India's population used to be 357 million in 1950. From 1950-2000, the population grew at roughly 2% annually to just over a billion. In the last two decades, governments carried out an extensive media campaign to spread awareness regarding birth-control, and to point out the benefits of having small families. Despite the campaign, the population grew at 1.8% between 1990 and 2000. Although the growth rate is likely to keep going down, by the latter half of the 21st century, India may have to accommodate 2 billion people in a third of the area of the United States.
In stark contrast to China, which has taken extreme measures to control its population, the Indian government has resorted so far only to spreading awareness and making birth-control available to those who ask for it. These are positive steps, but their effectiveness is somewhat limited. To make a person do something, we can use several measures:
1. Polite request
2. Point out advantages
3. Provide incentives
4. Impose penalties for non-compliance
5. Use force
A government can use all five (and maybe others). China relied on the bottom (most effective but harsh), and India started from the top (benign but inefficient). In fact, I am not aware of any monetary incentives given for having few children in India. For the poor, cheaper and more rice and sugar in monthly rations would be a good incentive to have few children. And the government would save far more in the long run, than it would spend in extending such subsidies. For those with taxable income deducted at source, a tax cut would be a good incentive, again saving the government money in the long run.
Governments in India are run largely on populist principles. In the last two decades, power has regularly changed hands from one party to the next, thereby making politicians eager to avoid displeasing anyone. But try as they may, power changes hands in every national election. On the outset, this may seem surprising for a country with a rapidly growing economy, but it is not really. Money being important for happiness, a nation must have a healthy combination of wealth-creation, and wealth-distribution. In India, growth has far outstripped distribution. When 10% of the people have 90% of the money, the rich do not make a fuss about buying necessities at unreasonable prices. Inflation goes through the roof, and life becomes miserable for the majority of people. The frustration of the majority is then directed at those in power. Politicians will not be able to halt the flip-flop of power until they create avenues through which money can percolate from the rich to the poor, and from urban to rural areas.
Here I sit, in the comforts of my home in San Diego, thinking about the country where I was born, and its problems that are of a scale unfamiliar to Americans. There are things that make me glad, and others that make me a little melancholy. In a way, us humans are like trees. There is no such thing as a perfect transplant for a grown-up; we just learn to live, adapt, and deal, and in the greater scheme of things, that's not so bad at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe there are incentives (in some states?) for those with fewer kids. Also, certain government positions require to have fewer than 3 kids. There was 'hum do-humare do' campaign that was successful for a while (at least in big cities), but you're right that widespread awareness will take much longer. It will be no surprise that in 2015 India will exceed population of China.
Being Democracy India cannot apply rules/regulations the way China did. One positive thing about India's population is that the core population is from 15-40 age. This can be used for her advantage if the national policies are in tune with the world's economy.
I have oftern wondered whether population is a problem or we perceive it as a problem while it is bundled in other socio-economics issues.
Good to know that there are incentives for having fewer children in some states. It is a positive step, and should be adopted more widely.
I also wholeheartedly support the media campaign, although I feel that awareness acts in a different way than incentives/penalties. My guess is that the latter can curb growth faster by appealing to a different part of the human psyche.
I am also glad that India is not adopting drastic measures. A nation has significance only to the extent that it serves its residents. Any policy that has the potential to make a lot of people miserable in the cause of national interest must have approval from the people themselves. A government using force to control population in India would probably be ousted even before their term in parliament is up.
The population problem is certainly bundled in socio-economic issues; one might call it a symptom of several underlying maladies, but even as a symptom it is causing immense discomfort. It cannot be easy to feed, clothe, house, educate and employ billions of people on a small piece of land.
Post a Comment