Concerns over demographic changes, arising out of low fertility rates and aging population are real and southern states fear losing out on political representation at the Centre. “Not just southern states, many other states in India have reached a below replacement level fertility and it is irreversible,” said well-known demographer and former professor in population studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Dr Purushottam M Kulkarni, in an informal chat during this week’s ‘Express Dialogues’ with Team TNIE
Fertility rates have lowered in many states, including all southern states. How do you look at the demographic changes in the next 50 years in the country?
All South Indian states are seeing low total fertility rates (TFRs) and states like West Bengal, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab among others have also reached replacement levels or are now below the replacement level. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which had a fertility rate of six and seven, have come down to three or lower. There is a demographic transition. Mortality is declining, followed by fertility.
The trend started in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, but soon more states were added. In states which are ahead in demographic transition, their population growth will stop earlier. If there is no migration by the 2050s, a large number of states will reach the peak population and it will stop growing. There will be gradual population reduction. Many estimates, including that of the UN, state that before 2070, India will reach its peak population of approximately 170 crore.
Once the low fertility process sets in, generally, it does not reverse. Around 50 years ago, there was panic about population explosion. India’s population quadrupled in the last century, but now the growth rate has slowed down. We will have the exact figures with the census. Demographers are confident that the growth will be around 1%, unlike 2% earlier. (A TFR of 2.1 is generally considered replacement level fertility since at low mortality, this amounts to the population replacing itself from one generation to the next.)
Where does Karnataka stand?
Karnataka has reached below replacement level with a TFR of around 1.6. By the mid-2040s, its natural population growth will halt unless offset by significant migration. Managing this inevitable migration requires policymakers to ensure a smooth and equitable process, addressing both local and migrant concerns.
The state’s population is expected to stabilise around seven crore. Regions like Mandya and Hassan witnessed early fertility declines due to concerns like land division. In contrast, northern districts still show higher fertility due to socio-economic challenges. Bengaluru’s growth, driven by migration, has pushed its population past 1 crore, though exact numbers remain unclear without a census.
What are the factors for the decline in the fertility rate?
Multiple factors have contributed to the decline in the fertility rate. Many government programmes have provided free contraception and free sterilisation. Also, there is a rise in aspirations among people. Most couples choose to have two children or one child to better provide for them, give them quality education and other facilities.
How will low fertility impact India?
There have been debates over the Malthusian theory of population (that population growth will always exceed the growth of means of subsistence). Some say high population growth is bad because there will be limitations on land and resources and there will be starvation. But others say that some population growth is good as there will be more consumers and more human resources. Well-known economist Gary Becker spoke of a “quantity and quality” trade-off... suggesting that instead of having many children with limited resources, families could have fewer children and provide them with more. Couples now choose to have two children or just one to be able to provide a better quality of life.
Was the desire for a son one of the reasons for the high birth rate earlier?
It was one of the factors in the earlier days, but not now. Also, earlier people who had two to three sons went on having children. The idea of regulating fertility was not there. It was considered natural or even God’s gift. Maternal and child mortality was high then, which also played a major role in couples choosing to have more children.
Can fertility rate be increased/stabilised?
Some developed countries with low-fertility rates, which had to import workers and labourers, tried different ways to promote fertility, what is called as pro-natalist policy. But they didn’t succeed. In the Soviet Union, a medal was given to women for having more children. Romania banned abortion, and it is a well-known case, which failed after one year. Countries have also tried other ways like long maternity leaves and child support initiatives, which included one-year paid maternity leave and another year’s leave where you do not lose your job. But this hasn’t done much. While the policies are good for the health and career of women and children, they have not been able to raise fertility above replacement level. People now have stronger reasons to stop at one child.
Family planning is not encouraged in certain religions/ communities. Is the fertility rate low even among them?
Religious sanctions have been there for a long time. In the West it was Catholic-Protestant differential. The church had opposed contraception. Use of contraception was lower in Catholics than Protestants. But over time, differences have narrowed. In India, there are some differences but not large. Fertility among Christians and Sikhs is already low and declining among Muslims as well. The latter’s population growth will be different and will be slightly higher than average for some time. If contraceptive prevalence is around 50% overall, among Muslims it is close to 40%. It is not 0-10%. The assumption that some communities do not use contraception is not true. But there is a gap.
What is your opinion on the delimitation of Parliament seats based on population?
The 1976 Constitutional amendment was brought in to freeze Parliamentary representation according to the 1971 census. According to the Constitution, Parliamentary representation should be worked out after every census, proportionate to population - the more the population, the more the members of Parliament. The amendment was brought in when there were concerns over population explosion and the population control programme was at its peak.
However, the same continued even after the 2001 census and even now, we are using the 1971 population as the basis for Parliamentary representation. The concern is that the states which adopted the population-control measures well will be penalised in terms of their Parliamentary representation. This has to be reviewed. It is a politically sensitive issue but there should be political consensus. They should work out a scheme which is fair, does not penalise people and is responsive to the needs of the people.
In hindsight, do you think the family planning campaign was a demographic ‘blunder’?
In the late 60s to mid-70s, fertility drop was desired because population growth was rapid and it was leading to several issues related to food, pollution, crowding and others. High population growth was not desirable. Family planning was already in practice, but it was staggered across the country and not uniform across, which is also the case in other aspects like economy, urbanisation or industrialisation.
With falling fertility, is the aging population a concern?
Age structure has changed in a way that now you have a lower dependency ratio. There are relatively more people in working age and this will be there for, maybe next 20 years. After that, we will have a more elderly population. In the past, we just had 5-6% of elderly, above the age of 60. Gradually, it will increase to 25%. In some places, it can go up to 30%. This is inevitable. Even if the fertility rate is at the replacement level, at low mortality, the share of the elderly will be above 20% in the long run. That is something we have to live with and provide for.
What is the economic fallout of an aging population?
The share of the working-age population in India is increasing and it will increase for some more time and that is good for the economy if we use the demographic opportunity. The concern is that the share of elderly is set to increase. A sharp reduction in children born today would lead to very small cohorts of workers after some time and increase the dependency burden. The elderly population will rise from 5% to 28% over this century. By 2050, it’s expected to reach 13-14%. This slow pace provides enough time to build facilities like old age homes. The challenge is not immediate, but gradual preparations are essential. With sustained economic growth, we should have the financial means to support this transition. The focus should be on anticipating these changes and steadily developing infrastructure to meet the needs of an aging society.
What measures should be put in place to address the challenges of an aging population?
There are already schemes for elderly health. Addressing the needs of the aging population is crucial. Health programmes are seen as general welfare measures, but long-term planning is key. Our plans and policies must provide for it and we have to be prepared for it. There must be schemes and facilities to cater to the health and overall well-being of the elderly.
Is increasing the retirement age an option to cater to the issue of elderly population?
That is one possibility. Many European countries have a high retirement age, which is 65 or 67 years.
With more young adults moving away from marriage, do you think this shift could further impact birth rates, as seen in parts of Europe?
In Europe, whether a child is born within or outside marriage is no longer a major social concern. In India, however, it still holds significance, though this may change over the next few decades. A declining trend in family size — no children or one-child families — has already lowered fertility rates, and while policies like maternity leave may help slightly, they cannot fully reverse this. The aim has been replacement-level fertility, a TFR of 2.1. This represents an average: some families have two children, others three, and some only one. Achieving this would eventually stabilise the population, leading to a “stationary population,” where births and deaths balance, keeping the population size and age distribution constant. However, societal preferences, like fewer people choosing to have children, make this goal increasingly unlikely, and such choices cannot be mandated.
The population stagnation is expected to peak by 2070. What is the message for policymakers?
Now that they have a clear picture of the numbers, they should work towards planning and try to improve the quality of service. The dip in fertility rate will be first visible in schools as the rate of admission of school children will drop. It has already come down in Karnataka, Kerala and a few other states. Many districts may not have schoolchildren. The government can now focus on improving school infrastructure, student-teacher ratio and others.