Internal Migration in Urban India: Invisible Workers, Informal Economy & Policy Challenges

Introduction

Migration in urban India has become an important part of informal sectors. Migrants coming to urban areas in the search of livelihoods do not possess any form of capital, opportunities and support, resulting in living and working in precarious conditions. Some sectors like construction sectors rely heavily on migrant workers, eventually boosting the urban economy, while migrant workers receive an uneven share of wealth (Poulomi Bhattacharya & K Jafar, 2023).

            In the pre-liberalisation era, we see the steady growth of migrant workers (around 18%) moving to urban cities in search of livelihood opportunities, which also fuelled the urban population growth. The states like Maharashtra, Delhi and West Bengal attracted migrants along with high rise in industrial hubs (Census of India, 2011). During the years of NSS/Census of 1981-1983, we see the decline in the rate of migration to urban areas due to the economic crisis with rising inflation and decline in investment. The state of Maharashtra saw the rise in the trend of male migration for employment (24.16%) in 1991. This percentage reflected the higher migration of manual workers or labour class. Female migration remained low as families preferred marrying off women in nearby localities and it was observed that outside state migration tended towards more in urban areas (14.3%) compared to rural (6.2%) (Migration Particulars, July 2007- June 2008). The migration in the post-liberalisation era boosted as according to the Census of India (2011), the number of migrants skyrocketed. It went from 220 million in 1991 to 315 million in 2001. The process of urbanisation has historically thrived on the rural to urban migration, but this process has disregarded the social, economic and political upliftment of these migrant workers (Report of the Working Group on Migration, 2017).

          The liberalisation policies of 1991 boosted the steady growth of migration as well as largely influenced the migration patterns in India with respect to rural-to-urban migration. The major cause was the limited economic opportunities concentrated in urban areas. The economic activities bolstered the rapid growth of the informal sector, attracting a large section of migrants. The liberalisation policies affected the agricultural sector where farmers were exposed to price volatility and agrarian distress. As a result, shift focused from agriculture as a source of income to the informal sector becoming the source of livelihood, due to large urban centric development policies (Upasana Singh, 2024).  Internal Migration in urban areas is an amalgamation of various factors that fuelled the rapid urban growth, rise of informal labour markets and the sheer neglect of rural areas and the development of agriculture. The migrant workers are the backbone of the urban infrastructural development and yet they remain invisible in economy and policies.

             This paper aims to analyse the trends in Internal Migration to Urban areas since the 2000s along with studying the key drivers behind it. It considers the demographic characteristics of migrants and patterns of settlement in urban areas. Further, it aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by migrants, policy framework and government responses to it as well as implications for urban governance and development.

Trends in Internal Migration in urban areas since 2000s

The census of India 2001 added the migrants by place of birth as well as migrants by place of the last residence. In the 2001 census, it was noted that Maharashtra received the highest number of migrants, 7.9 millionby the place of birth from other states as compared to 4.3 million in 1991. Other states like Delhi and West Bengal received 5.6 million and 5.5 million respectively.

         The proportion of in-migrants in selected Urban Agglomerations out of total population discovered that Delhi UA received a high percentage (16. 4%) of In-migrants as compared to Greater Mumbai UA (15.1%) and Bangalore UA (13.4%) (Census of India, 2001). In 2007-08, there was a rise in inter-district and inter-state migration, mostly pertaining to migration from urban to rural areas. Urban-to-urban migration was also substantial as approximately it rated 18% in 2007-08 and rural-to-rural migration remained low (4%). The National Sample Survey of 2007-08, indicated that states like Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat and Karnataka received the highest number of migrants; mostly from outmigration states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Orissa (World Migration Report, 2015).

          The history reflects on how economic development has forged the movement of workers from rural-to-urban areas, due to the result of structural changes. During the period of 1991-2022, the employment share of agriculture dipped from 63% to 43% along with the decrease in the share of the agricultural sector in GDP, which declined from 28% to 17%. We must look at how the share of employment in the service sector grew from 22% to 31%, along with income increasing from 38% to 48%. This massive structural shift witnessed the increase in the share of the non-farm sector in employment as well as workers working in the informal sector. The urban economy flourished as the workers moved from agricultural to non-agricultural sectors, moving from rural-to-urban areas. They are mostly involved in the low wage employment attached with lack of security and hazardous living conditions. Apart from this, they also face discrimination, wage denial, fraud, and bonded work (Amrita Datta & S. Irudaya Rajan,2024). P. Sainath argues that 1991 economic policies have led to agrarian crisis, due to the result of decline in subsidies, lack of investment in agriculture, diversification of agricultural credit from agriculture to agribusiness and privatisation of everything, compounded by rise in debt. The census of 2001 witnessed a massive dip in full time farmers of 7.2 million, and census of 2011 boosted this number with 7.7 million quitting the agricultural sector. When Covid-19 revealed the ‘reverse migration’, migrants who were previously skilled farmers doing menial work in urban areas headed back to their places of origin; P. Sainath reverberated a critical question asking why they had to leave their villages in the first place (P. Sainath,2025). This excerpt proposes a new narrative of critically examining the key drivers of internal migration in the face of uneven wealth distribution as well as uneven development.

       The agrarian crisis not only resulted in significant fall in the employment related to the agricultural sector but also led to income inequality, which further exacerbated the growth of internal migration in urban areas. The official data reflects that from 1994 to 2024, the share of employment in agriculture decreased from 64.60 % to 46.1% whereas female participation in agriculture increased from 73.2% to 76.9 % in 2017-18 to 2023-24 (Mamta Devi, 2025).  This can be interpreted as the increase in mal e labour participation in non-agricultural work that is informal work, leading to migration to urban areas in search of employment or livelihood.

         The 1991 economic policies led to the decrease in investment in the agricultural sector, which brought forward the rural-urban divide. The agrarian distress resulted in the significant rise in the informal sector where migrants started working in precarious conditions without any social security benefits.

Key drivers behind internal migration

         The farming sector started to struggle as the large section of labourers went to urban areas in search of better opportunities that paid them more than the farming sector paid. The myriads of informal works like delivery services, driving, manual work, factory work etc provided work without any formal education, whose wages were more than that of the farming sector. They also moved for better education opportunities for children. The uncultivated lands also played an important role in making land as an investment opportunity rather than the farming opportunity, as these lands were not cultivable and migration of labourers led to increase in cost (Mamta Devi, 2025). Michael Lipton argues that resource allocation in the cities and villages reflect the urban bias as they reflect urban priorities rather than equity. We can see this urban bias in the modern infrastructural projects, but agricultural sectors remain ignored. This priority of the government is seen in the rapid urbanisation and high influx of migrants in urban cities. The migration-development nexus promotes a triple win for source regions, destination regions and migrants. The destination regions receive cheap labour, migrants receive low wages that go to their source regions as remittance, a slight reduction in poverty. This linear process does not recognise the uneven distribution of development, which needs to go beyond the remittance sharing of migrants (Amrita Datta & S. Irudaya Rajan,2024).

       Let’s look at the case study of income of interstate migrants in the hotel Coonoor Taluk. The income of migrants varies in terms of roles such as service, head cook, chef or assistant chef, with the mean incomes of 21,500 and 19,200. The cleaning staff had the lowest income below the mentioned incomes. From the income, a major chunk went to food and groceries and remittance to families. Due to this, savings of these migrant workers remained at a moderate level as only 10% managed to save from their income. It must be noted that cleaning and housekeeping workers (low wages workers) had no savings. The remittance going to the source destination revealed that remittances are the major source of funding for food, income, healthcare, and children’s education (Dr. Hema Sri Kumar, Shivshankar, 2026). This clearly shows that poor source regions are dependent on remittances, which reflects the uneven distribution of development.

          The migrants find income opportunities in the construction industry, textile industry, street vendor work, domestic work, hotel industry etc. The major section of migrants works in the informal sector. They are also engaged in the gig platforms, working as independent partners, where their work is characterised by lack of social security, minimum wages and job security. These App based work increases the severity of vulnerable working conditions as the algorithm decides the frequency of their matches, fees, ride fares and allocation. The situation of Covid-19 worsened the situation of migrant workers as they had no dependable livelihood opportunities (Kaarika Das & Srravya C,2022). Another sector that has been on rise is the hawker’s sector, which forms the large section of the unorganised sector. The hawking sector’s employment is larger in cities like Mumbai because these hawkers help industries sustain by providing markets for their products. Thus, we see hawkers selling goods like household goods, cosmetics, stationary, snacks, jewellery, sweets etc. in the crowded local trains in vulnerable conditions. Female hawkers are significantly high in the Mumbai local trains who work for survival in the city and most of them are mothers, young girls, teenage girls, middle aged women as well as old, aged women (Delfi Chinnapan, 2016). This illustrates how the migrants work in several informal sectors that come out of having no choice but to survive. The survival of the migrants depends on the profitability of their daily work in trains where one must go from one train to another.

          The temporary migration has also been utilised as a livelihood strategy by many migrants in urban areas. This is the outcome of agrarian distress and steady decline of employment in the agricultural sector. This type of migration is dominated by poor, vulnerable and historically disadvantaged Dalit and Adivasi communities, coming from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. The labourer class of Dalits and Adivasis are extremely affected in the urban areas. The temporary migration results due to lack of sources and environment that supports the upward and intergenerational mobility of these communities.

         The circular migration in terms of not only seasonal and short-term but also long-term migration, where the migrants stay in urban areas for a long duration but eventually return to rural areas. These circular migrants went back to villages when they lost their jobs due to Covid-19 but eventually returned to urban areas when normalcy returned. It can be implied that circular migration has been increased due to lack of employment opportunities in the agricultural sector. The data from 2018-19 to 2019-20 estimates that in the one year, 12-13 million workers returned to agriculture whereas the total number of employments in agriculture increased from 42.5% to 45.6%. Despite the hardships faced by migrant workers, they returned to cities to continue their work (Amrita Datta & S. Irudaya Rajan, 2024). The comparison of census 1991 and 2001 suggests that employment, business, education, marriage and others as a reason for migration. Marriage was reported as one of the prominent reasons for female migration in urban areas (Migration Particulars, July 2007 to June 2008).

Feminisation of Migration

       The demographic characteristics of migration have changed over the time. As per the secondary sources like NSSO and Periodic Labour Force Survey, it has been observed that the proportion of non-working female migrants has increased throughout 1999-2000, 2007-2008 and 2020-21. In terms of the professional sector/working sector, the proportion of male migration outnumbers the female migrants. While marriage is considered as the push factor but improved literacy rate as well as other important factors needs to be considered. The effects of migration on women and men differ, men being the decision makers, women following the footsteps of men after marriage, this resulting in the female migration in urban areas. Female migration grew steadily from 1990-2000 and 2007-2008 and grew fast in 2020-21. Marriage consumed the 87% of women shifting out of their home but the percentage of women migrating for employment reasons remained low. In the data of PLFS 2020-21, the education level is high among male migrants and low in female migrants (Saba & Naruka, 2024).

        The pattern of female migration reveals the reasons for migration other than marriage. In rural areas, agricultural transformation, low agricultural productivity, low development in the agriculture sector, lack of land, environmental degradation, rural-urban gap in development, rural poverty and unemployment, are the factors that give women no choice but to migrate. The high infrastructural development in urban areas gave rise to the informal sector, providing employment opportunities to women. This sudden rise of female migrants in the informal sector is reflected in the work participation rate of migrants and non-migrants. It is seen that migrants are highly economically active than non-migrants and the difference is higher in comparison to males. The work participation rate of female migrants is also more than non-migrants, that is, 37% in female migrants and 15% in non-migrants.

         Apart from economic factors that influence this migration, there are other factors such as social, cultural and demographic factors. The globalisation created a gender segregated labour market, which created a demand for female labourers in the informal labour market. The newly developed markets along with improved literacy levels, educational level, skill development and a strong desire to improve one’s life. One’s social capital in terms of community and family networks and community networks plays an important role for movement. Social networks are the key ingredient in providing access to information and various opportunities for migration. The socio-cultural factors like the relatives’ connection force women to work as domestic workers in urban areas, many coming from low caste groups. Other push factors like lack of basic services in villages such as health services, absence of schools as well as modern urban lifestyle attracts women with children to migrate to larger cities (Sandhya Rani Mahapa,2010).

         The social background of female migrants gives us a broad idea about the gender patterns of labour migration, in terms of short-term and long-term migration. The medium-term and long-term migration is accompanied by the upper caste women migrants, who work in the service sectors in urban areas. Migrant women from historically disadvantaged and socially backward communities of SC and ST engage in the short-term and circular migration, working in manual labour and unsafe working conditions. In this, 59% of women come from ST communities, 41% from SC communities and only 18% from the upper caste. Along with that, 39% of women are from OBC backgrounds and are engaged in short-term and circular migration. The larger proportion of women migrants are young in comparison to male migrant workers. The data reveals that 72% of the female migrants in the urban areas were below 36 years, in which age group of 15-25 was prevalent in women migrant workers (Indrani Mazumdar, N Neetha, Indu Agnihotri, 2013).

          This suggests that woefully inadequate opportunities in rural areas prompt women from historically marginalized communities to migrate to urban areas, in search of livelihood opportunities. It is evident that the high female labour force participation reflects the rise in the informality of work that these migrant women engage in. The expansion of gendered based work also gives women an opportunity to migrate in the cities, but it must be noted that migrant women are more prone to discrimination, exploitation and vulnerabilities of the work.

Patterns of Settlement in urban areas

          The high infrastructural projects or construction site will demonstrate the precarious conditions that migrant workers live in, often living nearby projects or in the construction sites. These migrant workers do not live alone but live with their family, neglecting the safe housing conditions for their own children. This reveals the dual nature of high-rise buildings and development  where its sustenance is dependent on these migrant workers but at the cost of the migrant worker’s life, health, dignity and right to live in safe conditions and depriving them of ‘citizen rights ’in the same city they help in building.

        The migrant workers are homeless in the city they help sustain and instead of the recognition for their contribution, they are treated as ‘other’, ‘criminals’, ‘beggars’, ‘outcast’ (Manish K. Jha and Pushpendra). The insecure housing as residence do not exist in the state records but they live in slums and are in danger of eviction multiple times. For example, an unidentified slum in Arambhi village in the outskirts of Delhi falls into unidentified slums in the state records. The identified slums are owner-occupant slums that are listed in ULB /state government records, which only have right to use but not right to demand basic amenities. For example, these slums are adjacent to construction sites or industrial projects. Recognised slums are listed in the state records but are treated as ‘tolerated occupations by the state or private landowner. They are subject to government housing schemes. Migrant workers living in various forms of settlement are subjected to varied levels of unsafe conditions, lack of basic amenities and exploitation (Jain, Chennuri & Karamchandani, 2016).

    In Mumbai, Dharavi shares the largest percentage of low-term migrants permanently settling in the slum. These housing settlements are featured on the basics of informal markets, strong social networks and informal services. The elevated kind of informal settlement or homelessness is further seen in the stations, bus stops, footpaths, temples, schools, roads, under flyovers, skywalks, train tracks, railway stations, tunnels and other kinds of unsafe places. The migrants stay or build their own home where they get the work but often go from one place to another, reflecting their survival strategy. For example, recently, a 100-year-old Elphinstone bridge in Mumbai has been demolished. The development of the new bridge will give us the two divergent pictures. One, a new double bridge will be built as a beacon of development and second, the migrants who will build it will live near an infrastructural site. This gives us the clear idea on how migrants as ‘city makers’ themselves remain invisible in development and in voices too.

         There are several lived experiences that showcase the difficulties faced by the migrant workers due to lack of proper housing facilities. One of the lived experiences tells us how many men pushing hand-carts sleep near the shops, in the godowns and they are not paid very well. The factory conditions are worsened where workers work in inhumane conditions, where women are debarred from entries or stay in those conditions (Scroll, 2017).

           The settlement of migrant workers differs from the location, the work they do and in which conditions they work in, as it is evident that cities need migrant workers for sustenance of infrastructural projects and migrant workers need employment opportunities for their livelihood but all they work for is the survival. The city they help in building does not provide them adequate housing facilities, further exacerbating their vulnerability.

Challenges faced by Migrant workers

      The work profile of migrant workers will give us the nuanced idea of challenges faced by migrant workers, which often lack social security due to its informal nature. These jobs include construction, infrastructural projects, manufacturing sector, textiles, tile workers, painters, carpenters, plumbers, pipeline workers, ragpickers, waste pickers. Additional frequent occupations include, security guards, watchmen, shopkeepers, domestic workers, street vendors, coolies, marble workers, cooks, brick/kiln workers, drivers, rickshaw pullers, gig workers and many other informal occupations.

           Migrant workers lack the benefits of social security that constitutes income security, healthcare benefits, portable housing, education to their children, food security, maternity leaves, sickness leaves and old age pensions. They work in informal work, which means they work extra hard than the salaried workers, surpassing the hours provided by the factory act. The wages are handled by the middlemen where they get paid low as compared to their working hours, leading to forced exploitative labour. The labourers are also deprived of accessible medical support in case of injuries (Chetan Kumar Sharma, Dharam Pal, 2024).

       Apart from hazardous working conditions and low wages, their vulnerability further elevates when they are politically excluded. Due to long term migration and circular migration, they lose the ability to vote in their home states, depriving them of constitutional rights and ultimately silencing their voice (The India Forum, 2025).

      Migrant worker’s children are highly vulnerable to effects of migration as they live in unsafe conditions and are deprived of education. The case study of Bangalore reflects on how the educational status of migrant workers ‘children has been sidelined. The study found out that nearly 12.3% of children have discontinued their education and 30.6% are not interested in the education, which indicated the double flaws in terms of educational facilities and government schemes related to education for these children (Manasi. S, et al.).  

      Women migrants are highly vulnerable to extreme exploitation as they lack bargaining power. The working conditions remain hazardous and unsafe for women as well as they are forced into bonded labour. There are several factors that need to be investigated to navigate the challenges faced by women migrant workers, and it is also important to recognise their contribution to the urban economy by filling the gaps in policy objectives and in-ground implementation.

Policy Frameworks and Implications for Urban Governance

       The Government of India has taken several steps to address the exclusion faced by migrant workers, through comprehensive policy frameworks. The true goal of addressing the challenges will be achieved not only by policy formulation but also ensuring effecting on-ground implementation.

       The One Nation One Ration Card allows poor interstate, interdistrict and intradistrict domestic migrant workers to access subsidised food grains at a sales-enabled fair price shop.  The programme needs to expand its efficiency in terms of greater awareness, technological infrastructure, effective supply chain management and smooth access for women and other vulnerable groups.  The data shows that 21% reported denial of rations due to authentication failure and mismatch in ration details. Women faced gender-based issues in accessing ration cards due to evident physical possession of ration cards to male members of the family. The grievance redress mechanism is slow due to the poor percentage of actions taken by the government officials (Kanupriya Gupta, et al.).

      The e-Shram portal created for labourers in the unorganised sector with intention to build a national database, to help policy makers expand welfare policies for labourers and migrant workers faces issues in its technicality. The incomplete registration act as a major barrier in strong regulation and integration of welfare schemes. Another scheme. That is, affordable rental housing complexes (ARHCs) to provide better living conditions for migrants remain incomplete in implementation (The India Forum).

        The policy framework provides a promise on paper, but the on-ground implementation fails those promises. The urban governance must recognise the contribution of migrant workers to the urban economy and the development. It is imperative that migrant workers have largely remained invisible in the development as well as the urban policies. Following are the way forward for the urban governance-

1. There is a need to scale up the Affordable rental housing complexes to ensure the safe living conditions for the migrant workers in big cities. The urban housing schemes must consider the challenges faced by migra nnt workers and ensure that affordable temporary housing systems are built. The provision of dormitory accommodation can be gradually integrated into the housing schemes, to make housing accessible and affordable for vulnerable groups.
2. The accessibility and affordability of healthcare services must be located near the working site by strengthening the primary health care facilities in urban cities. The urban heat island action plan must investigate the impact of heat on vulnerable migrant workers, especially women and children. The accessibility of Ayushman Bharat scheme must expand to migrant workers by improving the grievance redress mechanism and addressing technical challenges.
3. The women migrant workers and children should be provided with proper nutrition care which can be integrated into the Public Distribution System or the other affordable nutritional food programmes in the urban cities. The educational schemes for the migrant workers’s children should be analysed in terms of ground implementation. The Anganwadi centres or ICDS should extend the educational and childcare support to these children.
4. The informal settlements should be recognised in the urban planning via participatory governance, that is, involving migrant communities. Urban Local Bodies must strengthen its governance to include the issues faced by migrant workers. The relocation of migrant workers in urban planning must ensure that they are not stripped from their livelihood.
5. The urban digital governance should include the real-time database of migrant workers through the usage of digital tools. The integration of AI must be looked at in terms of service delivery.
6. The redistribution of wealth and development should recognise the representation of migrant workers. The migrant workers should be made aware of their social rights, and the state must endeavour to provide them with legal aid, in case of discrepancies in the wage’s distribution or rights-based services. The Urban local bodies must include the migrant worker’s representation in the local decision-making process.

          In conclusion, the rise of neo-liberal cities has neglected the challenges and voices of migrant workers, who help to sustain the city. The development of the cities must look at the contribution of migrant workers through enabled recognition and the democratic representation in urban planning and decision making. The state’s properties reflect the causes of migration in urban India, but the government must not neglect welfare of migrant workers who come to the cities. The Covid-19 revealed the ignorance of migrant workers by the government, where millions walked due to lack of adequate transport facilities and healthcare services. This invisibleness must be corrected through the expansion of welfare policies through the effective on-ground implementation, and through visible representation of their voices in policy frameworks, urban planning and local decision making.

References

1. Bhattacharya, Poulomi, and K Jafar. “Migration and Urban Informal Labour Market a Study of Labour Addas in the City of Hyderabad.” India Migration Report 2023. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M5a7cGuO-EpkbySnVfppCjWWVeBiCz0E/view?usp=sharing
2. Census of India 1991. Vol. Volume 2. Migration Tables. file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/41_37238_1991_MIG.pdf
3. GOVERNMENT of MAHARASHTRA a REPORT on “MIGRATION PARTICULARS” BASED on DATA COLLECTED in STATE SAMPLE of 64 Th ROUND of NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 2007. https://mahades.maharashtra.gov.in/files/report/nss_64_10.2_m.pdf
4.  Singh, Upasana. Migration, Economic Policy, and Urban Labor in India since 1991. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI), 5 Sept. 2024. https://www.ijhssi.org/papers/vol13(9)/13094144.pdf
5. Devi, Mamta. “The Migration of Agricultural Labour in India.” GLB, 18 Aug. 2025, www.globallaunchbase.com/post/the-migration-of-agricultural-labour-in-india.
6. Saha, Shubhashis, et al. “Gender Wise Pattern of Periodic Migration in Urban India.” ~ 48 ~ International Journal of Geography, vol. 6, no. 2, 2024, pp. 48–56, www.geojournal.net/uploads/archives/6-2-33-513.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr. 2026.
7. Sandhya Rani Mahapatro. “Patterns and Determinants of Female Migration in India: Insights from Census.” Working Papers, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 2 Feb. 2010, https://ideas.repec.org/p/sch/wpaper/246.html Accessed 17 Apr. 2026.
8. Neetha, N, et al. “Migration and Gender in India.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. vol xiviii no 10, 3 Sept. 2013.
9. Jha, Manish. Homeless Migrants in Mumbai: Life and Labour in Urban Space. http://www.mcrg.ac.in/rural_migrants/abstracts/manish.pdf
10.  Jain, Vikram , et al. Informal Housing, Inadequate Property Rights Understanding the Needs of India’s Informal Housing Dwellers. 2016. Reimagining Social Change. https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/Informal%20Housing,%20Inadequate%20Property%20Rights.pdf
11. Kulkarni, Damini. “Migrant Workers in Mumbai Were Asked to Take Pictures of Their Lives. This Is What They Revealed.” Scroll.in, 23 Dec. 2017, https://scroll.in/magazine/862383/migrant-workers-in-mumbai-were-asked-to-take-pictures-of-their-lives-this-is-what-they-revealed  Accessed 30 Apr. 2026.
12.  Sharma, Chetan, and Dharam Pal. Migrant Labourers and Their Challenges in India: A Systematic Review. 2024, irjems.org/Volume-3-Issue-11/IRJEMS-V3I11P117.pdf, https://doi.org/10.56472/25835238/IRJEMS-V3I11P117.
13. Rajan, S Irudaya, and Arif Nizam. “India’s Migrants: Exclusion by Design.” The India Forum, TheIndiaForum, 8 Oct. 2025, www.theindiaforum.in/economy/indias-migrants-and-exclusion-design.
14. Challenges of Education among Informal Migrant Construction Workers’ Children: A Study in Bengaluru. https://niua.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/2023_2_Challenges%20of%20Education.pdf 
15. ADB BRIEFS. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/923066/adb-brief-270-one-nation-one-ration-card.pdf, https://doi.org/10.22617/BRF230495-2.