Urbanisation in Bihar: Need to Break Stigma

Transcription

1 Urbanisation in Bihar: Need to Break Stigma Rajnish KUMAR 1 and Milap PUNIA 1 Abstract: Bihar is one of the lowest urbanised states of India. The scope of urban development in the state is enormous due to its regional backwardness in the country. Massive out migration from rural areas and shift towards non-farm activities in the state is reflection of socio-economic transformation urbanising society. The paper endeavours to understand the process of urbanisation in Bihar and tries to compare it with macro Indian picture. It also throws lights on ambiguities of definition of urban areas in India. Based on empirical evidences of geo-spatial data, the paper tries to elaborate temporal and regional pattern of urbanisation in Bihar. Urbanisation in the state has been found more in southern region, specific size and class of towns especially Class I. Patna, a historical town, serves as the primate city in the state. Municipal Act, 2007 seems to be salient over various issues of notification of new urban bodies. Bihar needs progressive urban development policy for rapid urbanisation and to build its cities as growth pole. Keywords: Urbanisation, Development, Town, Municipal Act, Bihar 1 Jawaharlal Nehru University 32

2 1. Introduction The challenges of development in Bihar are enormous due to persistent poverty, complex social stratification, unsatisfactory infrastructure and weak governance, problems that are known but not well understood (World Bank: 2005). Change of political regime and quest for development in recent years has indulged academia to rethink about development perspective of the state. Bihar continues to be one of the lowest urbanised states of India. The state seems to be representing the subaltern character, where it reflects cultural milieu, social disparities and mixed economy across emerging large villages. The concept of subaltern urbanisation refers to the growth of settlement agglomerations, whether denoted urban by the Census of India or not, that are independent of the metropolis and autonomous in their interactions with other settlements, local and global (Denis et al.: 2012). Urban studies are increasingly attracting researchers from all disciplines. As a process of socio-economic and cultural transformation from rural folk economies to the state of mass consumption and services, a country moves towards universal urbanisation. Urban world is known for better quality of life, basic amenities and infrastructure with the capacity to pull migrants from its hinterland. In developing economies, it is a challenging task for policy makers to reach at universally accepted definition of urban space. The transitional area creates puzzles from development perspective since it does not inherit entirely rural or urban character. In absence of dynamic objective criteria to differentiate rural and urban society, political economy of the state determines objective/subjective criteria to classify/declassify urban space. Even Census of India has not changed its methodology to define census town since 61 in spite of rapid socio-economic transformation of the society. In this context, the study of low urbanisation of a region in the era of information technology raises question mark on the overall development of the region. The global proportion of urban population rose dramatically from 13 per cent (220 million) in 00, to 29 per cent (732 million) in 50 and further to 52.1 per cent (3.63 billion) in 2011 (UN: 2011). Many of the global north and developed counties have already achieved universal urbanisation. The North-South divide has strong contrast in the level of urbanisation. Developed countries are characterized by high level of urbanisation whereas majority of the developing countries are far away from the half way mark. Some South Asian countries like Nepal and Sri Lanka have reported very low level of urbanisation (Figure 1). However, the share of primary activities in the GDP is becoming lower. Though India has a young and rapidly growing population, a potential demographic dividend, the level of urbanisation (31.16 per cent, Census of India: 2001) is far below the world average. The country needs thriving cities if that dividend is to pay out. Living in the cities permits the advantages of the opportunities of proximity, diversity, and marketplace competition. Advantages of urbanisation are also weighed against alienation issues, stress, increased daily life costs, and negative social aspects that result from mass marginalization. New McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) research estimates that cities could generate 70 per cent of net new jobs created by 2030, produce around 70 per cent of Indian GDP and drive a near fourfold increase in per capita income across the nation (MGI: 2010). Figure 1. Level of Urbanisation in the World and India (Source: UN and Census of India) Historical evidences suggest that urbanisation is an inevitable and universal phenomenon. Urban transformation in India requires momentum and it has got significant place in policy documents. Four critical challenges facing the economy in the Twelfth Plan, which are perhaps more serious than they were at the start of the Eleventh Plan, are those of (a) managing the energy situation, (b) managing the water economy, (c) addressing the problems posed by the urban transformation that is likely to occur, and (d) ensuring protection of the environment in a manner that can facilitate rapid growth. In addition, the efficiency in implementation of projects on the ground needs to be greatly improved (Ahluwalia: 2011). Census of India, 2011 has reported big shift towards emergence of new census towns. Contrary to popular perceptions about a rapid pace of urbanisation, the fragmentary data in the provisional results of the Census reveal a decline in demographic growth in districts within the metro cities, suggesting that these have become less welcoming to prospective migrants. Such low and even negative population growth in large cities and their core areas needs further investigation, since it raises concerns about exclusionary urbanisation (Kundu: 2011a). Significant growth of urban population and increase in the number of urban centres clearly indicate India s better prospects of future urbanisation. Some of the very low urbanized states like Bihar and Assam require special attention to understand the process of urbanisation. Between 2001 and 2011, the urban population of Bihar increased from 86 million to 117 million, growing at the rate of 3.5 per cent per annum, higher than the national average of 3.2 per cent per annum (Ahluwalia: 2013, Sharma, 2013). This paper endeavours to understand the process of urbanisation in India with special reference to Bihar. Based on empirical evidences of geo-spatial data, the paper tries to elaborate urban characteristics. Regional analysis of urbanisation in the state has been looked into from various dimensions which is inclusive of how various Administrative Divisions of the state have experienced urbanisation since 61. It also throws light on low urbanisation of Bihar by taking a case study of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali districts and attempted 33

3 to suggest alternative method to recognise new statuary towns for Vaishali district. With primary data of two gram panchayats of Vaishali, an attempt has been made to understand process of out migration from rural area. The paper has been organized into eight sections. Apart from introduction in the first section, the second section deals with ambiguities of definition of urban space. Section three elaborates macro picture of urbanisation in India. Temporal pattern of urbanisation in Bihar is the central theme of section four. In the fifth section, a light has been thrown on the regional urban picture of urbanisation in the state. A case study low level urbanisation of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali districts has been explained in the section six. From the micro study of rural-urban migration, an attempt has been done to understand the contemporary scenario in the section seven. Conclusion and policy implication has been kept in the last section. 2. Ambiguities of Definition Delineation of municipal boundary is a local governance phenomenon. Any systematic and comparable analysis of the process of urbanisation is bedevilled ambiguity in identification and description. Officially, the definition of urban varies across the national boundaries i.e. from one region to another and from one point of time to another. In UN survey, the usual practice was to give a specific and detailed definition of urban areas on the basis of administrative areas, population size, local government policy and urban characteristics (UNESCO, 62). Since 61, Census of India identifies urban areas in the country on the basis of two broad criteria; A) Statutory towns: all places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee, etc. so declared by state law; B) Census towns: places which satisfy following demographic criteria during Census operations:-i) a minimum population of 5000; ii) at least 75 percent of male working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and iii) a density of population of at least 400 persons per square km. The discretionary decisions of each state are a major issue in the definition of what is defined as urban area (Bhagat: 2005, 2011). Even if the demography is one of the major criteria, statutory towns are also the outcome of a political process. There are important differences among the states where census towns do not have necessarily urban local government. Possibility of to be and not to be an urban local body varies from state-to-state, and sometimes within the same state, as the demand can come from the local government. There is trade-off between cost benefit advantage of being or not being a statutory town. Bhagat (2011) said that, in theory, the recognition as a town would have implication not only in terms of provision of urban infrastructure and civic amenities but also for reproductive and child health services. But, as Sivaramakrishnan (2011) noted down, these places in between will be better off as panchayats since government funding and various other concessions available to panchayats are more in number and much larger. Similarly, regarding the implementation of the Common Minimum Programme, Kundu and Sarangi (2005) already demonstrated that the classification of an agglomeration as statutory urban area can be exclusionary by preventing it to get the benefit of rural schemes. Recently during municipal election of 2013 in Haryana, three villages namely Mullana, Shimla and Nizampur boycotted the elections and demanded their exclusion from the ambit of Panipat Municipal Corporation and demanded inclusion under gram panchayat. Furthermore, in practice, there is also a direct interest of some settlements (particularly those located in peri-urban areas) to stay rural to avoid any stronger urban taxation (Bhagat: 2005). The research conducted by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences demonstrates that beyond questions of definition, the urban is a contested terrain. In Maharashtra, if one applies strictly the population criteria, then a number of the existing municipal councils should not be declared urban while on the other hand, some settlements which pass the population criteria are not urban. In reality, what is urban clearly does not satisfy the state official criteria and they mention many reasons for resisting being urban: the importance of agriculture and primary sector, the local and economic stakes. In other words, there is a form of optimization between various parameters, such as land, tax, investments and development programmes that each locality tries to carry out (Denis, Mukhopadhyay, Zérah: 2012). However, comparison of urban areas across Indian states and UTs requires special attention due to diversity in the socio-economic characteristics. Notification of municipal areas comes under jurisdiction of State List as per the Constitution of India. One can easily find out influence of local political economy of the state in the process of recognition of the statutory towns. The State Municipal Acts are just reflection of that. Census towns are administered by Gram Panchayats and Rural Development Department of the State Governments. However, there is possibility of poor basic amenities and infrastructure in such towns. Share of primary activities in the GDP and dependence of workforce on the farm sector has declined drastically during last 60 years. Indian policy makers are still following fifty year old demographic criteria of defining Census towns. Urban areas are primarily service providing centres to its hinterland. If a particular rural settlement satisfies all demographic criteria and acquires a census town status by Census of India, the question arises, why does the state government hesitate to give such towns the status of an urban local body? As per Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, declaration of intention to constitute a municipal area is based on population and other characteristics of the settlement. According to the act population size of the urban area should be twelve thousand and more but not more than forty thousand for a small town or transitional area to be a Nagar Panchayat or urban growth centre. Besides, it also considers density of population, revenue generated for the local administration, more than 75 per cent employment in non-agriculture activities and economic importance of such areas. In another clause, the State Government may, by notification, determine separate conditions, to constitute any hill area, pilgrim centre, tourist centre or mandi as a municipal area. Power to abolish or alter limits of municipal area or to include certain dwelling house, manufacturing, etc. within a particular municipal area has been vested in State (Govt. of Bihar: 2007, 34

4 2011). Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 did not consider significance of services like administration, education, health, finance, trade and transport consider the process of notifying new statutory towns. Significant increase in the population size of the settlement i.e. ten thousand or even more, itself created demand for market and services. As a result, market and other services grow rapidly in these large villages. Similarly, it also ignores the increasing built-up area, role of agglomeration and out growth in process of notification of new statuary towns. Some of the famous tourist sites of Bihar like Vaishali, Nalanda, Pawapuri, and Kehsaria etc. are still governed by gram panchayats. In fact Bihar Municipal Act has a special provision to notify famous tourist sites as statutory towns. Thus, it can be said that the state requires policy intervention for better urban governance. Ideally, a Gram Sabha should show its interest to change its urban local body status. Any existing Panchayati Raj Institutions like Zila Parishad, Panchayat Samiti and Gram Sabha can initiate the process and pass a resolution to notify the administrative areas as urban. After this process, the district administration sends this proposal to urban development department of the state government for their approval. In the case of newly notified towns like Mahua in the Vaishali district, Mahua Panchayat Samiti took the initiative and put the demand to declare two of its Gram Panchayats as Nagar Panchayat. As a result, Mahua became a Nagar Panchayat/statuary town with 14 wards recently. 3. Macro Picture of Indian Urbanisation According to Census 2011, 377 million Indians constituting per cent people of the country live in urban areas. The level of urbanisation was per cent in the Census For the first time since independence, the absolute increase in population is more in urban areas than in rural areas. Goa is the most urbanized state with per cent followed by Mizoram per cent, Tamil Nadu per cent, Kerala per cent, Maharashtra per cent, Gujarat per cent, and Karnataka per cent etc. (Census: 2011).There are eleven states among the most urbanized states having more than national average of urbanisation. As per Census, 2001, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Delhi and Mizoram were the only states with more than 31 per cent of urban population. Seven states, namely Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka accommodate more than 60 per cent urban population of India. Bihar is the third most populous state of India, but it has only 3.11 per cent share in the total urban population. Spatial distribution of rural and urban population in India has regional dimension, southern India is more urbanised than rest of India. A marginally higher growth in the urbanisation level is observed, yet it also reports a phenomenal increase of 2,774 new Census Towns greater than the number of such new towns identified in all of the 20th century (Table 1). Tamil Nadu has 721 statutory and 376 census towns with 9.21 per cent of urban population of India. The growth rate of population for Tamil Nadu in the last decade was just percent. Its growth rate of population in rural and urban areas was 6.49 per cent and per cent respectively with the highest growth rate in urban population at percent, observed in Kancheepuram district. On the other hand, only per cent population of Bihar lives in urban areas. The growth rate of population in Bihar during the last decade was per cent. The rural and urban decadal population growth rate was per cent and per cent respectively. There are altogether 139 urban local bodies (ULB) in Bihar, of which 10 were Municipal Corporations, 42 Municipal Councils and 87 Nagar Panchayats (Bihar Economic Survey: 2011). 60 new census towns emerged in the state in Census In fact, no new statutory town emerged in Tamil Nadu during the census period whereas in Bihar, the state notified 14 new statutory towns. Thus, Census 2011 itself reveals the need of standardization of state level policy for Declaration of intention to constitute a municipal area. Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 does not have same notifying criteria as of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 20 amended in the year Since the Census of India has a reputation for rigour, it is imperative that the methodology for identification of new towns and possible changes from the past are made to be public (Kundu: 2011b). Table 1.Urban Characteristics of Major Indian States % Urbanisation (in % to Total ) Number of towns (Statuary + Census) Concentration of Urban Pop (in % to Total Urban Pop) State Assam Bihar Orissa Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu Maharashtra Karnataka All India (Source: Census of India, 2001 and 2011) 4. Temporal Pattern of Urbanisation in Bihar Bihar has always remained a significant player in the economic and political history of contemporary India. Ancient and medieval urban centres have served as engine of economic growth of the country. As a region of three ancient Mahajanpadas namely Anga, Magadha and Vrijji, the state has long history of urban centres. Rajgir, Patliputra, Champa and Vaishali, as capitals of the ancient kingdom have noticed some urban characters in the existing literature. With the increase in agricultural surplus, the historical qasbas emerged as place of exchange/trade during the colonial period and were given urban status later. No official data exists for urban population during Pre-Colonial period but some historical evidences do explain contemporary urban life and economy. At the beginning of the twentieth century, around 11 per cent of India s population was living in urban areas whereas Bihar had only 4 per cent of urban 35

5 population. The state had reported only 44 out of 1844 towns of India. Around 0.9 million people of the state were living in the urban areas in 01. The number of total towns had not reported much increase till the year 71 for the entire country. However, it has registered significant jump since then in terms of urban population. In case of Bihar, the number of towns had remained stagnant up to 31 and after that it has noticed gradual rise. However, during 2001 and 2011, there emerged 69 new towns in the state (Table 2). In spite of this, Bihar is today lagging far behind the rest of India in terms of majority of development indicators particularly urbanisation level. population of India and Bihar. In fact, during 01 and 2011, Bihar registered 13 times growth in population whereas it was 14.7 times for the country. Till 81, Bihar and India had not reported much difference in their relative urban population growth but after that the state lagged behind. Table 2. Growth of the urban population in India and Bihar ( ) Census Year No of Towns Urban in Million % Urban to Total Annual Growth Rate of Urban India Bihar India Bihar India Bihar India Bihar (Source: Compiled from Census of India) Annual growth of urban population has showed almost similar trend for India and Bihar (Figure 2). Highest annual urban population growth was observed during The average annual urban growth rate was 3.86 per cent and 5.5 per cent for India and Bihar respectively. Till 71, urban growth rate of India has been found higher than Bihar. Since then, the state has reported higher urban annual population growth rate than the national average. After 80s, urban population of Bihar has consistently experienced high growth rate of above 3 per cent. Given the low urban population base of the state, it is really hard to increase the level of urbanisation to achieve national average unless the state government considers any policy change in the process of notifying new urban local bodies. Level of urbanisation at national level has not reported any significant change till 31. After that, it reported consistent increase in every census years except during Some decades like 41-51, 51-61, and have noticed 3 per cent increase in the level of urbanisation. Bihar had not observed any significant increase in the level of urbanisation till Interestingly, during the last 110 years, not much difference has been observed in the growth rate of urban Figure 2. Growth of Urban (Source: Compiled from Census of India) 5. Regional Picture of Urbanisation in Bihar Regional economies do accept the role of agglomeration of settlements. Spatial distribution of settlements and interdependence between urban and rural areas has remained focus area of research among economic geographers. Theories of location have tried to explain the role of agglomeration or clustering with space and economy of scale. The River Ganges divides Bihar into two different geographical regions i.e. the North Bihar Plains and the South Bihar Plains. South Bihar plains have more urban centres and level of urbanisation. Based on Remote Sensing and Census of India data, an attempt has been made to depict land use pattern and distribution of subaltern settlements. The number of large settlements with population size of more than 5000 persons has increased significantly during 2001 and 2011 Census. Except 9 towns, all urban settlements reported more than 5000 population. It is clear from the table 3 that more than eleven hundred villages have more than population. On the basis of 2001 census data, 3063 settlements have been identified with more than 5000 population in the state. It also includes 130 urban centres. North Bihar has reported more number of large settlements whereas South Bihar has more urban centres i.e. 67 urban centres (Table 3). Land use clearly shows that forests are almost absent from the state except some southern part and East Chamaparan districts. Central North Bihar has observed very high concentration of large rural settlements (Figure 3). Table 3: Distribution of large settlements in Bihar size Urban Urban Villages Total Villages Total Centre Centre ,216 3, ,308 2, > Total 0 4,345 4, ,933 3,063 (Source: Compiled from Census of India) 36

6 Figure 3. Distribution of Settlements in Bihar with more than 5000 Only Patna district of Bihar has reported more than national average of urbanisation. Munger is the second most urbanised (20 per cent of total population) district of the state. At least seven districts of Bihar have reported very low level of urbanisation i.e. less than 5 per cent (Table 4). Decadal urban growth rate of population in the state is per cent. However, only 9 districts have reported higher urban growth rate than the state average. Begusarai district reported exceptional increase in urban population. The steep rise of urban population in Begusarai is mainly due to notification of 4 new statutory towns, 4 Census towns and up gradation of Begusarai Municipality into Municipal Corporation. It is a matter of concern why some districts like Khagaria, Saran, Samastipur and Supaul have reported very low urban growth in the last decade. Does it mean de-urbanisation in these districts? Table 4. District wise level of Urbanisation and Urban Growth Rate District Khagaria, Saran, Samastipur, Supaul, Munger Gaya, Jehanabad, Lakhisarai, Siwan, Bhojpur, Gopalganj, Saharsa, Kishanganj, Sitamarhi, Katihar, Patna, Vaishali, Araria, Buxar, Banka, Madhepura, Pashchim Chamaparan, Nalanda, Rohtas Sheohar, Bhagalpur Madhubani, Sheikhpura Muzaffarpur, Jamui, Aurangabad Darbhanga, Purnia, Kaimur, Nawada, Purbi Chamaparan, Begusarai Decadal Growth Rate ( ) (Source: Census of India, 2011) District 2011% urbanisation <20 Samastipur, Banka, Madhubani, Kaimur, Sheohar, Madhepura, Supaul < Khagaria, Sitamarhi, 5-10 Siwan, Araria, Gopalganj, Vaishali, Arwal, Purbi Champaran, Saharsa, Jamui, Katihar, Saran, Aurangabad, Darbhanga, Buxar Kishanganj, Nawada, Muzaffarpur Pashchim Champaran, Purnia, Jehanabad, Gaya, Lakhisarai, Bhojpur, Rohtas, Nalanda, Sheikhpura, Begusarai, Bhagalpur >40 Munger, Patna >20 There are 9 Regional Administrative Divisions in Bihar namely Patna, Tirhut, Saran, Darbhanga, Kosi, Purnia, Bhagalpur, Munger and Magadh. Patna and Tirhut divisions comprise of 6 districts each. Bhagalpur division comprises of only 2 districts. Patna Division has reported the highest urbanisation (22.27 per cent) followed by Munger (22.27 per cent) and Bhagalpur (22.27 per cent). Kosi and Saran Divisions have registered the lowest urbanisation (Census of India: 2011) The regional picture of urbanisation in Bihar in 61 clearly outlines the overwhelming dominance of Patna division which alone accounts for the highest level of urbanisation i.e per cent. The next higher level of urban population occurred in Munger and Bhagalpur divisions accounting for per cent and per cent urban population respectively. But on the other side of the ladder, Saran and Kosi divisions accounted for only 4.18 per cent and 3.96 per cent level of urbanisation. So, setting aside Patna Division, the level of urbanisation in other divisions of Bihar in 61 tended to be very low. Thus, the regional distribution of urban population in Bihar represented a very lopsided scenario. Over six decades, there has been huge increase in the urban population which is clearly reflected in the rise of another new 21 Class I towns. But to be of more interest is the regional dynamics of this increase. An analysis of the two time periods clearly reflects the dominance of Patna division with per cent urbanisation level. Following Patna are the Munger and Bhagalpur divisions with per cent and per cent of urbanisation levels. Interestingly, the difference between the highest and the preceding urbanisation levels for both 61 and 2011 has remained almost the same i.e. around 9 per cent. In the lower ranks, Saran and Kosi still represent the lowest level of urbanisation in the state (Figure 4). Nevertheless, the highest gain in urbanisation level over the two time periods has been in Magadh division followed by Darbhanga and Tirhut divisions. Thus, over the past five decades, there has been absolute rise in the urbanisation level. There have not been any significant alterations in the relative picture at the regional level, which is still dominated by Patna division in the same fashion as a primate city dominates other cities in a region. Figure 4. Division-wise Level of Urbanisation in Bihar: (Source: Compiled from Census of India) 37

7 Urban centre of India has been classified on the basis of population size. Census of India classifies urban settlements into six size classes: Class I with population size 100,000 and more; Class II with population size 50,000 to 100,000; Class III with population size 20,000 to 50,000; Class IV with population size10,000 to 20,000; Class V with population size 5,000 to 10,000 and Class VI with less than 5,000 population. As common to the third world urbanisation patterns, urbanisation in Bihar is characterized by the huge concentration of urban population in class I towns. According to Census 2011, 57 per cent urban population of Bihar is concentrated in 26 class I towns. One of the most exclusive features of urbanisation in Bihar has been the exceptional growth of Patna. In fact, more than 95 per cent urban population is concentrated in 130 larger towns (Table 5). Table 5. Distribution of Towns by size ( ) in Bihar Populatio n Size and above Less than 5000 Total No of Town (Source: Census of India) The Class-wise distribution of towns in Bihar rolls out some crystal clear dynamics of changing urbanisation patterns over past decade of The number of towns in class I and class III category registered an overall rise during the concerned period while the number of towns in all other categories dwindled down. Both in 2001 and 2011, class III towns accounted for the highest proportion. A very upsetting phenomenon that has appeared during this period is the increase of 9 class VI town in Gradually with the population rise, the existing towns would graduate up to higher classes leading to the concentration of urban population in few larger cities which in turn would hike the rural-urban gap as well as pose tremendous pressure on the existing infrastructure. The sharpest fall in the number of towns between 91 and 2001 has been in class IV towns. It seems that the proportion of population of very large villages (population>15000) and large villages (population > 5000) is on rise. There were 44 towns in the state in 01 with just one town i.e. Patna with more than 100,000 population. Largest concentration of the towns (63 per cent of the total number of towns) was found in the category of towns having 5001 and population at the beginning of the twentieth century. It appears that with natural growth, smaller towns have acquired Class IV status by 2011 where maximum number of towns are concentrated. Class I towns have reported very high growth after Likewise, number of class II towns reported significant increase between 2001 and Five largest towns of the state namely Patna (1.68 million), Gaya (0.66 million), Bhagalpur (0.39 million), Muzaffarpur (0.35 million) and Darbhanga (0.29 million) have experienced different growth trajectories during Census 1881 and 2011 (Figure 5). With 176 thousand population, Patna emerged as the largest town of Bihar Orissa Province of Colonial India in The population of the other cities viz. Gaya, Bhagalpur, Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga were 76, 68, 42 and 66 thousand respectively. Patna reported negative population growth during 1881 to 31. However, after 71 the city experienced steep rise in population. Gaya has remained the second largest city of Bihar during most of the Census years (Figure 6). Darbhanga was the largest town of North Bihar before independence but Muzaffarpur took the lead afterwards. Except Bhagalpur, decadal population growth rate of all these cities has been found negative during 1881 and 21. During , all these cities have registered decline in their population growth. growth rate of Patna has registered high fluctuation whereas Muzaffarpur has reported consistent decline in population growth rate after 81. If we look into the trajectory of decadal growth rate of these towns in the last 130 years, there emerge different phases of growth of large cities. First low or negative growth rate for first fifty years was mainly due to poor public health of the cities. Second, consistent high growth was observed between 31 and 61. Third, fluctuating decadal growth rate after 81 onwards. The political economy of the state did not allow these larger towns to pull migrants. Figure 5. Growth of Main Cities of Bihar (Source: Census of India) Figure 6. Decadal Growth Rate of main cities of Bihar (Source: Census of India) 6. A Case Study of Muzaffarpur and Vaishali Districts Macro picture of India and World scenario of urbanisation clearly suggests that level of urbanisation in Bihar will increase 38

8 Journal of Asian Network for GIS-based Historical Studies Vol.2 (Dec. 2014) with development. It is a challenging task to manage large rural settlements under rural governance. At the same time, urban areas are known for better civic amenities than rural one. Bihar needs at least 247 more towns if national level average of per town population i.e persons (Census, 2011) will be taken into account. It means, addition of 50 news towns can match the state with national average. Likewise, to match national average of urbanisation i.e per cent, urban centres of the state should accommodate at least million people. In this hypothetical situation, the state should have at least 448 towns (following persons per town population). The argument is very simple, the state requires progressive urban policy to declare new statutory town. The recognition of new town should have more objective criteria of governance and socio-economic factors than political one. In the next paragraph, we will elaborate the case of two very low urbanised districts of northern flood plains of Bihar namely Muzaffarpur and Vaishali. Muzaffarpur is the third most populous district of Bihar. The district headquarter, Muzaffarpur city is one of the largest commercial and educational centres of North Bihar. It is one of the oldest administrative centre and was district headquarter of Tirhut district during the colonial period. As per 2011 census, 9.36 per cent of the district population is living in its four urban areas namely Muzaffarpur Municipal Corporation and Shahebganj, Kanti and Motipur Nagar Panchayat. Figure 7 gives a clear understanding of increase in the built up area in recent years. To understand the economy of the district, village-wise occupational structure has been described by using 2001 Census data. Main workers are divided into four categories, viz. cultivators, agricultural labourers, household industry workers and others. Share of agricultural labourers is predominant in majority of Community Development Blocks, particularly in Bochaha, Aurai, Gaighat, Katra etc. The cluster of higher percentage of main workers is found along the major transport line of the district. The composition of main workforce has substantially influenced the infrastructural status of the district. Community Development Blocks like Baruraj, Mushari, and Kanti have registered greater share of workforce in the household industry and other sectors of employment. It is clear from the figure 8 that many of the localities of the district have not been given urban status in spite of high proportion of non-farm workers. (a) 88 Figure 8. Distribution of main workers and other workers across villages of Muzaffarpur (b) 2010 Figure 7. Built up in red for (a) 88 and (b) 2010 in Muzaffarpur With density of 1717 persons per square kilometre and 34 million population Vaishali district is located in the north Ganga flood plains. The district has reported very high decadal population growth of per cent between 2001 and Urbanisation level of the district is just 6.65 per cent (Table 6). The district has vast administrative network of 3 Sub Divisions, 16 Community Development Blocks, and 14 Police Stations. It is well connected with rail, road and water transport networks. It again becomes interesting to know whether primary activities 39

9 are able to support existing population pressure of the district. Two towns of the district have more than 150 years history of urban governance. Table 6. Urban Centres and Urban Growth Rate in Vaishali Towns Year of Notification Growth Rate Hajipur ,149 1,,412 1,47, Lalganj ,394 29,873 37, Mahnar Bazaar 51 9,214 3, , (Source: Census of India) Historical qasbas which are located along the waterways, took the shape of towns today. Mehnar bazaar is situated on the bank of the river Ganges whereas Hajipur and Lalganj are ravine ports on the Gandak River (Figure 9). Presence of Urdu names in various localities like Nakhas, Thatheri Bazar, Katara, Kachahari and Gudari across Hajipur town represents common feature of medieval towns. Emergence of rail network in the early 20th century gave impetus to more growth of qasbas like Hajipur, Sarai, Bhagwanpur, Goraul towards Muzaffarpur and Biddupur, Deasari and Sehdei Bujurg towards Barauni. With development of new road network and administrative centres, some settlements acquired bigger size viz. Mahua, Raja Pakar, Singhara etc. centres and population size, new Urban Centres should consider following criteria: a) all sub divisional headquarters should be given urban status; b) all rural settlements having more than population should be given urban status, and c) if a rural settlement having more than 5000 population fulfils any 3 of these criteria (i) Community Development Block, (ii) Police Station (iii) Post Office (iv) Railway station, (v) Situation on National Highway/State Highway (vi) Primary Health Centre (vii) Senior Secondary School, and (viii) Commercial Bank. The settlements like Ghataro, Shinghara and Nayagoan may be given urban status since population of the village is more than Based on criteria (c) Bhagwanpur, Goraul, Raja Pakar, Biddupur, Desari, Hazrat Jandaha and Raghopur can emerge as towns. Two rural settlements viz. Vaishali and Sarai should be declared as urban status since they are famous for tourism and agriculture market respectively. There is an urgent need of recognition of outgrowth of existing urban centres towards main connecting roads of Hajipur town. High population concentration and proximity to town have changed the land use and occupational structure of the peri-urban villages. Dighi Kalan got Census Town status in 2011 census and touches northern boundary of Hajipur. It is situated on National Highway 77. Kanchanpur and Sadullahpur have also emerged as major settlements on Mahnar road whereas on Vaishali road Halalpur-Madarpur is another large rural settlement. On National Highway 103, Rahimapur is an important settlement. Thus, Dighi Kalan, Kanchanpur, Sadullahpur Halalpur-Madarpur and Rahimapur along with Hajipur town becomes one patch of dense built up area. In Mahar town, Hasanpur Juned can be incorporated into the existing town. Likewise Purkhauli and Basant Jahanabad villages can be considered for recognising outgrowth of Lalganj town. 7. State of Rural-Urban Migration: A Micro study from Rural Vaishali Figure 9. Distribution of large settlements and land use in Vaishali district During the last 60 years, the district has registered high population growth and improvement in terms of infrastructure and services. However, no new urban centre came into existence except Mahua which became Nagar Panchayat in April Some of the rural settlements have acquired very large population size i.e. more than population whereas other settlements have emerged as major market and governance centres. In this context, we have suggested an alternative methodology how to recognize a new urban centre on the basis of multidimensional objective developmental indicators. Considering governance, size of the local market, service The incidence of out-migration from the rural Bihar is probably greater than anywhere else in India. A combination of circumstances, both natural and human factors, has created a situation in the state where sending a family member out to earn was the only way of staying alive (Deshingkar: 2006). The question becomes significant whether urban centres of Bihar attract inter-district and intra-district migrants from their rural hinterland or not. What is the main cause of out-migration? To answer this question, we took the empirical data from the primary survey which was conducted from November 2010 to January Based on 492 household samples from two village panchayats of Vaishali district of Bihar, an attempt has been taken to measure intensity of rural urban migration. We have defined migration on the basis of habitation status of persons in families. Persons who live outside their family for the cause of education, joining family and employment were defined as migrants. It is clear from the table 7 that more than two-third household of the total number of samples belongs to backward and extreme backward community. Household size 40

10 also increases with decreasing social status in the caste hierarchy with the exception of extreme backward castes (EBCs). Muslim EBCs have reported the highest household size (6.6 persons per household). Traditionally, EBCs and scheduled castes (SCs) are deprived of land resources. Larger household size may be one strategy for mitigating risk against poverty among these communities. Around 21 per cent people of the villages are found out-migrants. Intensity of migration has noticed significant variation across social categories per cent population of general caste and 23 per cent population of backward castes are living out. However, EBCs and SCs have left more proportion of family at home. Incidence of youth migration is very high among all the social communities. EBCs have reported lowest intensity (29 per cent) of youth migration whereas backward caste has experienced more than 40 per cent youth migrants. Intensity of out-migration has been found very high among all social groups. Around 67.7 per cent respondent households of the total samples reported at least one out-migrant. The communities like backward and extreme backward castes have experienced high incidence of migration than SCs and general caste. Lower nutritional density among backwards castes (BCs) and traditional agricultural labour SCs do not find much economic opportunity now in the village which results in migration. Traditional, non-farming EBCs have somehow lost their significance in local economy and prefer to move out in chunk. leads to very high per capita income. In case of NCT of Delhi and Chandigarh, high urbanisation is related to high per capita income. On the other hand, state like Bihar is located on the bottom in both indicators. There exists positive correlation (r=0.67) between level of urbanisation and per capita income in case of Indian states/union territories (Figure 11). Figure 10. Composition of out-migration by place of residence Note: AS=Assam, DL=Delhi, BH=Bihar, TN=Tamil Nadu, NL=Nagaland, MH=Maharashtra, UP=Uttar Pradesh, TR= Tripura, MP= Madhya Pradesh, KR=Karnataka, JH=Jharkhand, NCR= National Capital Region Table 7. Intensity of Migration from Rural Vaishali, Bihar Social category No of Sample Avg Mig/ Mig HH Avg HH size Household Concen -tration % Mig All Youth Oth Mig Mig gap GEN BC EBC SC All (Source: Primary Survey, 2011) Note: GEN=General caste; BC=Backward caste; EBC=Extreme Backwards caste; SC=Scheduled Caste Search of employment emerges as the most important cause of migration. Around 76 per cent migrants have reported under-economic cause. In case of SCs, this proportion reaches more than 93 per cent whereas in case of general caste it goes down to 56 per cent. In fact, the proportion of education and others (joining family) is major constituent as cause of migration decreases with declining social hierarchy. Bihar as a place of out-migration constituted only 10.7 per cent migrants for those who left their home for better livelihood. Actually, more than 55 per cent migrants are students who were studying in the nearby cities of the state (Figure 10). It means urban centres of Bihar are not able to pull their rural population for better livelihood. 8. Conclusion and Policy Implication An attempt has been made to understand the extent of relationship between level of urbanisation and per capita income. There are two extreme situations, very high level of urbanisation Figure 11. Relationship of Per capita income and Level of Urbanisation Note: AP=Andhra Pradesh, AN=Andaman and Nicobar, ArP=Arunachal Pradesh, AS=Assam, BH=Bihar, CH= Chandigarh, CT=Chhattisgarh, DD= Daman and Diu, DL=Delhi, DN= Dadra and Naga Haweli, GJ=Gujarat, HR=Haryana, JH=Jharkhand JK=Jammu and Kashmir, KR=Karnataka, MG= Meghalaya, MH=Maharashtra, MN= Manipur, MP= Madhya Pradesh, MZ= Mizoram, NL=Nagaland, OR=Orissa, PB=Punjab, PO= Pondicherry, RJ= Rajasthan SK= Sikkim, TN=Tamil Nadu, TR=Tripura, UP=Uttar Pradesh, UT=Uttrakhand, WB= West Bengal Line of best fit, clearly predicts how increase in level of urbanisation increases per capita income of the state/ Union territories. Under this hypothesis of relationship between level of urbanisation and overall development of the state, we are looking into various aspects of urban development of Bihar. The state is one of the backward regions with 3.11 per cent urban population of the country at the bottom with respect to level of urbanisation (11.3 per cent). Does lower incidence of urbanisation mean better infrastructure in existing urban centres or is it the case of policy of exclusionary urbanisation? Urban infrastructure is, no doubt, very poor since urban governance in 41

11 the state is questionable. Academician or policy makers may not agree with the existing census definition of Indian urban area but for a villager any place which provides them with various types of services like market, transport or governance is a Shahar (town). Rapid increase of built-up area in peri urban land use is clear sign of urban sprawl. Municipal Act of 2007 seems to be silent on role of agglomeration where a boundary line between two non-agricultural villages changes the entire story of becoming new urban centres. With remote sensing technique, this phenomenon of clustering can be easily recognised. Once the evidence of agglomeration exists, the state should examine land use pattern. Very high intensity of built-up area can become a basis for notifying a new urban centre. Existing inertia in governance does not prioritize the nature of problems arising due to process of social transformation or increasing population in the peri-urban areas. Socio-economic transformation is a dynamic process, hence, there is a need for regular vigil over changes in nature of large rural settlements through the Independent Expert Urban Commission for Declaration of intention to constitute a municipal area regularly. The recent growth story under new political regime has witnessed Support Programme for Urban Reforms (SPUR, 2010), whereby 28 cities have been selected for urban renewal. 11 new statuary towns have emerged after census Growth story of Bihar cannot be sustainable unless designed routes of organisational incapacity from every domain of governance are rooted out. With 11 Municipal corporations, 42 Nagar Parishad and 88 Nagar Panchayat, the state cannot break its stigma of very low level of urbanisation. Bihar urban development policy require more attention towards process of urbanisation, urban governance and infrastructure, if the state really wants to keep its urban centres as engine of growth. Govt. of Bihar Bihar Municipal Act, 2011, Urban Development Department, Patna Sankhe S. et.al. 2010: India's urban awakening: Building inclusive cities, sustaining economic growth, akening_in_india Kundu A. 2011a. Politics and Economics of Urban Growth Economic & Political Weekly, 46(20) pp Kundu A. 2011b. Method in Madness: Urban Data from 2011 Census Economic & Political Weekly, 46(40) pp Sharma A. N An Opportunity for Urbanisation in Bihar in N. K. Singh and Nicolas Stern (ed) The New Bihar: Rethinking Governance and Development, Harper Collins India, pp Sivaramakrishnan, K. C Re-visioning Indian Cities. Sage SPUR Bihar Economic Vision and Local Economic Development Framework. UNESCO. 64. Urban Rural Differences in Southern Asia: Some aspects and methods of analysis, Report on Regional Seminar, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Delhi. United Nations The World Urbanisation Prospects: The 2011 Revision, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division, New York. World Bank, Bihar Towards a Development Strategy. References Ahluwalia, I. J An Opportunity for Urbanisation in Bihar in N. K. Singh and Nicolas Stern (ed.), The New Bihar: Rethinking Governance and Development, Harper Collins India, pp Ahluwalia, S.M Prospects and Policy Challenges in the Twelfth Plan Economic and Political Weekly, 46(21) pp Bhagat, R. B Emerging Pattern of Urbanisation in India Economic and Political Weekly, 46(40) pp Bhagat, R. B "Rural-Urban Classification and Municipal Governance in India" Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 26(1) pp Denis, E., Mukhopadhyay, P., Zerah, M. H Subaltern Urbanisation in India, Economic & Political Weekly, 47(30) pp Deshingkar P. et.al. 2006: The Role of Migration and Remittances in Promoting Livelihoods in Bihar, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp Govt. of Bihar Bihar Gazette No Patna 241, Bihar Municipal Act, 2011, 42