population mobility in india: studies and prospects · first, a vast majority of early indian...

POPULATION MOBILITY IN INDIA: STUDIES AND PROSPECTS

J. P. SINGH Patna University, Patna.

In the realm of migration studies a considerable body of useful and insightful literature has developed as a result of interest shown in the varied aspects of population mobility by practitioners of different social sciences during the last three decades. This interest is understandable in view of the immense contribution of migrants to the processes of urbanization, industrialization, population redistribution, economic development, cultural diffusion and social integration. But till today hardly any attempt has been made to put the available studies on migration into a coherent pattern of literature. The usefulness of making a systematic presentment of the relevant literature on a significant subject of research like migration needs no emphasis here. A work of this kind helps researchers know the past trends, locate research gaps, identify the pertinent and pro-found lines of inquiry needed for construction of the theory of migration and avoid the mistake of sterile repetition of an old work. In consonance with the point of view just stated this paper is designed to present a thematic record of findings of survey reports and re-search investigations on India's internal migration. The theme of this paper is explicated against the background of generalizations, models and theories mostly developed out of the Western experiences. The analysis of facts and findings in a comparative perspective will help us to discern the nature of migratory behaviour typical of India.

The study of migration, whether from rural to urban areas or from less dynamic to more dynamic or prosperous regions, of a slowly developing country like India with a traditional social order and

SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN Vol. 29, No. 1 March 1980

3 4 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

agricultural economy is of paramount importance. Migration plays a vital role in balancing the process of development through population redistribution, more particularly in a country where development process is tardy and in a state of disarray on account of the faulty economic policy. But population mobility, surprisingly enough, contributes in a large measure to maladjustment in India. A substantial portion of urban growth does not reflect new economic opportunities arising from industrial growth but from population pressure and a stagnant agrarian economy. This maladjustment has increasingly found expression in a strong sense of nativism and ethnocentrism, leading to violent clashes between the outsider and the autochthon in different parts of the country.

The migration problem has rightly drawn the attention of scholars of different disciplines, but the practitioners of sociology have not evinced as much interest in the study of migration as scholars of disciplines like demography, geography and economics have done. Verily, it is not that the problem of migration has received scant attention but it holds good of other demographic processes as well. The lack of interest has possibly stemmed from two main facts. First, a vast majority of early Indian sociologists were basically men of disciplines like social philosophy, Indology and ethnology who found interest in ethical and ethnological aspects of problems of caste, tribe, religion, family, kinship and other elements of village life at the micro level (Srinivas 1966:119-20). That trend continues to influence their successors even today to a great extent. Secondly, they,' by and large, lacked in expertise to handle hard macro-demographic data of the census reports. Contents of the courses of study in sociology in mast Indian universities are such that many a sociologist of our age tends to be interested in qualitative rather than in quantitative analysis of social realities. Indifference to the suggestion made to sociologists by Burman at the Ninth All-India Sociological Conference held at Delhi in 1969 for using census data should, therefore, in no way be taken as a surprise (1970:16-21).

International Migration

Let us begin with a brief discussion of international migration, albeit it is not the theme of this paper. A study of emigration or

POPULATION MOBILITY IN INDIA 3 5

immigration (a ramification of international migration), especially in the case of India, has been a subject of lesser importance than internal migration primarily because both emigration from the immigration of people to India have hardly affected the size and composition of population to a marked extent. The census reports give the number of foreign-born persons enumerated in India [(0.9 million in the 1971 Census excluding refugees from East Pakistan what is now Bangla Desh (Mehrotra 1974:25)], but a complete count of Indians living abroad is not available. Besides, the available statistics are incomplete and unauthentic. The movement of people between India and other countries has been fairly modest, and will remain so in view of the prevailing international political situation and the rigid rules of immigration and naturalization. All over the world there is little sign that the Indians would be welcomed as immigrants (Davis 1951:106).

Internal Migration

Barriers to Migration — Although the volume of internal migration is incomparably greater than that of the international one, the volume of the former cannot be regarded as very large considering the vast size of country's population. Apart from this, the census information about the magnitude of internal migration is not very realistic. An analysis based on cross tabulation of 'place of birth' and 'place of enumeration' statistics tends to exaggerate rather than minimize the picture of the volume of movement (Davis 1951:107; Agrawala 1977:166-67). Even if the data based on the above technique of tabulation are treated valid, the percentage of persons counted outside the State of birth does not exceed even 4.0 during the 1891-1971 period (Agarwala 1977:168). According to Mitra, 67.97 percent of the people remained stationary in their Place of birth (69.61 and 88.89 percent in the case of urban and rural areas, respectively) in the 1961 Census (Ibid. 1967:4). So it is fairly close to the truth to say that Indian population is largely sedentary in character.

Agricultural economy, according to Wattal (1934), Chandrasekhar (1950), Davis (1951) and a few other scholars, largely impedes the spatial mobility of people in India. Explicating his idea,

36 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

Chandrasekhar observes:" . . . there is an incredibly large rural indebtedness that chains the peasants to their mortgaged homesteads. Even if an average agriculturist is ready to forsake his traditional cal-ling, there is no guarantee that he can make a living otherwise Availability of, as well as adaptation to, a new vocation is neither easy nor smooth" (1950:55-6). But in the opinion of Mishra (1952: 90-91), indebtedness, instead of acting as a barrier to migration, impels the rural poor to go to towns to find a more remunerative jobs to clear their debts to the village money-lenders.

Besides stressing economic factors, scholars like Kamath (1914: 46), Wattal (1934:123-30), Chandrasekhar (1950:56), Davis (1951:107-8), Gosal (1961:110-11), D'Souza (1966:105-12;, Suprunovich (1971:279) and Majumdar and Majumdar '' 1978-161) have focused upon the social forces of population immobility. Caste system, regional and communal mores, early marriage, family ties, diversity in language and culture, low level of education and literacy, etc., hinder migration. But the idea of 'innate love for home' or 'homesickness' as a cause of immobility (Mishra 1952:91) is verily disapproved by Davis (1951:108). Homesickness in itself, strictly speaking, is not a cause. It is a by-product of the interplay of various social and economic factors and forces which retard migratory process.

Lack of adequate means of transportation and communication and the want of knowledge of the outside world are also very important impediments to migration. A very large section of the rural popula tion is completely isolated and has no knowledge of work and wages available elsewhere (Gosal 1961:106-21; Mishra 1952:89-93). The present tempo of internal migration is bound to increase in future as a result of the growing diversification of economic activity, increasing degree of industrialization, commercialization and urbanization. Improvement in transportation facilities and spread of modern education are also likely to increase mobility of Indian population (Gosal 1961:121).

Patterns and Correlates — Rural to rural migration, in terms of the volume, dominates over all the streams of migration in India — rural to urban, urban to rural and urban to urban. The proportion of rural to rural migrants was successively 73.7 and 69.1 percent in

POPULATION MOBILITY IN INDIA. 37

1961 and 1971 and this was heavily dominated by female migrants. Their percentage was 81.3 in 1961 and 77.0 in 1971 (Premi 1980: 714). Various studies, to name a few only — Davis (1951:111-14), NSS (1960:12), Zachariah (1964b:262), Agarwala (1968:1 -15). Bose (1975, 1978), Narain (1975-76:248-50), Bhende et al. (1976: 148-50), Premi (1976:44) and Kumar and Sharma (1979:107), have shown clearly that the preponderance of female has been possible primarily because of a social reason, namely prevalence of the system of patrilocal residence after marriage. Since males are greatly outnumbered by females in rural to rural migration, it has been designated as 'marriage' and 'associational' migration. Besides matrimonial reason, migration of female is also owing to widowhood, desertion and abandonment. It has been observed in a report of the Government of India (1974) that the number of deserted women is on gradual increase, leading to their migration in search of the means of livelihood. The role of these factors in female migration has not yet been clearly ascertained.

In addition to the social factor, an economic factor is also responsible for the preponderance of female in rural to rural migration (Premi 1980:714-20). In the slack season a large number of poor women move out of their villages to seek casual employment in irrigation project, construction of roads, rail roads and buildings and such other public works (Government of India, 1974:35). Females are re-ported to have outnumbered their counterparts in the rural public works under the Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Scheme (Jain 1979). Similarly female rural migrants are greater in number than male migrants in plantations in West Bengal and Assam. The data on migration of the 18th round of the NSS have indicated that over 31 per cent of the female migrants in rural areas constituted the labour force (NSS 1971:1). But in the case of male rural migrants economic factor is more important than social one (Rele 1969:508). Intra-rural migration of the tribals is essentially brought about by economic necessity (Choudhury 1963:23-32; Singh and Singh 1976:33-39).

Rural to urban migration, in terms of volume, is the next important stream of migration. In a way it is more important than other streams of migration. It involves a drastic change in the social,


economic and ecological set-up and sometimes necessitates a complete break in cultural and linguistic ties for the migrants (Zachariah 1959:189; Pakrasi 1962;116-25; Prasad Rao 1970; Ranga Rao and Murthy 1974:24-28; Ranga Rao et al. 1977:1-7; Saxena 1978). Rural-urban migration induces change not only in the life of migrants but also in the life of people of their native place. Occasional return of migrants to their native village provides opportunity for social interaction between mobile and immobile people, leading to the process of cultural diffusion. Migrants act as agents of social change (Valunjkar 1966). Apart from this, rural to ur ban migration makes a very crucial contribution to the process of urbanization (Davis 1951, 1962; Crane 1955; Zachariah 1959; Lai 1961; Bogue and Zachariah 1962; Chandrasekhar 1964; Eames 1965; Vaidyanathan 1969; Singh 1978b, 1979a, 1979b).

Factors inducing migration from rural to urban areas are many, but the discussion here is limited to only those factors which have been dealt with in the literature on migration. Industrialization, evergrowing pressure of population on limited land base, increasing pauperization of peasantry in the rural sectors and decline in traditional callings are potent factors accountable for urbanward migration of the rural people (Dayal 1959:179-85; Gosal 1967:108; Sen Gupta 1968:80-81; Mitra 1968:3; Suprunovich 1971:279; Cha nd 1972:307; Connell et al. 1975:189; Saxena 1978; Singh 1980). Scholars maintaining this view contend that excessively large growth of rural population in relation to the per capita size of land holding, giving rise to heavy unemployment and abysmally slow rate of increase in production has been increasingly forcing the rural-folk to move to urban centres to eke out their livelihood. Padki (1964:31), putting the above fact in a slightly different manner, states that stagnated nature of village economy is an important factor of rural-urban migration. "The more an individual is poor, landless and socio-economically deprived, the greater the chance of his migration from the rural to the urban areas" (Mukherjee 1979:245). This generalization is buttressed by the findings of two earlier studies of Joshi (1957:32-46) and Sinha (1958:200-20). On the other hand, some scholars (Sovani 1966; Rao 1974:7; Connell et al. 1976; Saxena 1978) have contended that both the rich and the poor are almost equally prone to migration. The rich migrate out of desire for better and

POPULATION MOBILITY IN INDIA 39

greater comforts of life, while the poor migrate out of economic compulsion to eke out their living. This view is partly upheld by the study of Gupta (1961). His study suggests that persons belonging to the upper stratum of society have a higher level of education and economic position, and therefore, a higher propensity to migrate from rural to urban areas (Ibid.: 1599).

In addition to the above reasons, better living conditions in respect of house, sanitation, medical aid, electric and water supply, protection of life and property, means of transportation and com-munication, entertainment, educational facilities, caste and fondness for white-collar jobs also significantly accelerate the pace of rural out-migration (Mishra 1956:87; Gosal and Krishan 1975:193-206). On caste as a factor giving impetus to migration from rural to urban areas Mishra's observation is noteworthy. According to him many low caste people migrate from village to city chiefly with a view to liberating themselves from age-old social discriminations and to conceal their low social station in the hierarchy of caste system (Ibid. 1952:89-93; 1956:86-88). This observation has been maintained by some other scholars, too (Majumdar and Majumdar 1978: 167-68). In brief, rural-urban migration is an outcome of the interplay of forces hostile to comfortable living in the country and of availability of lucrative opportunities in urban areas.

The preponderance of male members in rural to urban migration lies in the hidebound Indian society. The values of Indian society are such that women are under great constraint in stirring out of home to make their living. 0ut-migration of female from village to town takes place either owing to marriage or owing to their dependence on the principal breadwinner of the family (Bulsara 1964: 174; Bose 1967:485). Women usually do not out-migrate from the village to urban areas for the purpose of employment, though they sometimes take to jobs after they get settled there. If rural to rural migration is female migration, rural to urban migration is male migration. In this regard Sovani (1967) has drawn our attention to a very remarkable fact, i.e., "Rural-urban migration . . . generally takes place in the reproductive ages from rural to urban areas separates many of them from their wives if they are married, and in the return flow sends back the old migrants to the urban areas back to their rural home areas again in old age" (Ibid:40).


There are two divergent views on the future prospects of rural to urban migration. In the opinion of Rao, the already existing pool of unemployed people in towns not only deters the rural out-migrants but also push the urban people back to their villages (Ibid. 1956:58). Endorsing the view, Bose (1965, 1975) has identified this fact as 'urban push-back'. Mitra (1968:9) too is pessimistic regarding in-crease in the volume of rural-urban migration. On the contrary, Chand visualizes rise in the present volume of migration stream from rural to urban areas despite unfavourable urban conditions. The in-creasing pressure of over-population in rural areas makes this migration unavoidable even though it cannot but mean greater urban over-crowding, precarious livelihood, and increasing misery (Ibid. 1972: 307-8). This view is questionable since the volume of rural to urban migration remained almost static during the last two census decades. The present slow rate of growth of our industrial economy can hardly boost the existing volume of migration from rural to urban areas.

The fact that migration, especially rural to urban stream of migration, is conditioned by economic motives, correborates Todaro's model of migration (1971, 1976). His model postulates that migration occurs in response to rural-urban differences in expected rather than in actual earnings. The fundamental premise is that the migrants as decision-makers consider the various labour market opportunities available to them as say, between the rural and the urban sectors, and choose the one which maximizes their expected gains from migration. The main limitation of this model is that it covers only autogenic form of migration, not allogenic one.

Urban to urban migration is another important stream of migra-tion which is believed to be dominated by middle class people (Singh 1980:185). A faster rate of growth of Class I towns or cities than that of other classes of towns, i.e., towns falling between Class II and Class VI, may chiefly be attributed to urban-urban migration. This is natural because bigger towns are in a better position to offer greater and more lucrative employment opportunities to immigrants, resulting from increasing concentration of services, location of both small and big industries and other cognate economic activities, than smaller ones. Rural to urban migration also partly contributes to a faster rate of growth of Class I towns (Chandrasekhar 1964:17-45; Kaur 1971;


Pethe and Mulay 1975:388-89; Gosal and Krishan 1975:200-1; Gopal 1976; Premi 1976:66; Singh 1978b; 1979a: 171-94).

Lastly, we are concerned with urban-rural migration (push-back or reverse migration) which has the lowest volume of migrants pos-sibly because migrants who have acquired a taste for urban living are not willing to go back to the countryside. But the volume of push-back migration is on gradual increase since the 1961 Census. This has been possible mainly because of mounting unemployment in urban areas (Bose 1965; Baskara Rao 1966; Gosal and Krishan 1975:202). The presence of a good number of female in the out-migration from urban areas generally results from the matrimonial alliance. The findings of the study of out migrants of four towns of the States of Haryana and Punjab have indicated that women have out-migrated from towns mostly owing to marriage (Premi 1978). The real significance of these movements, for a sociologists or anthropologists, lies in their bringing with them an urban outlook or way of life (urbanism) and in some cases urban skills.

Now let us consider some important laws and generalizations. Ravenstein, for example, has made a generalization that "the natives of towns are less migratory than those of the rural parts of the country" (1885:199). Thus, 'net' internal migration streams will normally have a rural-urban predominance. This is borne out by the fact that in India the percentage of total migration from rural to urban areas is almost twice the percentage of migration from urban to urban or urban to rural areas.

Although Stouffer (1940) had observed that the application of 'law of distance decay' was untenable in the case of migration, it has very often been argued that as the distance from the place of origination increases, the volume of migration decreases. The applicability of 'the law of distance decay' in India has been reported by Gosal (1961) and others. In agreement with the view, Joshi (1957:36) and Ranga Rao et al. (1977:6) observe that distance is inversely correlated with the number of migrants.

Another important generalization regarding the relation between distance and migration is that the short-distance migrations in India,


as in other Western countries, are more frequent than long-distance migrations (Zachariah 1964a: 73; Sen Gupta 1968:80; Burkhardi 1978:1-15). To this Desai (1964:729) adds another fact, i.e., "the urban migrants . . . move much longer distance than do the rural migrants".

It has been formulated into a law that "each main current of migration produces a compensating counter-current" (Ravenstein 1885:199). In support of this view, Lee asserts that there would always be return migration because migrants' initial perceptions might not accord with the reality or they might fail in achieving their objectives in the place of destination (Ibid. 1966:47-57). But India presents a different situation. We find rural to urban migration with-out corresponding magnitude of urban to rural migration stream. Difference in the volume of migration between rural to urban and urban to rural areas is quite considerable. According to the 1961 and 1971 Censuses, the volume of migration of the former is three to four times greater than that of the latter (Agarwala 1977:175). The absence of 'compensating counter-current' can be attributed to the fact that difference in the level of economic development between rural and urban sectors is enormous as a sequel to the poor develop-mental planning of the government (Singh 1978a).

Migration is considered to be a 'contagious' phenomenon in the sense that once the stream of migration takes a definite direction, it continues to flow unless any serious obstacle arises (Zachariah 1968; Kayastha and Prakash 1971:142). Explaining the reason, Singh and Yadav observe that "the previous migrants work as motivators by supplying them [new migrants] food, shelter and other necessaries in the initial stages" (1974:285). To Rao (1974:7), the older residents appear to act as brokers in helping the new-comers to find jobs and homes, and meeting other basic requirements of life. They act as a bridge between the migrants' native place and the cities. This is the reason why migrants in India usually prefer to outmigrate with their families, kinsmen, friends and intimates (Gist 1955:157; Southall 1973:211-49). The studies of workers migrating to Bombay conducted by Prabhu (1956) and Patel (1963) also corroborate them. A similar trend is found to exist in Ghana also: "Ghanian migrants to the towns usually go first to join a relative or fellow villager . . . once migration from a certain family or village begins it


tends to gain momentum" (Caldwell 1969:80). This is evident from the fact that "some families and some villages have propor tionally much higher representation in the towns than have others" (Ibid 1969:80). The migration of this kind may be named as 'associational migration'.

The currents of migration, in general, flow from the areas of limited economic opportunities and retarded social development to the developed and the fast developing areas where migrants can expect greater pecuniary gains and consequently a better level of living. This is apparent not only from studies of United Nations (1961), Zachariah (1964b), Mitra (1967), Sen Gupta (1968), Kaur (1971), Werner (1973), Gosal and Krishan (1975) and Premi (1976) but also from some of the above-mentioned studies.

Migration as a Selective Process — It would be impossible for migration not to be selective. Migration, however, does not transfer entire population of given area (except on very rare occasions), it favours only certain categories of people at a time. It is selective not only of sex, marital status, age, educational standard, professional skill but of other qualities of population also. "It picks the more vital, the more vigorous, the more enterprising of the population" (Sandesara 1964:809). The main reason of selective migration is that the different people react differently to the balance of positive and negative factors at the place of origin and destination.

The only migration differential which is typical of people in all countries is that adolescents and those who have come of age pre-dominate the voluntary migrants (Peterson 1969:262; Jansen 1970: 14). Thomas, as far back as in 1938, had observed that persons in their teens, twenties and early thirties were more migratory than other groups. Zachariah (1964b, 1968) has made an extensive study of internal migration in India where he has found an excess of adolescents and adults among the migrants. Gist (1955) and Bulsara (1965) have also found a similar kind of relationship between migration and specific age group of migrants. Some recent studies con-ducted by Hamsaleelavathy (1970) and Kayastha and Prakash (1971) uphold the above generalization.

Differential migration by sex is not so ostensible as the differential migration by age. Ravensetein's generalization - "females appear to


predominate among short journey migrants" (1889:288) - holds good only in the case of rural to rural migration. But in the case of rural-urban migration males outnumber females whether it is a short-or long-distance migration. The selectivity with respect to sex is, therefore, not the same in the rural to urban and rural to rural streams of migration. Internal migration in India, unlike migration in Western countries, is highly selective of males (Zachariah 1964b: 261).

Bulsara (1965) relates differential rate of migration between sexes to the caste and community backgrounds. Certain castes and communities are found to have a tradition of migrating without their women-folk and children. The Hindi-speaking migrants from Uttar Pradesh and the Urdu-and Oriya-speaking migrants of Orissa, for example, have a tendency to migrate without their women-folk to the cities of Bombay and Calcutta, respectively {Ibid. 1965:175). Rowe (1973) and Caplan (1976) have brought another interesting fact to notice, i.e., in North India migration is recurrent and undertaken by males unaccompanied by their wives and children (Rowe ibid. : 239), while in the South it is permanent and undertaken by all the members of the family together (Caplan ibid.: 220).

Economic factor also plays an important part in the long-distance differential migration of the either sex. The well-off people generally tend to move to cities from rural areas together with female members, while people belonging to low income group unable to meet the normal expenses of non-earning females are almost compelled to migrate without females and continue to have their old contact with the native village. But when their economic condition substantially improves, they bring female as well as other members of their family to the place of their work.

Modern education is a seminal factor promoting a differential rate of migration. Bogue and Zachariah in the first international seminar on India's urbanization held at Berkeley, California, in 1960, categorically stated that "in India propensity to migrate to urban areas is much higher among literate and educated people than among the illiterate. . . ." (1962:53). Zachariah has maintained this view in his other studies also (1966:83, 1968:34). Agarwala (1968:1-15), Premi (1976), Connell et al. (1976:181-85), Greenwood


(1977), besides several others, too have found migrants possessing a higher level of educational attainment than non-migrants. Educated people migrate to towns from villages since higher education is believed to generate distaste for the traditional callings. White-collar jobs in towns are much sought after for several reasons (Padki 1964: 31-33). The process of urbanward migration of educated people has been branded as 'de-intellectualization' of rural areas by Ranga Rao and Murty (1974:27).

Since some castes are more mobile than others, it is contended that caste is instrumental in causing differential migration, especially in the case of rural-urban migration. The studies of Eames (1954: 13-26), Joshi (1957:38), Eames and Schwab (1964:25) and Connell et al. (1976:213) clearly reveal the fact that upper caste people are more migratory than those belonging to lower castes. Another relation between caste and migration is that castes which are no longer functionally integrated into the village economy are more mobile than those who are integrated into the village economy (Eames and Schwab 1964:25). The numerical predominance of the Brahmins over the scheduled castes and the backward castes in the Mysore City and Bangalore is owing to the differences in selective migration (Gist 1955:155-56). The presence of social selection in migration to cities, according to Gist, is possible mainly because of differences in the level of formed education. The scheduled castes and 'other backward' castes are less mobile than the Brahmins, since the former "have a low level of formal education and for the most part are engaged in low-status occupations such as unskilled labour, street-vending and the like" (Gist 1955:156). In South India, with possible exception of Kerala, the basic reasons of a greater influx of upper caste people from rural to urban areas, particularly the Brahmins, were anti-Brahmin movement which was more virulent in rural areas than in urban ones and the depression of the thirties. (Srinivas 1962:77-86). The cases of migration selectivity studied by Eames and Gist, as referred to above, are different from that of Srinivas in an important sense. The former two cases belong to the category of autogenic migration, while the latter case falls in the category of both allogenic and autogenic forms of migration.

Occupation is also reckoned as an important factor inducing migration selectivity. In general, high status personnel are more migra-

4 6 SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

tory than low status workers (Gist 1955:154-55). Hamsaleelavathy's study (1970) suggests that skilled and technical workers, high-ranking educated professionals and the like are more migratory than non-skilled workers, non-technical personnel and the like.

A startling fact with regard to the migration selectivity emerges out of D'Souza's study of Dandeli of North Kanara district in the State of Mysore (1967). It was observed that free-individual mobility was hardly possible for the people of lower socio-economic level due to linguistic, religious, and caste barriers. But they over-came this difficulty by migrating in a large group with a view to creating cultural conditions of the community of origin in the community of destination. Thus it can be contended that the socio-cultural conditions influence the pattern of selective migration and adjustment of migrants into a new milieu (Ibid. : 10-11).

Push-Pull Controversy — Scholars generally explicate the phenomenon of internal migration on the line of 'push-pull' model. Stressing the role of push force in migration, Chandrasekhar (1949) contends that if migratory movements between different regions are caused by the propensity of people to migrate from the economically backward areas to the so-called developed regions there is no region in the sub-continent where the standard of living of the masses is markedly higher than the rest. Internal migration that took place during the last thirty years has been the result of the severe famine or on account of the employment potential of new irrigation projects. The high pressure of population on limited land base, seasonal employment, low wage payment and gradual decay of traditional occupations and village industry have considerably aggravated the economic miseries of the rural masses, leading to migration from rural to urban areas an inevitability. The out migration of people in India has resulted not so much from pull factors as from push factors (Bhargava 1971a:4, 1971b). This view has been maintained by several scholars, to mention a few, Bose (1961, 1978), Eames and Schwab (1964), Bulsara (1965), Barnwal (1971), Gare (1973), and Lakshmaiah (1974).

The pull force which runs counter to push force is believed to be more important than the latter in inducing migration from rural to urban areas (Piplai and Majumdar 1969:512). On the other hand,


it was very difficult for Goswami to ascertain whether migrants were pushed or pulled in the case of in-migration of people from the out-side into the State of Assam during 1901-61. Both the forces were found to be almost equally responsible in effecting migration. Some people were pushed out under economic hardship and uncongenial political atmosphere from the place of residence, while others were drawn on account of developmental activities to the place of destination (Goswami 1963:1827-33). Like him, Gupta (1961: 73-100) and Connell et al. (1976:196) too have put equal emphasis on the push-pull forces of migration. The push and pull forces arc not independent of one another but are complementary. They do not work in isolation; rather, they reinforce each other (Sovani 1966: 29).

Gupta and Bhattacharya (1966:131) are yet other scholars who hold the above view. They have analysed the play of various ele ments of push and pull forces in migratory process in West Bengal where it has been observed that both the pull and push forces operate at the place of origin and destination simultaneously. Agarwala (1968:1-15) has studied sex differential of migration in terms of the push and pull forces and made an interesting observation that in the case of male migrants push factor is more important than pull factor, but in the case of female migration both pull and push factors are equally significant because in most cases the migration of female occurs as a result of marriage.

The simultaneous operation of both pull and push forces is baffling indeed, and social scientists are not yet sure as to which of the two forces impels migration, or even which of the two is pre-dominant. So far it is not been known whether it is the increasing pressure of population on land that pushes people out of the village or it is the lure of city life. The controversy has not been resolved because of difficulty in making a differentiation between push and pull forces exerted on migrants. Sandesara raises objection to the idea of distinction between pull and push forces because "this distinction . . . is not clear-cut inasmuch as the one may be dependent upon, and in fact, related to the other in a most intricate manner and it is extremely difficult to know which is the initial, independent, motivating factor. Thus, for instance, a push from the village may


be dependent upon, and in fact, related to the other in a most intricate manner and it is extremely difficult to know which is the initial, independent, factor. Thus, for instance, a push from the village may be operative because there is some pull from the city: on the other hand, it might operate without such a pull" (1964:809). The analysis of migration based on push-pull model tends to be an over-simplifica- tion. This model does not faithfully account for the migratory behaviour of people. Migration research today calls for a more sophi- sticated approach (Bose 1961: 23; 1965:25-26, 37; 1967:483). There is much substance in the criticism of the push-pull theory but there is no gainsaying that there is an alternative approach or set of concepts for a better analysis of the material.

Research Gaps and Priority Areas

What emerges from the foregoing review is that our knowledge of migration processes and patterns is very limited, peripheral and even superficial. No serious attempts seem to have been made so far to build up a theory explaining the migration processes that obtain in India. Scholars have generally offered a bi-polar analysis of internal migration in terms of push and pull forces. Most of the researches are of substantive nature which give mere factual description of migration streams and flows, or at the most, they focus upon the characteristics of movers. Apart from these shortcomings, several important aspects of migration problem have either remained outside scholars' field of vision or they have been deliberately avoided. It is imperative on the part of scholars and specialists to conduct a few more research works in an intensive manner based on both primary and secondary data with a view to filling up the void and synthesizing the existing theo-retical knowledge about various aspects of internal migrations.

Migration is widely recognized as one of the major mechanisms of development. It helps maintain some balance between distribution of population and resources. But population mobility, surprisingly enough, in India like in other developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, has been creating imbalance between distribution of people and resources. Now, more than ever before, there is a greater necessity of a comprehensive policy of population redistribution to be incorporated as an integral part of the national development


plan. The formulation of such a policy and its success in attaining the goal of a better balance between rural and urban areas or between 'lagging' and fast developing regions hinges greatly upon the level of understanding of the complexity of factors and forces governing migratory behaviour. Though several are the studies dealing with correlates of migration, many more are still required to understand the complexity of factors which are either causes or consequences of migration. Their identification would assist decision makers in formulating more realistic and objective policies of population redistribution for controlling the volume and direction of migration in the interest of balanced national development.

Some regions of India are menaced by a long-standing ticklish problem of tension and sporadic violence, between autochthons and outsiders, engineered by regional militant organizations. Clashes and skirmishes between the so-called foreigners and local populations in Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya and Nagaland and between Maha-rashtrians and non-Maharashtrians in Bombay (under the aegis of Lochit Sena and Shiv Sena), Mulki and Andhras in Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh and between tribals and Dikkus or non-tribals in Chota Nagpur in the State of Bihar can be cited as some of the most glaring examples. Evergrowing tensions and conflicts between natives and outsiders deserve a few more in-depth studies, besides those of Katzenstein (1974, 1975), Weiner (1978) and Dass (1980), of poli-tical aspects of inter-State or regional migration. In this connection one of the most important issues which needs to be examined very specifically is whether the sons-of-the-soil or nativist movement ensues from the high influx of in-migration into and how influx of out-migration from a particular region or State.

Some other important issues which need to be examined empirically are as follows:

Do the places of destination, especially urban areas, select certain types of migrants in terms of their existing social structure?

Is migration from the lower stratum of rural society to urban areas of the 'distress migration category'?

Is it true that people in India, as opposed to the people in industrially advanced countries of the West, usually migrate under


economic hardship and then en masse rather than through individual action?

Do small towns serve as a stage on the journey of rural migrants from village to city?

Rural-urban migration, being an important kind of large-scale socio-economic change, entails further intensive investigation, especially of the scale of rural out-migration, its nature and composition, reason of movement and the initial contacts of migrants with the urban population, their occupational change, the process of internalizing new values in the community of destination, etc. Very little in-formation is available in the census reports about the characteristics of migrants - the varied motives which prompt them to move out, the number of moves they make, or the respect in which they differ from their immobile friends and relatives. Efforts need to be made to relate the characteristics of migrants to the socio-economic context in which the migration takes place. Unless one conducts a detailed field investigations at the micro-level, hardly can any information be had from census reports. It is rare to see a question with respect of the motive of migration. There is need to study migrants' behaviour concurrently at the places of their origin and destination and explain it in a comparative framework. This will help assess the type and degree of social change which takes place in the life of migrants in the wake of their migration.

Not much is known of the patterns, correlates and consequences of female migration in India. In addition to the studies of Singh and De Souza (1976), Thadani and Todaro ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Singh (1978, 1980) and Premi (1980), many more studies are needed to unravel these dimensions. Whether change in social environment as a result of rural-urban migration brings about change in the role of women is an important problem to be examined. The question arises because rural-urban migration is contended to be a liberating or freeing process for women in the Western countries (Whiteford 1978:236-47). Whiteford (1978:36) establishes that the movement of women from rural to urban areas results in role redefinition, or minimally, in its re-evaluation.

It is also to be conclusively ascertained whether increasing volume of rural-urban migration is really a sign of population explo-


sion and spill-over from villages to towns, or whether it is a con-sequence of slow developing traditional economy and stagnated social life of agrarian society, or whether it is owing to the utter negligence to the demand of manpower from industrial and commercial sectors, or whether rural-urban stream of migration is an aftermath of the of the interplay of simultaneous operation of all such forces. A study of the impact of Green Revolution, land reform measures and rural infrastructural development on rural to urban migration and vice-versa also deserve researchers' attention.

Why the in-migrants at the place of destination continue to cherish the cultural values of the community of origin is yet another fascinating problem needed to be examined by sociologists and anthropologists. The effect of urban environment on the new migrants is found to be relatively slight and as a result their 'way of life' remains more or less similar to what it was before migration (Zachariah 1964: 76; Mythili 1974: 241-50). The study of Poona City by Nair (1978: 190-97) has revealed that a complete break with the past and the forging of new culture by the in-migrants do not materialize in the urban setting. He has, therefore, observed that it is the 'simulation model' which actually explains the urbanization process of India, and not the 'break-down hypothesis' based on the Western model of urbanization.

In order to formulate a theory of migration social scientists should construct a 'stability-mobility continuum' to identify the situation which either hinders or impels mobility. A general theory of migration cannot be developed unless the elements of migration system are identified. Until now, migrants have been studied in-dependently, while mobility is studied against the background of stability. A study of various features of non-migrants is no less important than that of migrants. A social scientist must account for stability to account for mobility adequately. Important variables to be investigated concerning migrants as well as non-migrants are age, sex, level of literacy, previous and present socio-economic characteristics of employment, social characteristics including ethnicity/religion/language spoken at home, marital status, family size and structure, attitudes regarding type of place of residence, level of fertility, degree of satisfaction at the present place with respect to type of work,


income, housing conditions and job opportunities, mobility behaviour including motivation, reasons for moving or not moving, types of and reasons for selecting future destination and sources of information, expectations of potential migrants regarding types of assistance to be provided by kins/friends, and employment, improving the standard of living, decision makers of the potential move and migration plans for family members and present place of residence of out-migrants of family members and their demographic/socio-economic characteristics prior to the move. Unless we try to give a theoretical orientation to the study of various dimensions, correlates and processes of migration, we shall have to be content with mere factual description of streams and patterns of migration based on the census data. Banerjee has made a similar observation: "Analysis of data on internal migration cannot go far unless we have a theoretical framework" (1977:315).

An analysis of rural-urban migration within the framework of General Systems Theory of Mabogunje will be very useful for a clearer and deeper understanding of the migration problems in the Indian context. It enables "consideration of rural-urban migration no longer as a linear, uni-directional, 'push and pull' cause effect movements, but as a circular, independent, progressively complex, and self-modifying system in which the effect of change in one part can be traced through the whole system" (Mabogunje 1970:16). The migration system is conditioned by a social, economic, political and technological environment, and the exchange between this environment and the migration system is believed to be open and continuous. Although Mabogunje's concept is mostly related to Africa, it has some wider relevance too. It emphasizes rural-urban migration as a continuous process occurring in most countries all the time though at different levels of complexity. In this respect the system's approach also serves as a normative model against which one can seek to explain obvious deviations.

References

Agarwala, S. N. 1968 "Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Rural Migrants". Journal of the Institute of Economic Research. 3(2) (July), 1-15,


------------- 1977 India's Population Problems. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.

Banerjee, Biswajit 1977 "Some Methodological Aspects of Analysis of Data on Internal Migration". In: Ashish Bose et al. (eds.), Population Statistics in India. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

Barnwal, J. P. 1971 Urbanization and Social Change Amongst Indus-trial Workers. Varanasi: Kashi Vidyapith (Ph.D. dissertation).

Baskara Rao, N. 1966 "Estimate of Migration in the Four Major Cities of India, 1941-51 to 1951-61". The Asian Economic Review. 10 (1), 53-63.

Bhende, Asha A. 1976 Teaching and Research in Population Studies: Seventeen Years of UPS. Bombay: International Institute of Population Studies.

Bhargava, G. 1971a "Implications of Migration to Towns". Kuruk-shetra. 19(9) (February 1), 4-6.

-------------- 1971b "The Exodus to the Cities". Social Welfare. 18(9) (December), 26-27.

Bogue, D. J. and Zachariah, K. G.

1962 "Urbanization and Migration in India". In: Roy Turner (ed.), India's Urban Future. Berkeley: University of California Press, 27-54.

Bose, Ashish 1961 "Rural-Urban Migration". Seminar. (18), 22-24.

-------------- 1965 "Why Do People Migrate to Cities?" Yojana. (January 26), 25-26, 37.

------------ 1967 "Internal Migration in India, Pakistan and Ceylon." Proceedings of the World Population Conference. Vol. 4(Belgrade, 30 August - 10 September 1965), New York: United Nations, 483-86.

----------- 1977 "Urbanization in India: A Demographic Perspective". In: Sidney Goldstein and David F. Sly (eds.), Patterns of Urbanization : Comparative Studies. Vol. I, (IUSSP), Belgium: Ordina Publication, 289-339.

--------- 1978 India's Urbanization, 1901-2000. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.


Bulsara, J. F. 1964 Problems of Rapid Urbanization in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Burkhardt, R. E. 1978 "India: Demographic Migration, 1901-1976". The National Geographical Journal of India. 24, Part 1 & 2 (March-June), 1-15.

Burman, B. K. Roy 1970 "Sociological Uses of Census Data". Voluntary Action. 12(1 & 2) (January -April), 16-21.

Caldwell, John C. 1969 African Rural-Urban Migration: The Movement of Ghana's Towns. Canberra: Australian National University Press.

Caplan, L. 1976 "Class and Urban Migration in South India: Christian Elites in Madras City". Sociological Bulletin. 25(2) (September), 207-24.

Census of India 1971 Special Tables. Series 1 — India, Part II, 137-164

Chand, Gyan 1972 Population in Perspective. New Delhi: Orient Longman Ltd.

Chandrasekhar, S. 1949 "Population Problems of India and Pakistan.'' The Eugenics Review. (July).

1950 India's Population: Fact and Policy. Chidambaram: Indian Institute for Population Studies, Annamalai University.

1964 "Growth of Population in Madras City". Population Review. 8(1) (January), 17-45.

Choudhury, N. c. 1963 "Munda Settlement in Lower Bengal — A Study in Tribal Migration". Bulletin of the Cultural Research Institute. 2(2), 23-32.

Connell, John et al. 1976 Migration from Rural Areas : The Evidence from Village Studies. New Delhi : Oxford University Press.

Crane, Robert I 1955 "Urbanization in India". The American Journal of Sociology. 60(5) (March), 463-70.

Dass, S. K. 1980 "Immigration and Demographic Transformation of Assam, 1891-1981." Economic and Political Weekly. 15(9) (May 10), 850-59.

Dayal, P. 1959 "Population Growth and Rural-Urban Migration in India". National Geographical Journal of India-5(4) (December), 179-83.


Davis, Kingsley 1951 The Population of India and Pakistan. New York: Russell and Russell.

1962 "Urbanization in India : Past and Future". In: Roy Turner (ed.), India's Urban Future. Bombay: Oxford University Press, 3-26.

Desai, I. P. 1964 "Small Town - Factors and Problems". The Economic Weekly. 16(16) (April 18), 725-30.

D'Souza, V. S. 1964 "Some Socio-Cultural Aspects of Internal Migration in India". In: Ashok Mitra (ed.), Indian Population Bulletin. 3, New Delhi: Office of Registrar General of India, 105-12.

Eames, E. 1954 "Some Aspects of Urban Migration from a village in North Central India"'. The Eastern Anthropologist. 8(1) (September-November), 13-26. November), 13-26.

--------------- 1965 "Urbanization and Rural-Urban Migration in India". Population Review. 9(1 & 2) (January -July), 38-47.

Eames, E. and Schwab, W.

1974 "Urban Migration in India and Africa". Human Organization. 23(1) (Spring), 24-27.

Gare, G. M. 1973 "Process of Social Change in a Scheduled Tribe:, A Case Study of the Immigrant Mahadeo Kolis in Poona City". The Indian Journal of Social Work. 34(2), 131-39.

Gist, Noel P. 1955 "Selective Migration in South India". Sociological Bulletin. 4(2), 147-60.

Gopal, V S. 1976 The Migrant Component in Indian Urbanization. Trivandrum: University of Kerala (Ph.D. dissertation).

Gosal, G. S. 1961 "Internal Migration in India-A Regional Analysis". The Indian Geographical Journal. 36(3) (July -September), 106-21.

1967 "Redistribution of Population in Punjab During 1951-61". In: Ashish Bose (ed.), Patterns of Population Change in India. Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 107-29.

Gosal, G. S. and Krishan, G.

1975 "Patterns of Internal Migration in India". In: Leszek A. Kosinski and R. Mansell Prothero (eds.), People on the Move. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 193-206.


Goswami, P. C. 1963 "Immigration into Assam". The Economic Weekly. 15(2), 1827-33. Government of India 1974 Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India. New Delhi: Mini- stry of Education and Social Welfare. Greenwood, M. T. 1977 "An Analysis of the Determinants of Internal

Labour Mobility in India". Annals of Regional Science. 5, 137-51. Gupta, T. R. 1961 "Rural Family Status and Migration: A Study of a Punjab Village". The Economic Weekly. 13(41) (October 14), 1597-1603. Hamsaleelavathy, 1970 Migration Differentials in the Metropolitan Cities Venkatesan in India. Bombay: University of Bombay (Ph.D. dissertation). Jain, Devaki 1979 Evaluation of Maharashtra Employment Guaran- tee Scheme. New Delhi: Institute of Social Stu- dies (Type script). Jansen, C. J. 1970 "Migration : A Sociological Problem". In: C. J. Jansen (ed.), Readings in Sociology of Migration. Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd., 3-35. Joshi, V. R. 1957 "Patterns of Rural Mobility". The Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 12(4) (October-De- cember) 32-46. Kamath, M. S. 1914 The Census of India: An Analysis and Criticism. Madras: Theosophical Publishing House. Katzenstein, Mary F. 1975 "Politics of Population Movements: The Case of Bombay". Economic and Political Weekly. 10(51) (December 20), 1955-59. ------------- 1974 Political Nativism: Shiv Sena in Bombay. Cam- bridge: Department of Political Science, M.I.T. (Ph.D. dissertation). Katir, Suranjit 1971 Some Aspects of the Changes in the Demographic Characterisation of the Bist Doab, 1951-61: A Geographical Analysis. Chandigarh: Punjab Uni- versity (Ph.D. dissertation). Kayastha, S. L. and 1971 "Trend of Population Growth in Uttar Pradesh". Prakash, Om In: Selected papers on Population and Settlement Geography (21st International Geographical Con- gress), Calcutta: National Committee for Geo- graphy.


Kumar, A. and Sharma, N.

1979 "Bihar's Population on Move: Issues on Inter-District Migration'". In: V.N.P. Sinha and R. B. Mandal (eds.),Dimensions in Geography. Patna: Associated Book Agency, 97-117.

Kosinski, Leszek A. and 1975 Prothero, R. Mansell

People on the Move: Studies on Internal Migration. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

Lakshmaiah, T. 1974 "Migration and Urbanization Among Rural Migrant Rickshaw Pullers — A Case Study". Interdiscipline (2) 4(Winter), 80-92.

Lal, Amrit 1961 "Pattern of In-Migration in India's Cities". Geographical Review of India. 23(3) (September), 16-23.

Lee, Everett S. 1966 "A Theory of Migration". Demography. 3, 47-57.

Mabogunje, A. L. 1970 "Systems Approach to a Theory of Rural-Urban Migration". Geographical Analysis. 2, 1-18.

Majumdar, P. S. and Majumdar, Ila

1978 Rural Migrants in an Urban Setting. New Delhi: Hindustan Publishing Corporation.

Mehrotra, G. K. 1974 Birth Place Migration in India. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Mishra, Shridhar 1952 "Under-Employment and Migration of Agricultural Labourers in U.P.". Rural India. 15(3) (Whole No. 155) (March), 89-93.

-------------- 1956 "The City-Ward Migration". Rural India. 19(3) (Whole No. 201) (March), 86-88.

Mitra, Ashok 1967 Internal Migration and Urbanization in India, Part I & II. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Mimeograph).

-------------- 1968 "Problems of Internal Migration and Urbanization in India". Indian Demographic Bulletin. 1(1), 1-9.

Mukherjee, S. 1979 "Under-standing Canonical Analysis and its Application Through Human Mobility Research". Geographical Review of India. 41(3), 234-49.

Mythili, K. L. 1974 "Little Madras" in Bombay City". In: M.S.A. Rao (ed.), Urban Sociology in India. New Delhi: Orient Longman Ltd., 241-50.


Nair, K. S. 1978 Ethnicity and Urbanization (A Case Study of the Ethnic Identity of South Indian Migrants in Poona). Delhi: Ajanta Publications.

Narain, Vatsala 1975-76

"Demographic Aspects of Urbanization". The Indian Journal of Social Work. 36(3 & 4) October-January), 233-58.

National Sample Survey

1960 Fourteenth Round (July 1958-June 1959), No. 128, Tables with Notes on Internal Migration (Rural). New Delhi: Manager of Publications, Government of India.

1971 Eighteenth Round (February 1963-January 1964), No. 182, Tables with Notes on Internal Migration. New Delhi: Manager of Publications, Government of India.

Padki, M. B. 1964 "Outmigration from a Konkan Village to Bom-bay". Artha Vijnana. 6(1), 27-36.

Pakrasi, Kanti 1962 "A Study of Some Aspects of Structural Variation Among Immigrants in Durgapur, West Bengal". Man in India. 42(2) (April-June). 116-125.

Patel, Kunj M. 1963 Plural Labour in Industrial Bombay. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Peterson, William 1969 Population. London: The Macmillan Co.

Pethe, Vasant P. and Mulav, Sanjeevanee

1975 "Urbanization Trends in Maharashtra". Demography India. 4(2) (December), 378-92.

Piplai, Tapan and Majumdar, Niloy

1969 "Internal Migration in India: Some Socio-Economic Implications". Sankhya. Series B, 31, Parts 1 & 2 (June), 509-22.

Prabhu, P. N. 1956 "Bombay: A Study of the Social Effects of Urbanization on Industrial Workers Migrating from the Rural Areas to the City of Bombay". Sociological Implications of Industrialization and Urbanization (Five Studies in Asia). Calcutta: UNESCO, 49-106.

Prasad Rao, C. R. 1970 "Rural-Urban Migration: A Clue to Rural-Urban Relations in India". The Indian Journal of Social Work. 30(4) (January), 335-42.

Premi, M. K. 1976 "Urban Outmigration: Its Pattern and Characteristics of Outmigrants". Occupational Paper No. 3, New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University (Mimeograph).


------------ 1978 Outmigrating Towns: A Study into the Nature, Causes and Consequences of Out-migration, Re-port sponsored by ICSSR, New Delhi.

-------------- 1980 "Aspects of Female Migration in India". Economic and Political Weekly. 15(15) (April 12), 714-20.

Ranga Rao, K. and Murty, K. R.

1974 "Urban Growth, Patterns and Sociological Implications". Indian Journal of Comparative Sociology. (1), 24-28.

Ranga Rao, K. et al. 1977 "Migration Experience of Urban Slum Dwellers''. The Indian Journal of Social Work. 38(1) (April), 1-7.

Rao, M.S.A. 1974 "The Migrant to City". Yojana. 18(20) (November 15), 7-13.

Ravenstein, E. G. 1885 "The Law of Migration". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 48, Part 2 (June), 167-227.

-------------- 1889 "The Laws of Migration". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 52 (June), 241-301.

Rele, J. R. 1969 "Trends and Significance of Internal Migration in India". Sankhya. Series B, 31(1 & 2) (June), 501-8.

Rowe, W. L. 1973 "Caste, Kinship and Association in Urban India". In: A Southall (ed.), Urban Anthropology: New York: Oxford University Press, 211-49.

Roy, B. K. 1979 "International Migration in India's Manpower Resources". The National Geographical Journal of India. 24, Part 1 (March), 8-21.

Sandesara, J. C. 1964 "Migration and Metropolitan Living: A Study of Indian Cities". The Economic Weekly. 16(19) (May 9), 807-10.

Saxena, D. P. 1978 Rural-Urban Migration in India: Causes and Consequences. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

Sen Gupta, P. 1968 "Formation of Economic Regions by Population Characteristics and Resource Development". In: P. Sen Gupta and Galina V. Sdasyuk (eds.). Economic Regionalization of India: Problems and Approaches, Census of India, 1961. Monograph Series 1(8). New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.


Sen Gupta, S. and Bhattacharya, S.

1966 "Commutation in West Bengal: Findings of a Survey". In: Ashok Mitra (ed.), Indian Population Bulletin. New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India, 131-44.

Singh. J. P. 1978a "The Demographic Aspect of the System of the Growth of Cities". The Indian Journal of Social Work. 38(4), 307-23.

--------------- 1978b Demographic Aspects of Urbanisation in India: A Sociological Analysis. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University (M. Phil. dissertation).

1979a "Demographic Attributes of Urban India". In: V. N. P. Sinha and R. B. Mandal (eds.), Dimensions in Geography. Patna: Associated Book Agency, 171-94.

--------------- 1979b "Bihar: A Study in Process of Urbanization". Man In India. 59(2), 171-188.

1980 "Patterns of Urbanization in a Developing Region: A Demographic Perspective". In: M. N. Kama (ed.). Studies in Bihar's Economy and Society. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Co.

Singh, J. P. and Singh, R. D.

1976 "Santals: A Socio-Economic Study". Indian Geographical Studies. Research Bulletin No. 6 (March), 33-39.

Sinha, Bichitrananda 1958 "Population Analysis of Orissa". National Geo-graphical Journal of India. 4(4) (December), 200-20.

Sovani, N. V. 1966 Urbanization and Urban India. New York: Asia Publishing House.

1967 "Internal Migration and Future Trend of Popula-tion in India". Proceedings of the World Populi-tion Conference. Vol. II (Belgrade, 30 Aug. -10 Sept. 1965), New York: United Nations, 40-43.

Srinivas, M. N. 1962 Caste in Modern India and Other Essays. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

1966 "Sociological Studies in India". Economic and Political Weekly. 1(3) (September 3), 119-20.

Stouffer, S. A. 1940 "Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance". American Sociological Review. 5, 845-67.

POPULATION MOBILITY IN INDIA

61

Suprunovich, B. P. 1971 "Migration and Change in the Geography of Rural Population and Agriculture in India". In: A Chandrasekhar (ed.), Economic and Socio- Cultural Dimensions of Regionalization: An Indo- USSR Collaborative Study. Census Centenary Monograph No. 7 (Census of India, 1971). New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 279-96. Thadani, Veena N. 1978 "Towards a Theory of Female Migration in De-

and Todaro, M. P. veloping Countries". Paper presented at the an- nual meeting of the Population Association of America. Thomas, Dorothy 1938 Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials.

Bulletin 43, New York: Social Science Research Council.

Todaro, M. P. 1971 "Income Expectations, Rural-Urban Migration and Employment in Africa". International Labour Review. (November), 387-413. --------------- 1976 "Rural-Urban Migration, Unemployment and

Job Probabilities; Recent Theoretical and Em- pirical Research". In: Ansley J. Coal (ed.), Economic Factors in Population Growth. London: Macmillan & Co. United Nations 1961 The Mysore Population Study {A Co-operative

Project of the United Nations and the Govern- ment of India). Population Studies No. 34, New York: Department of Economics and Social Affairs, United Nations.

Vaidyanathan, K. E. 1969 "Components of Urban Growth in India, 1951-

61". Proceedings of the General Conference of the International Union for Scientific Study of Population. 4, London, 2941-48. Valunjkar, T. N. 1966 Social Organization, Migration and Social Change in a Village Community. Deccan College Disserta- tion, Series 28, Poona: Postgraduate and Re- search Institute, Deccan College.

Wattal, P. K. 1934 The Population Problem in India: Census Study. Bombay: Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. Weiner, Myron 1973 "Assam and Its Migrants". Demography India. 2(2), 314-49.


1978 Sons of the Soil {Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India). Delhi: Oxford University Press. Whiteford, Michael B 1978 "Women Migration and Social Change: A Colombian Case Study". International Migration Review. 12(2), 236-47.

Zachariah, K. C. 1959 "Migration to Greater Bombay, 1941-51". The Indian Journal of Social Work. 20(3) (Decem- ber), 190-92. --------------- 1964a "A Note on Internal Migration in India". In: UNESCO (ed.), Urban-Rural Differences in Southern Asia: Some Aspects and Methods of Analysis (Report on Regional Seminar, Delhi, 1962), Delhi: UNESCO Research Centre on Social and Economic Development in Southern Asia, 71-76. ------------- 1964b A Historical Study of Internal Migration in the

Indian Sub-Continent, 1901-31. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

------------ 1966 "The Maharashtrian and Gujarati Migrants in Greater Bombay". Sociological Bulletin. 15(2) (September), 68-87. ------------- 1968 Migrants in Greater Bombay. Bombay Asia

Publishing House.

population mobility in india: studies and prospects · first, a vast majority of early indian...

Documents