Transformation
of Rural Economy in Western Himalayan region: An Analysis
Dr. P. S.
Kutwal
Associate
Professor, Govt. College Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (H.P.) 174001
*Corresponding Author E-mail: kutwal9999@gmail.com
Abstract
This research has a fresh
look on the disparity in transformation of rural economy among states/union
territories of Western Himalayan Region during 2001-2011. Western Himalayan
Region was rurally more developed than India during 2001-2011. Across the states/union
territories in Western Himalayan Region, both union territories (Jammu &
Kashmir and Ladakh) are rurally developed than Himachal Pradesh and
Uttarakhand. North and north western part of Western Himalayan Region was
rurally developed than southern part. Eleven districts in Western Himalayan
Region recorded negative change in non-agriculture workforce during 2001-2011. These
were Lahul and Spiti, Chamba from Himachal Pradesh; Srinagar, Bandipore,
Anantnag, Kulgam, Ganderbal from Jammu & Kashmir; and Rudraprayag,
Uttarkashi, Tehri Garhwal, Bageshwar from Uttarakhand. It is matter of serious
concern for the policy makers and planners of union/state governments. It was
recommended that the Union and State Governments should start more rural
development programmes keeping in view the target group and area.
KEYWORDS: Non-agriculture
workforce, Western Himalayan Region, and rural development.
INTRODUCTION
India lives in rural areas. About two- third
population of the country inhabits in rural settlements in 2011. As far as, Himalayan
Region was concerned, nearly three-fourth population lived in rural areas. In
this study, the non-agriculture workforce was taken as indicator to work out the
rural development. The non-agriculture workforce reflects the transformation of
rural agrarian economy to manufacturing and service economy. The transformation
of rural economy leads to an overall rural, economic, and social development.
Development disparity is an omnipresent phenomenon at
global, continental, country, and province level. At global level, countries
have been categorized into developed, developing, and underdeveloped realms.
Objective
The major objective of this research paper was to:
·
Examine
the trends and patterns of rural development disparity in Western Himalayan
Region.
Research Question
The following major research question was forwarded
for investigation:
·
What
are the trends and patterns of rural development disparity in Western Himalayan
Region?
Significance of
the Study
The study of the trends and patterns of rural
development disparity in Western Himalayan Region will provide an insight and unfold
the real nature and intensity of disparity. The present study on disparity may
be useful for policy makers and planners for the formulation of policy and programs.
Period and Unit of
Study
The rural development disparity in Western Himalayan
Region was studied covering two points of time i.e. 2001and 2011. India has
adopted policy of liberalization, privatization, and globalization since 1990s.
The free play of market accentuates spatial disparity in development. It
attracts the considerable research interest to know development disparity during
post reform period. The state/union territory and district level data were used
for tracing the inter and intra-state/union territory rural development
disparity.
The Study Area
This study was focused on Western Himalayan states and
union territories. These states were erstwhile Jammu & Kashmir (now
bifurcated into two union territories i.e. Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh),
Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Administratively, there are 47 districts in
2011.These states were designated as hill states as well as special category
states by National Development Council of India for preferential treatment to
accelerate the development of disadvantaged region. The study area lies between
28°44´N to 37°5´N latitudes and 72°40´E to 81°01´E
longitudes covering an area of 331 thousand Km2. It shares one-tenth
(10.08 per cent) of total geographical area of India and contains 2.44 per cent
of total population of the country in 2011.
Database and
Methodology
The secondary data of Census of India have been used
to measure the rural development disparity for two points of time i.e. 2001 and
2011. The data of Jammu & Kashmir have been adjusted in consonance with the
administrative divisions of two union territories i.e. Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh in order to know the development disparity. In this research, rural
development was inferred using non-agriculture workforce in rural areas. In the
present study, rural development disparity discussed at three spatial contexts:
(i) Western Himalayan Region, (ii) inter states/union territories, and (iii)
intra-state.
Limitations
Since measurement of rural development
defies unanimity, the consensus on selection of indicator wassubjective and
open to criticism. The present study was vulnerable on this account. But the
selected indicator was found to be most appropriate.
Rural Development
Western Himalayan
Region
Non-agriculture workforce of the Western Himalayan
Region was recorded 24.88 per cent in 2001. It was higher than national average
(21.72 per cent). The gap of non-agriculture workforce between the region and India
was 3.16 percentage points (Table 1). Itreflects that the region wasrurally more
developed than India. However, majority workforce was engaged in agriculture activities
inboth regions.
The Western Himalayan Region recorded 27.70 per cent non-agriculture
workforcein 2011.It was higher than national average (20.67 per
cent). The gap of non-agriculture workforcebetween the region and India was 7.03
percentage points (Table 1). It increased from 3.16 percentage points in 2001
to 7.03 percentage points in 2011. It reflected that the transformation of
rural economy of the region was more than India.
The Western Himalayan Region recorded 2.82 percentage
points increase in non-agriculture workforceduring 2001-2011. Contrary to it,
India recorded -1.05 percentage points decrease in non-agriculture workforce
during corresponding period of time.
It was concluded
from above observations that theWestern Himalayan Region was rurally more
developed than India during 2001-2011.
Inter States/Union Territories
The spatial
pattern of non-agriculture workforce among states/union
territories in the Western Himalayan Regionreflected rural development
disparity in 2001.It was observed that all states/union territories in the
Western Himalayan Regionrecorded higher non-agriculture workforce than national
average (21.72 per cent). It reflectedthat this region was performing better
than India. Across states/ union territories in the Western
Himalayan Region, Ladakh (37.86 per cent) recorded the highest
non-agriculture workforce and the lowest in Uttarakhand(22.30 per cent). The
gap between the highest and the lowest non-agriculture workforce was 15.56
percentage points (Table 1).
Comparing with the
Western Himalayan Region (24.88 per cent), it was observed that both union
territoriesin the Western Himalayan Regionrecorded
higher non-agriculture workforce. These were Jammu & Kashmirand Ladakh.
On the other hand, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhandrecorded lower non-agriculture workforce in the Western Himalayan
Region (Table 1).
Table
1
India:
Non-Agriculture Workforcein Western Himalayan Region,2001-2011
Sr.
|
State/Union Territory
|
Non-Agriculture
Workforce (per cent)
|
2001
|
2011
|
Change
2001-2011
|
1
|
Jammu & Kashmir
|
28.52
|
31.25
|
2.73
|
2
|
Ladakh
|
37.86
|
46.56
|
8.70
|
3
|
Himachal Pradesh
|
23.05
|
25.59
|
2.54
|
4
|
Uttarakhand
|
22.30
|
25.78
|
3.48
|
Western
Himalayan Region
|
24.88
|
27.70
|
2.82
|
India
|
21.72
|
20.67
|
-1.05
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source:
Primary Census Abstracts, Census of India, 2001-2011.
Note:
States/Union Territories were arranged in geographical contiguity.
REFERENCES
Gosal,
G. S. and Krishan, G. (1979): ‘Regional Disparities inLevels of
Socio-economicDevelopment in Punjab’, Department of Geography, Panjab
University, Chandigarh.
Krishan,
Gopal (1989): ‘Trends in Regional Disparities in India’, Asian Profile, Vol.
(17).
Mohan,
K. (2005): ‘Addressing Regional Backwardness: An Analysis of Area Development
Programmes in India’, Manak Publication, New Delhi.
Smith, D.M. (1973): The Geography of Social Well-being
in the United States- An Introduction to Territorial Social Indicators,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Human Geography a Welfare Approach, Edward Arnold,
London.
UNESCO (1977): UNESCO’s Policy Relevant Quality of
Life Research Programe, Paris.
Venkataramiah, P. (1969): ‘Interstate
Variation in Industry, 1951-61: A Comment’,
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 4.
Williamson,
J. G. (1965): ‘Regional Inequality and the Process of National Development: A
Description of the Patterns’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol.
13.
Williamson, J. G. (1965): ‘Regional
Inequality and the Process of National Development: A Description of the
Patterns’, Economic Development and
Cultural Change XIII, No. 4 (II).