BODO TRIBAL OUT-MIGRANT YOUTH WORKERS AND LEFT- BEHIND PARENTS: STUDY OF FOREST VILLAGES OF KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT, ASSAM (INDIA)

Abstract

Abstract Migration is a vital component of population dynamics (Lundquist et al., 2015), shaped by a range of socioeconomic, cultural, and demographic factors (Bhende & Kanitkar, 2003). Migration is largely driven by structural inequalities, income disparities, limited employment opportunities, and uneven access to public services (Parida & Raman, 2020). These patterns are particularly pronounced among marginalized and socially excluded groups, for whom migration becomes a key livelihood strategy. Kokrajhar is one of the most socioeconomically backward districts in Assam and India (Govt. of Assam, 2014). A substantial majority (93.8%) of the population resides in rural areas, associated with a low literacy rate, low sex ratio, and high non-worker population. The district has a Schedule Tribe population of 31.4%, which is significantly higher than the state average of 12.4%. It is predominantly inhabited by the Bodo tribe, along with other groups such as the Rabha and Garo. Geographical isolation, poor infrastructure, ethnic conflicts, and limited access to formal employment have hindered the district’s development. Ethnic tensions, including the Bodo-Santhali conflicts (1996, 1998, and 2014) and the Bodo-Muslim conflicts (1993, 2008, and 2012), have further exacerbated instability in the region. As a result, people from such areas migrate to other parts of the country in search of better opportunities. Despite this, studies focusing on post-conflict areas, particularly concerning the Bodo tribe, remain scarce. Therefore, the present study is based on the following objectives: (i) To know the causes and process of Bodo tribal youth Out-migration from Forest Villages of Kokrajhar district of Assam, from Left-Behind Parents (LBPs), (ii) To know the magnitude of remittances and the pattern of their utilisation by Left-Behind Parents (LBPs) and economic change at the place of origin, (iii) To understand the parents’ attitudes towards migration, expectations from the out- migrant children, and the nature of communications, (iv) To assess the psychosocial stress among the Left-Behind Parents (LBPs) due to the out- migration of their children. For this study, households are classified as either migrant or non-migrant. Each household must include at least one parent and one youth aged 18–29 years. Migrant households are defined as those with at least one youth engaged in labour outside the district for six months or more. In cases with multiple migrants, data were collected from the individual with the longest duration of stay at the destination. From each selected household, whether migrant or non-migrant,either the father or the mother was randomly chosen as the respondent based on availability and willingness. In cases of absence or refusal, the next eligible household was selected. Fieldwork was conducted between March and July 2023 across 33 of the most socio- economically backward forest villages (out of 66) in the study area. The total sample comprised 462 households, with half of the respondents drawn from non-migrant households. A semi- structured interview schedule (including both closed- and open-ended questions) was used to collect data, accompanied by in-depth interviews, observations, and focus group discussions. The General Health Questionnaire-28 was also employed to assess psychosocial well-being. Communication with respondents was conducted in the Bodo language to ensure accurate and comprehensive data collection. A mixed-methods approach, combining both qualitative and quantitative techniques, was adopted. Data were analyzed using SPSS-25, employing descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation), chi-square tests, and logistic regression analysis. The study shows a clear gendered migration pattern, where almost all youth migrants are male. Migrants were typically older (mean age: 25.2 years), less educated, more likely to be married, and primarily engaged in manual labor. They came from households with larger family sizes, smaller landholdings (average: 5.4 bighas), lower incomes (INR 29,601), greater reliance on wage labor and forest resources, and higher levels of food insecurity. LBPs were predominantly older, less educated (80.1% illiterate), more often female and widowed/divorced, and more dependent on wage labor compared to non-migrant households. Migration decisions were influenced by age, education, marital status, earnings, occupation, and social networks. Younger migrants were more likely to migrate independently, while older and married migrants were often influenced by peers. Less educated migrants relied on friends for inspiration, and about one-third of them migrated to South India. Migration was primarily driven by push factors such as small landholdings (18.4%), poverty (15.2%), low and irregular wages (14.3%), large family burdens (12.2%), and debt (7.6%). Focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews revealed that the collapse of traditional livelihoods, local unemployment, and peer influence from returning migrants also played significant roles. Remittance behavior was closely linked to age and marital status, with older migrants (aged ≥23 years) and married individuals remitting more due to greater family responsibilities. While 35.4% remitted regularly, many lacked savings due to financial pressures. Remittances were primarily used for daily needs, debt repayment, healthcare, andeducation. Destination choice was influenced by wage prospects and social networks, with Bangalore being the most preferred location. Social ties remained strong, 54.5% migrated with friends, and 51.9% maintained contact with them at their destinations. However, 61.9% had only occasional contact with their families, and 35.9% had not returned home since they migrated. The study finds that remittance behavior among Bodo tribal youth migrants is shaped by both individual and household-level factors. Migrants with education below Class IX had the highest remittance rates (93.61%) and remitted more regularly, reflecting greater household dependency. In contrast, those educated above Class X showed slightly lower remittance rates (85.71%) despite earning more. Migration to South India resulted in the highest average remittance levels (INR 31,068.97), supported by better job opportunities. A longer duration of stay (over three years) is also correlated with higher and more consistent remittances (INR 35,010.20). Income strongly influenced remittance amounts; migrants earning above INR 20,000 remitted the most (INR 33,474.58), although lower-income migrants tended to remit more consistently. Married migrants remitted both more frequently and in larger amounts (INR 35,078.95), driven by increased familial responsibilities. Savings behavior showed a modest inverse relationship with remittance frequency and volume, as migrants without savings remitted more frequently and in slightly higher amounts (INR 27,957.03), prioritizing household needs over savings. Regular communication and home visits were linked to higher remittance regularity and volume, highlighting the role of emotional ties. Migrants whose spouses managed remittances sent the highest amounts (INR 35,512.66), indicating strong financial interdependence. At the household level, Hindu families received slightly higher remittances (INR 28,029.85) and had a greater receipt rate (90.27%) compared to Christian households. Larger households (≥5 members) and land-poor families (≤5 bighas) received higher remittances (INR 29,405.30), reflecting greater dependency and limited local income sources. Household income, debt status, and lack of government support emerged as key determinants of remittance inflows. Low-income households (≤INR 20,000) received the highest remittances (INR 35,242.42), highlighting the compensatory role of remittances in poor settings. Indebted households (INR 31,336.63) and those not covered by welfare schemes (INR 28,714.29) also received higher remittances, underscoring migration as a crucial livelihood strategy in the absence of institutional support. Households engaged in agriculture and those with inadequate production reported higher remittances than those reliant on wage labour or small businesses.However, remittance volume did not increase proportionately with the number of migrants per household. Remittances were primarily used for daily needs, followed by house repairs, debt repayment, healthcare, and education. Poorer and small landholding households prioritized essentials such as food and education, while higher and regular remittances supported more strategic spending on debt repayment and healthcare. Usage also varied by recipient, with spouses allocating more towards basic needs and education. Remittances improved the quality of life for 48.5% of households, particularly in areas such as housing, food, education, and health. However, many households reported no significant change, underscoring the coping-oriented nature of remittances. In agrarian households, women's workload increased due to the migration of male youth. LBPs played key roles in household decision-making, often jointly with spouses or daughters-in-law. The emotional well-being of LBPs was significantly influenced by gender, age, health status, income, family size, remittance regularity, and frequency of communication. Higher levels of distress were reported among female, older, low-income LBPs, those in larger families, and those with irregular contact with their migrant children. Notably, LBPs without common illnesses exhibited higher emotional distress, possibly due to unmet expectations. Expectations related to remittances, care, co-residence, and return varied according to the migrant’s age, marital status, education, income, and destination. LBPs of younger, unmarried, well-educated, and higher-earning migrants, especially those working in South India, held stronger expectations. Similarly, female, married, and illiterate LBPs, particularly cultivators and housewives, showed greater emotional and financial dependence on migrants. Sick LBPs reported higher needs for care (83.58%) and remittances (87.69%), while those living alone or only with a spouse expressed stronger desires for co-residence (65.21%) and the return of their children (52.17%). These findings underscore the multidimensional nature of LBP experiences in the context of youth migration. Visitation and communication patterns between migrants and LBPs varied notably based on both migrant and LBP characteristics. Older (≥23 years) and married migrants, those in frequent contact with their spouses, and regular or high remitters (INR 30,001 and above) were more likely to visit home and maintain consistent communication. Migrants in South India showed higher visitation rates (29.50%) than those in the Northeast (24.52%). Interestingly, higher education levels among migrants were associated with fewer visits, possibly due to greater job demands.Migrant age, marital status, duration of stay, and destination positively influenced contact frequency, with longer stays and migration to South India linked to better communication. Regular remitters and frequent visitors demonstrated stronger emotional ties with their families. Among LBPs, females, older individuals, and the illiterate received more visits, likely due to their perceived vulnerability. Wage laborers showed more balanced visitation patterns. However, LBPs suffering from illnesses received fewer visits and had less regular contact, highlighting how health status can influence the level of support received from migrant children. Psychological distress among LBPs was widespread, with 78.47% reporting symptoms according to the GHQ-28 scale. Distress was notably higher among those aged above 50 years, widowed or divorced (89.28%), illiterate, chronically ill, engaged in wage labor, from larger families, and low-income households (earning less than INR 20,000 annually). Surprisingly, higher remittances (above INR 30,000) and regular contact with migrant children were associated with greater distress, possibly due to prolonged separation or increased emotional burden. In contrast, LBPs who had no contact with their children reported lower distress levels (33.33%), suggesting that ignorance may, paradoxically, reduce anxiety. Distress was also slightly higher among those living with extended family, recipients of welfare schemes (81.75%), and even among debt-free households, indicating deeper vulnerabilities beyond financial indicators. Youth migration among Bodo tribal communities remains a critical economic survival strategy, yet it imposes significant psychosocial costs on left-behind families. While remittances provide financial support, they do not alleviate emotional suffering, particularly among female caregivers. These findings underscore the urgent need for integrated policy interventions that enhance rural livelihoods, expand welfare coverage, and offer psychosocial support.