Transferencia de calor en las secciones del HRSG

This figure is based on 184 cases.

The details in the reply indicate why they termed themselves as they did. The distribution according to this classification matches with the classification according to livelihood categories which is discussed in sub-section 4.5.1. The socio-economic position of the migrants as reflected by the quantitative information presented earlier is corroborated by the analysis in this sub-section.

normal, keeping the pot boiling, just able to subsist.

B ad economic position: Poor, poverty, difficult \ difficulty, bad, bad and useless, weak, quite weak, not alright, miserable, miserable only, down-graded, downgrade, bit low, not good, not so good, trouble, bit deteriorated, deteriorated, in a lot o f mess, bit spoilt, spoilt, were not able to subsist.

W orse economic position: very poor, a lot o f poverty, very bad, utterly bad, extremely bad, critical, very weak, very miserable, very downgrade, serious, very defeating, a lot of trouble, great trouble, pitiable, distressed, distressful, ragged, shattered, indebted.

W o rst economic position: utter poverty, extreme poverty, worst, very critical, very much critical, helplessness, great helplessness, extremely miserable, completely miserable, absolutely miserable, very serious, very distressful, very ragged, very depressed.

4.6.2 F ath er’s sta tu s

Due to the open-ended nature of the question, the responses tended to follow a very open form. Nevertheless, it is possible to make a few observations. Firstly, one in nine of the respondents reported that their father died too early for them to remember or say much about him. Keeping out such cases and those who said they did not know about it, broadly the number of affirmative responses to this question turned out to be slightly higher than the number of negative responses (82 and 80 respectively). However, the figure of positive responses is an over-estimate, partly due to the cultural-linguistic context of the fieldwork and status consciousness ("the ego factor") but to a large extent due to the fact that the group with high mortality of fathers is excluded. This group is more likely to be similar to those giving negative responses, on the premise that mortality and poverty statistically have a positive relation.

The reasons given by the respondents for people consulting their fathers were related to agricultural work, social relations, economic problems and official (i.e. governmental) matters. There was also the mention of the importance of skills and the knowledge of the urban labour market. A few respondents said people respected and listened to their fathers either because they were artisans of woodwork, barbers or because their fathers knew about the urban labour market, for example through the latter’s stay in cities such as Delhi or Bangalore.

The question was: Did people turn to your father for advice?

The equivalent word for advice in Hindi (the main language of interviewing in the present sample survey) has some scope for vagueness. The word ’Raya’ can mean advice, as well as, opinion. Hence some of the people giving affirmative responses may mean people took their fathers’ opinion. This is a limitation on the use of this question as indicator of pre-migration socio-economic position.

For those who said others did not consult their fathers, the main reasons mentioned were poverty, weak economic position, landlessness, old age or being junior in age and the arrogance of the better off.

If a substantial number of those who said their fathers died early deaths is added to this group and one does not expect people to be very talkative about a downgraded position in the society, it is reasonable to conclude that the number in the group with low status by this indicator would be greater than those with high status.

The evidence in the present sub-section is in line with the conclusions in this

chapter so far in that our typical respondent was from below average but not the

lowest strata.

C on clusions

The evidence examined in this chapter shows that majority of our respondents were of below average (not the lowest) economic and social status in the countryside before migration to Delhi.

In occupational terms, the majority of them were labourers. Most of those hired for wages were hired on a daily basis. The main reasons for leaving the pre-migration jobs were low income, lack of regular employment, incompatibility of skills and jobs in the rural set-up and family reasons. The days of employment in the year before migration was below the norm. The literacy amongst our respondents was higher than the rural

norm.

Of our respondents who were involved in agriculture, the proportion of marginal holdings was lower and the proportion of small holdings and semi-medium holdings

higher compared to the norm. From this, it appears that the propensity to migrate is greatest not among the lowest stratum {marginal holdings) but the strata just above the lowest {small and semi-medium holdings). Our typical agriculturist respondent came from household with small holding and had a part of it leased-in from others. Slightly higher proportion of our respondents were in debt than the rural norm.

The qualitative analysis also corroborates that majority of our respondents were not from the lowest, but from just below average or the average strata. The present chapter has discovered that this majority group of economically deprived would rather work and stay in the village if they had similar income and would not care for the social shame of doing any work in the village. When the opportunity of work arose in the urban areas and they learnt of it, they were sufficiently ready to move. However, a small group of the relatively better off migrants would rather not go to the village and would not do in the village the work they do in the urban areas are the ones who had a relatively higher level of living in rural areas compared to other families and would not go back to the village. This is a group which were deprived socially and culturally rather than economically.

The correlation results corroborate the above point in relation to status and migration. The better off (the number of bullocks and bicycles come out to be important indicators

of better off status) tend to stay for shorter duration in the city and the less better off for a longer period. Those coming at a younger age tend to stay longer. The better off tend to be more educated and have less children.

It also appears that the people with the means of production like bullocks and wells tend to get employment in the village before migration and these are the people who stay for shorter periods compared to the worse off. They may be target migrants, coming to earn a certain target of money during off-season rather than coming to stay for a longer time period, unlike those without these means.

Despite some evidence that relative deprivation in the areas of origin makes people ready to leave, what needs to be explained is why a much larger number of people of similar status and circumstances in rural areas do not leave. Deprivation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for migration to take place. The presence in rural areas of a mass of labour in poor conditions who can expect higher earnings in urban areas through their skills is no guarantee that migration would take place. Nor is the demand for labour a guarantee in itself. The demand for labour gets related to the sending areas through the "culture of migration" - the channels of recruitment that bring this mass. These channels of migration - how a special group of migrants gets into special jobs - is the subject matter of the next chapter.

CHAPTER V CHANNELS OF INFORMATION, JOB