Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India 9780429261831, 9780367202453, 9781032176710

Citation preview

“Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India combines urgent sociological realities with material, labour, and economic demands that shape and design new lives in Himalayan and Deccan plateau communities in the 21st century. Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola synthesize data in a lucid manner that the co-authors have rigorously researched. ­Focusing on the complex challenges and kinship dynamics of family members, in general, and wives in particular, who are left behind in their homestead by migrating male laborers from Garhwal, Uttarakhand, this illuminating and lively study fills a gap in research that documents community lives in remote north Indian hinterlands. The book also stages the backdrop of this migration against international and internal migration, thus invoking wide implications. As a region that borders China, Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola also make abundantly clear the potential security, in addition to economic, implications that mark the urgency of this timely and original study”. – Amita Singh, Professor, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG); Chairperson, Special Centre for Disaster Research, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India “What happens to the people left behind by emigration from poor places in the Global South? Focused on the experience of Uttarakhand, India, Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India highlights the complex personal, social, nutritional and health challenges faced by women in these communities as well as their uneven mitigation by the remittances and increased social esteem that migration yields as a household strategy. The book serves thus as a salutary counterpoint to decontextualized accounts of migrant agency that only focus on men self-investing in education and the promise of work after they leave. And in detailing the background ‘home economics’ of the overall household experience of migration, Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola urgently remind us of whole worlds of suffering and survival obscured by today’s rising rejectionist rhetoric about ‘economic migrants’ from the Global South”. – Matthew Sparke, Professor of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), USA “In Migration, Gender, and Home Economics in Rural North India, Nauriyal, Negi and Gairola offer an insightful panorama of the experiences of Garhwali families who are left behind when (mostly) men migrate for economic opportunities to other parts of India. While out-migration is largely driven by men, the effects go far beyond the individual migrant. In that way, the book’s focus on agriculture, health outcomes, reproductive decision making, work and employment, and other socio-economic factors offers a robust picture of the challenges and opportunities that migration engenders. By taking a household approach to migration, Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India reveals the paradoxes of migration: on the

one hand, migrants experience downward social mobility as they transition from agricultural workers to waged laborers. On the other, the influx of remittances boosts the economic standing of family members left behind, though that gain comes with psychological cost. Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola emphasize the gendered dynamics of rural households, compelling the rehearsed field of migration studies to critically consider new economic, social, and psychological impacts of movement on the entire family unit. For this reason, this dynamic study is a welcome text across disciplines and will enhance understandings of the very important role that women play as wives in the migration processes in and beyond northern India”. – Amy Bhatt, Associate Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies and Affiliate Associate Professor in the Language, Literacy and Culture Program and the Asian Studies Program, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), USA “This compelling study by Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola is urgent reading for those who seek to gain a panoramic understanding of the link between gender and mobility in rural North India today. In a world that is increasingly marked by global conflict, global migrations, and global warming, the authors provide a lucid study backed up with scores of statistics and tables. Their synthesis of the data is commendable, and the writing appeals to policy makers, students, scholars, and the general public. Migration, Gender, and Home Economics in Rural North India is a brilliant addition to most bookshelves in and beyond South Asia”. – R. B. Singh, Secretary General: International Geographical Union (IGU); Member-International Science Council (ISC)-Scientific Committee-UHW; Professor, Department of Geography, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, India “Why do the wives of out-migrants make fewer decisions than the wives of men who work in their villages? Do the wives of out-migrants put in longer hours of paid and unpaid labour in comparison with other wives? Do the impacts of remittances consistently raise the economic and social status of the left-behind family? Answers to these questions are often not what the public assumes. Based on survey and focus group data collected in the high migration zone of Uttarakhand, the co-authors offer a scrupulously detailed analysis of ground conditions for remittance-receiving families and of women’s perceptions of the benefits and costs of living without a husband who is physically nearby. This is excellent, interdisciplinary work that importantly fills a gap on migration research on the relatively new state of Uttarakhand”. – Bonnie Zare, Associate Professor of Sociology and Affiliate in the Women’s and Gender Studies Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), USA

“Nauriyal, Negi, and Gairola have written Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India to demonstrate to academia and policy makers that migration is not simply an issue for developed countries, but rather is making a big impact in the ‘shadows of Himalaya.’ This book does a superb job of combining fine economist analysis with socio-cultural knowledge of rural India. It clearly stretches beyond narrow economics and innovatively demonstrates how out-migrant men also contribute to women empowerment. This is a ‘must-read’ for all readers interested in migration, gender studies, and local decision-makers in northern India. Well-researched with powerful insights to a key global phenomenon of today – gendered migration from rural to urban centres”. – Petr Blizkovsky, Director, Council of the European Union; General Secretariat Directorate-General, Agriculture, Fisheries, Social Affairs and Health – LIFE Directorate, Agriculture (SCA: Special Committee Agriculture) and Social Policy; Visiting Professor, Free University Brussels, Belgium; Associate Professor Mendel University Brno, The Czech Republic “This book shows the profound impact of migration on households and women living in mountainous areas. It presents a comparative study of migrant and non-migrant households and the life experiences of left-behind women parallel to women living with their husbands in northern India. A worthwhile read for those who are interested in migration research and rural development”. – R. B. Bhagat, Professor and Head, Department of Migration and Urban Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India

Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India

This book critically examines the socio-economic impacts of out-migration on households and gender dynamics in rural northern India. The first of its kind, this study unearths, through detailed regional and demographical research, the ways in which economic and migratory trends of male family members in rural India in general, and hilly regions of Garhwal in particular, affect the wives, children, extended families and agricultural lands that they have left behind. It offers vital research in how rural India’s socio-economic formations and topographic characteristics can today more effectively contribute to the national and global economy with respect to migratory trends, gender dynamics and home life. Furthermore, it investigates the collapse of agricultural and many other traditional economic activities without a corresponding creation of fresh economic opportunities. This book moreover elucidates how male out-migration from rural to urban centres has greatly re-shaped kinship and economic structures at places of origin and consequently had a serious impact on the socio-psychological well-being of family members. This book will be of great value to scholars and researchers of development economics, agricultural economics, environment studies, sociology, social anthropology, population studies, gender and women’s studies, social psychology, migration and diaspora studies, South Asian studies and behavioural studies. Dinesh K. Nauriyal is Professor of Economics in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India. He is the lead co-editor of Buddhist Thought and Applied Psychological Research (Routledge, 2006). Nalin Singh Negi is Senior Research Manager at Vital Strategies, New Delhi, India. Rahul K. Gairola is The Krishna Somers Lecturer in English and Postcolonial Literature and a Fellow of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University, Western Australia. He is the author of Homelandings: Postcolonial Diasporas and Transatlantic Belonging.

Migration, Gender and Home Economics in Rural North India Dinesh K. Nauriyal, Nalin Singh Negi and Rahul K. Gairola

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Dinesh K. Nauriyal, Nalin Singh Negi and Rahul K. Gairola The right of Dinesh K. Nauriyal, Nalin Singh Negi and Rahul K. Gairola to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-20245-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-26183-1 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Dinesh K. Nauriyal dedicates this book to his parents, Sri B. P. Nauriyal and the late Mrs. Bhuvaneshwari Devi, and a very dynamic uncle, the late Sri R. P. Nauriyal, who together nurtured and inculcated empathy, ethical values and a deep love for academics in him. Nalin Singh Negi dedicates this book to his parents, Shri Chandra Singh Negi and Smt. Lakshmi Negi for the silent hardship they underwent to nurture their three children and the values they inculcated to serve humanity. Rahul K. Gairola dedicates this book to the memory of his father, Professor Chitra Krishna Gairola, PhD (born in Dehradun and whose ashes were submerged in the River Ganges at Haridwar), to his loving mother, Indira Bhojwani Gairola, and siblings, Sapna and Sounjay.

Contents

List of figuresxii List of tablesxiv Foreword by K. K. Paulxviii Acknowledgementsxx 1 Introduction

1

2 Contemporary trends of migration in India

18

3 Data and methodology

41

4 Profile of the sample population

86

5 Patterns of farm activities

116

6 Health status and treatment seeking behaviour

136

7 Familial life and work participation

157

8 Perceptions of husbands’ out-migrations

182

9 Epilogue: of hills and homes

201

Bibliography209 Index230

Figures

2.1

Migration streams for top ten states for intra-state migration by last residence (duration 0 to 9 years) – India 2001 (excludes Union Territories) 19 2.2 Conceptual framework for the study 39 3.1 Location map of study area 42 4.1a Age-sex pyramid of household members with non-migrant husbands87 4.1b Age-sex pyramid of household members with out-migrant husbands88 4.2 Percentage distribution of the use of income/remittances according to the priorities 107 4.3 Percentage distribution of wealth index among households with non-migrant and out-migrant husbands 113 5.1 Percentage distribution of the households with nonmigrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands using new methods of agriculture 127 5.2 Percentage distribution of the households with nonmigrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands participating in agricultural activities 130 5.3 Percentage of the households with non-migrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands by future abandonment of agricultural activities 132 6.1 Percentage distribution of the self-perception of health status 140 6.2 Percentage distribution of the wives by their stress level 142 7.1 Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands staying in joint families about their choice to stay in nuclear households 161 7.2 Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands satisfied with their current living arrangements 161 8.1 Percentage distribution of the wives’ concerns for their out-migrant husbands 187

Figures xiii

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Percentage distribution of the left-behind wives’ perception towards their lives Percentage distribution of left-behind wives by reasons behind staying back in the village Percentage distribution of the wives’ perception comparing financial conditions Percentage distribution of the perception regarding employment opportunities of the out-migrants

188 190 191 192

Tables

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.1

International migrant stock as a percentage of the total population (both sexes) 2 Regional origins of international migrants (percentage of international migrants born in each region, 1990, 2013) 3 Top ten countries in number of international migrants, 1990 and 2013 3 Top remittance receivers, ranked in descending order as per the ranking in 2018 (US$ billion) 4 Top remittance sending countries (in descending order of 2017 rank) (US$ billion) 5 Internal migrants as percentage of total population in India, 1971–2001 (as per place of last residence criterion; in percent) 14 Migration rate, NSSO: 1983–2008 (in percent) 15 Number of migrants by place of last residence – India 2001 (in millions) 19 Reasons for migration by last residence with duration (0–9 years) – India 2001 (in millions) 20 Total inter-state migrants by place of last residence – India (in millions) 21 1991 Population, 2001 Census data on inter-state migration based on last residence (0–9), migration rate and growth rate of population – States/UTs 23 Reasons for migration to Delhi and Uttar Pradesh from Uttarakhand in 2001 (in millions, unless otherwise stated) 26 Migration profile (duration 0–9 years) to Delhi and Uttar Pradesh27 Number of migrants from Uttarakhand, by place of last residence, divided by age (in millions) 27 Out-migration of rural males from Uttarakhand, Census 2001 44 Percentage distribution of the household members by marital status and type of households 89

Tables xv

4.2 4.3a 4.3b 4.3c 4.3d 4.4a 4.4b 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

Percentage distribution of heads of households by sociodemographic characteristics and type of households 91 Percentage distribution of the husbands’ characteristics 93 Percentage distribution of the husbands’ characteristics 93 Percentage distribution of the husbands’ characteristics 94 Percentage distribution of number of visits to home by out-migrants in a year 95 Percentage distribution of the women by characteristics 100 Percentage distribution of the women by fertility characteristics102 Percentage distribution of the households by religion, caste and other characteristics 104 Percentage distribution of the households’ characteristics 105 Percentage distribution of the households by consumer expenditure and type of households 108 Percentage distribution of the households by housing characteristics110 Percentage distribution of the households with nonmigrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands involved in agricultural activity 120 Percentage distribution of the households with nonmigrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands by different types of crops grown 123 Mean production (in kg.) of different crops among households with non-migrant husbands and households with out-migrant husbands 124 Determinants of cereal production in regard to the sample population125 Multiple regression for determinants of investments in agriculture129 Percentage distribution of intake of different food items 138 Percentage distribution of frequency of intake of different food items 139 Percentage distribution of the wives by their health status 141 Percentage distribution of the wives by their treatment seeking behaviour 143 Percentage distribution of the wives by their awareness about RTIs/STDs 146 Percentage distribution of wives reporting different types of RTI/STD symptoms 146 Percentage distribution of the wives suffering from RTI/ STD symptoms 147 Impact of migratory status of the husbands on their wives’ general health and stress levels 149

xvi Tables

6.9 6.10 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4a 7.4b 7.4c 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

7.9

7.10 7.11

Impact of husbands’ out-migration on the health of the left-behind wives Percentage distribution of wives of non-migrant and outmigrant husbands by access to health facilities Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by their living arrangements Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by reasons behind staying in current living arrangements Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and wives of out-migrant husbands by their interaction with their parents Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by economic support Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by physical support Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by emotional support Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by their familial conflicts and relationships Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by participation in agricultural activities Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by their work participation and income earned Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by their participation in different household activities during agricultural and non-agricultural season Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by their working hours during agricultural and nonagricultural season Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant and out-migrant husbands by their leisure time in the afternoon during agricultural and non-agricultural season Agriculture related decision making, participation in wage labour and number of working hours of the wives with reference to migration status of the husbands

150 155 158 160 162 163 164 164 166 168 170

171

173 174 175

Tables xvii

7.12 Agriculture related decision making, participation in wage labour and number of working hours of the wives of non-migrant and out-migrant husbands with reference to selected socio-economic and demographic variables 7.13 Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant and out-migrant husbands by participation in decision making 7.14 Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by types of household difficulties 7.15 Percentage distribution of the wives of non-migrant husbands and the wives of out-migrant husbands by types of difficulties faced for their children 8.1 Percentage distribution of the wives’ perception regarding husbands’ out-migration 8.2 Percentage distribution of left-behind wives visiting their husbands’ places of work 8.3 Percentage distribution of the wives’ perception regarding agricultural, household work and responsibilities 8.4 Percentage distribution of the wives of out-migrant and non-migrant husbands regarding their perception of their socio-economic conditions 8.5 Percentage distribution of the wives’ perception regarding increased responsibilities due to husbands’ out-migration 8.6 Percentage distribution of the wives’ perception regarding their children’s out-migration

176 178 179 180 184 189 193 194 196 197

Foreword

Foreword xix

K. K. Paul

Acknowledgements

An interdisciplinary study of this magnitude which draws upon and amalgamates data, frameworks and methodologies from industry, the humanities and social sciences warrants a formidable ledger of debt. We three thus collectively thank many colleagues. We express our gratitude to the Parkes Foundation, University of Cambridge, UK, for providing supplementary funding for data collection. We also express our deep gratitude to all the respondents, investigators and participants, without whose cooperation this study would have been untenable. We are deeply grateful to our erudite external reviewers, whose feedback has greatly enhanced the quality of the book, as well as our brilliant colleagues who read pre-published proofs and endorsed the book based on them. We thank the excellent counsel and stewardship of Aakash Chakrabarty and Brinda Sen, our nimble editors at Routledge India, and their team in New Delhi. Finally, the three co-authors thank one another for engaging in impactful, interdisciplinary teamwork across hemispheres that enriched the scope and depth of our collective project through the strength and diversity of each of our individual voices. Dinesh K. Nauriyal thanks both his colleagues and research scholars in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) at the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (IIT Roorkee) and moreover his colleagues from Kumaun University, Nainital, who have in one way or another helped him to complete his share of the work to bring this book into its present form. His daughters Supriya and Ankita greatly helped him to work assiduously on this book project, and he profoundly acknowledges them. Nalin Singh Negi expresses his deep gratitude to Dr. Babita Sinha, Prof. Sulabha Parasuraman (retired) from the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) and Prof. T. V. Sekher from IIPS in developing the questionnaire and shape of the research questions. He also acknowledges the help and support he received from Dr. Veerendra Mishra, Dr. Anurag, Dr. Chandan, Dr. Avanish Patel, Dr. Akarsh Arora and Dr. Bimal. He also feels indebted to his parents, mami-ji, and maternal grandfather for assistance with pre-testing the questionnaire. Finally, he thanks his wife for constant support and motivation.

Acknowledgements xxi

Rahul K. Gairola thanks his colleagues in the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University, Western Australia, namely Yingchi Chu, Helena Grehan, Rikki Kersten, Vijay Mishra, Garry Rodan, and Carol and Jim Warren. He also thanks Lisa Cary, Tim Flanagan, Simone Lazaroo, Melissa Merchant, Lauren O’Mahony, Grant O’Neill, Anne Surma, Andrew Webster and our wonderful students in the College of Arts, Business, Law, and Social Sciences (ABLSS). While working in HSS at IIT Roorkee, he was fortunate to avail the kind support of Rashmi Gaur, Rachita Gulati, Pratap Mohanty, Dipti Nayak and S. P. Singh. He moreover thanks Robin Field, Nalini Iyer, Pallavi Rastogi and Kamal D. Verma of the South Asian Literary Association (SALA) for support as this book went to press. Finally, he thanks Priyamvada Gopal and David Feldman for hosting the Migration seminar (2003–4) at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences, and Humanities (CRASSH), Cambridge, UK, when he was there as a visiting fellow.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Migration is a salient feature of human civilization, given that humans across the continents, from nomadic tribes to the forced exile of Jews from the Kingdom of Israel to transnational entrepreneurs have, consistently moved from one place to another in search of improved livelihood (Srivastava and Sasikumar 2003). Zanker (2008) recognizes that migration is as old as humanity itself and arises from diverse reasons, including epidemics, diseases, famines, disasters and exploration of new lands in local and global quests for a higher standard of living. Thus intranational and international migration emerge not only from a quest for diversification of livelihood along with a search for greener pastures but also from wars, ethnic cleansing, religious and political persecution, the slave trade, environmental changes/disasters, changing governmental policies, etc., which can be termed involuntary, or forced, migration. Skewed race and gender relations have arguably been forged in the crucible of class migrations that shape the most visceral ways in which we today think about contemporary diasporas. Such migrations at both the local and international levels are, moreover, plugged into an entire network of economics, lifestyles, reformulations of family and kinship structures and even modalities of belonging at home and abroad. These auxiliary networks that attend migrations cast far-reaching impacts on the psyches of immigrants and compel them to negotiate social exclusion at the same time that they are dealing with social inclusion. Also at stake are the ways in which post-colonial diasporas experience “home” in foreign lands and subsequently forge new homes through a generative process that Gairola calls “home-landing” (2016). Indeed, migration scholars have produced a vast corpus of literature on migration yielding linked theories that we may variably deploy to explain the phenomena of intranational and international migration, along with factors causing initiation and continuation of migration (Massey et al. 1993, 1998; Schoorl 1995). Although the comparability of data at an international level is complex and debatable, and better methodologies are still evolving, we seek, with the support of available data, a broader and more comprehensive, critical panorama of the migration scenario in relation to North India.

2 Introduction

Notably, the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century can be termed “the age of migration” from a global perspective, given the expeditious economic growth and dramatic advancements in both transportation and communication (Castles and Miller 1993) that have shaped the most visceral of experiences for migrants. Currently, 244 million people, or 3.3 percent of the world population in 2015, in contrast to 2.6 percent in 1960, live outside their countries of birth (Willekens et al. 2016). The migrant population as a percentage of total population is highest in developed countries, rising from 7.2 percent in 1990 to 11.2 percent in 2015 (Table 1.1). These statistics demonstrate that there have been heavy migratory flows into the so-called developed world. These migration statistics, moreover, reveal that almost two thirds of worldwide migration occurs in the Global North, i.e., one third from North to North and one third from South to North. Migratory movements from South to South comprise the remaining one third (United Nations 2017). However, in recent decades, international migratory patterns have dramatically transformed as migration has increasingly become an Asian and Latin American, rather than simply European, phenomenon, consequently demonstrating that there is greater movement from the so-called Global South to North, i.e., reverse of the historical pattern, as is evident from Table 1.2. The Global South, therefore, has become one of the world’s most dynamic regions in labour migration, with many people working overseas not out of personal choice but rather due to alarming disparities in gainful employment opportunities and poor human development parameters back

Table 1.1 International migrant stock as a percentage of the total population (both sexes) Major area, region, country or area of destination

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

WORLD Developed regions Developing regions Least developed countries (LDCs) Less developed regions excluding LDCs

2.9 7.2 1.7 2.2 1.6

2.8 7.9 1.5 2.0 1.4

2.8 8.7 1.4 1.5 1.4

2.9 9.7 1.4 1.3 1.4

3.2 10.7 1.6 1.2 1.6

3.3 11.2 1.7 1.3 1.8

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015). Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2015 revision (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/ Rev.2015). Note: The international migrants stock covers a very diverse group of people comprising: temporary labour migrants, long term (low-skilled migrants), highly skilled and business migrants, irregular/illegal migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, forced migrants (due to famine or natural disaster or both), family reunion and family formation. Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): OECD Insights: International Migration-The Human Face of Globalisation.

Introduction 3 Table 1.2 R egional origins of international migrants (percentage of international migrants born in each region, 1990, 2013) Region

1990

2013

Middle East-North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Latin America-Caribbean Asia-Pacific North America Europe

7 10 11 34 2 33

9 9 16 36 2 26

Source: Pew Research Centre (2013a). Note: Unknown origins included in the estimates, consequently percentage may not add to 100.

Table 1.3 Top ten countries in number of international migrants, 1990 and 2013 Country

1990

Country

2013

Russia Afghanistan India Bangladesh Ukraine Mexico China UK Pakistan Italy

12.7 7.3 6.6 5.6 5.6 5.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.6

India Mexico Russia China Bangladesh Pakistan Ukraine Philippines Afghanistan U. K.

14.2 13.2 10.8 9.3 7.6 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.1 5.0

Source: Pew Research Centre (2013b). Note: Numbers for Russia include people who moved within the Soviet Union before some parts of the USSR became separate nations.

home. This migratory trend is more evident in the 1990s in accordance with immigration policies of “openness” adopted by North America, Europe and the Middle East for highly skilled labour and the mobility of capital. We may thus view migration as one of the most dominant components of globalization driving economic growth in destination countries. Since 1990, there has been tremendous change in the global pattern of international migration. For instance, India, closely followed by Mexico, topped the ranking of countries from which international migration originated in 2013 (Table 1.3). We may here note that in 1990, this list was topped by Russia and Afghanistan. India also stands as one of the top destinations for international migrants, hosting the 12th largest such population

4 Introduction

in the world in 2015. A large majority of these immigrants hail from Bangladesh (3.2 million), Pakistan (1.1 million), Nepal (540,000) and Sri Lanka (160,000) (Connor 2017). We would here note that India has a long and documented history of migration. In modern times, especially during British colonial rule, a large number of Indians moved to Africa, the Caribbean and within the Indian subcontinent itself. Most such movements were involuntary due to the British Empire’s desire for cheap labour. However, of late, a rising trend of migration to North America, Europe and Persian Gulf countries can be more greatly attributed to pull factors rather than push factors that tempt people with better standards of living. Since 1990, there has been a doubling of the number of Indian transnational migrants, growing twice as fast as the total global migrant population. The Indian diaspora is commonly ranked the highest income earning and educated ethnic American diaspora in the US (Connor 2017). This statistic is corroborated by Table 1.4, which recognizes India as the top remittance receiver nation in the world since the year 2000. Table 1.4 also reveals that China closely follows India with the potential to upstage the latter, given its aggressive proclivity for English language learning in the new global economy. Predictably, the most preferred destination among transnational migrants is the United States of America, where the population of immigrants was 13.79 percent of the total US population in 2015. Mexico is the top migratory source country, which is arguably understandable given that it is a border country. It is followed by China (with its massive economic ties to the US), the Philippines (which is itself a former US colony) and then India (http://peoplemov.in/#t_US), which has consistently provided the US with highly skilled labour in the science and technology sectors. Amongst the most preferred destinations, we discover a different mix of immigrants depending on historical reasons. OECD (Organisation for Table 1.4 Top remittance receivers, ranked in descending order as per the ranking in 2018 (US$ billion) Country

2000

2005

2010

2015

2017

India China Philippines Mexico Egypt Nigeria Pakistan Vietnam Bangladesh Ukraine

12.85 0.76 6.96 7.52 2.85 1.39 1.08 1.34 1.97 0.03

22.13 23.63 13.73 22.74 5.07 14.64 4.28 3.15 4.64 2.41

53.48 52.46 21.56 22.08 12.45 19.75 9.69 8.26 10.85 6.54

68.91 63.94 29.80 26.23 18.33 21.16 19.31 13.00 15.29 8.47

68.97 63.86 32.81 30.62 22.52 22.00 19.69 15.00 13.50 12.21

Source: World Bank Dec. 2018.

Introduction 5

Economic Co-Operation and Development) Insights describes four groups of OECD members where immigration is disproportionately conspicuous: a Immigration-based traditional settlement countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States, Israel with strong ties to colonial powers (emphasis added). b European states that recruited labour in the post-war years such as Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland. c European states with migration linked to both a colonial past and postwar labour recruitment like UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands, and d New immigration countries such as Ireland, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, and Norway. Amongst these four categories, immigration-based traditional settlement countries are still very popular destinations, though European states that recruited post-war labour also factor into important destinations. There was some change in the preference of destinations following the Oil Shock of 1973. The newfound wealth of countries in the Gulf and Middle East also attracted immigrants from the developing world in search of better employment opportunities. It is implausible for these countries to attain the same importance as those in North America due to restrictive immigration policies and also because they are theocratic states. Table 1.5 provides information on the top remittance sending countries. As per Table 1.5, the US tops the list of countries from which the greatest outflow of remittances to India originates. The remittances reveal a rising tendency in regard to all the countries listed in Table 1.5, which implies that migration is on the rise in new ways. For example, in Western nations of the so-called Global North, migration is characterized by an exodus of highly

Table 1.5 Top remittance sending countries (in descending order of 2017 rank) (US$ billion) Country

2000

2005

2010

2015

2017

US United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia Switzerland Germany Russian Federation China Kuwait France United Kingdom

34.40 3.68 15.40 7.59 9.04 1.09 0.79 1.73 3.77 2.05

47.25 5.37 14.30 10.05 12.71 6.83 1.82 2.65 9.48 9.64

50.78 10.57 27.07 16.88 14.68 21.45 1.46 11.86 12.03 9.57

61.86 40.33 38.79 25.86 18.03 19.69 20.42 15.20 12.79 10.71

67.96 44.37 36.12 26.64 22.09 20.61 16.18 13.76 13.50 9.72

Source: World Bank Dec. 2018.

6 Introduction

skilled manpower, while the demography of migrant labour largely consists of semi-skilled or unskilled manpower with the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), namely Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. We further note that the total global remittances (from and to the south and north, east and west) has grown by 7 percent from $573 billion in 2016 to $613 billion in 2017. These flows of capital, which are linked to migratory flows, will accelerate given the global rebound of stronger growth in remittance-sending countries. Admittedly, remittances are a major source of foreign exchange earnings for remittance-receiving countries and are more than three times the size of official development assistance (ODA).

Internal migration Internal migration, which essentially implies the mobility to change residence within national borders (UN 2013), unlike international migration, is relatively less discussed, and the dearth of an international repository with a comparable data set in this regard remains a major problem (White and Lindstrom 2005; Skeldon 2012; Bell et al. 2015). Despite the measurement and compatibility problems of related statistics, migration is not only an international phenomenon but also has a large impact on countries with respect to mobility differentials across regions of a given country, distance travelled, age composition, population redistribution, etc. Changes in spatial patterns produce complexities in terms of ever rising burdens on urban infrastructures, proliferations of slums within towns/cities and fringe areas, etc., where they must contend with highly unhygienic conditions. These changes are thus “socially and economically excluded from the wider benefits of the growth, such as access to health and education, housing, sanitation and freedom from exploitation” (ODI 2006, p. 3). These conditions render it very difficult to break the “inter-generational transmission of poverty” (ODI 2006, p. 4), except for cases wherein the migrant population can acquire and further develop new skills that empower it to ascend the income ladder. The internal migration intensities across the world, as measured by the Aggregate Crude Migration Intensity (ACMI), display a relatively high level of internal migration for North America and Australasia that tapers off in regards to Asia with the exceptions of South Korea and Japan (Bell et al. 2015). In the case of Europe, high internal mobility thrives in the northern and western regions and weakens as one moves towards the south and eastern parts of the continent. With regards to Africa, Bell et al. (2015) report high mobility nodes in the east, west and south, while internal migration is reported to be lowest in Asia. Furthermore, over 10 percent of the population in a majority of countries has migrated from their places of birth, as per the reports of censuses in 2000. This has resulted in the reallocation of a sizable fraction of the population across the more urbanized regions

Introduction 7

of the respective countries (UN 2013). India is positioned in the group of nations with lowest migration intensity (UN 2013) yet in absolute terms, vast number of ex-India migrants have settled in developed nations around the globe. Although internal migration is overwhelmingly rural to urban in search of higher living standards, safety, health, education, etc., such migration is at times rural-to-rural and urban-to-rural. However, the magnitude of rural-to-urban is undeniably highest. In a revealing study, Bell et al. (2015) searched for plausible reasons for internal mobility differentials and discovered that the urbanization level, per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the level of Human Development Index (HDI) were major influencing factors. These migrants vary in terms of their schooling years, socio-economic backgrounds and skills, with a high probability of the wealthier sector exercising greater mobility given its socially privileged ability to invest in the initial migration and possibility of strong networking in the host areas. We would moreover observe that the global frequency of internal migration is much greater than international migration, which can be attributed to the fact that the former is far less restrictive and expensive as compared to the latter (Food and Agriculture Organization 2017). Issues of assimilation and socio-cultural integration are often not major concerns when moving within the same region. Moreover, the options to return to hometowns are far more frequent when moving within the same region, and it is easier to stay in touch with left-behind family members and relatives. Internal migration not only contributes to regular household income, thereby raising the standard of living in diverse ways, but also often results in both intended and unintended upgrades to migrants’ skill levels as well as acquisition of new skills (Deshingkar and Akter 2009; Bhagat 2014, 2016, 2017). Additionally, such families experience low mortality and fertility when public health care facilities are accessible to them. While families that move together are, overall, larger beneficiaries of improved health care standards, some members of left-behind families avail medical benefits in the host town. This is not always the case for international migration, where such costs of treatment could be very high or largely unaffordable. In contrast to its documented benefits, migration also has a dark side that is evident in the dismemberment/splitting up of traditional families and kinship structures, which has varying impacts on the pattern and stress associated with labour, social responsibilities reallocation, education, health and psychological and emotional well-being of left-behind family members, especially the spouses. Further examination of the complex network of socio-economic and political issues that arise from and result in the phenomenon of internal migration reveals that a major impact occurs on the dynamics of family relationships, often with a focus on patriarchal practices, and consequently the household economy as it is shaped by wage labour at work versus domestic labour in the home. In this regard, it may be pertinent

8 Introduction

to develop insight into the theoretical issues surrounding the interlinked dynamics of migration, gender and household economies.

Migration, gender and the household economy: theoretical issues Contemporary literature on migration has effectively documented and applied the existing theoretical framework from the oldest neo-classical theory to dual labour markets theory, relative deprivation theory, network theory, institutional theory, etc., to construct a commonly accepted theoretical framework of migration (Jennissen 2007). Each respective heuristic provides insight into altogether different dimensions of migration. For instance, while the dual labour market theory attributes migration to pull factors in other regions (Piore 1979; Massey et al. 1993), the new economics of labour migration theory assumes a different approach. Rather than locating the rationales for migration outside of the home, it holds that migration takes (or we could even say “untakes”) place when households act upon insufficient household income by sending, supporting and/or facilitating migratory shifts of their household members to different, lucrative regions to earn money and thus supplement household resources and reserves (Stark and Bloom 1985). In contrast to this view, the relative deprivation theory holds that significant income differences across regions are formidable factors in catalysing migration (Stark and Taylor 1989). The network theory, on the other hand, details factors that facilitate migratory flow. This model posits that the large flow of migrants forms a network that links them to both their places of origin and their destinations. These linkages potentially assist other migrants by providing support and social protection in the initial phase of migration, which can considerably reduce the problems associated with migration to an alien area as well as exposure to risks (Banerjee 1986; Esveldt et al. 1995). These perspectives are not mutually exclusive and may in fact help in discovering various facets of migration irrespective of the type, i.e., intranational or international. We can say from the outset that the phenomenon of migration refers to the movement of persons from aboriginal, native, indigenous and/or ancestral spaces to external sites with a pronounced desire for permanent change of residence that is triggered by more than one factor, including social, cultural, economic and non-economic factors (Das and Murmu 2010). In other words, we could say that migration is the movement of individuals/people from one place to other places for various reasons ranging from economic pushes/pulls to political persecution. We should nevertheless draw attention here to the fact that inter-regional migration within a nation-state is generally greater than that of international migration due to ease, ethniclanguage-cultural affinity and feelings of social cohesion (Faetanini and

Introduction 9

Subrahmanian 2012). Such intranational migrants generally belong to heterogeneous socio-economic strata which ramify and transpose into varying levels of vulnerability and discrimination at extra-regional sites. Existing literature on migration holds that this phenomenon is, by and large, a result of “push” and “pull” factors (Myrdal 1957; Massey 1988). Push factors like poverty, lack of employment opportunities, desire for education and health care that improves a household’s standard of living commonly drive a household’s sole “bread earner” to migrate from the place of origin. This kind of migration can also be termed “distress migration” or migration out of desperation (de Haan 1999; Waddington and SabatesWheeler 2003; Deshingkar 2006). Pull factors, on the other hand, include availability of higher wages, superior employment opportunities and availability of opportunities and institutions that promise a higher standard of living as vital factors in attracting a workforce from underdeveloped areas to relatively highly developed regions (Ayuwat 1997; Bahuguna and Belwal 2013). In both cases, migrations provide “direct and immediate benefits” to families back home who receive remittances and empower them to overcome poverty, increase and diversify otherwise fragile household incomes, provide insurance against risks and facilitate capacity building of household members through education and access to health care facilities (Ishtiaque and Ullah 2013; World Bank 2006). The other side of migration, whether arising out of push, pull or a combination of both types factors, is that it deprives the source region of its active workforce, which is often reflected in a decline in traditional occupations, forcing households to be far more dependent on remitted money and the exerted pulls on remaining members to urban areas. This further reduces many migrants’ incentives to return to their erstwhile hometowns, thus leaving sparse possibility for any return investment from migrants in their native places. Yet in material life, both factors work together in prompting migration that is deeply embedded into unequal economic and social developments (Boyle, Halfacree, and Robinson 2014; Aimimtham 2008; Das and Murmu 2010). Such migration, moreover, involves the risk-bearing capacity of people (Sjaastad 1962; Todaro 1980), which indicates their willingness to risk their settled life in search of “imagined communities” (Anderson 1991) that are necessarily wealthier and happier. The human capital migration theory particularly emphasizes that education, skill, age, risk-bearing capability and diligence to withstand unforeseen challenges along with entrepreneurial skills tend to impact migration prospects. As Preston and colleagues observe, migration in modern times often occurs in conjunction with some transition in the course of life, including entry into college, livelihood, change of job, healthier climate, natural calamity, retirement and rehabilitation (Preston, Heuveline, and Guillot 2000). The global phenomenon of migration has remarkably sped up in modern times because the movement of people has radically transformed on

10 Introduction

account of accelerated industrialization and urbanization exploited by the British Raj on the Indian subcontinent. Today, vastly improved technologies in transport systems substantially reduce time for commuting, travel hazards and the uncertainties and risks associated with the mass movement of people around the globe. For example, territorial mobility has remained an intrinsic part of life in traditional societies such as Nepal, which politically transformed from a kingdom into a democratic republic in 2008. There changes have taken place in the context and extent of people’s participation in mobility over time as households routinely respond to the challenges, constraints and obligations of rural living (Subedi 2000). We should note here that migration per se is not an issue concerned only with families and their implications on the source area development; rather it has much wider implications. The accrual of additional income through migrants’ remittances may improve the quality and quantity of consumption and investment, sanitation, health care and also the probability of children’s, especially girls’, schooling (Démurger 2015). Migration also influences social relations, including patriarchy and women’s agency. Migratory remittances can create considerable multiplier effects in the local economies of origin areas, spur local economic development by raising demand for local agricultural produce, stimulate non-agricultural economies, contribute to reversing deforestation and other impacts on the land and absorb surplus labour. Circular movements by internal migrants, between areas of origin and destination, can enhance the scope for development of both urban and rural economies, change local practices and catalyze “social remittances”. A contradictory view posits that remittances are mainly invested into urban areas and reduce incentives for generating local employment and income having negative impacts on communities of origin, for example by increasing existing inequalities or creating dependency on such external flows and further insulating a backward agricultural sector by diverting attention from key issues. For instance, uninterrupted and unregulated migration may pose serious threats to civil amenities, health and other infrastructure in labour workforce destination areas, including the creation and/or expansion of slums. Because urban areas generally lack the capacity to absorb a larger influx of migrants, at times mass migration can lead to severe social tensions with changes in demographic composition, the failure of migrants to integrate with the local populace and/or assimilate to local cultures, a reduction in employment opportunities and conflicts of interest with the local community, etc. At the same time, migrants, especially those at the lower level of income, may be deprived of even the bare minimum economic entitlements, social security and legal protection, face social exclusion, and may have to contend with settlements in urban slums that contain worse poverty and/ or exploitative conditions at the places of destination than were previously

Introduction 11

experienced in their hometowns. Poor earnings in the informal sector due to low skills and social obligations to remit funds back home may further expose such migrants to poor nutrition, housing and health care services (UNICEF and UNESCO 2012). For a comparative case in point, we can briefly consider the state of Kerala, India’s most southwestern, coastal state, from which the maximum international migration has recently occurred, particularly to the Middle East. Besides a notable reduction in unemployment (Srivastava and Sasikumar 2003), emigration has resulted in a comparatively high inflow of remittances that constituted almost 21 percent of the state income in the 1990s and also increased consumption expenditure. We would here note that during 1978–79, the average per capita consumption was below the national average, while in 1999–2000, it surpassed that average by 41 percent (Kannan and Hari 2002). As per Zachariah et al. (2002), international labour migration is “the single most dynamic factor in the otherwise dreary employment scenario of the socially well-developed state during the last quarter of the twentieth century” (p. 1). This aspect is so dominant in the field of migration that many available studies in India largely focus on Kerala. The evidence from Kerala reveals that, due to emigration, since the 1950s, population growth has declined. In the 1980s, there was a reduction of a fifth of the natural increase of population due to migration. This reduction had a direct bearing on the working age population, as mainly able-bodied men and women of working age emigrated, leaving behind the children and elderly. Migration also resulted in smaller household sizes because single member households increased by 33 percent while two-member households increased by 42 percent. Apart from demographic impacts, Kerala moreover experienced a decline in population living below the poverty line (Prakash, Nauriyal, and Noushad 2017) and perceptible increase in education, health care and housing, which could be directly linked to overseas remittances (Osella and Osella 2003). According to a study by Zachariah and Rajan (2010), 94 percent of households used remittances for subsistence, while 60 percent of households used them for education and 50 percent used them for repayment of debts incurred due to emigration. A minority, i.e. 11 percent, used remittances for purchasing houses or renovation, and less than 2 percent were used for starting a business. Additionally, land possession is higher among out-migrants and emigrants than those who remained in the native homes (Zachariah, Mathew, and Rajan 2001). Returning to the research topic of migration, Hondagneu-Sotelo (1992) details that “migration is both gendered and gendering” precisely for the “male character of outmigration”. Although women were discovered to be far more mobile than men, their roles and perspectives have been, until recently, comparatively ignored in economic literature on migration. We would postulate that this limited coverage could be because researchers assumed there was little use in writing about women’s perspectives, since it

12 Introduction

is assumed that the husband always makes the decision to migrate, and the wife simply accepts it (Pedraza 1991). This issue warrants greater attention and further research, although it is not the subject of our discussion here. Rather, our focus in this study remains on left-behind families, in general, and wives, in particular. Returning to the consequences for wives of single out-migration of husbands, a substantial body of literature exists on the perceived empowerment of left-behind women through increased autonomy, opportunities to negotiate public spaces, access to income through remittances and control over resources, etc. (Chant and Craske 2003; Mahler and Pessar 2006; Datta and Mishra 2011). Nevertheless, the scenario can be substantially different when out-migration of the male member yields irregular and insufficient remittance receipts to cover even basic household needs, poor access to remittances and increased work burden for the left-behind women. Recognising the general perception that women are always subordinate in the patriarchal system, the complexity of gender relations and women’s empowerment with respect to social dynamics and development that are triggered by outmigration of husbands assumes major significance (Tinker 1990; Chant and Campling 1997; Chant and Craske 2003; Mahler and Pessar 2006; Rudel 2006, Kiriti-Nganga 2007; Menjívar and Agadjanian 2007). One view is that women in such families tend to “project themselves as the ‘behind-the-scene’ decision makers, while trying to live according to the expectations of the patriarchal ideology”, making space for their absentee husbands to pose as de facto decision makers (Jetley 1987). This phenomenon is also referred to as gender subordination, and its core “lies in the fact that most women are unable to mobilize adequate resources (both material and in terms of social identity) except through dependence on a man” (Elson 1992, p. 41; Mc Evoy 2008). These experiences may nevertheless vary between societies, socio-economic and ethnic groups, countries, cultures, etc., depending upon the equitability of genders among the respective societies, though there can be no denial that the out-migration of husbands likely reconfigures gendered relations across the board. However, a survey of literature suggests that most women reported feeling “uncomfortable” and un-empowered by the perceived autonomy, as it also precipitates experiences of separation, fear and abandonment by out-migrant husbands along with a significant rise in the diversity of roles, responsibility, accountability and financial insecurity. It has also been reported that few of the wives of out-migrant husbands received substantive and regular remittances, while the majority received much insufficient and irregular remittances, and this also compounds the woes of left-behind women and other family members (Torosyan, Gerber, and Gonalons-Pons 2016). In a study by Zachariah, Mathew, and Rajan (2001), the left-behind wives of emigrants in Kerala reported the following problems in order of importance: “loneliness, added responsibilities, adverse effect on children’s

Introduction 13

education, debt incurred to finance emigration, increased anxiety, and fear that emigration will not bring in financial gains” (p. 60). Although not all left-behind wives are the same, this also frequently leads to illness and depression. Some wives conditioned themselves to live in the absence of their husbands by becoming associated with institutions like schools, religious organizations/temples, and government offices that had earlier been beyond their grasps since they remained in the social spheres of their husbands. Nevertheless, this fact of gendered social and domestic spaces begs the following question: are these changes are sustainable for the long term or only for a short term period? (Rajan 2004). Despite such reporting, there is a high probability that exposure to socio-economic, cultural and other difficulties faced by left-behind women, coupled with familial and societal perceptions of what women should and can do, must undergo radical change. Such change throughout the interlinked, socioeconomic structures of home life in both rural and urban domiciles will likely take quite some time. This is perhaps especially pertinent in the digital milieu with social media movements for women’s rights in relation to movement and migration, like #MeToo and other such movements in and beyond India (Gairola 2018). These changes may eventually reshape and redefine gender roles for the women left behind and out-migrant men, contributing to an increase in women’s empowerment (Brettell 1988; Mc Evoy 2008; Afsar 2011). In rural economies, one major factor that tends to influence gendered tasks and relations is the feminization of agriculture in the aftermath of out-migration of migrant male labourers from their native households. Until households start receiving regular and substantive remittances from outmigrants, they have little choice but to continue with existing income-earning operations that could assist left-behind family members to earn their livelihood and also, if need arises, support the out-migrant until she is able to independently do so. If the household is agriculturally based, it might continue with agricultural operations; the same applies to households that are wage-based, where members may need to continue to work where and when employment is available. Because in most cases the out-migrant is a young, able-bodied male member, the left-behind household members are commonly wives, elderly parents, younger siblings and children. In such situations, the women emerge from traditionally defined gender roles, usually under the close surveillance and guidance of elderly family members in the patriarchal system, whereby they perform tasks that migrant male members of the household had formerly performed. The studies undertaken in this regard report that in the occurrences of out-migrations of male labourers and their long absences from the households, left-behind women must engage in agricultural labour that has traditionally been viewed as “men’s work” (Deere 2005; Paris, Luis, and Villanueva 2009). In migration literature, this phenomenon is referred to as the “feminization of agriculture”

14 Introduction

and essentially implies increased involvement of women in the agricultural sector (McEvoy 2008). The rise in de facto female-headed households, as a consequence of out-migration of male household members, is nowadays a reality playing a substantive role in out-migrant households of the developing world (Blumberg and Garcia 1977; Youssef and Hetler 1983; Elson 1992; Chant and Campling 1997; Chant and Craske 2003; Harris 2005; McEvoy 2008). Nevertheless, the rise in female-headed households does not, by default, imply freedom from authority of males as long as women are dependent on men for resources and free access to them (Elson 1992).

The Indian scene Since the focus of our work is India, it behoves us to examine some broader aspects of internal migration. Internal migration in India was exacerbated by diverse HDI factors across the Indian states and Union territories, with rapid expansion of the means of transport and communication along with rising urbanization. However, recent censuses have registered a marginal decline in the internal mobility of the people across India (Table 1.6). This decline was observed with regard to both rural and urban areas and is

Table 1.6 Internal migrants as percentage of total population in India, 1971–2001 (as per place of last residence criterion; in percent) Migrants

All Areas Total

Male

Rural Female Total

Urban Male

Female Total

Male

Female

Census year 1971 Lifetime 29.12 17.46 41.66 Inter-censual 12.43 9.42 15.68

27.18 12.88 42.25 10.91 7.06 14.98

36.92 35.00 39.16 18.56 18.47 18.66

Census year 1981 Lifetime 30.30 17.22 44.30 Inter-censual 12.17 8.85 15.72

28.29 12.06 45.34 10.40 6.26 14.74

36.80 33.24 40.84 17.88 16.87 19.02

Census year 1991 Lifetime 26.94 14.05 40.85 Inter-censual 9.65 6.13 13.45

25.56 8.43

9.71 42.45 4.16 12.98

30.91 26.28 36.10 13.19 11.69 14.87

Census year 2001 Lifetime 30.07 17.04 44.05 Inter-censual 9.48 6.11 13.10

27.98 11.14 45.79 8.27 3.94 12.86

35.51 31.98 39.44 12.63 11.61 13.76

Source: Shodhganga (2012). Notes: 1 T he data are based on Census of India, Migration Tables, Tables D-01 and D-02 for various years. 2 T he data exclude Assam in 1981 and Jammu and Kashmir in 1991, where the respective censuses were not held.

Introduction 15

largely attributed to fast growth in the transport and communication infrastructure that facilitates commuting to work and home every day with greater ease (Hassan and Daspattanayak 2007). In terms of daily commutes of domestic migrant workers, the women are found to be far more mobile than the men. Although there was a decline of 3.36 percent in lifetime migration from 1981 to 1991, there has been a rise of 3.13 percent in the subsequent decade. This rise can be attributed to the change in the economic regime from a set of restrictive policies to open policies promoting privatization, neoliberalization and globalization after the early 1990s. In such a climate that now favoured transnational capitalism, much changed. It was more conducive to domestic and foreign direct investments and removal of major constraining restrictions, leading to large investments providing people new opportunities to move to the newly emerging industrial and service sector hubs in specific states which were at the forefront of the change (Bhagat and Mohanty 2009; Bhagat 2017). However, the rise in lifetime migration in 1991 over 1981 is also accompanied by continuously falling decadal inter-censual data and probably indicates that the rise in lifetime mobility may be due to some other reasons. In this regard, it may be pertinent to look at the evidence available in the NSSO data. Table 1.7 provides information in this regard. As is evident from Table 1.7, there is some decline in migration between the 43rd and 49th rounds for the population as a whole that is attributed to the neo-liberalization of the Indian economy along with the rising immobility of the population (Kundu and Gupta 1996). Since then, there has been a steady rise in the mobility of the population. This rise appears to corroborate the lifetime migration statistics of Table 1.6. We would here note that Indian society is slightly atypical given the diverse socio-economic, cultural and ethnic threads that coalesce into the “joint family system”. This system, for the past 50 years, has come under tremendous pressure due to rapidly changing socio-economic and cultural dynamics that pave

Table 1.7 Migration rate, NSSO: 1983–2008 (in percent) NSS Years Rounds

All areas

38th 43rd 49th 55th 64th

23.4 25.4 24.7 26.6 28.5

1983 1987/88 1993 1999/2000 2007/08

Rural

Urban

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Source: Shodhganga 2012.

12 11.9 10.8 11.7 10.9

35.4 39.8 39.6 42.4 47.2

N.A. N.A. 22.7 33.0 26.0

7.2 7.4 6.5 6.9 5.4

35.1 39.8 40.1 42.6 47.3

N.A. N.A. 30.6 24.0 35.0

27 26.8 23.9 25.8 25.9

36.6 39.6 38.2 41.8 45.6

16 Introduction

the way for the nuclear family system. India’s Human Development Report of 2005 recognizes migration as a critical factor in deciding the possible changes in the roles and responsibilities of left-behind women. It moreover deduces that there was comparatively little change in gender roles as a consequence of male-out-migration from joint families, but they changed drastically if it was a nuclear family (Desai and Banerji 2008). Though mobility of a population is a universal phenomenon, disproportionate and permanent migration is a matter of great concern, given its causes, and may consequently severely impact the development and growth of the sending areas. For instance, permanent migration may jeopardise the possibilities of using the acquired skills and savings of the out-migrants and the region may remain under the dark cloud of underdevelopment for a long time due to insufficient investment from other quarters.

Migration in the shadows of the Himalayas The preceding discussion depicts the case of the state of Uttarakhand, where some districts, in particular Pauri and Almora, have registered a negative population growth rate as a consequence of out-migration due to a dearth of gainful employment opportunities, environmental degradation and poor resource management. In such regions, one of the most affected segments of the population is the left-behind wives. They must continue with their traditional drudgery, including the collection of fodder, fuel wood and water, facilitating animal husbandry, attending to domestic chores and giving care to children and elderly people in their respective households. In addition, they must shoulder the additional responsibilities of attending to agricultural tasks, especially in nuclear family households (Singh 2015). In such situations, even children, especially daughters in the family, must contribute to the household’s division of domestic labour, which essentially costs them their studies, health and more (Mamgain and Reddy 2016). Some studies report relatively little impact on the emancipation of women as a consequence of out-migration of their husbands (Maity, Mazumdar, and Das 2018; Singh 2018) because of poor and sporadic remittances (Jetley 1987; Menon 1995), lack of financial autonomy, limited decision-making power and increased risks of “physical, social and verbal abuse”. Menon (1995) reports that remittances received back home are highly inadequate and fail to substantially improve the economic well-being of left-behind families. Moreover, the left-behind wives are burdened with additional responsibilities and traditionally male tasks, like caring for children’s health and education and meeting social expectations besides continuing with their traditional roles as caregivers to other family members and the elderly (Datta and Mishra 2011). The eldest daughter generally looks after younger siblings in the absence of her mother, who might have to shoulder other domestic responsibilities (Jetley 1987). We discuss other aspects, like the

Introduction 17

health care of left-behind wives, later in this work, but would here mention that the out-migration of husbands also exposes women to the tremendous risk of acquiring STDs and HIV (Roy and Nagia 2005). As per Roy and Nagia’s suggestion, married male migrants working in urban enclaves often engage in extramarital sex that exposes them to STDs that they can then act as carriers of back into their rural homesteads. The most plausible explanation to this could be the possibility of the out-migrant husbands indulging in unprotected sex as they would be away from their wives for a long period of time. In conclusion, we have in this chapter introduced international and internal migration and thus herein laid a foundation for further discussion of issues involving left-behind wives and other family members. This chapter, in other words, presents a panoramic view of our concerns while also hinting at the major issues raised in the book.

Chapter 2

Contemporary trends of migration in India

In India, as in other postcolonial nations, there has been a substantial rise in the rural to urban migration during the last several decades (International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD 2007a]) due to the existence of better economic conditions in the urban areas than in the rural areas (Desai and Banerji 2008). This type of migration involves the movement of a large number of people from their usual residence (rural) to live, work and earn in urban areas for a long period of time (NSS 64th round). The two major sources of data on migration, the Census of India and the National Sample Survey (NSS), have been employed by scholars in almost all studies of migration. According to the Census of India, migrants are defined by two methods. Firstly, “migrants by place of birth are those who are enumerated at a village/town at the time of census other than their place of birth,” and secondly, “a person is considered as migrant by place of last residence, if the place in which he is enumerated during the census is other than his place of immediate last residence” (Census of India 2001). By focusing on the recent cases of migration where persons have migrated more than once, this notion offers a sharper panorama of post-millennial migration scenarios. As per the 2001 Census, the internal migration (by place of last residence) in India constitutes approximately 31 percent of the population, which stands at 314.5 million. While 67 percent of these migrants comprised the rural population, about 33 percent comprised that of urban areas. The 64th Round of National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) also indicates a similar trend. Furthermore, Table 2.1 reveals intra-state (85 percent) and intra-district (72 percent) migration is higher than inter-state (13 percent) and inter-district (18 percent) migration, implying the preference for short distance migration. This is also corroborated by the findings of NSS 64th round for India as a whole, which states “78 percent of the migrant households in rural areas and 72 percent of the migrant households in the urban areas had last usual place of residence within the State” (NSSO 64th Round). Contrary to general expectations, most of the migration (69 percent) in 2001, at the turn of the new millennium, occurred from rural to rural areas,

Contemporary trends of migration in India  19 Table 2.1 Number of migrants by place of last residence – India 2001 (in millions) Sl. Category No. A B C D E F G

Migrations by Percentage place of last residence

Total population 1028.61 Total migrations (B/A)*100 314.54 Migrants within the state of enumeration (C/B)*100 268.22 Migrants within the districts (D/CB.1)*100 193.59 Migrants from other districts of the state (E/C)*100 74.63 Migrants from other states in India (F/B)*100 41.17 Migrants from other countries (G/B)*100 5.16

– 30.6 85.3 72.2 17.8 13.1 1.6

Source: Census of India, 2001.

Percentage

100 80

79.9

75.8

73

71.8

70.8

69.8

69.7

69.2

67.5

66.5

60 40 20 0

States

Figure 2.1  M igration streams for top ten states for intra-state migration by last residence (duration 0 to 9 years) – India 2001 (excludes Union Territories) Source: Census of India, 2001.

whereas only 14 percent of the migration took place between rural and urban areas. Figure 2.1 reveals that rural to rural migration was far more evident in the case of Bihar (80 percent), Jharkhand (76 percent), Assam (73 percent), Himachal Pradesh (72 percent), Sikkim (71 percent), Uttar Pradesh (70 percent), Rajasthan (70 percent), Chhattisgarh (69 percent), Orissa (68 percent) and West Bengal (67 percent). Most of the migration was part of the intra-state migration. Moreover, when we examine the share of migrants across the million plus cities, it becomes evident that migration is closely linked to the economic prominence and vivacity of the place (Prasad et al. 2009). Reasons for migration vary with respect to gender (male and female), as summarized in Table 2.2. For instance, while 63 percent of the males migrated for “work/employment” reasons and “moved with the household”, 84 percent of migrant women cited “marriage” and “moved with the household” as the reasons for migration from their local regions in 2001

20  Contemporary trends of migration in India Table 2.2 R easons for migration by last residence with duration (0–9 years) – India 2001 (in millions) Reason for migration

Number of migrants

Percentage of migrants

Persons

Males

Females

Persons

2001 Work/employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Moved with households Other

14.37 1.13 2.90 42.93 6.57 20.48 9.45

12.31 0.95 2.03 0.68 3.42 8.21 5.13

2.06 0.19 0.87 42.25 3.15 12.27 4.33

14.7 1.2 3.0 43.8 6.7 20.9 9.7

37.6 2.9 6.2 2.1 10.5 25.1 15.7

3.2 0.3 1.3 64.9 4.8 18.8 6.6

1991 Total migrants Work/employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Natural calamities Other

82.11 27.26 9.94 8.29 2.25 1.81 3.45 2.44 36.86 0.72 Not available 0.43 0.25 10.74 5.48

54.85 1.65 0.44 1.01 36.14

100.0 12.1 2.7 4.2 44.9

100.0 30.0 6.6 9.0 2.6

100.0 3.0 0.8 1.8 65.9

0.18 5.26

0.5 13.1

0.9 20.1

0.3 9.6

Males

Females

Source: Table D3, Census 2001 and 1991.

(Census of India 2001). The evidence from the 64th Round of NSS and other studies (Mukherji 2013) also indicate the same. Migration on account of marriage suggests that a larger proportion of females either move from their parental homes to their parents-in-law’s homes as part of the longestablished cultural practices of Indian society, or join their migrant husbands at the places of their employment. Since women are largely compelled to migrate on account of marriage, they therefore are likely to be far more migratory than men. However, there are probabilities that though these women might have primarily migrated along with their husbands, they may have also joined the workforce at their destinations. When the data for 2001 are compared to the Census data of 1991, we discovered that there was an increase in male migration on account of work/ employment during the decade. There has, however, been a marginal reduction in the migration of females on account of marriage in 2001 over 1991. Poor incomes on account of low skills, capacities, education and lack of opportunities, coupled with the promise of a better life in the urban areas, appear to be the major determinants of out-migration from rural areas (Sekher 1997; Subedi 2010). As highlighted by Table 2.3, there are quite discernible migration corridors within the country from low-income states to high-income states (Mukherji

Males

Females

Persons

Females

Persons

Males

Total in-migrants (interstate and from abroad)

Total population

Source: Census of India 2001.

INDIA 1028.61 532.157 496.454 314.541 93.362 221.18 Maharashtra  96.879 50.401 46.478 41.716 16.764 24.952 Delhi  13.851 7.607 6.243 6.014 3.339 2.676 West Bengal  80.176 41.466 38.71 25.098 7.635 17.463 Uttar Pradesh  166.198 87.565 78.633 41.217 7.311 33.907 Haryana  21.145 11.364 9.781 7.574 2.106 5.468 Gujarat  50.671 26.386 24.285 19.222 6.694 12.527 Madhya Pradesh  60.348 31.444 28.904 18.222 4.188 14.034 Karnataka  52.851 26.899 25.952 16.56 5.691 10.87 24.359 12.985 11.374 9.189 2.971 6.219 Punjab  Rajasthan  56.507 29.42 27.087 16.386 3.244 13.142 Jharkhand  26.946 13.885 13.061 7.428 1.6 5.828 82.999 43.244 39.755 20.481 2.249 18.232 Bihar  Andhra Pradesh  76.21 38.527 37.683 23.462 7.839 15.622 20.834 10.474 10.36 6.907 1.791 5.116 Chhattisgarh  Rest  198.639 100.49 98.149 55.065 19.94 35.125

States

59.11 82.77 79.06 60.53 47.07 66.65 72.85 57.95 61.57 70.77 55.70 53.50 47.36 60.90 65.94 54.80

18.81 36.07 53.47 19.72 9.30 21.54 27.56 14.49 21.93 26.12 11.98 12.25 5.66 20.80 17.29 20.32

70.32 59.81 44.49 69.58 82.26 72.19 65.17 77.02 65.64 67.67 80.20 78.46 89.02 66.59 74.06 63.79

100 13.26 1.91 7.98 13.10 2.41 6.11 5.79 5.26 2.92 5.21 2.36 6.51 7.46 2.20 17.51

Females 100 100 17.96 11.28 3.58 1.21 8.18 7.90 7.83 15.33 2.26 2.47 7.17 5.66 4.49 6.35 6.10 4.91 3.18 2.81 3.47 5.94 1.71 2.63 2.41 8.24 8.40 7.06 1.92 2.31 21.36 15.88

Males

Share of total migrants

Persons Males Females Persons

% in-migrants to total population

Table 2.3 Total inter-state migrants by place of last residence – India (in millions)

22  Contemporary trends of migration in India

2013). The Census of India 2001 information reveals that while most of the out-migration from Bihar converged towards Delhi, Haryana and Punjab, migrants from Uttar Pradesh favoured Maharashtra as their most important destination. Out-migration from Odisha, on the other hand, was largely confined to Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. The states where massive migration has taken place include Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, etc. (Mukherji 2013). These are the states which do not have many employment opportunities, an effect that consequently drives the workforce to seek employment elsewhere, preferably in other states, as is evident from Tables 2.3 and 2.4. The two most important states, which shared 23 percent and 13 percent of the total out-migration in India, were Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, respectively. Overall, Maharashtra was migrants’ most favoured destination, likely influenced by Mumbai as a top global city which has popularly been depicted as the common man’s dream destination (Mukherji 2013). This is reflected in the fact that almost half of all inter-state migrants have moved to Maharashtra, where inter-state migration to Maharashtra saw a massive influx of migrants (80 percent) to urban areas alone. Approximately 73 percent and 79 percent of those migrants who moved from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, respectively, to Maharashtra mentioned employment as the primary reason for migration (Census of India 2001). These two states have also contributed to male-dominated, inter-state migration to Punjab, with three quarters (75 percent) of them citing the same reason for migration. Similarly, inter-state migration to Delhi for purposes of work/employment was heavily male-dominated. For example, the sex ratio of net migrants in Delhi was only 673 females per 1000 males (Census of India 2001). Other preferred destinations are Gujarat and Haryana, to which around 30 percent of all migrants have moved. These three states together pulled 80 percent of all inter-state migrants during the inter-census period of 1991–2001. The inter-state migration in almost all the states was heavily male-dominated and was undertaken primarily for work/employment purposes. The bulk of migrants are from disadvantaged communities, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Castes (Deshingkar and Akter 2009). More than 80 percent of migrants either did not have any formal education or dropped out before secondary school (Census 2001, D series, D7) and were generally employed in the informal sector, such as domestic help, hospitality services (small hotels and roadside restaurants/tea shops, etc.), security services, small scale industry (leather accessories, diamond-cutting, etc.) construction, brick-kilns, transportation, mines, textile, stone quarries, fish and prawn processing industries, agriculture (crop transplantation and harvesting – sugarcane harvesting, plantations), street vending, etc. (Deshingkar and Akter 2009). The continuation of mass migration from these states also suggests that these states are disproportionately disadvantaged in

Population (1991)

8463.88 2.81 665.08 8.65 224.14 645.31 6.42 176.15 1.38 1.02 94.21 11.70 413.10 164.64 51.71 77.19 218.44 449.77 290.99 0.52 485.66 789.37 18.37 17.75 6.90

States/UTs

India A & N Islands Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chandigarh Chhattisgarh @ Dadra & Nagar Damen & Diu Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh J&K @ Jharkhand @ Karnataka Kerala Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram

168.27 0.30 4.22 0.72 1.22 4.61 2.39 3.39 0.48 0.48 21.73 1.21 11.26 12.31 1.88 0.87 5.03 8.79 2.35 0.04 8.15 32.32 0.05 0.34 0.23

In-migrants from other states (2001) 168.27 0.08 6.37 0.13 2.82 22.41 1.07 4.45 0.03 0.05 4.58 0.33 4.51 5.88 1.66 1.22 6.16 7.69 4.32 0.01 8.43 8.97 0.31 0.20 0.32

Outmigrants (2001) 7.41 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.58 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.49 0.05 0.15 0.27 0.28 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.32 0.0002 0.07 0.48 0.002 0.01 0.08

From other countries (2001) 7.41 0.22 –2.09 0.62 –1.55 –17.23 1.38 –1.03 0.45 0.45 17.64 0.93 6.89 6.70 0.51 –0.32 –1.11 1.31 –1.65 0.03 –0.21 23.83 –0.26 0.14 –0.007

Net inmigrants (2001) 0.1 7.9 –0.30 7.20 –0.70 –2.70 21.40 –0.60 32.60 44.10 18.70 8.00 1.70 4.10 1.00 –0.40 –0.50 0.30 –0.60 6.40 0.00 3.00 –1.4 0.8 –0.1

Migration rate (per 100) 1991–2001

(Continued)

21.5 26.9 14.60 27.00 18.90 28.60 40.30 18.30 59.20 55.70 47.10 15.20 22.70 28.40 17.50 30.00 23.40 17.50 9.40 17.20 24.30 22.70 24.6 30.7 28.8

Growth rate of population 1991–2001

Table 2.4 1991 Population, 2001 Census data on inter-state migration based on last residence (0–9), migration rate and growth rate of population – States/UTs

12.10 316.60 8.08 202.82 440.06 4.06 558.59 27.57 1320.62 70.51 680.78

Nagaland Orissa Pondicherry Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand @ West Bengal

0.34 2.30 1.05 8.11 7.24 0.23 2.70 0.40 10.79 3.52 7.25

In-migrants from other states (2001) 0.52 4.41 0.36 5.01 9.97 0.06 6.74 0.24 38.11 3.55 7.30

Outmigrants (2001) 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.27 0.12 0.08 0.26 0.11 0.32 0.29 2.59

From other countries (2001) –0.17 –2.07 0.71 3.37 –2.62 0.24 –3.78 0.28 –27.00 0.27 2.54

Net inmigrants (2001) –1.4 –0.7 8.8 1.7 –0.6 5.9 –0.7 1.0 –2.0 0.4 0.4

Migration rate (per 100) 1991–2001 64.5 16.3 20.6 20.1 28.4 33.1 11.7 16.0 25.9 20.4 17.8

Growth rate of population 1991–2001

Note: @ indicates that the population of new states for the 1991 Census is recast from the states from which they are formed. For Jammu and Kashmir, estimated population is shown. All the figures are in lakhs.

Source: Table D2, Census of India 2001.

Population (1991)

States/UTs

Table 2.4 (Continued)

Contemporary trends of migration in India  25

relation to others in terms of socio-economic development. In this regard, we should point out that the migratory destinations have swelling urban populations that nurture and promote urban slum conglomerates, which in turn catalyze vast policy and infrastructural implications for demand for and development of urban amenities (Mukherji 2013; Das 2012). Nevertheless, such migration is desirable as it is an attempt to escape from abject poverty in the source region.

Dynamics of migration from Uttarakhand Uttarakhand, as a geographical region, is widely identified by its sparse population and the engagement of its inhabitants in predominantly primary economic activities, combined with highly inadequate infrastructure and a negligible presence of secondary and tertiary sectors, especially in hilly parts of the state. Subsistence-based, rain-fed agriculture has been the crucial livelihood means for the overwhelming proportion of the hill population. Bereft of employment opportunities and any credible source of earning, the hill population has been migrating to the plains for a long time, and most of them have been serving the Indian defence forces to support their families and financially honour their regional kinship ties. An overwhelming majority of these migrants work in the informal sector in low paying jobs. Thus many households resort to out-migration more as part of the survival than wealth accumulation strategy (IFADb). That is to say, the focus is on family rather than on wealth, although there are fine distinctions between both in advanced capitalist/highly developed societies that have emerged from other rural regions of the globe. The dependency model and Migration, Remittance, Aid and Bureaucracy (MIRAB) model also highlight that the major reason of migration is the need to increase income and to reduce labour surplus within the extended household (Aimimtham 2008). Indeed, the “push” factors have exercised stronger influence on the decision to out-migrate than the temptation to have a better life in the urban areas (Jetley 1987). For example, Belwal (2007) has found that one third of the population of Garhwal has moved out for better opportunities of livelihood. Migration in due course of time has also been encouraged by the promise of a better life, desirable occupation and sufficient accessibility to various services, including education and health care (Aimimtham 2008). The 64th Round of NSS reveals that 844 out-migrants (per 1000 population) from rural areas have moved out for employment-related purposes. As is evident in Table 2.4, there has been more out-migration from Uttarakhand than in-migration from the beginning of the new millennium. The reasons for migration from Uttarakhand do not appear radically different from those for the rest of India, as evidenced by Table 2.5. Moreover, in the case of Uttarakhand, 65 percent of all males out-migrated due to employment-seeking and the movement of the household to other places.

26  Contemporary trends of migration in India Table 2.5 Reasons for migration to Delhi and Uttar Pradesh from Uttarakhand in 2001 (in millions, unless otherwise stated) Migrants

Uttarakhand’s total migration Work/employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Moved with household Other Uttarakhand’s inmigration to Delhi Work/employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Moved with household Other Uttarakhand’s inmigration to Uttar Pradesh Work/employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Moved with household Other

Migrants (duration 0–9)

Percent migrants (duration 0–9)

Persons

Males

Females

Persons

Males

Females

0.1140

0.0620

0.0520

100.0

100.0

100.0

0.0410 0.0004 0.0040 0.0170 0.0020 0.0420 0.0080 0.1030

0.0390 0.0003 0.0030 0.0001 0.0010 0.0140 0.0050 0.0350

0.0020 0.0001 0.0008 0.0170 0.0010 0.0280 0.0030 0.0680

13.7 0.4 1.7 44.6 0.8 21.4 17.4 100.0

37.9 1.1 3.6 0.8 1.4 26.9 28.3 100.0

1.9 0.1 0.7 66.1 0.5 18.8 12.1 100.0

0.0180 0.0004 0.0030 0.0440 0.0006 0.0310 0.0060 0.1140

0.0160 0.0003 0.0020 0.0005 0.0003 0.0120 0.0040 0.0620

0.0020 0.0002 0.0007 0.0430 0.0003 0.0190 0.0030 0.0520

35.9 0.4 3.1 14.6 1.8 37.2 7.1 100.0

62.8 0.5 4.4 0.2 1.8 23.0 7.3 100.0

3.7 0.2 1.5 31.9 1.9 54.1 6.7 100.0

0.0410 0.0004 0.0040 0.0170 0.0020 0.0420 0.0080

0.0390 0.0003 0.0030 0.0001 0.0010 0.0140 0.0050

0.0020 0.0001 0.0008 0.0170 0.0010 0.0280 0.0030

17.7 0.4 2.8 42.2 0.6 30.2 6.0

47.0 0.8 6.1 1.3 1.0 33.6 10.2

2.7 0.2 1.0 63.2 0.4 28.5 3.9

Source: Data Highlights – Tables D1, D2 and D3, Census of India 2001.

A large proportion of females (66 percent) moved out due to marriage, which demonstrates that the migratory patterns of about two thirds of the state’s in-born women depend on the economic conditions and job prospects of bachelors who eventually get married. As per the census of 2001, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh account for 32 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of the total out-migration from the state of Uttarakhand due to proximity, marriages and the availability of job opportunities. Thus Delhi and Uttar Pradesh together account for 62 percent of the total out-migration. Tables 2.5 and 2.6 provide relevant information in regard to the migration from Uttarakhand to Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.

Contemporary trends of migration in India  27 Table 2.6 Migration profile (duration 0–9 years) to Delhi and Uttar Pradesh Migrants

Total

Rural

Urban

Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Total out30.71 migrants Uttarakhand 1.14 to Delhi Uttarakhand 1.03 to U. P.

10.10 20.61

–

–

–

–

–

–

0.62

0.52

0.08

0.042 0.035

1.06

0.58

0.48

0.35

0.68

0.44

0.09

0.59

0.26

0.33

0.35

Source: Census of India 2001. Note: All figures are in lakhs.

Table 2.7 Number of migrants from Uttarakhand, by place of last residence, divided by age (in millions) Age at migration

Number of migrants

Percentage

0–9 10–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 80+ Other

0.124 0.193 0.447 0.154 0.073 0.035 0.02 0.0087 0.0037 0.0012

11.7 18.2 42.2 14.6 6.9 3.3 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.1

Source: Census of India 2001.

While a much larger proportion of men have migrated to Delhi, the more favoured destination for women is Uttar Pradesh (see Table 2.6). Thus in the case of both these states, while male migration can be attributed to employment, marriage appears to be the main reason behind female out-migration (Table 2.5). We must also examine the age profile of migrants, and relevant data in this regard is provided in Table 2.7. As could be discerned from Table 2.7, maximum migration occurs among young adults between the ages of 20–29, which reflects the hope and aspirations of young job seekers for a better livelihood than their parents had in the formative years between teenage and middle age. Accordingly, there is a steep decline in out-migration after the age of 39 years. Dependent populations (age group 0–19 years) aggregate 30 percent of the migrants and thus form a sizeable proportion that suggests migration with parents.

28  Contemporary trends of migration in India

A closer inspection of the demography of out-migrants reveals that socially dominant groups, such as Rajputs and Brahmins, command an overwhelming share of all out-migration from Garhwal, while socially marginalized groups, like scheduled castes, do not generally display significant tendencies to move out (64th NSS Round, Jain 2010). This difference could largely be attributed to economically and socially destitute conditions of scheduled castes. Such conditions render these marginalized groups ill-equipped to migrate, as they do not have any support systems in the host regions. Such a dearth of support forecloses on regional assistance, even basic support, during at least the initial months of migration, when transplants lack jobs as well as local connections and as such are doubly alienated. Another factor that influences out-migration decisions is the connectivity of potential migrants to informal kinship channels to seek/receive job information, recommendations and initial logistic support. Such channels usually include friends and relatives who are already living outside their places of origin. In this regard, people from the upper part of the social hierarchy, namely those who hold caste, ethnicity and economic status, occupy sites of privilege that are not accessible to those at the lower part of the social hierarchy (Jain 2010). We should here mention that education constitutes another crucial factor that shapes the socio-economic profiles of out-migrants from Uttarakhand. Only around 14 percent of all out-migrants have been found to have received education up to graduate and postgraduate level. This phenomenon appears to be an echo of the state of affairs at the national level (Mukherji 2001, 2013). This suggests that an overwhelming majority of the migrants have not studied past the intermediate level of education, which renders them ill-equipped to engage in sustainable career prospects and secure better paying jobs even as it consolidates perceptions of urban employers that migrants from Garhwal lack essential skills and/or education to be considered for better employment opportunities. As a consequence, most of them either seek jobs in defence/para-military forces or settle for low-paying jobs in the informal sector, which most of the time offer a quality of life that is “below human dignity level existence” (Mukherji 1993, 2001, 2013). Gender resurfaces in the social institution of marriage when we critically survey it in relation to migrations from Garhwal. Our survey of marital status revealed that around 82 percent of the out-migrants migrated during their bachelorhood (Jain 2010), probably for the consideration to settle down in their jobs before getting married. However, because such migrants are mainly involved in informal sectors, their incomes do not support spousal co-migration to employment destinations, even after marriage. In other words, studies demonstrate that the majority of rural out-migrants are not accompanied by their wives (Singh, Yadava, and Yadava 1981; Singh 1985; Singh 1998). Given the uncertainties of new jobs and family constraints back home, conjugal separation was found to be quite commonplace among

Contemporary trends of migration in India  29

rural out-migrants (Banerjee 1984). Consequently there would be far more cases of conjugal separation among the younger out-migrants as compared to relatively older cohorts (Banerjee 1984). But a few studies have also concluded that migrants who think of eventually settling down in urban areas are unlikely to leave their families at the places of origin (Banerjee 1984). Kothari (2002) reports, in particular, on how potential migrant workers require wives to stay behind and look after their children, land, house and livestock. We also wish to note that male-dominated migration has led to a serious demographic imbalance, as only quite elderly women and too young children are left behind to tend to the fields and look after the low yield cattle, etc. (Nautiyal 2003). As a result, many villages in Uttarakhand which once bustled with activities demonstrate much less colourful social fabrics which, in a fairly large number of cases, convey a very depressing, deserted look. While this social depression becomes evident in the hilly areas of the state, the depletion of males in their indigenous communities has also resulted in a transformation of social activities for those who are left behind. In the following sections, we delve deeper into these issues.

The impact of male out-migration on socioeconomic and demographic characteristics Migration appears to have been a catalyst in bringing about substantial change in the social and demographic structure of a given area as well as in population growth, improving socio-economic conditions of the regional inhabitants. Inter-state migration from ‘poor’ to relatively ‘developed’ states has multidimensional impacts on both the home and host communities” (Hadi and Kamal 1997). Closer scrutiny of the complex factors of migration reveals that a large proportion of migrants move on a short term basis (Deshingkar and Grimm 2005). In contemporary India, this short term migration includes temporary, circular and seasonal migration, or the temporary movement of people in search of job opportunities in any sector, and has been an integral part of the lives of the destitute population (Rogaly et al. 2001). Amidst the many consequences of male migration in a given geographical region is the change in age and sex structure of the sending communities (Davin 1996). For instance, Prasad et al. (2009) report that the median age of migrants to Greater Mumbai Urban Agglomeration (GMUA) has been 19.4 years, and a significant number of the migrants have been married. Most of the migrants have moved from rural areas, yet they maintain regular contact with family members and relatives in their hometowns and, in most cases, send remittances. Migration, in the urban areas, has a formative impact on the lives of people migrating with respect to kinship structures, a shift from extended to nuclear families, a weakening of

30  Contemporary trends of migration in India

traditional family obligations and rituals and a tendency towards having fewer rather than more children (Khan 2005). However, family structures have been certainly affected by the out-migration, whether of temporary or permanent nature (Hugo 1987). Migration has pushed extended households to focus on nuclear household structures, resulting in the emotional nucleation of the family, reducing effective protection for elderly parents and leading to serious psychological problems (Hugo 2000). Interestingly, the evidence indicates that the husbands’ presence does not much impact the household size (as cited in Desai and Banerji 2008). It seems that household size is governed more by social and cultural norms than by couples’ decisions alone. This suggests that left-behind wives live, in the absence of their husbands, in extended households that offer child-rearing, cooking, cleaning, livestock grazing and other forms of domestic support. As previously mentioned, this shift in the household demographics also leads to a shift in social activities. In contrast, widows/divorced/separated women have been reported to be living in nuclear households (Desai and Banerji 2008), although the prevalent social norms make it unusual for women to live alone. Given these social norms, husbands’ migration may be facilitated only if the left-behind wife accepts to live with other family members (Haan 2006). The aftereffects of migration may also indicate that there has been a significant shift in the dependency burden of the families, from younger to older generations, due to migration. There have been changes in the age composition of the family, with a skewed effect in the direction of a larger proportion of older persons in the families (De Silva 1994). In the family structures of the households, additional, sweeping sociological changes occur, including family composition, family separations and the abandonment of old people, outcomes related to children in terms of labour, health and education (Markova 2010). The two major causes of migration from rural areas (push) versus to urban areas (pull) have been the near absence of off-farm employment avenues and below subsistence agricultural production, resulting in the dynamic growth of temporary/seasonal migration (Rogaly et al. 2001). However, a decisive factor driving male migration has been the handiness of other members in the household to care for the left-behind families (Haan 2006), which we believe suggests an emotional, visceral bond with family ties and an internalized sense of familial responsibility with respect to kinship relations. There also exists a sharp distinction between families living with salaried or professional income and those subsisting on retirement income or remittances (Desai and Banerji 2008). Labour migration is always associated with certain kinds of uncertainties. For instance, when it is successful, it brings economic benefits and adds other social values to the family through economic stability. The dearth of viable employment options, on the other hand, may adversely result in greater economic hardships for these

Contemporary trends of migration in India  31

families (Sadiqi and Ennaji 2004). As migrant workers are working in private sectors in the cities, largely on a contract basis, the nature of their work profile is quite temporary and uncertain. Nevertheless, the fundamental impact of out-migration in rural areas was felt on the pattern of household expenditure and investments (Katz and Stark 1986; Stark and Robert 1988; Lucas 1997). Migrant remittances, as is widely documented, are extremely instrumental in uplifting the credit constraints of families residing in rural areas and enable such families to invest in creative and productive activities (Woodruff and Zenteno 2007) or in the formation of human capital of the next generation (Yang 2008; Beine, Docquier, and Rapoport 2008). Interestingly, families in rural Garhwal appeared to have essentially utilized such remittances from these migrants for social and familial purposes comprising household consumption, loans settlements, managing weddings in the family and meeting other social obligations. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) has observed that the migrants’ remittances have been a significant source of funding that fulfils immediate needs of the migrants’ families in home countries and further enables them to save, and invest, in education and health. The remittances moreover may catalyze poverty reduction and spur economic growth in developing countries (International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD 2007b), Zachariah et al. 2000). In another study, Shrestha, Duwadi, and Adhikari (2012) have observed that although the impact of remittance at the individual and household levels has been established, its impact at the national level remains inconclusive. Other scholars further observe that families have ultimately used the remittances of migrants as an additional income for meeting consumption expenditure and to invest in productive activities (Aimimtham 2008; Mendola 2006). However, studies have also found that remittances from the migrants did not seem to have made much of an impact on the savings and consequently capital formation precisely for the reason that they are irregular and smaller (Krishna 2002). There are also findings that remittances from the migrants have had a significant role in increasing consumption in the rural areas (Afsar 2003, NSS 64th Round). It may be pointed out here that remittances are generally considered by economists as a conventional measure of the economic impact of migration (Asis 2003). A comparative analysis of migrant households with non-migrant households, as reported by some studies, demonstrates that there are considerable differences in income and consumption levels of the households that merit closer examination (Sharma 1997; Krishnaiah 1997). It is generally perceived that the income and consumption levels of out-migrant households are higher than those of comparable non-migrant households (Sharma 1997; Krishnaiah 1997). Thus remittances seem to change the household consumption levels and may also affect its patterns. However, unlike the volumes of research studies which have emphasized that rural income and consumption increase because of out-migration, Essang

32  Contemporary trends of migration in India

and Mabawonku (2007) opine that rural areas are unable to receive an equitable sum of economic or capital gains from out-migrants that is usually invested in their education. This is considered so since migrants often take low-paying jobs, making it virtually impossible to remit sizeable amounts of money to their hometowns. The evidence on investment is, however, mixed. While some of the migrants reported that they have invested in housing, land and consumer durables, others have demonstrated greater interest in investing in agriculture. It may be noted here that although there has been a dearth of investment in productive farm or non-farm activities, a good amount of literature suggests that such investments form a very small fraction of migrant households incomes (Rogaly et al. 2001; Sharma 1997; Krishnaiah 1997; Oberai and Singh 1983). The remittances of migrants thus have a considerable impact not only on the individuals or families but also on the communities, especially when the high level of remittance flows to the left-behind families (Lu and Treiman 2007). The remittances have also been the reason for income growth as well as the prime reason of increasing inequality in the rural areas (Adams 1989). Since this phenomenon is truer of international migration, we forward that it would be worth tracking internal migration as well to see if this is also the case. Taking cognizance of the research studies which have reported that remittances sent by migrants have not been sufficient enough to improve the households’ well-being or in pushing economic development (Parinduri and Thangavelu 2008), it appears that remittances may not play a significant and decisive role in the lives of the left-behind and/or their health care (Parinduri and Thangavelu 2008). Generally, the contemporary discourse on migration has presented a positive picture of migration, as it has a significant role in enhancing the economic welfare of the left-behind household members of the out-migrants’’ families through higher incomes and further asset generation (Adams 2007).

Impact of out-migration on agriculture A large section of rural Indian households still perceives agriculture as a main source of income, as it continues to offer ways and means for survival (Desai et al. 2010). However, due to inevitable reasons, in contemporary times agricultural employment has been decreasing, as most of the rural areas are experiencing a rise in the process of “de-­agrarianization”, with a newer generation of workers seeking to exit the primary sector (International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] 2007a). Therefore in recent times, the rural workforce has been observed to have a significantly greater stake in the non-farm sector (Jha 2011). At the same time, reduction in the concentration of able-bodied male workers in the agricultural sector, consequent upon the out-migration, may eventually be

Contemporary trends of migration in India  33

reflected in the decline in agricultural output unless the created vacuum is filled by technological innovations or other measures (Udoh 1970). We should here note that this process perpetuates a vicious circle whereby out-migration of able-bodied male workers in the households leads to degradation of agriculture, which further fuels out-migration (Mini 1998; Chilimampunga 2006). The deterioration of a rural economy and resultant poverty and food insecurity has occurred in the rural areas mainly because of the drain of youth from the rural populace and the concentration of older and aged members to constitute the labour force of the rural areas (Olayiwola 2009). The labour shortage may have been the reason behind the abandonment of farm lands, introduction of machinery, adoption of labour-saving technologies, lower cropping intensity, changes in tenancy arrangements, environmental degradation, etc. (Aimimtham 2008). In fact, the household members left behind participate in subsistence agriculture and require the labour of all of their members during peak production periods (Bever 2002). Hence, outmigration, per se, has far greater implications, including the feminization of agriculture and an increase in women’s workload, as male migration brings significant shift to the gendered division of labour (Croll and Huang 2009). This observation stretches far beyond a simple analysis of the flow of remittances to the places of origin. It has also been reported throughout different parts of South Asia and Africa that persistent drought and structural problems have pushed rural wages and work availability in the agriculture sector to quite low levels, and hence the remittance from urban to rural has overtaken the income from the agricultural sector (Deshingkar 2004). In the context of the particular region under study, Garhwal, the situation is remarkably different, as the cultivable land comprises sub-divided and fragmented mostly rain-fed small terraced fields wherein modern agricultural implements cannot be operationalized. Consequently, women’s workloads swell tremendously for want of out-migrated able-bodied male members who otherwise would have undertaken a majority of the agriculture related tasks, especially men-specific work. Agriculture, in this kind of topography, requires hard labour and is less productive, and thus migration becomes a tempting route to overcome drudgery and the misery of life (Nautiyal 2003). Of late, the rising menace of wild boars and monkey troops has also made it difficult for the local population in Garhwal to realize even whatever poor harvest they have to reap, whether cereal or horticulture crops. Since the people are ill-equipped to deal with this menace, they have no option but to abandon agriculture as an occupation, which has spurred intraand inter-state migration. Taking cognizance of these tough ground realities, it can be suggested that raising agricultural incomes is probably the best proposition towards reduction in rural-urban migration

34  Contemporary trends of migration in India

(Stiglitz 1969; Byerlee 1974; Todaro 1976; Goldsmith, Gunjal, and Ndarishikanye 2004).

Living arrangements and familial lives of the left-behind wives Existing literature has also very well documented several adverse impacts of men’s migration on the left-behind women (Roy and Nangia 2005). For instance, women have reportedly been left with greater stress and vulnerability, an increased workload and a high chance of extended family intervention. It increases women’s workload, as out-migrants’ responsibilities and tasks are to be inevitably undertaken by the left-behind women or others, if any (Boehm 2008; Nautiyal 2003; Zachariah et al 2000; Khaled 1995; Grawert 1992). For instance, families have to introduce changes in their lifestyles and bear far more responsibilities in order to compensate for the loss owing to migration of able-bodied male members (Das and Murmu 2010; Gulati 1993). In the absence of male members, women are left on their own to adjust in the changing circumstances; as a result, their role and status often undergo change (Hugo 1997). For example, Nautiyal (2003) in her study has estimated that under these circumstances, women’s workload fills around 17 hours per day, leaving no space for any leisure. A few studies undertaken on Uttarakhand have reported that in the event of out-migration of male members, the additional burden of performing arduous agricultural tasks and tending to cattle also falls upon the women, besides continuing with the assumed routine jobs such as cooking, fetching fuel, fodder and water, and, of course, child care (Bora 1996; Swarup 1993; Mathur 1983). It is a well-known fact that in Garhwal hills, women generally tend to contribute 55–60 percent of the total labour and perform almost all the agricultural tasks except for ploughing and other assumed to be male-specific responsibilities (Nautiyal 2003; Mathur 1983). It has also been reported that in rural areas, the independence and autonomy of the left-behind women has little meaning in the face of destitution and little awareness of the changing socio-economic and technological environment (Nautiyal 2003). It is further perceived that as most of the remittances are sent in the name of the out-migrant’s parents, the left-behind wife has no control over finances and therefore enjoys no financial autonomy/inclusion (Lokshin and Glinskayai 2008). The studies have found that migration does not bring any change in women’s position and women’s autonomy, and de facto headship is a fiction (Dawson 1995). There also appears to be a consensus that conjugal separation has serious emotional, physical, psychological and social life related implications even if the wife is left in the care and protection of the other family members (Mondain, Randall, and Diagne 2009). While the remitted earnings might relax financial

Contemporary trends of migration in India  35

constraints of the households and improve their capacity to invest in the health and education of the children (Alcaraz, Chiquiar, and Salcedo 2012; Yang 2008; Edwards and Ureta 2003), the long absence of the out-migrant male member (father) may also have a negative impact on the child outcomes, in terms of health care, academic and emotional accomplishments, that may overshadow the positive effects of improved financial leverages (Giannelli and Mangiavacchi 2010; Lahaie et al. 2009). Similarly, conjugal separation due to out-migration of the husband may adversely affect the physical, emotional and social well-being of the wives left behind (Kishtwaria 2007; Sekher 1997). Many studies have supported the view that migration also changes relations at household and community levels (Srivastava and Sasikumar 2003), although wife and children, generally, are left in the care of parents or in some cases other relatives (Parasuraman 1986). It has been reported that in the long term, the wives of out-migrants tend to break away from the extended families and set up their own nuclear homes (Yabiku, Agadjanian, and Sevoyan 2010). There are, however, diverse views regarding the change of women’s status in the family due to male out-migration. It is usually believed that women get more authority and power in decision-making (Findley and Williams 1991), though studies documenting little change are not scant (Shaheed 1981). For instance, it has been reported that in the absence of a senior-most/majorly earning male authority, the autonomy and decision-making power may be usurped by other male members or older female family members (Desai and Banerji 2008). Thus male migration by itself does not ensure greater autonomy for left-behind wives. Neither does it effectively pull the family out of the mire of poverty (Jetley 1987). However, comparable studies in Morocco by Sadiqi and Ennaji (2004), Armenia and Guatemala by Agadjanian, Sevoyan, and Menjívar (2007) and Bangladesh by Hadi (2001) have supported the view that the left-behind women enjoy greater decision-making power, management duties and autonomy (Yabiku 2010). Similarly, it has also been reported that male out-migration has been instrumental in influencing women’s position as they appear to be direct participants in the decision-making with far more assertive roles partially because of their exposure to the new ideas and values owing to their out-migrant husbands (Srivastava 1999; Ghosh and Sharma 1995). Furthermore, due to increased male out-migration, wives reportedly become de facto heads of the households; more so if they reside in nuclear households. Hence migration has the potential to change the household composition by increasing the women-headed households (Zachariah, Mathew, and Rajan 1999). Khaled (1995) has compared the labour force participation rates across wives of migrants and non-migrants in Jordan. His research reveals that wives of migrants had higher labour force participation than non-migrant wives, even after controlling for education.

36  Contemporary trends of migration in India

It was further reported that these women had to seek employment out of financial needs due to insufficient remittances rather than aspirations for becoming financially self-dependent (as cited in Yabiku, Agadjanian, and Sevoyan 2010). These findings were further supported by other studies undertaken in other parts of the world (Durand and Massey 2004). Some studies, on the other hand, could not find a relationship between labour migration and women’s employment. For instance, Agadjanian, Sevoyan, and Menjivar (2007) did not find a difference in employment rates between the wives of out-migrants and those of non-migrants in Armenia (Yabiku 2010). Nevertheless, it may be noted that these issues are context specific, and the findings may vary with heterogeneity in the socio-economic, cultural and political milieu. Thus it can be opined that men’s migration may lead to women’s employability only when employment avenues are available, when women have matching skills, and social or familial taboo do not hinder employment of women outside their homes (Yabiku, Agadjanian, and Sevoyan 2010).

Nutrition and health status of the left-behind household members The impact of migration on nutrition and health care of the left-behind household members has received attention of the researchers and policy makers worldwide (Amuedo-Dorantes and Pozo 2011; Acosta, Fajnzylber, and Lopez 2007; World Bank 2006; Bruyn and Kuddus 2005; Richard 1998). Most of the literature has theoretically postulated and found empirical evidence to suggest a positive association between remittances and increased household investment in nutrition and health care (Valero-Gil 2008; Frank and Hummer 2002). Nevertheless, such an association is not uniform across the migrant groups because of the diversity in the importance and predictability of remittances relative to other sources of household income, as well as the awareness and sensitivity towards health care needs (Amuedo-Dorantes and Pozo 2011). Some studies have also found evidence of an adverse impact of migration on the nutrition and health care of the left-behind families (D’emilio et al. 2007; Deshingkar 2006; Kanaiaupuni and Donato 1999; Levitt 1997; Perez-Stable et al. 1986). It is also affected by the nature of employment. For instance, in the event of employment of out-migrants in public sector jobs, the dependent family members may also avail themselves of better health care facilities, if they opt to visit the out-migrant family member at his/her destination for the purpose of getting treatment. Such families are also likely to have better nutrition due to predictability of the remittances as compared to those who are employed in the informal sector. Prima facie, the left-behind families of out-migrants (employed in the formal sector) are likely to enjoy better and regular income; therefore,

Contemporary trends of migration in India  37

their likelihood of spending more on health care, as compared to their counterparts working in the informal sector, is higher (Amuedo-Dorantes and Pozo 2011). The health care of the recipient households of higher and regular remittances may also be promoted by their improved capacity to invest in other constituents that promote and sustain good health, viz., better nutrition, housing, potable water, etc. (Duryea, Ernesto, and Alexandra 2005). There is also a high probability that out-migrants may also make their families aware of the importance of health and nutrition through their exposures to the outside world (International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD] 2007b). The contemporary literature also suggests that households’ investments in improvements of their living conditions (e.g. better housing) and medical care are the concerns directly addressed by remittances from migrants that tend to affect the mortality rate indirectly (D’emilio et al. 2007). Although the bulk of remittances are still used for consumption (Islam 1991; Afsar 2003), this may not be a cause for concern as long as additional income is invested to improve the nutrition and health status of the households (Deshingkar and Akter 2009). Migration can be instrumental in affecting the family’s health care through different channels (AmuedoDorantes, Sainz, and Pozo 2007; Kanaiaupuni and Donato 1999). The first channel may be the reduction in the household’s income constraints and its improved capacity to access health care facilities (Wagstaff 2005; Gertler and Gruber 2002). The second may be that the out-migrant may function as a source of information which could motivate households to adopt healthier lifestyles or better health seeking behaviour (Hildebrandt and McKenzie 2005). The out-migrants, through frequent and regular contact with the left-behind family members, disseminate their acquired knowledge effecting a modification in the health care seeking behaviour of the migrant households (Hadi 1999; Brittain 1990). Similarly, Parasuraman (1986) has observed that migrant households have lower morbidity in comparison to other households. It may be mentioned here that the women living in the hilly regions of Uttarakhand, in general, have been facing a perennial problem of malnutrition due to subsistence agriculture, poor food intake and very demanding physical work. The women who were engaged in agricultural activities in Uttarakhand are reported to be experiencing a higher prevalence of anaemia and are more underweight than the women who are working in the nonfarm sector. Added to this is the poor access to health care facilities, which are either highly inadequate or are inaccessible due to tough terrain, poor ability to pay for the services and unavailability of qualified medical professionals, especially in remote areas. The small and scattered nature of rural settlements makes the matter worse, as improvement in the access to health care facilities in these areas becomes a major challenge for policy makers and service providers (Agrawal and Negi 2012). In light of the existing

38  Contemporary trends of migration in India

literature and ground realities in the area under study, it would therefore be interesting to examine the impact of remittances on the health care seeking behaviour of left-behind families.

Need for the study While migration has been treated more as a survival strategy for poor households where employment opportunities are either meagre or totally absent, it has serious implications for the left-behind families in general and wives and children in particular. All are affected differently and, therefore, migration may mean different things to different family members. The magnitude of these effects is being increasingly examined, though they are yet to be fully understood. Amongst all of them, most affected are the left-behind wives, who are traditionally expected to accept the long absence of husbands without much murmuring, provide care to the elders and rear and ensure schooling of the children. The noteworthy fact in this regard is that younger wives of the migrants are more likely to stay back than the older ones. At the same time, there is a high probability that these younger women would live in an extended household, which may reduce the positive effects of husbands’ migration (Desai and Banerji 2008). There are a fair number of studies exploring these aspects, yet such studies are context-specific (due to diversity of gender relations across the world and cultural and social attitudes towards migration). They therefore may have limited scope for generalization. We would opine that it is thus necessary to examine these issues against the backdrop of a hill economy which has a long tradition of migration, coupled with positive social attitudes to the effect that the issue became part of the general proverb “Pahad ka paani aur jawani uske kam nahin aate” (the water and youth of hills do not stay back). In much migration research, the focus has been mainly on women migrants (Pedraza 1991; Hondagneu-Sotelo 1992; Reshmi 2008). The available literature does not really record the impact of male out-migration on the left-behind wives in terms of empowerment or otherwise (Connell 1984; Pessar and Mahler 2003; Mahler and Pessar 2006). It may be noted here that although existing literature has profoundly examined the “prevalence of conjugal separation”, it has hardly documented the empirical evidence that could suggest the factors that govern this phenomenon (Banerjee 1984). Considering that migration literature has largely focussed on the push and pull factors that cause migration, it has certainly overlooked the plight of the left-behind, be it extended family or wives and children or both (Roy and Nangia 2005; Toyota, Yeoh, and Nguyen 2007; Desai and Banerji 2008). Hence, an attempt has been made in this study to understand dimensions related to conjugal separation and the differences in the lives of wives of out-migrants and those of non-migrants, if any. The broad objective of

Contemporary trends of migration in India  39

the study is to examine the socio-economic, physical and psychological welfare aspects of the wives of out-migrants by taking wives of non-migrants as the reference group.

Conceptual framework Although people migrate for many reasons, this study focusses primarily on one particular type of migration, known as the long term migration of the male workforce, which eventually results in the relocation of an individual or household (UNICEF and UNESCO 2012) to the place of destination.

Household

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

Migrant Household

Household size Landholdings Income of household Assets Consumption Investment Savings Indebtedness

Non-migrant Household

IMPLICATIONS FOR WOMEN

Perception about migration Farm and non-farm activities A. Shift from farm to non-farm activities B. Investment in farm or non-farm activities C. Feminization of agriculture D. Effect on production

Health

Familial Aspects

A. Health status B. Health care seeking behaviour C. Nutritional status

A. Support system (Financial, physical and emotional) B. Work load C. Relation with other household members/relatives D. Living arrangements

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework for the study Source: Compiled by authors.

A. Problems and prospects of life B. Positive and negative aspects of migration

40  Contemporary trends of migration in India

This conceptual framework focusses on a greatly under-explored area of research, i.e., left-behind wives of the migrants, which was always overshadowed by what is more glaring, i.e., causes and consequences of migration, taking migrants as the central figure. Since migration is rampant or pervasive in Uttarakhand, it widely impacts the socio-economic-psychological welfare of the left-behind population comprising wives, children and others, who might have access to more financial resources owing to remittances but at the same time may stand deprived of critical emotional support from the migrants. This study takes the household as the study unit and has included both kinds of households, i.e., households with a migrant member and households where no migration took place. Although the latter acts more as a reference group, including them may reveal much vital information which otherwise would have not been possible. The impact of migration on the migrant household is studied on four broader parameters: Farm and non-farm activities, health care seeking behaviour, familial aspects and how the migrants’ household members perceive the migration in terms of its economic outcomes and quality of life of the family members, in particular that of the wife and children of the migrant. The same is depicted in Figure 2.2. It may be mentioned here that although out-migration of adult member(s) affects everyone in the family, including elderly members and children of the out-migrant, the dimensions of impacts are different and need to be considered in the same framework. This work, however, majorly focuses on the left-behind wives. The conceptual framework as outlined in Figure 2.2, therefore, does not include the impact on the elderly people and children in the family.

Chapter 3

Data and methodology

In this chapter, we detail and discuss our data sources and the methods of analysis in which we have engaged to accomplish the objectives of the present work. It provides information on the selection procedure of the study area, sampling design, respondents and other relevant aspects. The main contents of the questionnaire used during the survey to collect data pertaining to the households and individuals are also discussed. This chapter in addition provides comprehensive information on the research design and different statistical tools used during data analyses. It finally discusses limitations of the data, which was collected in 2011 from nine villages located in the Pauri Garhwal district of Uttarakhand. We should here mention that the state of Uttarakhand, with Dehradun as its capital, was sliced out of the parent state of Uttar Pradesh on 9 November 2000 and became the 27th state of India. It has a total geographical area of 53,483 square kilometres, of which 93 percent is mountainous. About 34,650 square kilometres is under forest cover, which is around 65 percent of the total reported area, though the actual cover based on remote sensing and satellite imagery information is reported to be only 44 percent (Uttarakhand State: Perspective and Strategic Plan 2008–2027, Watershed Management Directorate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand). As per the 2011 Census, the population density of the state is 189 persons per square kilometre.

Data sources For administrative purposes, Uttarakhand has been divided into two subdivisions, i.e., Kumaon and Garhwal. The former consists of six districts, namely, Almora, Bageshwar, Champawat, Nainital, Pithoragarh and Udham Singh Nagar; while the latter comprises seven districts, viz., Dehradun, Haridwar, Pauri Garhwal, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal and Uttarkashi. The Pauri Garhwal district is one of the districts in Uttarakhand which has recorded consistently higher out-migration rates than other districts in Uttarakhand. This study zones in on the rural part of this district, situated in the centralnorthern part of the state, as rural-urban migration is a more prevalent form of migration. The location map of the study area is presented in Figure 3.1.

N

INDIA

W

N

UTTARAKHAND

E

W S

S 355

710

1,420

0

40

Kilometers

Kilometers

78º40'0"E

78º20'0"E

80

79º0'0"E

GARHWAL N

30º20'0"N

0

1 30º0'0"N

30º0'0"N

2

29º40'0"N 6

78º20'0"E

12

18

24 Kilometers

78º40'0"E

Figure 3.1 Location map of study area

1 Pauri 2 Thalisain 3 Bironkhal 79º0'0"E

29º20'0"N

29º20'0"N

29º40'0"N

3

6 3 0

E

160

Data and methodology  43

Features of the study area Pauri Garhwal encompasses a geographical area of 5,230 square kilometres and is situated between 29° 45’ to 30° 15’ latitude and 78° 24’ to 79° 23’ E longitude (Government of India, Ministry of MSME). The total population of the district is 6,86, 527, in which the male population constitutes 3,26,406 and the female population comprises 3,60,121 (Census 2011). This district is surrounded by the districts of Chamoli, Rudraprayag and Tehri Garhwal in the north, Bijnor and Udham Singh Nagar in the south, Almora and Nainital in the east and Dehradun and Haridwar in the west. The Pauri Garhwal district is administratively divided into six tehsils/talukas, viz., Pauri, Lansdowne, Kotdwar, Thailisain, Dhumakot and Srinagar, and 15 developmental blocks, viz., Kot, Kaljikhal, Pauri, Pabau, Thailisain, Bironkhal, Dwarikhal, Dugadda, Jaihrikhal, Ekeshwer, Rikhnikhal, Yamkeswar, Nainidanda, Pokhra and Khirsu (Government of India, Ministry of MSME). Between the 2001 and the 2011 Census, the change in the population of the district is estimated to be -1.51 percent. As per the Census 2011, the density of Pauri Garhwal district is estimated to be 129 persons per square kilometre. The sex ratio of the district is 1103 females per 1000 male population (Census 2011), while the child sex ratio is 899 girls per 1000 boys. The higher female to male ratio is highly indicative of considerable out-migration of the male workforce from the region.

Rationale behind selection of the study area One of the most dramatic changes that has occurred in Uttarakhand in the past few decades is a considerable surge in rural out-migration. According to Census 2001, total male out-migration for work/employment/business was around 83 per 1000 male population above 15 years of age, and the same was 101 per 1000 male population above 19 years of age. Rural male out-migration for employment was 86 per 1000 rural males above 15 years of age and 105 per 1000 rural males above 19 years of age. Uttarakhand is among the states in India in which male out-migration for employment is the highest. An in-depth exploration of socio-economic characteristics of those who out-migrate and those who do not do so as part of the livelihood strategy is plausible (Kothari 2002). As per the Census of 2001, the Pauri Garhwal district of Uttarakhand has the highest male out-migration, as is evident from the fact that while Haridwar only has 34 male out-migrants per 1000 inhabitants (Haridwar), the former has 239 per 1000 inhabitants (Table 3.1). Because this study focuses on migration, district Pauri Garhwal has been selected for this study.

44  Data and methodology Table 3.1 Out-migration of rural males from Uttarakhand, Census 2001 Districts

Out-migrants (per 1,000)

Districts

Out-migrants (per 1,000)

Almora Pithoragarh Nainital Uttarkhashi Chamoli Tehri-Garhwal Pauri-Garhwal

183 145 91 75 147 134 239

Rudraprayag Bageshwar Champawat Uddham Singh Nagar Haridwar Dehradun  

96 93 91 38 34 58  

Source: Compiled by authors. Note: * M igration rates for four newly formed districts have not been calculated because they were formed in 2011.

Sampling design This work broadly aims to examine the impact of male out-migration on the left-behind households focussing mainly on wives. Therefore we have selected the place of origin for conducting this research in order to collect detailed and appropriate information on the circumstances that compel migration. It further provides the context in which migration takes place. Another equally important aspect of the origin-based approach is its potential to include non-migrants from the same community. During the pilot testing of the questionnaire for this work, it was found that most of the respondents (wives of out-migrants) reported out-migration of their husbands well before their marriage. Hence it was difficult to examine the effect of out-migration on the husbands’ wives in terms of their physical and mental health, economic and psychological well-being, living arrangements and perception about out-migration of their husbands. Considering these issues, this study has included wives of both migrant and non-migrant husbands so that both the groups can be compared and analyzed.

Sampling procedure This study involves intensive fieldwork that mainly hinges upon primary data because the Census of India and NSSO records do not provide appropriate data for such an investigation. Under these circumstances, investigators are compelled to select a very small area or enlist the assistance of a sample survey in order to conserve both time and the resources involved. In view of these constraints, we resolved to utilize multistage random sampling to select households in rural areas. We used a three-stage sampling procedure to select a sample of 522 married women. Out of the 15 blocks

Data and methodology  45

in the Pauri Garhwal district, we selected three blocks, i.e., Pauri, Thailisain and Bironkhal, in the first stage to ensure heterogeneity of the population. The primary sampling units (PSU) were the 2001 Census villages in the study area, which were listed in descending order based on male population growth rate and sex ratio. These served as proxy indicators for villages with a high female population. Hence high sex ratios and low male growth rate between 1991 and 2001 have been used as the base for selection of the villages. At the second stage, we selected three villages from each block based on the pre-defined criteria (male population growth rate and sex ratio), followed by a random selection of households within each PSU in the third stage. Nine villages were selected from the three blocks. In each development block, a household listing task was carried out for selected villages which provided the necessary inputs for selecting households at the third stage. It involved preparing a household listing and recording names of the heads of all the households. The households interviewed were selected with equal probability from the households list in each area using systematic sampling. In order to get the total required sample, 58 households from each of the sample villages were selected through a systematic random sampling procedure. Furthermore, these 58 households were stratified into two third stage strata (TSS) as indicated: TSS 1: households that have at least one out-migrant TSS 2: other households These two lists were used as sampling frames: From each of them, 29 households were randomly selected. In each selected household, the wife of the migrant was interviewed. A comparable number of non-migrant households were randomly selected from the same villages for the study. The procedure resulted in a total sample size of 522 households. However, due to non-response and refusal, the total sample size comprised 518 households (252 households with non-migrant husbands and 266 households with out-migrant husbands). The sampling procedure used in the survey was followed in order to have comprehensive comparisons between the wives of the out-migrants and those of non-migrant rural households.

Structure and content of the schedule/ questionnaire The interview schedule was prepared to collect both quantitative data as well as qualitative information. A semi-structured interview schedule was administered for the collection of quantitative data, while a check list was used to collect relevant qualitative information. The interview schedule

46  Data and methodology

contained two major parts, i.e., the household questionnaire (Schedule I) and the questionnaire for wife (Schedule II). The schedule was first translated into the Hindi language and then used in the study area. The household questionnaire The household questionnaire was designed to collect study-relevant household level information as well as the complete information of husbands and children of women who were interviewed in migrant/non-migrant households. This schedule was divided into nine sections. The preliminary section of the schedule was structured to collect general information, while Section 2 of the schedule focused on information about characteristics of the household population. This section listed all usual residents in each sample household of the study area. For the sample unit listed, relevant demographic information on age, sex, marital status, education, relationship with head of the household, etc. were collected. We also asked questions about school/college attendance for household members aged 4–25 years. Section 3 has been designed to collect information mainly related to the national and international migration of married male member(s) of the household, including all major information about the individual, such as age, education, occupation, income and remittances. The information collected in Section 4 was structured to assess the socio-economic condition of the household. This section was intended to collect information on the type and ownership of the house, number of rooms, availability of separate kitchen, type of cooking fuel, source of lighting, the main source of drinking water, type of toilet facility, ownership of livestock, household income, detailed information on the loans taken and ownership of other selected items in the house. Section 5 was aimed at procuring comprehensive information on educational aspects (including educational status, reason for not attending any educational institution, type of educational institution and expenditure on education and related aspects) of the children. Sections 6, 7 and 8 were meant to collect information on consumer expenditure, household savings and investments, respectively. Information on agricultural and non-agricultural activities of the household, viz., total agricultural land, land given on lease, total agricultural production, investment in agriculture, etc. were intended to be collected through questions listed in Section 9. We have formulated a few of these to capture perceptions of the household related to agriculture, like decline in agricultural production over a period of time. The basic information on household characteristics was arranged in the schedule mainly to unearth the causes of out-migration and what socio-economic factors have been more potent in forcing/motivating people to move

Data and methodology  47

out from the place of origin; for instance, how caste and other pertinent social elements have played significant roles in patterns of out-migration or whether the focus should lie on economic constraints experienced by each household. Assessments of the different economic statuses of migrant and non-migrant households and to what extent the process of out-migration has accelerated the economic well-being of the family were the key concerns as we considered the structure of the questionnaire. For this purpose, migrant and non-migrant households were intensively surveyed with respect to their socio-economic conditions to ascertain the impact of out-migration. In order to fulfil this objective, the specific variables such as land share, household items, family income, per capita income, domestic budgeting, etc. were taken into consideration. The questionnaire for wives The questionnaire for wives was structured to interview the woman (in the migrant and non-migrant sample households) who was the usual resident of the sample households. This schedule comprised nine (Sections 10 to 18) sections. Section 10 was designed to compile primary information about the woman, including her reproductive history, such as age at first childbirth, survival status of all births, the case of still births, child deaths and sex composition of the children. The next section (Section 11) aimed at collecting information on nutritional status of the woman, such as the food intake (daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, etc.) of selected eatables. Section 12 aimed at bringing together information about the health care practices of women and their children in the household, including information on health problems (physical, mental and sexual), utilization of private/public health facilities, medical consultation and expenditure on health. Much more comprehensive information on issues related to the reproductive health of women and their level of awareness concerning related health problems were collected through questions listed in Section 13. Furthermore, Section 14 contains questions on living arrangements of women and familial support, including issues related to conflicts among family members. The information on the major household responsibilities and workload of women was collected through questions structured for Section 15, while Section 16 was designed to procure information on a woman’s stress level. Section 17 was organized to get information on her perception about the migration of her husband. The questions in the last section (Section 18) of the schedule focus on the income of the husband and remittances obtained per month from the out-migrant husband and also on the woman’s level of satisfaction with the current life, particularly in the absence of her husband.

48  Data and methodology

Definition of major terms used in the schedule/ study The specific definitions of major terms and concepts which are used to collect information in the interview schedule are presented in this section. Type of the Household: There are two types of household considered in this study. First, the household that comprises male out-migrant(s) who has/have left his/their wife/wives and other household member(s) in the village (at the place of origin) and he/they himself/themselves out-migrated to another place outside his/their village. Second, the non-migrant households, where the couples stay together at the place of origin. Out-migrant Household: Based on the definition of migrant household mentioned earlier, all households reporting migration of at least one of the household members who happened to be married and left his wife behind in the village is defined as an out-migrant household. Accordingly, all those households who do not report migration of any of the household members are categorized as “non-migrant households”. Out-migrant: Any married male member of a household who migrated out, any time in the past (at least for 3 years), to earn livelihood and stayed outside the village/ town, is considered as out-migrant, provided he is alive on the date of survey. Nuclear Household: A nuclear household is defined in this study as a household that comprises a married couple or a woman living alone or with unmarried children (International Institute for Population Sciences [IIPS] and Macro International 2007). Household Size: The number of members living in a household. Usual Resident: Usual residents are those members of the households, enumerated irrespective of their stay/non-stay on the previous night to the survey. Household Income: This implies the summation of the total income of all members of the household, including the income earned by an outmigrant at the place of his destination. Kutcha House: The house that has walls made up of stone/bricks and mud and roofs made up of stones/bricks and wood/mud is regarded as a kutcha house. Pucca House: A pucca house is one which has walls and roofs made up of cement/concrete/hollow cement/stone/stone blocks/iron, zinc or other metal sheets/timber/slate and corrugated iron (NSSO 65th round). Semi-pucca House: Such a house will have either the walls or the roof made up of pucca materials. Generally in rural Garhwal, one will find semi-pucca houses consisting of walls made up of stones with mud and roofs made up of pucca materials.

Data and methodology  49

Primary Occupation: The primary occupation relates to the major economic activity focus of a person, in which the person spends a relatively longer time (major time criterion). Secondary Occupation: The secondary occupation is considered as that occupation in which a person is spending less time than the primary occupation. Agricultural Labourer: A person is considered to be an agricultural labourer if he/she is engaged in any kind of occupation related to agriculture and allied activities, such as dairy farming, horticulture and livestock. Education: The term “education” generally refers to a process of pursuing knowledge and skills. Although government tends to incur the expenditure of providing education, families/individuals also bear certain expenses, such as on procurement of stationeries, books, etc. besides paying for tuition and examination fees. While government expenditure is well documented, information on out-of-pocket expenses can only be collected through survey. For this study, the data have been collected for the people aged 4–25 years who are participating/have participated in the education system and out-of-pocket expenses incurred related to education. Education Level: For this, a standard definition, as adopted by NSSO 2001, has been taken in order to resolve the problem of wide heterogeneity in the definition of this term. “The highest general and technical education levels successfully attained by the person determine what is known as educational standard. Only the courses successfully completed are considered” and the definition given by NSSO has been followed towards the classification of educational standard categories which are being quoted verbatim: (i) not literate, (ii) literate without formal schooling, (iii) literate but below primary, (iv) primary, (v) middle, (vi) secondary, (vii) graduate and above in agriculture, (viii) graduate and above in engineering or technology, (ix) graduate and above in medicine, and (x) graduate and above in other subjects. In some of the rounds, however, categories (ii) and (iii) were grouped as ‘literate but below primary and categories (vii) to (x) were grouped as ‘graduate and above’. (cited on page 21 of Concepts and Definitions Used in NSS, NSSO 2001) Type of Educational Institution: This refers to the type of ownership/ management of the institution. For instance, the educational institutions may be administered by the government or a private body. Thus there are broadly two types of educational institutions: (a) government and (b) private. All schools/institutions run and funded by the

50  Data and methodology

government/public sector undertakings are treated as government educational institutions, while all other types of schools not receiving any grant from the government are taken as private schools. Castes/Tribes Group: “Government of India classifies some of its citizens, based on their social and economic conditions, as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBCs)”, and General/Others (cited on p. 36 in Arlikatti and Andrew 2012). Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are groups of the Indian population that are explicitly recognized by the Constitution of India. In the Constitution, “OBCs are described as socially and educationally backward classes, and the government is enjoined to their social and educational development” (Karol and Pattanaik 2014, cited on p. 149). All others are classified as Others or General population. Land Owned: The total land area owned and possessed by the household as on the date of survey is considered. The area of land possessed (in Beegha, which is equal to 8100 sq. feet) includes land owned, leased in and land leased out. Remittances: These are the transfers in cash, but not as a loan, by the outmigrant family member(s). The remittances could be received through money orders or other modes of official transfer. However, informal modes of cash transfers are also considered. Respondents in the Survey: The respondents for the two types of schedules used in the study are heads of their household and the wives of migrant and non-migrant husbands. Considering that the impact of migration is strongly felt only after some time by the families and communities, a minimum period of three years of out-migration was considered to determine the status of the household as migrant/nonmigrant (Silver 2006). Consequently, the left-behind wives meant the women whose husbands had been out-migrants for at least last three years and whose duration of marriage was at least three years at the time of survey. If there was more than one woman in the household who fit the selection criteria, only one was selected for the study. In this case, to select one left-behind wife (respondent) in the household, a Kish Table was used (Kish 1949). For reference purposes, a group of wives of non-migrants was selected from the sampled villages. The criteria for selecting these women were similar, i.e., currently married with at least three years’ marital status. In total, 262 left-behind wives of migrants and 256 wives of non-migrants were interviewed by using a pretested questionnaire. In the surveyed households, personal interviews were conducted with both male/female heads of the households wherever required. If the head of the household was absent at the time of the survey, another adult household member was interviewed instead.

Data and methodology  51

Field arrangements for the data collection The questionnaire has a section on reproductive health which may have been difficult for male investigators to ask of women. Also the women respondents may have felt shy and/or reluctant to answer the male investigators. Therefore a team of two trained female interviewers were hired to complete the entire survey. On several occasions, the researcher assisted with the household questionnaire while the female investigators interviewed the women. The entire survey of the sampled households took around four months to complete. In the evening of the survey, the surveyed schedules were rechecked and supervised by revisiting the concerned household in order to correct for vagueness/oversight.

Measures The study accomplished most of its proposed objectives using quantitative analyses, while some of the parts also dealt with plausible interpretation using qualitative information emanating from the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and based on the unstructured responses and informal discussions with the interviewees. This study essentially attempted to discover differences in regard to the socio-economic, health, conjugal status and perceptions about the life status between the migrant and non-migrant wives of the sample besides examining the impact of migration on the households in terms of their socio-economic well-being. In order to do so, we developed plausible measures/indicators by using collected information. Major outcomes and exposure variables/indicators used in the entire study are presented in the following. Outcome variables Measures of household agricultural status Cereal production: The data has been collected on various types of crops and their volume of production (measured in kilograms) grown by the sample household in a year. Investment in agriculture: It is measured by the amount of money invested in agriculture during the last two years prior to the date of survey. Measures of women’s health care status Sickness in the last six months: The health care status of the women was assessed on the basis of the response to the following question: “Was there any ailment/accident/injury/aches, etc. during the last six months?” The index category of the dependent variable in this analysis

52  Data and methodology

is “Suffered any ailment/accident/injury/aches, etc.”. The value of the dependent variable is 0 for a person who did not suffer any ailment/ accident/injury, etc. in the last six months and 1 for those who did. Symptoms of Reproductive Tract Infections/Sexually Transmitted Diseases (RTI/STD): The respondents were asked if they suffer from any of the symptoms of RTI/STDs and were coded as 1 if they reported yes, 0 otherwise. Self-reported measure of good health: In order to collect information about it, the following question was asked, “What do you think about your health status now – unhealthy, somewhat healthy, somewhat unhealthy, healthy?” Based on the response, “health status” is selected as the index category of dependent variable to analyze health status of women. A person with good health is defined as a person who reported that she was somewhat unhealthy or healthy. The variable is coded as 1 if the person is in good health, 0 otherwise. Stress level: Twenty-three questions (4.34.1 to 4.34.23) were asked to assess the mental well-being of the wives (see Appendix). To prepare a composite index of stress level, factor analysis was performed by using the principal component method. Measures of women’s familial life status Agriculture related decision-making: This variable provides information about the active participation of the wives in decision-making with regard to matters pertaining to the agricultural operations. Participation in wage labour: Participation of wife in the agricultural/ non-agricultural work on payment basis: 0=No, 1=casual wage work or regular salaried work. Number of working hours: It is assumed that a woman works more during agricultural season than during non-agricultural season. Hence the working hours of women were calculated for both the seasons. The total number of working hours were calculated by quizzing the respondent about the time spent by them in different activities like fetching drinking water, collecting fuel/wood, cleaning and mopping the house, cooking, milking animals, domestic animals care, agriculture related works like weeding, harvesting and threshing (in the fields and the house), child care and other domestic chores. Exposure variables Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the household For different sets of multivariate analyses, a range of demographic and socio-economic indicators, in regard of the household, are used as covariates or predictors. The social status (i.e., caste status) of the family, type of

Data and methodology  53

household (nuclear or non-nuclear), household size (total number of household members), age of the head of the household (in years), total number of household members in working age group, total land used for agriculture (in beegha), plans for existing agriculture as a primary occupation in future (no/yes), ownership of bullocks for agricultural purposes (no/yes), hired labour (no/yes), households having facilities such as toilet, separate kitchen, etc. are frequently used as covariates in multivariate analyses in the entire study. The economic status of the household measured by the household income (in `), investments in the last two years (in `), savings in the last one year (in `), and monthly per capita expenditure (in `) were used in the multivariate analyses wherever required. A detailed description of some of such household measures or indices is as follows: Monthly per capita expenditure (in `): It is the household’s expenditure on consumption over a period of 30 days divided by the household size. It comprises the nominal value of all goods and services that are procured strictly for consumption purposes during the given period of time. Wealth Index: The wealth index is a summary measure of the economic status of a household, which, in general terms, represents the value of a number of assets belonging to the particular household. The information on a range of household assets or belongings was collected during the household survey. The household schedule covered information on household ownership of all movable and immovable assets. A cumulative or composite index representing all such household assets was constructed using factor analysis. In order to construct the wealth index from a set of variables, principal component analysis (PCA) was used for determining weights for various constituents of the wealth index (Filmer and Pritchett 2001). First, the indicator variables are standardized (normalized); then the factor loadings is calculated using the PCA; and finally, for each household, the indicator values are multiplied by the loadings and summed to produce the household’s index value. In this process, only the first of the factors produced is used to represent the wealth index. The cut-off points in the wealth index at which to form the quintiles are calculated by obtaining a weighted frequency distribution of households. The households are then ordered by the score (ranked), and the distribution is divided into three equal sections (as tertile; 33.3 percent – for each division). The tertile is represented in the variable as the low (the lowest 33.3 percent of the asset score), medium (the middle 33.3 percent of the asset score) and the high (the highest 33.3 percent of the asset score), thus representing the economic status of the household in three categories.

54  Data and methodology

Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the women/wives and husbands For the multivariate analyses related to the issues of women/wives of the migrant and non-migrant persons/husbands, a range of demographic and socio-economic indicators at individual level are used as predictors and covariates. The individual indicators, such as age of the women (in years), the age difference between spouses, duration of the marriage, age at first child birth, total number of children ever born to the women, women’s years of education/schooling, husband’s education, whether the woman/wife was the head of the household, whether the woman/wife was employed, duration of husband’s migration, number of husband’s visits to the house, awareness about the RTI/STD, etc. are used as covariates in the multivariate analyses wherever required. A few indicators or indices are also used in the study, the separate descriptions for which are as follows: Health-seeking behaviour: The information on this variable is largely based upon the memory recollection on the part of the respondent household member about the illness experienced and treatment sought for the past one year preceding the survey. If the member has consulted qualified medical practitioners, the health care facility availed was considered as modern, otherwise traditional. Economic support index: To make the economic support index, five questions were put to wives of both the groups (see question numbers 4.26.1 to 4.26.5 in the questionnaire, Appendix). It provides information about the wives of both the groups (migrant and non-migrant husbands) getting economic support from their parents-in-law and parents as well. The index is categorized into three groups, i.e., low, medium and high. This implies that wives who fell in the low category did not get much economic support from both parents-in-law and parents, whereas the high category indicates that women did get support from both of them. Physical support index: The physical support index is based on six questions, which were put to wives of both the groups (see question numbers 4.26.6 to 4.26.11 in the questionnaire, Appendix). They provide information about physical support obtained from their parents-inlaw and parents as well. The index is categorized into three groups, i.e., low, medium and high, implying that wives who fell in the low category did not get much physical support from both parents-in-law and parents, whereas the high category indicates that women did get support from both of them. Emotional support index: The emotional support index is based on four questions, which were put to the wives of both the groups (see question numbers 4.26.12 to 4.26.14 in the questionnaire Appendix). It

Data and methodology  55

provides information about the emotional support that the wives of both the groups get from their parents-in-law and parents as well. The index is categorized into three groups, i.e., low, medium and high. This implies that wives who fell in the low category did not get much emotional support from both parents-in-law and parents, whereas the high category indicates that women did get significant support from both of them. It may be noted that while analyzing the data, the number of observations may vary as all the questions were not relevant to everyone. For instance, while taking information about the children, if the response is ‘No Children’, the relating questions were not put to the respective respondent. The number of observations in such cases would certainly vary.

Statistical analyses In a randomized experiment, the differences or comparison of socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the families belonging to migrant and non-migrant persons could be statistically tested by using appropriate bivariate analysis, such as a t-test and a Mann Whitney test. These tests are applied to test the significance of differences in means or proportions of socio-economic and demographic characteristics of both types of households (migrant vs. non-migrant). Similarly, to accomplish other objectives of this study, appropriate multivariate regression models have been applied. To evaluate the independent influence of husband’s out-migration and other predictor variables on cereal production, investment in agriculture and total number of working hours of wives, a multiple linear regression is performed at the household level. The analysis is also done separately for migrant and non-migrant households. To smooth and normalize distribution of variables like the income of husband, household income, savings per month/year and investment in a year, the values are transformed into log. In order to examine the health status and familial life of women/wives of the migrant and non-migrant husbands, several dichotomous indicators are used, such as “fallen sick in the last six months”, “symptoms for RTI/ STDs”, “self-reported good health”, “agriculture related decision-making” and “participation in wage labour”. These outcome variables are in the form of binary responses. For example, if a woman reported that she participated in wage labour, the numerical value of that particular woman is referred to as 1 and 0 otherwise. Similarly, if women/wives reported to have taken agriculture related decisions in the family, the women are represented by the numeric value of 1 and 0 otherwise. Thus the form of such outcome dependent variables are dichotomous in nature, i.e., 0=No and 1=Yes. Dealing with such dichotomous variables in the regression analysis leads to the application of linear probability models.

56  Data and methodology

The logistic regression model is one of those models widely used for examining such categorical outcomes and exposure variables. For ordered categorical variables, such as the status of stress level, which has more than two categories, i.e. low, medium and high, and since such categories could be considered as ordered in nature, the ordered logit regression model is performed as an appropriate alternative. Prior to the selection of the ordered logit model over the multinomial logistic regression model, the parallel regression assumption is tested. The parallel regression assumption leads to the elegant interpretation of the odds of higher and lower outcomes. Score, LR (likelihood ratio) and Wald tests of the assumption are also available for the purpose. Essentially these tests compare the ordinal logit model (OLM) estimates to those from binary logits where the β’s are not constrained to be equal.

Limitations of the data Some of the data used in this study have several limitations. For example, there may be under reporting of data on investment and savings by both the groups. Although caution was exercised in order to extract the precise information, yet if there was any underreporting, it would be across the sample population and therefore not expected to significantly alter the overall picture. The data on total number of working hours were calculated by asking the respondent about the time spent by them in different activities like fetching drinking water, cleaning and mopping the house, cooking, milking animals, domestic animals care, agriculture related work like weeding, harvesting and threshing (in the fields and the house), child care, other domestic chores and collecting fuel/wood. Due to the overlapping nature of the variables, there was some difficulty in collecting data for this question. For example, making food and taking care of children can be done simultaneously. This can be assumed as another limitation of the study to capture the exact time spent on each activity, including the activities undertaken simultaneously.

Appendix Confidential for research purpose only

Impact of out-migration of husband on left behind wives – a study of rural Garhwal Questionnaire number______________ Schedule I – Household questionnaire (confidential: only for research purpose) This work is part of a research programme being conducted in the Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India and we would like to interact with you with the help of an interview schedule, engaging you for approximately 60 minutes, so as to get insight into the issues involving left-behind wives and other family members of the out-grant family member(s). We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. During our interaction, several issues will be discussed including socio-economic differentials, agricultural practices and perception about migration from migrant and non-migrant households. The information being elicited shall be used only for the academic purpose and individual-specific information shall be kept strictly confidential. Participation in this survey is voluntary and if you choose not to participate, you may withdraw at any time. However, I hope that you will take part in this survey since your participation is important. Name of the block Name of the village Name of the head of the household Name of the respondent Religion of the household

Hindu-1 Muslim-2 Others (specify)- . . . 96 (Continued)

Caste of household

Result of interview

Date of interview Name of the interviewer Signature of the interviewer Time of start of interview

General-1 SC-2 ST-3 OBC-4 1. Completed 2. Not at home 3. Refused 4. Others (Specify           )

Block 2 Household details Line 1.1 No. Name of members of household (Head of the HH first)

 1  2  3  4  5  6   7  8  9 10 11

1.2

1.3

1.4

Sex Relation with the head Age in com­ 01 = Male of the household pleted 02 = Female 01 = Head years? 02  = Wife/Husband 03 = Son/Daughter 04 = Son-in-law/ Daughter-in-law 05 = Grandchild 06 = Parent 07 = Parent-in-law 08 = Brother/Sister 09 = Brother-in-law/ Sister-in-law 10 = Niece/Nephew 11  = Adopted/Foster/ Stepchild 12 = Domestic servant 96 = Other (Specify     ) 01

1.5 Marital status 01 = Never married 02 = Currently married 03  = Widowed 04 = Divorced/ separated

Line 1.1 No.

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

12 13 14 Line 1.6 No.

1.7

Can he/ How many she years of read schooling or attended? write? (in com­ 00 = No pleted 01  = Yes years) If 00 Go to 1.10

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

Ask to only those who are 4 to 25 years

Ask to those above 4 years

Is he/she currently studying? 00 = No 01  = Yes If 01 Go to 1.10

Primary Secondary Occupation occu­ 01 = pation Government Write employee code 02 = Private from 03 = Own 1.10 business 04 = Unpaid family work 05 = Agricultural labour in own land 06 = Agricultural labour in others’ land 07 = Labour in nonagricultural Sector 08 = Student 09 = Job seeker 10 = Pensioner 11 = Job not required 96 = Others (Specify ______) If 1, 2 or 3 kindly specify it

Reason for not studying? s01 = School too far away 02 = Transport not available 03 = Further education not considered necessary 04 = Required for household work 05 = Required for work on farm/family business 06 = Required for outside work for payment in cash or materials 07 = Cost too much 08 = No proper school facilities for girls 09 = Not safe to send girls 10 = Required for care of siblings 11 = Not interested in studies 12 = Repeated failures 13 = Got married 14 = Employment over education 96 = Other (Specify_________)

1 2 3 4 5 6

(Continued)

60  Data and methodology Line 1.6 No.

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10

Ask to only those who are 4 to 25 years

1.11

Ask to those above 4 years

 7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14

This block is meant for the household of left-behind wife. If there are more than one left-behind wives due to male out-migration, Kish table is used to select the respondent. Block 3 Inter-state and international migration Q. No. Questions 1.12

1.13

1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19

Name of the currently married male person who was member of this household and now living outside village? Relation of the out-migrant to the head of the household

Current age of the out-migrant? (in completed years) Age at which he out-migrated for the first time? (in completed years) What was the reason behind his first out-migration? Marital status at the time of migration Can the out-migrant read and write? Years of schooling attended by the out-migrant?

Codes

Skip

Husband Son Son-in-law Grandchild Father Father-in-law Brother Nephew Other (Specify_____)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 96

Single Married No Yes

01 02 00 Go to 01 1.20

Q. No. Questions 1.20 1.21 1.22

1.23 1.24

1.25 1.26

1.27

Codes

Skip

Name of the place where the outmigrant is currently residing Duration of stay outside the village since he (out-migrant) outmigrated for the first time Occupation at present at place of Government employee destination Semi-government employee MENTION IN DETAIL ABOUT Private THE OCCUPATION OF THE Self-employment OUT-MIGRANT Agricultural labour Labour in nonagricultural sector Student Job seeker Pensioner Others (Specify______) Income of the out-migrant at the place of destination? (income per month in rupees) Does the out-migrant send None remittance in cash or kind or Cash both (in cash and kind)? Kind Both cash and kind Can you please tell the amount of remittance received in last 6 months? Please list the items that outmigrant has bought for household and brought the same at the time of his visit How many times does the outmigrant visit home in a year?

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 96

00 01 02 03

Go to 1.27 Go to 1.26

Block 4 T he following section of the household questionnaire is designed to understand the socio-economic condition of the household Q. No. Questions 1.28

Codes

Kutcha Type of house which the Semi-Pucca household is now occupying? Pucca Interviewer should fill this with observing the house himself. Kutcha (Mud walls, mud floor & thatched roof) Semi-Pucca (Brick walls, cement floor, tin or asbestos roof) Pucca (Brick walls, cement floor & roof)

Skip 01 02 03

(Continued)

Block 4 (Continued) Q. No. Questions

Codes

1.29

Own Someone else’s Rent__________

01 02 03

No Yes___________

00 01

No Yes Electricity Kerosene Gas lantern Others (specify___) LPG Fuel-wood Kerosene Others (specify___) Tap (Inside residence) Tap (Shared/public) Others (specify___)

00 01 01 02 03 96 01 02 03 96 01 02 96

1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33

Is the house that you are residing in currently yours own or hired? If you have to pay rent then how much per month do you have to pay? Does any member of this household own any other house at this place or anywhere else? Can you please tell me, in total, how many rooms including kitchen are there in this house? Do you have the provision of kitchen facility in your house? What is the main source of lighting in your house?

1.34

What type of fuel is used for cooking?

1.35

What is the main source of drinking water in your house?

1.36

What is the distance between your house and source of drinking water? (in kms) Type of toilet facility do you use? Own flush toilet Own pit toilet Shared toilet Open air defecation Others (specify___) Do you have any cow, bull, buffalo, No Yes goat, chicken or any other animal? Cow Can you please mention how Bulls many of animals, birds do you Buffaloes have? Goats Chicken Others (specify___) The average monthly income of the household: Does household have a bank No account or post office account? Yes

1.37

1.38 1.39

1.40 1.41

Skip

Go to 1.37

01 02 03 04 96 00 01

Go to 1.40

00 01

Go to 1.42

Data and methodology  63 Q. No. Questions

Codes

Skip

1.41.1 By whose name does the household has bank/post office account? (Write relation of the person to the household’s head) RECORD ALL MENTIONED Has the household taken any loan from any source? Probe: whether loan taken from SHG S. No. Nature Source Purpose of loan (1.42.2) (1.42.3) (1.42.1)

1.42

No Yes

00 01

Go to 1.43

Loan paid (1.42.4) 00 = No 01  = Yes

If “00” then ask: Amount outstanding including interest on date of survey (1.42.5)

Codes 1.42.1. Nature of loan

1.42.2. Source

1.42.3. Purpose

01-Inherited unpaid loans of the household 02-Loan contracted in cash 03-Loan contracted in kind 04-Loan contracted partly in cash and partly in kind

01-Co-operative society 02-Bank 03-Employer/landlord 04-Agriculture/ professional money lender 05-Shop-keeper/trader 06-Relatives/friends 96-Others (specify____________)

01-Medical expenses 02-Educational expenses 03-Legal expenses 04-Other consumption expenses 05-Marriage and other ceremonial expenses 06-Purchase of land/ construction of building 07-Productive purpose 08-Repayment of debt 96-Others (specify____________)

1.43. Does the household own the following household assets? S. No. 1 2 3 4

Household assets

No

Yes

Motor car Taxi/Truck/Lorry Motor cycle/Scooter Telephone/Mobile (Continued)

64  Data and methodology S. No.

Household assets

No

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Sewing machine Television MP3/DVD/CD Refrigerator Computer/Laptop Sofa set Mattress Table Chair Cot/Bed Clock/Watch Electric fan Dish antenna Radio/Transistor/Tape Camera Heater

Yes

This question regarding remittance/income of the out-migrant husband of the woman selected for the interview. 1.44 List three most important uses of remittances/income of the husband (in decreasing order) Block 5  E ducation of children (For every children of mother to be interviewed) Birth 1.45 order

1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

Is she/he currently studying? 00 = No 01  = Yes If 01 Go to 1.50

Reason for not studying? 01 = School too far away 02 = Transport not available 03 = Further education not considered necessary 04 = Required for household work 05 = Required for work on farm/family business 06 = Required for outside work for payment in cash or materials 07 = Cost too much 08 = No proper school facilities for girls

Ask to only those who are less than 25 years Name of the child? (Every children whether living or not living with mother)

Has ever How many attended years of schooling edu­ she/ cational institute? he has attended? 00 = No 01  = Yes If 00 Go to 1.49

Birth 1.45 order

1.46

1.47

1.48

1.49

Ask to only those who are less than 25 years 09 = Not safe to send girls 10 = Required for care of siblings 11 = Not interested in studies 12 = Repeated failures 13 = Got married 14 = Employment over education 15 = Child is small for going school 96 = Other (Specify___) Go to Block 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Birth 1.50 order

1.51

1.52

1.53

1.54

Ask to only those who are less than 25 years Type of If the child has educational passed higher institution secondary and 01 = Government is currently 02 = Private enrolled for entrance coaching classes then the amount of fees paid during the year?

Private Tuition Payment tuition fee paid for regi­ fee paid to the stration/ for the school enrolment/ month for the donation, month etc. during the year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 (Continued)

66  Data and methodology Birth 1.55 order

1.56

1.57

1.58

1.59

1.60

Ask to only those who are less than 25 years Scholarships/ Whether Cost of Total Cost of Cost of aid/assistance cost your child trans­ uniform, books, received during receive any (per por­ school shoes month) Scholarships/ the year supplies tation etc. aid/assistance Probe: midday for the etc. during meal, outduring the month the year during migrant is in year the year government No-00 Go to service, etc. Block 6 Yes-01 RECORD ALL MENTIONED 1 2 3 4 5 6 Block 6 Household consumption expenditure

1.61a. Household expenditure

S. No.

Items

1.61.1

Cereals & cereal products (include muri, chira, maida, suji, noodles, rice, wheat, jowar, maize, barley, etc.) Pulses & pulse products (include arhar, urad, moong, gram, gram flour, besan, soya bean power, etc.) Milk & milk products (include milk condensed/powder, baby food, curd, butter, ghee, icecream, etc.) Edible oils and vanaspati (include coconut oil, groundnut oil, mustard oil, sunflower oil, etc.) Egg, fish and meat

1.61.2

1.61.3

1.61.4

1.61.5

Last 30 Last 6 Last 30 Last 6 days (in months (in days (in months (in quantity) quantity) rupees) rupees)

S. No.

Items

1.61.6

Pan, tobacco, cigarette, bidi & intoxicants (include liquor, country liquor, beer, rum and other similar products also) Fuel & light Personal care and toilet articles & other sundry articles (include spectacles, torch, umbrella, lighter, toothpaste, brush, powder, washing soap, hair oil, shampoo, perfume, shaving blade, electric bulb, tube light, glassware, bucket, incense sticks, insecticide, etc.) Consumer services & conveyance (includes grinding, tailoring, telephone, mobile, legal expenses, pet animal porter charges, diesel, petrol, school bus/van, train/bus fare, taxi charges and other similar expenses) Rent/house rent & consumer taxes and cesses (includes water charges, land revenue, etc.) Medical expenses (noninstitutional) (include cost of medicines, doctors fee, diagnostic fee, etc.) Sub-total (item 1.61.1 to 1.61.11) Medical (institutional) Clothing, bedding and foot wear Durable goods(include expenses for purchase of utensils, fan, cooker, furniture item & similar HH durables) Sub-total (item 1.61.13 to 1.61.15) Average monthly expenditure for items 1.61.13 to 1.61.15 [1.61.16 × (30/365)] Monthly household consumer expenditure (item 1.61.12 + item 1.61.17)

1.61.7 1.61.8

1.61.9

1.61.10

1.61.11

1.61.12 1.61.13 1.61.14 1.61.15

1.61.16 1.61.17

1.61.18

Last 30 Last 6 Last 30 Last 6 days (in months (in days (in months (in quantity) quantity) rupees) rupees)

68  Data and methodology

1.61b. Household expenditure on: Items

Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Seasonally

Never

Vegetables Milk Fruits

Block 7 Household savings S. No.

1.62.1 1.62.2 1.62.3 1.62.4 1.62.5 1.62.6 1.62.7 1.62.8

Particulars

Household savings

If Yes, then ask:

No

Last month

Yes

Last year

Saving account in bank Fixed deposits Self Help Group(s) Provident Fund instalment, LIC premium, etc. Post office account Kisan Vikas Patra Others (specify______________) All savings (Total 1.62.1 to 1.62.8)

Block 8 Investments during last two year S. No.

Particulars

1.63.1 1.63.2 1.63.3 1.63.4 1.63.5 1.63.6 1.63.7 1.63.8 1.63.9

Land House (purchase, construction, renovation, etc.) Other construction (gaushala, etc.) Small enterprise Shares, debentures, etc. car/Scooter/Taxi, etc. Others (specify_______________) Others (specify_______________) All investments (Total 1.63.1 to 1.63.9)

Investment during (Rs.0.00) last two years

This section of questionnaire consists of questions related to farm and non-farm activities. There are several questions related to agricultural activities in which household are involved.

Block 9 Farm and non-farm activities Q. No.

Questions

Codes

2.1

Has the household abandoned agricultural activity? Does the household own any agricultural land? If Yes, can you please mention how much agricultural land does the household own? How much of the land is used for agricultural production? How much total agricultural land leasedout last year? Does household rented/sharecropped agricultural land last year? If yes, how much total agricultural land? In your household, who does most of the agricultural works? (write relation to the household head) Who decides as to when, where and what to sow, directs the work process and take part in all works related to agriculture? (write relation to the household head) Do you feel that there is a decrease in labour force for farm works over the period of time? How much of the following crops did the household produce last year?

No Yes No Yes__________

00 01 00 01

None Yes__________ None Yes__________

00 01 00 01

No Yes

00 01

Rice Wheat Potato Mandwa Fruits Chilli Pulses (includes soyabean, etc.) Vegetables Onion Garlic Turmeric Jhungaro Other (Specify___) None Yes_________

00 01

No Yes

00 01

2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

2.8 2.9

(Write answers in kilograms)

2.10

2.11 2.12

Did the household introduce any new innovation to agriculture by introducing latest agricultural technology/practices? If Yes, can you please mention which innovations did the household introduce to agriculture? RECORD ALL MENTIONED How much money did the household invest on agricultural inputs last year? Did the household increase investment in agricultural activity over the period of time?

Skip

Go to 2.5

Go to 2.18

(Continued)

70  Data and methodology Block 9 (Continued) Q. No.

Questions

2.13

(Ask to only those household where husband is an out-migrant) Has the out-migration increased investment in agriculture activities? Is there any change in the use of agricultural land as compared to migrant/non-migrant family? If Yes, kindly mention the changes? Do you feel that there is change in agricultural production over the period of time? Do you feel that there is change in agricultural production as compared to non-migrant/migrant household (as applicable)? Do you think that you should completely abandon agricultural activity and start any non-farm activity? If Yes, what are the reasons behind it? (Ask to only those household where husband is an out-migrant) Do you feel that out-migration has increased investment in non-farm activities? Did you shift from farm to non-farm activity over the period of time? If Yes, in what type of non-farm activities? Can you please mention the reasons behind this shift?

2.14

2.15 2.16

2.17

2.18

2.19 2.19.1

Codes

Skip

No Yes

00 01

None Yes________

00 01

Decrease Same Increase Decrease Same Increase

01 02 03 01 02 03

No Yes_________

00 01

No Yes

00 01

No Yes_________

00 01

Go to 2.20

If the household is engaged in own agricultural activities then ask 2.20A. Who does the following activity in your household for past 12 months? 2.20B. If the above works are done with the help of labourers than please tell me the amount of money spent on labourers for past 12 months? (A) Responsibility Ploughing Manuring of agricultural activities

Sowing

Weeding

Har­v esting Pesticides Others application

HH member HH member & labour Labour Others (B) Expenses Plou­ in case labour ghing is hired

Manur- Sowing Weeding Harvest­ Pesticides Others ing ing appli­ cation

Data and methodology  71

These questions are to be put to the migrant household who are engaged in own agricultural activities 2.21 Do you feel that shortage of male members in the household has affected the agriculture? 2.22 Don’t you think that if migrant person would have been in the home then farming would have been easier?

No Yes No Yes

00 01 00 01

Time at the end of interview:

Impact of out-migration of husband on left behind wives – a study of rural Garhwal Questionnaire number______________ Time at the start of interview Schedule II – Women questionnaire (confidential: only for research purpose) Confidential for research purpose only

Impact of out-migration of husband on left-behind wives – a study of rural Garhwal Questionnaire number______________ Schedule I – Household questionnaire (confidential: only for research purpose) This work is part of a research programme being conducted in the Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, Uttarakhand, India and we would like to interact with you with the help of an interview schedule, engaging you for approximately 60 minutes, so as to get insight into the issues involving left-behind wives and other family members of the out-grant family member(s). We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. During our interaction, several issues pertaining to health status and health seeking behaviour, familial life and perception about migration from migrant and non-migrant households will be discussed. The information being elicited shall be used only for the academic purpose and individual-specific information shall be kept strictly confidential. Participation in this survey is voluntary and if you choose not to participate, you may withdraw at any time. However, I hope that you will take part in this survey since your participation is important.

72  Data and methodology

As you are ready to participate in the survey, I would like to ask you certain questions related to yours as well as your children’s health and also health seeking behaviour. Block 10 Women’s information Q. No. Questions 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Codes

Name and line number of the respondent? Age at the time of survey (Completed years)? What was your age at the time of marriage (Completed years)? Are you able to read and write? How many years of schooling have you completed? Do you have bank account or Post Office account?

Reproductive history 3.7 Now I would like to ask about all the pregnancies that you have had till now Have you ever given birth to any child? 3.8 Your age at the time of birth of your first child (Completed years) (live and dead births included) 3.9 Total number of children ever born 3.10 Any case of still birth? If Yes, please tell me how many still births you have given? 3.11 In due course of time, has there been any incident when any of your child died due to any reason? If Yes, then how many of your children have died? 3.12 In total, how many living children do you have?

Skip

No Yes

00 01

No Yes

00 01

No Yes

00 01

No Yes______

00 01

No Yes______

Go to 3.6

Go to 3.13

00 01

Son Daughter Total

Block 11 Nutrition

3.13. Now I would like to ask you about the food items you consumed during last 30 days? Also mention the quantity of food items consumed by you in one meal? How often do you personally consume the following food items: 1 2 3

Milk or curd or any other Milk products Pulses or beans Vegetables

Daily

Weekly

Bi-monthly

Monthly

Never

Data and methodology  73 How often do you personally consume the following food items: 4 5 6 7 8

Daily

Fruits Rice Are you a non-vegetarian? Yes 01 Egg Fish Chicken or meat

Weekly

No

Bi-monthly

00

Monthly

Never

(If 00 Go to 3.14)

Block 12 Health Question 3.14

When you are sick and want to get medical advice or treatment, do you face problem in regard of: Getting permission from HH to go The distance to the health facility Getting expenses needed for treatment Getting transport to the health centre/hospital Finding someone to accompany you How do you rate your health today?

1 2 3 4 5 3.15

Very healthy Somewhat healthy Somewhat unhealthy Unhealthy.

No

Yes

01 02 03 04

3.16. Now I would like to ask about you and your children’s health in general? Line 3.16.1 No.

3.16.2

3.16.3

Name of the Was there What was the any respondent/ problem? ailment/ child accident/ (Write the injury/ name of aches etc. respondent during and every the last 6 child of months? respondent living in the 00 = No household) 01  = Yes If 00 then Go to 3.17

3.16.4

3.16.5

Who was consulted for the ailment? 01 = No consultation 02 = Doctor 03 = Nurse/ Nursing Assistant 04 = Health Worker/Health Assistant 05  = Traditional Medical Practitioner

Place of consultation 01 = Government Hospital 02 = Private Hospitals/ Nursing home/ Clinic 03 = Public Health Center/ Sub centre 04 = Dispensary (public or private)

(Continued)

Line 3.16.1 No.

Line No. 3.16.6

3.16.2

3.16.7

3.16.3

3.16.8

3.16.4

3.16.5

06 = Pharmacist 07 = Family/ members of the household 08 = quack 96 = Others (specify . . .) If 01 then Go to 3.17

05 = Pharmacy 06 = Quack’s Centre 07 = Paramedical Staff 96 = Others (specify . . .)

3.16.9

3.16.10

Expenses Hospita­ Do you or your Expenditure Trans­ incurred children suffer portation lisation incurred per from any illness charges expen­ on con­ month on incurred which needs diture sultation, treatment last year continuous incurred medicine/ treatment? diagnostic for 00 = None health test, etc. 01 = Diabetes care incurred 02 = Heart problem 03  = Arthritis 04 = Cholesterol 05 = Blood pressure 06  = Asthma 07 = Cancer 08 = Kidney diseases 09 = RTI/STI 96 = Others (specify . . .)

Block 13 Reproductive health Q. No.

Questions

Codes

3.17

Have you ever heard of an illness called reproductive tract infection (RTI)/sexually transmitted infection (STI)? What were your sources of information?

No Yes

00 01

Go to 3.19

Radio/Television/Cinema . . . Newspaper/Books/Magazines Slogans/Pamphlets/Posters/ Wall hoardings Doctor Health worker Asha Adult education programme Relatives/Friends Others (specify__________) No Yes

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 96 00 01

Go to 4.1

3.18

3.19

During last 12 months, have you been infected with a disease which you got through sexual contact?

3.20 Are you currently suffering from any of the following problems?

Skip

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24

Since how long you have been suffering from any of the following problems? (Time in months/ years)

With whom have you discussed these problems? 00 = None 01 = Husband 02 = Friends/ relatives 03 = In-laws 04 = Parents 96 = Others (Specify ____)

Have you consulted anyone for treatment? 00 = None 01 = Government Doctor/ANM/ Nurse 02 = Private doctor/Nurse 03  = Traditional Practitioners 04 = Relatives/ Friends 05 = Home remedy 96 = Others (Specify__) If 01 to 96 then Go to 4.1

Can you please mention why have you not consulted anyone? 01 = Could not afford 02 = Not so serious 03 = No time 04 = No transport 05 = Did not know where to go 06 = Not so close to anyone 07  = Absence of husband (Continued)

3.20

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24 08 = No reason 09 = Embarrass­ ment 96 = Others (Specify____)

A Itching or irritation over vulva B Boils/ulcers/ warts around vulva C Pain in lower abdomen not related to menses D Pain during urination or defecation E Swelling in the groin F Painful blister like lesions in and around vagina G Low backache H Pain during sexual intercourse I Spotting after sexual intercourse J Menstruation problem K Abnormal vaginal discharge

Block 14 Living arrangement and familial support Q. No. Questions

Codes

4.1

Nuclear With in-laws With parents Others (Specify__)

At present, with whom do you live: with in-laws/parents/live alone/any other living arrangement?

Skip 01 02 03 96

Q. No. Questions 4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7 4.8

To be put to the wife of outmigrant husband only: Before your husband’s migration or after your marriage (whichever was later), do you have the same living arrangement or you have changed the type of living arrangement? If you have changed the type of living arrangement, please mention with whom did you live before? Ask to wives of non-migrant husband’s only: Since your marriage, do you have the same living arrangement or have changed the type of living arrangement? If you have changed the type of living arrangement, please mention with whom did you live before? If there is a change in the living arrangement then ask Since how many years you have been staying in the present living arrangement? Check 4.1. If it is 01, 02 and 96 then ask Can you please tell where your parents live? Check 4.1. If it is 01, 03 and 96 then ask Can you please tell where your in-laws live? Can you please mention whose decision it was to stay in the present living arrangement? RECORD ALL MENTIONED

Can you please mention why such decision was taken? Check 4.1 & 4.2. If 4.1 is 02 to 96 and 4.2 is 01 then ask this questionIf you have shifted from joint family to nuclear family, can you please tell whether in-laws/parents shifted to other place to stay or you had shifted to stay separately?

Codes Same Nuclear With in-laws With parents Others (Specify__) Same Nuclear With in-laws With parents Others (Specify__)

Skip 00 01 02 03 96

Self Son/Daughter Husband Mother-in-law Father-in-law Father Mother Others (Specify__)

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 96

Parents/in-laws shifted to stay separately She herself shifted to stay separately Others (Specify__)

01 02 96

(Continued)

Q. No. Questions

Codes

Requested parents/ Check 4.1 & 4.2. If 4.1 is 01 and in-law to stay 4.2 is 02 to 96 then ask this with her questionAs you have shifted from nuclear family She herself shifted to stay with her to joint family: Can you please tell parents/in-law whether you have requested in-laws/ parents to live with you or you went Others (Specify__) to live with them? 4.10 Check 4.1 & 4.2. If 4.1 is 01 and 4.2 No Self is 00 then ask this questionIn-laws Did at any time in the past, you or Parents your in-laws/parents or any other have thought to stay together? If Yes, Others (Specify__) can you please tell who have asked you to stay with them? 4.11 Check 4.1 & 4.2. If 4.1 is 02 to 96 and 4.2 is 00 then ask this No questionYes As you have always lived in a joint family, did you ever think of shifting to a nuclear household? Check 4.1. If 4.1 is 01 or 02 or 96 then ask 4.12 to 4.14 4.12 How many times do your parents visit you in a year? 4.13 How many times do you visit your parents? No 4.14 Do you celebrate festivals or others Yes___________ auspicious occasions with your parents? If Yes, then please tell the occasions which you celebrate with your parents? RECORD ALL MENTIONED Check 4.1. If 4.1 is 01 or 03 or 96 then ask 4.15 to 4.17 4.15 How many times do your in-laws visit you in a year? 4.16 How many times do you visit your in-laws? No 4.17 Do you celebrate festivals or others Yes___________ auspicious occasions with your in-laws? If Yes, then please tell the occasions which you celebrate with your in-laws? RECORD ALL MENTIONED 4.18 Whom do you consult to take Respondent Husband household decisions or you yourself Respondent and take all the decisions? husband jointly Someone else Other response

4.9

Skip 01 02 96

00 01 02 03 96

00 01

00 01

00 01

00 01 02 03 04

Q. No. Questions

Codes

4.19

No Yes Retain Change_______

00 01 01 02

No Yes___________

00 01

No Yes__________

00 01

No Yes_________

00 01

4.20

4.21

4.22 4.23

4.24

4.25

Are you satisfied or not satisfied with the present living arrangement? Given a chance, would you prefer living in the same living arrangement or would you like to change? If you would like to change living arrangement, then please specify with whom would you like to live? In the due course of time did you face any problem/conflict with family members? If Yes, then mostly with whom there is problem/conflict? Can you please mention the issues which give rise to conflict between you and other household members? To be put to the wife of nonmigrant husband only: If your husband would have been an out-migrant, do you think you would have been facing problems from other family members? If Yes, what would have been the problem(s)? To be put to the wife of outmigrant husband only: After your marriage and out-migration of your husband, do you think your relationship with your parents-in-law/ parents have undergone changes over the period of time? To be put to the wife of nonmigrant husband only: Do you think that your relationship with your parents-in law/parents have undergone changes over the period of time? If Yes, with whom do you think your relationship has changed: Parents-inlaws/parents? Why do you think your relationship with your parents/in-law’s family has changed?

Skip

Question

Financial Support Education of children Health care of children Health care of yourself Doing house­h old purchases Purchase of property

Physical help Admission of children Taking children to school Take children to doctor Take you to doctor Accom­p anying for house­h old purchase Going with you to bank or post office

Emotional Support Sharing ideas Give suggestion at emer­g encies Be through thick and thin

Q No.

4.26.1 4.26.2 4.26.3 4.26.4 4.26.5

4.26.6 4.26.7 4.26.8 4.26.9 4.26.10 4.26.11

4.26.12 4.26.13 4.26.14

Familial support

Always

Often

Parents-in-law Some­ times

Never NR*

Always

Parents Often

Some­ times

Never

NR*

Data and methodology  81 Block 15 Work and workload Q. No. Questions 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30

4.31 4.32

Codes

What is your occupation? (If it is household and agricultural work then ask next question) Apart from your own household and agricultural work do you do any other work to earn in cash/kind? If yes, what kind of work? Did you earn in cash or kind for last 6 months? How much cash did you earn in last 6 months? What are the things did you earn in kind?

No Yes

Skip

00 Go to 4.34 01

Cash 00 Go to 4.33 Kind 01 Go to 4.34 Both cash and 02 kind

4.33. Would you please tell me about daily work schedule? Usually which type of work do you do in agricultural and non-agricultural period of year? Daily routine

Time spent daily on each activity Non-agriculture season

Agriculture season

NA Hours Minutes Do you NA Hours Minutes Do you take rest take rest after each after each activity? activity? Mention in Mention in yes and no yes and no a Collecting drinking water b Cleaning and mopping house c Cooking d Milking animals e To go outside for toilet f Taking care of animals g Agriculture related work like weeding, harvesting, threshing In field In house (Continued)

Daily routine

Time spent daily on each activity Non-agriculture season

Agriculture season

NA Hours Minutes Do you NA Hours Minutes Do you take rest take rest after each after each activity? activity? Mention in Mention in yes and no yes and no h i j k l

Child care Leisure Other__________ Washing cloths* Collecting fuel/ wood*

*Mention whether it is daily weekly or bimonthly.

Block 16 Mental stress S. No.

Problem

4.34.1 4.34.2 4.34.3 4.34.4

Workload More responsibility Sufficient time for recreational activities Sufficient time to rest Neglect responsibilities

4.34.5 4.34.6 4.34.7 4.34.8 4.34.9 4.34.10 4.34.11 4.34.12 4.34.13 4.34.14 4.34.15 4.34.16 4.34.17 4.34.18 4.34.19 4.34.20

Emotional Feeling worried due to gap in communication with husband Inability to visit parents’ house or relatives due to lack of time Feeling loneliness or isolated Like to participate in social functions Lack of peace of mind Feeling depressed or unhappy Thinking that husband should not have taken such a job Not able to maintain social relations Feeling insecure Other family members are co-operative Cannot sleep properly Not able to concentrate in work Feeling of incompetence Attempt of suicide Irritable for some petty issues Think negative

Never

Sometimes

Always

S. No.

Problem

4.34.21 4.34.22 4.34.23

Feel worried Feel tired Feel like crying

4.35 4.35.1 4.35.2 4.35.3 4.35.4 4.35.5 4.36 4.36.1 4.36.2

Financial Do you take decisions related to money in your household? Difficulty in dealing with financial responsibilities Difficulty in mobilizing resources at the time of emergency Difficulty in taking right decisions at the time of emergency Available income is sufficient to run the household Difficulty in receiving or obtaining remittance from husband Ask only when respondent have children between 4 and 20 years Not able to facilitate the study of the children Difficulty in upbringing of children

Never

Sometimes

Always

No Yes

00 01

Go to 4.38

Block 17 Perception about migration Q. No. Questions

Codes

5.1

Wife of a stay-put 01 Wife of an out-migrant 02

5.2

5.3

5.4 5.5

Do you prefer to be the wife of an out-migrant? Do you favour or oppose male outmigration? Can you please tell why do you favour or oppose male outmigration? Do you think that the financial situation of left-behind wives is better/worse/the same as compared to those who are living with their husbands in the village? Do you think that the out-migrants have better job opportunities than non-migrants? Being wife of an out-migrant, do you think there has been an increase in the following . . . in comparison to other women who are staying with their husband in the village? Agriculture work Responsibilities Household work

Skip

Worse Same Better

01 02 03

No Yes

00 01

Low Same High 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 03

(Continued)

Block 17 (Continued) Q. No. Questions 5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

Being wife of an out-migrant, do you think there has been improvement in the following . . . in comparison to other women who are staying with their husband in the village? Health of your family member and yours own Economic status Self-respect Decision-making Children’s education Family relations This question is to be put to every women whether she has son or not: At any time in future what decision will you take if your son wants to migrate for better opportunities? This question is to be put to every women whether she has son or not: At any time in future, what will you do if your son decides to leave his wife behind in the village and outmigrate in search of the job? This question is to be put to every women whether she has son or not: At any time in future, what will you do if your son decides to take his wife to the place of his work? This question is to be put to every women whether she has daughter or not: At any time in the future, what will be your decision if your daughter is married to an out-migrant and she has to stay back in the village? This question is to be put to every women whether she has daughter or not: At any time in the future, what will be your decision if your daughter is married to an out-migrant and your daughter moves to stay with her husband at the place of his work? Given a chance would you like to live with your husband at the place of his work?

Codes

Skip

No Yes 00 01 00 01 00 01 00 01 00 01 00 01

Won’t allow Allow

01 02

Won’t allow Allow

01 02

Won’t allow Allow

01 02

Won’t allow Allow

01 02

Won’t allow Allow

01 02

No Yes

00 01

Data and methodology  85 Block 18 T his section will be put to the wife of out-migrant only 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18

5.19

5.20 5.21 5.22

5.23 5.24 5.25

Is there any conflict of yours with other household members regarding sharing remittances sent by your husband? Is there any conflict of yours with other household members regarding sharing household work? Have you ever visited your husband’s work place? If yes, than what was the purpose to visit? Why women do not stay with their husbands at their places of destination? Do you think that your responsibilities to carry out the agricultural operations are far greater than that of the wives of non-migrants? If yes, how much and what is the difference? Are you doing any kind of agricultural work that is generally perceived to be the domain of male members of the household because of the absence of your husband? Do you do any kind of agricultural work which you think wives of non-migrant do not do? If yes what is that? Do you have anxieties regarding the husband who is living far-off you? If yes what they are? How satisfied or dissatisfied you are with your life? (fully satisfied-00, partially satisfied-01, neutral-02, partially dissatisfied-03, fully dissatisfied-04) Remittances received in the last 6 months? Frequency of receiving remittances for past 6 months: What would be approximate earning of your out-migrant husband per month?

No Yes

00 01

No Yes

00 01

No Yes

00 01

Time at the end of interview: Time taken to finish interview (according to respondent):

Go to 5.18

Chapter 4

Profile of the sample population

Migration is generally a selective process, and it has been observed in India too that people of a specific age and sex display much higher probabilities of migrating. A closer examination of available literature on migration brings to the fore that migration has been a remarkable livelihood strategy for poor households in some of the regions in India (Mosse et al. 2002). This phenomenon has been observed far more in situations in which the process of migration takes place from localities with bleak economic realities to regions with higher economic prospects. The hilly region of Uttarakhand is no exception, since socio-economic survival is a particularly unique struggle with respect to the rugged terrain. Since our conception of migration involves taking employment at a distant place while leaving behind families at the place of origin, we must proceed with a couple of guiding principles. Although there may not be much difference in household characteristics of out-migrant and non-migrant households, it is imperative to examine the similarities and dissimilarities as they have important implications for household decision-making and consequently women’s empowerment. We would also note that it is consequently necessary to study how income received through remittances from out-migrant husbands is allocated between consumption and investment and also how much migration contributes to the families’ economic well-being. The information on household characteristics and housing conditions provides enough background for enhancing understanding of the demographic and socio-economic contexts of the two groups under study. Most of the descriptive statistics and individual variables in this chapter are selfexplanatory, but elaboration on them contributes to further understanding of the issues involved. For that purpose, the mean characteristics of both the groups of households and their individual members have been summarized. The diagnostic statistics for skewness and kurtosis of the variables have been used to discover whether the variables are following a linear pattern (Peat and Barton 2005). The t-test has also been applied to examine whether there exist significant differences in the socio-economic and demographic

Profile of the sample population  87

characteristics of the two groups under study. In regard to certain variables like income, savings and investments (not to be following normal distribution), the non-parametric test, i.e., the Mann Whitney test, has been applied to determine mean differences.

Household composition Household population by age and sex Age and sex are the prominent demographic characteristics that play an important role in the study of a given population as both of them have considerable impact on the population’s current and future social and economic development. Figures 4.1a and 4.1b display the distribution of the household population in five-year age groups by sex and type of households, i.e., households with wives left behind and wives with nonmigrant husbands. A total of 2268 residents have been enumerated in the sample of 518 households interviewed. The total household members enumerated among households with wives left behind and wives with non-migrant husbands stand at 1084 and 1184, respectively. In the

Above 59 55 to 59

Age group (in years)

50 to 54 45 to 40 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 25.00

15.00

5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

Percentages Male

Female

Figure 4.1a A ge-sex pyramid of household members with non-migrant husbands

88  Profile of the sample population

Above 59 55 to 59

Age group (in years)

50 to 54 45 to 40 40 to 44 35 to 39 30 to 34 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 5 to 9 0 to 4 25.00

15.00

5.00

5.00

15.00

25.00

Percentages Male

Female

Figure 4.1b A ge-sex pyramid of household members with out-migrant husbands

households with left-behind wives (out-migrant husbands), one finds a fewer number of males than females in the age group 20 to 49 years. Among households with non-migrant husbands, approximately one third of the population (30 percent) is below 15 years of age while 8 percent is above age 59, with the remaining 62 percent in the 15–59 age group, whereas, for households with out-migrant husbands, it is 35, 16 and 49 percent respectively (Figures 4.1a and 4.1b).

Marital status of the household members In the study area, the percentage of currently married household members is approximately the same, i.e., around 69 percent for both the groups. Around 23 percent of the members in the households with non-migrant husbands are never married, whereas it is 18 percent for households with out-migrant husbands. There are higher percentages of widow/widower in the latter category as compared to the former. Among both the groups, the percentages of divorced or separated have negligible presence in rural Garhwal (Table 4.1).

Profile of the sample population  89 Table 4.1 Percentage distribution of the household members by marital status and type of households Marital status

Households with nonmigrant husbands

Households with outmigrant husbands

Total

Never married Currently married Widow/widower Divorced/separated Total population

22.7 69.7 7.5 0.1 1184

17.9 68.7 13.4 0.0 1084

20.5 69.3 10.2 0.1 2268

Educational attainment of the household members The matrix of human development indices is determined by more than one factor for identifying and elaborating upon some plausible markers of human development in which education occupies an important space, as has also been espoused and developed by UNDP (Desai et al. 2010). The survey has collected basic information on the educational attainment for household members through interrogative categories like “ever attended school”, “the ability to read and write” and “years of schooling” in the sample of individuals aged above four years. In fact, an overwhelming proportion of the population, across the board, has a mean value of eight years of schooling, with non-migrant households (87 percent) showing a slight edge over out-migrant households (87 percent) when it came to “can read and write”. This may make two suggestions: the first is that out-migrants are no better equipped in terms of education and skills, and second that they may be largely engaged in menial jobs such as hotel/restaurant waiters, cooks, security guards, domestic helpers, office attendants, etc., as they are ill-equipped to assume gainful economic professions that warrant a higher level of education and skills. Thus their pre-existing economic conditions force them to move out in search of jobs without even completing high school, thereby disenfranchising the very futures they seek via out-migration. We must here pause and ask: Do they succumb to the fear of impending struggle for livelihood if they stay back or capitulate to the temptation of a better life if they move out? This issue requires deeper investigation and shall be addressed at a later part of the analysis, though this is not the primary focus of this work.

Occupation of the household members As per the estimate provided by the Planning Commission, based on the 61st Round of the NSSO, nearly 40 percent of the state’s population was living below the poverty line during the year 2004–05. This statistic is alarming

90  Profile of the sample population

when compared to Uttar Pradesh (32.8 percent), Uttarakhand’s parent state, Himachal Pradesh (10 percent), Jammu and Kashmir (5.4 percent) and even the overall India average (27.5 percent). Such numbers underscore the absence of economically gainful employment opportunities in the region (Mamgain 2008). The information about occupation of the members was collected from both types of households, which revealed that around 14 percent of the household members in households with non-migrant husbands and 23 percent in households with out-migrant husbands are engaged in agricultural activities. Moreover, almost all of them are working in their own fields as non-waged, agricultural labour as part of a family. It indicates that there has been a substantial decline in the agricultural activities in this rain-fed system, as agriculture was the mainstay of the population (Sati 2005). Furthermore, it has been found that 12 percent of the non-migrant household members run their own petty businesses, such as shopkeepers, photographers, taxi drivers, etc., while it is just 2 percent for households with out-migrant husbands. A very small percentage of households, i.e., 2.3 percent of non-migrant and 0.5 percent of migrant households, could find employment in the government sector. Though the percentages are almost insignificant, they none the less point towards the possibility of retention of the larger number of able-bodied working population back home if they get an opportunity to gain employment on a regular basis, if not government employment with job security. Since the non-agricultural sector is almost non-existent in the study area, only 1.5 percent of the working population was found to be engaged in that sector, with non-migrant households having a clear advantage over the migrant households. A large chunk of the population, almost 38 percent, was found to comprise students across both of these categories. The absence of any secondary occupation, along with the current occupational pattern per se, strongly implies an absence of alternative sources of livelihood, which indicates a poor level of development. Another important point that we would here note is that approximately 16 percent of the migrant households are either pensioners or are not seeking any job, in sharp contrast to just 7 percent of non-migrant households. It moreover indicates that migrant households likely enjoy better financial security as compared to non-migrant households, and this perhaps could be one of the primary reasons for making out-migration more compelling. The survey also gathered information on the secondary occupation of every household member. Around 35 percent of household members of both groups have responded with “no secondary occupation” – not because they are uninterested in employment but rather because they do not have any access to economically gainful employment opportunities in the areas in which they reside.

Profile of the sample population  91

Characteristics of the heads of the households In the study area, 35 percent of the households surveyed are headed by females. The proportion of female-headed households is higher in the households with out-migrant husbands (56 percent) than the households with non-migrant husbands (13 percent). In the latter category (households with non-migrant husbands), 42 percent of heads of the households are above 50 years of age, whereas for the households in the out-migrant category, it is 64 percent. The marital status of heads of the households reveals that 84 and 69 percent of them are currently married in the households with nonmigrant and out-migrant husbands, respectively. A higher percentage of heads of the households with non-migrant husbands could read and write than the heads of the households with outmigrant husbands. The heads of the households in the former category have a higher mean number of years of schooling (ten years) as compared to the latter (nine years). The heads of the households with non-migrant husbands are largely found to be running/owning petty businesses, i.e., shops, etc., while among households with out-migrant husbands, heads are found to be largely pensioners (Table 4.2). Thus the heads of the households with Table 4.2 Percentage distribution of heads of households by socio-demographic characteristics and type of households Characteristics of the heads of the households

Households with nonmigrant husbands

Households with outmigrant husbands

Total

Sex Male Female

87.3 12.7

44.0 56.0

65.1 34.9

Age 20 to 30 years 31 to 40 years 41 to 50 years Above 50 years Mean age (in years)***

4.8 26.6 26.6 42.1 49.6 (13.0)

12.8 11.3 12.0 63.9 54.7 (15.9)

8.9 18.7 19.1 53.3 52.2 (14.7)

84.5 15.5 87.7

69.2 30.8 71.4

76.6 23.4 79.3

19.9 49.3 30.8 10.0 (2.1)

33.2 46.3 20.5 9.3 (2.2)

26.0 47.9 26.0 9.7 (2.2)

Current marital status Currently married Widowed Can read and write Number of years of schooling Up to 8 years 9–10 years More than 10 years Mean number of years of schooling***

(Continued)

92  Profile of the sample population Table 4.2 (Continued) Characteristics of the heads of the households

Primary occupation Government employee Private Own business Unpaid family work Agricultural labour in own/others land Labour in non-agricultural sector Pensioner Others # Secondary occupation None Unpaid family work Agricultural labour in own land Others (business/labour in nonagricultural sector/student) Total sample

Households with nonmigrant husbands

Households with outmigrant husbands

Total

6.7 4.4 34.1 4.8 14.3 7.9 22.6 5.2

1.9 0.4 4.5 19.2 17.7 0.0 55.3 1.1

4.2 2.3 18.9 12.2 16.0 3.9 39.4 3.1

25.0 29.0 41.0 5.0

20.0 47.0 28.0 5.0

22.4 38.2 34.4 5.0

252

266

518

Note: The figures in parentheses depict standard deviation. *** p