See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340977330

Migration, Citizenship and Indian Society: A Policy Perspective

Conference Paper · April 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 425

1 author:

R. B. Bhagat
International Institute for Population Sciences
181 PUBLICATIONS   1,482 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ph.D. dissertation View project

Urbanisation and access to basic amenities View project

All content following this page was uploaded by R. B. Bhagat on 28 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Citation: Bhagat, R.B. (2018) ‘Migration, Citizenship and Indian Society: A Policy Perspective’, Invited Paper
presented in the International Conference on ‘The Migrant and the State: from colonialism to neoliberalism, TISS
Centre, Nov 20- Dec 1, 2018, Patna.

Migration, Citizenship and Indian Society: A Policy Perspective

R. B. Bhagat
Professor and Head
Department of Migration and Urban Studies
International Institute for population Sciences
Mumbai-400088
E-mail: rbbhagat@iips.net 

Abstract: Migration has been a historical process shaping citizenship, social structure like caste and class
relations, patriarchy and family. Globally, colonialism promoted slave trade and indentured labour followed
by immigration to the western world. In the context of India, the migration and mobility has been
institutionally denied to the lower castes, and the freedom of the women’s movement has been curtailed
shaping gender relations. On the other hand, there is a dearth of studies debating the ideas of citizenship in
relation to internal migrants particularly those of seasonal and temporary nature who lose their equal status,
face discrimination and miss their civic rights and entitlements.
The study presents the relationship between migration, social structure and citizenship rights in India and
highlights the framework of vulnerability and protection in addressing migration policy issues.

Introduction:

Migration has been a historical process shaping citizenship, social structure, patriarchy and family.
It is a spatial process of change in residence leading to the change in social milieu and social
relationship. While some migrants are able to assimilate and integrate in the society at the
destination, others are excluded and denied the privileges and entitlements directly or indirectly.
There is also a need to take into account different forms of migration such as internal and
international, permanent/semi-permanent and seasonal/temporary migration while studying the
relationship between migration and migrants’ right. In respect with internal migration nativism
plays a crucial role in the exclusion of opportunities and entitlements either through practice or

1 
 
institutional mechanisms, while for international migration the idea of citizenship is crucial in
determining the rights, entitlements and the access of privileges. Citizenship is defined as a legal
relationship between the individual and the sovereign state within a defined territory (Lem 2013).
It is worthwhile to mention that the idea of citizenship reemerged with the appearance of nation-
states during the 18th century in Europe. In several parts of the world including India making of
the nation-state co-exists with the extant idea of nativism which affects the rights of internal
migrants. According to Myron Weiner (1978) ‘nativism is that form of ethnic identity that seeks to
exclude those who are not members of the local or indigenous ethnic groups from residing
or/working in a territory because they are not native to the country or region: nativism is anti-
migrant’. However, it is worthwhile to mention that both the ideology of nation-state and the idea
of nativism distinguish between those who are insiders and outsiders. As migrants are treated as
outsiders, migration forms the political core in defining the boundaries of citizenship (Baubock
2006). While the denial of the privileges, entitlement and rights constitute a legal issue in respect
with international migrants based on citizenship, the denial of the same for internal migrants, in
spite of satisfying the conditions of citizenship, is influenced by their several socio-economic and
political conditions. In other words, socio-economic and political vulnerability constitutes a key
factor in accessing the citizenship rights for internal migrants.

In the post Second World War period borders were neatly drawn and citizenship is legally
defined. Passport emerged as a key marker of citizenship identity and many countries formulated
immigration policies and Acts that introduced visa regimes. As a result, the problem of refugees,
statelessness and illegal migration which was unknown earlier came into the existence in the
international context. More recently after 1990s with increasing globalization driven by
neoliberalism benefitted national elites to take the advantages of transnational citizenship, dual
citizenship, overseas citizenship and diaspora, at the same time the problem of refugees,
statelessness and illegal migration continued unabated. On the other hand, with regard to internal
migrants, an array of civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights is denied particularly
among the seasonal and temporary migrants, forced migrants and displaced persons in many
countries including India (UNDP 2009; UNESCO 2013). In India, although Constitution
guarantees Right to Move as a Fundamental Right under Article 19, even then some categories of
internal migrants continue to be victims of nativism based on the sentiments of the ‘sons of the

2 
 
soil’. The denial of the entitlements of food grain through PDS, housing and many other social
security programmes is very evident. Further, different states of India formulated variegated
domicile policies to restrict the movement of many aspiring migrants to access admission in
medical, technical and professional courses.
The study presents the relationship between internal migration, citizenship and social
structure of India under the framework of vulnerability of migrants and protection of their rights
in addressing migration policy issues.

Migration and Citizenship:

It is curious to know how and when did we transform the concept of human beings to the concept
of citizens, and how and when did we transform the concept of people into populations? (Bilgrami
2018). This transition from people to population is crucially linked to subjects being transformed
to citizens with the appearance of nation-state in human history during the 18th century. In this
process, the number became important tool not only to count population but also to regulate,
control and discipline citizens what was termed as bio-politics by Foucault (Foucault 1978). As
the nation-state has been an ethno-political entity believed to be socially bounded and
geographically delimited, migration and mobility may pose serious challenges to the idea of
citizenship rooted in the nation-state (Castles and Davidson 2000). Thus, people moving across
national borders (international migration) and those moving within a nation (internal migration)
may face different challenges and enter into different relationship with the state. The relationship
between the state and migrants also differs for the elite migrants compared to those who come
from lower socio-economic stratum. In addition, there are large number refuges and also a growing
number of stateless population. As such the relationship between nation, migration and citizenship
is neither linearly related nor has a single form. In the age of globalization, whereas transnational
citizens hold multiple passports and enjoy the benefits of both the nations of origin and destination
(Siaplay 2014), the same privilege and rights are denied to many internal migrants who have lived
and worked for decades within the national territory. Paradoxically, while it seems that our familiar
way of looking citizenship and rights is anachronistic as we find that the transnationalism
promoting the disarticulation of citizenship with a nation co-exists with strident nationalism
(Gutiérrez and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2008). Thus we find that citizenship acts have been used to
defend the national borders and national identity through immigration control in many countries.

3 
 
In India also the basic idea of citizenship continues to be debated more so in the context of
immigration, irregular migration and refugees (Roy 2010; Jayal 2019), while 449 million internal
migrants comprising of 37 per cent of India’s population in 2011 also face challenges of losing
their equal status, face discrimination and miss their civic, political rights and entitlements. About
42 per cent of the internal migrants (193 million) are part of the India’s working class.

A distinction between formal and substantive citizenship is very pertinent to understand

the relationship between internal migration and citizenship in India. While formal citizenship
refers to being the member of the nation-state, the substantive citizenship connotes an array of
civil, political, social, cultural and economic rights people possess and exercise (Holston and
Appadurai 1996). In respect with poor migrants who have membership of the state but are deprived
of access to various rights, the non-fulfilment of substantive citizenship turns their formal
citizenship (e.g. right to vote) ineffective. In other cases, many migrants with formal citizenship
are unable to vote either due to non-inclusion of their names in the voter list at the place of
destination or unable to reach the place of origin at the time of election. However, it is indeed a
puzzle as to why some migrants have succeeded in entering accumulative pathways while others
have been excluded. Those migrants who are successful and achievers, their substantive
citizenship rights do get fulfilled without access to the formal citizenship in many cases. Scholars
have argued that the fulfillment of substantive citizenship rights is not contingent on the formal
citizenship (Holston and Appadurai 1996).

We live in an era of increasing migration and mobility. Along with movement of people,
the movement of goods, services, capital, technology, culture, ideas are the significant components
of economic development shaped by globalization and neo-liberal policies. Internationally, there
were 243 million people immigrant in 2015 (UN 2015). On the other hand, according to UNDP
internal migrants was 740 million - four times higher than international migrants in 2009 (UNDP
2009). Thus, migration is too important to be ignored in any studies dealing with human subjects.
However, within social sciences the study of migration is much debated for its impact on
development while its relationship with state, citizenship, vulnerabilities and access to socio-
economic and political rights arising out of dislocation is confined to the scholarship of the
respective disciplinary boundaries. However, in the international context, the irregular migration

4 
 
(illegal migration) is viewed as a growing challenge to the existence of nation-state. Notably
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 by the United Nations does not recognize right to
immigrate, while recognizing the right to emigrate and return to his own country as a human right.
On the other hand, many nations allow right to migrate internally fully or partially as a fundamental
right of the citizen, but the sons of the soil politics in several countries including India curtails the
movement of migrants through fear, intimidation and violence perpetrated against them (Weiner
1978; Fearon and Laitin 2011).

As migrants are pitted against the so called natives, it gets vitiated due to vote bank politics
based on sheer numbers. The size and growth of population among various ethnic and social groups
fuelled by migration forms the part of political undercurrents and is viewed as a threat to the native
ethnic communities. The differential access to resources, education and jobs further exacerbates
inter-ethnic claims and counter claims bringing migration at the centre stage of politics. However,
migrants cannot be treated as a homogeneous group, but differ according to the typology and their
socio-economic origin and face differential challenges at the place of destination. According to
Census of India 2011 and National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) 2007-08 three out of ten
Indians can be classified as internal migrants who have moved across district or state boundaries.
The major reasons for migration have been work/employment, business, education, marriage,
moved at birth, and moved with family/household.

Scholars argue that government data tends to underestimate the flows of seasonal/circular
migration, a stream dominated by people belonging to socio-economically deprived groups like
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes with an extremely low asset base and poor educational
attainment and skill (Deshingkar and Farrington 2009). It is this floating segment of the migrant
population, mostly comprising people working seasonally in brick kilns, construction, plantations,
mines and factories that is most vulnerable to exploitation by labour contractors and faces
relatively greater hurdles in participating in elections and politics and accessing welfare rights.
The studies show that the annual rate of seasonal and temporary migration is seven times higher
than permanent and semi-permanent migration in India (Keshri and Bhagat 2013). In both the
categories of migration, there are also huge variations by age, gender, educational level,
occupational status, skills, earnings as well as linguistic and cultural background of internal

5 
 
migrants. As a result, they experience different levels of vulnerability and exclusions. Migrants
belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, people with poor skills and education, and many
driven by distress are hugely vulnerable and suffer from deprivations and exploitation in the places
they migrate (UNESCO 2013). The section below presents the relationship between India’s social
structure and migration.

Social Structure and Migration:

As citizenship intersects with status, rights and identity, the existing social inequality and the
increasing economic inequality shapes the nature of citizenship (Jayal 2019). As such citizenship
is not a fixed and immutable category and its experiences and implications vary according to one’s
location in the social structure. Similarly, migration is also not a singular and monolithic
phenomenon, and much depends upon forms of migration such as permanent/semi-permanent and
seasonal and temporary migration, voluntary vs forced migration etc. It is also a freedom
enhancing and bondage creating depending upon the forms of migration such as voluntary vs
forced migration. Thus, there is no linear relationship between migration, social mobility and
citizenship.

Migration studies are replete with economic models and perspectives because its origin is
traced to the industrial revolution of the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps the first
comprehensive work by Ravenstein known as ‘Laws of migration’ appeared in 1885 (Ravenstein
1985). However, the political dimension of migration became obvious only after the Second World
War and United Nations created aftermath was aware of this. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights by United Nations (UN) in 1948 and the convention relating to the status of Refugees
adopted by UN in 1951 are the landmarks in the history of the protection of citizenship rights.
During this time, we also see migration studies tilted in favour of international migration, although
Ravenstein laws of migration originated in the study of internal migration in the United Kingdom
and later extended to West European countries. There are many migration theories propounded
since then. Some theories even perpetuated a negative view about rural to urban migration (Todaro
1969; Harris and Todaro 1970). However, since the 1980s, internal migration gaining momentum
and its link with development has been reconceptualised in the light of theories based on ‘New

6 
 
Economics of Migration’ (Stark and Bloom 1985), but the issues related to the political dimension
of internal migration, citizenship rights, vulnerabilities, deprivations, exploitation and violence
have received far less attention even though accentuated during the strident neo-liberal political
regimes since the 1990s.

Migration has been looked upon so much as a part of the economic process that its
contribution in shaping social structure, culture and history is overshadowed. As a result,
economic reasons of migration grounded in economic theories pervade migration studies
compared to its relationship to social theories. In more recent times, non-economic reasons like
marriage, education, getting rid of violence and conflict in search of security and safety are
important reasons of migration. Political prosecution and forced migration are part of the non-
economic factors turning many people into refugees and internally displaced persons. Thus
migration covers a vast swathe of areas which could be kept under the rubric of non-economic
domain of migration.

In pre-colonial times, the reasons for the migration of populations were mainly for religious
and trade purposes (McNeill, 1984). Migration, on account of military movements, also played an
important role. People also travelled in search of pastures with their cattle. Nomadic migration,
even for short distances, was an important feature outside the Gangetic valley. This practice is still
found in some parts of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh located in central India and is one of the
earliest forms of circulation in the history of human migration (Hutton, 1986).

When the British came to India, the old feudal order was breaking up. The fall of the
Moghul Empire produced political chaos and disorder in many parts of India. But even so, India
in the eighteenth century was a great manufacturing as well as a great agricultural country, and
Indian hand-looms were supplying the markets of Asia and Europe. However, in the face of
machine-made garments produced in the mills of Lancashire and Manchester in Britain, the Indian
fabric (both silk and cotton) and allied industries (carding, dying and printing) could not survive.
As a consequence, India experienced deindustrialization and a large number of the artisan class
and their dependent families migrated to the countryside. Thus, India during the second half of the
eighteenth century to the first half of the nineteenth century experienced urban to rural migration

7 
 
unlike many European countries that underwent massive rural to urban migration during the same
time. As a result, cities and towns declined and languished and people became more dependent on
agriculture (Nehru, 1965). The economic hardship and economic disturbances were other
important reasons for the migration of people in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.
However, there are indications that mobility from the countryside to town was limited through the
operation of guild or guild-like restrictions on employment in urban trades. Furthermore, the
structure of production and consumption patterns that guided urban output placed a major barrier
to the growth of a rural-urban migratory process on account of the limited access to unskilled and
casual labourers (Commander, 1989).

Kingsley Davis (1951) in his pioneer work on India argued that Indians were less mobile.
This conclusion was based on inter-provincial/state migration which stood at 3.6 per cent in 1931
in India compared to 23 per cent in the United States in 1940. Davis attributed this fact to the
prevalence of the caste system, joint families, traditional values, the diversity of language and
culture, the lack of education and the predominance of agriculture and semi-feudal land relations
in India. However, the fact remains that Indian migration is predominantly a ‘within state’
phenomenon (Bhagat, 2010). According to the 2011 Census inter-state migration was only about
12 per cent (54 million) of total internal migrants in India compared to 88 percent within state
migration (449 million). Similarly, within state also migration takes place predominantly within
the district (60 per cent). Thus, taking into account the entire mobility including within and
between state migrations, the mobility of Indian population stands to 37 per cent in 2011 –much
higher than what Davis believed. It is also remarkable to see that the internally mobile population
increased rapidly from about 30 percent in 2001 to 37 percent in 2011. As migration is
predominantly a within state phenomenon with majority of migrants moving within the district
shows a short distance mobility of Indian people. This is important from policy and programme
point of view as India is a federal country wherein social security entitlements and protection of
rights are a state subject.

India’s social organization is known for the institution of caste- a hierarchical arrangement
of social groups where status is determined by birth. Each social group also lived in a spatially
demarcated area also identified with the level of purity and pollution. The lowest rung of the caste

8 
 
hierarchy are the Shudras (also known as untouchables now called as scheduled castes) always
occupied the outskirts of villages as they were considered to be polluted. In fact, historically they
have been the agrarian working class in the villages who tilled the land which they did not own.
The traditional system of procuring agricultural labour tied to land and land owners has been the
dominant practice Indian social system in the past. The system of caste relations which was both
social and spatial was known as Jajmani System (patron-client relationship) which kept the
agrarian labouring classes immobile. On the other hand, the privilege of mobility was confined to
the Brahmins (priestly castes) and Vaishyas (trading castes) principally who moved to provide
priestly services and the trade of goods respectively. The traditional Jajmani system has been
giving way as urbanization unfolded the opportunity of salaried jobs and wage labour in cities and
towns (Dube 1990). Dr B. R. Ambedkar was highly critical of the village system of economic and
social relations which kept Dalits under subjugation and bondage for centuries. He declared,
“I hold that these village republics have been the ruination of India…What is the village but
a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?” (Moon
994:62).

Urbanization provided an immense scope for the scheduled castes people to migrate into
the cities and free themselves from the yoke of caste system. While Dr B.R Ambedkar believed in
the emancipatory role of migration to cities for the dalits, Kashiram felt that dalits whether
migrated from villages or not, caste always remained with them (Narayan 2014). However, Joseph
(2007) argues that city offers a space for the development of separate identity and also a space of
liberation compared to the constricting village system. Although dalits generally live in slums in
urban areas, it is still different from villages as urban way of life based on secondary relations and
heterogeneity offers avenues of freedom and mobility.

It would be interesting to know how propensity to migrate varies by social groups. Broadly
two types of migration could be identified namely permanent and semi-permanent which is
identified based on change of usual place of residence. This category is also generally considered
as typical migration in migration studies. There is another type of migration which is of seasonal
and temporary nature and the migrant is not expected to change the usual place of residence. NSSO
(2010) defines a seasonal or temporary migrant as “a household member who has stayed away

9 
 
from the village/town for a period of one month or more but less than six months during the last
365 days for employment or in search of employment. This is also called short term migration- a
dominant form of migration from rural areas.

Table 1: Migration Rates by Types of Migration and Social Groups in India (per 100
population)

Seasonal and Temporary Labor Migration

Permanent/Semi-permanent
(15-64)
Social Group ( Based on change of residence)
(No change of residence)
Rural Urban Rural Urban
Scheduled Tribes 23.8 36.5 49.0 6.5
Scheduled Caste 26.0 33.7 29.9 6.7
Other Backward Classes 25.5 33.1 23.9 6.5
Others 28.1 37.9 18.0 4.3
Total 26.1 35.4 26.4 5.5
Source: 64th National Sample Survey 2007-08, unit level data.

Table 1 shows that permanent and semi-permanent migration does not vary much across social
groups but seasonal and temporary labour migration is higher among the Scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes- the socially disadvantaged groups. Seasonal and temporary migration largely
occurs in the rural to urban migration stream. Further, studies show that the annual rate of seasonal
and temporary migration is seven times higher than permanent and semi-permanent migration
(Keshri and Bhagat, 2013). Studies also point out that seasonal and temporary migration is a
livelihood strategy among rural households (Deshingkar and Farrington, 2009; de Haan, 2011;
Keshri and Bhagat, 2012). The largest proportion (about 36%) of seasonal and temporary migrants
is employed in the construction industry followed by agriculture (20%) and manufacturing (about
16%). There is a dearth of data on the actual magnitude of seasonal and temporary migration and
estimates vary from about 13 million, based on the NSSO, to 100 million evaluated by individual
researchers (Keshri and Bhagat, 2013; Deshingkar and Akter, 2009). The Planning Commission
suggested that there is a need to undertake state-centric surveys to capture the flow and pattern of
migration to the various sectors, particularly the construction sector (Planning Commission 2013:
363). Srivastava (2012) opines that seasonal and temporary migration has been increasing in recent
times. However, seasonal and temporary migration among females is about 6 times smaller than
male migration, whereas it 5 times higher than male in the category of permanent/semi-permanent

10 
 
migration (NSSO 2010). This is because female migration is predominantly results due to marriage
migration and shaped by gender and patriarchy.

Patriarchy, Gender and Migration:

Historically migration also intersects with gender and patriarchy. The age old system of marriage
migration for women who leave parent’s house and join husband’s house in most of the parts of
India, has been an important element of the architecture of patriarchy. This practice led women to
have been separated from family and kins and transferred to an unknown social set up subjugating
their agency and voice. In the later stages of life women’s movement follow husband’s movement
or move with household. This further reinforces patriarchy which premised on the division of work
such as productive work assigned to men and unproductive work of home making and child rearing
to women. Lack of inheritance and access to property and invisibility of women in the lineage tree
are other features in most of the patriarchal society, and India is no exception to it. In such system
voluntary movement of women is controlled and they are made dependent on men for every
decision and act. Apparently this reflects in sex selective migration of men as they are
breadwinners across many societies. On the other hand, women’s migration results predominantly
due to marriage and the movement of family. However, in India, gender relations are also
buttressed not only by patriarchy but also by the institution of caste and religion through various
boundaries of endogamy and gender role practices. Thus in majority of cases mobility of women
is controlled and carefully planned within this system either through the normative structure such
as patrilocal residence or in the name of safety and security of women. In more patriarchal society
of north and north-west India, village exogamy is also practiced combined with the practice of
child and early marriages which subjected them to sub-ordination and exploitation. Purdah (veil)
system further reduces their agency and worsens the opportunity of mobility and freedom of
movement (Dyson and Moore 1983). Women were not allowed to move without a male escort,
and also their movement is contingent upon the permission of the male members- be it
father/father-in-law or husband.

But in the recent times there have been many social and economic changes such as
globalization, changes in the labour market and rising education which unleashed a growing share
of women migrating independently both internationally and internally. Notwithstanding it

11 
 
continues to remain very low. In consistent with patriarchal values, Table 2 shows that
employment appeared as the main reason for males to migrate, whereas marriage is the main driver
of female migration in urban India. It shows that women’s agency as measured through
independent movement on account of employment is seriously limited in Indian situation. Table 2
also shows less than 3 per cent women migrants reported employment as a reason of migration.
This indicates that citizenship right to move is seriously curtailed in India. Further, women
migrants are generally employed in vulnerable conditions such as domestic servants as well as
construction workers. Women migrants are also found working as sales workers, beauticians, hair
dressers, call centre workers etc. Many of these jobs are not only low paid but also subjected to
high risk of exploitation including the risk of sexual exploitation (Mazumdar, Neetha and
Agnihotri and 2013). Studies also show that illiterate women have higher propensity to migrate
than illiterate men (Singh, Keshri and Bhagat 2016). Thus the emerging labour market is extremely
segmented with women migrants relegated to low skilled, less paid and less secure jobs of informal
nature.

Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Permanent/Semi-permanent Migrants

by Reasons for Migration, Urban, India

Reasons Male Female Total

Employment1 55.9 2.6 22.9
Marriage 1.4 61.2 38.4
Studies 6.8 2.2 4.0

Others 35.9 33.9 34.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Source: 64th National Sample Survey 2007-08, unit level data.
Note: 1Employment related reasons include: In search of employment, in search of better employment, business, to
take up employment/better employment, transfer of service/contract, proximity of work.

Moreover, cities have turned to be more exclusionary through violence against women during last
few years. This has implications for the movement of women in the cities and consequently their
participation in the work. It is to be noted that mobility and migration is an important instrument
for the realization of citizenship rights which is seriously compromised in respect with women
(Bhagat 2017). Intrinsically, migration and mobility could erode patriarchy and attendant social
norms and practices, but paradoxically economic opportunities of migration are very limited for
women. On the other hand, rising dowry, violence against women, son preference and female

12 
 
feticide continue to be unabated reinforcing patriarchy even with rising urbanization and
development.

Migration, Ethnic Conflict and Violation of Rights:

Migration not only shapes social structure, gender relations and patriarchy, but is also an
instrument of spatial transformation. It affects both places of origin and places of destinations. At
destination migrants come in contact with other ethnic and religious groups. Sometimes both
migrant and host communities are integrated but more often they are at loggerheads. In spite of
migrant’s contribution, exclusions and conflicts are more evident in bigger urban centres.
Although migration in general and rural to urban migration in particular is conducive for economic
and urban transition, there are many challenges confronting migrants in urban areas. A negative
attitude towards migration persists, and there exists a strong hostility towards migrants. The
conflict between natives and migrants has been a core issue since the 1970s. In one of his early
writings, Myron Weiner (1978) surveyed the nature of migration and the emergence of the
ideology of the sons of soil leading to ethnic conflict in different parts India. He presented three
types of conflict in three distinct regions, namely Assam, Chotanagpur and Hyderabad. In Assam,
the reason for conflict was the success of migrants while the natives failed; in Chotanagpur, the
cause was unique where tribal members encountered migrants which led to their subjugation and
displacement; and in Hyderabad, the basis of conflict was the effort to protect the middle-class
mulki (natives) from the competing migrants. In all three cases, Weiner (1978) argued that the sons
of the soil meet the challenge of outsiders by advancing themselves into elitist positions in an effort
to oust their non-indigenous competitors. This process has been accelerated rather than diminished
by economic development and modernization. In the 1980s and later, the ideology of nativism
further bolstered and spread to others areas, such as Mumbai, Goa and Meghalaya, inciting conflict
and violence against migrants (Rajan, Korra and Chyrmang, 2011). The hatred against migrants in
the case of Mumbai is more organized and intense as some political parties based on the sons of
the soil ideology articulated strongly and voiced threats to the migrants (Hansen, 2001).
Discrimination against migrants and their exclusion in India is subtler and indirect compared to
that in China where migration to cities is controlled through the institution of hukou (household
registration). Persons with rural hukou may enter a city but are excluded from regular urban welfare

13 
 
benefits and social services, such as access to local schools, urban pension plans, public housing
and other rights, that are available to people with urban hukou. Rural hukou labour now inundates
almost all low-end factory jobs and services that have turned China into a world factory. This
segment of migrants provides cheap labour to the cities and is easily exploited. They are not only
vulnerable but also excluded from welfare services, urban citizenship and entitlements (Chan,
2012).
In India, all migrants are not equally vulnerable. Migrants engaged in technical,
professional and managerial jobs are less vulnerable compared to migrants in informal sector. The
former category generally belongs to permanent and semi-permanent migration category with
higher education and skills who can withstand the challenges and succeed in becoming members
of the urban citizenship. On the other hand, migrants belonging seasonal, temporary and
circulatory nature mostly belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and lower class with low
education and skills are more vulnerable and subject to various kinds of exclusions and
exploitations in urban areas. These categories of migrants are excluded from social security
programmes such as public distribution of food, access to education and health care and, most
importantly, from entitlement to housing at the place of destination owing to the absence of identity
and residential proofs. Social security programmes are not portable and are place-bound. This
requires a policy intervention by the state and central governments. The implementation of
programmes falls under the purview of the state government. While this should have been done
easily in respect with intra-state migrants, an inter-state co-ordination is required in respect with
inter-state migrants. The inter-state migrants also incur hostility from the native residents who are
constantly fed with the ideology of the sons of the soil. As the attitude toward migrants are negative
and migrants are believed to be snatching the jobs of the locals, they are treated as outsiders. It is
because this reason that many programmes either by central or state governments are silent on the
problem of migrants facing in the urban areas.

Migration Policy and Migrants’ Citizenship Rights:

While international migration is controlled by immigration policies and countries may grant
citizenship to a select group of immigrants or deny them depending upon citizenship Acts of the
respective countries, for internal migrants there are direct and indirect mechanisms of controlling

14 
 
movement of people. In the international context several UN conventions and covenants mandates
the protection of migrants from human rights perspective. The Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) emphasize that no one should be left behind. In several SDG goals and targets, migration
was incorporated unlike the Millennium Development Goals earlier. SDGs also emphasize
protection of economic, social and cultural rights of migrants and their mainstreaming in the
development process.

In spite of Right to Move is a fundamental right under the Article 19 of the Indian Constitution,
the movement of people are restricted and discouraged by the hostility of the host society based
on the sentiments of sons of the soil, domicile policies denying access to housing and education,
and inner permit to visit several parts of North-east India. It is also argued by researchers that it
would be inappropriate to prevent migration as it plays a very important role in development and
fulfilling human aspirations. Preventing migration either through direct or indirect means could be
counterproductive (World Bank, 2009; UNESCO, 2013; Foresight, 2011).

From the policy point of view, it will be strategic to make a distinction between migration and
migrants. Migration is a move undertaken by a migrant. A migrant may take several moves in
his/her life time and an act of migration may violate certain legal provisions under the
circumstances beyond the control of migrants. From the policy point of view, however, it would
be prudent to focus on migrants’ citizenship and human rights. Citizenship rights are more apt for
the internal migrants as they are guaranteed civic, political, social, economic rights as a citizen of
a nation-state. An UNESCO (2013) publication highlighted that the policies and programmes
facilitating integration of internal migrants at the destinations in India remains weak at best or non-
existent and suggested ten key areas for the inclusion and protection of their rights. These are as
follows:
i) Registration and Identity - There is an urgent need to ensure that internal migrants are issued with a
universally recognized and portable proof of identity that can enable them to access social security
programmes anywhere in India.
ii) Political and Civic Inclusion - Special provisions are needed to ensure the voting rights of internal
migrants, and their inclusion in decision-making processes and urban planning.
iii) Labour Market Inclusion - Negotiate opportunities with employers including training, placement and
skill upgrade with the help of NGOs. In case of uneducated and poor migrants, create awareness about
their rights and support them.

15 
 
 iv) Legal Aid and Dispute Resolution - Internal migrants should be able to access legal aid and counselling
to protect themselves against work- and wage-related malpractices and provide grievance- and dispute-
handling mechanisms to negotiate with employers/contractors.
v) Inclusion of Women Migrant - Fill knowledge and research gaps in the gender dimension of migration.
Prevent discrimination, exploitation and trafficking of women.
vi) Inclusion through Access to Food - The public distribution system (PDS) should be made portable to
include multi-locational migrant populations.
vii) Inclusion through Housing - Provide dormitory accommodation, rental housing and
also enable private housing. In situ upgrade of slums and provide basic services.
viii) Educational Inclusion - Provide seasonal hostels at the source region to retain left behind children in
schools and also worksite schools at destination for children moving with parents.
ix) Public Health Inclusion - Avoid stigmatization of migrants as carriers of diseases and infections and
recognize women and children migrants as vulnerable to health risks. Strengthen intervention and out-
reach health services to them.
x) Financial Inclusion - Extend banking facilities to promote savings and secure transfer of remittances in
the source and destination areas.

Migration policy, however, should not only be viewed merely as part of labour policy but
needs to be embedded in the citizenship and human rights based framework. As evident, the case
of India is different in the sense that a vast number of temporary and seasonal migrants belong to
scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and poor. Social security is a very important aspect of migration
policy as approximately 90 per cent of the workforce is employed in the informal sector. Further,
the provisions of various social security programmes are place bound. Although it can be
transferred to the destination provided migrants are able to show residential proof of residing at
the place of destination along with an identity proof. In the event of short-term migration procuring
a residential proof is very difficult. Therefore, there is a need to make the social security
programmes portable to protect the entitlements of migrants. Further, poverty is a yardstick of
many policies and a large segment of migrants is indeed poor but the consideration of poverty as
the only status is not adequate. The migrant status of labourers needs to be incorporated very
explicitly because it adds to their vulnerability along with poverty and social disadvantages
associated with caste, ethnic and minority status. Socio-economically vulnerable migrants need
to be protected against exploitation, long working hours, low wages and restriction of movement
after working hours. Access to decent living conditions should also be included in migration policy
ensuring that migrants are not denied access to housing and basic services. Internal migration
should be viewed as a livelihood strategy of millions of Indian people and also for many to fulfil
their aspiration as citizens of this country. In the internal migration policy, a framework should be

16 
 
developed to minimise the negative aspects of migration and efforts should be made to harness the
potential of migration for human development.

References:

Bhagat, R. B. (2010) “Internal migration in India: Are the underprivileged migrating more”? Asia
Pacific Population Journal, 25 (1), pp. 31–49.

Bhagat, R.B. (2017) “Migration, Gender and Right to the City”, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 52, No. 32, 2017, pp. 35-40.

Bilgrami, Akeel (2018) “Gandhi, Marx and the ideal of an unalienated life”, Frontline, March 30,
2018, pp.93-101 (http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/gandhi-marx-the-ideal-of-an-unalienated-
life/article10094562.ece#test, accessed on 7th May, 2018).

Baubock, Rainer (2006) “Citizenship and migration: concepts and controversies” in Baubock,
Rainer (ed) Migration and Citizenship: Legal Status, Rights and Political Participation.
Amsterdam University Press.

Castles, Stephen and Davidson, Alastair (2000) Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the
Politics of Belonging, Routledge, New York.

Commander, S. (1989) “The mechanics of demographic and economic growth in Uttar Pradesh,
1800–1900”, In India’s Historical Demography: Studies in Famine, Disease and Society (Tim
Dyson, ed.). Curzon Press, London, pp. 49–72.

Chan, K.W. (2012) “Migration and development in China: trends, geography and current issues”
Migration and Development, 1 (2): 187–205.

Davis, K. (1951) The Population of India and Pakistan. Princeton, Princeton University Press,
New Jersey.

Deshingkar, P. and J. Farrington (2009) “A framework of understanding circular migration” in P.

Deshingkar and J. Farrington (eds) Circular Migration and Multilocational Livelihood Strategies
in Rural India, Oxford University Press, New York.

Deshingkar, P. and S. Akter (2009) Migration and Human Development in India, Human
Development, UNDP Human Development Research Paper, 2009/13; Available from:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/papers/HDRP_2009_13.pdf .

de Haan, A. (2011) Inclusive growth? Labour Migration and Poverty in India. ISS Working

17 
 
Paper No. 513, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

Dube, S.C. (1990) Indian Society, National Book Trust, New Delhi.

Dyson, T. and Moore, M. (1983) "Kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic
behaviour in India", Population and Development Review, 9 (1): 34-60.

Foucault M. (1978) Governmentality. In Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984: Power (Vol. 3),
Faubion JD (ed.) Penguin, London.

Foresight (2011) Migration and Global Environmental Change: Future Challenges and
Opportunities, Final Project Report, Government Office for Science, London.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287717/11-1116-
migration-and-global-environmental-change.pdf.

Hansen, T. B. (2001) Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.

Harris, John R., and Michael P. Todaro (1970) "Migration, unemployment and development: A
Two-Sector Analysis." American Economic Review, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp.126-42.

Holston, James and Appaduarai, Arjun (1996) “Cities and Citizenship”, Public Culture, Vol. 8,
pp.187-204.

Hutton, J.H. (1986) Census of India 1931: With Complete Survey of Tribal Life and Systems, Vol.
1, Gian Publishing House, Delhi.

Jayal, Niraja Gopal (2019) “Reconfiguring citizenship in contemporary India”, South Asia-
Journal of South Asian Studies, Vo. 42, No. 1, pp.33-50.

Joseph, M.T. (2007) “Migration and identity formation: a case study of Dalits assertion in
Aurangabad”, in L. Stanislaus and J. Joseph (eds) Migration and Mission in India, Ishvani
Kendra/ISPCK, Pune.

Keshri, K. and R.B. Bhagat, (2012) “Temporary and seasonal migration: regional patterns,
characteristics and associated factors”, Economic and Political Weekly, 47 (4): 81–88.

Keshri, K. and R.B. Bhagat (2013) “Socio-economic determinants of temporary labour migration
in India”, Asian Population Studies, 9 (2): 175–195.

Lem, Winnie (2013) “Citizenship, migration and formation of class in urban France”, Dialectical
Anthropology,37
(3/4):443-461.

Mazumdar, Indrani, N. Neetha and Indu Agnihotri (2013) “Migration and gender in India”,
Economic and Political Weekly, 48 (10): 54-64.
18 
 
McNeill, W. (1984) “Human migration in historical perspective,” Population and Development
Review, 10 (1): 1–18.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2017) Report of the Working Group on
Migration, Government of India.

Moon, V. (1994) ‘Draft Constitution – Discussion’ in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and

Speeches, Volume 13, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay.

Narayan, Badri (2014) Kashiram: Leader of the Dalits, Penguin.

Nehru, J. (1965) Glimpses of World History, Asia Publishing House, Bombay (reprinted in 1965
with 50 maps by J.F. Horrabin).

NSSO (2010) Migration in India 2007–08, Ministry of Statistics and Programme

Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi.

Planning Commission, Government of India (2013) Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017), Vol II:
Economic Sectors, Sage Publication India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Rajan, S. I, V. Korra and R. Chyrmang (2011) “Politics of conflict and migration”, in S. Irudaya
Rajan (ed.) Migration, Identity and Politics, Routledge, London, pp. 95–107.

Roy, Anupama (2010) Mapping Citizenship in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Siaplay, Mounir (2014) “Do countries that recognize dual citizenship have healthier economies?
evidence from the economic community of West African States”, Migration and Development,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 254-271.

Singh, Nishikant, Kunal Keshri and R.B.Bhagat (2016) “Gender dimensions of migration in urban
India” in S. Irudaya Rajan (ed.) India Migration
Report 2015: Gender and Migration, Routledge, New Delhi, pp. 176-190.

Srivastava, R. (2012) “Internal Migration in India: An overview of its features, trends and policy
challenges”, in National Workshop on Internal Migration and Human Development: Workshop
Compendium, Vol. 2, Workshop Papers, UNESCO and UNICEF, New Delhi, pp. 1–47.

Todaro, Michael P. (1969) “A model of labour migration and urban unemployment in less
developed countries”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 138-148.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2013) Social
Inclusion of Internal Migrants in India, UNESCO, New Delhi.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002237/223702e.pdf.

19 
 
 Weiner, M. (1978) Sons of the Soil: Migration and Ethnic Conflict in India, Princeton University
Press, Princeton.

World Bank (2009) World Development Report: Reshaping Economic Geography, The World
Bank, Washington, DC.

20 
 

View publication stats