Opinion: Only the people of UP-Bihar can end the fear of southern states, understand this problem of population

Author: D. Subbarao
Last week, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu had urged couples to have more children to fight the burden of the aging population in the state. The next day, his/her counterpart Tamil Nadu MK CM Stalin, quoting a Tamil proverb, told the people about the virtues of a big family. he/she said, ‘A big family is a happy family.’ Although both the Chief Ministers approached the issue differently, the underlying message was clearly the same – do not punish states that succeed in population control. If you do this then we have no option but to increase our population. So, what exactly is the complaint of states successful in population control? It combines both politics and economics. Let us first take the economic aspect. There are many routes through which central resources reach the states. The most organized method of these is the transfer from the Finance Commission, under which the Center gives 41% of its tax pool to the states. The formula of equality is adopted in the distribution of this pool among the states in which population plays a big role – the larger the population of the state, the greater its share.

Finance commissions, appointed once every five years, have historically been ordered to use 1971 population data to avoid creating perverse incentives for states neglecting family planning in the lure of a higher share of the central tax coffers. Not found. This long-standing norm was changed when the 15th Finance Commission appointed in 2017 was asked to use 2011 population figures in estimating the expenditure requirements of the state. States that had performed well in population stabilization, especially the southern states, opposed this change in the base year, terming it a ‘penalty for being successful in family planning’.

Perhaps taking a lesson from this, the 16th Finance Commission appointed last year has not been given any specific mandate on what population figures to use. However, it is highly unlikely that they will return to 1971 figures. The second major route for central resource assistance to states is through Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS). Here too, a state’s share in the total CSS pool is determined primarily by its population, although it is less structured than the amount received from the Finance Commission.

Investment from central funds in soft infra (e.g. an IIT or AIIMS) and hard infra (e.g. roads, ports etc.) is another way for states to share in the assistance they receive from the central government. There is no formula for how much funding each state will receive through this medium. This is completely a political and vote bank issue. Population plays a huge role in this. States with larger populations benefit more.

Overall, states with larger populations enjoy privileges in central resource assistance. As population growth rates have varied in recent decades, states that have performed well in population control have begun to suffer greater losses. In fact, fertility in some states has fallen below the replacement rate while others are well above it.

The political dimension primarily concerns the impending delimitation of parliamentary constituencies to take place in 2026. In order not to discourage the small family norm, delimitation of parliamentary constituencies on the basis of population was stopped for 25 years in 1976. In 2001, the Vajpayee government stopped it again for 25 years. States that have been successful on the population control front are now afraid that if delimitation takes place in 2026, their representation in Parliament will be comparatively reduced.

In short, it is a double whammy for states that have performed well on population control. Firstly, their share in central resources is decreasing, secondly their political power is in danger of decreasing. It would be unwise to let this debate get out of hand. The reality is that we still have a population problem. Our population of 1.4 billion remains above the carrying capacity of our ecosystem. For this we need no further evidence than what we see and experience every day – our slums and squatter settlements, our overcrowded cities and towns, drying up lakes and dying rivers, barren hills, polluted air and water.

When we overtook China as the most populous country last year, there was much talk of a demographic dividend due to the large size of our working-age population. But the demographic dividend is not inevitable; This will be possible only when we are able to provide work to people of working age. Getting a job is proving to be a big challenge even for the current population. This will become even more difficult as artificial intelligence (AI) is taking jobs away from humans. Given that situation, it would be foolish for us to believe that we have defeated the population problem.

The uneven success in population control across states has given rise to political tension. For states that are successful in family planning, the solution to this problem does not lie in increasing the population; The solution is to equalize the distribution of population across the country. Historically, successful cities have been characterized by welcoming people looking for employment from all corners of the country. Labor mobility – the movement of people to where the jobs and opportunities are – has really been one of the foundations of the American success story. Moving forward with the objective of population control, encouraging internal migration should be our policy priority.

The author is a former Governor of RBI.