<A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/mar/26cens.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/mar/26cens.htm</A> <BR>India clocks 1.02 billion <P> India has touched a population of over 1.02 billion as of<BR> March one this year, according to new census figures<BR> released on Monday. <P> India's share of the world population is now 16.7%<BR> even as the country registered a fall in its decadal<BR> growth rate by 2.52% and an improvement in its sex<BR> ratio and literacy rate. <P> At 0000 hours on March one, 2001, the country's<BR> population stood at 1027,015,247, comprising 531,277,078 men and<BR> 495,738,169 women, Registrar General and Census Commissioner J K<BR> Banthia told reporters releasing the provisional population results of the<BR> Census of India 2001 which concluded on Feb 28. <P> With this, India has become the second country in the world after China to<BR> cross the one billion population mark. <P> The number of literate people in the country too has gone up significantly<BR> comprising three-fourths of the male population and more than half of the<BR> female population while for the first time since independence, the absolute<BR> number of illiterates have shown a significant decline. <P> Uttar Pradesh continued to be the most populous state in the country with<BR> 16.17% of India's population followed by Maharashtra (9.42%) and Bihar<BR> (8.07%). <P> West Bengal is the most densely populated state with 904 persons living per<BR> sq km followed by Bihar with 880. <P> The sex ratio (number of females per 1000 males) is 933 females per 1000<BR> males, which is an improvement of six points over 927 recorded in 1991<BR> census, Banthia said. <P> The literacy rates among the population seven years and above for the<BR> country stood at 65.38% and the corresponding figures for males and<BR> females were 75.85% and 54.16% respectively. <P> Kerala continued its lead in the literacy race with 90.92% followed by<BR> Mizoram (88.49%) and Lakshadweep (87.52%) while Bihar recorded the<BR> lowest literacy rate of 47.53% in the country, the Census Commissioner said.<P> Kerala also led the nation in recording the lowest population growth rate of<BR> 9.42% followed by Tamil Nadu (11.19%) and Andhra Pradesh (13.86%),<BR> which also registered the sharpest decline of 10.34% among all the major<BR> states. <P> The highest sex ratio of 1058 women per 1000 men has also been reported<BR> from Kerala while Haryana recorded the lowest sex ratio of 861 among the<BR> major states. <P> "The percentage decadal growth of the country as a whole has declined from<BR> 23.86% during 1981-1991 to 21.34% during 1991-2001, thus registering a<BR> fall in its decadal growth rate by 2.52% points, which is the sharpest decline<BR> since independence," the Census Commissioner said. <P> Significantly, India added about 181 million persons between 1991-2001,<BR> which is more than the estimated population of Brazil, the fifth most populous<BR> country in the world while the 166 million population of Uttar Pradesh is<BR> more than the estimated population of Pakistan, Banthia said. <P> Banthia said the final population results were expected in another 21 months<BR> as each and every village had to be covered while the urban trends would be<BR> available by May this year.
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
- Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Good news all around. However I am concerned about the ration of men to women and see that there are 36 million more men than women. Is the GOI planning to allow more immigration of women to cater for the 36 million lonely men. Russians and south east asian women perhaps. Seriously.
The shortage of women is good for population control. Of course there has been a gender bias in the Indian population for several decades if not the entire 20th century. With education and literacy the bias towards premature termination of female fetuses will eventually end.<P>The absolute drop in the number of illiterates is of course a hopeful sign. As a percentage it has been dropping ever since independence. At the turn of the 20th century the literacy percentage was around 6%. Considering the obstacles, the increase in literacy is creditable and it appears the light at the end of the tunnel is now visible.<P>But the fundamental problem still remains the same - too many people and too few facilities to house, educate and feed them. The underperforming sections of the population will continue to be a drag on the economy for several more decades.<P>Kaushal<p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 27-03-2001).]
From the post by Acharya:<P>"Uttar Pradesh continued to be the most populous state in the country with 16.17% of India's population followed by Maharashtra (9.42%) and Bihar(8.07%)." <P>"Kerala continued its lead in the literacy race with 90.92% followed by Mizoram (88.49%) and Lakshadweep (87.52%) while Bihar recorded the lowest literacy rate of 47.53% in the country, the Census Commissioner said.<P>Kerala also led the nation in recording the lowest population growth rate of 9.42% followed by Tamil Nadu (11.19%) and Andhra Pradesh (13.86%), which also registered the sharpest decline of 10.34%"<P>I wonder how we are going to handle "re-districting" / evaluating parliamentary seat distribution to states based on these new population data. If I remember right, our brave politicians have frozen the current legislative (seat) distribution for another decade or so.<P>Given the iron will of our politicians, Mulayamland and Lalooland will be rewarded with more legislative power in the form of increased seats. So, states that have worked hard to contain population growth and increase literacy will see their marginal status in the union unchanged. The south as always will get the shaft.<P>Rather than confront this issue head-on, the easy way out is the creation of more states. Smaller states with the same apalling human development indices are created, while the states that are trying to make a difference languish as political backwaters.<P>Thank god for coalition politics. If the BJP or Congress had a majority on their own (primarily from their Northern bases), none of them will give a damn about the South and the East. "Dirty" federalism. But it works.
what about the increase in literacy rate?i am happy to note that 75% of men and 54% of women are educated.that is like creating a literate nation,a nation where people are aware of what are their rights.... surely things can only get better.<BR>also pleased to note,a fall in population growth rate by about 2 1/2 percent in the last decade.its not enough but still shows that here are a nation of people who are responsive to the problem their society faces and willing to respond positively.i know some of you might laugh at this.... yes! in the village and in some muslim communities of some states we still have population explosion.but as we make more and more people literate we will begin to educate our folks....<BR>also although the gender ratio is still bad...its a lot better than the stats in the last decade.<BR>all in all,it means in the last decade not only has the country's economy grown,the country's profile more visible in the international arena,at last we are able to address the core issues like population explosion,gender ratios,literacy.. which will have tremendous ramifications.....<BR>TRULY INDIA IS A SLEEPING GIANT WOKEN UP SUDDENLY IN 1991! <BR>SATYA MEVA JAYATHE<BR>TRUTH SHALL PREVAIL!<BR>JAI. <p>[This message has been edited by jaikiran (edited 27-03-2001).]
This rise in the population sounds very scary to me. Forget the %age statistics, since the landmass is a static absolute measure, the focus should be on absolute number so far as population is concerned. Going at this rate, can the land support this population? What is the cut-off population level? Finally, do the members think they have seen increase in govt. spending on family planning activities? I don't seem to see as much hoardings and ads with family planning messages these days, as I used to say, during Emergency.
It is unlikely that the Indian population will stabilize below 1.5 billion(no matter how successful family planning is from now on). So we better get used to that number by about 2030 (rising at the rate of 16 million per year). The clock is definitely ticking.<P>The important question is it ticking at a lower rate. Till now it is not. But i am looking for silver linings. I am heartened by the fact that the rate of growth of AP is almost the same as that of Tamilnadu. Now AP is almost as backward as UP is in the north, with a similar mix of demographics. If AP has been succesful , there is still hope for the BIMARU states to get their act together.<P>Sujit is right that the absolute rate of growth(and not just the percentage) must drop first and then we can talk about negative growth. But the mathematics is inexorable, when you have exponential growth to begin with, one must first stop the acceleration before you can reduce the velocity (calculus 101).<P>Kaushal
Studies have shown that a rise in GDP has the most direct correlation to slowing population growth than family planning.<BR>Does anybody remember those "Hum Do, Hamare Do" ads ? Does the GOI still peddle those out ? Do we still have a GOI dept that deals with population control ?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babui:<BR><B>Studies have shown that a rise in GDP has the most direct correlation to slowing population growth than family planning.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Its called "Growth of Income and Improvement in Standard of Living is the best contraceptive"
Demographics is the biggest obstacle to slowing of the birth rate. Currently it is estimated that there are 400 million below the age of 14 years and by 2030 there is going to be another 300 million added. <BR>They are in the reproductive age group for the next 20 years.<BR>But increasing the PC income level to $1000+ and creating a safetly net ( social security ) in the next 10 years it is possible to reduce the birth rate substantially. Can the entire political spectrum understand this.
<B> The literacy rates among the population seven years and above for the country stood at 65.38% and the Corresponding figures for males and females were 75.85% and 54.16% respectively. <BR></B><P>Any predictions about when India will reach above 90% literacy reates? or state wise predictions? Really proud to see the literacy figures raising, this might also add to the slowing of population growth.<P>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by acharya:<BR><B>Demographics is the biggest obstacle to slowing of the birth rate. Currently it is estimated that there are 400 million below the age of 14 years and by 2030 there is going to be another 300 million added. <BR>They are in the reproductive age group for the next 20 years.<BR>But increasing the PC income level to $1000+ and creating a safetly net ( social security ) in the next 10 years it is possible to reduce the birth rate substantially. Can the entire political spectrum understand this.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Acharya: you have hit the issue on its head, it is about economics.<P>The second point is that change in literacy/population control issues would be generational. While literacy rates are still 65%, the gross enrollment of children in the relevant age group for primary education is 100.0%. (Source: 6. World Bank, World Dev. Index, 2000 (WDI2000), <A HREF="www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2000/pdfs/tab2_10.pdf">www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2000/pdfs/tab2_10.pdf</A>. Anecdotal evidence also suggests exactly the same. As part of my training in my company, I was in Etah, Central UP, living in a village for two months (with a family belonging to that village), working on projects at the grassroots level. The heartening thing was that every parent wanted their children to be educated and every child was going to school. (and this in one of the most backward districts of one of the BIMARU states). Therefore, the next couple of decades are likely to see an explosion in the literacy rates as the generation which has illiterates dies out. <P>The same logic applies to population - the key predictor for future population growth rates is total fertility rates. Even though absolute growth rates did not decline too much till this census, the total fertility rate has been steadily declining in every census after independence. At the same time, death rates were also declining and hence population rates were not declining and even growing. However, the rapid decline in death rates has reduced substantially now (due to its being at a relatively good level now). Thus, within a generation, there is likely to be very rapid decline in population growth. (The logic is easy to understand by seeing that TN's or Kerala's population continues to grow even though Total Fertility Rate is below the replacement level of 2. However, the decline in pop. growth is likely to be very rapid in the coming two decades).<P>As far as the gender ratio is concerned, the situation has not been reached where supply-demand economics would kick in (if the number of women go too low, their demand would exceed supply and parents would stop wanting only male children.). That is because women live longer and are significantly younger than men when they get married. With the current sex-ratio, there is no excess demand for females yet. (See an interesting analysis on this by Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar in the TOI, Jan 26, 1997 - unfortunately not in the archives).<p>[This message has been edited by Sridhar (edited 30-03-2001).]
<A HREF="http://www.economictimes.com/today/07lead02a.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.economictimes.com/today/07lead02a.htm</A> <BR>Bihar’s like Congo & no bottom’s in sight<P>Excellant report on per capita/GDP across different regions and states <A HREF="http://www.etintelligence.com/ETRB/ecotrack/ecotrackapr.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://www.etintelligence.com/ETRB/ecotrack/ecotrackapr.pdf</A> <P>
Narayan, Thanks for the census site. I checked a few days ago, but it had nothing then. It has something now, though some 2001 census pages are still under construction. <P>I have done some number crunching based on the 2001 census figures and am happy to share the analysis with you. I was interested in determining which states are over represented in the Lok Sabha and which are under represented, and by how much. I believe I know now. So here goes.<P><OL TYPE=1><P><LI>The first item in the list that follows is the name of the state/union territory.<P><LI>The second item is the 2001 population in thousands. <P><LI> The third item in the list is the actual number of seats the state has in the Lok Sabha. <P><LI> The fourth item is the number of seats that the state "should" be allocated, based on the 2001 population. This item merits some explanation and hence an elaboration follows. The total 2001 census population is approximately 1,027,015,000. There are 543 Lok Sabha seats. So the average population per seat is 1,027,015,000 divided by 543 i.e. 1,891,372 persons per seat. For example, Andhra Pradesh has a 2001 population of 75,728,000. So its "fair" quota of seats is 75,728,000 divided by 1,891,372 i.e. 40.04.<P><BR><LI> The fifth item in the list is the difference between actual seats (refer to item 3) and "fair" seats (refer to item 4). A positive difference implies that the state is over represented in the Lok Sabha. A negative difference implies that the state is under represented. The magnitude of the difference reflects the extent to which the state is over or under represented. Being a bloody accountant, I performed the following checks that are necessary (but not sufficient) for the calculations to make sense. The total of all such differences (across all states) must add up to zero. The total of "fair" seats as calculated in item 4, must add up to 543 - the actual number of seats. The total population (item 2) must add up to 1,027,015,000. They do.<P></OL><P>Without further ado, here is the list.<P>SOUTH<P>Andhra Pradesh 75,728 ; 42 ; 40.04 ; 1.96 <P>Karnataka 52,734 ; 28 ; 27.88 ; 0.12<P>Kerala 31,839 ; 20 ; 16.83 ; 3.17<P>Tamil Nadu 62,111 ; 39 ; 32.84 ; 6.16<P><BR>WEST<P><BR>Gujarat 50,597 ; 26 ; 26.75 ; -0.75<P>Maharashtra 96,752 ; 48 ; 51.15 ; -3.15<P><BR>THE RICH NORTH<P>Punjab 24,289 ; 13 ; 12.84 ; 0.16<P>Haryana 21,083 ; 10 ; 11.15 ; -1.15 <P>Delhi 13,783 ; 7 ; 7.29 ; -0.29<P><BR>THE POOR COW BELT<P>Rajasthan 56,473 ; 25 ; 29.86 ; -4.86<P>Uttar Pradesh 166,053 ; 80 ; 87.79 ; -7.79<P>Bihar 82,879 ; 40 ; 43.82 ; -3.82 <P>Madhya Pradesh 60.385 ; 29 ; 31.93 ; -2.93<P>Chattisgarh 20,796 ; 11, 11.00 ; 0.00 (Exact! )<P>Jharkhand 26,909 ; 14 ; 14.23 ; -0.23<P>Uttaranchal 8,480 ; 5 ; 4.48 ; 0.52<P> <BR>EAST<P>West Bengal 80,221 ; 42 ; 42.41 ; -0.41<P>Orissa 36,707 ; 21 ; 19.41 ; 1.59 <P>Assam 26,638 ; 14 ; 14.08 ; -0.08<P>SMALLER STATES/UNION TERRITORIES<P>Arunachal 1,091 ; 2 ; 0.58 ; 1.42<P>Goa 1,344 ; 2 ; 0.71 ; 1.29<P>Himachal 6,077 ; 4 ; 3.21 ; 0.79<P>J&K 10,070 ; 6 ; 5.32 ; 0.68<P>Manipur 2,389 ; 2 ; 1.26 ; 0.74<P>Meghalaya 2,306 ; 2 ; 1.22 ; 0.78<P>Mizoram 891 ; 1 ; 0.47 ; 0.53<P>Nagaland 1,989 ; 1 ; 1.05 ; -0.05<P>Sikkim 540 ; 1 ; 0.29 ; 0.71<P>Tripura 3,191 ; 2 ; 1.69 ; 0.31 <P>And & Nic 356 ; 1 ; 0.19 ; 0.81 <P>Chandigarh 901 ; 1 ; 0.48 ; 0.52 <P>Dadra and NH 220 ; 1 ; 0.12 ; 0.88<P>Daman, Diu 158 ; 1 ; 0.08 ; 0.92<P>Lakshadweep 61 ; 1 ; 0.03 ; 0.97<P>Pondicherry 974 ; 1 ; 0.51 ; 0.49<P>Whew ! That was truly a labor of love. Let me know if you find any errors, and I would be happy to edit the post.<P>Now that the accountant has provided the data, the cool MBA types can begin the analysis. Th easy comments<P><UL TYPE=SQUARE><BR><LI> My priors were that Orissa (presumption about birth rates) and Assam (presumption about migration from Bangladesh) would be under represented. Orissa is actually over represented and Assam is only slightly under represented.<P><LI> Predictably, all smaller states/union territories (except Nagaland) are over represented.<P><LI> Maharashtra is under represented. Presumably because of migration into Bombay and other industrial areas.<P><LI> The cow belt is under represented while the south is over represented. <P><LI> Karnataka's over representation is small presumably because its birth rates have not declined compared to its southern neighbors, and also because of migration into B'lore.<P></UL><P><p>[This message has been edited by Imtiaz Ahmed (edited 07-04-2001).]
IMHO, an informative article from the September 12, 2000 edition of "The Hindu" on delimitation of constituencies.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/09/12/stories/13120462.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2000/09/12/stories/13120462.htm</A> <P>Acharya, thanks for the links on estimated state per capita income figures. Tamil Nadu's growth has been impressive in the 1990s. So is West Bengal's. Would people knowledgeable about Bengal like to comment?<P> <p>[This message has been edited by Imtiaz Ahmed (edited 07-04-2001).]
Imtiaz,<P>We have already gone over the Bengal scenario. While it is true that the kind of poverty that exists in Bihar or Orissa is absent in Bengal and we also do not have the kind of disparities that is there in Mh and Guj - supposedly rich states with a great deal of poverty in certain regions, there has been no visible industrial activity in the last decade as compared to the leading industrial states. Do we you have the latest figures from Bengal??<P>I think the most scary part for Bengal that can be obtained is the population density. This shows that Bengal continues to draw people from Bihar, Orissa, Bangladesh and Nepal. It is surrounded by regions with extreme poverty and this is drawing them into Bengal. Without these immgrants Bengal will probably have very high literacy rates and very low population growth figures.<P>I think the rearrangement of parliamentary and assembly seats have been frozen till 2015 or is it 2025. I do not support rearranging seats till a steady population level has been reached. I think many communities and caste groups believe that the road to political power is through numbers and breeding more. Giving them that opportunity will only force other caste groups and communities to breed more. I believe that one of the reasons why BIMARU states have not been able to make progress in population control despite abject poverty is due to this reason. Those who have some experience of the interiors of UP and Bihar and how they function will know what I am saying. So my recommendation will be to wait for a few more decades. As can be seen from Imtiaz's figure there is not much of a difference anyway.<P>BTW, Kerala has a very high population density and their population stabilized only after it reached this high figure. Did population pressure have any role to play in stabilizing the population apart from the factors that we already know of.
<B>Do we you have the latest figures from Bengal??</B><P>The link provided by Acharya has. In fact, that is what prompted my question about Bengal. The estimated state wise per capita GDP figures (at 1993-94 prices) are as follows:<P>West Bengal: Rs 6,988 in 1990-91 and Rs 11,629 in 2000-2001 (both at 1993-94 prices) reflecting a growth rate of 5.2% per annum in per capita GDP. A 5.2% per capita GDP growth rate per year (over a decade) is impressive. The only major states that have done better are:<P>Karnataka : 6.4%<BR>Tamil Nadu : 5.9%<BR>Gujarat : 5.7%<BR>Kerala : 5.7%<BR>Maharashtra : 5.6%<P>Therefore I remain intrigued by how Bengal has managed such an impressive record. The link that Acharya provided does not seem to be "The Hindu" or a chinese or CPIM mouth piece. Of course, it could be plain wrong.<BR> <BR><B>I think many communities and caste groups believe that the road to political power is through numbers and breeding more </B><P>I would be surprised if that is one of the factors that dictates breeding decisions. Political leaders may believe that more numbers translates into more power and therefore may lack the political will to vigorously promote family planning. But am not sure if the motivation that you attribute is true at the level of the family - the unit that actually makes breeding decisions.<P><p>[This message has been edited by Imtiaz Ahmed (edited 08-04-2001).]
If you notice that Kerala, like WB is a state with a high growth rate. Both have a strong communist presence. That this is the causative factor in the reported growth is somehat difficult to swallow.<P>I believe that it is, in a somewhat more roundabout fashion. IOW, both these states are reaping the fruits of literacy and educational gains in the 1980s. The same, of course goes for Karnataka and TN. <P>Conseuqently, is much of the growth in the service sector?<P>Gujarat, OTOH, is more industrially driven growth.
Calvin,<P>Agree that "the causative factor" story is difficult to swallow. At the same time, it is difficult for me to ignore it completely either. I have always maintained that the extent to which ground conditions (literacy, basic health, political awareness, removal of feudalistic barriers, land reforms) are prepared well, the better the chances of success from economic liberalization. Casual empiricism suggests that states/countries with better ground conditions (prior to launch of reforms) have done better when economic liberalization was launched.
<B>I think many communities and caste groups believe that the road to political power is through numbers and breeding more </B><P>True! and it is even more apparent in Bihar, UP, Orissa area where Thakurs, Brahmins are against Bhumihars, Yadavs, Muslims are against other low castes.<P>So! what India needs is a true revolution where everybody practicing casteism must be Punished! Where marriage between different communities/castes are not looked down upon! and where people are conscious of their actions towards nation building. (This is happening in big and small cities but not in rural area).<P>Problem now is that politics is factionalized with vote banks, that cannot be broken! (for example Yadav vote for Laloo in Bihar irrespective of his corruption).<P>Sandeep Singh<P>
Imtiaz,<P>Let me state for a fact that the rivalry between different caste and communal groups is for a definite part one of the factors for the population explosion in the Northern states. The decision is not made at the family unit level but at the level of the caste or communal leadership level. We have now a situation in UP, Bihar wehere different political parties derive strength from different communities and castes and in the absence of an overriding political philosophy their relative strangth will depend on the numbers that their parochial supporters can muster. I think Sandeep agrees with me. In comparison states that do have less of a problem with this kind of politics has done better. TN seems to be heading for casteist politics. Is this a recent development??<P><BR>IIRC, the service industry has grown tremendously in Bengal and that inspite of the Govt. not because of it. Where the Communists can claim some credit is maintaining a certain standard of living in rural areas. Remember the rural areas of Bengal were ravaged by alternate cycles of famines and floods. This usually led to situations where the peasants became bonded slaves of the banias. This cycle has been broken and the feudalism that is prevalent in Northern India has been dispensed with. However, it has now been replaced by the CPI-M party zamindari where the party replaces the state as an adminstrator down to the last unit. From the Marxist point of view this is fine as it is a watered down version of the fidctatorship of the proletariat but in a democracy it causes a feeling of deprivation among those that have been left out. The CPI-Ms declining popularity has to do with the fact that it no longer has the resources to satisfy everyone. Where the CPI-M has failed totally is in the industrial sector. My guess will be that if these figures are correct they have to do something with sustained growth in the rural economy and a burst of activity in the service sector (which is what the educated people are mostly doing in the absence of industrial revival).
I can beleive that service sector in Kerals contributing to the GDP growth. Also it has better human-development index compared to other states and even with lower industrial development has a good GDP growth.<P>But out of the data Bengal seems to be a anomaly. The service sector from my knowlegde in Bengal has not seen a jump, neither in industrial activity or high tech. Anybody with information would be welcome to contribute
One explanation for WB's high growth rate is that all states with major metro areas (Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai,B'lore) score high rates of growth.There is simply a lot of disproportionate wealth in the big cities. These also have the highest number of institutions of higher learning in addition to IIM's, IITs which churn out a large number of highly qualified personnel. Of course this does not explain why Kerala has a high growth rate, but then Kerala has had high literacy long before the rest of the country, thanks to an enlightened rule by the travancore maharajas . Even with the high growth rate WB slightly lags behind AP(the laggard among the 4 southern sisters) in absolute per capita GDP. Outside of Hyderabad and some of the delta areas, the rest of the state is quite backward. But with rapidly dropping population growth rate, AP should show even better per capita numbers in the next decade (as I am sure will the rest of the nation).<P>Kaushal<p>[This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 09-04-2001).]
Any figures for GDP growth per capita in Delhi and Goa? Bengal remains a mystery to me, and I await sectoral growth rate figures.<P><B>The decision is not made at the family unit level but at the level of the caste or communal leadership level</B><P>You seem to agree that the unit that actually makes breeding decisions is the family. Beyond being lax about family planning, what decisions can be taken at the caste/communal leadership level that will ensure high breeding rates? Keeping people illiterate, underdeveloped? What else? Am still not clear about the nature of "the decision" at the level of a group.<BR> <P>
Narayan,<BR>Why should the cow belt underrepresentation be a surprise? <BR>Why do you think Vaiko and Karunanidhi both were asking the NDA govt and the prior BJP govt that the number of seats to the states not be changed? That was reported, and perhaps you missed that.<BR>(They had made the argument that the states that were successful in population control should not be penalized for their success)<P>Anyway, I presume you knew that the population growth was lowest in Kerala, TN, and Karnataka, so why the surprise that the south is overrepresented BASED ON CURRENT POPULATION TRENDS?<P>Imtiaz,<BR>Good work.<P>About groups and populations, I have read articles suggesting opposition to family planning from certain "leaders" of certain communities. So it is not a case of wanting more children per se, but more a case of anti-family planning (based on some interpretation of scriptures?) <P>The problem is, those who listen to the leaders also are those with lack of education. Separating the effect of these two factors would be an interesting empirical study. I wonder if any such study has been done, examining the interaction of education and religion/community on family size. [If you want to get more complex, you also need to add a third factor, namely wealth or income level but I would wager that education and wealth (to a lesser degree) or income level (to a greater degree) would be highly correlated.]<P>Calvin and Imtiaz,<BR>You need to consider the following wrt Kerala. That state has the highest concentration of folks in the Gulf states, and the remittance per capita is among the highest. This has to find a way, and since there is not much industrial base there, the services flourish. Thus, the gulf money acts as the acorn seed for a flourishing service sector.<P>Just think how much more the growth would be but for the communists. Why do people who talk about growing disparities within India talk only about TN, Karnataka, and AP when talking about the South? For example, see also RKam's post wrt Canadian officials a while back in another thread along these lines.<P>Comment/Thought: I think a solution to the representation problem could be a bicameral parliament, with the Rajya Sabha being reorganized into something along the lines of the US Senate. What are the pros and cons?
Does partial convertibility of the rupee have anything to do with it?<P><BR>>Raghu: The gulf factor has been operative in Kerala since the early-mid 1970s. However, the growth rate in teh state stagnated well into the 1980s. <BR>>What was the difference in the 1990s?<P>
Imtiaz,<P>I think both Sandeep and Raghu has covered why caste and communal rivlary is one of the reasons that population planning is not working in some areas. Among the Northern states it has worked in Punjab, Haryana and HP where I believe such rivalries are much less or are gradually slowing down. I think you get the hint. If you are asking whether there is a written document to prove that then the answer is 'No' but I have heard complaints in the streets of Bihar why certain castes or communities are gaining at the expense of others and why if they become too many they will run amock and therefore...... These are field experiences not statistical correlations.<P>Since the Kerala economy is based on remmittances what portion of this is black money routed through hawala? This will probably go unreflected in the states SDP.
Sagar,<P>In some ways, I have a bloody bureaucrat's mentality, so some hints escape me. Am not so bad as to ask for a written document. But I would certainly appreciate clarity. <P>You *seem* to imply that there is some deliberate concerted strategy by some groups to increase their numbers relative to other groups. I am still not clear how this can be/is done. <P>It is true that groups may get more political leverage if their numbers increase. It may even be true that other groups may express concern at the rising numbers of rival (for political power) groups. It is the implicit claim that the numbers are rising because of a "a plan" conceived by leaders that I do not get. Leaders may even conceive a plan. How do they execute it? What is the incentive for an individual family to follow that dictate/guideline? And finally, to what extent does this account for the actual birth rates in some areas?<P><BR> <BR>
You *seem* to imply that there is some deliberate concerted strategy by some groups to increase their numbers relative to other groups. I<BR> am still not clear how this can be/is done. <P> It is true that groups may get more political leverage if their numbers increase. It may even be true that other groups may express concern<BR> at the rising numbers of rival (for political power) groups. It is the implicit claim that the numbers are rising because of a "a plan" conceived<BR> by leaders that I do not get. Leaders may even conceive a plan. How do they execute it? What is the incentive for an individual family to<BR> follow that dictate/guideline? And finally, to what extent does this account for the actual birth rates in some areas?<BR>********<P>Let me put it this way - Caste and communal rivalry acts as a disincentive against population control. This is not the only factor that determines population control. I have already mentioned that I do not have any statistical correlation. However, the BIMARU states are also the states where different caste and communities slaughter each other quite often. In contrast the states that have done better in caste and communal relations seem to be doing better wrt population control. This among a host of other factors. This ofcourse my hypothesis. Does the leadership stand up on a dias and ask people not to control population? - that perhaps does not happen very often although IIRC some religious leaders have spoken against population control.
Sagar>>"Caste and communal rivalry acts as a disincentive against population control."<P>Sagar:<P>I am quite intrigued by the above statement. Do you have any anectodal information if not actual data to support your observation? Even from your "Bihar-heard on the street" technique, have you actually heard of accounts like "the Thakurs and the Yadavs fight here often. The Yadavs usually get beat-up. The Yadav population in our zilla has gone up by 30% while the avg population has grown by 6%".<P>So what you are suggesting is that in response to the dominant group, the "threatened" group "multiplies" (through the active encouragement of their "leaders") presumably to derive strength from numbers electorally or otherwise.<P>Fascinating. Shouldn't you be writing a book too! .
Perhaps time to move to a different related issue. Migration (pun intended ).<P>It *appears* that, at least for some states/regions, migration is an important factor that determines population growth rates. The states that come to mind are Maharashtra (because of Bombay and surrounding areas), Delhi, Karnataka (because of Bangalore), West Bengal (Sagar's hypothesis), and Assam (popular hypothesis about migration from Bangladesh). There may be others. <P>Is it possible to tease out /isolate (using census/other data) the effect of migration on population growth, and determine to what extent it is impacting the population growth rate in a given state/area/district?<P>I presume the following identity must hold for all areas:<P>Population Growth Rate = Birth Rate - Death Rate + Migration Rate<P>Clearly, the census data gives us population growth rate. Does it also tell us about death rates and birth rates? If so, I presume the migration rate can be inferred.<P>Any thoughts/figures/reliable sources?<P>--------------------<P>Added Later:<P>Turns out that what are called "migration tables" are published after every census. The 2001 tables may take time. Will try to check if the local library has 1991 migration tables.<P>Found the following links on the subject of migration. Have fun.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/01dilip.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/01dilip.htm</A> <BR> <A HREF="http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/02/18/stories/0218000n.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.indiaserver.com/thehindu/2001/02/18/stories/0218000n.htm</A> <P> <p>[This message has been edited by Imtiaz Ahmed (edited 12-04-2001).]
I am quite intrigued by the above statement. Do you have any anectodal information if not actual data to support your<BR> observation? Even from your "Bihar-heard on the street" technique, have you actually heard of accounts like "the Thakurs and<BR> the Yadavs fight here often. The Yadavs usually get beat-up. The Yadav population in our zilla has gone up by 30% while the<BR> avg population has grown by 6%".<P> So what you are suggesting is that in response to the dominant group, the "threatened" group "multiplies" (through the active<BR> encouragement of their "leaders") presumably to derive strength from numbers electorally or otherwise.<P> Fascinating. Shouldn't you be writing a book too!<BR>*******<P>Yes, you got it right and I have heard it explicitly on numerous occassions - in the streets, mandis and on trains. About the book - that is a good idea. Even if I can sell my idea to some I maybe making some money (right now I am making pennies). - <P>BTW, with Yadavs it is usually the other way round. The real victims are the dalits. Everyone oppresses them - even the lowest OBC.<p>[This message has been edited by Sagar (edited 12-04-2001).]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests