Draft Report

International Migration from Gujarat:

The Magnitude, Process and Impact

by

R.B.Bhagat
K.C. Das
Rajiva Prasad
T.K.Roy

International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS)

Deonar
Mumbai-400088

2014
 CONTENT

Acknowledgement ....................................... 1-2

Chapter 1: Introduction.............. .................. 3-15

Chapter 2: Sample Design and Methodology.. 16-22
Chapter 3: Household Characteristics....... 23-58
Chapter 4: Emigration: Magnitude, Patterns and
Characteristics....... 59-81
Chapter 5: Return Migration............................ 82-103
Chapter 6: In-Migration ................................ 104-115
Chapter 7: Social and Economic Consequences at
Household level................................... 116-131
Chapter 8: Social and Economic Consequences at
Community /Village level..... 132-145
Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusion.............. 146-152
References...................................................... 153-155
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The International migration from Gujarat project was successfully completed due to the
efforts and involvement of numerous organizations and individuals at different stages of the
survey. We sincerely thank everyone who was involved in the survey and made it a success.
First of all, we are grateful to the International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai for
providing necessary financial support for carrying out this project. We sincerely thank
Professor F. Ram, Director, IIPS for his generous support and interest in completing this
project.
We gratefully acknowledge the help and cooperation given by Dr. Sandhya Barge, Dr. Bella
Patel Uttekar, Mr Bhupendra Patel and Mr Mayank Patel from Centre for Operations
Research and Training (CORT), Vadodara.
We gratefully acknowledge the immense help received from the National Sample Survey
Office, Vadodara and Ahmadabad (particularly Mr. Vivek Shukla, Deputy Director,
Vadodara, Mr. J.P. Parikh, Supdting officer, Ahmadabad, and Mr. S.S. Seth) for providing
NSSO maps and required information.
We thank all the expert participants in the series of meetings/workshop to finalize the
questionnaire design, the sample design, and the tabulation plan for the survey. Special
thanks are due to Professor T.K. Roy, Professor Kamla Gupta and Professor Irudaya Rajan
and Professor Ashwani Kumar Nanda. Professor Roy was immensely helpful in finalising the
sampling design, calculation of weights and survey instruments. Professor Irudaya Rajan has
encouraged us to take up this project and provided unwavering academic and moral support.
Special thanks go to the local officials in all of the sample areas for facilitating the data
collection. Thanks are due to Mr. K.H. Patel, Chairman, NRG Committee and NRG centre,
Ahmadabad for providing important information related to non-resident Guajarati’s.
We gratefully acknowledge Ms. Vandana Gautam, Senior Research Officer and Mr. Naveen
Roy, Research officer for their valuable contribution from the beginning to the end of the
project. We also gratefully acknowledge the Administrative, Accounts, Library, and other
staff of IIPS, for their continuous cooperation during the entire project period.
This acknowledgement cannot be concluded without expressing appreciation for the hard
work put in by the interviewers, supervisors and field editors in collecting data for this
survey.

1
Last but not the least, credit goes to the respondents who spent their time and responded to
the lengthy questionnaires with tremendous patience and without any expectation from us.

R.B. Bhagat
K.C.Das
Rajiva Prasad

Coordinators, IIPS

2
 Chapter 1

Introduction

Introduction:

Globally, it is estimated that around 214 million people were international migrants
constituting about 3% of the world population. The share of international migrants in the
world’s population has remained remarkably stable at around 3% over the past 50 years,
despite factors that could have been expected to increase flows (UNDP, 2009). It is also
estimated that Overseas Indians comprise about 25 million i.e. 2% of India’s population,
spread across 189 countries. India has the world’s second largest overseas community next
only to China, but far more diverse (Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, 2010).The
Government of India has realized the importance of Indian emigrants in country’s progress
particularly their contribution to the foreign exchange reserve and investment in the country.
As a result, a new Ministry known as Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs was created in
2004.

The emigration of Indian people has a long history. A huge migration of Indian labour took
place during the colonial period to the countries like South Africa, Mauritius, Trinidad,
Tobago, Guyana, and Fiji in response to the enormous demand for cheap labour that arose
immediately after the British abolished slavery in 1833-34. Indentured system of labour,
which was a system in between the slavery and free labour, was invented and the Indian
labourers had been shipped to the colonies of Africa, South America and the Caribbean
(Davis 1951; Madhavan 1985; Sharma, 2002).

The movement of Indian emigrants to Europe, North America and Australia is largely a
phenomenon of the twentieth century. There are three main categories of people who
migrated- first were those with agricultural background; second, were the entrepreneurs,
store owners, motel owners, self-employed small businessmen who had migrated since 1965
onwards, and the third were professionals like doctors, engineers (60s onwards), software
engineers, management consultants, financial experts, media people (80s onwards), and
others (Sharma 2002). There are close to one million Indian emigrants in Canada (2.8% of
Canada’s population) and 1.7 million in US (0.6% of US population). There was also a steady
3
outflow of migration to the Gulf in the 1970s in the wake of oil boom. But, the nature of
immigration to Gulf countries is different from the migration to other developed countries as
majority of the migrants to Gulf countries are either unskilled or semi-skilled and go as
contract workers and return home on completion of the contract.

Migration to industrialised countries grew steadily between 1950 and 2000. Migration to the
Middle East increased rapidly between the late1970s and early 1980s. In the mid to late
1980s, however, the number of Indian workers migrating to the Middle East fell sharply.
Labour migration increased substantially again during the 1990s. Today, some 3 million
Indian migrants live in Gulf countries. Most migrants come from Kerala, Tamil Nadu,
Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. The current number of Indian migrants overseas accounts for
less than 1% of the total workforce in India, so has little direct impact on the national labour
market. However, the effects of migration are significant in major sending regions. In Kerala,
for example, emigration has recently led to a considerable reduction in unemployment.
Remittances are the main benefit of external migration, providing scarce foreign exchange
and scope for higher levels of savings and investments. Remittances have had a considerable
impact on regional economies. The most striking case is that of Kerala, where remittances
made up 21% of state income in the 1990s. International migration has also had considerable
impacts on demographic structures, expenditure patterns, social structures and poverty levels.
Impacts include reducing population growth; enhancing the dependency burden within
households; increasing consumption expenditures and reducing poverty levels. Migrants are
disadvantaged as labourers and labour laws dealing with them are weakly implemented. Poor
migrants have very little bargaining power. Most migrant labourers are also employed in the
unorganised sector, where the lack of regulation compounds their vulnerability. They are
largely ignored by government and NGO programmes (Srivastava,2003).

India also has a large number of its citizens working abroad as short-term contract labourers.
In 2002, the number of contractual labourers from India was 0.37 million which is lower
than1993 when it was 0.44 million. The major destination for Indian contractual labour is the
Middle East (75%) (Rajan, 2003).

In line with the global trends, the traditional picture of the single male economic migration in
South Asia has been fundamentally changed with more and more women migrating
autonomously as individual agents. While short-term international migration does not involve
4
the whole family, long-term permanent migrants are mostly family migration. Destinations
for South Asian migrants also vary depending on the duration of stay, with long-term
migrants migrating to industrial countries in Europe and north and America and Short-term
contract migrants working primarily in the Middle East or South East Asia. Out of the
estimated annual figure for world-wide international remittances flows of US$ 100 billion,
about 20% flow into South Asia. India accounts for 78%, making it the world’s largest
remittance recipient country.
A large-scale sample survey conducted in Kerala shows that after World War II and with the
Indian independence in 1947, migration became a way of life to many of the educated youths
of the state. At first, migration was almost entirely confined outside to within India, but in
more recent times migration to countries outside India has grown rapidly. International
migration, though involving a small proportion of the workforce, has important local impacts.
On the other hand, data on the labour flows are limited, but estimates and trends can be
discerned.

Migration brings in remittances, which result in increase in wealth of the family and
consequent improvement in education and nutrition of the members of the household and
greater use of hospital facilities during times of illness of the members of the family. Thus
behavioural changes tend to decrease mortality. Surprisingly, fewer of the elderly in non-
migrant households reported ill health as a problem. Among females, the largest preparation
of the elderly with health problem was in return emigrant household (68%) and the lowest
was in non-migrant household. Among males, the largest proportion was among emigrant
households. Cash remittances constituted about 9.3% of the state domestic product. The
annual remittances received by the Kerala household were 2.55 times higher than what
Kerala government received from the central government by way of budget support. Besides
cash household received several items in kind- clothing, ornaments and jewellery and electric
and electronic gadgets; the total value of goods received was Rs. 5,413 million. Thus total
remittances came to Rs. 40, 717 million or 10.7 percent of state domestic product. Muslim
received 47% of the total remittances. The inter-community differences in remittances per
emigrant were mostly due to differences in education level. A major consequence of
migration has been a reduction in unemployment. As a result of migration, the number of
unemployed has declined by 32 percent and the unemployment rate has declined by about 3
percentages points.

5
Also migration has had a very significant impact on improving housing conditions, education
and health seeking behaviour Kerala’s households (Zachariah and Rajan 2013).

Need of the Study:

The Census of India does not provide data on international out-migration from India, but on
the foreigners residing in India. The Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, does
collect information through embarkation and disembarkation cards at the ports, but the
information on Indians going abroad is not complete. On the other hand, the Ministry of
Labour through the Office of Protector of Emigrants has been granting clearance only to
undergraduates (now under matriculate). A vast majority of Indian emigrants who are
educated, skilled and professional and income tax payers are exempted from emigration
clearance. As such complete data on Indian emigrants are not available from the Ministry of
Labour. Because of these reasons some experts opine that the data on international migration
is almost non-existent in India and hardly any attempt is being made to obtain data on a
regular basis in a systematic manner (Premi and Mathur 1995).
In spite of limitations of data on international migration from India, studies using information
from diverse sources suggest that the pattern and process of migration originating from
various Indian states vary enormously along with destinations of migration.

Kerala, Punjab and Gujarat are three leading states of India known for emigration and
diasporas. It is known that large number of unemployed men and women migrate from
Kerala mainly to the Gulf countries, while rural communities from Punjab and Gujarat
dominate the migration streams directed towards the western countries. The determinants and
consequences are likely to be different for each of the three states. As such, there is a need to
carry out scientific studies on international migration from the dominant states and territories
of India.
There are few large scale studies available for Kerala and Punjab (Zachariah, Kannan and
Rajan 2002; Nangia and Saha 2001), but hardly any study has been carried out for Gujarat on
similar lines. Gujarati community overseas is known for its spirit of entrepreneurship,
business acumen, and has shown great ability to adapt and yet maintain its cultural identity.
It is well known that the strategies of India’s freedom struggle originated from among the
Indian emigrant communities, many of them were Gujaratis, under the leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi who landed in South Africa in 1893 as a young barrister at the age of 24 on
the invitation of Dada Abdulla –a Gujarati merchant. Gandhi Ji was the first Indian barrister,
6
the first highly-educated Indian, to have come to South Africa who returned to India in
January 1915 (Chandra et al., 1989170-175).

It is believed that Gujaratis migrated abroad to work as traders, businessmen, shopkeepers,

hoteliers, professionals etc. A comprehensive study of Gujarati emigration which includes the
characteristics of migrants, the individual and household strategies, the process of migration
comprising of formal (recruitment agency) and informal channels (family, kin, friends,
religious groups and NGOs) of migration, costs and financing of migration, the contact, visits
and remittances sent by the migrants to their native households would be helpful in
understanding the causes and consequences of migration from Gujarat. However, any impact
on the household will depend upon the frequency of contact and flow of information, skills
and remittances accrued to the household. It is also possible that a migration may propel
further migration and the desire to migrate among the left behind members of the household
and relatives in future.

As per recent estimates based on 64th Round of NSS, Kerala leads in emigration among the
states of India followed by Punjab, Goa, Tamil Nadu, AP, Gujarat and Rajasthan in 2007-08
(Bhagat, Keshri and Ali 2013). For Kerala there are several rounds of large surveys
conducted by CDS available since 1998, but for other states the only estimate available is
from 64th Round NSS 2007-08. Both NSS survey and CDS studies confirm that 2 million
Keralites are working outside Kerala predominantly in the Gulf countries (Zachariah and
Rajan 2013:3; Bhagat, Keshri and Ali 2013). Perhaps no such confirmed figures are
available for other states in India. For example from Punjab, it is the roughly estimated that
2.5 to 8 million Punjabis live outside Punjab (quoted in Nanda and Veron 2011). Similarly
various estimates are claimed. Some study shows the number of Gujaratis living outside
comprises about 1.5 million, out of which half a million resides in USA (Sahoo 2006: Table 4
in p. 92). According to sources in NRG Centre, Ahmadabad, there are about 6 million
Gujaratis living abroad spread over in 120 countries. However, it may be noted that these
figures mix emigrants with diasporas. Diasporas are essentially includes all people living
outside India who have India origin unlike emigrant who are former member of the Indian
households (includes all those born in India) but currently living outside India. Thus, study on
diasporas must be distinguished from the study on emigration. On the other hand based on
NSS 64th Round the estimated number of emigrants from Gujarat in 2007-08 was only 0.18

7
million. There is not only a need to validate the estimate but also to understand the
emigration process. As India is very large and diverse, this study attempts to measure the
magnitude of emigration from Gujarat and also tries to understand the emigration process
from Gujarat and its causes and consequences in more recent times.

Objectives:

1) To estimate the level of emigration from and return migration to Gujarat.

2) To study the characteristics of emigrant and non-emigrant households in Gujarat.
3) To study the role of the individual and household factors in the decision making and
process of migration.
4) To study the magnitude of remittances, its utilization and impact on the individual,
household and community levels.

The Context of Gujarat:

According to 2011 Census, Gujarat has a population of 60.3 million which is approximately
5 percent of India’s population. Literacy rate was 79.3 percent as per 2011 Census with male
literacy at 87.2 percent while female literacy was 70.73 percent. Urban Population of the state
was 42.6 percent in 2011 compared to 37.4 percent in 2001. Ahmadabad is the most populous
district in the state, with 7.20 million people followed by Surat with 6.07 million
(www.censusindia.gov.in).

The industrial sector has performed consistently well with the growth rate of the
manufacturing sector continuously increasing from 3.04 per cent in the sixties, to 5.55 per
cent in the seventies, 8.73 per cent in the eighties and 11.92 per cent in the nineties. In the
year 1991, there were about 16.6 million workers in the state (the workforce participation rate
was about 40 per cent), of whom 14.1 million (85 per cent) were main workers and 2.5
million (15 per cent) were marginal workers. Most of the male workers (about 99 per cent)
worked as main workers while only 53 per cent of women workers worked as main workers.

It has been also observed that the rural poor in Gujarat are primarily concentrated in the
regions that are environmentally difficult. The incidence of poverty is higher in northern dry
and the eastern tribal region. The poor from these regions migrate long distances in search of

8
work at the cost of their health, education and welfare after the short agricultural season is
over. Though the Gujarat dry region was the poorest region in 1987-88, the eastern tribal belt
is the poorest region today. The eastern belt is the poorest in rural, urban as well as in the
total poverty. It seems that tribals have emerged as the poorest group in the state. In other
words, industrial development has helped the urban population, but not so much the rural
population of this region (Hirway, 2000).

There are indeed two Gujarats within Gujarat. One of them is the heartland of Gujarat. It is a
long narrow strip stretching from Gandhi Nagar up to the border of Gujarat with
Maharashtra. Two arteries of rail and road serve parts of its seven districts (Gandhinagar,
Ahmedabad, Kheda, Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat and Valsad). This is the prosperous, the well-
to-do, the advanced, the developed, the industrial, the rich part of Gujarat. But it should not
be imagined that all the 15.3 million people who inhabit these seven districts are equally rich.
Indeed, there are many talukas in these seven districts which are relatively very poor, very
underdeveloped and most backward. Other part is called Poor Periphery of Gujarat. It
stretches from the six districts (Bhavnagar, Junagadh, Amreli, Rajkot, Jamnagar and
Surendranagar) of Saurashtra in the south- west and west of Gujarat to the district of Kachch
in the north-west, and ends with the long arch of six districts (Mehsana, Sabarkantha,
Bansakantha, Panchmahals and Dangs) in the north-east and south of Gujarat. These 13
districts almost completely encircle the Rich Heartland. Agriculture is the dominant activity
in the Periphery. The poorer periphery of Gujarat has 73 per cent of Gujarat's forest and gross
sown area. It also reports a much larger irrigated area. This is understandable, since 10 of
these 12 districts suffer from rather low and uncertain rainfall. They are not blessed by the
bountiful waters of Gujarat's perennial rivers which irrigate most of the heartland. The
heartland of Gujarat has 69 per cent of all factories, 71 per cent of all factory workers and as
high as 82 per cent of the output of both the secondary and the tertiary sector. The Periphery
is also a bit behind the Heartland in secondary education. But a much sharper difference is to
be noticed in enrolment in higher education. The heartland with a much smaller population of
Gujarat accounts for as high as two-thirds of the total enrolment in higher education in the
whole of Gujarat (Patel, 1991).

Gujarat presents a unique case of globalisation among the Indian states. It has historically
been linked with the international market through migration of businessmen and their family
based inter-actions with the local entrepreneurial class. The growth of the economy was,
however, centred around the city of Ahmedabad which emerged as a major city in western
9
India, next only to Bombay, the latter having the additional advantage of being a sea port
(Kundu, 2000).

Gujarat is one of the most prosperous states of the country, having a per-capita GDP 3.2
times India's average. Gujarat holds many records in India for economic development: 20%
of India's Industrial Output, 9% of India's Mineral Production, 22% of India's exports, 24% of
India's textile production, 35% of India's pharmaceutical products, 51% of India's
petrochemical production. Over 35% of the stock market wealth of India is
with Gujarati People. Over 60% of Indian Population in North America is Gujarati. India's
16% of Investment are from Gujarat. Ahmedabad – the commercial capital of Gujarat is the
seventh largest city in India. Surat is the fastest growing city in the world. Gandhinagar is the
Greenest Capital City in whole Asia (http://www.funlok.com/index.php/information/
amazing-facts-about-gujarat.html). Gujaratis, mainly Patels, now own 21,000 of the 53,000
hotels and motels in the US. It makes for a staggering 42% of the US hospitality market, with
a combined worth of $40 billion. Most Gujarati hoteliers say times have changed and top US
chains are noticing this success. Asian American Hotel Owners Association, which has 9,000
members and 90% of whom are Gujaratis, says Indian-American hoteliers pay $700 million
in taxes every year and create a million jobs. Upper-grade chains like Marriott, Hilton and
Starwood are now more open to franchising their hotels to Gujaratis (Dave, 2006). The US
census data reveals that the number of Gujarati-speaking people in the US is steadily rising,
and the figure now stands at 287,367. Gujarati is the only regional language of India which
featured in the US census, the national languages being Hindi and Urdu. The survey shows
how the number of Gujarati-speaking people has been rising since the 19th century, though
much of the immigration happened over the past three decades. For the Gujarati-speaking
people, New York is the number one cluster-other metros being Chicago, Los
Angeles and Philadelphia (TNN,2010).

Today there are significant Gujarati communities in some 27 nations. Many are in Africa but
others can also be found in Myanmar, Iran, and Malaysia. Living conditions in these
countries vary; however, the Gujarati who have emigrated are usually from the higher,
wealthier castes and have maintained many aspects of their own culture. They are often
involved in trade or in operating small businesses (http://www.joshuaproject.net/
peopleprofile.php?rog3=MP&peo3=11982).

10
Questionnaires:
In our survey we used four types of questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the
Emigrant Questionnaire, the Return Migrant Questionnaire and the Village Questionnaire.
The overall content and format of the questionnaires were determined through a series of
meetings and workshops. The questionnaires were bilingual, with questions in both the
language Gujarati and English.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual residents in each sample household.
For each person listed, information was collected on age, sex, marital status, and relationship
to the head of the household, education, occupation, place of birth and place of last residence.
The Household Questionnaire also collected information on the main source of drinking
water, type of toilet facility, source of lighting, type of cooking fuel, religion and caste/tribe
of the household head, ownership of a house, ownership of agricultural land, ownership of
livestock, ownership of other selected items, and whether the household had a BPL (Below
Poverty Line) card. Information was also collected on health issues such as the prevalence of
some common disease, treatment seeking behaviour, use of private or public health facilities,
and health insurance. Apart from this information is also collected for income and
expenditure of the household.

The Emigrant Questionnaire was use to collect information about all emigrants. These
emigrants were not usual residents of the household. The emigrant questionnaire collected
information about
Background characteristics: age, sex, marital status, education, employment status and
country of residence of emigrant.
Process of migration: source of information on migration opportunity, channel used for
migration, expenses incurred for migration, source of finance for emigration, type of visa,
employment contract/business permit before emigration, communication with household,
mode of communication, frequency of communication, frequency of visiting household,
problem faced by emigrant at destination country,
Student Migration: place of study, course studying, duration of course, cost to the
household to support the study, source of finance and agent involvement for emigration.
Remittances: frequency of receiving remittances, amount received, mode of transfer, use of
remittances.

11
Donation/Charity and Investment: amount of donation, Purpose of social philanthropy,
Channels of charity/donation, investment at the place of origin, type of investment,
Impacts on Family and Society: Impact on family, on life styles, on food habits, on values
and attitudes and on society.

The Return Migrant Questionnaire was employed to interview return migrant who were
usual residents of the household. The return migrant Questionnaire contains a subset of
questions that are covered in the emigrant Questionnaire, plus some additional questions only
administered to return migrant. The questionnaire covered the following topics:
Details of Visits: Year when migrated, country of migration, period of stay, activity status,
annual income and reason for return.
Status as on the eve of International Out-Migration: status in the household, marital
status, when your spouse/children join you, reason for not taking spouse/children.
Process of migration: source of information on migration opportunity, channel used for
migration, expenses incurred for migration, source of finance for emigration, type of visa,
employment contract/business permit before emigration.
Employment / Work and Living Conditions Abroad: face any problems on reaching the
destination, type of problem; seek assistance from Indian Embassy/Consulate, from whom
you get main support on arrival, sign another contract for job, get a job after arrival abroad,
main difficulties you faced in finding a job, main occupation abroad, duration of work, where
you stay, who provide accommodation facility, who paid for the medical expenses, employer
provide any insurance facility, monthly income at the destination, sources of the income,
monthly living expenses, monthly home remittances, average monthly savings and household
face any problem during your absence..
Remittances: To whom did you send remittances, mode of transfer, Frequency of sending
remittances, reason for variation in the amount of remittances?
Post Return Phase: Year of return, face any social difficulty in India after returning, type of
problem, type of skills acquired from abroad, spent earnings on, started an enterprise/firm,
Year of starting the enterprise, Nature of activity of the enterprise, Number of persons
working in the enterprise, motive for starting the enterprise,
Future Plans: plan for any other future activity and in which area you think government has
to pay attention towards the rehabilitation of the return emigrants.

12
Recruitment, Training and Fieldwork:

i) Survey manuals
To maintain standardized survey procedures across districts and to minimize non-sampling
errors, three different manuals were prepared for various training programmes. These
manuals were the manual for household listing and mapping, the interviewer’s manual, the
supervisor’s and editor’s manual.

The manual for household listing and mapping describes the procedures for drawing location
and layout maps of sampled areas, listing households, and selecting households for the
survey. This manual also describes the roles and responsibilities of mappers and listers. The
interviewer’s manual describes standard interviewing techniques and procedures for
completing questionnaires. The manual also includes a discussion on individual questions in
all four questionnaires and an explanation of all fieldwork procedures. The supervisor’s and
editor’s manual describe the roles and responsibilities of supervisors and editors, including
the preparation, organization, and monitoring of fieldwork.

ii) Training

Overall two separate trainings were conducted for the field staffs who were involved in the
study; One at the time of listing and another at the time of main survey.

All the mappers and listers recruited for the listing exercise were given four day training
during 28 Feb 2012 to 4 March 2012 by the coordinator. The training included segmentation
of clusters, identification/ demarcation of PSU boundaries, listing of households in the
selected clusters and collecting information about name and address of the head of the
household.

A rigorous classroom as well as field training program for a week was conducted for the main
survey during 28 May 2012 to 4 June 2012 at Vadodara. The training was provided by the
project coordinators. The first day of the training was devoted to acquainting participants
about the purpose and objectives of the study as well as various demographic concepts and
definitions including migration that are used in the questionnaire. Detailed explanation of
each of the questions in the questionnaire, mock interviews, practice interviews between the
participants in the classroom and field practices were the essential part of the interviewers

13
training programme. Only those trainees performing satisfactorily during the training
programme were selected for the survey. The supervisors were given an additional briefing
on the procedures for selecting the target respondents, allocating work to the interviewers and
making spot checks and back checks.

iii) Field Work

The fieldwork for the present study consisted of two main activities- house listing and
canvassing of the questionnaires in the selected households.

House Listing: For the purpose of house listing twenty graduates were recruited. Before
sending them for actual house listing, they were given four days training for the house listing
work. Twenty selected house listers were divided in to ten teams, each team consisting of two
members one mapper and one lister. During mapping and listing their job was to locate and
identify the PSUs with the help of identifiable landmarks and list all household of that PSU
and create a map with the location of all household listed in the PSU. The work of mapping
and listing completed during 8 March 2012 to 24 April 2012.

Household Survey and Field Editing: As mentioned earlier it was proposed to collect data
from a sample of 10,000 households spread over all the 25 districts of Gujarat i.e. 50
households from 200 PSUs. It was believed that in order to complete the fieldwork for the
present study within the stipulated time frame of 4 months about 20 field investigators (FI)
would be required. Further, for the timely completion of project it was expected that a FI
could complete 5 to 6 questionnaires per day. Five field teams were formed each consisting
of four FIs. To ensure that the questionnaire was duly complete in all respects, consistent and
legible, it was decided to have one Field supervisor with each of the six field teams. In
addition to the above mentioned field staff two Research officers were exclusively in field for
monitoring and providing logistics (arranging transport, accommodation to team members,
seeking permission from the ward member/secretaries of housing societies etc.) support to the
field staff. Concerted efforts were made to ensure that the all necessary information in the
questionnaire was completed by FIs before leaving the field/PSU. As such around 1- 2 days
was spent in completing fieldwork in a particular PSU. A maximum of three visits were made
to a household to complete the questionnaire (where no response or incomplete information
could be collected in the first or second visit). The fieldwork of this study was completed in
14
around four months, from 6 June 2012 to 11 September 2012. The average time required to
complete all the sections of a questionnaire from a household was about an hour.

Data Processing:

Data processing involved editing, data entry using SPSS software, verification of data entry,
data cleaning and recoding of the data into a standard structure.

All completed questionnaires were sent to the office for editing and data processing
(including office editing, coding, data entry, and machine editing). Although field
supervisors/editors examined every completed questionnaire in the field, the questionnaires
were re-edited at the time of data entry by research staff. The research staff checked all skip
sequences, response codes that were circled, and information recorded in filter questions. In
the second stage of office editing, appropriate codes were assigned for open-ended responses
on occupation. Another major activity was the manual review of all responses that were
recorded verbatim in the ‘other’ response categories. Some of these responses were added to
the coding scheme if a large number of cases had the same response, other responses were
recoded into an existing category if appropriate, and the remaining responses were left as
recorded on the questionnaire. The data were processed with microcomputers using the SPSS
data entry and editing software. The data were entered directly from the precoded
questionnaires. Computer based checks were used to clean the data, and inconsistencies were
resolved on the basis of information recorded in the questionnaires.

15
 Chapter 2

Sample Design and Methodology

Sample Size:
The determination of the overall sample size for survey was governed by several
considerations, including the magnitude of the key indicators, the subgroups for which the
indicators are required, the desired level of precision of the estimates, the availability of
resources, and logistical considerations.

The expected level of emigration, the acceptable level of standard errors for emigration, and
the design effect of the sample design were the three prime determinants of sample size for
this survey. To estimate the required sample size, it was necessary to make a reasonable
assumption about the design effect. Based on the previous experience of surveys, a design
effect of 1.5 was assumed. The emigration rate for Gujarat as reported by NSSO of 3.7 per
1000 population was used for estimation of the sample size for the survey. For state-level the
maximum permissible relative standard error was set at 10 percent. It was decided that a
sample of 10000 HHs would be adequate to provide reliable estimates of international
migration at the state level and the major regions of the state. The 10,000 sample HHs is
selected by a stratified multistage random sampling method.

Classification of Regions:
Geographically, NSSO has divided Gujarat state into five regions namely South-Eastern
Gujarat, Northern Plains, Dry Areas, Kuchchh and Saurashtra. Due to small proportion of
inhabitants in Dry Areas and Kuchchh, we have merged these two regions. Now, all tasks
will be done for four regions i.e. South-Eastern Gujarat, Northern Plains, Dry Areas &
Kuchchh and Saurashtra. Names of 25 districts of Gujarat falling in each region are given
below.

16
 Table 1 shows the distribution of population and number of household to be selected in
each of the four regions.
Dry Areas&
South Eastern Gujarat Northern Plains Saurashtra
Kachchh
Panch Mahals Mahesana Bans Kantha Surendranagar
Dohad Sabar Kantha Patan Rajkot
Vadodara Gandhinagar Kachchh Jamnagar
Narmada Ahmedabad Porbandar
Bharuch Anand Junagadh
Surat Kheda Amreli
The Dangs Bhavnagar
Navsari
Valsad

Table 1: Distribution of population and number of household to be selected in regions

Rural Urban
HH to PSUs HH to PSUs
Sample
Regions Proportion be to be Proportion be to be
Size
(R&U) selected selected (R&U) selected selected
(2*3) (4/50) (2*6) (7/50)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
South-Eastern
0.563 1719 34 0.437 1336 27
Gujarat 3055
Northern Plains 2542 0.502 1275 26 0.498 1267 25
Kuchchh & Dry
0.783 1687 34 0.217 467 9
Areas 2154
Saurashtra 2249 0.583 1312 26 0.417 938 19
Gujarat 10000 5993 120 4007 80

17
Sample Selection:
Within each region, the selection of households is done in different stages considering
villages and I.V. units as the primary sampling unit (PSU) in its rural and urban areas
respectively. As per Census 2001, villages where the number of households is less than 5
have not been considered in the selection of samples for rural Gujarat and removed from the
list and villages having less than 50 households have been merged. Allocation of total sample
household in a region to its rural and urban areas is done in proportion to their population. In
rural area households have been selected in two stages. PSUs are selected with probability
proportional to size (PPS) sampling and at the second stage 50 households, in a selected PSU,
are selected systematically.

18
In urban area, it is a four stage design with selection of town at first stage, I.V. unit in
selected town at second stage, NSSO blocks from selected I.V. units at third stage and
households in a selected block at the last stage. PPS sampling has been used to select the
sampling units at the first stage; whereas at second to fourth stage systematic random
sampling has been used.

Stratification of PSUs:
Each region has been divided into two or three strata consisting of three contiguous districts.
Further in rural area each stratum is again divided into three strata considering size of village
as low, medium and high. Thus, within a region these are six to nine strata. Within each strata
village are ranks alternatively according to ascending and descending order of level of
literacy. Required number of PSU is selected from such an ordered list systematically using
PPS. The same procedure has also been applied for selection of PSU (I.V. unit) in urban area.

Selection of PSU/cluster through Systematic PPS sampling Technique:

• First, we calculate the cumulative number of households from the list of PSU (rural/urban
separately) is calculated.
• Next, the sampling interval (i) by dividing the total households by the number of
PSU/cluster is calculated. For example, if total number of households is 10,000 in rural
areas and the number of PSUs to be select is 20, then sampling interval (i) will be
10,000/20 = 500.
• A three digit random number (r) starting point from 0 to sampling interval (i) is selected
using the random number table. Say (r) = 376.
• The first PSU/cluster selected will be equal to (r), based on the cumulative population
column.
• The rest PSUs will be selected as r+i, r+2i, r+3i,.…….Hence, the second PSU will be
where (376 + 500 = 876) is located. The third PSU/cluster will be where the value {2*(i)
+ (r)} is located, the fourth PSU/cluster will be {3*(i) + (r)} and so on.

19
Sample Weights
The basic objective of weighting sample data is to try and maximize the representativeness of
the sample in terms of the size, distribution, and characteristics of the study population. When
sample units have been selected with differing probabilities, it is common to weight the
results inversely proportional to the unit selection probabilities, i.e., the design weight, so as
to reflect the actual situation in the population.
In our survey, two sets of household weights are in operation. One set of weight is used for
generating state-level indicators and another set is used for producing regional-level
indicators.

Calculation of sampling weights

The basic reasons for weighting primary data while estimating regional-level indicators are:

a) To take care of the non-equal probability of selection in different domains. In each region,
the total sample size was distributed between urban and rural areas according to the
proportion of urban rural households. However, oversampling was done in Dry and kuchchh
area in order to have a sample large enough to yield stable estimates. Whatever the reason,
oversampling in Dry and kuchchh area leads to unequal probabilities of selection.

b) To take care of the differential non-response rates of household interviews in different

domains, namely urban and rural areas.

To take care of the non-equal probabilities of selection in different domains, a design weight
was computed. By using following steps:

First we calculated probability of selecting a household (P i ) from ith domain by using the
following formula
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝒐.𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑷𝑺𝑼∗𝑯𝑯 𝒊𝒏 𝑷𝑺𝑼𝒊 (𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟏) 𝑺𝒆𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑯𝑯 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑷𝑺𝑼𝒊
Pi =
𝑻𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑵𝒐.𝒐𝒇 𝑯𝑯 (𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟏)
∗ 𝑯𝑯 𝒊𝒏 𝑷𝑺𝑼𝒊 (𝑺𝒖𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒚 𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒆)

Where,
Selected PSU in Gujarat=200
Selected PSU in Kuchchh & Dry Area=43
Selected PSU in Northern Plains= 51
Selected PSU in Saurashtra=45
Selected PSU in South-Eastern Gujarat=61

20
Total No. Of HH in Gujarat = 9692148
Total No. Of HH in Kuchchh & Dry Area (PSU 1-43) = 969974
Total No. Of HH in Northern Plains (PSU 44-94) =2940580
Total No. Of HH in Saurashtra (PSU 95-139) =2439050
Total No. Of HH in South-Eastern Gujarat (PSU 140-200) = 3342544

The household design weight WDi for the ith domain is the inverse of the probability
𝟏
WDi =
𝑷𝒊
To take care of differential nonresponse in different domains, the design weight for each
domain is multiplied by the inverse of the response rates.

The household weight (WHi) for the ith domain is then:

𝑊𝐷𝑖
WHi =
𝑅𝐻𝑖

Where

RHi = response rate of the household interview (number of completed household interviews
divided by the number of households selected for interview)

After adjustment for nonresponse, the weights are normalized so that the total number of
weighted cases is equal to the total number of unweighted cases. This is done by multiplying
WHi for each domain by the ratio of total number of unweighted cases to total number of
weighted cases (obtained by applying weights before normalization to the number of cases in
each domain).

The final household weight is calculated as

∑ 𝒏𝒊
�𝐻𝑖 = WHi *�
𝑊 �
∑ 𝑾𝑯𝒊 ∗ 𝒏𝒊

Because of the normalization of the region household weight at the region level, the
normalized regional household weight cannot be used for state indicators. A set of state
weights is thus calculated. The final state household weight is based on the region household

21
weight WHi (after correction for non-response and before normalization at the region level)
normalized at the national level.

Wealth Index Calculation:

The wealth index was constructed using household asset data and housing characteristics.
Each household asset is assigned a weight (factor score) generated through principal
components analysis, and the resulting asset scores are standardized in relation to a normal
distribution with a mean of zero and standard deviation of one. Each household is then
assigned a score for each asset, and the scores were summed for each household; individuals
are ranked according to the score of the household in which they reside. The sample is then
divided into quintiles i.e., five groups with an equal number of individuals in each. In our
data, one wealth index has been developed for the whole sample that is for the state as a
whole. Thus, at the state level, 20 percent of the household population is in each wealth
quintile although this is not necessarily true at the region level.

Wealth index is based on the following 45 assets and housing characteristics:

Ownership of house; Type of House; separate kitchen; Total no. of rooms; Rooms used for
sleeping; Ownership of any other house; Source of drinking water; Type of toilet facility;
Source of light; Type of cooking fuel; Ownership of any Plot; Ownership of agriculture land;
Has cycle; Moter cycle/Scooter; Motor Car; Taxi / Truck / Lorry; Radio Or Transistor;
Electric Fan; LPG Gas; Television; MP3 / DVD / VCD Player; Refrigerator; Computer /
Laptop; Net Connection; Telephone (Land Line); Mobile Phone; Furniture (Chair / Table /
Sofa, etc.); Electric Cooking Oven / Microwave Oven; Tractor; Water Pump; Thrasher; Air
Cooler / Conditioner; Washing Machine; Bullock cart; Cow / Bull/Buffalo; Camel; Horse /
Donkey / Mule; Goat; Sheep; Chicken / Duck; Other animals; Dog; bank account or post
office account; Credit/Debit card; covered by a health scheme or health insurance.

22
 Chapter 3

Household Characteristics

Demographic Characteristics
The present study collected information on various aspects of household and household
amenities during the detailed door to door survey of the sampled households. Information on
all the household members like age, sex, marital status, education, occupation etc. was
collected during the period of survey. Age of the study population is a basic and important
demographic parameter. The information on percent distribution of the household population
by age according to residence and sex is presented in Table 3.1 as well as in Figures 3.1-3.3.
The age-sex pyramid of the study population is typical to that found in most of the
developing countries with a broader base and gradually tapering towards to the top. About
26% of the sampled household members are children (0-14 years) while 28% of the members
are youth population (15-29 years). The proportion of population above the age of 60 years is
less than 9%. There is not much variation in the rural-urban differential of the age-sex
pyramid as shown in Figure 3.2 and 3.3 as the age distribution is almost similar.

The information pertaining to distribution of households by sex of head of the household,

household size and household structure according to residence is presented in Table 3.2. The
data shows that nine out of ten households in the study area are headed by males and the
pattern is almost identical both in urban and rural areas. Of the total surveyed households,
maximum number of households (21.9%) have the family size of 4 followed by the family
size of 5(20.6%) and family size of 6(14.7%). For more than one quarter (26.0%) of the urban
households, the family size is 4 while the figure for the rural areas is 19.9% as smaller size
families are more found in urban areas in comparison to rural areas. The information on
family composition reveals that more than half (52.0%) of the total households are nuclear
family followed by non nuclear family (45.2%) and single person family (2.8%). The urban
rural differential in distribution of family composition reflects that urban localities have
slightly higher proportion (55.9%) of nuclear families than the rural localities (50.2%).

23
Housing Conditions:

The information on various aspects of the household and household amenities like ownership
of house, type of house, source of drinking water, type of toilet facility, source of light,
cooking fuel, separate kitchen facility, number of rooms and persons per room used for
sleeping were also gathered during the time of field work. The information pertaining to
distribution of households by background characteristics is presented in Table 3.3.The
majority of the households (94.3%) in rural areas are owned while the figure for the urban
areas is 83.1 percent. As expected, higher proportion (77.7%) of the urban households is
pucca while the figure for the rural areas is 44.0 percent. On the other hand, the proportions
of semi pucca(37.5% and 19.6% respectively for rural and urban areas) and kuchha
houses(18.5% and 2.8% respectively for rural and urban areas) are higher in rural areas in
comparison to urban areas. Availability of drinking water in the household is one of the key
aspects of health and development of the family. The table shows that only 63.4 percent of
the households in rural areas have piped water facility into dwelling followed by 17.6
percent using public tap and hand pump and 8.9 percent using tube well and bore well. About
one tenth(10.1%) of rural dwelling still use unprotected dug well for drinking water which is
a matter of health concern.

The rural areas have a very poor toilet facility as more than half (53.1%) of the households
use open space and another 9.8 percent households have pit latrine. Even in urban areas, 13.1
percent of the households have no toilet facility and 3.4 percent use pit latrine. Electricity is
the major source of lighting for both urban (98.6%) and rural areas (94.6%). Wood (71.7%) is
the major source of cooking fuel in rural areas followed by LPG (25.1%). On the other hand,
LPG(73.8%) is the major source of cooking fuel in urban areas followed by kerosene(19.8%).
To a question on if the household had separate kitchen facility, 55.8 percent of the
respondents in rural areas reported that there was a separate kitchen in their household while
the figure for the urban areas was 76.0 percent. More than two fifth (44.2%) of the rural
households do not have separate kitchen facility. More than three fifth (64.0%) of the rural
households have 2-3 rooms while the figure for the urban areas is 68.6 percent. More than
one quarter (29.4%) of the rural households have only one room while the figure for the
urban areas is 18.4 percent. The data on room density (number of persons sleeping in a room)
reflects that 94.0 percent of the households in rural areas have 1-2 persons sleeping per room
while the figure for the urban areas is 89.7 percent.

24
The information on distribution of toilet facility of the households by selected background
characteristics is presented in Table 3.4. More than half (53.3%) of the rural households in
rural areas have no toilet facility while the figure for the urban areas is 13.1 percent. Among
those who are illiterate, the proportion of households having no toilet facility is quite
high(68.6%) followed by the educational category of literate but below middle(45.6%) and
middle but below higher secondary(26.5%). It appears that there positive relationship
between the education attainment of the respondent and the availability of toilet facility. The
various religious categories of the respondents reflects that among the Hindus, the proportion
of households reporting no toilet facility is 42.8 while among the Muslims it is 23.5 percent.
The proportion of households having no toilet facility is highest among the ST(77.7%)
followed by SC(55.1%) and OBC(46.9%). The proportion of households having no toilet
facility is highest (95.7%) among the lowest quintile of SLWI followed by second quintile of
SLWI (73.8%) and middle quintile (20.1%). Higher proportion of non-migrant households
(41.6%) reported to have no toilet facility than among the emigrant households (6.7%), return
migrant households (14.5%) and internal out-migrant households (16.2%).

The information pertaining to distribution of households’ source of drinking water by

background characteristics is presented in Table 3.5. Among the rural households, more than
three fifth (63.4%) have access to piped water facility into the dwelling while the figure for
the urban areas is 90.7 percent. Among the respondents who are illiterate have very low
access to piped water facility (56.7%). The proportion increases with the increase in
educational level and is highest (92.1%) among those who are graduate and higher level of
education. Among the Jain, the proportion of households having piped water facility is
highest (97.9%) and lowest among the Hindu (70.4%). Among the ST, the proportion of
households having unprotected dug well as source of drinking water is highest (18.1%) while
it is lowest (3.6%) among the others. Among the households who have lowest SLWI, about
one fifth (19.4) have unprotected dug well as source of drinking water. Only 71.7 percent
non-migrant households have access to piped water facility while it is highest (87.8%) among
the inter-state out migrant households.

Table 3.6 contains information on households’ improved and non-improved sources of

drinking water by selected background characteristics. The improved sources of drinking
water includes piped water into dwelling/yard, public tap/hand pump, tube well/bore well,
protected dug well and bottled water. The table shows that in urban areas the proportion of
households having improved sources of drinking water is higher (98.2%) than in rural areas
(89.9%). The proportion of households having non-improved sources of drinking water is
25
highest (11.1%) among the illiterate followed by literate but below middle households
(8.5%). Among the Hindu, 7.7 percent have non-improved sources of drinking water
followed by Muslim (6.1 %). Among the ST households, 18.1 percent have non- improved
sources of drinking water while the figure is 6.9 percent for OBC and 6.0 percent for SC.
Among the households having lowest quintile of SLWI, 19.4 percent have non-improved
sources of drinking water.

The information pertaining to distribution of type of houses by selected background

characteristics is presented in Table 3.7. Among all the urban households, majority are pucca
(77.7%) followed by semi-pucca (19.5%) while for the rural areas the corresponding figures
are 44.0 percent and 37.5 percent. Among those who are illiterate, 46.5 percent have semi-
pucca households followed by 23.2 percent who have kuchha households and the remaining
44.0 percent have pucca households. Among the Hindu, more than half (53.0%) have pucca
households while the corresponding figure among the Muslim is 64 percent. Among the ST
households, 86.0 percent have either kuchha or semi-pucca households while the figure is
about 50.0 percent in both the SC or OBC category households. Among the households
having lowest quintile SLWI, only 4.6 percent have pucca households while the figure is 28.1
percent for second quintile SLWI. Among the non-migrant households, about half (46.3 %)
of the households are either kuchha or semi-pucca.

Household Assets and Economic Conditions:

The data pertaining to distribution of various household possessions in rural and urban areas
is presented in Table 3.8. The important household possessions in rural areas are mobile
phone (88 %), furniture (80.3%), electric fan (82.8%), TV(57.2%), cycle (37.4%), motor
cycle/scooter(35.8%), LPG gas (32.0%), VCD/DVD(23.9%) and refrigerator(21.6%). Table
3.9 shows household information on mode savings, health insurance and availing other
government welfare schemes. A little less than two third (65.5%) of the rural households
have a bank/post office account while the corresponding figure for urban areas is 82.5
percent. Only 8.2 percent of the rural households and 5.6 percent of the urban households are
covered under micro finance. Only 16.3 percent of the rural households and 7.3 percent of the
urban households are have availed themselves of the government sponsored health insurance
(RSBY). More than one third (37.1%) of the rural households and 13.9 percent urban
households have a BPL card.
Table 3.10 presents information pertaining to households covered under RSBY and any other
health scheme by selected background characteristics. Among the urban households, about a
26
quarter (24.5%) is covered by any other health insurance scheme while those covered by
RSBY is only 7.3 percent. The corresponding figure for rural areas is 11.5 percent and 16.3
percent. Among the illiterate population, RSBY is covered by about one fifth (19.7%) of the
households while the households covered by any other health insurance is 6.5 percent. Higher
proportion of households among SC (20.6%) and ST (22.7%) are covered by RSBY. More
households from the lowest quintile of SLWI (24.2%) and second lowest quintile of SLWI
(21.5%) are covered by RSBY. The non migrant households who are covered by RSBY
(13.8%) are higher in comparison to other migrant households. On the other hand, higher
proportion of migrant households is covered under any other health insurance than the non
migrant households.

Table 3.11 contains information pertaining to households having BPL card and bank account
by selected background characteristics. Among the rural households, about two third (65.5%)
have bank accounts and a little more than one third (37.1%) have BPL cards. About half of
the population who are illiterate have BPL card as well as bank account. The proportion of
households having BPL card is highest among the ST (60.1%) followed by SC (44.2%) and
OBC (32.4%). The households having lowest quintile of SLWI (58.7%) and second lowest
quintile of SLWI (46.9%) have more BPL card than the other quintiles of SLWI. Among the
non-migrant households, about one third (30.8%) possess BPL card and 70.0 percent have
bank accounts.

Agricultural land is the most important source of livelihood in rural areas. The information
pertaining to distribution of agricultural land is presented in Table 3.12. More than half
(56.0%) of the rural households and 14.1 percent of the urban households have agricultural
land. More than three fifth(61.3%) of the total rural households have agricultural land of size
1-5 acres followed by 26.0 percent household having land size of 6 acres and above. Of the
total agricultural land in rural areas, more than one third (37.5%) is non-irrigated. About two
fifth of the total rural agricultural land are irrigated with sizes ranging between 1-5 acres.

Farm animals and domestic animals are also important resources especially for the rural
community for whom agriculture is the main source of livelihood. The information pertaining
to households owning farm animals and pet animals are presented in Table 3.13. About half
(51.2%) of the rural households and one tenth (10.5%) of the urban households have any
farm animals. About half (48.1%) of the rural households have farm animals like
cow/bull/buffalo followed by goat (7.4%) and chicken/duck (3.9%). Only 1.4 percent of the
rural households have pet animals like dog.
27
Table 3.14 displays information pertaining households having agricultural land by selected
background characteristics. Among the rural community having agricultural land, more than
three fifth (62.3%) have land holding of size 1-5 acres followed by 6 acres and above (26.1%)
and less than 1 acre (11.6%). Among both SC (70.3%) and ST households (76.3%),
maximum number of households has agricultural land of size 1-5 acres. Among the non-
migrant households, more than two fifth(62.1%) have agricultural land of size 1-5 acres
followed by 26.0 percent having agricultural land of 6 acres and above and the remaining
11.9 percent households having land size less than 1 acre.

Table 3.15 presents information pertaining to head of the household by selected background
characteristics. The age distribution of the head of the household shows that more than a
quarter (27.5%) belong to the age group 40-49 followed by 50-59 age group (22.9%) and 60
and above (22.3%).The educational attainment of the head of the household reflects that
about a quarter (24.4%) are illiterate and 32.7 percent are literate but below middle and 26.1
percent are middle but below higher secondary educated. The marital status of the head of the
household reveals that 85.9 percent are currently married and 12.2 percent are
widow/widower. The majority (88.4%) of the head of the household are Hindu followed by
Muslim (10.3%). The caste distribution of the head of the household shows that 41.6 percent
belong to OBC followed by others (32.7%), ST (15.4%) and SC (10.3%). More than one fifth
(21.9%) of the head of the households belong to the lowest quintile of SLWI and another 20.4
percent belong to the second lowest quintile of SLWI.

The information pertaining to distribution of households by economic characteristics is

presented in Table 3.16. Among the total households, 43.6 percent have monthly expenditure
of rupees 5001-10000 followed by 29.6 percent households having monthly spending of
rupees 1001-5000. The household income data reveals that 41.4 percent of the households
have monthly income of 5001-10000 followed by income up to rupees 5000(28.6%) and
10001-15000(13.6%). The major sources of household income are casual labour wage
(24.5%), salary (17.0%), business (16.3%), agricultural wage (12.8%), agricultural activities
(12.6%) and livestock(12.5%).

The information pertaining to distribution of household debts is presented in Table 3.17.

About one fifth (18.2%) of the rural households and 14.4 percent of the urban households
have any kind of debt. About a quarter (26.7%) of the total households have debts of rupees
10001-30000 followed by the debt of 90001 and above (23.6%), rupees up to 10000(21.8%)
28
and 30001-50000(19.6%). The important reasons for debt are agriculture (24.7%), health care
(20.0%) and marriage (18.7%).

Table 3.18 presents information on monthly income of the household by selected background
characteristics. Among the rural households, more than two fifth (42.9%) have income of
rupees 5001-10000 followed by 35.2 percent who have income of up to 5000. Among the
illiterate, 47.6 percent have income up to rupees 5000 and 41.0 percent have income of
rupees 5001-10000. Among the Hindu households, two fifth (40.6%) have monthly income
of rupees 5001-10000 and another 29.6 percent have income of up to rupees 5000. Among
the SC households, 47.1 percent have monthly income of rupees 5001-10000 and another one
third have income of rupees up to 5000. Among the non-migrant households, 41.7 percent
have income of rupees 5001-10000 and 29.3 percent have income of up to rupees 5000.

The information pertaining to monthly expenditure of the household by background

characteristics is presented in Table 3.19. Among the rural households, 44.0 percent have
monthly expenditure of rupees 5001-10000 followed by 36.4 percent who have monthly
expenditure of rupees 1001-5000. Among those who are illiterate, 48.0 percent have monthly
expenditure of 1001-5000 followed by 39.0 percent who have monthly expenditure of 5001-
10000.Among the SC households, 43.7 percent have monthly expenditure of rupees 5001-
10000 and another 37.2 percent households having monthly expenditure of 1001-5000.
Among the non-migrant households, 43.7 percent have monthly expenditure of rupees 5001-
10000 and another 30.2 percent households have monthly expenditure of rupees 1001-5000.

The information on mean monthly income and expenditure by selected background

characteristics is presented in Table 3.20. The mean monthly rural income and expenditure is
rupees 8907 and 7850 respectively. Similarly the mean monthly income and expenditure for
urban areas is rupees 14791 and 11650 respectively. Among the illiterate, the mean income is
rupees 6582 and the mean expenditure is rupees 6278. Among those who are graduate and
higher educated, the mean income is rupees 24598 and the mean expenditure is rupees 15921.
Among the Hindu, the mean income is rupees 10670 and the mean expenditure is rupees
8955. Among the SC households, the mean income is rupees 8362 and the mean expenditure
is rupees 7692. Among the households having the lowest quintile of SLWI, the mean income
is rupees 5241 and the mean expenditure is rupees 5184. Among the emigrant households, the
mean income is rupees 19336 and the mean expenditure is rupees 13896.

29
Table 3.1: Percent distribution of the household population by age, according to residence and sex
Total Rural Urban
Age
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
0-4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.8 7.9 7.8 6.7 6.3 6.5
5-9 9.1 8.5 8.8 9.6 9.1 9.3 8.1 7.1 7.6
10-14 10.6 9.3 10.0 11.2 9.7 10.4 9.4 8.5 9.0
15-19 10.5 9.6 10.1 10.7 10.1 10.4 10.2 8.7 9.5
20-24 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.2 9.6 9.4 10.0 9.7 9.9
25-29 8.1 8.2 8.2 7.9 7.7 7.8 8.5 9.4 8.9
30-34 7.0 7.8 7.4 6.7 7.6 7.1 7.7 8.3 8.0
35-39 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.0 8.4 8.2
40-44 6.1 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.7 6.4 6.3 7.7 7.0
45-49 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.9 6.5 6.7
50-54 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.2 5.1 5.2
55-59 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2
60-64 3.0 3.7 3.3 2.9 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.8 3.4
65-69 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.7
70-74 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7
75-79 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
80+ 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Population 24577 23078 47655 16119 15349 31468 8458 7729 16187

Figure 3.1: Age-sex pyramid of population - Total

Age groups
80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Male Female

30
 Figure 3.2: Age-sex pyramid of population - Rural
Age groups
80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Male Female

31
 Figure 3.3: Age-sex pyramid of population - Urban
Age groups
80+
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15-19
10-14
5-9
0-4
6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0

Male Female

32
Table 3.2: Percent distribution of households by sex of head of
household, household size, and household structure, according to
residence
Characteristics Total Rural Urban
Household headship
Male 90.5 90.8 89.9
Female 9.5 9.2 10.1
Number of usual members
1 2.7 2.8 2.6
2 8.7 8.8 8.5
3 12.5 10.7 16.5
4 21.9 19.9 26.0
5 20.6 20.8 20.1
6 14.7 16.0 11.8
7 8.4 9.8 5.6
8 5.4 6.1 4.1
9 & above 5.1 5.1 4.8
Family composition
Single person 2.8 2.8 2.6
Nuclear family 52.0 50.2 55.9
Non-nuclear family 45.2 47.0 41.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of households 9714 6242 3472

Figure 3.4: Headship (in %)

Male
90.5 Female
9.5

33
 Figure 3.5: Family composition (in %)

60.0 52.0
45.2
40.0

20.0
2.8

0.0
Single person
Nuclear
family Non-nuclear
family

34
Table 3.3: Percent distribution of households by housing characteristics
Characteristics Total Rural Urban
Ownership of house
Owned 90.8 94.3 83.1
Rented† 8.8 5.3 16.3
Others 0.4 0.4 0.6
Type of house
Kuchha$ 13.4 18.5 2.8
Semi-pucca 31.8 37.5 19.6
Pucca 54.8 44.0 77.7
Source of drinking water
Piped water into dwelling / yard / bottled
72.1 63.4 90.7
water
Public Tap / hand pump 13.8 17.6 5.5
Tube well / bore well / protected dug well 6.7 8.9 2.0
Unprotected dug well 7.4 10.1 1.8
Type of toilet/latrine facility
Flush toilet¥ 52.0 37.1 83.5
Pit Latrine© 7.7 9.8 3.4
No facility / uses open space or field / others 40.3 53.1 13.1
Source of light
Electricity 95.9 94.6 98.6
Kerosene 4.0 5.3 1.3
Others 0.1 0.1 0.1
Cooking fuel
Electricity 0.8 0.6 1.1
LPG / natural gas / biogas 40.7 25.1 73.8
Kerosene 2.8 2.0 4.6
Wood 55.1 71.7 19.8
Others 0.6 0.6 0.7
Separate room as a kitchen
Yes 62.2 55.8 76.0
No 37.8 44.2 24.0
Number of rooms
1 25.9 29.4 18.4
2-3 65.4 64.0 68.6
4 & above 8.7 6.6 13.0
Persons per room used for sleeping
1-2 92.6 94.0 89.7
3-4 7.1 5.8 9.9
5 & above 0.3 0.2 0.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of households 9714 6242 3472
Note- † Rented includes rented households and government or company quarters.
$ Kuchha includes houses made up of mud, hay stack, tin, bamboo, asbestos, etc.
¥ Flush toilet includes flush to piped sewer system, flush to septic tank, flush to open sewer system, flush to
somewhere else and flush to Pit Latrine
© Pit latrine includes ventilated improved pit/biogas latrine, pit latrine with slab, pit latrine without slab/open
pit, twin pit/composting toilet.
35
 Figure 3.6: Type of house (in %)

Semi-pucca
31.8

Kuchha
13.4

Pucca
54.8

Figure 3.7: Toilet facility (in %)

Flush toilet
52.0
Pit latrine
7.7

No facility /
uses open
space or field
40.3

36
Figure 3. 8: Type of fuel for cooking (in %)
Kerosene
2.8

LPG / natural
gas / biogas
40.7
Wood
55.1

Others
0.6 Electricity
0.8

37
Table 3.4: Percentage of households using toilet facility by selected background characteristics
Type of toilet facility
Background characteristic No facility / uses open
Flush toilet Pit latrine
space or field / others
Residence
Rural 37.1 9.8 53.1
Urban 83.5 3.4 13.1
Total 52.0 7.7 40.3
Education
Illiterate 26.0 5.4 68.6
Literate but below middle 46.4 8.0 45.6
Middle but below higher secondary 64.0 9.5 26.5
Higher secondary but below graduate 74.2 8.3 17.4
$
Graduate and higher 87.6 7.4 5.0
Religion
Hindu 49.9 7.3 42.8
Muslim 65.0 11.5 23.5
Jain 98.3 1.7 0.0
Others 63.9 24.1 12.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 36.2 8.7 55.1
Scheduled tribe 18.4 3.9 77.7
OBC 45.5 7.6 46.9
Others (General) 81.0 9.4 9.6
Standard living & wealth index
(SLWI)
Lowest 1.9 2.4 95.7
Second 18.4 7.8 73.8
Middle 65.4 14.5 20.1
Fourth 87.1 11.2 1.7
Highest 96.6 3.3 0.1
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 71.6 21.7 6.7
Return migrant households 71.8 13.7 14.5
Internal out-migrant households 80.4 3.4 16.2
Non-migrant households 51.1 7.3 41.6
Number of households 5281 704 3729
Note- $ Graduate and higher education includes ITI certificate courses, polytechnic/diploma, bachelor degree like
BA/B.Com/B.Sc., etc., professional bachelor degree like BTech/LLB/MBBS/BDS, etc., PG diploma (PGDCA, etc.),
master degree like MA/MSc/M.Com, etc., professional master degree like Mtech/MBA/MCA/MD, etc., M.Phil/PhD.

38
 Figure 3.9: Toilet facility by migration status (in %)

90.0

80.4
71.6

71.8
80.0
70.0
60.0

51.1
50.0

41.6
40.0

21.7
30.0

13.7
14.5

16.2
20.0

6.7
10.0

3.4

7.3
0.0
Emigrant
households Return
migrant Internal out-
migrant Non-migrant
households households
households

Flush toilet Pit latrine No facility/uses open space or field

Figure 3.10: Source of drinking water by caste (in %)

90.0

89.6
69.0

80.0
74.0

70.0
60.0
50.0
35.2
32.3

40.0
17.7

30.0
18.1
14.5

20.0
12.7
7.3
6.0

10.0
6.4
6.9

3.7

0.0
3.1
3.6

Scheduled
caste Scheduled
OBC
tribe Others

Piped water into dwelling/yard Public Tap / hand pump

Tube well/bore well/protected dug well Unprotected dug well / others

39
Figure 3.11: Source of drinking water by caste (in %)

94.0

93.1
100.0

96.4
81.9
80.0

60.0

40.0

18.1
6.0
20.0

6.9
0.0

3.6
Scheduled
caste Scheduled
OBC
tribe Others

Improved sources Non-improved sources

40
Table 3.5: Percentage of household’s source of drinking water by selected background characteristics
Source of drinking water
Background characteristic Piped water Tube well or bore Unprotected
Public tap or
into dwelling / well or protected dug dug well /
hand pump
yard well others
Residence
Rural 63.4 17.6 8.9 10.1
Urban 90.7 5.5 2.0 1.8
Total 72.1 13.8 6.7 7.4
Education
Illiterate 56.7 22.0 10.2 11.1
Literate but below middle 70.4 14.6 6.5 8.5
Middle but below higher secondary 78.0 10.8 5.7 5.5
Higher secondary but below graduate 85.1 7.2 3.3 4.4
Graduate and higher 92.1 2.6 3.4 1.9
Religion
Hindu 70.4 14.7 7.2 7.7
Muslim 84.1 7.2 2.6 6.1
Jain 97.9 0.8 0.4 0.9
Others 88.0 6.9 5.1 0.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 69.0 17.7 7.3 6.0
Scheduled tribe 32.2 35.2 14.5 18.1
OBC 74.0 12.7 6.4 6.9
Others (General) 89.6 3.7 3.1 3.6
Standard living & wealth index
(SLWI)
Lowest 27.6 38.3 14.7 19.4
Second 67.1 16.1 8.1 8.7
Middle 82.0 7.7 5.5 4.8
Fourth 92.8 2.3 2.8 2.1
Highest 98.0 0.5 1.0 0.5
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 83.0 2.8 4.8 9.4
Return migrant households 80.3 5.2 6.2 8.3
Internal out-migrant households 87.5 3.6 4.5 4.4
Non-migrant households 71.7 14.1 6.8 7.4
Number of households 7276 1169 637 632

41
Table 3.6: Percentage of household’s improved and non-improved sources of
drinking water by selected background characteristics
Non-improved
Background characteristic Improved sources$
sources#
Residence
Rural 89.9 10.1
Urban 98.2 1.8
Total 92.6 7.4
Education
Illiterate 88.9 11.1
Literate but below middle 91.5 8.5
Middle but below higher secondary 94.5 5.5
Higher secondary but below graduate 95.6 4.4
Graduate and higher 98.1 1.9
Religion
Hindu 92.3 7.7
Muslim 93.9 6.1
Jain 99.1 0.9
Others 100.0 0.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 94.0 6.0
Scheduled tribe 81.9 18.1
OBC 93.1 6.9
Others (General) 96.4 3.6
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 80.6 19.4
Second 91.3 8.7
Middle 95.2 4.8
Fourth 97.9 2.1
Highest 99.5 0.5
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 90.6 9.4
Return migrant households 91.7 8.3
Internal out-migrant households 95.6 4.4
Non-migrant households 92.6 7.4
Number of households 9082 632
Note- $ Improved sources includes piped water into dwelling/yard, public tap/hand pump, tube well/bore
well, protected dug well and bottled water.
# Non-improved sources includes unprotected dug well, springs, tanker/truck, cart with small tank,
river/stream, surface water (dam/lake/pond/canal/irrigation channels) and others.

42
Table 3.7: Percentage of household’s house by selected background characteristics
Type of house
Background characteristic
Kuchha Semi-pucca Pucca
Residence
Rural 18.5 37.5 44.0
Urban 2.8 19.5 77.7
Total 13.4 31.8 54.8
Education
Illiterate 23.2 46.5 30.1
Literate but below middle 15.2 36.1 48.7
Middle but below higher secondary 8.7 25.2 66.1
Higher secondary but below graduate 4.3 17.8 77.9
Graduate and higher 2.3 7.6 90.1
Religion
Hindu 14.8 32.2 53.0
Muslim 3.8 31.4 64.8
Jain 0.0 1.3 98.7
Others 11.9 14.1 74.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 12.8 36.3 50.9
Scheduled tribe 43.6 42.4 14.0
OBC 10.9 38.5 50.6
Others (General) 2.7 16.8 80.5
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 42.8 52.6 4.6
Second 14.4 57.5 28.1
Middle 3.6 34.7 61.7
Fourth 1.6 8.6 89.8
Highest 0.7 0.4 98.9
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 3.2 13.7 83.1
Return migrant households 1.3 24.9 73.8
Internal out-migrant households 0.0 22.7 77.3
Non-migrant households 13.9 32.4 53.7
Number of households 1047 3218 5449

43
 Figure 3.12: Type of house by religion (in %)

98.7
100.0

80.0

64.8

74.0
53.0
60.0

32.2

31.4
40.0

14.8
20.0

14.1
11.9
3.8

1.3
0.0
0.0
Hindu
Muslim Jain
Others
Kuchha Semi-pucca Pucca

44
Table 3.8: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households by possessing various
household goods
Household possessions Total Rural Urban
Household assets
Cycle 39.3 37.4 43.4
Motor Cycle / Scooter 43.7 35.8 60.6
Motor Car 6.9 3.6 14.1
Taxi / Truck / Lorry 2.1 1.7 3.2
Radio or Transistor 10.6 9.5 13.0
Electric Fan 87.1 82.8 96.4
LPG Gas 46.4 32.0 77.1
Television 66.2 57.2 85.5
MP3 / DVD / VCD 31.2 23.9 46.6
Refrigerator 32.4 21.6 55.3
Computer / Laptop 7.3 3.1 16.3
Net Connection 4.2 1.6 9.9
Telephone (Land Line) 9.2 5.3 17.6
Mobile Phone 90.4 88.1 95.4
Furniture (Chair / Table / Sofa, etc.) 83.0 80.3 88.8
Electric Cooking Oven / Microwave Oven 4.2 2.2 8.6
Tractor 3.5 4.5 1.6
Water Pump 5.5 7.2 2.1
Thrasher 0.7 0.9 0.4
Air Cooler / Conditioner 4.5 1.5 10.7
Washing Machine 5.7 1.8 13.8
Bullock cart 3.6 4.8 1.1
Number of households 9713 6241 3472

45
Table 3.9: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households by mode of savings and
registered under health schemes / insurance and government welfare schemes
Particulars Total Rural Urban
Percentage of households having a bank account / post office
71.0 65.5 82.5
account
Percentage of households covered under micro finance 7.3 8.2 5.6
Percentage of households covered by RSBY 13.4 16.3 7.3
Percentage of households covered by a health scheme/health
15.7 11.5 24.5
insurance scheme
Percentage of households owning a BPL card 30.0 37.1 13.9
Number of households 9713 6241 3472

46
Table 3.10: Percentage of household covered under RSBY and any other health scheme by
selected background characteristics
Household cover by any other
Household cover
Background characteristic health scheme or health
by RSBY
insurance
Residence
Rural 16.3 11.5
Urban 7.3 24.5
Total 13.4 15.7
Education
Illiterate 19.7 6.5
Literate but below middle 14.4 9.9
Middle but below higher secondary 9.9 18.8
Higher secondary but below graduate 7.5 20.5
Graduate and higher 8.4 46.9
Religion
Hindu 14.2 16.0
Muslim 7.6 8.2
Jain 8.1 51.2
Others 16.5 41.4
Caste
Scheduled caste 20.6 9.6
Scheduled tribe 22.7 6.1
OBC 14.4 12.6
Others (General) 5.5 26.0
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 24.2 3.5
Second 21.5 5.9
Middle 8.8 9.5
Fourth 3.8 17.4
Highest 6.8 44.7
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 3.6 26.6
Return migrant households 7.2 23.7
Internal out-migrant households 10.9 41.0
Non-migrant households 13.8 15.2
Number of households 1282 1592

47
Table 3.11: Percentage of household having BPL card and bank/post office account by
selected background characteristics
Household having a
Household having
Background characteristic bank / post office
BPL card
account
Residence
Rural 37.1 65.5
Urban 13.9 82.5
Total 30.0 71.0
Education
Illiterate 49.3 50.6
Literate but below middle 34.0 67.9
Middle but below higher secondary 19.7 79.8
Higher secondary but below graduate 13.5 87.3
Graduate and higher 4.1 97.3
Religion
Hindu 30.8 70.9
Muslim 26.1 68.1
Jain 0.0 97.9
Others 8.2 93.2
Caste
Scheduled caste 44.2 65.9
Scheduled tribe 60.1 52.8
OBC 32.4 65.0
Others (General) 7.4 88.8
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 58.7 30.4
Second 46.9 61.1
Middle 28.9 78.4
Fourth 7.8 92.0
Highest 2.0 99.5
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 8.2 93.2
Return migrant households 15.4 94.1
Internal out-migrant households 17.5 93.4
Non-migrant households 30.8 70.0
Number of households 2530 7020

48
Table 3.12: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households owning agricultural
land
Assets Total Rural Urban
(n=9714) (n=6242) (n=3472)
Owning a house 90.7 94.3 83.1
Agricultural land 42.6 56.0 14.1
Size of agricultural land (in acres) (n=3778) (n=3341) (n=437)
Less than1 acres 11.9 11.6 14.2
1 - 5 acres 61.3 62.3 52.4
6 acres and above 26.8 26.0 33.4
Size of irrigated agricultural land (in acres)
None irrigated 35.7 37.5 20.5
Less than 1 acres 8.2 7.8 11.7
1 - 5 acres 39.9 39.3 44.6
6 acres and above 16.2 15.4 23.3
Size of non-irrigated agricultural land (in
(n=1304) (n=1207) (n=97)
acres)
Less than 1 acres 14.1 14.1 13.7
1 - 5 acres 64.9 65.6 54.8
6 acres and above 21.0 20.3 31.5
Number of households 100.0 100.0 100.0

49
Table 3.13: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households owning farm
animals and pet animals
Animals Total Rural Urban
(n=9713) (n=6241) (n=3472)
Households having any farm animals 38.2 51.2 10.5
Farm animals
Cow / Bull / Buffalo 35.6 48.1 9.1
Goat 5.5 7.4 1.3
Chicken / Duck 2.8 3.9 0.5
Others$ 1.0 1.3 0.3
Pet animals
Dog 1.2 1.4 0.7
Cat 0.4 0.5 0.1
Birds 0.5 0.6 0.3
Note- $ Others includes camel, horse/donkey/mule, sheep and other animals.

50
Table 3.14: Percentage of households having agricultural land by selected
background characteristics
Agricultural Land
Background characteristic Less than 1 6 acres &
1 - 5 acres
acres above
Residence
Rural 11.6 62.3 26.1
Urban 14.2 52.4 33.4
Total 11.9 61.3 26.8
Education
Illiterate 14.2 65.0 20.8
Literate but below middle 10.4 59.8 29.8
Middle but below higher
13.0 57.9 29.1
secondary
Higher secondary but below
8.5 66.9 24.6
graduate
Graduate and higher 8.0 61.8 30.2
Religion
Hindu 11.7 61.3 27.0
Muslim 17.0 61.0 22.0
Jain 0.0 23.8 76.2
Others 15.6 84.4 0.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 15.4 70.3 14.3
Scheduled tribe 15.5 76.3 8.2
OBC 13.9 63.5 22.6
Others (General) 5.9 44.8 49.3
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 21.1 71.1 7.8
Second 11.7 69.2 19.1
Middle 5.0 58.7 36.3
Fourth 6.3 45.8 47.9
Highest 6.6 43.9 49.5
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 7.4 34.9 57.7
Return migrant households 24.3 43.5 32.2
Internal out-migrant households 3.6 56.8 39.6
Non-migrant households 11.9 62.1 26.0
Number of households 411 2299 1068

51
Figure 3.13: Size of agricultural land by residence (in %)

62.3
80.0

52.4
60.0

33.4
40.0

14.2
11.6

26.1
20.0
0.0
Below 1 acres
1 - 5 acres
6 acres &
above
Rural Urban

52
Table 3.15: Percent distribution of head of the household by selected
background characteristics
Background characteristic Percent Number#
Age (years)
Less than 20 0.1 7
20 - 29 5.9 606
30 - 39 21.3 2099
40 - 49 27.5 2673
50 - 59 22.9 2178
60 & above 22.3 2151
Residence
Rural 68.1 6242
Urban 31.9 3472
Education
Illiterate 24.4 2378
Literate but below middle 32.7 3163
Middle but below higher secondary 26.1 2528
Higher secondary but below graduate 7.3 707
Graduate and higher 9.5 938
Marital status
Never married 1.2 122
Currently married 85.9 8374
Widow / widower 12.2 1156
Divorced / Separated / deserted 0.7 62
Religion
Hindu 88.4 8518
Muslim 10.3 1060
Jain 1.0 111
Others 0.3 25
Caste
Scheduled caste 10.3 1108
Scheduled tribe 15.4 1159
OBC 41.6 4156
Others (General) 32.7 3291
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 21.9 1943
Second 20.4 1943
Middle 19.6 1943
Fourth 19.1 1939
Highest 19.0 1946
Number of households 100.0 9714

53
Table 3.16: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households by economic
characteristics
Economic Characteristics Total Rural Urban
Monthly expenditure (in Rs.) (n=9696) (n=6230) (n=3466)
Up to 1000 0.4 0.4 0.3
1001 - 5000 29.6 36.4 14.9
5001 - 10000 43.6 44.0 42.7
10001 - 15000 13.7 10.4 20.6
15001 & above 12.8 8.7 21.4
Monthly income (in Rs.) (n=9659) (n=6204) (n=3455)
Up to 5000 28.6 35.2 14.5
5001 - 10000 41.4 42.9 38.4
10001 - 15000 13.6 11.2 18.8
15001 - 20000 7.2 5.1 11.4
20001 & above 9.2 5.5 16.9
Major source of income
Salary 17.0 8.9 34.5
Business 16.3 8.8 32.4
Agricultural activities 12.6 16.1 5.0
Remittances 2.0 2.1 1.7
Income from livestock 12.5 16.9 3.0
Agricultural wage 12.8 17.3 3.1
Casual labour wage 24.5 27.8 17.5
Others 2.3 2.1 2.8
Source of income*
Salary 30.2 21.5 48.7
Business 23.0 15.8 38.3
Agricultural activities 37.1 49.9 9.8
Remittances 2.9 3.3 2.0
Rent 0.5 0.3 0.7
Investment 0.6 0.5 0.9
Income from livestock 19.6 26.7 4.7
Agricultural wage 17.1 23.1 4.2
Casual labour wage 24.8 28.1 17.6
Others 1.5 1.6 1.3
Note- * Multiple response may more than 100 percent.

54
Table 3.17: Percent distribution of total, rural and urban households by debts
taken
Economic Characteristics Total Rural Urban
Percentage having debts 17.0 18.2 14.4
Amount of debts (in rupees)
Up to 10000 21.8 23.4 17.6
10001 - 30000 26.7 27.8 23.6
30001 - 50000 19.6 19.9 18.8
50001 - 70000 5.4 5.5 5.3
70001 - 90000 2.9 2.7 3.3
90001 & above 23.6 20.7 31.4
Reasons for debts
Education 9.7 8.9 11.7
Business exposure 5.4 3.5 10.8
Agriculture 24.7 30.9 8.0
Health care 20.0 20.5 19.0
Marriage 18.7 19.6 16.0
Migration 1.8 2.1 0.8
Renovation / construction of houses 8.8 6.7 14.4
Personal 10.9 7.8 19.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of households 9705 6236 3469

55
Table 3.18: Monthly income by selected background characteristics
Monthly income (in Rs.)
Background characteristic
Up to 5000 5001-10000 10001-15000 15001-20000 20001& above
Residence
Rural 35.2 42.9 11.2 5.1 5.6
Urban 14.5 38.4 18.8 11.4 16.9
Education
Illiterate 47.6 41.0 7.5 2.2 1.7
Literate but below middle 31.3 46.9 12.2 4.9 4.7
Middle but below higher secondary 19.6 44.5 17.9 9.3 8.7
Higher secondary but below graduate 14.6 36.6 20.0 13.2 15.6
Graduate and higher 5.8 18.9 18.1 17.0 40.2
Religion
Hindu 29.6 40.6 13.5 7.1 9.2
Muslim 22.1 51.5 14.5 5.7 6.2
Jain 9.6 19.3 17.3 21.0 32.8
Others 12.2 26.0 19.1 10.3 32.4
Caste
Scheduled caste 33.1 47.1 10.0 5.4 4.4
Scheduled tribe 53.9 35.4 6.7 1.4 2.6
OBC 29.6 47.6 11.8 5.4 5.6
Others (General) 13.8 34.7 20.5 12.6 18.4
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 60.3 35.1 2.9 0.9 0.8
Second 39.2 52.0 5.9 1.4 1.5
Middle 23.0 54.4 14.8 4.8 3.0
Fourth 11.1 45.7 23.3 11.1 8.8
Highest 4.2 19.9 23.4 18.9 33.6
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 9.1 33.7 17.7 15.6 23.9
Return migrant households 11.4 45.7 10.9 11.9 20.1
Internal out-migrant households 19.0 32.2 10.4 18.5 19.9
Non-migrant households 29.3 41.7 13.6 6.8 8.6
Number of households 2637 4046 1346 708 922

56
Table 3.19: Monthly Expenditure by selected background characteristics
Monthly expenditure (in Rs.)
Background characteristic Up to
1001 – 5000 5001 – 10000 10001 – 15000 15001 & above
1000
Residence
Rural 0.4 36.4 44.0 10.5 8.7
Urban 0.3 14.9 42.7 20.6 21.5
Education
Illiterate 1.3 48.0 39.0 6.5 5.2
Literate but below middle 0.2 33.0 46.5 11.5 8.8
Middle but below higher secondary 0.0 20.6 49.1 16.6 13.7
Higher secondary but below graduate 0.0 16.4 45.0 21.2 17.4
Graduate and higher 0.0 5.4 29.0 26.0 39.6
Religion
Hindu 0.4 30.8 42.8 13.5 12.5
Muslim 0.2 21.4 53.0 13.7 11.7
Jain 0.0 6.5 24.2 23.5 45.8
Others 0.0 16.5 41.0 22.0 20.5
Caste
Scheduled caste 0.6 37.2 43.7 9.6 8.9
Scheduled tribe 0.6 54.9 36.2 5.7 2.6
OBC 0.5 29.9 48.6 11.4 9.6
Others (General) 0.1 14.7 40.7 21.7 22.8
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 1.4 60.2 32.0 3.8 2.6
Second 0.3 41.6 47.3 6.2 4.6
Middle 0.1 26.5 54.1 11.2 8.1
Fourth 0.0 12.1 55.3 19.5 13.1
Highest 0.0 2.2 30.5 29.8 37.5
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 0.0 14.1 42.3 16.5 27.1
Return migrant households 0.0 14.8 38.9 15.0 31.3
Internal out-migrant households 0.0 18.9 37.0 13.6 30.5
Non-migrant households 0.4 30.2 43.7 13.6 12.1
Number of households 34 2717 4290 1382 1273

57
Table 3.20: Mean monthly income and expenditure by selected background characteristics
Mean
Background characteristic
Monthly income (in Rs.) Monthly expenditure (in Rs.)
Residence
Rural 8907 7850
Urban 14791 11650
Education
Illiterate 6582 6278
Literate but below middle 8660 8148
Middle but below higher secondary 11577 9784
Higher secondary but below graduate 13650 11033
Graduate and higher 24598 15921
Religion
Hindu 10670 8955
Muslim 9882 9035
Jain 26719 17863
Others 22316 11723
Caste
Scheduled caste 8362 7692
Scheduled tribe 6161 5557
OBC 9033 8261
Others (General) 15981 12179
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 5241 5184
Second 6588 6583
Middle 8754 8041
Fourth 12288 10451
Highest 22232 15842
Migration status of households
Emigrant households 19336 13896
Return migrant households 16421 12745
Internal out-migrant households 16710 15268
Non-migrant households 10485 8877
Total mean amount (in Rs.) 10995 9195
Number of households 9659 9696

58
 Chapter 4
Emigration from Gujarat : Magnitude, Process and Characteristics

One of the characteristic features of emigration from Gujarat is its long history. Gujaratis
migrated to eastern Africa, Central Asia and Middle East and later in the post independence
period to the developed countries like UK and USA for trade, business, study and
employment. The mercantile links of Gujarat with other parts of the world has been very
significant buttressed by a long sea coast extending from Kachcha in the north-west to Surat in
the south. On the other hand, poor farm land dry climatic conditions pushed people seek trade,
artisanship and emigration to survive. The process of emigration started in ancient times.
Under the British rule, Gujaratis, like other Indians, followed the Empire's flag to serve as
traders and clerks under colonial administrators, primarily in East Africa. Socially and
culturally there has developed among Gujaratis an ideology of emigration as a preferred means
of obtaining family and individual goals (Helweg 1982). This chapter presents characteristics
of emigrants, process of emigration and network supporting and cost of emigration. It also
highlight to what extent emigrants are connected with their families after leaving their
household in Gujarat.

The Magnitude:
The NSS 64th Round defined an emigrant as a former member of a household, who left the
household any time in the past for staying outside India provided he/she, was alive on the date of
survey (National Sample Survey Office 2010). We have followed the same definition in the work
to maintain comparability. Although Gujarat has a long history of migration and Gujarati are
spread over many countries, the household surveys conducted by NSSO does not show
emigration rate very high. In 2007-08, the emigration rate from Gujarat was about 3 per 1000
population compared to 4 per 1000 at all India level. The reason may be that many states of India
might have experienced accelerated rates of emigration in recent decades as a result of increased
labour migration whereas Gujaratis in the past have moved for business purposes mainly
engaged in self employment. The prominent states which show higher emigration rates than

68
Gujarat are Kerala (46), Punjab (14) Goa (11) Tamil Nadu (7) and Andhra Pradesh (5) (Bhagat,
Keshri and Ali, 2013).

Table 4.1 shows that the NSSO surveyed 4257 households in Gujarat in 2007-08 which gives
an emigration rate of 3.7 per 1000 population. The present survey covered 9714 households in
year 2012 gives and emigration rate of 8 per 1000 population. Similarly in terms of proportion
of households, it was observed there were 11 households with emigrants per 1000 households
in 2007-08 which increased to 27 households per 1000 households in this survey. Some
increase in emigration rate has been likely during 2007-2012. The increase has occurred in the
all regions except northern plains. However, in the past northern (Vadodara, Kheda, Anand,
Mahesana and Ahmedabad) has been pioneer in emigration. It seems that the increased
opportunities in the Gulf and elsewhere expanded the areas of emigration outside northern
region. Emigration seems to have increased very significantly from Kachcha and Saurashtra
(see Table 4.2). This is consistent in the shift in the geographical pattern of development in the
state of Gujarat. According to Vidyut Joshi (2000) the corridor of development from Mehsana
to Vapi which mostly falls in the northern plains is being exhausted. The shift has been now
clearly occurring to Saurashtra and elsewhere. This also indicates to the fact that rising
economic status may not restrain international outmigration rather in some cases it may spur
them. Also it is important to mention that Gujaratis are more internationally mobile compared
to their migration to the other states of India. Only 5 per 1000 households reported that any
member of their living outside Gujarat that too in Maharashtra (mostly in Mumbai) compared
to 27 living abroad. As such emigration is about 5 times higher than out migration from
Gujarat to other states of India.

Sample surveys conducted at the place of origin have some limitations. For example, if entire
households have moved it will not be captured. Further definition of emigrant with a clause
former member of households may be perceived by head of the households differently if link
between the emigrant and household is weak. Further, the definition of emigrant will be more
suitable to capture more recent emigrants who will be identified as former member of the
household. With these limitations in mind, we estimated about 0.5 million people from Gujarat
were classified as emigrants in 2012 as compared to 0.18 million estimated based on NSSO
69
data pertaining to year 2007-08 (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Emigration Rate from Gujarat: IIPS Survey and NSSO Compared
Rates NSS 2007-08 IIPS Survey 2012
Emigration Rate 3.7 8.0
per 1000 population
Number of emigrant 11.2 26.7
households per 1000
households
Estimated number of 0.18 0.50
emigrants (million)
Sample Size (Households) 4257 9714

70
Table 4.2: Emigration Rates, NSS 2007-08 and IIPS Survey 2012

Region No. of emigrants No. of household with emigrants

per 1000 population per 1000 households
IIPS Survey
NSS 2007-08 NSS 2007-08 IIPS Survey 2012
2012
South
Eastern
Gujarat 4.7 8.3 15.1 25.4
Northern
Plains 5.9 6.7 16.2 20.3
Kachchh
and Dry
Areas 0.32 6.3 3.3 23.4
Saurashtra 1.27 10.8 3.7 37.3
Total 3.74 8.0 11.2 26.6

71
 Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of total, rural and urban emigrant households by
number of emigrants
Households with number of
Total Rural Urban
emigrants
1 68.3 68.2 68.8
2 18.5 19.0 17.5
3 9.7 8.9 11.2
4 & above 3.5 3.9 2.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of emigrant households (n) 259* 179 80
*There were 386 emigrants including children in 259 households. Out of 386 emigrants, 292 moved at
different points of time. In subsequest tables therefore number varies accordingly.

Characteritics:
Table 4.3 shows that two-third of emigrating housholds reported only one emigrant and one
third reported two and more emigrants. However, majority of the emigrants were from rural
areas shows that asiration to migrate has been higher in rural areas due to lack of better
opportunites. This also indicates that the emigration from Gujarat seems to have been
occurring mainly from skilled and semi-skilled groups with low level of education, and is
perhaps an indication of a shift from the professional, technical and business related migration to
labour migration in recent decades. Table 4.4 shows that emigration is predominantly a male
selective phenomenon, and SCs, STs and OBCs are much less compared to higher castes
(others). Majority are also currently married (72 per cent). About one-tenth of the emigrants
were students and similar magnitude were also reported having the status of housewives. It may
be also noted from Table 4.4 that very few people emigrated with poor background.

72
Table 4.4: Percentage distribution of emigrants by background characteristics
Background characteristic Percentage Number#
Age (in years)
Less than 20 8.0 31
20 – 29 33.2 128
30 – 39 31.3 121
40 – 49 18.1 70
50 – 59 7.5 29
60 & above 1.8 7
Sex
Male 74.6 288
Female 25.4 98
Marital status@
Never married 27.4 101
Currently married 72.1 266
Divorced 0.3 1
Separated / deserted 0.3 1
Residence
Rural 69.4 268
Urban 30.6 118
Education@
Illiterate 0.3 1
Literate but below middle 14.0 53
Middle but below higher secondary 23.0 87
Higher secondary but below graduate 16.9 64
Graduate and higher 45.9 174
Religion
Hindu 75.9 293
Muslim 21.8 84
Jain 2.1 8
Others 0.3 1
Caste
Scheduled caste 6.7 26
Scheduled tribe 2.6 10
OBC 20.2 78
Others (General) 70.5 272
Activity status@
Working 70.2 271
Housewife 14.5 56
Student 13.2 51
Too young children / Pensioners / retired / old can’t work 1.8 7
Job seekers (unemployed) 0.3 1
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 1.8 7
Second 4.9 19
73
Middle 12.2 47
Fourth 22.5 87
Highest 58.5 226
Number of emigrants 100.0 386
Note: @ Only current status has considered for emigrant’s marital, education and activity status.

74
Table 4.5: Percentage distribution of emigrants by region and education
South Northern Kuchchh and
Background characteristics Sourashtra
Eastern Plains Dry Areas
Education
Illiterate 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0
Literate but below middle 9.3 6.3 19.1 20.0
Middle but below higher secondary 29.9 12.7 35.3 16.8
Higher secondary but below graduate 20.6 6.3 10.3 24.0
Graduate and higher 40.2 74.7 33.8 39.2
Standard of living & wealth index
(SLWI)
Lowest 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.9
Second 2.7 1.3 14.5 3.9
Middle 8.2 0.0 23.2 17.3
Fourth 20.9 7.5 20.3 34.7
Highest 66.4 91.2 42.0 40.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of emigrants (n) 110 80 69 127

About 3/4th of the emigrants were Hindus and Muslims constituted one-fifth. There were very
few emigrants from Jain and other communities. Among Hindus about 2/5th were from Patel
communities alone. So, Patel and Muslims comprised of the majority of the emigrants.
Educational level and economic status of the households are important determinants of
emigration. However, these two factors also vary significantly across regions of Gujarat. The
Northern Plain is relatively better off both in terms of economic status and educational status.
Accordingly, emigrants from Northern Plains were more educated and belong to higher standard
of living and wealth index class. About 75 per cent of emigrants from Northern Plains were
graduate and above compared to 40 per cent in rest of the regions of Gujarat. This supports the

75
earlier statement that labour migration of unskilled and semi-skilled nature have been an
emerging feature conincidental with the regional shift in the emigration pattern from the core
area of Northern Plains dominated by the emigration of upper castes (Brahmins, Bania and
Patels) in the professional, executive and technical jobs and also in shops, hotel amd motels in
post 1965 in USA and other western countries. This was the result of the liberalisation of
immigration policy of the USA. At first the professionals like doctors, pharmacists, engineers
and scientists migrated followed by the business classes. Over time, they sponsored family
members, and large proportion of 2 million Indians in USA comprises of Gujaratis (Yagnik and
Sheth 2005:238).

Table 4.6: Percentage distribution of emigrants by country of residence

Country First migrated Currently residing

Australia 9.3 11.4
Canada 5.4 5.7
Kuwait 1.6 1.6
Oman (Muscat) 10.4 10.1
Saudi Arabia 3.1 3.1
South Africa 8.5 8.5
United Arab Emirates 10.6 11.6
United Kingdom 7.3 7.8
United States of America 35.2 35.8
Other country 8.6 4.4
Total 100.0 100.0
Number of emigrants (n) 386 386

There are two areas of emigration from Gujarat. Table 4.6 shows that 35 per cent emigrants
headed to USA follwed by Gulf Countries (25 per cent). In the Gulf, two countries namely
Oman and UAE have share of about 10 percent each. Rest of the countries have very low
Gujarati emigration. The countries like Australia, South Africa, UK and Canada are other

76
important dstinations with share ranging in between 5 to 11 per cent each in the respective
countries. There is no difference between countries first migrated and currently residing. This
shows that Gujarati emigrants’ first destination remain unchnaged perhaps due to their business
and professional networks in the place of first detination which they may not like to leave.
The Gujarati emigration is mostly a male migration, whereas women constituted only one-fourth
of the emigrants. The destinations by gender also differ significatly as women move to more to
western developed countries. There is a negligible emigration of women to the Gulf countries.
On the other hand, the emigrant women belong to higher educational and economic status
categories compared to men as higher socio-economic status women follow their
husbands/family members for settlement in the advanced countries (see Table 4.7).

Table 4.7 Percentage distribution of emigrants by residence and

sex
Background characteristics Male Female
Current destination place of emigrants
USA & Canada 35.8 58.2
Gulf countries 33.7 5.1
Australia 9.7 16.3
Other countries 20.8 20.4
Education
Illiterate 0.4 0.0
Literate but below middle 16.2 7.4
Middle but below higher secondary 24.6 17.9
Higher secondary but below graduate 15.5 21.0
Graduate and higher 43.3 53.7
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 2.0 1.0
Second 6.3 1.0
Middle 16.0 1.0
Fourth 23.3 20.4
Highest 52.4 76.6
Total 100.0 100.0
Number of emigrants (n) 288 98

77
Table 4.8: Change in socio-economic and demographic status of emigrants due to emigration
Characteristic Before emigration Current Change
Marital status (n=361) (n=369)
Never married 33.0 27.4 -6.6
Currently married 66.4 72.0 4.5
Divorced 0.3 0.3 -1.0
Separated/deserted 0.3 0.3 -1.0
Education (n=366) (n=379)
Illiterate 1.1 0.3 -1.8
Literate but below middle 13.1 14.0 -0.1
Middle but below higher secondary 22.4 23.0 -0.4
Higher secondary but below graduate 17.2 16.9 -1.3
Graduate and higher 46.2 45.8 -1.3
Activity status (n=386) (n=386)
Working 56.2 70.2 13.0
Housewife 14.8 14.5 -1.3
Student 19.9 13.2 -7.7
Too young children / pensioners / retired / old can’t work 5.2 1.8 -4.4
Job seekers (unemployed) 3.9 0.3 -4.6
Total 100.0 100.0

Unlike popular belief that unmarried persons migrate more, this study shows that majority of
the emigrants were married (66 percent) before migration compared to one-third of ummarried.
The marital status after emigration has marginally changed from unmarried to married status.
The educational status also remained more or less unchnaged. However, the most signficant
change has been seen in the working status which has risen to 56 per cent before migration to
76 per cent after migration (see Table 4.8).

78
Table 4.9: Percentage of emigrants by reasons for emigration

Reasons for emigration Percentage Number

In search of employment 6.0 23
In search of better employment 15.5 60
Business 5.2 20
To take up employment / better employment 37.0 143
Transfer of service / contract 2.1 8
Studies / education 14.0 54
Marriage 3.9 15
Settlement 13.5 52
Others 2.8 11
Number of emigrants 100.0 386

79
 Table 4.9 shows the reasons of emigration. It has been mentioned earlier that emigration is
predominantly a male selective phenomenon, and as such employment is the most important
reason emerging from Table 4.9. However, it is not the search of employment but better
employment or to take up an employment are the more important reasons for emigration than
the search of employment. Education and settlement are two other important reasons each having
about 14 per cent contribution. The permanent settlement is generally sought by women and

Table 4.10: Educational status and activity status of emigrants by reasons for migration
Transfe To take up
In search of
In search of r of employment / Studies / Settlement
Particulars better Business Marriage
employment service/ better education & others*
employment
contract employment
Education
Illiterate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Literate but below
17.4 10.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 20.3 0.0 8.9
middle
Middle but below higher
30.4 35.0 5.0 0.0 25.8 7.4 13.3 26.8
secondary
Higher secondary but
17.4 15.0 20.0 12.5 18.2 9.3 6.7 25.0
below graduate
Graduate and higher 34.8 40.0 75.0 87.5 36.4 63.0 80.0 39.3
Activity status
Working 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 11.1 40.0 9.5
Housewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 60.0 71.4
Student 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.2 0.0 7.9
Too young children /
pensioners / retired / old 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1
can’t work
Job seekers 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of emigrants (n) 23 60 20 8 143 54 15 63
*Others: There are 7 cases of children moved with their parents.

80
children related to the primary emigrant. The reasons of migrations are further cross classified by
educational levels and activity status. It is interesting to note that in each reason, emigration
rises with increasing level of education. Education seems to be the key determinant of higher
salary and wages and also the rising aspiration for better quality of life and better prospective
marriage partners. It leads to higher motivation for emigration. Those who said marriage as a
reason of emigration, about 60 per cent of them were reported to be housewives at time of
survey and majority of women and children moved for settlement at the place destination. The
current occupational status of emigrant shows that about one-fifth were employed as unskilled
workers such as domestic or wage workers. About one-tenth were skilled workers employed in
factories and firms and doing works like machanics, drivers, plumbers, electricians etc.

81
 Table 4.11: Actual occupation of emigrants before and after emigration
Before emigration After emigration
Actual occupation of emigrants Percentage Number Percentage Number
Administrative & educational services* 9.6 37 11.4 44
Financial & managerial services 3.9 15 10.4 40
Engineering, IT professionals 2.1 8 3.1 12
Business, shops, malls, etc. 11.4 44 8.8 34
Sales workers 2.3 9 3.6 14
Unskilled workers / domestic workers (wage
18.1 70 18.6 72
worker)
Skilled workers / mechanics / factory workers
8.8 34 13.7 53
/ drivers / plumbers, etc
Student 19.2 74 13.0 50
Housewives 15.0 58 14.8 57
Non-workers (old, children, disabled, job
9.6 37 2.6 10
seeker, etc.)
Number of emigrants 100.0 386 100.0 386
Note- *Persons those who were employed in government and semi-government institutions is taken as
administrative & educational services. Also, persons employed in private institutions (company, firm, factory,
etc.) before and working as clerks, supervisors, etc. also considered as administrative & educational services.

Emigrants employed in business, shops, malls and working as sales workers consituted another
one-tenth of the emigrants. About one-fourth were employed higher categories of professional,
technical and managerial jobs. However, it may noted from Table 4.11 that about one-third were
non-workers which include students and housewives along with children, unemployed, and old
people. A comparision between before and after activity status of emigrants is also presented in
Table 4.11. It shows that the most important chnage in the activity status is visible in respect
with financial and managerial jos as well as in the categories student. Mnay emigrants have
managed to improve their job profile and have entered in the catgory of financial and managerial
jobs. It also seems that many stduents after finishing their education have taken up jobs at the
destination as proportion of students declines from 19 percent before to 13 percent after
emigration. In other categories of activity status, there is not much change visible.

82
 Table 4.14: Percentage distribution of emigrants by source of information
for emigration
Source of information* Percentage Number
News paper 23.6 69
Other mass media (TV, board holdings,
6.2 18
etc.)
Friends 55.8 163
Relatives 54.1 158
Recruitment / travel agencies 3.8 11
Internet 11.6 34
Foreign embassy 1.4 4
Foreign employment agents 4.5 13
Indian agents / brokers (informal) 61.3 179
Private firm / NGO / trust 16.1 47
Others 2.1 6
Number of emigrant households (n) 292
Note: Number of emigrants is selected by process of emigration.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

Process and Channels of Emigration:

The agents/brokers working informally provided information to the majority of the emigrants (
61 per cent) followed by friends and relatives (54 to 55 per cnet). The registered recruitment
and travel agencies played a little role. The sources of information have been multiple and not
mutually exclusive. The print media played some role as about one-fifth of the emigrant reported
newpaper as source of information. The private firms, NGOs and trust also played some role.
The internet as source of information was reported by only one-tenth of the emigrants. In
nutshell, it could be inferred from Table 4.14 that emigrants derive information mainly from
informal sources and channels. There are elements of lack of transparency in most of the sources
which make emigration process opaque and unsafe.

83
Table 4.15: Percentage distribution of emigrants by channel used for
emigration, type of services availed from agent and money paid to agent
Particulars Percentage Number
Channel for emigration
Direct application 12.7 37
Relatives 18.5 54
Friends 9.2 27
Indian agents / brokers 50.0 146
Foreign employment agents 2.4 7
Others 7.2 21
Type of services availed from agent*
Employment abroad 54.2 83
On-arrival services abroad 39.2 60
Accommodation abroad 43.1 66
Arrangement of migrant visa 34.6 53
Arrangement of study / work visa 83.0 127
Help in arrival at final destination 33.3 51
Money was paid to agent
Not paid 2.0 3
Up to 10000 25.5 39
10001 – 25000 10.5 16
25001 – 50000 19.0 29
50001 – 100000 14.3 22
100001 & above 5.9 9
Don’t know 22.8 35
Number of emigrant households (n) 292
Note: Number of emigrants is based on timing of emigration.
* Due to multiple response may not add to 100 percent.

84
Not only source of information is predominatly informal but emigration mostly takes place
through channels as well organised agents and brokers not officially registered. As this involves
lot of risk and also many times illegal acts, cost of emigration is also very high. Table 4.15
shows that the help of the agents/brokers are sought in getting employment, arranging education
and VISA and help at the place of destination. The amount paid shown Table 4.15 seems not
adequately revealed as for about one-fifth of them it was not reported.

85
 Table 4.16: Percentage distribution of emigrants by expenses incurred for
emigration and source of finance for emigration
Particulars Percentage Number
Expenses incurred for emigration
Up to 40000 11.2 31
40001 – 50000 11.2 31
50001 – 70000 19.6 54
70001 - 100000 19.6 54
100001 - 200000 17.0 47
200001 - 400000 9.1 25
400001 & above 12.3 34
Source of finance for emigration*
From other member of family 31.8 67
Personal saving 59.2 125
Parents saving 60.7 128
Borrowing from friends/relatives 40.8 86
Loans from moneylenders 15.2 32
Loan from bank 8.5 18
Sale / Mortgage of landed property 4.7 10
Sale / pledging of financial assets 1.9 4
Sale / pledging of ornaments or Jewellery 3.8 8
Government assistance 0.9 2
Sponsorship 0.9 2
Other sources 55.8 154
Mean expenses incurred for emigration (in
240494 276
Rs.)
Number of emigrant households (n) 292
Note: Number of emigrants is based on timing of emigration.
* Due to multiple response may not add to 100 percent.

About one-fifth of the emigrants spent money more than Rs 2 lakh and one-tenth spent money
more than Rs 4 lakh. The average cost of emigration was reported to be Rs 2.4 lakh (see Table
4.16). Money was mobilised through parental, personal and family sources and the contribution
of formal channels like banks or sponsorship by Government /other sources was not very large.
This further supports the proposition that emigration is an informal process primarily individual
driven and supported by the network of family and friends. Informal agents and brokers also play
a huge role and the the process of emigration is laden with lots of illegality and risks.

86
Table 4.17: Percentage distribution of emigrants by type of visa
obtained, sign an employment contract and get permit / licence for
starting the business
Particulars Percentage Number
Type of visa obtained
Employment / working visa 72.3 211
Business visa 5.8 17
Tourist visa 2.1 6
Student visa 13.7 40
Family union visa 2.3 7
Dependent visa 3.8 11
Sign an employment contract
Yes 55.0 116
No 29.9 63
Don’t know 15.1 32
Get permit / licence for starting the
business
Yes 70.6 12
No 5.9 1
Don’t know 23.5 4
Number of emigrant households 100.0 292
Note: Number of emigrants is based on timing of emigration.
* Due to multiple response may not add to 100 percent.

87
Table 4.18: Percentage distribution of emigrants by emigrant communicates with
family and mode of communication
Particulars Percentage Number
Emigrant communicates with family
Daily 7.5 22
Alternate days 13.0 38
Weekly 33.6 98
Fortnightly 25.7 75
Monthly 6.5 19
As often we want 11.0 32
Occasionally 2.7 8
Mode of communication
Telephone 97.3 284
On line chats 2.1 6
On line video communications. 0.3 1
Social networking sites (Orkut, Facebook, MySpace,
0.3 1
Skype, etc.)
Number of emigrant households 100.0 292
Note: Number of emigrants is based on timing of emigration.

88
Table 4.19 : Percentage distribution of emigrants by visits of emigrant
Particulars Percentage Number
How often emigrant visits you
Once in 3 months 2.7 8
Once in 6 months 7.2 21
Once a year 15.4 45
Once in 2 years 13.4 39
More than 2 years 7.5 22
No fixed periodicity 15.4 45
Never 38.4 112
Period since emigrant did not visit home
Home at the time of survey 2.8 5
1 - 6 months 35.0 63
7 - 12 months 23.3 42
13 - 24 months 25.0 45
More than 24 months 13.9 25
Main purpose of last visit
Regular visit 47.8 86
Death 3.9 7
Attending family function 23.3 42
Own marriage 3.3 6
Medical treatment for family member 5.6 10
Business 1.1 2
Attending social function 13.3 24
Others 1.7 3
How long stay with you during the last visit
Less than a week 2.8 5
One Week but less than two weeks 12.8 23
Two to three weeks 33.9 61
One to two months 34.4 62
More than two months 16.1 29
Number of emigrant households 100.0 292
Note : Number of emigrants is based on timing of emigration.

89
Table 4.17 shows that most of the emigrants have gone on employment/working VISA and
majority of them were reported to have signed a contract (55 percent). It seems that there is a
better reporting when emigration is legal or it is also possible that illegal emigration were
reported to be legal by the head of the households to hide them. So, far contact with family after
emigration is concerned, most of them maintained conact through telephone but very few of
them used online chats, video conferencing or social media. This shows the nature of emigration
is predominatly of unskilled and semi-skilled nature. Also important to note from Table 4.19
that while most of them maintained contact with the family back home, a large proportion ( 38
per cent) never visited once they emigrated. Out of this, about 14 per cent have not visited for
more than two years either they lack financial resources or perhaps proper travel documents were
not available. It is worthwhile to mention that illegal emigration is difficult to be captured
through surveys, but indirect evicences indicate about the presence of such activitiy in the
surveyed population.

90
 Chapter 5

Return Migration

Migration has lots of socio-economic and demographic impacts on the area of origin as well
as on the area of destination. Remittance plays an important role in socio-economic
development of the of the origin place. One of the consequences of migration on the origin
place is the role of return migrants. Usually these are the people who had emigrated out to
foreign countries and have returned back to their native place either permanently or
temporarily due to a host of reasons. Return migrants may contribute positively for the
development of the origin place if they have returned with lots of savings, experience,
knowledge and skill. On the other hand, they may adversely affect the development and
increase the rate of unemployment if they don’t have sufficient savings, knowledge and skill
and become a liability on the place of origin. Various information on return migrants were
collected during the time of survey directly from the return migrants which is presented in
this chapter.
Table 5.1 contains information on rate of return migration in various regions of Gujarat. The
state is divided into four broad regions namely South Gujarat, Northern Plains, Kuchh and
Dry area and Saurashtra.of the total surveyed households (9714), 28.7 percent belong to
South Eastern region followed by Northern Plains(24.8 %), Saurashtra (24.5%) and Kuchh
and Dry regions(22.0%). The table further reveals that of the total households which reported
presence of return migrants, 39.4% belong to Kuchh and Dry region followed by Saurashtra
(21.2%), Northern Plains(20.2%) and South Eastern(19.2%). The total number of return
migrants in the surveyed households was 111 of which 37.0 percent belonged to Kuchh and
Dry region followed by Saurashtra(23.4%), Northern Plains(20.7%) and South
Eastern(18.9%). Among the four regions, Kuchh and Dry region records the highest rate of
(number of households with return migrants per 1000 households) return migrant
household(19) followed by Saurashtra(9), Northern Plains(9) and South Eastern(7). Similarly
the return migrant rate (number of return migrants per 1000 population) is maximum in
Kuchh and Dry region (4) and is 2 in all the remaining three regions.

The information pertaining to percentage distribution of return migrants by background

characteristics is presented in Table 5.2. Among the various regions, Kuchh and Dry area
records highest proportion of return migrants (41.4%) who are literate but below middle level
97
followed by 36.6% having the educational background of middle but below higher secondary.
The educational attainment of return migrants in various regions reflects that most of the
return migrants have either middle but below secondary or graduate and higher level of
education in all the three regions except Kuchh and Dry areas. The distribution of return
migrants by SLWI shows that excepting Kuchh and Dry areas, the highest proportion of
return migrants in all the three regions belong to highest SLWI quintile. This implies that
most of the return migrants belong to households having higher standard of living and wealth
index.

Table 5.3 displays information pertaining to percentage distribution of return migrants by

activity status. The majority of the return migrants are males. Maximum number of return
migrants (33.3%) were self employed followed by labourer in non-agricultural sector (19.8%)
and employed in private sector (12.6%) before returning to their native places in Gujarat.
Among the female return migrants, the highest proportion (37.5%) is housewife followed by
job seekers(25.0%).

Table 5.4 contains information on percentage distribution of return migrants by country of

last residence and other background information. Kuchh and Dry region records highest
number of return migrants (37.0%) followed by Saurashtra (23.4%) and Northern
Plains(20.7%). Among the female return migrants, half of them belong to Saurashtra. The last
residence of about two third (66.7%) of the return migrants is Gulf Countries followed by
USA and Canada(15.3%). It is clearly evident from the data that for the majority of the
Gujarati emigrants, the destination are Gulf Countries.

The data pertaining to educational attainment of return migrants(Table 5.4) shows that the
highest proportion(29.8%) have middle but below higher secondary education followed by
the category of literate but below middle(29.7%) and graduate and higher (22.5%) education.
It appears that about two third (65.8%) of the return migrants have educational attainment
below higher secondary level which further reflects the nature and skill of return migrants.
The standard of living and wealth index (SLWI) of the return migrants reflects that more than
one third (35.1%) of them belong to the highest quintile of the SLWI followed by the
category of fourth quintile (27.9%) and middle quintile(24.4%). It is evident from the study
that the majority of the return migrants belong to the households having higher standard of
living and wealth index.

98
The data pertaining to background characteristics of return migrants is presented in Table 5.5.
The age distribution of return migrants shows that more than one fourth (26.2%) of the
emigrants are in the age group 40-49 followed by the 20-29 age group (20.7%) emigrants.
More than three fourth (63.1%) of the return migrants are above the age of 40. The residential
background of the return migrants shows that the majority (70.3%) of the return migrants
belong to rural background. The marital status of the return migrants reveals that an
overwhelming (87.4%) proportion of return migrants are currently married while only one
tenth (9.9%) are never married. The religious background of return migrants the majority
(62.2%) of them are Hindu followed by Muslim (34.2%). The caste distribution of return
migrants reflects that more than two fifth (42.4%) belong to other caste (general) followed by
OBC (33.3%) and SC(19.8%).

Table 5.6 displays information pertaining to change in the status of primary return migrants
in the household at the time of emigration and the current position. Currently there has been
increase of 18.3% in the headship of household in comparison to the headship status at the
time of emigration. On the other hand, there has been a decline (18.3%) in the proportion of
earning dependent from 37.5% at the time of emigration to the current 20.2%. The change in
the marital status of return migrants shows that there has been a decline (16.4%) in the
proportion of never married from 25% at the time of emigration to the current figure of 9.6%.
The change in the activity status of the primary return migrant in the household reflects that
there has been a significant decline (37.5%) in the proportion employed in the private sector
from 49.0% at the time of emigration to the current figure of 12.5%. During the same period,
the proportion of emigrants who are self employed has increased to 33.6% from 5.8% at the
time of emigration. The data clearly shows that majority of the emigrants at the time of
emigration were working either in private sector (49.0%) or as labourer in non agricultural
sector (28.8%). Currently most of them are either self employed (33.6%) or working in non
agricultural sector (21.1%).

The return migrants were asked about the reasons for not taking their spouse and children
with them. The Table 5.7 shows the information relating to the distribution of primary return
migrants by reasons for not taking the spouse and children with them. An overwhelming
majority (83.6%) of the respondents reported that too much of responsibility back home was
the reason for not taking the spouse with him/her during the time of emigration. The other
important reasons for not taking the spouse were inadequate income(60.8%), education of
children(57.5%), lack of accommodation(50.7%), desire to maximise savings(46.6%) and

99
unwillingness of spouse(39.7%). Similarly the important reasons for not taking the children
were education of children(82.8%), child/children too young(67.2%), inadequate
income(59.4%), desire to maximise savings(50.0%), lack of accommodation(48.%) and
spouse did not accompany(40.6%).

Data on source of information for emigration channel used for emigration and type of visa
were also gathered during the time of survey. Table 5.8 portrays the information on
percentage distribution of return migrants by source of information for migration, channel
used for emigration and type of visa obtained. The most important source of information for
emigration is Indian agent and brokers (27.4%) followed by relatives (26.4%) and friends
(21.7%). The channel used for emigration in the decreasing order of importance is Indian
agents and brokers (53.8%), relatives (15.1%) and friends (12.3%). The information on visa
obtained shows that an overwhelming majority (86.8%) has employment or working visa
followed by student visa (9.4%).

Emigration requires significant amount of money to be incurred in various heads like paying
money to the agent, buying air ticket, applying for visa etc. The information on expenses
incurred for emigration and source of finance of return migrants is presented in Table 5.9.
The mean expenses incurred for emigration of one person is rupees 62507. The distribution
of the expenses incurred shows that about half (45.4%) of the respondents reported that the
expenses incurred for emigration is up to rupees 40000 followed by 17.5% reporting rupees
40001-50000 and 15.5% reporting rupees 50001-70,000. The most important sources of
finance for emigration are personal savings (70.1%), borrowing from friends and relatives
(58.8%), parents’ savings (45.4%) and from other members of the family(32.0%).

The information on distribution of return migrants by work status and living conditions
abroad is presented in Table 5.10. About three fifth (59.5%) of the respondents reported that
they had first contacted their employer or employers’ representative on arrival in destination
country followed by 35.8% reporting having met friends and relatives. About two third
(67.0%) of the emigrants stayed in the accommodation provided by the employed followed
by 17.0% staying with family members and relatives. The main occupation of the emigrants
abroad as reported by the respondents are operators and labourers(45.3%), service
workers(10.4%) and sales workers(9.4%). More than three fourth(77.4%) of the return
migrants reported that they stayed up to five years abroad followed by the duration of 11
years and above(13.2%) and the duration of 6-10 years(9.4%). The important sources of

100
income at the destination before returning to the native place were work/employment
(88.5%), savings and investment (16.7%) and own business (7.3%).

The information on monthly living expenses, remittance and savings of the return migrants is
presented in Table 5.11. The mean monthly living expenses abroad is rupees 4721. The
distribution pattern of monthly living expenses reflects that about a quarter(24.8%) spend
between rupees 1001-2000 followed by 21.8% spending between rupees 2001-3000 and
another 20.8% spending between rupees 3001-5000. The most important goal of migration is
remittance. The mean monthly home remittance by the emigrant is rupees 6473. The
distribution pattern of the remittance shows that rupees 3001-5000 is sent by 30.7% of the
emigrants followed by 14.9% sending up to rupees 3000. More than one quarter (26.7%) of
the emigrants never sent any remittance during the last one year. About one third (30.7%) of
the respondents reported that the average monthly savings at the destination is rupees 5000
and above while 17.8% of the emigrants save between rupees 1001-2000. More than one fifth
(21.8%) of the respondents reported that they do not have any monthly savings.

Table 5.12 shows information on various background characteristics of the return migrants
like who was managing the household affairs during the absence, to whom the remittance is
sent, the mode and frequency of sending remittance, household problems during the absence
of the emigrant etc. More than half (58.4%) of the respondents reported that the spouse was
managing the household affairs during the absence of the emigrant followed by parents
(28.1%). A majority (82.4%) of the return migrants reported that they sent the remittance in
the name of the spouse followed by parents (39.2%). The most important means of sending
the money back home was through bank (66.2%) followed by other financial institutions
(8.1%) and cheque/draft (6.8%). More than one quarter(28.4%) of the return migrants send
money once in two months followed by once in six months(18.9% and once in four months
(18.9%). About one third(32.1%) of the respondents reported that the most important
household problem faced during the absence was depression/stress of the spouse (32.1%)
followed by illness of the household members(30.2%), poverty and deprivation (17.0%) and
children’s’ behavioural issues (12.3%).

Information about the skills acquired by the emigrant abroad, the mode of keeping the
savings and the mode of spending the earnings were also gathered during the time of survey.
Table 5.13 presents the above background characteristics of the return migrant. The most
important skills acquired by the emigrant abroad as reported are accounting (42.5%),

101
 technical skills(40.6%), marketing/trading skills(27.4%), managerial/supervisory(25.5%),
leadership/organisational skills(24.5%) and navigation skills(23.6%). Similarly the most
important means to keep ones’ savings as reported by the respondents are bank
deposits(68.9%) and gold/jewellery(9.4%). The important means of spending the earnings as
reported by the return migrants are education of children(41.5%), repayment of debts(33.0%),
medical treatment of family members(27.4%) and marriage of sisters/daughters(24.5%).

The return migrants were asked questions about their future plans. The information pertaining
to future plans of the respondents is presented in Table 5.14. The most important future plans
as reported in the decreasing order of importance are not decided yet (30.2%), take up
employment (29. %), start a new business (26.4%) and re-emigrate (24.5%). It is interesting
to note that about a quarter of the return emigrants have plans to emigrate in future to some
countries. Questions were asked to the return migrant about the governments’ response and
policy towards the return migrant. The table shows that an overwhelming majority (85.7%)
reported that government should provide easy loan followed by separate policy for the
rehabilitation of return migrant (73.8%), financial/logistic and training support(67.9%),
subsidy in education and health care(63.1%), tax benefits(61.9%) and subsidised
land(59.5%).

Tables 5.1: Rate of return migrants by regions

No. of No. of
No. of No. of household
No. of return return
Population return with return
Regions households migrant migrants
migrants migrants per
households per 1000
1000 households
N % N % N % N % population
South Eastern 2790 28.7 13245 27.8 20 19.2 21 18.9 7 2
Northern Plains 2407 24.8 11823 24.8 21 20.2 23 20.7 9 2
Kuchchh and
2135 22.0 10891 22.9 41 39.4 41 37.0 19 4
Dry Area
Sourashtra 2382 24.5 11696 24.5 22 21.2 26 23.4 9 2
Gujarat 9714 100.0 47655 100.0 104 100.0 111 100.0 11 2

102
Figure 5.1: Share of return migrant's households to total households (in %)

40.0

39.4
28.7

24.8
30.0

24.5
22.0

21.2
20.2
20.0

19.2
10.0

0.0

Sampled households

Return migrant
households

South Eastern Northern Plains Kuchchh and Dry Area Sourashtra

103
 Figure 5.2: Share of return migrants to total population (in %)

40.0

37.0
27.8

24.8
30.0

24.5
22.9

23.4
20.7
18.9
20.0

10.0

0.0
Population

Return migrants

South Eastern Northern Plains Kuchchh and Dry Area Sourashtra

Table 5.2 Percentage distribution of return migrants by background characteristics

South Northern Kuchchh and Dry
Background characteristics Sourashtra
Eastern Plains Areas
Education
Illiterate 4.8 4.4 9.8 3.8
Literate but below middle 19.0 21.7 41.4 26.9
Middle but below higher secondary 38.1 17.4 36.6 23.1
Higher secondary but below graduate 9.5 13.0 9.8 15.4
Graduate and higher 28.6 43.5 2.4 30.8
Standard living & wealth index
(SLWI)
Lowest 9.5 0.0 0.0 11.5
Second 0.0 0.0 12.2 15.4
Middle 19.1 8.7 36.6 23.1
Fourth 19.1 34.8 39.0 11.5
Highest 52.3 56.5 12.2 38.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of return migrants 21 23 41 26

104
 Figure 5.3: Educational status of return migrants by regions (in %)

50.0

43.5
38.1

41.4
40.0

36.6
28.6
30.0

30.8
19.0

21.7

26.9
23.1
17.4
20.0

13.0
9.5

15.4
4.8

9.8
10.0

9.8
4.4

3.8
2.4
0.0
South Eastern
Northern Plains
Kuchchh and Dry
Areas Sourashtra

Illiterate Literate but below middle

Middle but below higher secondary Higher secondary but below graduate
Graduate and higher

Table 5.3 Percentage distribution of return migrants by activity status

Background characteristics Male Female Total
Activity status [age 6+]
Employed in Government Organisation 1.0 0.0 0.9
Employed in Private Sector 13.6 0.0 12.6
Self-employed 35.0 12.5 33.3
Cultivator 10.7 0.0 9.9
Agricultural Labour 1.9 0.0 1.8
Labourer in Non-Ag. Sector 21.4 0.0 19.8
Job Seekers (Unemployed) 5.8 25.0 7.2
Pensioners/Retired 2.9 0.0 2.7
Old cannot work 5.8 12.5 6.3
Student 1.0 12.5 1.8
Housewife 0.0 37.5 2.7
Animal Husbandry 1.0 0.0 0.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of return migrants 103 8 111

105
Table 5.4 Percentage distribution of return migrants by country of last
residence
Background characteristics Male Female Total
Regions
South Eastern 18.4 25.0 18.9
Northern Plains 20.4 25.0 20.7
Kuchchh and Dry Area 39.8 0.0 37.0
Sourashtra 21.4 50.0 23.4
Place of last destination of return migrants
USA & Canada 11.7 62.5 15.3
Gulf countries 69.9 25.0 66.7
Australia 2.9 0.0 2.7
Other countries 15.5 12.5 15.3
Education of return migrants
Illiterate 6.8 0.0 6.3
Literate but below middle 30.1 25.0 29.7
Middle but below higher secondary 31.1 12.5 29.8
Higher secondary but below graduate 12.6 0.0 11.7
Graduate and higher 19.4 62.5 22.5
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 4.9 0.0 4.5
Second 7.8 12.5 8.1
Middle 26.2 0.0 24.4
Fourth 30.1 0.0 27.9
Highest 31.1 87.5 35.1
Number of return migrants 103 8 111

106
Table 5.5: Background characteristics of return migrants
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Age
Less than 20 0.0 0
20 - 29 20.7 23
30 - 39 16.2 18
40 - 49 26.2 29
50 - 59 17.1 19
60 & above 19.8 22
Residence
Rural 70.3 78
Urban 29.7 33
Education
Illiterate 6.3 7
Literate but below middle 29.7 33
Middle but below higher secondary 29.7 33
Higher secondary but below graduate 11.7 13
Graduate and higher 22.6 25
Marital status
Never married 9.9 11
Currently married 87.4 97
Widow / widower 2.7 3
Religion
Hindu 62.2 69
Muslim 34.2 38
Jain 3.6 4
Caste
Scheduled caste 19.8 22
Scheduled tribe 4.5 5
OBC 33.3 37
Others (General) 42.4 47
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 4.5 5
Second 8.1 9
Middle 24.3 27
Fourth 28.0 31
Highest 35.1 39
Number of return migrants 100.0 111

107
Figure 5.4: Distribution of return migrants by
residence (in %)

Rural Urban
70.3 29.7

108
Table 5.6: Change in the status of primary return migrant in the household
At the time of
Background characteristic Current Change
emigration
Status in the household
Head 51.9 71.2 18.3
Earning dependent 37.5 20.2 -18.3
Non-earning dependent 10.6 8.7 -2.9
Marital status
Never married 25.0 9.6 -16.4
Currently married 75.0 87.5 11.5
Widow / widowed 0.0 2.9 1.9
Activity status
Employed in government
0.0 1.0 0.0
organisation
Employed in private sector 49.0 12.5 -37.5
Self-employed 5.8 33.6 26.8
Cultivator 1.0 10.6 8.6
Agricultural labour 1.9 1.9 -1.0
Labourer in non-agricultural sector 28.8 21.1 -8.7
Job seekers (unemployed) 1.0 7.7 5.7
Old cannot work 1.0 6.7 4.7
Student 8.6 1.0 -8.6
Others 2.9 3.9 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Number of primary return
104 104
migrants

Figure 5.6: Change in the status of primary return migrants in the

household (in %)
71.2

75.0
51.9

60.0
37.5

45.0
20.2

30.0
10.6

15.0
8.7

0.0
Head
Earning dependent
Non-earning
dependent

Status at the time of emigration Current status

109
Table 5.7: Percentage distribution of primary return migrant by reason for not
taking their spouse and children with them
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Reason for not taking the spouse* (n=73)
Lack of accommodation 50.7 37
Inadequate income 60.3 44
Desire to maximize savings 46.6 34
Difficulty in getting job for the spouse 9.6 7
Too much of responsibility back home 83.6 61
Permission not granted by family 31.5 23
Spouse employed at home in Gujarat / India 8.2 6
Restrictions by host country 1.4 1
VISA denied 2.7 2
Travel documents not ready 11.0 8
Education of children 57.5 42
Unwillingness of spouse 39.7 29
Others 6.8 5
Reason for not taking the child/children* (n=64)
Lack of accommodation 48.4 31
Inadequate income 59.4 38
Desire to maximize savings 50.0 32
Child/children too young 67.2 43
Responsibility back at home 21.9 14
Child/children employed at home 4.7 3
Restrictions by host country 3.1 2
Permission denied by India 1.6 1
Education of children 82.8 53
Travel documents not ready 14.1 9
Unwillingness of child/children 29.7 19
Inconvenience 23.4 15
Spouse did not accompany 40.6 26
Note- *Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

110
Table 5.8: Percentage of return migrants by source of information for migration,
channel used for migration and type of visa obtained
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Source of information
News Paper Advertisement 7.5 8
Advt. In Other Mass Media 1.9 2
Friends 21.7 23
Relatives 26.4 28
Recruitment / Travel Agencies 1.9 2
Internet 1.9 2
Foreign Employment Agents 1.9 2
Indian Agents / Brokers 27.4 29
Private firm / NGO/Trust 7.5 8
Others 1.9 2
Channel used for the international out-migration
Direct Application 4.7 5
Govt. Agencies 0.9 1
Recruitment Agencies 0.9 1
Relatives 15.1 16
Friends 12.3 13
Indian agents / brokers 53.8 57
Foreign Employment Agents 1.9 2
Private firm / NGO / Trust 8.5 9
Others 1.9 2
Type of Visa Obtained
Employment/Working Visa 86.8 92
Business Visa 1.9 2
Student Visa 9.4 10
Family Union Visa 1.9 2
Number of return migrants 100.0 106
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.

111
Table 5.9: Percentage of return migrants by expenses incurred for migration
and source of finance for migration
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Expenses incurred for emigration (in Rs.) (n=97)
Up to 40000 45.4 44
40001 - 50000 17.5 17
50001 - 70000 15.5 15
70001 - 100000 10.3 10
100001 - 200000 7.2 7
200001 - 400000 3.1 3
400001 & above 1.0 1
Mean expenses incurred for emigration (in Rs.) 62507
Source of finance for emigration*
From other member of family 32.0 31
Personal saving 70.1 68
Parents saving 45.4 44
Borrowing from friends/relatives 58.8 57
Loans from moneylenders 10.3 10
Loan from bank 1.0 1
Sale/ mortgage of landed property 4.1 4
Sale/ pledging of financial assets 1.0 1
Sale/ pledging of ornaments or Jewellery 8.2 8
Government assistance 0.0 0
Sponsorship 1.0 1
Other sources 5.2 5
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country
and considered as separate case.
*Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

112
Table 5.10: Percentage of return migrants by work and living conditions abroad
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Whom did you contact first on arrival (n=106)
Employer / employer’s representative 59.5 63
Friends 17.9 19
Relatives 17.9 19
Others 4.7 5
Where did you usually reside abroad
Rented independent accommodation 4.7 5
Rented shared accommodation 2.8 3
With family/relatives 17.0 18
Provided by the employer 67.0 71
Hostel/other institution 7.6 8
Hotel/Inn 0.9 1
Main occupation abroad
Production and other related workers/transport equipment 4.7 5
Operators and labourers 45.3 48
Sales workers 9.4 10
Clerical workers 4.7 5
Professional/technical and related workers – higher level 1.9 2
Professional/technical and related workers – lower level 3.8 4
Service workers 10.4 11
Farming/fishing/hunting and logging 4.7 5
Administration/executives/managers 2.8 3
Others 12.3 13
Duration of stay in abroad (in years)
Up to 5 years 77.4 82
6 - 10 9.4 10
11 & above 13.2 14
Sources of the income before returning* (n=96)
Work/employment 88.5 85
Own business/ enterprise 7.3 7
Renting out the house 3.1 3
Social security / pension 1.0 1
Savings and investment 16.7 16
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.
*Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

113
Table 5.11: Percentage of return migrants by monthly living expenses, remittances and
savings
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Monthly living expenses
None 8.9 9
Up to 1000 6.9 7
1001 - 2000 24.8 25
2001 - 3000 21.8 22
3001 - 5000 20.8 21
5001 & above 16.8 17
Mean monthly living expenses (in Rs.) 4721
Monthly home remittances
None 26.7 27
Up to 3000 14.9 15
3001 - 5000 30.7 31
5001 - 7000 6.9 7
7001 - 10000 10.9 11
10001 & above 9.9 10
Mean monthly home remittances (in Rs.) 6473
Average monthly savings
None 21.8 22
Up to 1000 12.9 13
1001 - 2000 17.8 18
2001 - 4000 11.9 12
4001 - 5000 5.0 5
5001 & above 30.7 31
Total 100.0 101
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.

114
 Figure 5.7: Return migrant by monthly living expenses, remittances and
savings (in %)
5001 & above 30.7

monthly savings
4001 - 5000 5.0
Average 2001 - 4000 11.9
1001 - 2000 17.8
Up to 1000 12.9
None 21.8

9.9
Monthly home

10001 & above

remittances

7001 - 10000 10.9

5001 - 7000 6.9
3001 - 5000 30.7
Up to 3000 14.9
None 26.7

16.8
Monthly living

5001 & above

20.8
expenses

3001 - 5000
2001 - 3000 21.8
1001 - 2000 24.8
Up to 1000 6.9
None 8.9

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

115
Table 5.12: Percentage of return migrants by background characteristic
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Who was managing household affairs in your absence (n=96 )
Spouse 58.4 56
Parents 28.1 27
Siblings 5.2 5
Children 3.1 3
Relatives 5.2 5
To whom did you send remittances* (n=74 )
Spouse 82.4 61
Parents 39.2 29
Siblings 13.5 10
Children 10.8 8
How did you send money home
Through bank 66.2 49
Through cheques / drafts 6.8 5
Through other financial institution 8.1 6
Money order 5.4 4
Through relatives / friends coming on leave 6.8 5
Hawala 4.0 3
Others 2.7 2
Frequency of sending the money home
Monthly 17.6 13
Once in two months 28.4 21
Once in three months 18.9 14
Once in six months 18.9 14
Once in a year 2.7 2
Whenever need arises 13.5 10
Household face problems during your absence* (n=106)
Illness of the household members 30.2 32
Death of family members 10.4 11
Threats to personal safety 6.6 7
Poverty / deprivation 17.0 18
Children’s behaviour issue 12.3 13
Depression / stress of spouse 32.1 34
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.
*Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

116
Table 5.13: Percentage of return migrants by background characteristic
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Type of skills was acquired from abroad* (n=106)
Technical skills 40.6 43
Managerial / Supervisory 25.5 27
Accounting 42.5 45
Housekeeping 18.9 20
Marketing / trading skills 27.4 29
Navigation skills 23.6 25
Leadership / organisational skills 13.2 14
Financial management skills 24.5 26
Others 8.5 9
How did you keep your savings*
Bank deposits 68.9 73
Gold / Jewellery 9.4 10
Shares / Debentures / Mutual funds 2.8 3
Invested with private financial institutions 3.8 4
Others 11.3 12
Spent your earnings on*
Agricultural land 8.5 9
Real estate 7.5 8
Residential / non- residential buildings 13.2 14
Transport vehicle 0.9 1
Education of children 41.5 44
Medical treatment of family members 27.4 29
Marriage of sisters / daughters 24.5 26
Business enterprises 6.6 7
Repayment of debts 33.0 35
Others 2.8 3
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.
*Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

117
Table 5.14: Percentage of return migrants by their future plane
Background characteristic Percentage Number
Future plane * (n=106)
Start a new business 26.4 28
Take-up employment 29.2 31
Re-emigrate 24.5 26
Do not want to work 8.5 9
Not decided 30.2 32
Others 0.9 1
In which area government has to pay attention*
Separate policy for rehabilitation of return migrant 73.8 62
Financial / logistic and training support 67.9 57
Easy loan 85.7 72
Tax benefits 61.9 52
Subsidies land 59.5 50
Subsidies education and health care 63.1 53
Others 6.6 7
Note- Number of return migrants is selected by process of return migration from destination country and
considered as separate case.
*Multiple response may be more than 100 percent.

118
 Chapter 6

In-migration in Gujarat

Internal migrants are those who move within the national boundaries. According to UNDP
Report internal migrants are five times more than international migrants (UNDP 2009). Some
researchers have argued about the possible linkages between internal and international migration.
Those who move internally may be more prone to migrate internationally and vice-versa
(Skeldon 2008). While theoretically it seems plausible, in Gujarat less than 10 percent emigrant
households reported that their members moved internally before venturing abroad. It is also
important to note that only about 3 per cent of the households reported any member emigrated
during the recent past. As the magnitude of emigration is very low, the possibility of the
interlinkages between internal and international could be rejected if international migration also
increases. It seems for India in general and Gujarat in particular these two forms of migration at
the moment are more indepedent processes influenced by different socio-economic conditions.
Compared to about 3 percent of households reported emigration, 17 per cent surveyed
households reported at least one internal migrant excluding marriage migration based on place of
birth (POB) and 19 percent based on place of last residence (POLR). This chapter is based on
the reporting of migrant status based on POLR as not only it gives higher magnitude of internal
migration but also the characteristics of migration based on last move unlike POB.

124
Characteristics of In-migrants and their Households:
Household members were asked both their POLR. If POLR is different from their current
residence, the person is defined as a migrant. If a household has more than one migrant stating
their reason of migtation other than marraige, the information related to only one migrant who
has has come ealier was sought. Such migrant was termed as primary migrant in this study. The
characteristics of primary in-migrants and their households characteristics were analysed below.

Table 6.1: Percentage distribution of primary in-migrant (place of last residence) by

duration of stay
Intra-state Inter-state Total
Duration of stay
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Less than 1 year 8.4 4.1 3.2 0.0 7.0 3.4
1 - 5 years 18.0 28.8 20.0 8.5 18.5 25.5
6 - 10 years 16.0 20.5 18.8 9.9 16.7 18.8
11 - 15 years 13.1 9.4 15.2 17.0 13.7 10.7
16 - 20 years 15.1 8.6 12.8 14.2 14.5 9.5
21 years & above 29.4 28.6 30.0 50.4 29.6 32.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of primary in-migrant
1247 107 488 21 1735 128
households

While about one-fifth of households have primary in-migrants who have moved for the reasons
other than marriages, primary migrants were predominatly males (93 per cent) and migrated
from within Gujarat (72 per cent). About one-third (27 per cent) of the primary migrants have
moved to Gujarat from other states of India. About two-fifth of male primary migrants have
moved in the last 10 years compared to about half of the females among intra-state migrants.
Among inter-state migrants very few women have moved recently. Hence it may concluded from
Table 6.1 and Fig 6.1 that migration for reasons other than marriage, is predominatly of men
both in intra and inter-state migration.

125
Table 6.2 provides various characteristics of primary in-migrants namely age, marital status,
rural-urban residence, educational level, religion, caste and standard of living and wealth status
of in-migrating households. As the primary in-migrant is first to arrive in the household, the
mean age is around 45 years. Table 6.2 shows that the maximum of 27 per cent was reported for
the age-group 30-39 followed by 24 per cent in age-group 40-49. Most of the in-migrants were

Table 6.2: Background characteristics of primary in-migrant households (by place of last
residence)
Background characteristic Percentage Number#
Age (in years)
Less than 20 1.0 16
20 - 29 10.2 187
30 - 39 27.3 516
40 - 49 24.6 463
50 - 59 19.5 360
60 & above 17.4 321
Residence
Rural 38.2 638
Urban 61.8 1225
Education
Illiterate 13.0 225
Literate but below middle 25.2 474
Middle but below higher secondary 29.5 563
Higher secondary but below graduate 10.2 195
Graduate and higher 22.1 406
Marital status
Never married 2.8 52
Currently married 89.0 1660
Widow / widower 6.7 123
Divorced 1.2 19
Separated/deserted 0.3 6
Religion
Hindu 91.8 1705
Muslim 5.1 99
Jain 2.7 52
Others 0.4 7
Caste
Scheduled caste 6.2 116
Scheduled tribe 12.3 174
OBC 29.0 559
Others (General) 52.5 1014
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 10.8 151
Second 7.8 146
126
Middle 15.2 311
Fourth 26.3 508
Highest 39.9 747
Number of primary in-migrant households 100.0 1863
Note- # Unweighted cases.
enumersted in urban areas (61 per cent) and about one-tenth were illiterate. The graduate and
higher constituted one-fifth of all primary in-migrants. Almost all of them (89 per cent) were
married as majority of this group of migrants were living in the place of destination for more
than 10 years. Again majority of the migrants beloned to higher castes with higher living and
economic status. There is some important differences between intra-state and inter-state
migration as shown in Table 6.3. Among them intra-state migrants are relatively more from SCs
and STs communities, more found in rural destinations and are also more literate. Gujarat being
more developed state with better opportunities for commercial crops, movement of the Gujarati
migrant labouers to the rural areas of the state is quite expected whereas the detinations of inter-
state migrant workers are mainly to the urban areas of the state.

Fig 6.1: Primary in-migrant (place of last residence) by duration of stay (in %)

60.0

50.0
50.4
40.0
29.4

28.8

28.6

30.0
30.0
18.0

20.5
16.0

15.1

20.0
13.1

20.0
18.8
15.2
8.4

17.0
12.8
9.4

14.2
8.6

10.0
4.1

9.9
8.5
3.2

0.0
0.0

Male
Female
Intra-state Male
Female
Inter-state

Less than 1 year 1 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 15 years 16 - 20 years 21 years & above

127
Table 6.3: Background characteristics of in-migrant households (by place of last
residence) by migration stream
In-migrant households
Background characteristic
Intra-state Inter-state
Age (in years)
Less than 20 1.0 0.7
20 - 29 8.1 16.4
30 - 39 24.7 35.1
40 - 49 25.7 21.6
50 - 59 21.2 14.5
60 & above 19.3 11.7
Residence
Rural 43.8 21.7
Urban 56.2 78.3
Education
Illiterate 14.2 9.7
Literate but below middle 25.2 24.9
Middle but below higher secondary 27.6 35.2
Higher secondary but below graduate 9.3 12.8
Graduate and higher 23.7 17.4
Marital status
Never married 2.7 3.0
Currently married 88.3 90.8
Widow / widower 7.0 6.0
Divorced 1.5 0.2
Separated/deserted 0.5 0.0
Religion
Hindu 93.2 87.8
Muslim 4.4 7.2
Jain 2.1 4.4
Others 0.3 0.6
Caste
Scheduled caste 7.1 3.3
Scheduled tribe 15.3 3.6
OBC 30.1 25.9
Others (General) 47.5 67.2
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 13.3 3.4
Second 8.0 7.1
Middle 10.1 30.2
Fourth 26.5 25.8
Highest 42.1 33.5
Number of primary in-migrant households 1354 509
128
Table 6.4: Percentage of primary in-migrant households (place of last residence) by
migration stream
Migration stream Male Female Total
Intra-state (n=1101) (n=87) (n=1354)
Rural to rural migration 27.3 30.9 27.5
Rural to urban migration 41.4 37.4 41.1
Urban to urban migration 22.9 24.5 23.0
Urban to rural migration 8.4 7.2 8.4
Inter-state (n=468) (n=20) (n=509)
Rural to rural migration 15.4 18.3 15.5
Rural to urban migration 50.3 24.6 49.2
Urban to urban migration 29.5 57.1 30.7
Urban to rural migration 4.8 0.0 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.5: Reason for migration of primary in-migrants

In-migrant households
Particulars Intra-state Inter-state
Femal Total
Male Female Male
e
(n=1325
Reason for migration (n=926) (n=50) (n=338) (n=11)
)
In search of employment 8.9 7.7 11.1 0.0 9.3
To take up employment / better
45.2 32.7 59.7 56.1 48.4
employment
Business 13.7 6.8 13.7 0.0 13.3
Transfer of service / contract 24.8 25.6 11.3 26.2 21.5
Studies / education 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2
Family feud 0.7 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.9
Association 0.6 0.0 0.4 17.6 0.7
Came with parents 4.4 22.3 2.5 0.0 4.6
Others 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 6.4 shows that in intra-state migration about 40 per cent male migrants and 37 per cent
female migrants moved from rural to urban areas followed by rural to rural migration of 27 and
30 per cent respectively. Urban to urban migration is the third in importance and the least

129
migration takes between urban to rural areas. More or less same pattern is visible for inter-state
migration except for the gender pattern of migration. Male constitutes about half of the rural to
urban migration whereas women predominatly move from urban to urban areas (57 per cent)
among inter-state migrants. It seems that the married male migrants leave their wives and
children in the villages. As a result female rural to urban migration comprises only one-fourth of
the total female migrants in the inter-state category. On the whole female migration is extremely
low i.e below 10 per cent in both intra-state and inter-state migration category when marriage
migration is excluded.

Among the reasons of migration it is not the search of employment but to take up employment is
the most important reason of migration which is predominatly resorted by men. Migration is not
only male selective but jobs are ensured before migration by half of the migrants. Another one-
fifth to one-fourth move owing to transfer of service/contract. About one-tenth of male migrants
both in intra-state and inter-state categories move in search of employment and another one-tenth
tmigrate for business purposes (see Table 6.5). Table 6.6 shows that those who came without
job most of them got it within six month’s time.

130
 Fig 6.2: Primary in-migrant households (place of last residence) by migration
stream (in %)

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
Male
Female
Male
Intra-state Female
Inter-state

Rural to rural migration Rural to urban migration

Urban to urban migration Urban to rural migration

Table 6.6: Time to take an opportunity of primary in-migrants

Percentage
Particulars Total
Male Female
How long it took you to get employment (n=1264) (n=61) (n=1325)
Come with a job / transfer of job 40.7 47.3 41.0
Waited up to 6 months 40.2 31.5 39.8
Waited up to 6 - 12 months 3.4 4.0 3.4
Waited for more than 1 year 0.8 0.0 0.8
Others 14.9 17.2 15.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

131
Table 6.7: Change in activity status of primary in-migrants
Before coming to this
Current activity
Activity status place
Male Female Male Female
(n=1264) (n=61) (n=1264) (n=61)
Employed in government organisation 15.9 20.9 11.1 11.5
Employed in semi govt. / govt. aided
2.1 2.1 1.3 2.1
organisation
Employed in private sector 23.4 22.3 29.4 4.1
Self-employed 20.3 17.5 27.4 6.3
Cultivator 7.7 2.0 2.4 0.0
Agricultural labour 7.2 7.0 2.8 2.2
Labourer in non-agricultural sector 22.2 25.2 10.3 10.1
Job Seekers (unemployed) 0.1 0.0 0.9 5.3
Pensioners / retired 0.1 0.0 7.1 12.5
Old cannot work 0.0 0.0 6.4 22.1
Student 0.5 0.0 0.2 3.1
Housewife 0.0 1.5 0.0 19.2
Others 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Change in occupational status after migration is very im[portant dimension od chnage associated
with migration which has bearing on income and status of migrants. Table 6.7 shows the
occupational status of migrants before and after migration. Although there is little change for
male migrants, the chnage in the activity status of females is very surprising. Many females leave
gainful employment and turn them as housewives. The percentage of housewives was less than 2
per cent before migration which went up to as high as about 20 per cent after migration. As

132
women follow men rather than moving indepedently, it seems that there is a process of
defeminisation of workforce associated with migration.

Table 6.8: Percentage of primary in-migrant households (place of last residence) by type of
migration and their connection with the native place
In-migrant households
Particulars
Intra-state Inter-state
Are there any family members in your native place? (n=1186) (n=490)
Yes 73.3 85.6
No 26.7 14.4
Particulars of the family members* (n=870) (n=423)
Wife 1.3 4.2
Children 4.0 6.5
Parents 50.1 65.0
Own brothers / sisters 75.9 80.0
Other relatives 77.9 81.5
How often do you go to the native place? (n=1133) (n=482)
Once in 3 Months 14.8 4.3
Once in Six Months 20.7 15.8
Once a Year 17.5 26.9
Once in 2 Years 4.2 9.0
More than 2 Years 2.0 5.7
No fixed periodicity 28.5 31.1
Never 12.3 7.3
How often do you send money to the native place? (n=311) (n=189)
Every Month 14.9 9.2
Once in two months 15.0 12.4
Once in three months 10.7 12.7
Once in six months 16.8 17.2
Once in a year 16.0 27.5
Whenever need arises 26.6 21.0
How much money did you send in last 12 months?
Up to 5000 23.2 24.5
5001 - 10000 18.5 30.7
10001 - 20000 26.4 17.1
20001 - 30000 12.4 9.2
30001 & above 19.5 18.6
*Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

133
Table 6.8 presents primary in-migrant’s linkages with the native household and remittances sent
during last one year. It may be noted from the table that 3/4th or even more of the primary in-
migrants reported that they have family members left behind. Out of the left behind family
members parents, brother and sisters consituted the majority. Very few of the primary in-migrant
have reported to have wives and children left behind in their respective places. This shows that in
majority of the cases migration took place along with wives and children or they have joined
later on. This is true for both intra-state and inter-state migration. About half the intra-state and
inter-state migrants reported to have been visiting their native households during last one year.
Also about 25 per cent intra-state and 40 per cent inter-state primary migrants reported that they
have been sending remittances to their native households. About one-fourth of the migrants sent
less than Rs 5000 during last one year, while one-fifth sent more than Rs 30,000. The mean
amount of remittances gradually decreases from intra-district to inter-district to inter-state
migration. The mean amount was Rs 36,321 for intra-district, Rs 29,853 for inter-district which
declines to Rs 23, 251 for inter-state migrants for the last one year. The intra-state migrants visits
their native households compartively more and it is easier for them also to send money.
However, it is worwhile to reiterate that the montly amount of remittances are extremely low i.e
just in the range to 2000 to 3000 only. It seems thatb the internal migration in Gujarat seems to
be different as male migrants could support their wives and children and live together with them
at the place of destination. As such the remitances are sent to the needy households only mainly
to support left behind parents, brothers and sisters.

134
135
 Chapter 7

Social and Economic Consequences of Migration at Household Level

Migration is one of the important factors for bringing change both at the micro as well as
macro level. Both the internal as well as international migration brings about lots of changes
at the individual level, household level, community level as well as the state level. There are
social, economic as well as demographic changes due to the impact of migration both at the
origin and destination places. The most important outcome of migration is remittance which
influences the process of development, brings change in the consumption pattern and life
style of the individual especially at the place of origin. The present study in Gujarat gathered
information on remittance(both in cash and kind) sent by the emigrants to their family
members, use of remittance, donation given by the emigrants, investments made and
perceptions of respondents about the impact of emigration on individual, family and
community.

The information on percentage distribution of remittances received by households is

presented in Table 8.1. Overall, about two third (67.5%) of the migrant households (which
includes both inter-state out migrants as well as emigrants) reported to have received
remittance while it is 64.0 % for emigrant households. The frequency of receiving remittance
by the household shows that about two fifth (37.6%) of the households receive it within two
months followed by 19.0 % households reporting that they receive remittance whenever need
arose. About 16.0 % of the respondents reported to have received remittance only once in a
year. The proportion of migrant households (31.4 %) receiving monthly remittance is higher
than the proportion of emigrant households (19.4 %).

The mean annual amount of remittance received by the emigrant households is rupees
135979, while the figure for the migrant household is 122977. About a quarter (24.8 %) of
the emigrant households reported to have received remittance above rupees 100, 000 during
the past one year. A total of 38.8 % respondents reported the remittance amount in the range
of rupees 50,000-100,000, while only 23.6 % reported to have received between rupees
25,000-50,000. About three fifth(60.1 %) of the respondents reported that parents receive the
remittance followed by one third(33.3 %) reporting son or daughter to be recipients of
139
remittance. About four fifth (78.9%) of the households reported that the mode of transfer of
remittance to their family members was through bank while only less than one tenth(9.1 %)
reported relatives and friends as the means of transferring remittance.
Table 8.2 contains information pertaining to percentage distribution of households receiving
remittance by background characteristics. Of the total households which received remittance,
about three fourth (73.3 %) belong to urban localities while only one fourth (26.7 %) belong
to the rural locality. The religious background of the emigrant households who received
remittance shows that a majority (62.4%) of the households have Hindu religion followed by
34.6 % belonging to Muslim. Similarly the caste distribution of the remittance receiving
emigrant households shows that about three fifth (58.8 %) of the households belong to
general category (others) followed by about one fourth (24.9 %) households belonging to
OBC category. The standard of living and wealth index (SLWI) of the emigrant households
who receive remittance shows that 44.2 % of the households belong to the highest SLWI
quintile followed by 23.7 % to fourth SLWI quintile. The above finding points out those
emigrant households receiving remittances have standard of living and belong to the upper
echelon of the society.

Information pertaining to mean remittance received by the emigrant households by

background characteristics is presented in Table 8.3. Out of the total emigrant households
who received remittance, the mean remittance among the rural households is rupees 137107
while among the urban households the figure is 132877. The higher amount of mean
remittance for rural households in comparison to urban households may be due to the higher
need of remittance among the rural households in comparison to urban households. Among
the emigrant households who receive remittance, the mean remittance is highest (rupees
200,000) among the other religious category followed by Hindu (rupees 166608) and
Jain(120,000). Caste distribution of the households receiving remittance shows that the
annual mean remittance is highest (rupees 176429) among the others followed by OBC
households (rupees 83098) and SC households (rupees 74650). The standard of living and
wealth index (SLWI) of the emigrant households receiving remittance reveal that the mean
remittance is highest (rupees 236897) among those households belonging to the fourth
quintile followed by households belonging to the fifth quintile (rupees 135940). It appears
that there is a positive correlation between standard of living and wealth index of the
households and the mean remittances received by the household as the mean remittance
increases with the increase in SLWI.

140
Information were also collected from the respondents about how they the use remittance.
Information pertaining to use of remittance by the emigrant households is presented in Table
8.4. A majority (88.6 %) of the households use remittance on household consumption
followed by payment towards utility bills (77.7 %), medical and health expenses(60.8 %),
education of children(48.2 %) and repayment of debts(42.8 %).
Remittances can be received both in cash and kind. Information on remittances received in
kind was also collected from the respondents of the households. Table 8.5 contains
information of the households who received remittance in various other forms (other than
cash). The table shows that of the total emigrant households, only 15.4 % of them received
remittance in the form of clothes followed by cosmetics (4.2 %). A total of 6.2 % of the
emigrant households reported that the emigrants visited them during the last one year.
Information on reasons for bringing along with the emigrant while visiting the origin place
during the last one year shows that the most important reason for bringing money while
coming home is to build a house or purchase land(18.8 %).

The emigrants in addition to sending remittances to their family members both in cash and
kind also donate money for various philanthropic and social causes to various NGOs, trusts
and religious bodies. The emigrants are also concerned about the welfare of their society at
the origin place. This is also another way of paying back to the society to which they belong
and are also concerned about. Table 8.6 provides information on emigrants giving donations
for various social causes. Of the total emigrants, 15.8 % reported to have donated money for
any social cause. More than half (54.4 %) of those who donate for any social cause, the
amount of donation is rupees 20,000 and above. The mean amount of donation during the last
ten years is rupees 45795. Among those emigrants who donate, majority (69.6 %) donate for
building religious places like temple/mosque/church followed by the desire to help the
poor(34.8 %) and building educational institutions like schools and colleges(23.9 %). The
data reveals that the most important channel of donation is through family members (56.5 %)
followed by direct sending of money to organizations 41.3 %).

Table 8.7 displays information on emigrants who made investments. Only 3.6 % of the total
emigrants made investments of any kind. The mean amount of investment is rupees 498500.
A majority of the emigrants in housing industry which is booming in all the major urban
centres of India in general and Gujarat in particular.

141
Emigration has lots of impacts both on the place of origin as well as on the place of
destination. Information on perception of the respondents about impact of emigration on
individual life style, family and society is presented in Table 8.8. More than four fifth (81.9
%) of the respondents reported that due to emigration, there is increase in economic status of
the family while 84.6 % reported there is increase in social status of the family. Emigration
also increases the expenditure on consumption (35.9%) as well as increase in savings and
investment (25.9%). To the question if emigration brings change in adoption of life style,
39.0 % of the respondents reported that emigration has an impact on dressing and socialising
of the family members followed by impact on communication and languages (37.5%).
Emigration also brings change in the food habits of the household members. More than one
fourth (28.6 %) of the respondents reported that emigration brings change in the eating habits
of the household members followed by one fifth (19.7 %) of the respondents reporting people
are eating more fast food due to emigration. Information was also gathered on impact of
emigration on values and attitudes of the individuals. The data (Table 8.8) shows that a little
more than three fifth (60.2 %) of the respondents reported that due to emigration, there is
increased attachment to family and home followed by 32.8 % reporting that there is greater
sense of national and community pride, while 24.3 % reported increased preference for
gender equality. Emigration not only brings change at the individual and family level, but
also of the community at large. The most important influence of emigration on the society as
reported by the the respondents is increase in aspiration for international migration (47.1 %)
followed by self pride (44.0 %) and increase in trend towards nuclear family (18.1 %).

The information on percentage distribution of migrant households using remittances by

background characteristics is presented in Table 8.9. Of the total households who use
remittance on household consumption, about three fourth (72.3 %) belong to rural locality.
Similar is the trend in case of use of remittance in education of children, health care expenses,
payment of utility bills and repayment of debts as the majority of such households belong to
rural locality. The religious background of the households using remittance shows that among
the households using remittance for any purpose, the majority are Hindu followed by
Muslim. The caste distribution of the households using remittances shows that the households
belonging to others (general caste) have higher proportion of remittances used in various
aspects like household consumption, education, health care, utility bill etc. followed by
households belonging to OBC category. Use of remittances by standard of living and wealth
index (SLWI) shows that as there is increase in SLWI, there is increase in use of remittance
in various ways.

142
The information pertaining to the impact of emigration on emigrant households by
background characteristics is presented in Table 8.10. Among those emigrant households
who reported that due to emigration, there is increase in economic and social status, the
majority of the households are located in rural locality. The religious background of the
emigrant households reporting impact of emigration shows that under all categories of
impact, the majority of the households are Hindu followed by Muslim. Similarly the caste
distribution of the households reporting impact of emigration reveals that the majority of the
households belong to other caste (general category) followed by OBC category. Similarly the
standard of living and wealth index (SLWI) of the emigrant households reporting impact of
emigration shows that among those households who reported increase in socio-economic
status of the households, majority of them belonged to higher SLWI.

143
Table 8.1: Percentage distribution of remittances received by households
Migrant households
Emigrant
Particulars Interstate out households
migrants & emigrants
(n=288) (n=259)
Remittances received 67.4 63.7
Frequency of receiving remittances
Monthly 31.4 19.4
Once in two months 15.5 18.2
Once in three months 11.3 13.3
Once in six months 12.4 14.5
Once in a year 13.4 15.8
Whenever need arose 16.0 18.8
Amount of remittances received during last 12 months (in Rs.)
Up to 15000 8.2 6.1
15001 - 25000 8.8 6.7
25001 - 50000 23.7 23.6
50001 - 100000 36.6 38.8
100001 & above 22.7 24.8
Mean annual amount (in Rs.) 122977 135979
Remittances received by
Parents 60.9 60.1
Son / daughter 1.5 1.8
Brother / sister 3.6 3.6
Spouse 33.0 33.3
Others 1.0 1.2
Mode of transfer of remittances
Through bank 78.8 78.9
Through cheques / drafts 2.1 2.4
Through other financial institution (Western Union, Money Gram, etc.) 2.6 1.2
Electronic money order 5.2 4.2
Through relatives / friends coming on leave 7.7 9.1
Hawala 2.1 2.4
Others 1.5 1.8
Number of households 194 165

144
Figure 7.1: Amount of remittances received during last 12 months (in %)

38.8
40.0

36.6
35.0
30.0

23.7
23.6

24.8
25.0

22.7
20.0
15.0 8.2

8.8
6.1

6.7
10.0
5.0
0.0
Up to 15000
15001 - 25000
25001 - 50000 50001 -
100000 100001 &
above

Migrant households Emigrant households

145
Table 8.2: Percentage distribution of receiving remittances by background
characteristics
Remittance received
Background characteristic Migrant households
Emigrant
Interstate out households
migrants & emigrants
Residence
Rural 71.1 73.3
Urban 28.9 26.7
Religion
Hindu 64.4 62.4
Muslim 32.5 34.6
Jain 2.6 2.4
Others 0.5 0.6
Caste
Scheduled caste 12.9 12.1
Scheduled tribe 3.6 4.2
OBC 27.3 24.9
Others (General) 56.2 58.8
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 2.1 2.4
Second 10.3 9.7
Middle 20.1 20.0
Fourth 27.3 23.7
Highest 40.2 44.2
Number of households 194 165

146
 Figure 7.2: Receiving remittances by residence (in %)

71.1

73.3
80.0

60.0

28.9
40.0

26.7
20.0

0.0

Migrant households
Emigrant households

Rural Urban

Table 8.3: Mean remittances received by background characteristics

Mean remittance (in Rs.)
Background characteristic Migrant households
Emigrant
Interstate out households
migrants & emigrants
Residence
Rural 125674 137107
Urban 116332 132877
Religion
Hindu 145021 166608
Muslim 76984 80632
Jain 136000 120000
Others 200000 200000
Caste
Scheduled caste 64520 74650
Scheduled tribe 60429 60429
OBC 76132 83098
Others (General) 163180 176429
Standard living & wealth index (SLWI)
Lowest 47500 47500
Second 56400 57750
Middle 61154 65455
Fourth 184925 236897
Highest 132738 135940
Total mean amount (in Rs.) 122977 135979

147
Table 8.4: Percentage of households by use of remittances
Migrant households
Interstate out Emigrant
Particulars
migrants & households
emigrants
Mode of using remittances*
Household consumption 88.7 88.6
Education of children 48.2 48.2
For medical / health related expenses 62.6 60.8
To pay utility bills 78.5 77.7
Deposited in bank 40.5 41.0
Cash in hand 40.0 38.6
Investment 1.5 1.8
For purchase of scooter / car / other vehicles 5.6 6.6
For dowry / marriage expenses 8.2 9.0
To repay debts 39.0 42.8
To purchase agricultural land 3.6 3.6
To build / purchase new house / renovation of old
14.9 15.1
house
To embark new business / enlarging the existing one 4.1 4.2
On agricultural expenses, seeds, fertilizers, etc. 10.8 11.4
For charity / donations 9.2 10.8
Refinancing migration 3.6 3.6
Number of households 194 165
Note- * Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

148
Table 8.5: Percentage of households receiving remittances in other form
Migrant households
Interstate out Emigrant
Particulars
migrants & households
emigrants
Other form of remittances* (n=311) (n=259)
Clothes 12.9 15.4
Cosmetics 4.5 4.2
Ornaments (diamond, gold, silver, stones, etc.) 1.0 1.2
Electronic equipments 4.2 3.9
Others 0.6 0.4
(n=22) (n=16)
Visited during the last 12 months 7.1 6.2
Reason for bringing money along with him /
her*
To build house / purchase land 13.6 18.8
To buy a car / scooter / taxi, etc. 4.5 6.2
For education 9.1 6.2
For medical expenses 18.2 6.2
For repayment of debts 9.1 6.2
Others 63.6 68.8
Note- Some migrants (Interstate out migrants as well as emigrants) didn’t visit their native place during the last
12 months, but they sent remittances in form of kind through friends or relatives.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

149
Table 8.6: Percent of emigrants giving donation
Particulars Percentage Number#
(n=292)
Emigrant donating for any social cause 15.8 46
Amount of donation (in Rs.)
Up to 5000 17.4 8
5001 - 10000 13.0 6
10001 - 15000 6.5 3
15001 - 20000 8.7 4
20000 & above 54.4 25
Mean amount of donation in the last 10 years (in
45795
Rs.)
Purpose of social cause *
Building school / college 23.9 11
Building temple / mosque / church / others 69.6 32
Building hospital 10.9 5
Natural disaster 6.5 3
Helping poor 34.8 16
To NGOs 2.2 1
Donation in kind 10.9 5
Channels of donation
Direct to the organization, NGOs or Trusts 41.3 19
Through family members 56.5 26
Through village panchayat / municipal Corporation 2.2 1
Note: # Number of emigrants is selected by process of out-migration.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

Figure 7.3: Amount of donation donated by emigrants (in Rs.)

Up to 5000
17.4

5001 - 10000
13.0
20000 & above 54.4

10001 - 15000
6.5
15001 - 20000
8.7

150
 Figure 7.4: Purpose of donation (in %)

Building hospital
10.9
Natural disaster
6.5
Building temple /
mosque / church /
others
69.6 Helping poor
34.8

Building school /
college Donation in kind
23.9 10.9
NGOs
2.2

Table 8.7: Percent of emigrants who made investments

Particulars Percentage Number#
(n=292)
Made investment 3.6 10
Mean amount of investment (in Rs.) 498500
Details of investment*
Housing 70.0 7
Business enterprise 10.0 1
Ornaments 30.0 3
Others 10.0 1
Note: # Number of emigrants is selected by process of out-migration.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

151
Table 8.8: Perception of respondents about impact of emigration on family, society and life style
Particulars Percentage Number
Impacts of emigration on your family*
Increase in economic status 81.9 212
Increase in social status / prestige among neighbours / relatives /
84.6 219
friends
Increase in consumption expenditure/use of luxurious items 35.9 93
Increase in savings / investments 25.9 67
Increase in power and political influence 13.9 36
Change in adoption of life styles*
Dressing and socialising 39.0 101
Recreational activities 15.8 41
Communication and language 37.5 97
Others 2.7 7
Change in food habits*
Eating more fast food 19.7 51
Changes in eating habits 28.6 74
Consumption of alcohol 3.5 9
Smoking cigarettes / other form of tobacco products 5.0 13
Others 0.8 2
Change in values and attitudes*
Increased acceptance for inter caste / class marriage 10.8 28
Increased acceptance for inter religious exchanges 12.4 32
Increased preference for gender equality 24.3 63
Greater sense of national / community pride 32.8 85
Increased attachment to family/home 60.2 156
Others 3.9 10
Impact of emigration on your society*
Increase in inter caste and inter religion marriage 12.0 31
Increase in love marriage 12.7 33
Increase in trend towards nuclear family 18.1 47
Weakening of caste system 8.9 23
Increase in aspiration for international migration 47.1 122
Self Pride 44.0 114
Others 1.2 3
Number of households 259
Note: * Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

152
Table 8.9: Percentage distribution of migrant households using remittances by background
characteristics
Use of remittances
Background characteristic Household Medical / To pay utility To
Education
consumptio health bills (Electricity, repay
of children
n related Water, etc.) debts
Residence
Rural 72.3 75.5 74.6 73.2 80.3
Urban 27.7 24.5 25.4 26.8 19.7
Religion
Hindu 61.8 58.5 63.1 63.4 60.5
Muslim 35.3 39.4 33.6 34.6 38.2
Jain 2.3 1.1 3.3 2.0 1.3
Others 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 13.3 17.0 14.8 15.0 19.7
Scheduled tribe 4.0 5.3 4.9 4.6 7.9
OBC 28.9 27.7 28.7 28.8 21.1
Others (General) 53.8 50.0 51.6 51.6 51.3
Standard living & wealth
index (SLWI)
Lowest 2.3 2.1 1.6 2.6 2.6
Second 11.6 11.7 13.1 10.5 13.2
Middle 22.5 28.7 21.3 23.5 26.3
Fourth 27.8 27.7 27.1 28.1 25.0
Highest 35.8 29.8 36.9 35.3 32.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of households 173 94 122 153 76

153
Table 8.10: Percentage distribution of impact of emigration on emigrant households by background
characteristics
Impact of emigration
Increase in
Increase in Increase in
Increase social status / Increase in
Background characteristic consumption aspiration
in prestige among savings /
expenditure / for
economic neighbourers / investment
use of internationa
status relatives/friend s
luxurious items l migration
s
Residence
Rural 71.2 68.9 65.6 62.7 71.3
Urban 28.8 31.1 34.4 37.3 28.7
Religion
Hindu 69.3 72.6 73.1 73.1 66.4
Muslim 27.8 25.1 26.9 23.9 32.0
Jain 2.4 1.8 0.0 3.0 1.6
Others 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Caste
Scheduled caste 10.4 10.0 5.4 6.0 1.6
Scheduled tribe 4.2 4.1 3.2 1.5 4.9
OBC 23.6 25.6 22.6 20.9 27.0
Others (General) 61.8 60.3 68.8 71.6 66.4
Standard living & wealth
index (SLWI)
Lowest 1.9 1.8 1.1 0.0 5.7
Second 7.1 5.0 5.4 7.4 7.4
Middle 16.5 16.9 5.4 7.5 14.7
Fourth 21.7 23.8 19.3 20.9 18.9
Highest 52.8 52.5 68.8 64.2 53.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Number of households 212 219 93 67 122

154
 Chapter 8

Nature and Consequences of Emigration: Community/Village Level

Observations

The non-resident Gujaratis have invested their money in property and industries in Gujarat. In
big cities one can find flats , farmhouses, bunglows and commercial buildings with names such
as Uganda park, Nairobi House, New York Tower, Minnesota Apartments indicating the places
of destination of the emigrants (Yagnik and Seth, 2005: 238). Village level information was
collected from 120 PSUs (Primary Sampling Units) to know the impact of emigration on rural
communities. This chapter presents the characteristics of surveyed villages by clasifying them
emigrant and non-emigrant categories, and also pressents any philanthropic activities carried
out in the villages with the support from the emigrants and diasporas.

158
Table 9.1: Distribution of villages by population size and households
Background characteristics Percentage Number
Total population (n=120)
Up to 1000 10.8 13
1001 - 2000 25.8 31
2001 - 4000 28.3 34
4001 - 5000 8.3 10
5001 & above 26.7 32
Mean number of population per village 4275
Total number of households
Up to 150 7.5 9
151 - 300 19.2 23
301 - 600 30.8 37
601 & above 42.5 51
Mean number of households per village 820
Caste groups (n=98360)
Scheduled Caste 8.5 8316
Scheduled Tribe 12.3 12151
Other Backward Caste 35.6 34989
Other Caste 43.6 42904
Total 100.0

159
 Fig 8.1: Different social groups in Gujarat (in %)

Scheduled Caste
8.5
Scheduled Tribe
12.3
Other Caste
43.6

Other Backward
Caste
35.6

Characteristics of Emigrant and Non-emigrant Villages:

Out of 120 villages, about one-fouth of villages were large villages with population of 5000 and
more. About one-fifth of population of the surveyed villages were SCs and STs. STs constiuted
higher share in population than SCs in the surveyed villages. The details of population and
household size are presented in Table 9.1.

There were 72 villages (60 percent) having any emigration out of 120 villages. Table 9.2 shows
that piped water and drainage facilities were better in emigrant villages but there is not much
difference in other facilities. At village level about 25 per cent of the emigrant villages reported
to have public toilet facilities compared to 15 per cent in the non-emigrant villages.

160
 Table 9.2: Distribution of villages by sanitation facility
Background characteristics Emigrant village# Non-emigrant village
Main source of drinking water
Piped water into Dwelling / yard 73.6 56.3
Public Tap / hand pump 7.0 20.8
Tube well or bore well 9.7 10.4
Protected / unprotected dug well 9.7 10.4
Others 0.0 2.1
Public toilet is there in your village
Yes 26.4 14.6
No 73.6 85.4
Is drainage facility available in the village
Yes 58.3 35.4
No 41.7 64.6
Type of drainage facility in the village* (n=42) (n=17)
Underground drainage 61.9 70.6
Open with outlet 40.5 29.4
Open without outlet 14.3 11.8
Where you dispose garbage
Municipality vehicle 4.8 0.0
Burn 9.5 0.0
Open Place 76.2 100.0
Other 9.5 0.0
Village electrification
Not electrified 1.4 0.0
Less than 6 hours per day 0.0 0.0
More than 6 hours per day 98.6 100.0
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant villages- villages having at least one emigrant.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

Garbage disposal is an emerging problem in the villages. Some emigrant villages reported to be
buring the garbage whereas in most of the villages garbages were thrown in the open. It seems
that Gujarat has not been able to set a role model in garbage dosposal even after a sustained
economic growth and committed governance over more than a decade. However, 26 percent of
the emigrant villages reported to have public toilet facilities and 58 per cent of them reported to

161
have been covered with drainage respective. For non-emigrant villages these facilities were
much lower i.e. 15 and 35 per cent respectively (see Fig 9.3).

Fig 8.2: Sources of drinking water in village s (in %)

73.6
80.0
70.0 56.3
60.0
50.0
40.0

20.8
30.0
20.0

10.4
7.0

9.7

10.4
9.7
10.0
0.0

2.1
0.0
Piped water into dwelling/yard

Public Tap/hand pump

Tube well or bore well

Protected/unprotected dug well

Others
Emigrant village Non-emigrant village

162
 Fig 8.3: Public facilities in villages (in %)

58.3
60.0

50.0

35.4
40.0

26.4
30.0

14.6
20.0

10.0

0.0

Public toilet
Drainage facility

Emigrant village Non-emigrant village

Table 9.3: Distribution of villages by agricultural practices

Background characteristics Emigrant village# Non-emigrant village
Main source of irrigation in the village
Canal 20.8 16.7
Well 18.1 20.8
Tube well 51.4 37.5
Other 9.7 25.0
Major crops grown in the village
Bajara 15.3 16.7
Cotton 37.5 29.2
Groundnut 12.5 8.3
Makka 7.0 18.7
Tobacco 6.9 4.2
Wheat 1.4 0.0
Other 19.4 22.9
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant villages- villages having at least one emigrant.

163
Fig 8.4: Main source of irrigation in villages (in %)

60.0

51.4
50.0

37.5
40.0

30.0
20.8

20.8

25.0
16.7

18.1
20.0

10.0

9.7
0.0
Canal
Well
Tube well
Others

Emigrant village Non-emigrant village

164
Table 9.4: Distribution of villages by distance to the nearest facility
Background characteristics Emigrant Village# Non-emigrant Village
Distance (in kilometres) to the nearest town
Up to 1 13.9 12.5
2-4 37.5 43.8
5 - 10 23.6 22.9
11 & above 25.0 20.8
Distance to the district headquarter
Up to 20 19.4 14.6
21 - 40 34.8 14.6
41 - 60 22.2 22.9
61 & above 23.6 47.9
Distance to the nearest railway station
Up to 5 27.8 14.6
6 - 10 20.8 12.5
11 - 20 29.2 25.0
21 & above 22.2 47.9
Distance to the nearest bus station
Up to 1 84.7 60.4
2-5 7.0 25.0
6 & above 8.3 14.6
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant villages- villages having at least one emigrant.

165
Table 9.5: Information about education and health facility in emigrant and non-emigrant villages
Background characteristics Emigrant Village# Non-emigrant Village
Government Educational facilities available in the village
Primary school 11.1 12.5
Middle school 20.8 52.1
Secondary school 34.8 18.7
Higher secondary school 11.1 10.4
College / university 0.0 4.2
Madarsa 12.5 0.0
Non-formal education (Guruji Scheme) 2.8 0.0
Professional institutions (for IT/BE) 6.9 2.1
Health facility available in the village*
ICDS 100.0 97.9
Sub-centre 62.5 37.5
PHC 41.7 20.8
Block PHC 15.3 2.1
CHC / RH 15.3 0.0
District / govt. hospital 5.6 0.0
Govt. dispensary 2.8 0.0
Private clinic 45.8 14.6
Private hospital / nursing home 9.7 0.0
AYUSH health facility 9.7 2.1
Availability of health provider in the village*
Integrated child development Scheme / anganwadi worker 98.6 97.9
Village health guide (VHG) 51.4 56.3
Accredited social health activist (ASHA) 90.3 85.4
Trained birth attendant (TBA) 56.9 47.9
Auxiliary nurse midwife (ANM) 80.6 66.7
Lady doctor 47.2 22.9
Private doctor 55.6 35.4
Unani doctor 6.9 2.1
Ayurvedic doctor 9.7 2.1
Homeopathic doctor 11.1 0.0
Registered medical practitioner 22.2 2.1
Traditional healer 37.5 33.3
Untrained dai 43.1 25.0
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant village- village having at least one emigrant.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

166
 Table 9.6: Information about facility available in emigrant and non-emigrant villages
Background characteristics Emigrant Village# Non-emigrant Village
Facilities available in the village*
Post / telegraph office 86.1 62.5
STD booth 44.4 8.3
Pharmacy / medical shop 33.3 6.3
Bank 40.3 6.3
Adult education centre 23.6 4.2
Youth club 45.8 31.3
Mahila mandal 84.7 77.1
Self help groups 76.4 54.2
Paan shop 95.8 89.6
Haat / market 54.2 25.0
Kirana / general provision shop 91.7 81.3
Credit cooperative Society 38.9 27.1
Agricultural cooperative society 61.1 43.8
Milk cooperative society 73.6 79.2
Fishermen’s cooperative society 9.7 2.1
Computer kiosk / e-chaupal 43.1 22.9
Mills / small scale industries 19.4 4.2
Community television set 13.9 16.7
Community centre / hall 52.8 43.8
Railway station 11.1 2.1
Bus stand 72.2 43.8
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant village- village having at least one emigrant.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

Table 9.3 shows that people of villages with more irrigation facilities either by canal aor
tubewelll and also cultivating cash crops like cotton and groundnut are emigrating more
compared to other villages ( see also Fig 9.4).
Emigrant villages were not only have more commercialised agriculture but also most of them
were nearer to Railway stations andcloser to district head quaters compared to no-emigrant
villages ( see Table 9.4). However, it is not clear from Table 9.5 that these villages have higher
level of educational or health related facilities precisely due to the fact that education and health
facilities are provided by the state government which covers most of the villages. However,
there is a higher number of villages having banks, post office, SDT booths, pharmacy/medical
shops etc in emigrant villages compared to non-emigrant villages (see Table 9.6).

167
Table 9.7: Information about programmes available in emigrant and non-emigrant villages
Background characteristics Emigrant Village# Non-emigrant Village
Government programmers available in your village*
Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY) 90.3 91.7
Kishori Shakti Yojana (KSY) 88.9 87.5
Balika Samriddhi Yojana (BSY) 87.5 83.3
Mid-day Meal Programme (MMP) 98.6 95.8
Intergrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) 86.1 77.1
Mahila Mandal Protsahan Yojana (MMPY) 84.7 79.2
National Food for work Programme (NFFWP) 33.3 27.1
National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP) 25.0 18.8
Sanitation Programme (SP) 58.3 45.8
Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission
33.3 6.3
(RGNDWM)
Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) 54.2 31.3
Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) 36.1 25.0
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
84.7 75.0
(MGNREGA)
Employee Guarantee Scheme (EGS) 22.2 18.8
Indira Awas Yaojna (IAY) 94.4 87.5
Samagra Awas Yojana (SAY) 41.7 45.8
Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojana (JGSY) 37.5 37.5
Sardar Patel Aawas Yojana 48.6 41.7
Others 2.8 2.1
Number of villages 72 48
Note: # Emigrant villages- villages having at least one emigrant.
* Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

168
Table 9.8: Information about in-migrant for emigrant and non-emigrant villages
Background characteristics Emigrant Village# Non-emigrant Village
In your village did the in-migrant/s come during last one Year (n=72) (n=72)
Yes 51.4 27.1
No 48.6 72.9
No of in-migrant household in village
Up to 5 27.0 46.1
6 - 15 29.8 30.8
16 - 50 21.6 15.4
51 & above 21.6 7.7
From where majority of in-migrant came
From other district 70.3 84.6
From other state 29.7 15.4
In which sector(s) in-migrants are predominantly engaged*
Agriculture / animal husbandry / allied sectors 51.4 61.5
Industry / manufacturing 37.8 23.1
Construction 48.6 23.1
Household chores 5.4 0.0
Non-agricultural labour 27.0 0.0
Number of villages 37 13
Note: # Emigrant village- village having at least one emigrant.
* Multiple responses may not add to 100 percent.

There are large number of centrally sponsered programmes were running in the villages. Some of
the popular prigrammes like ICDS, mid-day meal, MGNREGA, JSY and KSY were found in
most of the villages irrespective of emigrant or non-emigrant status. However, as Table 9.7
shows, some differences were found in respect to programmes like Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water
Mission. It seems that emigrant villages are located in low quality and water scarce areas
compared to no-emigrant villages.
So far the interlinkages between internal and international migration at the indivisual level is
concerned we have noted in earlier chapter that this is weak in case of Gujarat. Both types of
migration are influenced by independent socio-economic factors. However, this may be correct
at the areal level. Table 9.8 shows that 51 per cent emigrant villages also reported to have
internal migrants compared to 27 per cent of the non-emigrant villages.

169
Table 9.9: Information about emigranting from the villages
Number of emigrant
Background characteristics Percentage
villages
When did first international out-migration take place in your
village
Before Indian independence 6.9 5
After India’s independence 93.1 67
In which year, majority of the people from your village started
to emigrate
Before 1990 20.8 15
1990 - 2000 26.4 19
2001 - 2005 19.5 14
After 2005 33.3 24
How many households in your village have at least one emigrant
1 25.0 18
2-4 29.2 21
5 - 10 13.9 10
11 - 20 9.7 7
21 - 50 12.5 9
51 & above 9.7 7
Which countries are usual destinations of emigrants from your
village
United States of America 19.4 14
United Kingdom 7.0 5
South Africa 9.7 7
Oman 15.3 11
Australia 23.6 17
Saudi Arabia 5.6 4
Kuwait 8.3 6
Others 11.1 8
Number of villages 100.0 72

170
 Table 9.10: Information about marriage of boys and girls from the villages to abroad
Number of emigrant
Background characteristics Percentage
villages
How many girls from your village have married abroad
during last five years
No girl married to abroad 84.7 61
Up to 5 7.0 5
6 & above 8.3 6
How many boys from your village were married
abroad during last five years
No boy married to abroad 88.8 64
Up to 5 5.6 4
6 & above 5.6 4
Number of villages 100.0 72

Also, most of the villages reported to have internal migrants from within the state and more
employed in agriculture and construction sectors.
Some emigrant villages have reported that emigration took place before independence. However,
majority of the emigrant villages have reported emigration taking place after independence. It is
also noteworthy to mention that emigration predominatly took place after 1990 and was directed
towards USA, Australia, Oman, Kuwait and South Africa. There were about 10 per cent
emigrant villages where emigration was as high as more than 50 households reporting alteast
one member of the household emigrated during any time in the recent past (see Table 9.9). As
shown in Table 9.10 about one-tenth of the emigrant villages reported that a boy from the village
got married abroad compared to one-fifth for girls. A large number of emigrant villages i.e about
44 per cent reported that the emigrants from the villages contributed to the philanthropic
activities or made donation for social, religious, educational and health purposes. Religious
activitites were the most important promoted by emigrants either through direct donation or
funded through other social channels.

171
Table 9.11: Information about philanthropic / donation work in the villages of emigrants
Number of emigrant
Background characteristics Percentage
villages
Has there been any philanthropic / donation work in
(n=72)
the village by the emigrants, in last 10 years
Yes 44.4 32
No 55.6 40
Nature of the philanthropic/donation work*
Religious 87.5 28
School / educational and capacity building 59.4 19
Hospitals, medicines and health related 40.6 13
Marriage hall / inn, etc. 34.4 11
Disaster / calamity relief/mitigation 12.5 4
Orphanage 9.4 3
Improvement in rural infrastructure 31.3 10
Promotion of trade 15.6 5
Others 6.3 2
Number of villages 32
Note: * Multiple responses may more than 100 percent.

172
 CHAPTER 9

Summary and Conclusions

Background and Objectives:

The emigration from India more visibly started after the Second World War and predominatly
after 1965 to the US as a result of liberalisation in the immigration policy and also other
western countries. Migration to the Middle East increased rapidly since late1970s as a result of
oil boom. The states of Kerala, Punjab and Gujarat are known for a long history of emigration,
and diaspora from these states are spread over in many countries of the world. Recently states
like Goa, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh also have been sending a large number of emigrant
labour and professionals. There has been also a increase in unskilled and semi-skilled labour
emigration from the states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. These states were also known for
sending the large number of indetured labour to Africa and Caribbean to work in sugar cane and
plantation agriculture during the colonial rule.
It is believed that Gujaratis migrated abroad to work as traders, businessmen, shopkeepers,
hoteliers, professionals etc. A comprehensive study of Gujarati emigration which includes the
characteristics of migrants, the individual and household strategies, the process of migration
comprising of formal (recruitment agency) and informal channels (family, kin, friends, religious
groups and NGOs) of migration, costs and financing of migration, the contact, visits and
remittances sent by the migrants to their native households would be helpful in understanding the
causes and consequences of migration from Gujarat. This study makes an attempt to study
Gujarati emigration in the recent past. It estimates the level of emigration, the characteristics of
emigrants and process of emigration and decision making, remittances sent and utilized. It also
assessed the impact of emigration at the household and community levels.
Primary data were collected through interview schedules pertaining to a sample of 10,000
households selected through stratified random sampling. A total of 200 PSUs i.e 120 rural and 80
urban were selected covering the entire state of Gujarat. First Gujarat was divided into four
regions and villages and towns falling in each region were selected based PPS method according
to the share of each region and rural-urban proportions. From each PSUs 50 households were

172
selected randomly after mapping and listing of the households in the selected PSUs. The survey
results were suitably weighted as sampling units differed in size and were selected with varying
probabilities.
This study covers not only emigration but return migrants as well. Wherever head of households
reported to have return migrants from abroad, he/she was interviewed along with the head of
households. Thus the study was able to capture information about the place of destination as
well. Apart from emigration, as the state of Gujarat is known for in-migration, data on internal
migrants were also collected and analysed.

Household Characteristics:
The present study collected information on various aspects of household and household
amenities during the detailed door to door survey of the sampled households. Information on all
the household members like age, sex, marital status, education, occupation etc. were collected
during the period of survey. The age-sex pyramid of the study population is typical to that found
in most of the developing countries with a broader base and gradually tapering towards to the
top. About 26% of the sampled household members are children (0-14 years) while 28% of the
members are youth population(15-29 years). The data shows that nine out of ten households in
the study area are headed by males and the pattern is almost identical both in urban and rural
areas. Of the total surveyed households, maximum number of households(21.9%) have the
family size of 4 followed by the family size of 5(20.6%) and family size of 6(14.7%). The
majority of the households(94.3%) in rural areas are owned while the figure for the urban areas
is 83.1 percent. About one tenth(10.1%) of rural dwelling still use unprotected dug well for
drinking water which is a matter of health concern. The rural areas have a very poor toilet facility
as more than half(53.1%) of the households use open space and another 9.8 percent households
have pit latrine. Wood(71.7%) is the major source of cooking fuel in rural areas followed by
LPG(25.1%). The important household possessions in rural areas are mobile phone(88.%),
furniture(80.3%), electric fan(82.8%), TV(57.2%), cycle(37.4%), motor cycle/scooter(35.8%),
LPG gas(32.0%), VCD/DVD(23.9%) and refrigerator(21.6%). A little less than two third(65.5%)
of the rural households have a bank/post office account while the corresponding figure for urban
areas is 82.5 percent. Only 8.2 percent of the rural households and 5.6 percent of the urban
households are covered under micro finance. Among the rural households, about two

173
third(65.5%) have bank accounts and a little more than one third(37.1%) have BPL cards. More
than half(56.0%) of the rural households and 14.1 percent of the urban households have
agricultural land.

Emigration:
An emigrant is defined as a former member of a household, who left the household any time in
the past for staying outside India provided he/she, was alive on the date of survey. This is a
NSSO definition and we have followed the same definition in this study. In 2007-08, the
emigration rate from Gujarat was about 3 per 1000 population compared to 4 per 1000 at all
India level. The present survey covered 9714 households in year 2012 gives and emigration rate
of 8 per 1000 population. Similarly in terms of proportion of households, it was observed that
there were 11 households with emigrants per 1000 households in 2007-08 which increased to 27
households per 1000 households in this survey. Therefore, some increase in emigration rate has
taken place during 2007-2012 from Gujarat. This study further shows that emigration in recent
years has increased more from areas of Suarasthra and Kutchch compared to Central Plain (NSS
named Northern Plains) known for emigration and diaspora in the past. The South-eastern
Gujarat which comprises districts with sizeable presence of tribals is having least emigration.
The recent emigration from Gujarat is neither business related nor entreprenurial as we expected,
but it very similar to unskilled and skilled (including professional) labour migration taking place
from other states like Kerala, Punjab,Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Further emigration is
predominantly a male selective phenomenon, and SCs, STs and OBCs are much less emigrating
compared to higher castes (others). About one-tenth of the emigrants were students and similar
magnitude were also reported having the status of housewives. Emigration was predominatly
from two communties namely Patels and Muslims. It is also important to note that majority of
the emigrants were from rural areas that shows the rising asiration to migrate due to lack of
better opportunites.
The average cost of legal emigration was about 2.5 lakh. Money was mobilised through parental,
personal and family sources and the contribution of formal channels like banks or sponsorship by
Government /other sources was not very large. This further supports the proposition that
emigration is an informal process primarily driven by individual and supported by a network of
family and friends.

174
Gujarat is a state also known for in-migration. Most of the in-migration in Gujarat was from
within the state . About one-third of the internal migrants moved from other states of the
country. This study also tried to probe if internal migrantion is related to international migration.
This could be possible if people move by step. However, we did not much support to this
cojecture. At household level less than 10 percent emigrant households reported that their
members moved internally before venturing abroad. Internal migrants come from lower socio-
economic backgound compared to emigrants. It seems that both types of migration are
influenced by the migration inflencing factors differentially.

Return Migration:
One of the consequences of migration on the origin place is the role of return migrants. The total
number of return migrants in the surveyed households was 111 of which 37.0 percent belonged
to Kuchh and Dry region followed by Sourashtra (23.4%), Northern Plains (20.7%) and South
Eastern(18.9%). Among the four regions, Kuchh and Dry region records the highest rate of
(number of households with return migrants per 1000 households) return migrant
household(19).Similarly the return migrant rate (number of return migrants per 1000 population)
is maximum in Kuchh and Dry region (4) and is 2 in all the remaining three regions.

The majority of the return migrants are males. Maximum number of return migrants (33.3%)
were self employed followed by labourer in non-agricultural sector(19.8%) and employed in
private sector(12.6%) before returning to their native places in Gujarat. Among the female return
migrants, the highest proportion(37.5%) is housewife followed by job seekers(25.0%). The
educational attainment of return migrants shows that the highest proportion(29.8%) have middle
but below higher secondary education followed by the category of literate but below
middle(29.7%) and graduate and higher (22.5%) education. The age distribution of return
migrants shows that more than one fourth(26.2%) of the emigrants are in the age group 40-49
followed by the 20-29 age group(20.7%) emigrants. Currently there has been increase of 18.3%
in the headship of household in comparison to the headship status at the time of emigration. On
the other hand, there has been a decline(18.3%) in the proportion of earning dependent from
37.5% at the time of emigration to the current 20.2%. An overwhelming majority (83.6%) of the

175
respondents reported that too much of responsibility back home was the reason for not taking the
spouse with him/her during the time of emigration.

The return emigrant reported the main source of information was Indian agent and brokers
(27.4%) followed by relatives (26.4%) and friends (21.7%). The mean expenses incurred for
emigration of one person is rupees 62507. About three fifth(59.5%) of the respondents reported
that they had first contacted their employer or employers’ representative on arrival in destination
country followed by 35.8% reporting having met friends and relatives. The mean monthly living
expenses abroad is rupees 4721. The mean monthly home remittance by the emigrant is rupees
6473. More than half(58.4%) of the respondents reported that the spouse was managing the
household affairs during the absence of the emigrant followed by parents(28.1%). The most
important skills acquired by the emigrant abroad as reported are accounting(42.5%),technical
skills(40.6%), marketing/trading skills (27.4%), managerial/supervisory(25.5%),
leadership/organisational skills(24.5%) and navigation skills(23.6%). The most important future
plans as reported in the decreasing order of importance are not decided yet(30.2%), take up
employment(29.%), start a new business(26.4%) and re-emigrate(24.5%).

Consequences of Emigration:
Emigration brings about lots of changes at the individual level, household level and community
levels. There are social, economic as well as demographic changes due to the impact of
emigration both at the origin and destination places. The most important outcome of migration is
remittance which influences the process of development, brings changes in the consumption
pattern and life style of the individual and households especially at the place of origin. Majority
of the emigrant households reported (64.0 per cent) to have received remittances. The frequency
of reciving remittances was not regular as only one-fifth of the emigrant households received on
monthly basis. The mean annual amount of remittances received by the emigrant households was
rupees 1.3 lakh and bout a quarter of them reported to have received remittances above rupees
1lakh during the past one year. About four fifth of the households reported that the mode of
transfer of remittance to their family members was through bank while less than one tenth
reported transferring remittance through relatives and friends. A majority (88.6 %) of the
households use remittances on household consumption followed by payment towards utility bills

176
(77.7 %), medical and health expenses (60.8 %), education of children(48.2 %) and repayment
of debts (42.8 %). Of the total households who use remittance on household consumption, about
three fourth belong to rural locality. Similar is the trend in case of use of remittance in education
of children, health care expenses, payment of utility bills and repayment of debts as the majority
of such households belong to rural locality.

Apart from remittances, about 16 per cent emigrant households reported to have donated money
for any social cause. Among those emigrants who donate, about 70 per cent donated for
building religious places like temple/mosque/church. One-fourth also donated forbuilding
educational institutions like schools and colleges. More than half of them sent donation through
the channel of family members, and about two-fifth sent money directly to the organizations.
Emigration has huge impacts both on the place of origin and the place of destination. Information
about the impact of emigration on individual life style, family and society is collected from the
respondents. More than four-fifth of the respondents reported that due to emigration, there is an
increase in economic and social status of the family. Majority of these households were located
in rural areas. Similarly they beloned to higher castes followed by OBCs. An assessment of the
emigrant households by Standard of Living and Wealth Index (SLWI) shows that majority of
those reported improvement in their social and economic status due to emigation belonged to
higher SLWI.

Emigration also increases the expenditure on consumption (36 per cent) as well as increase in
savings and investment (26 per cent). To the question if emigration brings change in adoption of
life style, 39.0 per cent of the respondents reported that emigration has an impact on dressing and
socialising of the family members followed by impact on communication and languages (38 per
cent). Emigration also brings change in the food habits of the household members. More than
one fourth (29 per cent) of the respondents reported that emigration brings change in the eating
habits of the household members followed by one fifth (20 per cent) of the respondents reporting
people are eating more fast food due to emigration. Information was also gathered on impact of
emigration on values and attitudes of the individuals which shows that a little more than three
fifth (60 per cent) of the respondents reported that due to emigration, there is an increased
attachment to family and home followed by 33 per cent reporting that there is greater sense of

177
national and community pride, while 24 per cent reported increased preference for gender
equality. Emigration not only brought changes at the individual and family levels, but also of the
community at large. The most important influence of emigration on the society as reported by the
the respondents is increase in aspiration for international migration ( 47 per cent) followed by
self pride (44 per cent).

Limitations and Suggestions:

This study is based on place of origin. If all the members of a household have emigrated, we do
not have information about that household. Also, in a place of origin based study we generally
define an emigrant as a former member of the household. However, if the emigrant is not in
contact with the household at the place of origin or the household does not consider them as a
member, in such cases information might be missed. A simialr study based on place of
destinations may supplement this type of study and would require in future.

178
 References

Amazing Facts about Gujarat, (available at http://www.funlok.com/index.php/information/

amazing-facts-about-gujarat.html).

Bhagat, R. B., Keshri, Kunal and Ali, Imtiyaz , 2013, “Emigration and Flow of Remittances”,
Migration and Development, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 93-105.

Chandra B, Mukherjee M, Mukherjee A, et al., 1989, India’s Struggle for Independence

1857-1947, Penguin Books, New Delhi.

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

Dholakia-Dave, H, 2006 “42% of US hotel business is Gujarati", The Times of India. Oct 8
(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/42-of-US-hotel-business-is-
Gujarati/articleshow/2191584.cms). Accessed on 21st June, 2014.

Gujarati in Mauritius (available at http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopleprofile.php?rog3

=MP&peo3=11982)

Hand Book for Overseas Indians, Ministry of Overseas Affairs, 2006, (available at
www.moia.gov.in).

Haque Md. S, 2005, Migration Trends and Patterns in South Asia and Management
Approaches and Initiatives, Asia-Pacific Population Journal, Vol. 20 (3), p.p.39-60.

Helweg A.W, 1986, “Indians in England: A study of the international relationships of

sending, received and migrant societies”, in Studies in Migration: Internal and international
Migration in India, edited by M.S.A. Rao, Manohar Publication, Delhi.

Helweg, A. W, 1982, “Emigration from Gujarat: the Effects”, India International Centre
Quaterly, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.30-36.

Hirway I, 2000, “Dynamics of Development in Gujarat: Some Issues”, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 35/36 (Aug. 26 - Sep. 8,), pp. 3106-3120 .

Joshi, Vidyut, 2000, “Cultural Context of Development”, Economic and Political Weekly,
August 26- September 2, pp. G-61-G65.

Kundu A, 2000, Globalising Gujarat: Urbanisation, Employment and Poverty, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 35/36 (Aug. 26 - Sep. 8), pp. 3172-3179+3181-3182

179
Madhavan MC, 1985, Indian Emigrants: Numbers, Characteristics and Economic Impact,
Population and Development Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.457-481.

Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, 2010, Annual Report 2009-10, Government of India,
New Delhi: Retrieved January 9, 2011, from http://www.moia.gov.
in/writereaddata/pdf/NRISPIOS-Data.pdf.

Nanda, A. K. and Veron, J, 2011, “In search of distant shores: exploring contemporary
emigration from the Indian Punjab”, in Dynamics of Indian Migration: Historical and Current
Perspectives, edited by S. I. Rajan and M. Percot, Routledge, London.

Nangia P and Saha U, 2001, Profile of Emigrants from India : A Comparative Study of
Kerala and Punjab”, Paper presented at 24th IUSSP General Population Conference,
Salvador-Bahia, Brazil, 18-24 August 2001.

National Sample Survey Office, 2010, Migration in India, 2007–08, NSS 64th Round (July
2007–June 2008) (Report No. 533 64/10.2/2), Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Official Gujarat State Portal, (available at http://gujaratindia.com/stateprofile/demography

.htm).

Patel S.J, 1991, Growing Regional Inequalities in Gujarat, Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 26, No. 26 (June 29), pp. 1618-1621.

Premi M.K. and Mathur M.D, 1995, “Emigration Dynamics: The Indian Context”,
International Migration, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 627-663.

Rajan, Irudaya, 2003, “Dynamics of international Migration from India: It’s Economic and
Social Implications”, Adhoc Expert Group Meeting on Migration and Development:
Opportunities and Challenges for Poverty Reduction in the ESCAP region (UNESCAP).

Sahoo, A.K, 2006, “Issues of Identity in Indian Diasporas: A Transnational perspective”,

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1-2, pp. 81-98.

Sharma, J C, 2002, “ Indian Diaspora” Inaugural Address delivered in the First International
Conference on Indian Diasporic Experience: History, Culture and Identity organized by
Centre for Indian Diaspora & Cultural Studies, Hemchandracharya North Gujarat
University, Patan (North Gujarat) during January 22-24, 2002.

Skeldon, Ronald, 2008, “Linkages between Internal and International Migration” in Josh
DeWind and Jennifer Holdaway (eds) Migration and Development Within and Across
Border: Research and Policy Perspectives on Internal and International Migration,
Hammersmith Press, London, pp. 27-36.

180
Srivastava R and Sasikumar SK, 2003, An overview of migration in India, its impacts and
key issues, Regional Conference on Migration, Development and Pro-Poor Policy Choices in
Asia, June 2003.

TNN. 2010, "Gujarati only regional language in US census". The Times of India. Sep 3,
(available at http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-09-03/india/28239171_1_
gujarati-regional-language-census).

U.N, 2002, International Migration Report, United Nations, New York.

UNDP, 2009, Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, human development
report 2009. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

Yagnik, Achyut and Seth, Sucharita, 2005, The Shaping of Modern Gujarat: Plurality,
Hindutva and Beyond, Penguin Books, New Delhi.

Zachariah K.C, Kannan KP and Rajan, S.I., 2002, Kerala’s Gulf Connection, Centre for
Development Studies, Thiruvanthapuram.

Zachariah K.C. and Rajan, S.I., 2013, Diaspora in Kerala’s Development, Danish Books,
Delhi.

Zachariah, K.C., Kannan, K.P., Rajan, S. I., 2008, Kerala Migration Survey 2007, Research
Unit on International Migration, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvanthapuram.

181