Urbanisation in Meghalaya began with the onset of the entrepreneurial risks of the people and the government’s engagement through public policies. Other influences, such ashistory and socio-cultural institutional mechanisms, have also generated a chain of impressions in orienting urbanisation to the people. The perception of development by the people has always been concrete buildings and infrastructure administered by the government. Nevertheless, these perspectives have always prevailed as the universal definition of development. The two important regions of Meghalaya, i.e. Tura and Shillong, have been crucial areas that have contributed to the economic development in the state. The blog explores development in the state through the lens of urbanisation.
Biodemographic and Statistical evidence
Unemployment is one of the factors that contribute to a slow economy in the region. To tackle this problem, youth and adults migrate to the city for job opportunities. The population of urban Tura in 2011 was 74,854 out of 5,78,390, and the overall population of West Garo Hills was 12.94%, living in urban areas. In East Khasi Hills, the total population was 8,24,059, with 17.38% of the population being 1,43,229 in urban Shillong.
Of all regions in Meghalaya, Shillong has mostly made it possible to provide relocation, generating an alternate source of income, as a host, providing opportunities to migrant workers and students, resulting in a win-win facet. In a recent census by Invest Meghalaya Authority, Government of Meghalaya, about 55% of Meghalaya’s population is in the working age group of 15 to 59 years. Apart from other significant avenues of revenue investment and revenues, businesses such as rental houses have made it easier to contribute to the state’s GDP and per capita income.
As per the report of the Reserve Bank of India (Handbook of Statistics of Indian States-2021), the per capita net State Domestic Product is INR 56,471 (2020-21), and the Gross State Domestic Product (at Constant price) of the state is INR 23,29,655 lakh (2020-21) data. The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reports that the NSDP Per Capita of Meghalaya has risen to INR 124378.663 in 2024 compared to the 2023 NSDP Per Capita data of INR 112,736.546. Improvement in per capita could prove that the standard of living and opportunity towards education, employment, and literacy in the state have improved faster. Compared to other states, Meghalaya has a sizable English-speaking population with a literacy rate of 75.5%.
In 2019-20, Meghalaya was highlighted as the fastest-growing economy in the Northeastern region of India, with a net GSDP of 7.7%. The Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) of Meghalaya for 2023-24 (at current prices) was projected to be INR 46,600 crore amounting to a growth of 11.5 per cent, over 2022-23. In 2024-2025, the GSDP of Meghalaya is projected at INR 52973 crore or 6.6 USD. Seeing an improved side of the state’s economy, a review of budget allocations of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has marked revised figures of INR 693 billion for 2023-2024 and increasing it to INR 775 billion, amounting close to 12 per cent for 2023-204 budget allocation.
Utilising Non-Farm Rural Employment Framework for Urbanisation
In the past, socio-economic and political aspects in Meghalaya were dysfunctional for two decades due to the interference and fear imbibed by the insurgency groups before 2015. Instant migration from rural to urban began with the downfall of insurgency in Meghalaya. This created an opportunity to redirect the per capita income of individuals in the state.
The state’s 81% of the rural population has been reliant on agriculture, contributing only 17% of GDP, with subsistence farming rarely yielding a net crop of only 9.87%. Due to low-scale outcomes in agriculture, individuals have shifted towards the dynamics of employment diversification in rural areas.
The conceptual framework of Non-Farm Rural Employment has gained momentum in most rural areas as an alternative income-generating activity with wage work or self-employment. Workers who have shifted towards non-agriculture have ventured towards employment in cities through migration and daily wage availability in rural areas provided by governmental schemes like MGNREGA, CLLMP, NRLM, etc., a wage directed through DBT-Direct Benefit Transfer. Non-farm rural Employment has branched out into non-agriculture and partly agriculture paving various benefits for better household income though substantively lower in wage than other workers earning much higher, paving various benefits for better household income, though it is substantively lower in wages than other workers earning much higher wages in the city. Those with farm products and non-farm rural employment in rural areas have redesigned crops and agri-products as a hybrid business, linking rural and urban areas through farmers and vendors.
The prospect of farmers and vendors has become wider as they have understood the market value and the psychology of the people living in cities. With prevailing pollution in urban areas, people have created a need to consume organic and local products, opening a channel for others to start a small-scale industry in agriculture.
Today, these farmers and vendors have a systematic structural organisation where the distribution for consumption is directed through a proper design of demand and supply chain management. With a progressive timeline in the agricultural sector, each vendor may have its distributor, supplier, market, transportation, demand, and business-to-business module for investment.
Land Acquisition and Relocation
With increasing infrastructure and types of institutions, it is natural to evolve with time, and civilisation has improved in multitude. Most interestingly, advancement in technology, outreach of telecommunication, and internet facilities has credited every user, even in the remotest region of Meghalaya. These reasons have created counter-urbanisation, not necessarily requiring settling in urban areas. On the contrary, new firms and business start-ups have started following a non-conventional way of moving their organisations and businesses from Urban to rural areas. This process initiates a new dimension in opening a new opportunity for rural communities to be part of newly founded institutions and start their businesses to cater to people visiting these areas. Emerging urban markets offer new ways and platforms to try out the opportunities for development in the corresponding relocated space.
Counter-urbanisation is becoming a commonly discussed subject due to a cheaper mode of transportation, cheap labour, available resources, and monopolistic propaganda in Shillong and Tura. Similarly, suburbanisation is a frequent subject of discussion in the State’s Assembly due to the city’s congestion, land acquisition, pollution, and overpopulation. Furthermore, with more people coming in from rural areas and outside the state, the compact areas with narrow roads have become a sordid picture, unable to expand and progress further. Hence, the surplus population in Shillong and Tura could be solved by using an alternative solution of sub-urbanisation.
In Conclusion
The urban scenario in Meghalaya highlights population that is unplanned and continues to struggle with livelihood due to competitive phenomena resulting to inequality in all sections of society. The share of people living in urban areas continues to be from low-income families, although there is a middle-class population driven towards the town due to employment in the government sector. These issues could create a barrier for the state from developing into an absolute urban region. Places like Shillong and Tura for instance, may have transitioned to urbanisation in small portions, however several factors do not align with the features of urbanisation.
Rapid urbanisation has a disadvantage, and without any checks, it could lead to rampant crime, communal clashes, social unrest, and pressure group rallies and protests. Other factors are rural alienation and urban inequalities. Therefore, disjuncture in culture evolves within a community, completely transforming the culture into a Western-influenced culture. Are we mistaking modernisation to westernisation? This factor creates a social fragmentation within the region, creating a gap between class, religion, caste, colour, ethnic groups, and profession, and communalism erupts when even a slight issue sparks a discussion. Although development is important to upgrade the region for prospects, clearing wrong perceptions of people through human resources development requires the utmost attention in Meghalaya. Urbanisation can happen in both rural and urban areas in this civilisation of technology and information communication era. But is Meghalaya transitioning towards urbanisation with proper measures? The question remains open until we see the actual transformation in the socio-economic and political factors attributed to urbanisation.
Author’s Bio: Tengnang D Sangma is a Fellow of the Meghalaya Legislative Research Fellowship (MLRF) of the Bharti Institute of Public Policy and the Meghalaya Institute of Governance. He is a professional contemporary folk-fusion artist, independent researcher (Socio-Cultural Anthropologist), and Research Scholar (Ph.D.) from NEHU, Shillong. A recipient of two national and state awards for the conservation and promotion of performing arts and culture, he was one of the four members of the archaeological exploration team that discovered a pre-historic Tools site of the Palaeolithic period from Misimagre, West Garo Hills in 2017. He has co-authored three books and contributed to research chapters and articles in vernacular newspapers.
DISCLAIMER : The views expressed in this blog/article are author’s personal.