NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Do Badly, Get A Prize

Some time in the next few years, parliamentary constituencies in India will be redrawn, better reflecting the distribution of population. This is not an unusual procedure, it happens every now and then. When it next does, states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar will get more seats than they have today. Their gain will come at the expense of states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Why will this happen? Because population growth is slowing in TN and Kerala, whereas it is not in UP and Bihar. (Actually, the growth rate in the north is slowing, but much more slowly than it is in the south). That is, TN and Kerala constitute a steadily smaller share of the country's population, while UP and Bihar's share grows larger. So if we accept that Parliament must reflect the country's population, that each MP must represent about the same number of Indians, UP and Bihar will inevitably gain Lok Sabha seats while Kerala and TN lose them.

Does this seem slightly unfair to you? It does to me.

As Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze point out in their India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, there are demographic measures in which TN and Kerala in particular have not just outstripped north India, but even outdone China, the country whose population control success we like to envy. For example, take the total fertility rate (TFR), defined as the number of babies a woman will have, on average, in her lifetime. A TFR of 2 is replacement level: if 2 children are born to each woman in a country, the children will exactly replace the parents and eventually the population will stabilize. (In reality, replacement level is about 2.1, because some children die).

Between 1979 and 1991, China reduced its TFR from 2.8 to 2.0. In the same period, TN went from 3.5 to 2.2, Kerala from 3.0 to 1.8. That is, both states achieved greater declines in fertility than China; Kerala began with a higher TFR than China in 1979 and had pushed it well below China's by 1991. In fact, TN and Kerala have achieved TFRs comparable to or better than countries such as the US and Sweden.

The states of the north lag far behind Kerala and TN in tackling the growth of their populations. Looking at just TFR again, in 1991 UP sported a figure of 5.1, Rajasthan and MP 4.6 each and Bihar 4.4. Combine these numbers with the already high population of this belt of the country, and you know why India's overall TFR in 1991 was still high, at 3.6.

Kerala's success, as Dreze and Sen tell us, "can be traced to the role of public action in promoting a range of social opportunities relating inter alia to elementary education, land reform, the role of women in society and the widespread and equitable provision of health care and other public services." But curiously, as they also tell us, UP's failures "can be plausibly attributed to the public neglect of the very same opportunities."

The very same opportunities.

The southern states, with Kerala in the lead, have worked hard at putting in place measures towards bettering their citizens' lives. These measures have naturally driven those states towards what most Indians would agree is a desirable goal: reducing the speed at which their populations grow. The results are visible to all. The northern states have almost deliberately neglected those very measures. The results there are also visible to all.

But here's the irony that seems unfair to me: Kerala's success will now result in a drop in the number of Lok Sabha seats it will have, because its population is a decreasing share of the country's. The better quality of life it has achieved for its residents will be punished by lessened representation for those residents. UP's conspicuous failure will give it more seats in Parliament, because its share is increasing. That's the reward for wilful neglect and apathy.

The very parts of India that drag India down on so many counts are rewarded with greater slices of political power. The states that point the way to a better India are politically penalized for their pains.

All of which makes it reasonable to ask: should population alone be a determinant of such power? By making it so, are we not putting out at least one disincentive for states to reduce their population growth rates? Should a state's record of responsibility and diligence not be a factor in the political power that is allotted to it?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I'm just asking them to stir a search for answers.

I also ask them because I often read about a demand that reminds me of this irony. For example, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh made the demand in Muscat some ten days ago. India will relentlessly pursue its case for a permanent membership of the UN Security Council, he said. For "it was now becoming clear to the world community that a country of India's size could not be kept out of the Security Council."

There are lots of people who would nod their heads sagely on reading this. They say cogent things about India's rightful place in the world, the way we have been deprived of our voice, the sneakiness of Western powers who want to keep us weak. No longer! At one billion people and counting, we're too big to ignore!

Fine. But should our one billion population, by itself, get us a seat on the Security Council?

Now let's get a few things straight. I find I have less and less regard for and interest in the UN and its Security Council by the day. I don't have any illusions about a world order in which the US, Britain, France, Russia and China are permanently on the SC: there is much nastiness that these very countries have never answered for. In any case, there's not a jot of evidence of what Jaswant Singh says about it "becoming clear to the world community" that India should be on the SC. My impression of the world community's view of India is somewhat at odds with that. I don't even agree that India should aspire to a SC seat at all: I don't see that it will do either the SC or India any good. There are other ways we can make our mark on the world scene.

All very well, of course, but for the time being, leave aside all those considerations. The question remains: does our vast population alone mean we deserve a SC place?

If yes, we expect the world to reward our irresponsibility in failing to give our citizens better lives and thereby control our numbers. What's more, we will actually further reward the irresponsibility and neglect of our northern states, the major contributors to those numbers. What's still more, if we make the case that numbers alone are the ticket to the Security Council, our gentle neighbour Pakistan won't be very far down the line for membership. (Seventh, by my reckoning). How would Jaswant Singh and company like that?

Should a country's record in international affairs not be a factor in the part it plays in the world community, whether that is a seat on the SC or something else? I don't mean to argue that the US, Britain, France, Russia and China have played stellar roles in international affairs. (That they have not is one reason for my decreasing regard for the UN and the SC). I ask this only to raise the question about our own record. What do we think of it? What does the rest of the world think of it? In fact, just how does the rest of the world look at India?

Would we get honest answers to such questions if we stopped pretending that our size alone makes us an important country? That our size alone must guarantee us little prizes?

Me, I resent the greater parliamentary voice and power the northern states will soon acquire by virtue of being criminally indifferent to the welfare of their people. I don't believe they should get it.

Should the same apply to India's aspirations to a seat on that Security Council? Why or why not?

-------------

Tailpiece

Several of you wrote to me after my last column: The Contact Us Ad. Unfortunately, some glitch the mail means I only saw that there had been mail; I have been unable to read it. May I ask you who wrote to write again? Thanks.

Dilip D'Souza