popu 2011 alok ranjan

8/2/2019 popu 2011 alok ranjan

1/25

Population Growth in India during 2001-2011

An Analysis of Provisional Results of 2011 Population Census

Aalok Ranjan ChaurasiaProfessor

Shyam Institute82, Aradhana NagarBhopal, MP-462003India

[email protected]

April 2011


2/25

Background

India is the largest democracy in the world. It accounted for more than 17 per cent of the worlds

population in 2010 according to the estimates prepared by the United Nations (United Nations,

2008). This 17 per cent of the world population lives on less than 2.5 per cent of the total land

area of the planet Earth. Between 2000 and 2010, worlds population is been estimated to have

increased at the rate of 1.22 per cent per year, adding an average of 79 million persons each

year. Very close to 22 per cent of this increase is estimated to have accounted for by the increase

in population in India and this contribution has been the largest, even larger than the contribution

of China, the most populous country in the world today (United Nations, 2008). Projections

prepared by the United Nations suggest that by the year 2050, population of India will increase

to 1614 million which will account for almost 19 per cent of the estimated world population of

9150 million at that time. This means that of the projected 2854 million increase in world

population in the 50 years between 2000 and 2050, more than 571 million or almost 19 per cent

in crease in the world population will be confined to India alone. These projections also indicate

that by the year 2050, India will become the most populous country in the world surpassing

China. Obviously, population stabilization in the world as a whole will depend on the pace of

demographic transition in India.

During the nineties, the government of India has taken a number of key policy initiatives

that have relevance to future population growth in the country. The first of these initiatives was

the National Population Policy 2000 which aimed at achieving zero population growth in the

country by the year 2045 through reducing fertility to the replacement level by the year 2010

(Government of India, 2000). In the year 2005, the National Rural Health Mission was launched

with the objective of inducing architectural corrections in the public health care deliver system in

the country so as to meet the health and family welfare needs of the people, especially, people

living in rural and remote areas (Government of India, 2005). At the same time the process of

economic reforms that started in 1990 continued with varying pace throughout this period. A

revival of economic reforms and better economic policies during the first decade of the present

century has accelerated the economic growth rate. Today, India is the second fastest growing

major economy of the world.These facts explain the special interest with which the results of the 2011 population

census in India have been awaited. Provisional results of the 2011 population census have now

been released. They supply basic information about population size, rate of population growth,

population sex ratio and levels of literacy for the country as a whole as well as for its constituent

states and Union Territories. This paper analyses salient features of the demographic situation

in the country as revealed by the preliminary results of 2011 population census.

1


3/25

Growth rate trends

The population of India as of 1 March 2011 was 1,210,193,422 persons. This implies an

increase of 17.653 per cent in the ten-year period since the 2001 population census. The

proportionate increase in the population of the country during the decade 1991-2001 was

21.353 per cent which means that the population increase in the country has continued to slow

down and the rate of retardation in population growth appears to have increased. In terms of the

average annual growth rate, the population of the country increased at a rate of 1.626 per cent

per year, well below the average annual increase of 1.935 per cent per year during 1991-2001.

In fact, after achieving the peak growth rate of 2.22 per cent per year during the period 1961-

71, population growth in the country has slowed down in every decade and appears to be picking

up the momentum.

A notable feature of the provisional population figures is that they are very close to

the population projected by the Government of India for the period 2001-2011 on the basis of

the 2001 population census. Government of India had projected that the population of the

country will increase to 1,192,506 thousand by the year 2011 (Government of India, 2006).

Similarly, United Nations had estimated that Indias population would increase to more than 1214

million by the year 2010 (United Nations, 2008). The provisional population figures of 2011

population census suggest that the enumerated population in the country exceeded the projected

population by almost 18 million. During the period 1991-2001, the enumerated population of the

country exceeded the project population by around 16 million whereas, the enumerated

population exceeded the projected population by less than 9 million during the period 1981-

91(Chaurasia and Gulati, 2008). In fact, the average annual population growth rate during the

period 2001-2011 based on the provisional figures of the 2011 population census works out to

be almost 1.63 per cent per year which is substantially higher than the project average annual

growth rate of 1.48 per cent per year. This suggests that demographic transition - reduction in

fertility and mortality - in the country has been slower than the projected one. Population

projections prepared by the Government of India are based on the assumption that the

replacement fertility will be achieved by the year 2021 - not in 2010 as aimed in the National

Population Policy 2000 - and by the year 2010, the total fertility rate will decline to 2.6 birth perwoman of reproductive age. However, the average annual population growth rate during the

period 2001-2011 derived from the provisional figures of the 2011 population census suggests

that the decrease in fertility in the country has been slower than the project one which means that

the country will not able to achieve replacement fertility even by the year 2021. This means that

there is only a distant possibility of achieving stable population by the year 2045 as stipulated

in National Population Policy 2000.

2


4/25

Table 1: India: Population and population growth, 1901-2011.

Year Population

(million)

Decadal change in

population

Average annual

growth rateduring decade

(Per cent)Million Percent1901 238.3961911 252.093 13.697 5.75 0.561921 251.321 -0.772 -0.31 -0.031931 278.977 27.656 11.00 1.041941 318.661 39.684 14.22 1.331951 361.088 42.427 13.31 1.251961 439.235 78.147 21.64 1.96

1971 548.16 108.925 24.80 2.221981 683.329 135.169 24.66 2.201991 846.303 162.974 23.85 2.142001 1028.615 182.312 21.54 1.952011 1210.193 181.578 17.65 1.63

Source: Census reports

Increase in population size

As the result of the slow down in the population growth, the net addition to the population

decreased in India for the first time during the period 2001-2011. During the period 1991-2001,

the net addition to the population of the country was around 182.32 million (Table 1) whereas,the net addition to the population of the country during the period 2001-2011 was 181.6 million.

This decrease in the net addition to the population is perhaps the most remarkable feature of

population transition in India during the period 2001-2011. This is an indication that the

population growth in the country has now started shrinking. Had the average annual population

growth rate during the period 2001-2011 would have been the same as the average annual

population growth rate during the period 1991-2001, the population of the country would have

increase to 1246.315 million and the net addition to the population of the country would have

been almost 218 million - 56 million more than the actual addition to the population during the

period 2001-2011 as revealed through provisional figures of the 2011 population census. This

trend in the net addition to the population of the country again confirms that population transition

in the country is picking the momentum and the net addition to the population of the country has

now peaked. However, actual slow down in the growth of the population during the period 2001-

2011 has been slower than the projected one. Has the actual population growth in the country

followed the projected path, the decrease in the net addition to the population would have been

even more substantial.

3


5/25

Figure 1: India: population, 1901-2011

Population (million) Decadal increase (million)

Source: Census repor ts

The outstanding feature of the population growth in India, however, is not the high rate

of growth but the size of the population to which growth accrues. The net addition to the

population of the country during the period 2001-11 is almost the population of Brazil in 2005.

Brazil, incidently, is the fifth most populous country of the world (United Nations, 2008). Between

1951 and 2001, more than 849 million people have been added to 361 million people

enumerated at the 1951 population census while almost 972 million people have been added

to the population of the country since 1901. Clearly, despite moderately high levels of population

growth rate, India is adding huge numbers year after year putting enormous pressure on its

limited resources to meet the survival and development needs of its people.

Regional differentials in growth

Regional diversity or inequality in the growth of population in India is well known. Moreover, this

diversity in population growth has persisted over time. Any discussion about Indias populationgrowth, therefore, is incomplete without a discussion on regional differences in the growth of

population. The provisional results of 2011 population census provide information on population

size and growth for all the states and Union Territories of India. This information is summarized

in table 2 which includes data on population for the year 2001 and 2011 and estimates of

population growth rate for the period 2001-11. This information covers all 29 constituent states

and 6 Union Territories of the country.

4


6/25

Table 2 reveals considerable geographic variation in the population growth rate across

the states and Union Territories of the country. Some states of the country grew relatively slowly,

well below the growth of the country as a whole. Since the size of the population of differentstates and Union Territories of the country varies widely, the population growth rate of different

states and Union Territories has different impact on the population growth rate of the country as

a whole. Because of the varying population size, it is customary to group the states and Union

Territories of the country into three broad categories; major states (states with a population of

at least 20 million at the 2001 census), small states (states with a population of less than 20

million at the 2001 census), and Union Territories. According to the 2001 population census,

there were 17 states in the country with a population of 20 million and more while the population

of 12 states was less than 20 million. In addition, there are 6 Union Territories all of which had

a population of less than 20 million. The provisional results of 2011 population census suggest

that the 17 major states of the country account for almost 95 per cent of the population of the

country while the 12 small states accounted for only about 5 per cent of the countrys population.

Union Territories, on the other hand, account for just around 0.3 per cent of the population of

the country. Trends and patterns of Indias population growth, therefore, are primarily determined

by population growth trends and patterns in the 17 major states. The contribution of small states

and Union Territories to the growth of the population of the country has always been almost

negligible, although trends and patterns of population growth in Union Territories are themselves

an important area of interest and analysis.

Among the major states of India, the population growth during the period 2001-2011

has been the most rapid in Bihar followed by Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. These states are the

only three major states of India where the average annual population growth rate was more than

2 per cent year during the period under reference. Interestingly, these three states constitute a

geographical continuity.

The average annual population growth rate has also been more than 2 per cent per year

in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram during the period

under reference. These states are the smaller states of the country. Population growth rate has

also been quite high in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. In these states,population increased at an average annual rate of more than 1.8 per cent year during the period

under reference which is well above the population growth rate of the country as a whole. In all,

there are 18 states and Union Territories where the average annual population growth rate has

been estimated to be higher than the national average during the period under reference. These

states and Union Territories account for more than 638 million or almost 53 per cent of the

population of the country.

5


7/25

Table 2: India: population size and growth- states and Union Territories, 1991-2001

Country/State Population (million) Population growth

1991 2001 2011 Absolute (million) Percent

1991-2001 2001-20 1991-2001 2001-11 2001-11 (P)

India 846.303 1028.737 1210.193 182.434 181.456 21.56 17.64 15.93

Major States

Uttar Pradesh 132.062 166.198 199.581 34.136 33.383 25.85 20.09 20.80

Maharashtra 78.937 96.879 112.373 17.942 15.494 22.73 15.99 16.29

Bihar 64.531 82.999 103.805 18.468 20.806 28.62 25.07 17.74

West Bengal 68.078 80.176 91.348 12.098 11.172 17.77 13.93 11.63

Andhra Pradesh 66.508 76.210 84.666 9.702 8.456 14.59 11.10 11.19

Madhya Pradesh 48.566 60.348 72.598 11.782 12.25 24.26 20.30 19.64

Tamil Nadu 55.859 62.406 72.139 6.547 9.733 11.72 15.60 8.07

Rajasthan 44.006 56.507 68.621 12.501 12.114 28.41 21.44 20.04

Karnataka 44.977 52.851 61.131 7.874 8.28 17.51 15.67 12.43

Gujarat 41.31 50.671 60.384 9.361 9.713 22.66 19.17 16.48

Orissa 31.66 36.805 41.947 5.145 5.142 16.25 13.97 10.72

Kerala 29.099 31.841 33.388 2.742 1.547 9.42 4.86 8.55

Jharkhand 21.844 26.946 32.966 5.102 6.02 23.36 22.34 16.80

Assam 22.414 26.656 31.169 4.242 4.513 18.93 16.93 14.68

Punjab 20.282 24.359 27.704 4.077 3.345 20.10 13.73 13.63Chhattisgarh 17.615 20.834 25.54 3.219 4.706 18.27 22.59 16.44

Haryana 16.464 21.145 25.353 4.681 4.208 28.43 19.90 20.31

6


8/25

Country/State Population (million) Population growth

1991 2001 2011 Absolute (million) Percent

1991-2001 2001-20 1991-2001 2001-11 2001-11 (P)

Small States

Delhi 9.421 13.851 16.753 4.43 2.902 47.02 20.95 33.22

Jammu and Kashmir 7.719 10.144 12.549 2.425 2.405 31.42 23.71 15.52

Uttarakhand 7.051 8.489 10.117 1.438 1.628 20.39 19.18 17.12

Himachal Pradesh 5.171 6.078 6.857 0.907 0.779 17.54 12.82 11.77

Tripura 2.757 3.199 3.671 0.442 0.472 16.03 14.75 13.03

Meghalaya 1.775 2.319 2.964 0.544 0.645 30.65 27.81 13.03

Manipur 1.837 2.294 2.722 0.457 0.428 24.88 18.66 13.02

Nagaland 1.21 1.990 1.981 0.78 -0.009 64.46 -0.45 13.01

Goa 1.17 1.348 1.458 0.178 0.11 15.21 8.16 31.12

Arunachal Pradesh 0.865 1.098 1.383 0.233 0.285 26.94 25.96 13.03

Mizoram 0.69 0.889 1.091 0.199 0.202 28.84 22.72 12.99

Sikkim 0.406 0.541 0.608 0.135 0.067 33.25 12.38 13.16

Union Territories

Puducherry 0.808 0.974 1.244 0.166 0.27 20.54 27.72 42.76

Chandigarh 0.642 0.901 1.055 0.259 0.154 40.34 17.09 59.67

Andaman and Nikobar 0.281 0.356 0.38 0.075 0.024 26.69 6.74 38.70

Dadra and Nagar Haveli 0.138 0.220 0.343 0.082 0.123 59.42 55.91 60.55

Daman and Diu 0.102 0.158 0.243 0.056 0.085 54.90 53.80 70.67Lakshadweep 0.052 0.061 0.064 0.009 0.003 17.31 4.92 25.31

7


9/25

Table 3: Average annual population growth rate in India and states/Union Territories.Country/State Average annual growth rate (Per cent)

1991-2001 2001-2011 2001-2011(P)India 1.951 1.624 1.478Major States

Uttar Pradesh 2.299 1.830 1.890Maharashtra 2.048 1.484 1.509Bihar 2.517 2.237 1.633

West Bengal 1.636 1.304 1.100Andhra Pradesh 1.362 1.052 1.060Madhya Pradesh 2.172 1.848 1.793Tamil Nadu 1.108 1.449 0.776Rajasthan 2.500 1.942 1.826

Karnataka 1.613 1.455 1.171Gujarat 2.042 1.754 1.525Orissa 1.506 1.308 1.018Kerala 0.901 0.474 0.820Jharkhand 2.099 2.017 1.553

Assam 1.733 1.564 1.370Punjab 1.832 1.287 1.277Chhattisgarh 1.678 2.037 1.522Haryana 2.502 1.815 1.849

Small StatesDelhi 3.854 1.903 2.868

Jammu and Kashmir 2.732 2.128 1.443Uttarakhand 1.856 1.754 1.581Himachal Pradesh 1.616 1.205 1.112Tripura 1.488 1.376 1.225Meghalaya 2.673 2.455 1.225Manipur 1.651 1.710 1.224Nagaland 4.975 -0.048 1.223Goa 1.414 0.785 2.709

Arunachal Pradesh 2.385 2.305 1.225Mizoram 2.529 2.052 1.221Sikkim 2.868 1.165 1.236

Union TerritoriesPuducherry 1.872 2.447 3.560Chandigarh 3.385 1.579 4.679

Andaman and Nikobar 2.370 0.647 3.272Dadra and Nagar Haveli 4.686 4.414 4.734Daman and Diu 4.389 4.288 5.345Lakshadweep 1.539 0.604 2.256

Source: Author s cal cu la tions . P ro je cted average annual popu la tion g rowth ra te has been es timated on

the basis of the project population prepared by the Government of India (2007 ).

8


10/25

On the other hand, Nagaland is the only state in the country which has recorded a

negative population growth during the period under reference. During the period 1991-2001,

the population of Nagaland increased by a whopping 64.5 million but, during 2001-2011, thepopulation of the state decreased. This appears to be a very conspicuous finding of the

provisional results of 2011 population census. Moreover, there are only two states - Kerala and

Goa - and two Union Territories - Andaman and Nikobar and Lakshadweep - where the average

annual growth rate during 2001-2011 is estimated to be less than 1 per cent per year.

Another encouraging feature of the provisional results of the 2011 population census

is that the growth in population slowed down in all but 3 states and Union Territories of the

country during the period 2001-2011 as compared to the period 1991-2001 (Table 3). The

three states where the average annual population growth rate appears to have increased during

the period 2001-2011 compared to the period 1991-2001 are Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh and

Manipur. Among these three states, Tamil Nadu recorded a very low growth rate during the

period 1991-2001 whereas the growth rate in Chhattisgarh and Manipur was more than 2 per

cent per year. It appears that rapid population growth situation has continued in these states

during the period 2001-2011 also.

The situation is however not so encouraging when the population growth estimated on

the basis of provisional figures of 2011 population census is compared with the projected

population growth based on the projected population for the year 2011. This comparison

suggests that in 20 states and Union Territories of the country, the actual population growth has

been faster than the projected population growth rate with the difference being the largest in

Tamil Nadu followed by Bihar among the major states of the country (Table 3). In these states

and Union Territories, actual population transition during the period 2001-2011 has been slower

than the projected one. At the same time, in 9 out the 12 small states, the actual population

growth rate based on the provisional figures of 2011 population census has been faster than the

project one. However, in all Union Territories of the country, the actual population growth during

2001-2011 has been slower than the project one. This comparison suggests that the pace of

population transition in the country during the period 2001-2011 has been slower than what was

projected or expected. Obviously, the population transition scenario in the country and in mostof the states, as revealed through the provisional figures of the 2011 population census, does

not appear to be very encouraging. It is obvious from table 3 that the country has missed the

projected target of average annual population growth rate for the period 2001-2011, set on the

basis of the results of the 2001 population census. This means that the country will take more

time to achieve the goal of population stabilization as stipulated in the National Population Policy

2000.

9


11/25

There has been considerable variation in regional changes in the growth rate over time

with acceleration in population growth in some states and Union Territories during 2001-2011

as compared to 1991-2001 and slowdown in other states and Union Territories. This is shown

in figure 2 which compares the average population growth rate registered in 1991-2001 with the

average population growth registered in 2001-2011. Deviations from the 45-degree line indicate

the extent of change in the average annual population growth rate between 1991-2001 and

2001-2011. Most of the states fall very close to the 45-degree line. The deviation from the line

is marked in Andaman and Nikobar, Sikkim, Chandigarh, Delhi and Nagaland and in Tamil Nadu,

Chhattisgarh, Manipur and Puducherry. In the first group of states and Union Territories, average

annual population growth rate has slowed down during the period 2001-2011 as compared to

the average annual growth rate during 1991-2001 with the change in the average annual

population growth rate being the most typical in Nagaland. In the second group of states and

Union Territories, it has accelerated. In other states, the average annual population growth rateregistered during 2001-2011 is what that could have been predicted on the basis of the average

annual population growth rate recorded during the period 1991-2001. This suggest that,

although, the population growth rate in the states and Union Territories of the country have

shown a decline on the basis of the provisional results of 2011 population census, this decline

appears to be, at best, a normal pattern in most of the states and Union Territories. There are

only a few marked deviations.

Figure 2

Average annual population growth rate 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

10


12/25

Provisional results of the 2011 population census also suggest that more than 45 per

cent increase in the population of the country during the decade 2001-2011 has been confined

to only five states - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand andChhattisgarh. These states accounted for around 40 per cent of the population of the country at

the 2001 population census but very close to 50 per cent of the increase in the population of the

country during the period 2001-2011. As the result, these states now account for almost 42 per

cent of the population of the country which indicates that an increasing proportion of population

of the country is getting concentrated in these states. In these states, the proportion of the

increase in population to the total increase in population of the country as a whole during 2001-

2011 has been larger than the proportion of the population to the population of the country in

2001. The proportion of the increase in population during 2001-2011 has also been found to

be larger than the proportion of population in 2001 in Haryana, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir,

Uttarakhand, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Puducherry, Mizoram, Dadra and Nagar

Haveli, and Daman and Diu which indicates an increase in the concentration of population in these

states/Union Territories. However, these states/Union Territories contribute only a small

proportion to the population of the country.

Alternative Estimates of Population Growth

It is possible to have an alternative estimate of the population growth in the country on

the basis of the information about birth and death rates available through the sample registration

system (SRS) and on the assumption that net migration at the national level is an insignificant

proportion to the natural increase in the population. Estimates of birth rate and death rate

available through the sample registration system permit estimation of the net increase in the

population each year.

There are two problems in the application of the above approach to arrive at the

estimates of population growth in the country during the period 2001-2011. The first problem

is that the estimates of birth rate and death rate from the sample registration system are

available up to the year 2009 only. The second problem is associated with the omission of the

population at the 2001 population census and under reporting of births and deaths in the sampleregistration system for which adjustments are to be made.

As regards the omission of the population at the 2001 population census, the post

enumeration survey conducted by the Registrar General of India has revealed that the net

omission rate at the 2001 population census was of the order to 23.3 per 1000 population

(Government of India 2006). This means that the population in 2001 needs to be inflated by

2.33 per cent which means that Indias population in 2001 was around 1053 million and not

11


13/25

1029 million. On the other hand, the estimates of birth rate and death rate obtained from the

system are generally believed to be quite accurate. An investigation conducted in 1980-81

suggested an omission rate of 3.1 per cent at the all India level in case of births (Government ofIndia, 1983) which decreased to 1.8 per cent in 1985 (Government of India, 1988). On the other

hand another inquiry conducted in 1991 suggested that deaths in the system have marginally

been over reported (Swamy et al 1992). On the other hand, Bhat (2002) has estimated that

births in the sample registration system are under reported by about 7 per cent while deaths by

around 8-9 per cent.

Table 4: Alternative estimates of population (million) in India 2011.

Adjustments in SRS estimates Adjustment in 2001 census count due to omission

No adjustment Adjusted for theomission rate

No adjustments in the estimates ofbirth rate and death rate

1206.535 1217.949

Adjustment in birth rate but noadjustment in death rate

1211.666 1222.724

Adjustments as per Bhat (2002) 1218.587 1229.167Source: Authors ca lcu la tions

We have estimated birth rate and death rate for 2009 and 2010 on the basis of linear

regression of birth and death rates obtained from the sample registration system on time for the

period 2001 through 2008. The regression exercise provided a very good fit with R =0.99 in2

case of birth rate and 0.85 in case of death rate. On the other hand, we estimated the

population in 2011 after making adjustments in the population of the country in 2001 for the

estimated omission rate as well as for different estimates of under reporting in the birth rate and

the death rate available through the sample registration system.

Results of the estimation exercise are given in table 4. When adjustments in the birth

rate and death rate suggested by the Government of India are taken into consideration and when

2001 population is not adjusted for the omission rate, the population of the country for the year2011 is estimated to be 1211.7 million which is very close to the provisional population figures

of 2011 population census. When the adjustment for the omission rate is made in the population

in the year 2001, the population of the country is estimated to be more than 1222 million.

However, when no adjustments are made in the birth rate, the 2011 population is estimated to

be 1207 million which suggests that there is some under reporting of births in the sample

registration system.

12


14/25

We have carried out a similar exercise for the states and Union Territories of the country.

Estimates of birth rate and death rate for the period 2001 through 2009 are available through

the sample registration system for 31 of the 35 states and Union Territories of the country. Theexceptions are Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Nagaland and Uttarakhand for which annual estimates

of birth rate and death rate are available for the period 2004 through 2009. We estimated birth

rate and death rate for those years for which direct estimates of these rates are not available the

sample registration system by assuming a linear trend in the two rates and then used the

enumerated population at the 2001 population census to estimate the population in 2011. We

carried out this exercise for the country as a whole as well as for its all the 35 states and Union

Territories.

Results of the exercise are presented in table 5. According to this exercise, the

population of the country, in the year 2011, worked out to be 1211.666 million which is very

close to the population enumerated at the 2011 population census. This closeness validates our

estimation process and indicates that a very small proportion of the countrys population has

migrated out of the country during the period between 2001-2011. It also suggests that the

provisional population figures of the 2011 population census are fairly accurate when compared

with the population estimated on the basis of 2001 population and birth rate and death rate

available through the sample registration system for the period 2001 through 2009.

Our exercise also suggests that in some states and Union Territories, the provisional

population figures of the 2011 population census have been found to be less than the estimated

population while in others the 2011 provisional population figures have been found to be more

than the estimated one. A negative difference between the enumerated population and the

estimated population in a state/Union Territory (enumerated population is less than the estimated

population) indicates out migration from that state/Union Territory. Similarly, a positive difference

between the enumerated and the estimated population (enumerated population is larger than

the estimated population) indicates in migration if errors in enumeration are ignored. In this

context, table 5 indicates substantial out migration from Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Kerala,

Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland during the period 2001 through 2011. On the other

hand, in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, West Bengal,Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Punjab, there are indications of in migration. Uttar

Pradesh tops the list of out migration states and Union Territories. Between 2001 and 2011, it

is estimated that more than 6.8 million people migrated out of the state according to the

provisional results of the 2011 population census. On the other hand, more than 3.4 million

people appear to have moved into Tamil Nadu during this period. In Maharashtra also, more than

2.8 million people appears to have moved in the state during this period.

13


15/25

Table 5: Enumerated and estimated population of states and Union Territories of India, 2011.

State

Population 2011 Difference

Enumerated(Million)

Estimated(Million)

Absolute(Million)

Per cent

Uttar Pradesh 199.582 206.417 -6.835 -3.425Rajasthan 68.621 70.473 -1.852 -2.699Kerala 33.388 34.863 -1.475 -4.418Madhya Pradesh 72.598 73.996 -1.399 -1.927

Andhra Pradesh 84.666 85.927 -1.261 -1.489Assam 31.169 31.454 -0.285 -0.914Nagaland 1.981 2.253 -0.273 -13.781Bihar 103.805 103.965 -0.160 -0.154

Andaman and Nikobar 0.38 0.401 -0.021 -5.526

Sikkim 0.608 0.625 -0.018 -2.961Lakshadweep 0.064 0.068 -0.004 -6.250Himachal Pradesh 6.857 6.855 0.001 0.015Goa 1.458 1.447 0.011 0.754Chandigarh 1.055 1.017 0.038 3.602Orissa 41.947 41.904 0.044 0.105Daman and Diu 0.243 0.182 0.061 25.103Dadra and Nagar haveli 0.343 0.278 0.065 18.950Haryana 25.353 25.281 0.072 0.284Mizoram 1.091 1.010 0.081 7.424

Arunachal Pradesh 1.383 1.296 0.087 6.291

Tripura 3.671 3.544 0.127 3.460Manipur 2.722 2.553 0.169 6.209Puducherry 1.244 1.072 0.172 13.826Meghalaya 2.964 2.768 0.196 6.613Punjab 27.704 27.406 0.298 1.076Chhattisgarh 25.540 25.213 0.327 1.280Uttarakhand 10.117 9.766 0.351 3.469Jharkhand 32.966 32.591 0.375 1.138

West Bengal 91.348 90.864 0.484 0.530Karnataka 61.131 60.605 0.526 0.860Gujarat 60.384 59.847 0.537 0.889

Delhi 16.753 15.934 0.820 4.895Jammu and Kashmir 12.549 11.600 0.949 7.562Maharashtra 112.373 109.480 2.893 2.574Tamil Nadu 72.139 68.728 3.411 4.728

Source: Authors ca lcu la tions

Remarks: Estimates of birth rate and death rate for Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Nagaland and Uttarakhand are not

available for all years of the period 2001-2011. As such it is not possible to estimate population in the

year 2011 on the basis of the estimates of birth and death rates.

14


16/25

The above exercises singles out four states and Union Territories of the country where

there are indications that migration - in or out - accounted for more than 10 per cent of the

population enumerated at the 2011 census. These states and Union Territories are Daman andDiu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Nagaland, and Puducherry. In Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar

Haveli and Puducherry, there are indications of very substantial in migration between 2001 and

2011. In the Union Territory of Daman and Diu, it is estimated that in migrants during the period

2001-2011 account for more than 25 per cent of the population enumerated at the 2011

population census. In Dadra and Nagar Haveli, this proportion is estimated to be very close to

19 per cent while in Puducherry, around 14 per cent. On the other hand, in Nagaland, there are

indications of a very heavy out migration (almost 14 per cent) between 2001 and 2011.

Because of this very heavy out migration from Nagaland that the population growth of the state

has turned negative during the period 2001 through 2011.

Growth of population 0-6 years

Provisional figures of the 2011 population census also provide information about total

population less than 7 years of age. An encouraging feature of population transition in the

country is that population aged 0-6 years decreased in the country and in a number of states.

In 2001, population 0-6 years accounted for almost 16 per cent of countrys population which

decreased to about 13 per cent in 2011. This means that the population aged 0-6 years in the

country decreased at an average annual rate of decrease of -0.31 per cent per year. Although,

the rate of decrease is quite small, yet it indicates that the population pyramid of the country has

now started shrinking at its base in absolute terms. This shrinking of the base of the population

pyramid is an indication of continued fertility decline in the country during the period 2001

through 2011.

Provisional results of the 2011 population census also suggest that population aged 0-6

years has also decreased during 2001 through 2011 in all major states of the country except

Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Population aged 0-6 years has also increased in the

states of Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura and in Union Territories

of Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Puducherry. It appears that thedecrease in fertility during the period 2001-11 in Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand has

not been large enough to induce a decrease in the population aged 0-6 years. A similar situation

appears to have prevailed in the states of Jammu and Kashmir and in the north-eastern states

of Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. However, the growth of the population 0-6 years

during 2011 through 2011 in these states and Union Territories has been substantially slower

than the growth rate of the population aged at least 7 years.

15


17/25

Table 6: Growth of population aged 0-6 years in India and states: 2001-2011.

Country/State Population (0-6 years)

(million)

Proportion to total

population(per cent)

Average

annualgrowth

rate2001 2011 2001 2011 2001-11

India 163.820 158.789 15.92 13.12 -0.312Andaman and Nikobar 0.045 0.039 12.57 10.40 -1.256Andhra Pradesh 10.172 8.643 13.35 10.21 -1.629Arunachal Pradesh 0.206 0.203 18.75 14.66 -0.152Assam 4.498 4.511 16.87 14.47 0.029Bihar 16.806 18.582 20.25 17.90 1.005Chandigarh 0.116 0.118 12.84 11.18 0.200

Chhattisgarh 3.555 3.584 17.06 14.03 0.082Daman and Diu 0.040 0.049 18.23 14.35 2.020Delhi 0.021 0.026 13.01 10.65 2.292Dadra and Nagar Haveli 2.017 1.971 14.56 11.76 -0.232Goa 0.146 0.139 10.83 9.57 -0.454Gujarat 7.532 7.494 14.87 12.41 -0.051Haryana 3.336 3.298 15.77 13.01 -0.114Himachal Pradesh 0.793 0.764 13.05 11.14 -0.376Jharkhand 1.486 2.009 14.65 16.01 3.015Jammu and Kashmir 4.957 5.238 18.40 15.89 0.551Karnataka 7.182 6.856 13.59 11.21 -0.465

Kerala 3.793 3.322 11.91 9.95 -1.326Lakshadweep 0.009 0.007 14.99 11.00 -2.489Maharashtra 10.782 10.548 17.87 14.53 -0.219Meghalaya 13.671 12.848 14.11 11.43 -0.621Manipur 0.309 0.353 13.45 12.98 1.351Madhya Pradesh 0.468 0.556 20.18 18.75 1.720Mizoram 0.144 0.166 16.18 15.17 1.412Nagaland 0.290 0.286 14.56 14.44 -0.128Orissa 5.359 5.036 14.56 12.00 -0.622Puducherry 0.117 0.128 12.02 10.25 0.854Punjab 3.172 2.942 13.02 10.62 -0.754

Rajasthan 10.651 10.505 18.85 15.31 -0.138Sikkim 0.078 0.061 14.46 10.05 -2.471Tamil Nadu 7.235 6.895 11.59 9.56 -0.482Tripura 0.436 0.444 13.64 12.10 0.173Uttar Pradesh 31.625 29.728 19.03 14.90 -0.618Uttarakhand 1.360 1.329 16.02 13.14 -0.232

West Bengal 11.414 10.113 14.24 11.07 -1.211

Source: Authors ca lcu la tions

16


18/25

Provisional results of 2011 population census also indicate that the population aged 0-6

years has declined in the Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the

decrease appears to have been quite rapid in Orissa and Uttar Pradesh. In these states,population aged 0-6 years decreased at an average annual rate of more than 0.6 per cent per

year between 2001 and 2011. In Uttar Pradesh, the proportion of the population aged 0-6 years

to the total population decreased from more than 19 per cent in 2001 to less than 15 per cent

in 2011. Among the major states of the country, this decrease was the largest and is indicative

of some rapid decline in fertility in the state in recent years. Similarly, the decrease in the

proportion of the population aged 0-6 years to the total population in Madhya Pradesh and

Rajasthan also indicates that fertility has decreased in these states also during the period under

reference.

Population Distribution

One implication of population growth pattern observed on the basis of the provisional

results of 2011 population census is a change in the distribution of the population across the

states and Union Territories of the country. An understanding of population distribution over

administrative areas can be achieved through a consideration of the components of population

distribution. Population distribution over geographical or administrative areas has two

components - extensiveness and intensiveness. Extensiveness is nothing but the size of the

population of an administrative or geographical unit relative to the size of other administrativeor geographical units. Intensiveness, on the other hand, implies the denseness of the population

within the administrative unit. In any analysis of the change in population distribution, it is

important to take both into consideration.

We have measured the extensiveness of population distribution in terms of the

proportion of the population of a state/Union Territory to the population of the country as a

swhole. If P denotes the population of the state/Union Territory s, then the index of extensiveness

s s s(E ) is (P /P) where P is the population of the country. E has the additive property that the sum

s sof E over all geographical or administrative units is always equal to 1. Moreover, E is always

positive and less than 1 expect in the extreme case when all population is confined to only onegeographical or administrative unit.

Intensiveness, on the other hand, is usually measured by the population density which

is defined as the number of people per unit area (square kilometer). However, population density

as a measure of the intensiveness of population distribution is not a good indicator as it does not

have additive and multiplicative properties. A more refined measure of intensiveness may be

constructed by using proportions rather than absolute numbers. We define the index of the

17


19/25

s s sintensiveness of population distribution as I =log(P /A ) where A stands for the geographical area

sof the state/Union Territory. It is clear that I takes both positive and negative values and is zero

s s s s s swhen P =A , positive when P >A and negative when P


20/25

Table 7: Population distribution in India and change in population distribution.

Country/State 2001 2011 Change in Ds

s s s s s s s sE I D E I D Absolute Due to E Due to I Interaction

India 11.645 11.693

Andaman and Nikobar 0.0346 -0.8602 -0.0298 0.0314 -0.9027 -0.0283 0.0014 0.0028 -0.0015 0.0001

Andhra Pradesh 7.4090 -0.0528 -0.3913 6.9960 -0.0777 -0.5437 -0.1525 0.0218 -0.1846 0.0103

Arunachal Pradesh 0.1067 -1.3778 -0.1471 0.1142 -1.3483 -0.1540 -0.0070 -0.0103 0.0031 0.0002

Assam 2.5914 0.0358 0.0929 2.5756 0.0332 0.0854 -0.0074 -0.0006 -0.0069 0.0000

Bihar 8.0690 0.4498 3.6292 8.5775 0.4763 4.0856 0.4564 0.2287 0.2142 0.0135

Chandigarh 0.0876 1.4022 0.1228 0.0872 1.4002 0.1220 -0.0007 -0.0006 -0.0002 0.0000

Chhattisgarh 2.0254 -0.3076 -0.6230 2.1104 -0.2898 -0.6115 0.0115 -0.0261 0.0362 0.0015

Daman and Diu 0.0154 0.6174 0.0095 0.0201 0.7331 0.0147 0.0052 0.0029 0.0018 0.0005

Delhi 1.3465 1.4749 1.9860 1.3843 1.4869 2.0584 0.0724 0.0558 0.0162 0.0005

Dadra and Nagar Haveli 0.0214 0.1569 0.0034 0.0283 0.2780 0.0079 0.0045 0.0011 0.0026 0.0008

Goa 0.1310 0.0657 0.0086 0.1205 0.0292 0.0035 -0.0051 -0.0007 -0.0048 0.0004

Gujarat 4.9262 -0.0830 -0.4087 4.9896 -0.0774 -0.3863 0.0225 -0.0053 0.0274 0.0004

Haryana 2.0556 0.1842 0.3787 2.0950 0.1925 0.4032 0.0245 0.0072 0.0169 0.0003

Himachal Pradesh 0.5909 -0.4573 -0.2702 0.5666 -0.4756 -0.2694 0.0008 0.0111 -0.0108 0.0004

Jharkhand 2.6196 0.0336 0.0881 2.7240 0.0506 0.1378 0.0497 0.0035 0.0445 0.0018

Jammu and Kashmir 0.9862 -0.8360 -0.8245 1.0369 -0.8142 -0.8443 -0.0198 -0.0425 0.0215 0.0011

Karnataka 5.1381 -0.0552 -0.2837 5.0513 -0.0626 -0.3162 -0.0326 0.0048 -0.0380 0.0006

Kerala 3.0956 0.4180 1.2941 2.7589 0.3680 1.0153 -0.2787 -0.1408 -0.1548 0.0168Lakshadweep 0.0059 0.7823 0.0046 0.0053 0.7379 0.0039 -0.0007 -0.0004 -0.0003 0.0000

Maharashtra 9.4184 0.0027 0.0251 9.2855 -0.0035 -0.0326 -0.0576 -0.0004 -0.0581 0.0008

19


21/25

Country/State 2001 2011 Change in Ds

s s s s s s s sE I D E I D Absolute Due to E Due to I Interaction

Meghalaya 0.2254 -0.4810 -0.1084 0.2449 -0.4450 -0.1090 -0.0006 -0.0094 0.0081 0.0007

Manipur 0.2107 -0.5084 -0.1071 0.2249 -0.4800 -0.1080 -0.0009 -0.0072 0.0060 0.0004

Madhya Pradesh 5.8669 -0.2035 -1.1940 5.9988 -0.1939 -1.1629 0.0311 -0.0268 0.0566 0.0013

Mizoram 0.0864 -0.8706 -0.0752 0.0902 -0.8521 -0.0768 -0.0016 -0.0033 0.0016 0.0001

Nagaland 0.1935 -0.4161 -0.0805 0.1637 -0.4888 -0.0800 0.0005 0.0124 -0.0141 0.0022

Orissa 3.5781 -0.1218 -0.4359 3.4662 -0.1356 -0.4701 -0.0342 0.0136 -0.0494 0.0015

Puducherry 0.0947 0.8013 0.0759 0.1028 0.8370 0.0861 0.0102 0.0065 0.0034 0.0003

Punjab 2.3681 0.1891 0.4479 2.2892 0.1744 0.3993 -0.0486 -0.0149 -0.0349 0.0012

Rajasthan 5.4935 -0.2776 -1.5252 5.6703 -0.2639 -1.4963 0.0289 -0.0491 0.0755 0.0024

Sikkim 0.0526 -0.6134 -0.0323 0.0502 -0.6334 -0.0318 0.0004 0.0015 -0.0011 0.0000

Tamil Nadu 6.0670 0.1857 1.1264 5.9609 0.1780 1.0611 -0.0653 -0.0197 -0.0465 0.0008

Tripura 0.3110 -0.0112 -0.0035 0.3033 -0.0221 -0.0067 -0.0032 0.0001 -0.0034 0.0001

Uttar Pradesh 16.1575 0.3433 5.5472 16.4917 0.3522 5.8085 0.2614 0.1147 0.1437 0.0030

Uttarakhand 0.8253 -0.2954 -0.2438 0.8360 -0.2899 -0.2423 0.0015 -0.0031 0.0046 0.0001

West Bengal 7.7946 0.4604 3.5890 7.5482 0.4465 3.3702 -0.2188 -0.1135 -0.1087 0.0034Source: Authors calculations. Based on provisional figures of 2011 population census, 2001 population census and population projections prepared by the Government of India (2007).

s s sRemarks: E is presented as a multiple of 100 while I is presented in absolute terms so that D is presented as a multiple of 100.

20


22/25


23/25

population of the area being projected is a constant proportion of a larger area. In the present

case, we have fitted a dynamic logistic model with a linear change in the upper asymptote.

Fitting of the dynamic logistic model to the population data of the country for the period1901 through 2011 produced the following equation:

t tr = 0.09628 + 0.0446 t - 0.00036 P R = 0.87, N = 112

(5.14) (6.05) (3.97)

twhere r is the inter-census exponential growth rate with t as the transformed calendar year with

tthe origin at 1901 and P is the population size at time t. The figures in the parentheses show

the t-statistic of the estimated model parameters. As indicated by the R of 0.87, the mode fits2

very well to the observed data. According to this model, population of the country in the year

2011 is estimated to be 1214.184 million which is very close to the provisional population size

of 1210.193 million as revealed through the 2011 census.

Table 8: Projected population and population growth in India: 2011-2101Year Project

population(million)

Projected change inpopulation

Projectedaverage annualgrowth rate(Per cent)Million Percent

2011 1214.1842021 1410.739 196.555 16.19 1.502031 1596.859 186.120 13.19 1.24

2041 1767.563 170.703 10.69 1.022051 1923.890 156.327 8.84 0.852061 2069.803 145.913 7.58 0.732071 2209.268 139.465 6.74 0.652081 2345.016 135.749 6.14 0.602091 2478.576 133.560 5.70 0.552101 2610.715 132.139 5.33 0.52Source: Authors ca lcu la tions

Projecting future population growth of the country on the basis of the above equation

indicates that Indias population is expected to reach 1410 million by the year 2021 if the trends

observed during the nineties are continued in the near future. This number is 80 million more

than the population projected by the Expert Committee on Population Projections constituted by

the government of India (Government of India, 2006). The application of the dynamic logistic

model also suggests that the population of the country is expected to increase to approximately

1923 million by the year 2051 and will cross the 2600 million mark by the turn of the current

century and will still be increasing. If the provisional figures of the 2001 population census are

22


24/25

any indication then, it is clear that rapid population growth conditions still persist in the country

despite the fact that the average annual rate of population growth in the country is declining. It

is also clear from table 5 that with the current pace of population transition, there is only a distantpossibility to achieve the cherished goal of stable population during the current century.

Conclusions

Provisional results of the 2001 population census released recently suggest little change

in the population scenario in India. There are unmistakable signs that population transition in

India has progressed and the average rate of population growth in the country has declined

substantially during 2001-2011. It also appears that, for the first time, the net decadal addition

to the population has decreased. Similarly, the decrease in the population 0-6 years of age

indicates towards continued reduction in fertility in the country. However, the actual growth of

population between 2001 and 2011 has been faster than the population growth projected by the

Government of India on the basis of the results of the 2001 population census and observed

trends in fertility, mortality and migration. Obviously, efforts to moderate the growth of the

population during 2001-2011 appear to have fallen short of the projected, most likely, path.

Provisional results of the 2011 population census also indicate that there is little possibility of

realizing the expectations laid down in the National Population Policy 2000 and there is little

probability that the country will be able to reach stable population by the year 2045. These

results do not provide any indication that the country will be able to achieve the cherished goal

of population stabilization as enshrined in the National Population Policy 2000 until and unless

a serious effort is made to reinvigorate population stabilization efforts.

Another important observation of the provisional results of 2011 population census is

that out migration from states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh continues. Very

little is currently known about the demographic and social and economic characteristics of this

migrant population. It is however generally believed that most of this out migration is distress

migration of unskilled and semi skilled labourers in search of better livelihood opportunities. This

distress migration has important implications to social and economic development both at the

place of origin and at the place of destination.The provisional results of the 2011 population census do not provide information to

analyze the determinants of population growth. Once detailed information is available through the

2011 population census and from other sources, it would be possible to carry out a detailed

analysis of factors that have contributed to the population growth revealed through 2011

population census. It will also be possible to analyze the contribution of population momentum

to the future population growth as more and more of the future population growth in India will be

23


25/25

the result of momentum built in the age structure of the population. Evidence available from the

sample registration system and from other sources suggests that more and more states and

Union Territories in the country will be reaching replacement fertility in the coming years and, inthese states and Union Territories, population momentum will drive the future population growth.

As of now, the provisional results of 2011 population census present a mixed scenario - good

signs but bad omens.

References

Bhat Mari PN (1999) Population projections for Delhi: Dynamic logistic model versus cohort-

component method. Demography India 28(2): 153-167.

Bhat PN Mari (2002) Completeness of Indias sample registration system: An assessment using

general growth balance method. Population Studies 56(2): 119-134.

Chaurasia Alok Ranjan, Gulati SC (2008) India: The State of Population 2007. New Delhi, National

Population Commission and Oxford University Press.

Government of India (1983a) Report on intensive enquiry conducted in a sub-sample of SRS units

(1980-81). New Delhi, Registrar General. Occasional Paper No. 2 of 1983.

Government of India (1988) Report on intensive enquiry conducted in a sub-sample of SRS Units.

New Delhi, Registrar General. Occasional Paper No. 1 of 1988.

Government of India (2000) National Population Policy 2000. New Delhi, Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare.

Government of India (2005) National Rural Health Mission. New Delhi, Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare.

Government of India (2006) Census of India 2001. Population Projections for India and States

2001-2026. Report of the Technical Group of Population Projections. New Delhi, Ministry

of Health and Family Welfare. National Commission on Population.

Swamy VS, Saxena AK, Palmore JA, Mishra V, Rele JR, Luther NY (1992) Evaluation of the Sample

Registration System using indirect estimates of fertility and mortality. New Delhi, Office

of the Registrar General and Census Commission of India. Occasional Paper 3 of 1992.

United Nations (2008)World Population Prospects. 2008 Revision. New York, Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs. Population Division.

24

Documents

popu 2011 alok ranjan