Worries of shrinking South

Its concern about losing political power due to shrinking population must be addressed

Alok Tiwari

We have worried about an exploding population for such a long time that to see something opposite of it as a problem is disorienting. But that is exactly the case. India is now the world’s most populous country and will remain so for a long time. We still have a growing population though the rate of growth is rapidly going down, a subject this column had discussed earlier (A depopulating world, Personal View, LT Jan 31, 2024). Now the problem has begun to bite. At least two southern chief ministers—N Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh and M K Stalin of Tamil Nadu—have spoken of measures to increase population in their respective states. Naidu is going to extremes, suggesting legislation to bar anyone with less than two kids from holding public offices, an about turn from policies that presently put similar bar on people having more than two kids.

Their concerns are rooted in the fact that India is now successful in containing its population growth. Their problem is that southern states have been too successful. Though we will continue to have more people for a couple more decades, India’s national fertility rate has fallen below the replacement level of 2.1. Figures suggest that it may be close to around 2. Within India though, it is much lower for the southern states than the northern states. By some estimates it may be around 1.7 for the five large southern states. That bodes a precipitous decline in population in future.

This is a problem for usual reasons—more senior citizens than youngsters, less supply of working people, social isolation, etc. But this is balanced by more availability of resources per capita, better wages, less unemployment, cheaper housing, less crime. Overall, it is a plus for an overcrowded country like India and a definite plus for the planet. The worries of southern states stem from two issues. One is same as what is worrying many developed countries. The falling population has resulted in migration from other places and is threatening to alter the local culture.

The second is unique to India. It is an impending loss of political power because of the fewer people in the south. The next delimitation exercise for the Lok Sabha is set to take place after 2025. This would mean an increase in Lok Sabha MPs to reflect the rising population of the country. Now, as per the present formula, the number of seats to be allocated to each state will be according to their population. Here the country’s cow belt will win hands down while south will be a definite loser. The four states to have fertility rate of more than 2.1 are UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Meghalaya. States like MP and Rajasthan are believed to be close to or at replacement level.

Population in the north is growing and will continue to grow for some decades. Even in past decades, north has grown at a much faster rate than south. The can of delimitation was kicked down the street twice in last 50 years precisely to avoid facing consequences of such lopsided population growth. But it cannot be put off indefinitely as it is rendering Indian democracy pretty meaningless. An average MP now represents more than twice the number of people he did in sixties. This means value of our vote has gone down. If delimitation is done today, the north will get proportionately many more MPs than south. It will only become worse as the time passes. Hence the worries of Naidu and Stalin.

From their point of view, they would be punished for being good boys. Southern states were better at educating their people, empowering their women, and running their economy which resulted in them achieving lower fertility rates earlier. The north has been a laggard on all these fronts. South already nurses a grievance about losing out on national finances. At present the national tax pie is divided on a socialist formula—taking from the rich and giving to the poor. This means better off states (read southern and western) contribute more while poorer states (north and east) receive more monies. The cumulative effect of this transfer of wealth over decades has meant a huge largesse for the laggard states. In fact, the worse they perform the more they get while the better others perform the less they get.

Add to it the potential loss of political power and the disgruntlement of the south is complete. This can have dangerous consequences for our federal structure and governance. The good news is it is not inevitable. The first step is to recognize it politically as a genuine concern. While an increase in number of Lok Sabha seats is called for, their distribution can certainly be tweaked. Through a political consensus and suitable constitutional amendments, the delimitation commission can be asked to freeze the percentage of representation of each state to existing level. This would mean relative representation remains the same even as total number of MPs goes up. So, MPs in more populous states will represent more people than those from south. This should not present any great difficulty since that is the situation for several decades.

Secondly, finance commission should be mandated to add some progressive metrics to division of national revenue. While it is humane to uplift the poor but there should also be some reward for good performance. For example, states that spend more on education and healthcare should be given more resources than states that blow up money on less productive things like political freebies. A good percentage of money should be tied to progress made on human development indices and not merely per capita income. These measures should be locked in until such time that laggard states catch up with others. It would provide them incentive to do the right thing rather than benefit from remaining backward. It would also be better for fostering national unity.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Oct 30, 2024