Migration of Meghalaya
Migration is a common phenomenon in developing country like India as well as the state of Meghalaya. North-East India has experienced two massive immigration waves in historical period of time. At the time of independence of India and formation of Bangladesh, Meghalaya also has experienced a significant proportion of immigration from Bangladesh. Meghalaya and others North-Eastern state has experienced a large scale illegal immigration from Bangladesh which effect on social harmony and social well-being.
Rural to urban migration
In recent time each part of our country as well as Meghalaya also has experienced high volume of rural to urban out-migration. Percentage of scheduled tribe population in India has recorded 8.02% in 2001 whereas Meghalaya has recorded 85.9%. The present study aims to analyse pattern of out-migration at district and state level.
Poverty and migration corelation in Meghalaya
Despite the wage difference between remote areas and towns, there is hardly any migration of unskilled poor workers to the towns. There may be many factors that distinguish Meghalaya from mainland India in this respect. Firstly, the character of the urban work force in the Northeast, unlike other urban centres, is not primarily in manufacturing, but in the services sector, implying existence of either government servants or a largely self-owned and self-managed business sector, with family labour and minimal hired labour. Secondly, opportunities for unskilled wage labour in the urban areas beyond construction are limited. In construction too, contractors prefer Oriya or Bihari labour, and the locals lose out in preference. And lastly, first generation migration requires some previous history of migration from the same village, and in its absence push factor does not work well.
There are additional problems of sustainability arising from rural – urban migration and the fragility of marriage, combined with men’s lack of responsibility for children. The upper sections of the villages, who are the families with larger forest holdings, are also the ones who invest in urban areas, and whose families tend to migrate to the cities. At one level this transfer of rural surpluses to urban investment since it remains within the same ethnic political unit, is not a loss to the local economy. But at another level such transfer of timber income also can mean that the families involved in such migration may not be so concerned about the longer sustainability of forest income.