Since independence, four population censuses have been conducted: in 1951, 1961, 1972, and 1981. The new census was due in 1991 but due to political reservation of the provinces and other political forces it could not be executed. The data provided by previous censuses do not present a consistent trend. The planning commission had indicated under-enumeration of population in the 1961 census by 7.5 percent. Usually male enumerators are deputed to interview the respondents, male members of the household in most cases. This has given rise to the issue of invisibility of females in the census data. Female family members are usually less reported due to social norms. Their participation in the productive sector is also ignored. All the enumerators of the census as well as the supervisory officials were government employees who, as a matter of routine, were not very careful about the validity of censuses. Supervision has also been ineffective and ill reporting of census data has been a common practice. Keeping in view all these facts, reliability of all these censuses is highly suspicious.

The projections of the National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS) for the district’s population in March 1995 show a growth rate of 3.0 percent as compared to the average annual growth rate of 13.1 percent for the inter-censal period 1972-81 which is about four times higher than the new one. This great fluctuation in growth rates also represents unreliability of census data.

The population growth rates for the district have been inconsistent right from the initial censuses. During the inter-censal period 1951-61 a negative growth pattern (-0.9%) has been observed while in the next 11 years (1961-72) this rate increases to 6.5 percent annually. Even after raising the population in 1961 by 7.5 percent, as indicated by the Planning Commission, the growth rate remains in minus (-0.2%). The population growth rate during 1972-81 has been 13.1 percent. This indicates an exaggerated over-enumeration of population, either erroneously or intentionally under some vested interests.

The NIPS projection for the district’s population for 1995 is not compatible with the total number of voters (70,160) in 1997. The recent rate of growth (3.0%), which has been calculated on the basis of projections of population for 1995, made by NIPS, is consistent with that of the rest of Pakistan (3.1%). In 1981, total fertility rate in the district was 11.4 (highest among all the districts of Pakistan). It explains, to some extent, high growth rates for the district but the highly fluctuating growth trend cannot completely be explained.

According to the 1981 census, the female population in the age group of 0-4 outnumber the male population but after the age of 5 this equation becomes inverse and male population dominates the female one up to the age of 30. One probable reason may be that young girls are often not reported at the time of census as people consider it against the code of honour to tell the names of or details about their young female family members to strangers or enumerators. In this way women become less visible in the population. However, final conclusions can only be drawn after availability of birth and death rates at the district level.

In 1981, about one third (30.3%) of the total population was eligible to vote (21 years of age and above) while adult population (18 years of age and above) was 35.7 percent. Women of child bearing age (15-49 years) were 15.1 percent, while married population constituted 62.6 percent of the population of 15 years and above: 31.7 percent were never married and divorcees and widowers constituted 0.4 and 5.4 percent respectively. Mean age at marriage for females in Panjgur district was 21.7 years which was the highest in Pakistan.

The average household size in the district, according to 1980 housing census, is 8.0 which shows an increasing trend with reference to previous censuses. One reason for this trend may be the high total fertility rate (11.4 in 1981) which surely can result in larger household sizes. The employment of male family members in Gulf states has also necessitated the joint family system which in turn results in a large household.

According to the 1981 census, majority (60.5%) of the population in the district is dependent, either below the age of 15 or above 65 years of age. The youth dependency ratio is 147.5 percent while the old age dependency ratio is 5.7 percent. An overall dependency ratio of 153.2 percent is a significant burden on the earning population. This situation increases the economic pressure for the families, which may result in child labour and malnutrition of both the women and children, usually the neglected strata of the society.

The definition of urban area has been changing in different censuses. In 1972, urban areas include municipal corporations, municipal committees, cantonment boards, and town committees. Other places having a concentration of population of at least 5,000 persons in continuous collection of houses, and where the community sense was well developed and the community maintained public utilities, such as roads, street lighting, water supply, sanitary arrangements, etc., were also treated as urban areas. These places were generally centres of trade and commerce with a population mostly non-agricultural and having a comparatively higher literacy rate. As a special case, a few areas having the above urban characteristics but population less than 5,000 persons were also treated as urban. The 1981 census defined the urban locality on the basis of type of local government institutions. All the localities which were either metropolitan corporation, municipal corporation, municipal committee, town committee or cantonment at the time of census, were treated as urban. The definition of urban areas in 1961 census is not given in the census reports. This variation and unavailability of the definition of urban area has made the comparative analysis difficult.

According to 1981 census, only 5.9 percent of the population is urban, mainly located in Chitkan town committee area. The highest of the urban population ratio can be observed at the time of 1961 census (20.8%), a sudden rise from 2.6 percent in 1951. In 1972 the percentage of urban population had decreased to 17.4 percent, which further decreased to approximately one third in 1981. This unprecedented change in proportion of urban population can only be explained in terms of change of definition.

After the British took over the administration of the area, Isai was designated as tehsil office and levies garrison was built in Chitkan. In 1960, all administrative offices were shifted to Chitkan which, in 1977 after proclamation of Panjgur as district, was selected as district headquarters. More government buildings were constructed here in 1980’s. Chitkan is the only urban area of the district. The old bazaar of Panjgur is also located at Chitkan. Other remarkable localities of the district include Drakope, Sakai Kalat, Kahn Zangi, Hassani Kalat, Sarikoran, Sahib Kahn, Dasht-e-Shahbaz, Diz Paroome, Garr, Keel Kore and Sarparoom.

The town of Panjgur, if it is one, consists of at least 12 villages on both sides of the river Rakhshan. All these villages are located in immediate vicinity of each other. Of these villages, largest are Isai, Bonistan, Tasp, Chitkan, Gramkan, Khudabadan (Sarwan), Washbood and Sordo. Chitkan is to some extent a central place. The villages of Kalag, Duznap, and Erap are at a distance of 10 kilometres from Chitkan. According to the 1981 census, there were 45 (excluding 3 un-inhabited) mauzas/villages. The individual population of 12 mauzas was above 5,000 and of 11 mauzas between 2,000 and 4,999.

Most of the human settlements are beside the Rakhshan river as agriculture is the main economic activity and the major source of irrigation is either kaurjos (small water channels from pits dug in perennial flow to the fields) or karezes. The rest of the district is sparsely populated. See e.g. the map of the distribution of schools in chapter 7.3, which reflects the population distribution as well.

The Balochs constitute an overwhelming proportion (about 98%) of the population in the district while the remaining include Brahvis, Pushtuns, Sindhis, Punjabis and others.. Balochi is the language spoken in almost all the homes in the district. However this Balochi is different from the dialect spoken in Dera Bugti and Kohlu. Balochi spoken in Panjgur and Kech has more Persian words than the Balochi spoken in other areas of Balochistan. It has great variation as far as accent is concerned. Accent varies from village to village, even located in close vicinity of each other. Urdu is the second major language for communication in the area, specially because of people’s links with Karachi.

Intra-district migration is minimal in Panjgur. Majority of the population is permanently resident in its villages. Seasonal migration is observed in the area to some extent when livestock farming communities of the district migrate to the date producing areas in the date harvesting season from July to October. The considerable immigration is of the people who are coming home from Gulf after completing their service tenure and those of skilled workers from other parts of the country. International out-migration is of potential workers to Gulf states.

According to the 1981 census, a total of 1,308 persons immigrated from Panjgur to other countries however data on emigration are not available. Total number of migrants from other districts of Balochistan was 502, persons coming from other provinces were 88, while previous residence of 193 individuals was not mentioned.

Back to Panjgur