Yesterday was World Population Day and I would, therefore, like to address members of the National Commission on Population (NCP) — the body set up to ensure better coordination of the planning and implementation of programmes related to population stabilisation. I am constrained to draw their attention to a glaring disparity between the objectives as set in the National Population Policy (NPP) and that stipulated in the Planning Commission’s Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07). They will recall that the medium-term objective of the NPP is to bring the total fertility rate (TFR) to the replacement level of 2.1 by 2010, through the vigorous implementation of inter-sectoral strategies. The NPP further stipulates that if TFR of 2.1 is reached by 2010, India’s population would be restricted to 1107 million by 2010 AD, ie, about 1119 million by 2011. But the Planning Commission has set a target in the Tenth Five Year Plan to restrict population growth between 2001-2011 to only 16.2 per cent, implying a population of 1193 million. This is not just a clear negation of the medium term objective of the NPP, it also jeopardises the long term objective of achieving a stable population by 2045. Isn’t this negation of the very aims of the NPP a fit case to be taken up? The Planning Commission must be asked by the NCP to amend the Tenth Plan so that it is in conformity with the NPP. This shouldn’t be difficult since the PM heads both bodies. If the revision incorporated in the Tenth Plan has been made in consultation with the NCP, then the nation must know the new set of objectives adopted for the NPP. In other words, it must be informed about the revised national population policy if any. If, however, this is not the case, the country is saddled with a ridiculous situation indeed. There are two more points relating to the long term and short term aims of the NPP. The long-term objective of NPP is to “achieve a stable population by 2045 at a level consistent with the requirements of sustainable economic growth, social development and environmental protection”. But what is that level? The NPP doesn’t specify it and this is a big lacuna that must be corrected. Because what would be the use of stabilising India’s population beyond the sustainable level? Sustainable population size, to the best of my knowledge, is a crucial parameter for formulating an effective policy. In its absence, the long term objective of the NPP would become a farce. Then there is the fact that despite all efforts to promote non-terminal methods of contraception, sterilisation remains the mainstay of the family planning programme. According to the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS) I and II, about 85 per cent of couples using any modern method of contraception in India, adopted sterilisation. So to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme it is necessary to know the average number of children the sterilised couple had before undergoing the operation. If couples adopted sterilisation but only after having had, say, three, four or more children, then it is obvious that even after a very high contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), the family planning programme will not be effective. To get a true picture of the programme, NFHS I and II ought to have found out not only the CPR but also the average number of children sterilised couples have. But surprisingly this critical data is missing. I am afraid this may be a ploy to hide the poor performance of the programme because it is well known that most Indians undergo sterilisation only after having at least two sons which, on an average, implies three to four children. The International Institute of Population Studies (IIPS), Mumbai, served as the nodal agency for NFHS-I and NFHS-II. It may be asked to estimate from the raw data of the two surveys, the average number of children (sex-wise) the sterilised couples had. Alternatively the National Sample Survey Organisation may be asked to provide the required information. This data about the average family size of sterilised couples in different states will help in assessing the efficacy of the programme and in making it more effective district-wise. It is indeed very important to meet the unmet needs as stipulated in the NPP, but it is also necessary not to get misled by inconsequential sterilisation programmes. You, as members, will appreciate that all the three objectives of the NPP — immediate, medium and long term — are in jeopardy. It’s necessary, therefore, that the NCP took immediate note of these threats to the NPP in the best interests of the nation. (The writer is a former professor, IIT, Delhi)
