Page 55 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes million ratio). While among females it is more than five times (104. 7: 18.4 million) Manpower
Profile, India, 1998: 129). (11) The number of working children in the rural areas is 10 times more
than in the urban areas (In 1991, it was 10.26 to 1.03 million).
Rural-Urban Interaction
Rural-urban interaction is an important aspect of urbanisation. It is expected that urbanisation and
urban growth would have their impact on rural areas and activities in rural areas would have
their effect on the nearby towns and cities. A few studies have been made on this rural-ur-ban
interaction which have shown that: (1) Urbanisation has impact on the economy of the surrounding
villages. There is increase in farm productivity (due to the availability of fertilisers, better seeds,
tractors, etc., in nearby cities), increase in commercialisation of crops and decline in the density of
farm population. (2) Level and pattern of migration has been affected. (3) Villagers have imbibed
several urban characteristics.
Social science literature has often exaggerated contrasts and dichotomies of rural and urban social
organisations and ways of life. This type of perspective tends to ignore difference in the size of
urban areas ranging anywhere between 5,000 and 15 million. The dichotomous perspective further
neglects the existence of continuous interdependent, complimentary and overlapping relationships
of rural and urban sectors which are reflected through mutual exchange system of goods and
services. The ruralites are dependent on the urbanites for their banking and credit needs, for the
purchase of agricultural equipment and other supplies, for marketing of farm products, and even
for commercial recreation. The urban sector is dependent on the rural sector for food supply, for
cheap labour, and for vast market of its manufactured goods. The urban professionals like doctors,
lawyers, etc., draw a large number of their patients/clients from rural masses because hospitals
and courts are concentrated in the urban centres (Nagpaul, 1996: 155-156).
Yet other double dimensional phenomenon which affects rural-urban relationships is migration.
Most rural migrants who move to urban areas are young males who take up unskilled and semi-
skilled occupations.
Even those ruralites who receive higher education prefer to settle in cities. This migration from
rural to urban areas exerts pressures on urban public services and creates problems of social
disorganisation.
Migration from rural to urban areas is of different types. One is to settle down permanently in the
urban area of one’s choice. This is called translocatory migration. Other is one in which migrants
hang on to their rural base and migrate repeatedly and for varying durations, either to the same
urban area or to different ones. This is termed circulatory migration. Yet others migrate in graded
steps from a smaller to a larger settlement. This is known as step-migration. Mary Chatterjee (1971)
has shown that the stability of migration is a function of distance from the native place, as well as
of occupational status. The longer the distance from the native place, the greater the number of
migrants who regard their stay in city as temporary. Relatively, more migrants from lower-prestige
occupations than those from higher occupations regard their stay in city as temporary.
Migration from rural to urban areas also follows certain patterns. One, it depends upon the ‘pull’
factors at the urban and ‘push’ factors at the rural end. Thus, migration of agricultural labourers
from Bihar to Punjab during the harvest season is of this type. Then there is migration which is
caused by rural poverty and urban opportunity of getting work. Migration of young children as
well as of adults from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to other states for the lure of a job is of this ‘pull’
type.
Along with cooperative relationships and functional dependence, there are cleavages and conflicts
also between rural and urban sectors. The conflicts have been classified as primary or secondary,
manifest or latent, and episodic or continuous. However, rural-urban conflicts are not clear-cut
and do not erupt in open violence. It is difficult to fix their beginning or ending. The three factors
identified by (Nagpaul, 1996: 158-160) which promote/foster cleavages and conflicts among the
rural people for the urban people are: contrasting environmental subcultures, modernisation, and
urban bias.

50 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY