THE PEOPLE

POPULATION

THE POPULATION OF AHMADNAGAR DISTRICT, ACCORDING TO THE 1971 CENSUS, is 22,69,117 (males 11,60,205, females 11,08,912) and is spread over the 13 talukas as stated in table No. 1.

As the table No. 1 shows the total population of 22,69,117 is spread over the district area of 17,035.0 square kilometres which works out at about 133 persons to a square kilometre. Of these, 20,17,617 persons or 88.92 per cent of the total are distributed over the rural area comprising 16,922.4 square kilometres and the remaining 2,51,500 or 11.08 per cent are spread over the urban area of 112.6 square kilometres.

Variation: The population of the district and decade variation rates since 1901 are as follows: —

During the decade 1901-11 the population of the district had increased by 12.86 per cent, probably due to the recovery from the great famine of 1900. The fall by more than 22 per cent in the following decade was due to the severe influenza epidemic of 1918 and also the exodus of the population at the time of 1921 Census from the district due to severe famine conditions. In the following decade (1921-31) the population increased by 34.77 per cent due both to the return of migrants to their homes and recovery from the influenza epidemic. The decade 1931-41 had been relatively prosperous without any severe famine or epidemic and the population increased by 15.87 per cent. Since 1941, the population increased faster, i.e., by 25.63 per cent. The

TABLE No. 1—POPULATION ACCORDING TO TALUKAS,

AHMADNAGAR DISTRICT, 1971

rate of growth of the district population since 1951 to 1971 works out to 60.83 per cent. The 1961 population was two and half times that of 1921 and will, even with the 1951-61 decade growth-rate, double itself in the next 30 years.

The high rate of growth of population during 1951-61 and 1961-71 is the result of the control of epidemics and other diseases since 1950. Malaria which used to be a major public health problem in the district has been controlled by DDT spraying. Campaigns for B.C.G. and vaccination against smallpox also have their share in improving the survival-rate. The death-rate has thus been reduced and has resulted in the higher growth-rate although the birth-rate may not have increased.

Since 1901 the population of the district had increased by 176.6 per cent as against 160 per cent for Maharashtra. During the period 1921-1961 which had an accelerated growth-rate the population of the district had increased by 146.96 per cent against 89.71 per cent for Maharashtra. The high growth-rate was due to the construction of Godavari and Pravara Canals and growth of sugar industry in the district. Even in the last two decades the district maintained the higher rate of growth than the State average.

Density of population: The density of population in Maharashtra, Ahmadnagar district and its talukas in 1961 and 1971 is given below:—

The density of population in the district increased from 106 persons per square kilometre in 1961 to 133 persons per square kilometre in 1971. In 1971 the density was 164 for the State. At every Census since 1901 the density of population in Ahmadnagar district has been lower than the average for Maharashtra. It was natural as the district is situated in the zone of scanty and most unreliable rainfall.

In 1971 within the district the density varies from 307 persons per square kilometre in Shrirampur taluka to 85 persons per square kilometre in Karjat taluka. The high density, viz., 200 in Ahmadnagar taluka is due to the inclusion of Ahmadnagar city in its limits. The very high density in Kopargaon (251) and Shrirampur (307) talukas is due to the expansion in the cultivation of sugarcane and growth of sugar industry, both of which attract thousands of seasonal migrants from nearby districts. Low density in Karjat, Parner and Shrigonda talukas is due to their poor soils, scanty and unreliable rainfall. The areas which have higher density relatively contain larger proportion of the district population. Kopargaon, Shrirampur and Ahmadnagar talukas together contain 35.9 per cent of the district population but have only 19.7 per cent of its area. Four talukas with low density (Akola, Parner, Shrigonda and Karjat) together account for 28.2 per cent of the district population but have 37.1 per cent of its area.

Urban population: The total urban population and its variation since 1901 are shown in table No. 2.

TABLE No. 2—TOWNS CLASSIFIED BY POPULATION IN 1971 WITH

VARIATION SINCE 1901

TABLE No. 2—contd.

The number of towns, the rate of decade variation in urban population and the percentage of urban population to total population at each Census since 1901 for the district and the State are as follows:—

The net growth in urban population of the district in 1971 over that of 1901 is 221.52 per cent as against 388.35 per cent for the State.

Ahmadnagar district is less urbanised than the average for the State. The proportion of urban population had slightly decreased both for the district and the State in 1911. It increased in 1921 but again fell in 1931 due perhaps to the economic depression of the thirties. Since then the proportion went on increasing to 15.23 per cent in 1951 when the number of towns had also increased to 13. There had been a decrease again in the decade (1951-61) both in the number of towns and in the proportion of urban population. This was due to the re-definition of urban areas in the 1961 Census and the consequential de-classification of eight towns in the district. The de-classified towns which had been treated as villages in 1961 were as follows: —

A new town named Wari had been added in 1961. Ahmadnagar cantonment had been included as a part of Ahmadnagar city in the 1961 Census.

The percentage of urban population to the total population in the district increased from 10.55 to 11.08 during the decade 1961-71 whereas the corresponding increase for Maharashtra during the same period was from 28.22 to 31.17.

The population of the eight de-classified towns was 64,874 or 30.20 per cent of the urban population in 1951. If that population is excluded from the 1951 urban population of the district, the 1961 urban population would be higher by 24.91 per cent over that of 1951. The population of the newly-added town in 1961 was 6,895 or 3.68 per cent of 1961 urban population. The net reduction of 12.81 per cent in the urban population was thus due solely to the change of definition of urban areas and the consequent de-classification of eight towns.

Ahmadnagar city, the head-quarters of the district, had a population of only 35,784 in 1901; it was 1,48,405 in 1971. The percentage growth in its population since 1901 is 314.72 per cent and since 1921; 197.53 per cent. The city alone accounts for more than half of the urban population of the district. Shrirampur is another important town with a population of 39,492. Its population increased by as much as 73 per cent in the last decade because of the growth of sugar factories. Sangamner is also an important town the population of which increased by 159.68 per cent since 1901 and by 192.94 per cent since 1921.

Rural population: The rates of variation in rural population and the percentage of rural population to total population of the district and the State since 1901 are as shown below:—

The net increase in rural population of the district in 1971 is 171.87 per cent over that of 1901 and 216.93 per cent over that of 1921. The corresponding figures for the State are 114.54 per cent and 104.21 per cent, respectively.

The rates of variation of the rural population have never followed a definite trend. The urban population had grown faster at the expense of rural population. As a result, the rural population increased at a lower rate than the total population. In 1961, however, the rural population showed a very high growth-rate. It was mainly due to the de-classification of eight towns as villages. It was a sort of reversal of what had happened in 1951. But in 1971, the rate of variation in rural population and percentage of rural population decreased both for the district and the State.

Size of villages: The percentage distribution of population by size of villages for the district and the State in 1971 is given below: —

As per the 1971 Census villages with less than 1,000 population are 49.17 per cent of the total number in the district and have 19.11 per cent of the rural population. The corresponding figures for the State are 68.95 per cent and 32.48 per cent, respectively. Concentration of rural population is in villages with more than 2,000 population which are 20.27 per cent of the total number of villages and account for 51.86 per cent of the rural population. Villages with population between 1,000 and 2,000 account for 28.00 per cent of the rural population. They are 30.56 per cent of the total number of villages in the district. The concentration of the population in bigger (above 2,000) villages in the district is larger than the average for the State.

Average population per village in 1961 was 1,205 in the district as against 792 in Maharashtra. Within the district it varies from 770 in Akola taluka to 2,100 in Shrirampur taluka. The average number of villages per 100 square miles of rural area for the district was 21 against 31 in Maharashtra. Shrigonda and Karjat talukas had only 14 villages per 100 square miles of rural area as compared to 28 in Shevgaon taluka.

In eastern talukas of the district the villages are spread more apart from each other than in the south-western talukas, but in spite of the lower densities the average village size is larger than the district average. The high density talukas of Kopargaon and Shrirampur naturally have still larger and more closely situated villages.

The area, number of inhabited villages, total rural population, average number of inhabited villages per taluka in 1971 are shown below for the State and district separately:—

Table No. 3 gives taluka-wise distribution of villages and their population in the district in 1971.

Age-groups: The proportions of population by broad age-groups in 1961 are shown below separately for males and females compared with the corresponding proportions for 1951:—

The distribution of population by age-groups as per 1971 Census is given below: —

Sex-ratios: The sex-ratio of females per 1,000 males for the district and the State since 1901 is given below: —

TABLE No. 3—VILLAGES CLASSIFIED BY

 POPULATION IN AHMADNAGAR DISTRICT, 1971

continued..

TABLE No. 3—contd.

continued..

Since 1901 the sex-ratio of the population of the district varied between 956 and 1,005 while that of Maharashtra between 930 and 978. At each Census since 1901 the sex-ratio in the district has been higher than the average for the State. The same has been the pattern for urban population also. There has always been a deficiency of females in the population of the district except in 1901. The sex-ratio has continuously fallen and the 1971 values are the lowest in the last seventy years both in the rural and urban areas. It is due to the seasonal in-migration of a large number of male-labourers on sugar-farms and factories from adjoining districts.

The following table gives the percentage of population for different age-groups classified by their marital status in 1951 and 1961: —

TABLE No. 4—PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION CLASSIFIED BY AGE-GROUPS, AHMADNAGAR DISTRICT, 1951 AND 1961

During the 1951-61 decade the proportion of " never married" increased both for males and females. The proportion of " widowed" showed a decrease both for males and females. The proportion of " divorced or separated " showed an increase but it was insignificant numerically. Consequently the proportion of " married" decreased both for males and females.

The proportions of " never married " in age-groups 0-14 and 15-34 had increased both for males and females. The differences were however more for males than females. It might indicate that the age at marriage for girls had not risen as much as for boys.

Child-woman ratio: The following are the child-woman ratios for 1951 and 1961, i.e., the number of children in 0-4 years age-group per 1,000 women in 15-44 years age-group as well as for every 1,000 married women in 15-44 years age-group. The proportion of widows in 15-44 years age-group to 1,000 married women in 15-44 years age-group is also shown for comparison: —

Migration: In 1961, 57.63 per cent of the population was enumerated at their places of birth. This percentage for males was 69.45 but for females it was only 45.33. The difference was partly due to women married outside their places of birth and partly to the seasonal in-migration. Two-thirds of this movement of females appeared to be within the district and about one-third from outside the district. This one-third proportion was unduly large for marriage migration. It should therefore include many females migrating seasonally for work along with their husbands.

It is significant that 2.77 lakhs of males were enumerated outside their places of birth. About 1.70 lakhs migrated within the district and 1.07 lakhs from outside the district. It means that three males out of nine in the district were migrants, two from within the district and one from outside.

The proportion of non-workers was lower among those born at places other than place of enumeration. Cultivators had higher proportion for those born at the place of enumeration. Migrants from outside the district had high proportions as agricultural labourers (mostly on sugarcane-farms) and in manufacturing (mostly in sugar factories).

It is significant that even among the male migrants from outside the district, 34.33 per cent were non-workers. Much of such migration (permanent or seasonal) was by families and not of working age males alone.

Size of the household: Percentage proportions of different types of households as per 1961 Census are as shown below:—

Among the different size-groups, house-holds with 4 to 6 members were more common (40.96 per cent) than others. The percentage distribution of rural and urban house-holds by their size showed that single and small-size (2-3 members) house-holds were more (34.72 per cent) in urban areas than in rural areas (28.86 per cent). The average size of the house-hold in the district was 5.4. It was 5.4 in rural areas and 5.0 in urban areas. An average urban house-hold was smaller than the average rural house-hold.

TOP