Population can be a key basis for determining the strengths and weaknesses of a nation. For example, a country that somehow managed to acquire the world’s highest per capita income, unrivalled infrastructure and modern weaponry, but which had a population in the six or seven figure range, could never be a global leader. This suggests that although India’s growing population offers some cause for concern in terms of economic development, it is still ultimately a major strategic asset.
The latest census numbers that have just been released offer an interesting snapshot of just where policymakers will need to be focusing their attention as they try to build on this population asset.
India’s current population is now about 1.21 billion—about the same as the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Japan combined. This marks a rise of about 181 million from 2001, an increase that alone is more than the population of shrinking Japan.
According to the provisional figures of the 2011 census, released last week by union Home Secretary GK Pillai and Registrar General of India C Chandramouli, the literacy rate has climbed from 64.83 percent in 2001 to 74.04 percent in 2011. Of the increase in the number of literate Indians, a little over 110 million were female, while 107 million were male.
One other interesting fact: Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state, with a population of 199.5 million. If it were an independent nation, this would make it the sixth most populous state in the world.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
JD
The only time Nehru was right was when he told JRD Tata that India’s population would be its asset.Wrong he was many times and the biggest blunder was giving up India,s Security Council seat to China when USA,UK and France wanted India to take the security council seat from Asia.
RJD
I guess Nehru was always wrong. The increaase in India’s population is a disaster, not an asset. Most of this population is illiterate and impoverished, barely able to eke out an existence. People who have to devote 100% of their time and wealth to just feed themselves will not have any surplus resources for building a great nation.
People living at the subsistence level do not add to national power, if so China would have been the number one nation under Mao Zedong. China only became a great power when 300 million of its people were lifted above the subsistence level under its economic reforms. In essence China is now a nation the size of the USA where people have a middle income interspersed with a subsistence nation of 900 million.
In contrast, India is a nation where maybe 60 million people have a middle level income. In essense it is a nation the size of Britain with a middle income interspersed with a subsistence nation of 1.1 billion.
Adding more people does nothing for national power when the additions are people living at the subsistence level. In fact, it diminishes the agricultural land per person, the capital per person, and puts stress on the environment. India runs the risk of having its growth stunted by an overloaded system. One good crop failure or national disaster and the whole edifice risks becoming unraveled, and if the people start starving, the Britain’s worth of middle income Indians will be swamped by the demands of the subsistence level nation.
It is quite alarming that India’s already too large population grew nearly 20% in 10 years. If this is not curbed, the country risks smothering its progress under impoverished millions of poor. It is shocking to me that any Indian could see runaway overpopulation as an asset.
John Chan
Every article and comment written by an Indian needs to be taken with a bucket of salt. Their revisionist version of history with regards UN and 1962 War is a creation thru the thin air.
The UN was established in 1945, and the permanent members for the UNSC was decided at the same time as well. India only existed as a republic in 1950. Only a nation can be a member of the UN, not a colony. British did not allow a lackey to sit at the same table as equal to his master. The UN is an international organization, it is not a pocket talisman of the US, emperor Eisenhower could not give a permanent membership of UNSC to anyone by decreed. So please stop living in the India’s revisionist version of UN history as missed opportunity.
John Chan
Mahatma Gandhi wanted to join hands with Nazi to drive the British out of India. There were Indians fighting along side with the Imperial Japanese against the Allies in WWII. India was not counted as a member of Axis alliance because it was a colony of Britain.
Frank
India’s youth bulge is also a major asset. However, it is not an asset for India. It is an asset for China.
Because in 2020, India will not be able to feed that many youth, they will need rifles to feed their families.
China should explore that.
Sanket Upadhyay
Why chinese posters are being so hurt to hear about Indias rise? For so long they claimed to be most populous country but India is going to take it from them.
Another thing that China was proud of was the tag of fastest growing economy but India is going to beat China in that field too.
So I am not going to take offense on Chan or Frank comments as the losers always whine.
grishma goga
the population is so much increasing that there food is
a food shotage
jaber
It all depends on how the Indian govt takes this matter. If goverment takes a positive look, then population is an asset.