? It is possible to argue that in developing countries, demographic
transition and not the development contributed to growth of cities weakening the correlation
with urbanization and development. If urbanization occurs because of demographic transition,
then its it has no or very weak connection with development
When the population of developing countries started growing at a fast rate above 2 percent.
Due to fall in the death rate it could not be absorbed in agriculture which are which
was almost stagnant to improve agriculture, to improve productivity of agriculture. You
need irrigation facilities, you need modernization mechanization of agriculture, and you need
modern high variety seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. You need industrialization
and you also have to provide some alternative supplementary employment for processing of
agricultural products or household industry or for artisanal family, something supplementary
and which require industrialization. So therefore, the surplus population started
moving towards cities, whether there was any need for them? Or there was no need for them
in urban areas which also explains asish bose’s concept of push back. That people are pushed
from rural to urban areas, you know they are going to urban areas not because of pull but,
because of push factors. But where they when they do not due to lack of skills, lack of
connections network, social capital, the modern day sociological term social capital due to
lack of social capital trusts institutions networking culture. When they do not find
satisfactory source of employment in urban areas, many of them want to return back, so
this is push back. Anywhere this demographic transition leads
to rapid growth of urbanization though without development.
Sir, but at the time it is also cause a lot of problem because in a.
Yes. Lot of place where are people more number
of people but, lacks of development today. Lack of development.
Today’s slum. Slums yes.
Sociologic also this.
So, this is a character of urbanization in India. Undoubtedly India is a developing countries
and India has one of the oldest civilizations and has had a long history of cities. There
is lot of documentation of city culture, city life, city religions, city values in pali
and Sanskrit, in buddhist literature. Old cities of India were however fort cities or
places or pilgrimage or universities, education center, gurukul, rishikuls and they were small
in number and size. Their functions were sometime political and religious fort cities.
The large cities of today are so large, that their population is larger than the population
of many countries. This kind of city you know city of the size of Mumbai these kinds of
cities did not exist in the past. And administration trade and commerce industry and transport
and communication have emerged at the new functions of cities.
So, this is this produces a kind of over urbanization thesis. The studies of urbanization in the
less developed countries contradict that there is a positive correlation between urbanization
and development. And produce the over urbanization thesis means even though the rate of urbanization
may be slow, slower than our expectation but, we are over urbanized from the perspective
that we lack in urban infrastructure, employment health, social sector and in modern and western
values. Urbanization, urban places or cities are not the places of modernization or change
of the population. According to this thesis the present day less
developed countries are more urbanized than the developed countries were at the same level
of development. I have already mentioned this and the quality of urban population in the
developing countries is poor. So, you have slums, unemployment, high mortality, high
morbidity, illiteracy, crime violence in urban areas more than was perhaps the case when
developed countries were at this level.
This also produces morphologically the concept of dual city in almost all cities, Delhi,
old Delhi, new Delhi, Kanpur, civil lines, old Kanpur, you go to any city, Hyderabad,
any city you have old. And new old is dying highly dense traditional market, traditional
life style, poverty and new is modern malls, new means malls, modern, big roads, good infrastructure,
better electricity, better roads, better schools, government offices. And, if there is a temple
and the quality of temple in new city is much better than the quality of temples or churches
or mosque in the old city which are dirty and crowded and temples of new city are more
modern with all modern facility. Actually in the less developed countries, you find
three things, rapid growth of large cities large cities are growing fast.
In India also this was happening till very recent time that larger cities were growing
fast and tiny towns were declining in size tiny towns were facing a negative rate of
growth rapid growth was observed in large city. Then division of city into two different
parts one modern and developed the other as traditional and poor. Then over population
in the urban areas particularly large cities leading to creation of large squatter settlements
and slums. Now, we have lot of data on slums for all cities of India and a very high proportion
of population in all cities of size 100000 plus and more, so in cities of size 1 million
plus you find squatter settlements and slums.
Data show that the large cities are growing faster still than the smaller cities. As a
matter of fact many tiny towns have experienced a declining trend, register general 2009 in
one report said, this phenomenon produces city primacy that is a situation in which
large cities have disproportionately more population than smaller cities and towns.
In the western countries demographers and mathematical modern builders talked of some
kind of rank size rule but, this rank size rule this statistical pattern does not apply
in less developed country like India, because of city primacy and primacy of large urban
populations. Making them unmanageable by city planners
and requiring large investment to keep them livable for development planning a good option
would be to develop smaller cities and towns. And restrict movement of people towards the
largest cities, so perhaps you have to do both the things. You have to develop urban
areas to provide better facilities and you also have to develop rural areas, so that
less people are moving towards urban areas due to push of rural factors.
Consequently, though cities are still the places and sources of modernization and yet
they have a traditional part, slum areas or squatter settlement. Where the rural social
institutions and arrangements are maintained, most of the Indian cities including Delhi
have a new city or a civil lines and an old part, old Delhi, old Hyderabad, old luck now.
They are all dual cities in that sense, in the old city one finds continuity of traditional
kinship, caste, regional networks. The new poor migrants depend upon them for decisions
regarding the choice of destination and also for their adjustment to the harsh conditions
of urban living. Desouza who has worked on urbanization of India make this comment.
So, there are some new concerns, growing size of slums, informal sector and its role in
modernizing economy, influence of kinship, caste religion and region of origin on the
migrants adaptation. To the new situation the condition of urban poor and structural
and cultural, marginalization, income savings and loan pattern organization, health, education
welfare and self reliance among the poor. These are some new concerns for study of urban
population, slum improvement programmes and consequences of urban poverty for women and
family and identity and social stereotypes these are going to be big issues.
Now, let me finish today’s lecture, from my side I will finish today’s lecture by
presenting a quote from parry’s study of bhilai steel town. He says to quote; it is
true that even 40 years on regional identities continue to be marked in terms, for example,
of diet dress, the worship of deities and the language of home. It is in the home rather
than the world that the distinctions are most manifest and the maintenance of them is significantly
gendered. Even after years of bhilai the Hindi spoken by many south Indian women remains
rudimentary, in the masculine space of the plant, regional ethnicity is the focus of
legitimized joking; but outside the topic is more touchy and ethnic stereotyping has
a harder edge. Malayalis are clever; you know there is no
such biological connection. But it says that the malayalies are believed to be clever,
cunning and clannish, and always get on; Telugus are feckless and often inebriated, and generally
do not. Where there are Bengalis there is [FL] political bassism and where biharis [FL]
or gangsterism. This last identity which includes people from eastern Uttar Pradesh, so bihari
does not mean only from Bihar, people from eastern Uttar Pradesh are also called bihari,
because of Bhojpuri is particularly strongly freighted and Bhilai’s social problems are
routinely laid at their door. See the nature of city in less develop country,
this is city of a less developed country. This is not the cities which were the source
of modernization in western history of urbanization.
So, implications of this for future growth son of now in this situation. When these kinds
of stereotypes, poverty, traditions and rural institutions prevail then the following things
are obviously more likely. Son of soil demands, stigma and segregation politics this is stigma
saying that biharis are like this, malayalis are like this is also a stigma. Exclusionary
politics, weak governance or soft state, deteriorating quality of life, class conflicts and increasing
role for civil society actor.
In the next lecture then we will talk about urbanization in India’s future. And, role
of civil society, particularly the role of bhagidari movement, yes.
Sir, you have discussed somewhere like the division of today’s cities in new and old
city. You discussed that old cities represented this traditional values, Poverty.
Yes. Illiteracy and the new is totally different
which is totally modern but, in India we have another part also that is rural India which
is also represented by these indicators. So what is the difference between that old part
and this rural India? I mean they are same or is there any difference between them.
It is basically a matter of proportions, it is not that in rural areas everybody is traditional,
it is not that in rural areas everybody is engaged in agricultural work, it is not that
all rural populations have low density of population. And it is not that in rural areas
everybody is casteist or communal, but when we make these rural urban distinctions on
the basis of institutional social and cultural factors. We only mean that these things exist
in greater proportion in urban areas as compare to rural area.
At least sir, the study of parry says that, after forty years in the case of Bhilai’s.
Bhilai. Some stigmas are actually distinction is specially
in the home rather than the world means that even though you are not much urbanized, much
modern much but, some features are they want even though you are in the U S or U K. But,
some features they would not change whenever, wherever you are. They would not, it would
not affect, it will be, you know. I know in U K also from there they say that they are
very much modern but, in some cases related to the personal, some related to.
Yes. They have very much.
In social interactions. That externally they are say that we are modern.
In dress up. You know.
In language they look modern. But they are not modern.
They are not modern. They are not you cannot change it, you cannot
criticize it, the people I do not know? Yes.
How we can? So, this is a big distinction between urbanization
of developed countries and developing countries that in developed countries urbanization occur
more because of industrialization, economic development, cultural change, and change in
value. No industrialization is taking place in India,
I think, Modernized. And, western country produces at the time
many more thought leaders, philosophers, intellectuals, political theories and so on. In our countries
urbanization is more a product of demographic transition rather than economic development.
So, we are in a situation when our and another important factor that because of this, because
we urbanize more due to demographic transition not because of economic development. And this
has produced the phenomenon of primacy, over urbanization, dual city, urban rural conflicts
a very different kind of urbanization in less developed country. So, we are simultaneously
talking of rural development and urban development. So, while we have a greater focus on world
development but we also cannot ignore the requirements of urban development. So, if
we have national rural employment guarantee act mahatma Gandhi narega, you also have Jawaharlal
Nehru national urban renewal mission and you cannot ignore the problem. You know this mission
Jawaharlal Nehru, national urban renewal mission, what are the objectives of this? The objectives
are to ensure that the followings are achieved in the urban sector. a) Focus attention to
integrated development of infrastructure services in cities, infrastructure is poor and infrastructure
has to be developed b) Establishment of linkages between asset creation and asset management
through a slew of reforms for long term project sustainability.
c) Ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies in urban infrastructural services. Government
has to interfere, is not it? This was never the case in developed country. Now, because
of wide spread poverty and lack of development everywhere including in urban areas. Now,
through Jawaharlal Nehru national urban renewal mission, government is forced to take up problems
of development in urban areas. d) Plant development of identified cities including peri urban
areas, outgrowths and urban corridors leading to disperse urbanization. So that, some people
can be shifted away from heart of the city to suburban areas, outgrowths neighboring
towns. And scale of delivery of civic amenities and
provisions of utilities with emphasis on universal access to the urban poor f) a special focus
on urban renewal program for the old city areas which are in dilapidated condition,
to reduce congestion and g) Lastly provision of basic services to the urban poor, including
security of tenure at affordable prices, improved housing water supply and sanitation and ensuring
delivery of other existing, universal services of the government for education health and
social security. I would say that, if you want to know more
about urbanization, then it will be a good idea to go through the 11 five year plan.
And, also go to the website of ministry of urban affairs, you will find lot of material
including material of Jawaharlal Nehru national urban renewal mission. And this bhagidari,
we will, in the next lecture we will talk about bhagidari and related issues. Thank
you.