Abstract
The unexpected increase in the number of census towns (CTs) in the last census has thrust them into the spotlight. Using a hitherto unexploited dataset, we found that many of the new CTs had already satisfied the requisite criteria in 2001, mitigating concerns of inflated urbanisation. The new CTs account for one third of the urban growth in last decade, with large inter-state variations. They are responsible for almost the entire growth in urbanisation in Kerala and almost none in Chhattisgarh. Consequently, the estimated contribution of migration is similar to that of previous inter-censal periods. Further, while some new CTs are concentrated around million-plus cities, more than four-fifths are situated outside the proximity of such cities, with a large majority nowhere near Class I towns, though they form part of local agglomerations. This indicates a dispersed pattern of in-situ urbanisation. Indeed, the empirical analysis seems to indicate that reluctance of state policy to recognise new statutory towns is partly responsible for the growth of new CTs. In addition, this chapter finds that the large increase in CTs is not limited to the last decade and it could be a part of India’s future urbanisation. The rural administrative framework governs a growing share of the urban population belonging to these CTs, despite their very different demographic and economic characteristics. This condition may affect their future growth.
This is an updated version of the paper first published in Economic and Political Weekly on September 7, 2013.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
While cantonment boards fall under entry 3 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule) of the Indian Constitution and are notified under the Cantonments Act 2006, municipalities and industrial townships are notified by the respective state governments.
- 2.
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/1.%20Data%20Highlight.pdf. Accessed on 2 September 2014, p. 2.
- 3.
“Formation of Urban Agglomerations for the 2011 Census” Circular No 3, Census of India, 3 November 2008 (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-Circulars/Circulars/11-30-10-Circular-03.doc).
- 4.
There are some instances of wrong matching, for example, Barki Saraiya, a CT in 2011 in Giridih district of Jharkhand, has been matched with Sahibganj municipality of 2001. However the urban directory shows that Sahibganj was reclassified from municipality to Nagar Parishad and it is situated in a different district (Sahibganj district). Since there was only one settlement by the name of Barki Saraiya in the whole state and in one district in 2001 and in 2011 with a population of more than 15,000 population, it seems more appropriate to match Barki Saraiya CT from 2011 with Barki Saraiya village in 2001. This is only one of the possible types of error in the database presented here, but there are other issues such as missing codes, where personal judgments are needed.
- 5.
For 9 other CTs, when the 2001 settlement is divided into multiple CTs, the 2001 population is equally distributed among the new CTs. The data for Tamil Nadu, a state with a large number of new CTs is especially problematic. First, the 2001 code is missing for a large number of CTs. Second, there are instances where villages have been divided into multiple parts and a portion of them have been identified as urban and others as rural, making it difficult to allocate the 2001 population to rural and urban areas.
- 6.
The 35 CTs are distributed amongst the following states: Andhra Pradesh (3), Jammu and Kashmir (3), Gujarat (15), Haryana (2), NCT of Delhi (1), Maharashtra (1), Punjab (1), Rajasthan (1), Sikkim (1), Tamil Nadu (3), Uttar Pradesh (1) and West Bengal (3).
- 7.
Sadaura, in Yamunanagar district of Haryana, is one such example. It was a municipal committee (MC) in the 2001 Census with 2398 households. It was reportedly converted to a village panchayat in 2001 and back to an MC in 2006. In 2007, because of protests from residents, it was reverted back to a village panchayat. As it possesses all the urban characteristics, it was classified as CT in 2011, with 3075 households. See “Sadhaura to have panchayat, not MC: Poll Cancelled”, The Tribune, 28 February 2007 (accessed at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070301/haryana.htm#9on 25 July 2012).
- 8.
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Circulars/Circulars/11-31-10-Circular-02.doc (Accessed on 10 January 2013).
- 9.
Though 55 CTs in 2001 were denotified to villages, the relatively small size of these settlements would imply that its impact would be insignificant.
- 10.
Of the 35, 1 ST has been merged with Visakhapatnam, Junagarh and Jamnagar, 2 with Vasai-Virar, 4 with Dhanbad, 6 with Bengaluru, 9 with Hyderabad and 11 with Ahmedabad.
- 11.
As the 2001 population for 29 STs could not be estimated, because the corresponding settlement in 2001 could not be identified, the actual figure in 2011 could be higher than this.
- 12.
“Vasai-Virar civic body not a good idea, say villagers”, The Indian Express, 21 July 2009 (accessed at www.indianexpress.com/news/vasaivirar-civic-body-not-a-good-idea-say-villagers/491940/ on 25 July 2012); “Draft Development Plan For The Newly Merged 23 Villages”, Pune Municipal Corporation (accessed at www.punecorporation.org/pmcwebn/dp23vill.aspx on 25 July 2012); “BBMP jurisdiction is vast but resources are limited”, The Hindu, 17 March 2012 (accessed at www.hindu.com/2010/03/17/stories/2010031763290400.htm on 25 July 2012).
- 13.
Chandrasekhar (2011), on the basis of NSS data for 2009–2010, estimates that 8.05 million rural non-agricultural workers commute to urban areas for their work. This is 9.1 % of the total urban non-agricultural workforce. Though these people are an active part of the urban economy, the present system does not recognise them under urban areas.
- 14.
The metropolitan districts included 45 districts in 2001. Of these, 22 were in the National Capital Region in and around Delhi and 23 in 7 other major metropolitan regions, namely Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai and Pune.
- 15.
A few examples of such districts where the number of new CTs is more than 10 are the North-West, South, South-West and Ghaziabad in the NCR; Hugli, Haora, Nadia, North 24 Parganas and South 24 Parganas in Kolkata Metropolitan Region; Mahbubnagar, Medak and Rangareddy in Hyderabad Metropolitan Region; Raigarh and Thane in Mumbai Metropolitan Region; Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur in Chennai Metropolitan Region; Coimbatore district, Nagpur district, Pune district etc.
- 16.
The radius combination which is 25 % more than the base radius is 12.5 km for 1–5-lakh towns, 18.75 km for 5–10-lakh towns, 25 km for 10–40-lakh towns and 31.25 km for more than 40-lakh towns. Similarly, the radius combination which is 25 % less than the base radius is 7.5 km for 1–5-lakh towns, 11.25 km for 5–10-lakh towns, 15 km for 10–40-lakh towns and 18.75 km for more than 40-lakh towns.
- 17.
Denis et al. (2012) also seem to suggest that multiple urbanisation processes may be at work in India, such as metropolitan agglomeration and what they term subaltern urbanisation.
- 18.
In the census, village level employment data are presented under four broad categories (cultivator, agricultural labourers, household industry workers and other workers). Non-farming employment is calculated here as the share of “household industry” workers and “other” workers in the total workers. As workers engaged in “plantation, livestock, forestry, fishing, hunting and allied activities” (in the paper counted as those engaged in non-farming employment) are to be excluded in CTs identification, 78 % non-farming employment cutoff is taken here instead of 75 % as the share of “plantation, livestock, forestry, fishing, hunting and allied activities” in total main male workforce was roughly 3 % in 2001.
- 19.
There have been instances where such settlements resisted efforts to merge them with the municipality. “Vasai-Virar civic body not a good idea, say villagers”, The Indian Express, 21 July 2009 (accessed at www.indianexpress.com/news/vasaivirar-civic-body-not-a-good-idea-say-villagers/491940/ on 25 July 2012).
- 20.
“New scheme to uplift semi-urban settlements”, The Hindustan Times, 7 June 2012. Accessed at http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/New-scheme-to-uplift-semi-urban-settlements/Article1-867589.aspx on 25 July 2012.
- 21.
Final Report of Working Group on “Scheme for Provision of Urban Amenities in Rural Areas (PURA)”, Ministry of Rural Development (accessed at http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/rd/wgrep_pura.pdf on 25 July 2012).
- 22.
The Government of India has launched the Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM) with the intention to build 300 cluster of smart villages through the provisioning of infrastructure facilities and creation of economic activities. Census towns along with block headquarter villages have given special emphasis under this scheme in cluster selection.
- 23.
Government of Tamil Nadu, GO No. 270 dated 11 June 2004. Prior to this, “according to Sect. 3-B of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, any local area having a population of not less than 5000 and an annual income of not less than 1 lakh of rupees are constituted as a town panchayat.” Accessed at http://www.tn.gov.in/gorders/maws/maws-e-270-2004.htm on 25 July 2012. This was subsequently overturned by Government of Tamil Nadu, GO No. 55 dated 14 July 2006 (accessed at http://www.tn.gov.in/gorders/maws/maws_e_55_2006.htm on 25 July 2012).
References
Bhagat, R. B. (2011). Emerging pattern of urbanisation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(34), 10–12.
Bhaumik, S. K., Gangopadhyay, S., & Krishnan, S. (2009). Reforms and entry: Some evidence from the Indian manufacturing sector. Review of Development Economics, 13(4), 658–672.
Chandrasekhar, S. (2011). Workers commuting between the rural and urban: Estimates from NSSO data. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(46), 22–25.
Denis, E., & Marius-Gnanou, K. (2011). Toward a better appraisal of urbanisation in India. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 569. doi:10.4000/cybergeo.24798
Denis, E., Mukhopadhyay, P., & Zérah, M.-H. (2012). Subaltern urbanisation in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(30), 52–62.
Gupta, A. (2010). What is an urban area? (MPlan thesis). Department of Regional Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi
HPEC. (2011). Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services. National Institute of Urban Affairs, April. Available at http://www.niua.org/projects/hpec/finalreport-hpec.pdfhttp://www.niua.org/projects/hpec/finalreport-hpec.pdf
Kundu, A. (2011). Method in madness: Urban data from 2011 Census. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(40), 13–16.
Rondinelli, D. A. (1983). Towns and small cities in developing countries. Geographical Review, 73(4), 379–395.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Kundu, A., & Singh, B. N. (2005). Handbook of urbanisation in India: An analysis of trends and processes. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Zhu, Y. (2002). Beyond Large-city-centred urbanisation: in situ transformation of rural areas in Fujian Province. Asia Pacific Viewpoint.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pradhan, K.C. (2017). Unacknowledged Urbanisation: The New Census Towns in India. In: Denis, E., Zérah, MH. (eds) Subaltern Urbanisation in India. Exploring Urban Change in South Asia. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3616-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3616-0_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-3614-6
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-3616-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)