Migration from North Eastern
Region to the Rest of the Country:
A Recent Patterns and Trends
(in Environment Development
and Social Change in Himalayan Region, Sakarama S. and Khawas V. (Eds.), Akansha Publishing House,
Delhi, 2012 (ISBN: 978-81-8370-319-2) pp.148-168.
Migration along with
mortality and fertility is considered to be one of the vital population
processes in changing the size, structure, composition and distribution of
population. Migration is the most difficult to measure
as it is a fluid, continuous, non-discrete and poorly defined measure (Bernard
D’Sami). It can either
depopulate or overpopulate an area depending upon the level of economic
activities and is an important process of urbanisation and social change. Its process
affects the areas to which migrants have moved and areas which they have left.
One important facet of study on population is the study of migration arising
out of various social, cultural, economic, political or psychological reasons. Migration
is increasingly taking place due to these various reasons from North Eastern
Region (NER) to the Rest of the Country in the recent years. The mobility of a
person has rapidly increased ever since the economic liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation particularly. Among the various reasons the
booming of economic activities specifically in large cities like Delhi or
Bangalore attracts most of the migrants. As Kundu (2007:353) has also mentioned
that “new employment opportunities are coming up in selective sectors and in a
few regions/urban centres”. In addition, the existence of good educational
institutions also attracts the migrants from the region. In the process most of
the migrants are migrating towards these areas that are comparatively more
developed.
The
objectives of the present study is to analyse the recent patterns and trends of
migration and to dissect the various responsible reasons which act as a push as
well as pull factors for migration from NER to the rest of the country over the
years. It is important to study on migration because for a large country like
India, the complexity of movement of population in different parts of the
country helps in understanding the dynamics of the society. Further, at this
crucial juncture of economic development in India in general and NER in
particular a study on migration assumes special importance for further policy
formulation and implication.
This
paper is divided into four parts. In the first part a brief socio-economic
factors for migration is discussed. Concepts and definition of migrants are
examined in the second part. The general patterns and trends of migrants from
NER to the Rest of the Country is analysed in the third section. A concluding
remark is presented in the last section.
Socio-Economic
Factors for Migration:
The increase of population
and educational level in general and educated persons in particular with the
limited supply or opening of jobs suitable with their educational attainment
itself originated the problem of migrations from the region. Presumably, migrants
from this region to the rest of the country particularly to the western or
southern states of the country are mostly educated. Moreover, marginal
expectation of migrants is always higher than the non-migrants. Further, the
region is
still underdeveloped and its economy is growing at moderate rate even in the
era of globalization. During the first half of the Nineties “most of the
economies of NER slowed down” (Sachdeva, 2000:21). This limits the creation of
adequate employment avenues, which acted as a push factor for migration. Out
migration is also a result of a rise in the attainment of higher education
amidst the limited opening of job particularly in the organized public sector
and a limited accommodation in higher education in the region.
NER covers 7.76 (255,083 km2)
percent of India’s geographical area. The region is one of the most ethnically
and linguistically diverse regions in Asia with distinct cultures and
traditions in each state. Due to this there is certainly a communication
problem which hampers the movement of various ethnic groups freely. In other
words, the bonding of community is still close so exploration of different
means of livelihood in various regions continues to be vague particularly in
remote corners of the region. However, for the literate and educated it is not
the case. These people’s tendency on exploring new opportunities in order to enhance
their quality of lives has no limit so they migrate.
According to census of 2001,
the population of NER was 38.32 million which comprises of only 3.73 percent of
the country’s population. This is not proportionate with the contribution of
NER in India’s economy in terms of Net Domestic Product (Quick Estimates) that
is only 2.88 percent during 2000-01. Population of NER was growing at the level
of national average of 1.94 percent annually during 1991-2001. NE excluding the
state of Assam, which are mostly tribal characteristic states, is growing
faster in terms of population at an alarming rate of 2.44 percent annually. This
also contributes in the process of increasing out-migration from the region. In
terms of population size the state of Assam has the largest share; while Mizoram
has the lowest. Further, the latest census data also shows that majority of the
population of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland among the NE
states were scheduled tribe; but for the states of Manipur, Tripura and Assam,
majority of the population were non-tribal in 2001.
The population in NE is
sparsely distributed however is increasing over the years. The density of
population of NER was 151 persons per sq km in 2001 which has considerably
increased from 124 persons per sq km in the previous decade. This has lead to
an increase in agricultural density, urban growth, educated unemployment in
urban areas, etc. in NER which leads to migrate outside the region. Meanwhile, sex
ratio of population was 937 in 2001 which has improved from 925 in 1991. It
indicates that there is not much gender discrimination so the possibility to
migrate is same for both males and females. Further, literacy rates have
considerably increased over the years. Literacy rates differential between
males and females has narrowed down. However, it remained higher for males than
females. It implies that the thirst for education is gradually quenching
however not quenched because there is inadequate higher educational
infrastructures which leads to migrate for higher education.
As per census of India data,
Agriculture and allied activities is the mainstay of the NE economy with about
63 percent of the workers (main plus marginal) engaged in primary sector
according to the census of 2001. Agricultural employment is declining due to
the scarcity of agricultural land. It indicates that the growing population is
press into agriculture which raise the density of agriculture. It also indicates
that there is a wide prevalence of disguised employment. There tends to
transfer labour from agriculture to non-agriculture sectors; however,
non-agriculture sector is unable to absorb all the labour supply partly due to
the growing educated people who mostly look for the formal/organised job. Moreover,
this surplus labour are not absorbed in the non-agriculture sector which leads
to seek job outside the region after collecting adequate information about the
destination of migration. In 2001, employment in secondary sector is only 10
percent and in tertiary sector is 27 percent. Employment in non-agricultural
sector is gradually increasing at the cost of declining employment in
agriculture sector over the years. It calls forth for generating adequate job particularly
in non-agriculture sector.
The corresponding sector
wise distribution of the NE economy (Net State Domestic Product) shows that
primary sector contributed only 39 per cent (httpmospi.nic.in) which is too
disproportionate compared with the employment ratio. This suggests the
continuation of primitive farm practices with low production and productivity
which in turn suggest the presence of unexploited diverse natural resource
endowments that has the potential for the development of primary sector. The
remaining shares of the economy come from secondary (15) and tertiary (46)
sectors. In general, the contribution of primary and secondary sectors in the
NSDP has declined as the contribution of tertiary sector increases over the
periods for NER. It is clear that majority of the region’s income is
contributed by non-agriculture sector, however, the same sector itself is
unable to generate as well as accommodate the growing demand for jobs resulting
again to out-migrate from the region.
Concept
and Definition of Migrants:
Migrants are not
required to be registered in India either at the place of origin or at the
place of destination (Bhagat, 2005:3). In lack of registration of migrants,
Census and NSS are the two main sources of migration data in India. Census
provides data on migrants based on place of birth (POB) and place of last residence
(POLR). Migrants defined on the basis of POB or POLR are called the lifetime
migrants because the time of their move is not known (Visaria, 1980:2).
Moreover, POB “migration data are not particularly useful indicator of trends
in movement because they provide no information on timing of the movement”
(Skeldon, 1986:761).
According
to the census of India (Data Highlights, 2001:6) “till 1961 census, migration
data was presented with reference to place of birth only. The information on
place of birth was being collected since 1872. In 1961 the scope of collecting
information on migration was enlarged by including the rural or urban status of
the place of birth and duration of residence at the place of residence. Since
1971 Census, data are being collected on the basis of place of last residence
in addition to question on birth place”. In 1981 census, the scope of enquiry
on migration has been further widened by collecting information on ‘reason for
migration from place of last residence’ in addition to the enquiry made in 1971
census. Thus a question on ‘reason for migration’ was introduced for the first
time in 1981. “The pattern adopted in 1991 and 2001 Census remained same as in
1981 except that in 2001 Census, the rural urban status of place of birth was
not collected” (Census of India, Data Highlights, 2001:6). The reasons
for migration includes employment, education, family moved (moved with
households in 2001), marriage, and others in 1981; two category such as
‘business’ and ‘natural calamities like drought etc.’ were included in 1991;
however the category ‘natural calamities’ as one of the reasons for migration
in 1991 was excluded and a new reason ‘moved after birth’ was added in 2001.
The “others” includes all other reasons for migration not covered by
work/employment, business (1991 and 2001), education, family moved, marriage,
natural calamities (1991) and moved after birth (2001). This includes cases
like “movement due to retirement, movement for economic reasons such as setting
up of shops, starting of business, etc.” in 1981 (Census of India, 1981, Series
1-India, Part-V A & B –I:27). However, since the census of 1991, “business”
has been categorised as one separate reason for migration. Reason for migration provides useful insights for
studying migration dynamics of population.
According
to the Census of India, if the POB or POLR is different from the place of
enumeration, a person is defined as a migrant. A person is considered as migrant
by POB if the place in which the person is enumerated during the census is
other than the person’s POB. As a person could have migrated number of times
during his lifetime, migration by POB would not give a correct picture of the
migration taking place currently. A person, on the other hand, is considered as
migrant by POLR, if the place in which the person is enumerated during
the census is other than the person’s place of immediate last residence. By
capturing the latest of the migrations in cases where persons have migrated
more than once, the concept of migrants by POLR would give a better picture of
current migration scenario. At the time of enumeration in census, a person
could have moved from another village or town in the same district, or from
another district of the state, or another state in India or even from another
country. Census provides migration data on all these migration streams by both
the concepts to understand the dynamics in the movement of population and the
broad reasons behind. Thus a person is considered as a migrant when the person is
enumerated in census at a different place than the person’s POB or POLR.
NSSO has been carrying out all-India
household surveys once in five year in order to know the employment and
unemployment situation and information on internal migration in the country.
Being sample survey, the data have obvious limitations and are not helpful
knowing the district level pattern in the internal migration within each state.
The concept of Usual Place of Residence (UPR) is adopted by NSS to define
migrants. A UPR is defined as a place (village/town) where the person had
stayed continuously for a period of six months or more. According to NSS, a
migrant is defined if the person had stayed continuously for at least six
months or more in a place (village/town) other than the village/town where he
or she was enumerated. The village/town where the person had stayed
continuously for at least six months or more prior to moving to the place of
enumeration was referred to as the last UPR of that migrated person (NSSO, 2001:14).
Analysis of Patterns and
Trends of Migration:
This paper analyses the changing patterns and trends
of migrants (with all-duration of residence) from North-Eastern States/Region
(as place of last residence) to the Rest of the Country (as place of
enumeration) based on census data spreading the period from 1981 to 2001.
The
general assumption that larger states in terms of population have larger
proportion of migrants continues to be valid. Assam being the largest state in
NE in terms of population with 69.57 percent (table 1) has the largest share of
migrants with 68.64 percent (table 2) in 2001. Mizoram has the smallest
population with 2.32 so it has the lowest share of migrants with 0.72 percent.
However, it is not the case for some states, for example Nagaland is the fifth
largest state in terms of population size but is the second largest state in
terms of the size of migrants with 19.15 percent among the total migrants from
NER to the rest of the country. The share of population is increasing in the
tribal states over the years. It may probably be due to the lack of access of
developmental infrastructure and health care information, tribal
characteristics, illiteracy, poverty, and more importantly influx of migrants.
|
Table 1: Percentage
Share of Population.
|
|||
|
NE States/ India
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
2.55
|
2.74
|
2.87
|
|
Assam
|
72.94
|
71.05
|
69.57
|
|
Manipur
|
5.73
|
5.82
|
5.65
|
|
Meghalaya
|
5.39
|
5.63
|
6.05
|
|
Mizoram
|
1.99
|
2.19
|
2.32
|
|
Nagaland
|
3.12
|
3.83
|
5.19
|
|
Tripura
|
8.28
|
8.74
|
8.35
|
|
NER
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
|
24801695
|
31547314
|
38316918
|
|
|
% of NER to
India
|
3.73
|
3.76
|
3.73
|
|
India
|
665287847
|
838567936
|
1028610328
|
Note: Figures in italic are absolute. Figure of Assam is an interpolated figure
for 1981. It is computed as the ratio between ‘population of each NE States or
Region’ to ‘total population of NER or India’ in percentage term.
Source: Census of India 1981, 1991 and 2001.
|
Table 2: Percentage
Share of Migrants from NER to the Rest of the Country.
|
|||
|
Last Residence
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
1.82
|
8.08
|
1.78
|
|
Assam
|
78.65
|
58.25
|
68.64
|
|
Manipur
|
4.59
|
6.60
|
3.21
|
|
Meghalaya
|
4.42
|
5.67
|
2.91
|
|
Mizoram
|
0.62
|
6.40
|
0.72
|
|
Nagaland
|
2.72
|
3.54
|
19.15
|
|
Tripura
|
7.18
|
11.47
|
3.60
|
|
NER
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
100.00
|
|
232059
|
346293
|
741509
|
|
Note: Figures in italic are absolute. It is computed as the ratio between
‘migrants from each NE States to the Rest of the Country’ to ‘migrants from NER
to the Rest of the Country’ in percentage term.
Source: Census of India 1981, 1991 and 2001.
A detail percentage share of “migrants from NE
States/Region to the Rest of the Country” to the “Population of NE
States/Region” is given in table 3. It is observed that the share of migrants
from NER to the rest of the Country as a percentage to its population of NER
was 1.94 percent for persons, which is lower in comparison to the share of
NER’s population (3.73 percent) to the country’s population of approximately
1.03 billion in 2001. This indicates that NE people are not so mobile to the Rest
of the Country because of a far distance factor. Apart from this other possible
reasons are language problem along with the difficulties in socio-cultural adaptation
and weak economic status in accessing the destination. The share of
migrants-population was considerably lower for males than females in all the
years particularly in 2001. It had increased throughout the periods for both
males and females. A similar trend was observed for most of the NE states.
|
Table 3: Migrants from NER to the Rest of the Country as a Percentage
to the Population of NER.
|
|||||||||
|
Last Residence
|
Persons
|
Males
|
Females
|
||||||
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
|
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
0.67
|
3.24
|
1.20
|
0.71
|
2.53
|
1.07
|
0.62
|
4.06
|
1.35
|
|
Assam
|
1.01
|
0.90
|
1.91
|
0.98
|
0.81
|
1.22
|
1.04
|
1.00
|
2.65
|
|
Manipur
|
0.75
|
1.24
|
1.10
|
0.88
|
0.96
|
1.11
|
0.62
|
1.54
|
1.09
|
|
Meghalaya
|
0.77
|
1.11
|
0.93
|
0.70
|
0.89
|
0.89
|
0.84
|
1.33
|
0.97
|
|
Mizoram
|
0.29
|
3.21
|
0.60
|
0.34
|
2.83
|
0.62
|
0.24
|
3.63
|
0.58
|
|
Nagaland
|
0.81
|
1.01
|
7.13
|
0.85
|
0.80
|
2.69
|
0.78
|
1.25
|
12.07
|
|
Tripura
|
0.81
|
1.44
|
0.83
|
0.85
|
1.19
|
0.86
|
0.78
|
1.71
|
0.81
|
|
NER
|
0.94
|
1.10
|
1.94
|
0.93
|
0.95
|
1.22
|
0.94
|
1.26
|
2.69
|
Note:
Population of Assam for 1981 is an interpolated figure. Figure includes
unclassified migrants. Rest of the country excludes J&K since it does not
conduct census in 1991 for comparability.
Source: Census of India 1981, 1991 and 2001.
The increasing rate of migration is also
contributed by the information and assistance given to the recent migrants by
the previous migrants such as friends or relatives or the natives. In other
words the increasing rate of migration is a condition of “chain-migration”.
Also the study of Michael Greenwood (1973) as cited in Mildred and Walter
(1973:198), using 1961 census data for India found that “recent migrants do
have a strong tendency to migrate to localities which had previously attracted
natives of their region”. Past migrant flows can be expected to influence
current migration for several important reasons. Family and friends who have
previously migrated from one region to another may provide information about
their present location to persons residing in their former place of residence.
Former migrants may also provide temporary food and shelter as well as ease
social transition (Mildred and Walter, 1973:198). This likely takes place
mostly to migrants from the rural areas. However, the rural to urban movement
is the important flow for literate youth migrants (Sebastian, Indian Youth:
A Profile, 1989:143). They form the majority of those who migrate in search
of employment because of their energy, adaptability and aspirations.
Migration
takes place not only on the motive of economic but also social, institutional
and psychological factors. However, the basic cause of “voluntary migration is
to achieve maximum individual satisfaction through obtaining better employment
or wage or security or environment” (Santhapparaj, 1996:269). Hence “people
migrate to maximise welfare” (Faggian and McCann, 2006:480) in terms of social
security, economic security, etc.
This
increasing trend is especially due to the lack of organised employment
opportunities (where investment for the growth of industries and service sector
is slow) that is the majority demand of employment among the educated
unemployed, delivery of poor educational standards and most of the existing
syllabus or course content inappropriate to apply in the local state of
economic environment, non-availability of adequate seats in higher educational
institution to curb an unemployment in the short-run, social insecurity due to
the so called law and order problems which affects the psychology among the
students which in turn influence in their future economic status.
Numerous studies (Jackson, 1969; Rossi, 1980;
Friedlander and Roshier, 1966) in Britain have found that the “propensity to
migrate increases with rising educational qualifications” (as cited in Cote,
1997:56). Generally, better educated people have more sophisticated and
universalistic outlooks; have the financial resources to seek better
opportunities elsewhere and are not constraint by local public housing policies
which subsidise the poor but limit their mobility; are required to travel in
order to obtain certain jobs; hold qualifications that are recognised and
valued in all parts of the country. Conversely, those who obtain only minimal
school education may be expected to stay put because they have no special
skills which they could exploit elsewhere, and because of their better communal
orientation – an attribute which is claimed to be a working class value.
Further, the shares of migrants for employment
and education from NER and from most of the NE states to the Rest of the Country
was considerably higher for males than females for all the four streams of
migration in 1981, 1991 and 2001 (table 4). It is due to the economic
dependency on male counterparts, male dominancy in the society, continuation of
traditional concept of male as the bread earner, etc. Eventually, majority of
the female migrants continues to be for other reasons than for employment and education.
Further, a trend analysis showed that the shares of migrants for employment
from rural NER to the rural Rest of the Country had increased during both
1981-91 and 1991-01 for males. It had declined during 1981-91, however
increased during the latter period for urban-rural, rural-urban and urban-urban
migrants. While for females, the shares of rural-rural and rural-urban migrants
for employment had increased during 1981-91, however declined during the latter
period. It had declined during 1981-91, however increased during the latter
period for urban-rural migrants. And it had declined for migrants from urban to
urban during both the periods.
|
Table 4: Migrants for Employment,
Education and Others as a percentage to the Total Migrants from NER to the Rest
of the Country.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Last
Residence
|
Migration
Stream
|
Reasons for Migration
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Work/employment
|
Education
|
Others
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
|||||||||||
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
M
|
F
|
||
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
Rural-Rural
|
30.12
|
6.94
|
24.16
|
2.36
|
22.53
|
1.52
|
13.77
|
3.31
|
9.03
|
1.35
|
26.22
|
1.93
|
56.11
|
89.75
|
66.81
|
96.29
|
51.26
|
96.55
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
20.68
|
6.39
|
16.53
|
3.66
|
17.92
|
4.28
|
6.14
|
9.40
|
9.20
|
8.42
|
20.68
|
6.89
|
73.18
|
84.21
|
74.27
|
87.92
|
61.40
|
88.83
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
44.75
|
5.05
|
41.26
|
5.56
|
48.56
|
2.86
|
12.67
|
3.03
|
10.80
|
2.64
|
9.27
|
3.26
|
42.57
|
91.92
|
47.94
|
91.81
|
42.18
|
93.87
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
34.91
|
4.02
|
36.21
|
5.77
|
34.02
|
3.61
|
14.53
|
3.59
|
7.61
|
4.75
|
15.27
|
7.75
|
50.55
|
92.39
|
56.18
|
89.48
|
50.71
|
88.64
|
|
|
Assam
|
Rural-Rural
|
13.75
|
1.36
|
13.15
|
1.66
|
22.94
|
0.90
|
2.34
|
1.04
|
2.27
|
0.60
|
1.42
|
0.09
|
83.92
|
97.61
|
84.59
|
97.74
|
75.65
|
99.01
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
20.99
|
3.44
|
21.48
|
1.65
|
28.04
|
2.07
|
2.69
|
1.64
|
4.40
|
2.03
|
3.48
|
1.10
|
76.31
|
94.93
|
74.12
|
96.32
|
68.48
|
96.83
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
35.30
|
3.98
|
30.61
|
3.45
|
44.94
|
4.10
|
6.43
|
2.77
|
5.67
|
1.68
|
5.04
|
0.88
|
58.28
|
93.25
|
63.72
|
94.86
|
50.02
|
95.02
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
33.27
|
4.68
|
30.42
|
4.24
|
33.91
|
3.05
|
7.63
|
3.70
|
6.18
|
2.23
|
6.66
|
2.34
|
59.10
|
91.62
|
63.40
|
93.53
|
59.43
|
94.61
|
|
|
Manipur
|
Rural-Rural
|
34.68
|
4.47
|
20.93
|
5.66
|
30.46
|
1.32
|
1.84
|
1.40
|
8.45
|
1.92
|
19.16
|
3.15
|
63.48
|
94.13
|
70.63
|
92.42
|
50.38
|
95.53
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
32.98
|
3.68
|
30.18
|
5.97
|
33.74
|
4.20
|
9.67
|
2.58
|
8.23
|
4.06
|
19.47
|
11.09
|
57.35
|
93.74
|
61.59
|
89.96
|
46.79
|
84.71
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
45.85
|
4.20
|
39.53
|
5.63
|
40.27
|
6.48
|
21.62
|
6.01
|
13.06
|
8.34
|
27.45
|
15.67
|
32.54
|
89.79
|
47.41
|
86.03
|
32.29
|
77.85
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
23.33
|
3.02
|
28.90
|
4.19
|
23.02
|
5.52
|
33.48
|
16.74
|
24.59
|
10.43
|
43.59
|
30.30
|
43.18
|
80.24
|
46.51
|
85.38
|
33.39
|
64.18
|
|
|
Meghalaya
|
Rural-Rural
|
19.83
|
8.18
|
20.57
|
2.89
|
26.29
|
1.60
|
3.10
|
3.61
|
7.48
|
1.65
|
8.06
|
1.68
|
77.07
|
88.21
|
71.95
|
95.46
|
65.65
|
96.72
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
27.56
|
3.59
|
18.95
|
2.97
|
23.61
|
4.00
|
9.09
|
3.10
|
4.42
|
3.60
|
7.99
|
3.52
|
63.35
|
93.30
|
76.62
|
93.43
|
68.40
|
92.48
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
43.86
|
6.38
|
38.15
|
5.87
|
53.01
|
4.68
|
7.78
|
4.54
|
10.50
|
3.15
|
5.46
|
2.23
|
48.37
|
89.08
|
51.36
|
90.98
|
41.53
|
93.09
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
36.52
|
4.29
|
33.95
|
4.15
|
33.17
|
4.91
|
8.14
|
6.90
|
7.42
|
5.02
|
9.57
|
5.39
|
55.33
|
88.81
|
58.62
|
90.83
|
57.26
|
89.69
|
|
|
Mizoram
|
Rural-Rural
|
58.02
|
0.00
|
12.34
|
3.48
|
35.74
|
2.40
|
6.17
|
0.00
|
4.66
|
0.85
|
5.64
|
2.08
|
35.80
|
100.00
|
83.00
|
95.67
|
58.62
|
95.51
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
34.25
|
0.00
|
13.61
|
2.39
|
25.94
|
6.04
|
0.00
|
4.81
|
4.82
|
2.18
|
18.41
|
6.71
|
65.75
|
95.19
|
81.57
|
95.43
|
55.65
|
87.25
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
22.22
|
6.67
|
37.09
|
4.42
|
52.96
|
6.53
|
17.90
|
5.71
|
8.33
|
2.43
|
17.75
|
9.20
|
59.88
|
87.62
|
54.59
|
93.15
|
29.29
|
84.27
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
34.67
|
4.56
|
28.90
|
4.86
|
27.44
|
4.19
|
20.00
|
17.01
|
8.16
|
2.47
|
33.89
|
27.59
|
45.33
|
78.42
|
62.94
|
92.67
|
38.67
|
68.23
|
|
|
Nagaland
|
Rural-Rural
|
27.78
|
4.44
|
23.68
|
1.00
|
23.42
|
0.41
|
5.24
|
1.67
|
0.19
|
0.36
|
3.62
|
0.05
|
66.98
|
93.89
|
76.13
|
98.64
|
72.96
|
99.54
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
24.97
|
4.68
|
23.33
|
1.29
|
22.63
|
1.66
|
3.35
|
2.90
|
10.10
|
4.53
|
6.54
|
2.18
|
71.68
|
92.43
|
66.56
|
94.17
|
70.82
|
96.16
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
47.86
|
3.81
|
41.07
|
5.25
|
57.87
|
3.46
|
7.65
|
4.48
|
7.30
|
4.28
|
4.06
|
1.09
|
44.49
|
91.70
|
51.63
|
90.48
|
38.07
|
95.45
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
41.49
|
6.30
|
36.51
|
2.87
|
37.43
|
3.46
|
12.51
|
9.39
|
14.80
|
5.21
|
10.83
|
5.03
|
46.00
|
84.31
|
48.68
|
91.92
|
51.74
|
91.51
|
|
|
Tripura
|
Rural-Rural
|
17.55
|
1.40
|
21.00
|
3.24
|
18.60
|
1.93
|
3.29
|
0.53
|
3.57
|
1.10
|
5.64
|
0.87
|
79.16
|
98.07
|
75.42
|
95.65
|
75.77
|
97.20
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
23.38
|
2.35
|
25.75
|
2.33
|
23.81
|
2.30
|
4.68
|
4.23
|
4.45
|
2.70
|
5.34
|
2.40
|
71.94
|
93.43
|
69.79
|
94.96
|
70.85
|
95.31
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
31.56
|
4.13
|
35.97
|
8.25
|
40.27
|
4.20
|
8.54
|
1.23
|
7.08
|
1.66
|
6.76
|
1.65
|
59.90
|
94.65
|
56.95
|
90.09
|
52.97
|
94.15
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
34.52
|
4.78
|
32.94
|
4.32
|
35.57
|
3.56
|
8.27
|
5.38
|
10.64
|
3.25
|
11.14
|
3.32
|
57.20
|
89.85
|
56.43
|
92.43
|
53.30
|
93.12
|
|
|
NER
|
Rural-Rural
|
15.20
|
1.81
|
15.49
|
2.51
|
23.15
|
0.78
|
2.68
|
1.16
|
3.53
|
0.94
|
3.05
|
0.16
|
82.13
|
97.03
|
80.98
|
96.54
|
73.79
|
99.07
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
22.11
|
3.45
|
21.31
|
2.14
|
26.98
|
2.27
|
3.40
|
2.06
|
5.16
|
2.78
|
5.98
|
1.85
|
74.49
|
94.49
|
73.54
|
95.08
|
67.03
|
95.88
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
36.36
|
4.13
|
34.29
|
4.69
|
47.09
|
4.13
|
7.97
|
2.85
|
7.45
|
2.45
|
6.81
|
1.86
|
55.67
|
93.02
|
58.26
|
92.86
|
46.09
|
94.00
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
33.09
|
4.60
|
31.27
|
4.29
|
33.60
|
3.37
|
10.20
|
5.03
|
8.37
|
3.22
|
10.09
|
4.30
|
56.71
|
90.37
|
60.36
|
92.49
|
56.31
|
92.33
|
|
Note:
The figure of the rest of the country excludes J&K. Figures Exclude unclassified migrant. Due to
rounding off the figure might not exactly sum up to 100. Movement for
economic reasons such as setting up of shops, starting of business, etc. were
included in the category ‘others’ in 1981; however, ‘business’ was separately
categorised in 1991 and 2001. Thus, for comparability the category ‘business’
of 1991 and 2001 was club together in ‘others’. Others in the present analysis
includes marriage, move after birth, moved with household, natural calamities,
movement due to retirement, movement for economic reasons such as setting up of
shops, starting of business, etc. (business of 1991 and 2001), and all other
reasons for migration not covered by work/employment and education. M – Males
and F – Females.
Source: Census of India,
1981, 1991 and 2001.
Similarly, for migrants for education from NER
to the Rest of the Country, the shares of rural-rural migrants had increased
during 1981-91, however declined during 1991-01 for males. The shares of urban-rural
migrants had increased; while the shares of rural-urban migrants had declined
during both the periods. The shares of urban-urban migrants had declined during
1981-91, however increased during the latter period. And for females, the
shares of migrants for education from rural-rural and rural-urban had declined
during both the periods. The shares of urban-rural migrants had increased
during 1981-91, however declined in the latter period. The shares of
urban-urban migrants had declined during 1981-91, however increased during
1991-01. A similar trend follows for most of the NE states. The increasing
trend is influences by both the pull factors like better employment
opportunities and prospects, better educational infrastructures, non or minimal
existence of social insecurity, better access to all sorts of information etc.;
and the push factors like the slow economic development resulting to generate inadequate
employment, social insecurity, too many “illegal taxmen” in many NE states so
fear psychosis existed in the minds of many entrepreneurs who have capital,
knowledge, skill, talent, etc. who can excel and play to contribute an
accountable share in the state’s income, inability to create and provide
adequate seats in higher education while the base – i.e. up to secondary
education – is wide, poor transportation and connectivity leading to slow
access to information, etc.
A peculiar trend of migration for education
prevails for the state of Manipur. For example, in 2001, it has considerably
increased in comparison with other NE states for all the streams for females.
Most importantly, among the NE states, Manipur had the largest share of female
migrants for education in recent year. According to the latest census literacy
rate of females of Manipur is close to 60 percent which is the fifth highest
among the NE states. This is an indication that the reason is not merely due to
high literacy rate (compared to all-India level) but largely due to the
existence of large number of educated apart from higher educational aspirations
among the females of the state.
Furthermore,
detail proportion of streams of migration from NE States/Region to the Rest of
the Country is
presented in table 5. Most of the migrants from NER to the rest of the
country were from urban-urban followed by rural-rural, rural-urban and
urban-rural in 1981 and 1991; however, in 2001, majority were urban-urban
migrants followed by rural-urban, rural-rural and urban-rural for males. While
for females, the share was largest for rural-rural migrants followed by
urban-urban, rural-urban and urban-rural in all the years.
|
Table 5: Proportion of Streams of Migration from NER to the Rest of
the Country.
|
|||||||
|
Last Residence
|
Migration Stream
|
1981
|
1991
|
2001
|
|||
|
Males
|
Females
|
Males
|
Females
|
Males
|
Females
|
||
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
Rural-Rural
|
32.99
|
35.84
|
29.31
|
54.42
|
24.07
|
44.06
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
18.68
|
15.04
|
7.87
|
7.04
|
14.19
|
8.17
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
21.44
|
22.39
|
41.04
|
24.69
|
26.47
|
19.12
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
26.88
|
26.74
|
21.78
|
13.84
|
35.27
|
28.65
|
|
|
Assam
|
Rural-Rural
|
36.46
|
39.05
|
29.31
|
36.55
|
28.59
|
62.43
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
16.54
|
14.87
|
12.06
|
11.38
|
8.09
|
5.01
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
17.61
|
16.82
|
23.64
|
20.24
|
27.42
|
13.99
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
29.38
|
29.26
|
34.99
|
31.83
|
35.90
|
18.57
|
|
|
Manipur
|
Rural-Rural
|
13.39
|
27.26
|
21.10
|
54.12
|
14.24
|
34.40
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
12.39
|
12.97
|
8.38
|
6.15
|
8.77
|
5.41
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
23.30
|
17.08
|
35.31
|
19.57
|
39.56
|
30.17
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
50.92
|
42.68
|
35.21
|
20.16
|
37.42
|
30.01
|
|
|
Meghalaya
|
Rural-Rural
|
12.66
|
21.36
|
19.07
|
37.45
|
7.76
|
13.11
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
15.37
|
11.50
|
14.25
|
9.78
|
11.02
|
9.79
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
14.04
|
13.24
|
21.81
|
13.96
|
26.08
|
21.45
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
57.93
|
53.90
|
44.88
|
38.80
|
55.14
|
55.65
|
|
|
Mizoram
|
Rural-Rural
|
19.17
|
16.97
|
35.03
|
51.05
|
12.13
|
26.72
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
17.28
|
19.19
|
13.27
|
11.67
|
9.09
|
6.38
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
19.17
|
19.37
|
25.23
|
17.42
|
39.85
|
32.12
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
44.38
|
44.46
|
26.47
|
19.87
|
38.94
|
34.78
|
|
|
Nagaland
|
Rural-Rural
|
18.92
|
33.73
|
21.33
|
44.59
|
21.34
|
81.05
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
25.98
|
16.83
|
19.70
|
13.39
|
4.94
|
2.12
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
23.16
|
16.72
|
23.89
|
17.89
|
48.06
|
10.89
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
31.93
|
32.72
|
35.08
|
24.13
|
25.67
|
5.95
|
|
|
Tripura
|
Rural-Rural
|
13.03
|
15.81
|
20.58
|
44.80
|
15.46
|
17.68
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
9.93
|
11.82
|
8.95
|
8.48
|
7.87
|
8.57
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
30.26
|
28.24
|
33.51
|
22.75
|
26.92
|
23.82
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
46.78
|
44.13
|
36.95
|
23.96
|
49.76
|
49.93
|
|
|
NER
|
Rural-Rural
|
31.90
|
35.87
|
27.44
|
41.64
|
24.99
|
63.42
|
|
Urban-Rural
|
16.12
|
14.50
|
11.64
|
10.27
|
8.08
|
4.60
|
|
|
Rural-Urban
|
18.94
|
17.52
|
26.72
|
20.21
|
30.30
|
14.22
|
|
|
Urban-Urban
|
33.05
|
32.12
|
34.20
|
27.87
|
36.63
|
17.76
|
|
Note:
The figure of the rest of the country excludes J&K. Figures exclude
unclassified migrant. Due to rounding off the figure might not exactly sum up to
100. It
is computed as follows: ‘Each stream of migrants’ divided by ‘total-migrants’
from NE States/Region to the rest of Country multiplied by 100. Total migrant
is the sum of migrants from rural-rural, rural-urban, urban-rural and
urban-urban.
Source: Census of India, 1981, 1991 and 2001.
The share of rural-rural migrants from NER and
most of the NE states to the rest of the country had declined during both
1981-91 and 1991-01 for males. In case of females, it had considerably
increased for migrants from NER. A similar trend prevailed for most of the NE
states particularly during 1981-91. The share of urban-rural migrants from NER
and most of the NE states had declined during both the periods for both males
and females. The share of rural-urban migrants from NER had increased during
both the periods for males. In case of females, it had increased during
1981-91, however declined during the latter period for migrants from NER. It had
also increased for migrants from most of the NE states during both the periods
for both the sexes. The share of urban-urban migrants from NER had increased
for males; while for females, it had declined during both the periods. It had
declined during 1981-91; however, increased during the latter period for most
of NE states for both the sexes. It can be explained by the lack of any
employment opportunities at their origin of migration, the generation of rural
jobs which are largely unskilled and manual in nature, increasing pressure on
agricultural land, rising educational level, inability to established adequate
capital intensive industries for the unemployed, and generation of limited urban
modern jobs which are mostly for the educated. All these factors in one way or
other causes to unemployment which force people to migrate to areas where
employment are likely to be available. These migrants adjust with any type of
employment for a time being or even forced to take up whatever employment is
available in order to sustain them and then in future after exploring and obtaining
various experiences they seek and are employed in more stable/permanent job
associated with a higher wage. This is in line of what Todaro (1969:139) viewed
labour migration in Less Developed Countries as a two-stage phenomenon. The
first stage finds the unskilled rural workers migrating to an urban area and
initially spending a certain period of time in the so-called “urban
traditional” sector. The second stage is reached with the eventual attainment
of a more permanent modern sector job.
Concluding Remarks:
Migration from NER is increasing over the years due to the rapidly
growing population as well as growing educational level along with
unavailability of employment avenues and inability to accommodate in higher
education due to inadequate infrastructural facilities etc. which is all due to
the prevalence of economic slack and buoyant economies in the region. The
assumption that the state which has large/small population size has large/small
migrants is valid. A larger proportion of males continue to migrate for
employment and education as compared to females. Urban to urban migration
continues to dominate for males. In case of females, rural to rural migration
is the largest. Lack of adequate educational infrastructure for higher
education, underdevelopment, inability to generate adequate organised
employment, educated unemployment, social insecurity, fear psychosis, etc. seemingly
acted as a push factor for migration from the region. On other hand, better
educational infrastructure, quicker access to information, availability of
alternative jobs, rapid development particularly large cities, social security,
etc. attracts migrants from the region to the Rest of the Country. Therefore, population
should be controlled, development should take place, investment should move in
particularly private sectors, labour intensive developmental work should
increase, educational systems should be restructured, educational infrastructure
should be made available adequately and socio-political problems should be
solved in the region apart from others in order to reverse all these push
factors for restructuring the population composition and to change the pattern
and trend of migration from the region.
References:
Bhagat, Ram B, ‘Conceptual Issues in Measurement of Internal Migration
in India’, XXVth IUSSP International Conference, Tours,
France, July 2005.
Census of India, 1981, 1991 and 2001, Government of India.
Census of India, 1981, Series 1-India, Part-V A & B –I, Government
of India.
Census of India, Data Highlights, Government of India,
2001.
Cote, Guy L., ‘Socio-economic Attainment, Regional Disparities, and
Internal Migration’, European Sociological Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, May
1997.
D’Sami,
Bernard, ‘Migration Patterns and Challenges for Indians Seeking Work
Abroad: A Special Focus on South India’, National Forum of Migrant Workers
Rights.
Faggian, Alessandra and McCann, Philip, ‘Human Capital Flows and
Regional Knowledge Assets: A Simultaneous Equation Approach’, Oxford
Economic Paper 52, Oxford University Press, 2006.
httpmospi.nic.inrept%20_%20pubnftest.asprept_id=nad03_1993_1994&type=NSSO.
Kundu, Amitabh, ‘Mobility of Population’ in Kaushik Basu (ed), The
Oxford Companion to Economics in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,
2007.
Mildred, B. Levy and Walter J. Wadycki, ‘The Influence of Family and
Friends on Geographic Labor Mobility: An International Comparison’, The
Review of Economic and Statistics, Vol. 55, No. 2, May 1973.
National
Sample Survey Organisation, Migration in India, Report No. 470, NSS 55th
Round (July 1999 – June 2000), Ministry of Statistics & Programme
Implementation, Government of India, 2001.
Sachdeva,
Gulshan, Economy of the North-East: Policy, Present Conditions and Future
Possibilities, Konark Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000.
Santhapparaj, A. Solucis, ‘Job Search and Earnings of Migrants in Urban
Labour Market: A Study of Madurai Metropolis’, The Indian Journal of Labour
Economics, Vol.39, No.2, 1996.
Sebastian
in Nair, P.S., et al (ed.), Indian Youth: A Profile, Mittal Publications,
Delhi, 1989.
Skeldon, Ronal, ‘On Migration Patterns in India during the 1970s’, Population
and Development Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 1986.
Todaro, Michael P., ‘A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment
in Less Developed Countries’, The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No.
1, 1969.
Visaria, Pravin, ‘The Level and Pattern of
Economic Activity by Migration Status in India’, Demography India, Vol.
9, No.1&2, 1980.
------------------------------------------------------
For citation: Marchang Reimeingam, Migration from North Eastern
Region to the Rest of the Country: A Recent Patterns and Trends in Environment Development
and Social Change in Himalayan Region, Sakarama S. and Khawas V. (Eds.), Akansha Publishing House,
Delhi, 2012 (ISBN: 978-81-8370-319-2) pp.148-168.
No comments:
Post a Comment