Controlling population is considered to be one of the major challenges in every country. While different countries have adopted various measures to curb population growth, India continues to struggle in developing population control strategies.
Even in the midst of urbanisation, industrialisation and economic development, India continues to witness huge population growth.
According to the United Nations 2016 data, the current population of India stands at 1.3 billion and the country has the fastest growing population after China.
As statistics indicate, the increasing rate of India’s population is quite alarming and requires immediate action. Research suggests that the birth rate is higher among low-income families as they believe that if they produce more children, there will be more earning members.
Scholars have for quite some time identified the family to be the central unit for achieving population control goals.
In fact, India was the first country to adopt family planning as one of its socio-economic development policies in 1952. Post independence, in the first to third Five Year Plans (1951-1966) various methods such as condoms, jellies and foam tablets were advocated for birth control.
Additionally, service clinics were set up in rural areas to educate people about family planning. Advertisements and the media were used to spread awareness and the necessity of using contraceptives for the overall wellbeing of the family.
It was only in the fourth Five Year Plan (1969-1974) that the target was set and a birth rate reduction from 39 per cent to 25 per cent per 1,000 people within the next decade was proposed.
To meet this target, sterilisation clinics were set up and incentives as well as compensations were offered to undergo sterilisation.
Since then sterilisation as a method has been a target-oriented programme and the practice of forceful sterilisation has often been reported in the media.
In fact, it is important to note that among all population-control measures, sterilisation camps have been most enforced by the Government of India.
One cannot deny that such camps have been the reason for a large number of deaths in the country. Reports highlight that from 2009-2012, over 700 women died because of failed sterilisation procedures (United Nations, 2013; Population Foundation of India, 2014).
Though public health experts, demographers and women groups have criticised the functioning of sterilisation camps on several instances, they continue to exist.
Even though concerns of “quality of care” provided in these camps have been questioned by several studies, no particular action has been taken against the doctors and staff involved in sterilisation.
Thirteen women lost their lives at a sterilisation camp in Chhattisgarh in 2014 and strict action was expected from the Centre.
However, it was only on September 16 this year that the Supreme Court ordered the state government to shut down all sterilisation camps in three years.
With this order it is important to understand what alternate approaches can be used to curb population.
Various scholars have said even though sterilisation is the most accepted form of population control measure, it is also one of the major causes of increased mortality rates among women in India.
In this context it is important to reflect on population control policies being followed by other highly populated countries.
Examples outside India
Since population control is a concern for many countries, it is important to understand the different policies adopted by nations experiencing high population growth.
In the United States of America, the Title X Family Program was launched in 1970 to provide contraceptive services, supplies and information regarding birth control.
In particular, families in the low-income group were given priority under this. In 2014, the programme successfully prevented two million unintended pregnancies.
Similarly, Indonesia follows the Banjar system, which involves the community to spread awareness on birth control measures.
Village family planning groups are created by the government to mould fertility behaviour among people. The country has also involved religious leaders to cater to its Muslim population.
The Banjar programme has seen a major shift in the attitude of religious leaders, who have actively supported it.
Bangladesh has achieved the lowest total fertility rate in South Asia through family welfare assistants. Under this, volunteers pay door-to-door visits and advise mothers about the use of contraceptives and provide free ones after every two weeks.
If we look at the different policies used by other countries, it can be suggested that through trained health workers and by involving religious leaders, the use of various contraception measures can be made popular.
Alternative approaches
In India, women are paying a high price in terms of their health due to sterilisation. In this context, it is important to identify alternate approaches that can be used to curb population growth.
Drawing from examples set by other countries, one can say that use of condoms and intrauterine devices can be used to maintain a balance between usage of contraception methods by men and women.
By training members of the village community, the government can also create village self-help groups. These groups can educate villagers on available birth control measures.
In particular, men in rural areas should be motivated and urged to use contraception to reduce the burden on women.
In cities, areas should be identified with low-income families and trained health workers should be sent to spread awareness on other contraception methods. The main goal of population control programmes should be that both men and women should make informed choices. With the Supreme Court’s order to shut down all sterilisation camps and urge for a national health policy, it is important for the Indian government to revaluate population control goals.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.