Household Survey Report

 

A total of 1960 families which migrate during the sugarcane-cutting season were surveyed. They belong to the same 165 villages that were surveyed for the Village Survey.

A complete age and gender breakup of all the members of surveyed families is shown in Table H 1.

Gender ratio

We find that sex ratios in the survey sample are the lowest compared to Maharashtra and even Ahmednagar, whether in the younger age group or the overall ratio.

The sex ratio of 843 females to 1000 males is even more biased against women than the ratio in the entire village sample (906:1000). These ratios are evidence of greater overall backwardness of this sample than that seen in the villages surveyed as a whole, which are themselves, as we have already noted, from a relatively backward part of Maharashtra.

 

Table H 2 : Comparative gender ratio

 

1991

2001(projected)

 

 

rural

urban

total

rural

urban

total

A'nagar

Age group

0-6 years

951

941

946

892

878

890

M’rashtra

953

936

946

923

908

917

Survey

Sample

(1960 families)

0-5 years

766

 

 

 

 

 

6-10years

820

 

 

 

 

 

A’nagar

Entire

population

 

 

934

 

 

922

M’rashtra

 

 

949

 

 

941

Survey sample (1960 families)

843

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caste / community profile

The two major groups in the migrating community are the Vanjaris and the Marathas which form 37.9% and 26.8% of the sample respectively. (Table H 3) The Banjaras form 9.9% of this sample. There are about 20 to 90 families of Bhills, Dhangars, Mahars, Bouddhas, Matangs, Muslims, Gujars, each forming 1% to less than 5% of the sample. Another 20 castes/communities form the rest of the 4.5% of the sample.

Table H 3 : Caste / Community profile

Caste

No. of families

%

VANJARI

743

37.9

MARATHA

526

26.8

BANJARA

194

9.9

BHILL

86

4.4

DHANGAR

79

4.0

MAHAR

79

4.0

MATANG

68

3.5

BOUDDHA

47

2.4

MUSLIM

28

1.4

GUJAR

21

1.1

OTHER

89

5.1

 

1960

100.0

 

Educational profile

Another parameter of development is again indicative of the backwardness of this community. Educational levels are abysmal (Table H4). 92 % of the women have not been to school at all. Only 1.5% i.e. 41/2713 women have completed Std X. and there are only three graduates among them.

Similar figures for men though better than those for the women are still quite disheartening. 66% of the men have not been to school. 358 of 2882 or 7.5% of the men have completed Std X and there are 82, 2.84% graduate men.

Table H 4 : Education profile

 

 

 

 

 

Education of adults (Above age 18)

 

 

Education

Women

Men

 

No.

%

No.

%

None

2501

92.19

1906

66.13

I to IV

114

4.20

304

10.55

V to VII

57

2.10

232

8.05

VIII to X

29

1.07

227

7.88

XII - XII

9

0.33

131

4.55

Graduation

3

0.11

73

2.53

P. Graduation

0

0.00

9

0.31

Total

2713

100.00

2882

100.00

 

The age wise break up of the men and women who have completed Std XII and those who have graduated is along expected lines (Table H5). Half the women who have completed Std. XII are not more than 20 years of age, while 76% of them are less than 30 years indicating that the numbers of women getting a high school education is increasing. The table also shows that there are more older men who have completed higher secondary school than there are women. However, completing education upto higher secondary stage is still an exception rather than the rule, even for men.

Table H 5 :
Age profile of adults, who have completed Higher Secondary / First Degree

 

Higher secondary

Graduation

Age

Female

Male

Female

Male

18-20

19

139

2

28

21-25

6

63

1

42

26-30

4

49

0

6

31-35

5

36

0

4

36-40

1

30

0

0

41-45

1

17

0

1

46-50

0

12

0

1

>50

2

12

0

0

Total

38

358

3

82

 

 

 

 

 

Minimum

18

18

20

18

Maximum

55

65

25

50

Average

26

27

22

23

 

Economic profile

Ration cards

1716, 87.6% of the 1960 families surveyed  possess ration cards; 244 families do not have ration cards at all. Of those who have, 1430, 73% families have the yellow ration cards i.e. they belong to the ‘below poverty line’ category.

Table H 6 : Possession of ration card

Colour

Meaning of colour

No. of families

%

NONE

 

244

12.45

 

YELLOW

Below poverty line

1430

72.96

SAFFRON

Middle income

283

14.44

WHITE

High income

3

0.15

 

 

1960

100.00

Ownership of assets

Among the assets owned by the 1960 families (Table H7) are a yard, a bathroom, a bed, cycle, T.V., cupboard, cooking gas, table, chair, shegadi and gobar gas. The most commonly owned is an angan mentioned by 1433, 73% families. Seven to nine hundred, 35-45% families have a bathroom, bed or cycle. A TV set is owned by about 300, 16% families and a cupboard by about 200, 10% families The other assets mentioned earlier are owned by less than 2.5 % families each.

Table H 7 : Distribution of assets in families

 

No. of families owning assets

ASSET

 5 Asset-   family

 4 Asset-  family

3 Asset-   family

 2 Asset-   family

 1 Asset-   family

Total

GAS

20

5

7

15

0

47

GOBAR GAS

5

0

0

0

0

5

CUP BOARD

127

51

18

2

1

199

BATHROOM

228

243

232

186

18

907

YARD

248

273

340

357

215

1433

BED

247

254

249

112

21

883

T.V

187

68

28

22

3

308

CYCLE

170

200

163

118

38

689

TABLE

5

3

5

0

0

13

CHAIR

20

14

10

2

1

47

SHEGADI

3

1

1

0

1

6

 

If we consider the ownership of assets by caste groups (Table H8) we find that the scheduled castes are the worst off, 66% of them owning 2 or less of the assets mentioned above. In the low asset category the N.T.’s seem to be the best off considering that only 4.5 %, as against more than 20% of any of the other categories, fall in the zero asset group. Also, only 47 % of them fall in the 2 or less asset group whereas more than 54% of any of the other groups fall in that category.  However, their number in the higher asset groups falls behind those of the open and OBC categories. Their number is the largest in the 2 and 3 asset category.

Table H 8 : Castewise comparison of asset ownership

               Caste            category

Total families

0

Asset

%

 

1

Asset

%

2

 Asset

%

3

Asset

%

4

Asset

%

=>5

Asset

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          1 OPEN

557

123

22.1

80

14.4

121

21.7

76

13.6

77

13.8

80

14.4

          2 OBC

811

176

21.7

129

15.9

131

16.2

138

17.0

126

15.5

111

13.7

          3 SC

216

58

26.9

30

13.9

54

25.0

37

17.1

19

8.8

18

8.3

          4 NT

376

17

4.5

59

15.7

101

26.9

100

26.6

56

14.9

43

11.4

          TOTAL

1960

374

19.1

298

15.2

407

20.5

351

17.8

278

14.2

252

12.9

          % on total

 

19

 

15

 

21

 

18

 

14

 

13

 

 

 

Occupational profile

1,006 or 51.4% of the families are engaged in some kind of labour work as main occupation while for nearly 1,405 or 75% of the families labour is the sub-occupation.

Table H  9 : Main and sub-occupation

 

No. of families

Occupation

Main Occupation

%

Sub- Occupation

%

FARM

913

46.58

417

21.28

S’CANE CUTTING

902

46.02

867

44.23

LABOUR (MAJURI)

104

5.31

538

27.45

KIRANA DUKAN

28

1.43

3

0.15

MUKADAM

2

0.10

11

0.56

DAIRY

0

0.00

13

0.66

PASHUPALAN

0

0.00

10

0.51

HOTEL

1

0.05

3

0.15

OTHER

6

0.31

7

0.36

 

1956

99.80

1869

95.36

 Data not available

4

 

91

 

 

For 46.02 % of the families sugarcane cutting is the main occupation. It means that for these families sub-occupations generate even less income than sugarcane cutting.

Table H 10 : Sub-occupations of families having sugarcane cutting as main occupation

Sub occupation

No. of families

%

LABOUR (MAJURI)

487

53.99

FARM

389

43.13

NONE

8

0.89

PASHUPALAN

7

0.78

MUKADAM

4

0.44

DAIRY

2

0.22

HOTEL

1

0.11

NHAVI

1

0.11

CHAMBHAR

1

0.11

Total families

902

100.00

 

Ownership of land and farming as main occupation

1577 families own land but only 913 families mention farming as the main occupation.

This is because although the maximum land ownership goes up to 35 acres 1139 or 72% of the land owning families have less than 5 acres of land each (Table H11). Besides, only 233 or 14.8% of the land owning families have any irrigated land and finally 101 or 6.4% of the land owning families have just 1 or less acres of irrigated land. Thus, 81% of the families have no source of water for farming their land except rains. No words are needed to describe the helpless condition of marginal farmers in a drought prone area trying to eke out a living from rain dependent agriculture.

Table H 11 : Land holding and water source

Land Holdings

 

 

 

Irrigated Land

 

 

 

Water source

 

Landless families

383

19.54

 

None

1715

87.50

 

Well

348

18

< 3 acres

664

33.88

 

<1

12

 

 

Canel

1

0.05

3 - < 5 acres

474

24.18

 

<2

89

4.54

 

Lake

18

0.9

5 - < 10 acres

324

16.53

 

<3

75

3.83

 

None

1593

81

10 & > 10

115

5.87

 

<4

26

1.33

 

Total

1960

100

 

1960

100.00

 

<5

16

0.82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 - < 10 acres

27

1.38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1960

99.39

 

 

 

 

 Table H 10 :

From Table H12 we can compare land holdings of families which give farming as their main occupation with those of families which give sugarcane cutting as their main occupation and farming as their sub-occupation. We find that although there are more of the latter who are landless, there is not much difference between the two categories in the numbers of the landless families or in the land holdings of those who own some land. Eighty-one percent of the former and 84% of the latter have only up to 5 acres of land; and the difference in the numbers of families having bigger land holdings is a mere

 2.5 %.  Thus we see that whether farming is the main occupation and sugarcane cutting the sub-occupation or vice versa is more a matter of perception than fact.

Table H 12 : Land holdings of families giving farming and sugarcane cutting as main occupations  

Land holdings (acres)

Farming main occupation (913 families )

Sugarcane Cutting main occu: farming sub occu (389 families )

 

No. of families

%

No. of families

%

Less than 1 acre

15

1.6

11

2.8

1 to 2 acres

338

37.0

127

32.6

3 to 5

389

42.6

188

48.3

6 to 10

124

13.6

49

12.6

11 to 15

29

3.2

10

2.6

 More than 15

18

2.0

4

1.0

Total

913

100.0

389

100.0

 

Table H13 shows the comparative land holdings of the various caste categories.
Here again we find that although the NT’s do not own as much land as do the families of the Open or the OBC categories, they still own more than the families of the scheduled castes. In fact, amongst the families which own 1 to 2 acres of land the percentage of NT families is the highest and in every category they are better off than the scheduled caste families. Also, the percentage of landless scheduled caste families is 58.3%, which is substantially greater than that of landless NT families which is 39.4%.

Table H 13 : Castewise breakup of land holdings

 

No. of families

 

Land holdings in acres

Open category

%

OBC

%

SC

%

NT

%

0 acres

45

8.1

64

7.9

126

58.3

148

39.4

1 to 2 acres

165

29.6

260

32.1

57

26.4

121

32.2

Up to 5

249

44.7

359

44.3

29

13.4

77

20.5

Up to 10

73

13.1

93

11.5

3

1.4

26

6.9

Up to 15

18

3.2

23

2.8

0

0.0

2

0.5

 More than 15

7

1.3

12

1.5

1

0.5

2

0.5

Total

557

100.0

811

100.0

216

100.0

376

100.0

   Table H 14 : Main and sub occupations of families owning more than 5 acres of land

Family’s source of income As can be expected from the data about occupations labour work is given as a source of income  (mostly sugarcane cutting - 37.65%) by 1,255 or 64% of the families. Farming is a source of income for 31% of the families.

 

Table H 15 : Source of income  

 

No. of families

 

OCCUPATION

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

TOTAL

%

NONE

31

116

1104

1251

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FARM

918

428

84

1430

30.89

SUGAR CUTTING

717

917

109

1743

37.65

DAIRY

18

11

44

73

1.58

LABOUR (MAJURI)

222

455

578

1255

27.11

KIRANA DUKAN

24

7

5

36

0.78

PASHUPALAN

21

7

27

55

1.19

OTHER

9

19

9

37

0.80

GRAND TOTAL-

1960

1960

1960

4629

100.00

 

Cropping pattern

As far as crop preferences are concerned bajra (a course grain requiring relatively less watering) is unsurprisingly the predominantly preferred kharip crop chosen by 1482 or 93.4% of the land owning families. Jowar is grown by 4% of these families and kapashi (cotton) by 0.82% of them. Udid, moong, matki are some pulses grown as a kharip crop. 

We also see that 599 or nearly 38 % of land owning families do not grow a second crop. Jowar is the first preference for the rabbi crop for 58 % of the families and wheat for about 3% of them. Chana is the crop mentioned as the first or second preference by about 64 families. (Table H 16, Table H 17)  

Ownership of cattle and other animals

Cows, buffaloes, bullocks, goats and sheep are the animals owned by some of the families in the sample. However, the numbers of these families and the numbers of animals owned are small.

Only 37.4% or 734 of the families own cows. 553, 75% of these families own one cow while 146, 20% of them own two. The maximum number owned by any one family is 7  cows. Owning of buffaloes follows the same pattern. Only 19% or 365 of the families own a buffalo. Again 273, 75% of these families own one buffalo and 67, 18.3% own two. The maximum number of buffaloes owned by one family is 12. (Table H 18)

Even though there are many families that own cows and buffaloes, not a single family mentions it as main occupation, only 13 mention it as a sub-occupation while only 73 families mention dairy as a source of income. This is not surprising as the number of cows or buffaloes owned is mostly just one or two.

The number of cattle owned by those who mention dairy as a source of income is given in the following table.

 

Table H 19 : Animals owned by families  having dairy as a source of income

 

 

Dairy as Source of Income

 

 

Cow

Buffaloes

No. of animals

No. of families

No. of families

 

1

42

41

 

2

12

4

 

3

4

2

 

4

3

3

 

5

0

 

 

6

0

 

 

7

2

 

 

20

 

 

 

Total

63

50

 

There are not many families who own goats or sheep. 74% or 1452 of the families do not own goats. The average number of goats owned by 508 families is more than 2 per family, the maximum owned by one family being 25.

Only 10 families own sheep but those who do, have a larger number than the goats, the average being 17. There is one family which owns as many as 55 sheep.

Care of these animals must be a big problem if the families must migrate (as has indeed been expressed later) and, perhaps, that explains why not many migrating families own animals other than bullocks.

The number of families owning bullocks is very much larger at 1164 or 59.4% of the families. Also, 1093 or 55.8 % of the families (which is 93.9% of the families who own bullocks) own a pair of bullocks. Only 44 families own just 1 bullock and 27 families own more than two bullocks.  

Migration

Reasons for migration

Responding to the question about their reasons for migration some families have mentioned up to four reasons. Altogether, a total of 5663 responses were obtained to this question from 1865 families. However, the first reason for migration given by the large majority is that work for wages is not to be found in their own village. In different words, the same reason is given as the first response by 1557 or 79.4% of the respondents to this question. (Table H 20)

The most frequently mentioned second reason given by 1129 families is the lack of rainfall forming 57.6% of the second responses. This in effect is no different from the first reason as it implies that there is no work either for farm labourers or for land owners.

Reasons 3 and 4 (large family, indebtedness) again mean that the families must earn money to look after their large families or pay off their debt or that because of their indebtedness to the labour contractor they cannot refuse to work for him even if it means migrating from the village.

A small number of families, 210, 10.7%, mention a search for fodder as their reason for migration but this consideration weighs in mostly as the third or fourth choice of reasons.

Table H 20 : Reasons for Migration*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sr No

OPTION

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Total

 

NONE

95

234

606

1241

2176

1

In Search of labour work (Wages/livelihood) (1,7,8)

1557

238

446

399

2640

2

No Rains (2,3)

260

1129

511

12

1912

3

Large Families (4)

32

166

178

106

482

4

Indebtedness (5)

14

161

139

105

419

5

In search of fodder (6)

2

32

80

96

210

6

GRAND TOTAL-

1960

1960

1960

1959

7839