Population Growth in India during 2001-2011

An Analysis of Provisional Results of 2011 Population Census

Aalok Ranjan Chaurasia

Professor

Shyam Institute 82, Aradhana Nagar Bhopal, MP-462003 India

aranjan@shyaminstitute.in

April 2011

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

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 196171, 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 198191(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 per woman 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

Table 1: Year

India: Population and population growth, 1901-2011. Population Decadal change in (million) population Million Percent 5.75 -0.31 11.00 14.22 13.31 21.64 24.80 24.66 23.85 21.54 17.65

Average annual growth rate during decade (Per cent) 0.56 -0.03 1.04 1.33 1.25 1.96 2.22 2.20 2.14 1.95 1.63

1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Source:

238.396 252.093 251.321 278.977 318.661 361.088 439.235 548.16 683.329 846.303 1028.615 1210.193
Census reports

13.697 -0.772 27.656 39.684 42.427 78.147 108.925 135.169 162.974 182.312 181.578

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 20012011 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

Figure 1:

India: population, 1901-2011

Population (million) Decadal increase (million)

Source:

Census reports

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 population growth, 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

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 different states 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

Table 2:

India: population size and growth- states and Union Territories, 1991-2001 Population (million) 2001 2011 1028.737 166.198 96.879 82.999 80.176 76.210 60.348 62.406 56.507 52.851 50.671 36.805 31.841 26.946 26.656 24.359 20.834 21.145 Population growth Absolute (million) Percent 1991-2001 2001-20 1991-2001 2001-11 2001-11 (P) 1210.193 182.434 181.456 21.56 17.64 15.93 199.581 112.373 103.805 91.348 84.666 72.598 72.139 68.621 61.131 60.384 41.947 33.388 32.966 31.169 27.704 25.54 25.353 34.136 17.942 18.468 12.098 9.702 11.782 6.547 12.501 7.874 9.361 5.145 2.742 5.102 4.242 4.077 3.219 4.681 6 33.383 15.494 20.806 11.172 8.456 12.25 9.733 12.114 8.28 9.713 5.142 1.547 6.02 4.513 3.345 4.706 4.208 25.85 22.73 28.62 17.77 14.59 24.26 11.72 28.41 17.51 22.66 16.25 9.42 23.36 18.93 20.10 18.27 28.43 20.09 15.99 25.07 13.93 11.10 20.30 15.60 21.44 15.67 19.17 13.97 4.86 22.34 16.93 13.73 22.59 19.90 20.80 16.29 17.74 11.63 11.19 19.64 8.07 20.04 12.43 16.48 10.72 8.55 16.80 14.68 13.63 16.44 20.31

Country/State 1991 India Major States Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Bihar West Bengal Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Karnataka Gujarat Orissa Kerala Jharkhand Assam Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana 846.303 132.062 78.937 64.531 68.078 66.508 48.566 55.859 44.006 44.977 41.31 31.66 29.099 21.844 22.414 20.282 17.615 16.464

Country/State 1991 Small States Delhi Jammu and Kashmir Uttarakhand Himachal Pradesh Tripura Meghalaya Manipur Nagaland Goa Arunachal Pradesh Mizoram Sikkim Union Territories Puducherry Chandigarh Andaman and Nikobar Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu Lakshadweep

Population (million) 2001 2011

Population growth Absolute (million) Percent 1991-2001 2001-20 1991-2001 2001-11 2001-11 (P) 4.43 2.425 1.438 0.907 0.442 0.544 0.457 0.78 0.178 0.233 0.199 0.135 0.166 0.259 0.075 0.082 0.056 0.009 2.902 2.405 1.628 0.779 0.472 0.645 0.428 -0.009 0.11 0.285 0.202 0.067 0.27 0.154 0.024 0.123 0.085 0.003 47.02 31.42 20.39 17.54 16.03 30.65 24.88 64.46 15.21 26.94 28.84 33.25 20.54 40.34 26.69 59.42 54.90 17.31 20.95 23.71 19.18 12.82 14.75 27.81 18.66 -0.45 8.16 25.96 22.72 12.38 27.72 17.09 6.74 55.91 53.80 4.92 33.22 15.52 17.12 11.77 13.03 13.03 13.02 13.01 31.12 13.03 12.99 13.16 42.76 59.67 38.70 60.55 70.67 25.31

9.421 7.719 7.051 5.171 2.757 1.775 1.837 1.21 1.17 0.865 0.69 0.406 0.808 0.642 0.281 0.138 0.102 0.052

13.851 10.144 8.489 6.078 3.199 2.319 2.294 1.990 1.348 1.098 0.889 0.541 0.974 0.901 0.356 0.220 0.158 0.061

16.753 12.549 10.117 6.857 3.671 2.964 2.722 1.981 1.458 1.383 1.091 0.608 1.244 1.055 0.38 0.343 0.243 0.064

Table 3: Country/State

India Major States Uttar Pradesh Maharashtra Bihar West Bengal Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Karnataka Gujarat Orissa Kerala Jharkhand Assam Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana Small States Delhi Jammu and Kashmir Uttarakhand Himachal Pradesh Tripura Meghalaya Manipur Nagaland Goa Arunachal Pradesh Mizoram Sikkim Union Territories Puducherry Chandigarh Andaman and Nikobar Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu Lakshadweep
Source:

Average annual population growth rate in India and states/Union Territories. Average annual growth rate (Per cent) 1991-2001 2001-2011 2001-2011(P) 1.951 1.624 1.478 2.299 2.048 2.517 1.636 1.362 2.172 1.108 2.500 1.613 2.042 1.506 0.901 2.099 1.733 1.832 1.678 2.502 3.854 2.732 1.856 1.616 1.488 2.673 1.651 4.975 1.414 2.385 2.529 2.868 1.872 3.385 2.370 4.686 4.389 1.539 1.830 1.484 2.237 1.304 1.052 1.848 1.449 1.942 1.455 1.754 1.308 0.474 2.017 1.564 1.287 2.037 1.815 1.903 2.128 1.754 1.205 1.376 2.455 1.710 -0.048 0.785 2.305 2.052 1.165 2.447 1.579 0.647 4.414 4.288 0.604 1.890 1.509 1.633 1.100 1.060 1.793 0.776 1.826 1.171 1.525 1.018 0.820 1.553 1.370 1.277 1.522 1.849 2.868 1.443 1.581 1.112 1.225 1.225 1.224 1.223 2.709 1.225 1.221 1.236 3.560 4.679 3.272 4.734 5.345 2.256

Authors calculations. Projected average annual population growth rate has been estimated on the basis of the project population prepared by the Government of India (2007).

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, the population 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 most of 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

Figure 2 Average annual population growth rate 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

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 rate registered 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. 10

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 and Chhattisgarh. 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 20012011 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 sample registration 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

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 of India, 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 the omission rate No adjustments in the estimates of 1206.535 1217.949 birth rate and death rate Adjustment in birth rate but no 1211.666 1222.724 adjustment in death rate Adjustments as per Bhat (2002) 1218.587 1229.167
Source: Authors calculations

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 R2=0.99 in 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 year 2011 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

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. The exceptions 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

Table 5: Enumerated and estimated population of states and Union Territories of India, 2011. Population 2011 Difference Enumerated Estimated Absolute Per cent State (Million) (Million) (Million) Uttar Pradesh 199.582 206.417 -6.835 -3.425 Rajasthan 68.621 70.473 -1.852 -2.699 Kerala 33.388 34.863 -1.475 -4.418 Madhya Pradesh 72.598 73.996 -1.399 -1.927 Andhra Pradesh 84.666 85.927 -1.261 -1.489 Assam 31.169 31.454 -0.285 -0.914 Nagaland 1.981 2.253 -0.273 -13.781 Bihar 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 -2.961 Lakshadweep 0.064 0.068 -0.004 -6.250 Himachal Pradesh 6.857 6.855 0.001 0.015 Goa 1.458 1.447 0.011 0.754 Chandigarh 1.055 1.017 0.038 3.602 Orissa 41.947 41.904 0.044 0.105 Daman and Diu 0.243 0.182 0.061 25.103 Dadra and Nagar haveli 0.343 0.278 0.065 18.950 Haryana 25.353 25.281 0.072 0.284 Mizoram 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 3.460 Manipur 2.722 2.553 0.169 6.209 Puducherry 1.244 1.072 0.172 13.826 Meghalaya 2.964 2.768 0.196 6.613 Punjab 27.704 27.406 0.298 1.076 Chhattisgarh 25.540 25.213 0.327 1.280 Uttarakhand 10.117 9.766 0.351 3.469 Jharkhand 32.966 32.591 0.375 1.138 West Bengal 91.348 90.864 0.484 0.530 Karnataka 61.131 60.605 0.526 0.860 Gujarat 60.384 59.847 0.537 0.889 Delhi 16.753 15.934 0.820 4.895 Jammu and Kashmir 12.549 11.600 0.949 7.562 Maharashtra 112.373 109.480 2.893 2.574 Tamil Nadu 72.139 68.728 3.411 4.728
Source: Authors calculations 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. Remarks: Estimates of birth rate and death rate for Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Nagaland and Uttarakhand are not

14

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 and Diu, 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 the decrease 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

Table 6: Growth of population aged 0-6 years in India and states: 2001-2011. Country/State Population (0-6 years) Proportion to total (million) population (per cent) 2001 India 163.820 Andaman and Nikobar 0.045 Andhra Pradesh 10.172 Arunachal Pradesh 0.206 Assam 4.498 Bihar 16.806 Chandigarh 0.116 Chhattisgarh 3.555 Daman and Diu 0.040 Delhi 0.021 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 2.017 Goa 0.146 Gujarat 7.532 Haryana 3.336 Himachal Pradesh 0.793 Jharkhand 1.486 Jammu and Kashmir 4.957 Karnataka 7.182 Kerala 3.793 Lakshadweep 0.009 Maharashtra 10.782 Meghalaya 13.671 Manipur 0.309 Madhya Pradesh 0.468 Mizoram 0.144 Nagaland 0.290 Orissa 5.359 Puducherry 0.117 Punjab 3.172 Rajasthan 10.651 Sikkim 0.078 Tamil Nadu 7.235 Tripura 0.436 Uttar Pradesh 31.625 Uttarakhand 1.360 West Bengal 11.414
Source: Authors calculations

2011 158.789 0.039 8.643 0.203 4.511 18.582 0.118 3.584 0.049 0.026 1.971 0.139 7.494 3.298 0.764 2.009 5.238 6.856 3.322 0.007 10.548 12.848 0.353 0.556 0.166 0.286 5.036 0.128 2.942 10.505 0.061 6.895 0.444 29.728 1.329 10.113

2001 15.92 12.57 13.35 18.75 16.87 20.25 12.84 17.06 18.23 13.01 14.56 10.83 14.87 15.77 13.05 14.65 18.40 13.59 11.91 14.99 17.87 14.11 13.45 20.18 16.18 14.56 14.56 12.02 13.02 18.85 14.46 11.59 13.64 19.03 16.02 14.24

2011 13.12 10.40 10.21 14.66 14.47 17.90 11.18 14.03 14.35 10.65 11.76 9.57 12.41 13.01 11.14 16.01 15.89 11.21 9.95 11.00 14.53 11.43 12.98 18.75 15.17 14.44 12.00 10.25 10.62 15.31 10.05 9.56 12.10 14.90 13.14 11.07

Average annual growth rate 2001-11 -0.312 -1.256 -1.629 -0.152 0.029 1.005 0.200 0.082 2.020 2.292 -0.232 -0.454 -0.051 -0.114 -0.376 3.015 0.551 -0.465 -1.326 -2.489 -0.219 -0.621 1.351 1.720 1.412 -0.128 -0.622 0.854 -0.754 -0.138 -2.471 -0.482 0.173 -0.618 -0.232 -1.211

16

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 administrative or 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 whole. If Ps denotes the population of the state/Union Territory s, then the index of extensiveness (Es) is (Ps/P) where P is the population of the country. Es has the additive property that the sum of Es over all geographical or administrative units is always equal to 1. Moreover, Es is always positive and less than 1 expect in the extreme case when all population is confined to only one geographical 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

intensiveness of population distribution as Is=log(Ps/As) where A stands for the geographical area of the state/Union Territory. It is clear that Is takes both positive and negative values and is zero when Ps=As, positive when Ps>As and negative when Ps<As. It is also obvious that higher is the value of Is in the state or Union Territory s, the higher is the concentration of the population in that state/Union Territory relative to other states and Union Territories of the country. The indexes Es and Is can be combined to obtain the index of population distribution for state/Union Territory s, Ds = Es*Is. Finally, summing over all states/Union Territories, we obtain the index of population distribution of the country as a whole, D = 3Es * Is. Further, the change in the index Ds can be decomposed into the change in Es and the change in Is in the following manner Ds2 - Ds1 = (Es2 - Es1)*Is1 + (Is2-Is1)*Es1 + (Es2 - Es1)*(Is2 - Is1). The first term on the right is the contribution of the change in Es while the second term is the contribution of Is. Lastly, the third term is an interaction term which is the combined effect of the change in Es and the change in Is on Ds. We use the aforesaid approach to analyze how has the distribution of the population across the states and Union Territories of the country changed during the period 2001-2011. Estimates of the index of population distribution (Ds) for India and states/Union Territories and indexes of extensiveness (Es) and Intensiveness (Is) for states/Union Territories of the country based on provisional figures of 2011 population census are given in table 7. At the national level, the index of population distribution, D, has increased only marginally between 2001 and 2011 which suggests that there has been little change in the distribution of population across the states/Union Territories of the country during the 10 years between 2001 and 2011. In other words, movement of the people across the states and Union Territories of the country during the period under reference has not resulted in the concentration or desertion of population of significant magnitude across states and Union Territories of the country. Among different states and Union Territories of the country, the index of population distribution, Ds is estimated to be the highest in Uttar Pradesh, followed by Bihar, West Bengal, Delhi and Kerala. These are the only four states in India where Ds is estimated to be more than 1. The relative contribution of the extensiveness and intensiveness of population distribution, however, varies in these states. In Uttar Pradesh, a high Ds is primarily the result of very high Es; Uttar Pradesh alone accounted for almost 16.5 per cent of the population of the country according to provisional figures of 2011 population census. By contrast, a high value of Ds in Delhi is largely due to very high intensiveness of population. Delhi has the highest index of intensiveness in the country. Besides Delhi, the only other state/Union Territory having an index of intensiveness of more than 1 is Chandigarh. 18

Table 7: Population distribution in India and change in population distribution. Country/State 2001 Es Is Ds Es India 11.645 Andaman and Nikobar 0.0346 -0.8602 -0.0298 0.0314 Andhra Pradesh 7.4090 -0.0528 -0.3913 6.9960 Arunachal Pradesh 0.1067 -1.3778 -0.1471 0.1142 Assam 2.5914 0.0358 0.0929 2.5756 Bihar 8.0690 0.4498 3.6292 8.5775 Chandigarh 0.0876 1.4022 0.1228 0.0872 Chhattisgarh 2.0254 -0.3076 -0.6230 2.1104 Daman and Diu 0.0154 0.6174 0.0095 0.0201 Delhi 1.3465 1.4749 1.9860 1.3843 Dadra and Nagar Haveli 0.0214 0.1569 0.0034 0.0283 Goa 0.1310 0.0657 0.0086 0.1205 Gujarat 4.9262 -0.0830 -0.4087 4.9896 Haryana 2.0556 0.1842 0.3787 2.0950 Himachal Pradesh 0.5909 -0.4573 -0.2702 0.5666 Jharkhand 2.6196 0.0336 0.0881 2.7240 Jammu and Kashmir 0.9862 -0.8360 -0.8245 1.0369 Karnataka 5.1381 -0.0552 -0.2837 5.0513 Kerala 3.0956 0.4180 1.2941 2.7589 Lakshadweep 0.0059 0.7823 0.0046 0.0053 Maharashtra 9.4184 0.0027 0.0251 9.2855 19

2011 Is -0.9027 -0.0777 -1.3483 0.0332 0.4763 1.4002 -0.2898 0.7331 1.4869 0.2780 0.0292 -0.0774 0.1925 -0.4756 0.0506 -0.8142 -0.0626 0.3680 0.7379 -0.0035

Ds 11.693 -0.0283 -0.5437 -0.1540 0.0854 4.0856 0.1220 -0.6115 0.0147 2.0584 0.0079 0.0035 -0.3863 0.4032 -0.2694 0.1378 -0.8443 -0.3162 1.0153 0.0039 -0.0326

Absolute 0.0014 -0.1525 -0.0070 -0.0074 0.4564 -0.0007 0.0115 0.0052 0.0724 0.0045 -0.0051 0.0225 0.0245 0.0008 0.0497 -0.0198 -0.0326 -0.2787 -0.0007 -0.0576

Change in Ds Due to Es Due to Is 0.0028 0.0218 -0.0103 -0.0006 0.2287 -0.0006 -0.0261 0.0029 0.0558 0.0011 -0.0007 -0.0053 0.0072 0.0111 0.0035 -0.0425 0.0048 -0.1408 -0.0004 -0.0004 -0.0015 -0.1846 0.0031 -0.0069 0.2142 -0.0002 0.0362 0.0018 0.0162 0.0026 -0.0048 0.0274 0.0169 -0.0108 0.0445 0.0215 -0.0380 -0.1548 -0.0003 -0.0581

Interaction 0.0001 0.0103 0.0002 0.0000 0.0135 0.0000 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0.0008 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0018 0.0011 0.0006 0.0168 0.0000 0.0008

Country/State Meghalaya Manipur Madhya Pradesh Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Puducherry Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Es 0.2254 0.2107 5.8669 0.0864 0.1935 3.5781 0.0947 2.3681 5.4935 0.0526 6.0670 0.3110 16.1575 0.8253 7.7946

2001 Is -0.4810 -0.5084 -0.2035 -0.8706 -0.4161 -0.1218 0.8013 0.1891 -0.2776 -0.6134 0.1857 -0.0112 0.3433 -0.2954 0.4604

Ds -0.1084 -0.1071 -1.1940 -0.0752 -0.0805 -0.4359 0.0759 0.4479 -1.5252 -0.0323 1.1264 -0.0035 5.5472 -0.2438 3.5890

Es 0.2449 0.2249 5.9988 0.0902 0.1637 3.4662 0.1028 2.2892 5.6703 0.0502 5.9609 0.3033 16.4917 0.8360 7.5482

2011 Is -0.4450 -0.4800 -0.1939 -0.8521 -0.4888 -0.1356 0.8370 0.1744 -0.2639 -0.6334 0.1780 -0.0221 0.3522 -0.2899 0.4465

Ds -0.1090 -0.1080 -1.1629 -0.0768 -0.0800 -0.4701 0.0861 0.3993 -1.4963 -0.0318 1.0611 -0.0067 5.8085 -0.2423 3.3702

Absolute -0.0006 -0.0009 0.0311 -0.0016 0.0005 -0.0342 0.0102 -0.0486 0.0289 0.0004 -0.0653 -0.0032 0.2614 0.0015 -0.2188

Change in Ds Due to Es Due to Is -0.0094 0.0081 -0.0072 0.0060 -0.0268 0.0566 -0.0033 0.0016 0.0124 -0.0141 0.0136 -0.0494 0.0065 0.0034 -0.0149 -0.0349 -0.0491 0.0755 0.0015 -0.0011 -0.0197 -0.0465 0.0001 -0.0034 0.1147 0.1437 -0.0031 0.0046 -0.1135 -0.1087

Interaction 0.0007 0.0004 0.0013 0.0001 0.0022 0.0015 0.0003 0.0012 0.0024 0.0000 0.0008 0.0001 0.0030 0.0001 0.0034

Source: Authors calculations. Based on provisional figures of 2011 population census, 2001 population census and population projections prepared by the Government of India (2007). Remarks: E s is presented as a multiple of 100 while I s is presented in absolute terms so that D s is presented as a multiple of 100.

20

On the other hand, the index of intensiveness, Is, has been found to be the lowest in Arunachal Pradesh which is the only state where the index of intensiveness has been estimated to be less than -1. The provisional figures of 2011 population census suggests that in 19 states and Union Territories of the country, the index of intensiveness is estimated to be negative which suggests that Ps<As in these states and Union Territories. As regards the change in Ds between 2001 through 2011, it decreased in 13 states and Union Territories but increased in others. The decrease in Ds has been the sharpest in Kerala followed by West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. On the other hand, the increase in Ds has been the highest in Bihar followed by Uttar Pradesh which account for more than one fourth of the population of the country. In both these states, the growth of population slowed down considerably during 2001-2011, yet the concentration of population in these states, vis-a-vis other states and Union Territories has increased. According to the 2001 population census, the two states accounted for about 24.3 per cent population of the country. This per cent has increased to almost 25.1 at the 2011 population census. It appears that because of the increase in the index of intensiveness in these two states, the index of population distribution, Ds, showed a marginal increase for the country as a whole. In any case, the pattern of within-country variations in the index of extensiveness and the index of intensiveness and the change in these indexes remains quite complex (Table 7).

Prospects for future growth

In view of the fact that population growth rate in the country during 2001-2011 has been faster than the population growth rate assumed in the projection exercises carried out by the Government of India prior to the 2011 population census, the future growth of population of the country needs to be reworked by taking into account the provisional results of the 2001 population census. The projection exercise carried out by the Government of India employs the standard cohort-component procedure which requires detailed information about age and sex structure of population and information about levels and trends in fertility, mortality and migration in addition to a number of other information. This detailed information is not yet available through the 2001 population census. In the absence of detailed information about different components of the population growth, it is possible to project the future population growth through the application of the dynamic logistic model (Mari Bhat, 1999). Unlike the conventional logistic model, the dynamic logistic model assumes that upper asymptote of the model varies with time. The functional form of the upper asymptote of the dynamic logistic model may take many forms. In practice, however, two types of forms have been suggested. The first form assumes linear change in the upper asymptote over time while the second assumes that the ceiling on the 21

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 period 1901 through 2011 produced the following equation: rt = 0.09628 + 0.0446 t - 0.00036 Pt R2 = 0.87, N = 11 (5.14) (6.05) (3.97) where rt is the inter-census exponential growth rate with t as the transformed calendar year with the origin at 1901 and Pt 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 R2 of 0.87, the mode fits 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: 2011-2101 Year Project Projected change in Projected population population average annual (million) growth rate Million Percent (Per cent) 2011 1214.184 2021 1410.739 196.555 16.19 1.50 2031 1596.859 186.120 13.19 1.24 2041 1767.563 170.703 10.69 1.02 2051 1923.890 156.327 8.84 0.85 2061 2069.803 145.913 7.58 0.73 2071 2209.268 139.465 6.74 0.65 2081 2345.016 135.749 6.14 0.60 2091 2478.576 133.560 5.70 0.55 2101 2610.715 132.139 5.33 0.52
Source: Authors calculations

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

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 distant possibility 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

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, in these 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 cohortcomponent 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 of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division.

24