Urbanisation

Urbanisation refers to the process by which an increasing proportion of a population comes to reside in urban areas, leading to the growth and expansion of towns and cities. It is not merely a demographic shift but a complex social transformation that alters economic systems, cultural patterns, spatial arrangements, and social relations. Urbanisation in sociology is understood as both a cause and consequence of social change—shaped by industrialisation, migration, globalisation, and policy regimes.
At its core, urbanisation represents a shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, as described by Ferdinand Tönnies—moving from close-knit, tradition-bound communities to impersonal, contractual, and bureaucratically managed urban societies. This transition brings with it new forms of social organisation, such as nuclear families, voluntary associations, and formal economic systems, while often weakening traditional kinship bonds and community-based controls.
From a functional perspective, urbanisation fosters economic growth by concentrating labor, capital, and infrastructure. Cities act as hubs of innovation, trade, services, and education, contributing to national development. However, this same process also generates dysfunctions—rising inequality, housing shortages, slums, pollution, crime, and the weakening of social solidarity.
Urbanisation is closely tied to migration, especially rural-to-urban migration, which reflects both push factors (poverty, lack of employment, agrarian distress) and pull factors (job opportunities, better services, modern lifestyles). This migration fuels the informal sector and unregulated settlements, resulting in the coexistence of affluence and deprivation within the same urban space—a phenomenon often called the “urban duality.”
Louis Wirth’s classic work on “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (1938) explains that urban settings foster a particular mode of life marked by individualism, rationality, diversity, and social isolation. The city becomes a site of multiple, transient relationships—where people are constantly surrounded yet often feel alone. Wirth argues that urbanisation weakens primary relationships and increases reliance on secondary and impersonal ties.
In the Indian context, urbanisation has accelerated since the post-liberalisation period of the 1990s, driven by the rise of the service sector, infrastructure projects, and private real estate. Yet, this growth has been uneven and exclusionary. Cities like Delhi, Mumbai, and Bangalore have emerged as global nodes, but millions continue to live in slums with poor sanitation, insecure tenure, and limited access to education and healthcare.
Urban sociologists have also emphasized the concept of the “Right to the City”—a demand for more equitable, participatory, and inclusive urban spaces. This approach critiques top-down planning and advocates for the inclusion of marginalised groups—slum dwellers, women, migrants, and the urban poor—in decision-making processes.
Importantly, urbanisation is now deeply intertwined with technology and surveillance, leading to the rise of “Smart Cities” and “Digital Urbanism.” While these initiatives promise efficiency and innovation, they also risk creating “techno-elitist” spaces that exclude the poor and deepen digital divides. Urbanisation is also a site of resistance and grassroots innovation. Movements for housing rights, environmental justice, and equitable public transport represent urban struggles that reflect deeper structural inequalities in Indian cities. Urbanisation, therefore, is not just a demographic or infrastructural phenomenon—it is a contested social process shaped by power, class, gender, caste, and state policy.

Introduction: Understanding Urbanisation as Social Transformation

Urbanisation is not merely the process of increasing concentration of population in urban areas; it is a profound transformation in the structure of society, modes of livelihood, spatial arrangements, and cultural life. From a sociological standpoint, urbanisation signifies a transition from rural, agrarian, kinship-bound communities to urban, industrialised, and bureaucratic forms of association. It entails not only demographic and spatial expansion of cities but also a reorganisation of human relationships, institutions, and cultural values. Urbanisation reflects the dynamics of capitalism, state policy, technological change, and global integration, making it a deeply contested and layered phenomenon.
In the classical sociological tradition, Ferdinand Tönnies distinguished between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (association), suggesting that urbanisation symbolised a shift from traditional, emotion-based social ties to rational, contractual, and impersonal relationships. Emile Durkheim viewed urban societies as based on organic solidarity—complex interdependence among specialised individuals. Georg Simmel, in his essay The Metropolis and Mental Life, noted how urban life fosters rationality, individualism, and a blasé attitude due to constant sensory overload and anonymity. These thinkers laid the foundation for understanding urbanisation not just as a spatial shift but as a reconfiguration of human consciousness and interaction.

The Urban Way of Life: Wirth and the Sociological Imagination

A key sociological text in the study of urbanisation is Louis Wirth’s (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life. He argued that the urban environment gives rise to a distinctive social character defined by heterogeneity, transience, and segmental roles. Urban life is marked by impersonal, superficial relationships where primary ties weaken and secondary, formal associations dominate. The urbanite develops a sense of reserve, emotional detachment, and tolerance of diversity. Wirth’s formulation remains relevant in explaining the nature of modern cities, though scholars now emphasise that urban experiences also include resistance, collective identity, and new forms of solidarity.
In India, the coexistence of tradition and modernity within cities challenges some of Wirth’s assumptions. For instance, kinship, caste networks, and religious identities continue to influence urban housing, labour, and marriage patterns. Yet, urbanisation has undeniably altered the landscape of everyday life—shifting people from caste-based occupations to service sector jobs, transforming family structures, and introducing new aspirations.

Urbanisation in India: Patterns, Drivers, and Challenges

India’s urbanisation trajectory has been uneven, informal, and exclusionary. According to Census 2011, around 31% of India’s population lived in urban areas—a figure projected to rise to nearly 40% by 2036. Unlike the West, where urbanisation was driven by industrialisation, in India, it has been shaped by migration, reclassification of rural areas, and urban sprawl. Post-1991 economic liberalisation accelerated urban growth, particularly in sectors like IT, real estate, retail, and logistics. Cities such as Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and Gurugram became global service hubs, attracting investments and skilled migrants.
Yet, this urban growth has been deeply unequal. A handful of metropolitan regions absorb most of the investment and migration, while smaller towns struggle with poor infrastructure. Furthermore, rural-urban migration often leads to informal settlements or slums, where migrants face precarity, poor sanitation, insecure tenure, and limited access to services. The informal sector employs over 80% of the urban workforce, revealing a paradox—cities produce wealth but fail to ensure dignified lives for most of their inhabitants.

Contemporary Thinkers on Urbanisation: Castells, Harvey, and Sassen

Contemporary sociological and urban theory has added depth to the understanding of urbanisation by linking it to capital accumulation, globalisation, and resistance. Manuel Castells, in his theory of collective consumption, emphasised how the state’s provision of housing, transport, education, and public services is central to sustaining capitalist urbanisation. He argued that when these services are denied or commodified, urban movements emerge in resistance—particularly among the working classes and urban poor. In India, such movements are evident in slum dwellers’ struggles for tenure, protests against forced evictions, and campaigns for inclusive housing.
David Harvey, a Marxist geographer, introduced the idea of “accumulation by dispossession”, where urban land and resources are privatised, commodified, and used for speculative investment. Cities become centres for capital circulation through real estate development, infrastructure projects, and gentrification. This logic is visible in Indian megacities—where land acquisition for metro rail, expressways, or smart city projects often displaces informal workers and indigenous communities. Harvey’s call for a “Right to the City” is a demand for reclaiming urban spaces as democratic, participatory, and socially just.
Saskia Sassen, in her work on the Global City, highlights how cities become command centres of finance, migration, and information flows. Global cities like New York, London, and Tokyo are replicated in Indian contexts such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Gurugram. These cities are marked by luxury enclaves, financial districts, and IT parks—coexisting with slums, informal markets, and urban villages. Sassen’s idea of “expulsions”—the systemic pushing out of the poor from urban space—resonates with how Indian cities segregate and invisibilise low-income populations.

Smart Cities, AMRUT, and Urban Policy in India

In response to the challenges of rapid and chaotic urbanisation, the Government of India launched the Smart Cities Mission in 2015. This initiative aimed to develop 100 cities as digitally enabled, efficient, and citizen-friendly urban centres using ICT (Information and Communication Technology). It focused on area-based development, smart governance, sustainable infrastructure, and digital surveillance. While ambitious in scope, critics argue that smart city projects have largely served real estate interests, created “enclaves of development”, and excluded informal workers and slum populations.
The AMRUT (Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) programme was introduced alongside Smart Cities to improve basic urban infrastructure—such as water supply, sanitation, sewage, non-motorised transport, and green spaces—in smaller cities. AMRUT aimed for a more inclusive development model, but its success has been constrained by weak urban local bodies, lack of funding, and limited citizen participation.
Overall, Indian urban policy has often been technocratic and top-down, with a focus on aesthetics, security, and investment attractiveness rather than equity or inclusion. Urban governance remains fragmented between multiple agencies with overlapping responsibilities. The absence of strong elected municipal leadership and participatory planning has weakened the ability to respond to local needs—particularly of the urban poor, migrants, and marginalised groups.

Informal Economy, Migration, and the Urban Poor

The urban informal economy forms the backbone of Indian cities. Street vendors, rickshaw pullers, domestic workers, construction labourers, and gig workers ensure that cities run efficiently, yet they remain excluded from social security, housing, healthcare, and legal recognition. Informality is not just an economic condition but a political status—marked by precarity, invisibility, and systemic neglect.
Urbanisation in India is also closely linked to migration, particularly rural-to-urban migration. People migrate in search of better jobs, education, or escaping caste oppression, agrarian crisis, or climate disasters. However, most migrants find themselves absorbed into the informal sector, with limited upward mobility. They face discrimination in housing, policing, and access to identity documents. The COVID-19 lockdown of 2020 exposed the brutal exclusion of migrants—millions walked hundreds of kilometres back to their villages, highlighting the absence of urban social protection and planning for the poor

Gender, Caste, and Exclusion in Urban Space

Urbanisation is not a neutral or equal process—it is shaped by power, privilege, and structural inequalities. Women face multiple barriers in accessing safe, inclusive, and enabling urban environments. Lack of public toilets, inadequate lighting, and gender-blind transport systems restrict their mobility. Employment opportunities in cities are often gendered and poorly paid, while patriarchal norms continue to regulate women’s freedom and visibility.
Caste also remains a powerful axis of urban exclusion. Dalits and Muslims are often confined to segregated colonies, denied housing in upper-caste localities, and subjected to everyday discrimination. Urban planning rarely considers these structural oppressions, and gentrification often displaces vulnerable communities in the name of beautification or infrastructure development.
In this context, urban space becomes a site of both violence and struggle. From anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh to housing rights movements in Mumbai, cities also offer platforms for collective resistance and new solidarities

Environmental Crisis, Sustainability, and the Future of Urbanisation

Rapid urbanisation has led to severe ecological degradation, with air pollution, groundwater depletion, waste mismanagement, and the loss of green cover becoming critical challenges. Cities like Delhi, Kanpur, and Varanasi routinely feature among the world’s most polluted. Unplanned construction, concretisation, and shrinking wetlands have made Indian cities highly vulnerable to floods, heatwaves, and water scarcity.
Sustainable urbanisation requires a rethinking of priorities—from car-centric models to public transport, from vertical real estate to affordable housing, and from techno-fixes to eco-sensitive planning. Climate-resilient urban planning must integrate the voices of the urban poor, street vendors, and slum residents who are often the worst affected yet least responsible for environmental damage.

Conclusion

Urbanisation in India is at a critical juncture. On one hand, cities represent opportunity, aspiration, innovation, and connectivity. On the other, they reflect inequality, exclusion, surveillance, and unsustainability. Sociologists remind us that cities are not just physical entities but spaces of meaning, conflict, and negotiation. Reclaiming urbanisation as a just and democratic process requires rethinking urban planning beyond infrastructure and investment. It calls for empowering local governance, recognising informal contributions, protecting rights to housing and mobility, and ensuring inclusion across caste, class, and gender. Cities must be seen as shared commons, not commodities. As David Harvey insists, the Right to the City is not only about access but about the power to shape the city’s future—one that is equitable, participatory, and sustainable

References

1. Castells, Manuel (1977). The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach to Urban Sociology. London: Edward Arnold
2. Harvey, David (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53, Sept–Oct
3. Sassen, Saskia (2001). The GPrinceton University Press
4. Wirth, Louis (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44(1).
5. Simmel, Georg (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life.
6. India Census (2011). Urban Population Data. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner.
7. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2015–2023). Smart Cities Mission Guidelines and AMRUT Progress Reports. Government of India.
8. Dupont, Véronique (2007). Conflicting Stakes and Governance in the Peripheries of Large Indian Metropolises – An Introduction. Cities, 24(2).
9. Baviskar, Amita (2003). Between Violence and Desire: Space, Power, and Identity in the Making of Metropolitan Delhi. International Social Science Journal.