The Pros And Cons Of Urban Migration

Thus, there is some debate on whether the contribution of migration to urban growth is declining or not. Kundu (2003, 2009 and 2011) has repeatedly argued that this is the case owing to policies promoting ‘exclusionary urbanization’. He also points out that the three mega cities of Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi have shown low rates of growth in this decade. He further argues that in any case the data does not show that cities are likely to be inundated by poorer migrants. Given the low overall contribution of migration, and declining natural increase, it has been argued that further impetus to urbanization can only come from urban reconfiguration. Along with Kundu (2003, 2011a, b) and Bhagat (2011), Bhagat and Mohanty (2009), recent UN projections (see Kundu, 2011b) have also downwardly revised their projections of urban growth in India. The Census and the NSS results show that some increase in urban migration. But, at the same time, rural-urban migration growth has been slow. This is surprising given the pattern of growth which the country has been witnessing. The answer probably lies in the

However, this right can be undermined by governments and urban bodies, which do not implement enabling development policies admeasures. In the absence of suitable measures, poor migrant workers have no residential security and are compelled to live and work in crowded slum sand unauthorized public lands/locations with poor civic amenities and access to basic services, and they undergo repeated displacement. They also do not acquire rights to basic entitlements .Instead the centre, states and urban bodies can pursue a coherent policy in this regard. Urban policy is becoming more exclusionary, increasing the cost of migration for the poor, and the anti-migrant rhetoric is becoming more strident in many states and urban