In fact, migration has been a feature of agri-pastoral mountain areas all over the world largely because of the fragile resource base which is not adequate to support rising population in traditional occupations. Thus, migration acts as a safety valve; otherwise they would be swamped by a large population dependent on meagre resources, resulting in widespread poverty.

There are only three ways out of this trap:

• ‘Agricultural involution’ to use the process described by the anthropologist Clifford Geertz in relation to intensive cultivation of rice paddies in Java (Indonesia) resulting in “increasing the labour intensity in the paddies, increasing output per area but not increasing output per head”. This can only result in intensification of poverty. The process of involution is ruled out in Himalayan areas because the land, soil and water resources are not such as to permit increasing labour intensity beyond what already prevails.

• Migration in search of better livelihood opportunities. This is a strategy which the people have al ready been choosing. In fact, this is not a new phenomenon. It has been there for many years as witnessed by the large population of hill dwellers in different parts of the country and working in diverse fields. The process may have been accelerated recently with improvement in transport and communications – roads, mobile phones, television, internet etc. – which encouraged mobility.

• Technological change involving transition to a different and higher form of economic activity a la Switzerland, Austria and other industrialised countries with mountain areas. This strategy presupposes a highly developed educational and technological infrastructure and a large pool of highly trained manpower. Our mountain areas are still quite far from this situation.

Two broad conclusions emerge from a quick study of the report. One, seen in the wider national perspective, the issue of migration is no different, or of a different order from the rest of the country.

Secondly, as to the reasons for migration and its impact on local economy, the report does not tell us anything new; it only confirms what is already known.

The major contribution of the report is that it supports some of these assertions with micro level data. The data on population growth between 1901 and 2011 culled from the Commission's report and from the Census indicate the following:

After an initial period of growth of 8.2 per cent between 1901 and 1911, the population of the state declined by 1.2 per cent in the next decade, perhaps on account of the combined effect of World War I and the influenza pandemic of 1918-19 which is estimated to have killed about 11.5-17 million people in India – depending upon which estimate we rely on.

• Thereafter population of Uttarakhand grew steadily, with a slight dip in growth between 1941 and 1951, occasioned perhaps by the partition of the country in 1947, till it peaked at 27.5 per cent in 1981.

• The next three censuses after 1981 show a steady decline in the growth rate. It would however not be quite accurate to ascribe this decline to migration. It is most likely part of the secular decline of population growth in response to economic growth and social change witnessed as part of the thrust of modernisation. This is supported by the fact that decadal population in Uttarakhand generally follows the trend at the national level.

The report reproduces NSSO data of 2007-08 on rate of migration calculated as migrants per 1000 population in different states. This shows that Uttarakhand with a score of 486 ranks second highest among the 17 States for which data is presented. The highest rank is that of Himachal Pradesh with a score of 532.

Other States that score high i.e. more than 400 are Chhattisgarh (452), Odisha (442), Maharashtra (421) and Andhra Pradesh (400).

Once again Himachal Pradesh tops with a score of 615 followed by Uttarakhand with a score of 594. The figures for some other states are, in descending order, Chhattisgarh (590), Odisha (567), Punjab (565), Madhya Pradesh (523), Bihar (497), Maharashtra (493), Andhra Pradesh (467), and Kerala (428).

Interestingly, in all states, female migration is much higher than male migration. Female migration, it may be mentioned, is in most cases marriage-related rather than based on a search for better economic opportunities, whether arising from "push" or "pull" factors.

Male migration rate remains highest in Himachal at 455 followed by Uttarakhand at 397. However, the rate of male migration in Uttarakhand, though higher, is not excessively higher than some other States like Maharashtra (356), Andhra Pradesh (333), and Chhattisgarh (330).

Two tentative conclusions emerge from these data: (i) though mi gration from Uttarakhand is higher compared to many states, Uttarakhand cannot be considered unique in terms of the incidence of migration; the magnitude is somewhat similar in many other states as well; (ii) The rate of migration – both male and total – is much higher in Himachal Pradesh, yet it is not generally considered as large an issue there as it is in Uttarakhand.

The report classifies migration as semi-permanent and permanent. Semi-permanent migrants are defined as people who live outside the state temporarily for earning a livelihood and keep visiting their home at regular intervals. Permanent migrants, on the other hand are people who have moved out of their villages permanently, or who have sold their land, or whose lands have been left uncultivated, or whose houses are locked or who visit their village only rarely.

Over a ten-year period the Commission estimates the total number of semi-permanent migrants as 3,83,726 from 6,338 Gram Panchayats, and permanent migrants as 1,18,981 from 3,946 Gram Panchayats.