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
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.