Module 2.

2: Migration and the Indian

City
Role Name Affiliation
National
Coordinator
Subject Prof Sujata Patel Department of Sociology,
Coordinator University of Hyderabad
Paper Ashima Sood Indian School of Political Economy,
Coordinator Pune
Surya Prakash
Indian Institute of Technology,
Mandi
Content Writer Ashima Sood Indian School of Political Economy,
Pune

Content Aparna Malaviya Indian Institute of Technology-

Reviewer Bombay
Language Editor Ashima Sood Indian School of Political Economy,
Pune

Technical
Conversion

Module Structure
Sections and Headings

I. Introduction
Dimensions of Rural-Urban Migration
II. Temporary migrations?
Reasons to migrate
Migration and the Urban Informal Economy
Rural cosmopolitanism
III. Exclusionary Urbanization
Migrants in the Neoliberal City
IV. In Brief

1
Description of the Module
Items Description of the Module
Subject Name Sociology
Paper Name Sociology of Urban Transformation
Module Name/Title Migration and the Indian City
Module Id 2.2
Pre Requisites
Objectives  To assess the scale of rural to urban
migration and its contribution to urban
India
 To consider major paradigms of rural to
urban migration
 To highlight the salience of circular
migration streams and forms of rural-urban
circulation
 To understand the connection between
migration and the urban informal economy
 To consider some themes in connection with
neoliberal transformations in contemporary
India
Key words Circular migration, Transit labour, rural
(5-6 words/phrases) cosmopolitanism, temporary migration

I. Introduction
Whether it was the refugees of Partition in Kolkata and Delhi, or the eponymous
Shree 420 of 1950s Bollywood arriving in Mayanagari Mumbai, or the famous
migrant workers of Mahabubnagar in Hyderabad, Indian cities have always been
constructed through the labour and aspirations of rural migrants.

Rao (1981, 21) offers the following definition and types of migration:
Migration is a shift in the place of residence for some length of time.
While it excludes short visits and tours, it includes different types of both
voluntary and involuntary movements. Examples of involuntary
movements are migration under such crises as war, transfer of
population, riots, floods, droughts and earth-quakes. It also includes
marriage migration --virilocal, uxorilocal or neolocal -- and transfer
migration. There are other situations of migration where movement is
part of people's earning a livelihood. These are nomads, shifting
cultivators, itinerant traders and salesmen artisans and labourers.

2
 Although the universe of migration studies is vast, in this module, we
focus on issues surrounding rural to urban migration in the Indian context, and
especially employment-related migration. This module asks: what are the
dimensions of such rural to urban migration? How are migrants received in
Indian cities and how do they in turn shape these cities?
Interestingly, economists regard rates of rural to urban migration in India
as being very low, especially in comparison compared to other developing
countries (Munshi and Rosenzweig 2016). Analysing census data over the 40
years from 1961-2001, these authors found that rural males between ages 25-
49, the economically productive age group, only migrated at rates ranging from
4% to 5.4%. Munshi and Rosenzweig (2016) also report that Brazil’s migration
rate in 1997 (13.9%) was more than twice that of India’s (5.3%).
In considering the important themes in the literature on rural to urban
migration, and delineating its scale, it becomes evident that the wholesale
transfer of rural and agrarian populations to rapidly rising urban centres that
characterized the growth trajectories of developed nations did not quite
materialize in India. Instead circular forms of mobility predominate in the Indian
context, even though they are notoriously difficult to measure (Sood 2010,
2014). As Sood (2010) has argued, these circular migrants often remain
undercounted:

India's circular migrants and commuters comprise a vast labour

force of invisible workers. They power construction booms and
urban growth, but rarely if ever wait to be counted by the census
taker. The makeshift settlements where they congregate often
elude household surveys.

The next section first discusses existing data on rural to urban migration. Then
the module goes to discuss major paradigms that have driven understanding of
the urban in India.

3
Dimensions of Rural-Urban Migration
Rural-to urban migration is one of the main components of urban growth in
India. Bhagat (2011b, 50) suggests that there were 101 million, or over 10 crore
migrants in urban India in 2001 Census data. In-migrants comprised 35% of the
population of urban areas, according to the 2010 NSS data (p 50). Furthermore,
employment-related reasons motivated as many as 62% of male rural to urban
migration (p 51).
Where do migration flows fit into the larger rubric of urban growth in India?
As Bhagat and Mohanty (2009, 12) note, urban growth can be decomposed into
four discrete components (p 14):
(i) Natural population increase;
(ii) net migration into urban areas;
(iii) net reclassification of settlements as towns;
(iv) extension of urban centre boundaries.

Together with rural-urban reclassification, net rural to urban migration

accounted for 56% of urban population growth over 2001-2011, increasing from
42% over the period 1991-2001 (Bhagat 2011a, 11).
Mohanty and Bhagat (2009) also analysed migration data over the period
1971-2001 and found that growth rate of inter-state migrants of 0-9 years
duration in 1991-2001 was a whopping 76.5%. These authors thus concluded
that, “The most important fact emerging from the analysis of the components of
urban growth of major states is that the less urbanized states are growing mostly
through natural increase, whereas the contribution of migration continues to be
higher in more urbanized states, though even in these states, it contributes not
more than one-third of the urban growth” (2009, 18).
Using Census Data 2011, Bhagat (2011b, 51) also provides a break-up of the
share of all in-migrants in million-plus cities. This number ranged from a low of
about 15% in Agra and Allahabad, to 45% in major metros such as Delhi and
Mumbai to 55% or more in Ludhiana and Surat.
According to Census data, no more than 35% of all migrants find
regular/salaried employment and as many as 30% are casually employed
(Bhagat 2011b, 51). These numbers point to the importance of the link between
migration and the urban informal economy. (See also Module 4.1). We discuss
this connection in a later section

4
 II. Temporary migrations?

After pioneering anthropological accounts by Breman (1993, 1996) that

provided a decades-long longitudinal view of circular migration in rural Gujarat,
the impacts of seasonal and temporary migration streams on urban informal
markets have remained largely unexamined (Sood 2014). Policy reviews, such as
Deshingkar (2006) and Sabates-Wheeler and Waddington (2003), have relied on
work on sending areas conducted within policy-oriented or regional
frameworks.
In India, 2007-08 data from the National Sample Survey showed that a
whopping 63% of seasonal and temporary migrants – defined as ““the household
member who has stayed away from the village/town for a period of one month
or more but less than six months during the last 365 days, for employment or in
search of employment” (Bhagat 2011: 5) - went towards urban centres. Analysis
of the 64th round NSS data, which broadened the definition of temporary
migration to “stay[ing] away from the village or town for a period of 30 days to
six months” (Keshri and Bhagat 2012:82) yields a richer portrait of short-term
migration patterns. However, it suggests that only about 13.5 million wor kers in
2007-08 fell under this category. (Also see Sood 2014)
In comparison to informal estimates derived from primary studies, these
numbers are believed to be undercounts of the true magnitudes (Deshingkar and
Farrington 2009c; Chandrashekhar and Sharma 2012:4). As Srivastava and
Sasikumar (2003) suggested, the major data sources on population mobility in
India - the Census and the National Sample Survey (NSS) - underestimate
temporary, seasonal and circulatory migration both because worker mobility is
difficult to measure using the categories of population mo bility, and because
migration is a multi-dimensional, and increasingly complex process, as rural and
urban economies become ever-more interlinked.
How do these migration streams impact particular cities? In the absence
of such disaggregated data in India, a sense of the magnitudes involved can be
obtained from a South-Eastern Asian study - Thailand’s National Migration
Survey - which estimated the wet-season and dry-season populations of Bangkok
differed by as much as 9 percent (Chamratrithirong et al 1995).

5
 If estimates of the scale of circular migration remain vague, micro -studies
have been more attentive to the phenomenon of temporary migration. The
following sections highlight findings from some of these studies. However, from
a policy perspective, the importance of occupational and geographic mobility,
particularly temporary and commuter migration, in the livelihood diversification
strategies of the poor is only now being recognized (Ellis 1998; Dev 2002;
Deshingkar 2006; Deshingkar and Grimm 2005).
Even in countries in South East Asia and Africa where the importance of
temporary migration streams have been too noticeable to neglect (Hoang, Tacoli,
and Dong 2005; Guest 2003; Bigsten 1996; Collinson, Tollman, Kahn, Clark, and
Garenne 2003; VanWey 2003), available empirical and analytical perspectives
focus on sending areas. Many of these studies shed important light on the
motivations of temporary migrants and on their mobility patterns. For instance,
Lucas (2003) considers how target savings compares as an economic
explanation for circular migration, and offers an analytical approach to
understanding “the simultaneous choice of location for living and for working”
(p. 17).
In India, Banerjee (1983) has outlined the importance of chain and serial
migration - “movements characterized by . . . interactions between migrants and
destination-based contacts” especially as it pertains to labour migrants. The
pattern of assistance included boarding and lodging and monetary help but most
importantly help with job search in at least three-fourths of newly-arrived
migrants in this study.

Reasons to migrate
It is useful here to take a step back and consider some of the factors that drive
migration. Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan (2003a) identify two major
paradigms of migration. The marginalist or dual economy model attributes
migration to wage differentials between the two sectors – one, rural/
traditional/ low wage and the other urban/modern/high wage. Marxist models
on the other hand view (temporary) migrants as a surplus labour pool used by
dominant groups to drive down wages and weaken the possibility of collective
action.

6
 Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan (2003a, 193) argue, however, that
“migration as a social and cultural process, not merely an economic one.” In this
perspective (p 193), “cyclical migration may occur because it can allow agents to
loosen, and occasionally repudiate, institutionalized forms of authority and
control that are exercised through the rural labour process.” This theorization
views migrants as vectors of ideas and “political sensibilities” (p 204), from the
urban to the rural and vice versa. One implication of their work is that the
correlation between economic insecurity and tendency to migrate is not quite
direct. Instead, migration can become a political act of protest against agrarian
iniquities.
Shah’s (2009) work on Adivasi migrants in Jharkhand similarly shows
that migration is far from an economic decision alone. Many villagers prefer to
migrate, even though they could earn more at home. Instead, migrants braved
the difficult housing and work conditions at the brick kilns around the highly
urbanized Hoogly district of West Bengal, partly to escape the social constraints
of village life.
Mosse et al (2005, 3025) followed the migrations o f bhil adivasis from
“the rural tribal communities of the borderlands of south Rajasthan, western
Madhya Pradesh and eastern Gujarat”. These authors estimated that as of a
1996-97 survey, about 65% of households in 42 villages were involved in
seasonal migration for informal work primarily in the urban construction sector
in centres such as Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad. The recruiters -- “labour
gang leaders, jobbing recruiter-supervisors and labour contractors” (p 3026) –
led the migrants through clearly delineated migration pathways to the same
destinations year after year.
Mosse et al (2005) offer a richly detailed account of these journeys,
showing how migration networks get built. These authors identified three
distinct recruitment systems. In the first, enterprising migrants travelled to
nearby towns and hired themselves out at local nakas or informal labour
markets. In the second, families or kin groups, including young women, with
direct connection to hiring builders travelled together. In the third case, the
poorest and least connected migrants are hired directly from villages by
mukaddams or labour brokers, who had often themselves migrated and now

7
settled in cities as supervisors or moneylenders. These mukaddams negotiated
the terms and cash advances with urban employers, and took these gangs of
migrants long distances at weak terms and poor recompense. The agency of the
migrant was the lowest with this type of migration.

Migration and the Urban Informal Economy

The most influential and wide-ranging study of circular migration in India is the
Dutch anthropologist Jan Breman’s work on the Adivasi Halpatis of South
Gujarat, who travel from their villages to the largest nearby city of Surat (1996).
After a research programme started in the early 1960s, Breman found that
agricultural work had ceased to be the main income source for village
households by the mid-1980s.
Even according to the 2011 Census, Surat was one of the top ten cities in
India by population, second in Gujarat only to Ahmedabad. Despite the presence
of large corporates such as Reliance, Larsen and Toubro and Essar, as well as
ONGC and IOC, Surat’s economy and landscape are dominated by the informal
sector and informal habitation. Transient workers and migrants depended on
makeshift shelter – temporary roadside jhuggis, workplace dormitories,
buildings under construction, factory sheds. Breman estimated that for 10-15%
of the labour force, the workplace doubles as living space. On the other hand,
slums are manufacturing and trading centres as much as residential areas.
Meanwhile the high end formal enclaves remain out of reach for migrant
workers.
In Breman’s (1996) study, the vast majority of industrial labour in Surat
consisted of migrants -- a “footloose proletariat”. The industries in which they
found semi-permanent work included textiles and diamond ateliers. Turnover in
these industries was high and employers could dismiss workers summarily with
little explanation. Furthermore, as Breman notes (1996, 70), “Urban employment
in the informal sector is marked by a cyclicality that is usually associated with an
agrarian-rural economic lifestyle.” Thus there was little concept of “leave” or
vacation time – employees who took days off for sickness or travel stood to lose
their jobs.

8
 Starting with the work of Breman, migration streams into urban Gujarat
have been the subject of a relatively larger pool of studies. Jo shi and Khandelwal
(2009) trace the migration trajectories from Rajasthan’s Gogunda block to
Gujarat’s urban textile markets. Hired through labour contractors, often as child
workers, these migrants find work in yarn mills, looms, cloth mills and textile
markets in cities such as Surat, where they live in dingy conditions and are on
the job for long hours.
Mosse et al’s (2005) adivasi migrants also faced extremely harsh
conditions at their destinations at subsistence wages, and women and children
suffered the most. These authors argued that the available legal protections fell
woefully short in the face of the specific circumstances of Adivasi migrants in the
construction sector. For one, many of the labour laws, such as minimum wage,
were geared to formal modes of employment. Second, Adivasi migrants lacked
institutional and social access to the enforcement apparatus and the labour
officers who man it. This was also true for healthcare, municipal and urban
development authorities, who viewed these migrants as “nuisances” (p 3030).
Moreover, even labour unions remained un-attuned to the unique challenges of
migrant Adivasi workers.
An interesting – and ironic – phenomenon was the employment of Adivasi
workers on contracted public works projects, often at wages far below the legal
minimum. According to these authors, the lack of a political collective is the
fundamental difficulty facing migrant workers, as much as their reliance on the
very agents that seek to exploit them – mukaddams, builders and the naka.
Rao (1981) suggested some reasons why collective action among migrant
workers remains so difficult. “Inter-ethnic relations” are a critical issue in urban
migration (Rao 1981, 23) because ethnicity determines co -location and patterns
of segregation, as well as collective action in Indian cities. Moreover, Marxist
theories of migration suggest the possibility of labour market competition
between migrants and local residents. All of these processes serve to fragment
migrant and non-migrant communities.

9
Rural cosmopolitanism and rural-urban circulation

Drawing on a broad array of case studies from West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and
Gujarat, as well as the work of authors such as Jan Breman (1996), Gidwani and
Sivaramakrishnan (2003a) argue that circular migration has been a longstanding
element of the survival strategies deployed by Dalits and Adivasis, especially in
dryland areas. These authors view such migrants as representative of a “rural
cosmopolitanism” – “in that they straddle, with great facility (but considerably
more hardship) two different cultural worlds” (Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan
2003b, 342). Poorer migrants may have a spatially circumscribed access to the
city but migration also transforms the political consciousness of disadvantaged
and Dalit communities (Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan 2003b).
The authors contrast the “plebeian cosmopolitans”, such as the domestic
workers who migrate between Chennai and their homes in surrounding villages
and the “patrician cosmopolitans”, their employers -- white collar workers --
who retain a foothold both in the city and the village. In this way, circular
migrants bridge and “disrupt” the divide between “the space of the
conventionally ’urban’ and ‘rural’ (Gidwani and Sivaramakrishnan 2003b, 342).
Jodhka’s (2012) work, focusing on two Haryana villages on the periphery
of the National Capital Region, also reveals the spatial form of the rural-urban
continuum. Many of his respondents commuted to nearby urban centres, even
while continuing to live in the villages. Many Dalits in this study (almost 28%)
had regular or government jobs outside. As Jodhka (2012, 13) concludes:
Choosing to live in the village did not imply any kind of commitment to
or identification with the village and its ethos. The social order of caste
hierarchy is a thing of past and the collective identity of village is nearly
completely fragmented.

III. Exclusionary Urbanization

In contrast to studies which gesture to the emergence of a rural-urban
continuum, Kundu (2003, 2009a, 2014) has contended in a series of articles over
a decade and more, that urban planning and development in Indian cities are
systematically biased against rural migrants, and this limits the absorption
capacity and growth potential of urban centres.

10
 Kundu (2009, 55) describes “exclusionary urban growth”, as resulting
from a “negative policy perspective on migration and increased unaffordability
of land and basic amenities” for rural migrants. It leads to “deceleration in urban
growth”. As evidence, Kundu (2014, 545) argues for a “declining trend of
urbanisation, based on data on the urban rural growth differential, ie, “the
difference between the growth rate of urban population and that in rural
population” (p 544). For 2000-05, this URGD was 1%, much below most of Latin
America and Africa.
According to Kundu (2014), growing inequality in urban areas may be to
blame, noting that state urban poverty levels are not always lower for more
prosperous states. This analysis suggests that the new jobs in globalising India
are more easily accessed by high skill and better off workers, leaving the large
majority of poorer workers behind. Further (p 561), “even short duration
migration opportunities in urban areas are being cornered by somewhat better
off sections of the population as in case of general migration.”
Kundu suggests that urban economies as well as governance in India’s
metropolises are unfavourable to poorer migrants and instead select for
migrants from higher socio-economic status backgrounds. Poor rural migrants
face a variety of “informal entry barriers” in the most successful, class I cities ,
which are in an “exclusionary” and “sanitizing mode” (p 565). For example, the
push for infrastructure megaprojects leads to massive displacement of slum
populations, yet the politics in these cities remain hostile to the most
disadvantaged rural migrants. From a policy perspective, Kundu thus advocates
greater investment and support to small and medium towns to help absorb
migrants fleeing a declining agrarian sector for non-agricultural employment.

Migrants in the Neoliberal City

“Son-of-the soil” arguments, of the type deployed by the Shiv Sena and MNS in
Mumbai, are political tools to deny the migrants’ right to the city. The lack of
identifying documents, the inability to vote, missing access to housing serve to
deepen this denial.
A response to Bhagat’s (2011) question: does the migrant have a Right to
the City, comes in a recent collection in the Economic and Political Weekly.

11
Examining the contentions “for resources, space, rights, claims and justice” that
mark the neoliberal city, Sammadar (2016, 53) complicates the paradigm of
exclusionary urbanisation. According to him, the contradiction of the neoliberal
city lies in the fact that the migrant can neither be removed from nor settled in
the city.
Characterizing this state as one of “suspended citizenship”, Jha and
Kumar’s (2016) contribution illustrates this tension best. On the one hand, rural
migrants serve as a cheap source of labour for informal garment units in places
like Dharavi in Mumbai’s informal economy. On the other hand, migrants in such
scenarios of “vulnerable employment” find themselves rendered homeless. Their
dark and dingy workplaces also double up as makeshift homes. The
precariousness faced by the homeless is further compounded because migrants’
claim to public space is itself subject to contestation and repudiation by middle-
class and elite civil society actors.
Mouleshri Vyas similarly looks at the figure of the elderly security guard .
The narratives of the security guards, many of whom have often migrated to
Mumbai at a young age, reveal in stark detail how a life of precarity, in jobs
without labour protections, compromises the migrants’ long-term prospects,
leaving them vulnerable to low paid and exploitative work in the twilight of their
lives. Vyas concludes, “the lives of these security guards emphasise the
connection between poverty, informal work, and precarity and its persistence
across time and generations” (p 83).
According to Samaddar (2016, 53), (construction) transit labour
represents the neoliberal city’s “combination of the most virtual and primitive
forms of accumulation.” Its iconic image: the countless transit workers who
construct new India’s “special economic zones (SEZs), power plants, airports,
railway corridors, highways, bridges, new towns and new buildings and houses,
flyovers, information and technology parks, and other residential and
commercial projects” (Sammadar 2016, 54) who themselves shelter in
temporary hovels during close to construction projects, only to be uprooted
shortly after the projects are complete. As Samaddar (2016, 54) asserts, “the
neo-liberal city in order to be a logistical hub, becomes an extraction site.” The

12
figure of the migrant embodies the contradictions between the precept and
practice of right to the city.

IV. In Brief
This module has presented studies on a selection of themes from the vast
panoply of migration studies. Most important, it is evident that circular forms of
labour migration predominate in Indian cities rather than one-way labour
mobility from rural to urban.
These patterns of temporariness allow for various forms of circulation
along the rural - urban continuum, even though many of these migrants remain
in the informal economy, where in the absence of lack of collective action, they
face lifetimes of precariousness in the neoliberal Indian city.

References

Banerjee, B. (1983). Social networks in the migration process: Empirical

evidence on chain migration in contemporary India. Journal of Developing
Areas, 17(2), 185–196.

Bhagat, R.B. and Mohanty, S., 2009. Emerging pattern of urbanization and the
contribution of migration in urban growth in India. Asian Population
Studies, 5(1), pp.5-20.

Bhagat, R.B., 2011a. Emerging pattern of urbanisation in India. Economic and

Political Weekly, 46(34), pp.10-12.

Bhagat, Ram B., 2011b. Migrants’ (Denied) Right to the City. In Lama-Rewal, S.T.,
Zerah, M.H. and Dupont, V., (eds). Urban policies and the right to the city in
India: rights, responsibilities and citizenship. Centre de Sciences Humaines,
New Delhi.

Bigsten, A., 1996. The circular migration of smallholders in Kenya. Journal of

African Economies 5(1), 1.

13
Breman, J., 1996. Footloose labour: working in India's informal economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chamratrithirong, A., K. Archavanitkul, K. Richter, P. Guest, V. Thongthai, W.

Boonchalaksi, N. Piriyathamwong, and P. Vong-Ek, 1995. National
migration survey of [Link] of Population and Social Research,
Mahidol University, Nakhonpathom, Thailand.

Collinson, M., S. Tollman, K. Kahn, S. Clark, and M. Garenne, 2003. Highly

prevalent circular migration: Households, mobility and economic status in
rural South Africa. In Conference on African Migration in Comparative
Perspective, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp. 4–7.

Deshingkar, P. and Farrington, J., eds., 2009a. Circular migration and

multilocational livelihood strategies in rural India. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.

Deshingkar, P. and Grimm, S., 2005. Internal migration and development: A global
perspective. International Organization of Migration, Geneva.

Deshingkar, P., 2006. Internal migration, poverty and development in Asia. IDS
Bulletin 37(3), 88–100.

Deshingkar, P., 2006. Internal migration, poverty and development in [Link]

Briefing Paper, 11.

Deshingkar, Priya and John Farrington, 2009b. “A Framework for Understanding

Circular Migration”, in Deshingkar, Priya and John Farrington (eds)
(2009), 1-36.

Ellis, F., 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. Journal
of Development Studies, 35(1), 1–38.

Gidwani, V., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2003a).Circular migration and the spaces of

cultural assertion. .Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
93(1), 186-213.

14
Gidwani, V., & Sivaramakrishnan, K. (2003b). Circular migration and rural
cosmopolitanism in India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 37(1-2), 339-
367.

Guest, P., 2003. Bridging the gap: internal migration in Asia. In Conference on
African Migration in Comparative Perspective. Johannesburg, South
Africa.

Hoang, X., C. Tacoli, and N. Dong, 2005. Livelihood diversification and rural-
urban linkages in Vietnam’s Red River Delta. Technical report, IFPRI and
IIED.

Jha, M. K. and P. Kumar, [Link] Migrants in Mumbai: Life and Labour in

Urban Space. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(26&27), 69.

Jodhka, S. S., 2012. Agrarian changes in the times of (Neo -Liberal) crisis.
Revisiting attached labour in Haryana. Economic and Political Weekly,
47(26/27), p 5.

Kundu, A., 2003. Urbanisation and urban governance: Search for a perspective
beyond Neo-Liberalism. Economic and political Weekly, pp.3079-3087.

Kundu, A., 2009a. Exclusionary Urbanisation in Asia: A Macro Overview.

Economic and Political Weekly, 44(48), 48-58.

Kundu, A., 2014. Exclusionary growth, poverty and India’s emerging urban
structure. Social Change, 44(4), pp.541-566.

Lama-Rewal, S.T., Zerah, M.H. and Dupont, V., eds., 2010. Urban Policies and the
Right to the City in India. Centre de Science Humaines, New Delhi.

Lucas, R. (2003). The economic well-being of movers and stayers: Assimilation,

impacts, links and proximity. Presented on Conference on African
Migration in Comparative Perspective, Johannesburg, South Africa, June.

15
Mosse, D., Gupta, S. and Shah, V., 2005. On the margins in the city: adivasi
seasonal labour migration in western India. Economic and Political
Weekly, pp.3025-3038.

Munshi, K. and M. Rosenzweig, 2016. Why is labour mobility in India so low?

Ideas For India, 4 July. Retrieved 5 July, 2016.

Rao, M.S.A., 1981. Some aspects of sociology of migration. Sociological

Bulletin, 30(1), pp.21-38.

Samaddar, R., 2016. Migrant and the Neo-liberal City: An Introduction. Economic
and Political Weekly, 51(26&27), 52.

Shah, Alpa (2009): “Brick Kiln Workers from Jharkhand: The Labour of Love”, in
Priya Deshingkar and John Farrington (ed), 177-201.

Sood, A., 2010. Invisible Labour. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(15): 27-29.

Sood, A., 2014. Making the Connection Between Informal Self-Employment and
Temporary Migration: Lessons from the Cycle Rickshaw Sector. In
Sridhar, K.S. and Wan, G., (eds) Urbanization in Asia (pp. 41-57). Springer
India, New Delhi.

Srivastava, R. and S. Sasikumar, 2003. An overview of migration in India, its

impacts and key issues. In Regional Conference on Migration,
Development and Pro-Poor Policy Choices in Asia, June, Dhaka.

Vyas, M., 2016. Sleepless in Mumbai: Spotlight on Elderly Security Guards.

Economic and Political Weekly, 51(26&27), 78.

16