Urbanization Process and Recent Trends of Migration in India

Urbanization Process and Recent Trends of Migration in India Ratnesh Shukla 1 & Kashif Imdad 2 Abstract Urbanization is a process of transformation from traditional rural economies to modern urban economies through industrialization and migration. The study endeavors to understand the urbanization process and recent trends of migration in India. The paper is based on census data from 1901 to 2011 and NSS report of 2007-08. Result shows that the number of urban population of India has increased from 25.8 million in 1901 to 377.1 million in 2011. In India, The number of towns has rapidly grown from 1827 in 1901 to 7935 in 2011 and the number of metropolitan cities has also increased from 35 in 2001 to 53 in 2011 mainly by migration. Increased decadal growth rate of migration has also shown this fact. Such ad uncontrolled urbanization in India leads massive poverty induced migration, acute urban decay and disparities. The paper concludes with planning strategies which are proposed for sustainable development of India. 2014 GSS Journals. All rights reserved. Keywords: Industrialization, Migration, Urbanization, Census and Sustainable Development. 1. Introduction India is a mainly agricultural country where 72 percent of the population lives in rural areas and nearly 50 percent of the national income is contributed by the rural sector. The development of urban areas based on rural development because cities do not grow up of themselves country sides set them up to do tasks that must be performed in central places (Jefferson, 1965). In this relationship, the poor of rural areas moves to cities mainly for better livelihood and urban areas also depend on rural areas for their demand of primary requirements i.e. food, fruit, grain, milk, vegetables and labour etc. It is a finite process of urbanization in which a cycle through which a nation pass as they evolve from agrarian to industrial society (Davis and Golden, 1954). Kingsley Davis has explained urbanization as process (Davis, 1962) of switch from spread out pattern of human in urban centers. Migration is 1 Department of Geography, S.R.K.P.G. College, Kurara (Hameerpur), Bundelkhand University, U.P., India. Email: ratneshshukla.ppn@gmail.co (Corresponding Author) 2 Department of Geography, PPN PG College, Kanpur, UP. India, Email: kashifimdad@gmail.com. 39

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad a root cause of progressive concentration (Davis, 1965) of population in urban unit. The term migration denotes geographical movement of people with change of residence in mode of permanent or semi permanent. Urbanization is a product of demographic explosion and poverty induced migration. Urbanization is occurring not due to urban pull but due to rural push (Datta, 2006). Employment opportunities, Better income, Health services, Education, Better lifestyle and other facilities are urban pull or positive factor. Unemployment, poverty, agony, misery, exploitation, humiliation, insecurity, inequalities and human unhappiness are known as rural push or negative factor. Due to rapid growth of population, cities resources have failed to provide services to migrated people. Migration of people, both males and females, in a developing economy like this is taking place from rural poverty to urban poverty, from one stress region to another compounding further poverty (Mukherji, 2001). This is carrying crucial environmental degradation like shortage of housing, formation of slums, declining drinking water quality, excessive air pollution and hazardous wastes management. In this way not only urban environment goes toward degradation but rural environment also. India's policy makers attempted industrialization without settlement infrastructure. This has carried uncontrolled urbanization near industrial hubs. The study also presents humanistic approach for urban planning to eliminate rural urban poverty and to reduce disparities between rural and urban area. Rural industrialization, change rural-urban relationship, employment generation and better house creation are the most important steps for sustainable development. 2. Aims and Objectives of the Study The prime aim of the study is to explore the dimensions of urbanization and migration by fulfilling the following two objectives: first, describing present urbanization process in India and secondly, identifying the emerging trends and pattern of migration in India. Finally, humanistic urban planning strategies are recommended to ameliorate problems of such poverty-induced low quality migration and to promote sustainable development. The objectives of the research are enumerated below: To understand present status of urbanization. To identify emerging trends and patterns of migration flow. To analyze the problems of rapid urbanization of and consequences of rural urban migration. To suggest planning strategies for ameliorating the regional disparities of poverty induced migration and for accelerating sustainable development. 3. Research Question Formulated prime research questions are given below: What is the urbanization status of India? What is recent trend of migration in the India? Does urbanization lead poverty induced migration in India? What can be done to reduce disparities of rural-urban areas for sustainable development? 4. Review of the Literature In a recent study, Pranti Datta (2006) illuminates on the process of urbanization in India with emphasis on level, tempo of urbanization and urban morphology by using Indian Census data during 1901-2001. Amit Kumar and Ambrish Kumar Rai (2014) also attempt to understand the Urbanization 40

Process, Trend, Pattern and its Consequences based on census data during 1901-2011 in India. Kamlesh shukla and others (2010) try to identify the process of urbanization in India with emphasis on level, ratio of urban and rural, rate of migration using the Indian Census data 1901-2001. Mukherji (2000) has developed factor analysis-cum-canonical analysis in the study of migration urbanization disparities. Desingkar and Start (2003) focuses on seasonal migration for livelihood in India. The socio- economic consequences of migration between 1999 and 2004 are compared by Zachariah, et.al, (2004) and in their comparative study they found that effect of negative factors of migration were far more than effects of positive factors. Tiwari (2005) has examined problem and prospects of informal sector workers in Kanpur city, Bhagat (2005 & 2006) analysed conceptual issue in measurement of internal migration in India and presented trends and pattern of internal migration between 1971-2001. Zachariah and Rajan (2007) focused on the economic and social dynamics of migration in Kerala during 1999-2004 and analyzed implications of migration, remittances and employment in the short and long term development. Bhagat (2009) again considered migration as a emerging phenomenon from economic, political and public health point of view and also tried to explain the proposed question that the under classed are more mobile. Another study by Lusome and Bhagat (2010) analyzed access to basic amenities in urban areas by size class of cities and Towns in India for quality of life. Sridhar & others (2010) also investigated recent evidence of push or pull factors which are responsible for Census year Table 1: Population of India by residence Total Population Urban Population Urbanization Process and Recent migration in India. Shylaja (2010) analysed the effect of labour migration on the demographic and socio- economic characteristics in Kerala. 5. Methodology This paper is based on secondary migration data analysis. The census data from 1901 to 2011 and NSS report of 2007-08 are used as a secondary data. Analysis of data focus upon rural urban and male female composition in India, urbanization in India, composition of population growth, stream and volume of internal migration 1991 and 2001, regional variations in development and Migration and its representation by various diagram makes easy to understand present scenario. 6. Result and Discussion 6.1 Process of Urbanization in India Number of total population has increased from 238.4 million in 1901 to 1210.2 million in 2011 whereas number of population residing in urban areas has increased from 25.9 million in 1901 to 377.1 million in 2011. According to census 2011, India has a total population of 1210.2 million persons of which the urban population comprises of 377.1 million persons accounting for an urban population of 31.16 percent which is an increase from the urban population of 27.78 percent reported in 2001. The table 1 shows the population of India by residence which rapidly increased after independence. Shukla, K & Others (2010) find out The reason behind this might be the development of better infra-structure and other life supportive facilities including education, hospital services and massive growth in employment opportunities. Rural population Urban Population in % 41

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad 1901 238396327 25851873 212544454 10.84 1911 252093390 25941633 226151757 10.29 1921 251321213 28086167 223235046 11.18 1931 278977238 33455989 245521249 11.99 1941 318660580 44153297 274507283 13.86 1951 361088090 62443709 298644381 17.29 1961 439234771 78936603 360298168 17.97 1971 598159652 109113977 489045675 19.91 1981 683329097 159462547 523866550 23.33 1991 844324222 217177625 627146597 25.72 2001 1027015247 285354954 741660293 27.78 2011 1210193422 377105760 833087662 31.16 The figure 1 shows the process of urbanization in India from 1901 to 2011. A gradual increasing trend is also observed in Source: Census of India, 2011. Figure 1: Process of Urbanization in India Figure 1 which represents accelerating stage of the process of urbanization in India. 6.1.1 Decadal growth rate of urban population Before independence during 1901 to 1941, the growth rate of urbanization has been very slow. From table 2 it is observed that in 1911-1921 decadal growth rate of total population is negative but urban population growth rate is 0.76 %. After independence, it starts a increasing very rapidly but any uniformity in urbanization is not observed. During 1901-1981 a fluctuating trend is observed in urbanization. In 1971-81 decadal growth rate of urban population is the highest but declining trend starts during 42 1981-91 and 1991-2001. In decade of 2001-11 the growth rate of urban population again tends to increase. (Figure: 2) Table 2: Decadal Growth Rate of Population by residence 10 Year Duration Decadal Growth Rate Total Population Urban Population Rural Population 1901-1911 0.54 0.03 0.6 1911-1921 -0.03 0.76-0.13 1921-1931 0.99 1.61 0.91

Urbanization Process and Recent 1931-1941 1.25 2.42 1.06 1941-1951 1.17 2.93 0.81 1951-1961 1.78 2.09 1.71 1961-1971 2.66 2.77 2.63 1981-1991 1.91 2.66 1.65 1991-2001 1.78 2.39 1.54 2001-2011 1.51 2.43 1.1 Source: Census of India, 2011. 1971-1981 1.25 3.16 0.66 Figure 2: Decadal Growth Rate of Population in India. 6.1.2 Town Status in India As shown in Table and Figure 3, In India during the period 1901 to 2011, the number of towns has grown from 1827 to 7935 and from 24 to 273 for million cities. In this duration the number of metropolitan has also grown from 1 to 53. The number of towns has increased by 2,774 since last Census. The recorded growth rate of towns in India stands at approximately 334 percent. Table 3: Growth of Towns Census year 1901 Number of towns Number of million cities 1827 24 1 Number of metropolis es 1911 1815 21 2 1921 1949 27 2 1931 2072 33 2 1941 2250 47 2 1951 2843 71 5 1961 2365 95 7 1971 2590 139 9 1981 3378 204 12 1991 3768 273 23 2001 5161 350 35 2011 7935 468 53 Source: Census of India, 2011. Figure 3: Growth of Towns. 43

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad 6.1.3 Urban Agglomeration and Out Growth in India As per the 2001 Census, An urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns. An Urban Agglomeration must consist of at least a statutory town and its total population (i.e. all the constituents put together) should not be less than 20,000. At the Census 2011, there are 475 such UAs/Towns. The corresponding number in Census 2001 was 384. (Table: 4 and Figure: 4) An Out Growth (OG) is a viable unit such as a village or a hamlet or an enumeration block which possesses the urban features in terms of infrastructure and amenities such as pucca roads, electricity, taps, drainage system for disposal of waste water etc. educational institutions, post offices, medical facilities, banks etc. and physically contiguous with the core town of the UA. In the 2011 Census, 981 OGs have been identified as against 962 OGs in 2001 Census. Table 4: Urban Agglomeration and Out Growth in India Type of urban units 2001 2011 1. Towns 5161 7935 (a) Statutory Towns 3799 4041 (b) Census Towns 1362 3894 2. Urban Agglomeration 384 475 3. Out Growths 962 981 Source: Census of India, 2011. 6.1.4 State wise Level of Urbanization in India Census 2011 shows that among the States and Union Territories, the National Capital Territory of Delhi is the most urbanized with 97.50 per cent followed by the Union Territories of Chandigarh (97.25%). Lakshadweep (78.08%) climbed up to the 3 rd position in 2011 which was at 6th position in 2001 (44.46%). Puducherry (68.31%) slipped to 5 th position in 2011 from 3 rd position in 2001 (66.57%). Among the Indian states, Goa is the most urbanized state with 62.17% but according to geographical area and total population, Tamil Nadu is the most urbanized state with 48.45%, followed by Kerala (47.72%) and Maharashtra (45.23%). There is drastic change in urbanization of Kerala, only 25.96% of people were urbanized in 2001 but 47.72 % people live in urban areas in 2011. Census 2011 shows all Union Territories urbanization level are higher than urbanization level of India and among the states urbanization level of Goa (62.17%), Mizoram (51.51%), Tamilnadu (48.45%),Kerala (47.72%), Maharastra 44

Urbanization Process and Recent (45.23%), Gujarat (42.58%), Karnatak (38.57%), Punjab (37.49%), Andhra Pradesh (33.49%) and West Bengal (31.89%) are higher than urbanization level of India (31.16%). The urbanization level of Haryana, Meghalaya and Bihar has slipped down gradual 4.75, 3.67 and 2.06% in 2011. The hill State of Himachal Pradesh is the least urbanized (10.04%) among all the States and Union Territories followed by Bihar (11.3), Assam (14.08%) and Orissa (16.68%). (Table: 5) Figure 4: Urban Agglomeration and Out Growth in India. 4500 4000 Number of Towns 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Statutory Towns Census Towns Urban Agglomeration Out Growths 2011 4041 3894 475 981 2001 3799 1362 384 962 States Andaman Nicobar Island (Ut) Table 5: Level of Urbanization. Level of Urbanization 45 Difference 1991 2001 2011 1991-2001 2001-2011 26.8 32.67 35.57 5.87 2.9 Andhra Pradesh 26.89 27.07 33.49 0.18 6.42 Arunachal Pradesh 12.8 20.41 22.67 7.61 2.26 Assam 11.1 12.72 14.08 1.62 1.36 Bihar 13.14 13.36 11.3 0.22-2.06 Chandigarh (Ut) 89.68 89.77 97.25 0.09 7.48 Chhattisgarh - 23.24 Dadara & Nagar Haveli (Ut) 8.47 22.89 46.62 14.42 23.73 Daman & Diu (Ut) 46.86 36.26 75.16-10.6 38.9 Delhi (Ut) 89.93 93.01 97.5 3.08 4.49 Goa 41.01 49.77 62.17 8.76 12.4 Gujarat 34.49 37.35 42.58 2.86 5.23 Haryana 24.63 29 24.25 4.37-4.75 Himachal Pradesh 8.69 9.79 10.04 1.1 0.25

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Jammu And Kashmir 23.83 24.88 27.21 1.05 2.33 Jharkhand - 24.05 Karnataka 30.92 33.98 38.57 3.06 4.59 Kerala 26.39 25.96 47.72-0.43 21.76 Lakhadweep 56.28 44.47 78.08-11.81 33.61 Madhya Pradesh 23.18 24.98 27.63 1.8 2.65 Maharashtra 38.69 42.4 45.23 3.71 2.83 Manipur 27.52 23.88 20.21-3.64-3.67 Meghalaya 18.6 19.62 20.08 1.02 0.46 Mizoram 46.09 49.49 51.51 3.4 2.02 Nagaland 17.21 17.74 28.97 0.53 11.23 Odisha 13.37 14.97 16.68 1.6 1.71 Ponduchery 64.05 66.56 68.31 2.51 1.75 Punjab 29.55 33.95 37.49 4.4 3.54 Rajasthan 22.88 22.38 24.89-0.5 2.51 Sikkim 9.1 11.1 24.97 2 13.87 Tamil Nadu 34.15 43.86 48.45 9.71 1.59 Tripura 15.29 17.02 26.18 1.73 9.16 Uttarakhand - 30.55 Uttar Pradesh 12.65 21.02 22.28 8.37 1.26 West Bengal 27.48 28.03 31.89 0.55 3.86 India 24.57 27.78 31.16 3.21 3.38 Source: Census of India, 2011. The level of urbanization in India during 1951 to 2011 is gradually increased. To analyze figure three phases of urbanization are discovered. The first phase starts from 1951 to 1971. It was duration of steady growth of urbanization. During this period in 1951 level of urbanization is 17.29 and after 20 year in 1971 it is increased only 2.62%. The second phase starts from 1971 to 1981. This duration of ten year is period of rapid and high growth of urbanization. In this period highest increased (3.79%) in level of urbanization is observed. The third phase of urbanization starts from 1981 to 2011. In this period high growth with sign of slowing down is observed. It is stage of fluctuation. From 1981 to 2001 increased level of 46 urbanization is not more than 2.10% but as per census 2011, level of urbanization is increased up to 3.35% in the period of 2001-11. (Figure: 5). 6.2 Recent Trends of Migration It has already been noticed from Table-6 that during decade 1981-91 while natural increase in the urban population was 61.3% and net rural urban migration was 21.7%. The natural increase in urban population has decreased 1.9% and net rural urban migration has also decreased 0.70% in 1991-01. In the period of 1981-91 the reclassification of new towns was decreased 12% but the reclassification of new towns has again started to increase 2.2% in 1991-01. (Table: 6 and Figure: 6)

Figure 5: Level of Urbanization. Urbanization Process and Recent Table 6: Urban Population and Migration. Composition of urban population 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01 Natural Increase 64.6 51.3 61.3 59.4 Net Rural Urban Migration 18.7 19.6 21.7 21 Re classification 16.7 29 17 19.2 Source: Census of India, 2011. Figure 6: Urban Population and Migration. Population in % 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01 Year Re classification Net Migration Natural Increase 6.2.1 State wise Net Interstate Migration As per census 1991-01, Haryana has the highest net migration rate in the country. Among all the states net migration rate is positive and above 1.0% in developed states like Haryana(4.07%), Maharastra (3.02%), Gujarat (1.67%) and Punjab(1.66%). 47 According to NSS data which is conducted in 2007-08 find highest net migration rate in Maharastra (4.01%) followed by Haryana(3.52%) and Gujrat (1.63%). Among the major states the net migration rate is negative in Bihar (-5.64), Jammu and Kashmir (1.24), Kerala (-4.43), Odisha (-1.26), Tamil Nadu (-1.42), and Uttar Pradesh (-3.1). The

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad estimated data of census 2011 find that Tamilnaadu (4.92%) is one of the states which has the highest net migration rate. Maharashtra (2.7%), Haryana (2.01%), Karnataka (1.68%) and Gujarat (1.64%) are another state which net migration rate is above 1% per 100 of population. Kerala and Tamil Nadu are urbanized but both have negative net migration. Due to development of IT sector in states of south India, a large number of male and female moves for employment. Maharashtra, Gujarat and Punjab are progressive states in field of industrialization, availability of employment and social development but now show declining trend in net migration rate. Andhra, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are problematic states which lead poverty induced out migration due to unemployment, drought and social insecurity. (Table: 7 and Figure: 7) Table 7: Interstate net migration rate Net Interstate Migration Rate (per 100 of population) States Census 2001 NSS 2007-08 Census 2011 * Andhra Pradesh -0.31-0.87-2.02 Assam -0.69-0.50-2.21 Bihar -2.67-5.64-3.39 Gujarat 1.67 1.63 1.64 Haryana 4.07 3.52 2.01 Himachal Pradesh 0.98 - -0.4 Jammu And Kashmir -0.42-1.24 0.37 Karnataka 0.29 0.97 1.68 Kerala -0.57-4.43-5.41 Madhya Pradesh -0.04-0.68 0.48 Maharashtr 3.02 4.10 2.7 a Odisha -0.65-1.26-0.55 Punjab 1.66 1.27 0.77 Rajasthan -0.59-0.93-1.34 Tamil Nadu -0.68-1.42 4.92 Uttar Pradesh -2.04-3.10-1.94 West Bengal 0.37 1.34-0.5 India 0.09-0.26-0.33 Source: Census 2011* estimated 6.2.2 Area Based Streams of Migration in India: 1. Rural to Rural migration Rural to rural migration is mainly short distance migration of male and female. It is significant characteristic of problematic undeveloped states like north east India. In this stream of migration mainly 70 percent female involves. Rural to rural migration is prime migration stream for women but in the case of only 27.2% males migrate in this stream. 2. Rural to Urban migration Rural to urban migration is the prime stream of male migration in India. It is significant characteristic of progressive and developing states of India like Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu etc. The rural urban male migration is 39%. Urban to urban migration is also important migration stream for male in India. 24.8 % male migrants move from urban to urban. 3. Urban to Urban migration Urban to Urban migration is significant characteristic of urban agglomeration areas of India like Delhi, Goa etc. In Urban to Urban migration stream the percentage of male and female is only 13.1%. Near about one fourth male migratants population (24.8%) move urban to urban. The percentage of female is very less in this stream. It is only 10.3%. 48

Figure 7: State wise Net Interstate Migration. Urbanization Process and Recent 4. Urban to Rural migration Urban to Rural migration is not specific stream of migration in developing countries like India. But in case of seasonal migration, Table 8: Area Based Streams of Male Female Migration this stream is also effective in mountain area. Only 5.7 % of male female migrants move in this stream. (Table: 8 and Figure: 8) States Rural-to-Rural Rural-to-Urban Urban-to-Urban Urban-to-Rural Males Fema les Total Males Fema les Total Male s Femal es Total Males Femal es Total Andhra P. 33.3 68 59.5 41.3 19.1 24.5 17.8 7.7 10.2 7.6 5.2 5.8 Arunachal P 26.4 40.5 30.5 28.7 28.6 28.1 16.1 26.2 21.1 28.7 4.8 20.3 Assam 49.2 83.6 77.4 35.7 9 13.8 11.7 3.5 5 3.5 4 3.9 Bihar 28.5 83.5 79.2 49.2 8.5 11.7 16.9 3.6 4.7 5.4 4.3 4.4 Chhattisgarh 42.1 79.8 73.1 30.2 10.5 14 18.2 6.3 8.4 9.5 3.4 4.5 Delhi 3.2 4.9 4.0 57.5 53.9 55.9 37.5 38.7 38.1 1.7 2.5 2.1 Goa 16.6 29.1 24.5 35 36.3 35.8 43 28.5 33.9 5.4 6.1 5.9 Gujarat 19.1 63.2 53.5 54.1 20.6 28 21.1 11.1 13.3 5.7 5.1 5.2 Haryana 20.1 67.9 59.8 51.1 16.4 22.3 20.9 10.1 11.9 7.8 5.7 6 Himachal P. 37 86.4 75.5 16.8 6 8.4 7.4 2.5 3.6 38.9 5.1 12.6 Jammu & K. 28.1 80 74.4 27.2 9.2 11.1 19.9 6.4 7.9 24.7 4.3 6.5 Jharkhand 17.7 79 71.8 43.6 7.9 12.1 36.1 9.2 12.3 2.5 3.9 3.7 49

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Karnataka 24.7 66.2 56.1 33.3 16.8 20.8 27.9 11.8 15.7 14.2 5.2 7.4 Kerala 53.4 67.4 63.5 16.5 15 15.4 13.3 7.4 9.1 16.9 10.1 12 Madhya P. 31.1 71 66.6 32.5 13.2 15.4 29.5 10.5 12.7 6.9 5.2 5.4 Maharashtra 22 58.1 47.7 42 20.5 26.7 29.7 15.9 19.9 6.3 5.5 5.8 Manipur 51.4 30.7 39.4 20.3 37.6 30.3 14.9 28.7 22.3 13.5 3 8 Meghalaya 58.1 60.5 59.3 11.8 14.4 12.8 5 9.7 7.1 25.1 15.5 20.8 Mizoram 32.8 29 30.7 33.3 33.6 33.5 30 32.1 31.1 4 5.3 4.7 Nagaland 15.9 31.1 24.1 34.3 30 32 26 22.4 24 23.8 16.4 19.8 Odisha 33.6 83 76.3 30.9 9.4 12.3 24.5 5.1 7.7 11 2.5 3.6 Punjab 26.9 61.1 54.7 41.7 14 19.2 20.8 17.8 18.4 10.6 7.1 7.7 Rajasthan 31.2 74.8 68.2 46.5 12.8 17.9 15 8.5 9.5 7.3 3.8 4.4 Sikkim 63.2 73.8 70 15.2 11 12.5 12.2 7.4 9.2 9.5 7.8 8.3 Tamil Nadu 25.2 52.7 45.8 33.1 23.7 26.1 30.1 16.2 19.7 11.6 7.4 8.5 Tripura 65.9 75.9 73.5 25.7 14.5 17.3 6.4 5.6 5.8 2 3.9 3.4 UttarPradesh 26 76.5 71.1 37.2 10.8 13.6 26.4 8.6 10.5 10.4 4.1 4.7 Uttarakhand 35.6 69.2 59.5 21.7 11.5 14.4 25.4 12.7 16.4 17.3 6.6 9.7 West Bengal 27.3 74.4 67.4 33.2 10.9 14.2 31 11 13.9 8.6 3.7 4.4 All-India 27.2 70 61.7 39 14.8 19.5 24.8 10.3 13.1 8.9 4.9 5.7 Source: Census 2011* estimated Figure 8: Area Based Streams of Male Female Migration. 50

Urbanization Process and Recent Intra-Districts Level is the most effective in 6.2.3 Distance and Area Based Streams of male female migration. Migration in India: 2. Inter-Districts Level 1. Intra-Districts Level Inter-Districts Level is second preference of Intra-Districts Level is short distance male female migrants. It is characteristics of migration of male and female. It is main developing economy and rapid urbanization. specification of developing countries such as According to census 2001, in this stream 27.9 India. According to census 2001, in this % male and 23 % female migrants move to stream 50.6% male and 67.2 % female various parts from one district to another. migrants move to different parts of own Proportion of male migration is higher than district. Proportion of female migration is female migration. Rural to urban migration higher than male migration because female stream in Inter-Districts Level is the most easily prepare themselves for short distance effective in male but Rural to Rural migration migration. Rural to Rural migration stream in stream is still effective in case of female migration. Figure 9: Distance and Area Based Streams of Migration. 51

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Migration Categories Table 9: Distance and Area Based Streams of Migration. Males Intra-Districts Level Females 1971 1981 1991 2001 1971 1981 1991 2001 Rural to Rural 36.8 32.3 30.8 29.9 61.3 56.6 54.7 54.7 Rural to Urban 9.8 10.7 11.5 10.4 5.3 6 6.3 5.9 Urban to Urban 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.6 3 3 2.9 2.8 Urban to Rural 3.8 4.6 4.3 5.6 1.8 2.5 2.3 3.8 Sub Total 54 51.2 50.3 50.6 71.4 68.1 66.2 67.2 Inter-District Level Rural to Rural 9.5 9.3 8.9 8.2 12.2 13.4 14 12.8 Rural to Urban 8 9.6 10.5 8.9 3.2 3.9 4.5 4.4 Urban to Urban 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.9 Urban to Rural 7.2 8.4 8 7.3 3.4 4.2 4.2 3.9 Sub Total 27.1 29.9 29.9 27.9 20.3 23.3 24.6 23 Inter-State Level Rural to Rural 4.5 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.8 Rural to Urban 6.7 7.5 8.2 9.8 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.9 Urban to Urban 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 Urban to Rural 6.2 6.2 6.5 5.7 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.5 Sub Total 18.9 18.9 19.9 21.6 8.3 8.6 9.2 9.8 Grand Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 All Distance Categories Rural to Rural 50.8 45.4 43.2 41.5 77.1 73.3 72 71.3 Rural to Urban 24.5 27.8 30.1 29.1 10.2 12.1 13.3 13.2 Urban to Urban 7.5 7.6 7.9 10.8 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.1 Urban to Rural 17.2 19.2 18.8 18.6 7.5 9.2 9.2 10.4 Source: Census of India, 2011. 3. Inter- State Level If distance is increase, migration of male and female will decrease. In Inter-state Level only 19.9 % male and 9.8% female are prepare to migrate to urban agglomeration areas of other state. Proportion of male migration is higher than female migration. In Inter-State Level Rural to urban migration stream is the most effective for male but Rural to Rural migration stream is still effective for female migration. (Table: 9 and Figure: 9) Intradistricts stream is prime stream of migration from 1971 to till now. According to census 2001, in intra-districts stream 58.75% male female migrants move. As NSS 1999-2000 male female migration percentages in intradistricts stream is 56.1% and this percent is decreased up to 2.8%. Rural to Rural migration stream in Intra-Districts Level is the most effective in male female migration. Due to development of transport and communication means, Inter-District and Inter-State migration percentage is also uplifted up to 5.7 and 3.0%. (Table: 10 and Figure: 10) 52

Urbanization Process and Recent Figure 10: NSS Data of Distance and Area Based Streams of Migration. Table 10: NSS Data of Distance and Area Based Streams of Migration. Miration Stream Intra-District Inter-District Inter-State All Census 1971 62.7 23.7 13.6 100 Census 1981 59.65 26.6 13.75 100 Census 1991 58.25 27.25 14.5 100 Census 2001 58.75 25.4 15.85 100 NSS 1999-2000 Rural to Rural 75.3 20.1 4.6 100 Rural to Urban 43.8 36.6 19.6 100 Urban to Urban 46.5 33.5 20 100 Urban to Rural 36.6 43.5 19.9 100 Total 56.1 30 13.9 100 NSS 2007-08 Rural to Rural 72.4 23.2 4.4 100 Rural to Urban 41.2 33.6 25.2 100 Urban to Urban 48.8 33.7 17.5 100 Urban to Rural 27.9 49.2 22.9 100 Total 53.3 32 14.7 100 Source: Census of India, 2011. 6.2.4 Reasons for migration Santhapparaj(1998, p.645-652) observed unemployment as the prime factor to migrate. Tiwari (1991, p.269-286) also found low income to be the major factor motivating people to migrate. In male migration employment-related reasons is the most important but in female migration marriage is the most important factor in India. (Table: 11 and Figure: 11) 6.2.5 After migration employment status Before migration only 15.9 % male and 9.4% female are self employed but after migration 26.6 % male and 17.3 % female are self employed. Percentage of unemployed and Percentage of non labour are decreased after migration. After migration female employment is also increased. (Table: 12 and Figure: 12) Table 11: Reasons for Migration. 53

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Reasons for migration Employment-related reasons Males Females 1993 1999 2000 2007 08 1993 1999 2000 2007 08 47.7 30.3 28.6 8.3 1 0.7 Studies 4.1 5.3 10.7 1.1 0.4 0.5 Marriage 2.3 9.4 9.4 61.6 88.8 91.2 Movement of parents/ earning member 20.8 26 22.1 23.7 6.3 4.4 Other reasons 25.1 29 29.2 5.3 3.5 3.2 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: NSS 64th Round, Report No. 533: Migration in India: July 2007 June 2008 Figure 11: Reasons for Migration. Usual principal activity status Table 12: Usual Principal Activity Status of Migrants. Males Females Persons Before migration After migration Before migration After migration Before migration After migratio n Self-employed 15.9 26.6 9.4 17.3 10.1 18.3 Regular employees 14.1 15.4 0.5 1.5 1.9 3 Casual labour 20.8 20.5 10.3 13.9 11.4 14.5 All workers 50.8 62.5 20.2 32.7 23.4 35.8 Unemployed 3.9 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 Not in labour force 45.1 36.1 79.2 66.9 75.6 63.7 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: NSS 64th Round, Report No. 533: Migration in India: July 2007 June 2008. 54

Figure 12: Usual Principal Activity Status of Migrants. Urbanization Process and Recent 6.2.6 Migrants with in social group In male migration OBC and other are major groups. In female migration Basically S.C and others females take decision to migrate because of their socio reasons.(table:13&figure: 13) Table 13: Migrants within Each Social Group. Social groups 1999 2000 2007 08 Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Scheduled Tribe 5.6 35.7 20.4 4.7 44.0 23.8 Scheduled Caste 6.4 43.4 24.4 4.9 48.2 26.0 Other Backward Classes 6.5 42.8 24.2 5.1 46.8 25.5 Others 8.1 44.3 25.9 6.8 50.6 28.1 All 6.9 42.6 24.4 5.4 47.7 26.1 Source: NSS 64th Round, Report No. 533: Migration in India: July 2007 June 2008. Figure 13: Migrants within Each Social Group. 55

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Figure 14: Indicator of Urban Environment. 6.3 Migration and crucial urban problem Due to uncontrolled migration, low quality urbanization and neglecting rural area, resources of Indian cities had failed to provide basic amenities to migrated unskilled labor and city is going towards degradation like formation of slums, environmental and social pollution. Out of total houses condition of 42% houses are not good. 53% households have not drinking water within premises. 44% households have not toilet facilities within premises 81% households are having a bathroom or enclosure without roof. 57% households are not availing banking service in slum areas. Out of total slum population still 33% population lived without facilities. (Table: 14 and Figure: 14) Table 14: Indicator of Urban Environment s.no Indicator Statu s in % 1 Good condition of house 58.4 2 Ownership of house 70.2 3 Household using tap as main source of drinking water 74 4 Household having source of drinking water within 56.7 premises 5 Household having toilet facility within premises 66 6 Household having a bathroom or enclosure 81 without roof 7 Household availing banking service in slum areas 53.2 8 Slum population without basic facilities 33 9 Literacy rate in slums 78 10 Work participation rate in slums 36 Source: NSS 2007-08, 6.4 Planning Strategies One famous quote given by the Mahatma Gandhi says "India lives in the villages". But Mishra States "As a consequence whatever developmental planning has been attempted has actually increased the gulf between the rich and the poor. By decentralized and humanistic planning disparities between rural and urban area can be reduced. For sustainable development all interlinked policies are given below:- Development of short scale and cottage industries in rural areas. Make easy banking and loaning process. 56

Unskilled labors have to convert into skilled labors trough required and specific training programmes. Housing for slum people. Provide basic amenities. Humanistic urban planning. Rural industrialization. Employment generation. Development of means of information and technology in rural areas. Agriculture and intergraded development. Irrigation Development. Elimination of rural and urban poverty. 6.5 Conclusion We need to reduce acute poverty induced migration, widespread unemployment, References Urbanization Process and Recent neglect poor, increasing land inequality in rural areas. India s dream of developed country cannot be fulfill without sustainable development of rural environment. Ultimately India lives in villages so our policies should be promote rural development. As Desai stated "The state instead of becoming a funnel to pump out resources from the rich for the distributing them to the poor, in fact works in the opposite direction through an elaborate system of deficit financing, loans (foreign of internal) and indirect taxation - a system which hurts the poor most". Our planning should be oriented for the poor and we have to follow humanistic approach for planning and development. Bhagat, R.B.,2009. Internal Migration in India: Are the Underclass More Mobile? 26th IUSSP General Population Conference, Marrakech: Morocco. Census of India, 1971 to 2011. Datta, P., 2006. Urbanisation in India, European Population Conference. Liverpool, U.K. Davis, K. and Golden H.H., 1954. Urbanisation and Development in Pre-Industrial Areas. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 3(1). Davis, K., 1962. Urbanisation in India: Past and Future. India's Urban Future, University of California Press, Berkley. Davis, K., 1965. The Urbanization of the Human Population. Scientific American, 213 (3): 41-53. Desai, A.R., 1974. An Alternative Approach to Development. in Population in India's Development. Vikas Publication, New Delhi. Deshingkar, P., and Start, D., 2003. Seasonal Migration for Livelihoods in India: Coping, Accumulation and Exclusion. ODI Working Paper 220. Jefferson, M.,1939. The Law of Primate City. Geographical Review, 28: 446. Kumar, A. and Rai, A.K., 2014. Urbanization Process, Trend,Pattern and Its Consequences in India. Neo Geographia, 3(4). Lusome and Bhagat, 2010. Trends and Patterns of Internal Migration in India, 1971-2001. Annual Conference of Indian Association for the Study of Population, Thiruvananthapuram. 57

Ratnesh Shukla & Kashif Imdad Misra, R.P., 1974. Regional Planning in India. Vikas Publication, New Delhi, Mukherji, S., 2000. Low Quality Migration In India : The Phenomena Of Distressed Migration And Acute Urban Decay. 24th IUSSP Conference, Salvador, Brazil. NSS Survey Report, 2007-08. Santhapparaj, A.S.,1998. Internal migration, remittance and determinants of remittance: An empirical analysis. Indian Journal of Labour Economics. 41: 645-652. Sridhar, K.S., 2010. Determinants of City Growth and Output in India. Addendum to Determinants of City Growth and Output in India, 23(2-3): 162 165. Shukla, K. and others, 2010. Urbanisation and Migration Trends in India. Demography India, 39 (1). Shylaja, L., 2010. Socio- economic and Demographic Impact of Labour Emigration in Kerala. ISDA Journal, 20 (1). Tiwari, R.S.,1996. Migration and Informal Sector Workers in Kanpur Metropolis: An Empirical Analysis. Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 39: 269-286. Tiwari, R.S., 2005. Informal Sector Workers: Problems and Prospects. Anmol Publications, New Delhi. Zachariah, K.C. and Rajan, S.I.,2007. Migration, Remittances and Employment : Short-Term Trends and Long-Term Implications. CDS working papers, 395, Trivandrum. Zachariah, K. C., Mathew, E. T. and Rajan, S. I., 2003. Dynamics Of Migration in Kerala: Dimensions, Differentials and Consequences. Orient Longman Private Limited, New Delhi. 58