MUMBAI: Exposing the fears of North Indians swamping the city as alarmist yet again, provisional data from the 64th round of the National Sample Survey shows that 67.6% of the migrants to urban areas in Maharashtra come from within the state itself. The new data only confirms a trend first written about by TOI after the findings of the 2001 census became public. The 64th round of the NSS is currently in progress and is collecting information on %u2018Employment-Unemployment and Migration Particulars%u2019 from July 2007 to June 2008. The state government had, in its Economic Survey for 2007-%u201908, released the provisional data collected during the first two sub-rounds of the NSS, from July to December 2007. The data covers 2,441 rural households in 252 villages and 3,588 urban households in 376 Urban Frame Survey blocks. The data shows that of the migrants to urban areas, a quarter come from within the same district and less than half from other districts. The bulk of migration to urban areas, 60.6%, is from rural areas. In rural areas, a mere 3.5% of migrants come from other states. The migration in rural areas is largely within the same district with 66.8% of migrants originally coming from the same district. Only 16.1% of migrants to rural areas come from urban areas. "There has been a steep decline in the number of people from other states coming to urban areas in Maharashtra since 1991," said Rajiva Prasad from the Migration and Urban Studies department of the International Institut
RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by on Mar 20, 2008 12:22 AM Permalink
I would like to comment specifically on the conclusion made by the writer about non-Maharashtrians migrating to city of Mumbai based on the findings of the study.
This is not in line with Mr.D.P. Singh's study quoted in the same report. As per that study, Mumbai has a population of about 1.2 crores (2001 census, source:Wiki), out of which about 60 lacs would be migrants. As per Mr. Singh's findings , 37% (or 2 million) are Maharashtrians, 25% from UP/Bihar and rest from other parts of the country. This implies a whopping 73% of migrants into Mumbai are non-Maharshtrians! This finding seems to be a contradiction to the front page headline that Maharashtrians constitute 67% of migrants into Mumbai.
It should also be noted that the last census survey (as opposed to a sample survey) has been carried out in 2001 and a good 7 years have passed hence, with the population in Mumbai rising at a high rate. A direct impact of this, as any common man can vouch for in Mumbai, can be felt in the inadequacy of Mumbai's infrastructure to handle the increased population despite new projects being launched.
Further, in my opinion, it is imprudent to ignore or underestimate causes taken up by shrewd politicians on either side. Today's politics is based on vote-bank numbers which are based on ground realities and not purely academic surveys.
Lastly the results are based on a sample survey and not a census count and that too it is not a 'random sample' and very likely may not ha
RE:RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by on Mar 20, 2008 12:25 AM Permalink
Lastly the results are based on a sample survey and not a census count and that too it is not a 'random sample' and very likely may not have enough data vis-a-vis the huge population size to make a meaningful conclustion on the specific hypothesis of non-Maharashtrians migrating to Mumbai.
Lastly, not to cast aspersions, but it is curious to note the names of the statisticans "Rajeeva Prasad" and D.P. Singh (most likely a Bihari and a UPite respectively)!
RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by shaheed sant on Mar 20, 2008 12:51 AM Permalink
my question is that all necessary now to discuss?
RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by Neer on Mar 19, 2008 11:41 PM Permalink
Contd... Population Studies.
"For Mumbai, the migration has largely been from Ratnagiri and Raigad, and is linked to the breakdown of the rural economy." Scarcely one-tenth of the migrants to urban conglomerations in Maharashtra were from the north, Prasad added.
"Politicians don%u2019t really know what migration means and they certainly don%u2019t understand it," said D P Singh of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences%u2019 Centre for Research Methodology. A study conducted by Prof Singh, based on the 2001 census data, showed that of the seven districts of the country contributing the most migrants to Mumbai over 1991-2001, five were districts in Maharashtra, with Ratnagiri leading the pack. Satara, Raigad, Sindhudurg and Kolhapur placed from third to sixth.
While the number of migrants to Mumbai from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar did increase (from 12% of the migrant population to 20% in 1991 and 25% in 2001), Maharashtra was still the biggest source of migrants, with Maharashtrians comprising 37% or almost two million of the city%u2019s migrant population in 2001. In contrast, fewer people from Karnataka, Kerala and Rajasthan are coming to Mumbai than before. The number of Gujaratis coming to the city has halved over the last 50 years.
While employment followed by education are the major reasons for the migration of entire households, for individuals, the chief reasons are marriage followed by migration of parents or the earning member of the family. An analysis of the use that the families of
RE:RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by on Mar 20, 2008 04:52 AM Permalink
To what extent are these surveys reliable? Many of the migrants do not even have any paperwork/ documents with them, as a result of which they are not even registered as locals/migrants. So many of them live in slums-- are they also taken into account? Secondly, a recent survey in Maharashtra Times states that people below poverty-line in Mumbai and other parts of Maharashtra have gone up by 15% in the past few years-- mainly due to the migrants from the North. As a result, the total GDP of Maharashtra has also gone down. Moreover, Maharashtra migrants do not create their lobbies wherever they go. They do not monopolize jobs as Biharis in Railways do.
RE:RE:A recent article in Times of India dated 19 March 2008
by Neer on Mar 19, 2008 11:44 PM Permalink
Contd...
An analysis of the use that the families of migrants put the remittances to shows that after food, it%u2019s healthcare that eats up most of the remittances.
Raj Thakrey and Sanjay Nirupam are related by marriage. There was some property dispute between the two. Nirupam being an ambitious bihari started 'mobilisation', Raj the marathi retaliated. Few innocent people were killed, many lost their livelihood in the process. By the time, both relative might have patched up. For Raj cannot allow his BENAMI property to be grabbed by Sanjay Nirupam, his relative. In short, the turmoil had nothing to do with mumbai development or overcrowding. Rather Real estate mafia wants migrants to settle down to keep prices high.
RE:RE:RE:Both Bihari and Marathi avoided this earlier post
by yogi goli on Mar 20, 2008 02:13 AM Permalink
If this is true then very bad. People for the sake of their selfish behavior can do anything. Inocent people don\'t listen the voice of crap polititians. You can use your brain.
Why is interior maharashtra so hopeless? Why are so many farmers committing suicide in Vidarbha while Sharad Pawar (the agriculture minister) is making merry in IPL? There was a song in that movie Rang De Basanti:
Khalbali hai khalbali...
Vidarbha farmers should sing they same song with the words:
RE:RE:Any famous ghantee?
by no south on Mar 19, 2008 10:58 PM Permalink
Good luck with your movement! Army has a permanent presence in Northeast, and many more locals are killed by the armys than the Biharis by the locals. If you want that to happen to your state, you have my best wishes. May god grant you your wishes!
