chapter 5 characteristics of migrants of chennai...

109

CHAPTER 5

CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS OF CHENNAI CITY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter has the purpose of discussing the characteristics of the

migrants of the city of Chennai using the data from the questionnaire survey.

This chapter uses the dataset which consists of data gathered from 305

migrant-respondents and the data are related to details on migrants, their

migration to Chennai and their living and working conditions (a matrix of 305

cases x 70 variables). This dataset has been subjected to a simple frequency

and percentage analysis and hence the results are discussed using

descriptions. In certain cases, some perspectives are analytically interpreted.

The discussion is in three distinct parts: the first part deals with the socio-

demographics of migrants of Chennai; the second part speaks of the

geography of their migration – in space and time – and the types and patterns

of it; and the third part discusses their overall quality of life and work and

their perceptions of life and work in comparison to ‘before’ coming to

Chennai.

5.2 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS OF MIGRANTS OF CHENNAI

Almost every other person on the street (of Chennai) is a migrant,

who has moved into the city of Chennai either some years ago or quite

recently for an important reason, either in search of jobs or in some cases on

110

an appointment to a position in the innumerable offices and institutions in the

city or for education. A good proportion of the migrants has already anchored

themselves in the city, almost needing no props while the rest are yet on the

lookout for a foothold so that they could over the years become permanent

residents of the city.

5.2.1 Duration of Stay at Chennai

Migrants with about 1-5 years of stay in Chennai account for 55.3

per cent while between 6 and 10 years of stay in the city account for almost a

third (33.1 per cent) of them. Thus about 88 per cent of the migrants have had

a stay of anywhere between 1 and 10 years in the city, with the rest of them

(nearly 12 per cent) having had a stay of more than 10 years. Migrants with a

longest stay in Chennai have been in the city for more than 30 years (less than

1.0 per cent).

5.2.2 Age Distribution

The migrant-respondents of the study have shown that most of

them are in the age group of 21 years to 30 years (79.3 per cent) with

migrants under 21-25 years accounting for 39.3 per cent and those under

26-30 years for 40 percent (Figure 5.1). Migrants interviewed are thus mostly

younger people and those exceeding 30 years of age are in the region of

19.3 per cent and those below 21 years account for 0.7 per cent only. The

youngest of the migrants interviewed is just 20 years of age and the oldest is

46 years.

111

Source: Primary Survey

Figure 5.1 Distribution of age (Percent) of migrants 2012

5.2.3 Gender

Among the migrants, there is domination by men and hence men

outnumber women in the questionnaire interview. While men migrants

interviewed account for 73.4 per cent (224), women migrants constitute

26.6 per cent (79). It is also true in the metropolitan Chennai that the inflow

of men migrants is always larger than the inflow women (Figure 5.2).

0 10 20 30 40

< 21 Years

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

> 45 Plus

0.7

39.3

40

16

2.6

0.4

0.3

< 21 Years 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 > 45 Plus

Percent 0.7 39.3 40 16 2.6 0.4 0.3

112


Figure 5.2 Gender distribution of migrants 2012

5.2.4 Educational Attainment

Migrants of Chennai are highly qualified, mostly university

educated (44.6 per cent), professional (26.6 per cent) and technical (10.8 per

cent). There are however some of them who have low levels of educational

attainment reported, particularly, 1 per cent primary, 1.6 per cent middle

schooling, 10.5 per cent secondary education and 4.9 per cent higher

secondary, thus totaling 18 per cent of the migrants (Figure 5.3).

Men, 73.4

Women, 26.6

113


Figure 5.3 Educational attainment (Percent) of migrants 2012

5.2.5 Occupational Structure

Nearly 75 per cent of the migrants are employed and in occupations

of relatively high remuneration. Those of the clerical cadres account for 18.7

per cent, IT staffs constitute 15.1 per cent, skilled workers 13.8 per cent,

marketing executives 7.5 per cent, engineers 7.2 per cent, technical assistants

5.9 per cent, assistants 4.9 per cent and labourers 2.0 per cent (Figure 5.4).

There are however a good proportion of unskilled workers (13.4 per cent) and

unemployed (6.2 per cent) as well. There are other people, in other

occupations (5.3 per cent), including some who are professors at the

collegiate and university faculties.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Primary

Middle

Secondary

Higher Secondary

University

Technical

Professional

1

1.6

10.5

4.9

44.6

10.8

26.6

Primary Middle SecondaryHigher

SecondaryUniversity Technical Professional

Percent 1 1.6 10.5 4.9 44.6 10.8 26.6

114


Figure 5.4 Occupational structure (Percent) of migrants 2012

Among the people employed and in some occupations, there are

specific specializations: education accounts for 4.9 per cent, governance for

22 per cent, manufacturing for 5.9 per cent, IT and IT enabled services 28 per

cent, and marketing 7.5 per cent. Recast in terms of private and public sector

employment, 42.3 per cent of the migrants are employed in private sector,

9.8 per cent of them are self-employed whereas public service sector such as

education, health, administration and marketing account for 11.5 per cent,

professional employment in the public sector for 20 per cent, and skilled and

unskilled 3.3 per cent. The unemployed account for 6.9 per cent, who are in

fact the current students at the various higher educational institutions.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Assistants

Clerks

Engineers

IT staffs

Labour

Marketing Execs

Skilled workers

Technical assistants

Unskilled

Others

Unemployed

4.9

18.7

7.2

15.1

2

7.5

13.8

5.9

13.4

5.3

6.2

Assistants Clerks Engineers IT staffs Labour MarketingExecs

Skilledworkers

Technicalassistants Unskilled Others Unemploy

ed

Percent 4.9 18.7 7.2 15.1 2 7.5 13.8 5.9 13.4 5.3 6.2

115

5.2.6 Income Distribution

Among the migrants of Chennai city, there is a very large gap

between the monthly incomes of people. There are those who make as little as

2-3 thousand rupees a month and there are those who make a hundred times

that much. As seen from the Figure 5.5, 47 per cent of the migrants earn less

than Rs. 12,000 a month, 29 per cent between Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 24,000,

19.2 per cent of them earn between Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 36,000, 3 per cent of

them Rs. 36,000 to Rs. 48,000 and just about 2.5 per cent more than Rs.

48,000. Nearly 78 per cent of the migrants have had regular incomes, and

hence they have been on regular jobs, while 22 per cent of them have had

irregular or intermittent incomes, meaning they have been on temporary jobs.


Figure 5.5 Distribution of income (Percent) of migrants 2012

However, 92 per cent of them report of incomes received on a

monthly basis while a tiny proportion of less than 1.0 per cent on a weekly

basis. A good 7.5 per cent of them get wages on an ad hoc basis which really

means there is no guarantee of a regular income for them even as they are

temporarily employed.

0 10 20 30 40 50

< 12,000

12-24,000

24-36,000

36-48,000

> 48,000

47

29

19.2

3

2.5

< 12,000 12-24,000 24-36,000 36-48,000 > 48,000

Percent 47 29 19.2 3 2.5

116

5.2.7 Geography of Migration – in Space and Time

Migrants’ States / UTs of Origin

The migrants have moved in from 9 States and 2 Union Territories

of the Indian Union, but Tamil Nadu accounts for the largest stream of

migrants from its various districts: 85.9 per cent. Smaller but considerable

proportions of them have come in from neighbouring States such as Andhra

Pradesh 5.6 per cent, Kerala 3.6 per cent, Karnataka and Puducherry 1.0 per

cent each and the rest of them have come in from Maharashtra, Rajasthan and

Uttar Pradesh (0.7 per cent each), Bihar (0.3 per cent), Delhi (0.3 per cent),

and West Bengal (0.3 per cent). In all, the southern and neighbouring States

account for 11.2 per cent and the northern States for 3.0 per cent (Table 5.1;

Figure 5.6).The pattern of migration from the neighbouring and distant States

of the Union and also the State of Tamil Nadu display a distance decay

function insofar as the migration by distances are concerned.

Migrants of Chennai city have come from as many as 70 districts of

the States and UTs of the Indian Union, but mostly from all the districts of the

State of Tamil Nadu (Table 5.2). As already indicated, a large majority of

migrants to Chennai city (85.9 per cent) has mainly come from the State of

Tamil Nadu itself. No migrants have come in from two of the 32 districts of

the State, namely, the Nilgiris and Chennai. The proportions of migrants

contributed by the districts range from less than 1.0 per cent (Dharmapuri

district), to as much as 7.5 per cent (Salem district). While Tiruchchirappalli

has contributed to the stream of migrants to the tune of 5.9 per cent,

Kanyakumari has 5.6 per cent, Cuddalore has contributed 5.2 per cent and

Vellore and Madurai districts 4.9 per cent each. The southern districts seem to

make a smaller contribution to the total stream of migrants to Chennai city

and the notable among them are Nagapattinam, Namakkal, Perambalur,

Pudukottai, and Ramanathapuram districts, each contributing to a mere 1.3

per cent each.

117

Table 5.1 Migrants’ states / UTs of origin in India

State / UT Number Percent CumulativePercent

Valid Andhra Pradesh 17 5.6 5.6Bihar 1 .3 5.9Delhi 1 .3 6.2Karnataka 3 1.0 7.2Kerala 11 3.6 10.8Maharashtra 2 .7 11.5Puducherry 3 1.0 12.5Rajasthan 2 .7 13.1Tamil Nadu 262 85.9 99.0Uttar Pradesh 2 .7 99.7West Bengal 1 .3 100.0Total 305 100.0

Source: Primary Survey by the author in 2012


Figure 5.6 Migrants’ states / UTs of origin of migrants 2012

Among the other districts, those with considerable proportions of

migrants coming from them to Chennai city are Virudhunagar 3.9 per cent,

Thoothukudi and Thiruvannamalai 3.6 per cent each, Thanjavur 3.3 per cent

and Villupuram 3.0 per cent. The rest of the districts contribute to migrants in

Tamil Nadu86%

Neighbour States11%

Northern States3%

118

small proportions, much below 3.0 per cent. As for migrants from Andhra

Pradesh, they have come in from 10 districts of the State, and those from

Bihar, Delhi, Puducherry and West Bengal have come in from one district

each from their states or UTs. Migrants from Kerala have come in from

8 districts, and those from Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar

Pradesh from 2 districts of their respective states each.

Table 5.2 Migrants’ districts of origin in Tamil Nadu

District Frequency PercentAriyalur 3 1.0Coimbatore 7 2.3Cuddalore 16 5.2Dharmapuri 2 0.7Dindigul 7 2.3Erode 8 2.6Kanchipuram 8 2.9Kanyakumari 17 5.6Karur 4 1.3Krishnagiri 3 1.0Madurai 15 4.9Nagapattinam 4 1.3Namakkal 4 1.3Perambalur 4 1.3Pudukottai 4 1.3Ramanathapuram 4 1.3Salem 23 7.5Sivagangai 7 2.3Thanjavur 10 3.3Theni 4 1.3Thirunelveli 13 4.3Thiruppur 5 1.7Thiruvallur 8 2.6Thiruvannamalai 11 3.6Thiruvarur 6 2.0Tiruchirappalli 18 5.9Thoothukudi 11 3.6Vellore 15 4.9Villupuram 9 3.0Virudhunagar 12 3.9Total 262 85.9


119

5.3 MIGRATION OVER TIME TO CHENNAI CITY

Table 5.3 shows the year of migration to the city for migrantsinterviewed for the study. Although a negligible proportion of the migrantsbegan their migration to Chennai some 40 years ago (1973), it was in therecent 10 years or so that the migration to Chennai picked up speed andintensity. A total of 2.7 per cent of the migrants interviewed have moved inbetween 1973 and 2000. The flow began modestly at the beginning of the 21st

century, at 2.2 per cent in 2002, 2.3 per cent in 2003, 3.4 per cent in 2004 andthen made a high jump to 16.5 per cent in 2005. The flow continued with highbut slowly decreasing proportion of migrants coming into Chennai – 16.5 percent in 2006, 15.2 per cent in 2007 and 14.8 per cent in 2008. In the next year,the proportion of migrants to Chennai dropped to 8.2 per cent only to riseagain at 10.4 per cent in 2010. The next two years have shown a steep fall,first to 5.9 per cent in 2011 and to 1.9 per cent in 2012 (Figure 5.7).

Table 5.3 Year of migration to Chennai 1973-2012

Year Frequency Percent Cumulative PercentValid 1973 1 .3 .3

1984 1 .3 .71985 1 .3 1.01988 2 .7 1.61990 3 1.0 2.61991 1 .3 3.01995 1 .3 3.31996 1 .3 3.61998 1 .3 3.92000 1 .3 4.32002 6 2.0 6.22003 8 2.6 8.92004 11 3.6 12.52005 51 16.7 29.22006 50 16.4 45.62007 46 15.1 60.72008 42 13.8 74.42009 25 8.2 82.62010 31 10.2 92.82011 19 6.2 99.02012 3 1.0 100.0Total 305 100.0


120

As much as 62 per cent of the migrants moved into Chennai during2005-09, while 17 per cent of them in the last 3 years. Just about 20 per centof them moved in before 2005. The migration to Chennai may be attributed topost-economic reform developments and particularly to increasingindustrialization and corresponding urbanization. There has been a great spurtin industrial activities, notably in areas such as automobiles, informationtechnology and information technology enabled services, and businessprocess outsourcing in a variety of fields, particularly call centres and medicaltranscription.

5.4 REASONS FOR MIGRATION TO CITY

For over three-fourths of the migrants to Chennai (76.3 per cent),the overwhelming reason for migration was job and career, occupation andemployment. Nearly a tenth of them migrated to the city for business and6.0 per cent of them for reasons of marriage (that is, married somebody andmoved to the city to raise a family). Education has been the reason for themove to the city for 3.3 per cent of the migrants whereas family welfare andrelated matters have been the reasons for 2.6 per cent of them and transfer ofjobs for 2.0 per cent of them (Table 5.4, Figure 5.8).


Figure 5.7 Migration to Chennai over time 1973-2012 of migrants 2012

0 20 40 60 80

Pre-1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

2.3

2.2

79

17.4

Pre-1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s

Percent 2.3 2.2 79 17.4

121

Table 5.4 Reasons for migration to city 1973-2012

Reasons Frequency Percent CumulativePercent

Valid Business 30 9.8 9.8Education 10 3.3 13.1Family Welfare 8 2.6 15.7Job 233 76.3 92.0Marriage 18 6.0 98.0Transfer 6 2.0 100.0Total 305 100.0


A look at the nativity or birth places of the migrants indicate to as

many as 148 different places where they were born in, and that too scattered

across the north, south, east and west of the country. Migrants of Chennai

make the city a true ‘cultural melting pot’ and also give the city multi-

regional, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural character. When

considered in the context of migrants of Tamil Nadu, they represent every

nook and corner of the State and every region there is.


Figure 5.8 Reasons for migration to Chennai (%)of migrants 2012

76.3

9.8

6

3.32.6

2

Job

Business

Marriage

Education

Family welfare

Transfer of jobs

122

Information as for their current residences is given in Table 5.5 and

in respect of the zones their current localities are a part. However, their

distribution varies considerably. Pulianthope and Tondiarpet Zones account

for 14.1 per cent each of the migrants of Chennai whereas Ice House and

Mylapore Zones account for 11.1 per cent each of them. Basin Bridge has a

slightly higher percentage at 11.8.While Saidapet Zone accounts for 9.5 per

cent of the migrants of Chennai; Nungambakkam Zone has 8.9 per cent only

(Figure 5.9).

Table 5.5 Current residences of migrants of Chennai 2012

City Zone Frequency Percent CumulativePercent

Valid Ayanavaram 19 6.2 6.2Basin Bridge 36 11.8 18.0Ice House 34 11.1 29.2Kilpauk 18 5.9 35.1Kodambakkam 21 6.9 42.0Mylapore 34 11.1 53.1Nungambakkam 27 8.9 62.0Pulianthope 43 14.1 76.1Saidapat 29 9.5 85.6Thiruvanmiyur 1 0.3 85.9Tondiarpet 43 14.1 100.0Total 305 100.0


Kilpauk and Kodambakkam Zones have varying proportions of

migrants being residents in the zones, at 5.9 per cent and 6.9 per cent,

respectively. The one Zone which has the least representation in the study,

because the pick of the samples was random, is Thiruvanmiyur with very

meagre 0.3 per cent of the migrants. Migrants from other states, 10 states in

all, are living scattered in all the ten zones of the city, although migrants from

123

Andhra Pradesh and Kerala are widely scattered in almost all the zones than

migrants from other states.


Figure 5.9 Current residences of migrants of Chennai 2012 (%) ofmigrants 2012

Table 5.6 Type of move engaged in by migrants

Type of move Frequency Percent CumulativePercent

Valid Employer asked to move 23 7.5 7.5Find jobs/work 63 20.7 28.2Married and moved 16 5.2 33.4Moved with family 26 8.5 41.9Others 177 58.0 99.9Total 305 100.0


The migrants have moved for specific purposes and in certain

specific ways. For a fifth of the migrants (20.4 per cent) the move was for

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Ayanavaram

Basin Bridge

Ice House

Kilpauk

Kodambakkam

Mylapore

Nungambakkam

Pulianthope

Saidapat

Thiruvanmiyur

Tondiarpet

Percentage of migrants

124

finding jobs and work and there were migrants who moved in groups to find

jobs as well, although they are represented in the study at a miniscule scale

(0.3 per cent). For a sizeable proportion of migrants (7.2 per cent) moved to

Chennai with their families, especially parents, even as a small proportion of

them (1.3 per cent) moved because of their parents. As many as 7.5 per cent

of the migrants moved to Chennai because their employers asked them to

move, on a transfer and on a mission for the company they were employed in.

A good majority of the migrants (58 per cent) had other types of move,

although they had not been explicit about what such moves were. In the case

of 5.2 per cent of them, the move was after they were married (Table 5.7,

Figure 5.10).


Figure 5.10 Type of move engaged in by migrants (%)of migrants 2012

5.4.1 Options and Different Jobs over Time

None of the migrants appears to have had multiple moves and

finally landing in Chennai, for, when they were asked whether they left every

time to a different place, 39 per cent of them said that it was not applicable to

Employerasked to

move, 7.5Find

jobs/work, 20.7

Married andmoved, 5.2

Moved withfamily, 8.5

Others, 58

125

them and 69 per cent of them said they did not leave for different places but

only to Chennai, in the first place. And when the scholar persisted in asking

as to whether they considered any other options at different times, they

further answered that they did not consider any other options. However, for a

question as to whether they had worked in different jobs, 63.6 per cent of

them answered in the affirmative while the rest (36.4 per cent) of them in the

negative: that is, they did not work in different jobs in Chennai anytime.

Among those who worked on different jobs, no one switched his/her job for a

reason but the different jobs happened along the course of their employment

and so they worked on one and then on another. None said that there was a

break in his/her service.

Further, for a large majority of the migrants (84.3 per cent), their

jobs got better over time while for 11.5 per cent their jobs remained the same

and only for 4.3 per cent their jobs got worse (Figure 5.11).


Figure 5.11 Jobs over time (Percent) of migrants 2012

Gotbetter, 84.3

Remainedsame, 11.5

Got worse, 4.3

126

5.4.1.1 Satisfaction with life and work

The migrants always move out of their places of birth, village or

town, looking for ‘a greener pasture’. Some always find it while others may

not; and some even become frustrated because their expectations of life and

work never gets fulfilled. Nor do they feel satisfied with their life and work,

after so much of hardship. On the contrary, the migrants of Chennai have had

varying levels of satisfaction in their life and work in Chennai. As shown in

Figure 5.12, a good majority of 49.2 per cent are much satisfied while 41.6

per cent of them are very much satisfied. This leaves a small proportion of

them either little satisfied (5.9 per cent) or very little satisfied (3.3 per cent).


Figure 5.12 Satisfaction with life and work (%)of migrants 2012

Verymuch, 41.6

Much, 49.2

Little, 5.9

Very Little, 3.3

127

5.5 MIGRATION IN SPACE: DISTANCE DECAY

Migration is a space-time process. Distance decay, that is, a decline

in proportions of migrants over increasing distances, can happen when

migrants from different distances to Chennai could be plotted on a graph.

Figure 5.13 is such a curve, which contrary to belief, tells us that over short

distances the proportions of migrants to Chennai over time increased and that

over long distances the proportions dropped down. At close quarters, the

migrant flows increased gradually from 1.9 per cent within 50 km to

3.9 per cent in the stretch of 51-100 km, and to 7.3 per cent in the stretch of

101-150 km to peak at 14.6 per cent in the stretch of 151-200 km. In the next

distance stretch (201-250 km) however the flow fell down to a low of 0.6 per

cent to rise again to 7.6 per cent in the distance stretch of 251-300 km to

reach an even higher peak of 23.2 per cent in the next distance stretch

(301-350 km) only to very quickly slide and in varying proportions over the

next few distance stretches to reach just about 3.2 per cent at distances

beyond 750 km. The curve of distance decay has thus shown an increasing,

then fluctuation and then a decreasing trend in the migrant flows from various

distances from Chennai. Also the effective boundary of the distance decay

lies much beyond the 800 km. The data on distances reported by the migrants

indicate that the closest distance was 47 km and the farthest distance was

2,237 km. That migrant of Chennai came from that far does indeed indicate

the strength of the pull of Chennai for migrants originating in India. That

there are migrants from countries far off than 2,237 km, indeed speaks of the

interests and the attractions that the city holds for migrants.

128


Figure 5.13 Migration in space - Distance decay of migrants 2012

5.5.1 Overall Quality of Life and Work

The participants of the questionnaire survey were asked to evaluate

their feelings relative to the quality of life using a Likert scale of 1-7, from

feeling ‘terrible’ (1) to feeling ‘delighted’ (7). They were asked to be open

and honest in their evaluation of the 9 indicators of overall quality of life they

achieved in their life and work as migrants in Chennai over the years.

Table 5.7 shows their revealed perceptions of overall quality of life in

Chennai. Most people are mostly satisfied (5) to delighted (7) on all counts

of the 9 indicators of overall quality of life, although a considerable

proportion of them have reported of mixed feelings about the indicators

which are measures of overall quality of life. A small proportion of them have

reported feeling terrible, unhappy and mostly dissatisfied.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Distance in Km

< 5051-100

101-150

151-200

201-250

251-300

301-350

351-400

401-450

451-500

501-550

551-600

601-650

651-700

701-750

> 750

Percent 1.9 3.9 7.3 14.6 0.6 7.6 23.2 3.6 9.1 4.9 7.6 4 1.3 3.6 3.6 3.2

129

Table 5.7 Revealed perceptions of overall quality of life (in per cent)

Quality of LifeIndicators

1.Terrible

2.Un

Happy

3.Mostly

Dissatisfied

4.Mixed

5.Mostly

Satisfied

6.Pleased

7.Delighted

Personal life 1.3 3.0 4.9 26.6 25.2 26.6 12.5

Wife/Husband or‘significant other’

1.3 3.3 6.6 22.3 27.9 25.9 7.2

Co-workers 1.6 2.3 6.2 26.6 30.8 25.2 7.2

Actual work done 1.6 2.0 6.2 24.9 34.1 23.0 8.2

Handlingproblems in life

2.0 3.0 3.3 33.8 36.4 18.4 3.3

Ability to adjustto change in life

0.7 2.6 5.6 21.0 36.1 25.6 8.5

Life and workas a whole

2.0 2.0 5.2 24.3 28.9 27.2 10.5

Overallcontentment withlifeand work

1.0 3.0 4.3 26.2 28.2 24.9 12.5

Extent of life andwork as wanted

1.0 1.6 4.9 26.2 21.3 23.9 20.7

Source: Questionnaire Survey 2012

As for personal life, 64.3 per cent of them are mostly satisfied (25.2

per cent), pleased (26.6 per cent) and delighted (12.5 per cent), even as 26.6

per cent of them have reported of a mixed feeling about their personal life,

which, in a sense is a bit difficult to evaluate exactly. As much as 61 per cent

of them are mostly satisfied (27.9 per cent), pleased (25.9 per cent) and

pleased (7.2 per cent) although 22.3 per cent of them are with mixed feeling

about wife/husband or the ‘significant other’ in their lives.

More than a tenth of them (11 per cent) are however mostly

dissatisfied or feel unhappy and terrible. In all other measures of overall

quality of life, a large majority is mostly satisfied, pleased and delighted: as

for co-workers it is 63.2 per cent, actual work done 65.3 per cent, handling

problems in life 58.1 per cent, ability to adjust to change in life 70.2 per cent,

life and work as a whole 66.6 per cent, overall contentment with life and work

65.6 per cent and extent to which life and work as wanted 65.9 per cent. In all

130

of the measures, those with mixed feelings constituted anywhere between

21 per cent (ability to adjust to change in life) and 33.8 per cent (handling of

problems in life). Thus nearly a fourth to a third of the migrants have reported

of mixed feelings as to the overall quality of life measures. Those with

terrible, unhappy and mostly dissatisfied feelings constituted a little more

than a tenth (wife/husband or ‘significant other’ 11 per cent) to less than 8 per

cent (extent to which life and work as wanted 7.5 per cent).

The overall quality of life of the migrants of Chennai by their own

revealed perceptions is mostly satisfactory to most even as some of them are

pleased and a small proportion of them (3.3 per cent – handling problems in

life - to 20.7 per cent – extent to which life and work as wanted) are

delighted. Among the migrants with ‘delighted’ feelings are 12.5 per cent of

the migrants each in regard to personal life and overall contentment with life

and work, 10.5 per cent of them in life and work as a whole, 8.2 per cent in

actual work done, and 7.2 per cent each in regard to wife/husband or the

‘significant other’ and co-workers.

5.6 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

Table 5.8 shows the revealed perceptions of overall impressions of

migrants of Chennai in regard to their well-being (2 indicators, namely,

physical well-being and mental and emotional well-being), their ability to

handle stress, their enjoyment of life and work and of course quality of life.

More than half the migrants have better overall impressions in physical well-

being (55.1 per cent), ability to handle stress (50.8 per cent), enjoyment of life

and work (51.5 per cent) and quality of life (54.8 per cent), although in regard

to meet and emotional well-being those with better impressions are less than

half (48.2 per cent).

131

Table 5.8 Revealed perceptions of overall impressions (of well-being,life and work and quality of life, %)

Impressions 5.Better 3.Somewhat 2.Worse

Physical well-being 55.1 38.7 6.2

Mental and Emotional 48.2 42.6 9.2

Ability to handle stress 50.8 40.3 8.9

Enjoyment of life and work 51.5 39.7 8.9

Quality of life 54.8 39.3 5.9Source: Questionnaire Survey 2012

Those with worse impressions on the well-being, life and work and

quality of life are small in proportions, even less than a tenth of them. Those

with worse feelings about quality of life are only 5.9 per cent (the least),

physical well-being is 6.2 per cent, and ability to handle stress and enjoyment

of life and work is 8.9 per cent each. In balance, those of the migrants with a

feeling of ‘somewhat’ constitute a sizeable proportion in each of the

measures: overall physical well-being (38.7 per cent), quality of life

(39.3 per cent), enjoyment of life and work (39.7 per cent), ability to handle

stress (40.3 per cent) and mental and emotional well-being (42.6 per cent), in

that ascending order.

5.7 CONDITIONS COMPARED TO ‘BEFORE’ COMING TO

CHENNAI

Further, the migrants of the survey were asked to evaluate their

perceived understanding of the nature, knowledge and value of eight sets of

conditions compared to those ‘before’ their coming to Chennai, using a Likert

scale of 1-7, with 1 being the ‘worst than before’ and 7 being the ‘best than

before’ and with intermediate feelings of worse (2), bad (3), average (4), good

(5), and better (6). The eight sets of conditions pertain broadly to urban

132

environment (5 different conditions), health (5), education (5), housing and

basic infrastructures (3), employment (3), economy (3), recreation (5) and

safety (3). The choices of scale (1-7) may be, for convenience, categorized as

that of Good-Better-Best (the better off), Average and Bad-Worse-Worst (the

worse off), to facilitate interpretation of the perceived understanding of the

migrants of Chennai as to the nature, value and knowledge the environmental,

services and infrastructural, economic, recreational and safety factors. On all

accounts, the Good-Better-Best category dominates with a simple to large

majority of migrants evaluating Chennai as a positive city. Except for one or

two conditions of comparison, all others have been scaled as being Bad-

Worse-Worst categories by a small proportion of migrants only. A good

segment of the migrant population however considers Chennai as an average

city on the eight conditions sets.

5.7.1 Urban Environment

Population density or congestion in the city is perhaps one

condition which is not the best for 42.6 per cent of the migrants evaluate it as

the bad-worse-worst condition when compared to ‘before’ their coming to

Chennai while only 37.7 per cent of the think of the condition as the better off

while 19.7 per cent of them evaluate it as being average. Access to the outside

world is better off as perceived by a majority of 53.8 per cent, worse off by

22.2 per cent and average by 23.6 per cent of them (Table 5.9). It is perhaps

appropriate here to appreciate the fact that the experiences of the migrants of

Chennai in different parts of the city could be different because each of them

provide a multitude of different conditions within any given ‘condition’

compared to times before their coming to Chennai. Quality of environment

(44.7 per cent), social spaces and cleanliness (44.2 per cent), and overall look

and feel of the city (47.5 per cent) are rated as better off by less than half the

133

migrants but decidedly by a majority when compared to those scaling them as

average and worse off. Overall look and feel is considered average by a

relatively large proportion of the migrants (32.5 per cent). Nearly 28 per cent

of them consider quality of environment and nearly 30 per cent of them

consider social spaces and cleanliness, similarly, worse off. Note only a less

than 10 per cent of the migrants evaluate the urban environment as being the

best: population density or congestion (4.3 per cent) and accessibility to

outside world (9.5 per cent).

Table 5.9 Revealed perceptions of urban environment in Chennai(Percent)

UrbanEnvironment

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Populationdensity

4.3 15.7 17.7 19.7 20.0 14.4 8.2

Accessibility tooutside world

9.5 17.4 27.2 23.6 12.1 7.5 2.6

Quality ofenvironment

8.9 13.8 22.0 27.9 19.0 4.9 3.6

Social spacesand cleanliness

6.2 12.8 25.2 24.9 15.7 9.8 5.2

Overall lookand feel

8.2 14.4 24.9 32.5 11.5 6.9 1.6


5.7.2 Health in Chennai

Chennai is the fourth largest metropolis and is an international city.

It has been emerging as a medical tourism destination for much of the

developing world and some countries of the developed world, as it has the

state-of-the-art and technologically as well as professionally competent

hospital medical and paramedical services. Hence, it is no wonder that the

134

migrants of Chennai scale the health in Chennai as being the better off in

regard to access to services (59.7 per cent), affordability of services

(59.7 per cent), quality of doctors, nurses, paramedical and others (57.1 per

cent), quality of services rendered (54.1 per cent) and distance, time and cost

of getting there (52.9 per cent). Yet a considerable proportion of them,

between 26.6 per cent and 32.1 per cent of them, health in Chennai is just an

average proposition (Table 5.10). It is possible that the exposure to health and

medical care for the most migrants could be minimum and hence such a

perception and understanding. It is worse off for some of them because of

their own difficulties and constraints which do not give them access to health

and medical services.

5.7.3 Education in Chennai

Chennai is also a metropolis for education, for at given time there

are more than 30,000 students of higher education in the Universities and

Colleges and more than a ‘million students’ in its schools of all descriptions,

private and public. Access to education in the city is better off at 75.4 per cent

and similarly affordability of education gets the better off mark of 64.6 per

cent, quality of teachers, schools and colleges 64.9 per cent, positive

experiences with educational services 63.9 per cent and distance, time and

cost of getting there at 57.7 per cent. The last of the measures of educational

betterment is such that the children get to school with some difficulty and

hardship, because of the public transport system is heavily crowded even as

travel is free for most school students (Table 5.11).

135

Table 5.10 Revealed perceptions of health in Chennai (Percent)

Health inChennai

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Accessibility toServices

8.2 21.0 30.5 28.9 10.0 1.0 0.7

Affordability ofServices

6.9 19.3 33.4 26.6 9.5 3.3 1.0

Quality of doctors,nurses,paramedicsand others

5.6 21.3 30.2 26.6 11.8 3.3 1.3

Quality of servicesRendered

4.9 15.4 33.8 28.9 12.1 3.6 1.3

Distance, time andcost of gettingthere

9.2 14.8 28.9 32.1 10.5 3.3 1.3


For more than 13 per cent (access) to 27.2 per cent (distance, time

and cost of getting to the institutions) of the migrants, education in Chennai is

just average. For almost a fourth of them, it is average in regard to

affordability. Between 11 per cent and 15 per cent of the migrants of Chennai

consider education in Chennai is worse off.

Table 5.11 Revealed perceptions of education in Chennai (Percent)

Education inChennai

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Accessibility toeducation

16.4 24.6 34.4 13.1 8.2 2.0 1.3

Affordability ofeducation

10.8 24.3 29.5 24.3 7.9 1.6 1.6

Quality ofteacher, schools,colleges

14.4 21.6 28.9 21.0 12.1 1.6 0.3

Your experiencewith educationalservices

8.2 22.6 33.1 23.9 8.5 3.0 0.7

Distance, timeand cost ofgetting there

11.1 18.4 28.2 27.2 9.8 3.9 1.3


136

5.7.4 Housing and Basic Infrastructures in Chennai

The migrants of Chennai have scaled their housing and basic

infrastructures in the city rather differently for only a slender majority of

migrants they are better off: quality of housing and infrastructure for 61.9 per

cent of them, maintenances of houses and infrastructures for 56.1 per cent of

them and affordability, comfortability and liveability for 55.1 per cent.

A major portion of the rest of them consider all of the measures as average

(quality 23.9 per cent; maintenance 27.9 per cent; and affordability,

comfortability and liveability 26.9 per cent) while for the rest of them housing

and infrastructures are worse off (Table 5.12). This is understandable from

the fact that a third of the population lives in slums and in even more

deplorable social conditions. Among the migrants, a good majority struggles

to make their housing and basic infrastructures available, accessible and

affordable. While less than 10 per cent of them have rated education as the

best, less than or about a fifth of them rate them better and around a third of

them good.

Table 5.12 Revealed perceptions of housing and basic infrastructures inChennai (Percent)

Housing andBasic

Infrastructures

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Quality of yourhousing andinfrastructure

8.5 20.3 33.1 23.9 8.5 4.3 1.3

Maintenanceof the house andinfrastructures

6.6 19.0 30.5 27.9 11.8 2.6 1.6

Affordable,comfortableand livable

7.2 20.0 27.9 26.9 12.5 4.9 0.7


137

5.7.5 Employment in Chennai

Employments in Chennai and opportunities for it have been the

most important reason that most migrants ended up in Chennai. They have by

their continued struggles found their jobs, regular or temporary. For about 10

per cent of them, employment is the best, for around 20 per cent or slightly

more it is better and for more than 27 per cent and less than 39 per cent of the

migrants of Chennai it is good. Thus for a majority of 69.5 per cent

employment supports family/household comfortably, for 69.8 per cent of

them it is challenging and like able and for 60 per cent there are no hazards

and sufferings due to their employment (Table 5.13). Yet for a considerable

proportion of migrants of Chennai, their employment is worse off: supports

family/household comfortably for 11.2 per cent; challenging and likeable for

8.8 per cent; and no hazards and sufferings for 15.4 per cent.

Table 5.13 Revealed perceptions of employment in Chennai (percent)

Employment inChennai

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Supportsfamily/householdcomfortably

10.5 20.3 38.7 19.3 9.2 2.0 -

Challengingand likeable

9.2 23.9 36.7 21.3 6.2 2.6 -

No hazardsand sufferings

9.8 22.3 27.9 24.6 12.5 2.6 0.3


5.7.6 Chennai Economy

The Chennai economy has been vibrant for several years, but

particularly for the last 20 years or so. It has now become the ‘Detroit of

Tamil Nadu’ with automobile manufacturing, second largest IT hub after

138

Bangalore in the neighbouring State and has been on the world map for a

while as the site of Nokia mobile phones production. Nearly two-thirds of the

migrants consider its economy better off, although about 6-7 per cent of them

consider it the best, about 14-24 per cent the better and about 37-40 per cent

the good. About 21-24 per cent of them however consider the economy

average while about 12-16 per cent worse off (Table 5.14). Thus for a large

majority of the migrants, the Chennai economy is promising and positive.

Table 5.14 Revealed perceptions of Chennai economy (Percent)

Economy 7.Best 6.Better 5.Good 4.Average 3.Bad 2.Worse 1.WorstSatisfiesneeds andwants,includinggeneralluxuries

7.2 17.4 37.7 21.6 11.1 3.0 2.0

Progressiveand forwardlooking

6.2 24.3 34.8 23.0 8.9 2.0 1.0

Keepspeoplehappy

7.2 14.8 40.0 24.3 8.9 3.0 2.0


5.7.7 Recreation in Chennai

Being a metropolis, and a tinsel/celluloid town with largest number

of regional movies a year releasing, the city is a recreational capital. There are

other forms of recreation, mostly musical, of classical Carnatic and folk and

traditional, theatre and a variety of modern-day recreational centres – Dizzy

world, MGM and Dakshina Chitra, to name a few. There are enormous

opportunities for recreation (best 10.5 per cent, better 23.9 per cent, and good

30.8 per cent); most use of opportunities as well (best 5.9 per cent, better

26.6 per cent, and good 37.4 per cent); access to recreation (best 12.1

per cent, better 19.7 per cent, and good 30.8 per cent); affordable recreation

139

(best 6.2 per cent, better 20 per cent, and good 27.9 per cent); and time and

cost of recreation (best 7.5 per cent, better 17 per cent, and good 32.1 per

cent). Thus, recreation in Chennai is better off for a majority of about 52-65

per cent of the migrants in their revealed understanding of what exists as

recreation in the city. However, between 20-30 per cent of the migrant’s think

of them average while about 9-16 per cent rates them as worse off

(Table 5.15). While a large majority enjoy the recreational opportunities

available to them in the city, some of them do consider them as negatively

influencing children and youth.

Table 5.15 Revealed perceptions of recreation in Chennai (percent)

Recreation inChennai

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Opportunitiesfor recreation

10.5 23.9 30.8 25.2 4.9 3.3 1.3

Use ofopportunities

5.9 26.6 37.4 20.7 6.2 3.0 0.3

Accessibility 12.1 19.7 30.8 24.3 10.5 1.6 0.7Affordability 6.2 20.0 27.9 30.2 8.9 4.9 2.0Time and costof recreation

7.5 17.0 32.1 28.5 11.1 3.3 0.3


5.7.8 Safety in Chennai

Safety in a city is an important element of social and cultural

development. Yet again a good majority of the migrants of Chennai consider

safety of different kinds is better off: individual safety (best 7.2 per cent,

better 15.1 per cent, and good 37.4 per cent), women and children’s safety

(best 3.9 per cent, better 16.1 per cent, and good 31.5 per cent). However,

some recent events in the country and also in the city (especially in 2012)

have made people sit back and wonder whether any semblance of individual

140

and women and children’s safety exist in cities amidst generally violent and

aggressive people, especially men. As shown in Table 5.16, safety of

individuals (21 per cent), women and children (25.6 per cent) and community

(27.5 per cent) is only average. While about 19 per cent of them think of

individual safety as worse off, 23 per cent consider women and children’s

safety as worse off and 14 per cent think of community safety as worse off.

Safety is indeed still a question that has not been addressed fully and better by

the Chennai people, migrants inclusive.

Table 5.16 Revealed perceptions of safety in Chennai (Percent)

Safety inChennai

7.Best

6.Better

5.Good

4.Average

3.Bad

2.Worse

1.Worst

Individualsafety

7.2 15.1 37.4 21.0 13.4 4.6 1.3

Women's andchildren'ssafety

3.9 16.1 31.5 25.6 15.1 5.9 2.0

Communitysafety

5.6 16.1 36.7 27.5 6.9 5.6 1.6


5.8 CONCLUSION

This chapter has concerned itself with the general and specific

characteristics of Chennai migrants and how they perceive and evaluate their

overall quality of life, well-being and life and work and also compare the

conditions now when compared to conditions ‘before’ their arrival at the city

as migrants. The city has been an attraction for several reasons: job or

employment, education, health, and better infrastructures, and also, in

general, more better living and working conditions – a better quality of life.

It is evident from the study that most migrants (nearly 80 per cent)

are younger people, both men and women. More than two-fifths of them are

141

university educated and, occupationally, about half of them are skilled and

professionals. As such the other half of the migrants earn small monthly

incomes. The top 5 per cent earn an income of half a million rupees or more.

There are migrants who have no regular incomes, even as 92 per cent of them

receive a monthly income.

Among the migrants, about 86 per cent are from the State of Tamil

Nadu while the rest are from different parts of India. A very negligible

proportion of migrants have hailed from states such as Bihar, Delhi Union

Territory, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Migrants from distant

states are generally employed as casual or temporary construction workers,

with small numbers in professions which could be considered technical or

professional. While the earliest of the migrants interviewed arrived in the

early 1970s, the latest stream has come in, in about 2 years ago. There has

indeed been a steady flow of migrants throughout the last 50 years, although

the migrant streams in the last decade have been quite large, thanks to the

arrival of IT, ITES, BPO, automobile and other manufacturing industries.

The flow may indeed be attributed to post-economic reform developments

and the employment boom of sorts. Employment has been the principal

reason for a large majority of more than three-fourths of the migrants and the

other reasons being businesses, education and marriages. Transfer on jobs has

also been an important reason for the arrival of some migrants into the city.

The migration to Chennai has really been a case of multi-regional, multi-

ethnic, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural in character. They have indeed been

from every place that counts. In Chennai, they are scattered in all planning

zones of the city and in good concentrations where there are opportunities for

employment, recreation and other services. The migrants have come in as

single individuals, in groups and with families in search of ‘greener

pastures’.The fact of the matter is that many have found them. Nearly half of

them are much satisfied with their life and work in the city while only a

142

smaller proportion a little or very little satisfied, as life and work have been

difficult. Even as most migrants travelled several hundred kilometres to

arrive in Chennai, a majority only several tens of kilometres, making distance

decay a reality of their migration to Chennai.

On nine counts of overall quality of life, a considerable majority is

mostly satisfied (an average of 61 per cent) to ‘delighted’ (an average of

10.1 per cent), although a little more than a fifth (ability to adjust to change in

life 21 per cent) to a third of them (handling problems in life 33.8 per cent)

are reportedly with mixed feelings about their overall quality of life. It is

more than a fifth of them (20.7 per cent) who are delighted in their ‘extent to

which life and work as wanted’. A good majority of them have indicated to

better physical wellbeing (55.1 per cent), mental and emotional wellbeing

(48.2 per cent), and ability to handle stress (50.8 per cent), enjoyment of life

and work (51.5 per cent) and quality of life (54.8 per cent). Of the urban

environmental elements, population density is considered worse-off by 42.6

per cent of the migrants whereas access to outside world (53.8 per cent),

quality of environment (44.7 per cent), social spaces and cleanliness (44.2 per

cent) and overall feel and look (47.5 per cent) are considered better off by a

good number of them. Health in Chennai is better off in respect of access to

services (59.7 per cent), affordability of services (59.7 per cent), quality of

doctors, nurses, paramedics and others (57.1 per cent), quality of services

rendered (54.1 per cent) and distance, time and cost of getting there (52.9 per

cent). Education is even more better off in terms of access (75.4 per cent),

affordability (64.6 per cent), quality of teachers, schools and colleges

(64.9 per cent), positive experiences with services (63.9 per cent) and time

and cost of getting there (57.7 per cent). The migrants also rate very highly

the economy of Chennai, housing and basic infrastructures and employment

prospects in the city. There are enormous opportunities for recreation in the

city as well, as it is the capital of regional language movies (Tamil), arts and

143

music (Bharatanatyam and classical music) and other forms of outdoor

recreation. Above all, it is a safer city: better off in individual safety

(59.7 per cent), women and children’s safety (51.5 per cent) and community

safety (58.4 per cent) albeit reservations about safety and security in the light

of events in the country (violence against women in 2012 and perpetual

harassment). Considering therefore the people who perceive safety as being

worse off (individual safety 19.3 per cent; women’s and children’s safety

23 per cent; and community safety 14.1 per cent), it is still a question that has

to be addressed fully and better by the people of Chennai, inclusive of

migrants.

chapter 5 characteristics of migrants of chennai...

Documents