Exploring Urban Change in South Asia

Series editor

Marie-Hélène Zérah, Senior Researcher, Centre for Social Sciences Studies onAfrica, America and Asia (CESSMA, Paris), French Institute of Research forSustainable Development (IRD) and Visiting Fellow, Centre for PolicyResearch, Delhi

Editorial Board

Pushpa Arabindoo, Department of Geography, University College London, UKEric Denis, Senior Research Fellow, French National Centre for Scientific Research

(CNRS)-Géographie-cités Lab, Paris, FranceVéronique Dupont, Centre for Social Sciences Studies on Africa, America and Asia

(CESSMA, Paris), French Institute of Research for Sustainable Development(IRD)

Haris Gazdar, Collective for Social Science Research, Centre for EconomicResearch in Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan

Nandini Gooptu, Oxford Department of International Development, OxfordUniversity, UK

Amitabh Kundu, Former Professor of Economics, and Dean of the School of SocialSciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

Navdeep Mathur, Public Systems Group, Indian Institute of ManagementAhmedabad, India

Subrata Mitra, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of SingaporeVyjayanthi Rao, Department of Anthropology, New School, New York, USASanjay Srivastava, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of

Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India

About the Series

The series incorporates work on urbanisation and urbanism in South Asia fromdiverse perspectives, including, but not being limited to, sociology, anthropology,geography, social policy, urban planning and management, economics, politics andculture studies. It publishes original, peer-reviewed work covering both macroissues such as larger urbanisation processes, and economic shifts and qualitativeresearch work focused on micro studies (either comparative or ethnographic based).Both individual authored and edited books are considered within the series with thepossibility of identifying emerging topics for handbooks.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13432

Eric Denis • Marie-Hélène ZérahEditors

Subaltern Urbanisationin IndiaAn Introduction to the Dynamics of OrdinaryTowns

123

EditorsEric DenisGéographie-cités LabFrench National Centre for ScientificResearch

ParisFrance

Marie-Hélène ZérahCentre for Social Sciences Studies on Africa,America and Asia (CESSMA, Paris)

French Institute of Research for SustainableDevelopment (IRD)

ParisFrance

and

Centre for Policy ResearchNew DelhiIndia

ISSN 2367-0045 ISSN 2367-0053 (electronic)Exploring Urban Change in South AsiaISBN 978-81-322-3614-6 ISBN 978-81-322-3616-0 (eBook)DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-3616-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016945999

© Springer India 2017This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or partof the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein orfor any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer NatureThe registered company is Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd.The registered company address is: 7th Floor, Vijaya Building, 17 Barakhamba Road,New Delhi 110 001, India

Foreword

An Alternate Paradigm

The present volume edited by Eric Denis and Marie-Hélène Zérah attempts torescue urban studies from the paradigm of metropolis-based urbanisation, a para-digm which envisions urban processes in the developing world, responding onlypassively to compulsions of global capital. This it does primarily by shifting thefocus of analysis to small and medium towns. The authors in the volume must becomplimented for highlighting the diverse scenarios of urbanisation in India andelaborating and addressing their problems through a select set of case studies. It isindeed true that a large part of contemporary urban growth occurs outside of thehegemonic power structure of globalisation, both politically and geographically.Therefore, instead of confining urban research to the global and national market,state level institutions, formal programmes, missions and legal systems, the volumeattempts to build a “history of urbanisation from below” and explores the role ofcommon people as actors and agencies in this process. Subaltern urbanisation,thus, is a conceptualisation of the initiatives and survival strategies adopted by thepeople living in smaller urban settlements and their development manifestations. Itis an attempt to construct a new narrative through an analysis of situations andprocesses that are considered of marginal importance within the framework ofmetro-centric urbanisation.

The other important point that the volume makes, both explicitly and implicitly,is that simple, dualistic models postulating categories such as rural and urban, smalland big cities, mainstream and subaltern urbanisation etc. are not appropriate tounderstand the dynamics of urban development in India. The spatial pattern ofdevelopment is continuously blurring their distinctions and one must focus on therelationships emerging across both the hierarchical as well as non-hierarchicalarrangement of the settlements.

v

Urban Dynamics of Small and Medium Towns

Small and medium towns play a critical role in the development of the regionaleconomy in most developing countries. India is no exception. It is unfortunate thatthese towns have not received the attention they deserve in the context of India’seconomic development, particularly within the framework of globalisation.A limited number of studies were sponsored by the Indian Planning Commission inthe 1950s to analyse their economic base and emerging physical structure.Subsequently, a section of geographers, regional planners, sociologists and econ-omists have researched on the morphology of many such towns, focusing on theirspecialised economic activities, access to physical amenities, slum conditions etc.The studies were confined largely to physical and cultural contexts. Research wastaken up to assess the impact of small town development programmes of theGovernment of India in the 1970s and 1980s, besides some sponsored by inter-national organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP and UNESCO. These were, how-ever, very localised and descriptive in their approach and rarely posed questions onthe paradigm of development in the country.

Emergence of New Towns and In Situ Urbanisation

It is important to note that the number of towns (statutory and Census) has gone upby 2774 during the first decade of the twenty-first century, against 500 in theprevious decade. The increase in the number of Census towns from 1352 to 3894 isunprecedented in the history of the Indian Census. It may be premature to concludethat the Census has gone overboard to identify these new urban settlements that areessentially rural in character, as towns. Chapter 2 of this volume suggests thatalmost all these settlements satisfy the three criteria of the Census and hence shouldlegitimately get the urban status in 2011. Most of them, however, met these criteriaeven in 2001. It is, thus, evident that there has been a high growth in population anddensity in several large villages during the past two and even earlier decades, whichcan rarely be attributed to the developments in the global market. These havemostly gone unnoticed by urban researchers.

An analysis of the locational pattern of the new Census towns confirms that thereis considerable randomness in their spatial distribution. There is no empirical evi-dence to suggest a strong process of sectoral diversification or growth of modernnon-agricultural employment behind the emergence of these towns, as manyof them are outside the hinterland of large urban centres. As a relatively smallnumber of these towns fall within the metro region or around the industrial corri-dors, the hypothesis that these have emerged under the shadow of metropolitancities can be dismissed. The statistical results presented in the volume reveal thatthe level of urbanisation of a district affects the emergence of these towns

vi Foreword

negatively. This questions the trickle-down theory, or that the industrial baseof these towns is linked to regional/national market.

A large section of the country’s urban population, thus, lives in Census townsthat are being governed by rural administrative set-up, as they have not been giventhe urban status by their respective state governments. These, therefore, have verydifferent demographic and economic characteristics, particularly low levels ofinfrastructure and basic amenities. All these could adversely affect the future growthof these towns and the overall process of regional and urban development, unlessmajor interventions are initiated at central and state level.

Combining the population and workforce data from the population Census withthe GIS data from Indiapolis, the authors in the volume try to capture “urbangrowth” around agglomerations with 10,000 persons each, through identification ofbuilt-up areas around them. They put forward the proposition that the country isexperiencing significant in-situ urbanisation which manifests in nonhierarchicallinkages among smaller towns.

These towns, understandably, maintain strong rural characteristics and do nothave even a modest level of infrastructure and basic services, which prompts theauthors to describe them as manifestations of subaltern development. The RegistrarGeneral of India, when collecting slum statistics from these towns, as a supple-mentary work for 2001 Census, at the behest of the Ministry of Housing and UrbanPoverty Alleviation, had held that in many cases the entire townships can bedeclared as slums. Their linkages with the neighbouring villages do not operatewithin the traditional framework as mostly they obtain their supply of food-grains,milk, vegetables etc., and raw materials from the national market rather than thehinterland. In this sense, they are not totally out of the global or national marketsystem. In fact, the latter, to a limited extent, helps build trading and businessrelations within the region, facilitates ancillarisation and encourages commuting,thereby blurring the boundaries between rural and urban areas.

A New Economic Geography, or Rurbanisation

The present study underlines the need to build an alternate macro-economicframework for research on small and medium towns. The case studies of severalsmall towns, included in the volume, tend to suggest that the inter-settlementlinkages and socio-economic contexts, noted in and around the metro regions, aredifferent from those existing away from the metropolises. This puts a question markon the advocacy of a uniform system of governance as a solution to all urbanproblems. The study demonstrates that the growth of small and medium towns, ingeneral, is not linked to the neighbouring metropolis and consequently does notreflect dependency relations, as discussed in the preceding section. Many of thesetowns, studied by the researchers contributing to the volume, exhibit fairly higheconomic growth in recent years, despite not being a part of the metropolitanhierarchy and receiving no major support from public agencies. Economic and

Foreword vii

demographic growth here tends to be high because of strong local factors, delinkedfrom the global or national economy. The case studies reveal that city-specificinnovative arrangements, operationalised at a local level through social andfinancial institutions, impact investments in small-scale manufacturing and realestate development significantly. These make positive impacts on the nexus ofexogenous and endogenous factors, evolving over time. The alignments in thesearrangements often follow caste and community ties which get linked with socialnetworks operating at larger territorial scale, complementing the local processes ofeconomic growth.

Regrettably, national governments as well as development-cum-banking agen-cies at global level have paid scant attention to the cultural and institutional factorsspecific to these towns. The volume makes a strong case for studying these factorsand their linked problems, and, more importantly, addressing them at micro levelfor promoting sustainable development. It argues that economic and demographicgrowth in these towns must be supported through specific interventions because, ifleft to market forces, it would take decades for their economic transformation and toget linked with the national market. There is an urgent need to make them “a part ofIndia’s future urbanisation”.

Questioning the premise of new economic geography, several authors of thevolume hold that the growth dynamics of small towns cannot be assessed withoutproper understanding of their cultural and economic history. For strengthening theirinfrastructural and institutional base and accelerating their economic and demo-graphic growth, establishing linkages with an agglomeration or to highways passingthrough the locality could be useful. Haryana presents an interesting case as here alarge number of new Census towns have emerged around large cities, constitutingparts of existing built up agglomerations. Similarly, Kartarpur, located outside themetropolitan paradigm, exhibits phenomenal economic growth in the furnitureindustry because of the advantage of being strategically located on the Grand TrunkRoad. In sharp contrast, many small towns, not having such locational advantages,have also successfully attracted economic activities, cashing on the middle classdemand for housing and multifarious services including repair and maintenance,although these get their supply of basic materials from far away. A small town suchas Abu Road has taken the dual advantage of the availability of non-timber forestproducts and proximity of a large factory to generate livelihoods successfully innon-peak seasons and slow down out-migration from the region.

The volume has, thus, done a great service to academia by identifying thediverse forces of urbanisation operating at ground level. These make urban pro-cesses extremely complex and they ought to be studied with empirical rigour. Thevolume also underlines the need to rescue urban studies from pure anthropologicalinvestigations. Even when analysing the specific situation in a hilly state, with highincidence of tribal population, a case is made to contextualise urban growth in termsof analytical categories that go beyond the traditional concepts, methods andframeworks. Several authors, thus, tend to suggest that although the economiesof the small towns are currently localised, they can be linked to regional economy

viii Foreword

through innovative interventions, implying that alternatives to the dominantdevelopment model do exist and need to be promoted in the developing world.

The proposition advanced by several international agencies that the success ofglobalisation and livelihood strategy in a less developed country depends on thespeed with which modern production, trading and banking institutions in smalltowns can be linked with metro cities and global values injected into their businessbehaviour must, therefore, be taken with a lot of scepticism. Building metropoliscentred institutional system with global technology and modern values, asattempted in some of the Latin American and East Asian countries for the successof capitalism can turn out to be not only expensive but also counterproductive.A number of micro level studies, including those in the volume, demonstrate thatthe socio-political environment created in several small and medium towns over along period play an important role in attracting investments and skilled workers.These demonstrate that formal and informal institutions, along with their norms andpractices, are extremely useful and supportive in the organisation of production,skill formation and industrial development, although the built-in power relations atlocal level could sometimes be detrimental to the sustainable urbanisation.

Where Do We Go from Here?

It is not difficult to accept the proposition that the process of urbanisation at thegrassroots level, at lower level of the urban hierarchy, has gone unnoticed fordecades primarily because of the mindset focused on metropolis-based urbanisa-tion. This can be partly attributed to the system of data generation by the Censusorganisation and conservative discretionary judgement. This has resulted in sys-tematic underreporting of the level of urbanisation. A proper identification, how-ever, may not increase the growth rate in urban population (as both initial andterminal year figures would be increased). Also, there has been an increase in thenumber of workers having no fixed all time location and commuting on daily basis,which helps them find a survival strategy in off-peak seasons. This, too, has sloweddown the pace of urbanisation. These processes are very different from those of thedominant paradigm of urbanisation. One can be persuaded to accept the stipulationthat these are linked with the processes of subaltern development in the country.

The basic question asked in the volume is whether the growth of industry andemergence of “self-made engineers” in many of the small towns can be attributed tothe local level institutions and the entrepreneurship of the people. One would alsolike to know, for example, how the artisans in Tiruchengode, specialising in repairof vehicles, get into manufacturing of vehicles and claim a big share in well diggingactivities, spread throughout the country, and manage to survive within the globallycompetitive system. Could the informal institutional arrangements and governancesystem supporting industrial growth in these towns be strengthened and the defi-ciencies corrected so as to provide a sustainable livelihood to the local populationand the immigrants? Is it possible to scale up such success stories to national level?

Foreword ix

Many of the chapters on the administrative status and governance system pro-vide clues to answering the questions. The answer, indeed, is yes. The chapters hereelaborate the large city bias in Indian planning, particularly in JNNURM, and makea case for greater assistance from the central government to small towns to addressthe deficiencies in their infrastructure and revenue generating capacity. Similarly, ananalysis of the socio-cultural factors behind the selection of women representativesin the NCR region of Haryana reveals how the effective participation of women canbe strengthened through implementation of decentralised governance. An in-depthprobing of the social surface of the municipal councillors reveals that family, casteand professional network, as well as individual and family characteristics, affectdecision making and manifest in power relations at local levels. The basic con-tention is that segregation of women in local politics results in their exclusion fromall networks of decision making. An inclusive strategy of educational developmentcan lead to creation of competent male and female councillors. These are a fewof the recommendations emerging from the study. Rather than being exhaustive,these underline the need for building an understanding of the functioning of locallevel institutions for designing effective strategies for policy intervention.

The scholars, however, warn that the principle of inclusion and exclusion in thesmall towns are not always in compliance with the law of the land or ethical values.This was a worry to the makers of the Constitution such as Babasaheb Ambedkar. Itis here that the state must step in to ensure that those who do not belong to anynetwork and therefore are unlikely to get included in the traditional/informalinstitutional set up, are brought within the system. Public intervention could go along way in promoting an inclusive system and strengthening sustainableurbanisation.

Subaltern urbanisation could be seen as a result of the limited possibility ofmetropolis-based urbanisation in India as also several countries in the developingworld. Many of the African countries are experiencing a process of urban con-traction in many of their metropolises which has led to premature deindustrialisa-tion, a phenomenon empirically investigated by the Harvard economist Dani Rodrikand others. These countries are showing no increase in industrial output and aregetting a stagnating workforce in manufacturing along with a low rate of urbangrowth. India, however, is projected to grow by 7–10 % per annum in real terms,led by the manufacturing and construction sectors. There are, however, disturbingtrends leading to apprehensions that the predictions may not materialise. The sharesof manufacturing sector both in terms of income and employment have not shownany significant increase in the last couple of decades, besides the fact that the rate ofgrowth of urban population has slipped from 3.8 to 2.7 % over the past threedecades. There are speculations that India, too, may fall into the trap of prematuredeindustrialisation.

An analysis of the consumption of household durables and construction materialfrom the National Sample Survey data for the year 2011/2012 reveals that only35 % are in the metropolitan cities. Understandably, a strategy of industrialisationcentred on metropolitan demand is likely to face serious hurdles in India, as inmany countries in the developing world. A window of opportunity, however, seems

x Foreword

to have opened up through the alternate pathways of urbanisation, as discussed inthe volume. The strategy of industrialisation must focus on the remaining 65 %demand of manufactured products and consolidating them and generatingemployment for the growing labour force outside the metropolitan cities. Thisdemand potential is manifest in growth of several small and medium towns andtransformation of large villages into towns in recent years. The only way that thevision of 7–10 % growth of Indian economy, as projected by the AsianDevelopment Bank, can be sustained in the coming two to three decades is bysupporting the alternate modes of urbanisation. Policies and programmes to provideinfrastructural support to this process would be an imperative for realisation of thevision.

The thesis of subaltern urbanisation rightly takes the position that themarket-based urban system, dependent on a few metropolitan cities, need not be theonly paradigm of development for India, and for that matter many other countries inthe developing world. The ongoing process of urbanisation has created an extre-mely top-heavy urban structure in the country and several other Asian countries,leading to slowing down of the pace of urbanisation, as has been officiallyrecognised in the UN system. This can, in turn, adversely impact on the develop-ment process. An alternate strategy for a more balanced urban economic devel-opment in the country can be built through an understanding of the developmentdynamics at local level and strengthening the growth potential of a large number ofsmall and medium towns. To do that, it would be important to identify the geo-graphical and socio-economic factors, including the cultural context, which char-acterise and determine their growth potential. It is only then that a strategy, utilisingthese potentials, can be designed. Addressing the constraints and strengtheningappropriate institutions and practices at local level can promote sustainableurbanisation in the country. Focus on subaltern urbanisation would help make thebottom of the urban hierarchy visible and intelligible and bring into the mainstreamproblems of the vulnerable and marginalised.

Amitabh KunduChairperson of the Technical Advisory Committee on HousingStart up index at RBI and Committee to Estimate Shortage of

Affordable Housing, Government of IndiaFormer Professor of Economics, and

Dean of the School of Social SciencesJawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Foreword xi

Contents

1 Introduction: Reclaiming Small Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Marie-Hélène Zérah and Eric Denis

Part I Placing Small Towns: Dynamics of Urbanisationand Systems of Cities

2 Unacknowledged Urbanisation: The New CensusTowns in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Kanhu Charan Pradhan

3 The Substantial Share of Small Towns in India’s Systemof Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Elfie Swerts

4 Income Ranking of Indian States and Their Pattern ofUrbanisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Basudeb Chaudhuri, Boishampayan Chatterjee, Mainak Mazumdarand Safayet Karim

5 Urbanisation in a Decade of Near Jobless Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119S. Chandrasekhar

6 Comparison of Peripheral Metropolitanisation in Haryanaand Rajasthan, India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141Milap Punia, Rajnish Kumar, Laxman Singhand Sandeep Kaushik

7 On Global and Multiple Linkages in the Makingof an Ordinary Place: Parangipettai-Porto Novo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167Eric Denis and Zarin Ahmad

xiii

Part II Land, Society, Belonging

8 Multilayered Urbanisation of the South Canara Territory. . . . . . . . 199Solomon Benjamin

9 Practices of Territory in Small and Medium Citiesof South India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235Bhuvaneswari Raman

10 Territorial Legends: Politics of Indigeneity, Migrationand Urban Citizenship in Pasighat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261Mythri Prasad-Aleyamma

11 Wealth, Mobility, Accretive Citizenship and Belonging:Why Everyone Comes to Kullu and How they Remain . . . . . . . . . . 283Diya Mehra

12 Hindu Temples and Development of Localitiesin Tamil Nadu (South India) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311Pierre-Yves Trouillet

Part III Small Towns Between Rural and Urban Administration:Public Policies, Governance and Urban Services

13 The Other Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban RenewalMission: What Does It Mean for Small Town India? . . . . . . . . . . . . 337Sama Khan

14 Shedding Light on Social and Economic Changes in SmallTowns Through the Prism of Local Governance: A CaseStudy of Haryana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371Marie-Hélène Zérah

15 Purdah and Politics: Women’s Participationin Local Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397Aditi Surie and Marie-Hélène Zérah

16 New Urban Territories in West Bengal: Transition,Transformation and Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421Gopa Samanta

17 Does Administrative Status Matter for Small Towns in India? . . . . 443Partha Mukhopadhyay

Part IV Producing and Innovating in Non-metropolitan Contexts

18 Development on the Urban Fringe: The Prosperityof Kartarpur, a Small Town-Cluster in Punjab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473Rémi de Bercegol and Shankare Gowda

xiv Contents

19 From Ox-Carts to Borewell Rigs: Maintenance,Manufacture and Innovation in Tiruchengode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497Yann Philippe Tastevin

20 Globalisation, Productive Spaces and Small TownTransformation: The Case of Machlipatnam and Pedanain Coastal Andra Pradesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527N. Sridharan

21 Mapping Small Towns’ Productive and EmploymentConfigurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553Elfie Swerts and Eric Denis

22 Commuting Workers and the Integration of the Rural-UrbanEconomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577Ajay Sharma

23 Non-timber Forest Products and Small Town Economies . . . . . . . . 601Manoj Nadkarni

Contents xv

Figures

Figure 2.1 a Rural and urban population growth 1961–2011.b Types of urban settlements 1981–2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 2.2 a Characteristics of new CTs (village populationthreshold of 5000). b Characteristics of new CTs(village population threshold of 4000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 2.3 Contribution of new CTs to urban population growth(major states) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 2.4 a Urbanisation and average number of new CTsper district (districts with at least one new CT).b Urbanisation and average number of new CTsper district (all districts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 2.5 District-wise distribution of new CTs in India . . . . . . . . . . . 56Figure 2.6 Percentage of new CTs to total large villages. . . . . . . . . . . . 57Figure 2.7 Expected new CTs in 2021 Census (major states) . . . . . . . . 63Figure 3.1 Association of the population of towns and villages

within the perimeter of polygons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Figure 3.2 a The 3141 “urban” IA of 10,000 inhabitants

and above according to the Census criteria of 75 %of the male population engaged in non-agriculturalactivities in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73b The 3966 “non-urban” IA of 10,000 inhabitantsand above according to the Census criteria of 75 %of the male population engaged in non-agriculturalactivities in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure 3.3 a The 5838 urban settlements (class 1 IA specialisedin secondary and tertiary activities, class 2 diversifiedIA, with an overrepresentation of household industryand class 3 diversified IA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75b The 1269 nonurban settlements (large villages:class 4 IA dominated by primary activities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

xvii

Figure 3.4 Rank size curve of Indian cities, 1961–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Figure 3.5 Evolution and convergence of the annual average

rates of population change in Indian cities(total and per category of size, 1961–2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Figure 3.6 Trajectories of the 5730 Indian cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Figure 3.7 a The 1995 small towns of class 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

b The 880 small towns of class 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83c The 2166 small towns of class 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84d The 151 small towns of class 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 4.1 Log of NSDP and the urbanisation of the states . . . . . . . . . . 99Figure 6.1 Mismatch between CTs and SECC urban areas . . . . . . . . . . 148Figure 6.2 a New urban settlements in Haryana reported

in SECC (2011). b New CTs, 2011 aroundperipheries of class 1 towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Figure 6.3 Growth around peripheries of class 1 towns.1 Panipat. 2 Karnal. 3 Rohtak. 4 Ambala.5 Yamunanagar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 6.4 Gurgaon land use change 2008–2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154Figure 6.5 New CTs in Rajasthan around peripheries

of class 1 towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158Figure 6.6 New CTs in Jaipur Sub Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159Figure 6.7 Jamwa Ramgarh: distribution of marginal

workers, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Figure 6.8 Jamwa Ramgarh: age and gender specific

commuting (in %). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162Figure 6.9 CT criteria and Jamwa Ramgarh, 1961–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . 162Figure 7.1 Average demographic growth of Parangipettai

and the 606 Indian localities having between 15,000and 25,000 inhabitants in 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figure 7.2 Non-growing small towns in South India. Localitieswith between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants in 2011and an annual growth between −1.3 and 1 %for the period 1961–2011 with their administrativestatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Figure 8.1 Yermal overlapping territories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201Figure 8.2 South Canara’s transformation as an interface

of physical geography and multi-logic urbanisation,a diagrammatic account that draws from severalreal sites in South Canara, and especially Yermal . . . . . . . . 213

Figure 8.3 A petition by the fishing federation to the DistrictCommissioner and Head of Fisheries Department . . . . . . . . 214

Figure 8.4 South Canara as a transnational space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223Figure 9.1 Land use changes in Tiruchengode town

and surroundings between 1996 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

xviii Figures

Figure 10.1 Migration routes of Adis to Pasighat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266Figure 11.1 Aerial view of Bhuntar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286Figure 11.2 Map of Kullu district, showing the metropolitan/study

area from Kullu to Bajaura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288Figure 11.3 Kullu-Bhuntar Agglomeration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293Figure 11.4 TIN numbers issued by year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298Figure 11.5 A view from the Gompa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308Figure 12.1 Locations of fieldworks in Tamil Nadu and their

census population in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313Figure 12.2 The central location of the main temple of Tiruchengodu

and its influence on the urban morphology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320Figure 13.1 Share of population and central share committed

under JNNURM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355Figure 14.1 Location of the research sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373Figure 16.1 Barjora: location and connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424Figure 16.2 Economic landscape of the Barjora agglomeration . . . . . . . . 426Figure 17.1 Indicators for towns in 2011. a In-house toilet.

b Toilet with piped sewerage/septic tank.c Tap water. d In-house tap water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

Figure 17.2 Density plots for various indicators in 2011(CTs vis-à-vis statutory town) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

Figure 17.3 Density plots for various indicators in 2011(proximate vis-à-vis non-proximate CTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

Figure 17.4 Change in Amenities 2001–2011(CTs vis-à-vis statutory towns) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

Figure 17.5 Difference measure M by population of urban area . . . . . . . 461Figure 17.6 Differences in urban and proximate rural area,

by size of urban area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462Figure 17.7 Differences in urban and proximate rural area,

by status of urban area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463Figure 18.1 Location of Kartarpur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475Figure 18.2 Spatial expansion of Kartarpur in 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479Figure 18.3 Spatial expansion of Kartarpur in 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480Figure 18.4 Detailed landuse map in 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481Figure 18.5 The furniture industry in Kartarpur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482Figure 20.1 Coverage under IDSMT under various five-year plans . . . . . 531Figure 20.2 Indicators and sub-indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535Figure 20.3 Population of Machlipatnam and Pedana (1901–2011) . . . . . 536Figure 20.4 Population density in Machlipatnam and Pedana . . . . . . . . . 537Figure 20.5 Kalamkari production and supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540Figure 20.6 Marine products: supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543Figure 20.7 Imitation/artificial jewellery: production

and supply chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544

Figures xix

Figure 20.8 Impact of imitation jewellery and marine productson the Machlipatnam city parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

Figure 20.9 Impact of the kalamkari industry on the city—acomparative picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545

Figure 20.10 Unit level spatial transformation in three creativeindustries 2000–2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547

Figure 20.11 Spatial expansion of Machlipatnam and Pedana . . . . . . . . . . 548Figure 21.1 Distribution of small towns by socioeconomic

profile in 2011 (four classes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568Figure 21.2 Share of male workers in Indian small towns in 2011 . . . . . 570Figure 21.3 Proportion of male marginal workers in small towns . . . . . . 573Figure 22.1 Intensity of rural-urban commuting at the regional

level (quantile maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590Figure 22.2 Intensity of urban-rural commuting at the regional

level (quantile maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591Figure 22.3 Intensity of rural workers with no fixed place

of work at the regional level (quantile maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . 592Figure 22.4 Intensity of urban workers with no fixed place

of work at the regional level (quantile maps) . . . . . . . . . . . . 593Figure 22.5 Distance from residence to workplace location

(in kilometres) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594Figure 22.6 Distribution of monthly cost of commuting

(all modes of transport) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596

xx Figures

Tables

Table 1.1 Case studies from the SUBURBIN research project . . . . . . . 11Table 2.1 Dynamics of CTs between 2001 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Table 2.2 Share of new CTs to total urban population growth

between 2001 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Table 2.3 Relationship between new CTs and district

characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Table 2.4 New CTs and proximity to large towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Table 2.5 Proximity of new CTs by size class of towns . . . . . . . . . . . 59Table 2.6 New CTs by size of settlement agglomerations (SA) . . . . . . 61Table 3.1 Male employment profiles in the classes

of IA identified by the Hierarchical AscendingClassification (in percentage by sector). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Table 3.2 Urbanisation rates in India in 1961 and 2001 accordingto different definitions of cities and databases(in percentages) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Table 4.1 Percentage of urban population and number of townsin India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Table 4.2 Growth in urban population for states and townsbetween 1991, 2001 and 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Table 4.3 Population growth in UAs between 1991 and 2001 . . . . . . . 102Table 4.4 Growth in the number of large, medium and small

towns across UAs between 1991 and 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Table 4.5 Share of urban and rural manufacturing firms across

different states of India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Table 4.6 Growth in rural-urban share of manufacturing firms

and number of villages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Table 4.7 Correlation between employment and number of towns . . . . 114Table 4.8 Correlation between productivity and town class (2001) . . . . 115Table 4.9 Correlation between number of towns and agricultural

employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

xxi

Table 5.1 Inter-censal change in main and marginal workers . . . . . . . . 123Table 5.2 Main and marginal workers by occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124Table 5.3 WPR for persons aged 15 years and above according

to the usual status in 1999–2000, 2004–2005and 2009–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 5.4 Distribution of employed (usual status) menaged 15 years and above by status in 1999–2000,2004–2005 and 2009–2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Table 5.5 Distribution of person-days of males aged 15 yearsand above by broad current daily activity statusin 2009–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Table 5.6 Unemployment rates (no. of persons/person-daysin unemployment per 100 persons/person days inthe labour force) for men aged 15 years and aboveaccording to usual status, current weekly status, currentdaily status in 1999–2000, 2004–2005 and 2009–2010. . . . . 130

Table 5.7 Distribution of usual status of male workersin the 15 years and above age group by the broadindustry division in 1999–2000, 2004–2005and 2009–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 5.8 Distribution of usual status male workersin the 15 years and above age group by the broadindustry division in 2009–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Table 5.9 Ranking of regions based on concentration of sectionof industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Table 6.1 Sample characteristics for micro study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145Table 6.2 Level of urbanisation in India, Haryana and Rajasthan . . . . . 146Table 6.3 New towns in 2011 in Haryana as defined

by the Census of India and the SECC survey . . . . . . . . . . . 148Table 6.4 Growth in population and built-up area of non-metro

towns in Haryana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156Table 6.5 Pattern of employment across the urban-rural continuum . . . 157Table 6.6 Emergence of new towns in 2011 in Rajasthan . . . . . . . . . . 160Table 6.7 Jamwa Ramgarh occupational characteristics,

2012 (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161Table 7.1 Parangipettai population distributed by religion

from 1911 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175Table 13.1 Funding pattern under JNNURM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344Table 13.2 Central share committed for some major states

(INR in millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346Table 13.3 Central share released for some major states

(INR in millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349Table 13.4 Class-wise distribution of towns and population . . . . . . . . . 352

xxii Tables

Table 13.5 Class-wise distribution of central share committedand released under the UIDSSMT and IHSDP(INR in millions). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353

Table 13.6 City-wise central share committed and released underthe UIG and BSUP schemes (INR in millions) . . . . . . . . . . 361

Table 13.7 Class-wise distribution of towns and central sharecommitted under the UIDSSMT (INR in millions). . . . . . . . 363

Table 13.8 Class-wise distribution of towns and central releasesunder the UIDSSMT (INR in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364

Table 13.9 Class-wise distribution of towns and central sharecommitted under the IHSDP (INR in millions) . . . . . . . . . . 366

Table 13.10 Class-wise distribution of towns and central releasesunder the IHSDP (INR in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Table 14.1 Presentation of the five small towns selected. . . . . . . . . . . . 374Table 14.2 Who can decide on provision of infrastructure

as per the knowledge of councillors? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376Table 14.3 Knowledge of councillors on stages of state

interventions and decisions regarding land use(percentage and number of answers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

Table 14.4 How would you qualify the powers of the districtcommissioner? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380

Table 14.5 Response to the questions: are you involvedin the decisions taken in the Nagar Panchayat/municipalcouncils regarding the awarding of contracts? . . . . . . . . . . . 385

Table 14.6 Answers to the question: are there decisions youcan take without the chairman’s approval? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

Table 14.7 Answers to the question: are there decisions youcan take without the Executive Officer’s approval? . . . . . . . 394

Table 16.1 Population size, density of population and percentageof non-agricultural workforce in Barjora CT (B. CT)and Barjora agglomeration (B. AG), 1981–2001 . . . . . . . . . 426

Table 16.2 Sources of raw materials used in industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429Table 16.3 Type of ownership and location of owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430Table 16.4 Types and sources of labour in the industries . . . . . . . . . . . 431Table 16.5 Levels of household assets, 2011 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435Table 16.6 Condition of basic services as perceived

by the households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436Table 17.1 Summary statistics for towns in 2001 and 2011. . . . . . . . . . 446Table 17.2 Comparison of statutory towns and CTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450Table 17.3 Comparison of proximate and non-proximate CTs . . . . . . . . 452Table 17.4 Linear specification with population and proximity

interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455Table 17.5 Nonlinear specification with population

and proximity interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

Tables xxiii

Table 17.6 Share of proximate rural neighbourhood and townpopulation by size class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457

Table 17.7 Access to services in CTs and statutory townsby size class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458

Table 17.8 Service in rural areas proximate to CTs and statutorytowns by size class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

Table 17.9 Share of villages which have better level of amenitiesthan associated town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

Table 17.10 Summary statistics of amenities in the ruralneighbourhood of small towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464

Table 17.11 Relationship of statutory status to access indicators . . . . . . . 466Table 19.1 Growth of lorry body building units in Salem

district from 1982 to 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509Table 19.2 Population size of Tiruchengode in Tamil Nadu

in the district of Namakkal at the townand sub-district level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512

Table 20.1 Occupational structure of Machlipatnamand Pedana 2001 and 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

Table 21.1 Correlation matrix of urban and rural populationand sectorial GDP in 2000 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557

Table 21.2 Scaling laws for the distribution of cultivatorsand agricultural labourers, male workers engagedin household industries and male workers engagedin secondary and tertiary activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

Table 21.3 Proportion of cultivators and agricultural labourers,male workers engaged in household industriesand male workers engaged in secondary and tertiaryactivities by city-size class in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565

Table 21.4 Typology of the economic profile of Indian cities . . . . . . . . 567Table 21.5 Proportion of marginal male workers according

to city size for each sector of activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572Table 22.1 Estimated size of non-agricultural workforce

by sector of residence and place of work: all India . . . . . . . 582Table 22.2 Distribution of non-agricultural workers based

on industrial classification, residence and workplacelocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583

Table 22.3 Distribution of non-agricultural workforceby gender and residence-workplace location . . . . . . . . . . . . 584

Table 22.4 Distribution of urban residents by economic activity,resident city size class and workplace location . . . . . . . . . . 585

Table 22.5 Distribution of rural and urban non-agriculturalworkforce in rural and urban areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

Table 22.6 Economic activities of the commuting workers . . . . . . . . . . 595Table 23.1 Population of Abu Road block in the 2011 Census . . . . . . . 605

xxiv Tables

Table 23.2 Production & Income of Tendu Leaves in Sirohi(Rajasthan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

Table 23.3 Monthly work cycles for men and women . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611Table 23.4 Income sources of an average family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612

Tables xxv

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

Eric Denis is a Senior Research Fellow at the French National Centre for ScientificResearch (CNRS), currently based at the Géographie-cités Lab., Université Paris 1– Panthéon-Sorbonne. He holds a Ph.D. in urban and economic geography from theUniversity of Caen in France (1993) and a Habilitation from the Sorbonne (2014).After 10 years posted in Cairo (Egypt), he has been, from 2009 to 2013, in chargeof the social sciences department at the Institut Français de Pondichéry (India)where he led a research project on India’s small cities and development beyond themetropolis (SUBURBIN, Subaltern Urbanisation in India www.suburbin.hypotheses.org) with Marie-Hélène Zérah. He is the author of about 50 papersand books on social geography and urban studies and the editor of several volumes,including Popular Housing and Urban Land Tenure in the Middle East (2012,AUC Press, with Ababsa & Dupret), Villes et urbanisation des provinceségyptiennes (2007) and the Atlas of Cairo (2000). He has been involved in severalapplied research programmes on urban questions, land access and security oftenure. He contributed to the e-Geopolis programme measuring world urbanisation,supported by the Agence Française de Développement and the World Bank.

Marie-Hélène Zérah is Research Fellow, Centre for Social Sciences Studies onAfrica, America and Asia (CESSMA, Paris), French Institute of Research forSustainable Development (IRD) and she is seconded to the Centre of PolicyResearch (New Delhi). From 2009 to 2013, she headed the urban dynamicsresearch team at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi where she led theSUBURBIN research project with Eric Denis. Previous to this interest on smalltowns she has worked in the area of urban infrastructure, urban governance andurban democracy in Indian cities. She has published extensively on these topics ininternational journals and edited volumes and in her book on Water: UnreliableSupply in Delhi (2000, Manohar Publishers and 1999, Economica for its Frenchversion). She has co-edited a volume published by UNESCO on the Right to theCity in India (2011, with Dupont and Tawa Lama-Rewal). She is part of

xxvii

Geoforum’s editorial board and is Series Editor of the Springer collection:Exploring Urban Change in South Asia. She has also been involved in projects andconsultancies for a number of organisations, including the European Union, theWater and Sanitation Programme and the Suez group.

Contributors

Zarin Ahmad is trained in political science and international studies at theUniversity of Calcutta and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi. Zarin was apost-doctoral fellow at the Centre de Sciences Humaines in New Delhi, the FrenchInstitute of Pondicherry and a visiting Fellow at the Centre for the Study ofDeveloping Societies (CSDS), Delhi. She is currently engaged in research onIndia's meat sector and is editing a book on Islamic laws and customary practices ofinheritance among Muslims in India.

Solomon Benjamin is Associate Professor at the Humanities and Social ScienceDepartment of the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India. Benjamin has aPh.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Urban Studiesand Planning. He has published in major international journals such as the IJURR,the SARAI reader, Geoforum, Third World Planning Review, and European journalssuch as Clusters, Agone, and Revue Tiers Monde. Benjamin is on the editorial boardof the international journal of critical geography, Antipode, and member of thereview panel for the IJURR, Antipode, Urban Studies World Development, andEnvironment and Urbanization. He was faculty at the School of Social Sciences,National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru; Department of PoliticalScience, University of Toronto; and a visiting faculty member at the National LawSchool of India University, Bengaluru. Benjamin’s recent contribution to academicliterature, ‘Occupancy Urbanism”, emerged from his work on urban land, economy,and globalisation, with a geographical interest in southern cities. His current workfocuses on the relationship between Indian and Chinese cities, and small townurbanisation in coastal South India. Benjamin is part of several internationalresearch projects.

S. Chandrasekhar is Professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of DevelopmentResearch (IGIDR), Mumbai. Chandrasekhar is an alumnus of the Delhi School ofEconomics and Pennsylvania State University. He is a recipient of the Fred H.Bixby Fellowship (2007/2008) awarded by the Population Council, New York. Hewon the Japanese Award for Outstanding Research on Development at the GlobalDevelopment Awards and Medals Competition, 2011. Some of his ongoingresearch projects are: “The Commuting Worker: An Overlooked Aspect ofRural-Urban Interaction”, “Strengthen and Harmonize Research and Action onMigration in the Indian Context (SHRAMIC)” and “Tackling Agriculture—Nutrition Disconnect in India (TANDI)”. In addition to teaching economic growthand development, econometrics at IGIDR, he is involved in the training programme

xxviii Editors and Contributors

on econometrics for Indian Economic Service officers and Reserve Bank of Indiaofficers. He also coordinates a series of capacity building workshops on “Poverty,Hunger, Food Security and Nutrition: From Concepts to Measurement”.

Boishampayan Chatterjee has a Ph.D. from Clark University, Worcester,Massachusetts, USA. His areas of specialisation are urban economics and appliedeconometrics. His research interests include urban economics, labour and demo-graphic economics, particularly suburbanisation and the growth of towns, resi-dential segregation, labour market outcomes and housing affordability. He ispresently a faculty member in the area of economic environment and policy at theInstitute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, India.

Basudeb Chaudhuri has a Ph.D. in economics at the University of Paris I,Panthéon Sorbonne and Habilitation from the University of Caen. His areas ofspecialisation are development economics, public policy and interdisciplinarity inthe social sciences. He is currently deputed from the faculty and CNRS ResearchCentre of Economics, Management and Geography at the University of Caen,France as a National Expert to the European Commission. He has previously beenCoordinator, National Contact Point for Societal Challenge 6, H2020 Program,France, chargé de mission at the National Institute of Social Sciences andHumanities at the CNRS, Paris, former director of the Centre de SciencesHumaines, New Delhi, Deputy Director of the CNRS research unit “Savoirs etMondes Indiens” and Vice-President of the University of Caen.

Rémi de Bercegol is a Research Fellow at the French National Centre forScientific Research (CNRS). In 2015–2016 he was a Research Fellow in UrbanStudies at the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany. He has a doctorate inurban planning from LATTS (research group on technology, territories and soci-eties) at ENPC/UMLV, Paris Est, France. He was a visiting researcher at the Centrefor Social Sciences and Humanities (CSH) in New Delhi between 2008 and 2015.During this time he undertook research for his thesis on small towns and decen-tralisation reforms in northern India. He then joined the SUBURBIN team as apostdoctoral research fellow. Beyond the scope of India, his research now focuseson world urbanisation and the transformation of cities in the global South, analysedprincipally in terms of their essential services (water, sanitation, waste managementand energy).

Shankare Gowda is a researcher, specialised in local and urban governance, partysystem and identity politics in India. He was awarded a Post- doctoral Fellowshipfrom the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) and was associatedwith the Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH, New Delhi).

Safayet Karim has an M.Sc. (Statistics) from Aligarh Muslim University (AMU).His research interests include topics related to poverty measurement, growth andregional disparity, urban economics, suburbanisation and the growth of towns. Heis currently studying PGPBA at Praxis Business School, India. Previously, he waswith the Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH), New Delhi as a Research Associate.

Editors and Contributors xxix

Sandeep Kaushik is affiliated with Centre for the Study of Regional Development,School of Social Sciences, JNU. Research interest includes modeling urban growthand remote sensing and geographical information systems.

Sama Khan is a researcher at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. She hasa master’s degree in sociology from the Delhi School of Economics. She receivedher honours degree in sociology from Miranda House, University of Delhi. Herareas of research include urban governance of megacities in India and theJawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), its investmentsand coverage and policy implications for small towns in India. Her current areas ofinterest are urban, social and development issues. Her publications include “BigCity, Big Share” (Infochange Agenda, 2013), “How to Be Smart” (Indian Express,30 July 2014) and “Lessons in Urban Development Ignored” (The Pioneer, 5 May2015).

Rajnish Kumar is a socio-economist. He was awarded a Ph.D., in 2014 from theCentre for the Study of Regional Development, School of Social Sciences, JNU.His research interest includes urban studies and integrated resource management.During the last 15 years, he worked with national/international organisations andpublished about 10 research articles.

Mainak Mazumdar has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of Social andEconomic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru. He specialises in issues related to mea-surement of efficiency and productivity of decision-making units and appliedeconometrics. His research interests are in the following domains: growth andregional disparity, urbanisation and network economics. Mazumdar currently holdsa faculty position at the Indian Institute of Technology Jodhpur. Previously, he wasa post-doctoral fellow at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi.

Diya Mehra is a cultural anthropologist by training and is currently AssistantProfessor at the Department of Sociology at South Asian University, Delhi. Shecompleted her doctoral work at The University of Texas, Austin in 2011, and apostdoctoral fellowship at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi in 2012.Her work has been published in different journals and edited volumes, and includesresearch on the history of Delhi’s urbanisation, marginality and exclusion inmetropolitan India, as well as the politics of urban redevelopment following eco-nomic liberalisation.

Partha Mukhopadhyay is Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Research(CPR), New Delhi. Before he joined the CPR he was with the InfrastructureDevelopment Finance Company (IDFC), where he was involved in nurturing policyand regulatory frameworks for the flow of private capital into infrastructure pro-jects. Prior to this, he was with Export-Import Bank of India, as the first Directorof their Eximius Learning Centre in Bangalore, and with the World Bank, in theTrade Policy Division in Washington. He is currently a member of several expertcommittees: the Expert Committee on ICT for Indian Railways, Government ofIndia, the Working Group on Roads, National Transport Development Policy

xxx Editors and Contributors

Committee and the International Advisory Board of LIRNEasia, Colombo.Recently, he worked with the Committee on Allocation of Natural Resources andthe Committee for Consultations on the Situation in Andhra Pradesh. He has taughtat the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Xavier Labour RelationsInstitute, Jamshedpur and the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi. Hiscurrent research interests are the development paths of India and China and urbandevelopment and infrastructure. He has a Ph.D. in economics from New YorkUniversity and an M.A. and M.Phil. from the Delhi School of Economics.

Manoj Nadkarni is an environmental consultant with a background in the lifesciences and journalism, and a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science. He has workedon a range of sustainable biological resource uses and urban development issues,including western and Asian traditional management practices. His focus has beenon water, forestry, biodiversity management, and ecotourism. He has also workedon the development of educational material, outreach and constituency building forenvironmental activism and advocacy. Most recently, he was with an intergov-ernmental organisation where he was working on global programmes to developtrade in non-timber forest products to support the livelihoods of forest-dependentcommunities.

Kanhu Charan Pradhan is a research associate at the Centre for Policy Research(CPR), Delhi. He is part of the urbanisation team at CPR and his research interestsinclude development economics, urban development and governance in India andmigration. He has a master’s degree in economics from the Centre for EconomicStudies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Mythri Prasad-Aleyamma has a Ph.D. from the Centre for Development Studies,Thiruvananthapuram. Her research interests primarily revolve around migration andurban transformation in contemporary India. Her doctoral work traces the differenttypes of recruitment of migrants and local Malayali workers that reflect politicalcontests and settlements between trade unions, corporate construction companiesand recruitment agencies. She has worked as a researcher at the French Institute ofPondicherry in the SUBURBIN project (2011–2013). Among her publications aretwo book chapters: “A Market Place for Migrants: Mobility, Settlement and SocialProtection in Kerala” (Palgrave Macmillan); “Caste, Ethnicity and Migration:Linking Recruitment and Labour Process” (Routledge, India) and articles inAntipode and Economic and Political Weekly.

Milap Punia is Professor of Geography at the Centre for the Study of RegionalDevelopment, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi,India. He did his post-doctoral research work on urban studies from the School ofForestry and Environment Studies, Yale University, USA. He worked with thePhotogrammetry and Remote Sensing Division, Indian Institute of RemoteSensing-NRSC-ISRO from 2002 to 2006, and as an adjunct lecturer at the Centrefor Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific (affiliated tothe UN), Dehradun, India, from 2002 to 2006. He was assistant professor at the

Editors and Contributors xxxi

Higher Education Directorate, Government of Rajasthan, from 1998 to 2002. Hisareas of research include spatial data analysis for urban planning and regionaldevelopment; spatial aspects of governance and bridging the research gap betweensocial sciences and remote sensing disciplines. He has published about 45 researchpapers in reputed national and international journals and edited books.

Bhuvaneswari Raman is Associate Professor and Assistant Director, Centre forthe Study of Science, Society and Sustainability, O.P. Jindal Global University,Delhi National Capital Region. Bhuvaneswari is trained in architecture, urbanplanning and the social sciences. She was educated at the School of Planning andArchitecture in Chennai, the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok and theLondon School of Economics in the UK. She completed her doctoral degree inurban social policy at the London School of Economics, UK. Her research interestsare transformation of urban land, urban politics, economic geography and urbanpoverty. She has held research positions at the London School of Economics, UKand has consulted for academic institutions, including the University ofAmsterdam, Netherlands, and the University of Birmingham, UK, as well asinternational development agencies including the World Bank and UNESCO. Shehas experience with implementing urban poverty alleviation programmes havingworked as a sector head for the habitat component of the Bangalore Urban PovertyAlleviation Programme. Currently, she is conducting research on the transformationof land in small towns and large urbanising villages in south India and the role ofnew technologies in spatial governance.

Gopa Samanta is Professor of Geography at the University of Burdwan, India.Her research and teaching interests are urban, gender and mobility studies. She hasworked with a number of research projects, funded by both national and interna-tional agencies, on different issues of gender and poverty and governance and basicservices of/in small cities in India with interdisciplinary methodologies and col-laborative research teams. Her co-authored book, Dancing with the River: Peopleand Life on the Chars of South Asia, has been published by Yale University Press.She also writes in popular Bengali language magazines and newspapers to reach awider social community.

Ajay Sharma is an Assistant Professor at the Indian Institute of ManagementIndore (IIMI), Madhya Pradesh. His research interests include labour economics,urban and regional economics, development and public policy. His current workfocuses on labour mobility—commuting and migration, the spatial nature of eco-nomic development, and urbanisation in the Indian context. Apart from this, he isinterested in the strategic and theoretical aspects of capital mobility, and the role ofstate and political competition in that context. He is currently involved in the“Strengthen and Harmonize Research and Action on Migration in the IndianContext (SHRAMIC)”, an initiative focusing on migrant workers, supported by SirDorabji Tata Trust and the Allied Trusts. He has an M.A. in economics from theGokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune, and an M.Phil. in developmentstudies from IGIDR.

xxxii Editors and Contributors

Laxman Singh was awarded a Ph.D., in 2016 from the Centre for the Study ofRegional Development, School of Social Sciences, JNU. His research interestincludes socio-ecological water sustainability, urban growth monitoring & model-ing and remote sensing and geographical information systems.

N. Sridharan is Professor, Department of Regional Planning, School of Planningand Architecture, New Delhi. He has an M.A. in economics, another master’sdegree in urban and regional planning, a Ph.D. in urban land markets fromAustralia, in addition to other qualifications. He has been working in the fields ofmulti-dimensional urban poverty, urban governance, small and medium towns, andurban and regional planning. He has been associated with many national andinternational research projects in India and abroad. He has over 33 years ofexperience in the field of urban and regional planning and has worked with anumber of organisations before taking up his current position. He has publishedwidely in national and international journals. He is a member of the Government ofIndia and other states’ National RURBAN Mission technical committees.

Aditi Surie holds a master’s degree in sociology and is currently working at theIndian Institute for Human Settlements. She has been conducting qualitative andmixed methods research for academic, policy and development projects at the DelhiSchool of Economics (2011), the Centre de Sciences Humaines (New Delhi) andthe International Center for Research on Women (Delhi). Her research interestsinclude the informal economy, employment, entrepreneurship, technology, gender,governance and urban scale.

Elfie Swerts has a Ph.D. in geography from the University of Paris I, PanthéonSorbonne. She wrote her thesis under the direction of Denise Pumain and EricDenis at the Laboratory of Geography-Cities (CNRS). She received a “CIFRE—Industrial Agreement for Research Training” fellowship from Veolia EnvironmentRecherche et Innovation under the responsibility of Michel Morvan. She is cur-rently a postdoctoral researcher with the ERC GeoDiverCity project (EuropeanResearch Council advanced grant), headed by Denise Pumain. Her research focuseson the dynamics of cities in China and India and the systems they form, and relieson demographic and economic databases, harmonised in time and space.

Yann Philippe Tastevin is an anthropologist and research fellow at the NationalCentre for Scientific Research (CNRS), France. He was a post-doctoral researcherwith the MuCEM and the Norbert Elias Center in Marseille (CNRS, EHESS,France). He holds a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Paris OuestNanterre (2012). Following his Ph.D., Yann Phillipe conducted several fieldworkson three main research topics: urbanisation and mobility in Egypt, transnationalroutes of trade between India and Africa and the innovation process/or innovationprocesses and south-south circulations of technology.

Editors and Contributors xxxiii

Pierre-Yves Trouillet is a geographer and research fellow at the National Centrefor Scientific Research (CNRS), France and statutory member of the Centre forSouth Asian Studies (CEIAS, Paris). With the intention of developing a geographyof Hinduism, his work focuses on the relationships between religion, space andsociety in India and the “Hindu diaspora” countries.

xxxiv Editors and Contributors

Acronyms and Guide to Numeral Conversion

1 lakh 100,0001 crore 10 million74th CAA 74th Constitutional Amendment ActACA Additional Central AssistanceADDA Asansol Durgapur Development AuthorityAMRUT Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban TransformationASI Annual Survey of IndustriesAUWSP Accelerated Urban Water Supply ProgrammeBSUP Basic Services to the Urban PoorCAG Comptroller and Auditor GeneralCCI Cabinet Committee on InfrastructureCSMC Central Sanctioning and Monitoring CommitteeCT Census TownsDIC District Industrial CentreEXIM policy Export Import PolicyGoI Government of IndiaIBEF India Brand Equity FoundationIDSMT Integrated Development of Small and Medium TownsIHSDP Integrated Housing and Slum Development ProgramIUDP Integrated Urban Development ProgrammeJNNURM Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal MissionKIADB Karnataka Industrial Area Development AuthorityMLA Member of Legislative AssemblyMoA Memorandum of AgreementMoHUPA Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty AlleviationMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMoUD Ministry of Urban DevelopmentMP Member of ParliamentMSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises departmentNEG New Economic Geography

xxxv

NeGP National e-Governance PlanNRI Non-Resident IndianNSDP National Slum Development ProgrammeOG OutgrowthPHED Public Health Engineering DepartmentRGI Registrar General of IndiaSA Settlement AgglomerationSEZ Special Economic ZoneSPV Special Purpose VehicleST Statutory TownsUA Urban AgglomerationUIDSSMT Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium

TownsUIG Urban Infrastructure and GovernanceULB Urban Local BodyUNFPA United Nations Population FundUSD United States DollarVAMBAY Valmiki Ambedkar Awas YojanaVAT Value Added Tax

xxxvi Acronyms and Guide to Numeral Conversion