India has a proud history of uninterrupted decennial censuses ever since 1881. It is worth recalling that census data have determined the destiny of the Indian sub-continent in many ways.
The partition of India was based on census data on religion. The re-organisation of States in 1957 on a linguistic basis used census data on languages (mother-tongue). The delimitation of electoral constituencies ever since India held the first general election in 1952 is based on census data. The constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) as per the Constitution of India are also based on census data.
The Finance Commission, appointed every five years under the Constitution which recommends allocation of resources between the Centre and States takes into account the population factor. So does the Planning Commission while preparing five year plans. What is not so well known is the importance of census data in formulating population policies. For example, in 1977 the Population Policy announced by the Emergency Government froze the number of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies as per 1971 census data for the next three decades. This was done to meet the demand from southern States to freeze the seats in Parliament. Otherwise, the representation of these States would have been reduced in Parliament. The comparative success of the southern states in controlling population growth and the failure of the northern states to do so has resulted in this imbalance. This had to be corrected, otherwise the number of MPs in the northern states would have gone up at the cost of the southern states. This would have meant rewarding states which failed to curb population growth.
In 2000, a National Population Policy was announced by the Government, which extended this freeze by another 25 years, i.e. up to 2026. This was given effect through a subsequent amendment to the Constitution by Parliament.
Presentation of census data
The customary way of presentation of Census data is to put all states in alphabetical order and then put the Union Territories (UTs) in alphabetical order. Later this was changed to listing states according to geographical zones like north India, north-west India and so on. Both these methods are not reader-friendly. If we are told that the decadal population growth rate of Dadra & Nagar Haveli is the highest, namely, 55.5 per cent without telling the reader at the same time that this tiny UT accounts for only 0.03 per cent of India's population, our analysis will go haywire.
In terms of size of population, there is a world of difference ranging from about 200 million (20 crores) persons in Uttar Pradesh to only 64,429 persons in Lakshadweep Islands. As we have stated earlier, mixing up all the 35 administrative units (states and UTs) regardless of their population size is misleading. We have therefore classified these 35 units into three categories as follows:
n Bigger states : population more than 10 million (1 crore),
n Smaller states/UTs: population between 1 and 10 million (10 lakh to 1 crore)
n Smallest states/UTs: population less than 1 million (10 lakhs).
The summary table is given in Table no 1
Worsening Child Sex Ratio
The most disturbing aspect of 2011 census data released so far is the growing imbalance between the sexes in the youngest age group (0-6) which is indicative of female foeticide. In short, the girl child is not wanted and therefore not allowed to be born, thanks to the use of modern medical technology.
It is interesting to note that in order to calculate the literacy rates, the age group 0-6 is excluded for obvious reasons: children don't get literate from birth. Since all Census tables give figures for total population and also separately for male and female population, the 0-6 child group figures presented data for boys and girls separately. From this one can calculate the child sex ratio or the number of girls per 1000 boys in the age group 0-6 years.
I believe that the child sex ratio (CSR) for the age group 0-6 is not the best way of finding what is happening to the girl child. A better method will be to calculate the number of girls per 1000 boys at birth. But this assumes a good system of registration of births and deaths. In spite of the legal provision for compulsory registration of births, very few people care to register births of children, especially the girl children. This is because some people think that if there is a government record of their sons, whatever the property the man has will be in government records which he can pass on to his sons, which is a mistaken notion.
The CSR has continuously declined from 976 in 1961 to 914 in 2011. It should certainly be a cause for concern to our leaders of society and the government (see Table 2 and bar chart).
The figures for variation in CSR are very perplexing. Out of the 20 bigger states, only in 4 states the CSR has increased. The greatest surprise is the jump by 48 points in Punjab and 11 points in Haryana, states which are notorious for female foeticide. This calls for evaluation of census data and also field work in Punjab and Haryana in particular. My field work in these states does not confirm that the rise in CSR is real. I hope some interested readers of The Tribune will take up this work and throw light on the accuracy of census data.
In Tamil Nadu the increase in CSR is by 4 points and in Gujarat by 3 points. In the remaining states there is a decline ranging from 82 points in Jammu & Kashmir to just 1 point in Kerala. I would not accept J&K figures as reliable in view of the disturbed condition there. It is significant that in the urbanised state of Maharashtra the decline in CSR is of the order of 30 points. Has the urban middle class taken to family planning? On the other hand, in the predominantly rural state of Rajasthan, the decline is high: 26 points. It seems that the rural masses do not want girls. So we have an odd situation where the urban middle class does not want daughters and the rural masses also do not want daughters.
I have an explanation for this which is bound to be controversial. Nevertheless let me put forward my viewpoint. We have had over 50 years of government propaganda about the need for a small family. This has certainly raised the awareness about the small family norm all over India. By small family, earlier one meant 2 or 3 children but over the years the acceptable number came down to 2 children.
For parents there are 3 possibilities: (i) 2 sons only, (ii) 2 daughters and (iii) only 1 son and 1 daughter. The second scenario is the worst. The cost of dowry and marriage has gone up. We are becoming increasingly a consumerist society. Greed has overtaken need. One cannot order a small family with only 2 sons or for that matter, 1 son and 1 daughter, unless one takes recourse to medical intervention or in simple language, finding out the sex of the unborn child and taking to abortion if it is a female child. The government enacted the PCPNDT Act quite sometime back, which prohibits such medical intervention but it is well known that its implementation is very poor. Will the CSR go down further in next census of 2021?
The partition of India was based on census data on religion. The re-organisation of States in 1957 on a linguistic basis used census data on languages (mother-tongue). The delimitation of electoral constituencies ever since India held the first general election in 1952 is based on census data. The constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) as per the Constitution of India are also based on census data.
The Finance Commission, appointed every five years under the Constitution which recommends allocation of resources between the Centre and States takes into account the population factor. So does the Planning Commission while preparing five year plans. What is not so well known is the importance of census data in formulating population policies. For example, in 1977 the Population Policy announced by the Emergency Government froze the number of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies as per 1971 census data for the next three decades. This was done to meet the demand from southern States to freeze the seats in Parliament. Otherwise, the representation of these States would have been reduced in Parliament. The comparative success of the southern states in controlling population growth and the failure of the northern states to do so has resulted in this imbalance. This had to be corrected, otherwise the number of MPs in the northern states would have gone up at the cost of the southern states. This would have meant rewarding states which failed to curb population growth.
In 2000, a National Population Policy was announced by the Government, which extended this freeze by another 25 years, i.e. up to 2026. This was given effect through a subsequent amendment to the Constitution by Parliament.
Presentation of census data
The customary way of presentation of Census data is to put all states in alphabetical order and then put the Union Territories (UTs) in alphabetical order. Later this was changed to listing states according to geographical zones like north India, north-west India and so on. Both these methods are not reader-friendly. If we are told that the decadal population growth rate of Dadra & Nagar Haveli is the highest, namely, 55.5 per cent without telling the reader at the same time that this tiny UT accounts for only 0.03 per cent of India's population, our analysis will go haywire.
In terms of size of population, there is a world of difference ranging from about 200 million (20 crores) persons in Uttar Pradesh to only 64,429 persons in Lakshadweep Islands. As we have stated earlier, mixing up all the 35 administrative units (states and UTs) regardless of their population size is misleading. We have therefore classified these 35 units into three categories as follows:
n Bigger states : population more than 10 million (1 crore),
n Smaller states/UTs: population between 1 and 10 million (10 lakh to 1 crore)
n Smallest states/UTs: population less than 1 million (10 lakhs).
The summary table is given in Table no 1
Worsening Child Sex Ratio
The most disturbing aspect of 2011 census data released so far is the growing imbalance between the sexes in the youngest age group (0-6) which is indicative of female foeticide. In short, the girl child is not wanted and therefore not allowed to be born, thanks to the use of modern medical technology.
It is interesting to note that in order to calculate the literacy rates, the age group 0-6 is excluded for obvious reasons: children don't get literate from birth. Since all Census tables give figures for total population and also separately for male and female population, the 0-6 child group figures presented data for boys and girls separately. From this one can calculate the child sex ratio or the number of girls per 1000 boys in the age group 0-6 years.
I believe that the child sex ratio (CSR) for the age group 0-6 is not the best way of finding what is happening to the girl child. A better method will be to calculate the number of girls per 1000 boys at birth. But this assumes a good system of registration of births and deaths. In spite of the legal provision for compulsory registration of births, very few people care to register births of children, especially the girl children. This is because some people think that if there is a government record of their sons, whatever the property the man has will be in government records which he can pass on to his sons, which is a mistaken notion.
The CSR has continuously declined from 976 in 1961 to 914 in 2011. It should certainly be a cause for concern to our leaders of society and the government (see Table 2 and bar chart).
The figures for variation in CSR are very perplexing. Out of the 20 bigger states, only in 4 states the CSR has increased. The greatest surprise is the jump by 48 points in Punjab and 11 points in Haryana, states which are notorious for female foeticide. This calls for evaluation of census data and also field work in Punjab and Haryana in particular. My field work in these states does not confirm that the rise in CSR is real. I hope some interested readers of The Tribune will take up this work and throw light on the accuracy of census data.
In Tamil Nadu the increase in CSR is by 4 points and in Gujarat by 3 points. In the remaining states there is a decline ranging from 82 points in Jammu & Kashmir to just 1 point in Kerala. I would not accept J&K figures as reliable in view of the disturbed condition there. It is significant that in the urbanised state of Maharashtra the decline in CSR is of the order of 30 points. Has the urban middle class taken to family planning? On the other hand, in the predominantly rural state of Rajasthan, the decline is high: 26 points. It seems that the rural masses do not want girls. So we have an odd situation where the urban middle class does not want daughters and the rural masses also do not want daughters.
I have an explanation for this which is bound to be controversial. Nevertheless let me put forward my viewpoint. We have had over 50 years of government propaganda about the need for a small family. This has certainly raised the awareness about the small family norm all over India. By small family, earlier one meant 2 or 3 children but over the years the acceptable number came down to 2 children.
For parents there are 3 possibilities: (i) 2 sons only, (ii) 2 daughters and (iii) only 1 son and 1 daughter. The second scenario is the worst. The cost of dowry and marriage has gone up. We are becoming increasingly a consumerist society. Greed has overtaken need. One cannot order a small family with only 2 sons or for that matter, 1 son and 1 daughter, unless one takes recourse to medical intervention or in simple language, finding out the sex of the unborn child and taking to abortion if it is a female child. The government enacted the PCPNDT Act quite sometime back, which prohibits such medical intervention but it is well known that its implementation is very poor. Will the CSR go down further in next census of 2021?
No comments:
Post a Comment