In my opinion, this is both right and wrong cities provide better opportunity to earn, but its priorities are not comparable to rural areas”. Cities have no agricultural land and villages don’t have software companies. Cities depend of villages for food, and villages on cities for money (and infrastructure). But this relationship isn’t balanced, cities get enough food (from villages and from elsewhere) but villages don’t get enough money in return. So, the movement from village to urban slums is not because the city life works, but because the village life doesn’t. I think that is the part Antanu got wrong.

But, if Antanu’s vision of “urbanising” rural areas means a small third-tier city closer to villages, which provides for a research center (funded by the city) that works on improving soil quality and agricultural output, a public health system that not only offers curative, but also preventive care, a well-funded free public school that offers education to village kids well that is precisely what is needed.

Also, I agree that people would rather live in a slum with a chance at getting a job than live in a rural area under subsistence agriculture conditions. But when people are given basic property rights these slums have been known to evolve from huts, to huts with siding, to huts with merchant alleys, to somewhat better buildings. In short they can evolve into something better. Communities eventually form and put down some cement here and some drainage there and if the government is not completely corrupt and decides to bulldoze them, they can put in infrastructure. Over time, one person who gets a better job sells his hut to another person with a better job so first guy can move and second guy can expand his property.

I man not saying that slums are good, but they are not necessarily a step backwards. Encouraging more decentralized urbanization in smaller towns and cities can help take the pressure off big city slums. That requires investment in connective infrastructure like roads, small scale water and power systems and the like.

>> implications of the migration shift could be destructive, from family issues to shifts in labor markets to environmental impacts.

Atanu might defend his position better but my take is that when he talks about urbanization of the Indian population, he isn’t talking about migrations to existing cities.

His RISC model is about providing infrastructure services, that exist in typical urbanized environments, to a rural area. Thus enabling the rural area to catalyze economic growth.