Memorandum submitted by Priya Deshingkar,
Laxman Rao and John Farrington, Livelihood Options Project, Overseas
Development Institute
THE SEASONAL MIGRATION OF RURAL LABOURERS
IN ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA
This evidence is based on the results of the
Livelihood Options project, a three year DFID-funded policy study,
that aims to identify how policies can be changed to support positive
exits via diversification, and how negative impacts can be reduced.
The research was conducted by the Overseas Development Institute
(ODI). Brief descriptions of ODI and the staff members involved
in the research are presented below.
DESCRIPTION OF
ODI AND STAFF
ODI is Britain's leading independent think-tank
on international development and humanitarian issues. Its mission
is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the
reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement
of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries. This is done
by locking together high-quality applied research, practical policy
advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate. ODI works
with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing
and developed countries.
The Rural Policy and Environment Group (RPEG)
seeks to support positive changes in livelihoods through focused
policy research and through its networks for information dissemination
and exchange. RPEG specialists from social and natural science
backgrounds examine a range of issues bearing on policies that
influence rural livelihoods. RPEG works closely with governments,
non-governmental organisations and international organisations
to identify how natural resources can contribute to sustainable
improvements in livelihoods. It aims to generate new knowledge
and methodologies at the local level, and policy and institutional
advice at national and international levels.
The results of RPEG's research are intended
for policy-makers, those implementing projects in developing countries,
international and local NGOs, and of course rural people and their
organisations. The Group also undertakes research-based policy
advisory work and has an extensive programme of publications and
information exchange; the Group aims to increase the effectiveness,
efficiency and accountability of natural resource management and
rural service delivery in the context of poverty reduction.
Priya Deshingkar directed the Andhra
Pradesh studies for the Livelihood Options project and is a Research
Associate of the ODI. She has a PhD from the Institute of Development
Studies, UK, and was formerly on the staff of the Stockholm Environment
Institute. She has worked and published extensively on questions
of poverty, environment and livelihoods in India.
Laxman Rao is a Research Officer on the
project and has a PhD in Political Science. He was posted in two
of the study villages for a year and was responsible for quantitative
and qualitative data collection.
John Farrington is a Research Fellow
at the London-based Overseas Development Institute and led the
Livelihood Options study. He is also Visiting Professor at the
University of Reading, UK, where he obtained a PhD in Agricultural
Economics. He has worked and published extensively on India.
INTRODUCTION
Seasonal and other forms of circular migration
have long been part of the livelihood portfolio of poor people
across India. It is now recognised that migration is a part of
the normal livelihood strategy of the poor and does not occur
only during times of emergency or distress.
The National Commission on Rural Labour (NCRL)
puts the number of circular migrants in rural areas alone at around
10 million (including roughly 4.5 million inter-State migrants
and 6 million intra-State migrants). But government departments
such as rural development, agriculture or labour are not geared
to dealing with migrants and regard them as "external"
to the systems that they work with. According to the NCRL, the
majority of seasonal migrants are employed in cultivation and
plantations, brick-kilns, quarries, construction sites and fish
processing. Further, large numbers work in urban informal manufacturing,
construction, services or transport sectors, employed as casual
labourers, head-loaders, rickshaw pullers and hawkers (Dev, 2002).
However, official awareness of the magnitude
of seasonal migration or the importance of it in the lives of
the poor is abysmally low. Policy-makers have tended to perceive
migration largely as a problem, posing a threat to social and
economic stability and have therefore tried to control it, rather
than viewing it as an important livelihood option for the poor.
There is little by way of organised accessible support for poor
migrants who face insecurity in their source location as well
as destination.
This paper focuses on seasonal and circular
migration for employment from rural areas in AP. We do not discuss
seasonal migration by livestock-keepers for grazing or seasonal
migration of fishers from coastal areas but much of the generic
argument will apply to them too. Neither have we dealt with permanent
and semi-permanent migration for employment, which has different
determinants and impacts and is therefore beyond the scope of
this paper.
This work synthesises 12 months of primary data
collected across the Livelihood Options study's six villages in
AP. Each of the six villages provided labour for different migration
options or streams.[84]
The remainder of this paper presents a broad picture of who migrates,
by income, class, caste and gender, then examines specific migration
streams in more detail and finally explores how migrants may best
be supported by policy.
— Migration is a routine livelihood
strategy and not simply a response to shocks—corroborated
by case studies from all over India.
— Migration can lead to the accumulation
of wealth, particularly where there are marketable skills or established
employment relationships.
— Processes of social exclusion prevent
people from moving from low-return and insecure migration to more
rewarding types (segmented labour market).
— Accumulative outmigration can occur
from poor areas and distress/short term coping migration can occur
from well-endowed areas.
A DESCRIPTION OF
THE STUDY
AREAS
Andhra Pradesh (AP) has an area of roughly 275,000
sq km and a population of 75.7 million in 2001, almost 8% of India's
total population. Three quarters of its population, or 55.2 million
people, live in the rural areas, while nearly one third of its
GDP is derived from agriculture. It receives a southwest monsoon
from June to September, and the southern parts of the state also
receive short winter rains. The rest of the year is dry with the
hottest season being April-May. There are 23 districts in the
state, each of which is divided into mandals, with each mandal
covering 20-30 villages.
Field work was conducted in three districts
of AP, one from each of the state's three main regions, Telangana,
Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra. Each region differs in their historical,
political and agro-ecological conditions, and display distinct
patterns of livelihood evolution and diversification. Telangana
is a semi-arid region, with relatively poor levels of infrastructure
development, educational facilities, and advancement of women.
It contains the state capital Hyderabad, which provides urban
employment to many rural migrants, but is still home to some of
the poorest people in AP. Rayalaseema has some of the harshest
environmental conditions in the state, and perhaps even the country.
Average rainfall is 700 mm, and the proportion of total area which
is cultivated is only 38%. Once a prosperous farming centre, this
region is now severely affected by drought: in some parts of the
region, 2001 was the fifth consecutive year of drought. Coastal
Andhra includes the coastal delta areas of AP which are similar
to "green revolution" parts of Punjab, Western UP, Gujarat
and Maharashtra. The region has developed more rapidly than other
parts of AP in recent decades, with significant improvements in
female literacy, incomes, infrastructure development, and infant
mortality rates. Agriculture is based on the intensive cultivation
of paddy and sugarcane on canal-irrigated lands, and draws in
large inflows of seasonal migrant labour.
The three districts chosen, after discussion
with key informants, were Medak, Chittoor and Krishna. Within
each district, two contrasting villages were selected for detailed
household level study. The selection of villages was guided by
various criteria, including proximity to urban areas, roads and
markets as well as social and economic indicators of development.
The two villages studied in Medak district,
in the Telangana region, are Madhwar (MD) and Gummadidala (GU).
MD is a remote village in the dry, backward, north-western part
of the district. Income levels are low, and a large proportion
of the working population migrate on a seasonal basis to high
agricultural productivity zones, and to Hyderabad. However, land
ownership is relatively equitable, with only 20% of all households
owning no land at all. GU, by contrast, lies within an industrial
belt in the south of Medak district, and is situated only 40 km
from Hyderabad. A significant proportion of total income in this
village is derived from industrial labour, and there are many
more landless households than in MD. Partly as a result, GU has
the largest gaps between the living standards of the rich and
poor of all the six villages studied. Poorer households in the
village use the nearby reserved forest to collect firewood, tendu
leaves (used for making country cigars), leaf plates and broom
straw.
The two villages studied in Krishna district,
in the Coastal Andhra region, are Kosuru (KO) and Kamalapuram
(KA). KO is a large, well-connected village with canal irrigation,
typical of the better-off villages of the delta zone. The average
household per capita income is higher here than in any of the
other surveyed villages, although landholdings are highly skewed
(65% of households are landless), which explains why KO is also
more unequal than the other villages, with the exception of GU
(as measured by the ratio of the 90th to the 10th percentile of
household per capita income). Assured irrigation enables farmers
to harvest two paddy crops each year, and the village is the destination
for seasonal immigrant labourers who come for up to three to four
months in a year to transplant and harvest the paddy. KA is another
prosperous village with assured canal irrigation, but is smaller
and more remote than KO, with lower average incomes. There has
been a considerable degree of permanent outmigration from KA over
the years especially after a major cyclone in 1991 so that population
growth in the village has been slow.
The two villages studied in Chittoor district
of Rayalseema are Voolapadu (VP) and Oteripalli (OP). VP is in
the particularly dry, western part of the district, and has suffered
from drought conditions for the last four years. However, it is
less remote than OP in terms of labour market linkages: roughly
one quarter of working adults spend part of the year outside the
village in seasonal migration, particularly on construction sites
in nearby urban centres. Sericulture is a major occupation in
the village, which expanded rapidly during the 1990s, but is now
under threat from cheap Chinese silk imports. OP village lies
in the eastern part of Chittoor district, close to the border
with Tamil Nadu. It has also been affected by serious drought
during the past five years, and is now officially classified as
drought-prone. Many farmers, particularly those traditionally
involved in groundnut cultivation, now leave their lands fallow
rather than taking the risk of farming with uncertain outcomes.
Several poor households have diversified into service sector jobs,
catering to establishments in the nearby town of Chittoor. Collecting
and selling of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) is a significant
source of income for poorer households, particularly during the
lean work season.
Information was collected from every household
in each of the six villages on the ownership of assets, membership
of local associations and credit groups, receipt of government
assistance, extent of debts, receipt of migrant remittances, and
caste group. Information was also collected from every individual
in each household in each village on age, gender, martial status,
education level, their primary and secondary occupations (if working),
the income obtained from each of those occupations, and whether
or not they spent part of the year outside the village through
seasonal migration.
2. CONCEPTS[85]
Migration can be classified according to its
temporal dimensions (seasonal, other short-term, long-term, permanent),
its returns (coping or accumulative), distance (local, long-distance
or international) or its cycle (one-off or repeated). Some have
also distinguished migration "push" created by poverty
and a lack of work and the "pull" created by better
wages in the destination (Lee, 1966). Here, we are concerned primarily
with seasonal, local or long-distant and (usually) repeated migration
which may be either for accumulative or coping purposes, and may
be either "push" or "pull". Our focus is also
on the poorer segments of the population, and almost by definition,
those usually excluded from favourable aspects of the local economy,
though, as Skeldon (2002) has noted, it is generally not the poorest
who have the contacts needed for migration, or can take the risk.
In what follows, four inter-related questions
are examined:
— What broad patterns of access to
migration, either as a coping or accumulative strategy, do we
observe across different social groups?
— How might we explain these patterns
of access with respect to economic and social factors?
— How does migration seem to affect
people's ability to move out of poverty, or remain trapped within
it?
— What implications might this have
for policy-makers?
The following sections first provide an overview
of the magnitude and structure of migration in the study areas
and present an analysis of how migration patterns vary by caste[86],
gender and landholding. They then examine the factors influencing
accumulative and coping types of migration in the study area and
finally address the question of how best policy can support migrants
and reduce their vulnerability.
3. THE MAGNITUDE
OF MIGRATION
Census data[87]
collected from 4,647 households in AP show that migration occurred
from all six villages but to varying degrees. On average 25% of
the households had at least one member migrating. Key informant
interviews suggested that the magnitude of migration has grown
over time both in terms of the absolute numbers of people migrating
and its importance as a source of household income. But in the
absence of baseline data, it is difficult to quantify this increase.
As expected, migration rates were extremely
high from villages which were remote and located in dry areas
without assured irrigation and prolonged drought conditions. But
much of this migration from drought-prone areas was along old
and established routes, which although precipitated due to a "push"
of some kind (such as drought and crop failure) have now become
regular and accumulative paths to engaging in high-return labour
markets. Examples of this are the migrants from MD in Medak who
have migrated for many decades to more prosperous areas.
Table 1
INCIDENCE OF MIGRATION IN AP SAMPLE VILLAGES
| AP villages | Total number of
households
| Proportion of households
with at least one member
migrating (%)
|
| MD | 427
| 78 |
| VP | 553
| 33 |
| KO | 1,429
| 10 |
| GU | 1,560
| 4 |
| KA | 464
| 15 |
| OP | 214
| 9 |
| Total | 4647
| 25 |
| Source: Household Census
| |
| |
| |
The highest rates of migration were seen in the case of MD
in Medak district where 78% of households had at least one member
migrating. This village is located in a very dry and very backward
part of the State contiguous with similar areas in Karnataka and
Maharashtra. It is nestled in a cluster of villages, all of which
are known for their high rates of out-migration to the capital
city of Hyderabad, neighbouring States and the sugarcane fields
of Medak and Nizamabad districts. Dryland agriculture is the mainstay
of the economy in MD and there are few opportunities outside casual
labouring. The average number of days of work available for an
agricultural labourer is a mere 35 in the Kharif season.
MD also had the highest number of persons migrating from each
household at 2.87, suggesting that there are households where
nearly everyone migrates. Next was VP, also located in a low potential
area, but with good trade links to Bangalore, where the average
number of people migrating per household was 0.72.
The exceptions in the State were dry villages where migration
rates appeared very low (OP near Chittoor town, and GU near Hyderabad)
but this could be because several households were commuting on
a daily basis to nearby urban locations and this was not captured
by the definition of migration used.
Contrary to dominant perceptions on migration, there was
outmigration from the well-endowed villages in Andhra Pradesh;
KA and KO showed migration rates of 15% and 10% respectively.
These villages have very high levels of land polarisation and
mechanisation, and while there is strong labour demand throughout
the year for high value, labour-intensive crops, only a certain
proportion the substantial landless population gain access to
this work. For the rest, migration forms an important coping strategy
for at least part of the year.
4. THE RETURNS
FROM MIGRATION
Income from farm and non-farm work inside and outside
the village
Seasonal migration generated on average a sixth of household
income across all villages. Labourers within the villages worked
overwhelmingly in agriculture, but outside the village mainly
in other occupations. Labourers' earnings inside the village were
highest in the case of KO and KA, both prosperous "green
revolution" villages, with a large landless class and a predominance
of modern, irrigated green revolution technology amongst the landed.
KO is also highly diversified, with several non-farm activities
and occupations within the village. The lowest earnings were in
MD, where there are limited opportunities available locally both
in the farm and non-farm sector. This village is drought-prone
and backward with hardly any diversification at all. It had the
highest average earnings from outside sources, indicating that
migration was the main source of earning through both farm and
non-farm work. A large proportion of these returns were through
high-return sugarcane cutting work, which we treat in detail below.
Next in rank was VP village in Chittoor, a drought-prone
village with active trade links with Bangalore city. Several households
in that village engaged in high-return earthwork, a subject that
we also cover in detail below.
Although the earnings from work outside the village were
lower in the highly productive coastal villages of KO and KA,
there was some low-paid outmigration for farm work by lower caste
households that were excluded from local work opportunities. This
type of coping migration is also covered below.
Table 2
AVERAGE RETURNS PER HOUSEHOLD PER ANNUM IN AP (RS)
AP villages | Inside the village
| | Outside the village
|
| Farm | Non-farm
| Total | Farm |
Non-farm | Total |
OP | 3,303 |
1,083 | 4,386 | 111
| 339 | 450 |
| VP | 3,637 | 2,156
| 5,793 | 309 | 1,396
| 1,705 |
| KO | 6,775 | 1,897
| 8,672 | 145 | 79
| 224 |
| KA | 6,352 | 340
| 6,692 | 0 | 525
| 525 |
| GU | 2,682 | 2,877
| 5,559 | 0 | 731
| 731 |
| MD | 3,001 | 504
| 3,505 | 3,046 | 1,280
| 4,326 |
| Total | 4,538 | 1,678
| 6,216 | 445 | 692
| 1,137 |
Source: Household Census, AP
| | | |
| | |
Since employment through agriculture is the most important
source of livelihoods for poor labourers, we analyse the data
on agricultural income in some detail below.
The returns from agricultural labouring work inside and outside
the village
Households earn roughly twice the agricultural labouring
income within the village compared to outside. Of the in-village
component, Kharif earnings are 1.5 times more than Rabi
earnings. This could be due to the high labour requirements
of paddy, which is the main Kharif crop. This trend is
seen in most of the villages, with the exception of VP, where
the returns are higher in Rabi and this is most likely
because labour-intensive vegetable crops are grown during Rabi
and these need even more labour than paddy.
Table 3
AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INCOME INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE
IN AP (RS)
Village | Kharif
| Rabi | Inside total
| Kharif | Rabi |
Outside total | Total income
|
OP | 1,348
| 1,229 | 2,577 |
1,369 | 0 | 1,369
| 3,945 |
| 0 | 613 |
813 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 3,188 |
| VP | 1,380 | 2,078
| 3,458 | 1,934 |
284 | 2,218 | 5,676
|
| 0 | 1,150 |
2,775 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 4,775 |
| KO | 4,885 | 1,783
| 6,668 | 2,243 |
133 | 2,375 | 9,043
|
| 2,150 | 0 |
3,300 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 4,925 |
| KA | 3,245 | 3,037
| 6,282 | 2,268 |
0 | 2,268 | 8,550
|
| 2,450 | 2,200
| 5,050 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 6,575 |
| GU | 1,943 | 836
| 2,779 | 892 |
0 | 892 | 3,671
|
| 250 | 0 |
675 | 0 | 0 | 0
| 763 |
| MD | 1,624 | 1,370
| 2,994 | 2,385 |
2,574 | 4,958 | 7,952
|
| 1,225 | 400
| 2,275 | 1,410 | 0
| 2,275 | 5,335 |
| Total | 2,618 | 1,723
| 4,341 | 1,814 |
363 | 2,177 | 6,518
|
| 913 | 88 |
1,975 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 3,700 |
Source: Household Census. Note: Means are in bold and medians in regular font
| | | |
| | | |
Outside the village, the earnings from agricultural labour
are nearly five times higher in Kharif compared to Rabi
across all villages. But there are sharp variations here:
the most backward and dry village, MD, shows high and nearly equal
earnings for both Rabi and Kharif, showing that
migration is important throughout the year. In other villages,
there is little or no earning from agricultural labour outside
the village during Rabi, making Kharif the main
outmigration season as well as being the main season for in-village
employment.
In-village per household agricultural labouring incomes are
highest in the villages with the highest agricultural productivity
and output. These are KO, KA and GU. Figures from the most backward
and dry village, MD, show high returns from migration during both
Kharif and Rabi. But the returns from outmigration
were higher in green revolution villages of KO and KA. This shows
that despite the many locally-generated work opportunities, those
that are excluded from local work still outmigrate for agricultural
work.
Table 4
AGRICULTURAL LABOUR INCOME INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE VILLAGE
BY LAND CATEGORY IN AP (RS)
Land Category | Kharif
| Rabi | Inside total
| Kharif | Rabi |
Outside total | Total income
|
Landless | 4,162
| 2,095 | 6,257 |
2,481 | 247 | 2,727
| 8,985 |
| 2,450 | 725
| 4,550 | 875 | 0
| 875 | 6,450 |
| Sub-marginal | 2,413 |
2,324 | 4,738 | 2,720
| 207 | 2,927 |
7,664 |
| 1,500 | 1,065
| 3,710 | 125 | 0
| 125 | 6,450 |
| Semi-marginal | 1,445 |
1,762 | 3,207 | 1,630
| 852 | 2,483 |
5,689 |
| 1,200 | 1,000
| 2,700 | 1,200 | 0
| 1,200 | 4,000 |
| Marginal | 2,257 | 1,704
| 3,961 | 1,545 |
613 | 2,158 | 6,119
|
| 1,500 | 650
| 2,650 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 4,000 |
| Small | 1,877 | 1,775
| 3,652 | 1,355 |
360 | 1,715 | 5,367
|
| 0 | 0 | 913
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1,900 |
| Semi-medium | 596 |
667 | 1,263 | 706
| 400 | 1,106 |
2,369 |
| 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| Medium | 366 | 0
| 366 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 366 |
| 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
0 |
| Large | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 |
| 0 | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Total | 2,618 | 1,723
| 4,341 | 1,814 |
363 | 2,177 | 6,518
|
| 913 | 88 |
1,975 | 0 | 0 |
0 | 3,700 |
Source: Household Census, AP. Note: Means are in bold and medians in regular font
| | | |
| | | |
The landless derive the highest income from agricultural
labour inside the village compared to other classes. The earnings
for the landless from in-village sources are nearly three times
as much as outside the village. The picture changes as we examine
incomes from outside the village, with submarginal farmers earning
slightly more than the landless. Medium and large farmers clearly
do not migrate out for agricultural work.
5. WHO MIGRATES
AND WHY
We investigated the determinants of the likelihood of migrating
using regression analysis. Our dependent variable is given the
value 1 if at least one member of the household migrates during
the year, and 0 otherwise. Our explanatory variables are the (log)
value of land assets, the (log) value of livestock assets, the
(log) value of agricultural assets, three dummy variables corresponding
to the different caste groups Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste
and Backward Caste (the reference caste group is Other Castes),
size of the household and lastly the "inverse dependency
ratio" of the household (ratio of working members to non-working
members). We estimated the regression using the logit method.
We expected that households with more land and assets would be
less likely to migrate, and that larger households with a higher
inverse dependency ratio would be more likely to migrate. The
results were as follows.
Table 5
FACTORS CORRELATED WITH MIGRATION: REGRESSION ANALYSIS
RESULTS
|
Explanatory variable
| Effect on likelihood
of migration
|
Significance level |
| Land | 1.070
| .359 |
| Livestock | 0.973
| .009 |
| Agricultural assets |
1.033 | .014 |
| ST | 5.958
| .000 |
| SC | 5.373
| .000 |
| BC | 3.899
| .000 |
| Household size | 1.174
| .000 |
| Dependency ratio | 1.754
| .001 |
| Constant | 0.023
| .000 |
| Source: Household Census, AP
| |
| |
| |
Note: The first column shows the estimated amount
by which each explanatory variable affects (in multiplicative
terms) the "odds ratio": the likelihood that a household
migrates as a ratio of the likelihood it does not. The second
column shows the level of statistical significance of each estimated
effect. For instance, an increase in (log) agricultural assets
by one unit increases the probability that a household has at
least one migrating member, relative to the probability it does
not, by a factor of 1.033, or 3.3%. This result is significant
at the 5% level, but not the 1%.
Do those with land, livestock and agricultural assets stay
at home?
The regression analysis shows that there is a positive relationship
between land owned and migration, ie the more the land owned the
more the household is likely to migrate. But the results are not
significant.
With regards to livestock, the results show a significant
negative relationship, ie those with more animals are less likely
to migrate. But as we will see from the case studies, livestock
is essential for one kind of migration, namely sugarcane cutting.
The results for agricultural assets show that more assets increase
the chance of migration but significance levels are not high.
The poorest rarely migrate
The findings from the regression analysis need to be unpacked
further. Cross-tabulation between land class and numbers of households
migrating shows that migration among sub-marginal farmers is slightly
lower than semi-marginal or marginal farmers. As we shall see
from the case studies on migration, a minimum level of material
assets is required to make the investment for migration; for travel,
purchasing supplies to take to the destination and leaving some
money behind for running the household.
Labour-scarce households do not migrate
The regression analysis shows that the availability of labour
within the household is a strong determinant of the likelihood
to migrate. Having one extra member in the household increases
the relative likelihood of that household migrating by 17%. And
an increase in the ratio of working to non-working members in
the household also increases the relative likelihood of migration
by nearly 75%. Focus group discussions and participatory wealth
ranking of migrating households corroborate these findings: labour-scarce
households do not migrate.
Higher migration among the STs and SCs
The regression analysis shows that the Scheduled Tribes are
several times more likely to migrate compared to upper castes,
followed closely by the SCs who are roughly five and a half times
more likely to migrate than OCs, and then by Backward Castes (BCs)
who are four to four and a half times more likely to migrate.
Caste characteristics of migration streams are closely associated
with village characteristics and the two reinforce each other,
leading to a higher incidence of migration amongst certain castes.
The regression analysis shows that certain caste categories
are more likely to migrate. Taking the Forward Castes (FCs) as
the basis for comparison it is seen that STs are nearly six times
more likely to migrate; SCs roughly five and a half times more
likely to migrate and BCs roughly three and a half times more
likely to migrate.
Further disaggregation of the four broad caste categories
is shown in Table 6 below indicates that the castes that had the
largest numbers of migrants were the Lambada (ST) at 62%, followed
by the BC Artisans with 33.2% households migrating. Next were
the two main SCs and the BC cultivators. There was comparatively
little migration from upper caste households.
Table 6
MIGRATION RATES BY CASTE
|
Castes
| Number of
HHs | Number of
migrating HHs
| % of caste group
migrating |
| FC-Brahmins | 53
| 4 | 7.5 |
| FC-Reddy | 370
| 20 | 5.4 |
| FC-Kapu | 389
| 38 | 9.8 |
| FC-Kamma | 250
| 7 | 2.8 |
| FC-Non Brahmin | 380
| 20 | 5.3 |
| BC-Cultivator | 1,248
| 257 | 20.6 |
| BC-Artisan | 500
| 166 | 33.2 |
| BC-Service | 471
| 35 7.4 | |
| SC-Mala | 457
| 104 | 22.8 |
| SC-Madiga | 380
| 111 | 29.2 |
| ST-Lambada | 60
| 37 | 61.7 |
| ST-Others | 89
| 7 | 7.9 |
| Totals | 4,647
| 806 | 17.3 |
| Source: Household Census
| | |
| |
| | |
The case studies presented later demonstrate that those castes
that are endowed with traditional skills that can be adapted to
modern requirements stand the best chance of obtaining high-return
work. If skills are acquired over time by working under a skilled
person, then this too leads to well-paid and regular work, as
is seen in the case of some SC construction workers who have been
in the trade for several years. But several lower caste groups,
particularly the erstwhile untouchables, are routinely excluded
from higher return work because of prejudices held by contractors
and employers who may often belong to a different caste. Lower
caste people may also lack the assets that are needed for some
kinds of high-return work.
Much of the literature on migration suggests that it is predominantly
men who migrate. But in the study villages, household members
were found to migrate in various combinations—men only,
women only, men and women, men, women and children. In the study
villages the majority of migrants were male. Even within villages,
some streams had more men migrating whereas others had more women.
The reasons for this are complex and related to whether or
not the skills are gendered, cultural norms to do with women's
work and restrictions on women migrating. For example in the case
of OP which is near a town, most of the migration is by single
people within households, mainly men, for employment in the non-farm
sector.
The gender possibilities for migration are also determined
by caste. For higher caste families it was traditionally often
shameful for the woman to work outside her home. Lower castes
have much less social pressure. Those with spare labour capacity
are able to take advantage of these opportunities to create the
extra income that can move a household from a deficit to a surplus
trajectory.
As a rule, men-only migration occurred where men possess
the required skills or in the early years when the activity is
relatively new for the community and the destination areas/work
are perceived to be too risky to take women and children along.
As the migration stream becomes more established and the working
arrangements more predictable, women accompany their husbands
or may even start going without them.
Table 7
GENDER PROFILE OF MIGRATING HOUSEHOLDS
Village |
Male
|
Female |
Total
| % of males in total
migrating individuals
| % of females in total
migrating individuals
|
OP | 20 | 7
| 27 | 74.07 | 25.93
|
| VP | 236 | 164
| 400 | 59.00 | 41.00
|
| KO | 146 | 126
| 272 | 53.68 | 46.32
|
| KA | 84 | 46 |
130 | 64.62 | 35.38
|
| GD | 75 | 57 |
132 | 56.82 | 43.18
|
| MD | 683 | 535
| 1,218 | 56.08 | 43.92
|
Total | 1,244 | 935
| 2,179 | 57.09 | 42.91
|
| |
| | | |
Source: Household Census
Table 8
AGE AND GENDER OF MIGRANTS WORKING IN FARM AND NON-FARM
WORK
| By age and gender (No of people) |
OP | VP | KO
| KA | GU | MD
|
Farm | |
| | | |
|
| Men | 0 | 6 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 16
|
| Women | 0 | 3 |
7 | 0 | 0 | 14
|
| Children | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
4 |
| Non-farm | |
| | | |
|
| Men | 0 | 13 |
1 | 2 | 1 | 14
|
| Women | 0 | 8 |
0 | 2 | 0 | 4
|
| Children | 0 | 0
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
1 |
| |
| | | |
|
Source: Household Census
6. ACCUMULATIVE AND
COPING MIGRATION
STREAMS
A common element in the history of migration in all the locations
is the way in which it began—usually as a consequence of
the push created by a lack of employment opportunities at home.
But different migration streams have evolved differently for different
groups of people.
As a rule, the older, better-established migration streams
offer high returns and predictable employment for migrants. These
are often streams where stable relations with employers have been
built up by particular castes and communities over a long period
of time; where specialized skills (often caste-based) are possessed
or have been acquired; or where other assets that are needed for
migration are available. Well-known examples of this are the legendary
"Palamur" labourers from Mahbubnagar district in AP,
who are famous for their constructions skills and are employed
by the Public Works Department even in far off places, including
the Narmada Valley project. Similarly, earthworkers from Chittoor
district in AP are migrating to destinations all over south India
and also regularly employed by government.
These kinds of accumulative migration streams have now become
a major source of income for many erstwhile poor communities and
have significantly contributed to improving their lives through
more investment in their farms, houses, children's education and
marriages.
On the other hand are the less rewarding and more risky kinds
of migration streams, which involve a more opportunistic search
for work. Often, there is no stable relationship with any particular
employer. This happens either when the migrants are relatively
new, poor and unskilled or when traditional forms of discrimination
work against them so that they may never graduate into better-paid
work. This is seen in the case of SC migrants working on earthwork
projects, who, although working side-by-side with the Vaddi, earn
only two-thirds as much as them. SC migrants from the coastal
districts are similarly excluded. Even though they live in areas
which regularly import labour, they do not get enough work during
the peak seasons to tide them over the lean season and are forced
to migrate for part of the year.
We identify six migration "streams" from the study
villages in AP, most of which have not been documented before.
Table 9 below provides summary information on the different streams.
This information was collected through focus group discussions,
key informant interviews and participant observation by research
officers who were posted in the villages for the entire duration
of the study. As the table shows, there can be more than one completely
distinct type of migration stream or "option" from the
same village.
7. MIGRATION "STREAMS":
ACCUMULATIVE MIGRATION
Sugarcane cutters from Medak district
MD is a remote village in the backward north-western part
of Medak district with unreliable rainfall. Land ownership is
still along feudal lines—a Brahman landlord possesses 300
acres of land, demonstrating that land reforms have not made any
difference here. The landless account for 13% of the population
and marginal farmers, a further 32.5%. Their main occupation is
labouring. They are mostly uneducated and unskilled. By caste,
the Mudiraj (erstwhile fisherfolk BC) comprise 57% of the village
population. Most of them are small and marginal farmers. Next
are the Lambada (ST), the Madiga (SC) and Mala (SC). The Mala
and Madiga are mainly agricultural labourers, which is testimony
to their continuing position of disadvantage in society.
Migration for sugarcane cutting is said to have begun roughly
30 years ago from MD and surrounding villages, when contractors
came to look for cheap labour to cut sugarcane in irrigated parts
of the district. What started as a coping mechanism has now become
an extremely well-paid alternative to local agricultural wage
labour and is attracting more and more households who are able
to mobilise the necessary contacts and resources. According to
the villagers, more than 40% of the population migrated for this
work in 2001. On average, a team of three adult workers will bring
back Rs 15,000 as savings from one season's work. These people
have accumulated successfully, having large and well-maintained
houses, together with the growing numbers of milch animals.
Migrants usually stay away from October/November for four
to six months. The main castes migrating are the Mudiraj, Lambada
and Madiga. This kind of migration requires assets in the form
of a pair of working bullocks and a bullock cart. Many sugarcane
cutters take an advance of roughly Rs 5,000 in the month of June,
well before the cutting season. This is usually given by farmers
to known parties, therefore social contacts and networks are all-important.
This interlocking of credit and labour markets provides the employer
with a guaranteed workforce at a predetermined rate. Whether or
not the labourer is disadvantaged by this arrangement depends
on whether they are in a position to negotiate a good wage. That
in turn depends on their access to information about the state
of the labour market for that particular season.
The money from the advance may go towards a new pair of bullocks
or cart or other supplies and is repaid the following May after
the cutting season is over. These days, there are no middlemen
involved. Farmers and labourers deal with each other directly.
There is no written agreement and the arrangement works on the
basis of mutual trust from previous relationships. Some families
have been doing this work for more than 20 years.
Although this kind of migration is viewed very positively
in terms of its economic impact, it has some negative implications
too, particularly for children's education. Smaller and younger
families face the greatest hardship because they may not have
childcare in the village and must take their children with them.
The children are not admitted by schools in the destination. In
addition to that, households may lose their access to Public Distribution
System (PDS) rations if they cannot maintain a presence in the
village. A common practice is for one person to come back to the
village every month to claim the PDS rations and also give money
to relatives at home. In some instances, migrants mortgage their
PDS card for Rs 300 with the grain outlet. The dealer claims the
rice illegally on their behalf and sells it on the open market.
But the arrangement is mutually beneficial because this way the
migrants do not lose their entitlement and can reclaim the card
when they return.
Living conditions are rough in the destinations. Migrants
stay in the field in a makeshift hut with poor access to water
and medical facilities. Social networks are important and migrants
help each other in various ways by looking after children and
sharing provisions.
An NGO, Sadhana, has recently started a residential school
for the children of migrants from this part of Medak. This has
proved very popular among the migrants. The project is being supported
by the Hyderabad office of UNICEF as well as the district administration.
Children who were previously forced to accompany their parents
because there was no one to look after them in the village are
now able to carry on with their education.
Earthworkers from Chittoor district
VP village is in the dry part of Chittoor district and has
suffered from drought for the last four years. This area has strong
trade links with Karnataka, particularly Bangalore city which
is 120 km by road. Only two castes, the Vaddi (BC) and Mala (SC),
migrate out for seasonal work. Here we cover only Vaddi migration,
which is accumulative. Migration undertaken by the Mala is covered
under coping migration.
The Vaddi, also known as Vaddera, were traditionally skilled
stonecutters and well-diggers. They have adapted this skill to
digging trenches for telephone cables, graves, desilting tanks
and road works and have now become well known all over South India.
In rural areas, they have benefited from public works executed
by Gram Panchayats and State agencies through schemes for
rural water supply, housing, food for work, watershed development,
the construction of schools, public buildings and offices. They
work almost all year round but the nature of the job varies by
agricultural season: desilting of tanks and forest department
work is undertaken in the dry season and road works and trench
digging is done in the rainy season. Both the poor and non-poor
migrate. All of the landless households migrate. In general, there
is growing demand for the kind of work that the Vaddi can do but
few other castes seem to have been able to join this accumulative
stream, a theme we return to under the section on coping.
Groups of Vaddi relatives (15-30 persons) migrate together
and go for 15-30 days at a time. They make 10 such trips in a
year. Each group is headed by a mestri (contractor), usually
a Vaddi, who bears all travelling and food expenses. The mestri
may give an advance to the labourers to send remittances to their
family. He later cuts this from the wages of the labourers. There
are 12 mestris in the village. Earlier, mestris would be
the main source of information about new jobs and wages but over
time their power has eroded and they now play a more facilitating
role rather than controlling and exploiting labourers. These days
most Vaddi do not have fixed mestris and work for the person
who makes the best offer.
The Vaddi have accumulated visibly through migration. Nearly
48% of the Vaddi respondents said that they had built, bought
or extended their house. They are also investing their newly acquired
wealth into buying land, drilling tubewells and growing vegetables.
VP is clearly a village where money is coming in.
Part of this success stems from their social cohesiveness
and collective bargaining power. The Vaddi formed the Narsapur
Labour Cooperative Society, a registered society, in 1998. They
maintain good relations with local government officials and this
has enabled them to win several contracts for public works. There
are other manifestations of this social cohesiveness. They have
a strong caste-council which has introduced strict rules of behaviour
by which everyone must abide. One such rule is the ban on alcohol
consumption which was introduced as a way of conserving community
wealth. Punishments for those who break the rule are severe—one
man was banished from the village for drinking. There is also
a rule that all migrants must return to the village at election
time and this was said to be behind their recent victory in the
local Panchayat elections where they defeated a Yadav caste
family that had held power for the previous 37 years. They also
have a rule that they must return to the village for major festivals.
There are negative aspects to the Vaddi migration too. Some
of the commonly stated problems are the rough living conditions
in the destination where they must live in tarpaulin tents provided
by the employers. Many stated that migration adversely affects
children's education. Employers and mestris may not pay
the promised amount and they may not pay promptly.
8. MIGRATION "STREAMS"
AS A
COPING STRATEGY
Construction workers from Medak district
Several families of poor Mala (SC), landless and marginal
farmers who cannot find work locally or grow anything on their
land have migrated from MD to urban areas but they have strong
links with the village. These people are much poorer than the
better-off sugarcane cutters who migrate from the same village.
Quite a few of them were not able to enter sugarcane work because
they have no collateral for the loans that are required to purchase
or hire bullocks and carts. Hyderabad is the most common destination
(40 families migrated there in 2001), where they go for construction
work. Most of them leave the village around November and return
in June to look after their land. But as droughts in the area
have become prolonged, some families are leaving their lands fallow
and are more or less permanently away and come back only to celebrate
festivals. Half of them take their families along. Both women
and men work.
Such migrants work alone or in groups. They are prepared
to do any kind of labouring. The construction workers work either
under a contractor or freelance by standing at "addas"
(on the street) where they try to attract trade. If they work
freelance then the men earn roughly Rs 80/day and women earn Rs
60. Although the wages are reasonable, work is not available everyday
and most average three working days a week. Women may also work
as domestic maids in nearby houses. They spend roughly half of
the income at the destination and earn roughly Rs 4,000/year through
such work.
Working under a mestri gives them more days of work
but they complain that they are exploited by mestris who
take a 15% cut of the wages. Even if such labourers have been
in the business for several years they may continue to depend
on contractors because they lack the contacts, education and confidence
to find work and negotiate contracts. In addition, their caste
makes them prone to multiple forms of discrimination so that they
can rarely break out of their traditional station of working under
someone on exploitative terms. Contractors routinely flout the
many regulations that are meant to give migrant labourers security
and basic provisions. Several families choose to leave their women
behind because living conditions for new migrants in the city
are difficult, particularly getting access to drinking water.
Accidents, sexual exploitation and disease are major risks.
Agricultural labourers from coastal villages
KO is a large, well-connected and well-endowed village typical
of the better-off villages of the delta zone. It has a characteristically
large population of 1,429 households. This reflects the many work
opportunities present in the village that have attracted people
from outside over the years and also kept the villagers from moving
to other destinations. The village is highly developed and there
are many amenities, such as a variety of shops including bookshops,
dispensaries, pesticide shops, etc. The cropping pattern is normally
paddy followed by pulses. The village is a destination for seasonal
immigrant labourers who come for three to four months in a year
to transplant and harvest the paddy.
The landholding is highly skewed with over 65% of the population
reporting that they are landless. More than 48% of all landless
households reported their main occupation to be labouring. There
are 29 castes and the most numerous castes are Mala (SC), Madiga
(SC), Kapu (OC), Kshatriya (OC), Gowda (BC) and Yadava. (BC) In
addition, there are a significant number of Muslim households.
The landless are mainly Malas and Madigas, together making up
34.7% of all landless households.
KA is also a prosperous village with assured canal irrigation
which enables farmers to take two paddy crops in a year. Of 464
households, 209 (45%) are landless. There are more marginal and
small holdings in this village and therefore the requirement for
labour from outside is greater during the peak agricultural seasons.
Roughly 1,000 people migrate into the village in July-August and
again in November-January to work on the paddy crop, first for
transplanting and then to harvest.
Caste-wise, the Kapu are the largest community, making up
nearly half of the population, followed by the Gowda (erstwhile
toddy-tappers) who make up just under a quarter of the population
at 23.5%. Most landless households are Kapu, followed by Mala,
Gowda and Madiga. Most semi-medium, medium and large farmers are
Gowda and Kapu. The Mala and Madiga are almost all landless, which
is worse than their status in the study villages in other parts
of the State.
In both KA and KO, there are certain times of the year when
there is no work for agricultural labourers. During this these
times, the landless poor labourers migrate out to find work in
nearby areas—either within the district or just beyond.
Both men and women migrate and they earn roughly Rs 30/day. Without
this work and income, these households would go into debt and
have to borrow from local moneylenders, which is what they would
have done historically in the lean season. But seasonal migration
has offered them an important coping mechanism.
9. MAIN FINDINGS
The main findings from this study are summarised in the following
points:
— A large cost in migration is the search cost and
moral hazard of being cheated. Migration options become more and
more secure, and thus attractive, over time. For those who have
risked going to find new opportunities, and have maintained the
link, the investment often pays off.
— Migration is increasingly opening up to women,
particularly those from lower castes. Often the woman working
as well as the man can make the difference between surplus and
deficit.
— Non-farm work is often better paid, but conditions
are poor. The work is hard, and is often taken up in the hot summer
when agricultural labour markets are slack. Also, because the
nature of the work is often transient, there is not the possibility
to form longer-term links as with employers.
— All types of migration can bring new skills. Likewise,
construction work can often bring access to quarter- and semi-skilled
work like masonry work.
— The social and domestic trade-offs to migration
can be severe. Risk of industrial accident, poor sleeping conditions
all bring hazards. If families accompany, then wives, and particularly
children, are at great risk from lack of supervision. However,
if families migrate together, there are stronger support networks
available.
10. CURRENT INDIAN
POLICY
Migrant workers have not received legislative support or
protection because of their legal status because they usually
work in unorganized or informal sectors. The Union and State Governments,
through their Ministry of Labour and Departments of Labour, have
a general mandate for formulating and implementing policies to
protect the interests of migrants. Various existing labour laws
are "applicable" to the workers in the informal sector.
For example the Minimum Wages Act (1948), Equal Remuneration
Act (1976), Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act (1979),
Contract Labour Act (1970), and Building and Other Construction
Workers Act (1996). However, these labour laws are very poorly
enforced.
Migrant labour also comes under the purview of several Ministries
or Departments such as Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Consumer Affairs, Health and Family Welfare and Education and
Social Welfare. However, there is no separate department or machinery
to address migrants' problems.
The recently formulated Unorganized Sector Workers Bill
(2003), is potentially powerful. Based on the recommendations
of National Commission on Labour (2002) and scheduled to
be introduced in the Parliament, the Bill includes many provisions
that could benefit migrant workers. For example, it seeks to ensure,
inter alia, a minimum level of economic and social security,
old age benefits, group insurance, medical benefits, registration
of unorganized workers and provision of identity cards.
The proposed legislation though is not free from controversy
and some labour unions have already opposed the Bill in the present
form and offered several suggestions. Perhaps the most contentious
part of the Bill is that the proposed protective measures are
in the nature of guidelines for States. It puts the financial
onus on the States without delineating the ways and means or allocating
funds for the proposed measures. Many observers feel that some
crucial proposals could be made mandatory instead of treating
them as optional.
11. RECOGNISING AND
SUPPORTING MIGRATION
AS A
LIVELIHOOD STRATEGY
Policy needs to recognise that migration is an integral and
regular part of livelihood strategies and production systems;
that it is also undertaken for high-return employment and not
only because of shocks and stresses such as drought i.e. that
migration can be accumulative or coping; and is a diverse phenomenon
with various non-economic determinants including caste and gender.
This reflects wider themes with respect to political-economy determinants
of access and opportunity. Regardless of whether migration is
accumulative or coping, most migrants receive little support and
live in very difficult conditions in their destinations. Although
their efforts are the real engine of growth in several sectors,
providing a cheap and flexible labour source, they remain without
an identity and are unable to claim State resources for education,
health care, water and sanitation all the time that they are on
the move. Women and children suffer the most from this kind of
existence.
The mainstream view is that migration should be reduced or
curbed by creating employment in villages. This is to be achieved
through increasing the productivity of dryland agriculture. But
it could take several years or even decades for natural resource
management and agricultural development programmes to arrest migration,
something which they may never achieve where population growth
is high. In the meantime, steps need to be taken to support migrants
so that their hardships are reduced and they are ensured access
to basic needs. For example Mosse et al (2002) argue for a rights-based
approach to guarantee minimum wages, avenues for protection and
redress, freedom from bondage, sexual exploitation as well as
compensation for injury and death suffered by migrant labourers.
They call for NGOs, labour unions, State governments and employers
to work together to ensure labourers rights (see below). Rogaly
et al (2001) advocate public action to address the exclusion of
migrants from health education and other social protection.
The residential school for migrant's children opened by Sadhana
is a good example of how NGOs, donors and the State can work together
to reduce the vulnerability of migrant labourers. Another initiative
that could be explored through multi-stakeholder consultation
is providing migrants with computerised identity cards that they
can use to access services at their destinations, such as basic
healthcare and enrolling their children in the local school. In
addition, ways need to be found to ensure that migrants do not
lose their entitlements to PDS rations in their homes.
12. HOW THE
UK GOVERNMENT CAN
HELP
Migrant Support Programmes[88]
DFID funded Rural Livelihoods Projects in India have started
to experiment with interventions to support migrants. These include
the Migrant Labour Support Programme being implemented by the
Gram Vikas Trust and the Western India Rainfed Farming Project
(WIRFP), Migrant Support and Drought Management Programmes under
the Andhra Pradesh Rural Livelihood Project (APRLP), and other
joint projects with district governments such as the Western Orissa
Rural Livelihood Project (WORLP). Key characteristics of the WIRFP
Migrant Labour Support Programme (Mosse 2003) are a rights-based
approach defending the legal right to fair wages, freedom from
bondage or exploitation through union membership; the focus on
immediate practical and welfare needs of highly vulnerable indebted
migrants; and an inter-organisation approach which (a) involves
simultaneous work in villages of origin and in urban centres of
migration; and (b) brings together government, NGOs and unions.
Photo-identity cards (not with any formal government status) have
been issued MoUs have been negotiated with urban based trade unions
and NGOs. such initiatives have made a difference to labourers
who face continual police harassment and other exploitative situations.
Illiterate people have been issued with pre-written postcards,
allowing them to contact their families. The migration support
scheme is planning to expand, to include literacy education, and
awareness building on HIV/AIDS.
Both APRLP and WORLP are exploring ways of linking with the
DFID Urban Livelihoods programme and NGOs such as Action Aid in
Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh which is the destination
for most Oriya migrants. It is hoped that these programmes will
impact at policy level, influencing State governments to address
the problems faced by migrants in securing entitlements across
state boundaries; to generate and sustain the interest of municipal
authorities, health and labour departments and the police in places
of migration; involve elected representatives at the village,
Mandal and district levels; work with the construction industry
to promote socially responsible business; and promote a self-run
network and raise the profile of labour migration.
It is hoped that these initiatives will be well documented
at the DFID policy level so that the government of India can be
presented with another poverty reduction option within the "watershed-plus"
framework that it is using. It is also anticipated that this policy
debate will assist the government to appoint ministerial responsibility
for migrants, which is a gap in current policy.
October 2003
REFERENCES
Deshingkar, P and D Start 2003. Seasonal Migration For
Livelihoods, Coping, Accumulation And Exclusion. Working Paper
No 220. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Dev, S M (2002) "Pro-poor Growth in India: What do we
know about the Employment Effects of Growth 1980-2000?" Working
Paper 161, London: Overseas Development Institute.
Lee, E S (1966) "A Theory of Migration", Demography
3:1, pp 47-57.
Mosse, D, Gupta, S, Mehta, M, Shah, V, Rees, J and the KRIBP
Project Team (2002) "Brokered Livelihoods: Debt, Labour Migration
and Development in Tribal Western India", Journal of Development
Studies 38(5): June, pp 59-87.
Mosse, D "Supporting Rural Communities in the City—The
Migrant Labour Support Programme" Consultant report for WIRFP,
May 2003.
Rogaly, B, Biswas, J, Coppard, D, Rafique, A, Rana, K and
Sengupta, A (2001) "Seasonal Migration, Social Change and
Migrants Rights, Lessons from West Bengal", Economic and
Political Weekly, 8 December: 4547-59.
Skeldon, R (2002) "Migration and Poverty", Asia-Pacific
Population Journal, December, 67-82.
84
We define a migration as a specific combination of caste, origin,
destination and type of work at the destination. Therefore, a
change in any of these four factors would made a different migration
stream. Back
85
For a much fuller discussion of the conceptual basis of migration
studies, see Deshingkar and Start, 2003. Back
86
Caste in India is based on a traditional Hindu hierarchical system
that ascribes occupation to people in different groups. From bottom
to top of the hierarchy, there are four broad caste categories:
scheduled caste (SC-so-called untouchables), backward castes (BC)
and other Castes (OC also known as FC or Forward Castes), plus
the Scheduled Tribes (ST) which are outside the traditional hierarchy
but are generally placed below SCs. BCs were mainly artisans and
farm labourers in traditional agrarian society. Economic, political
and social power is concentrated in the hands of OCs. In Andhra
Pradesh the BC are numerically the strongest, followed by the
OC, SC and then ST. Back
87
Basic information on occupation structures, caste, income and
asset ownership was collected through a census survey that covered
all households in the study villages of the state. Back
88
This section draws on a RLAG Lesson Learning Brief prepared by
Annika Stanley (DFID India), "Social Protection and Rural
Livelihoods Programmes in India". Back
|
