Population and area of cities town and urban agglomerations 1872-1971

In pursuance of programme I it was decided to plan and execute the present volume and undertake a number analytical studies based on its results and bye-products. The following priorities were fixed on the basis of six months of preliminary work with the help of an initiating grant from the ICSSR in the second half of the fiscal year 1974-75.
1. Starting with the determination of the total, rural and urban populations of the states, union territories and political-administrative districts of India as they stood constituted at the census of 1971, to work backwards to 1872 for arriving at definitive estimate of their total, rural and urban populations at each census. The determination of firm estimates of total, rural and urban populations for each census year for each state, union territory and district would be the basis of all other refinements.
2. The next task would consist of classifying the urban units of each district under two heads: (a) which of them grew between 1872 and 1941 in British India and (b) which others grew during the same period in princely states. It was thought worthwhile to attempt such a classification as it would yield a clearer picture of the different paths of growth if any that subsisted up to 1947 in the spheres of urbanisation, non agricultural livelihoods, household, unorganised and organised industry under the two kinds of regimes. Other areas of demograhic, cultural and economic change like migration in many of its aspects, social and economic infrastructure, the behaviour of crop regions, structure of agriculture and industry and that of the economically active as well as inactive population under the two kinds of regimes could also be fruitfully studied. Such detailed studies would, however, fall under the purview of Programme II.
3. To scrutinize with reference to the original publications each entry in this volume and each item of change, correction, jurisdictional re allocation or modification and reconcile the discrepancies that may have inadvertently lingered from one census to another. This was the central and most important task, involving the checking and reconciling of many thousands of entries in text and footnotes of close on eleven hundred volumes published between 1865 to 1980 and it was to this task that the energies of the authors of this volume were mostly directed. This volume can claim to have spotted almost all the items that demanded scrutiny and reconciled as many discrepancies as it was possible to resolve. Those that could not be resolved-and their number is fortunately very small-have been specifically mentioned in their proper places along with the reasons of failure. The footnotes in this volume may, therefore, claim to have updated the footnotes and special notes that have appeared on this topic in the numerous census volumes from 1865 to 1980. Considering the magnitude and the nitty-gritty nature of the task and the burden it put on the press the time taken in the preparation and publication of this volume testifies to the dedication and expedition of the team engaged in its execution.