Why Raju Rai lives 1,980 km from home

States with lower per capita infrastructure spending typically but not always have lower per capita incomes, sparking large migrations, according to finance ministry data. Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh are among the States with lower infrastructure spending and low per capita incomes

Raju Rai was 17 when his mother was diagnosed with cancer, forcing him to leave his village in Jharkhand’s overwhelmingly rural Jamtara district in search of a livelihood. He’s 22 now and earns Rs 10,000 ($145) a month, painting buildings in Bangalore, about 1,980 km to the southwest. “As a gift, God gave us poverty,” said the lean, unsmiling young man, whose chief ambition is to save enough money, find his sister a “good man” and "get her married with dhoom-dham (in style)".

Rai’s story is common among many of the 307 million Indians who report themselves to be migrants by place of birth, according the 2001 census report (the 2011 data is not final). Of these, 268 million (85 percent) migrated within their state, 41 million (13 percent) migrated to another state and 5.1 million (1.6 percent) left India. Men primarily migrated long-distance as migrant labour to earn more money marriage was a prime reason for women and an IndiaSpend analysis found that migration largely correlates with a state’s investment in infrastructure. States with lower per capita infrastructure spending typically but not always have lower per capita incomes, sparking large migrations, according to finance ministry data.

Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh are among the states with lower infrastructure spending and low per capita incomes. High infrastructure spending states like Goa, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Haryana and Gujarat also have higher per capita incomes. So, India is witnessing wide variations in per capita income and growing levels of distress migration from low-income states, experts said.

“Such large flows of migration from village to city have unsettling political and economic effects,” said Sukumar Muralidharan, fellow at the Shimla-based Indian Institute of Advanced Study, a think-tank run by the ministry of human resource development. While infrastructure appears to be the overwhelming link between per capita income and migration, there are important exceptions.

Maharashtra and Delhi have high in-migration rates, accounting for 16.4 per cent and 11.6 per cent of the country’s total migration. The large inflow of people into states like Maharashtra (nearly 8 million in 2001) and Delhi (over five-and-a-half million in 2001) is because of the opportunities they offer.

Now consider Bihar, with a per capita income of Rs 31,199 ($589), and Uttar Pradesh’s Rs.36,250, ($534), which are less than Mali ($704) and Guinea ($539). Bihar spends Rs 13,139 per capita on infrastructure and Uttar Pradesh Rs 9,793.

Compared to Maharashtra and Delhi, the inflow of people to states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh is limited: Only 1,794,219 and 2,972,111 people migrated to Bihar and Uttar Pradesh In 2001. The exceptions are evident in prosperous states with low infrastructure spending, such as Punjab and Kerala, and low-income states with relatively higher per capita infrastructure spending, such as Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh.

The precise reasons are not clear, but uneven geography, diverse demography, culture and politics could be reasons for the breaks in pattern, experts said. Attention to the social sector, as in Kerala, is an explanation. Although the responsibility for promoting equity and equitable development is shifting to the states, as IndiaSpend has reported, the Centre has a role. Equity across states needs focused intervention from the Central government. The rural-urban divide-and, migration-can be addressed by encouraging micro, small and medium enterprises locally.
(Courtesy: IndiaSpend)

Himadri Ghosh