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.

India Does Not Need a Single Language to Unite

Outlook India reports that an editorial published recently, to coincide with the Hindi Diwas celebrations, in the RSS organ Panchajanya says "Hindi has the potential to unite the country". The organization’s strong position to have Hindi, especially Sanskritized Hindi, as a single linguistic unifying factor for the whole of the Indian Union is quite well known. Ofcourse not everyone approves of the organization’s stance. Often, there are questions raised asking if Hindi is really the right choice for a link language or a ‘unifying language’ for India. As someone, who also disagrees with RSS’s stance I would want to address a more fundamental question here: does India really need a single language to unite?

What makes people think that India is not united now and that there is a need of a monotony to bind this vast landmass of one plus billion people together? Obviously, there is a ton of linguistic diversity, and one may argue that such linguistic and cultural differences may lead to eventual disintegration unless there is a single bond that ties them all together. But it is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Inducing a common language, and promoting its use extensively through education, administration, employment, financial services etc., will lead to that language acquiring a superior status over native languages. As this language becomes more powerful and begins occupying the registers of the native languages, those native languages will be severely restricted in use, especially in the public domain. Native language speakers will certainly raise objections to their language being gradually side-lined and this will inevitably lead to frictions. 

The editorial talks of how ‘efforts’ were made by some to create a rift between Hindi and ‘regional’ languages thus affecting the growth of Hindi. But when native language speakers face the loss of several registers to Hindi and realize their mother tongue being gradually pushed to a second grade status, resistance is expected. In fact it is the imposition of Hindi that has created an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust leading to opposition. It is not a deliberate attempt to manufacture dissent, not an impression created by pro-English language elements, nor is it a myth that is being perpetuated, as claimed by the editorial.

I am reminded of a statement in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights that talks about the factors affecting or leading to the violation of linguistic rights of peoples across the globe. The document first mentions the following as one of very critical factors from which linguistic communities need to be protected.

The age-old unifying tendency of the majority of states to reduce diversity and foster attitudes opposed to cultural plurality and linguistic pluralism.

States that perceive linguistic plurality or diversity as divisiveness will try to introduce a common linguistic factor so that it serves as an icon that all peoples of the entire state can associate with. Presumably, this induced common feature should help them transgress the pettiness of associating with ‘divisive’ factors. But as we have learnt from history such moves have only backfired. Pushing an alien tongue down the throats of an unsuspecting or unwilling people will lead to ill will and confrontations. On the other hand, promoting mutual respect towards one another’s languages and helping each language community use and develop their language without any sort of external meddling or interferences offer more opportunities to foster an environment of harmony and unity among language communities.

So, promoting Hindi as “"the symbol of Bharat” is a bad idea with respect to the integrity of the Indian Union. One language can never be the linguistic emblem of India. If there is one then it is linguistic diversity. More it is respected and fostered, stronger and more integrated will the Indian Union be.

With regards to the use of English still being prevalent in India the editorial says “English is not a language of our preference. It was imposed on us by British.” It is true that excepting a fraction of English educated people, most of India cannot speak or communicate in English effectively. Truly, it is not a language of India’s preference. But Hindi is not a language of India’s preference either. Except in states and regions where the language is spoken it is alien to most of India. The British imposed English. And now the Indian Union has been imposing Hindi for over six decades. To a non-Hindi speaker, both are imperialist in nature and not much different. Only that English is found to be a lesser evil owing to its usage in administration by the British for a few centuries in the past, its continued use today in India, and the emergence of English as a business language with the promise of better employment opportunities globally. In any case, given the options, a non-Hindi speaker would neither prefer English nor Hindi but would rather prefer his own mother tongue.

Strengthening Hindi will strengthen the Hindi speaking community. It does not necessarily strengthen the whole of India. One needs to strengthen each language equally, so that each strengthened language community will collectively lead to a strong India. And strengthening Hindi alone will inevitably tilt the balance of power in favour of Hindi speakers. This will have its repercussions too. Many native language communities have expressed opposition to the state of Hindi hegemony resulting from this tilt of balance of power. Unfortunately, their voices have always been suppressed calling them ‘parochial’, ‘chauvinistic’, ‘hate-mongering’, ‘fringe’ and what not.

Talking about the overall authority of English in the domain of law the editorial says “English is entrenched deeply in the Supreme Court functioning, file notings of bureaucracy and conduct of policy discussions, which is very dangerous”. True, this is not just a cause of inconvenience to Indians but in many cases may even result in denial of justice to common people who have poor or no knowledge of English. But imagine English being replaced with Hindi. What will this mean to a Kannadiga or a Tamilian or a Bengali? Needless to say, it is a worse off situation to non-Hindi speakers. It also raises the fundamental question of who the Indian Union really represents. The Indian Union should represent a Kannada speaker equally as it does a Hindi speaker. So, as a representative of Kannada speakers it is duty-bound to get the Supreme Court or any other public institution function in Kannada. And not just in Kannada, in all the widely spoken languages. That would be a fair representation.

Also, the editorial’s support to make Hindi as one of the official languages of the United Nations smacks of hypocrisy. When it wants Hindi to have an upper hand in the whole of India and makes no mention of granting official status to any of the other scheduled languages, how does it justify itself to support the official status to Hindi in the United Nations? Doesn’t this expose major fallacies in the organization’s idea of India, in which all of linguistic identities, except one, find themselves in a subordinated position? Why should non-Hindi speakers support such a hypocritical stance of the RSS? Why should they accept a lower-ranking position for themselves? 

In the past, many freedom fighters, considered the founding fathers of India, did back Hindi to be accorded the status of the national language, which would serve as a common link across India’s diverse linguistic landscape. Though India has time and again faced opposition from a few linguistic groups with respect to having Hindi as a common link language, it has been able to maintain a popular narrative that such a common language is indeed necessary for the purposes of ‘national integration’. But as observed by UNESCO itself, such attitudes not just undermine diversity but will also be counter-productive in achieving the desired result of integration. It is time the Indian Union, and outfits like the RSS, stop considering linguistic diversity as a bane to Indian unity. They should understand and appreciate linguistic diversity, and endorse provision of equal status and rights to all languages and its speakers, regardless of their numbers, territory, or influence.