POPULAION GROWTH IN INDIA

Both Government and people have become somewhat deaf to the ticking of this time bomb because we have become accustomed to the noise created by the ticking

This is the most important and serious fault-line of the Indian Government in governance since independence

Mind boggling facts

Population of India as on July 2008: 114 crores*
*As estimated by Government.

Population as per 1951 census: 36 crores

Population as per 1991 Census: 84.6 crores
Population as per 2001 Census: 102.8 crores,
i.e., 21.3% increase in a period of 10 years

Population growth rate: 1.38% per annum

Population projected:
2010: 117.5 crores
2015: 125.6 “
2020: 133.1 “


Population of Mumbai: 1.3 crores. Delhi: 1.1 crores

One out of six people of world live in India




We all know that we have a huge population and further that the same is increasing at a fast pace. Yet, for a better perception of the magnitude of the issue, some comparisons are required, as below:

· Uttar Pradesh with a population of 16.6 cr. is the fifth largest ( country/State ) when compared with countries having large population, i.e., China ( 131 cr. ), USA (29.8 cr. ), Indonesia ( 24.5 cr. ), and Brazil (18.8 cr. ) and Pakistan (16.5 cr. ).

· Maharashtra ( 9.67 cr.) and Bihar ( 8.28 cr. ) each have higher population than Germany ( 8.20 cr. )

· West Bengal ( 8.02 cr. ) is ahead of Egypt ( 7.8 cr. )

· Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh with population of 6.2 cr. and 6 cr. respectively have more or less have population equal to that of UK ( 6 cr. ), France ( 6 cr.) and would be rushing ahead to overtake Iran ( 6.8 cr. )

· The small State of Kerala with a population of 3.18 cr. will be rushing to be ahead of Canada ( 3.3 cr.)

· Population of Bangla Desh: 14.7 cr. Russia: 14.2 cr. and Japan: 12.7 cr. ( With our propensity to produce children, one would not be surprised if some of the Indian States overtake these countries in a few years in comparison to their population ).

· Both Mumbai and Delhi cities have already crossed one crore of population which is higher than the population of


many countries. e.g., Sweden ( 90 lakhs ), Switzerland
( 75 lakhs ), Israel ( 63 lakhs ) and Finland ( 52 lakhs ).

· At our current level of growth in population, figuratively we are adding each year another Australia ( 2 cr. ) to India in terms of population.

Note:

Population growth level in the last two few decades in the developed countries has been minimal. In fact some of the countries have reached stagnant population levels, with birth and death almost equaling. On the other hand there has been significant population growth in developing countries. And in the near future this trend would continue.

What are the implications of the above dichotomy?

1. Average standard of living of developed countries would go on increasing whereas the reverse would happen in the case of developing countries, i.e., the average standard of living.

2. More and more people from developing countries would try to migrate to developed countries. Since such a development would have socio economic problems in the developed countries, developed countries may impose checks and balances.

3. Influx of people from villages to cities in India would go on increasing.




4. The gap in terms of income of rich / middle class and the poor people in India would go on widening, creating social unrest.


Comments:

1. All other problems which faced India since Independence are not as gigantic as the population problem. What is worse is that not only the problem would continue in the future but would nullify to a large extent and in respect of a large number of people the benefits of economic growth.

2. The problem has been with us for so long that we have largely become immune to the same.

3. In the 50s, when the new Government of India started looking into various major problems afflicting the country, it had some inkling of the problem ahead on this front and had attached considerable importance to family planning. Yet, at the level of implementation, the record has been even less than patchy.

4. Unfortunately political parties from the beginning were lackadaisical in their getting involved in this issue.

5. The role of civil society and NGOs were only peripheral.

6. Sanjay Gandhi’s experiment on this front backfiring, there was less enthusiasm in getting involved in this subject.





7. Even a dictatorial regime like China had to soften the policy of ‘ one child per couple ‘ since abortions and forced sterilization had become thoroughly unpopular.

8. The truism has to be realized and accepted that it is too serious a matter left to the Government alone.

9. States which achieved high female literacy have witnessed significant reduction in the growth rate of population ( e.g., Female Literacy in Kerala: 88%. Bihar: 33.6% ).

10. Already States which have not been able to achieve lowering the rate of growth of population in any significant manner are being left out by States which have achieved moderate success on this front. This gap would widen further with its own ramifications, e.g., migration of people from more populous States to others.

11. Population growth in the cities, coupled with the problem cited in Point No. 10 above, would create new problems in managing cities.

Conclusions:

· Central / State Governments have to accord top priority to this mind boggling problem.
· Apart from allocating vast resources for containing unbridled growth of population, Governments have to take up steps for effective and imaginative programmes to reduce population growth.





· Civil societies have to involve in the implementation of Government programmes.
· Panchayats have the capability to play a major role in the matter. But it would appear that Government has not empowered them fully to involve in this gigantic problem.
· Fourth estate can play a significant role by continuously highlighting the enormity of the problem and also pointing out lacunae in the implementation of Government programmes.
· The focus of action should be on the illiterate and poor because in the recent past the growth in child birth in these segments had not come down drastically, unlike in the case of middle and upper income segments which had voluntarily opted for ‘two child’ policy.
· It should be noted that the middle and upper income segments have opted for ‘one child or two child’ policy largely due to their realization that for the well being of the family that is the right choice. It is hardly due to Government programmes on Family Planning.
· Hoardings in cities and towns on family planning with a boy and girl in the hoarding, ads. on family planning in the print media, particularly English media ( read by people most of whom had already opted for one child or two children), organizing seminars and workshops on the subject, mouthing platitudes on the subject by powers that be, et all, are waste of money and energy. Role of Government should be minimal. Panchayats and Civil societies have to take the lead. Instead of the babus deciding the course of action, it is the social scientists who should mould the action plan.




Signing off:

Any Government paper on population issues invariably has a comparison of the number of people and the land mass in the country. e.g.,

India: 2.4% of land area of the world
17.5% of the population of world

With vast changes that have occurred in technology, production and distribution of goods and world becoming one in trading of goods, this comparison is inapt. Probably this started long back when agriculture was the prime activity and countries were insular in the matter of world trade. At that time the focus was on how much land is needed for production in the land to meet the requirements of a particular number of people. That is not the case now. e.g., Japan and Israel. Land mass is not large. Yet because of high productivity from their land and their high GDP enabling them to import agricultural goods, they are able to meet the requirement of their people. On the other hand, many of the Arab and African countries have large land mass and yet their agricultural production level is not high resulting in those countries forced to import agricultural goods to meet the requirements of their people.
-------