Below Replacement-Level TFR of Non-Hindi States – Why the Union Government Must Act Now

Krishna Gopal, joint secretary of the RSS, in a briefing to the media has expressed concerns over impending 'demographic imbalance' in India. Hence, he has urged the Union Government to reformulate the National Population Policy. Here is an excerpt from the press report in DNA that had covered this in more detail:

The policy, he said, aimed at achieving a stable but healthy population by 2045 by optimising the fertility rate to the ideal figure of 2.1 total fertility rate (TFR) and it was expected that it would be applied uniformly to all sections of the society as this aim was in accordance with the national resources and expected future requirements.

However, the National Fertility & Health Survey (NFHS) of 2005-06 and the 0-6 age group population percentage data of religion in Census 2011, both indicate that the TFR and child ratio "is uneven across the religions", he said. 

Krishna Gopal is right in saying that the fertility rates should be uniform across all sections of the society, and uneven TFRs may lead to serious demographic imbalances. If India aims to achieve the ideal fertility rate of 2.1, it is necessary that all sections of the society uniformly achieve fertility rates of 2.1.

While the RSS’s concern for uneven TFR and the resulting demographic imbalance is based on religious parameters, it is equally important to consider regional and linguistic parameters in the population equation. For, the Union of India is not only diverse in terms of religions but also linguistically and culturally diverse, and such consideration is important. So, let us consider the past TFRs (2007), TFR goals for the eleventh five year plan (2007-12), and the latest available TFR data of some of the states of the Indian Union.

State	Fertility Rate 2007	Eleventh Five Year Plan Target (2012)	Fertility Rate 2013
West Bengal	2.2	1.8	1.6
Punjab	2.2	1.8	1.7
Tamil Nadu	1.8	1.7	1.7
Andhra Pradesh	2.1	1.8	1.8
Maharashtra	2.2	1.9	1.8
Karnataka	2.3	1.8	1.9
Gujarat	2.8	2.2	2.3
Madhya Pradesh	3.7	2.6	2.9
Uttar Pradesh	4.4	3.0	3.1
Bihar	4.3	3.0	3.4

 

As can be seen from the above table, many states were given TFR goals well below 2.1 for the eleventh five-year plan. On what basis did the Planning Commission set TFR targets below 2.1, to states like West Bengal, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka etc.? Was not the Planning Commission aware that such targets are unscientific and can lead to large demographic imbalances when it set them? Didn’t the planning commission know that TFR below 2.1 is suicidal to any community? Or was it deliberate?

Incompetence or deliberation, such an act by a ‘national’ institute of such repute will be interpreted as an unethical one and will lead to mistrust in India’s federal setup.

It seems, the twelfth five year plan (2012-2017) too has not considered the state-wise uneven TFRs, especially those falling below the replacement levels. In reviewing the goals accomplished in the eleventh five year plan, the twelfth plan makes an interesting observation –

Replacement level TFR, namely 2.1, has been attained by nine states. High fertility remains a problem in seven States…

In reality, those nine states namely, West Bengal, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir, have not just achieved a replacement level TFR of 2.1, but they are actually dangerously slipping below that level. And this is all by plan.

The twelfth plan does not alarm these states of their dropping TFR levels, but has set an overall target for India at 2.1, which it aims to achieve by 2017. On the reduction of India’s TFR to 2.1 the planning commission says:

 India is on track for the achievement of a TFR target of 2.1 by 2017, which is necessary to achieve net replacement level of unity, and realise the long cherished goal of the National Health Policy, 1983 and National Population Policy of 2000

How will this be achieved? As is evident, it will not be achieved by maintaining a healthy TFR of 2.1 across all member states and demography of the Union. It will be achieved by further slumping the TFRs of the Kannadigas, the Tamils, the Marathis, the Bengalis and the Punjabis, whose fertility rates are already well below replacement levels. Whereas the population of states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh will continue to grow.

Just last week, China announced a shift from its decades-old one-child policy to a two-child policy in the wake of decreasing TFR and ageing population. If RSS is sincerely concerned about all the peoples of India, represented by diverse languages and cultures, it should also consider uneven and falling TFR levels of the above mentioned regions seriously. It is its political associate, the BJP, which currently holds the reins of power at New Delhi. So, the RSS should to take up the issue with the Government of India. At the same time, the NDA government should earnestly work towards getting the fertility rate of these non-Hindi states upwards to 2.1.

Devolution to States Should Be Bharatiya Approach to Development

 "Perhaps most importantly, the institution must adhere to the tenet that while incorporating positive influences from the world, no single model can be transplanted  from outside into the Indian scenario. We need to find our own strategy for growth.  The new institution has to zero in on what will work in and for India.   It will be a Bharatiya approach to development".

The above is an excerpt from the press note of NITI Aayog, the institution that replaces the Planning Commission. It is true that successful approaches to development and progressive economic policies cannot be replicated across the globe. A model that works for one county may not fit another. The social challenges, the economic challenges and priorities are vastly different. Policies should also consider various sociocultural traits, and should be designed such that they not only help achieve development in the given cultural setting but also minimize any conflicts between development models and the cultural complexion.

Given this, it is obvious that India is different in itself and development models and policies that work in, let us say, Italy, or Germany, surely cannot be replicated here. Countries can learn from the accumulated experience of others and frame models and policies that suit their own characteristics. But will a county-wide policy work for India?

India has always tried to hold power at its Centre and has devolved very less to the states. The number of subjects that the states have jurisdiction over have been going down and the number that have moved to the Concurrent and the Union lists have increased. Whether it is finance and banking, railways, insurance, or aviation, policies are defined by the Union. This, needless to say, has resulted in approaches, often misaligned with local needs and priorities. It is being said that the NITI Aayog is setup with the objective of involving states in economic-policy making, in the name of ‘Co-operative Federalism’, but unless the states have enough autonomy to plan and device their own policies and schemes, the result will be the delivery of progress (from the Union) lacking any synchronization with local development needs.

Just the way Italy and Germany are different, Kerala and Haryana, for example, are quite different. Beti Bachao Abhiyan may be very relevant to Haryana, while it makes very little sense to Kerala. The Chief Minister of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, remarked that both Beti Bachao Abhiyan and Jan Dhan Yojana are irrelevant to Kerala as the state had already achieved high standards in the areas that these two schemes are devised to address.

Kerala, historically, has had a healthy sex ratio. In fact, its sex ratio went up from 1058 females to 1000 males in 2001 to 1084 females to 1000 males in 2011. Though Haryana bettered from 861 in 2001 to 877 in 2011 the state’s numbers are definitely worrying. The state Government of Haryana would be best placed to understand the true nature and the intensity of the issue, and address it accordingly. The design of the program, the kind of campaigns required to popularize and implement it, the challenges and hurdles, and the required funds are all better known to the state than to the Union. So, it is far better to leave the design and implementation of such programs to the states than have the Union roll out projects of such scale uniformly across the country that are often irrelevant to many regions and states.

Hence, in different aspects of development like education, health care and other human development indices, infrastructure, industries and entrepreneurship, agriculture, sociocultural issues and various other parameters, each state is unique in itself. A top-down approach to policy-making can be regressive, and may often work against the objectives of organized development. There can be no single ‘Bharatiya’ approach to development much like there can be no one model for the whole world. The Union should play the role of a facilitator to the states, rather than getting further into the centralizing business in an already centralized scheme of things if India should aspire for a healthy, sustainable, and all-round development.




(Image source: thehindubusinessline)