Made in Humane Club
Key highlights
- As of 2020-21, about one-third of the total population in India were migrants, with this share being 34.6 percent in urban areas and 26.8 percent in the rural population
- While 11.4 percent men had migrated as of 2020-21, the corresponding share for women was 47.7 percent
- Marriage remained the major reason for migration, followed by work-related migration. Women were most likely to move on account of getting married, and men for work-related reasons
- Migration within a state was a lot more common than inter-state migration – over 87 percent of those migrated had moved within the same state. But four in ten among those who had migrated for work-related reasons had migrated from a different state
- Individuals migrating to urban areas were more likely to experience an increase in their incomes compared to those who migrated to rural areas
Nearly three in every ten persons (29.1 percent) in India were migrants as of 2020-21, data from the Multiple Indicator Survey (NSS Round 78) shows. Urban areas were more likely to be home to people who had migrated from elsewhere as compared to rural parts of the country. As of 2020-21, over a third (34.6 percent) of the people living in urban areas had migrated from somewhere else, while in rural areas, the corresponding share was 26.8 percent (Figure 1).
The survey considers those whose last usual place of residence was different from the current place of enumeration as migrants. The last usual place of residence refers to the village/town/country where the household member stayed continuously for six months or more before they moved to the present village/ town where they were surveyed.
Why do Indians migrate?
While 11.4 percent men had migrated as of 2020-21, the corresponding share for women was 47.7 percent. Given the dominance of patrilocal marriages (where a couple lives in the husband’s house after getting married) in India, these patterns are not surprising.
In fact, the most common reason why people migrated was because they got married – 70 percent of those who had migrated cited the same as the reason for their relocation. One-tenth (10.6 percent) migrated for work-related reasons, which included job search, seeking better employment, business opportunities, employment advancement, service transfer/contract, and proximity to the workplace. A similar share (9.9 percent) had migrated due to the relocation of their parents/the primary earning member of the family. Other reasons why people had migrated included studies, social/political problems, displacement by development, scarcity of water, acquisition of own house, housing problems/ insufficient land holdings, health care, post retirement, natural disasters. Together these accounted for the rest 10 percent of migration.
Men predominantly migrated for work-related reasons, the data shows (Figure 2). Among the men who had moved, nearly half (48.8 percent) had moved in search of employment-related factors, and another 51.2 percent migrated due to reasons such as studies (8 percent), marriage (5.8 percent), migration due to a parent’s or family member’s relocation (17 percent), others (20.4 percent). In contrast, 87.5 percent of women who had migrated had done so because of marriage. Only one percent of women migrated due to work-related reasons.
Reasons for migration differed between migrants living in rural areas compared to those who living in urban areas. For instance, while 93.5 percent of women migrants in rural areas had relocated due to marriage, this share was 71.5 percent among women migrants living in urban areas. Nearly a fifth of female migrants living in urban areas had moved due to the migration of their parents/earning members of their family. Similarly, among men, the likelihood of migrating due to work-related reasons was higher for those who had moved to an urban area.
Where does the migrant population come from?
Among the migrant population residing in rural areas, more than four-fifths (81.4 percent) had moved from another rural region. But urban areas had a different composition – 58 percent of the migrant population had moved there from a rural area, while 41 percent had moved from one urban area to another.
Additionally, for a large share of people, migration is a localised experience. A dominant majority of those who had migrated had moved within the same state. In fact, more than half (58.5 percent) had migrated from a different place within the same district, while 28.6 percent of those who had migrated had moved from a different district within the state. Only 12 percent of those who had migrated had moved from a different state (Figure 3).
And this varied further based on the reason why someone had migrated. Among those who migrated on account of getting married, 68.6 percent moved within the same district, and another quarter (26.1 percent) had moved from a different district within the same state. Only 5.1 percent had moved from a different state. In contract, among those who migrated for work-related reasons, 39.7 percent had migrated from a different state (Figure 3).
Does migrating to a different place make any difference to income?
Among the people who had migrated, 14 percent were also the earning members of their households. They were asked whether there was a change in income due to leaving the last place of residence. More than half (56 percent) reported an increase in their incomes, whereas 22 percent experienced a decline in their earnings. The data reveals a gap in the earning potential for migrating individuals to rural and urban areas. Among those who relocated to rural areas, 46 percent of the individuals experienced an increase in their earnings. Whereas, among those who had moved to urban areas, the corresponding share was 68 percent. However, it is important to remember that since the costs of living and consumption tend to be higher in urban areas as compared to rural areas, it is likely that the real gains in income might be lower. Conversely, 30 percent of those who migrated to rural areas witnessed a decline in their earnings, while only 10 percent of those who moved to urban areas experienced a similar decrease (Figure 4).
When asked whether they were facing any problem in their current place of residence, only a small share (2.6 percent) of those who had migrated reported that they had faced some problems. Similarly, when asked whether they were willing to move from their current place of residence, 3.2 percent of those who had migrated indicated a willingness to move elsewhere. Among this small share, their previous usual place of residence remained the preferred destination for more than half of the cohort.
Which states have higher shares of people who have migrated to a different place?
The share of migrant population varied widely across states and union territories ranging from Manipur, where only 0.2 percent of the population had migrated from one place to another to Chandigarh where more than half (53.1 percent) of the population had moved. It is important to keep in mind that these numbers reflect shares of the population that had moved either within the state or from outside, and not only the latter.
Among states, Himachal Pradesh has the highest share of migrant individuals in the total population (45.7 percent) followed by states like Kerala, Telangana, Punjab & Maharashtra with 38.4 percent, 37.1 percent, 35.8 percent, and 35.6 percent of migrants in their population. On the other hand, after Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Puducherry, Meghalaya and Sikkim had the smallest shares of migrants in their population (0.2 percent, 1.4 percent, 1.5 percent, 10 percent and 10.8 percent respectively).
Further, the share of those who had migrated for work-related reasons among the total migrants varied across states. (Figure 6).
In Arunachal Pradesh, 31.2 percent of those who had migrated said they had done so for work-related reasons, the highest such share among all states. It was followed by Mizoram (30.3 percent), Delhi (28.6 percent), and Nagaland (27.5 percent). On the other hand, Manipur had the lowest share of migrants who had moved due to work-related reasons (2.1 percent), followed by Tripura (2.4 percent), Uttar Pradesh (6.4 percent), and Bihar (6.7 percent).
Among states that attracted the highest share of migrants from other states/UTs, Delhi emerged at the top – 65.1 percent of migrants living here had come from outside. It was followed by Goa (32.5 percent), Meghalaya (25.1 percent) and Arunachal Pradesh (24.4 percent). On the other hand, Manipur (0 percent), Tripura (2.2 percent), Tamil Nadu (4.4 percent), and Assam (4.4 percent) had the lowest shares of migrants who had moved from a different state (Figure 7).
To cite this analysis: Kulvinder Singh (2024), ‘How India moves: Understanding patterns of migration within the country‘ Centre for Economic Data and Analysis (CEDA), Ashoka University. Published on ceda.ashoka.edu.in.
If you wish to republish this article or use an extract or chart, please read CEDA’s republishing guidelines.
130
Copied
