Atanu Dey continues his self-appointed task of explaining the blindingly obvious to the uninformed. Looking at the development possibilities in India he points out:

Those questions allows us to consider the possibility of addressing the
problem of rural under-development by allowing a migration path for the
rural populations to areas which have the same characteristics as urban
areas. That is, we have 600 million people dispersed over 600,000
villages. Clearly, developing 600,000 locations to become urbanized is
not feasible. Transferring the current rural populations into a much
smaller number of larger aggregation of people – in effect, urbanizing
them – must be the goal because urbanization is both a cause and
consequence of development. The problem is then not of developing
600,000 small villages but rather catalyzing the growth of say 6,000
mini-towns of about 100,000 populations each. These mini-towns can then
obtain the aggregation and scale economies normally associated with
urban areas.

One warning, that how this migration is promoted makes all the difference. Tanzania’s attempt at creating "super-villages" (called ujaama wasn’t it?) was a gross failure because it was forced. Mengistu in Ethiopia killed millions attempting the same thing. If, however, the migration is voluntary, then it is indeed the solution (and Atanu is correct in that Government might have a role to play in quickening the move, via subsidization of urban infrastructure). Even Marx would have agreed with this, the move away from the idiocy of rural life.

It isn’t a coincidence that the English word "civilisation" comes from the Latin word "civis"…city. Urbanisation is the way to go, get those peasants out of the fields.