Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
5.1 Introduction
has explained urbanisation as process of switch from spread out pattern of human
urbanisation in India through history, because what distinguished India most, from
many other countries of the world is its long tradition of urbanisation dating back as
far as about five thousand years, when Indus Valley civilisation saw the birth as the
earliest urban settlement in human history. In India, the urban tradition continuous
throughout these centuries and during the ancient period of our history there were
many well planned, big and beautiful cities in different parts of the country.
level of urbanisation and some of them are in final stage of urbanisation process.
Majority of the developing countries,the rate of urbanisation is very fast and it is not
[Helen Macbeth and Paul Collinson 2002]. Future growth of world’s population is
supposed to take place in the urban areas of less developed countries and the
one among the country where the process of urbanization is an integral part of the
development.
84
According to 2011 census only 31 percent of the population of India lives in
urban areas. According to UN’s the urban population of India will be less than 35
percent in 2020 and approximately 40 percent 2030. By 2030 another 225 million
people will be added to the Indian urban areas, It is more than the population of Japan
This Chapter aims to study the present and past tendency of urbanisation in India and
also growth of cities, metropolitan cities and distribution of urban population in states
India has a long history of urbanisation, Apart from the highlands of India,
there are three important ecological units in the country which experiences the growth
of urban population since ancient past. These are the northwest India, the gangetic
plain land and the south Indian plain. The first one enjoys the pioneering role in
Indian urbanisation including Harappan civilization. The second one with a dense
monsoonal forest used the iron technology to establish the gangetic plain urbanisation.
The third unit of southern India used iron technology to usher a new dawn in urban
The urbanisation of India can be divided into several phases. The first phase
is traced back in the Indus valley civilization. The first set of urban centres in India
come out from the agricultural villages in the river valley of the Indus as early as
about 5000 years ago. During this period, cities were flourished for about 600 years.
Though the two most important cities ( Harappa and Mohenjadaro) of this period are
now in Pakistan , but some other towns like lothal, Rangpur, Rojdi, Kalibanga, Rupur
etc., are located in the states of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab of present Indian
territory. These towns were developed to cater to the economic, religious as well as
85
the administrative needs of villagers. This period was followed by a prolonged period
Since about 600 B.C, towns and cities grew in association with two cultural streams
which are the Aryan civilization in the northern part of the country and the Dravidian
civilization in the southern part of the country. As mentioned by Khullar (2006) cities
grew in number and size in both north and south India during the mouryan and post
mouryan periods. Northern part of the country experienced a declining urban growth
during the post Gupta period which was restored during the sultanate rule. This phase
With the arrival of the British east India company, the nature of urbanisation of India
Chennai.
The above analysis reveals that since the Indus valley civilization, urbanization in
India passed through different phases of urban development and around the year
1800, the country has 16 cities with a population of 1 lakh or more. About 11 percent
of the total population of the country lived in urban areas at that time. However, at
the time of first census in 1872, the urban population declined to 8.7 percent.
86
Historical evidence suggests that, urbanisation process is inevitable and
universal. In ancient and medieval times it was a cultural phenomenon and many
times it happens due to political development, because the rise and fall of new
1965]. The onset of modem and universal process of urbanisation is relatively a recent
phenomenon and is closely related with industrial revolution and associated economic
development. It is pertinent to identify the main issues which are concerned with the
Economic
Demographic
Political
In India, urbanisation has been relatively slow during the last century
period as compared with many other developing countries. In India the definition of
urban remained more or less same for the period 1901-1951. However in 1961 census,
several modifications were made the definition of town adopted for the 1961 census
was much more rigorous and further, this new definition was followed all over the
country.
In census of India, 2001 two types of town were identified [Bhagat 2001].
87
Statutory towns:
All places with municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area
Census towns:
activities
population is the second largest in the world, after china, both natural increase and
rural- urban migration has contributed towards the urban growth in India.
Component of urban growth [Bhagat 1992] has attributed to mainly three components
momentum, net migration. India has been predominantly rural in character throughout
the ages. Though a few urban centres have flourished from time to time. It was only in
the late nineteenth & the early twentieth centuries that industrial cities grew in India.
Urban population of India has increased from 25.8 million in 1901 to 62.4
million in 1951 and 285.4 million in 2001, There by showing more than tenfold
increase in total urban population. The total urban population of India, according to
census 2001 is more than 10 percent of total urban population of the world. Most of
the urban growth has been caused by accretion to the existing towns particularly the
already large cities, while the pace of growth of new cities to other developing
88
countries, the urban spread in India is not that skewed and unbalanced not it is
develops, there is an increase in the per capita income and also the demand for non
farm goods in the economy. These goods are not heavily land dependent and use
more of the other factors of production especially labour and capital. They are cheaper
if produced in the urban sector of the economy, since urban settlements enjoy
urbanization in term, affects the rate at which the economy grows. As the country
urbanises, the share of national income that originates in the urban sector also
increases.
migration of rural population to urban centres and also the classification of rural
settlements as towns. Apart from growing population, there are other challenges too.
The first set of challenges relates to the inadequate growth of formal employment,
resulting in the growth of the urban informal sector, open urban unemployment and
under employment. The second set of challenges arises out of the inability of the
urban physical and social infrastructure to grow in step with population, resulting in
The former is identified as set of “economic” ills, while the latter is set of
social” ills of urbanisation. Many of these inadequacies are the results of in efficient
89
and faulty management of cities, rather than population growth. These problems are
The two processes bear of high positive correlation. Urbanisation related to the level
of economic development measured by per capita income. When per capita income
increases, urbanisation is also increases though not as much. Economic growth leads
Till a recently cities in the developed countries were based on industry but in
the past industrial age, they are dominated by services and yet no one considers them
over urbanized.
inputs, particularly, skilled labour, information and repair services, from which each
producer profits when he is one of the many clustered in one location. People like to
live near their place of work. Economies of scale and the cost of transport cause
produced on a small scale and require face to face contact of the producers with the
customers and are therefore limited to areas where people and production of goods in
concentrated.
The market for large scale manufactures extends well beyond the boundaries
of the city where it is located, to the rest of the country and at times, even abroad.
Industrialisation leads to urbanisation but the latter doesn’t necessarily lead to the
90
former. However, bigger cities offer one precious advantage. Most business are
subject to fluctuations, but swings in one line of production are often mitigated by
swings in the opposite direction in another activities. Thus, a wage labourer is better
migrating to bigger rather than smaller cities, where he is more likely to be fully
employed. All these factors increase the density of population in the cities.
91
Table 5.1 Total population and urban population from 1901 - 2011
92
TOTAL POPULATION AND URBAN POPULATION FROM 1901 TO 2011
1400
1200
TOTAL
1000 POPULATION
(MILLION)
M
I 800 URBAN
POPULATION
L (MILLION)
L 600
I
O
400
N
200
0
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Figure 5.1 Total population and urban population from 1901 to 2011
Table 5.1 shows the total population and urban population from 1901 to 2011 census
years. The population as increased from 238.3 million in 1901 to 1210.1 million in
2011. The size of the countries urban population is increased from 11 percent in 1901
to 31 percent in 2011. From this, it has been observed that there is more than tenfold
increase in the countries urban population and the countries level of urbanization has
increased by only about 2 1/2 times during past 100 years. From table it is observed
that during first half century 1901 to 1951 , the growth rate of urbanization has been
93
Table 5.2 Tempo of urbanisation 1901 - 2001
94
Table 5.2 Shows tempo of urbanisation refers to speed of urbanisation is measured as
change registered in the level or degree of urbanisation over the years, from table it is
clear that tempo of urbanisation is not uniform over the years, it shows a fluctuating
trend over the years 1901-1981 and declining trend during 1981 – 1991 and 1991-
2001.
1.5
1 TEMPO
OF
POPULAT
0.5
ION
URBAN
0
-0.5
-1
especially after independence. It has been noticed that during the beginning of the
20th century, about ten percent of the population are living in urban areas, especially
in cities of smaller size, with less than 20000 persons (Davis 1951) of 26 million
urban population, about 50 percent of them living in urban areas during 1901. During
the 19th century the urban growth has shown increasing trend except on account of
accidental decline, especially 1901 -1911 on account of epidemics like plague and
95
others broke out population in many cities was temporarily evacuated and millions of
urbanites died. During later period until 1941 the growth rate of urban population was
quite slow.
That is the increase in urban population, not more than 1 percent, on account
the period between 1901-1941 the size of urban population increase from 25.9
millions to 44.1 millions that is about 18 million of individuals were added in the
period of four decades. The enormous increase in the size and the proportion of urban
population accounted during the decade 1941-1951, and the proportion of urban
population increased to 18.3 percent. This increase the volume of urban population
Large number of displaced persons from Pakistan had settled in large cities of
India [Kundu 1992]. Apart from this, generation of employment opportunities in the
urban, government and service sectors. The opening of large number of schools and
colleges and other educational institutions in cities, increased the volume of security
enhanced self confidence and freedom to live anywhere in India. After independence
had gave ample opportunities to rural Indians to come and settle in the nearby cities.
In the period of 1951-1961 the growth of population bit slow, the exponential growth
rate was recorded as 2.34. Whereas the percentage gain in urban population is only
about 0.07, which was less than the gain 0.34 percent during 1941-1951 decade.
and also adoption of new definition of classification of rural, urban areas and towns.
96
As a result of this about 803 smaller towns were merged with other towns or
declassified into rural areas (Bose 1978). In spite of such decline in gain in the size of
urban population during the decade was on the increasing order as compare to earlier
decade. During decade 1961-1971 and 1971-1981 the movement of growth of urban
population had shown increasing order, growth rate exceeds 3.25 percentages and the
size of urban population had increased by 12.5 millions on an average per annum.
From 1981 to 2001, census report shows the rate of growth of urban
population was found to be slow, during 1981 to 1991 and 1991 to 2001 the average
annual exponential growth rate recorded 3.9 and 2.73 per annum respectively. But the
percentage increase the urban population stood at 17.97 to 27.78 during 1961-2001. It
During the period between 2001 to 2011 the average growth rate of the urban
service centres, meeting the needs and necessary service to the surrounding rural
settlement in the region. It has been greatly believed that for a quite a long period of
time before the second decade of the 20th century, both the size and number of towns
remain the same. During this period the size, growth rate urban population and
transfer individuals rural to urban area were found to be very slow (Mohan 1985,
97
Table 5.3 Trends of urbanisation in India census from 1901-2011
Percentage of urban
98
Table 5.3 gives the number of towns in each census periods from 1901 – 2011.
From the table it has been observed that except some fluctuations during 1901-1911.
During 1921-2011 the number of towns, and total urban population showing an
increasing trend. And also it has been observed that some fluctuations in number of
town 1961 census and after, it is because of some towns were declassified and some
new ones were added at each census counts. Following the changes in the definition
of urban areas and city size in 1961 census (Bose 1978). 1971 census after, the same
1961census urban definition was adopted with slight modification of the term “ town
group” as urban agglomeration by merging several towns. In 2011 census the number
of towns UA’s increased to 7935 accounted for 31.16 percent urban population.
99
Table 5.4 Percentage increase in number of towns from 2001 to 2011
2001 2011
no. India/State/Ut towns towns Total towns towns Total increase in towns
1 Chandigarh* 1 0 1 1 5 6 500
5 Nagaland 8 1 9 19 7 26 188.9
7 Lakshadweep* 0 3 3 0 6 6 100
9 Tripura 13 10 23 16 26 42 82.6
100
10 Nct of Delhi* 3 59 62 3 110 113 82.3
13 Pondicherry* 6 0 6 6 4 10 66.7
17 Goa 14 30 44 14 56 70 59.1
19 Manipur 28 5 33 28 23 51 54.5
101
24 Maharashtra 251 127 378 256 279 535 41.5
26 Meghalaya 10 6 16 10 12 22 37.5
33 Mizoram 22 0 22 23 0 23 4.5
35 Sikkim 8 1 9 8 1 9 0.0
102
From Table 5.4 it has been observed that increase in number of towns from
2001 to 2011. Among the states Kerala, Nagaland, West Bengal have registered more
than 100 percent increase in the number of towns since 2001 census. Even in UT’s
like Dadar Nagar Havelli and Lakshadweep showing same trend in increase of towns
and also UT’s like Chandigarh and Delhi which are most urbanised have some of the
settlements classified as urban. In case of states like Mizoram, Sikkim and Himachal
Pradesh, the increase in rate of number of towns is much lesser than the average
increase in number of cities in India, these states are having 4.5, 3.5 and 0 percent
increase in their cities during 2011. On account of the topographical factor even
today the government made several efforts to increase the number of places into
cities. But it is unable to achieve the target. On the other side states and UT’s like
Chandigarh , Daman Diu, Kerala, Nagaland, West Bengal and others have recorded
contributed on a large scale which promotes to increase in the number of towns and
cities.
Category Population
103
Class V 5000 to 10000
The Class I urban units are generally referred to as cities that is all urban
metropolitan places.
From Table 5.3 it has been observed that in spite of discontinuity in the
growth of total population at some points during 1901 to 2011. The size of urban
In 1901 about 1827 cities were accommodating all urban population and then
in 2011 the number of cities increased to 7935. In 1901 out of 1827 different cities
about 1614 belonging to city size of class IV, V and IV which contain 90percent of
This system of connecting roads was not fully developed except in few capital
cities which were then serving as administrative centres of British colonial rulers
because of poor transportation system, poverty, ignorance and several other factors,
diseases and hence efforts were made by the British rulers to improve the survival rate
demographic era in Indian context, then only few well off people started moving to
the nearby small cities for trading, schooling, seeking health services and finding jobs
even then process of urban development is poor , it forced the people to move settle
down here by towns for the purpose of getting in the nearby cities, therefore the cities
104
of smaller size , which were close to villages are found to be more convenient for the
When the process of urbanisation starts, the large amount of population lives
in cities of smaller size. According to the Indian context the volume of concentration
of urban population in small and medium towns and slow growth of urban population
existed till 1951. From 1901 to 1951 hardly thousand cities were added at the rate of
105
Table 5.5 Number of cities / towns by size in India census 1901-2011
106
There is not much variation in the percent share of urban population of each cities size
category until 1951, city class size of category IV, V and VI showing large in number.
From table 5.5, Among all census periods in 1951 to 2001 the number of cities of
these categories together was found to be 2301 out of 2795 cities of all categories
percent of total urban population. Most of these towns cater such services as
materials for their daily need such as schooling, health, market for their products etc.,
On the other side it is surprising that, the trend increases in the number of
cities and size of population growth of class II and III cities. Since in 1901 till recent
census were not affected. Similar to this in case of class I and class III cities during
1901 to 1911 the tendency is similar. However there has been a slow tendency of
transition of cities from class I to its immediate preceding or succeeding before the
independence. It has been observed that during the two decades 1921 to 1941, the
economy’s growth of population had under went with great change and experienced
high birth rate as a reason of the same volume of migrants from village areas to
nearby cities had increased on account of seeking better facilities, along with
employment, especially in cities of IV, V and VI the migrant volume had increased.
development plans for the period of 5 years, is known as five year plan. Apart from
various objectives the government had given much trust for the process of
urbanisation in the subsequent planning periods the number of cities of smaller size
IV, V and VI classes and percentage share of urban population of these classes have
shown a gradually decline on account of transfer of these cities to the higher category.
107
But cities in other size classes have shown a greater tendency of increase in their
numbers as well as the size of population and percentage share of urban population.
The number of cities of class VI size category had increased from 479 to 569
during 1901 to 1951. While during 1951 to 2001 the number was decreased to 232.
And the number of cities of class V had showing some fluctuations from 1901 to
1941, but showing decreasing trend during 1951 to 2001, from 40.21percent to
20.17percent (Refer table 5.6). On the other hand, the number of class I cities have
shown steady increase in their number from 24 cities with 1.33 percentage share of
1901 to 1941. But during the period 1951 to 2001 the number was increased to 441
It has been observed that, in 2011 the number of class I cities increased to 468
but the percentage share decreased to 5.9percent (Refer Table 5.5 and 5.6) on account
of increase in the cost of living index, especially the people who are working in
unorganised sector are unable to bear the burden of such high cost of living in class I
cities. obviously they migrated to class IV, V and VI cities. But even though
government of India through various policies helps in providing all kinds of economic
infrastructures to other class cities other than class I cities .But on the rate of growing
the number of economic facilities had attracted more population to class I cities only.
It is evident from the census period of 2001, 68.6 percent urban population are
concentrated in class I cities. Similar tendencies have been observed that in cities of
class IV and class VI. There has been slight decrease in the percentage of urban
population during 2001. But either the primary or secondary data is not available
pertaining to 2011. Whereas in case of class II , class III and class V cities there has
108
been slight increase in the percentage of urban population an account of either
109
Table 5.7 Percentage distribution of urban population by city size class in India 1901-
2011
Census
2011 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA
110
80.00
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIO OF URBAN POPULATION BY
70.00 CITY SIZE CLASS IN INDIA 1901 TO 2011
60.00
Class I
50.00
Class II
40.00 Class III
30.00 Class IV
Class V
20.00
Class VI
10.00
0.00
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Figure 5.3 Percentage distribution of urban population by city size class in India 1901 to
2011
From table 5.7 it has been observed that cities of other categories except class
I have shown continuous fall in their growth rate. Hence after independence in India
the process of urbanisation has been completely dominated by class I cities. This
concentration of various economic amenities initiated by the govt. Over the decades
after independence. Class I cities alone accounts for 68.6 percent of the total urban
population in 2001. Thus class I cities are growing at the cost of other size classes and
their growth is much faster than other cities and towns in the country. Unless central
111
5.8 Metropolitan Cities
The decadal growth and distribution of urban population clearly shows the
direction and development process of the metropolitan cities which has been taking
place since independence. During post independence most of the development has
been taken place in India for strengthening the urban economy especially the cities of
larger size.
The larger sizes of city are recognised as metropolitan cities which possess the
period there were only two places are recognised as metropolitan cities. Calcutta
(Now Kolkata) in 1911 and Bombay (Now Mumbai) in 1941. But after
account of higher scale of migration from rural- urban and urban-urban the number of
metropolitan cities had recorded to 23 by 1991. It indicates that about 8.3 percent of
cities. Further during 2001 percentage of population living metro cities accounted for
the population of the country recorded at 1210.1 million of which about 35 percent
people are living in urban cities. Nearly 13.54 percent of population are living in
metro cities. This shows the tremendous improvement not only in the number of
112
Table 5.8 Indices of population growth of urban agglomeration /cities having the population more than a million 1951- 2011
1 GREATER MUMBAI " 100 140 210 278 424 510 572
113
14 GHAZIABAD UA 100 161 313 656 1170 2213 5391
114
30 MADURAI UA 100 132 191 245 293 324 394
115
46 RAIPUR UA 100 155 147 164 137 151 160
116
Table 5.8 refers to indices of urban population growth in cities of UA’s shows during
1961 – 2011 .This UA’s have grown much faster than earlier decades. The UA’s
Ghaziabad, Delhi, Bangalore, Surat, Jaipur, Kozikude , Bhopal, Trissur and others
have registered highest growth during 2001 to 2011 census period. This indicates
that both process of urbanisation and development have concentrated in these cities.
In India there were four mega cities with population more than 5 million in 1991 these
are Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi and Chennai containing one fourth of the total population
of the class I size cities. In India and among 34 largest cities in the world, these
occupy sixth ,tenth ,twentieth ,thirtieth positions respectively in 1991 census. Where
as in 2011, in India there were six mega cities with population more than 5 millions
these are Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. Among
largest cities in the world and these occupy eighth, ninth, twelfth, thirty-third, thirty -
seventh and thirty- eighth positions respectively. Thus in India the situation and
problems associated with the process of urbanisation is more complex than elsewhere
may continue in future also as already the tempo has been fixed by capital investment
and market controlling factor which never allows other centre to develop unless
factors of attraction in new centres are different from the existing ones.
117
Table 5.9 Decadal: variations rate of u/a and metropolitan cities since 1951-2011
118
15 INDORE 27.05 42.03 47.85 33.73 36.78 42.88
119
A part from the growth rate of urban population the table 5.9, analyse the decade
growth rate of population among major metropolitan in India 1981 – 2001 during the
first decade 1981 - 1991 ,1991-2001 the decade growth rate increase in some of
metropolitan like Ghaziabad , Patna, Knozikod, Kannur others. But even though most
of the metropolitan cities had recorded a steady increase in their decadal growth but
there has been slight variation had observed during 1991 to 2001 and 2001 to 2011,
metropolitan centres have not under gone any such variation in there decadal growth
The distributive aspect of urban population as per 2011 census each state and
UT’s are shown in the table 10. It is analysed a wide variation has occurred as during
the attainment of urbanisation among 29 states under the analysis the smallest state is
HP which attain 10 percent of urban population. It is the lowest among all states.
Whereas Delhi attained 97.5 percent of urban population has the highest proportion of
Among union territories, earlier Dadar Nagar Haveli had remained as smallest
and largest proportion of urban population. But in 2011 census Among UT’s
Andaman and Nicobar islands have registered lowest percentage of urban population
registered about 35.67 percentages, whereas Chandigarh recorded at the highest level
97.25 percentage. When compared to 2001 census the situation is much better in
2011 where West Bengal , Andhra Pradesh , Haryana, Punjab, Karnataka ,Gujarat
Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and UT’s of Andaman and Nicobar , Pondicherry,
120
Daman and Diu had registered urban population much above the national average
31.16 percentage. But in case of many backward states like Manipur, Nagaland,
Tripura, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Orissa and Most of the newly formed states are
possessing less proportion of urban population and below the national average( Refer
table 5.10).
121
19 NAGALAND 17.28 17.74 28.97
The proportion of urban population in most of the states was increased during 2001
and 2011, except a few states like Madhya Pradesh , Bihar, Maharashtra, West Bengal
During 2001 – 2011 some of the states like Goa, Tamil Nadu , Gujarat, Karnataka ,
Andhra Pradesh and Chandigarh , Lakshadweep , Daman and Diu among the UT’s
have shown more than 5 percent points increase as compare to the level at 2001
122
Table 5.11 Average annual exponential growth rate urban population states/UT”S
1961-2011
5 CHATTISGHARH - - - - 3.49
10 JAHARKAND - - - - 2.8
123
23 SIKKIM 10.55 9.54 -3.29 4.84 9.29
For Further analysis it is considering that table 5.11, which gives an average
exponential growth rate of urban population during each of the census decades 1961
onwards. During the period of two decades between1991 to 2011 the phase of urban
population in most of the states in India has shown a consistent increase. If the same
trend would continue in the later decades of the country we may find that about
31percent of total living in the urban areas in place of 28percent during 2001 census.
This clearly indicates that our country fails to continue the tempo of growth of urban
population that existed during 1981 – 1991. In the later period the tempo of growth of
urban population continues to decline during 1991-2001. The intensity of decline has
further compared to previous decades. Most of the states shows better performances
during the previous decade have shown a glaring decline in the growth rate of urban
population during 1991-2001. This may be due to a fall in the natural growth rate of
urban and rural population in addition to the decline in the process of urbanisation.
124
But during 2001 – 2011 the intensity in gradual increase in urban population had
recorded.
The present state of urbanisation creates a large number of towns for middle
and lower categories where they qualify the urban status because of their population
size without necessary infrastructures; in fact it is not hold good in case of other
higher order cities. But it has been examine that, apart from providing basic
infrastructure, the topographical future and climate in the towns and cities had
gradually increase in the number of persons in the urban areas between 2001 to 2011.
125