CHAPTER-II

GROWTH OF URBANIZATION

PART-I
Trend and pattern of urban growth and poverty in India

2.1. INTRODUCTION:

India as a developing country is urbanizing at a rapid pace. Though the current

level of urbanization in our country is lowest compared to the other developing
countries. The absolute size of urban population is enormous. By the turn of the
millennium about 300 million Indians lived in nearly 3700 towns and cities (urban
areas) spread across the length and breadth of the country. This comprised of nearly 30
per cent of its total population in sharp contrast to 60 million (15 per cent) who lived in
urban areas in 1947 at the time of our independence. During the last 50 years the
population has grown two and a half times more and the urban India has grown as
almost second largest in the world, only next to China. 21st century is set to become
India’s urban century with more people living in cities and towns than in the country
side (rural areas) (Goldman Sachs, 2007). India has 10 of the fastest growing cities in
the world and is witnessing massive urbanization. The urban growth is happening not
only in large cities but also in small and medium sized towns. This chapter aims at
analyzing the size and growth of Urban India across the states. For the analysis purpose
the data from 1901, 1991 and 2001 census is used. This part of the study covers the
Pattern of growth of urban population in India, State-wise growth of urban population
and drivers of urban growth in India, State level trends and disparities in urban growth.
Finally, it covers the analysis of the fruitful policies and conclusions.

2.2. AN OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL URBANISATION PROCESS:

Urbanization pattern in regional economies has indicated that urbanization in

developing countries as a whole is more rapid and massive and the share of urban
population will increase by more than three times by 2030, thus touching almost 56 per
cent from just 18 per cent in 1950. It is predicted that now it is Asia which is on the fast
track of rapid urbanization--from an urban population share of 37.1 per cent in 2000, it
would reach 54.1 per cent by 2030(Table2.1). The Asian prediction is a follow-up of

16
spectacular urbanisation process experienced by Latin America which has reached the
urban population level of 75 per cent from 42 per cent during the second half of the last
century. The main reasons for such a prediction for Asia are:

a) Asia has almost 50 percent of the global urban population (1.6 billion of the
3.15 billion total world urban population in 2005);

b) Asia is going to house a major share of global urban population in the near
future (2.6 billion out of the 4.91 billion total urban population in 2030) (UN 2006);

c) The Asian region has been very dynamic as revealed by the rapid and
diversified levels of urbanisation (high level: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, New
Zealand, Australia; medium level: China, India, Pakistan; low level: Bhutan, Nepal,
Maldives); and

d) Emergence of primate cities and regions (Bangkok city and its region; Seoul
and its region; Bombay (now Mumbai) and its region, Bangalore and its region etc.)
(Mathur 1992). Although the latter process has led to higher levels of urbanisation,
they are concentrated in certain pockets, thus promoting city-region disparities in their
levels of development.

Table 2.1: World urbanization pattern

Level of Urbanization Rate of Urbanization

Region (per2 cent to total population) (percentage)

1950 2000 2030 2005-2030

Africa 14.7 36.2 50.7 1.12

Asia 16.8 37.1 54.1 1.23

Latin America 42.0 75.4 84.3 0.34

Oceania 62.0 70.5 73.8 0.17

North America 63.9 79.1 86.7 0.29

Europe 50.5 71.7 78.3 0.33

World 29.0 46.7 59.9 0.83

Source: United Nations, 2006

17
 Table-2.1 provides the details of how the problem of city-region disparities
would be further accentuated on account of the proposed emergence of large cities. Out
of the 22 cities which are expected to reach 10 million plus population by 2015, 17 will
be in the developing countries, and more significantly, 11 out of 17 cities will be in the
Asian region (UN 2006; Mohan and Dasgupta 2005). Again, unlike the developed
countries, rapid urbanisation in developing countries is taking place at a much lower
GDP levels which would aggravate the emerging problems due to financial constraints
in implementing various environment and development programmes. This obviously
calls for adoption of comprehensive urbanisation policies in the Asian region by
incorporating the concepts of resource conservation and mobilisation, environmental
management, appropriate policy instruments and associated institutional structure for
implementation, monitoring and people's participation to achieve the prime objective of
sustainable urban development. It relates to the economic characterization of
urbanization. By 'Economic Characterization' of urbanization we mean that the
economic structure and the process operating in a country are associated with its on-
going urbanisation process (McGee 1971). In an economy, urbanisation by its very
nature promotes either manufacturing or service sectors or both in a very broad sense,
and in particular, it may be of any specialized activity under each broad group. While
promoting these sectors, urbanisation generates more specific urban characteristics.

Manufacture-led urbanization may be characterized as:

a) High concentration of workforce engaged in the manufacturing sector,

b) Higher share of workforce with technical specialization,
c) Growth of the small-scale sector as ancillaries to feed the production requirements
of large-scale manufacturing units,
d) More organized labour with less disparity in income, and
e) Demand for better land use planning for organized location of manufacturing
activities, labour and associated economic and service activities.
The broad implications of tertiarisation-led urbanization are:
a) Higher concentration of unorganized labour,
b) Heterogeneous educational attainments of population,
c) High income disparity among the workforce,

18
 d) Greater chances for development of slums to meet the demands of the unorganized
sector, and
e) Land use planning will be more complex for the reasons of location of various
heterogeneous tertiary activities.
Similarly, in the primacy-based urbanisation pattern, higher primacy leads to
more city-region disparities.

2.3. NATURE OF URBAN POVERTY:

While trying to understand the dimensions of urban poverty from an ecological
perspective, we need to first understand the nature and dimensions of poverty itself.
Addressed as the dehumanizing aspect of deprivation, poverty is multi-dimensional and
manifests itself in various forms. It is deprivation of an acute economic form, making
access to food, shelter, health and education difficult for the poor. It is also manifested
as marginalization in its political sense and as discrimination and rootlessness in its
socio-cultural sense. Besides this, another equally negative form of poverty is
vulnerability (UN 1993).
Thus poverty, whether urban or rural, is conceptualized as entangled in the webs
and traps of deprivations from where the poor find it difficult to escape. The meaning
and extent of poverty is understood, in latest thinking, as encompassing marginalization
in only economic terms and as an exclusion from decision-making processes. It is also
being understood as rootless and vulnerable to various forms of disasters, hazards and
threats. In the context of environment or ecology, being poor in an urban area means
displacement from safe residence, occupations and societal spaces. The distinction
made between ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ poverty conceptually and more deeply applies
to urban areas. Absolute poverty is the inability of sections of the population to secure
the minimum basic needs for survival. Their lives are sunk to very low standards that
are ‘beneath any concept of human dignity’. Relative poverty affects that section of
population which finds it difficult to secure their minimum needs. It also renders them
unable to participate in mainstream societal processes. This alienates and marginalizes
the poor from all forms of development despite constituting the majority in
demographic terms. Thus, the quantitative indicators of poverty such as per capita
income and consumption, per capita food consumption and food ratio, caloric intake,
health status, etc., stem from the above definitions of poverty. These are not specific to

19
any area but conceptualize poverty in ways similar in both rural and urban areas. Thus,
one needs to be clear as to ‘what actually is the nature of Urban Poverty’.
Karnataka is characterized by rapid urbanization ranking 6th in India and
containing 5.4 per cent of the total towns in India (Sastry, 2008). Its share of urban
population is estimated to be 6.3 per cent, which is expected to reach 39.3 per cent by
2016 (ibid). In general, these urban areas are large and congested and lack in open
spaces and natural resources (like water, land, common property resources, etc.), except
at their peripheries. Thus, most of its population is deprived of environmental or eco-
space benefits. Since the state’s population is dense and heterogeneous, the urban areas
present a further complicated picture, with diverse populations having migrated from
far and wide and at different points of time in the history of that city or town. Often,
this social and cultural diversity deprives them of traditional collective action/social
capital reserve. Social capital associated with its other economic and political forms is
also absent in the urban areas among the communities that comprise it. The poor are
vulnerable and asset less, which is enough to drive them to accept whatever occupation
comes their way. The greatest weakness of the urban poor is their economic poverty,
which is relative in its composition. High price of every product and service makes
them inaccessible. Environmental goods and services are particularly important to note.
From a sociological standpoint, interactions and interpersonal relationships that
generally mark the beginning of a sustainable life are also threatened by becoming
contractual. The neighbourhood as a concept in building this relationship is often
guarded by formal legal and jurisdictional rules. Such being the nature of urban
settlements,
Urban Poverty is characterized by:
(1) Inadequate income leading to inadequate consumption of necessities like food,
lack of access to a safe and adequate supply of drinking water, and water for
domestic activities and other consumables.
(2) Debt causing high repayments that affects the availability of income to fulfill
necessities.
(3) Inadequate, unstable or risky asset base (material and nonmaterial). This includes
access to education, information and awareness and shelter or housing with proper
ventilation handicapped.

20
(4) Inadequate supply or non-existence of public infrastructure like provision of piped
water supply, drainage, roads, footpaths, etc, leading to risks of health and safety
of children, old, sick, expectant mothers and other such categories of the weak
(socially and physically).
(5) Inadequate provision of basic services that include, for example, schools, day-care
centers, vocational training institutions, health care centers, transport and
communication, etc.
(6) Absence of or inadequate safety nets to provide support in livelihood maintenance,
food security during times of crises, sickness insurance, provision for medical care,
etc.
(7) Absence of protection from disasters and hazards in the fields of environmental
safety, pollution, ethnic conflicts, violence, discrimination and exploitation, and

The above characteristics broadly mark the indices of looking at poverty issues
in urban areas. With variations in the size of the cities and towns, the intensity of the
brunt of poverty experienced by the poor may also vary. In fact, it is expected that the
acuteness of poverty would be higher in metropolitan areas, like Bangalore city, than in
smaller cities and towns.

2.4. PATTERNS OF GROWTH OF URBAN POPULATION:

Decade census is the only source that gives information on the population and
its rural and urban settlements. Hence it is proper to know the meaning of ‘urban’ for
the purpose of measuring urban population. Starting from the census 1961 a turn-fold
lapse of towns as ‘statutory’ towns and ‘census’ towns have been adapted, which
continues to be used even today. The ‘statutory towns’ are those which are accorded
urban civic status by the state Government as Corporation munipality or cantonment.
‘Census towns’ are those where,

a) The population size is 5000 or more,

b) The density is at least 400 persons per sq.km, and

c) At least 70 per cent of the male workers are engaged in non-agricultural activities.
In 1991, India has 23 cities with million and more population which increased to 35
in 2001. And according to the projections made by Goldman Sachs; 140 million rural

21
dwellers will join urban areas by 2020 while a huge 700 million people will reside in
urban areas by 2050.
Urbanization is spurred by both push and pulls factors.
• Deteriorating agricultural productivity, caste barriers and unemployment in the
rural areas tend to push the rural inhabitants out.
• Better employment opportunities in cities with high growth rate of
industrialization, better income, and better living demonstration effects of other
migrants pull rural workers into urban centers.
Indian demography also reveals a 2-3-4-5 Syndrome. In the last decade, as population
of India grew at an average annual rate of 2 percent, urban population grew at almost
3per cent p.a, population of mega cities at 4.5 percent p.a and slum population at 5
percent p.a. During the last 50 years, the urban population has multiplied 5 times. In
largest cities between 40-60percent of population is currently living in slums and subset
dwellings where they lack basic urban amenities (facilities). Although such a rigorous
development of urban areas has resulted in temporal comparability of date and many
towns were identified so in earlier census too as the census data could be used for
portraying the size and growth of the urban population.
This is evident in the sudden urban population growth from 14 percent to 17 percent
between 1941 and 1951. Here, we come across a data related problem, when, for the
year 1981, Assam and Jammu did not have their census. Because of the internal
disturbances for these states the population has been projected by the authorities to be
used for the analysis. The increase in total and urban population and the proportion of
urban to total population in India is presented in the table and figure below.
Table2. 2: Urban Population in India during 2006-07
Year Total Urban % Urban
1951 361.09 62.44 17.3
1961 439.23 78.94 18.0
1971 548.16 109.11 19.9
1981 683.33 159.46 23.3
1991 846.39 217.55 25.7
2001 1027.02 285.35 27.8
2007* 1134.25 332.01 29.3
Source: www.NSSO.org

22
 Fig.2.1 percenatage urban population in India during 2006-07
1200 35.0
Total
27.8 30.0
1000 Urban 25.7 29.3
23.3
% Urban
25.0
800 19.9
Population(Mn

%Urban
17.3 18.0 20.0
600
15.0
400
10.0

200 5.0

0 0.0
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2007
Year

Source: table2.2.
The data clearly shows the rapid increase in both urban and total population
from 1951 to 2001.While the total population increased by 3 times ,the urban
population increased by nearly 5 times. Further the experts estimate that the urban
population is likely to go up to 660 million by 2025. The following table shows the
urban population in India during the last 100 years in terms of number of towns and
percentage growth of urban population.
Table 2.3: Growth of Urban Population in India
Census No. of % Urban Exponential
Year Towns (00s) Population Growth Rate (% p.a.)
1901 18.27 10.8
1911 18.15 10.3 0.03
1921 19.49 11.2 0.79
1931 20.72 12.0 1.75
1941 22.50 13.9 2.77
1951 28.43 17.3 3.47
1961 23.65 18.0 2.34
1971 25.90 19.9 3.21
1981 33.78 23.3 3.83
1991 37.68 25.7 3.09
2001 43.68 27.8 2.73
Source: Kundu, 2007 Note: Growth rates in per cent per annum
It shows that urban population has grown at an exponential rate ranging from
0.03 per cent during 1901-11 to 3.83 per cent during 1971-81. In the post Independence
period, the 1st decade witnessed substantial growth probably owing to influx of
refugees and migrants but in the subsequent decade it slowed down to 2.34 per cent.
That might have been due to standardization of development of urban settlement as
mentioned earlier. In general, while the urban population grew at higher rates to reach

23
the highest during 1971-81 decade, there after decrease is observed against the general
expectations.
The urbanization policy adopted by the government in 1991 was expected to
give a big boost to urbanization process and a substantial increase in urban population
was expected. But these expectations were not reached because of the inadequate
growth in non-agricultural sector and non-rural employment opportunities as well as
due to the persistence of problems relating to housing and other basic amenities faced
by the people. The problems are very high in urban areas than the rural. Similarly, the
proportion of people without access to basic amenities especially housing is still higher
in the urban areas. The trend also reflects the demographic transition where in the
fertility rates are low in the urban areas (in case of urban residents). However, the
absolute size of the urban population is very huge and with expected migration of rural
population in the future, the size is expected to increase (enlarge) still further.

Figure 2.2: Growth of Urban Population in India

50
43.68
45
Annual Growth Rate 37.68
40
No. of Towns (00) 33.78
35 % Urban Population
28.43
30 25.90
22.50 23.65
25 20.72 27.80
18.27 18.15 19.49 25.70
20 23.30
15 19.90
17.30 18.00
10 13.90
10.80 11.20 12.00
10.30 2.77 3.47 3.21 3.83 3.09 2.73
5 1.75 2.34
0.03 0.79
0
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

The setting up of industries results in starting up of ancillaries and service units

which in turn boost the opportunities for better employment and overall economic
strength of the city. Urbanization effects and is affected by industrialization .Thus
urban areas are considered as the engines of productivity and growth in the country.
This is manifested in the increasing contribution of urban sector. It is estimated that the
urban sector contribute more than 50per cent of India’s GDP highlighting its
importance in achieving Nation’s Economic goals. Per Capita Income in urban areas is

24
relatively higher than in rural areas which attract the rural dwellers to migrate to cities.
This is reflected in the growth of labour force and employment across the rural and
urban areas. Growth of employment in urban areas during 1981-91 was recorded at
38per cent against 16 per cent in rural areas and 21.1 per cent in the country as a whole.
Urbanization results in the growth of regular jobs that are stable in the long run with
better pay scale. The informal sector here provides employment to unskilled workers
and hence is a hope for unskilled migrants.

2.5 DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS OF URBAN GROWTH:

Urban population growth could also be analyzed by studying its growth

components; together they will give rise to the total increase in urban population. In the
same way, urban growth rate is estimated by the natural growth rate due to new
independence and merging boundary changes and its migration rate.

Figure 2.3: Growth Rates of Population across Size Classes (%p.a.)

6.00
Large
5.00 Medium
Small
4.00
All
3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00
1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 1901-51 1951-
2001

Source: table-2.3
We find increase in the total urban population over the years between 1971 and
2001.However, the natural increase is on the rise but at varying rates during the inter
census years. The population increase due to migration has been on the rise since 1971
and has accelerated during 1991-2001. In terms of percentage contribution to increase
in urban population, the contribution of natural increase rose from 50 per cent to 61 per
cent and during the last 10 years it declined to 59 per cent. Population increase due to
new towns has shown a declining tendency. Population increase due to the expansion of
existing cities declined during 1981-91 but increased between 1991 and 2001. Thus

25
stagnation of rural sector and liberalization of urban sector have contributed much to
the migration and higher urban population growth.

2.6. URBANIZATION AND THE STATES:

The process of urbanization depends on different social, economic, historical
and political factors in different regions. So the rate of urbanization differs from region
to region. This is universal. It has been already noted that India displays one of the
lowest urbanization rates compared to other countries. But, however there are certain
regions like Delhi, Pondicherry that record significant levels of urbanization. The data
is given in the Appendix table 2.2.
The following table shows the, state- wise regional urbanization pattern.
Table 2.4: Urbanization across States of India, 2001
Level of
States and Union Territories
Urbanization
50 % and above (5) Delhi, Chandigarh, Pondicherry, Goa, Mizoram
40 % to 50% (3) Lakshadweep, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra
India average to 40% Gujarat, Daman and Diu, Karnataka, Punjab, Andaman and
(7) Nicobar Islands, Haryana and West Bengal
Andhra Pradesh, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala,
Uttaranchal, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, Dadra and
Below India Average
Nagara Haveli, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh,
(22)
Chhattisgarh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Orissa, Assam,
Sikkim, Bihar and Himachal Pradesh
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Orissa, Assam, Sikkim, Bihar
Less than 20% (8)
and Himachal Pradesh
Source: Appendix Table 2.2
It is observed that the smaller states and union territories record significant
urbanization levels with Delhi topping the list, 93 per cent of the Delhi population is
urban. Chandigarh stands second with nearly 90 per cent of population as urban.
Pondicherry, Goa and Mizoram also have more than 50 per cent of their population in
urban areas. On the contrary, Himachal Pradesh reports less than 10 per cent of its
population in urban areas while states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Orissa,
Assam, Sikkim, and Bihar have less than 20 per cent of urban population. Thus, while

26
15 regions have higher than all India urbanization ratios of 27.92, the remaining 22
report less than it. As noticed earlier urbanization pattern broadly follows the economic
growth of the states and is influenced by the presence of one or more large and fast
growing cities. Further, they have also grown as cities leading to higher urbanization
ratio.
. Since, Delhi is an extreme case of urbanization (93 per cent), it is not included
in the further discussion. Hence, the remaining 15 regions analyzed here are:
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Madya
Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Bihar, Rajasthan, Kerala, Punjab, Haryana, Orissa and
Assam. These states collectively share 93per cent of country’s urban population.

Table – 2.5 Urbanization Ratios of Major States of India, 1991 and 2001 (%)
States 1991 2001 Rank 1991 Rank 2001
Andhra Pradesh 26.89 27.30 8 7
Assam 11.10 12.90 15 15
Bihar 13.14 13.35 14 14
Gujarat 34.49 37.36 3 2
Haryana 24.63 28.92 6 9
Karnataka 30.92 33.99 4 4
Kerala 26.39 25.96 9 8
Madhya Pradesh 23.18 24.82 10 10
Maharashtra 38.69 42.43 2 1
Orissa 13.38 14.99 13 13
Punjab 29.55 33.92 5 5
Rajasthan 22.88 23.39 11 11
Tamil Nadu 34.15 44.04 1 3
Uttar Pradesh 19.84 21.02 12 12
West Bengal 27.48 27.97 7 6
Average 25.11 27.49 -- --
India 25.7 27.8 -- --
Source: Census documents, respective years
The states chosen for the study in the above table represent the urbanization
pattern of the country as whole. In 1991, seven states viz; Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,

27
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal displayed
higher urbanization ratio than at the national level and by 2001 the same states but
Andhra Pradesh reported higher than national level urbanization ratio. The five major
states –Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala, Maharashtra and West Bengal recorded
improvement in ranking. However there has been hardly any significant change for
other states during that period except for Tamil Nadu which slipped to third place in
2001 from first in 1991 and Haryana slipped from sixth to ninth place. But the pattern
of urbanization has not changed.
However, with the futuristic perspective, a Composite Index of Urban growth
(CIUG) has been prepared employing the principle component technique. Various
dynamic and static variables of urbanization have been clubbed together to arrive at a
summary indicator that covers the level, growth and other dynamics of urban growth.
The variables used to construct the index are the level (% Urban), the degree of
urbanization (% share in country’s urban population ), rural to urban ratio ,compound
annual growth rate of urbanization population ,increment in urban population as % of
increment in total population ,density of urban population, etc.
Table-2.6 Composite Indices of Urbanization (CIU)
S.No. States 1991 2001
1 Andhra Pradesh 5.43 4.63
2 Assam 2.19 2.32
3 Bihar 3.01 2.88
4 Gujarat 5.71 5.67
5 Haryana 4.09 4.41
6 Karnataka 5.08 5.14
7 Kerala 5.01 3.32
8 Madhya Pradesh 4.03 3.83
9 Maharashtra 7.97 7.58
10 Orissa 2.46 2.38
11 Punjab 4.73 4.81
12 Rajasthan 3.87 3.46
13 Tamil Nadu 5.52 7.59
14 Uttar Pradesh 4.75 4.48
15 West Bengal 5.33 4.89
16 Average 4.61 4.49
17 CV (%) 31.28 35.63
Source: Appendix Tables 2.1 and 2.2

28
 Figure 2.4: Composite Indices of Urban Growth (CIU)
7.97
7.59 7.58 1991 2001

5.52 5.71
5.67
5.14 5.33 5.43
5.08 4.81
4.89 4.73 5.01
4.63 4.75
4.48 4.41
4.09 4.03
3.83 3.87
3.46 3.32
3.01 2.38
2.88
2.46 2.32
2.19

TN MAH GUJ KAR WB PUN AP UP HAR MP RAJ KER BIH ORI ASS

Source: Table 2.5

As a result of the above movements, the relative rankings of the states have
undergone changes with Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh
and Rajasthan improving their ranks but others, more significantly, Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala deteriorating their ranks. The ranks of the states
like West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Assam have remained unchanged.

Table-2.7 Ranking of States based on CIUG, 1991 and 2001

Rank States Rank States
1 Maharashtra 1 Tamil Nadu
2 Gujarat 2 Maharashtra
3 Tamil Nadu 3 Gujarat
4 Andhra Pradesh 4 Karnataka
5 West Bengal 5 West Bengal
6 Karnataka 6 Punjab
7 Kerala 7 Andhra Pradesh
8 Uttar Pradesh 8 Uttar Pradesh
9 Punjab 9 Haryana
10 Haryana 10 Madhya Pradesh
11 Madhya Pradesh 11 Rajasthan
12 Rajasthan 12 Kerala
13 Bihar 13 Bihar
14 Orissa 14 Orissa
15 Assam 15 Assam
Source: Economic Survey, GOI.
The above indices show that nine states namely, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,
Karnataka, Kerala ,Maharashtra ,Punjab ,Tamil Nadu ,Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal
out of selected 15 states have higher CIU than the average. As a result of the above
movements (fluctuations), the relative rankings of the states have undergone changes.
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan are moving

29
up growing their ranks but others, more prominently, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,
Gujarat and Kerala showing deterioration in ranking .The ranks of the states like West
Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Assam have remained unchanged. Thus, as far
as urban dynamics is concerned a few states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Gujarat, and Punjab have developed some metropolitan cities.
Table-2.8 Population, Housing and Basic Amenities (per cent)
Total population of India, 2001 1,028.6 million
Urban population, 2001 286.1 million
% share urban, 2001 27.8
Total urban housing stock, 2001 52.0 million
Pucca houses 79.16
Semi-pucca houses 15.58
Kutcha houses 5.27
Household with Tenure Status, Urban, 2001
Owned 66.8
Rented 28.5
Others 4.71
Households having Access to, Urban, 2001
Safe drinking water 90.01
Electricity 87.59
Toilet 73.72
Drainage 77.86
Kitchen within the house 75.96
LPG for cooking 47.96
Electricity for cooking 0.31
Biogas for cooking 0.37

Source: MoHUPA, GoI.

30