Population ControlAddressing the Core Issue: Reducing Population

The debate on the impact of population growth essentially centres around two contrary views. The Malthusian view is predicated on the proposition that human population grows in geometric progression whereas food supply grows in arithmetic proportion. Food supply will hence run out, giving rise to the need to curtail population growth. Malthus believed that high rates of population will permanently condemn societies to a perpetual state of under development. This theory received the support of economists such as JS Mills and JM Keynes. Karl Marx, however, gave a contrary view, which was supported by sociologists. Marx stated that the widespread poverty and misery of the working class people was not due to an eternal law of nature as propounded by Malthus but to the misconceived organisation of society and by the unequal distribution of the wealth and its accumulation by capitalists.

The debate essentially revolves around four key issues:

Do small families improve the prospects of children.

Is a rapidly growing population detrimental to economic growth?

Is high fertility a result of low income and poverty?

Is rapid population growth a symptom, rather than a cause, of poor economic performance?

Food shortages, of which Malthus expressed concern have been largely overcome by advances in science and improved agriculture. However, this does not take away from the fact that larger populations require greater consumption, which stresses the environment, pollutes the atmosphere and causes environmental degradation, which is already causing concerns to people across the globe.

The population of the world, which stood at around 2.6 billion in 1950, took just 37 years to nearly double to 5 billion in 1987, adding an additional 2.4 billion people to the planet. The next billion was added in just 12 years, making the world’s population touch the 7 billion mark in 1999. By 2050, the world’s population is expected to increase to 9.7 billion, and peak at a round 11 billion by 2100.

In the Indian subcontinent, an examination of the populations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, between independence in 1947, to the present times, reveals that the population of India increased fourfold during this period. The population of Pakistan, for the same period, increased seven times and Bangladesh, six times. In India, the rate of population increase was not uniform, increasing about six times among the Muslim population and three times among the rest. There is a view that the unbridled growth of population in India and in other parts of the world has adversely impacted development initiatives to reduce poverty and has also led to substantive environmental degradation.

In her book, Building the Population Bomb (Oxford University Press, 2021), Emily Klancher Merchant states that overpopulation has been blamed for everything from climate change to poverty. She however posits that it is not population growth but global socio-economic inequality and environmental degradation that are the causative factors and that society incorrectly blamed a "population bomb” for problems that had other causes. “A wrong diagnosis,” she avers, produces ineffective solutions. In this, she echoes the Marxian viewpoint.

That is perhaps an oversimplification of a problem which has multiple dimensions, but Ms Merchant is not the only one who believes that reducing poverty will ipso facto, lead to a reduction in population. In their book, ‘Population and Development, Dennis Ahlburg and Robert Cassen note that, while it is believed that more rapid population growth increases poverty by reducing real wages, the relationship with poverty is ‘neither obvious nor well established’. They question the assumption that an increase in the labour force necessarily reduces wages, but caution that the relationship between population and poverty varies considerably across regions, countries, growth sectors and policy environments.

In a study carried out, examining the link between population and per capita income growth and poverty, a case study of Uganda is instructive. Uganda achieved reasonable economic growth while also experiencing high population growth. However, the evidence garnered in the study also suggested that “the currently high population growth puts a considerable break on per capita growth prospects in Uganda”. The study further went to state that high population growth led to low achievement in poverty reduction, which concomitantly, made it very difficult to make substantial improvements in poverty reduction and per capita growth.

There is no gainsaying the fact that unbridled population growth hinders poverty alleviation programmes, attenuates consumption and waste and has a negative impact on societies and the worlds eco-system. The examples of South Korea and Taiwan—two countries which have successfully controlled population growth, are instructive in this regard. Both these countries have seen rapid increases in per capita incomes as birth rates declined, giving them a positive demographic dividend.

There is a need to control population growth through policy initiatives through expanding education and health care, especially for the girl child, and on implementing voluntary family planning programmes. This can succeed, as seen in an experiment conducted in the Matlab region of Bangladesh, in a controlled population group, a portion of which was provided with free services and supplies, home visits by well-trained female family-planning workers, and comprehensive media communication. The programme also had an outreach to husbands, village heads and religious leaders to obviate any backlash from the male population. The results indicated a substantial decline in fertility rates—1.5 percent— between the targeted population and the non-targeted population in the controlled area. This shows that family planning programmes can succeed in conservative societies. Other countries such as Iran and Rwanda too have shown similar results.

Over the years, based on empirical data, a causal relationship has been established between rising prosperity and declining fertility. Both East Asia and some countries of South East Asia are examples of this trend that as incomes rise, fertility tends to fall and between national income growth and falling birth rates as also between family incomes and fertility. Improved economic conditions, therefore, do lead to a decline in birth rates. But for the converse to hold true, would require good governance models. In any case, the debate should now focus on both aspects: Good governance and taking measures to reduce the birth rates. Both should go hand in hand, simultaneously. 

India should lay emphasis on population control measures that are enlightened and in the interest of women. Improved education and health care for the girl child, better and improved access to reproductive health control, a concerted media campaign on the need and necessity for small families, sensitising religious and local leaders on the issue and making them part of the programme, are some of the initiatives which could be taken. Alongside, must be legislation to encourage the small family norm, through incentives and disincentives. The recent bill passed in parliament, bringing the age of marriage of girls on parity with boys to 21 years is a welcome step. 

The resources of the earth are limited and population control is the need of the hour. This is also in conformity with the goals as laid down by the United Nations. While population trends are not explicitly mentioned in the SDGs, but several of the SDGs are directly or indirectly related to future demographic trends. As humans are the only polluters in the planet, restricting their unbridled growth must remain the core issue for India and the world.

Published in IFJ, 1 January 2022

REMEMBERING THE LIBERATION WAR ON ITS GOLDEN JUBILEE

Today, on 16 December 2021, we commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Vijay Divas—the Liberation War. This is also a time to introspect and remember all those who fought for freedom and pay homage to those who laid down their lives and who were wounded in action in this war.

The perfidy of the West Pakistan dominated ruling elite in refusing to hand over power to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman after he had won the elections in 1970 was the final straw that led him to declare independence. And to suppress the surge in Bengali nationalism, the Pakistan military began the infamous ‘Operation Searchlight’ at the stroke of midnight on 25 March 1971, resulting in the worst genocide in modern times. Over the next nine months, the Pakistan military killed over three million Bengalis and raped over two million women.

Brutality, unfortunately, has been the lexicon of the Pakistan army, ever since Pakistan came into existence. It started with the rape and killing of innocents in Kashmir in October 1947 and then continued with the murder, abduction and rape of  civilians in Balochistan during the first, second and third Baluch resistance movements in 1948, 1958 and 1962-1969 respectively. The US and the West maintained a quiescent silence, overlooking the barbarity of the Pakistan military, simply because Pakistan was, to them, a frontline state in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The genocide of the hapless Bengalis was thus a continuation of Pakistan military brutality which was ingrained in their psyche. They knew that they could get away and the world would remain a silent spectator, sacrificing human rights and dignity on the altar of political expediency. It is a sad fact of history that even after the defeat of the Pakistan military in 1971, the perpetrators of genocide were not tried for crimes against humanity. That is why Pakistan continues to remain a troubled state and is embroiled with myriad insurgencies. The Pakistan military has never been held accountable for  its actions.

Over ten million people crossed over to India as refugees and from among their ranks were formed the Multi Bahini, which was raised and trained in India and from which rose a resistance movement. The Multi Bahini constantly harassed the Pakistan military, leaving them no respite and forcing their units to disperse. By mid November, the Indian Army was fighting alongside the Mukti Bahini, after receiving orders to capture weakly held BOPs and secure lodgement areas to establish the Bangladesh government on its soil to gain political credibility and mileage.

The Mukti Bahini's initial operations along the border set the stage for the offensive operations of the Indian Armed Forces, which began on the night of 3-4 December 1971. Moving on four thrust lines against the Pakistani defence network which comprised three infantry divisions plus a large number of Wings of East Pakistan Rifles and West Pakistan Rangers, the operations culminated in 13 days with the surrender of the Pakistan military in Dhaka.

It was however the Eastern thrust from India’s IV Corps commanded by General Sagat Singh that made spectacular progress and broke the back of Pakistani resistance. On 9 December, 4 Guards had been lifted by MI-4 helicopters and dropped across the mighty Meghna River, South-West of Bhairab Bazar. Next day, as 4 Guards had secured the bridgehead across the Meghna, 19 Punjab and a battalion of the East Bengal Rifles, commanded by Lt Col Shafiullah, who later rose to be the Chief of the Bangladesh Army were ferried across the River. By 11 December, two more battalions, 18 Rajput and 10 Bihar had been airlifted by helicopters to Narsingdi. The road to Dhaka now lay open.

On 11 December, 2 Para Battalion Group, taking off from the Dum Dum and Kalaikonda airfields, was para-dropped into Tangail, 70 miles North-West of Dhaka. The battalion captured Poongli Bridge and later that night set an ambush for the retreating Pakistani troops from Jamalpur, causing heavy casualties to the enemy. By 12th evening, a link up had been established by 95 Mountain Brigade of 101 Communication Zone Force (CZF), thus opening another axis to Dhaka. On 14 December, the Indian Air Force mounted an attack on the Governor’s house, after Indian intelligence intercepted a message about a high-level meeting of the civil leadership, taking place there. While the meeting was in progress, four MiG 21 aircraft of 28 Squadron based in Guwahati fired their rockets which ripped through the massive roof of the main hall. The Governor, Mr AH Malik was shell-shocked and tendered his resignation with immediate effect. This proved to be the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back. On 15 December, 311 Brigade was close to Gulshan Model Town next to Dhaka Cantonment and 301 Brigade was in the area of Adamji Jute Mills in Narayanganj. 101 CZF was at Mirpur Bridge over the Bhuriganga River and early next morning was at Kurmitola. The Pakistani Army in Dhaka was now hemmed in from all sides and it was simply a matter of time and form, on how they would surrender.

The initial plans of Army Headquarters and of the Eastern Command did not envisage Dhaka as the terminal objective. It was General Sagat’s brilliance and strategic foresight which made him turn the direction of his thrust towards Dhaka as against his orders to advance towards Chittagong. His crossing of the Meghna on 9  December was a master stroke, and could well have led to the end of the war at that stage itself. Gavin Young, a British correspondent reported that General Niazi, soon after getting information of the crossing of the Meghna, informed Army HQ in Rawalpindi that he was no longer in a position to stop the Indian advance and asked them to arrange for a ceasefire. He was prepared to surrender on the 10th itself, but was given false hopes of American and Chinese intervention held out by Yahya Khan, and so he desisted.

Recently, two books on the Liberation War have been published, one by Mr Jairam Ramesh, a politician and the other by Mr Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, a retired diplomat, both questioning the narrative put forth by Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw that the then Prime Minister, Smt Indira Gandhi, delayed the start of the war from April-May to December, based on his advice. It is likely that Indira Gandhi had received advice on the timing of the war from many quarters, and not only from the Army Chief. But it was the Chief’s advice which would have been binding. Politicians do not set the date for military operations without military advice as that is a sure recipe for disaster and Indira Gandhi was much too shrewd a person to fight a war which could be lost. She would have listened to advice from her Chief. A needless controversy really to undermine an iconic Army Chief, but such barbs cannot dent the image of the Field Marshal. 

In the final analysis, the Liberation War was a victory for humanity, won by the combined efforts of the Indian Armed Forces, the Mukti Bahini and the people of Bangladesh. With the surrender of the Pakistan armed forces, an era of unprecedented brutality committed by the Pakistan military came to an end. Today, as we commemorate the Golden Jubilee of the Liberation War, let us also build on this spirit of cooperation to make the region a safer and better place for the people of the two countries and also for the region.