Commentary/Amberish K Diwanji

Indian nationhood is not so well defined or established so as to make us complacent

This article is pessimistic and predicting doom of sorts. A projection has been made about the population growth of India, which is, no doubt, scary. The projection did the usual round of declaring that India will overtake China by 2040.

However, what is worrisome is the playoff between democracy and demography. The population projection pointed out that the south Indian states have stabilised their populations (Kerala and Tamil Nadu) or are on the verge of doing so (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh) in five years of so.

Maharashtra, often considered the border between north and south India, will stablise its population in 10 years's time (which includes the massive immigrants that this state receives, especially in Bombay city). This takes care of the Deccan states, which are among India's most industrialised and urbanised. Even though Kerala is hardly industrialised, its cent per cent literacy puts it on top in the human development index.

The other sea-bound states, Bengal, Gujarat, Orissa, have also made more progress regarding the control of population, which, though less than the Deccan states, is better than that of north India. The north India that I refer to does not include Delhi, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Punjab.

The trouble starts with the so-called heartland, or cowbelt states of India. States like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. The most backward, and with fast rising populations. Rajasthan has at present comparatively a low population, but this vast state with many desert areas cannot support a much larger population, even though there are hopes that the Indira Gandhi canal might turn it into a green state. The population in these states will not stabilise till well into the middle of the next century, Uttar Pradesh by as late as 2100!

Yet figures in absolute terms tell only half the story. The other half is the relative figure, in terms of percentages and proportions. This especially becomes important because in a democracy, where sheer numbers translate into votes, and the ruling elite. That this factor is important is made clear by the constitutional amendment of 1971, which has kept the number of seats in Parliament constant at the 1971 census.

This was done to ensure that those states that actually succeed in limiting their population growth do not lose out by way of proportional representation in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha (which, questionably, is also based on population of the state). The amendment is due to be over at the turn of the century, just four years away, and this is likely to snowball into a major controversy.

It took about fortyfive years before a south Indian could become the prime minister of India, when P V Narasimha Rao sat in India's top seat of power. And this was possible only because the votes from north India were extremely divided, giving south Indian Congress members of Parliament enough numbers to ensure their brethren as prime minister. But one wonders how long this will last.

It is, of course, possible that the day will come when Indians will see themselves primarily as Indians and vote accordingly, but unrealistic, given human nature and the sheer disparities among Indians. Because, votes are often among emotional lines rather than purely rational lines.

You vote for someone because you think he will best serve your interests first and someone you can relate to. And this means voting along ethnic and regional lines. Of course, this does not apply to everyone at all times; there are moments when certain persons capture the imagination of the entire country.

What is scary is that the delicate proportion will be shortly disturbed when the delimitation is taken up again for India. When delimitation is taken up again, it will be easy to realise that the proportion of north Indian seats (mainly UP and Bihar) will increase more than those of south/Deccan India, or of any other region of India.

The tragedy is that the very hard effort and success of the southern states is going to harm them vis-a-vis the north, who have failed to bring down their large populations (though they have certainly curbed the growth rate). An increase in the northern proportion will only increase their domination in Parliament.

And it is not just who becomes the prime minister, but all those who make the laws: the honourable members of Parliament. Not only is north India overpopulated, it is also most backward. The north never had a period of reformation or renaissance as did the south, Bengal, and Maharashtra. The population is largely illiterate, feudal, and quite casteist and communal. It is their attitudes that will dominate the process of making laws.

A complete domination of north Indians whose numbers give them a decisive advantage in passing the laws can fuel alienation of the people, who might often feel that they are cut off from the decision-making powers that be. An urbanised and increasingly industrialised southern half might become resentful, especially if it feels that its interests are being neglected.

As it is, from the Centre's exchequer, southern states have often complained of neglect. The Finance Commission, which decides the states's share from the exchequer, has placed greater emphasis on population as a basis for dividing the goods, giving north India an advantage.

This is not to scare but just to warn. Indian nationhood is not so well defined or established so as to make us complacent. Our legislators will have to find a way out when the time for the next delimitation comes up; but if the simple ratio of one seat per million (as used in 1971) is followed, there might be trouble ahead. Success in family planning should be rewarded, not penalised by decreasing the states' proportion.

Besides population is the quality of people. With population under control, the Deccan states will now be able to concentrate on improving the quality of their people. In this regard, mention must be made of Kerala which has achieved nearly 100 per cent literacy. In a decade or two, the other Deccan states, along with Gujarat and Bengal, will follow suit. Thus, these states will produce more of India's most educated and qualified professionals, people eager to join the ranks of people in well-off nations.

On the other hand, despite pockets of excellence, north-central India is teeming with illiterate people, just hungry mouths to be fed, people who migrate out seeking salvation. Mainly rural, these are the people who demand government subsidies and a strong role for the state.

So now, besides the historical differences of language and ethnicity, we face the risk of disparities in population and economy. Quantity with north, giving them overwhelming control of Parliament; quality with the south and sea-bound states, giving them economic power. Unless the differences can be narrowed, it is a cause for worry.