Urbanisation in Manipur : A district level review of Census data
- Part 2 -

Tuithung Shinmi *

A very crowded scene at Ema Keithel, Imphal on November 13 2012 :: Pix - Bunti Phurailatpam

DISTRICT LEVEL ANALYSIS:

There are a few important points that need to be made here with reference to the district level profiling. The population in Manipur is concentrated in the more developed areas and highly dispersed in low-density backward hill settlements. This gives a false upward bias to indicators for the hill areas. At the same time, it is fairly meaningless to use per unit area indicators when vast stretches are simply uninhabited. For example, urban population in few districts in Manipur like Ukhrul was zero in 2001, so compound growth rates for such districts were insignificant. Availability of comparable cross-sectional data is another formidable problem. For an exercise of this nature to be reliable, a sufficiently large number of variables are required for each aspect. This was not possible. Therefore, a great deal of caution has to be exercised while interpreting the results or using them for more detailed policy exercise.

For district level urbanization the first indicators that has been drawn upon was the percentage of urban population to total population of each district. But in view of lower significance of urbanization in Manipur, a lower weight has been assigned to this indicator. Urbanisation in districts of Manipur has been skewed. In several districts including Senapati , Tamenglong, Churachandpur and Ukhrul, the entire population resides in rural areas in 2001. However, in 2011 we saw a marginal level of urbanization in these districts. The percentage of urban population in districts of Manipur in 2001 and 2011 is noted in Table 7.

As the Table shows, in 2001 only 24.10 percent population was urban in Manipur, which increased to 31.16 percent in Manipur in 2011. During these decades from 2001-2011, this percentage has increased by approximately 57 percent. This shows that urbanization is accelerating. In Manipur apart from the Districts which had no urban settlers in 2001 the largest increase in percentage terms in 2011 w.r.t 2001 has taken place in the Imphal East district which had 68.36% decadal growth rate of urban population. The main reason behind this increase is the coming up of mining and industrial activity and jobs created in the mentioned district. However, Chandel and Thoubal district in Manipur recorded low growths which is due to lack of such activities.

The number of urban population in Manipur is highest in the two valley districts- Imphal West at 318592 in 2011 and Imphal East where the corresponding figure was relatively lower at 182354. Urbanization is very low in any case. Thoubal is the next most urbanized district after Imphal while Senapati, Tamenglong and Churachandpur are still almost entirely rural based in 2011 (see Table 7). In Imphal the percentage of urbanization is high because of the presence of large metropolitan center.

It is worthwhile to note that urban population growth alone cannot speed up urbanisation. More importantly, if urbanisation has to occur, the urban population growth rate needs to be higher than the rural population growth rate. Thus, it is the urban-rural population growth differential that is critical to the process of urbanization (Bhagat, 2011). For the state level, it has been evident from Table 2 that rural-urban growth differentials has been fluctuating in the last 5 decades in Manipur rising heavily in 1970s from 78.21% in 1971 to 253.09% in 1981. 1980s and 1990s saw low rural-urban growth differentials, the figures standing at -15.12% which rose to 32.16% in 2011.

It was also evident from Table 2 that rural population has declined much faster in between 2001-2011 compared to earlier decades. It was the net rural-urban classification and net rural-to-urban migration that were responsible for higher urban-rural growth differentials and the speeding up of urbanisation during 2001-2011.

Table 3
Manipur : Number of towns, total population and urban population Census

Total    No. Total    Total Rural    % of Rural    Total % of Urban    Rural Decadal    Urban Decadal    Urban-Rural
Year of UAs/Towns Population     Population    Population    Urban Population    Population Growth Rate (%)    Growth Rate (%)    Growth Differentials
1961    1    780037    712320    91.31    67717    8.68    —    —    —
1971    8    1072753    931261    86.81    141492    13.19    30.73    108.94    78.21
1981    32    1420953    1045493    73.57    375460    26.42    12.26    165.35    153.09
1991    31    1837149    1331504    72.47    505645    27.52    27.35    34.67    7.32
2001    33    2293896    1717928    74.89    575968    25.10    29.02    13.90    -15.12
2011    42    2721756    1899624    69.79    822132    31.16    10.57    42.73    32.16

Source: Simulated from Census of India, Respective Years

Table 4
Demographic profile of Manipur

Particulars    1961    1971    1981    1991    2001    2011
Total Population    780037    1072753    1420953    1837149    2293896    2721756
Decennial Growth of Population    —    108.95    165.36    34.67    13.90    47.14 Density of Population (per sq. km)    —    —    —    82    103    122
Percentage of Urban Population    8.68    13.19    26.42    27.52    25.10    31.16
Growth of Urbanization (%)    —    108.95    165.36    34.67    13.90    47.14
Literacy Rate (%)    30.42    38.47    49.61    60.96    70.50    79.85
Literacy Rate: male (%)    53.49    53.70    64.12    72.98    80.30    86.49
Literacy Rate: Female (%)    18.87    22.87    34.61    48.64    60.50    73.17
Sex Ratio (Females per 1000 males)    —    —    —    —    974    987

Source: Census of India, Respective Years

SEX RATIO:

China and India have the dubious distinction of having the most unfavourable population sex ratios among the 10 most populous countries in the world, with India being marginally better than China: 940 vs 926 females per 1,000 males (Navaneetham &Dharmalingam, 2011). The number of females per thousand males is much better in Manipur at 987 in 2011 compared to the all India average. Manipur had seen improvement compared to last decade's figure of 974 females per thousand males.

As was the case during the 1990s, the increase in population sex ratio was almost entirely due to the increase in sex ratio among the population aged 7 and over (Navaneetham & Dharmalingam, 2011). The number improved from 890 females per thousand males in 2001 to 929 females per thousand males in 2011. This is in contrast to the all India average which had witnessed a declining trend. The worsening of the child sex ratio in the last decade point to: (i) a further widening of the gender mortality gap, and (ii) a decrease in the sex ratio at birth through special attention in order to sex selective abortion (Navaneetham &Dharmalingam, 2011).

URBANISATION AND MIGRATION:

Migration is an important factor in changing the size and structure of the population. A substantial increase in urban population is due to rural-urban migration (Bhagat, 2011). The migration process affects the areas to which migrants have moved in and areas from which they moved out. Though the natural growth of population is not to be ruled out, the growth of urban population is attributed largely to migrant population as well.

Migrants' contribution in urbanization is on the rising over the decades as 37.35% of the total migrants in Manipur settled in urban areas in 2001. This trend is evident invariably for all the districts of the state though the contribution in urbanization by the migrants vary from district to district, for some district the share of migrants moving to urban areas in total migrant is very impressive though for others it is not that high.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

As per 2011 census Manipur's urban population is much lower than other major states. Majority of the people continue to live in rural areas. And urbanization occurs without industrialization and with weak economic base, not due to urban pull but due to rural push (Datta, 2006). As the urban scenario is the reflection of the level of industrialization, commercialization, increase in productivity, employment generation and infrastructure development of any state, it clearly reflects that the economic development in Manipur has been rather poor. Though urbanization possesses many challenges to the city dwellers, there is no denying the fact that the process of urbanization not only brings economic prosperity but also sets the way for a better quality of life.

Urban development is not simply the improvement in physical infrastructure but also improvement of the economy as well as the capacity, transparency and accountability of the governing institutions in charge of the urban affairs.

The North-Eastern states of India, Manipur in particular is characterized by a distinct 'urban primacy'. There is an urgent need for public intervention to persuade growth and development in other urban centers. As the possibility for huge amount of public intervention is limited, appropriate intervention in terms of favorable policy incentives for investment in other urban centers may be considered. This will not only revitalize pressure on the valley districts of Imphal, but also contribute considerably to the overall growth of the economy and help distribute employment opportunities more uniformly.

Land is not a liberally marketable resource in Manipur on account of land tenures structure and other land transmit laws. This, to a very great degree hampers a well structured urbanization process. There is a need to formulate a method for providing some limited lessening of rules and regulations in respect to land transfer in certain areas for encouraging bonafide development activities. This would definitely favor the growth of urbanization in other parts of the state. As more opportunities are available in urban areas, people are relocating from rural to urban areas. More focus on development of rural areas will let loose the pressure of development in the urban areas.

Concluded..