Occupational Structure of Cities, 1901-61 B R Kalra

The industrial structure of Indian cities presents contrasting pictures before and after 1931

Up to 1931 the cities, along with the rest of the country, had been passing through the historical phase of 4de-industriahsation' as a result of the decay of the handicrafts and other traditional industries. The workers dis­lodged from traditional industries swelled 'other services' as domestic servants, general labourers, etc. The growth in 'other services' was poverty induced and was accompanied by stagnation in construction, trade and transport.

Industrialisation gained momentum after 1931 with the introduction of discriminating protection and through other State and private efforts and the full impact of these developments was reflected in the Census results of 1961 In 1951 and 1961 we get a picture of developing industrialisation and growth of the infrastructure of the urban economy,

As the economic situation in the cities improved the marginal workers in 'other services' shifted to more remunerative and productive occupations and there took place an allround rationalisation of economic activity.

THE paper deals with occupational or industrial structure of oil

cities (having population of I lakh and more) from 1901 to 1961 (exclud­ing 1941). The workers of occupational categories included in earlier censuses have been re-grouped into nine broad industrial categories of 1961. For this purpose, the study covers 26 cities in 1901, 25 cities in 1911, 29 cities in 1921, 32 cities in 1931, 75 cities in 1951 and 107 cities in 1961. Table 1 gives summary position of industrial structure of cities over the last 60 years.

Table 1 brings out the following important points. Except for a slight reversal during 1921, the categories of cultivators and agricultural labourers and activities ancillary to agriculture have been showing declining propor­tions. The agricultural portion of the city economy has, of course, been very small. Mining and quarrying had been declining up to 1931 but showed an upward trend in 1951. For 1961, the workers in cities engaged in min­ing and quarrying are not available separately. Manufacturing including household industry declined sharply t i l l 1931 but i t showed an equally sharp upward trend in 1951 and 1961. The categories of workers in con­struction, commerce and transport, and communication showed irregular movement til l 1931 and registered steady increase after that. The propor­tions of these categories in 1951 and 1961 are well above those recorded for earlier census years. The category of 'Other Services indicates an oppo­site trend as compared to manufactur­ing. It increased speedily up to 1931 and declined thereafter.

The table, thus, presents a contrast­ing picture of industrial structure in cities before and after 1931. Upto

1931, the cities, along with the rest of the country, had been passing through the historical phase of "de-industrialization" through decay of handicrafts and other traditional indus­tries. The workers dislodged from traditional industries swelled 'Other Services' as domestic servants, general labourers, etc. The growth in the 'Other Services' was poverty induced, and was accompanied by stagnation in construction, trade and transport. In­dustrialization gained momentum with .. the introduction of discri­minating protection in 1932 and other State and private efforts and the full impact of these measures was reflected in the Census results of 1951. In 1951 and 1961 we get a more favourable picture of developing industrialization and infra-structure of the urban eco­nomy. As the economic condition in cities improved, the marginal workers in 'Other Services' shifted to more remunerative and productive occupa­tions in categories V to V I I I . As a matter of fact, there took place an allround rationalisation of economic activities.

The rate of growth of population in cities during 1931-61 was seven times as much as recorded for the previous 30 years. The rate of growth of gene­ral population in 1931-61 was three times as much as during 1901-1931. Thus we notice a concomitant pheno­menon of identical trends in industria­lization and urbanisation. The pattern of economic growth of cities during the last 30 years seems to be on the lines of urban growth in western countries during the 19th century. The halting growth of cities during the first 30 years was due partly to lower rate of population growth mainly as a result of natural factors and partly due to the disruption of the older systems of production,

transportation and distribution under the laissez faire policy. This period recorded a higher proportion of work­ers in agriculture which may suggest that many industrial workers moved back to agriculture not only in rural areas but. also from cities and other urban areas. As stated by D R Gadgil, "The craftsmen slowly gave up their old occupations, and had to resort to agriculture or any other occupations in which they found an opening. Such a decay of handicrafts and the conse­quent decrease of population was the fate of a great number of old towns."

Table 2 gives industrial distribution of working force in cities classified according to certain size ranges of population. However, the cross sec­tional study of cities at a point of time does not corroborate the pattern obtained through time series data. The table, however, reveals a more balanced structure in 1951 and 1961 in respect of both big and small cities. At macro-level, cities still seem to be more or less self-sufficient nuclei of the areas which they cater.

It may be desirable to analyse more closely the controversial issue regard­ing the function of urban growth. It may also help to judge urbanisation in the context of economic growth. Such a study may be undertaken either by classifying cities according to their functional or industrial charac­teristics and comparing their relative growth rates or, alternatively, the cities may be classified according to their differential growth rates to :see if they make out any industrial pat­tern. The second course seems to be more practicable since it is easier to classify workers in cities into indus-

* 'The Industrial Revolution of In­dia by D R Gadgil, pp 140.

1139

July 17, 1965 T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y

trial categories than to classify the cities themselves. For computing the rate of growth between two census periods we have to take into account only those cities which existed in both the censuses. Thus for any given period, new cities are not taken into consideration. For example, while studying the rate of growth of differ­ent , cities between 1901-11 a city which existed in 1911 but not in 1901, is not taken into account. That city is, of course, included while working out the growth between 1911-21. Table 3 which is based upon the above approach brings out significant results. The table neatly spells out a clear.cut functional relationship between the industrial composition of cities and their differential growth rates. It can be seen that during each census period the cities whose industrial and infra-stucture was more developed registered much higher rate of growth as com­pared to others with less balanced economic structure. The cities which

recorded the maximum growth rote (50 per cent and above) between 1951-61 were the industrial cities of Jamshedpur Ludhiana, South Subar-ban and Visakhapatnam and two ad-ministrative-cum-vservice cities of Delhi and Bhopal. In other cases, the table brings out an inverse relationship bet­ween the proportion of workers in Other Services' and the rate of popu­lation growth. The sanctity behind urbanization is fully borne out by Table 3 and Table 4. Table 4 gives industrial distribution of work­ers in cities classified according to rate of growth above and below nve-rage. It bears out that cities whose rate of growth was above average had higher proportion of workers in cate­gories IV to VI I I and lower propor­tion of workers in Category IX as compared to cities whose rate of growth was below average.

It may be relevant to trace the industrial structure of working force

in non-city urban and rural areas from 1901 to 1961 as worked out in Table 5. The agricultural sector had been growing absolutely as well as rela­tively upto 1931 and showed some slight improvement (in proportions only) after that. It is significant to note that categories IV and V (manu­facturing including household indus­try) had been declining right upto 1951. While cities faced foreign competition upto 1951 and recovered thereafter, the indigenous industries in non-city urban and rural areas suffered, in the begin­ning, at the hands of imported goods which had started pouring into the mof-ussil area by the turn of the century and, later on, from city made goods. Slight improvement noticed in 1961 is due to the emergence of new industrial townships in non-city urban areas. As a matter of fact, the entire non-agricultural component of rural areas got its sustenance from agriculture and it languished when agriculture stopped releasing any surpluses. Soci-

Included in III(a) (a) Household Industry (b) Manufacturing other than household industry Note: Figures in brackets denote percentage increase over previous census.

1140

T H E E C O N O M I C W E E K L Y July 17, 1965

* Household Industry * Manufacturing other than household industry

Note:—Figures in brackets denote percentage increase over previous census.

1141