Answer

Demographic divide in India reflects stark differences in population growth rates between the northern and southern states. As per the 2011 Census, Uttar Pradesh alone (200 million) exceeds the combined population of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala. This population imbalance influences political representation in Parliament and complicates resource allocation, sparking debates on federal equity and economic sustainability.

Demographic Divide Between India’s Northern and Southern States

• Population Growth Disparity: Northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have high fertility rates, whereas southern states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have achieved population stabilization.
  For example: The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of Bihar (2.98) is much higher than Kerala (1.79), leading to uneven demographic weight in political representation.
• Political Representation Imbalance: With the upcoming delimitation exercise, northern states may gain more Lok Sabha seats, while southern states may lose representation despite better governance.
  For example: If seat allocation is based purely on population, Uttar Pradesh may gain multiple seats, reducing the influence of states like Karnataka.
• Economic Contribution vs. Allocation: Southern states contribute more to India’s GDP and tax revenues but receive less in central financial devolution compared to northern states.
  For example: Tamil Nadu and Karnataka contribute significantly to tax revenues, but Bihar and UP receive higher per capita central funds due to their larger populations.
• Human Development Disparity: Southern states have better literacy, healthcare, and life expectancy, yet financial allocations favor states with weaker development indices.
  For example: Kerala’s Human Development Index (HDI) is very high , far ahead of Uttar Pradesh, but UP receives more funds based on population.
• Urbanization and Migration Impact: Southern states experience higher urbanization and in-migration, increasing infrastructure burdens without proportional resource allocation.
  For example: Bengaluru and Hyderabad attract large migrant populations, yet infrastructure funding doesn’t match their growing urban demands.

Challenges Posed by the Demographic Divide

• Federal Tensions and Political Discontent: Southern states feel penalized for successful population control, raising concerns over federal fairness in representation.
  For example: Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the delimitation exercise, fearing diminished parliamentary influence.
• Economic Disparities in Fund Allocation: Higher tax contributions from southern states do not translate into equitable financial returns, affecting infrastructure and welfare programs.
  For example: Karnataka’s GST contribution is among the highest, yet Bihar receives more central grants per capita.
• Governance Incentives and Disincentives: Rewarding high population growth disincentivizes demographic management, potentially worsening development gaps in high-growth northern states.
  For example: States with lower fertility rates, like Kerala, see no financial rewards, whereas high-growth states benefit from central fund allocations.
• Representation vs. Development Performance: Population-based seat allocation does not consider governance efficiency, meaning well-managed states get fewer MPs despite better policies.
  For example: Kerala, with high literacy and healthcare, may lose parliamentary influence compared to UP, despite superior governance.
• Strain on Public Services in Southern Cities: Rising migration due to economic opportunities burdens urban infrastructure, creating disparities in service quality.
  For example: Chennai and Bengaluru struggle with housing and transport issues due to heavy migration from less-developed northern states.

Measures to Address Demographic Disparities

• Balanced Representation Formula: Consider population density instead of absolute numbers to ensure fair parliamentary representation for states with stable populations.
  For example: Northeast states like Sikkim (density ~86/km²) already have special provisions, which can be extended to southern states with controlled populations.
• Demographic Performance Weightage: Allocate Lok Sabha seats and financial devolution based on demographic progress, rewarding states with lower fertility and better governance.
  For example: The 15th Finance Commission introduced a weightage for demographic performance, partially addressing this issue.
• Economic Contribution-Based Allocation: Increase fiscal incentives for high tax-paying states to ensure equitable returns for their contributions.
  For example: States like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu could get higher infrastructure funding in proportion to their GST contributions
• Regional Development Equalization Fund: Establish a special fund to support lagging regions without penalizing better-performing states.
  For example: The Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) can be expanded with a balanced approach to help northern states without harming the south.
• Urban Infrastructure Support for Migrant Hubs: Introduce a migration impact fund for cities facing high in-migration, ensuring sustainable urban growth.
  For example: Cities like Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Chennai could get additional central assistance based on rising urban demands.

Addressing India’s demographic divide requires fiscal federalism, equitable resource distribution, and delinking political representation from population growth. A multi-stakeholder approach, promoting investment in human capital, and strengthening regional economies will ensure that demographic shifts fuel national progress rather than discord.

DOWNLOAD PDF