G Sreedathan
Kerala-born Jinnet Mathew had been running a
successful business in rubber products in Bengaluru for more than two decades.
But when competition increased, he started feeling the pinch. Expenses started
mounting and profits were dwindling. He decided to sell off his properties in
the city and settle in a remote village in Kerala. With the proceeds he managed
to purchase a reasonably large parcel of land in a village and started
cultivating rubber and fruit and vegetables. It was a tough decision for the businessman
to transplant himself and family to a village. But what gave him confidence was
his passion for agriculture and love for rural life and his innovative ideas
and expertise in marketing. Unfortunately, nothing of these came to his
rescue. After ten years of his rural experiment, he regrets his decision.
He sold a portion of his land to pay off loans and is exploring possibilities
of shifting to a city for the education of his children. “Agriculture is the
only worthwhile option for a person moving to a rural area and if it is not
profitable what can one do? Farming can become sustainable only with the
government support,” he insists.
In the Indian context,
reverse migration – migration from cities to villages – is very rare. In almost
all cases, of which I have the first-hand knowledge, those who migrated to
villages returned to urban settings after a brief rural sojourn. Many complain
that it takes several weeks for a simple courier consignment to reach the
destination in a rural area. There is not even a semblance of health care
facilities in many villages. The romantic ideas about villages will be
shattered the moment you step into a village, many say.
Our planners,
decision-makers and media have a clear urban bias. In most cases, villages find
mention in our mainstream media for all wrong reasons. An estimate shows
the mainstream media gives less than 5% of its space for rural issues. Rural
areas find mention in reports only when there is a macabre crime or mishap or
some undesirable events in those places. It’s an irony that all
governments since Independence
have invariably proclaimed that their main mission was to improve the condition
of the farmers and rural people. Still the rural sector continues to present a
picture of squalor and impoverishment. This is not to deny the great
strides India
has made in the field of agriculture. The Green Revolution has made us
self-sufficient on the food front. Although many innovations have been
introduced, the pace of improvement and technological intervention in
agriculture has been very slow. Besides decline in land holding per farmer and
other factors have made agriculture a loss-making proposition in most parts of
the country. This has cast a shadow on the rural economy and overall standard
of life of the rural people.
According to the
National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) data, over two-thirds of households in
rural India
still depend on firewood for cooking. In contrast, a similar proportion of
households use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking in urban areas. A
rapid survey on the Swachchata Status conducted by NSSO during May-June 2015
shows that in rural areas, the percentage of persons going for open defecation
was 52.1 per cent. The survey was conducted in 3,788 villages and 2,907 urban blocks.
The Census 2011 shows rural literacy rate is below 70 per cent while in urban India it is
84.11 per cent. The 70th round of the NSSO Survey on Household Assets and
Liabilities has revealed that the average value of the assets per household in
rural areas was found to be Rs 10.07 lakh while the corresponding value in
urban areas was Rs 22.85 lakh. The difference in the average asset holding of
the top and bottom 10 per cent was as high 50,000 times in urban areas.
Our cities are not free
from problems either. About 31 per cent of India ’s current population lives in
cities. By 2030, the population in urban areas is expected to touch 40% of India 's population and contribute 75% of India 's GDP by
2030. Keeping this in mind, the Narendra Modi government launched the Smart
Cities mission to improve the physical, institutional, social and economic
infrastructure. These measures, if implemented in right earnest, would improve
the quality of life of people and promote growth. There is no doubt on that.
Does that mean that a
similar smart village mission is the way forward for Indian villages? Not at
all. Huge investments and infrastructure projects proposed in the Industrial
Policy of 1991 that heralded economic liberalisation in India had been
the precursor to the establishment of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). We have
witnessed how private entrepreneurs and big businesses grabbed agricultural
lands from poor farmers and pushed them into the margins of urban centres as
migrants. The governments either facilitated or remained mute spectators
to this naked land grab. This policy triggered huge unrest in many areas. The
Central government could have doused the fire by making farmers also
stakeholders in those SEZ projects. But it did not do. Therefore, what we need is
not huge infrastructure investments in rural and backward areas that will
result in uprooting of the farmer and divest him of his meagre income.
What the farmer needs is better access to credit, markets and technology that
will enhance his income and remove hardships. The government should also
create job opportunities in other sectors so that under-utilized workforce in
the farm sector could be gainfully employed and rural households could enhance
income.
Having said that, some
elements of the smart cities project such as digital and information
technologies can be adopted for effective delivery of services and establishing
market linkages for farmers. I would conclude this by narrating an
experience of Jinnet Mathew who got Rs 3,000 just by selling just 2 kg of an
indigenous banana variety to a Japanese customer through an online
platform. In the local market, he could have got only Rs 40 for the same!