Prof Rasal Singh
rasal_singh@yahoo.co.in
The Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, N. Chandrababu Naidu, has announced under his state’s new population management policy an incentive amount of Rs 30,000 for the birth of a third child and Rs 40,000 for the birth of a fourth child. Andhra Pradesh already provides an incentive of Rs 25,000 for the birth of a second child. Officially, he has taken this decision to address the challenges arising from the declining “Total Fertility Rate” and demographic imbalance in the state. However, the political discourse of recent times tells a somewhat different story. During discussions on the amendment to the Women’s Reservation framework and parliamentary delimitation, most opposition leaders and leaders from South Indian states had opposed the proposal. The amendment aimed to increase one-third of Lok Sabha seats and implement women’s reservation from 2029 after delimitation. These leaders feared that such changes would reduce the representation of South Indian states in Parliament. Similar concerns have surfaced from time to time earlier as well. Addressing these apprehensions, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah had clarified that the increase in Lok Sabha seats would be proportional to the existing number of seats and delimitation would be based on the 2011 Census. However, because of opposition arising from such apprehensions, the amendment could not be passed, and women’s reservation proposed for implementation from 2029 once again remained pending.
In fact, Chandrababu Naidu’s announcement of incentives and other facilities for the birth of third and fourth children stems from insecurity and apprehension regarding a reduction in his state’s representation in the Lok Sabha. Andhra Pradesh may be the first state to introduce such a scheme, but there is a strong possibility that other South Indian states (especially Keralam, Telangana and Karnataka) and Jammu-Kashmir may follow the same path. This incentive policy is the result of a very narrow and separatist mindset in which state interests are placed above national interests. It reflects a simplistic understanding of declining fertility rates and offers nothing more than a shortcut solution to demographic imbalance. Chandrababu Naidu has long been considered one of the most progressive politicians and an advocate of a comprehensive national population policy for population control. However, this hurried decision appears narrow and regressive. It reflects vote-bank politics and a desire to continue as an influential pressure group against larger national interests. Naidu’s thinking also aligns with a large section of second majority (Muslim) community as well as with the rural, poor, and uneducated sections that wish to display their political dominance from Panchayat elections to Lok Sabha elections by having more children. They also seek to derive maximum benefit from Government welfare schemes. This is essentially an attempt at “minority appeasement” to secure consolidated votes. Undoubtedly, in a democratic system, population functions as a decisive pressure group. However, reducing a citizen merely to the status of a voter is inappropriate. Citizens have many other indentities and related needs, expectations, responsibilities, and challenges. Chandrababu Naidu should have avoided adopting such a simplistic solution to declining fertility rates and demographic imbalance. Just as relatively educated, prosperous, and developed states have low fertility rates, similarly educated, prosperous, and urban families-especially Hindus-also have very low fertility rates. There is a need to understand and address the causes behind this issue. Young people in such families are either not marrying, marrying late, or are in live-in relationships. They are either not having children, unable to have children, or choosing to have only one child. Why is this happening? This requires serious reflection. These young people often work eight to twelve hours a day and spend another two to four hours commuting. Most of them suffer from burnout and lifestyle-related disorders such as hypertension, diabetes, depression, anxiety, and obesity. The lack of time, enthusiasm, energy, and resources required for quality child-rearing and education discourages them from accepting these responsibilities. Professional over-engagement and the rising cost of quality living have adversely affected their mindset, health, and family life. Material comforts may exist, but life is neither peaceful nor truly high-quality. This negatively affects fertility rates. A one-time incentive of Rs 30,000 or Rs 40,000 cannot motivate educated, prosperous, urban youth to have more children. Such incentives may instead encourage uneducated poor, rural populations, and those who view voting power as a political weapon to have more children. Fertility rates in such families are already relatively high. If these families have even more children, they may become a burden on state resources rather than contributing as valuable human resources. Who will ensure them a dignified life? Who will address their needs for food, clothing, housing, education, healthcare, and employment? Would this not further promote the culture of freebies? It is noteworthy that economic growth is driven not merely by population numbers but by productive human resources.
Certainly, demographic imbalance is emerging in the country. India follows a representative democratic system. In such a situation, states that have taken initiatives towards population control fear they may suffer losses and experience reduced representation in Parliament. This concern is not limited to states alone; many religious and caste communities share similar fears. Therefore, the Government of India should take decisive steps in this direction and formulate a comprehensive national population policy at the earliest so that such apprehensions can be addressed while ensuring inclusive and balanced development. A relatively balanced distribution of population and demographic stability are essential conditions for national peace and prosperity. Awareness campaigns alone cannot solve this issue. Although such programs have a role, they cannot substitute a comprehensive national population policy.
In a developing country like India, resources and facilities are limited. These limited resources face immense pressure from a rapidly growing population. This is why the country experiences intense competition for basic necessities such as food, education, healthcare, housing, and employment. From Government schools and hospitals to reputed private institutions, railway stations, bus terminals, airports, hotels, restaurants, tourist destinations, roads, markets, police stations, courts, and Government offices-everywhere there are overwhelming crowds. Long queues have become an everyday reality. Long waiting periods for even small facilities and necessities have become a permanent condition of life. Some traditional economists regard and describe this as a sign of economic dynamism and growth. However, reality is different. They forget that there is a difference between population and human resources. There must be a balance between earning hands and consuming mouths. The present era is one of machines and technology. In this age of artificial intelligence and highly advanced technological tools, thinking minds have to a large extent replaced working hands. It is important to note that transforming population into human resources requires infrastructure, resources, and facilities. Population can become human resources only through arrangements and facilities related to nutrition, drinking water, healthcare, quality education, and skill development. Even developed countries cannot possess unlimited resources and facilities, let alone a developing country like India.
Agricultural land and its productive capacity, natural resources, and even clean water and air are limited. The interrelationship between lack of resources, rising crime and over population should also not be ignored. We are all aware of the vicious cycle of population growth, illiteracy, poverty, poor health, and environmental imbalance or ecological destruction. The lack of these facilities and the continuous pressure on resources have not only distorted human nature and character but have also damaged the balance of nature itself. Nature is humanity’s closest friend and companion, but excessive exploitation has turned it into a force of destruction. This is why natural disasters continue to occur. Environmental imbalance caused by excessive exploitation of nature by humans is the root cause of these disasters. Economist Thomas Robert Malthus had extensively discussed the relationship between population control and natural disasters.
India’s growing population is undoubtedly a major challenge. Today, India’s total population exceeds 1.46 billion, making it the world’s most populous country ahead of China. It is also noteworthy that India’s population density is nearly three times that of China. However, the time has now come for all Indians to seriously reflect upon this enormous problem and actively work toward its solution.
Only by maintaining proportional balance among geographical area, available resources and facilities, and population can a state provide healthcare, education, housing, employment, and social security to its citizens. It is the primary duty of a welfare state to provide these basic facilities. Only through access to such facilities can the dignity of citizens be restored. To ensure the value and dignity of human life, implementation of a comprehensive national population policy based on the principle of “Hum Do, Hamare Do” (“We Two, Ours Two”) is the real solution to the problem.
(The author is a Professor at Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi.)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
