See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326426013

Urbanisation in India: Trend , Pattern and Policy Issues

Preprint · May 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27168.69124

CITATIONS READS
0 15,227

1 author:

R. B. Bhagat
International Institute for Population Sciences
183 PUBLICATIONS   1,556 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ph.D. dissertation View project

Urbanisation and access to basic amenities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. B. Bhagat on 16 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 17
Urbanisation in India:
Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues
R. B. Bhagat

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR POPULATION SCIENCES

Mumbai, India
www.iipsindia.org

May, 2018
From the Editor's Desk…..
Greetings!!!

The International Institute for Population Sciences has taken a new

initiative to bring out a series of working papers based on the projects /
studies undertaken by the Institute. The main objective of the working paper
series is to disseminate new research ideas, theoretical developments
and methodological insights to the national and international research
community. The papers published under this series are peer-reviewed by
experts in the subject. We hope you will find the working papers interesting
and useful. We welcome your feedbacks.

Prof. H. Lhungdim and Dr. Harihar Sahoo

Editors, Working Paper Series

Editorial Team:
L. Ladusingh
Prof. H. Lhungdim
Dr. Harihar Sahoo
Prakash H. Fulpagare

Design and Layout:

Publication Unit, IIPS

Suggested Citation: Bhagat, R. B. 2018. “Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and

Policy Issues”, Working Paper No. 17, International Institute for Population Sciences,
Mumbai.
 IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Urbanisation in India:
Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

R. B. Bhagat
Professor and Head, Department of Migration and Urban Studies
International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai

May, 2018

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR POPULATION SCIENCES

Deonar, Mumbai 400 088, Maharashtra, India
Tel: +91 22 42372400; Fax: +91 22 25563257
E-mail: publicationcell@iips.net
Website: www.iipsindia.org
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Urbanisation in India:
Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues1

R. B. Bhagat

Abstract: Since the 2000s, there has been a change in the thinking of policy makers
about urbanisation. The Eleventh Five Year Plan argued that urbanisation should be seen
as a positive factor in overall development as urban sector contributes to about three-fifth
of the GDP. There is also a growing realization that an ambitious goal of 9 to 10 percent
growth in GDP fundamentally depends upon vibrant urban sector. Urbanisation has
increased faster than expected as per 2011 Census. This has reversed the declining trend
in urban population growth rate observed during 1980s and 1990s. Also, for the first time
since independence, the absolute increase in urban population was higher than rural
population. The urban population grew from 286 million in 2001 to 377 million in 2011- an
increment of 91 million compared to rural increment of 90.5 million. However, the urban
transition has huge implication for providing urban infrastructure and civic amenities in the
urban areas. This paper presents an assessment of the emerging pattern of urbanisation,
its spatial pattern and the components of urban growth namely the contribution of natural
increase, classification of rural into urban areas and the contribution of rural to urban
migration. The emerging pattern of urbanisation indicates that most of the parts of central,
eastern and northeastern India have very low level of urbanisation and also these areas
are characterized by very low level of economic development. This paper particularly
would be helpful to researchers who are interested in the demographic dynamics of
urbanisation having strong bearing on urban policies and programmes.

Introduction

The twentieth century witnessed a rapid shift of population from rural to urban
areas in most of the countries of the world. A merely 13 per cent of the global

1 Revised version of the paper entitled “Emerging Pattern of Urbanisation in India” appeared in Economic
and Political Weekly, August 2010, pp. 10-12.

1
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

population lived in urban areas in 1900, which increased to 29 per cent in 1950
and crossed the 50 percent mark (50.1 percent) in 2009 (UN, 2009). However, the
pattern of urbanisation is found to be very unequal between the more developed
and less developed world. Seventy-five percent population of developed world
lives in urban areas compared to 45 percent in the less developed world. In Asia
and Africa only 4 out of 10 persons live in urban areas. On the other hand, in India
only 3 out of 10 persons live in urban areas. Most parts of Asia and Africa, not
only have very low level of per capita income, but also the pace of urbanisation
has been modest in the recent past (Cohen, 2004). In the last two decades India
has experienced an accelerated economic growth after the Central Government
launched economic reforms in the country in 1991. The economic reforms aimed
at loosening the control of the Government and encourage entrepreneurs to
actively participate in India’s economic development. The economic growth
reached about 8 percent per annum during the first decade of the new millennium
compared to just 3 percent growth in the early 1980s. This has also led to a very
spectacular change in the perception of the Central Government about
urbanisation. In the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012), it is argued that
urbanisation should be seen as a positive factor in overall development. This
change in the thinking is coincidental with the fact that urban sector presently
contributes to about 65 percent of the GDP, and is also the product of the
realization that an ambitious goal of 9 to10 percent growth in GDP fundamentally
depends on making Indian cities much more livable, inclusive and competitive
(Planning Commission, 2008). The urban transition is considered as one of the
major challenges which will require a massive expansion in urban infrastructure
and services.

Under this backdrop, the results of the 2011 Census on urban population growth
assumes enormous significance in enhancing our understanding about the
magnitude, growth and inter-state variations in the levels and tempo of urbanisation
in the country. This paper presents an assessment of the emerging pattern of
urbanisation, its spatial pattern and the components of urban growth, namely
contribution of natural increase, rural-urban classification of settlements and the
contribution of rural to urban migration. It also throws light on some policy issues.

2
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Definition of Urban

Historically, the process of urbanisation got intensified in the wake of industrial

revolution in the western world which led to the expansion of infrastructure such
as transport and communication and propelled increased rural to urban migration.
The agglomeration of population, predominance of non-agricultural activities and
better provision of social amenities including health and educational infrastructure
emerged as distinguishing features of settlements following the industrialisation of
agrarian economies (Bhagat, 2005). In the contemporary times, however, the
settlements have become increasingly complex. Thus, in the study of urbanisation
it is pertinent to know how urban areas are defined because, from the demographic
point of view, the level of urbanisation is measured in terms of percentage of
population living in urban areas (Davis, 1962). An area is classified as rural and
urban depending upon various criteria such as population size, density,
occupational composition and civic status. There is no thumb rule to divide rural
and urban, and the practice is followed diversely across the countries of the world.
For example a UN study shows that 97 out of 228 countries use administrative
criteria to make distinction between urban and rural; in 96 cases the criteria used
to characterize urban include population size or population density. The economic
characteristics were used to define urban areas only in 25 countries and 15
countries have applied the functional criteria like paved streets, water supply
system, sewerage systems and electric lighting, etc. Lastly, in 22 cases no urban
definition was available and in further 8 all the population was considered either
urban or rural depending upon the circumstances (Zlotnik, 2002). Thus, in the
study of urbanisation at the global level, one should not lose sight of the definition
of urban followed in each country and the changes therein in order to understand
the urban dynamics appropriately.

In India during the British rule, urban area was defined as including every
municipality of whatever size, every cantonment, all civil lines not included in
municipal limits, and every other collection of houses permanently inhabited by
not less than 5000 persons which is of an urban character though not under
municipal government. This definition continued until 1961 Census, left the scope
for state census superintendents to apply their judgments in declaring the

3
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

settlements as urban. The latter aspect has been considerably reduced since
1961 Census, which defined the urban on the basis of two important criteria
namely: i) statutory administration, and ii) economic and demographic aspects.
The first one includes civic status of towns such as municipal corporations,
municipality, cantonment board, notified area committee, etc., and the second
comprises criteria like population size, density of population and percentage of
work force in non-agricultural sector. The towns identified on the basis of former
criteria are known as statutory or municipal towns and the towns defined on the
basis of demographic and economic criteria are termed as census or non-
municipal towns (Bhagat, 2005).

More specifically, the criteria of defining urban as mentioned in the recent census
report are as follows:

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

area committee etc.

ii) All other places which satisfy the following criteria:

a) Minimum population of 5000
b) At least 75% of male working population engaged in non-agricultural
pursuits, and
c) A density of population of at least 400 persons per square km.

Besides, the directors of census operation in states/union territories were allowed

to include in consultation with the concerned state Governments, union territory
administration and the census commissioner of India, some places having distinct
urban characteristics as urban even if such places did not strictly satisfy all the
criteria. The state governments decide about the civic status, while the Census of
India applies the demographic and economic criteria in identifying towns at every
ten years. These two criteria are applied independently by the two agencies. Thus
in every census several new towns are added as well as declassified if they do not
satisfy the above mentioned criteria. However, it is mentioned that India’s urban
definition is male biased as it considers only male workforce employed in non-
agricultural sector. But given the very low level of participation of women in non-

4
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

agricultural sector, it is done so (Bhagat, 2002). The definition of urban adopted

since 1961 census remained fairly constant until 2011 Census except that since
1981 the economic activities like fishing, livestock, logging, plantations, orchards,
etc., were excluded from the category of non-agricultural pursuits for computing
the percentage of male workforce in non-agricultural sectors (Census of India,
1991). This would have hardly any significant impact while comparing the
urbanisation trend over time.

It will be worthwhile to mention the criteria of defining urban applied by some of

the neighboring countries in order to understand the nature of urbanisation in
India in a proper perspective. For example, in Nepal only size of population (more
than 9000 population) is taken to declare a settlement as urban. Geographically,
Nepal is situated on mountainous terrain and economically it has low level of
industrialization and development. On the other hand, other neighbours like
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan apply administrative criteria to declare a
settlement urban. Any settlement with municipal corporation, municipality, town
committee and urban councils, etc., are declared as urban (UN, 2006). While
Bangladesh has much lower level of urbanisation (27.6 percent), Pakistan stands
much higher (35.6 percent) compared to India (29.7 percent) in 2009. It would be
interesting to mention how urban population is defined in the world’s largest
populous country-China with urban population of 46.1 per cent in 2009 (UN,
2009). In China, the urban population lives within the jurisdiction of cities and
towns, and rural population lives in counties. Cities are established with the
approval of the central government and towns are classified based on population
size as well the size of non-agricultural population under the township government.
The non-agricultural population is ascertained based on household registration
system maintained by local resident committees in towns and village committees
in townships. There is no uniform rules followed by these committees in making
distinction between non-agricultural and agricultural populations, nor are the rules
transparent as the nonagricultural resident enjoy significant privileges in terms of
access to apartments, jobs and subsidized food. In fact, the size of urban
population in China very much depends upon how non-agricultural population is
defined (State Statistical Bureau of China, 1998), and the rural-urban classification
is associated with differential privilege (Zhu, 2001).

5
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

There exists a considerable difference in the way urban areas are defined in
different countries. However, India’s definition of urban seems to be more stringent
compared to other south Asian countries. It is because of this reason that India’s
level of urbanisation is much lower than Pakistan and several African countries.

Trend in Urbanisation

The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India projected
the urban population to be 358 million for the year 2011, and estimated that urban
population growth rate would decline from 2.75 percent per annum observed
during 1991-2001 to 2.23 during 2001-2011 (Office of the Registrar General and
Census Commissioner, 2006). The urban experts also believed in the slowing
down of India’s urbanisation because of its exclusionary nature and its inability to
spur rural to urban migration (Kundu, 2007; 2011). However, the 2011 Census
shows some unexpected results.

According to 2011 Census, urban population grew to 377 million showing a growth
rate of 2.76 percent per annum during 2001-2011 and the level of urbanisation at
the country as a whole increased from 27.7 percent in 2001 to 31.1 percent in
2011- an increase of 3.3 percentage points during 2001-2011 compared to an
increase of 2.1 percentage points during 1991-2001. This clearly reflects the the
faster economic growth during 2000s in bringing out speedier urbanisation during
2001-2011.

Table 1 shows that India has about 79 million urban population in 1961 which
constituted about 18 percent of the total population. The average growth rate of
urban population was 2.32 percent during 1951-61 which accelerated up to 3.79
percent during 1971-81 i.e. the highest urban growth since independence. After
1981, the urban growth rate decelerated to 3.09 percent during 1981-91 and
further declined to 2.75 during 1991-2001. However, the declining growth rate
was slightly reversed during 2001-2011. The total addition to urban population
was 91 million during 2001-2011- the highest ever and for the first time urban
population increment was higher than rural increment (90.5 million) since a
uniform definition was followed since 1961.

It is worthwhile to mention that urban population growth alone cannot speed up

urbanisation but more importantly if urbanisation has to occur, urban population
6
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

growth rate needs to be higher than the rural population growth rate. Thus, it is the
urban-rural population growth differential that is critical to the process of
urbanisation. Table 2 shows that the urban-rural growth differentials increased
from about 1 percent per annum during 1991-2001 to 1.60 percent per annum
during 2001-2011. It is also evident from Table 2 that the rural population growth
has declined much faster during 2001-2011 compared to earlier decades. It is
also worthwhile to mention that the urban-rural population growth differential is the
product of the differential in natural increase between rural and urban areas
(births-deaths), net rural-urban classification and net rural to urban migration. The
urban-rural growth differentials in natural increase remained almost constant (4
per 1000 population) during 1991-2000 to 2001-2010. Therefore, it was the net
rural-urban classification and net rural to urban migration that was responsible for
higher urban-rural growth differential and speeding up urbanisation during 2001-
2011. The exact contribution of different components of urban growth is presented
in the sections to follow.

Table 1: Trends in Urbanisation in India, 1961-2011

Census year Urban Population Percent urban Annual exponential

(in million) urban growth rate (%)

1961 78.94 17.97 -

1971 109.11 19.91 3.23

1981 159.46 23.34 3.79

1991 217.18 25.72 3.09

2001 286.12 27.86 2.75

2011 377.10 31.16 2.76

Notes: As the 1981 Census was not conducted in Assam, and 1991 Census was not held
in Jammu and Kashmir, the population of India includes their projected figures.
Source: Census of India - respective censuses (www.censusindia.gov.in).

7
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Table 2: Urban-Rural Population Growth Differentials, 1971-2011

(Annual exponential growth rate in %)

Decade Rural Urban Urban-rural growth

differentials

1971-81 1.76 3.79 2.03

1981-91 1.80 3.09 1.29

1991-2001 1.69 2.75 1.06

2001-2001 1.16 2.76 1.60

Notes: As the 1981 Census was not conducted in Assam, and 1991 Census was not held
in Jammu and Kashmir, the population of India includes their projected figures.
Source: Census of India - respective censuses (www.censusindia.gov.in).

Components of Urban Growth

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

migration as well as reliable data on natural increase precludes the disaggregation
of urban growth by its various components (Brockerhoff, 1999).The natural
increase, net rural-urban classification and rural to urban migration are considered
as components of urban population growth. An assessment of their relative
contribution is very important to understand the dynamics of urban population
growth. The trend in the natural increase for the four decades up to the year 2010
is presented in Table 3. The natural increase in urban areas remained at 19.3 per
1000 persons during 1970-1980 which declined to 13.2 during 2001-2010. On the
other hand natural increase in rural areas declined from 20 per 1000 population
during 1971-1980 to 17.3 during 2001-2010- a decline of just 3 points compared
to the decline of 6 points in urban areas. Due to faster decline of natural increase
in urban areas the urban-rural growth differentials has also widened during the
last four decades. There was almost no urban-rural differential in natural increase
during the 1970s, it increased to 2 per 1000 population during the 1980s but
remained constant at 4 per 1000 during the last two decades. In India, fertility has
started declining since the early 1970s. The onset of fertility decline was not only
early but was even faster in urban areas. In a situation of widening urban-rural

8
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

growth differentials in natural increase, the other components like net rural-urban
classification of settlements and net rural to urban migration need to show faster
growth rates in order first to compensate the deficit of population arising due to
decline in natural increase in urban areas compared to rural areas and secondly
to contribute additionally to push up the level urbanisation. Therefore, the
combined contribution of net rural to urban classification and net rural to urban
classification is decisive in the process of urbanisation.

Table 3: Average birth, death and natural increase per 1000 population by
rural and urban residence, 1971-1980 to 2001-2010, India.

Years Birth rate Death rate Rate of natural Urban-rural

(per 1000) (per 1000) increase differentials in
(per 1000) natural increase

1971-1980

Rural 35.8 15.8 20.0

Urban 28.5 9.2 19.3 -0.7

1981-1990

Rural 33.9 12.6 21.3

Urban 27.0 7.7 19.3 -2.0

1991-2000

Rural 29.4 9.9 19.5

Urban 22.3 6.5 15.8 -3.7

2001-2010

Rural 25.7 8.4 17.3

Urban 19.3 6.0 13.2 -4.1

Source: Sample Registration System, Various Years, Registrar General and Census
Commissioner, India (www.censusindia.gov.in).

9
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

The decomposition of urban growth into major components namely natural

increase, net rural-urban classification and net rural to urban migration is
presented in Table 4.

The contribution of natural increase in urban population increment was 43.8

percent during 2001-2011 compared to 58 percent in the previous decade. It is
worthwhile to mention that the natural increase added a huge population i.e. about
40 million in the urban areas during 2001-2011. In the study of India’s urbanisation
the contribution of natural increase has not received as much attention as that of
the rural to urban migration. This led sometimes to the popular belief that urban
population is solely increasing due to migration. On the other hand, the contribution
of net reclassification of rural to urban areas, changes in municipal boundaries
and out growths has increased very significantly from about 22 percent during
199-2001 to about 36 percent during 2001-2011. This factor has been dominant
in influencing the speed of urbanisation during 2000s compared to net rural to
urban migration. Although net rural to urban migration has increased 14.2 million
to 18.7 million, the net rural to urban classification increased from 14.7 million to
32.3 million during 1991-2001 to 2001-2011. The 2011 Census reported that the
number of towns at the national level increased from 5161 to 7935- a net addition
of 2774 towns (2532 census towns and 242 statutory towns) in 2011 compared to
the net additions of 763 and 693 towns in 1991 and 2001 respectively. A fourfold
increase of new towns mostly small towns (less than 20,000) show the overriding
importance of spatial changes that reorganised the rural-urban space and
produced faster urbanisation during the 2000s. Many of these new small towns
have emerged as part of urban agglomerations of million plus cities.

10
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Table 4: Contribution of the components of Urban Growth, India,

1971-2011.

Population in Million Percentage Distribution

Components 1971- 1981- 1991- 2001- 1971- 1981- 1991- 2001-
81 91 2001 11 81 91 2001 11
Urban increment 49.9 56.8 68.2 91 100 100 100 100
Natural increase (of initial
population plus inter- 24.9 35.4 39.3 39.9 50 62.3 57.6 43.8
censal migrants)
Net rural-urban migration 9.3 10.6 14.2 18.7 18.6 18.7 20.8 20.6
Net reclassification from
rural to urban including
15.7 10.8 14.7 32.3 31.4 19 21.5 35.6
jurisdictional changes
and out growths
Source: The figures up to 2001 are taken from Bhagat and Mohanty (2009); The
components of 2001-2011 is estimated based on natural increase in urban areas between
2001-2010 and assuming the rate of net rural to urban migration remained constant
between 1991-2001 to 2001-2011. The contribution of net rural to urban classification
along with changes in municipal boundaries and out growths is estimated residually.

State Level Patterns

At the state level, the pattern of urbanisation is very diverse, but economically
advanced states show higher level of urbanisation. The emerging regional pattern
is evident from Fig. 1 which shows that most parts of central, eastern and north-
eastern India has very low level of urbanisation. This region is also the
economically less developed part of India. On the other hand, all southern states
along with states of northern and western India such as Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat,
and Maharashtra have higher urbanisation level than the national average, but the
small states like Goa continues to top the list among states with 62 percent urban
followed by Mizoram (51.5 percent). Among the major states, Tamil Nadu
continues to be ahead of other states with level of urbanisation at 48.4 percent in
2011. The states which are lagging behind are Himachal Pradesh at the bottom
with level of urbanisation at 10 percent followed by Bihar (11.3), Assam (14

11
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

percent) and Orissa (16.6). Other states like UP, Rajasthan, MP, Chhattisgarh
and Jharkhand also continued to have lower urbanisation than the national level.

Fig 1: Levels of Urbanisation, India 2011

Although reversal in the declining trend in urban population growth rate at the
national level is a major feature of urbanisation revealed by 2011 Census, there
are only 15 states and UTs which show increased urban population growth rate
during 2001-2011 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 where urban population growth rate has
increased to 6.5 percent per annum in Kerala and 3 percent per annum in Andhra

12
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Pradesh during 2001-11 compared to just about 1 percent per annum during
1991-2001. In both Kerala and Andhra Pradesh along with West Bengal and
Gujarat, a large number of new towns have emerged as a result of rural-urban
classification in 2011.

Table 5: Level of Urbanisation and Urban Growth in India and States, 2011

Average Average
Urban Urban-rural
% Annual annual rural
State/India Population growth
Urban Urban Growth
(in million) differentials*
Growth Rate* rate*

Andhra Pradesh 28.35 33.4 3.09 0.19 2.90

Arunachal Pradesh 0.31 22.6 3.18 2.07 1.01

Assam 4.38 14.0 2.43 1.41 1.02

Bihar 11.72 11.30 3.01 2.15 0.86

Chhattisgarh 5.93 23.2 3.49 1.65 2.84

Goa 0.90 62.1 3.01 -2.02 5.03

Gujarat 25.71 42.5 3.06 0.89 2.17

Haryana 8.82 34.7 3.66 0.99 2.67

Himachal Pradesh 0.68 10.0 1.45 1.17 0.28

Jammu & Kashmir 3.41 27.2 3.04 1.88 1.16

Jharkhand 7.92 24.0 2.79 1.79 1.00

Karnataka 23.57 38.5 2.72 0.75 1.97

Kerala 15.93 47.7 6.56 -3.00 9.56

Madhya Pradesh 20.05 27.6 2.28 1.70 0.58

Maharashtra 50.82 45.2 2.12 0.99 1.13

Manipur 0.82 30.2 3.55 0.43 3.12

Meghalaya 0.59 20.0 2.70 2.45 0.25

Mizoram 0.56 51.5 2.42 1.61 0.81

13
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Average Average
Urban Urban-rural
% Annual annual rural
State/India Population growth
Urban Urban Growth
(in million) differentials*
Growth Rate* rate*

Nagaland 0.57 28.9 5.15 -1.50 6.65

Orissa 6.99 16.6 2.37 1.13 1.24

Punjab 10.38 37.4 2.28 0.76 0.52

Rajasthan 17.08 22.8 2.56 1.74 0.82

Sikkim 0.15 24.9 9.29 -0.52 9.81

Tamil Nadu 34.94 48.4 2.4 0.64 1.76

Tripura 0.96 26.1 5.65 0.23 5.42

Uttar Pradesh 44.47 22.2 2.52 1.64 0.88

Uttarakhand 3.09 30.5 3.49 1.07 2.42

West Bengal 29.13 31.8 2.61 0.74 1.87

Andaman &
0.13 35.6 1.53 0.18 1.35
Nicobar Islands

Chandigarh 1.02 97.2 1.3 -11.55 12.85

Dadra & Nagar

0.15 46.6 11.52 0.73 10.79
Haveli

Daman & Diu 0.18 75.1 11.58 -5.12 16.70

Delhi 16.33 97.5 2.35 -8.31 10.66

Lakshadweep 0.05 78.0 6.23 -8.68 14.91

Pondicherry 0.85 68.3 2.71 1.91 0.80

India 377.10 31.1 2.76 1.16 1.60

* average annual during 2001-2011.

14
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Fig 2: Relationship between urban growth rate and urban-rural growth

differentials at state level, India, 2001-2011

As stated earlier, urbanisation is the product of urban-rural growth differentials.

Table 5 presents urban-rural growth differentials along with urban growth rate and
level of urbanisation (% urban). There exists a positive relationship between urban
population growth rate and urban-rural growth differentials (see Fig. 2) at the state
level. Fig. 3 further shows that the level of economic development contributes
positively in widening urban-rural growth differentials and thus contributing to the
speed of urbanisation.

15
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Fig 3: Per capita income and urban-rural growth differentials

at state level, India

Various studies show that urbanisation has been closely related to economic
development, and is the single most important factor in the organization of
production and access to services. Cities are considered to be engines of
economic growth and temples of modern civilization. Thus to know how our cities
are growing assumes enormous significance for understanding the problems of
economy and society.

City and Town Level Patterns

The cities and towns are classified into a six-fold classification by Census of India
namely more than 100,000, 99,999-50,000, 49,999-20,000, 19,999-10,000, 9,999-
5,000, and less than 5000. The size class known as cities comprises places
having a population of 100,000 and more, and the smallest category consists of
tiny towns with a population less than 5000. For a meaningful comparison of the
changes in urban population across size class of cities and towns, the towns
comprising of population less than 20,000 are defined as small towns (Census of
India, 1991). Further, cities with population of a million and more deserve a special
16
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

category in India’s urbanisation because of their large size and economic

dominance in the country. Such cities are called million plus or metropolitan cities.
Table 6 presents the percentage distribution of urban population by size class of
cities from 1901 to 2011. It may be seen from Table 6 that about five per cent of
the population lived in million cities in 1901, with the figure rising close to 20 per
cent in 1951 and to nearly 42.6 per cent by 2011 (see Fig. 4 also). The number of
million cities has also gone up from one in 1901 to 53 in 2011. Kolkata was the
only city which fell into the million cities category at the beginning of the twentieth
century, and then Mumbai joined the rank of million plus cities in 1911. For nearly
four decades, there were only two million cities, and then Delhi, Chennai and
Hyderabad joined the rank of million cities in 1951, increasing the total number of
million cities to five. In 1981, the million cities numbered 12. By 1991, 11 more
metro cities were added to the list, increasing the total number to 23. During the
decade 1991-2001, 12 more million plus cities have been added, followed by an
addition of 18 more during 2001-2011 increasing the total number of million plus
cities to 35 in 2001 and 53 in 2011 respectively. As a result, the concentration of
urban population in million plus cities increased significantly in the last decade
from about one-fourth in the 1970s to 1980s to more than two-fifths in the 2000s.
Among the metropolitan cities, six cities that have a population of more than five
million, namely Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore,
constitute one-fifth of the total urban population. When we look at all cities or
territories with a population of 100,000 and more, one-fourth of the total urban
population lived in cities in 1901. This went up to 45 per cent in 1951 and increased
to the maximum of 68 per cent in 2001. In 2011, the share of population in cities
with population one lakh and more slightly declined from 68 per cent in 2001 to 65
per cent in 2011. Notwithstanding this slight decline, it is worthwhile to point out
that the increasing concentration of population in cities, particularly in million plus
cities, has been a striking feature of India’s urbanisation during the last century.
The increasing concentration of population in cities sometimes gives the
impression that cities are growing much faster than small-and medium-sized
towns; however, this is not true when the growth rates of population across size-
class of cities and towns are considered. In fact, cities and towns are growing at
about the same rate across size class of cities and towns (Bhagat, 2004; Census
of India, 1991; Mohan & Pant, 1982; Visaria, 1997). However, results available
17
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

from 2011 census are indicative that while urbanisation in the country has speeded
up, the metropolitan cities like Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Ahmadabad and
Mumbai show decline in their growth rates (Kundu, 2011). It is also worthwhile to
mention that while core areas (municipal areas) of the city has been showing a
declining growth, the peripheral areas adjoining the main city has comparatively
grown faster during the last decade surrounding many million plus cities. In this
respect, the examples of cities like Navi Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan, Mira Bhayander
in the Mumbai metropolitan region are noteworthy. Same is true for Gurgoan,
Faridabad, Meerut, Noida around the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Thus, the
nature of migration in the big metropolitan cities seems to have changed which
need to be assessed in conjunction with the surrounding areas known as
metropolitan region. The metropolitan cities have also very high density of
population and it is likely to spill over to adjoining areas as a natural consequence.
Thus, one of the important features of India’s urbanisation seen from 2011 Census
is not only faster urbanisation, but also the faster urbanisation has been possible
due to the geographical expansion of urbanisation and also through the emergence
of new towns. On the other hand, vast areas still remains rural and providing
urban facilities in rural areas (PURA) as proposed by our former President of
India- A.P.J. Abdul Kalam in promoting India’s economic development still remains
a challenge (Kalam, 2003). Further, the civic conditions of many newly emerged
as well as old small and medium towns are appallingly poor.

Table 6: Urban population by size class of cities

and towns, India, 1901-2011

Census Million Cities Cities (100 Large Towns Medium Small Towns
year (one million thousand to (50 to 100 Towns (20 to (less than 20
& above) one million) thousand) 50 thousand) thousand)

1901 5.86 20.11 11.29 15.64 47.10

1911 10.89 16.74 10.51 16.40 45.46

1921 11.30 18.40 10.39 15.92 43.99

1931 10.34 20.86 11.65 16.80 40.35

1941 12.19 26.04 11.42 16.35 34.00

18
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Census Million Cities Cities (100 Large Towns Medium Small Towns
year (one million thousand to (50 to 100 Towns (20 to (less than 20
& above) one million) thousand) 50 thousand) thousand)

1951 19.07 25.57 9.96 15.72 29.69

1961 23.34 28.08 11.23 16.94 20.41

1971 26.02 31.22 10.92 16.01 15.83

1981 26.93 33.49 11.63 14.33 13.62

1991 33.18 32.01 10.95 13.19 10.66

2001 37.80 30.78 9.73 12.29 9.36

2011 42.62 23.09 9.33 12.78 11.75

Source: Various Census Reports.

Fig 4: Percentage of urban population by size class of cities

and towns, India, 2011

19
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Access to Basic Amenities by Size Class of Cities/Towns

According to 2011 Census, 55 per cent households in rural areas and 92 per cent
of households in urban areas have access to electricity. So far the toilet facility is
concerned, it was abysmally low in rural (30 per cent) compared to urban areas
(81 per cent). Whereas about one-fifth of households do not have access to toilet
facility in urban areas that means about 75 million urban populations have no
access to toilet facility as per 2011 Census. Another aspect of sanitation closely
associated with toilet facility is the wastewater outlet through the provision of
drainage. The proportion of households either with open or closed drainage was
81 per cent in urban areas. Compared with toilet and drainage facility, access to
drinking water provided either through tap or hand pumps was reported to be 74
per cent in rural areas compared to and 82 percent households in urban areas as
per 2011 Census. Use of clean fuel is very important from health point of view. In
rural areas, about one-tenth of households were found using LPG/PNG compared
to three-fifths in the urban areas. This shows that a very high proportion (two-
fifths) of households was still using polluting fuels which are not only hazardous
for health but also contributes to greenhouse gases and global warming.

India’s urban population is distributed across 8000 odd towns and cities with
different sizes, economic base and ability to generate resources from tax and non-
tax sources. Class I cities (100 thousand and more) have higher employment in
organized sector compared to small urban centres. In many small urban centres,
a sizeable proportion of workforce is also dependent on agriculture. Thus, size as
a measure of urban centres not only reflects population concentration but also
their economic strength as well. It is expected that the provision of basic services
is directly related to the size of urban centres. Table 7 presents basic amenities
by size class of urban centres. It confirms that except toilet facility all other
amenities like electricity, drainage, LPG/PNG, etc., increases with increasing size
class of cities and towns.

20
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Table 7: Percentage of households with access to selected basic amenities

by size class of urban centers, 2001 and 2011

Electricity Toilet Drinking LPG Drainage

Size Class Facility Water

2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011

Class-I

More than 5 million 97.2 98.3 57.7 63.8 97.5 91.3 63.0 79.5 82.8 97.0

1 million- 5 million 86.6 97.0 78.4 89.0 89.7 85.5 59.9 77.5 90.1 93.3

100 thousand-1 million 80.9 93.7 72.9 83.5 85.1 83.2 50.5 68.4 78.4 84.9

Class-II

50-100 thousand 77.7 91.8 66.4 77.1 81.8 84.0 43.7 63.9 73.3 80.1

Class-III

20-50 thousand 76.6 88.5 62.5 75.4 78.3 75.4 35.6 53.8 67.3 71.8

Class-IV

10-20 thousand 78.3 89.0 57.4 77.7 78.9 77.6 29.8 52.8 63.9 70.3

Class-V

5-10 thousand 76.3 87.9 53.9 77.9 78.6 79.4 26.4 52.0 57.9 68.3

Class-VI

Less than 5 thousand 77.9 88.6 62.5 75.9 71.3 81.0 26.6 51.1 50.8 64.2

Source: Census of India 2001 and 2011

About three-fourths of the households are covered by toilet facility among small
towns (20 thousand and less) which even declines to 64 percent among mega
cities with population more than 5 million. In mega cities a high proportion of
population living in slum areas that have either no access to toilet facility or have
community toilets. The coverage of electricity varies from 88 per cent among small
towns to 98 per cent among mega cities in 2011. The coverage of drinking water
varied from about 80 per cent among small urban centres to 90 per cent among

21
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

mega cities. While about one-fourth households are denied access to electricity,
the same is about one-fifth for drinking water which rises to one-fourth in respect
to toilet facility among small towns. Except tiny towns (population 10,000 and
below), the coverage of drinking water has declined across the size class of cities
and town during 2001-2011. So far the access of LPG/PNG is concerned, the
highest use of 80 per cent is found in mega cities compared to half of households
in the small urban centres. While it is obvious that bigger cities in general have
advantage in the use of clean fuel as LPG, but a significant proportion of residents
across size class cities and towns also depend on kerosene, and the rest on other
sources of fuel like coal, charcoal and wood as source of fuel which are sources
of indoor pollution and ill health among a substantial urban population living in
small and medium urban centres. There has been substantial increase (10 per
cent more) in most of the basic services across size class of cities and towns
except drinking water during 2001-2011. It appears that supply of drinking water
is the most challenging in the urban areas. At the state level, the situation remains
unchanged with regard to bigger cities, which show higher provision of the basic
services compared to smaller urban centers. But the cities (1lakh and more) of
poorer states like Bihar, Orissa, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh show much lower
provision of basic services compared to cities of Punjab, Maharashtra, Gujarat
and Karnataka. Thus, within same size class, inter-state disparities continue to
manifest. On the other hand, while the households of the small cities and towns
have low access to basic amenities, the poor households living in them are most
severely denied the access to basic amenities (Bhagat, 2013).

Conclusions and Policy Suggestions

The declining trend in the urban population growth rate observed during 1980s
and 1990s was reversed at the national level, and the level of urbanisation
increased faster during 2001-2011. The urban population grew from 286 million in
2001 to 377 million in 2011- an increment of 91 million which is larger than the
rural population increment of 90.5 million for the first time since independence. A
substantial increase in urban population is contributed by net rural-urban
classification and rural to urban migration. A huge number of new towns emerged
during the last decade contributing significantly to the speeding up of urbanisation.

22
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

On the other hand, although the contribution of natural increase in urban growth
has declined in terms of proportions, its share in absolute numbers (about 40
million) continues to be huge due to large base of the urban population. This has
implications not only for providing the increased urban infrastructure and civic
amenities, but also of the reproductive and child health services in urban areas.

Urban areas face acute shortage of civic amenities. In order to deal with the rapid
increase in urban population and faster urbanisation, India has to push through
several urban reforms and policy changes that have been initiated in the early
1990s. In India, urban development is a state subject; however Central
Government used to provide guidelines and also promise increased funds through
centrally initiated urban development programmes like Jawaharlal Nehru National
Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) currently replaced by Smart Cities Mission
and AMRUT (Altal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation).

It may be mentioned that a serious effort of urban planning is lacking and there
are multiple agencies responsible for the planning and governance in the
metropolitan areas. For example in Mumbai, there are a host of parastatal bodies
like Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(SRA), City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) which are
responsible for various activities in the city apart from Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai (MCGM). Further, the Mayor and elected councilors are not the
decisive bodies in the civic administration compared to the role of Municipal
Commissioner. Further in most cases, the state governments have not yet
constituted the Metropolitan Planning Committee as envisaged in the 74th
Amendment to the Constitution effected in 1992. There is also a lack of local
democracy and empowerment of urban local bodies both politically and fiscally.
Due to lack of local democracy, the city planning and development is left to the
urban development authorities and parastatal bodies which mostly serve the
business interest of builders, bankers, industrial houses and the politicians and
elites. On the other hand, in the event of failures, migrants are blamed for the
woes of the big cities. Besides, in small and medium towns, the conditions are
even more deplorable in terms of access to basic amenities. A large number of

23
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

small and medium towns lack capacity in planning and governance and many are
still under the ambit of rural local bodies. A revamping of the municipal governance
along with their empowerment as per 74th amendment to the constitution is the
need of the hour to face the demographic challenges unleashed by faster
urbanisation. The state governments are not willing to grant autonomy to the
urban local bodies. On the other hand, any autonomy to the urban local bodies
must also be accompanied by fiscal empowerment and technical and human
resources support to those particularly falling under the category of small and
medium size towns.

References

Ahluwalia, M.S., 2011. Prospects and policy challenges in the twelfth

plan. Economic and Political Weekly, pp.88-105.

Bhagat, R.B., 2002. Challenges of rural-urban classification for decentralised

governance. Economic and Political weekly, pp.2413-2416.

Bhagat, R.B., 2005. Rural-urban classification and municipal governance in

India. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26(1), pp.61-73.

Bhagat, R.B. and Mohanty, S., 2009. Emerging pattern of urbanisation and the
contribution of migration in urban growth in India. Asian Population Studies, 5(1),
pp.5-20.

Bhagat, R. B., 2013. Urbanisation: Size Matters. Infochange Agenda, Accessed

at http://infochangeindia.org/agenda-issues/urbanisation/9394-size-matters.

Brockerhoff, M., 1999. Urban growth in developing countries: a review of

projections and predictions. Population and development Review, 25(4), pp.757-
778.

Census of India, 1991. Emerging Trends of Urbanisation in India. Occasional

paper No. 1 of 1993, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner,
India, New Delhi.

24
 Urbanisation in India: Trend, Pattern and Policy Issues

Cohen, B., 2004. Urban Growth in Developing Countries: A Review of Current

Trends and a Caution Regarding Existing Forecasts. World Development, 32(1),
pp.23-51.

Davis, Kingsley. 1961. Urbanisation in India: Past and Future in Roy Turner (ed.)
India’s Urban Future, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 3-26.

Kalam, A.P.J., 2003. Ignited minds: Unleashing the power within India. Penguin
Books India, New Delhi.

Kundu, A., 2007. Migration and Exclusionary Urban Growth in India the 6th Dr C.
Chandrasekaran Memorial Lecture, International Institute for Population Sciences,
Mumbai.

Kundu, A., 2011. Politics and economics of urban growth. Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. 46(20) pp.10-12.

Planning Commission, Govt. of India, 2008. Eleventh Five Year Plan, Vol III:
Agriculture, Rural Development, Industry, Services and Physical Infrastructure,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Registrar General and Census Commissioner (2006) Population Projections for

India and States 2001-2026, Report of the Technical Group on Population
Projections Constituted by National Population Commission, Office of the
Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India, New Delhi (Revised in
December 2006).

State Statistical Bureau of China, 1998. China Statistical Year Book 1998, China
Statistical Publication House.

United Nations, 2006. World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2005 Revision,

Population Division, UN, New York.

UN, 2009. The World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2009 Revision, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, UN, New York.

25
IIPS Working Paper No. 17

Zhu, Y., 2001. The transformation of township into towns and their roles in China’s
Urbanisation: Evidence from Fujian Province, paper presented at the 24th IUSSP
General Conference, Salvador-Bahia, Brazil, 18-24 August.

Zlotnik, H., 2002. Assessing past trends and future urbanisation prospects: The
limitation of available data, paper presented at the conference "New Forms of
Urbanisation: Conceptualising and Measuring Human Settlement in the Twenty-
First Century", IUSSP Working Group on Urbanisation, Rockefeller Foundation
Study and Conference Centre, Bellagio, Italy, 11-15 March.

26
International Institute for Population Sciences
The International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) Mumbai, formerly
known as the Demographic Training and Research Centre (DTRC) till 1970,
was established in July 1956 under the joint sponsorship of Sir Dorabji Tata
Trust, the Government of India, and the United Nations. The Institute is
under the administrative control of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India.

The Institute serves as a regional centre for Training and Research in

Population Studies for the ESCAP region. The Institute was re- designated
to its present title in 1985 to facilitate the expansion of its academic activities
and was declared as a ‘Deemed University’ in August 19, 1985 under Section
3 of the UGC Act, 1956 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India. The recognition has facilitated the award of recognized
degrees by the Institute itself and paved the way for further expansion of the
Institute as an academic institution. The faculty members and the supporting
staff belong to diverse interdisciplinary background with specialisation in
some core areas of population sciences, trained in India and abroad.

The Institute is the hub of population and health related teaching and
research in India, playing a vital role for planning and development of the
country. During the past years, students from different countries of Asia
and the Pacific region, Africa and North America have been trained at the
Institute. The alumni are occupying prestigious positions at national and
international organisations, universities and colleges and non-governmental
reputed organisations.

The Institute offers seven different Post-Graduate, Doctoral, and Post-

Doctoral courses. After completing the course, students of all programmes
are well prepared for: (i) admission to higher degree programmes in the best
universities of the world; (ii) a good career in teaching & research; (iii) multi-
disciplinary professional career; or (iv) Independent consultant.

Prof. L. Ladusingh
Offg. Director & Senior Professor
 About the Author

Professor R. B Bhagat, is currently Professor and Head, Department of

Migration and Urban Studies, International Institute for Population Sciences
(IIPS) (Deemed to be University), Mumbai. He holds Master Degree in Geography
from the Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi and PhD in Demography from University of Bombay. He
was a recipient of UGC Research Award in 2002-03.

Prof. Bhagat was actively associated with Working Group on Urbanisation set up
by International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Paris, (IUSSP),
which he attended and presented papers in its several meetings held at Salvador
(Brazil) 2001, Bellagio (Italy) 2002, Minneapolis 2003, Paris 2005, and Marrakech
2009. He was a member of the IUSSP committee on Demography of Armed
Conflict during 2006-2010.

He was Co-coordinator of the Environment Information System (ENVIS) on

population, settlement and environment at IIPS funded by Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India, and a coordinator of Concurrent Evaluation of
National Rural Health Mission, funded by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Govt. of India. He has also worked as a resource person/expert in various
projects related to the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and Ministry of Human
Resources, Govt. of India. He also worked as consultant to UNESCO-UNICEF
India Initiative on Migration, Consultant to International Organisation of Migration
(IOM), Member, Scientific Committee, Global Migration Network on Columbia
University, and Advisor, Yale University Project on Climate Change and
Communication. At IIPS, Prof. Bhagat has been teaching Post Graduate students
and guiding M.Phil. and PhD scholars. His area of interest includes issues related
to population, urbanisation, migration and environment. He has also worked in
the areas of evolution of demographic data and construction of social identities.

Vision “To position IIPS as a premier teaching and research Institution in population
sciences responsive to emerging national and global needs based on values of
inclusion, sensitivity and rights protection.”
Mission “The Institute will strive to be a centre of excellence on population, health and
development issues through high quality education, teaching and research,
This will be achieved by (a) creating competent professionals, (b) generating
and disseminating scientific knowledge and evidence, (c) collaboration and
exchange of knowledge and (d) advocacy and awareness.”

View publication stats