Our PM said ‘Raising marriage age for girls from 18 to 21 years is proposed to empower ‘desh ki beti‘ so that they complete education and build careers and become ‘Aatmanirbhar.’ Great words of wisdom indeed. Research too suggests that empowering women through education and financial independence not only helps their families but adds several points to the National GDP. Be that as it may, raising age for marriage has one more dimension and an important one.
We are currently 1.39 billion people, the second most populated country and expected to outgrow China, the most populated by 2027. We are about 17% of the total world’s population. According to Projections of the National Commission on Population, we are currently rising by about 1% per annum compared to 2% three decades earlier. We are adding on average, 17 million a year since 1991. The current census results would have been published but for the pandemic. Are these figures staggering?
Is a growing population advantageous to India? We have one of the youngest global populations with an average national age of approximately 28.4 years, while 41% of our population is below 18 years of age. Contrast this against a median age of 48.4 years in Japan, 38.4 years in China, above 40 years across Europe and almost 40 in the rest of the world.
This implies that the contributory life of the current generation of Indians is the highest in the world. This of course can add to nation-building and economy. The catch however, is that they must be given the right skills, basic rights, education and employment.
Ideally, if we have to hold the population at the current figures, the number of births should equal number of deaths. Is this possible? Total fertility frate (TFR) is a measure of number of children a women must bear for an equilibrium to settle. It is actually, the average number of children per woman which makes it an intuitive measure of fertility. The TFR is calculated by adding up all the age-specific fertility rates, multiplying this sum by five, the width of the age-group interval, and then dividing by 1,000.
India’s fertility rate was estimated at 2.2 in 2018 by Sample Registration System (SRS), a demographic survey carried out by the Registrar General of India, the same body that also creates decadal Census. Do you know that it was 4 in 1990? 2.1 is the ideal TFR replacement level at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to another in the absence of migration or for maintaining the equilibrium.
Field studies conducted by NFHS in 2019-20, indicate that the average TFR for the country declined from 2.7 during the period 2006-08 to 2.2 during 2016-18. However, in Uttar Pradesh it is still 3.0, in Bihar 3.2, in Rajasthan 2.6 and in Madhya Pradesh 2.7. Though the TFR in these States is still high, it is seeing a downward trend. In contrast, in Karnataka, and other southern States, the average TFR declined to 1.7 during the same period. It means that whereas in Karnataka and the other Southern States, the population has begun to contract and grey, the population is young in rest of the northern States. Is this good? It might have a long-term effect on the cultural ethos of the States with lower TFR, for it encourages migration from other States.
According to the NFHS survey, the literacy rate among women in Assam and Karnataka was 77.2% and 76.2% and their TFRs were 1.9 and 1.7, respectively, much below the replacement level fertility. The all India TFR for totally illiterate women was 3, for those with less than primary education was 2.9 and 1.7 for women who had a graduate or a higher degree. Further, TFR tends to be lower in urban areas compared to rural. All the indicators are that women literacy rate is the differentiator.
A rapidly increasing population can impact savings, investment, capital formation and a reduction in per capita income. A high birth rate and low expectancy of life increases the number of dependents. Currently, 35% of the population less than 14 years of age are also dependants. Disguised unemployment in rural areas and open unemployment in urban areas is a reality today. Providing employment not only to the increasing labour force year after year but also reduce accumulated unemployment from the earlier years is also daunting. This results in cumulative poverty index rising.
Further, a rise in population results in environmental degradation, more toxic waste and the destruction of the biosphere. Increasing, industrialisation, urbanisation, and vehicular traffic increase pollution in all its manifestations. A rise in population pressures available infrastructure, health care, education, housing, water supply, sanitation, power, roads, and railways. Even social problems surface. With unemployment and poverty, social evils like robbery, prostitution and crimes increase. Besides, a high birth rate impacts the health and welfare of women leading to a high death rate among women of procreative age due to early marriage.
It is in this context that the Population Regulation Bill, 2019 introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 12, 2019, calling for penal action against people with more than two living children, including debarment from being an elected representative, dismissal of financial benefits and decrease in benefits under the public distribution system and the Prime Minister’s call for raising the marriage age of girls from 18 to 21 must be seen.
With some arguing that such a bill is a violation of fundamental rights quoting Article 21, what does our constitution say? A right to reproduction is not explicitly written in the Constitution. Right to life, personal liberty and personal autonomy are important. But, can they be above the wellbeing of a country? Have the governments not already intervened in the personal liberties like procreation, family, personal, private and sexual life? So where is the conflict?
The idea of controlling population must be enabled by education and financial independence for women and ubiquitous availability of contraceptives and an education in morals and ethics for all. If this calls for implementation of uniform civil code, so be it. A thought must be given if the Bill for enactment must be left to States or must be legislated by the centre. At the same time lessons learnt by China which returned to a 3-child policy last year must also be factored in.