SPECIAL ARTICLE On the Importance of Triangulating Data Sets to Examine Indians on the Move S Chandrasekhar, Mukta Naik, Shamindra Nath Roy A chapter dedicated to migration in the Economic Survey t would not be an exaggeration to say that migration statis- 2016–17 signals the willingness on the part of Indian tics has not been anyone’s priority in India. The National Sample Survey Offi ce’s (NSSO) survey of employment– policymakers to address the linkages between I unemployment and migration was last conducted in 2007–08. migration, labour markets, and economic development. Subsequent surveys of NSSO, at best, have had a question or This paper attempts to take forward this discussion. We two on a specifi c aspect of migration, which are certainly not comment on the salient mobility trends in India gleaned enough to piece together any compelling evidence on migration fl ows. Based on information collected as part of the Census of from existing data sets, and then compare and critique India 2011, the Offi ce of the Registrar General and Census estimates of the Economic Survey with traditional data Commissioner, India (RGI) has released exactly one state- sets. After highlighting the data and resultant specifi c table on internal migration in India. The year is 2017 knowledge gaps, the article comments on the possibility and we know precious little about migration patterns between 2001 and 2011, leave alone what is happening in real time. As a of using innovative data sources and methods to result, in the era of “smart” and “digital,” programmes and understand migration and human mobility. It also offers policies related to migration are being conceived sans robust ideas on how an enhanced understanding of mobility is and timely data. important for policy interventions for those individuals The Economic Survey 2016–17 (GoI 2017a) highlights this data paucity while also opening up the possibilities of using who change locations permanently and those who innovative sources and methods for estimating human mobility move seasonally. in the country. The Economic Survey provides indirect estimates of internal migration based on change in population of age- cohorts over 2001–11 and an additional estimate based on un- reserved ticket sales data from the Indian Railways. The two estimates differ widely from those of traditional data sets. The Economic Survey builds the case that on an average nine million individuals annually changed residence permanently on account of work since 2011–12. Contrast this with the following esti- mates. As per the Census of India, in the period 1981–90, 1991– 2000, and 2001–10, an estimated 9.9 million, 14.5 million, and 18.7 million individuals, respectively, moved on account of work. It is evident that the estimate based on railway data is higher by a multiple of 4.5 times. These sizeable differences raise the issue of comparability of these data sets, but also points to the urgent need to examine closely if human mobility has indeed increased substantially in recent times. The Economic Survey does not go as far as to leverage these This paper was written as part of the initiative to Strengthen and migration estimates to make policy suggestions. Nevertheless, Harmonize Research and Action on Migration in the Indian Context (SHRAMIC), supported by Tata Trusts. SHRAMIC is anchored by Indira the dedication of a whole chapter to migration combined with the Gandhi Institute of Development Research and is in collaboration with release of the Report of the Working Group on Migration (GoI Centre for Policy Research, National Institute of Urban Affairs, IRIS- 2017b), an inter-ministerial committee set up by the Ministry Knowledge Foundation and the Migration Program Partners of Tata Trust. of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India S Chandrasekhar ([email protected]) is with the Indira Gandhi (GoI), signal a willingness on the part of Indian policymakers Institute of Development Research, Mumbai. Mukta Naik (mukta@ to confront, perhaps for the fi rst time explicitly, the linkages cprindia.org) and Shamindra Nath Roy ([email protected]) are between migration, labour markets, and economic develop- senior researchers, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. ment. This paper attempts to take forward this spirit, seeking 60 NOVEMBER 25, 2017 vol liI no 47 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE to (i) comment on the salient mobility trends in India gleaned accounted for 48.6% of India’s total population in both 2001 from existing data sets; (ii) compare and critique estimates of and 2011. This is refl ected in the share of these fi ve states in the Economic Survey with traditional data sets; (iii) offer a pre- terms of total female migrants. liminary exploration of the use of innovative data sources and methods to understand migration and human mobility; and Component of urban population growth: The increase in (iv) offer ideas on how an enhanced understanding of mobility urban population is typically decomposed into the following could inform policy in the Indian context. three components: natural increase in urban areas, reclassifi - cation of rural areas as urban, and net migration from rural to Salient Mobility Trends urban areas. In the popular imagination, rural–urban migra- At the outset, it is important to highlight that the criterion used tion has been imagined as the prime cause for the growth of to identify a migrant differs across the Census of India and cities and blamed for associated problems like congestion and NSSO data sets (GoI 2017b). Hence, we avoid direct compari- an increase in slums. However, the relative importance of sons of estimates based on the Census of India and NSSO surveys reclassifi cation and net rural–urban migration is context and instead compare the trends evident from these two data specifi c and varies across countries and also within India. sources. Data from NSSO’s survey exhibited a marginal increase Before the release of migration tables, Pradhan (2013) estimated in the share of migrants in rural and urban population. The that reclassifi cation of rural areas as urban (new census town) Census of India, however, does record a signifi cant increase in accounted for nearly 30% of the urban growth in the period the share of migrants in rural and urban India by 4.2 percentage 2001–11, while 22.2% of urban population growth was on points and 12 percent- Table 1: Comparison of Estimates of Share account of migration. age points respectively of Migrants in Rural & Urban Population (%) Following the release of the Census of India tables on migra- between 2001 and 2011 Rural India Urban India tion we now know that in absolute terms, all-India, the number (Table 1). As per the 1991 Census of India 26.1 32.3 of net rural–urban migrants increased by 1.43 times from 2001 Census of India 28.3 36.4 census, the total number 14.46 million in the intercensal period 1991–2001 to 20.7 mil- 2011 Census of India 32.5 48.4 of migrants residing in lion in the period 2001–11. In the period 1991–2001, net rural– NSSO’s 1999–2000 survey* 24.4 33.4 rural and urban India NSSO’s 2007–08 survey* 26.1 35.4 urban migration accounted for 20.6% of India’s population has increased steadily Source: Census of India Migration Tables; * GoI (2010). growth and in the period 2001–11 it had marginally increased over the successive dec- to 22.8% (Table 3). Therefore, contrary to expectations, even Table 2: Number of Migrants Residing in ades (Table 2). There are Rural and Urban India (million) in 2001–11 rural–urban migration is not the primary driver of differences in the share 1991 2001 2011 urban growth in India. Among the major states, in contrast to of migrants in rural and Rural 162.5 210.4 271.1 Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha, AP, and Kerala, the contribution of urban population not Urban 69.6 104.2 182.6 rural–urban migration to growth in urban population was only across states but Source: Census of India Migration Tables. higher in 2011 as compared to 2001 in the following states: also over the last three censuses. Among the major states, be- Haryana, Delhi, UP, Assam, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and tween 1991 and 2001, the share of migrants in Maharashtra’s Tamil Nadu (Table 3). total population increased substantially while in the period The 12-percentage point increase over the period 2001–11 in 2001–11, it is only in Kerala and Tamil Nadu that we see a the share of migrants in urban population begs an explanation substantial increase in the proportion of migrants living in Table 3: Contribution of Net Rural–Urban Migration to Growth in Urban both rural and urban areas over the period 2001–11 (Appendix Population (%) Table A1, p 68). State 1991–2001 2001–11 State 1991–2001 2001–11 The top seven states, namely Maharashtra, And hra Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir 12.32 13.13 West Bengal 17.55 13.71 Himachal Pradesh 37.29 31.68 Jharkhand 24.45 28.12 (AP), West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh (uP), Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab 21.31 19.88 Odisha 35.45 32.78 Karnataka accounted for 62.8% of the total male migrant pop- Chandigarh 46.21 63.15 Chhattisgarh 25.51 25.09 ulation of India in 2001. The share of these states in the Uttarakhand 28.07 26.06 Madhya Pradesh 23.22 23.29 total male migrant population in India remains nearly un- Haryana 26.39 30.78 Gujarat 35.12 35.7 changed at 63%. Barring UP, the other six states are relatively Delhi 29.74 42.7 Daman & Diu -26.43 61.67 the more urbanised among major Indian states.