WHY POPULATION POLICY IS THE NEED OF HOUR

 

WHY POPULATION POLICY IS THE NEED OF HOUR

                                  ANIL K KHAWARE

                                  ADVOCATE

When Charles Darwin in 1859 had propounded the theory of evolution in his Book “Origin of Species”, hardly, the assumption, then, though, based on sound scientific analysis may have found resonance, as it does, now. The life begets life is an adage. The reproductive cycle and life span differs from species to species. The unicellular like protozoans, bicellular Porifers to multi cellular, coelenterates, molluscs, Annelids etc are non-chordates or invertebrates, whereas, Amphibians, Reptiles, echinoderms and chordates belongs to Chordata having backbones. Even amongst chordate, “Mammals” are the most developed class. The human being, even amongst Mammals are supposedly the most evolved. The human i.e “­Homo sapiens” are the most evolved having emerged from Homo erectus, & neanderthal man in the evolutionary cycle.

The landmass then and the landmass now so far as per unit human habitation is concerned has vastly shrunken. The shrinking of land mass is not due to reduction of land area, rather, it is due to increase of biomass and humans being comprising of significant proportion in that. This has even lead to competition i.e inter specific struggle and due to deforestation the fauna of forests makes their way in human habitat and Public Roads as well leading to struggle. The humans, due to their strong brain and thinking prowess has earned the pivotal place in the universe. However, even the perception of human mind and thinking prowess could not create equilibrium and humans are overpopulated. The intra-specific struggle for existence is also conspicuous.

The Asian continent in general and Indian sub-continent in particular has vast human population. China and India comprise of about half of the global population. The human mind failed to limit its own population and social fabric, social strata, custom and economics has swayed the human instinct. The result is that whereas in India, around 1970, the population was hardly Forty (40) Crores and now after 50 years the same is 130 Crore and as such the population is tripled in the last Fifty (5o) years . No amount of wherewithal and expertise could possibly cater to the need of such exponential growth in population. The resources are finite and cannot be multiplied with ease. Thus, the check in population growth is an absolute must.

Theory by Malthus: A worth watching glimpse

It will be unfair if the discussion does not feature the theory of Thomas Malthus, who may have inspirited his fellow Brits Charles Darwin as the and Alfred Russel Wallace had subsequently worked out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus's observation. The work of Darwin considered as magnum opus, comes to the conclusion that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16 …), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5 …), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution. The theory of “origin of species” based on survival of fittest instinct was thus formulated.

The principle encapsulates the projection of population growth and as per the formula the food production shall remain finite and may not be a match to the pace of growth in the human population. The net result may also lead to epidemic, disease, famine, war, and calamity. It is believed that whereas  the food supply may grow in arithmetical term, but population may grow in geometrical term resulting into geometric growth in population.

 In accordance with the Malthusian principles, the population would double in 25 years at this rate. However, the food supply grows at a slower rate than the population. The food supply, thus, will be limited in a few years. It is the shortage of food supply that will be indicative of increasing population. In such a situation equilibrium is lost. Lack of enough food shall lead to survival crisis  Moreover, if extreme situation is counted such as epidemics, wars, starvation, famines and other natural calamities may lead to check in population growth  Of course, man made checks cannot be discounted.

Malthus Theory: Flip side

On the flip side of the ladder are the policies derived predicated on the belief in the inevitability of a Malthusian collapse. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” Malthus gloomily predicted. His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations' family size, including forced sterilizations.

Nature has its own ways of keeping a check on the increasing population. It brings the population level to the level of the available food supply. The positive checks include famines, earthquakes, flood, epidemics, wars, etc. Nature plays up when the population growth goes out of hand.

 

In his book The Evolution of Everything (Harper, 2015), evolutionary biologist and journalist Matt Ridley sums up the policy succinctly: “Better to be cruel to be kind.” The belief that “those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak” led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science.

POPULATION POLICY WITH INDIAN PRISM: MISSION PARIVAR VIKAS

After India won freedom, the Government had unveiled the family planning program and as a sequel to that in 1970s a policy “Do Ya Tin Bachhe bas” and all the hallmarks and boards used to conspicuously display the prescription. Over the years, however, the family planning programs had unveiled various other measures. What is however of utmost importance, is that the need of the  control of population was part of vision of the successive government.

As there has been wide regional variations in the Total fertility rate (TFR), in 2016 the Government of India launched Mission Parivar Vikas (MPV) to address these regional imbalances. It aimed at affording intensive and improved family planning services in 146 high fertility districts and has widened the choice of contraceptives available through the public health system by adding three new methods. This is also in sync with India’s commitments at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994. It is felt that issue of population should be dealt with a human rights approach and gender equality and role of women being the paramount consideration. It was felt that women education and empowerment shall go in long way to achieve the objective.

The access to quality family planning services, and especially spacing methods of contraception is a must. However, budgetary allocations for family planning activities do not align with India’s demographic  needs. It has remained at 4 per cent of the National Health Mission budget since 2014-15 and only 60 per cent of the allocated budgets are being utilized. Further, both allocations and spending are skewed towards female sterilizations (75per cent) and only 3-4 per cent focus on spacing methods.

It is axiomatic that whereas, India was the first country to adopt a family planning program, in 1952 itself and still after about Fifty-Three (53) years, we are still looking for a viable policy to checkmate population It is really intriguing that  the country is still growing by about 16 million people each year and at this pace we are set to overtake China in 2045 by reaching a population of 1.5 billion.

The National Population Policy 2000 aimed at bringing down the total fertility rate (TFR) to a reasonable level by 2010 so as to ensure stable population by 2045 , while also ensuring inter alia sustainable economic growth, social development, and environmental protection. These objectives was not practical and at least was not backed with such defining measures necessary in its context. The 2000 policy was merely indicative and bordered on appealing the public. It envisaged achieving replacement-level TFR (about two children per woman). The same was contemplated on the premise of releasing promotional and motivational measures and education the people relating to quality life.. The policy lost more of its sheen as no mechanism was rolled out to achieve this. The proposed policy though also relates to various norms such as better management of public health, education, empowerment of women etc.

One well-publicized aspect of the National Population Policy 2000 concerned to the allocation of seats in the Indian parliament. The policy had recommended freezing the current number of seats for another 25 years to avoid penalizing states that have complied with previous population policies. It is really bizarre if the perspective of compliance it is seen. We know that the last allocation of seats to states and union territories was undertaken on the basis of the 1971 census and it was due to be revised after 2001 census. The interesting aspect that emerges is that if it were revised then, the number of seats allocated to the state of Tamil Nadu, which has reduced fertility, would most probably have gone down from 39 to 33 seats. Meanwhile, the number of seats allocated to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which could not check the growth rate, would have risen from 85 to 120. This anomaly is to be properly deliberated, calibrated and only then could have been acted upon.  Thus, it rest there.

Another vital recommendation of the policy is the formation of a National Commission on Population to guide and review implementation. The policy also recommended formation of similar commissions by each state and union territory. Of course, the approach was decentralization and also to reach to villages in micro level for effective implementation.

In addition, some of the measures may be open to misuse. For example, an incentive of 500 rupees at the time of birth of a girl child and awards of 500 rupees to Mothers who have their first child after they turn 19 appear to be unworkable for a simple reason that we hardly have a system in place for effective registration of each births and deaths The health insurance for couples below the poverty line who undergo sterilization and incentives is prone to catapult into major concern , given the social fabric that we are in. No doubt, stabilizing population is integral to a sustainable development.

The success of the population policy, if it is implemented, will be contingent on option and right to exercise option available to female. It is no secret that women in India hardly decides their reproductive behavior. Although various contraceptive methods are for women, but many of them have no say in the prevalent milieu. The proposed policy entailing focus on information and education campaigns on men to promote small families and to raise awareness of the benefits of birth spacing, better health and nutrition, and better education may have some positive impact, nonetheless.

PROPOSED POPULATION BILL 2020

The Population Regulation Bill, 2019’, introduced by Member of Parliament Shri Rakesh Sinha in the Rajya Sabha on July 12, 2019 calls for punitive action against people with more than two living children, including disqualification from being an elected representative, denial of financial benefits and reduction in benefits under the public distribution system.

The proposed bill is a sequel to the efforts made in 2000, but with no tangible result. The purpose of the bill is to control the population growth of India. ... The 2020 bill proposes to introduce a two-child policy per couple and aims to incentivize its adoption through various measures such as educational benefits, taxation cuts, home loans, free healthcare, and better employment opportunities.

The bill also suggests that government employees should give an undertaking that they will not procreate more than two children. While the Population Foundation of India (PFI) welcomes the renewed focus on policies for population stabilisation, we believe that the approach suggested in the bill is misguided and a misreading of India’s demographic trajectory.

Data of the Government of India, as well as international organisation including the United Nations, depicts a very different story. While India’s population is projected to overtake China’s in less than a decade as per the UN `World Population Prospects 2019’ report released in June 2020, the new projections for India are the lowest since the UN began these forecasts. The reason is the sharp decline in India’s population growth rates over 10 years from 2001 to 2011. Though, it appears unfathomable, still, if true it is noteworthy. According to Census 2011, the growth rate of population has declined from 21.5 per cent during 1991-2001 to 17.7 per cent during 2001-2011, across all religious groups. This can be taken with a pinch of salt, though.

We are on course to achieving population stabilisation with a national Total Fertility Rate (TFR) – the total number of children born or likely to be born to a woman in her lifetime) of 2.2, close to the replacement level fertility of 2.1. In addition, the Desired Fertility Rate is 1.8, which indicates that women in India prefer to have no more than two children. It is worth mentioning that 24 of the Indian States and Union Territories have already reached the replacement level TFR of 2.1 by empowering women and by affording better education and health care facilities. This has been achieved through the government’s actions based on the National Population Policy (NPP) of 2000, which sought to fulfill the unmet need for contraceptives and services by advocating a small family norm without adopting any coercive measures.

The proposed `Population Regulation Bill, 2019’, introduced in Rajya Sabha seeks for punitive action against people with more than two living children and deprive them of all government services. Of course, this is likely to impact the poor in various ways.

The proposed bill introduced by the Member of  Rajya Sabha has contemplated disqualification from being an elected representative, denial of financial benefits and reduction in benefits under the Public Distribution System (PDS) for people having more than two children. The bill also suggests that government employees should give an undertaking that they will not procreate more than two children.

Disincentives through denial of benefits under anti-poverty schemes such as subsidised food grains through the Public Distribution System (PDS) will impact the poorest and most marginalized sections of the population and worsen their impoverishment. The Economic Survey of 2018 points out that ‘son meta preference’ – the desire to have a male child – has resulted in 21 million “unwanted girls” in India. Imposing a two-child norm will add to the burden on women, by way of sex-selective practices and forced sterilisations. This could result in a setback to population stabilization efforts, as it happened during the emergency period in the mid-1970s.

Population Foundation of India calls upon policymakers, Members of Parliament and the government to reaffirm India’s commitment towards rights-based approach to family planning. PFI appeals to the government to raise budgetary allocations in order to ensure expanded contraceptive choices for delaying and spacing births and better access and quality of health care for young people. This will not only lead to improved health, but will also visibly improve educational outcomes, raise productivity and workforce participation, and in turn result in increased household incomes and economic growth for the country.

A private members bill was also introduced by the member of Shiv Sena in February 2020 thereby proposing incentives to promote a two- child norm and seeking constitution amendment to introduce a new provision to incentivizing those adhering to a two-child. The bill has also proposed to amend Article 47A of the Constitution. The proposed amendment shall be a sunder:

“The state shall promote small family norms by offering incentives in taxes, employment, education etc to its people who keep their family limited to two children and shall withdraw every concession from and deprive such incentives to those not adhering to small family norm, to keep the growing population under control.”

The same is also partly and in broad contour relates to the private Bill presented by Shri Rakesh Sinha in 2019. Needless to say, that the new policy is a need of hour, if the progress of wheel is to run full circle.

REMARK 

The population policy and stern measures to contain population is the need of the hour. Though, it is to be factored, if disincentives through denial of benefits under anti-poverty schemes such as subsidized food grains through the PDS will impact the poorest and most marginalized sections of the population and worsen their impoverishment. If that is so, rather than achieving the objective and negating the ill, the country may face another. The government has to unveil a sustainable and workable population policy.  No doubt there will be doubting Thomas’ if and when the policy is rolled out. India can ill afford such population growth which is exponential and remedial wholesome measures is a need of the hour. In order to achieve sustainable growth and to alleviate poverty as a long term measure, the policy should be in place and the same is required to be strictly implemented. The setback in short term should not be deprecated, if overall goal is likely to be achieved. The treatment of malaise may lead to pain, but if it leads to further gain, the country should embrace it.