EMERGING PATTERN OF URBANIZATION AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF MIGRATION IN URBAN GROWTH IN INDIA

EMERGING PATTERN OF URBANIZATION

AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF MIGRATION

IN URBAN GROWTH IN INDIA

R. B. Bhagat and Soumya Mohanty

As India has embarked upon economic reforms during the 1990s, published data from the 2001

Census provides an opportunity to study the country’s urbanization process with reference to

regional inequality and to the contribution of the components of urban growth, namely, natural

increase, emergence of new towns, and the net contribution of rural to urban migration. India has

more than 4000 cities and towns, which comprise 28 per cent of India’s population of 1028 million

as enumerated in 2001. However, about two-fifths of India’s urban population live in only

35 metropolitan cities. The rate of urban population growth slowed down during the 1990s

despite the increased rate of rural to urban migration due to a significant decline in natural

increase in urban areas. This has led to an observable slowdown in the pace of India’s

urbanization.

KEYWORDS: census; cities; natural increase; migration; urban population projection

Introduction

Historically, the process of urbanization intensified in the wake of the Industrial

Revolution in the Western world, which led to increased rural to urban migration. In the

non-Western world, however, urbanization is more a defining feature of the twentieth

century. A mere 13 per cent of the global population lived in urban areas in 1900; this

proportion increased to 29 per cent in 1950 and to about 50 per cent by the close of the

twentieth century (United Nations 2006). As may be expected, the pattern of urbanization

is found to be unequal between developed and developing countries as the majority of

the population in developed countries lived in urban areas, while the bulk of the

population in developing countries that are concentrated in Asia and Africa lived in rural

areas. An inter-regional comparison in Asia reveals that South Asia is more rural and has

significantly lower levels of per capita income than other regions. Not surprisingly

therefore, the pace of urban change in the South Asian region has been relatively modest,

yet urbanization presents enormous challenges due to the extreme poverty and the

pressure on urban services that it has brought about (Cohen 2004). India has about 28 per

cent or 286 million of its population living in urban areas in 2001.

India adopted a new economic policy in the year 1991 as a result of a severe balance

of payment crisis. The basic features of the new economic policy include streamlining of

governmental expenditures in order to reduce the fiscal deficit, opening up of the

economy for export-oriented growth, removal of governmental controls, and licensing and

Asian Population Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2009ISSN 1744-1730 print/1744-1749 online/09/010005-16– 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17441730902790024

encouraging private sector participation to stimulate competition and to promote

efficiency. Both proponents and opponents of the new economic policy believed that

economic reforms would increase urbanization. The proponents believed that the new

impetus from the government would boost the Indian economy and create job

opportunities, which in turn would lead to increased pull factors conducive to accelerated

rural to urban migration. However, the opposing view held that economic reforms would

adversely affect village-based cottage industries and impoverish the rural population,

thereby leading to increased rural to urban migration (Kundu 1997). Although there was

considerable success in achieving economic growth, the impact of such growth on

urbanization and urban population increase needs to be carefully studied. The latest

census of 2001 reveals several interesting implications with respect to the pace of

urbanization, its regional patterns, and the contribution of demographic components like

migration and the reclassification of settlements into rural or urban areas. This paper

summarizes the emerging trends and patterns of urbanization, and the contribution of

migration to urban growth in India in light of the 2001 Census.

Urban Definition

From a demographic point of view, the level of urbanization is measured by the

percentage of the population living in urban areas (Davis 1962). An area is classified as

rural or urban depending upon various criteria such as population size, density,

occupational composition and civic status. During British rule in India, every municipality

regardless of size, every cantonment, all civil lines not included in municipal limits, and

every other collection of houses permanently inhabited by not less than 5000 persons

could be considered urban as long as it exhibited an urban character even when such an

area was not under municipal government. This definition was carried through the 1961

Census. Since the 1961 Census, an urban area was determined based on two important

criteria, namely: (i) statutory administration; (ii) certain economic and demographic

indicators. The first criterion includes civic status of towns, and the second entails

characteristics like population size, density of population, and percentage of the workforce

in the non-agricultural sector. The towns identified on the basis of the first criterion are

known as statutory or municipal towns, and those defined on the basis of the second

criterion are termed census or non-municipal towns. The non-municipal towns constitute

nearly 27 per cent of all towns as per the 2001 Census (Bhagat 2005).

Specifically, the criteria that define a place as urban, as mentioned in the recent

census reports, are as follows:

(i) All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area

committee.

(ii) All other places which satisfy the following criteria:

(a) minimum population of 5000;

(b) at least 75 per cent of the male working population engaged in non-agricultural

pursuits;

(c) a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre.

In some cases, the directors of census operations in states or union territories, in

consultation with the concerned state governments, union territory administration and

6 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

the census commissioner of India, were allowed to include some places having distinct

urban characteristics within the urban category even if such places did not strictly satisfy

all the criteria mentioned earlier.

While the Census of India applies the demographic and economic criteria in

identifying towns at every census, it is the state governments that decide on the civic

status of a settlement. The settlements which are granted urban civic status qualify as

towns in the census as per the first criteria. In every census, several new towns are added

to or removed from the roster of towns if they do not satisfy the earlier-mentioned criteria.

As many urban residents also live outside the municipal boundary, the Indian

Census uses the concept of an ‘urban agglomeration’ (UA) to measure urban population at

the town and city level. A UA consists of the population of a core urban centre living

within its municipal boundary, as well as the population of contiguous towns and

adjoining urban outgrowths (OGs). OGs are areas around a core city or a statutory town

that are fairly large and already urbanized such as a railway colony, university campus, port

area, military camp, among other examples, but are not included within the municipal

boundary of the core city or town. The municipal boundaries are also changed from time

to time as decided by the state government, but it is a time-consuming process as

notification has to go through the offices of Deputy Commissioners and District

Magistrates for due processing. However, in the absence of changes in the municipal

boundaries, the application of the concepts of UA and OG by the Census takes into

account any spillover of urban population outside the municipal boundary.

Trends and Patterns of Urbanization

The urban population in India at the beginning of the twentieth century was only

25.8 million, constituting 10.8 per cent of the total population in 1901. In 2001, the

number had increased to 286.1 million, comprising 27.8 per cent of the total population.

The urban population, like the total population, did not grow much until 1921. The level of

urbanization even showed a decline in 1911 owing to a devastating plague in that year,

which spread mainly in the urban areas and brought about an exodus of urban population

to the rural areas. After 1921, the level of urbanization grew consistently and rapidly,

especially during the decade 1941�1951 when the decennial urban growth rate was

recorded to reach as high as 41.4 per cent, a growth attributed to the partition of the

country in 1947 (Census of India 1991b). The decline in the growth rate during 1951�1961

was a result of the change in the definition of the term urban in the 1961 Census. About

800 towns were declassified in the 1961 Census (Mohan & Pant 1982). Table 1 shows that

the peak in urban growth was observed during 1971�1981 when the decennial growth

rate reached 46.1 per cent*the highest ever during the last century. After peaking,

growth has slowed down but was never less than 30 per cent up to the 2001 Census.

It may be further noted that from 1921 to 2001, the total population grew by four

times, while the urban population increased by 10 times, though the number of towns

only doubled during the same period. The net addition in urban population was five

million during 1921�1931, and then rose to 18 million during 1941�1951, and to a sharp

increase of 50 million during 1971�1981. The 2001 Census shows that the net addition was

69 million during 1991�2001. Absolute changes in urban population on the one hand and

the percentage urban population on the other hand are the two facets of urbanization

that are linked to urban problems in a country. India’s level of urbanization is still relatively

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 7

low, and the pace of urbanization has slowed down during the last two decades; however,

the absolute increase in urban population has kept rising due to the large base of urban

population.

Figure 1 shows the level of urbanization at the state/UT level in 2001. Goa tops the

list with nearly 50 per cent level of urbanization; it is followed by Mizoram with 49 per

cent, Tamil Nadu with 44 per cent and Maharashtra with 42 per cent. Although

Maharashtra was the leading state with 35 per cent urbanization in 1981, it has slipped

to fourth position in 2001 as Goa and Mizoram had faster urbanization during the 1980s,

and Tamil Nadu during the 1990s. However, the share of Maharashtra in India’s urban

population kept increasing and was 14.3 per cent in 2001 followed by Uttar Pradesh (12.8

per cent) and Tamil Nadu (9.6 per cent). States like Himachal Pradesh, Assam, Orissa, Bihar

and Uttar Pradesh are the least urbanized states with urbanization levels varying from 10

to 21 per cent, i.e. much lower than the national average of 27.7 per cent in 2001. The

relatively low urbanization (26 per cent) in Kerala is an artefact of the rural�urban

definition problem. Making the distinction more difficult in Kerala is the high density of

population everywhere in the state (Visaria 1997) and the disinclination of the state

government to grant municipal status to large villages. However, the level of urbanization

in some UTs, such as the National Territory of Delhi, Chandigarh and Pondicherry, appears

very high due to the fact that their rural population is very small. Other UTs like

Lakshadweep (44.5 per cent), Daman Diu (36 per cent), and Andman and Nicobar Islands

(32.6 per cent) also have higher levels of urbanization than the national average

(for detailed information on state level pattern and urban�rural growth differentials, see

Premi 2006a).

TABLE 1

Trends in urbanization in India, 1901�2001.

Census year

Urbanpopulation(in million) Per cent urban

Decennialgrowth rate (%)

Annual exponentialgrowth rate (%)

1901 25.85 10.84 * *1911 25.94 10.29 0.35 0.031921 28.07 11.17 8.20 0.791931 33.46 11.99 19.20 1.761941 44.15 13.86 31.97 2.771951 62.44 17.29 41.42 3.471961 78.94 17.97 26.41 2.341971 109.11 19.91 38.23 3.241981 159.46 23.34 46.14 3.791991 217.18 25.72 36.19 3.092001 286.12 27.86 31.74 2.76

Notes: As the 1981 Census was not conducted in Assam, the 1981 population figures for India includeinterpolated figures for Assam. The 1991 Census was not held in Jammu and Kashmir. The 1991population figures for India include projected figures for Jammu and Kashmir as projected by the StandingCommittee of Experts on Population Projections. The total urban figures of 2001 include the estimatedurban figures for Kachchh district, Morvi, Maliya-Miyana and Wankaner talukas of Rajkot district, Jodiyataluka of Jamnagar district of the Gujarat where the population enumeration of Census 2001 could not beconducted due to natural calamity.Sources: Figures up to 1991 are taken from Census of India (1991a); Census of India (2001).

8 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

Size Class of Cities and Urban Growth

The cities and towns in India are classified into a six-fold classification. The first size

class, known as cities, comprises places having a population of 100,000 and more, and the

last category consists of tiny towns with a population less than 5000. For a meaningful

comparison of the changes in population across size class of cities and towns, the

categories of towns comprising population less than 20,000 are grouped together and

shown as small towns (Census of India 1991c). Further, cities with population of a million

and more deserve a special category in India’s urbanization because of their large size and

economic dominance in the country. Such cities are called million plus or metropolitan

cities.

Table 2 presents the percentage distribution of urban population by size class of

cities and towns in India over the last century. As the 1991 Census was not held in Jammu

and Kashmir and the 1981 Census could not be held in Assam, the town-level population

figures are not available for these states for the 1991 and the 1981 censuses, respectively.

Therefore, to provide comparable data over time, these states are excluded from all census

years. It may be seen from Table 2 that about five per cent of the population lived in

FIGURE 1

Level of urbanization in India, 2001.

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 9

million cities in 1901, with the figure rising close to 20 per cent in 1951 and to nearly

40 per cent by 2001. The number of million cities has also gone up from one in 1901 to 35

in 2001 (see Table 3 for distribution of cities and towns). Kolkata was the only city which

fell into the million cities category at the beginning of the twentieth century, then Mumbai

joined the rank of million plus cities in 1911. For nearly four decades, there were only two

million cities, and then Delhi, Chennai and Hyderabad joined the rank of million cities in

1951, increasing the total number of million cities to five. In 1981, the million cities

TABLE 2

Percentage distribution of urban population by size-class of urban centres, India, 1901�2001.

Census year

Million cities(one million &

above)

Cities (100thousand toone million)

Large towns(50 to 100thousand)

Medium towns(20 to 50thousand)

Small towns(less than

20 thousand)

1901 5.86 20.11 11.29 15.64 47.101911 10.89 16.74 10.51 16.40 45.461921 11.30 18.40 10.39 15.92 43.991931 10.34 20.86 11.65 16.80 40.351941 12.19 26.04 11.42 16.35 34.001951 19.07 25.57 9.96 15.72 29.691961 23.34 28.08 11.23 16.94 20.411971 26.02 31.22 10.92 16.01 15.831981 26.93 33.49 11.63 14.33 13.621991 33.18 32.01 10.95 13.19 10.662001 37.85 30.78 9.73 12.29 9.36

Notes: Excludes Assam where the 1981 Census could not be held, and Jammu and Kashmir where 1991Census was not held.Sources: Census of India (1991c); Census of India (2001); data from Census website www.censusindia.netand compact disk.

TABLE 3

Number of urban agglomerations/towns by size-class in India, 1901�2001.

Census year All classes

Million cities(one million

& above)

Cities (100thousand toone million)

Largetowns (50 to

100 thousand)

Mediumtowns (20 to50 thousand)

Small towns(less than 20

thousand)

1901 1811 1 23 43 130 16141911 1754 2 21 40 135 15561921 1894 2 27 45 145 16751931 2017 2 33 56 183 17431941 2190 2 47 74 242 18251951 2795 5 71 91 327 23011961 2270 7 95 129 437 16021971 2476 9 139 173 558 15971981 3245 12 204 270 738 20211991 3609 23 273 341 927 20452001 4199 35 350 392 1137 2285

Notes: Excludes Assam where the 1981 Census could not be held and Jammu and Kashmir where the1991 Census was not held.Sources: Census of India (1991c); Census of India (2001); data from Census website www.censusindia.netand compact disk.

10 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

numbered 12. By 1991, 11 more metropolizes were added to the list, increasing the total

number to 23. During the last decade 1991�2001, 12 more million plus cities have been

added, increasing the total number of million plus cities to 35. As a result, the

concentration of urban population in million plus cities increased significantly in the

last decade from about one-fourth in the 1970s to 1980s to almost two-fifths in the 1990s.

Among the metropolitan cities, six cities that have a population of more than five million,

namely Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore, constitute one-fifth of

the total urban population. When we look at all cities or territories with a population of

100,000 and more, one-fourth of the total urban population lived in cities in 1901. This

went up to 45 per cent in 1951 and further increased to 69 per cent in 2001. It is

worthwhile to note that the increasing concentration of population in cities, as well as in

million cities, has been a striking feature of India’s urbanization during the last century.

The increasing concentration of population in cities sometimes gives the impression

that cities are growing much faster than small- and medium-sized towns; however, this is

not true when the growth rates of population across size-class of cities and towns is

considered. In fact, cities and towns are growing at about the same rate. This has been

confirmed by a number of studies using data from various censuses (Bhagat 2004; Census

of India 1991; Mohan & Pant 1982; Visaria 1997). However, the promotion of cities from

lower size-class status over the decades skews the share of cities in the rise of the total

urban population. For example, from 1991 to 2001, nearly 100 towns acquired city status.

At the state level, the increasing concentration of population in cities reaches as high as

83 per cent in West Bengal, 80 per cent in Maharashtra, and 76 per cent in Gujarat and in

Andhra Pradesh. The distribution of cities and their share in the total urban population of a

state shows the nature of the hierarchy among urban places, and the extent of dominance

of cities in a state’s economy. Punjab, Orissa and several other smaller states show a more

balanced distribution of population across size-class of cities and towns or lesser

dominance of cities in their regional economy. However, this is not true for several other

large states. A wider perspective will show that it is not only the cities that dominate

India’s urban structure; rather, it is the metropolitan cities that have the greater influence.

Trends and Patterns of Migration

Urbanization is crucially linked to migration. Whether migration is a strong or a weak

force in the urbanization process depends upon the nature and pattern of migration.

Apart from economic reasons, migration occurs due to a host of socio-cultural and other

factors. Before the contribution of migration in urban growth is discussed, it would be

worthwhile to mention the nature and sources of migration data in India.

In India, migrants are not required to be registered either at the place of origin or at

the place of destination. However, the Indian Census counts the migrants and provides

data on migration based on place of birth (POB) and place of last residence (POLR). If the

POB or POLR is different from the place of enumeration, a person is defined as a migrant.

The census does not, however, provide any information on the number of movements

that were made by a migrant. A village in a rural area and a town in an urban area is the

lowest administrative unit used in defining the POB and POLR. This makes it possible to

identify intra-district, inter-district, and up to inter-state migration. However, the move-

ment within a village or within a town or city is not considered migration (Srivastava 1972).

The POLR data have been available since the 1971 Census. As the POLR item is able

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 11

to capture the return migrants unlike the POB, the former is generally used in the study of

migration in India. Also, the POLR data on migration provides information on the duration

of migration, which makes it possible to segregate the inter-censal migrants in estimating

the contribution of migration in India’s urbanization. However, the census data mostly

permit estimation of migration for people who have changed their residence either on a

permanent or semi-permanent basis, which is appropriate for the estimation of the

contribution of migration to urban growth. However, the census definition does not seem

very appropriate as an aid in understanding the total mobility pattern, including seasonal

and temporary migration that often occurs between the rural to rural and rural to

urban areas. In 1999�2000, the National Sample Survey Organization (2001) estimated

10.8 million seasonal and circular migrants who have stayed for 60 days or more in another

place in the preceding year. Also, the commutation from the rural areas to the nearby

urban centre is an important phenomenon, but this form of spatial mobility along with

seasonal and circular migration shows more the magnitude of rural�urban linkages rather

than significantly influencing urban growth.

As per the 2001 Census, the total number of internal migrants based on the POLR

was 309 million, constituting nearly 31 per cent of the total population. It may be recalled

here that several researchers who have analysed the past census data on migration have

pointed out that India’s population mobility since the 1950s has been stable (Davies 1962;

Kundu 2007; Skeldon 1986). It is important for the number of internal migrants to be

disaggregated into the different migration streams in order to assess the role of migration

in urban growth. The streams of migration include rural to rural, rural to urban, urban to

rural, and urban to urban areas. Rural to urban migration adds to urban population,

whereas urban to rural depletes the urban population; the net balance of the two streams

is the actual contribution to the process of urbanization. Table 4 shows the streams of

migration by intra-state (intra-district and inter-district) and inter-state movements broken

down according to migration streams. The rural to rural stream of migration constituted

TABLE 4

Size and growth rates of migrants by streams of migration in India (0�9 years duration).

Growth rate (%)

Migration streams2001

(in million)Percentagedistribution

Sex-ratio(males per

1000 females) 1971�1981 1981�1991 1991�2001

Intra-stateRural to rural 48.8 60.6 257 14.8 0.2 12.2Rural to urban 14.2 17.6 842 47.8 6.7 7.3Urban to rural 5.2 6.5 651 29.4 �4.8 1.0Urban to urban 9.8 12.1 796 50.0 �11.2 23.6

Inter-stateRural to rural 4.4 26.6 648 12.1 3.4 54.0Rural to urban 6.3 38.2 1480 22.8 20.1 76.5Urban to rural 1.0 6.0 984 14.1 9.6 11.2Urban to urban 4.4 26.7 970 18.0 6.0 24.3

Sources: Census of India, Migration Tables from 1971 to 1991; D-2 Table for the 2001 Census available oncompact disk; migrants unclassifiable by rural�urban streams are excluded.

12 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

61 per cent of all intra-state migrants, and 27 per cent in the case of inter-state migrants.

The rural to rural migration stream is dominated by marriage migration of females who

change their parental residence and move to the place of husband’s residence after

marriage (Srivastava & Sasikumar 2003). This is evident by the sex ratio of migrants

presented in Table 4. However, rural to urban migration, which forms 18 and 38 per cent of

intra-state and inter-state migrants, respectively, is predominantly a phenomenon among

males.

It may be seen from Table 4 that males are preponderant in inter-state rural to urban

migration as number of male migrants goes as high as 1480 per 1000 female migrants. The

growth rates by streams of migration show that there was a significant decline from the

decade 1971�1981 to 1981�1991, but it picked up during 1991�2001. The decade 1981�1991 also experienced a slowdown in the rate of urbanization, and the acceleration in the

growth of migration during the 1990s did not reverse this decline. It may also be observed

from Table 4 that both intra- and inter-state urban to urban and rural to rural migration

during the 1990s show much higher rates. These are the streams that do not contribute

directly to the urban growth. However, the intra-state rural to urban migration, which is

twice as much as the inter-state rural to urban migration in 1971�1981 remained stagnant

during the 1990s. The inter-state rural to urban migration showed an accelerated growth,

but its volume was not enough to stall the declining trend in urban growth during the

1990s.

Figure 2 presents the major inter-state migration flows during 1991�2001. The most

prominent feature is the large net outflow from the state of Uttar Pradesh, the largest state

which harbours nearly one-fifth of India’s population, and which experienced a net loss of

2.7 million during the period 1991�2001. People from Uttar Pradesh have migrated to

almost every state. The main destinations are Maharashtra, Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, Punjab

and Madhya Pradesh. Similarly, Bihar also lost migrants to almost every state; the net loss

during 1991�2001 was 1.7 million. For the out-migrants from Bihar, Delhi is the most

important destination followed by West Bengal and Maharashtra. It may also be noted that

both Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have very low levels of urbanization (see Figure 1).

However, more urbanized states, like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Punjab, are attracting

large numbers of migrants. The state of Maharashtra experienced a net gain of 3.2 million

during the decade 1991�2001. The pull factor is strong in Maharashtra (where Mumbai is

located) as it attracts people from almost every state. The major origin states among

migrants are Uttar Pradesh followed by Karnataka, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Along with Maharashtra, the national capital territory of Delhi has been an important

destination for migrants from almost all states of India. During the period 1991�2001, Delhi

gained a net addition of 1.7 million people coming from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. After

Maharashtra and Delhi, Gujarat follows as the favoured destination among migrants.

Gujarat is where the largest net migration (0.67 million) during 1991�2001 occurred, with

most migrants coming from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Orissa. However, it is

important to mention that Gujarat is the only state to which Maharashtra lost a substantial

number of people during 1991�2001. This shows the dynamic pattern of migration

emerging in western India. It may be seen from Figure 2 that two regional migration

systems are emerging in western and northern India surrounding the mega cities of

Mumbai and Delhi. On the whole, the inter-state flow of migration shown in Figure 2 is

consistent with the level of urbanization shown in Figure 1. However, the precise

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 13

contribution of migration to urban growth could be known only after assessing the other

components of urban growth presented in the following section.

Components of Urban Growth

In many developing countries, the lack of adequate data on rural to urban migration

as well as reliable data on natural increase precludes the disaggregation of urban growth

by its various components (Brockerhoff 1999). There are four main components of urban

growth, namely: (i) natural increase; (ii) net migration to urban areas; (iii) reclassification of

settlements as towns or its declassification as a result of changes in the nature of

economic activities and acquisition of urban characteristics; (iv) the extension of

boundaries of cities and towns.

In many developing countries including India, the natural increase in urban

population remains very high and has not declined until recently. The trend in the

natural increase for the last three decades up to the year 2000 is presented in Table 5. The

natural increase in urban areas remained at 19 per 1000 persons during 1970�1980 and

1980�1990. Furthermore, natural increase in rural areas also slightly increased during this

FIGURE 2

Major net migration flow (duration 0�9 years) in India, 2001.

14 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

period. The reason for the constant natural increase in the urban areas until 1990 is that

urban birth and death rates have declined in the same magnitude. During the 1990s,

however, urban birth rate declined faster than urban death rate. As a result, the natural

increase in urban areas declined to 15.8 per 1000 persons during the 1990s compared to

the rate of 19.3 per 1000 persons observed during the 1980s. This phenomenon

has certainly contributed to the slowdown in the urban growth rate during the period

1991�2001. In the future, urban growth is likely to slow further because the urban birth

rate of about 22 per 1000 persons observed during 1990�2000 is projected to decline

further, whereas the urban death rate of seven per 1000 persons observed during the

same period may not decline.

Table 6 presents the estimated contribution of the four components of urban

growth for the decades 1971�1981 to 1991�2001. The natural increase in urban areas of

the initial population as well as of the inter-censal migrants continues to be the largest

contributor to the urban growth (58 per cent) during 1991�2001, although its share has

declined by about five per cent compared to the previous decade. The estimation of

natural increase includes the natural increase of inter-censal migrants as suggested by

Visaria (1997). A recent study by Premi (2006b) did not take this factor into account, and as

a result, the contribution of natural increase was underestimated at 53 per cent during

1991�2001. Further, Premi’s use of the provisional population figures of the 2001 Census

resulted in an overestimation of the contribution of the net reclassification from rural to

urban areas (14 per cent compared to 12 per cent in the present study). However, in both

studies, the net contribution of migration is estimated based on the POLR data derived

from migration tables and the results are similar.

Table 6 shows that the contribution of migration towards urban growth remained

stable at around 20 per cent during the last three decades. It may be seen that in spite of

decline in the growth of migration during 1981�1991, its share remained almost static

from 1971�1981 to 1981�1991. This is because while rural to urban migration had declined

during the 1980s, the counter stream of urban to rural migration had also declined

drastically. As a result, the net migration to urban areas increased from 9.3 million in the

decade 1971�1981 to 10.6 million in the decade 1981�1991. Thus, the contribution of

TABLE 5

Birth, death and natural increase by rural�urban residence, 1971�1980 to 1991�2000, India.

YearsBirth rate(per 1000)

Death rate(per 1000)

Rate of naturalincrease (per 1000)

1971�1980Rural 35.8 15.8 20.0Urban 28.5 9.2 19.3

1981�1990Rural 33.9 12.6 21.3Urban 27.0 7.7 19.3

1991�2000Rural 29.4 9.9 19.5Urban 22.3 6.5 15.8

Source: Sample Registration System Bulletins of various volumes published by the Office of the RegistrarGeneral, India.

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 15

migration to urbanization remained unaffected in the 1980s and indeed remained stable

over the last three decades. The slowing down of urbanization could be more correctly

attributed to the reclassification of towns and to some extent, to the limited geographical

expansion of the existing towns by jurisdictional changes during the 1980s. The share of

net reclassification (population of new towns minus declassified towns compiled directly

from census sources) has declined from nearly 19 per cent in the decade 1971�1981 to

17 per cent in the decade 1981�1991. Also, the contribution of jurisdictional changes

(estimated here as residual) declined from 13 per cent in 1971�1981 to nearly two per cent

in the decade 1981�1991.

During the 1990s, the slowing down of urbanization could be attributed to the

decline in the share of natural increase as well as to the reduction in the share of net

reclassification of settlements. Although the number of new towns has gone up from 856

in 1991 to 1138 in 2001, the number of declassified towns has also increased from 93 in

1991 to 445 in 2001. Thus, the net addition of new towns was 693 in 2001, lower than the

net addition of 763 towns in 1991. This shows that the role of the net reclassification of

settlements in lowering the urban growth increased during the decade 1991�2001.

However, the jurisdictional changes declared by the respective state governments or by

the Census of India recasting towns into urban agglomeration forms gained importance in

India’s urbanization as early as the 1970s (Shaw 2005). Although the share of jurisdictional

TABLE 6

Contribution of the components of urban growth, India, 1971�2001.

Population in million Percentage distribution

Components 1971�1981 1981�1991 1991�2001 1971�1981 1981�1991 1991�2001

Urban increment 49.9 56.8 68.2 100.0 100.0 100.0Natural increase (of initial

population plus inter-censal migrants)

24.9 35.4 39.3 50.0 62.3 57.6

Net reclassification fromrural to urban

9.3 9.8 8.4 18.6 17.2 12.3

Net rural�urban migration 9.3 10.6 14.2 18.6 18.7 20.8*Residual (jurisdictional

changes)6.4 1.0 6.3 12.8 1.8 9.2

Notes: (i) Census was not held in Assam in 1981 and in Jammu and Kashmir in 1991. The decade 1971�1981 excludes Assam; the decade 1981�1991 excludes Assam and Jammu and Kashmir; and the figures of1991�2001 exclude Jammu and Kashmir. (ii) Net reclassification means population of new towns minusdeclassified towns. The figures up to 1991 are taken from Census of India (1991a, p. 37). The figures for1991�2001 are derived by the same procedure using data on new and declassified towns based on Censusof India (2001). (iii) Net rural to urban migration figures are derived from Migration Tables of the respectiveyears based on place of last residence with duration 0�9 years. See Census of India (1981); Census of India(1991b); Census 2001 migration data are available on compact disk. (iv) Natural increase is estimatedexponentially by the authors based on the natural increase given in Table 5.*There were 2.9 million migrants unclassifiable by rural and urban streams of migration with duration 0�9years in the 2001 Census, 1.8 and 1.1 million of them located in rural and urban areas, respectively. Onthe assumption that 1.1 million enumerated in urban areas belong to rural to urban streams, the share ofnet rural to urban migration would increase to 15.3 million during 1991�2001 and the contribution ofmigration will go up to 22.4 per cent. Consequently, the residual showing jurisdictional changes in urbanareas will decline from 9.2 per cent to 7.7 per cent for the decade 1991�2001.

16 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

change has declined in the 1980s, it has re-emerged as a significant factor in the 1990s.

The 2001 Census shows that as many as 221 towns were merged with the neighbouring

towns and cities during the 1990s. Such mergers are significant in the process of areal

expansion of adjacent cities and towns, often involving the incorporation of rural areas

between them. It may not be incorrect to point out that India’s future urbanization would

be much more influenced by this factor given the sluggish emergence of new towns, the

low contribution of migration, and the declining trend in the natural increase in urban

areas.

The contribution of net migration in urban growth during the 1990s at the national

level is estimated to be nearly 21 per cent. Out of this, about eight per cent was

contributed by inter-state net migration, and the remaining 13 per cent is added by the

net intra-state migration in the urban areas. At the state level, the share of migration in

urban growth is observed to be much higher in some of the smaller states and UTs.

Among the major states, Gujarat tops the list with 36 per cent of urban growth

contributed by migration, closely followed by Maharashtra and Haryana. The state of

Punjab stands on par with the national average in terms of the contribution of migration

to urban growth. Most of the northern and north-eastern states reveal much lower

contribution of migration than the national average. The most important fact emerging

from the analysis of the components of urban growth of major states is that the less

urbanized states are growing mostly through natural increase, whereas the contribution of

migration continues to be higher in more urbanized states, though even in these states, it

contributes not more than one-third of the urban growth.

Future Urbanization

It is very difficult to predict the future level of urbanization for a country like India

because the urbanization level depends not only upon demographic trends, but on

economic and political factors as well. As such, many of the short-term projections by the

Indian government were not fulfilled. The Planning Commission of India projected the

urban population to be at 30.5 per cent of the total population for the year 2001 based on

the 1991 Census data (Planning Commission 1992) but the 2001 Census came out with a

lower proportion of urban population at 27.8 per cent. Hence, expectations from the new

economic policy launched in 1991 and the concomitant higher economic growth during

the 1990s did not come into fruition. Although the rural to urban migration has increased

more during the 1990s compared to the 1980s, it had negligible impact in increasing the

contribution of migration to urban growth. As such, the arguments forwarded by the

Planning Commission regarding the impact of economic reforms were only partly true in

so far as the increased role of migration towards urbanization is concerned, but they

proved to be incorrect in forecasting urban growth as the entire demographic spectrum of

urban growth, particularly the role of natural increase, was missed. It was also expected

that there would be extensive reclassification of localities or large villages into towns. As

Visaria pointed out, ‘it would be a mistake to presume that urbanization will continue to

be slow during the 1990s and beyond’ (Visaria 1997, p. 269). However, the 2001 Census did

not show massive reclassification of villages into towns; rather, its net contribution even

declined during the 1990s.

At the national level, the contribution of migration towards urban growth remained

stable at around one-fifth in the last several decades. It has been observed that the growth

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 17

of migration has significantly accelerated during the 1990s after a considerable

deceleration in the previous decade. But the acceleration was more prominent in rural

to rural and urban to urban streams, which do not directly contribute to the urban growth.

However, growth in intra-state rural to urban migration remained stagnant and although

inter-state rural to urban migration accelerated, it only contributed about 10 per cent to

urban growth.

In the future, urban to urban migration is likely to accelerate in India due to

changing labour market demand (Dyson & Visaria 2004), but this would have no impact as

far as urban growth is concerned. However, it is possible that intra-state rural to urban

migration will accelerate, but inter-state rural to urban migration, where movement is

directed towards only a handful of metropolitan cities, may not significantly increase the

contribution of migration in urban growth. On the whole, the contribution of migration is

likely to be stable, and unless accompanied by increased reclassification of villages into

towns, urban growth is most likely to decelerate further in the future as natural increase in

urban populations is on the path of accelerated decline. A recent projection by the

Registrar General and the Census Commissioner puts the urban population of India at

358 million by the year 2011. This approximation presumes an addition of 72 million in the

urban areas for the decade 2001�2011, an estimate that is very close to the urban

population increment of 69 million recorded during 1991�2001 (Registrar General and

Census Commissioner 2006). The projected percentage of urban population against the

total population would be about 30 per cent by the year 2011, and the average annual

urban growth would decline to 2.2 per cent during 2001�2011 from the 2.7 per cent

observed during 1991�2001. This projection also follows closely the projection made by

the Population Division of the United Nations (United Nations 2006). The 2011 Census of

India is just a few years away, and will enable us to detect any new developments in

urbanization and assess the accuracy of the aforementioned projections.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the PAA Annual Meeting 2008 held in

New Orleans. The authors are thankful to PAA for travel grants. Thanks are due also to the

three anonymous referees for their helpful comments, and to Professor Gavin Jones for

his suggestions in revising this paper.

REFERENCES

BHAGAT, R. B. (2004) ‘Dynamics of urban population growth by size class of town and cities in

India’, Demography India, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 47�60.

BHAGAT, R. B. (2005) ‘Rural�urban classification and municipal governance in India’, Singapore

Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 61�74.

BROCKERHOFF, M. (1999) ‘Urban growth in developing countries: a review of projections and

predictions’, Population and Development Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 757�778.

CENSUS OF INDIA (1981) Migration Tables, Series 1, Part V, A & B (i), Office of the Registrar General

and Census Commissioner, New Delhi.

18 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY

CENSUS OF INDIA (1991) Emerging Trends of Urbanisation in India, Occasional Paper No. 1 of 1993,

Registrar General, New Delhi.

CENSUS OF INDIA (1991) Migration Tables, Series 1, Part V, Office of the Registrar General and

Census Commissioner, New Delhi.

CENSUS OF INDIA (1991) Provisional Population Totals: Rural�Urban Distribution, Series 1, Paper 2,

Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi.

CENSUS OF INDIA (2001) Final Population Total, Office of the Registrar General and Census

Commissioner, New Delhi.

COHEN, B. (2004) ‘Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trends and a caution

regarding existing forecasts’, World Development, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 23�51.

DAVIS, K. (1962) ‘Urbanisation in India: past and future’, in India’s Urban Future, ed. R. Turner,

University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, pp. 3�26.

DYSON, T. & VISARIA, P. (2004) ‘Migration and urbanisation: retrospect and prospects’, in Twenty-

first Century India: Population, Economy, Human Development and the Environment, eds

T. Dyson, R. Cassesn & L. Visaria, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 108�129.

KUNDU, A. (1997) ‘Trends and structure of employment in the 1990s: implication for urban

growth’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1399�1405.

KUNDU, A. (2007) ‘Migration and exclusionary urban growth in India’, the 6th Dr

C. Chandrasekaran memorial lecture, International Institute for Population Sciences,

Mumbai, 2 January.

MOHAN, R. & PANT, C. (1982) ‘Morphology of urbanisation in India: some results from 1981

Census’, Economic and Political Weekly, 18 September, pp. 1534�1540.

NATIOANL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANIZATION (2001) Migration in India 1999�2000, Ministry of Statistics

and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi.

PLANNING COMMISSION (1992) Eighth Five-year Plan, 1992�93, Government of India, New Delhi.

PREMI, M. K. (2006a) Population of India in the New Millenium: 2001 Census, National Book Trust,

New Delhi.

PREMI, M. K. (2006b) ‘India’s urbanisation and its future implications’, Man and Development,

March, pp. 21�38.

REGISTRAR GENERAL AND CENSUS COMMISSIONER (2006) Population Projections for India and States

2001�2026, Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections Constituted by

National Population Commission, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commis-

sioner, New Delhi.

SHAW, A. (2005) ‘Peri-urban Interface of Indian cities: growth, governance and local initiatives’,

Economic and Political Weekly, 8 January, pp. 129�136.

SKELDON, R. (1986) ‘On migration patterns in India during the 1970s’, Population and Development

Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 759�779.

SRIVASTAVA, S. C. (1972) Indian Census in Perspective, Census Centenary Monograph No. 1, Office

of the Registrar General, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.

SRIVASTAVA, R. & SASIKUMAR, S. K. (2003) ‘An overview of migration in India, its impacts and key

issues’, paper presented in the regional conference on migration, development and pro-

poor policy choices in Asia, Dhaka, 22�24 June.

UNITED NATIONS (2006) World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision, Population Division,

United Nations, New York.

URBANIZATION AND MIGRATION IN INDIA 19

VISARIA, P. (1997) ‘Urbanisation in India: an overview’, in Urbanisation in Large Developing

Countries: China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, eds G. Jones & P. Visaria, Clarendon Press,

Oxford, pp. 266�288.

R. B. Bhagat (author to whom correspondence should be addressed), Department of

Migration and Urban Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences,

Mumbai-400088, India. E-mail: [email protected]

Soumya Mohanty, Department of Migration and Urban Studies, International Institute

for Population Sciences, Mumbai-400088, India.

20 R. B. BHAGAT AND SOUMYA MOHANTY