Population and Sustainability in India: Critical Lessons from Global Experiences

India is the world’s most populous country, and the conversation around its population often swings between alarm and opportunity. But how should a nation of over 1.4 billion people approach population and sustainability? The answer isn’t as straightforward as many assume. By examining global experiences – from China’s coercive policies to Kerala’s voluntary model – India can chart a path that respects human rights while achieving sustainable development goals.

Authoritarian approaches vs. human rights: the China debate 🔗

Whenever population control is discussed in India, China’s One-Child Policy inevitably comes up. Some commentators argue that India needs a similarly forceful approach to curb its growth rate. But this argument misses a crucial point that Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has consistently highlighted.

According to Sen, China’s dramatic fertility decline was not primarily driven by the coercive One-Child Policy introduced in 1979. Rather, it was the result of comprehensive socio-economic reforms that preceded it. China had already expanded healthcare access in rural areas, significantly improved educational opportunities – especially for women – and increased female participation in the workforce. These factors had already brought the fertility rate down from about 5.9 births per woman in the 1950s to approximately 2.98 by 1978, before the one-child policy even began.

In a PBS interview, Sen stated clearly that the biggest factor in reducing fertility globally is girls’ education, not restrictive policies. He argued that China’s fertility trends aligned closely with what would be expected based on women’s schooling and employment levels alone, meaning the one-child policy may have added very little to what social development had already achieved.

Kerala: India’s own success story 🔗

India doesn’t need to look abroad for a model. The state of Kerala demonstrates how voluntary, rights-based approaches can achieve population stabilisation without any coercion. Kerala’s fertility rate stands at approximately 1.8 births per woman – comparable to many Western European nations and lower than China’s rate when its one-child policy was in effect.

How did Kerala achieve this? Through sustained investment in human development. The state boasts near-universal literacy (above 90% for women), accessible public healthcare systems, strong maternal and child health services, and notably higher social status for women. Kerala’s female-to-male ratio is above 1.03 – on par with European ratios – in stark contrast to much of India where this ratio is severely skewed.

The critical lesson here is that social development precedes demographic transition. When women are educated, economically empowered, and have access to quality healthcare, they choose smaller families on their own. No coercion is necessary.

The two-child norm: health benefits vs. social consequences 🔗

Several Indian states have experimented with two-child norms, particularly for people seeking government jobs or elected positions. At first glance, this seems reasonable – fewer pregnancies do reduce maternal health risks and complications. However, when this policy operates within a society that strongly prefers sons, the outcomes become deeply harmful.

The son preference crisis 🔗

India has a deeply entrenched cultural preference for male children. When families are told they can have only two children, the pressure to ensure at least one son intensifies dramatically. This has led to a sharp rise in sex-selective abortions. Research published by the Centre for Economic Policy Research estimates that approximately 480,000 female foetuses were aborted annually in India between 1995 and 2005 alone.

The consequences are visible in the numbers. India’s child sex ratio fell from 964 girls per 1,000 boys in 1971 to just 914 girls per 1,000 boys by the 2011 Census. A Pew Research Center survey found that 94% of Indians believe it is very important for a family to have at least one son, while about 40% consider it acceptable to use modern methods to balance the number of boys and girls in a family – a euphemism for sex-selective procedures.

Health risks and rights violations 🔗

While fewer pregnancies benefit women’s physical health by reducing complications, coercive policies cannot be justified as health promotion tools. The right to decide freely the number and spacing of one’s children is a fundamental reproductive right recognised under international law. When a two-child norm forces women into sex-selective abortions – often unsafe, illegal procedures – it directly undermines the very health benefits it claims to provide. Women also face domestic violence for giving birth to daughters, creating a cycle of harm that no population target can justify.

A study published in the Journal of Population Economics found that banning sex-selective abortions without changing underlying social norms simply redirected discrimination to the postnatal stage. Families where girls were born showed widening gender gaps in health investment and educational attainment. In other words, unwanted daughters suffered not before birth, but after it.

Population density and economic progress: busting the myth 🔗

One of the most persistent myths about population is that high density automatically leads to poverty and underdevelopment. The evidence says otherwise.

Consider South Korea, one of the most densely populated countries in the world with approximately 530 people per square kilometre. Despite this, South Korea transformed from one of the poorest nations in the 1960s to a high-income OECD member, reaching a GDP per capita of around USD 30,000 – close to the OECD average. The Netherlands, another densely populated nation, consistently ranks among the world’s wealthiest and most developed countries.

India’s own data tells the same story. States like Odisha and Madhya Pradesh have relatively low population densities but struggle with high poverty rates. Meanwhile, Kerala, Punjab, and Haryana have higher population densities yet enjoy significantly greater affluence and better human development indicators.

The lesson is clear: economic progress depends on how resources are managed and distributed, not on how many people live per square kilometre. Sound governance, investment in human capital, and equitable resource allocation matter far more than population density.

Think globally, act locally 🔗

Many countries have successfully navigated their demographic transitions, and each offers useful lessons for India.

Thailand succeeded through community-based approaches where local health workers provided family planning within culturally appropriate frameworks. Bangladesh achieved remarkable fertility reduction through women’s empowerment initiatives and accessible reproductive health services. Iran witnessed one of the fastest fertility declines in history through a combination of religious leader endorsement, male involvement in family planning, and universal healthcare access.

The common thread across these successes is their adaptation to local contexts while maintaining core principles of voluntary choice and addressing the social determinants of fertility. India’s enormous regional, cultural, and socio-economic diversity makes a one-size-fits-all policy especially misguided. What works in Kerala will need significant adaptation for Bihar or Uttar Pradesh.

Blindly replicating any foreign model – whether China’s authoritarian approach or any other – without accounting for local realities is a recipe for failure. The wisdom of “think globally, act locally” has never been more relevant.

A rights-based approach to population 🔗

Perhaps the most important shift in thinking about population came at the landmark 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo. The conference fundamentally reframed the population debate: from treating people as numbers to be controlled, to recognising them as rights-holders whose choices must be respected.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has consistently emphasised that population dynamics are the result of individual choices and opportunities. According to UNFPA’s position on sustainable development and population dynamics, countries should seek to enlarge – not restrict – individual rights. There is no place for coercive measures of population control or for setting demographic targets, as such policies are contrary to human rights and have been shown to be counterproductive.

People as human resource, not a problem 🔗

A country’s population should be viewed as its human resource pool, not as a burden to be reduced. When people are educated, healthy, and empowered, they become productive contributors to the economy and society. India’s demographic dividend – its large, young working-age population – is an asset that few countries possess today. But realising this potential depends entirely on investments in education, healthcare, skill development, and equitable opportunity.

Sustainable development is ultimately not about reducing the number of people. It is about ensuring that resources are managed wisely and distributed fairly. A country of 1.4 billion well-educated, healthy citizens is not inherently unsustainable – but a country of any size with extreme inequality, poor governance, and environmental degradation will struggle regardless of its population numbers.

The path forward for India 🔗

India’s population challenge is real, but the solution lies not in coercion or panic, but in smart, evidence-based policy. The evidence from around the world – and from within India itself – points to a consistent set of priorities. Investing in women’s education and empowerment remains the single most effective driver of voluntary fertility reduction. Expanding access to quality healthcare and family planning services, challenging deep-rooted gender norms like son preference, and ensuring equitable economic development across regions are all essential components.

States that have achieved demographic transition – Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh – did so not through punitive laws but through sustained social investment. States still lagging behind need the same treatment: more schools, more hospitals, more jobs, and more agency for women.

What do you think? Can India’s vast regional diversity be an advantage in developing locally adapted population strategies, or does it make coordinated policy nearly impossible? And is it time India fully embraced viewing its population as its greatest resource rather than its biggest problem?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
2. https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/one-child-policy-not-main-factor-in-china-s-birth-control-amartya-sen-115110300655_1.html
3. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/09/22/population-delusion-and-reality/
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9638589/
5. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/banning-sex-selective-abortion-has-unintended-effects-health-and-education-children
6. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/03/02/son-preference-and-abortion/
7. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-022-00896-z
8. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/kor/south-korea/population-density
9. https://www.unfpa.org/human-rights
10. https://www.unfpa.org/press/sustainable-development-and-population-dynamics-placing-people-centre