138 ISSN 0975 5942 Vol.III(2), July-Dec 2011, pp.138-158 Visit: http://www.socialsciences-ejournal.org International Society for Asia-Pacific Studies (ISAPS), www.isapsindia.org Socio-Economic Causes of Rural to Urban Migration in India Jabir Hasan Khan a, Tarique Hassan b and Shamshad b a Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002 b Research Scholar, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University Corresponding author: thkhan1@gmail.com Abstract The present paper aims to analyse the total and sex-wise causes of rural-urban migration among the states and union territories of India. The study also highlights on the socio-economic determinants of rural-urban migration in short, medium and long distance migration-streams, categorized on the basis of migration defining boundaries. The entire research work is based on secondary sources of data, collected from Census of India publications (2001), New Delhi. The boundary of a state/ union territory (UT) has been taken as the smallest unit of study. The study reveals that majority of the rural migrants arrived in the urban areas due to social factors and male migration is more economic motivated than female migration in India. Moreover, in short and medium distance migrations, social factors like marriage and migration with household are the major reasons of migration, while long- distance migration is mainly for the work /employment. Keywords: Migration defining boundaries; Settlement; Socio economic; Union territories; Milieu; Migration of Household
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 139 Introduction Since the immemorial time, migration is a universal phenomenon and its social and economic implications have been widely recognized (Ma nner 2003). It plays a significant role in moulding the social, economic and other structural characteristics of population of a country or region (Khan 2010; White & Woods 1980). Migration occurs when various factors operate together (Kosinski & Prothero 1975; Bhagat & Mohanty 2009), and the importance of factors responsible for migration varies from place to place according to a locale's particular development milieu (Mabogunje 1970; Zelinsky 1971). On the basis of settlement status of place of origin and destination, internal migration is classified into four types, namely, rural to rural, rural to urban, urban to urban, urban to rural (Bose 1974). But with the passage of time, the volume of rural to urban migration has increased due to broadening gap in the levels of socioeconomic development between rural and urban areas, especially in the developing nations of the world, because throughout the history, migration has been intimately related to economic and social development and it is often seen as the result of imbalances in the levels of development (Sorensen et.al 2002). After independence, India has undergone rapid urbanization, the pace of urbanization is not only due to the natural increase in population growth, but it has been mainly caused by the heavy influx of rural migrants in urban areas (Ganguly 2009; Ledent 1982), particularly in the large-sized cities and metropolises. The main causes of heavy influx of rural migrants in urban areas are either due to the repulsive forces operating in the rural areas in the form of high rates of unemployment, poverty, low wages, small size of land holdings, lack of infrastructure development, or due to the attractive forces working in urban areas in the form of availability of jobs in factories, shops, offices, buildings and public services, facilities of vocational, technical and higher education, better medical services, entertainments, high wages, less arduous nature of work, expanding infrastructure facilities, civic amenities and facilities etc. (Chapman 1969 & 1971; Clarke 1966; Bogue 1962; Davis 1951; Mitra 1968; Sen Gupta 1968; Zachariah 1960 & 1964).
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 140 There is no doubt that rural-urban migration stream affects the society at origin (Rao 1981), at destination and migrants themselves ( Husain 2001 & Mangalam 1968). The rural-urban migration appears to be accelerating in spite of rising levels of urban unemployment and growing numbers of urban workers. The dramatic migration of people from rural areas to the urban centers (Pe arson 1963) not only poses a number of socio-economic and environmental problems in urban areas, but it also exerts an adverse impact on the rural areas (Tucker 1976) due to selectivity of migrants. The governments in the developing countries of the world have framed various policies to contain the rural-urban migration flows but, even then, it has not been possible to slow down the volume of rural-urban migration up to a remarkable level. The failure of the policies to curb the volume of rural-urban migration stream has been due to the lack of comprehensive studies regarding the factors which force the rural potential migrants to leave their places of origin and the forces which attract them to settle down in urban areas. Therefore, in the present study, an attempt has been made to analyse the causes of rural-urban migration in India, which is the second most populous country in the world, and where according to Census 2001, the total number of rural-urban migrants whose duration of residence was 1-4 years in urban areas, was 10.14 million which is more than the total population of the countries like, Hungary (10.01 million), Sweden (9.36 million), Austria (8.37 million), Switzerland (7.78 million) and Denmark (5.54 million). Thus, it is highly desirable to understand the causes of rural to urban migration, that in the light of which appropriate policies may be framed to contain the heavy influx of rural migrants in urban areas, not only in India, but also in the other developing countries of the world. Objectives of the study The prime objectives of the present study are (i) to analyse the total and sex-wise causes of rural-urban migration among the states and union territories of India. (ii) to find out the socio-economic causes of rural-urban migration in short, medium and long distance migration-streams categorized on the basis of migration defining boundaries in India.
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 141 Database and Methodology The usual direct questions on internal migration in Indian census cover the following items: place of birth (village or town), place of last residence, and duration of residence (stay) at the place of enumeration, places of residence on a specified date before the census, and reasons for migration. Since the first Indian census of 1881 up to 1961, census data on migration were obtained only through the particulars of the birth place. In 1971, however, an additional question about the place of last usual residence of the respondent was introduced in the census schedule in order to obtain information on migration. In the 1981 census and in subsequent censuses of 1991 and 2001, in addition to the above questions, information was also obtained about the reasons for migration from place of last residence and the duration of residence at the place of enumeration. All reasons have been grouped into seven broad categories, namely, employment, business, education, marriage, moved after birth, moved with household and others. In case of persons who migrated other than first six reasons have been included under the category of others. The category of others is the sum total of the persons displaced due to developmental projects, migrated because of droughts, floods, social disturbances etc. The main drawback of the data on causes of internal migration is that all the persons migrated due to the miscellaneous causes have been clubbed together in the category of others; therefore, it limits the use of these data at micro level in analyzing the real causes of migration under this category. The data on place of last residence provides information about the reasons of migration categorized on the basis of age, sex and duration of residence. The categories of data on duration of residence of migrants at their destinations are less than one year, one to four years, five to nine years, more than nine years and all durations. The present research work is entirely based on the secondary sources of data collected from Census of India 2001, and the data regarding only those rural-urban migrants have been taken into account whose duration of residence in urban areas was 1 to 4 years, considering that among the migrants whose duration of residence was less than one year, some of them may only be seasonal/casual
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 142 migrants and those whose duration of residence was more than four years may have somewhat different problems, causes and patterns of migration, as compared to the migrants of 1 to 4 years. The data have been converted into percentage and processed in tabular form, and on the basis of tables and processed data multiple bar diagrams have been prepared to show the socio-economic causes of rural-urban migration in India. The boundary of a state/ut has been considered as the smallest unit of study. According to the migration data of all durations recorded on the basis of place of last residence in the Census of India 2001, the proportion of migrant population in general population was 30.6 per cent while the respective figures for male and female migrants were recorded 17.5 per cent and 44.5 per cent. The share of rural-urban migration to total migrant population was 16.4 per cent whereas the percentage of male migrants to total male migrants population was 26.2 per cent and proportion of female migrants to total female migrants population was 12.3 per cent. The ratio of rural-urban migrants, whose duration of residence was 1 to 4 years, was 21.4 per cent to the general migrants of same duration, but the respective figure has been recorded 31.1 per cent for the males and 16.2 per cent for the females. Causes of Rural to Urban Migration in India Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of socio-economic causes of rural-urban migration in India. It reveals that majority of the rural migrants (70.6 percent) arrived in the urban areas due to social factors and male migration is more economic motivated than female migration. It will be seen from the Table 1 that economic motivated migration accounts for 52.3 percent of the male migrants and only 5.7 percent of female migrants. The work/employment amounts to 27.5 percent of the total migration and 49.0 percent of the male migration, while, migration for business constitutes 1.9 percent of the total migration and 3.3 percent of the male migration in the country. The main social factors, which account for 57.1 per cent of the migrant population, are migration with household, marriage and education. The corresponding figure has been recorded 82.2 percent for female and 33.0 percent for male migration in the country. The
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 143 factors of less importance in volume are migration after birth and various miscellaneous factors. Migration with household alone covers 29.1 percent of the total rural-urban migration, while it accounts for as much as 36.6 percent of female and 22.0 percent of male rural-urban migration. The migration for marriage is another important social factor of rural to urban migration in the country. It constitutes 20.7 percent of the total migration and 41.3 percent of the female migration. It is a type of obligatory migration in which a girl moves to her husband s place after marriage. It is, in general, highly female selective due to patrilocal marriage system prevalent in the most parts of India (Gosal & Krishan 1975), excluding 0.8 percent of male migrants who migrated for marriage. Education, though qualitatively a very significant social factor, and the wide ranging impact of education is possibly the most important matter to be considered in inducing rural-urban migration (Caldwell 1969). Nevertheless, it is not equally significant quantitatively in respect of rural to urban migration in India. It accounts for 10.2 percent for male and 4.3 percent of female rural to urban migration. This segment of migrants mainly comprises young boys and girls belonging to relatively affluent families. Villages seldom have schools beyond primary standard while colleges and higher educational centers are obviously confined to urban areas, but for the villagers it is rather expensive to send their children to cities for higher education. Thus, it constitutes only 7.3 percent of the total rural-urban migration. Besides, migration after birth and other miscellaneous factors combinely constitutes 13.5 percent of the total rural-urban migration in India. On the basis of distance involved, the internal migration in India may be classified into three types: short, medium and long distance migrations, which are roughly indicative of the relationship between distance and migration (Bose 1974). The short-distance or intra-district migration is represented by persons born outside the place of enumeration but within the district of enumeration, mediumdistance or inter-district migration is consisted by persons born outside of the district of enumeration but within the state of enumeration, and lastly the long-distance or inter-state migration is
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 144 recorded as persons born in states (within the boundaries of India) other than that of the state of enumeration. The socio-economic causes of rural to urban migration may also change with the distance between place of origin and destination. Therefore, the percentage distribution of socio-economic causes of rural to urban migration in India based on the type of migration defining boundaries crossed in the act of migration has been given in Table 2. An analysis of the Table 2 and figure 3 reveal that, excluding the long-distance migration of male, in all the distance based migration streams, rural-urban migration is more social than economic in nature and a rising trend in the proportional share of economic motivated migration has been recorded with increase in distance (Harris & Clausen 1967). Thus, in short and medium distance migrations, social factors like marriage and migration with household are the major reasons of migration, while long-distance migration that is more economic motivated has been mainly for better work or employment opportunities in urban areas of the economically developed states of India. The marriage is the principal cause of migration in short and medium distance migration streams, in which, its share is 51.5 percent and 35.9 percent respectively. The corresponding figures have been recorded 70.3 percent and 57.1 percent for female and 2.9 percent and 1.5 percent for male migration (see Figure 3). The further examination of data given in Table 2 depicts that in long-distance migration stream, the work/ employment is the primary cause of rural to urban migration. It accounts for 31.8 per cent, 56.2 percent and 6.0 percent to the total, male and female migrants in the country. Table 3 provides a comparative picture of the percentage distribution of the socio-economic causes of rural-urban migration among the states and union territories (UTs) of India. An analysis of the data given in Table 3 depicts that migration for work/employment constitutes nearly one-third of the total rural-urban migration in six UTs and four states, in which the union territory of Dadar & Nagar Haveli has the highest proportion (52.2 percent), followed by Delhi (41.0 percent), Andaman & Nicobar island (38.2 percent), Chandigarh (37.6 percent), Daman & Diu (36.1 percent),
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 145 Lakshadweep (33.8 percent), and among the states it is highest in Sikkim (41.8 percent), followed by Himachal Pradesh (40.9 percent), Punjab (37.1 percent), and Goa (32.4 percent), while, among all the states and UTs, it is the lowest in Bihar (14.2 per cent). The further analysis of the Table 3 explains that the highest proportion of male migrants arrived in urban areas for getting employment is in the UT of Dadar & Nagar Haveli (74.3 percent), followed by Delhi (65.8 percent) and Andaman & Nicobar Island (62.2 percent), and among the states, it is highest in Punjab (63.1 percent), followed by Himachal Pradesh (61.1 percent), while, the lowest among all the states and UTs is in Kerala (28.0 percent). It is only because, much of the migration from India to the Middle East has been from the southern state of Kerala (Za chariah, Mathew & Rajan 2003) as well as there is also not too much difference in the levels of development between rural and urban parts of the state. On the contrary, among female migrants, it is highest in Sikkim (25.1 percent) and lowest in Bihar (2.2 percent). Business is another important economic factor which also provides momentum to rural-urban migration stream. Among different states and UTs of the country, the highest proportion of the migration for business has been found in the UT of Daman & Diu (12.9 percent) and lowest in Lakshadweep (0.1 percent). The proportion of migration for business purposes is high among males in all the states and UTs of the country than that among females. The migration with the household is one of the most important social factors of rural to urban migration in the country. Excluding the states of Manipur, Bihar, Kerala and West Bengal, in all the other states and UTs the proportion of migration with household in the total migration is higher than the marriage migration. The states and UTs where more than one-third of the total migrants moved with their household are Uttaranchal (41.1 percent), Haryana (40.8 percent), Jammu & Kashmir (37.3 percent), Madhya Pradesh (33.9 percent), Mizoram ( 33.7 percent), Rajasthan (33.1 percent), and the UTs of Lakshadweep (56.0 percent) and Delhi (35.7 percent). However, the highest proportion of females who moved with their household has been recorded in the union territory of Lakshadweep (80.8 percent) an d the lowest in the state of Madhya Pradesh (6.2 percent), on the contrary, the highest proportion of male
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 146 household migration has been found in the state of Haryana (31.4 percent) and the lowest in the state of Meghalaya (10.5 percent). An examination of data about migration for marriage, given in Table 2, exhibits that it alone covers more than one-fourth of the total rural-urban migration in the states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Manipur, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Kerala. It has been recorded highest in the state of Manipur (37.1 percent) and the lowest in the union territory of Lakshadweep (0.3 percent). The highest proportion of female migration for marriage has been in Bihar (61.9 percent) and it has been the lowest in the state of Mizoram (14.6 percent). However, the proportion of male migration for marriage is very meagre in the country. The highest proportion has been recorded in the state of Kerala (6.5 percent) and the lowest in the union territory of Lakshadweep (0.1 percent). The percentage distribution of rural-urban migration for education given in Table 2 depicts that it accounted for more than 10 percent of the total rural-urban migration in the states of Mizoram (17.0 percent), Nagaland (15.7 percent), Aru nachal Pradesh (14.2 percent), Himachal Pradesh (12.7 percent), Orissa (12.7 percent), Andhra Pradesh (12.2 percent), Karnataka (11.9 percent) and Bihar (10.6 percent). However, the highest proportion of male, female and total migrants who migrated from rural to urban areas for getting education is in the state of Meghalaya where it accounted for 36.2 percent, 31.5 percent and 33.9 percent respectively, and it is the lowest in the UT of Dadar & Nagar Haveli where respective figures are only 0.4, 0.3 and 0.3 percent. It is important to note that the proportion of male migration for getting education is higher than female migration in all the states and UT of the country, excluding the state of Maharashtra and the UT of Andaman and Nicobar Island, where proportion of female migration exceeds to the male migration for education. Conclusion The overall analysis of the study reveals that, majority of the rural migrants (70.6 percent) arrived in the urban areas due to social factors. The main social factors which account nearly for three-fifth (57.1 percent) of the total migrant population, four-fifth (82.2 percent) of female and one-third (33.0 percent) of male migration, are migration with household, marriage and education, while
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 147 work/employment is the dominating economic factor, it constitutes 27.5 percent of the total, 49.0 percent of male and 5.3 percent of female rural-urban migration in the country. Moreover, the migration for business has a share of 1.9 percent, migration after birth 4.4 percent and migration caused by various miscellaneous factors 9.1 percent in the total volume of rural to urban migration stream in India. Moreover, in short and medium distance migrations, social factors like marriage and migration with household are the major reasons of migration, while long- distance migration is mainly for the work /employment.
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 148 References Bhagat, R. B. (2005) Conceptual Issues in Measurement of Internal Migration in India, Paper Presented in 25 th IUSSP International Conference held in Tours, France, 18-23 July Bhagat, R.B. & Mohanty, S. (2009) Emerging Pattern of Urbanization and the Contribution of Migration in Urban Growth in India, Asian Population Studies, vol. 5 no.1, pp. 5-20. Bogue, D.J. (1959) Internal Migration, in Duncan, O.D. & Hauser, P.M. (eds.) The Study of Population: An Inventory and Appraisal, Chicago, p. 752. Bogue, D. J. & Zachariah, K.C. (1962) Urbanization and Migration in India, in Turner, R. (ed.) India s urban Future, Bombay, pp. 27-54. Bose, A. (1974) Studies in India s Urbanization 1901-1971, Tata Mc Graw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, pp.40-143. Caldwell, J.C. (1969) African Rural-Urban Migration: The Movement to Ghana s Towns, Australian National U.P., Canberra, p. 60. Census of India (2001) Migration Table, D0603, Office of the Registrar General of India, Govt. of India, New Delhi. Chapman, M. (1969) A Population Study in South Guadalcanal: Some Results and Implications, Oceania, vol. 40, pp. 119-147. Chapman, M. (1971) Population Research in the Pacific Islands: A Case Study and Some Reflections, E.W Population Institute, Working Paper 17, Honolulu. Clarke, J.I. (1966) Population Geography, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 129. Davis, K.(1951) The Population of India and Pakistan, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp.107-123. Ganguly, S. (2009) Access to Civic Amenities in Selected Metropolitan Cities in India, Population and Environment Bulletin, vol. 6 no. 2&3, p. 5. Gosal. G.S. & Krishan, G. (1975) Patterns of Internal Migration in India, in Kosinski, L.A. & Prothero, R.M. (eds.) People on the Move:
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 149 Studies on Internal Migration, Methuen & Co. LTD., London, pp.198-199. Harris, A.I. & Clausen, R. (1967) Labour Mobility in Great Britain, 1953-1963, HMSO, London, p.17. Husain, M. (2001) Geography of India, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Ltd, New Delhi, p. 16.16. Khan, J.H. (2010) Socio-Economic and Structural Analysis of Internal Migration: A Micro Level Analysis, Serials Publications, New Delhi, p. 72. Kosinski, L. A. &. Prothero, R.M. (ed.) (1975) People on the Move: Studies in Internal Migration, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, p.12. Ledent, J. (1982) Rural -Urban Migration, Urbanization, and Economic Development, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 30 no. 3, pp. 507-538. Mabogunje, A. L. (1970) Systems Approach to a Theory of Rural-Urban Migration, Geographical Analysis, vol.2, pp. 1-17. Mangalam, J.J. (1968) Human Migration: A Guide to Migration Literature in English 1955-1962, University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 12-14. Manner, C. K. (2003) A Model of Rural-Urban Migration and Fertility, The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 37 no.1, pp. 55-71. Mitra, A. (1968) A Note on Internal Migration and Urbanization in India, 1961, in Sen Gupta, P. & Sdasyuk, G. (eds.), Economic Regionalization of India: Problems and Approaches, New Delhi, pp. 251-257. Pearson, J.E. (1963) The Significance of Urban Housing in Rural -Urban Migration, Land Economics, vol. 39 no. 3, pp. 231-239. RAO, M.S.A. (1981) Some Aspects of Sociology of Migration, Sociological Bulletin, vol. 30 no.1, pp. 21-38. Sen Gupta, P. (1968) Some Characteristics of Internal Migration in India, in Sen Gupta, P. & Sdasyuk, G. (eds.), Economic Regionalization of India: Problems and Approaches, New Delhi, pp. 79-89.
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 150 Sorensen, N.N., Hear, N.V and Pedersen, P.E (2002) The Migration- Development Nexus Evidence and Policy Options, International Organization for Migration, p. 7. Tucker, C. J. (1976) Changing Patterns of Migration between Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Areas in the United States: Recent Evidences, Demography, vol. 13 no. 4, p. 435. White, P. & Woods, R. (ed.) (1980), The Geographical Impact of Migration, Longman, London, p. 2. Zachariah, K.C. (1960) Internal Migration in India, Demographic Training and Research Centre, Bombay, pp. 1941-1951. Zachariah, K.C. (1964) A Historical Study of Migration in the Indian Subcontinent, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, pp. 1901-1931. Zelinsky, W. (1971) The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transitio n, Geographical Review, vol. 61, pp. 219-49.
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 151 Type of Migratio n Short- Distance (Intra- District) Medium - Distance (Inter- District) Long- Distance (Interstate) Tables Table 1: Per cent Distribution of Causes of Rural-Urban Migration in India (Duration of Residence: 1 to 4 years) Causes of Rural-Urban Male Female Total Migration Work/Employment 49.0 5.3 27.5 Business 3.3 0.4 1.9 Education 10.2 4.3 7.3 Marriage 0.8 41.3 20.7 Moved after Birth 4.5 4.2 4.4 Moved With Household 22.0 36.6 29.1 Others 10.2 7.9 9.1 Total 100 100 100 Source: Census of India, 2001. Table 2: Percent Distribution of Rural to Urban Migration by Causes and Migration Defining Boundaries in India (Duration of Residence: 1 to 4 years) M/ F/ T Work/ Employ ment Business Causes of Rural to Urban Migration Moved Moved after Education Marriage With Birth Household Others Total M 23.4 2.3 10.6 2.9 13.0 24.3 23.5 100 F 2.2 0.3 1.9 70.3 4.7 13.4 7.2 100 T 8.1 0. 9 4.3 51.5 7. 0 16.4 11.8 100 M 38.7 2.9 10.1 1.5 7.9 25.2 13.7 100 F 4.2 0.4 2.6 57.1 4.5 24.1 7.1 100 T 17.3 1.3 5.5 35.9 5.8 24.5 9.7 100 M 56.2 3.0 5.5 0.7 3.5 21.5 9.6 100 F 6.0 0.4 2.2 42.6 3.4 38.1 7.3 100 T 31.8 1.7 3.9 21.1 3.5 29.6 8.4 100 Source: Census of India, 2001. M- Male migrants; F- Female migrants; T- Total migrants
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 152 States/UTs JAMMU & KASHMIR HIMACHAL PRADESH PUNJAB CHANDIGARH UTTARANCHAL HARYANA DELHI RAJASTHAN UTTAR PRADESH BIHAR Table 3: Percent Distribution of Socio-Economic Causes of Rural to Urban Migration among the States and Union Territories of India (Duration of Residence: 1 to 4 years) Causes of Rural to Urban Migration M/ F/ T (1) Work/ Employ- Ment (2) (3) Business Education (4) Marri -age (5) Moved after Birth (6) Moved With Household (7) Others M 45.7 1.7 9.4 0.6 0.5 26.3 15.8 F 7.5 0.5 14.9 25.4 0.5 51.2 9.9 T 28.9 1.2 7.4 11.5 0.5 37.3 13.2 M 61.1 1.1 13.4 0.2 1.2 15.9 7.1 F 9.6 0.2 11.6 24.3 1.6 45.0 7.7 T 40.9 0.8 12.7 9.6 1.3 27.3 7.3 M 63.1 0.4 2.7 0.6 2.4 20.9 9.5 F 5.9 0.4 1.9 44.7 2.4 37.5 7.2 T 37.1 0.6 2.3 20.6 2.4 28.4 8.5 M 61.4 0.7 6.2 0.3 4.1 18.6 8.2 F 5.2 0.2 3.2 32.5 4.8 46.2 7.9 T 37.6 0.8 4.9 14.0 4.3 30.3 8.0 M 44.8 0.5 13.0 0.2 0.6 29.7 10.7 F 3.7 0.2 5.1 28.0 0.6 54.6 7.8 T 25.9 0.6 9.4 13.0 0.6 41.1 9.4 M 53.2 0.3 4.6 0.4 1.3 31.4 8.5 F 3.8 0.1 1.6 38.0 1.2 50.8 4.4 T 29.4 0.4 3.2 18.5 1.2 40.8 6.5 M 65.8 0.2 3.6 0.2 2.0 21.6 6.4 F 5.3 0.1 0.9 29.7 2.6 55.9 5.4 T 41.0 0.3 2.5 12.3 2.2 35.7 6.0 M 46.3 1.0 13.6 0.5 2.3 27.0 9.3 F 3.4 0.2 2.8 48.3 1.8 38.6 4.9 T 23.8 0.5 7.9 25.5 2.1 33.1 7.0 M 44.6 1.2 12.1 0.9 0.7 28.9 11.6 F 3.4 0.3 1.6 53.4 0.5 35.2 5.5 T 21.8 0.7 6.3 29.9 0.6 32.4 8.2 M 29.9 1.4 21.4 1.1 1.0 24.6 20.6 F 2.2 0.2 2.3 61.9 0.7 26.4 6.2 T 14.2 0.7 10.6 35.5 0.8 25.6 12.5 (8)
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 153 SIKKIM ARUNACHAL PRADESH M 56.1 4.8 9.4 0.3 1.3 14.4 13.7 F 25.1 0.7 8.7 26.5 1.2 23.9 13.8 T 41.8 0.5 9.1 12.4 1.3 18.8 13.8 M 41.7 6.3 16.4 0.3 1.3 20.5 13.4 F 15.8 0.9 11.6 15.0 1.5 41.2 13.9 T 29.7 3.8 14.2 7.1 1.4 30.1 13.6 States/UTs Table 3 Continued. Causes of Rural to Urban Migration (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) M 40.5 11.7 15.8 0.3 1.4 14.3 16.0 NAGALAND F 10.5 1.2 15.6 20.9 1.5 34.5 14.9 T 27.6 7.5 15.7 9.2 1.5 23.0 15.5 M 37.9 7.2 14.5 2.3 0.1 27.7 10.3 MANIPUR F 6.4 1.3 5.4 57.8 0.1 22.4 6.6 T 18.1 3.5 8.8 37.1 0.1 24.4 7.9 M 37.4 2.4 17.4 1.0 0.3 27.9 13.5 MIZORAM F 13.4 1.9 16.7 14.6 0.4 40.0 12.9 T 26.1 2.1 17.0 7.5 0.4 33.7 13.2 M 32.4 4.1 15.7 0.8 0.7 25.7 21.0 TRIPURA F 7.6 0.4 5.3 43.6 0.4 32.5 10.2 T 18.7 2.0 9.9 24.5 0.5 29.5 14.8 M 34.1 2.7 36.2 3.2 0.8 10.5 12.6 MEGHALAYA F 18.7 0.9 31.5 16.4 0.8 18.8 12.8 T 26.7 1.8 33.9 9.5 0.8 14.5 12.7 M 39.0 18.6 11.9 0.5 0.9 15.1 13.9 ASSAM F 9.2 1.2 6.5 42.9 0.9 28.8 10.5 T 24.9 10.4 9.3 20.5 0.9 21.6 12.3 M 43.9 4.7 10.5 1.0 3.3 21.7 14.7 WEST BENGAL F 6.7 0.4 2.5 52.6 2.6 26.6 8.6 T 23.4 2.3 6.0 30.0 2.9 24.4 11.3 M 38.7 1.6 16.1 0.8 1.8 25.3 15.6 JHARKHAND F 3.2 0.2 4.3 47.2 1.5 34.9 8.7 T 19.8 0.8 9.8 25.5 1.6 30.4 11.9 ORISSA M 42.4 7.9 17.5 0.6 1.2 19.1 11.4
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 154 CHHATTISGAR H MADHYA PRADESH GUJARAT F 5.8 0.6 7.3 38.3 1.2 37.3 9.4 T 25.0 4.4 12.7 18.5 1.2 27.8 10.4 M 46.8 0.9 12.7 0.6 3.4 25.5 10.1 F 4.9 0.1 6.2 39.9 2.9 39.2 6.7 T 24.3 0.5 9.2 21.6 3.2 32.8 8.3 M 40.2 1.0 15.5 0.5 2.9 28.6 11.2 F 3.4 0. 4.0 44.8 2.3 6.2 67.0 T 20.3 0.5 9.2 24.4 2.6 33.9 8.9 M 43.5 13.8 6.1 0.3 7.1 22.5 6.6 F 2.8 1.0 4.3 36.3 7.1 20.6 5.9 T 24.8 7.9 5.3 16.8 7.1 31.7 6.3 Table 3 Continued. Causes of Rural to Urban Migration States/UTs DAMAN & DIU DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI MAHARASHTRA ANDHRA PRADESH KARNATAKA GOA LAKSHADWEEP (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) M 54.0 19.2 0.4 0.4 2.8 18.1 5.0 F 7.6 2.9 0.5 25.6 5.4 52.0 6.0 T 36.1 12.9 0.5 10.1 3.8 31.2 5.4 M 74.3 6.4 0.4 0.3 2.5 12.6 3.4 F 4.6 0.9 0.3 31.5 4.5 52.6 5.5 T 52.2 4.7 0.3 10.2 3.1 25.3 4.1 M 57.6 0.8 0.2 0.3 7.7 17.2 9.1 F 4.6 0.1 3.2 38.7 8.6 35.1 9.6 T 33.7 0.5 5.5 17.6 3.2 25.3 9.3 M 43.1 3.8 16.0 1.2 3.3 19.7 13.0 F 7.0 0.5 8.7 33.0 3.3 36.7 10.7 T 25.2 2.2 12.2 16.9 3.3 28.2 11.9 M 46.9 2.8 16.3 0.9 5.9 16.6 10.4 F 8.8 0.4 7.2 39.2 5.7 29.7 9.0 T 28.3 1.6 11.9 19.7 5.8 23.0 9.7 M 55.1 2.6 3.2 0.4 9.2 20.5 9.0 F 10.2 0.3 1.0 36.5 8.7 35.1 8.1 T 32.4 1.4 2.1 18.7 8.9 27.9 8.6 M 50.6 0.1 8.5 0.1 0.2 37.5 3.0 F 11.3 0.0 3.8 0.5 0.6 80.8 2.9 T 33.8 0.1 6.5 0.3 0.4 56.0 3.0
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 155 KERALA TAMIL NADU PONDICHERRY ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS M 28.0 2.0 7.2 6.5 13.2 28.9 14.0 F 6.4 0.2 4.3 47.9 8.0 23.9 9.2 T 14.6 0.9 5.4 32.1 10.0 25.8 11.0 M 44.9 2.4 10.7 2.6 5.5 24.2 9.6 F 9.6 0.6 7.8 40.3 4.4 28.4 8.9 T 25.9 1.4 9.1 22.9 4.9 26.5 9.2 M 39.1 2.1 9.3 5.6 5.4 28.1 10.3 F 5.7 0.2 5.7 40.2 4.2 34.2 9.6 T 20.7 1.1 7.3 24.7 4.8 31.5 9.9 M 62.2 3.3 8.0 0.5 1.2 16.3 8.4 F 5.7 0.2 12.2 30.7 1.3 40.6 9.3 T 38.2 2.0 9.8 13.3 1.2 26.6 8.8 Source: Census of India, 2001. M- Male migrants; F- Female migrants; T- Total migrants
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 156 Figues
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 157
Jabir Hasan Khan, Tarique Hassan and Shamshad 158