For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/resonance.php#8

Migration is defined as a type of internal or external spatial mobility from one's home to another. It can also be defined as the movement of people associated with a particular location. Domestic or internal migrants outnumber international migrants but receive less attention, despite the fact that international migration is at the forefront of policy debates (McLeman, 2013). Within a country, internal migration includes movement from rural to urban, rural to rural, urban to rural, and urban to urban. Internal migration is a driving force behind two critical and complementary processes: the structural shift in employment from agricultural to non-agricultural sectors and services, and the resulting economic growth associated with urbanisation (Kim, 2007). It is well understood that rural-to-urban migration outnumbers all other types of migration. According to Toffin and Pfaff-Czarnecka (2014), migration is a part of the Himalayan social landscape, and seasonal and rural-to-urban migration is an important way to compensate for low income in mountainous areas. As Zelinski (1971) proposed in human geography, migration patterns observed in a country reflect the country's development stage.

Migration introduces new risks and opportunities for migrants, their social networks, and the communities where they live (Lee, 1966; McLeman, 2013). Uttrakhand, a Himalayan hill state in northern India, is known for the large-scale out-migration of young men, and these communities have accepted migration as a means of subsistence (Mamgain, 2014). Migration is frequently used to improve one's standard of living. Migration improves livelihood and provides better destination opportunities (Rajan & Bhagat, 2021). The migration decision is addressed by neoclassical microeconomic theory and new household economic theory. Migration, according to the neoclassical microeconomic theory of migration, is an individual choice in which the rational actor is driven to relocate to maximise one's advantages, whether monetary or human capital (Todaro, 1976; Massey et al., 1998). In contrast, the new economics of labour migration (NELM) places migration decisions within the context of the household and claims that the family is at the centre of migration decision-making. Without earning opportunities, young family members frequently migrate outside their area in search of better economic opportunities to better their and their families circumstances (Rajan & Pillai, 2020). This school of thought holds that migration decisions are rarely made by individuals, but rather by families and households (Stark and Bloom, 1985).
There are various theories as to how, when, and where the people who currently occupy Ladakh came from (Dollfuss, 1980). There have been few studies on nomad migration and sedentarization (Goodall, 2004; Ahmed, 2003; Chaudhuri 2000). In her study, Goodall (2004) discovered that nomads migrate to Leh not for a wage differential, which was found to be negligible, but for the education of their children, so that they do not have to go through the same hardships that they did. A new awakening among nomads about the value of modern education has drawn them to Leh, and they are willing to leave everything and change their way of life to educate their children.

The study was carried out by collecting primary data from four settlement areas primarily populated by migrants from various regions of Ladakh. The decision and reason for settlement in specific areas have been investigated. 285 households were chosen and data was collected using the purposive random sampling method. Gender, age, income, education, occupation, and migration data were collected. The type of migration - permanent, semi-permanent, and seasonal - as well as the location of migration was investigated.

Study area

Ladakh is a mountainous region in Northern India. The Union Territory of Ladakh covers an area of approximately 60000 square kilometres. Sham (Western Ladakh), Nubra (Northern Ladakh), and Changthang are its five major regions (Eastern Ladakh). Zanskar (Southern Ladakh) encompasses a large area, including Kargil District and Central Ladakh, also known as Jungkhor, which includes Leh and attracts migrants from other regions.

Fig. 1.1 Adapted Map of Ladakh indicating the areas of settlement after migration.

There are 113 villages of the Leh District are divided into 16 Blocks: Leh, Thiksay, Khaltsi, Skurbuchan, Singaylalok, Nimoo, Nyoma, Durbuk, Kharu, Rong-Chumathang, Rupsho-Puga, Nubra, Saspol, Panamik, Turtuk, and Chuchot. Leh is the district headquarters and the district's only township. The district has 95 panchayat halqas. In 1989, the entire district was declared tribal.

Settlement Pattern
Leh town has become a hub of activity, attracting migrants from all over Leh Ladakh, including Sham, Nubra, Changthang, and Zangskar. The town of Leh is divided into 13 wards, with the majority of migrants settling in Wards 8, 11, and 12. These wards are Skalzangling, Snyemoling, and Skampari, and Kharnakling is located on the outskirts of Leh town, where migrants have also settled.

The data in the table reveals a unique pattern of settlement among the migrants as migrants from particular regions are settled in particular settlements. Most of the migrants from the Changthang region are largely settled in Kharnakling, migrants from the Nubra region are mainly settled in Skampari, migrants from Zanskar are settled in Snyemoling and migrants from the Sham region are largely settled in Skalzangling and surrounding areas. These settlement patterns demonstrate that network migration is strong and visible. It shows that social networks are significant because they can act as a conduit for information about jobs and housing in a destination and provide a safety net through social support (Selod & Shilpi, 2021). Social networks play a crucial part in shaping migration flows and migrant outcomes in destination regions because it lessens migration costs (Massey, 1988).
 General reasons for settlement
The migrant settlement pattern supports the network theory of migration, in which new migrants are influenced and helped in a variety of ways by previous migrants, significantly lowering the cost and risk of new migrants (Massey, 1993). It is common knowledge that those who have migrated have family and relatives "left behind" in their region of origin. As a result, as previous migrants facilitate them, there is a high likelihood that more people will migrate from their areas of origin. In many cases, they are encouraged to migrate after witnessing how neighbouring families prospered after some family members migrated and began sending remittances. Social networks play a significant role in facilitating internal migration. Migration network theory addresses the cumulative causation of migration as a result of lower social, economic, and emotional costs of movement due to the establishment of migration networks (Light et al., 1989). Because each new migrant expands the network and lowers the risk of migration for everyone with whom he is associated, network migration gradually becomes self-sustaining, lowering the risk and cost of migration (Massey, 1988). According to Fafchamps and Shilpi (2013), migrants in Nepal prefer to settle in areas where there is a high concentration of people who speak the same language and belong to the same ethnic group.
Table 1.2 General reasons for settlement

Reasons	Frequency	Percent
Family members or relatives already settled here	80	28.1
People from the same region living here	127	44.6
Cheaper land	18	6.3
Access to better facilities	36	12.6
Easy to commute	24	8.4
Total	285	100.0

The data in the table indicates, approximately 44.6 percent of migrants chose to settle in a specific settlement because people from the same region were already settled and living there, and they had also chosen to settle in the same settlement. Simultaneously, 28.1 percent of respondents settled in these areas because a family member had already done so. Around 12.6 percent of migrants said they chose to settle in that area because it has better access to amenities such as roads and tap water. Approximately 8.4 percent of respondents chose to settle because it was convenient for them to commute between their workplace and their residence. Finally, approximately 6.3 percent of respondents chose to settle there because the land and rent were less expensive than in other areas. During data collection, it became clear that in most cases, new migrants were assisted in various ways by older migrants. As previously demonstrated, migrants prefer to stay in areas where previous migrants from their village or region have settled. Many respondents stated that social ties and networks were important during their initial days of migration to their destination. The following section briefly describes the characteristics of these settlement areas in order to understand the nature and pattern of migration in Ladakh, with an important reason for such specific settlements being on either side of the highway leading to these specific regions. As a result, the towns formed as different colonies have distinct characteristics that are heavily influenced by their migration origins.
Permanent or Temporary Migration 
Permanent migrants and temporary migrants are the two types of migrants. Permanent migrants have made significant investments in the destination area by constructing homes and property with the intention of remaining there permanently. Temporary migrants are those who migrate for a set period of time each year and then return to their home countries. According to Goodall (2004), a significant percentage of Changpa migration to Leh is a response to the extremely harsh winters experienced in Rupshu-Kharnak, which put the physically weaker members of the society at great risk, and they have a high degree of commitment at the place of destination, with the majority of them going on to settle permanently. In general, men migrate away during the slack agricultural seasons in rural agricultural regions, and their absence has little impact on the farm because their wives and other family members take over agricultural and other responsibilities (Escobar et al., 1987). Regardless of migration level, economic opportunities have been identified as one of the primary drivers of non-permanent migration (Wang, 2017).
Table 1.3 Permanent and Temporary migrants

Nature of Migration Frequency Percent Permanent 194 68.1 Temporary/ Seasonal 91 31.9 Total 285 100.0

According to the data, 68.1 percent of respondents moved permanently, while 31.9 percent are temporary migrants. Permanent migrants are those who have made significant investments in the area of destination and have no intention of returning to their original home. Even among permanent migrants, it was discovered that they maintain strong ties to their hometowns and visit their villages once or twice a year. Migrants are classified as "permanent" migrants because they relocate to the destination and reorient their daily productive and consumptive activities from their areas of origin to the urban destination, regardless of the extent to which they maintain ties to their place of origin. Temporary or seasonal migrants are those who come to Leh during the summer to work in the tourism industry in a variety of roles such as guide, cook, driver, porter, and so on. Summer migration of temporary migrants coincides with the agricultural season. As a result, households in rural areas frequently have to hire paid labourers to do agricultural work because the 'Bes' system (mutual exchange of labour without payment) is no longer practised.
Year of Migration
Infrastructure and development activities have grown significantly over the last two decades. Road and air connectivity to Ladakh have greatly improved in recent decades (Dame et al., 2019). The availability of better job opportunities and improved infrastructure in Leh town has resulted in an increase in migration from rural areas (Dollfus, 2013). As a result, it is critical to understand when the respondents/migrants migrated. Dollfus (2004) and Goodall (2004) studies on nomadic groups in Changthang reveal that out-migration from the region began primarily in the early 1990s, but no study has been conducted to determine why and when migration from other regions of Ladakh to Leh began.
Table 1.4 Year of Migration

Response	Frequency	Percent
1971-1980	3	1.1
1981-1990	25	8.8
1991-2000	60	21.1
2001-2010	161	56.5
Total	285	100.0

The data above shows, migration from rural to urban areas in Ladakh is a recent phenomenon, with the majority of respondents migrating within the last two decades. Between 2001 and 2010, 56.5 percent of respondents moved. It is consistent with Ladakh's changing and developing trend. Ladakh was first opened to tourists in 1974; since then, the number of tourists visiting Ladakh has grown year by year, but Leh has benefited the most. As a result, the tourism industry gradually developed and became an important source of income, and many people migrated as a result of this emerging opportunity, which is centred primarily in Leh. Second, Ladakh, which included the current districts of Leh and Kargil, was one of the seven districts of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir. When the districts were reorganised in 1979, the Ladakh district was reorganised into two full-fledged districts, Leh and Kargil. The Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC-Leh) was established in accordance with the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, 1995, after years of struggle in the former state for devolution of power. It also resulted in the centralization of Leh, where all administrative and commercial infrastructure is located, which opened up opportunities for people from Ladakh's rural villages. Third, in the late 2000s, the number of domestic tourists visiting Ladakh increased exponentially, and tourism emerged as a major source of income and employment. It opened up a slew of tourism opportunities for locals, and people from rural areas saw the opportunities and flocked to Leh in large numbers.
Living patterns after migration
The question here is how rural households plan to migrate to cities. Do all members of the family relocate as a family, or do some relocate to the city while the rest stay in the country? Living patterns change after migration because some people migrate alone while others migrate with their entire family (Agesa & Kim 2001). The majority of people migrate to increase their income and diversify their risk. In most cases, a husband migrates from a rural household, whereas in other cases, young members of a family migrate, leaving the elderly parents behind. When a husband migrates, leaving behind his wife, children, and parents, two households are formed: one in the city and one in the countryside (Agesa, 2004).

Table 1.5 Presently living with whom

Response	Frequency	Percent
Living Alone	15	5.3
Whole Family	50	17.5
With Spouse and Children	220	77.2
Total	285	100.0

According to the data, approximately 77.2 percent of migrants now live with their spouse and children without their parents or siblings. The majority of them have stated that they migrated due to better economic opportunities and the availability of better schools in Leh. In contrast, approximately 17.5 percent of migrants reported that their entire family is now living together in the place of destination, with no one in the place of origin. It was recounted by migrants, primarily from Changthang, who had migrated with their entire livestock and family. When young family members migrate, it becomes extremely difficult to care for livestock, and they frequently resort to whole-family migration. Whole family migration is less common in other regions of Ladakh because subsistence farming, in addition to livestock rearing, is an important source of income in other regions of Ladakh, and there is also a taboo associated with those who leave their fields fallow. About 5.3 percent of respondents are currently living alone, and they are mostly unmarried and seasonal migrants who work primarily in tourism. They migrate to Leh during the summer only to earn a living and then return to their home areas in the autumn.
Improvements in the standard of living
In general, migration is undertaken to improve the well-being of migrants and their families. Social and economic transformations fueled by urbanisation were most visible in developing countries on the outskirts of major cities (Puntip, 2009). Traditional economic theories contend that people migrate to improve their well-being, whether decisions are made at the individual or household level (Brauw & Harigaya, 2007). According to Kapri and Ghimire (2020), remittances offset the negative impact of migration in rural areas. In general, migrants' well-being improves in a variety of ways, including higher income, more job opportunities, and access to better health and education. Migration of a family member reduces the riskiness of household income and improves family welfare (Rosenzweig and Stark, 1989). As a result, even if the wage disparity between rural and urban areas is small, rural-urban mobility should be expected. According to recent migration writings (Urbaski, 2022), the source and destination areas are likely to have both appealing and repellent aspects. Migrants tend to leave places where job opportunities are stagnant, income is low, and population growth is high (Castelli 2018; Sengupta 2013). In Ladakh, the majority of respondents migrated due to low income opportunities, a lack of good schools, and other infrastructural facilities.
Table 1.6 Improvement in the standard of living

Response	Frequency	Percent
Better economic opportunities	187	65.6
Access to better education	78	27.4
Access to better health facilities	20	7.0
Total	285	100.0

All respondents believed that migration had aided them in various ways in improving their overall socioeconomic situation. According to the data, an overwhelming number of respondents migrated primarily for economic reasons, with approximately 65.6 percent reported that migration provided them with better economic opportunities, allowing them to earn more and have more job opportunities. About 27.4 percent of respondents migrated so that their children could attend a better school. While 7.0% of respondents believe now they could have better access to health care. Overall, it indicates that the standard of living of migrants has improved significantly after migration.

Migration patterns show where migrants come from (areas of origin) and where they settle (areas of destination), the nature of their migration, the reasons for their settlement in specific areas, and so on. In the Leh district, there are primarily four areas of origin and four areas of settlement. Migrants from specific regions settle in specific settlements primarily due to network migration. Migration from rural to urban areas is becoming more common in the majority of the world's developing countries. Rural-urban migration is a significant issue that India and many other countries face as they urbanise. Migration is a response to Leh's booming tourism, climate change, and the city's centralization as an economic and administrative centre. Ladakh experiences both seasonal and permanent rural outmigration. Thousands of people have relocated to Leh in search of work, some temporarily and others on a more permanent basis. Seasonal migrants, such as those working in tourism, arrive in May and stay until the end of September because this is when the majority of tourists visit Ladakh. Others migrate permanently and work as daily wage labourers, small business owners, restaurant owners, and drivers, among other things, throughout the year. Migrants work in a variety of fields, and non-farm activities are important drivers of migration and social mobility in Leh Ladakh (Goodall, 2004). The majority of migrants leave rural areas in search of better job opportunities and higher expected incomes in the areas of destination. This study reveals that semi-permanent and permanent migration from rural to urban areas occurred in Ladakh. However, the exact number of people migrating from rural areas is unknown, and there is no data on it. It has been observed and learned through respondents that mass rural-to-urban migration is occurring as specific settlements are settled with specific people from specific regions. There are both seasonal and permanent migrants, but all maintain close ties with their home countries and return on a regular basis throughout the year. The availability of better job opportunities and the desire to send their children to a "better school" are the two most frequently cited reasons for migration. It was discovered that whole-family migration was more common among Changthang respondents and less common among migrants from other Ladakh regions such as Sham, Nubra, and Zanskar. The reason for this is that most respondents who migrated from Changthang relied solely on livestock rearing, whereas migrants from other regions of Ladakh were mostly agro-pastoralists who reared animals in small numbers and practised subsistence agriculture.

1. Agesa, Richard, and Sunwoong Kim. (2001). ‘‘Rural to Urban Migration as a Household Decision: Evidence from Kenya.’’ Review of Development Economics 5, 60–75. 2. Ahmed, M. (2003). Living fabric: Weaving Among the Nomads of Ladakh Himalaya. Trumbull, Conn: Weatherhill. 3. Brauw, A., & Harigaya, T. (2007). Seasonal Migration and Improving Living Standards in Vietnam. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00989.x 4. Castelli, F. (2018). Drivers of migration: Why do people move? Journal of travel medicine, 25(1), tay040. 5. Chaudhuri, A. (2000). Change in Changthang: To Stay or to Leave? Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 52-58. 6. Dame, J., Schmidt, S., Müller, J., & Nüsser, M. (2019). Urbanisation and socio-ecological challenges in high mountain towns: Insights from Leh (Ladakh), India. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.017 7. Dollfus P (2013) Transformation processes in nomadic pastoralism in Ladakh, Himalaya. J Assoc Nepal Himalayan Stud 32(1):15, 61–72 8. Goodall, S. K. (2007) From plateau pastures to urban fringe: Sedentarisation of Nomadic Pastoralists in Ladakh, North-West India. PhD, Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies. University of Adelaide. 9. Jongkroy, Puntip. (2009). Urbanization and Changing Settlement Patterns in Peri-urban Bangkok. Kasetsart Journal of Social Science. 30. 10. Kapri, Kul & Ghimire, Shankar. (2020). Migration, remittance, and agricultural productivity: Evidence from the Nepal Living Standard Survey. World Development Perspectives. 19. 100198. 10.1016/j.wdp.2020.100198. 11. Kim, S. (2007). Immigration, industrial revolution and urban growth in the United States, 1820-1920: Factor endowments, technology and geography (No.w12900). National Bureau of Economic Research. 12. Lalonde, R.J., Topel, R.H.(1997). Economic impact of international migration and the economic performance of migrants. In: Rosenzweig, M.R., Stark, O. (Eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics. Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 799–849. 13. Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060063 14. Light, I., Bhachu, P., & Karageorgis, S. (1989). Migration Networks and Immigrant Entrepreneurship. UCLA: Institute for Social Science Research. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/50g990sk 15. Mamgain, Rajendra P. 2014. Out-migration from hill region of Uttarakhand: Issues and policy options (Lucknow: Giri Institute of Development Studies). 16. Massey, A. H. (1998). Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 17. Massey, D. S. (1988). Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective. Population and Development Review, 14(3), 383–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1972195 18. Massey, Douglas S., Joaquı´n, Arango, Graeme, Hugo, Ali, Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, J., Taylor, Edward, (1993). Theories of international migration: a review and appraisal. Population and Development Review 3, 431–466. 19. McLeman, R. A. (2013). Climate and Human Migration. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139136938 20. Rajan, S. I., & Bhagat, R. B. (2021). Internal Migration in India: Integrating Migration with Development and Urbanization Policies. Knomad, February, 2–5. 21. Rajan, S. I., & Pillai, K. A. (2020). Migration as a Livelihood Strategy Adopted by Fisherfolk in South India. Social Change, 50(4), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085720966291 22. Selod, H., & Shilpi, F. (2021). Rural-urban migration in developing countries: Lessons from the literature. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 91(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2021.103713 23. Sengupta, A. (2013). Migration, Poverty and Vulnerability in the Informal Labour Market in India. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 36(4), 99–116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44730027 24. Stark, O., & Bloom, D. (1985). The new economics of labour migration. American Economic Review, 173-178. 25. Todaro, Michael P., 1969. A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in Less Developed Countries. The American Economic Review 59 (1), 138–148. 26. Toffin, & J. Pfaff-Czarnecka (Eds.) (2014)., Facing Globalization in the Himalayas: Belonging and the Politics of the Self (pp. 119-133). SAGE Publications Ltd. 27. Urbański, M. (2022). Comparing Push and Pull Factors Affecting Migration. Economies, 10(1), 21. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/economies10010021 28. Wang X (2017) Analysis of regional characteristics and influencing factors of population migration of Jiangsu Province. Master thesis, Party School of C.P.C. Jiangsu Committee, http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode 29. Zelinsky, W. (1971). The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition. Geographical Review, 61(2), 219–249. https://doi.org/10.2307/213996