Chapter//

Patterns and Trends of Urbanisation in Jnarlrnand

2.1 Introduction

India is passing through a stage of massive urban transition. With second largest

urban population, India has now become one of the top contributors to the world's urban

population growth. The salient feature of Indian urbanisation entails a very high growth of

urban population in 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The component of natural growth dominated

the 1960s and 1970s and rural to urban migration along with natural growth played

significant role in 1980s (Bhasin, 200 I). It has been also found that during this period the rate

of urban population growth was higher than the growth of the number of towns. It indicates

that high urban growth of India has been mainly caused by the enlargement of the existing , towns, particularly the large towns. Another significant characteristic of India's urbanisation

has been the regional variations in the distribution of urban population concentration. A large

proportion of the urban population has been concentrated in the six most urbanised states:

namely, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Punjab and West Bengal. accounting

for about half of the country's urban population. Actually, in India, regional disparity in

socio-economic development has led to variations in the levels of urbanisation and urban

growth. Except for Punjab, the industrialisation process of 1960s and 70s in other above

mentioned five states has accelerated their urban growth.

In case of Jharkhand the magnitude of urban growth in the last century particularly

after 1950's has fostered considerable interest in the process and forms of growth. Not only

the urban population recorded a continuous increase in this period but marked redistribution

of urban centres has also occurred due to industrialisation and emergence of new

administrative and commercial centres in the different parts of the state. This is the reason

why urban population of the study area has increased by more than seven times during the

last five decades. Despite this, at present Jharkhand is one of the least urbanised states of the

country with 23.78 percent of population living in urban centres. However this figure is less

than that of many states, as well as for India i.e. 27.73 percent. Differences in the level of

urbanisation and urban growth are also seen in various districts and territories of Jharkhand.

The geographical factors and different levels of economic development have influenced

urbanisation in Jharkhand.

2.2 Evolution and Growth of Urban Centres:-

A study of evolution and growth of urban centres in Jharkhand possibly raise several

issues on urbanisation and urban development of the region. The progress in urbanisation is

38

necessary to understand the nature and magnitude of the urban forces and processes

operating in the region and also to discern the pattern of urban growth itself. Such a study

might also be helpful in visual ising the future prospects of urbanisation.

Table:-2.1 Jharkhand: Progress in the Number of Towns (1901-1941)

Year Districts 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 Godda - - - - -Sahibganj I 2 2 2 2 Dumka - I I I I Deoghar 2 2 2 2 2 Dhanbad - - I I 2 Giridib I I I I 4 Hazaribagh 2 2 2 2 2 Palamu 2 2 2 2 2 Lohardaga I I I I I Gumla I - - - -Ranchi 2 2 2 2 2 Purbi Sine:hbhum. - I I 2 3 Paschimi I I 2 2 7 Singhbhum. TOTAL 13 15 17 18 26

Source Census of lnd1a. ( 1991 ). General Populauon Table. B1har. Senes- 5

The history of urbanisation in Jharkhand dates back to the 17'h century. At that time

several local chiefs ruled over the region and the centres of their residences grew

progressively into cultural landscapes that were distinct from the dispersed rural settlements

of the Chotanagpur plateau. Even before that, Chotanagpur plateau was a virtual 'no man's

land' mainly due to the rugged topography and dense forests and hence was known as

'Jharkhand'. It is stated that during the reign of Ashoka, this region was known as' Atavi' or

'forest states'. During the Mughal period this region was known as the 'Kokrah' region.

During the British invasions there were small princely states such as those of

Ramgarh, Kharagdiha, Kendy etc. Roads and railways were constructed for the exploitation

of minerals and forest products in this region by the British and this brought further

development and some new settlements emerged in the region. The new administrative

centres of the region also resulted in urban development. In the seventeenth century, Palamu

was the capital of the 'Chero' chief. Another town that existed before British period, was

'Palkot; the capital of Raghunath Rai. In 1772 'lchak' turned into a town, which supported a

population of about 5000. Apart from these sporadic developments, urban growth in

39

2.3 Population Growth and the Process of Urbanisation: -

The state of Jharkhand ranks fifteenth in terms of the total area of the country. It

comprised a total population of over 26.90 million in 2001 Census and was the residence of

2.62 percent of the total population of India. The total population of the state increased from

8.93 million to 26.90 million during 1951-2001. So it had more than tripled in 50 years. If we

compare the population. growth of Jharkhand with that of India then it can be observed that

except 19 51-61 and 1971-1981 in all other decades the total population growth of Jharkhand

has been mostly higher than India's average (graph 2.1).

However, there are considerable differences between the urban population growth of

Jharkhand with that of India's average_ urban growth. If we analyse the growth of urban

population during various decades we fmd that contrary to the general population growth

rates, urban population growth rate has been very high in Jharkhand. (graph 2.2) It was

7 6. 80 percent during 19 51-61; however, during the same period population growth rate was

only 25.84 percent. But after that there was a regular decline in urban population growth rate

in Jharkhand and even during 1981-1991 and 1991-2001 the growth rate was only 30.73 and

32.32 percent respectively. So one can assume that, in last two decades the processes of

urbanisation in Jharkhand have slowed down. The reasons for a high urban growth rate in the

50' s and 60 ' s may be the post-independence stress placed on developing the key and basic

industries in the Chotanagpur mineral belt.

Graph: -2.2

Trends of Urban Growth of India and Jharkhand (1951-2001)

90 .---------------------------------------~~=-----------~----~

80 +----=----------~---------------------------------------4

70 ------- --60 r ----------------~~~------~~~-----------------------------~

_ . - - -· ----~ -----:,--..--"'-~----· -_· __ -_-_-__ -_-_--________ ----=·_,_,_........,~cc---- -.-__ -_-_-_-_--~- -'- ~

--

:!f. = .5 50

1 40

(J 30 1-----.--20

10

0 1951 - 61 1961-71 1971-81 1 981-91 1991-01

-- - • --- India • J h arkhand Year

Source: Census of lndia, ( 199 1 ), Genera l Population Table, Biha r, Se ries - 5

Census of lndia, (200 I), Provisiona l Population Table, Rura l Urban Distribution, Jharkhand, Series-2 1

41

Chotanagpur roughly coincidece with the extension of British rule in India. By 1854, several

places were selected as administrative headquarters and they gradually flourished into towns.

During the early British period, in Jharkhand, certain factors of secondary importance

had also encouraged urbanisation. The British also stimulated the growth of the pre-existing

administrative centres. The urban centres that evolved during this period can be classified as

(1) Regimental centres (2) Christian Missionary centres and (3) Tea plantations; such as

Chatara, Ramgarh and Doranda (Ranchi) that were also regimental centres. Ranchi and

Hazaribagh were developed as centres of Christianity in Jharkhand. Prior to 1901 Census,

nine towns already existed in Jharkhand and among them two were in Hazaribagh district and

two in Ranchi district (table:2.1 ). Lohardaga and Ranchi had the largest population at that

time. Manbhum, Purulia, Raghunathpur, Daltonganj, Garhwa, Chaibasa, Jhalda were the

other towns in 1911 . Two new towns were included in 1921 and· they were Dhanbad and

Chakradharpur. Jugsalai was recognised as a town in 1931. It evolved as an urban sprawl of

Jamshedpur, which was established in 1907. The decade of 1931-41 was significant as eight

new towns had grown up. Several new mining towns also emerged during this period. They

were Jharia, Bermo, Kargali, Bokaro, Musabani, Noamundi and Manoharpur. Most of the

new towns were located in Dhanbad, Hazaribagh and in Paschimi Singhbhum district. During

this period Jamshedpur became the first class- I town of Jharkhand.

From the above facts it is clear that almost all the towns in Jharkhand originated and

grew up during the last century. A great number of them owe their origin and growth to

mining and industrial activities, consequent to the introduction of railways by the Britishers.

Graph: - 2.1

Growth of Population: - India and Jharkhand (1951-200 I")

45

40

~ 35

/ "'" 30

/ "'-.... '$. .Iii 25 / ------ -~ ·--- - ---- ------ · c 20

./ 15 -10

5

0 1951- 61 I 961- 71 1971- 81 1981-9 1 1991- 01

---· -- India Jharkhand I Year

Source: Census of India, ( 1991 ), General Population Table, Biha r, Series - 5 Census of India, (2001 ), Provisiona l Population Table, Rural Urban Distribution, Jhl!rkhand, Series-21

40

2.4 District Level Urban Population Growth:-

Urban population growth in the various districts of Jharkhand exhibit unequal

concentration of population in different regions. Those regions, which are geographically

favorable, industrially and commercially developed, have been attracting migrants from the

countryside in search of employment which further accelerated the process of urbanisation.

The comparative picture of the trends of urbanisation in Jharkhand and India have

been shown above in Graph 2.2. Evidently up to 1981, Jharkhand recorded a much faster

growth in the urban population than that of India. Hence, for a better understanding of the

pattern of urbanisation in Jharkhand, a district level analysis is essential. The trends of urban

growth ( 1951-200 I) among the districts are provided in table 2.2. A perusal of the figures

given in the table shows that during 1951-1961, Ohanbad recorded exceptionally high urban

growth i. e. 264.78 percent. The other district which had higher growth than state average

(76.80 percent), was Paschimi Singhbhum (76.97 percent). Dhanbad had registered rapid

growth due to increase in the size of population by 190 percent as well as due to the

appearance of six new towns in the district. Low urban growth in Jharkhand was recorded in

Lohardaga (25.08 percent), Oeoghar (28.06 percent) and Sahibganj (36.58 percent) districts.

Table:-2.2 Jh kh d n· t · t w· u b P ar an : IS nc 1se r an If G opu a Jon row th

Year Districts

1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01

Godda - 29.10 44.27 68.18 56.60 Sahibganj 36.58 30.29 27.65 13.97 41.62 Dumka 75.90 31.85 69.24 33.11 24.68 Deoghar 28.06 24.57 31.08 40.31 27.72 Dhanbad 264.78 120.07 67.56 30.00 27.07 Giridih 61.15 60.19 44.89 39.77 52.84 Hazaribagh 40.97 29.98 51.41 54.54 28.25 Palamu 51.76 25.62 53.19 13.68 36.23 Lohardaga 25.08 29.019 36.76 36.05 45.58 Gumla - 41.05 34.89 27.46 43.81 Ran chi 46.97 84.39 86.00 29.19 31.14 Purbi Singhbhum 53.77 49.23 55.29 25.48 16.46 Paschimi Singhbhum 76.97 20.49 35.92 18.18 71.10 Jharkhand 76.80 61.15 58.25 30.73 32.32

Source: Census of India. ( 1991 ). General Populat1on Table. B1har. Senes- 5

Census of lnd~a. (200 I). Provis1onal PopulatiOn Table. Rural Urban D1stnbul1on. Jharkhand, Series-21

42

The decadal growth during 1961-1971 (61.15 percent) also reveals a high urban

growth in Jharkhand. But it also shows a decline in urban growth rate in Jharkhand from the

previous decade. This deceleration in the urban growth during 1961-1971 has been witnessed

in most of the districts of Jharkhand except in Ranchi and Dhanbad. Ranchi recorded 84.39

percent growth and Dhanbad once again registered the highest urban growth i.e. 120.07

percent.

The above Table 2.2 reveals that a further decline in urban growth rate to 58.95

percent occurred in the seventies. During 1971-1981, most of the districts showed a moderate

urban growth. In previous decade only two or three districts had unprecedented growth rate

which raised the state's average urban growth. During this decade Ranchi district had highest

urban growth rate i.e. 86 percent. Other districts, which had higher growth rate than the state

average were Dumka (69.24 percent) and Dhanbad (67.36 percent). Dhanbad district's urban

growth was mainly due to the establishment three industrial and mining centres and the

existing population of Dhanbad city had also increased by 39.2 percent (table A.2.7). In

Ranchi district no new towns were included in 1981 Census but the population of Ranchi and

Patratu town increased by 60 percent. However, Patratu town also become a class III town.

So the overall urban population increased considerably. During 1971-1981, least urban

growth was recorded in Sahibganj (27.65 percent), which was less than half of the state's

growth. Deoghar, Gumla, Paschimi Singhbhum, and Lohardaga districts also had lower

growth rate of 31.00, 34.59, 35.92 and 30.76 percent respectively.

The Census of 1991 recorded a phenomenal decrease in urban population growth rate

of Jharkhand as it was only 30.73 percent. At the district level there was once again a

variation in the urban growth rate (table 2.2). The districts, which had higher growth during

1971-1981 recorded lower urban population growth; for example, during 1981-1991 Ranchi

district had gained only 29.19 percent growth, as compared to 86.00 percent during previous

decade. Dhanbad district had also recorded only 20.08 percent increase during 1981-1991 as

compared to 67.56 percent of the 1970s. During this period highest growth rate was recorded

in Godda district. Interestingly this district has only one town i.e. Godda itself. Another

district which had higher growth rate was Hazaribagh (54.5 percent), which gained nine new

towns in 1991 Census. Palamu (36.05 percent), Deoghar (40.31 percent) Giridih (29.77

percent) were the other districts which had higher growth rate than the overall state average.

43

Urban growth rates had slightly increased during the last ( 1991-0 I) decade but it was

only 32.32 percent in Jharkhand. Again lower growth was discernable in the most of the

highly urbanised and industrialised districts. For example the districts of Purbi Singhbhum

(16.46 percent), Dhanbad (27.07 percent), and Hazaribagh (28.25 percent) had lowest urban

growth in 2001. On the other hand urban growth was higher in the least urbanised districts

like Godda (54.68 percent), Lohardaga (45.58 percent), Palamu (36.23 percent) and Paschimi

Singhbhum (71.1 0 percent). It seems that the towns of the districts were highly urbanised

getting saturated and in the absence of further growth of industries, commerce and other

economic activities they are attracting less migrants. The rapid expansion of transportation

facilities has also made it more convenient for people to move towards other places of the

state and country. So it can be said that urban population of Jharkhand increased rapidly

during 1951-1971 and to some extent to 1971-1981 due to the establishment and growth of

several industrial complexes, like Jamshedpur, Ranchi, Dhanbad, Bokaro, Sindri, Gomia,

Patratu and others. But in the late eighties and particularly in nineties there had been no

further investments for industrial development. In the absence of additional industrial

employment generation, opportunity of rural to urban migration had considerably slowed

down and this has affected urban growth in recent years.

2.5 Urban Growth by Size Class:-

The growth in number and size of towns is a good indicator of urbanisation and

involves processes as reclassification and de-classification. A study of the growth and

distribution by various size classes highlights the concentration of urban population within

the different class towns as well as within the different regions. They may also reflect the

socio-economic setting ofthe area. For instance, the concentration of high population in large

cities is often associated with a high degree of industrialisation and development of

infrastructure. Table 2.3 provides an overview of the uneven distribution of population in the

various sizes of towns/cities during I95I-200 I.

In general, there has been a predominance of class I cities since I951. Class I cities

had 42.74 percent of urban population in 1951 and it increased to 50.16 percent in 1961. In

I97I, there were four Class I cities having population more than one lakh, viz. Dhanbad,

Jamshedpur, Ranchi and Bokaro. These four cities had 55.17 percent of total urban

population. In I98I, Giridih become a class I city and during I99I-200I four new cities i.e.

Deoghar, Ramgarh, Chirkunda and Patratu were included in the Class I category. Population

44

of class I cities also increased to 62.91 percent in 1991 and 71.33 percent in 200 I. Table 2.3

shows that out of a total of ninety six cities/towns only ten cities/towns of Jharkhand had

more than three fourth of the total urban population.

The number of class II cities/towns increased from one in 1951 to two in 1971 and

eight in 199 I. But in the next 200 I Census, two of the class II towns had been upgraded to

class I cities and no new towns had entered in the class II category. Out of the two class II

towns in 1971, Giridih and Hazaribagh districts had one each. In 1981, Hazaribagh district

gained three new class II towns and these towns had 69.2 percent of the district's urban

population. In the same decade, Deoghar was also a class II town having 66.1 percent of

district's urban population. In 1991, out of eight class II towns, Giridih had two and

Hazaribagh had three. The number of class II towns declined in 200 I from eight to six, which

was mainly because of the upgradation of Deoghar and Ramgarh into class I cities.

Table-2.3 Jharkhand: Percentage of Population in Different Size Classes (1951-2001)

Urban Population Share Classes 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

I 42.74 50.16 51.08 61.94 62.91 71.34

II 9.67 4.51 5.41 12.85 12.20 7.09

III 19.79 24.16 21.05 13.72 15.41 12.34

IV 14.68 11.60 10.58 8.16 5.52 5.16

v 9.04 8.87 6.63 2.89 3.63 3.51

VI 4.08 1.19 1.00 0.43 0.32 0.55

All 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: Census of India, ( 1991 ). General Population Table. Bihar. Series- 5 Census of lndoa. (2001 ). Provosional Population Table. Rural Urban Distrobutoon. Jharkhand, Series-21

The table 2.3 also shows that except class I cities, the share of population had reduced

to more than half from 1951 to 200 I in other size classes. In class III towns, population has

reduced from 19.79 percent to 12.34 percent during 1951-200 I; in case of class IV,

population has reduced from I 4.68 percent to 5. I 6 percent: in class V towns from 9.03

percent to 3.5 I percent and in class VI towns from 4.08 percent to 0.55 percent. Despite this,

the number of each size class had increased during this period. There were only five class III

towns in I 951 Census and this number increased up to fourteen in 1971 and twenty two in

200 I. If we analyse their distribution, we find that almost all districts have one or two class

Ill towns (table A.2.9).

The growth pattern of class IV towns is also same as class Ill towns. In 195 I there

were only seven class IV towns in Jharkhand and they had 14.68 percent of state's urban

45

population. But in the coming decades despite the increase in number of class IV towns i.e.

seventeen in I97I and twenty in 200 I, their share of population to the total urban population

reduced in each successive Census and it was only 5 .I6 percent in 200 I Census. Most of the

twenty class IV towns were located in the district of Hazaribagh (five), Dhanbad (five),

Paschimi Singhbhum (four), and Purbi Singhbhum (two). Basically most of these towns are

characterised by mining activities. Their development is only based on these activities, which

helped in explaining why they had only 5.16 percent oftotal urban population of the state.

The number of class V towns increased from nine to twenty nine during 1951-200 I

Census. The distribution of class V towns were not uniform, most of them were located in

only four districts. In 200 I, out of twenty-nine Class V towns, eleven were in Hazaribagh,

seven each in Dhanbad and Palamu districts. As far as the share to the total district's urban

population is concerned, their percent was negligible in all districts except Paschimi

Singhbhum, which had I4.08 percent of the total urban population living in different class V

towns. Majority of the population of Jharkhand had preferred to live in relatively bigger

cities/towns of the state. That is why the share of class I cities to the total population in

Jharkhand has been growing in each Census. This clearly indicates that Jharkhand is no

exception to the "top-heavy" urban structure as is found in India.

Table-2.4 Jharkhand: Different Class Wise (Town/City) Population Growth (1951-2001)

Town/City Wise Urban Population Growth Rate Classes 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01

I 105.81 88.11 75.08 32.78 35.55

II -18.19 105.56 270.77 24.66 -25.34

III 114.98 49.42 01.64 46.89 2.79

IV 32.57 63.44 20.35 -11.49 19.84

v -72.16 28.01 -31.93 64.06 24.25

VI -48.6 43.31 32.44 -2.79 117.50

All 76.80 61.15 55.96 30.76 28.36 Source Census of lndoa, ( 1991 ), General Populatoon Table. Bohar, Senes- 5

Census of India, (200 I). Provisional Populatoon Table, Rural Urban Dostribution, Jharkhand. Senes-21

2.6 Level of Urbanisation:-

The level of urbanisation is the proportion of urban population to the total population

of the region. It can be expressed in two ways (a) percent of urban population to total

population (b) the urban rural ratio. It is a variable that is independent of the size of urban

population, the number of urban settlements and their average size. Degree or level of

46

urbanisation is one ofthe most important characteristics of urbanisation. However, the degree

of urbanisation varies from region to region.

In Jharkhand, the district level analysis showed very high variations in the level of

urbanisation. Some districts had higher level of urbanisation since 1951. For example, in

197 I, the level of urbanisation was 43.5 I percent in Dhanbad and 43.03 percent in East

Singhbhum. It was much higher than the overall urbanisation level (I 5.78 percent) of states.

But some districts of Jharkhand had negligible level of urbanisation, for instance Godda and

Gumla had only 1.62 and 3. I 9 percent of urbanisation respectively in I 971. The other least

urbanized districts of Jharkhand were Dumka (3.73 percent), Palamu (4.69 percent),

Sahibganj (7. I 5 percent), Lohardaga (8.47 percent), Giridih (I 3.45 percent), and Hazaribagh

( 12.46 percent). Thus out of thirteen districts, only three had a higher level of urbanisation.

The higher degree of urbanisation in these districts had been due to the economic activities

based on their mineral and industrial resources, and also due to the development of

transportation and communication linkages in these districts.

Districts

Godda Sahibganj

Dumka

Deoghar Dhanbad Giridih Hazaribagh

Palamu

Lohardaga

Gumla Ran chi Purbi Singhbhum. Paschimi Singhbhum. Jharkhand

Table: 2.5 Jharkhand: Level of Urbanisation

1951 1961 1971 1981

0.00 1.51 1.62 1.97

6.16 6.56 7.15 7.70

2.12 3.30 3.73 5.67 10.09 11.32 11.64 12.58

16.11 27.27 43.51 50.80

9.36 12.34 13.45 14.20

5.46 6.08 12.46 15.11

4.37 5.50 4.69 5.64

4.37 5.50 8.47 10.15

0.00 2.04 3.19 3.96 9.89 12.57 21.03 31.62

37.10 40.15 43.03 53.97 7.84 8.57 10.29 11.69

8.14 11.52 15.78 20.28 Source Census of lndm. ( 1991 ), General Populauon Table, B1har, Senes- 5

1991

2.75 7.30

6.12 13.63 51.30 15.45 18.06

5.01

11.00 4.45

33.78 52.92 11.45 21.35

Census of lnd1a, (2001 ), Prov1s1onal Population Table, Rural Urban D1stnbuuon, Jharkhand, Senes-21

2001

3.53 8.23

6.52 13.76 53.75 14.90 18.44

5.35

12.68 5.48

35.09 54.97 16.86 22.25

In I 98 I, despite the growth in the level of urbanisation in Jharkhand (from 15.78

percent to 20.28 percent) once again most of the districts had shown minor increases in the

growth of urban percent. The Table 2.5 shows that the level of urbanisation in Godda had

increased marginally from 1.62 percent in 1971 to 1.97 percent in 1981, in Dumka from 3.73

47

percent to 5.67 percent, and in Gumla from 2.02 percent to 3.96 percent. The situation of

Sahibganj , Palamu, and Lohardaga was not very different. On the other hand, districts like

Dhanbad, Ranchi and Eastern Singhbhum, which had already higher level of urbanisation,

registered higher growth in the level of urbanisation (Table 2.5). The highest increase was

seen in Ranchi district and it was almost an increase of 10 percent from 21.8 percent to 31.62

percent. Basically in the late 60s several industries and research institutes like HEC,

MECON, and R&D etc. were established in Ranchi, which had attracted a large number of

labour forces from the surrounding regions.

Graph No.:- 2.3

.----------------------------------------------------- - -----Level ofUrbanisation in Jharkhand :-1951-2001

60

50

c 40 .S!

-; :; Cl. 30 Q c. c = 20 ~

:5 .... Cl 10 ~

0

= 'C' = ... "0 .c .c = = = :E .c "0 '§ = = :e ~ ~ I:Jl s (J I:Jl '& "0

2 .c .c = Cl I:Jl :; ' t: .c 'E = c c c

0 = Cl G ·~ <; 0 ~ (ii (ii :E Q ~ .c c. = ... ~ .c = Q = .s = 00 :t c. c.

D 1951 D 1961 1971 • 1981 • 1991 • 2001 Di stricts

Source: Census of ind ia ( 199 1): Provisional Population Table: Rural rban Distri bution, Paper II , Bihar Series, 5

Census of India (200 I): Provisiona l Population Table: Rural Urban Di tribution, Paper ll , Jh arkhand , Series-21

Table 2.5 shows the increase in the level of urbanisation during 1981-2001. In 1991 ,

frrst time Purbi Singhbhum (52.92 percent) stood ahead of Dhanbad district (51.30 percent)

in the level of urbanisation. A perusal at the figures , given in table 2.5 shows that almost all

the districts of state had low increase in the level of urbanisation, even in the case of Ran chi

district whose level had increased only from 31.62 percent (1981) to 33 .78 percent (1991 ).

On the contrary, the level of urbanisation in Palamu district had reduced from 5.64 percent in

1981 to 5.01 percent in 1991. If we analyse the decennial growth rate of Palamu district

(Table 2.5), we find that during 1981-1991 , despite an increase iri the total population to

21.02 percent, the level of urbanisation had reduced. This was because of the fact that the

district ' s total population had recorded a higher growth (27.91 percent) than the urban growth

in the same decade.

48

According to graph 2.3, it is clear that till 2001 at least five districts of Jharkhand

were not able to achieve even the I 0 percent level of urbanisation or almost half of the state's

level of urbanisation. These districts were Godda (3.53 percent), Sahibganj (8.26 percent),

Dumka (6.12 percent), Palamu (5.01 percent), and Gumla (4.45 percent). This is due to the

backwardness of the region and poor development of secondary and tertiary activities. Thus

most of the people live in rural areas. Table 2.5 also reveals that there had been a slowing

down in the level of urbanisation particularly after 1981. High level of urbanisation has been

experienced in only three districts viz. Dhanbad, Purbi Singhbhum and Ranchi. These

districts also represent the maximum share of urban population of Jharkhand. On the other

hand, most of the districts of Santhal Pargana region and in the western parts of Jharkhand

had very low level ofurbanisation.

2. 7 Tempo of Urbanisation:-

Tempo of urbanisation refers to the change in the degree of urbanisation over a period

oftime. lfthe degree of urbanisation is measured by the percent of people living in the urban

places, the pace of urbanisation would be the change registered in the index (of tempo)

during that period of time. So it is an important method to measure the pace at which process

of urbanisation takes place.

In Jharkhand the tempo of urbanisation has been inconsistent. The tempo of

urbanisation was 0.34 during 1951-61. In the next two decades i.e. 1961-1971 and 1971-

1981, it further increased to 0.43 and 0.45 respectively. After that it became very low during

1981-1991 (0.11) and 1991-200 I (0.09). So it can be said that in Jharkhand during last two

decades, there was urban growth without much urbanisation. In spite of an increase in the

number of urban centres as well as total urban population, the level of urbanisation or

changes in the proportion of urban population to the total population had remained low.

During 1971-81 all districts of Jharkhand had positive tempo of urbanisation, but out

of 13 districts only three districts, Ranchi (1.06), Purbi Singhbhum (0.89), Dhanbad (0.73)

had a higher tempo of urbanisation than the state's average. All the remaining districts had

lower tempo of urbanisation. The lowest tempo of urbanisation was recorded in Sahibganj

district (0.05). The other districts which recorded lower tempo were Godda (0.08), Giridih

(0.08), Deoghar (0.09), Palamu and Lohardaga (0.17). If we look at the distribution of mines

49

and industries in Jharkhand we find that most of them had been established in Dhanbad,

Ranchi and Purbi Singhbhum districts, which partly explain the level as well as pace of

higher urbanisation. On the other hand, the Santhal Pargana region comprising the districts of

Godda, Sahibganj, Dumka, Deoghar as well as the western part of Jharkhand comprising of

the districts such as Gumla, Lohardaga and Palamu had been economically backward

regions. Most of their population was engaged in agricultural activities. Due to absence of

secondary and tertiary activities, these districts therefore have very low tempo of

urbanisation.

Table: 2.6

Jharkhand: Tempo of Urbanisation

DISTRICTS 1951-61 1961-71 1971-81 1981-91 1991-01

Godda 0.15 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.08 Sahibganj 0.04 0.06 0.05 ·0.04 0.09 Dumka 0.12 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.04 Deoghar 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.10 0.24 Dhanbad 1.64 1.62 0.73 0.05 -0.05 Giridih 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.03

Hazaribagh 0.06 0.64 0.26 0.30 0.04

Palamu -0.23 -0.91 0.10 -0.06 0.04 Lohardaga 0.11 0.30 0.17 0.08 0.07

Gumla 0.20 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.10 Ranchi 0.27 0.85 1.06 0.22 0.03 Purbi Singhbhum. 0.31 0.29 1.09 0.38 0.13 Paschimi Singhbhum. 0.07 0.17 0.14 -0.02 0.54 Jharkhand 0.34 0.43 0.45 0.11 0.05 Source: Census of lndm. ( 1991 ). General Population Table, 81har, Senes- 5

Census of India. (200 I), Provisional Population Table. Rural Urban Distnbutlon, Jharkhand. Senes-21

The situation did not change during 1981-1991 and 1991-200 I in these districts

except that the tempo of urbanisation had further declined in almost each district, even in

Ranchi district (0.27) which had registered a higher tempo of urbanisation during 1971-81

( 1.06). i"his decline was also seen in Purbi Singhbhum (0.89 to 0.38) and in Dhanbad (0. 73 to

0.05). During 1981-1991 Hazaribagh district achieved the highest tempo. The emergence of

six new towns and establishment of some mining centres and coal washeries had played an

important role in speeding up its pace of urbanisation. In the last decade, highest tempo was

recorded in Dhanbad district and the growth of Dhanbad was a reflective of rapid expansion

of coal mining and its allied industries.

50

2.8 Spatial Pattern of Urbanisation:-

The concentration of population in cities and towns depends upon several factors. For

instance, the ecological setting, initial population size, economic structure, functional

characteristics and relationships with the hinterland etc., are the major factors that affect the

growth of population in urban centres. Industrialisation, mechanisation, employment

opportunities, accessibility created by new methods of transport and development in trade

and commerce are other factors that cause an overall urban growth of a region. A city/town

can be taken as an indicator of economic development and social change. So the spatial

pattern of the urbanisation reflects the level of regional development across geographical

space.

In order to bring out the distributional pattern of cities/towns as well as urbanisation

pattern, Jharkhand can be broadly divided into five areas/sub regions on the basis of their

level of urbanisation and they are:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

Very high concentration (above 35 percent level of urbanisation)

High concentration (25-35 percent)

Medium concentration ( 15-25 percent)

Low concentration (5-15 percent)

Very low concentration (below 5 percent)

2.8.1 Very High Concentration

In Jharkhand, Dhanbad and Purbi Singhbhum had higher concentrations of urban

population and level of urbanisation since 1971. In 2001, Ranchi district also achieved a high

level. According to 1971 Census this region had fourteen towns out of sixty-one towns of

Jharkhand, where, about half of Jharkhand's urban population resided (49.77 percent). This

area in particular, coincides with several coal mining centres of the Damodar Basin, and

industrial establishments of East Subarnarekha Basin. According to Pandeya, P. ( 1971 ),

"there is a city/town for every 26 square miles in the Damodar Basin, and almost all towns of

this sub-region are related to mining and coal based industries", like Chaitudih, Malkera,

Chandil, Bhojdih, and Nirsa. Bokaro steel plant is also located in this region. Sindri is

another important industrial centre here. The Damodar Valley Project has also led to the

establishment of some towns like Maithon, Panchet and others. Moreover, two class I cities

51

are located here i.e. Dhanbad, which became a million plus city in 200 I and the other one is

the Bokaro Steel City.

ar an : ;paha Jh kh d S . I P

Urban Population

1951 1961 (percent)

Below 5 Godda, Godda, Dumka, Dumka, Palamu, Gum Ia Lohardaga, Gumla

5-15 Sahibganj, Sahibganj, Deoghar Deoghar Giridih, Giridih, Hazaribagh. Hazaribagh. Ranchi, Palamu, Paschimi Lohardaga. Singhbhum Ranchi.

Paschimi Singhbhum

15-25 Dhanbad Ranchi

25-35 Dhanbad

35 and Purbi, Purbi,

above Singhbhum Singhbhum

attern o Urban Population Table: 2.7

f c

1971 1981

Godda, Godda, Palamu, Gumla. Dumka, Gum Ia.

Sahibganj, Sahibganj, Deoghar, Dumka, Giridih, Deoghar.

Lohardaga, Lohardaga. Paschimi Palamu.

Singhbhum, Paschimi Hazaribagh Singhbhum

Giridih. Hazaribagh

Ran chi Ranchi

Dhanbad, Dhanbad. Purbi Purbi

Singhbhum Singhbhum

Source: Census of India. ( 1991 ). General Population Table. Bihar. Series- 5

oncentration

1991

Godda, Gum Ia

Sahibganj, Dumka,

Deoghar. Lohardaga.

Palamu.

Paschimi Singhbhum

Giridih. Hazaribagh

-

Ranchi, Dhanbad.

Purbi Singhbhum

Census of lnd1a, (2001 ). Provisional PopulatiOn Table. Rural Urban D1stnbut1on. Jharkhand, Series-21

2001

Godda, Gumla

Sahibganj, Dumka,

Deoghar. Lohardaga.

Palamu. Giridih

Hazaribagh. Pas. Singh

Ranchi. Dhanbad.

Purbi Singhbhum

East Singhbhum also had experienced a higher level of urbanisation and Jamshedpur

is the biggest and most representative city of the district. TISCO was established at

Jamshedpur in 1907, which further stimulated other ancillary industries to grow like TELCO,

Tin Plate Industries and Several Subsidiary industries in Jugsalai and in other adjacent areas.

Musabani (Copper mining) and Ghatsila (copper mining) have also developed as important

towns in Purbi Singhbhum. In 1991 and 200 I, Ranchi became a part of this sub region of

high concentration, having seven towns. Out of these towns, Ranchi is a class I city since

1961, which is situated in the central part of state and this is well connected by roads and

railways with other parts of Jharkhand as well as India. This has resulted in Ranchi's

development as an administrative and industrial centre. As of today, it is one of the most

52

important business centres of Eastern India. Near to Ranchi, Lac Research Institute is located

in Namkum and along with it Khunti has also developed as a commercial centre. The town of

Muri has been developed on a railway junction and is also renowned for its aluminum plant.

In 2001, Ranchi District had seven towns and possessed about 17 percent of state's urban

population.

2.8.2 High Concentration:

Upto 1981, Ranchi district was located in the sub-region of high urban concentration.

This district is endowed with many industrial and mining centres. For example, within

Ranchi city, Heavy Engineering Corporation (H.E.C.) has been established. The other

industries of the district are, wire-rope and insulator factory in Tatisilway, Ball Bearing

factory in Ratu, Lac Industry in Namkum and others. All these industries led to Ranchi as an

important urban centre of the region. Apart from Ranchi town, Khelari town is important for

its cement industry, ltaki for horticulture, Khunti for commercial functions and Muri for an

aluminum smelting plant. However Ranchi moved up to very high concentration zone in

1991.

2.8.3 Medium Urban Concentration:

Medium urban concentration in Jharkhand is found in Hazaribagh, Paschimi

Singhbhum and Giridih districts. Most of the urban centres of these districts are based on

mining activities and they have smaller population and areal size. The urban centres of these

districts spread over the entire sub-region. In Hazaribagh district, Kodarma and Jhumritilaiya,

are important mica production centres. Ramgarh and Hazaribagh are important as coal

washery centres. In Giridih district, Giridih is important for coal and mica trade, Chandrapura

is important for coal mines and also for a thermal power plant. Dugda town was also

established for coal mining purpose. In Paschimi Singhbhum, Chaibasa town is an

administrative as well as industrial centre. Chaibasa also has a cement factory, a lac

production unit and a wood production unit. Chakradharpur had developed as an important

centre for the South-Eastern Railways. Noamundi is famous for iron-ore mining.

2.8.4. Low Concentration

Low level of urbanisation in Jharkhand is found in Sahibganj, Dumka, Deoghar,

Lohardaga, Palamu and Giridih districts. Basically these districts are characterized by poor

subsistence agriculture, absence of proper transport network and industrial development.

53

Here only few small urban settlements have grown up. In case of Sahibganj, Dumka and

Deoghar districts which are also the parts of the Santhal Parganas region agriculture

dominates other activities.

Map 2.1 Map 2.2

Jharkhand: Level of Urbanisasation -1961 Jharkhand: lellel of Urbanisation· 1961

Map2.3 Map 2.4 .Jwlchnt LIMI of I.Jrbll"isaticn - 1W1 Jharkhand: Level of Urbanisation - 1981

Map2.5 Map 2.6

Jharkhand: Level of Urbanisation ·1991 Jharkhand: Level of Urbanisation - 2001

In the absence of industries, only a few administrative and service centres have been

developed here that cater to the surrounding regions. Palamu and Lohardaga districts are also

54

economically backward. Their rugged terrain and forest cover also make agricultural

activities difficult. In the absence of economic development, Lohardaga district thus has only

one class III town.

2.8.5 Very Low Concentration

There are two districts (Gumla and Godda) in Jharkhand that have less than 5 percent

level of urbanisation. The process of urbanisation in both the districts has been very slow.

Gumla district comprises of steep slopes and scarps and this sub-region receives the highest

amount of rainfall in Jharkhand resulting in a luxuriant forest cover of bamboo and sal trees.

Most parts of this district are also not connected by transport facilities. There is also dearth of

industrial units in the district. All these have restricted the evolution of a large urban centre.

In 200 l, only two towns existed (Simdega and Gumla) in this district. On the other hand,

Godda is an agriculture dominated and economically backward region. Godda town is the

only one class III town found in the sub-region. So in the absence of marked urban centres,

Godda's level of urbanisation level is below 4 percent even at present.

2.9 Urban Growth Characteristics:-

In previous sections, level and growth pattern of urbanisation has been focussed. But

the process of urbanisation has many dimensions. For example, it is also important to know

how the urban centres are spread over the space. Is there heavy concentration of urban

centres in certain regions? Is there any relationship between the sizes oftowns? Does a single

city dominates the urban growth of the region? Thus, while attempting to measure the

different dimensions of urbanisation in Jharkhand, certain statistical methods, such as

primacy index, rank size rule, nearest neighbour analysis and location quotient, have been

used in this section.

2;9.1 Urban Primacy:-

The existing inter-relationships between the largest city and the second largest city of

any region or country can be analysed by the primacy index. The concept of primacy is based

on the fact that if the largest city is disproportionately larger than the second largest city, then

the law of primate city prevails in that region.

Urban primacy can be measured by (a) two city index, or by a four city index; the

latter being more independent of the total number of cities (Clarke, 1972).

55

Pt Two city Index P.l. = -­

P2

Four City Index P.I. = P2 + PJ + P4

Where 'P' is the population of towns with their respective ranks I, 2, 3 and 4 and P.I.

refers to index of primacy. According to this rule, if size of the largest town is more than

double than that of the second largest town then it will lead to the primacy of larger city in

the region's urban population growth as well as concentration of functions over the other

cities.

Table:-2.8 r an nmacym ar an :- -u b p. . Jh kh d 1951 2001

Year First Ranking Second Ranking Third Ranking Index of City City City Primacy

1951 Jamshedpur Ranchi Dhanbad 2.04 (218162) (106849) (73602)

1961 Jamshedpur Dhanbad Ran chi 1.63 (328044) (200618) (140253)

1971 Dhanbad Jamshedpur Ran chi 1.05 (458016) (434031) (25555 I)

1981 Dhanbad Jamshedpur Ran chi 1.01 (678069) (669580) (502771)

1991 Jamshedpur Dhanbad Ranchi 1.03 (I 101804) (1064357) (614795)

2001 Jamshedpur Dhanbad Ran chi 1.03 (I 101 804) (1064357) (862850)

Source: Census of India. ( 1991 ). General Population Table. Bohar. Seroes- 5 Census of India, (2001 ). Provisional Population Table. Rural Urban Distributoon. Jharkhand

It is clear from the Table 2.8 that in Jharkhand the primacy index is not marked and

there is an observable tendency towards decline in urban primacy from 1951 to 200 I. In 1951

the value of the primacy index was 2.04 and in 200 I it reduced to 1.03, thereby marking a

significant decline. The highest primacy index value (2.04) which follows the primacy rule

was found only in 1951. The two-city primacy norm cannot be applied to Jharkhand post

1951, as most of the values are almost equal to unity. Before independence, most parts of

Jharkhand were isolated from the other parts of the country. In 1951, Jamshedpur emerged as

the only big industrial centre of Jharkhand and the second largest town was Ranchi which

developed as a service and educational cen.tre. This explains the reason for the primacy index

value of2.04 in 1951.

56

The opening of the region became more pronounced during the later half of the 201h

century. In this period the newly formed Indian government had established several mining

and industrial units, as a planning strategy to develop the backward regions of Jharkhand.

This helped in the establishment of new urban centres in Jharkhand. These newly established

units had not only accelerated the pace of urbanisation but also led to a marked redistribution

of urban centres in the state. This can be best exemplified by Dhanbad, which experienced

large scale of migration from the peripheral areas as well from other parts of the country.

Now Dhanbad is specialized in mining as well as in industrial and tertiary activities. This has

also resulted into a dramatic rise in the population of Dhanbad during 1961- 1981 and had

forced Jamshedpur to lose its primacy. The other big town of Jharkhand is Ranchi and its

population is also not far behind that of Jamshedpur and Dhanbad. (Table-2.8)

Graph:-2.4

Rank size Relationship of Towns of .Jharkhand: 1951

1000000 --------------------------------, ~

I 00000 :r=:=:=::::=:::;.;e.__o;;;;;;;::;.--------------~~ --~- ·--~ --1 0000 +---------------~~~~~~~~~--------~--~------------~ --.. 1000 +------------------------------------------------------__,

I00 +-------------------------------------------------------4

10 +----------------------------------------------------__,

10 100 Act. P o p . • E s t. P op . Rank of Towns

2.9.2 Rank -Size Relationship and Hierarchy of Urban Centres:-

In general, variation in the size of urban centres of a regwn describes its

characteristics of urbanisation. It is believed that Rank Size Rule presen~s a generalised

picture of the urban settlements of a region. According to this theory, within an urban

hierarchy, cities are related to each other in a harmonic progression. It is based on the

principle that the population of the 'n'th city must be 1/'n ' th of the largest city. A number of

attempts have been made by different scholars to formulate certain rules regarding the

relationships between the population size and the respective rank. In this direction, Auerbach

was perhaps the first scholar who had tried to explain the relationship between the size of

57

urban centres and their rank. However, it was Zipf who formulated this concept by placing

forward a strong theoretical logic and basis for this regularity.

Graph:-2.5

1000000 Rank Size Relationship of Cities of Jharkahand-1961

I ~-- ... 100000

---~

j 10 000

~ ~ 1000

j 10 0

10

I

- · • . - Act. Pop . - Est. Pop . I 1 0 Rank of "lo wn s 1 00

According to this ~le the population of a town is related to its rank in the following

form ofPareto ' s distribution (A. Mahmood, 1998 ).

Pr = KR -b_ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - (i)

Where Pr is the population of the town whose rank is R, While K and b are the

constants. After this the logarithms of both sides are computed to transform this equation into

a following linear form i.e;

Y = a - bx - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·- - (ii)

Where Y = log Pr

x = log R

a = log K

Tables given in appendix 2 .10, 2.11 , 2.12, 2.13 , 2.14, and 2.14 exhibited the

arrangement of towns of Jharkhand according to their respective ranks. Initially their ranks

and population have been converted into their logarithms and with the help of them, firstly

the value of ' a ' and ' b ' have been calculated with the help of formula given below.

LXY- L X L Y

b = --------

a= Y- bX

58

Then the value of 'a' and 'b' of each decade have been established in the equation (ii)

as follows;

Log Pr = log K- b x logR

Suppose the value of'a' of 1951 is 5.4481 and 'b' is -1.1805; then the equation from

the above values of the constants as above could be written as

Pr = 262360 R -1.180503------ -·---------(iii)

Where· K = antilog of 5.4481 and it is a constant. After substituting the value of R

(rank of cities).i.e. 1, 2, 3, and 4, etc. in equation (iii), we get the estimated population of

each city by their rank. Generally, the actual population of cites of any region does not equal

to the estimated population. If it is close to the estimated population, then city system fits

completely into a rank size rule. But this happens rarely.

Graph:-2.6

1000000 Rank Size Relationship of Cities of Jharkhand-1971

100000 r- ~--...

~~ .... "' c ::

10000 Q

~- ... --~· - -Eo- -.... Q

1000 c -,

.9 ~ 100 -; Q. Q

Q., 10

- · • ·- Act. Pop. - Est. Pop . 10

Rnak of Tomts 100

Source: Census of India ( 1991 ): -Series 5, Provisional Population Table : Rural Urban Di~tribution , Paper fl , Bihar.

Keeping in view the rank size scale it was found that the hierarchy of urban

settlements was not following the Zipf's Rank Size Rule in Jharkhand and there had been

much discrepancies between the actual population and the expected population. It has been

further supported by the fact that primacy of any one city does not exist in Jharkhand. In

order to examine the rank size distribution of urban centres of. the Jharkhand, double

logarithmic graphs have been used. Rank of the towns for the each decade have been

depicted on X coordinate and the population of corresponding city/town has been depicted on

theY coordinate.

59

Graph:-2.7

10000000 Rank Size Relationship of Cities ofJharkhand-1981

1000000

"'" - --.:..:::..·~ ~ 100000 ~ --0 'a 10000

i 1000 ~

t 100

10 --- -

- -* - - Act. Pop . --Est. P op . 10 100

Source: Census of lndia ( 1991 ): -Series 5, Provisional Population Table: Rural Urban Distribution, Paper II , Bihar

From the graphs and the table 2.11, it can be deciphered that the deviations of the

observed rank-size distribu'tion of the urban centres from the expected population have been

significantly very high. The curve for the graph of each decade ( 1951 - 2001) does not

suggest any conformity with the rank-size rule. It is clear that in each decade all the urban

centres of higher rank upto the 4th rank had larger population than their expected size.

Graph:-2.8 Rank Size Relationship of Cities of Jharkhand-1991

10000000

1000000

· -- ~- - - ...... = 100000 ~---:!:: - - -~ 10000 .... Q

= Q 1000

"' = 100 c. Q

~

10

100 10 1-· * · - Act. Pop. Est. Pop . I Rank of Towns

Source: Census of lndia ( 1991 ): -Series 5, Pro~isional Population Table: Rural Urban Distribution , Paper II , Bihar.

Except in 2001, urban centres of between 30,000 and 20,000 population size were at

some extent closer to expected population. So it is obvi~us that the curve tends to be much

closer to the line of expected population at these points. Urban centres of below 10,000

population were much smalier than their expected population. These graphs also reveal that

there had been a maximum deviation from actual population to the expected population in

class V and class VI towns. Here, the actual population was exceptionally below than their

expected population .. This trend can be observed in all the decades. So the analysis of the

60

deviations of actual population size from the theoretical rank-size relationship confirms that

rank-size rule is not strictly applicable to the urban centres of Jharkhand ..

Graph:-2.9

10000000 Rank Size Relationship of Cities of Jharkhand-2001

1000000 !~ · ••••••

- ·-- • .;r~ -· ... - ... _. ..... . "" "' = 100000 ~ 0

E- 10000 .... 0

= 1000 0

:§ ::I

100 c. 0

Q.,

10

1-- ·• -· · Exp. Po p ____.___ Act. Pop . , 10 Rank of Town · 100

Source: Census. of India (200 I): Provisiona l Population Table : Rural Urban Distribution, Paper II , Jharkhand

~.9.3 Measures of Urban Population Concentration in Jharkhand:-

The concentration of urban population in different districts of Jharkhand can be also

studied by 'location quotients'. The location quotient of urban population is a quantitative

method applied to analyse the degree of urbanisation of any region relative to the degree of

urbanisation of the state. In this study the districts of Jharkhand have been taken as unit of

analysis. It is worked out on the basis of the following formula.

Uid

Pid

L.Q.U.= -----

Us

Ps

Where Uid is the total urban population of ith district and Pid is the total population

of ith district. Us is the total urban population of state and Ps is the total population of the

state.

The values of location quotients in each districts of Jharkhand have been calculated

separately from 1951 to 2001. The obtained values are presented in Table 2.9. If the value of

location quotient is one then it indicates that urban population concentration in the district

has been the same as that of the state. If the value is more than one, it explains that the

61

particular district has higher urban population concentration than the state. A value less than

one clearly indicates that the level of urban population concentration of district is less than

that ofthe state.

Table No:-2.9 Jharkhand: Location Quotient of Urbanisation

Districts 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001

Godda 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.15 Sahibganj 0.76 0.57 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.36 Dumka 1.24 0.98 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.28 Deoghar 0.26 0.29 0.72 0.62 0.64 0.60 Dhanbad 1.33 2.37 2.69 2.51 2.40 2.33 Giridih 1.15 1.07 0.83 0.70 0.72 1.01

Hazaribagh 0.67 0.53 0.77 0.75 0.84 0.80 Palamu 0.54 0.48 0.29 0.28 0.23 0.23

Lohardaga 1.98 1.20 0.83 0.50 0.51 0.55 Gumla 0.00 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.24

Ranchi 1.21 1.09 1.30 1.56 1.58 1.52 Purbi Singhbhum. 4.56 3.48 3.04 2.66 2.70 2.38

Paschimi Singhbhum. 0.96 0.74 0.58 0.58 0.54 0.73 Jharkhand 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Source: Calculated from:- Census of India - Senes 5, ProvisiOnal Population Table Rural Urban D1stnbu11on. Paper II. 81har Census oflnd10 (2001 ): Provisional Population Table Rural Urban D1stnbution. Paper II. Jharkhand

Table 2.9 indicates that during 1951-2001, there were three districts in Jharkhand

namely East Singhbhum, Ranchi and Dhanbad which had consistently higher location

quotients than the overall state values. In these districts therefore the level of urbanisation

had been higher than that of the state. The location quotient of East Singhbhum was very

high from 1951 and it was more than that of Jharkhand in all the decades. In 1951, the

location quotient of East Singhbhum was as high as 4.56. But after that there had been a

regular decline in its value. The rest of the districts tend to show very low level of location

quotient values. For example in 200 I, Godda, Palamu, Gum Ia and Dumka had 0.15. 0.23,

0.24 and 0.25 values respectively.

East Singhbhum thus emerged as the most urbanising district of Jharkhand followed

by Ranchi and Dhanbad districts. Basically, most of the industrial and mining units are

clustered in these districts. They are very rich in mineral resources which not only attract the

capital and industry but also attract a large influx of labour force. Therefore there has been a

high spatial imbalance in urban population concentration in Jharkhand.

62

2.9.4 Nearest Neighbour Analysis:-

The spatial distribution of urban centres in Jharkhand can be analysed by 'nearest

neighbour analysis'. It was originally given by 'Clark and Evans' in 1954 for the study of

distribution of various species of plants, now it is widely used in settlement geography. This

technique measures the deviation of any spatial pattern of distribution of points from

randomness, for which five attributes has been taken into account, i.e., mean observed

distance (Do), hypothetical spacing (Dr), nearest neighbour statistic (Rn), standard error (S.

E) and the level of significance (Z). Apart from this, to analyse the spacing of urban centres,

Jharkhand has been divided into four sub-regions on the basis of its physiographic divisions

as well as differences in socio-economic development. They are Santhal Parganas, Damodar

Valley Region, Western Jharkhand and Subarnarekha Valley region. The name of districts

which falls within these regions are as follows:

i). Santhal Parganas: Godda, Sahibganj, Deoghar and Dumka

ii). Damodar Valley Region: Dhanbad, Giridih and Hazaribagh

iii). Western Jharkhand: Palamu, Lohardaga and Gumla

iv). Subarnarekha Valley Region, Ranchi, Western Singhbhum and Eastern Singhbhum.

Table 2.10 shows the values of all the five variables, for the urban centres of four

different sub regions. It reveals that in all the sub regions and for the all decades the actual

distance (Do) has been always higher than the hypothetical distance (Dr). The nearest

neighbour values (Rn) and Z values exhibit that almost in all sub regions, the urban centres

are spaced either randomly or approaching an uniform distribution. Moreover the nearest

neighbour values had also been declining in nearly all the sub-regions.

The above table exhibits that almost in all decades only Damodar Valley Region have

uniform distribution of urban centres. More than 40 percent of the towns had been situated in

this region. Moreover, this region is also one of the most industrialized regions of Jharkhand

and several small and medium towns had been established for industrial and mining

activities. The region of Subarnarekha Valley is showing mini~um spacing in actual distance

(Do) in Jharkhand but the Rn value indicates random pattern of distribution of urban centres.

Actually the values of hypothetical distance (Dr) of this region are almost equal to the actual

63

distance in all decades, which makes the Rn value approximately one. On the other hand rest

ofthe sub regions have random distribution pattern of urban centres. This uneven distribution

of urban centres in these regions has been mainly due to the harsh terrain, less industrial

development and sparsely developed transportation facilities.

Table:- 2.10 A 'b ttra utes o fN N . hb earest eael our A I . nalySIS

Do. Dr. Rn. S. E. z Remarks Region 1951 S. P. 33.88 21.67 1.36 0.07 1.95 Random.

D. 35.36 21.87 1.62 0.08 3.91 App. Unif.

W.J. 41.60 29.67 1.40 0.04 1.88 Random

S.R. V. 20.32 21.92 0.93 0.08 -0.46 Random

1961 S. P. 29.38 21.67 1.36 0.07 1.92 Random

D. 34.04 20.94 1.63 0.08 4.15 App. Unif.

W.J. 41.23 27.47 1.50 0.05 2.54 App. Unif.

S. R. V. 23.59 18.77 1.26 0.10 1.90 Random

1971 S. P. 27.54 21.67 1.27 0.07 1.47 Random D. 27.12 16.64 1.63 0.13 5.25 App. Unif. W.J. 41.23 27.47 1.50 0.05 2.54 App. Unif. S. R. V. 19.97 16.68 1.20 0.13 1.65 Random

1981 S. P. 26.64 20.43 1.30 0.07 1.75 Random D. 23.58 14.51 1.63 0.17 5.98 App. Unif. W.J. 31.80 25.70 1.24 0.06 1.29 Random S.R. V. 19.93 16.25 1.23 0.14 1.93 Random

1991 S. P. 26.61 20.43 1.30 0.07 1.74 Random D. 18.55 12.82 1.45 0.22 4.83 App. Unif. W.J. 29.60 24.23 1.22 0.06 1.27 Random S. R. V. 17.20 15.16 1.13 0.16 1.23 Random

2001 S. P. 24.96 20.43 1.22 0.07 1.27 Random

D. 16.46 10.81 1.52 0.22 6.70 App. Unif.

W.J. 27.87 24.23 1.15 0.06 0.86 Random

S. R. V. 15.22 14.54 1.05 0.16 0.45 Random

Where: - S P. - Santhal Pargana Regton. D. - Damodar Valley Regton. W J - West Jharkhand Regton. S R V - Swarn Rekha Valley Regton. App Unif - Approachmg Untfonn

2.10 Conclusions:

The above analysis and tables show that urbanisation in Jharkhand is a post

independence phenomenon. During ancient and medieval period few settlements were

64

present in Jharkhand. It was the Britishers who developed few administrative centres,

cantonments, hill towns for their own requirements and hence modem urbanisation started in

Jharkhand.

After independence, in response to the administrative changes as well as due to

mining and industrial development, many regions of Jharkhand achieved unprecedented

urban growth particularly during 1951-1981. The sudden spurt in urbanisation surprisingly

happened in industrialised districts of Jharkhand. Study also revealed that there is a great

disparity in distribution of urban settlements.

There were four districts which had higher number of cities/towns; they are Dhanbad,

Hazaribagh, Purbi and Paschimi Singhbhum. Again growth rate of different class towns

shows that the towns/cities having population more than one lakh are growing much faster

than smaller towns. In case of small and medium towns despite the growth in their number,

their percent to total urban population is reducing in each census.

It is also found that the pace of urbanisation in Jharkhand is not yet stable and is

likely to slow down further in most of the districts of the state. It may be true to some extent

that after 80s the process of industrialisation has slowed down. In many areas mining

activities are slowly closing down. So in the absence of job opportunities in other sectors, the

magnitude of migration to the urban centres would be reduced, which shows decelerisation of

urbanisation in the state.

There is no urban primacy in Jharkhand as there are at least three cities that have

almost equal population size. It is important to note that they are also located in different part

of the state. According to the computation of rank size rule; actual population of larger towns

is much lower than estimated population and towns of Jharkhand also do not fit into the rank

size rule.

Those districts, which are geographically favourable, commercially and industrially

developed such as Purbi Singhbhum, Dhanbad and Ranchi, have higher urban population

concentrations. The computed location quotients indicate that Dhanbad, Purbi Singhbhum

and Ranchi have very high concentrations of urban population. On the other hand the

districts such as, Godda, Gumla, Lohardaga, Sahibganj and Dumka have very low

concentration ofurban population.

65

References: • Bhasin, R. (2001): 'Urban Poverty and Urbanisation', Deep and Deep Publication,

Rajori Garden, Delhi, pp.l36-137.

• Bhatt, S.C. (2002): 'District Gazetteer of Jharkhand', Gyan Publications, New Delhi.

• Clark, P.J. and Evans, F.C. (1954): "Distance to Nearest Neighbour as a Measure of

Spatial Relationships in Populations", Ecology, 35. pp. 445-53.

• Census of India ( 1991 ): General Population Table, Series-5, Paper-II, Bihar.

• Census of India (200 I): Provisional Population Table: Rural Urban Distribution,

Paper II,Jharkhand.

• Guglar (ed.) ( 1988): 'The Urbanisation in Third World', Oxford University Press, New York.

• Mahmood, A. (1998): 'Statistical Methods in Geographical Studies', Rajesh

Publications, New Delhi.

• Pandeya, P. (1970): 'Impact of Industrialisation on Urban Growth, A Case Study of

Chotanagpur', Central Book Depot, Allahabad.

• Prasad, A. (1973): 'Chotanagpur: Geography of Rural Settlements', Ranchi

University, Ranchi.

• Rakesh Mohan and Pant, C. ( 1982): "Morphology of Urbanisation in India: Some

Results from 1981 Census", Economic and Political Weekly, September 18 and 25.

• Singh, J. & Singh, D.P. ( 1982): "Recent Trends of Urbanisation in Bihar", Southern

Economist, July, pp. 35-37.

• Sinha, V.N.P. ( 1976): 'Chotanagpur Plateau: A Study in Settlement Geography', K.B.

Publications, New Delhi.

66