When India attained independence in 1947, India’s population was around 360 million, and the population density was 117 per square kilometre. In the subsequent period, the population in the country has been steadily increasing. At one stage, alarmed by the population increase, several experts pointed out that such growth would lead to a “population explosion” that could cause several serious socio-economic issues.
Accepting this view, the Government of India and state governments focused on controlling population growth by initiating several proactive measures and strong social campaigns, with the famous slogan, “Next child not now, and no child after two.” While this campaign caught the imagination of the people, the population continued to increase, though at a slightly lower rate.
After the national Emergency period imposed on the nation by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977), governments in India slackened or practically gave up population control measures. This was largely due to the fact that such measures became unpopular among the people, since during the Emergency period several individuals were compulsorily sterilised against their will using coercive methods by the government in a few states.
At present, the population control policy of governments in India is conspicuous by its near absence. During the last eleven years, with Prime Minister Modi at the helm, population control is one subject about which the government has spoken little and acted little.
Now, with the national population increasing uncontrollably, and India emerging as the most populated country in the world, with a population density of 435 per square kilometre, population density in India is among the highest in the world.
However, a new theory has been advanced in recent times in India that checking population growth can be counterproductive, since such growth can have several overwhelming benefits. The situation is such that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh has gone to the extent of providing incentives for families giving birth to a third child.
What is the view against population control?
The thrust of the argument of those opposing population control is that the steady growth of the Indian population over the last several decades has not adversely impacted the economic and industrial growth of the country, as India has now emerged as the fourth-largest economy in the world and is likely to become the third-largest in the next few years. It is said that population should be considered a strength and must be skilfully utilised to achieve growth in multiple directions, and that there is no justification for using the term “population explosion.” It is particularly stressed as a “demographic strength.”
Another argument is that the fertility rate in India is already showing signs of decline, with a few states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala having fertility rates below the replacement level, and in other states like Bihar, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, the fertility rate is showing a declining trend. What is required is to maintain the fertility rate at least at the replacement level, which means population control measures are not required.
Further, the view of those opposing population control is that the contention that population growth will lead to social tension due to joblessness or other reasons amounts only to fear-mongering, as multiple job opportunities are now emerging in different sectors due to technological growth and innovation. It is argued that jobs can always be found if there are appropriate proactive strategies from the government to sustain economic growth and job prospects. Finally, attention is drawn to the example of a few countries such as Russia and Japan, which are facing problems of declining populations and ageing demographics, affecting the balance of age groups. China introduced a one-child policy, which reduced population growth, and it is now struggling to reverse the declining trend.
Alternate view on the need for population control:
Though all such arguments against population control look impressive on paper, a holistic view of the entire Indian scenario leads to different conclusions and recommendations.
It is said that India’s economic growth is impressive, as it is now the fourth-largest economy in the world. This is a wishful and narrow view. The fact is that per capita income in India is very low compared to that of developed countries such as the USA (59,195 USD), Japan (33,000 USD), Russia (41,000 USD), and China (13,121 USD). In contrast, India’s per capita income is only 2,396 USD.
Obviously, this implies that India has a very long way to go to reach the per capita income level needed to ensure an acceptable standard of living for its people.
While economic growth may be sustained in the coming years, this would not automatically result in a proportional improvement in per capita income due to the surging population.
The argument that population control measures would lead to unsustainable demographic imbalance is flawed. While such measures may lead to an increase in the ageing population, particularly due to advances in medical technology, this need not cause alarm. With advancements in technology and communication, people can continue to work even at an advanced age, provided their health conditions permit.
Unchecked population growth will certainly lead to joblessness, particularly among the youth, since developments in artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation will reduce the need for manpower to maintain output levels.
Even with declining fertility rates, population continues to increase in India due to increased life expectancy, and it is estimated to reach about 1,600 million by the year 2050.
While India is already the most populated country with one of the highest population densities in the world, a population level of 1,600 million would be a matter of grave global concern. This is because outward migration from India would increase, with people seeking job opportunities and better living conditions abroad. With such a large population, the stress experienced domestically could have spillover effects globally, due to factors such as increased resource consumption and ecological strain. In short, a densely populated country like India, with comparatively low per capita income, could become a drag on the rest of the world in several ways.
What population strategy for India?
With the land size of the country remaining the same, increasing population and population density will make congestion in public places difficult to manage.
Inevitably, high population density would result in increased conflict of interest among people, greater stress on healthcare facilities, and large-scale underemployment leading to frustration. Accidents in public places and stampedes in stadiums and religious gatherings are already occurring in ways that cause concern.
Many other visible and invisible issues could arise that may become unmanageable for the government.
India should aim to maintain a population density of 300 or less per square kilometre, to be achieved through careful planning and a structured population management programme in the coming years.
Finally, it is often said that with its enormous natural resources, India can be as prosperous as any developed country in the world, if its population were at an appropriate level—and such a level is significantly lower than what exists today.
