The most common sort among the calculations of population density is as defined by the number of persons per square kilometre. Calculations of population density depict the concentration of population over certain spatial units, and the Census of India uses number of persons per square kilometre as its principle method with which to measure population density.
However, given the compelling influence of geography over the spatial distribution of populations, geographical units can also be considered as valid units in calculations of population density.
As per the 2011 Census, GoI, the population density of India in terms of number of persons per square kilometre had reached 382 persons per sq km as compared to 325 persons per sq km in the 2001 Census. This represents a rise by about 57 people per sq km of India on average as compared to the last Census. Only about 2.4 per cent of the world’s total area comprises India, but Indians make up for 17.5 per cent of the world’s population. As per the 1901 Census, the population density of India was just 77 persons per sq km. In fact India’s population density fell between the 1911 to the 1921 Census by 1.2 per cent. Since then India’s population density has been steadily rising with much higher percentage growths.

Fig: Population Density (persons per sq km) of India as per Census 2011
Urban states and union territories in India have the highest population density among states and union territories in terms of this measure, with the most being in Delhi as per the 2011 Census, followed by Chandigarh, Puducherry, and Daman & Diu in that order. Delhi has a population density of 11,297 persons per sq km. Among the bigger states in terms of land area, Bihar has the highest population density of 1,102 persons per sq km and occupies the 6th rank, followed by West Bengal, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh in that order. The lowest population density in India in terms of persons per sq km is present in Arunachal Pradesh with 17 persons per sq km. In terms of states having the lowest population density, Arunachal Pradesh is followed by the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Mizoram and Sikkim as per the 2011 Census.
Population Density by Geographical Regions
The Census of India has made attempts to also map population density in terms of geographical regions. In this 6 regions across India have been identified for measurements of population density.
The northern region includes the 7 states and union territories of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana, Delhi and Rajasthan and has a population density of 267 persons per sq km as per the 2011 Census. The central region includes the 4 states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh and has a population density of 417 persons per sq km.
The eastern region includes the 6 states and union territories of Bihar, Sikkim, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Odisha and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and has a population density of 625 persons per sq km. The north-eastern region includes the 7 states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam and has a population density of 176 persons per sq km.
The western region includes the 4 states and union territories of Gujarat, Daman & Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Maharashtra and has a population density of 344 persons per sq km. The southern region includes the 7 states and union territories of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa, Lakshadweep, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and has a population density of 397 persons per sq km.
The highest population density thus was in the eastern region that included the very densely populated states of Bihar and West Bengal. The lowest population density was observed for the north-eastern region in the 2011 Census. Since the 2001 Census the highest rate of increase in population density has been observed for the central northern and eastern regions while lower increases in population density have been observed for the western, southern and the north-eastern region. The highest rate of increase was observed for the central region with 20.31 per cent while the lowest rate of increase was observed for the southern region with 12.58 per cent.
This distribution tends to agree with the Heartland Theory in geopolitical theory that looks at political development as based around central areas called the heartland areas. In this the Gangetic Plain emerges as the demographic heartland in India, with the highest population density present the central region and also in the eastern region comprising Bihar and West Bengal among states. A higher population density however, increases the load on natural resources and the environment, especially in the case of waste in urban areas, which can severely pollute the environment.
Physical Factors Affecting Population Density in India
The geography of India can play a vital role in influencing the population density of India. The physical factors can include topography, climate, soil conditions, etc.
Topography –
Human settlements many a time are established around topographical features. Whether it were the hilltop villages in early Nagaland that would offer defence against attacks by enemy tribes or settlements close to water sources such as the important cities next to great rivers such as Delhi and Kanpur, topography has played a decisive role in agglomeration of settlements and population density.
Take Santa Cruz del Islote Island, Colombia for example. The island has a population density of 103,917 persons per sq km, making it in terms of averages one of the most densely populated places in the world. The most densely populated single place in the world however, is Dharavi slum in Mumbai, India, with a total area of 1.7 to 2.2 sq km and a population density of 300,000 persons per sq km. Its overcrowding can also be attributed to Mumbai’s unique topography that allows the city limited area to expand spatially. The Indo-Gangetic Plains are a region with a benign topography and plentiful water with fertile land and thus has a very high population density whereas the nationally remote, mountainous and forest-covered Arunachal Pradesh has a low population density.
Climate –
Climatic factors such as the amount of precipitation can heavily influence the spatial distribution of population. In the dry and largely arid state of Rajasthan for example, which can also exhibit extremes of temperature, population density is quite low. Temperature thus can also influence the spatial distribution of populations. In India’s Himalayan region for example, the extremely cold and wet conditions tend to discourage high population density. Wherever, extremes of climate occur, it can be said that population density generally tends to be less. With climate change on the horizon, extremities of climate could witness an increase in certain regions.
Soil –
Although contemporary society is highly industrialized with increasing rates of urbanization, in India about 75 per cent of the total population live in villages and practice mainly agriculture. Agriculture and allied activities meets the livelihood needs of these people, which is heavily dependent on the fertility and other qualities of the soil. Due to alluvial soil being present for example, the northern plains, coastal regions and also the deltaic regions of India tend to have high population densities.
Conclusion
This could point towards other methods of measuring population density such as population density in terms of population occupying agricultural land, or population density in terms of climatic factors like aridity, mean temperatures and precipitation. Many correlations have been mentioned between the distribution of population densities across geographical regions and geographical determinants of the spatial distribution of population. In this other than simply persons per sq km, geographical units such as population density in terms of geographical factors such as precipitation, soil fertility, availability of water, etc are also equally valid.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.

Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.