Both urban growth and migration have to influence and stimulating effect on one other. The desire to become a part of the urban setup and to leave the dried and unambitious rural life motivate one to migrate. And when the place of destination received these migrants, their growth, and productivity increase if we look from the perspective of an ample labor supply which the host place required. So both the urban setup and migrants benefit from one another. In a way, the process of migration accelerates urban growth by shifting the population in forms of the productive labor force, educated people.
This migration leads to urbanization, social transformation, and upliftment of all masses. However one might not have a proper shelter to live in urban places unless he is financially very strong. But the urban areas have a better healthy life, hygiene, schools, hospitals, recreational activities, entertainment etc which attracts people towards it. Also, the more urban cities might work with the less urban cities and thus try to endure development by providing more facilities. Whenever the government formulates any new policy, it is the people living in urban areas who come in contact with it first.
This always keeps them updated be it the launch of any new gadget or product. And by the time they become used to it and it goes out of trend then the rural area people gain access to it. This makes the rural people always lag behind urban ones. One major reason for this is a network problem. Urban cities have great networking and management and always stay in touch with the global advancements whereas in rural areas the people seemed to be cut out of all this.
The government should provide internet facilities at low costs so that at least people become aware. In certain areas, the population is bound to follow their socio-cultural practices which makes it difficult for them to migrate. However, now the people are breaking these barriers and traditions and an upswing of migration can be seen. Due to this urban areas have a population from almost all rural villages. Especially people from places like Bihar, U.P can be seen almost in every metro city. And the aristocratic class has expressed its problem with these migrated people always because they are of the notion that they can’t match up to their standard of living.
The cases of servants being mistreated or charged with theft unnecessarily by the owners are very common. This unequal treatment rises contempt in the minds of the rural class sometimes and they go on to adopt unfair means of living.
Ravenstein says that it is usually a personal choice of the person when he decides to migrate over a long distance and not because he is forced due to certain factors. And usually, people with enough money can afford to sometimes with the aim of settling with the family members who already live there to ensure a safe future. The migrants are not from similar backgrounds and so they differ on basis of their economic strength hence an unequal distribution of masses can be seen in these urban pots.
Most of the migrated population forms a part either of manufacturing jobs or service sectors when we talk of urban employment. And depending on their social class they are placed in the hierarchy be it any job and in any city. Very rarely does it happen that someone after going to urban place returns back to his rural place? It happens only with aging or an attempt to preserve and promote their culture for the next generation.
Literature Student at Delhi University!