Urbanisation in Independent India

Urbanisation in independent India is not a single, uniform process. While we are all familiar with the fact that cities are growing — especially in the era of globalisation and with new initiatives like the 'Smart City' mission — the sociological picture is more layered. Sociologist M.S.A. Rao studied the different kinds of urbanisation that took shape in the first two decades after independence. His key insight is that many villages across India are increasingly affected by urban influences, but the nature of that impact depends on the kind of relationship a village has with a city or town. He identified three distinct situations.

Three Types of Urban Impact on Villages (after M.S.A. Rao)

1. Villages with long-distance migrants

In this first type, a sizeable number of people from the village have moved to far-off cities for work. They live in the city but leave their families behind in the natal village. Rao's study of Madhopur, a village in north-central India, illustrates this clearly. Out of 298 households, 77 had migrants. A little less than half of all these migrants worked in just two cities: Bombay (Mumbai) and Calcutta (Kolkata). About 75 percent of all migrants sent money home regularly, and 83 percent visited the village anywhere from four to five times a year to once every two years.

This pattern is not limited to Indian cities. Many overseas migrants from villages in Gujarat, for example, now live in towns in Africa and Britain. They have built fashionable houses in their home villages, invested money in land and local industry, and donated generously to establish educational institutions and trusts. The village remains the social and emotional centre, even as the economic life of its people stretches across continents.

2. Villages near an industrial town

The second kind of urban impact occurs when a new industrial town — like Bhilai — comes up right in the middle of existing villages. The effects are immediate and disruptive. Some villages are completely uprooted; their land is taken over entirely. In other villages, only part of the land is acquired. These partially affected villages then experience an influx of immigrant workers who come to work in the new industry.

This influx creates new demands — for housing and for a market inside the village itself. But it also creates social problems. The native residents and the new immigrants have to work out new relationships, and this is not always smooth. The village is no longer a closed, self-contained community; it has become a site of contact and potential conflict between locals and outsiders.

3. Villages on the outskirts of a growing metropolitan city

The third type is driven by the expansion of a large metropolitan city. As the city grows, it swallows up the villages on its periphery. A few villages are totally absorbed — they literally become part of the city. In many other cases, only the land of the village (excluding the inhabited area) is taken over for urban development. The village settlement itself may survive, but its agricultural land is gone, and its relationship to the city is transformed.

The Big Picture: Urbanisation in Numbers (1951–2011)

The textbook provides data that puts these sociological observations into a national context.

• In 1951, 17.29 percent of India's population — that is, 62.44 million people — lived in 2,843 towns.
• By 2011, 31.16 percent of India's population — 377.10 million people — lived in 7,935 towns. …