Opinion Target 2045

Kerala,the first state to achieve replacement levels of fertility did so in spite of relatively low per-capita income. Tamil Nadu,the second state to achieve this,did so despite high infant-mortality rate and a lower level of female literacy than Kerala. Andhra Pradesh too,despite a relatively lower age of marriage and relatively poorer outreach of primary healthcare. Some believe that this was due to efficient dovetailing of rural based anti-poverty programmes with the family planning programme,a fact that those planning the UPA’s schemes need to take into account.

On May 11,2000 (the day India reached her billion),a 100-member body,with then-Prime Minister Vajpayee as chairman,was announced; and the views expressed during its first meeting,as also its wide participation,gave an indication that India may be on the threshold of reaching a watershed in population-related issues. Amongst others,the current PM and the Congress president were also present. It set short-term goals: meeting unmet contraception and healthcare needs for women and children. Also set were medium-term goals — getting to a “replacement” rate of population increase by 2010,and a long-term goal of population stabilisation by 2045.

However,the experiment was short-lived due to internal departmental bickering — even the location of its office created concern both within the Planning Commission and the nodal Department of Health and Family Planning. In 2005,the NCP (for reasons not clearly known) was shifted to the Health and Family Welfare (H&FW) department and was soon almost half its size. The entire concept of having a commission independent of the H&FW department to focus on all intra-sectoral and inter-sectoral coordination seemed to have been given up. Naturally,the fate of much of the work done by the NCP — identification of districts to prioritise work in demographically weak states,preparation of district action plans in consultation with DMs,specific programmes for tribal areas and slums,and the methodologies worked out for participation by the youth and the public at large — was not known. Even action taken on the recommendations of all the working groups constituted on the key areas of concern,as specified in NPP 2000,was not known. With the shift,time was spent on a fresh round of reiterating the same issues.

Meanwhile,the National Rural Health Mission (one of the flagship UPA programmes) was announced with a huge mandate,vast agenda and plenty of resources. This body resolves to do things which the H&FW department may have been working on for the last few decades — health for all,improvement of infrastructure,filling up of key technical and administrative personnel in rural areas,convergence of all health and social sector programmes. The problem — amidst the myriad concerns expressed,population issues would also naturally be addressed ultimately but cannot remain central to its agenda.

Considering that we are in the middle of 2009,the medium-term goal to reach a “replacement” TFR of 2.1 does not appear achievable. Against this background,NPP-2000’s long-term goal of population stabilisation by 2045 appears even more difficult. We must remember that during Census-2001,India’s population was 1.03 billion; by July 2007,we reached 1.13 billion,and the number today is estimated at 1.17 billion.

Unless focused attention is given,India should easily become the most populous country in the world by 2045,outstripping China.

But all is not lost. India is already going through the demographic transition from high mortality and high fertility to lower levels of fertility. Longevity levels have certainly increased due to access to better medical facilities. With renewed emphasis on population-centric issues,the NHRM might well succeed in turning the course of events. That will require a bold re-prioritisation of issues. Are we up to it?

The writer was Member-Secretary of the National Commission on Population

express@expressindia.com