Investment in healthcare and family planning, along with skilling of the population needs to be increased substantially if India hopes to achieve population stabilisation and realise the millennium development goals
As per Census 2011, the population of India was 1.21 billion. The present population would be close to 1.25 billion, which by any yardstick is a huge number. In the year 2020, the average age of Indians will be 29 years as compared to 37 years for China and 48 years for Japan.
One school of thought looks at this as a great opportunity for the country, as the population is getting younger and, therefore, India is expected to enjoy the benefit of demographic dividend. As infants grow older and join the age of participation in the labour force, India is expected to witness the same miracle that happened in the case of some East Asian economies. Putting the euphoria created by the term ‘demographic dividend’ aside for a moment, it is time to revisit India’s current Population Policy on this World Population Day.
The National Population Policy, 2000, had set the target of achieving a ‘total fertility rate’ of 2.1 (also the replacement fertility rate) by 2010. A technical group on population projection constituted by the National Commission on Population in May 2006, had projected a population of 1,400 million by the year 2026 and a stable population by 2045. As per the Sample Registration Survey, the TFR of India was 2.4 in 2011, and it may take a few more years to achieve the replacement fertility rate. India’s population is now expected to stabilise around 2060.
According to the UN projections, India’s population will surpass that of China by 2030 and make us the most populous nation. China’s population is expected to peak at 1,453 million by the year 2030, whereas India’s will peak at 1,644 million in the year 2065. India’s population grew by 17.64 per cent in the last decade during 2001-2011, whereas the decadal growth of China’s population was 5.43 per cent only. It is good that the growth in absolute numbers was less in this decade, but that does not reduce the severity of a growth of 181 million in a decade.
India’s population density increased from 325 per sq km in 2001 to 382 per sq km in Census 2011. The pressure on land and other natural resources is increasing by the day. The high population density generates great pressure on the carrying capacity of the land mass, which is just 2.4 per cent of the world but has to bear the burden of 17.5 per cent of the entire population. Compare this with the estimated population density in the year 1985 for China (111), Thailand (101), Malaysia (48) and Indonesia (85), when these economies were growing.
The funny thing about statistical averages is that they mask a lot of harsh realities. While the population density of the country at 382 in itself is very high, the population density of Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh is 1,102, 1,029 and 828 respectively. As per SRS 2011, the overall TFR for the country is 2.4; while it is 3.6 for Bihar, 3.4 for Uttar Pradesh, 3.1 for Madhya Pradesh, 3.0 for Rajasthan and 2.9 for Jharkhand. These States will not be able to attain the replacement level fertility in the near future and consequently their population will continue to grow well beyond the year 2060, when India is expected to achieve a stable population at the current rate.
The dependency ratio of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is also much higher than that of the country. High population density combined with high percentage of poverty and unemployment in the face of growing food prices is already manifesting itself in the form of various social tensions in these States, and these are are very likely to aggravate further.
The Work Participation Rate for the country works out to 39.8 per cent. This is marginally higher than the corresponding WPR of 39.1 per cent in Census 2001. The WPR for males has increased to 53.3 per cent in 2011 in comparison to 51.7 per cent in Census 2001. The female WPR has reduced marginally to 25.5 per cent in 2011 from 25.6 per cent in Census 2001. The WPR was 37.5 per cent and the female WPR was 22.3 per cent in 1991.The dependency ratio in 2001 was 734 for India, expected to go below 600 in 2011 as per projections (the final data is not yet out). A small portion of the low WPR can be attributed to the new entrants to the work force, especially the females, being engaged in obtaining education but that does not fully explain the situation.
Despite emphasis and investment in employment generation by the Government, a stagnant WPR with a reducing dependency ratio indicates that there is a large army of unemployed people. In absolute terms, the numbers are increasing by the day. This may partially explain the unemployment allowance offered as sops in the 2012 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election.
In recent years, some rethinking on family planning and population stabilisation has begun in the policy circles, albeit half-heartedly. An attempt to reposition family planning for better maternal and child health, apart from population stabilisation, was made in the year 2010, but it has not been acted upon in a concrete manner. Accredited Social Health Activists have been incentivised to deliver contraceptives at people’s doorsteps, but bold steps such as introducing new contraceptives like injectables in the public health programme, have not been taken.
The big push for family planning in the States with high TFRs can come only at the initiative of the Union Government. There is sufficient unmet demand for contraception in these States hence, some out-of-box thinking is required to motivate the States to work towards meeting the unmet need.
The normative method of resource allocation on the basis of population does not encourage the States to innovate. As auction and reverse auction both are now being used in businesses, the system of incentive and reverse incentive both should be introduced in allocation of resources also. While per capita allotment of resources for physical and social infrastructure creation can go on; there should also be a mechanism to incentivise the States, especially the high TFR ones, which take effective steps for population stabilisation through higher resource allocation.
The investment in health care in general, and for family planning in particular, along with skilling of the population needs to be increased substantially. Recently, two State-owned public-sector undertakings together spent $2.5 billion (Rs 15,000 crore) to buy the 10 per cent stake of a private firm in a gas field in Mozambique. Spend this amount for family planning over five years and see the reduction in demand for various critical goods including energy!
In low resource settings, demand management may be as compelling a policy option as the management of supply. Even as India becomes polio free, a substantial committed amount can be gainfully invested for family planning. This will lead to betterment of maternal and child health, helpful for the achievement of Millennium Development Goals, and also help achieve population stabilisation.
When an individual’s waistline becomes bloated, it is time for taking precautions and remedial actions. Ditto for the population pyramid!
(The author is an IAS officer. Views expressed here are personal)