In his annual address to the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort, the Prime Minister of India expressed concern about the “reckless population explosion” in India. He said, “Population explosion will cause many problems for our future generations. We have to be concerned about population explosion. The Centre as well as state governments should launch schemes to tackle it.” The Prime Minister also called on Indian couples to have smaller families and praised Indian citizens who have already adopted the smaller family norm. This, he extolled as “an act of patriotism.”
Six months later, at the convocation of Indian Agricultural Research Institute, the Vice President of India reiterated the same concern in the context of the country’s 102nd rank in the global hunger index. He was sad that in a country like India with a galloping population, “nobody is paying attention to the issue of population. Political parties are feeling shy, politicians are feeling shy, Parliament also do not adequately discuss about the issue."
Population policies in India have been contentious in the past and a number of arguments can be lined up in support of and against policies designed to control population. This article, without going into the merits of the case, wishes to bring to readers aspects of population growth vis-à-vis the rise of urbanisation. It is becoming increasingly apparent that urbanisation leads to a deceleration of population by reason of factors that accompany urbanisation.
This article has picked up six least urbanised countries in the world that have populations 50 million and above. These are Ethiopia (105 m), Myanmar (54 m), Kenya (50 m), Tanzania (58 m), India (1300 m) and Bangladesh (160 m). It has also shortlisted six most-urbanised nations in the world in the same population category exceeding 50 million. These are Japan (126 m), France (65 m), Germany (83 m), UK (67 m), US (329 m) and Brazil (211 m).
The latest estimated urbanisation percentages of the least urbanised countries stand at 21 percent (Ethiopia), 29 percent (Myanmar), 27 percent (Kenya), 33 percent (Tanzania), 34 percent (India) and 37 percent (Bangladesh). Their annual population growth rates are 3.02 percent, 0.9 percent, 2.5 percent, 3.04 percent, 1.08 percent and 1 percent respectively. In summary, we could say that the six least urbanised countries in the world with populations 50 million and above and an average of 30 percent urbanisation have an average population growth rate of 1.9 percent.
The latest estimated percentages of the most urbanised countries stand at 94 percent (Japan), 80 percent (France), 77 percent (Germany), 83 percent (UK), 82 percent (US) and 86 percent (Brazil). While Japan has a negative annual population growth rate of 0.27 percent, France and Germany stand at 0.4 percent, UK and US at 0.6 percent and Brazil at 0.75 percent. Summarising the figures, we could say that the six most urbanised countries in the world with populations 50 million and above and an average of 84 percent urbanisation have an average population growth rate of 0.4 percent. This means that the least urbanised countries are growing four and half times faster demographically than the most urbanised ones.
If we do a similar exercise within India, the six least urbanised states with populations above 20 million happen to be Bihar (104 m), Odisha (42 m), UP (222 m), Chhattisgarh (25 m), Jharkhand (33 m) and Rajasthan (68 m). Among the most urbanised states with a similar population profile are Tamil Nadu (72 m), Kerala (33 m), Maharashtra (112 m), Gujarat (60 m), Karnataka (61 m) and Punjab (27 m).
The urbanisation percentages of the six least urbanised Indian states stand at 11 percent (Bihar), 17 percent (Odisha), 22 percent (UP), 23 percent (Chhattisgarh), 24 percent (Jharkhand) and 25 percent (Rajasthan). Their annual population growth rates are 2.5 percent, 1.4 percent, 2 percent, 2.3 percent, 2.2 percent and 2.1 percent respectively. In summary, we could say that the six least urbanised states in India with populations 20 million and above and an average of 20 percent urbanisation have an average annual population growth rate of 2.1 percent.
The urbanisation percentages of the most urbanised Indian states stand at 48 percent (Tamil Nadu), 47 percent (Kerala), 45 percent (Maharashtra), 43 percent (Gujarat), 39 percent (Karnataka) and 38 percent (Punjab). Their annual population growth rates stand at 1.5 percent, 0.5 percent, 1.6 percent, 1.9 percent 1.6 percent and 1.4 percent respectively. Summarising the figures, we could say that the six most urbanised states in India with populations 20 million and above and an average of 43 percent urbanisation have an average population growth rate of 1.4 percent. This means that the least urbanised states are growing one and half times faster demographically than the most urbanised ones. One may also bear in mind that the most urbanised states in India are also recipients of migratory populations from the least urbanised states into their mega and metropolitan cities, thereby upping population growth averages for the most urbanised states and softening averages for the least urbanised.
The above analysis seems to bring out emphatically that urbanisation impedes population growth. The question that arises is that if this is so, what are the reasons behind the phenomenon. Scholars who have researched this subject offer several reasons. Firstly, a child in the rural setting is welcome since he or she is an asset. They can work on the fields and contribute to the family’s income. In the urban setting, a child ceases to be an asset and becomes a liability – merely an extra mouth to feed. Secondly, the power of religions that almost universally condemn women to a secondary and a child-bearing proposition begins to decline in its hold and influence in cities. Thirdly, the power of the clan or caste fraternity that has a strangle-hold on villages largely disappears in the city as peoples’ primary interaction is with co-workers who form their immediate world at the workplace. Unlike the clan or caste fraternity where babies and child-rearing are a frequent subject of discussion among women, the urban workplace rarely raises this issue. The workplace primarily discusses issues related to work, bosses and colleagues. Above all, the exposure of women in urban settlements to education, ideas, other women and the media appear to emancipate them. Their autonomy is enhanced, and they assert a much greater control over their own bodies. This leads to their decision to have fewer children. This is borne out by the larger education of women in towns and cities.
The above seems to indicate that the urban locale promotes what some have called the ‘low fertility trap’ that drives population downwards. That urban women have more education in India is borne out by Census 2011. It recorded that the female literacy rate in rural India was 58.75 percent whereas it stood at 79.92 percent in urban India. The Census shows a similar position for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe women. In the former group, there is a 16 percent advantage and, in the latter, a 23 percent educational advantage for urban women over their rural counterparts.
In Indian towns, one could add that the pace of activity and the hardships of life perforce encourage families to have fewer children. This is borne out by the total fertility rates or TFR (births per thousand women) in rural and urban India (Census of India). Between 1971 and 2016, the rural TFR has gone down from 5.4 to 2.5 and the urban TFR from 4.1 to 1.8. In the stated context and based on the above cited analysis, it would be appropriate to recommend that if the nation wants population to decelerate, one of the sound ways to do that would be to incentivise and accelerate urbanisation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
