GRB 605 UNIT III TOPIC 1 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

GRB 605: UNIT III TOPIC 1: REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: PATTERNS AND IMBALANCES This presentation deals with only the first half of the first topic, which is: PATTERNS OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA *I remember we had already started this, but left it midway due to the approaching mid semester examinations, thus we may have discussed some of this already, anyways, still go through the same and feel free to get back with questions and/or inputs.

I: Historical/colonial pattern of regional development in India: The British concentrated on the development of only those parts of their colony, which benefitted them economically like the port cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras as these were the principal centres of trade. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 1) (Map has been taken from: Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 1)

Development of port towns such as Bombay, Calcutta and Madras caused these cities to function as the node for the regions they were located within like Maharashtra, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu respectively. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 2) Consequently, resource rich regions such as Jharkhand, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh were not really concentrated on. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 2) Since the port towns were the important centres that actually served the metropolitan economy, efforts were made only to connect them with the hinterland (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 2) ‘During 1930’s, some more centres emerged on the industrial map of the country such as Ahmedabad, Delhi, Kanpur, Madras, Madurai and Coimbatore, these were engaged primarily in cotton textile manufacturing'. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 2)

II: Post independence/post colonial pattern of regional development in India: • The urban scene was still dominated by four metropolitan cities: Mumbai (Bombay), Delhi, Calcutta and Chennai (Madras). (Shaw, 1999, p. 969) • ‘Each served as a regional capital and acted as a central place for a vast rural hinterland’ (Shaw, 1999, p. 969). • Delhi attained importance because of its ‘administrative power’ and Mumbai because of it financial power. (Shaw, 1999, p. 969) • Calcutta and Madras were less important nationally unlike Delhi and Mumbai, they were more significant within their own regions. (Shaw, 1999, p. 969) • Calcutta experienced an industrial decline since the 1960 s. (Shaw, 1999, p. 969) • Since 1960 s, these four cities have grown both with respect to population and size of their metropolitan areas. (Shaw, 1999, p. 969) • Smaller metropolitan cities such as Bangalore, Hyderabad and Pune emerged subsequently (Shaw, 1999, p. 969)

From the 1950 s to the 1990 s, the government of independent India actively promoted an industrial policy which was did have a regional component in it. The government of India did play a major role at this stage in removing regional imbalances. This was done by locating ‘major steel plants, mineral extraction facilities and petroleum refineries in industrially back ward regions under the early plans, it attempted to raise industrial output from these areas’ (Shaw, 1999, p. 970). This actually helped the previously neglected but resource rich regions of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa. (Shaw, 1999, p. 970) This further facilitated bringing down disparities between regions with respect to employment and output generated by major industries till about the middle of the 1970 s. (Shaw, 1999, p. 970, citing Mohan et al 1992) This positive attitude towards creating regional parity however did not remain as strong after the middle of the 1970 s. This can be inferred from the move that the major government run chemical plants were located in the already developed western region of the country. (Shaw, 1999, p. 970) ‘Therefore, between 1972 -73 and 1983 -84, the contribution of Gujarat and Maharashtra, to the country's industrial output increased’. These two states, along with the green revolution states of Punjab and Haryana and small states such as Delhi and Goa, have remained the most developed in the country (Shaw, 1999, p. 970) Base map has been taken from Censusindia. gov. in, on which discussed regions have been marked

III: Post liberalisation pattern of regional development in India: Accelerated regional imbalance Because of An aggravated/enhanced investment from the private sector which provided Greater ‘freedom’ to the states to choose easily accessible private investments as a path towards growth (Shaw, 1999). How? ‘For example, the abolition of industrial licensing ensured that private investment, both foreign and domestic, would go to the states, where productivity gains would be the greatest’. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 3) ‘Economic Backwardness’ of a region can be indicated by symptoms like high population pressure on land, excessive dependence on agriculture, absence of large-scale urbanization, low productivity in agriculture and cottage industries (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 3) (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 4)

IV: Recent pattern of regional development in India: Metropolitan regional planning Ongoing and ‘future programme and policies of regional development need reorganization of spatial structures pertaining to industrialization* and urbanization** keeping into mind balance between spatial*** and sectoral approach’**** (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 9). Why? Because. ‘The discriminatory development of some regions during the British Raj, remain continued even after Independence’. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 9). ‘Somehow spatial component in planning remain neglected in early phase of planned development resulted into lopsided regional development’. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 9). ‘The mandate behind the opening of economy was to allow and promote foreign direct investment in the backward regions, as engine of economic growth. The modernization strategy articulated by the Indian government did not result into minimizing regional disparities and even resulted into the co-existence of relatively developed and economically depressed area within a state’. (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 9). *Shall be discussed when we do industries and their role in detail **is discussed in next slide ***spatial/regional approach is dealt with in this topic ****sectoral approach shall be dealt with when we do agriculture, industry, infrastructure

Massive urban growth Leads to Understanding the crucial role of urban centres as nodes of development for the regions within which they exist since Economic development shall find a spatial/regional expression only through an interconnection of the urban centres within it. These spatial expressions depend upon: 1. How urban development has been incorporated within the national/state development plans? 2. How much funds the central and the state government is making available for urban development? 3. How empowered are the urban local bodies in taking decisions? 4. If the urban centres grow, will they and how will they influence their peripheries? 5. What influence will the over hundred smart cities being created all across the nation have on its respective meso regions? (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 8 -9) (Maps have been taken from: Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 8)

Development should not be equated with economic development alone (as it may seem from the material so far), human development is crucial. Two important indicators, besides economic development or growth that is incorporated in human development are health and education. It is thus important to look at regional patterns of human development as well (Kumar and Rahaman, 2016). (Maps have been taken from: Kumar and Rahaman, 2016, p. 5)

References: Kumar, P. and Rahaman, S. , 2016, ‘Pre and Post Regional Development Scenario in India’, Journal of Urban and Regional Studies on Contemporary India, 3(1), p. 1 -10 Shaw, A. , 1999, ‘Emerging Patterns of Urban Growth in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 16/17, p. 969 -978. THANK YOU