However,
as Table 2 shows, the decline in main worker-population
ratios was spread uniformly across all the states.
Every single state showed a decline in this ratio
by at least 3-4 percentage points for rural males.
In some states, such as Orissa and Uttar Pradesh,
the decline was especially sharp and amounted to as
much as 10 or more percentage points, or more than
20 per cent of the proportion of those in such employment.
Table
2
>> Click to Enlarge
For
rural women, the picture was only slightly more complicated.
In terms of total worker-population ratios, there
were increases in most states barring Kerala, and
huge increases in Punjab and Haryana as well as to
a lesser extent in Rajasthan. It is not clear to what
extent such increases reflect better recording and
recognition of women’s work in these northern states.
However, once again the overall pattern in the states
reflects essentially the increase in only marginal
work even for rural women. Main worker-population
ratios declined for rural women in every state except
for the three northern states of Punjab, Haryana and
Rajasthan, where as mentioned above, improved recording
of women’s work may have been the decisive factor.
This
fact of falling main worker-population rates has an
important bearing on the subsequent analysis with
respect to the type of economic activity that the
rural workforce is engaged in. One feature which always
excites much discussion is the degree of diversification
of the rural workforce, or the proportion of agriculture
in total rural employment. This has been one feature
which also appears stubbornly resistant to change
according to Census results, compared with the NSS
data which has shown greater variation over time in
this regard. Thus, Chart 4 shows that the extent of
decline in agriculture’s share of total rural employment
has been gentle and less than moderate, and remained
very high at around four-fifths of the rural workforce.
Chart
4 >> Click
to Enlarge
Note that this refers only to main workers, and indeed
in all the previous Censuses, the industrial classification
of workers has been presented only for main workers.
However, for the 2001 Census the data presented so
far relates only to main plus marginal workers together.
This renders the latest data completely non-comparable
with the earlier series. It is not known why the Census
of India decided to present the data in this manner,
which does not allow for comparison or estimates of
trends over time.
This
is especially unfortunate as the latest Census shows
the total employment (main plus marginal) in agriculture
to be fairly low. There are indicated in Charts 5
and 6. However, because they relate to all workers,
and because as we have seen, there is a very substantial
shift in favour of marginal workers and a decline
in the share of main workers, this cannot at all be
compared with the classifications of earlier Census
data based on main workers only.
Chart
5 >> Click
to Enlarge
Chart
6 >> Click
to Enlarge
This
has not prevented the organisation from making statements
which are not justified by the data that it has presented.
According to the Census of India’s website, “The results
from the 2001 Census clearly suggest a shift in the
composition of the labour force from a predominantly
agriculture to a moderately non-agriculture sector”.
Such a conclusion would only be justified if it could
be seen that the share of agriculture has fallen for
main workers only, or that the share of agriculture
was higher for both main and marginal workers together
in the 1991 Census.
Further,
since information relating to type of employment (self-employment,
regular or casual work) is not part of this dataset,
we cannot tell what form even the new marginal work
in non-agriculture appears to be taking. The important
point to note is that we do not have adequate evidence
to declare that there is actually a diversification
of rural employment away from agriculture, and certainly
cannot make the further judgement that such diversification
is of the progressive variety associated with a dynamic
economy.
In
sum, it is clear that employment generation in the
rural sector has been much less than adequate even
after all the increases in marginal workers are accounted
for. Charts 7 and 8 indicate the absolute increase
in number of main and marginal rural workers respectively.
As Chart 9 shows, the number of male main workers
increased very little over the decade, by just above
5 million, while the increase in female main workers
was less than 3 million. By contrast, the number of
marginal workers increased by 26 million for rural
men and 27 million for rural women.
Chart
7 >> Click
to Enlarge
Chart
8 >> Click
to Enlarge
Chart
9 >> Click
to Enlarge
This
is confirmed by the annual growth rates of employment
reflected in the absolute increases, as described
in Table 3. While the aggregate employment growth
appear to be slightly better than described through
the NSS Surveys, at 1.7 per cent for males and 3.2
per cent for females, the increase in main employment
is much lower than even the increase in usual status
employment indicated by the NSS. Indeed, it is less
than half of one per cent per annum for both men and
women. So the story of collapse of rural employment
generation in the 1990s, which had emerged from the
NSS Surveys, appears to be largely corroborated by
the latest Census data as well.
Table
3
>> Click
to Enlarge
Given the overall stagnation
in worker-population ratios discussed above, what
this suggests is that the vast bulk of additional
jobs generated in the countryside over this period
have not provided employment for even half a year
to rural workers. Obviously, many aspects remain to
be explored and it is necessary to await the further
and more detailed results of the Census 2001 for proper
analysis. But one thing that the results released
thus far show very clearly is an intensification of
the process of marginalisation of the rural workforce.
