Some years ago, Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, while admiring India’s economic success made a very telling comment, when he said that he would like to see entre-preneurs from SAARC nations setting up India’s next generation of unicorns. Giving his own example as an immigrant who succeeded in the United States, he highlighted that a quintessential feature of great societies is their ability to attract the best talent.
I have often found myself thinking over his quote and have realised over the years that what he has said is historically true. The economic and social growth of human civilisation has always been centred around cities, and in this context, great cities such as Athens, Florence, Boston, Rome, London, Madurai, Delhi, Mumbai, Istanbul have been the epicentres of culture and economy of their respective societies. This was primarily possible because these cities served as magnets of the finest talent from all across, and in the process emerged as a cauldron where human creativity and genius could thrive. In short, these cities became the centres of human civilisation.
No country or society has progressed without taking rapid strides towards urbanisation, which, in turn, has depended heavily on migration. The influx of people into cities not only boosts their population but also infuses them with diverse skills, perspectives, and creativity. This combination transforms cities into vibrant hubs of economic growth and innovation. A point that needs to be underscored here is that there is a direct correlation between migration and urbanisation, with the former providing the critical mass needed to turn cities into dynamic engines of development, driving both social and economic progress. If this was true of the ancient era, this is also true of the modern world. Bengaluru, for example, has played a pivotal role in our limited success. None of us are originally from Bengaluru, but we have benefitted from the city’s innate dynamism, innovative milieu and its famed entrepreneurial zeitgeist. My sentiments for Bengaluru are the same as those of poet Walt Whitman’s for New York: “There is no place… with an atom of its glory, pride and exultancy.”
It is interesting to look at the numbers for urbanisation and migration in India. There isn’t actually a clear official number of the present urban population in India because the last Census took place more than 12 years ago, and the yardstick back then was rather anachronistic. According to that definition (in use since 1961!) an area is regarded as urban when it has at least 5,000 inhabitants, population density of more than 400 persons per square km and has three fourth of the male population in non-farm work, was devised more than 60 years ago. This pegged the urban population in 2011 at 33% of total. It remains to be seen whether this standard is revised, but I would reckon that India’s urban population at present could be closer to 60%. Despite this, it is believed that Indian urbanisation hasn’t progressed at the clip which is necessary for a faster progress towards a developed nation status.
The answer lies in the migration numbers. The most significant factor contributing to the expansion of urban populations is migration. While Indians are indeed moving in greater numbers, the movement is still largely confined to regional or mofussil migration—shifts within the same state or nearby districts, often from smaller towns and rural areas to larger urban centres. Inter-state movement is infrequent and here marriage remains the dominant reason for change in residence. The resulting urbanisation, therefore, lacks the full dynamism that broader migration across states can bring.One possible reason is the existence of liveability challenges in our cities which deter a lot of people from shifting from their native lands. Moreover, those who are compelled to move (which are mostly men) aspire to return to their homelands at a suitable time, rather than trying to make the place they are living in into their new homes. Less than 10% of India’s internal migration is between different states, as most people “migrate” from villages to cities within their own state.
I realise that I am not the first one to talk about the need to improve the liveability of Indian cities. Governments are conscious of it and this reflects in their ambitious plans for infrastructure upgradation. Through various urban renewal missions, successive governments have shown their commitment to build world class cities in India as well as to build new ones. While there are challenges, the results are gradually showing. It is estimated that by 2035, three-fourths of India’s population would be urban. That is a very promising number for our nation and is in sync with our target of being a developed nation by 2047. Great cities with skilled and diverse populations would indeed be the foundation of Viksit Bharat.
I am writing this on the eve of Independence Day and my mind goes back to the genius of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, who during Constituent Assembly debates strongly opposed the idea of giving autonomous administrative status to India’s villages. The idea, which was rejected, as argued by Dr. Ambedkar was to the detriment of India’s oppressed who needed the opportunities and anonymity that only a city can provide in order to break from the feudal shackles. He wanted more and more people to migrate to cities, and to contribute towards the nation’s progress and economic betterment. His vision remains relevant.
The author is Group CEO, Swiggy. Views are personal