ADVERTISEMENTS:
Here is an essay on ‘Urbanisation’ for class 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Urbanisation’ especially written for school and college students.
Essay on Urbanisation
Essay Contents:
- Introduction and Concept of Urbanisation
- Reasons for Urbanisation
- Effects of Urbanisation
- Urbanisation Trends and their Implications
- Low Level of Urbanisation
- Concentration of Urban Population in Large Cities
- Urban Conditions and Challenges
- Urbanisation in the 19th Century
- Urbanisation in the 20th Century
1. Introduction and Concept of Urbanisation:
Definitions:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Urban areas have been recognised as “engines of inclusive economic growth”. Of the 121 crore Indians, 83.3 crore live in rural areas while 37.7 crore stay in urban areas. That is, approximately 32% of the population live in urban areas.
The Census of India, 2011 defines urban settlement as, all the places which have municipality, corporation and cantonment board, or notified town area committee.
It includes all the other places which satisfy following criteria:
a. A minimum population of 5000 persons;
b. At least 75% of male main working population engaged in non- agricultural pursuits; and
ADVERTISEMENTS:
c. A density of population of at least 400 persons per square kilometre.
The first category of urban units is known as Statutory town. These towns are notified under law by respective State/UT government and have local bodies like municipal corporation, municipality, etc., irrespective of demographic characteristics. The second category of towns is known as Census Town. These were identified on the basis of Census 2011 data. Cities are urban areas with more than 1,00,000 population. Urban areas below 1,00,000 are called towns in India.
Urbanisation—Inevitable and Desirable:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Urbanisation in the true sense had begun during the British period. In 1687-88, the first municipal corporation in India was set up at Madras (now Chennai). In 1726, Municipal Corporations were set up in Bombay (Mumbai) and Calcutta (Kolkata). In 1882, a resolution was passed and according to which, panchayats were to be formed at village level, district boards, and taluq boards and municipalities also came into existence.
At that time Lord Ripon was Viceroy of India, and for this Lord Ripon is known as father of local self-government in India. Urbanisation since independence has been focused through respective Five year plans. In recent years, there have been various reasons that have led to the growth of urbanisation.
2. Reasons for Urbanisation:
1. Industrialisation:
Industrialisation is a major cause of urbanisation. It has expanded the employment opportunities. Rural people have migrated to cities on account of better employment opportunities.
2. Social Factors:
Many social factors such as attraction of cities, better standard of living, better educational facilities, and need for status also induce people to migrate to cities.
3. Employment Opportunities:
In the rural sector, people have to depend mainly on agriculture for their livelihood. But Indian agriculture is highly dependent on monsoon. So, in drought situations or natural calamities, rural people have to migrate to cities.
4. Modernisation:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Urban areas are characterised by sophisticated technology, better infrastructure, communication, medical facilities, etc. People feel that they can lead a comfortable life in cities and migrate to cities.
Rural Urban Transformation:
Not only cities are growing in number, but rural community is adopting urban culture. Rural people are following the material culture of urban people. Urban rural transformation can be observed in areas such as spread of education. The literacy rate has increased among the rural people. They have become more modernised.
Besides these, multiple other changes have occurred due to urbanisation:
i. Change in dress and food habits.
ii. Adoption of modern technology.
iii. Empowerment of women.
iv. Modern transport and communication. For example, cell phones have become common even among rural people.
v. Active involvement in politics.
vi. Growth of infrastructure like banks, post office, etc.
vii. Awareness among rural consumers.
viii. Increasing demand for sophisticated products like cosmetics, etc.
Thus, it can be noticed that there are significant changes in the lifestyle of village dwellers. Indian villages have adopted urban culture and urban style of living. However, it is also a lamentable fact that all villages in India have not been able to enjoy the fruits of modernisation.
3. Effects of Urbanisation:
With a high rate of urbanisation, significant changes have taken place.
The effect of urbanisation can be summed up as follows:
Positive Effect:
i. Migration of rural people to urban areas.
ii. Employment opportunities in urban centres.
iii. Transport and communication facilities.
iv. Educational facilities.
v. Increase in the standard of living.
Urbanisation can yield positive effects if it takes place up to a desirable limit. Extensive urbanisation or indiscriminate growth of cities may result in adverse effects.
Negative Effect:
i. Problem of Over Population:
Concentration of population is a major problem of cities. It has resulted in reduced quality of life, growth of slums, etc.
ii. Disintegration of Joint Family:
Joint family can’t be maintained in cities on account of high cost of living. People prefer to live in the nuclear type of families.
iii. Cost of Living:
High cost of living is a major problem of cities. In cities like Mumbai, Bengaluru, etc. it is very difficult for lower income groups to maintain a decent standard of living.
iv. Increase in Crime Rates:
Urban centres are known for high rate of crimes. Theft, dacoity, murder, cheating, pickpocketing, rape, etc. are common in urban centres.
v. Impersonal Relations:
Urban centres are characterised by highly impersonal relations. The concept of neighbourhood and community life are almost absent in cities. Urban life is highly monotonous. This may have an adverse psychological effect on individuals. People are often self centred and they have no concern for the fellow human beings.
vi. Problem of Pollution:
In industrialised cities, pollution is a major problem. It may be caused by industries or by excessive movement of vehicles.
vii. Stress:
Urban life is characterised by stress which may even strain family relations.
Thus, urbanisation has its own merits and demerits.
4. Urbanisation Trends and their Implications:
The degree or level of urbanisation is defined as the relative number of people who live in urban areas. The urban percentage has increased from 11 % in 1901 to 31 % in 2011, whereas per cent rural has shown the gradual decrease from 89% to around 69% over a century. The urban-rural ratio for India in 2011 turns out to be around 45, meaning that against every 100 ruralites there are 45 urbanites in India in 2011.
All these indices pinpoint that India is in the process of urbanisation and it is at the acceleration stage of urbanisation. Urbanisation in India has been relatively slow compared to many developing countries. The percentage of annual exponential growth rate of urban population reveals that in India, it grew at a faster pace from the decade 1921-31 to until 1951.
Thereafter, it registered a sharp drop during the decade 1951-61. The decades 1961-71 and 1971-81 showed a significant improvement in the growth which has thereafter steadily dropped to the present level (3.16%). The sharp drop in urban rate during 1951-61 was mainly due to the declassification of a very large number of towns during that period. The decline in rural population growth was within a small range during 1981-91 and 2001-2011. During the process of urbanisation, it is natural that rgtp > rgup > rgro
Where,
rgtp = rate of growth of total population,
rgup = rate of growth of urban population, and
rgrp = rate of growth of rural population.
Tempo of urbanisation refers to speed of urbanisation and is measured as a change registered in the level or degree of urbanisation over the years.
The tempo or speed of urbanisation is not uniform over the years. It shows a fluctuating trend over the years 1901-1981 and a declining trend during 1981-91 and 1991-2001. Once again it registered an increase during 2001-2011.
Again, it is required to mention tempo of urbanisation measured as a percentage will tend toward zero as the urban population reaches the 100% level, since the urban and total population growth would become the same. In order to understand the dynamics of urban development in a large country like India, it is important to examine the changes in the levels and pace of urbanisation across states. At the state level, the pattern of urbanisation is full of diversities, but economically advanced states more or less show higher levels of urbanisation.
All the southern states, and states like Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and West Bengal, have higher levels of urbanisation than that of the national average, but small states like Goa continue to top the list among states (62% urban), followed by Mizoram (51.5%). Among the large states, Tamil Nadu continues to be ahead of the others, with levels of urbanisation at 48.4% in 2011. States that lag behind are Himachal Pradesh with an urban population of 10%, followed by Bihar (11.3%), Assam (14%), and Orissa (16.6%).
Other states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand also continue to have lower levels of urbanisation than the national average. There are only 15 states and union territories which show an increased urban population growth rate during 2001-2011 as compared to 1991-2001. Among them, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand are the major states.
A very high urban population growth has occurred in the states of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh while urban population growth rates have increased to 6.5% per annum in Kerala and 3% per annum in Andhra Pradesh during 2001-11, compared to just about 1% per annum during 1991-2001. In both Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, as well as in West Bengal and Gujarat, a large number of new towns have emerged as a result of rural-to-urban classification in 2011.
5. Low Level of Urbanisation:
Urbanisation helps pull people out of poverty and advances progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), but, if not managed well, can also lead to burgeoning growth of slums, pollution, and crime, says the Global Monitoring Report (GMR) 2013, released by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Urbanisation has been a major force behind poverty reduction and progress towards other MDGs.
With over 80% of global goods and services produced in cities, countries with relatively higher levels of urbanisation, such as China, and many others in East Asia and Latin America, have played a major role in lowering extreme poverty worldwide. In contrast, the two least urbanised regions, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, have significantly higher rates of poverty and continue to lag behind on most MDGs.
Despite significant fluctuations over the past few decades, urban growth has at best been modest in India. Contemporary growth scenarios in India cast serious doubts on the prospect for rapid urbanisation in the future. The rate was reasonably high in the fifties, fell sharply during the sixties, and reached its peak in the 1970s, as reported by Population Census in India.
The Indian Urban Rural Growth different (URGD) was below 1 per cent during the fifties and rose gradually to 2 per cent by the early 1980s. However, it fell dramatically during the 1980s and further in the 1990s. The growth rate for the period (2000-05) for India has been estimated by the UNPD as only 1 per cent. Both urban growth and URGD are still much below that of South America and Sub-Saharan Africa during the entire period.
All these trends confirm the declining overall trend of urbanisation and question the popular theories of “urban explosion”, or “over-urbanisation” in India, as well as the future urban scenario put forward by various expert committees set up by the government and international agencies over the past two-and-a-half decades.
It is only recently that policymakers in India have started questioning the rapid urbanisation perspective and, with it, the measures for discouraging rural-urban migration and decelerating urban growth.
Low Rural—Urban Migration:
An important feature of urbanisation in India during the period 1981-2001 was the relatively small contribution of migration to the increase in urban population in India. Net migration from rural areas contributed about 21% to the increase in urban population in the 1990s, a little smaller than its contribution of 22.6 % in the 1980s. Natural increase has been by far the largest source of increase in urban population (62.7% in the 1980s and 59.2% in the 1990s).
The McKinsey Report (2010) on India’s urbanisation prospects estimates that over the period 2010-2030, urban India will create 70% of all new jobs in India and these urban jobs will be twice as productive as equivalent jobs in the rural sectors.
6. Concentration of Urban Population in Large Cities:
Some of the big metros like Hyderabad and Bengaluru have experienced peripheral expansion with smaller municipalities and large villages surrounding the core city becoming part of the larger metropolitan area. A similar phenomenon of peripheral expansion is beginning to emerge in smaller metros like Indore, Surat, and Nagpur. The proliferation of slums is also not limited to big metros like Mumbai and Kolkata, but has afflicted smaller metropolitan cities like Meerut, Faridabad, and Nagpur as well.
The group of smaller metropolitan cities (Class IB) are expected to continue to grow faster than the ‘main metros’. These cities such as Faridabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Patna, Amritsar, and Ludhiana need urgent attention before the challenges facing them acquire the scale and proportion of those facing the big metros. The fastest growth in the 1990s has been of Nashik and Faridabad, which were non-metropolitan cities, i.e., cities with population between 0.1 million and 1 million, to begin with, but crossed the threshold to become metropolitan cities in 2001.
Other non-metropolitan cities, i.e., cities with population less than 1 million that have grown very rapidly are Jamnagar, Junagad, Mangalore, Gulbarga, Aurangabad and Solapur. Migration from villages has been largely to the metropolitan cities, and the small and medium towns have languished for want of an economic base. The lower share of urban population in smaller towns, and the relatively slower growth of these towns compared to larger urban centres, has implications for how the urbanisation challenge needs to be managed.
The Class II and smaller towns with population of less than 100,000 in India also have very different levels of managerial and governance systems compared to larger Class I and metropolitan cities. Hence, interventions for preparing our cities will need to distinguish between the challenges and capacities of larger cities versus the smaller towns in the country.
Notwithstanding the growing and disproportionate importance of the ‘big’ cities, public policy needs to take note of the smaller urban centres, particularly because of their weak economic base, high incidence of poverty, and lack of access to benefits which are available to rural areas. Besides the large numbers, often the smaller centres are much different from their ‘bigger’ counterparts in their problems and hence in the solutions to these problems.
Emergence and Growth of ‘Census’ Towns:
The places which satisfy the following criteria are called Census towns (CTs):
A. A minimum population of 5000.
B. Atleast 75% of the main male working population is engaged in non- agricultural occupations.
C. A density population of 400 per sq. Km.
7. Urban Conditions and Challenges:
1. Housing Problems:
The most expensive and inevitable requirement in a city is a house. Migration of people from rural areas to cities in search of employment has resulted in increase in population size and coupled with increase in nuclear families has compounded the scarcity of housing. Most of the metropolitan cities except Ahmedabad and Greater Mumbai have shown increased trend of residential buildings from 2001.
Apart from Metro cities, the other fast developing cities are Coimbatore, Jaipur, Nagpur, Surat, and Vadodara. Many of the houses are built without permission from the city or town planning authorities. Living facilities also differs with the growth of cities. To improve the housing facilities for the people living in urban areas, the Government has framed certain policies and also implemented laws for providing land, housing loan at lower rate of interest, and tax concessions.
In this direction, many State Governments have constructed ‘Janata Housing Colonies’ for the poor and slum people or houseless people. However, for the growing population it is difficult to solve the housing problem in a short period.
2. Water and Sanitation Problems:
In India, water supply in many of the cities is through the pipeline system from the nearest water tank or pond or river. The water supply from different rivers or reservoirs largely depends on the quantity of rainfall received in that year, and this source is declining for the past several years. Many of the cities in India are facing an acute shortage of safe drinking water, especially during summer season. There are cities in India where there is no proper water source; many of such cities are far from rivers and other possible sources.
The supply of water in many cities is found to be once in every 7 to 10 days due to shortage of water. 40% of Indian cities get water through tap water and tube well, about 21% of cities are supplied with only tap water, and 12% are supplied with tube well water alone. Many of the urban poor and middle class families are finding it difficult to store the collected water for the future days and this makes them to use water economically for essential day-to-day use.
As per 2001 Census, about 60% of the cities store water in the overhead tanks. 9% of the cities stores through service reservoirs and 14% of the cities lack specific storage facility. Many of the urbanities do not have access to safe drinking water, sewage services, and other facilities.
3. Water Pollution – A Major Problem in Urban India:
The main source of water pollution is the non-scientific sewage system, which pollutes well and rivers. Waste water management is today’s prime concern. In the metro city in Mumbai alone, it has been estimated that every day, about 200 tons of garbage is left on the streets. Due to shortage of water, it is difficult to keep the community latrines clean in the slums.
As a result, people who migrate from rural areas defecate in the open space. The sanitation and water supply systems have contaminated the ground water supplies. People are suffering from the epidemics of cholera, typhoid, and hepatitis. The recurring endemic diseases like gastroenteritis, dysentery, diarrhea, and malaria are caused frequently by the use of contaminated water.
4. Industrial Pollution:
The increase in the number of industries has led to the growth of urban population and economy. Different industries produce different pollutants and release them into the environment. If we look at the pollution level in cities with the population size of million plus, a city like Surat releases maximum sulphur dioxide in the form of ash, smoke, automobiles exhaust, and household burning of coal and wood.
Other cities like Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, Faridabad also send maximum polluting elements to the atmosphere. The increase in sulphur dioxide level in the atmosphere results in diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis, respiratory problems, and lung cancer among city dwellers. Six cities—Mumbai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Surat, Kochi, and Vishakhapatnam have nitrous oxide levels beyond the permissible limit and causes discoloration of skin.
Patna and Surat have almost four times higher than maximum permissible limit of SPM (Suspended Mass Particles) followed by other cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Indore, Kanpur, Lucknow, and Jaipur. SPM consists of benzene soluble organic matter which is highly toxic and carcinogenic. Industrial workers are exposed to poisonous gases, chemicals, and dust that produce serious headache, chest pain, eye, nose, and skin irritation.
Similarly, an effective way of collection and treatment of industrial waste water is a severe problem in most of the developing countries like India. Effluent and waste water treatment is expensive and hence it is not followed in many industries. Most of the treated waste water should be recycled to meet its own requirement. Reuse of waste water for the purpose of agriculture and other uses has been well recognised in some of the developed countries.
5. Transportation Problems:
Assuming a decadal increase of around 32%, India’s urban population is expected to increase from 377 million in 2011 to 500 million in 2021. In terms of percentage of total population, the urban population has gone up from 17% in 1951 to 31.8% in 2011 and is expected to increase up to around 35% by the year 2021. This growth has envisaged the demand for transport from one place to the other.
Many of the Indian cities are less accessible to the surrounding rural areas due to inadequate roads and transportation facilities. Within and between cities, mobility of individuals have increased tremendously and the people are experiencing severe problems such as delays, traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, and energy waste, etc. Improper transport policy adversely affects traffic congestion and also causes significant disruption of business and commercial activities.
The policy should aim at reducing the social costs of accidents and pollution. The roadways in India has grown up by manifolds. India had a road network of over 4,689,842 kilometres (2,914,133 mi) in 2013, the second largest road network in the world. Despite this, urban India suffers from transport issues. The main reason for all these is the prevailing imbalance in modal split besides inadequate transport infrastructure and its sub-optimal use.
Public transport systems in cities have not been able to keep pace with the rapid and substantial increases in demand over the past few years. As a result, people have turned towards personalised modes such as mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, and cars and intermediate public transport modes such as auto-rickshaws, tempos, and taxis.
Cities cannot afford to cater only to the private vehicles and there has to be a general recognition that a policy should be designed in such a way that reduces the need to travel by personalised modes and boosts public transport, particularly bus transport system. Measures need to be taken to enhance the quality as well as quantity of public transport services and to impose constraints on the use of private vehicles.
6. Global Warming and Air Quality:
The protective atmospheric ozone layer is becoming thin resulting in the rise of global temperatures and greenhouse effect. The UNO is keen on environmental protection. The increase in the urban sprawl increases the number of buildings, extensive road networks, and other paved surfaces. Urban areas generally have higher solar radiation; heat is stored during daytime and is released by night.
Built up areas in the urban belt tend to have relatively higher temperatures compared to those of non-urban areas. This thermal difference combined with heat generated by the urban houses, burning of fossil fuel in automobiles, and industrial pollution contributes to the development of heat in urban areas. To protect the ozone layer from the environmental pollution, the Government has to think on proper zoning policies and use of building materials and paved surfaces that minimizes the absorption of heat.
The Government should insist on the use of light colour to the buildings and roofing materials in commercial and residential properties, restrict use of reflective glasses on private and commercial properties, encourage tree planting in residential areas to provide shade, and keep the city cool and educate the people about effect of urban heat. The technology through Geographical Information System (GIS) links urban population with environmental problems and it displays the data in a coloured map form.
GIS provides useful colour pictures which can be used to educate the people regarding environmental problems. The health status of a citizen can be known by integrating geographic information on polluting factories, major roadways, and air and water quality monitoring. These maps should be made available to the public so that they can help the Government to initiate steps for pollution control measures.
8. Urbanisation in the 19th Century:
The history of urbanisation in India goes back to Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa and there never was a time when cities were not of decisive importance in the social, political and economic organisation of the country. Robert Clive found man large cities in Bengal and North India and further that the city of Murshidabad was more populous than the city of London.
However, the extension of the British rule led to the decline of many states and principalities as a result of which many old capital cities like Dacca, Lucknow and Tanjore suffered a great decrease in population.
Up to 1872, when the first census was taken, the only cities to gain population were the ports of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras and a few places in the interior of the country like Kanpur, thus reflecting the growth in new industries, foreign trade and the linking up of the hinterland by railways.
The influx of the rural population into the cities was also prompted by recurrent famine conditions and the growth of the landless labouring class. The expansion of these cities, however, could hardly compensate for the loss suffered by the older ones. Gadgil, therefore, concludes that ‘the percentage of the urban population in India was slightly bigger at the beginning of the century than in 1872.
Even thereafter, on account of the meagre development of manufacturing industries in India, the growth of urban population was very slow. The only increase of any consequence took place in the decade 1872 — 81 when the proportion of urban to total population increased from 8.7% in 1872 to 9.4% in 1881.
Even here, on account of the inaccuracies in the census of 1872, Gadgil is doubtful if the real increase was as large as it appears to be.
9. Urbanisation in the 20th Century:
The growth of urbanisation in the 20th Century can be divided into two distinct periods:
(a) Up to 1931 when the pace was rather slow and
(b) After 1931 when the rate quickened.
Between 1901—1931, the only decade to record any substantial, but by no means spectacular, growth in urban population was 1911—21 when the percentage of urban population rose from 10.2 in 1911 to 11.1 in 1921. On the other hand, the decade 1901—1911 saw a fall in the proportion from 10.8 in 1901 to 10.2 in 1911 which was caused by plague from which the towns suffered more than rural areas.
At the time of the 1911 census, the epidemic was raging in several provinces, especially those constituting U.P., M.P., Punjab and Maharashtra provinces where a large number of the regular inhabitants of many towns had gone away to villages. Consequently, a great many inhabitants of cities/towns were recorded as rural dwellers.
In all, between 1901—1931, the town population increased by 34% as compared with the 19% increase in the village population. In-spite of the larger percentage growth of the town population, the pace of urbanisation remained extremely slow as compared with that achieved by western countries.
Only 12% of the total population lived in towns in 1931, an increase of 0.82 per cent as compared with 1921 and 2.4% as compared with 1891.
In contrast, between 1871—1910, the proportion of town population in the total population of Germany increased from 36% to 60% while the proportion of rural population declined from 64 to 40. Similarly, between 1851—1911, the town population of France increased from 25.5% of the total population to 44.2%.
* Adjusted after converting the 1961 census figures so as to bring them in line with the definitions of urban.
What was the cause of so slow rate of urbanisation? The answer lies in the relatively low level of economic development in the country. Lidman and Demrose have estimated that between 1882—85 to 1898—1900, output per head either stagnated or, more likely, rose by between 0.3—0.5% per year.
After 1900, output grew by a little under 1% per head per year until the First War. The level of economic development being so low, urbanisation could not have been more rapid than it actually was.
The pace of urbanisation grew faster from 1931 onwards when the proportion of urban population rose from 11.9% in 1931 to 19% in 1961. The maximum increase took place in the decade 1941—1951 when the urban population increased by 41.4% as compared with a 8.8 rise in rural population.
It was on account of the large influx of displaced persons from Pakistan which resulted in considerable change in the population structure of certain towns, districts and states. In addition, war had created a substantial expansion of employment opportunities in the urban areas which attracted job seekers from the villages to the cities.
It is surprising that the decade of planned development in India, 1951—1961, did not make a marked improvement in the urban proportion. Although urban population increased by 26% the proportion of urban to total population increased only from 17.3% in 1951 to 19% in 1961.
Even after an allowance is made for the change in the definition of the urban, which would mean an increase of 37.6% in urban population, it must be admitted that the pace of urbanisation during this decade belied the widely held expectation’ of rapid increase. There are many reasons for this. The First Plan mainly directed its attention to fuller utilisation of existing capacity.
At the same time, much of the investment in this plan was in the rural sector. The Second Plan aimed at stimulating fresh industrial activity but, here too, the effort was to achieve a more balanced regional development. Secondly, incomes of local bodies governing towns and cities did not generally measure up to the investment required for providing amenities to attract large populations from the countryside.
Thirdly, except for a few notable exceptions, the investment in construction and housing in cities and towns was not of a high order. This is corroborated by the fall of urban sex ratio throughout India except in Class I cities in Maharashtra, Punjab, U.P. West Bengal and Delhi.
There were other contributory factors like the dissemination of Agricultural Extension Service, a general improvement in crop protection and irrigation, extension of electricity to rural areas, the investment in small scale industries and khadi and village industries, general improvement in rural transport, rural trade and commerce, slow pace of industrialisation, large increase in the labour force of the urban areas and growing unemployment which did not attract rural migrants.
Thus, the whole Pattern of investment in the I and II Plans encouraged the rural areas to retain their numbers while discouraging migration to the cities. The broad picture that emerges is that up to 1931, urbanisation in India moved at a very slow pace, but became somewhat faster after 1941, although at no time was it comparable to the rapid tempo seen in America or in some of the European countries.
As Hoselitz finds, the overall degree of urbanisation in India in 1951 was the same as in 19th Century Europe. Of course, the extent of industrialisation also was much smaller as can be seen from the fact that of the population engaged in non-agricultural occupations in India, the percentage engaged in manufacture was lower than the percentage in services.
This was exactly the opposite of what it was in Europe in the 19th Century.
While the overall rate of urbanisation in the country was low, there were marked variations among the stales. The most urbanized state in India was Maharashtra where 28% of the population was urban. Other states with a high degree of urbanisation were Gujarat (24%) Tamil Nadu (26%) West Bengal (24%) and Mysore (22%).
Orissa, Bihar and Assam were among the states with the lowest urbanisation, the ratio of urban to total population being 6%, 8% and 8% respectively. The states of Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and U.P. came in between the two extremes the average percentage of urban population varying between 20% in the Punjab to 13% in U.P.
Along with industrialisation and diversification in livelihood, the number of towns and cities, together with the urban population, steadily increased. But even here, the pace of growth became quicker only after 1921. In fact, the period up to 1921 saw very little change in the total number of towns or in their population, the number of towns increasing by 140 and their population by a bare 2 million between 1901—1921.
It was only from 1921 onwards that the growth of towns made more rapid progress, the decade 1941—1951 again witnessing the maximum increase when the number of towns rose by 630 and urban population by 17 million. The decline in the number of towns in 1961 was on account of the elimination of net 359 places having a population of 9.9 lakhs, which had previously passed muster for towns in the census of 1951.
A feature of urbanisation in India was that it did not spread equally to towns of all sizes. Rather, the cities and largest towns tended to increase in population at the expense of the medium-sized country towns having population of 5000—20,000.
It is significant that 2/3 of the decennial urban population, increase (1951—61) occurred in cities of more than 1 lakh population, so that the proportion of population in class I cities to the total urban population increased from 38% to 45%; that of class II towns remained stationary, of Class III towns rose from 18% to 20% and the proportion of the population of class IV and V towns fell from 32% to 23%.
This confirms the view that organised industries gained at the expense of the unorganised. This also implies that large cities were still expanding in industrial and commercial activity, claiming at the same time a comparatively large share in construction activities, public amenities and transport services.
But the outstanding growth of class I cities also indicated their capacity to absorb fresh investments, thus blocking their more equitable dispersal among the smaller towns.
Another feature of Indian urbanisation that needs special notice is that most of it was due not to any natural increase in urban population but to the movement of people from rural to urban area. According to a kingsley Davis estimate, the rural to urban migration between 1941—51 came to 9 million persons which was 20% of the urban and 3% of the rural population in 1941.
D.N. Majumdar found that 70% of the heads of the families in the city of Kanpur were immigrants. Of these, nearly 31% came before 1940 and the remainder thereafter.
This gives a lie to the long held view that the Indian rural population “is comparatively non-migratory because it is too strongly tied to its village origins by bonds of kinship, marriage, customs, caste, joint family and centuries of in group living to be easily diverted to the comparative insecurity and strangeness of the city.”
There is, however, one important difference. In the industrialised west, urbanisation was the result of a positive demand for labour from industry. In India, however, urbanisation stemmed not so much from industrialisation as from a lack of demand for labour in the rural areas.
The urban industry did create some employment but it was not sufficient to radically alter the occupational structure of the country’s working force. That is why we find that, while the population living in towns increased, that working outside the primary sector did not. This is borne out by the steady increase in the proportion of non-working to working population in urban areas.
The impact of urbanisation could be seen everywhere, especially in the field or urban employment. While it led to an increase in urban population, there was no proportionate expansion of employment opportunities in the urban areas. Even during the planned era, the number of jobs in the rural areas increased faster than in the urban centres.
As a result, the ratio of workers to total population in urban areas fell down substantially by 7% among males and almost by a quarter (24.5%) among females. In other words, unemployment in the urban areas was aggravated.
Besides, urbanisation was not accompanied by strict town planning. Consequently, there was a rapid unplanned development of towns and cities which, in its wake, created additional problems relating to drinking water, health and sanitation, transport and education. The problem of slum clearance, instead of being brought under control, was thus worsened.