Population: strength or weakness

Population: strength or weakness

“Population is strength of the nation, but it is weakness when it is beyond manageable limit.” This question is most relevant for India, especially in the time, when a Pandemic diseases like COVID -19 attacks. Current status shows that India’s population is over 136 crore and by 2024 it will be over 144 crores. Its current population growth rate shows trend of steady decline in many states from earlier status. But even if current growth rate is maintained it may overtake the China by within a decade from now.

India’s first population policy was comprehensively declared on the 16^th April, 1976. In that policy state Governments were allowed to enact legislative measures regarding compulsory sterilization. Indians were against that policy of compulsory sterilization, but that was the beginning step of bringing awareness among Indian mass. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India earmarked for Plan and a Research and Programme Committee appointed by the centre. (a) Socio-economic and cultural studies (b) Biological and qualitative aspects, were two major sub-committees constituted within that main committee. In 1977 the policy was revised and renamed as Family Welfare Policy. Family planning had some compulsory guidelines but Family Welfare emphasized on awareness, health, economy and reducing or controlling birth and fertility voluntarily.  In that policy the age of marriage for girls was raised from 15 to 18 years of age and for boys it was raised from 18 to 21 years of age. Registration of marriage was suggested to be made compulsory, though it has not reached total success till today.

On the 15^th February, 2000 the Government of India chalked out New Population Policy (NPP) aiming at to achieve Zero Growth of population by 2045. It included reducing (a) infant mortality rate, (b) maternal motility rate (c) birth rates (d) total fertility rate. New Population Policy extended its hands to tackle manifold issues with regard to the welfare of the population. National Commission on Population headed by the Prime Minister and its State level Commissions headed by Chief Ministers were two major bodies, which were supposed to contemplate the implementing policy through Panchayat, Municipality and Non Governmental public organizations. Compulsory registration of birth, death, marriage and pregnancy had been suggested to be made necessary by the states.

One of the major policies was freezing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha at the current level of 545, which is based on the 1971 census till 2026.  As per original schedule the number should have changed as per 2001 census. India in its new population policy avoided any kind of coercive policy of reducing birth rate. Compulsory sterilization or introducing any norms on number of child per couple never came as law in the policy. Empowering women for improved health and nutrition worked tremendously in bringing birth control. Free and compulsory education to every child up-to 14 years of age, universal immunization of children against all preventable diseases through vaccines or drops and promotion of delayed marriage were not direct policy approach to the birth control. But tremendous impact of these indirect policies through voluntary participation of men and women in certain sections was seen that stabilized the population growth to some extent. But in spite of consistency in policy and action the passive approach of population control the policy is yet to be realized in certain sections of Indian population. It is still explosive in rural areas of many central Indian states particularly with certain sections of society. India now need, not only awareness, but some clear cut approach towards the issue also. But laying down a coercive policy, compulsory norms and stringent law may still not be acceptable for the Indian mass. But a comprehensive, steady and dedicated programme of instilling right perceptions and meticulous followings among mass, especially in those sections, who are still contributing high growth rate of populations, is a very much need of the time today.

India or Bharat?

India or Bharat?

If the source of coming of the name ‘Bharat’ is from the name of ‘King Bharat’ then how can we call ‘Bharat Mata’ today, when the King is male? This is the commonly asked question today after demand for naming of our country as ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ is taking its upward movement. Two stories of mythological history of India describe the fact that the name ‘Bharat’ derived from either the name of King or the name of Community. The word ‘Bharat’ is Sanskrit origin, which is a most ancient term of Tree. Purana, Mahabharata & Rigveda also referred this country as ‘Bharat’ or ‘BharatVarsha.’

According to Mahabharata, India was called BharatVarsha after the name of legendary Emperor Bharat Chakrabarty, who was ancestor of Pandavas and Kauravas. Emperor Bharat had conquered almost all major areas of greater India and united those into a single political entity, known as ‘BharatVarsha.’ But Rigveda has different story of becoming BharatVarsha. It was a battle of Ten Kings to overthrow King Sudasa, who belonged to the Bharata Tribe. Ultimately King Sudasa achieved victory and all defeated groups joined Bharata Tribe and accordingly his kingdom was called ‘BharatVarsha’

‘Bharat’ ‘Hindustan’ ‘Hind’ ‘Bharatbhumi’ ‘Bharatvarsha’ various names had been suggested for the present cosmopolitan India in the Constituent Assembly on September 18, 1949, before it was born. But finally the line - “India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States” is written in the Article 1 (1) of the Constitution.

India is a home of oldest civilization of the world, which was believed to be inhabited approximately 250,000 years ago. The country, now known as largest democracy of the world, India is celebrating its 74^th years of Independence in the current year, 2020. According to etymological history of India that particular word might have originated from the name of a valley that is 'Indus valley' and we were known as people of that. By that way the name 'India' came into being before independence itself. It is explained as English term of ‘Bharat’ by many language experts because; it was christened by them in the history. But the etymological study illustrates that the word is origin of old Indian civilization and very much connected with India. May be these are some core points as to why the Constituent Assembly decided to keep two identities of the nation, that is 'India' and the 'Bharat' in unison.

Now, if we go through two lines of thinking about renaming the country we need to see its two meaning and implications too. If the name ‘India’ is retained then that will be based on our civilization. But if it is changed to ‘Bharat’ then that will be like dedicated to one King or Community, which may again be questioned in future. Because. We had many Kings, Emperors and Communities in the history and they were also found equally dominant, powerful, and influential having great contribution in maintaining our identity and territories. India being a Union of different states, its language, religion and ethnicity are also heterogeneous not homogeneous. So decision of converting the name of ‘India’ to ‘Bharat’ may be easy in Parliament by majority, but it may click again to a long drawn debate and conflict among Indian scholars and mass.