Why do we need to educate people about the population?
False notions about the population have created fear, prejudice, and communal hatred.
Shivakumar Jolad and Trishala S
In April this year. UNFPA’s World Population Prospects Report was strategically titled “8 Billion Lives — Infinite Possibilities: The Case for Rights and Choices”, which tried to debunk the myths about population. It considered 8 billion people as a sign of progress, and people as a resource, not a burden. The report emphasized focusing on gender and reproductive rights, rather than demographic targets and population stabilization. The world population dashboard showed India at 1.428 billion had overtaken China’s population. Indian and foreign media was selective and replete with articles about ‘India’s exploding’ population and politicians even called for its urgent control.
Population in Everyone’s Lives
The circle of birth, death, migration, and ageing is the story of the human population. Population change happens within households, villages, cities, states, and nations. Population change seems so simple and common-sensical — yet it is one the most misunderstood topic in the world. Understanding population change requires going beyond anecdotal narratives, WhatsApp forwards, and chai pe charcha conversations. It necessitates delving into the data and long-term trends that capture the vital forces influencing population dynamics. Without a comprehensive examination of reliable data, we risk falling into the Malthusian trap, where we theorize about population without sufficient evidence and fall prey to doomsday predictions.
The myth of “Population Explosion’
In the 1968 book “The Population Bomb”, Paul Ehrlich declared that “The battle to feed all of humanity is over”. It created fear across the world of overpopulation and its catastrophic consequences. Ehlrich explicitly warned that massive famines wreak havoc and large-scale deaths in countries like India and Pakistan. However, the dooms day predictions by Ehlrich never came true. Advancements in food production, such as the Green Revolution, technological changes, and poverty reduction efforts led to greater per capita food availability from the 70s to the present. Large-scale famines, common during the 19th and early 20th century never recurred.
Data supports this trend. The world population growth rate has been steadily declining over the years. For instance, in the 1960s, the annual global population growth rate was around 2.2%, while by the 2010s, it had dropped to approximately 1.1%. Similarly, in India, Contrary to fears of uncontrollable population growth, the fertility rate has significantly declined from 5.7 births per woman in 1950 to two births per woman today. Although the decline has been slower compared to China, India’s population growth rate has been steadily decreasing for decades. India’s decadal growth rate came down from 24.8% in 1961–71 to 17.7% in 2001–2011, corresponding annualized growth rate came down from very high rate of 2.2% to 1.64%. The corresponding figures for 2021 is not available due to lack of Census, but the UN projections show, annual growth rate has slowed down to 1 % between 2011–2021. The children population in India (0–14 years) is already declining.
Figure from: World Population Prospects-2022 — Demographic profile of India.
Figure from: World Population Prospects-2022 — Demographic profile of India.
India’s Missing Middle: 24,000 ‘Villages’ With Populations Greater Than Towns Lose Out On Policies For Urban Areas, Arindam Jana, Archita S, India Spend, January 23, 2019
Myths about Fertility
Myths and false notions about population and its vital determinants- births, deaths, and migration can breed fear, prejudice, and communal hatred. The myths create distorted policies curbing the rights of women, minorities, and migrant labourers. Governments impose coercive policies to control births, curtailing the reproductive freedoms of women. The “population explosion” myth bears a burden on women — forced into sterilization and other forms of reproductive coercion. India’s Total Fertility Rate has reduced below the replacement level to 2.0, according to the recent National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-5. Indian women are on average less than 2 children in most states, barring five states. Much of the population growth in India is happening due to Population momentum (growth due to greater proportion of women in the reproductive age group, than needed for stability), rather than fertility.
The reduction in fertility rate in India has been faster than predicted. Currently, the average Indian woman is projected to have 2.0 children in her lifetime (NFHS-5) which is below the replacement level of 2.1. This fertility rate is higher than that of China (1.2) or the United States (1.7), but significantly lower than India’s rates in 1992 (3.4) or 1950 (5.9). This trend is not limited to a specific religious community but is happening across all religions and is a global phenomenon.
The perpetuation of fears about the Hindu-Muslim population divide, which has resulted in violence and discrimination against Muslim communities in India. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat routinely invokes the need for “religion-based population control” policies. Yogi Adityanath claims that the Muslim population increased multifold because they got special rights and privileges , which has created fear that Muslims will outstrip the Hindu population.
The changes in the religious makeup of the population have been modest since 1951. Data shows these are a figment of imagination of prejudiced minds. The Hindu population grew from 30 crores to a billion from 1951 to 2011, whereas the Muslim population grew from 3.5 cr to 17.2 crores at the same time. Much of the growth differential happened during the early differential in growth rate, which is now converging faster. In a span of 60 years (1951–2011), the percentage of Muslims has modestly increased from about 10% to 14%. The 2021 projection of the Muslim Population is about 15%. Pew Center projects that by 2050 (close to when India might achieve population stabilization), Muslims may see a modest rise of 18%- still less than ¼ of Hindus (77%) and far below the fears of Muslim overshooting the Hindu population.
Politicians who have always been ranting against population growth even introduced a Bill in Parliament for Population Control in 2019. The bill had clauses in which government employment with small families would be given incentives in loan interest rate, income tax rebates etc, and had disincentives to those with larger families with reduced government subsidies, and no maternity or paternity leave. UP’s Yogi government introduced Population (Control, Stabilization and Welfare) Bill in 2021, which promotes a two-child policy, and those who violate it would be debarred from contesting local body elections, applying for government jobs, or receiving any government subsidies. In Assam, a similar policy amendment in 2021 made government jobs inaccessible to individuals with more than two children.
In UP, the Population policy had a communal angle- with Yogi Adityanath stating that it is an effort to maintain population balance among various communities. Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, who believes that “population is the root cause of every social menace” similarly justified his stance and wants the “immigrant Muslim community adopts decent family planning norms” to “solve numerous social ills in Assam. The fertility rates in these states tell a different story. UP’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR), according to NFHS rounds 1 to 5, dropped from 4.8 in 1992–93, rapidly dropped to 2.7 in 2015–16, and now recently stands at 2.4- approaching replacement level. The Muslim TFR (2.7) in 2020–22 is just 0.3 is higher than the average TFR of UP, and is at the same level as in 2015–16. The TFR (NFHS-5) of Assam is already well below replacement level (1.9) a sharp drop from 3.5 in 1992–93. The Muslim fertility is 2.4, with a Total wanted fertility rate of 1.8, showing a gap of 0.6 — primarily due to unmet needs of fertility rather than the true intentions.
In the book — “The Population Myth: Islam, Family Planning and Politics in India”, SY Quraishi (former Chief Election Commissioner of India), debunks the myths about Muslim fertility and population using data from Census and Family Health surveys. He shows that although the Muslim population percentage has been increasing, the decadal population growth rate has been decreasing faster than Hindus. Muslim decadal population growth rate decreased from 30.9% in 1951–61 to 24.6%, the corresponding change for Hindu growth rate was 20.7% to 18.5%. The fertility gap between Muslims and Hindus decreased from 1.11 in 1992–93 (NFHS-1) to 0.48 in 2015–16 (NFHS-4). And recently it has dropped further to 0.42 in 2029–21 (NFHS-5). Quraishi notes that the “TFRs of Hindus in Bihar and Rajasthan far exceed that of Muslims in Kerala or Tamil Nadu”. Fertility is more linked to women’s education level, empowerment, and access to family planning methods, rather than to religion. The fear of the Muslim population overtaking it has no empirical basis.
Coercive population control policies
Coercive policies to control the population will always backfire. During the 1975–77 Emergency period in India, a repressive family planning program of forced sterilizations (Sanjay Gandhi’s Five-point program ) was implemented, leading to an estimated 6.2 million men being sterilized in 1976 alone, with over 2,000 deaths due to botched operations. The Emergency saw targeted coercion against marginalized groups, including Muslims and tribals. Amartya Sen, in his article “Population Policy: Authoritarianism Versus Cooperation” (1994), discusses the dichotomy between “an authoritarian or a cooperative approach” to population control. Quoting Samuel Coleridge (1830), “What begins in fear usually ends in folly”, Sen argues for cooperative and persuasive methods can lower fertility rates more effectively than authoritarian methods. He cites that between 1979- 1991, Kerala reduced fertility from 3 to 1.8 by promoting literacy among women, whereas China’s with its draconian one-child policy reduced TFR only from 2.8 to 2.0.
In 1952, India initiated what would become the world’s largest family planning program, aiming to promote birth control methods and stabilize the population. The program in the 60s to 80s (through five-year plans) focused on sterilizations through IUT (Intra Uterine Devices) among women and vasectomy among men. The government also manufactured Condoms and oral contraceptives, popularized them through the media, and distributed them through the network of government health centres across India. The Cairo Conference of 1994, was indeed a significant event that addressed various important issues related to human rights, population, sexual and reproductive health, gender equality, women’s rights, and sustainable development. Cairo’s Program of Action, which was adopted by most countries including India. It emphasized the sexual and reproductive rights and reproductive health for fertility reduction, as opposed to coercive demographic target driven policies. Since then, India has transitioned towards a voluntary and rights-based approach, but some states have implemented “two-child policies” that limit options and civil rights for those with more than two children. Violations can result in disqualification from government jobs, welfare schemes, and the right to contest local elections, raising concerns about coercion and reproductive rights. It is women who primarily bear the physical and emotional trauma of two child policies. Sweta Dash notes that these policies can have unintended consequences such as unsafe abortions, coercive targeted sterilizations, a spike in female foeticides, and reduced access to affordable reproductive and maternal healthcare.
Myths about Migration
India is the origin of worlds largest number of International migrants, estimated to be around 18 million. It receives very few immigrants, accounting for less than 0.4 per cent of its 1.42 billion population. The net migration rate is negative at -0.2 migrants per thousand population. Yet, there are fears about massive illegal migration (especially from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Myanmar), particularly in the North East region of India. India receives the lowest number of international migrants (in proportion to population), both legal and illegal, compared to other countries. Politicians make wild claims about illegal immigrants. Former Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju made a claim in 2016, that there are 20 million illegal immigrants in India. The data from Census and other sources hardly support this. Census 2011 shows 2.3 million migrants from Bangladesh. Most of them migrated before 1991 numbering 1.76 million. Bangladeshi don’t prefer moving to India anymore. Only about 84,000 emigrated between 2006–2011, according to Census 2011 data. Only 40,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar are estimated to have migrated to India. Yet, India built a narrative about excessive illegal immigration from these countries and used it to justify Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)-2019, allowing only non-Muslim persecuted minorities to seek citizenship in India.
The world’s wealthiest cities, such as New York, Chicago, London, and others, are also renowned for their linguistic and cultural diversity, largely due to the influx of migrants. Migrants play a crucial role in filling the supply-demand gap, driving innovation, entrepreneurship, and contributing to the city’s vibrancy. Without the presence of migrants, these cities would struggle to thrive solely on their native population. But many of these cities across the world across the world are seeding anti-immigrant, and anti-migrant sentiments.
While the Indian Constitution grants fundamental freedoms of movement and choice of livelihood across the country, migrants continue to face harassment and exclusion from nativist minds in the cities. Despite migrants being the backbone of city building, as seen in cities like Mumbai or Bangalore where they enrich the cultural and linguistic diversity, they are often met with hostility and hatred from both locals and politicians. This divisive atmosphere contributes to the marginalization and insecurity experienced by migrants in the region. During the 1960–80s, Maharashtra created fears among migrants and fostered nativism. Earlier targets were largely Tamilians and other south Indians (clubbed into ‘Madrasi’ group) migrants to Mumbai, later it was North Indian migrants mainly from UP and Bihar who were attacked and harassed. Anti-migrant attacks spread to other cities such as Bangalore. In 2012, thousands of panic-stricken people from the northeastern states living in Bangalore boarded trains to Guwahati due to rumours of violence targeting them. The cosmopolitan Bangalore, known for its linguistic diversity (107 languages are spoken here), created an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among migrants from the northeast.
Reaping the demographic potential
Population policies with Demographic targets raise ethical concerns, particularly when they prioritize population control over individual rights and reproductive freedom. The focus should be on promoting and protecting rights such as reproductive rights, the right to mobility, the right to residency and citizenship, and the right to health. Concerns about climate change should shift the focus towards sustainable consumption and green growth rather than solely emphasizing population control. While population does play a role in environmental impact, it is equally important to address consumption patterns, resource management, and sustainable development practices. Family policies play a crucial role in influencing childbearing decisions by reducing the financial burden associated with raising children. These policies require collaboration between the government, the private sector, and society at large. However, achieving work-life balance can be challenging for women, particularly in a patriarchal society where they are often expected to bear the responsibilities of household chores and childcare.
The lack of affordable childcare facilities and inadequate maternity and paternity leave policies have contributed to a decline in the birth rate, particularly in urban areas. Pro-family policies should prioritize providing accessible and affordable childcare options, extending parental leave, and promoting work-life balance to support families. It is important to consider the socio-cultural and economic context of the country when designing and implementing family policies. Policies need to be tailored to meet the specific needs and challenges faced by the population.
The demographic profile and projections of India highlight the bulging young population and the potential for demographic dividends if the right policies are in place. One in five people below 25 years in the world is from India, and 47% of Indians are below the age of 25. This youth population holds immense potential and can contribute to the country’s economic growth and global talent pool. Instead of viewing people as a burden, it is essential to recognize their potential as valuable resources. Empowering individuals through skill development and promoting equity can contribute to their overall well-being and productivity. Family policies should aim to provide equal opportunities and support for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances.
Last but not the least, the lack of updated Census data in India since 2011 poses a significant challenge in understanding population change. We are flying blind and can’t tap into the potential of the youth population if we don’t have data on them. Census data is important for planning development, ensuring transparency in public programs, and making informed decisions. Without recent data, it is challenging to accurately estimate population counts at the district level and understand migration patterns. The Census provides comprehensive information about various demographic factors and helps in creating inclusive policies. It is crucial to conduct the Census as soon as possible to overcome these challenges and have up-to-date information for effective decision-making and development planning.
