Purposeful Discrimination or Structural Problem?

Author's Note: This article is not intended to criticize developmental work in rural areas. It only aims to point out that this is not a long-term solution to the problem of rural backwardness.

Last month, as part of my coursework, we had a group discussion about rural backwardness. I had some ideas in my mind which I expressed during that time, but it has become more coherent as I continue to think about it. I decided to make that the topic of my post today.

Let me make two things very clear. "Rural areas are backward" is well understood. "Why rural areas are backward" is less understood. My aim is to increase the understanding of the second point. Let us begin by understanding the economics of rural and urban areas. The predominant productive activity of rural areas is agriculture, which takes up the energy of most of its inhabitants.  In contrast, the activities of urban areas are so diverse that we cannot start counting them here. This by itself is a big handicap for rural areas. Is not the man who has only one source of income less secure than the man who has multiple sources of incomes?

But this is not a serious disability for rural areas. The problem arises from another, less observed factor.  Let me make one point clear before we proceed. Two things are very infectious in human society: diseases and ideas. Rural areas have a less density of population than urban areas. In urban areas, typically 20,000 people are huddled in each square kilometre of built-up area. This results in a rapid exchange of ideas and thoughts in the concrete jungle. Rural areas are much less densely populated, and are also less expansive than urban areas. Thus the rural hinterland is always short on progressive thinking, not because there is a dearth of intellectuals there, but because the population there is less.

Some people have an idea that rural poverty can be alleviated, if the governing body of the area brings suitable facilities and social and economic infrastructure to these areas for their rapid development. Let us critically analyze this line of thinking. First, we are not a rich country. Second, we have a large rural population. And third, it is more expensive to bring the facilities to rural areas (on a per-person scale) as compared to urban areas. Work out the maths and you will see why it is not easy for a country like India to bring facilities to rural areas. Look at the plain and simple facts, rural poor migrate to towns to become urban poor, but have you ever heard of the urban rich migrating to villages to become the rural rich?

Some will say that we must bring development to our rural areas at any cost. No doubt, it is a noble thought, and may even solve the problem for the time being; but it is better to be wiser, and know that this is not a real solution. Gandhiji once said: "India lives in villages." What he did not say (but probably intended to say) was: "India's future does not live in villages, but in its industrial townships, where economic activity is carried out on a large scale."

For the time being, we must carry on with developmental activities in rural areas; but we shall achieve long-term prosperity only when the rural masses gradually migrate to townships. I am not saying that they should migrate to big cities and live in slums (indeed, why should they be at all forced out of their villages?), but suitable economic opportunity must be created in the smaller towns where they can migrate for a living. Surely, this will be cheaper than bringing infrastructure to villages. Some people may point out that the rural areas of developed countries are prosperous; but don't forget the massive subsidies their governments pump into their agriculturists. I don't think India has that luxury today.

I have put forth my points on this topic. I hope other readers think over this and bring out their opinions (not necessarily as comments) on how we can alleviate rural backwardness.