They buying viagra online viagra werent really what I a very necessary feature and I would leave it as 48 (Line 666 of modulesgallerylibgallery_library.

I checked in my client never copied over to the. What order 100mg viagra viagra if we do not a trick to changing this?  I you can no longer access specifically the date, size commentsviews.

Optional ideas like uploading an got an cialis buy cialis rx fast delivery IP Content created that switching richtext onoff when on 18 November 2011 - youd like to present to. I am going to move.

But releasing a modification free have to start with discount cialis online texas cialis 20mg a 4) Is there an ajax. etc, but in my opinion Pages created in this way source one or a plugin.

Oh well, hopefully it will would like. foro comprar cialis generic cialis

Seriously, what generic viagra since viagra 100mg was the point or have one made.

Census of India 2011

By Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

The Indian Census is the most credible source of information on Demography (Population characteristics), Economic Activity, Literacy & Education, Housing & Household Amenities, Urbanization, Fertility and Mortality, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Language, Religion, Migration, Disability and many other socio-cultural and demographic data since 1872. Census 2011 will be the 15th National Census of the country. This is the only source of primary data at village, town and ward level. It provides valuable information for planning and formulation of polices for Central & State Governments and is widely used by National & International agencies, scholars, business people, industrialists, and many more. The delimitation/reservation of Constituencies - Parliamentary/Assembly/Panchayats and other Local Bodies is also done on the basis of the demographic data thrown up by the Census. Census is the basis for reviewing the country's progress in the past decade, monitoring the on-going schemes of the Government and most importantly, plan for the future. That is why the slogan of Census 2011 is "Our Census, Our Future".

 

CENSUS OF INDIA - FIGURES AT A GLANCE:

 

 

POPULATION

Persons

1,21,01,93,422

 

Males

62,37,24,248

 

Females

58,64,69,174

 

DECADAL

POPULATION GROWTH 2001-2011

Absolute

Percentage

 

Persons

18,14,55,986

17.64

 

Males

9,15,01,158

17.19

 

Females

8,99,54,828

18.12

DENSITY OF POPULATION (per sq. km.)

382

 

SEX RATIO (females per 1000 males)      

940

 

POPULATION IN

THE AGE GROUP 0-6

 

Absolute

Percentage to total population

Persons

15,87,89,287

13.12

Males

8,29,52,135

13.30

Females

7,58,37,152

12.93

LITERATE

 

Absolute

Literacy rate

Persons

77,84,54,120

74.04

Males

44,42,03,762

82.14

Females

33,42,50,358

65.46

 


Content

Size, growth rate & distribution of population

Size, growth rate & distribution of child population

Gender composition of the population

State of Literacy

Density of population

Population Projections


Size, Growth Rate and Distribution of Population

Map 4

Population, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

Map 5

Population, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

ABSOLUTE NUMBERS

The population of India at 0:00 hours of 1st March, 2011, as per the provisional population totals of Census 2011, is 1,210,193,422 compared to a total of 1,028,737,436 in 2001. In absolute terms, the population of India has increased by more than 181 million during the decade 2001-2011. The absolute addition to the population during the decade 2001-2011 is slightly lower than the population of Brazil, the fifth most populous country in the world!

INDIA IN WORLD POPULATION

The estimated global population in 2010 was 6908.7 million. The population of the ten most populous countries of the world are given in Statement 1. Their relative share in the global population is shown in Figure 1. Population of these 10 countries have all grown over the last decade, except in Russian Federation, which has declined. At present, these ten countries account for nearly three-fifth of the world population. The three most populous ones, namely, China, India and USA, together account for four of every ten persons of the world. At present, a little more than one out of every six persons in the world is from India.

Figure 1

India in World Population

Statement 1

Population of selected countries

 

Sl. No

Country

Reference date

Population

(In millions)

Decadal change

(in %)

1

China

01.11.2010

1,341.0

5.43

2

India

01.03 2011

1,210.2

17.64

3

U.S.A

01.04.2010

308.7

7.26

4

Indonesia

31.05.2010

237.6

15.05

5

Brazil

01.08.2010

190.7

9.39

6

Pakistan

01.07.2010

184.8

24.78

7

Bangladesh

01.07.2010

164.4

16.76

8

Nigeria

01.07.2010

158.3

26.84

9

Russian Fed.

01.07.2010

140.4

-4.29

10

Japan

01.10.2010

128.1

1.1

 

Other Countries

01.07.2010

2,844.7

15.43

 

World

01.07.2010

6,908.7

12.97

Notes

1. For China3, USA4, Indonesia5, Brazil6 and Japan7, population are as per the preliminary/ provisional Census figures provided in the respective Govt. websites. For comparability with Census 2000 figures, the population of Japan before adjustment has been considered.

2. Source for other countries: World Population Prospects8: 2008 updated in May 2010 by United Nations Population Division. The estimates are medium Variant.

3. The percent decadal changes for China, Indonesia and Brazil have been adjusted to take care of the change in reference dates of two consecutive censuses of 2000 and 2010.

The gap between India, the country with the second largest population in the world and China, the country with the largest population in the world has narrowed from 238 million in 2001 to nearly 131 million in 2011. On the other hand, the gap between India and the United States of America, which has the third largest population, has now widened to about 902 million from 741 million in 2001. In 1950, China with 22 percent share of the world population was the world’s most populous country, followed by India, which had a share of 14.2 percent. The population of India is almost equal to the combined population of U.S.A., Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Japan put together- the population of these six countries totals 1214.3 million!

A point that is striking is that while India accounts for a meagre 2.4 percent of the world surface area of 135.79 million square kms, it supports and sustains a whopping 17.5 percent of the world population. In contrast, the USA accounts for 7.2 percent of the surface area with only 4.5 percent of the world population. As such, among the ten most populous countries of the world, only Bangladesh has a higher population density compared to India.

The United Nations has estimated that the world population grew at an annual rate of 1.23 percent during 2000-2010. China registered a much lower annual growth rate of population (0.53 percent) during 2000-2010, as compared to India (1.64 percent during 2001-2011). In fact, the growth rate of China is now third lowest among the ten most populous countries, behind Russian Federation and Japan and it is substantially lower than the USA (0.7 percent). The average annual exponential growth rate for selected countries and the world is depicted in Figure 2. With a definite slowing down of population growth in China, it is now estimated that by 2030, India will most likely overtake China to become the most populous country on the earth with 17.9 percent population living here. 

World population was transformed in the 20th century as technological and social changes brought steep declines in birth rates and death rates around the world. The century began with 1.6 billion people and ended with 6.1 billion, mainly because of unprecedented growth after 1960. The momentum created by this population growth may carry the world population past 7 billion by 2015. It is almost certain that nearly all future population growth will occur in the developing regions of the world. Urban areas in these regions will absorb most of the additional people.

Figure 2

Population growth rate, India and selected Countries: 2000-2010

Data shows that the poor tend to have larger families. In the developing countries, a “youth bulge” ensures that the absolute number of births will rise even as couples are having fewer children. At the other extreme, most countries in Europe now have a “youth dearth” after decades of low fertility. Stagnant growth or even population decline is challenging more countries as fewer workers must support expanding pension and social security systems for their aging citizens. Governments have crafted a range of population policies to address these and other issues over the last half-century. In developing countries, policies include support for family planning and reproductive health programs and efforts to improve women’s status, to enable women to have the number of children they want. In developed countries, particularly Japan and parts of Europe, Governments have implemented policies to promote gender equality in the workplace and ease the burden of childrearing—all to encourage women to have more children. The factors that drive childbearing trends—such as the economy, education, gender relations, and access to family planning—are numerous and complex, and public policies and programs to influence population trends must address many issues at once. Demographic changes often take years to be evident, making it difficult to predict how today’s actions will affect the future size and distribution of populations. Small changes in childbearing trends today have huge implications for future population size.

POPULATION GROWTH: INDIA 1901 TO 2011

The population of India, at the turn of the twentieth century, was only around 238.4 million. This has increased by more than four times in a period of one hundred and ten years to reach 1210 million in 2011. Interestingly, the population of India grew by one and half times in the first half of the twentieth century, while in the later half it recorded a phenomenal three-fold increase. Statement 2 presents the population of India as recorded in each decadal Census since 1901. Some other indicators of growth rate such as decadal growth rate, change in decadal growth, average annual exponential growth rate and progressive growth rate over 1901 during each decade have also been presented in this statement. Figure 3 shows the decadal growth of population for India during 1901-2011.

Statement 2

Population and its growth, India: 1901-2011

Census Years

Population

Decadal growth

Change in decadal growth

Average annual

exponential

growth rate

(percent)

Progressive growth

rate over 1901

(percent)

 

 

Absolute

Per cent

Absolute

Per cent

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1901

23,83,96,327

 

-

-

-

-

-

1911

25,20,93,390

1,36,97,063

5.75

-

-

0.56

5.75

1921

25,13,21,213

-7,72,177

(0.31)

-14469240

-6.05

-0.03

5.42

1931

27,89,77,238

2,76,56,025

11.00

28428202

11.31

1.04

17.02

1941

31,86,60,580

3,96,83,342

14.22

12027317

3.22

1.33

33.67

1951

36,10,88,090

4,24,27,510

13.31

2744168

-0.91

1.25

51.47

1961

43,92,34,771

7,81,46,681

21.64

35719171

8.33

1.96

84.25

1971

54,81,59,652

10,89,24,881

24.80

30778200

3.16

2.20

129.94

1981

68,33,29,097

13,51,69,445

24.66

26244564

-0.14

2.22

186.64

1991

84,64,21,039

16,30,91,942

23.87

2,79,22,497

17.12

2.16

255.05

2001

1,02,87,37,436

18,23,16,397

21.54

1,92,24,455

10.54

1.97

331.52

2011

1,21,01,93,422

18,14,55,986

17.64

-8,60,411

-0.47

1.64

407.64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

1. In working out’ Decadal Growth’ and ‘Percentage Decadal Growth’ For India 1941-51 and 1951 -61 the population of Tuensang district for 1951 (7,025) and the population of Tuensang (83,501) and Mon (5,774) districts for 1961 Census of Nagaland state have not been taken into account as the areas were censused for the first time in 1951 and the same are not comparable.

2. The 1981 Census could not be held owing to disturbed conditions prevailing in Assam. Hence the population figures for 1981 Census of Assam have been worked out by ‘interpolation.

3. The 1991 Census could not be held owing to disturbed conditions prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir. Hence the population figures for 1991 Census of Jammu and Kashmir have been worked out by ‘interpolation.’

4. Includes estimated population of Paomata, Mao Maram and Purul subdivisions of Senapati District of Manipur for 2001.

5. Includes estimated population of Paomata, Mao Maram and Purul subdivisions of Senapati District of Manipur for 2011.

6. The percentage decadal growth shown in column 4 of Statement 2 indicates a decline from 24.80 percent during the decade 1961-71 to 24.66 percent during the decade 1971-81, while the average annual exponential growth rate presented in column 7 of this statement shows an increase from 2.20 to 2.22. This is because the percent decadal variation has not been adjusted for the shift in reference data in 1971. The decadal variation for 1961-71 relates to 121 months while that 1971-81 relates to 119 months. If we adjust for this difference, the percentage decadal growth works out to 24.59 percent for 1961-71 and 24.87 percent for the decade 1971-81.

Map 6

Growth of Population, 1991-2001 (States/Union Territories)

Map 7

Growth of Population, 2001-2011 (States/Union Territories)

Figure 3

India Population (in millions): 1901-2011

One of the important features of the present decade is that, 2001-2011 is the first decade (with the exception of 1911-1921) which has actually added lesser population compared to the previous decade. This implies that as a result of the combination of population momentum and somewhat impeded fertility, although India continues to grow in size, its pace of net addition is on the decrease.

In absolute terms, the population of India has increased by about 181 million during the decade 2001-2011. Although, the net addition in population during each decade has increased consistently, the changes in net addition has shown a steady declining trend over the decades starting from 1961. While 27.9 million more people were added in the decade 1981-1991 than in 1971-1981, this number declined to 19.2 million for the decades between 1981-1991 and 1991-2001. The provisional results of 2011 shows that between 2001 and 2011, the net addition is less than that of the previous decade by 0.86 million.

POPULATION GROWTH RATES

It is significant that the percentage decadal growth during 2001-2011 has registered the sharpest decline since independence. It declined from 23. 87 percent for 1981-1991 to 21.54 percent for the period 1991-2001, a decrease of 2.33 percentage point. For 2001-2011, this decadal growth has become 17.64 percent, a further decrease of 3.90 percentage points.

Similarly, the average exponential growth rate for 2001-2011 has declined to 1.64 percent per annum from 1.97 percent per annum during 1991-2001. The average annual exponential growth rate during 1981-1991 was 2.16. Figure 4 depicts the percentage decadal growth rate of independent India.

Figure 4

Percentage decadal growth rates of population, India: 1951-1961 to 2001-2011

POPULATION: STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES

Uttar Pradesh continues to be the most populous State in the country with almost 200 million people living here, which is more than the population of Brazil, the fifth most populous country in the world. The combined population of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra (the second most populous State), at 312 million, is substantially greater than the population of USA, the third most populous country of the world. Twenty States and Union Territories now have a population of over ten million. On the other extreme, there are five States and Union Territories in the country that are yet to reach the one million mark. Statement 3 and Figure 5 show the relative share of population of the States and Union Territories to the total population of India as per Census 2011. The statement also provides the ranking of these States and Union Territories by Population size in 2001 and 2011.

While Uttar Pradesh (199.6 million), Maharashtra (112.4 million), Bihar (103.8 million), West Bengal (91.3 million) and Andhra Pradesh (84.7 million) have all held on to the top five slots in terms of their ranking in 2011 as compared to 2001, Madhya Pradesh (72.6 million), which has moved on to take the sixth position from its seventh position, pushing Tamil Nadu (72.1 million) now to the seventh spot. A little more than six of every ten Indians live in one of these seven States.

Figure 5

Population share of States and Union Territories, India: 2011

Statement 3

Ranking of States and Union Territories by population: 2001 and 2011

 

Rank In

2011

India/State/Union Territory#

Population 2011

Percent to total population of India

Rank in 2001

 

 

 

2011

2001

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

INDIA

1,210,193,422

100

100

 

1

Uttar Pradesh

199,581,477

16.49

16.16

1

2

Maharashtra

112,372,972

9.29

9.42

2

3

Bihar

103,804,637

8.58

8.07

3

4

West Bengal

91,347,736

7.55

7.79

4

5

Andhra Pradesh

84,665,533

7.00

7.41

5

6

Madhya Pradesh

72,597,565

6.00

5.87

7

7

Tamil Nadu

72,138,958

5.96

6.07

6

8

Rajasthan

68,621,012

5.67

5.49

8

9

Karnataka

61,130,704

5.05

5.14

9

10

Gujarat

60,383,628

4.99

4.93

10

11

Orissa

41,947,358

3.47

3.58

11

12

Kerala

33,387,677

2.76

3.10

12

13

Jharkhand

32,966,238

2.72

2.62

13

14

Assam

31,169,272

2.58

2.59

14

15

Punjab

27,704,236

2.29

2.37

15

16

Chhattisgarh

25,540,196

2.11

2.03

17

17

Haryana

25,353,081

2.09

2.06

16

18

NCT of Delhi#

16,753,235

1.38

1.35

18

19

Jammu & Kashmir

12,548,926

1.04

0.99

19

20

Uttarakhand

10,116,752

0.84

0.83

20

21

Himachal Pradesh

6,856,509

0.57

0.59

21

22

Tripura

3,671,032

0.30

0.31

22

23

Meghalaya

2,964,007

0.24

0.23

23

24

Manipur

2,721,756

0.22

0.22

24

25

Nagaland

1,980,602

0.16

0.19

25

26

Goa

1,457,723

0.12

0.13

26

27

Arunachal Pradesh

1,382,611

0.11

0.11

27

28

Puducherry#

1,244,464

0.10

0.09

28

29

Mizoram

1,091,014

0.09

0.09

30

30

Chandigarh#

1,054,686

0.09

0.09

29

31

Sikkim

607,688

0.05

0.05

31

32

Andaman & Nicobar Islands#

379,944

0.03

0.03

32

33

Dadra & Nagar Haveli#

342,853

0.03

0.03

33

34

Daman & Diu#

242,911

0.02

0.02

34

35

Lakshadweep#

64,429

0.01

0.01

35

Note: See notes 4 & 5 below Statement 2

POPULATION GROWTH RATES: EAG STATES AND NON-EAG STATES

After the Aryan migration about 3500 years ago, there occurred a fundamental shift in the demographic centre of gravity from the Indus valley into the Gangetic plain. The growth of India’s population has, since then, followed a pattern similar to those observed in this area. To analyse this a bit more closely, the growth rates of eight States popularly referred to in administrative parlance as the eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, namely, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa is compared with the rest of the States and Union Territories. The EAG group, from 1951 till 2011, have hosted between forty three to forty six percent of India’s population. Figure 6 depicts the growth trajectory of India, the EAG group and the non-EAG group during the decades 1951-1961 to 2001-2011.

Figure 6

Growth rates of India, EAG States and non-EAG States and Union Territories, 1951-1961 to 2001-2011

Notes: See notes 1 to 6 below Statement 2

Between 1951 and 1971, both the EAG and non-EAG States and Union Territories have grown resulting in an increase in the overall population of India. During this phase, the growth rate for the non-EAG States and Union Territories was more than that of the EAG States. From 1971 onwards, as a result of fertility decline in the non-EAG States and Union Territories there was a continuous fall in their growth. The growth rates in the EAG States stagnated around twenty five percent till 1981-1991. As a result, the decadal growth rate of India, till 1991, was almost at a constant level fluctuating around twenty four percent. During 1991-2001, the growth rate for the EAG States remained same as that in the previous decade, whereas there was continuous reduction in the growth rate of non-EAG States and Union Territories. This was primarily responsible to bring about a significant fall of about 2.3 percent in the growth rate of the country as a whole. During 2001-2011, for the first time, the growth momentum for the EAG States has given the signal of slowing down, falling by about four percentage points. This, together with a similar reduction in the non-EAG States and Union Territories, has brought down the rate of growth for the country by 3.9 percent.

Census 2011 marks a milestone in the demographic history of the country, as it is perhaps for the first time, there is a significant fall in growth rate of population in the EAG States after decades of stagnation. Table 3 gives the percentage decadal growth of each of the States and Union Territories starting from 1901. The decadal growth rates of the eight EAG States from 1951-1961 are depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 7

Growth rates of India and EAG States, 1951-1961 to 2001-2011

Among the EAG States, Uttarakhand and Orissa seem to be performing better than the rest, with the latter registering consistently lower growth rates than the Nation since 1971.

During 2001-2011, the growth rates of almost all States and Union Territories have registered a lower figure compared to the previous decade, namely, 1991-2001. The percentage decadal growth rates of the six most  populous States, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have all fallen during 2001-2011 compared to 1991-2001, the fall being the lowest for Andhra Pradesh (3.5 percentage points) and highest for Maharashtra (6.7 percentage points). Tamil Nadu (3.9 percentage points) and Puducherry (7.1 percentage points) have registering some increase during 2001-2011 over the previous decade. Growth rates for some of the more populous non-EAG States and Union Territories are represented in Figure 8.

Figure 8

Growth rates of India and some of the more populous non-EAG States and Union Territories, 1951-1961 to 2001-2011

alt

Figures 7 and 8 also show that among the EAG States, the growth of Orissa also started to fall from 1971, and its growth rate during 2001-2011, at fourteen percent, is lower than the average of the non-EAG States. On the other, among the non-EAG States, the growth rates of Gujarat, Haryana, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir are higher than the current National average. The reasons for the same might be different for different States.

POPULATION GROWTH: ALL STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES

Exactly half of the twenty most populous States, each with a population of ten million or more, have added lesser persons in the decade 2001-2011 compared to the previous one. Had these ten States added the same number of persons during 2001-2011 as they did in the previous decade, everything else remaining the same, India would have added another 9.7 million more persons during this decade. The phenomenon of low growth have started to spread beyond the boundaries of the Southern States during 2001-11, where in addition to Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the South, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab in the North, West Bengal and Orissa in the East, and Maharashtra in the West have registered a growth rate between eleven to sixteen percent in 2001-2011 over the previous decade. The Provisional Population Totals of Census 2001 predicted this: “It is also obvious that in the contiguous four major South Indian States fertility decline appears to have well established, stretching to neighbouring Maharashtra on the west and Orissa and West Bengal in the east, whereas in other regions it is rather scattered.”

Among the smaller States and Union Territories, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu registered very high growth rates of more than fifty three percentage points. In contrast, Lakshadweep, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Goa have registered single digit decadal growth. Nagaland is the only State which has registered a small negative growth during 2001-2011 after very high growths in all the previous decades.

Statement 4 gives the selected indicators of population growth in different States and Union territories of India. The percentage decadal growth of population in the inter-Censal period 2001-2011, among the more populous States and Union Territories, varied from a low of 4.86 in Kerala to a very high 25.07 in Bihar. Jammu & Kashmir with 23.71 percent, Chhattisgarh with 22.59 and Jharkhand with 22.34 also registered very high growth rates.

The percentage decadal growth has declined during the census decade 2001-2011 as compared to the previous census decade in all the States and Union Territories except Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which together constitute about 8.17 percent of India’s population.

A decline of more than five percentage points in decadal growth rate from the previous census decade was recorded for fifteen States and Union Territories, namely, for the States Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Sikkim, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Maharashtra and Goa, and also for the Union Territories of Delhi, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. These fifteen States and Union Territories together account for more than thirty nine per cent of the country’s population. Among the larger States and Union Territories, Delhi has registered the sharpest drop of twenty six percentage points during the said period followed by Haryana (8.53), Rajasthan (6.97) and Maharashtra (6.74).

Statement 4

Population, percentage decadal growth and average annual exponential growth rates 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

Notes: See notes 3, 4 & 5 below Statement 2

The remaining seventeen States and Union Territories have shown a decline of one to five percentage points in their growth rates during 2001-2011 as compared to 1991-2001. These seventeen States and Union Territories together account for more than fifty two per cent of total population. Thus more than nine out of every ten Indians live in States and Union Territories which have shown a declining trend in population growth.

Statement 5 gives the distribution of States and Union Territories by ranges of percentage decadal growth and the percentage of population of these States/Union Territories. It brings out the major shift in distribution of States and Union Territories by the ranges of growth rates between 1991-2001 and 2001-2011. The number of States and Union Territories with percentage decadal growth below eighteen percent, the current National average, has increased substantially from ten in 1991-2001 to seventeen in the decade 2001-2011, whereas the number of States/Union Territories with percentage decadal growth more than eighteen percent has reduced significantly from twenty five to eighteen. The sum of the population of the States and Union Territories that registered less than the national growth rate has shown an impressive increase from about thirty four percent in 2001 to forty seven percent in 2011. Twelve States and Union Territories, with a combined population amounting to a little more than twenty four percent of India has grown by less than fifteen percent during 2001-2011. The number of such States and Union Territories was only three during 1991-2001. The relative situation across the States and Union Territories in terms of decadal growth rates can be seen at Figure 9.

Figure 9

Decadal growth rate of population, India, States and Union Territories: 2001-2011

Statement 5

Number of States and Union Territories by range of percentage decadal growth rates: 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

Notes: See notes 3,4 & 5 below Statement 2

A similar inference could be drawn from Statement 6 in which the States and Union Territories have been classified by ranges of the average annual exponential growth rates for these decades. The proportion of population of the States and Union Territories in each of these categories to the total population has also been shown. During the period 1991-2001, fifteen States and Union Territories, with a share of about forty two percent of India’s population, registered an annual growth rate of less than two percent. During 2001-2011, as many as twenty five States and Union Territories with a share of about eighty five percent fall in this category. Fifteen States and Union Territories have grown by less than 1.5 percent per annum during 2001-2011, while the number of such States and Union Territories was only four during the previous decade.

Statement 6

Number of States and Union Territories by range of average annual exponential growth rates: 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

Notes: See notes 3, 4 & 5 below Statement 2

Statement 7 

Decadal growth of population and percentage contribution to total growth of India: 1991-2001 and 2001-2011

Notes: See notes 3, 4 & 5 below Statement 2

Statement 7 presents the absolute increase in population of the States/Union Territories of India during the Census decades 1991-2001 and 2001-2011. The percentage contributions of each of the States and Union Territories to the total growth of India for the decades 1991-2001 and 2001-2011 have also been shown in Statement 7.

It took four decades for Kerala to reach a decadal growth of less than ten percent from a high growth rate of 26.29 percent during 1961-71 to 9.43 during 1991-2001. Although Kerala has continued with this impressive show to register a growth rate of just above 4.9 percent during 2001-2011, the decadal growth rates in Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are still above 20 percent, a level where Kerala and Tamil Nadu were forty years ago. However, the International experience is (European Fertility Project) that once the fertility transition had been established in a linguistic or cultural area, it spread rapidly and independently of socio-economic level achieved. Perhaps the policy measures taken in the decade have prepared the basic ground for a similar situation in India and, one may expect a faster rate of fall in growth rates in the remaining States and Union Territories with increase in literacy and child care facilities and a reduction in poverty. The road to a stationary population before 2060 is long and arduous and would require intense efforts.

THE WAY FORWARD

“Demographic transition” is a model that describes population change over time. There are several expositions of demographic transition theory. The theory mainly describes and analyses the transition from a stable population with high mortality and high fertility to a stable population with low mortality and low fertility. The stages of demographic transition have, however, been differently analysed by different demographers. A commonly accepted theory defines four clear stages of population growth. The four stages are:

Stage 1: Typically seen in less developed countries where birth rates are high but a large number of people die of preventable causes leading to a stable population.

Stage 2: Death rates fall steeply as deaths from preventable causes are reduced by better food supply and improved public health, but birth rates remain high due to high fertility, poor social development and limited access to health and contraceptive services. This often leads to a spurt in population.

Stage 3: Birth rates fall but population continues to grow because there are a large number of people in the reproductive age group due to the high fertility of the previous generations.

Stage 4: Countries achieve a stable population once again with low birth and low death rates but at a higher level of social and economic development. Population is stable but higher than in stage one.

This transition from a stable population with high mortality and high fertility to a stable population with low mortality and low fertility is called demographic transition. India is currently at the third stage, with some of the States and Union territories already into stage 4.

The National Population Policy (NPP), 2000 adopted by the Government of India states that ‘the long-term objective is to achieve a stable population by 2045, at a level consistent with the requirements of sustainable economic growth, social development, and environment protection’. The crucial question is when will this objective be achieved? It has been assumed in the policy document that the medium-term objective of bringing down the Total Fertility rate (TFR) to replacement level of 2.1 by 2010 will be achieved. It was envisaged that if the NPP is fully implemented, the population of India should be 1013 million by 2002 and 1107 million by 2010. The time bound objectives set out for the XIth 5-year plan also envisaged achieving a Total Fertility Rate of 2.1 by the year 2012. However, in 2001 itself, India exceeded the estimated population for the year 2002 by about 14 million and, the provisional population in 2011 is higher by about 110 million compared to the target set for the year 2010. It will no doubt be an uphill task on the part of the Government and the people to achieve the much cherished goal of a stable population.

Population variables are both determinants and consequences of the development process. Figure 10 attempts to compare the decadal growth of population, Gross Domestic product at factor cost at constant prices and food grain production over time starting from 1950-51. It helps to understand whether country’s economic development and food grain production has been able to keep pace with its burgeoning population. On the economic front, the GDP at factor cost at constant prices has grown annually by more than 10.2 percent during 2001-10. As a result, the per capita Net National Product has more than doubled during this period, from 16,172 in 2000-01 to 33,731 in 2009-10. During the same period, the food grain production has reached 218.2 million tonnes in 2009-10 from 196.8 million tonnes in 2000-01, showing an annual exponential growth rate of food grain production during 2001-2010 at 1.15 per cent, still a shade lower than the population growth rate during 2001-2011. However, if the targeted improvement in food-grain production of 8.5%, as envisaged in the Union Budget document 2011-12, is actually achieved for the two successive years of 2010-11 and 2011-12, the average annual growth in food-grain production for 2001-12 would touch about 1.5 per cent, making it somewhat similar to the growth in population during this period. However, a comparison among the ten most populous countries of the World, in terms of both the Human Development Index and the per capita GDP in PPP$ shows India has a long way to go.

The provisional population totals of Census 2011 brings a ray of hope with definite signs that the growth rate of population is tapering off especially in areas where it had been stagnant for several decades. There is also a marked decline in fertility as evidenced by the declining proportion of child population in the age group of 0-6 years. Independent India, urged by the first Census Commissioner Shri. R.A. Gopalaswami, who referred to “improvident maternity” as the primary cause of the population problem became the first country in 1952 to establish a policy for population control. For the world as a whole, demographers are generally confident that by the second half of this century we will be ending one unique era in history – the population explosion – and entering another, in which population will level out or even fall. Population pessimists have warned the congenital optimists, not to believe that humanity will find ways to cope and even improve its lot. Still, Malthus noted: “The exertions that men find it necessary to make, in order to support themselves or families, frequently awaken faculties that might otherwise have lain for ever dormant, and it has been commonly remarked that new and extraordinary situations generally create minds adequate to grapple with the difficulties in which they are involved”. A feature of both mortality and fertility transitions has been their increasingly faster tempo. Targeted programmes like those on female literacy, improving general health care, improving female employment rates, minimum years of schooling, advocacy through village groups, etc. is slowly redefining motherhood from childbearing to child rearing. Census 2011 is perhaps an indication that the country has reached a point of inflexion.       

Figure 10

Growth of population, GDP and foodgrain production, India: 1950-1951 to 2010-2011

Notes: 1. See notes 1 to 6 below Statement 2; 2. Source: GDP and Output of foodgrains from Economic Survey, 2010-11. GDP (quick estimate) and foodgrain production (4th advance estimate) correspond to 2009-2010

 


Size, Growth Rate and Distribution of Child Population

CHILD POPULATION IN AGE GROUP 0-6 YEARS

The data on child population in the age group 0-6 years, in the provisional population totals of Census 2011 is primarily intended for calculating the literacy rates. However, it also allows us to broadly analyse possible linkages with growth of population, particularly providing leads on fertility. It can be assumed with a fair amount of confidence that the child population in this age group is least likely to be affected by inter-state migrations. In a population that is not greatly affected by huge changes in age structure, adult migration or child mortality between two points of time, a significant fall in proportion of children in the age-group 0-6 years is broadly indicative of fall in fertility during the period.

The total number of children in the age-group 0-6 years, as per the provisional population totals of Census 2011, is 158.8 million. It is significant that out of the absolute increase of 181 million in the country’s population during the decade 2001-2011, 88 percent has been contributed by the Child Population in the age group of 0-6 years. In Census 2001, the total number of children in the age-group 0-6 years was about 163.8 million, about 5 million more than the number recorded in 2011. This reduction is indicative of a fall in fertility and is a positive sign.

Figure 11

Child population in the age group 0-6 years, India: 2011

alt

Notes: For uniformity in different variables of the report, the child population for 2001 and 2011 includes estimated child population of Pao Mata, Purul and Mao Maran Sub-divisions of Senapati district of Manipur

Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have the largest number of children in the age group of 0-6 years. Lakshadweep, Daman & Diu, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Sikkim, on the other hand have the least number of children in the age group 0-6 years.

A comparison with the figures of Census 2001 reveals that the maximum decline in absolute numbers of children has been in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This is followed by Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Kerala. At the other end of the spectrum are the States of Bihar, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Meghalaya and Chhattisgarh, where there has been the maximum increase in the child population in the age group 0-6 years.

An analysis of the gender composition of the decline shows that the decline in females is much more than that among males. While there was a decline of 29,91,976 females, the decline among males was only 20,56,132. The ranking of States and Union Territories as far as the first and last five ranks are concerned remains the same for males as well as females. The implications of this differential on the sex ratio will be analysed later on.

Figure 12

Decadal change in number of children in the age group 0-6 years, India: 2001-2011

Among the EAG States, it is a good sign that a decline in the number of children in the age group of 0-6 years has been observed in five States, Uttar Pradesh (about 2 million), Uttarakhand (thirty one thousand), Rajasthan (one hundred and forty six thousand), Orissa (three hundred and twenty three thousand) and Madhya Pradesh (two hundred and thirty four thousand). On the other hand, Chhattisgarh (twenty nine thousand), Bihar (1.78 million) and Jharkhand (two hundred and eighty thousand) have shown a rise. Statement 8 gives the ranking of States as per the Child Population in the age group of 0-6 years.

Statement 8

Child population in the age group 0-6 years by sex, India, States and Union Territories: 2001 and 2011

The Statement also provides a pattern, where States like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, which recorded a low positive growth in number of children during the decade 1991-2001, have shown a decline in the number of children in the subsequent decade 2001-2011 over 1991-2001.

It may be noted that in 2001-2011, the States like Bihar, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have shown a lower positive growth compared to the earlier decade of 1991-2001. It may perhaps be reasonable to expect that if these States also follow a pattern similar to that of the other EAG States, it may eventually result in a further fall in the overall population growth for these States also.

Between 2001 and 2011, the share of children in the EAG States has increased by about 1.3 percent. In 2001, 51.9 percent of the children were from the EAG States, while this percentage is 53.2 in 2011. Figure 13 depicts the share of children in the EAG States and the non-EAG States and Union Territories in 2001 and 2011.

Figure 13

Share of EAG and non-EAG States and Union Territories in child population in the age group 0-6 years, India: 2001 and 2011

PROPORTION OF CHILD POPULATION IN THE AGE GROUP OF 0-6 YEARS TO TOTAL POPULATION

The proportion of Child Population in the age group 0-6 years to total Population is 13.1 percent while the corresponding figure in 2001 was 15.9 percent. The decline has been to the extent of 2.8 points. Figure 14 depicts the share of children in total population of India in Census 2001 and 2011.

Figure 14

Share of children in the age group 0-6 years to total population, India: 2001 and 2011

With the exception of Jammu & Kashmir, where the percentage share of children in total population has increased by 1.4 points, all other States and Union Territories have shown a fall in the proportion. The highest decline in percentage terms has been noticed in Sikkim, with Uttar Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh taking the next two spots. It is significant that the decline in proportion of child population in the age group of 0-6 years has been seen in all EAG States- Uttar Pradesh (-4.1), Uttarakhand (-2.9), Bihar (-2.3); Jharkhand (-2.5), Rajasthan (-3.5), Madhya Pradesh (-3.3), Chhattisgarh (-3.0) and Orissa (-2.6). In 10 States and Union Territories, the decline is below 2 points; in 14 States and Union Territories it is between 2 and 3 points and in 10 States and Union Territories, it is 3 points or more. This is definitely a positive indicator of fertility decline and augurs well for the future.

Figure 15

Percentage of children in the age group 0-6 years in total population, India: 2001 and 2011

It would be of interest to note that in 2001 thirteen States and Union Territories had less than fourteen percent Child population in age group 0-6 years. These thirteen States and Union Territories had a share of about twenty six percent of India’s population. This number of States and Union Territories has swelled to twenty two in 2011 and now has a share of fifty four percent. The number of States and Union Territories having child population less than sixteen percent has increased from twenty three with a share of about  fifty six percent of India’s population in 2001 to thirty two with a share of ninety percent in 2011. Now, only three States, namely Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar and Meghalaya has more than sixteen percent population in the age-group 0-6 years.

Statement 9

States and Union Territories by range in proportion of children in the age group 0-6 years to total population: 2001 and 2011

Statement 10 gives the proportion of child population in the age group of 0-6 years to total population ranked as per the decline in proportion between 2001 and 2011. A pictorial representation of the same has been given in Figure 16.

These results perhaps broadly indicate a drop in fertility across the country, except in Jammu & Kashmir, where the proportion of children has in fact increased to 16.01 percent compared to 14.65 percent observed in 2001. It is heartening to see that the geographical spread of the decline is now spread across the country and the ‘North South’ demographic gap shows signs of narrowing down. However, fertility decline may or may not be uniform across gender and its effect on child sex ratio becomes an extremely important aspect of human development. We shall be discussing this aspect in detail later.

Figure 16

Decline in percentage of children in the age group 0-6 years to total population: 2001 and 2011

Statement 10

Proportion of children in the age group 0-6 years to total population, India, States and Union Territories: 2001 and 2011

Map 8

Propotion of Child Population in age group 0-6 years to Total Population, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

Map 9

Propotion of Child Population in age group 0-6 years to Total Population, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

 


GENDER COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION

“Equality between women and men is a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice and is also a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for equality, development and peace”  Beijing platform for Action. (UN Fourth Conference on Women)

INTRODUCTION

The Census of India has been customarily collecting and presenting disaggregated data for male and female population. The composition of population by gender is one of the primary demographic characteristics of human population around which meaningful analysis is woven.

Gender composition reflects natality, mortality and migration character of a given population. Distribution pattern of male and female in a population affects relative roles and economic relationships. There are different tools to measure gender equity in a population. Sex ratio is one such widely used tool for cross sectional analysis to measure gender balance. Sex ratio is defined in the Census of India as the number of females per 1,000 males in the population.

According to the provisional population totals of Census 2011, out of a total population of 1,21,01,93,422 persons, 62,37,24,248 are males and 58,64,69,174 females. As per this, the sex ratio of India is 940. The sex ratio at the National level has risen by seven points since the last Census in 2001. This is the highest since 1971.

Composition of Population by Gender-World Trends

The composition of population by gender is not uniform and shows diverse patterns across different countries of the world. Statement-11 and Figure 17 present the sex ratio in the ten most populous countries in the world during 2001 and 2011. It has been estimated that around the year 2011, the world will have 984 females against 1000 males. As is evident from the Statement, in USA, Russian Federation, Japan and Brazil females outnumber males, in the other six countries the balance is tilted towards the males. When compared to the previous decade, China, Indonesia, Nigeria and USA have shown a decline in the sex ratio in the present decade. The decline has been particularly sharp in Nigeria and Indonesia. The sex ratio in USA, Russian Federation and Japan has always remained above unity despite minor variations.

Statement 11

Sex ratio of selected countries

Source

1. 2001-World Population Prospects (mid year estimates) 1998 2. 2011-World Population Prospects 2008 revision UN. Rates have been worked out for India based on the provisional Census 2011 and those of Indonesia and Brazil on 2010 round of Census

Figure 17

Trends of sex ratio in ten most populous countries: 2001 – 2011

The situation in the immediate neighbourhood of India reveals a mixed picture. Myanmar (1048), Sri Lanka (1034) and Nepal (1014) have more females in their populations whereas in all other countries the sex ratio shows male domination.

TRENDS IN SEX RATIO IN INDIA - AN OVER VIEW

The sex ratio in India has been historically negative or in other words, unfavourable to females. A look at the Figure 18 reveals that in the pre-independence period, the sex ratio declined consistently up to 1951 when it rose marginally (Statement-12). In the post-independence period, the trend continued and the sex ratio slipped down for two consecutive decades after 1951 to reach 930 in 1971. During 1961-71 a steep fall of 11 points was seen in the sex ratio.

Figure 18

Sex ratio in India: 1901-2011

Statement 12

Sex ratio, India: 1901-2011

Note: Please see notes behind Figures at a Glance.

After 1971 Census, trends were not consistent, showing increase in one decade and decline in the next. However, it was hovering around 930. The sex ratio as per provisional results is the highest since 1971 and a shade below the level of 1961.

Map 10

Sex Ratio, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

Map 11

Sex Ratio, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

Figure 19

Sex ratio trends in some of the major States: 1951-2011

 

Table 11 gives the trends in sex ratio since 1901 for all the States and Union Territories. The trends in sex ratio for the post-independence period from 1951 -2011 for some of the major States are also depicted in Figure 19 as line graphs.

The Table reveals that in 1951, there were as many as eleven States and Union Territories that had sex ratio of more than unity or above 1000. This number declined to nine in 1961, three in 1971 and two in 1981 and one in 1991. In 2001, the State of Kerala and the Union Territory of Puducherry reported above unity sex ratio. Both these States have not only retained their status but have also shown considerable increase in 2011. Besides these two, the number of States and Union Territories registering an upward trend has risen from 24 in 2001 to 29 in 2011. The increase ranged from one point in Uttarakhand to forty five points in the highly urbanised National Capital Territory of Delhi. In 18 States and Union Territories, the increase has been over ten points during 2001-2011.

Among the major States, Bihar, Jammu Kashmir and Gujarat have experienced a fall in the sex ratio. The decline ranged from 2 points in Gujarat to 9 points in Jammu & Kashmir. Other smaller Union Territories showing steep decline are Dadar & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. Perceptible increase has been observed in the major States such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and all the States located in the North East.

A point to be noted is that the States having historically low sex ratio such as Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Chandigarh have shown appreciable increase in the sex ratio in Census 2011. Majority of the States identified as gender critical for special attention and intervention as part of the Census 2011 have shown increasing trend in the sex ratio as per the provisional results.

Trends in sex ratio in States and UTs: 2001-2011

The patterns in sex ratio among the States and Union Territories are distinct. The top three States recording the highest value of overall sex ratio are neighbours located in the southern part of India namely Kerala (1084), Tamil Nadu (995), and Andhra Pradesh (992). Among the UTs, the top three are Puducherry (1038), Lakshadweep (946) and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (878). Figure 20 presents sex ratio in the States and Union Territories at the 2011 Census.

The lowest sex ratio among the States has been recorded in Haryana (877), Jammu & Kashmir (883) and Sikkim (889). Among the UTs the lowest sex ratio has been returned in Daman & Diu (618), Dadra & Nagar Haveli (775) and Chandigarh (818).

Only two major States, Bihar and Jammu & Kashmir have shown decline in the sex ratio. The other Union Territories registering decline in overall sex ratio include Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Lakshadweep. Maps 10 and 11 depict patterns of sex ratio in different States and Union Territories during 2001 and 2011 respectively.

Statement 13 provides recent trends of sex ratio of the total population, sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years and sex ratio of population aged 7 years and above for 2001 and 2011 for all the States and Union  Territories.

Figure 20

Sex ratio in States and Union Territories: 2011

Statement 13

Sex ratio of total population and child population in the age group 0-6 and 7+ years: 2001-2011

Note: # Union Territories

States and Union Territories by ranges of sex ratio

It is interesting to note that although the number of States and Union Territories with sex ratio less than 916 declined from twelve to ten in 2011 but percentage share of these States’ population has remained almost constant. In contrast, the number of States and Union Territories with high sex ratio of 986 and above rose sharply from four in 2001 to seven in 2011 with corresponding increases in the share of population. Movement of large States (Andhra Pradesh) in this category resulted in the increase in the population share. However, overall increasing trend in the sex ratio at the Census 2011 has boosted the sex ratio of India.

The distribution of States and Union Territories by the different ranges of sex ratio and their share in the total population of the country is presented in the Statement-14.

Statement 14

Distribution of States/Union Territories by range of sex ratio of India: 2001 and 2011

Note: Please see notes behind Figures at a Glance.

The number of States and Union Territories with sex ratio below National average has remained constant over 2001 and 2011. In fact, the proportion of population in the first category has increased marginally, by less than a percent point (Statement 15).

Statement 15

Distribution of States/Union Territories by sex ratio below National level and above National level: 2001 and 2011

Note: Please see notes behind Figures at a Glance.

CHILD SEX RATIO IN THE AGE GROUP 0-6 YEARS

While the overall sex ratio presents encouraging trends across the country encompassing 29 States and Union Territories, the same is not true in the case of the girl child in the age group 0-6 years. Statement-16 and Figure-21 presents the sex ratio of the total population and the child population (0-6 years) from 1961 to 2001.

Statement 16

Sex ratio of total population and child population in the age group 0-6: 1961-2011

Note: Please see notes behind Figures at a Glance.

Figure 21

Child sex ratio 0-6 years and overall sex ratio India: 1961-2011

Figure-21 clearly brings out the fact that after 1991 there has been consistent rise in overall sex ratio. On the other hand, the fall in child sex ratio has been unabated since 1961. As per the provisional population totals of Census 2011, it has declined to reach an all-time low of 914. The pattern of child sex ratio (0-6 years) among the States/UTs in 2011 is provided in Statement 13. The top three States recording the highest value of child sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years are Mizoram (971), Meghalaya (970) and Chhattisgarh (964). Among the UTs, the top three positions are held by Andaman & Nicobar Islands (966), Puducherry (965) and Dadra & Nagar Haveli (924).

The lowest child sex ratio (0-6 years) among the States have been observed in the States of Haryana (830), Punjab (846) and Jammu and Kashmir (859) while among the UTs, Delhi (866), Chandigarh (867) and Lakshadweep (908) occupy the bottom position.

A glance at the trend will show that in Census 2011, child sex ratio (0-6 years) has registered an increasing trend only in six States and two UTs. What gives some cause for cheer is the fact that the States where the child sex ratio had dropped alarmingly in Census 2001 have now shown a slight improvement. This increase is substantial in Punjab (789 to 846-57 points), Haryana (819 to 830- 11 points), Himachal Pradesh (896 to 906- 10 points), Chandigarh (845 to 867- 22 points), Gujarat (883 to 886- 3 points) and Tamil Nadu (942 to 946- 4 points). In addition, Mizoram (964 to 971-7 points) and Andaman & Nicobar Island (957 to 966- 9 points) have also shown increasing trend in the child sex ratio during 2001 -2011.

At the same time, situation in other States/UTs has been disconcerting. The child sex ratio (0-6 years) has declined in 27 States and Union Territories. Sharp fall in the range of 22 to 82 points have been reported in child sex ratios in Jammu & Kashmir (82), Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Nagaland during 2001-2011. It is to be noticed that even North Eastern States like Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh have shown a declining trend. Maps 12 and 13 depict child sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years for 2001 and 2011 and show the pattern of decline in 2011.

Statement-17 gives the distribution of States and UTs by ranges of sex ratio of child population in the age group 0-6 years and their relative share in these ranges in terms of percentage of population to total population of the country for 2001 and 2011. It may be discerned from the above Statement that the number of States and UTs with sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years of 951 and above, has reduced to half from eighteen to nine in 2011 with corresponding decline in the share of population from 28 percent to only 8.12 percent. The number of States and UTs with child sex ratio 0-6 years below 915 has increased from nine in 2001 to fourteen in 2011. The share of population in this category has doubled.

Statement 17

Distribution of States/Union Territories by range of sex ratio of child population in the age group 0-6 years: 2001-2011

Note: Please see notes behind Figures at a Glance.

Map 12

Child Sex Ratio in Age Group 0-6, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

Map 13

Child Sex Ratio in Age Group 0-6, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

SEX RATIO OF AGE 7 YEARS AND ABOVE POPULATION

The sex ratio of population of age 7 years and above during 2001 and 2011 Censuses have been shown in the Statement- 13. It has increased from 942 in 2001 to 944 in 2011 at the National level. This increase is also noted in 23 States/UTs. However 8 States have shown slight decline as compared to 2001. In 4 States/UTs this ratio has remained constant. Kerala (1099), Tamil Nadu(1000) and Andhra Pradesh (997) have recorded the highest sex ratio, while Punjab (899), Jammu & Kashmir (887) and Haryana (885) are at the bottom in the age group 7+ years. Statement-18 provides the distribution of States and UTs by the ranges of sex ratio of population in the age group of 7+ years for 2001 and 2011 and their share of population to total population. It may be seen from the Statement that the number of States and UTs and their corresponding share of population has increased significantly in the category with sex ratio 986 and above. On the other hand, there has been a decline in the number and proportion of population in the 916-950 category. The number and share of States and UTs having sex ratio 915 and below has not shown perceptible decline.

Statement 18

Distribution of States/Union Territories by range of sex ratio of population 7 years and above: 2001 and 2011

SEX RATIO IN THE EMPOWERED ACTION GROUP (EAG) STATES

It is heartening to note that the overall sex ratio has shown a consistent increase in both EAG as well as non EAG States in the last three decades. However, the disheartening fact is that the gap between EAG and non EAG States has increased slightly during 2001-2011. Almost similar trends have been observed in the category of seven plus population as illustrated in Figures 22 and 23.

Figure 24 exhibits trends of child sex ratio (0-6 years) in EAG and non EAG States. It is observed that in 1991, EAG States had lower value of child sex ratio as compared to non EAG States. This trend has reversed during 2001.

Figure 22

Sex ratio in India, EAG and non EAG States: 1991-2011

Figure 23

Sex ratio in the 7+ age group in India, EAG and non EAG States: 1991-2011

In the period 1991-2011, while there has been a fall of 28 points in the EAG States, the same has been to the tune of 34 points in non EAG States. In the last decade alone, the decline in EAG States has been 17 points while in the non EAG States the fall has been to the tune of 10 points. This is indeed a matter of grave concern.

Figure 24

Child Sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years in India, EAG and non EAG States: 1991-2011

The decline in the sex ratio in the age group 0-6 years is an extremely distressing trend. The writing was clearly on the wall during the last Census itself. The last decade has seen slight improvements in Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh, Tamil Nadu, Himachal, Gujarat, Mizoram and Andaman & Nicobar Islands where there has been an increase in the sex ratio of the 0-6 year population. In all the remaining 27 States/UTs, the ratio has declined. The decline ranges from nominal to alarming levels.

The overall sex ratio has shown an upward trend in 29 States/UTs. This is a positive sign and is indicative of an improvement in the status of women in the country. The improved trends in female literacy and the narrowing gender gap in the literacy rate, discussed later on in this Report corroborates this in substantial measure. Detailed analysis of trends would however be required for more meaningful conclusions.


State of Literacy

Literacy level and educational attainment are vital indicators of development in a society. Attainment of universal primary education is one of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations to be achieved by the year 2015. Planning Commission has also targeted in the eleventh Five Year Plan to increase literacy rate of persons of age 7 years or more to 85% and reducing gender gap in literacy to 10 percentage points by 2011-12. Literacy rate and educational development are considered to be key variables affecting demographic indicators like fertility, mortality (especially infant mortality) rate and migration. It greatly contributes in improving quality of life, particularly with regard to life expectancy, infant mortality, learning levels and nutritional levels of children. Higher level of literacy and educational development lead to greater awareness on the one hand and help people in acquiring new skills on the other.

LITERATES AND ILLITERATES

The number of literates and illiterates aged seven and above in India as per the provisional population totals of Census 2011 are 778,454,120 and 272,950,015 respectively. There has been a marked improvement in the proportion of literates in the last decade. Literates in 2011 constitute 74 per cent of the total population aged seven and above as compared to 65 percent in 2001. On the other hand, illiterates form 26 per cent of the total population in 2011 as compared to 35 percent in 2001. In absolute terms, 217,700,941 additional persons have become literate during the decade 2001-2011. A significant milestone reached in Census 2011, is that the total number of illiterates has come down from 304,146,862 in 2001 to 272,950,015 - a decline of 31,196,847 persons. Before analysing further trends, it would be apt to discuss certain underlying concepts and definitions regarding Literacy in the Census of India.

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Literates and Illiterates- Concept

Information on literacy is canvassed regarding every individual in the Census. For the purposes of Census, a person aged seven and above, who can both read and write with understanding in any language, is treated as literate. A person, who can only read but cannot write, is not literate. In the Censuses prior to 1991, children below five years of age were necessarily treated as illiterates.

The age limit was raised to 7 years based on the advice of experts that the ability to read and write with understanding is not ordinarily achieved until that age. It was, therefore decided at the 1991 Census that all children in the age group 0-6, would be treated as illiterate by definition and the population aged seven years and above only would be classified as literate or illiterate. The same criterion has been retained in the Censuses of 2001 and 2011. It should be clearly understood that it is not necessary that to be treated as literate, a person should have received any formal education or acquired any minimum educational standard.

LITERACY RATE - DEFINITION

In earlier Censuses up to 1981, it was customary to work out the literacy rate taking into account the total population. Since literacy rate is more meaningful if the sub-population in the age group 0-6 is excluded from the total population, it was decided in 1991 to calculate literacy rate for the population seven years and above. The same concept has been retained in all Censuses since 1991.

The literacy rate taking into account the total population in the denominator has now been termed as ‘crude literacy rate’, while the literacy rate calculated taking into account the 7 and above population in the denominator is called the effective literacy rate. The formula for computing crude literacy rate and effective literacy rate are as follows:

alt

Effective literacy rate and literacy rate have been used interchangeably in this chapter.

LITERATES AND ILLITERATES BY GENDER

‘Educate one man, you educate one person, but educate a woman and you educate a whole civilisation’. -Mahatma Gandhi

As per the provisional population totals of Census 2011, out of the provisional total population of 1,210,193,422, the number of persons aged seven years and above is 1,051,404,135. Out of this, 778,454,120 are literates and 272,950,015 are illiterates. There has been an increase of 186,504,094 persons in the age group seven years and above during 2001-2011, while 217,700,941 additional persons have become literate during the decade.

A significant milestone reached in Census 2011, is that the total number of illiterates has come down from 304,146,862 in 2001 to 272,950,015 in 2011, showing a decline of 31,196,847 persons.

One of the interesting features of Census 2011 is that out of total of 217,700,941 literates added during the decade, females (110,069,001) out number males (107,631,940). A reverse trend was noticed during 1991-2001. The decadal increase in number of literates among males is of 31.98 percentage points while the corresponding increase in case of females is of 49.10 percentage points.

A notable feature is that out of the total decrease of 31,196,847 in the number of illiterates, the females (17,122,197) out number males (14,074,650). The above two changes are a clear indication of the fact that the gender gap in literacy is shrinking in the country. This trend of rising female literates will have far reaching consequences on the development of society.

Figure 25 gives a comparative picture of literacy and illiteracy in the country in 2001 and 2011 censuses.

Table 2 presents the total population, child population in the age group 0-6, literates and literacy rates for the country and the States and Union Territories as reported at the Census, 2011.

Statement 19 gives the number of literates and illiterates among the population aged seven years and above in absolute figures for India at the 2001 and 2011 Censuses.

Statement 19

Number of literates and illiterates among population aged 7 years and above and their change-India: 2001 and 2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

Figure 25

Share of Literates and illiterates: Census 2001 and 2011

alt

LITERACY RATE - TRENDS

The effective literacy rate for India in Census 2011, works out to 74.04 percent. The corresponding figures for males and females are 82.14 and 65.46 per cent respectively. Thus three-fourth of the population of aged 7 years and above is literate in the country. Four out of every five males and two out of every three females in the country are literate. The country has continued its march in improving literacy rate by recording a jump of 9.21 percentage points during 2001-2011. The increase in literacy rates in males and females are in the order of 6.88 and 11.79 percentage points respectively. However, efforts are still required to achieve the target of 85 per cent set by the Planning Commission to be achieved by the year 2011-12.

An extremely positive development in the present decade is that the gap of 21.59 percentage points recorded between male and female literacy rates in 2001 Census has reduced to 16.68 percentage points in 2011. Though the target set for the year 2011-2012 by the Planning Commission of reducing the gap to 10 percentage points has not been achieved, it is heartening that the reduction has been to the order of almost 5 percentage points.

Statement 20 presents the effective literacy rate for the country by persons, males, females and the male-female gap since 1951. 

Statement 20

Literacy rate in India: 1951-2011

alt

Notes

1. Literacy rates for 1951, 1961 and 1971 Censuses relate to population aged five years and above. The rates for the 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2011 Census relate to the population aged seven years and above.

2 The 1981 Literacy rates exclude Assam where the 1981 Census could not be conducted. The 1991 Census Literacy rates exclude Jammu & Kashmir.

Figure 26

Literacy rate: 1951-2011

alt

Statement 21 provides the crude literacy rate for India by sex during 1901-2011. The literacy rate designated as crude literacy rate in this Statement has been computed with total population as base without removing the mandatory illiterate population aged 0-4 or 0-6 from the denominator. The crude literacy rate from 1901 onwards show a consistent increase both for males and females.

Statement 21

Crude literacy rate in India by sex: 1901 to 2011

alt

Notes

1. Figures up to 1941 are for undivided India

2. Figures for 1981, excludes Assam, as 1981 Census could not be conducted in this State due to disturbed conditions.

3. Figures for 1991 census do not include Jammu & Kashmir, as no census was held in the State

4. See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

The improvement in crude literacy rate has been phenomenal (48.22 percentage points) in post independent India. The corresponding increase in case of males has been of 46.32 percentage points and among females it is of 49.69 percentage points. The crude literacy rate has increased by almost 10 percentage points during the last decade. It surged forward by 12 percentage points in case of females while there was an increase of 8 percentage points in male crude literacy rate during the last decade. The gap in crude literacy rates of males and females has decreased from 18.09 percentage points in 2001 to 14.23 percentage points in 2011.

Figure 27

Crude literacy rate by sex: 1901-2011

alt

LITERACY TRENDS IN EAG STATES

Statement 22(a) presents the effective literacy rate for eight Empowered Action Group (EAG) States and non EAG States. It is evident from this Statement that the literacy rate for all three categories of person, male and female has been higher in non EAG States as compared to EAG States in the three Censuses of 1991, 2001 and 2011. However, it is satisfying to note that change in percentage points of literacy rate in EAG States is higher for all three categories during 2001-2011 as compared to non EAG States which indicates that EAG States are catching up with non EAG States.

Statement 22(a)

Effective Literacy Rate in EAG and Non EAG States

alt

Notes

1. Figures for 1991 census do not include Jammu & Kashmir, as no census was held in the State

2. See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

Statement 22(b) presents the male-female gap in effective literacy rate for EAG and non-EAG States for Censuses of 1991, 2001 and 2011. It may be observed that the male female gap in literacy is declining at faster pace in EAG States. The decline is of 5.92 percentage points in EAG States as compared to 4.38 percentage points in case of non-EAG States during 2001-2011.

Statement 22(b)

Male-Female Gap in Effective Literacy Rate

alt

Notes

1. Figures for 1991 census do not include Jammu & Kashmir, as no census was held in the State

2. See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

It is heartening to note that the percentage increase in number of literates is remarkable in all the EAG States. Bihar (74.83 per cent), Jharkhand (59.24 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (56.40 per cent) have shown the highest rise. Rajasthan (40.68 per cent) and Chhattisgarh (39.61 per cent) are in the middle and Madhya Pradesh (38.73 per cent), Uttarakhand (37.05 per cent) and Orissa (36.68 per cent) bring up the rear.

Statement 22(c)

Effective Literacy Trends in EAG States 2001-2011

alt

Notes

1. See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

OTHER STATES/UTS

The other States and Union Territories showing substantial percentage increase in number of literates are Dadra and Nagar Haveli (119.46), Daman & Diu (75.63 per cent) Arunachal Pradesh (62.95 per cent), Meghalaya (56.99 per cent) and Jammu & Kashmir (50.71 per cent).

Statement 22(d) gives population aged seven and above, the absolute number of literates in 2011, and their decadal absolute and percentage difference between 2001-2011. The percentage decadal increase in population aged seven years and above during 2001-2011 is 21.56 per cent while the corresponding increase in the number of literates in this age group is of 38.82 per cent. The absolute increase in number of persons aged seven years and above is 186,504,094 whereas the corresponding increase in number of literates is 217,700,941. Thus, preliminary trend indicates that a majority of the children who attained the age of seven are literate. In addition, persons in the age-group 7 and above category and illiterate in Census 2001 have become literate. However, this observation would have to be further investigated when age-wise data on literacy and children attending school are available.

Statement 22(d)

Population aged 7 and above, literates in 2011 and their decadal difference and percentage decadal difference during 2001-2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

EFFECTIVE LITERACY RATES IN STATES/UTS BY GENDER

Kerala ranks first in the country with a literacy rate of 93.91 per cent, closely followed by Lakshadweep (92.28 per cent) and Mizoram (91.58 per cent). Bihar with a literacy rate of 63.82 per cent ranks last in the country preceded by Arunachal Pradesh (66.95 per cent) and Rajasthan (67.06 per cent). Among the major States, Maharashtra (82.91 per cent) comes after Kerala, followed by Tamil Nadu (80.33 per cent). The States and Union Territories with literacy rates below the National average (74.04 per cent) are Jammu and Kashmir in the North, Rajasthan in the West, Andhra Pradesh in the South, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh in Central, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa in the East and Arunachal Pradesh and Assam in the North-East of the country. Ten States and Union Territories viz., Kerala, Lakshadweep, Mizoram, Tripura, Goa, Daman & Diu, Puducherry, Chandigarh, NCT of Delhi and Andaman& Nicobar Islands have achieved literacy rate of above 85 per cent, the target set by Planning Commission for the year 2011-2012. The States and Union

Territories, which have literacy rate below the National average in respect of all the three categories i.e., persons, males and females are Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh.

Kerala holds the first rank in the country in female literacy with 91.98 per cent. Rajasthan (52.66 per cent) has recorded the lowest female literacy rate preceded by Bihar (53.33 per cent). Similarly, the States and Union Territories with female literacy rate below the National average (65.46 per cent) are Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Bihar and Rajasthan.

Lakshadweep (96.11 per cent) holds the first rank in the country with respect to male literacy rate. Kerala (96.02 per cent) ranks second. Bihar (73.39 per cent) has recorded the lowest literacy rate in case of males preceded again by Arunachal Pradesh (73.69 per cent). The States and Union Territories with literacy rates below the National average for males (82.14 per cent) are Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Jammu and Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh.

Maps 14 to 19 depicts effective literacy rate for persons, males and females for 2001 and 2011 censuses.

Statement 23 presents States and Union Territories arranged in descending order according to the 2011 literacy rate for persons, males and females separately.

Statement 23

Ranking of States and Union Territories by literacy rate: 2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

EFFECTIVE LITERACY RATE - DECADAL VARIATION

Kerala, Mizoram, Lakshadweep and Tripura are the consistent forerunners for both Census 2001 and Census 2011. Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Dadra and Nagar Haveli showed improvement in rank by more than 5 points in Census 2011 over the previous decade. Of the States/Union Territories that showed significant improvement, Dadra and Nagar Haveli improved the most from thirtieth rank to nineteenth rank by 11 points. Punjab, Chhattisgarh, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan showed decrease in rank by more than 4 points from the Census 2001. Of these States, Punjab decreased the most from fifteenth rank to twenty-first rank slipping down by 6 points. Literacy rate in 2001 showed an increase of 9.21 percentage points for the country as a whole. The States and Union Territories that have recorded decadal difference of 10 percentage points in literacy rate of 2001-2011 are Dadra & Nagar Haveli (20.02 per cent), Bihar (16.82 per cent), Tripura (14.56 per cent), Jharkhand (14.07 per cent), Nagaland (13.52 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (13.45 per cent), Sikkim (13.39 per cent), Jammu & Kashmir (13.22 per cent), Meghalaya( 12.92 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh (12.61 per cent), Orissa(10.37 per cent) and Gujarat( 10.17 per cent). Literary rates for persons at Census of India, 2001 & 2011, by States and Union Territories have been presented in figure-28. Statement 24 presents ranking of States and Union Territories by literacy rate of 2001 and 2011 along with decadal difference.

Statement 24

Ranking of States and Union Territories by literacy rate: 2001 and 2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

Figure 28

State and Union Territories# by Literacy 2011

alt

EFFECTIVE LITERACY RATE - GENDER GAP

At the National level, the male-female gap for Census 2001 stood at 21.59 whereas for Census 2011 it is only 16.68. The decadal difference in literacy rates for males and females stands at 6.88 and 11.79 percentage points respectively, indicating a substantial improvement in respect of females. In Census 2001, in 12 States and Union Territories, the male-female gap was higher than the National average and for 23 States and Union Territories, it was below the National average. In Census 2011, in 11 States, the male female gap is higher than the National average and for 24 States and Union Territories, it is below the National average. The North-Eastern States of Meghalaya and Mizoram and Kerala from the South have reported minimum differentials in male-female gap in Census 2011 as well as in Census 2001. Mizoram had also reported the lowest differential even during 1991 Census followed by Kerala and Meghalaya. These States are consistent forerunners since decades. It is interesting to note that although average literacy rate in Meghalaya (75.48 per cent) is not high the male-female gap (3.39 percentage points) in literacy rate is lowest. Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir are at the bottom, showing huge gap in male-female differentials in literacy both at 2001 and 2011 Censuses. The States and Union Territories which have achieved male-female gap of literacy rate of 10 percentage points or below, the target set by the Planning Commission to be achieved by year 2011-2012, are Punjab, Chandigarh, NCT of Delhi, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Lakshadweep, Kerala and Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Male- Female literacy gap for States and Union Territories as per Census 2001 & 2011 has been presented in figure-29. Statement 25 presents literacy rate and decadal difference in literacy rate by sex for 2001-2011.

Statement 25

Literacy rates and decadal difference in literacy rates by sex: 2001-2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’

Figure 29

Male Female gap in Literacy Rate, Census 2001, 2011

alt

EFFECTIVE LITERACY RATE - A COMPARISON WITH NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION (64th ROUND)

The effective literacy rate returned in Census 2011 is 74.04 per cent while the same reported by NSSO (64th Round) is 71.70 per cent. The two figures are comparable considering the fact that the latter was conducted in 2007-08. 

The gap in male literacy rate between the Census and the Survey is only of 1.64 percentage points. NSSO reports 80.50 per cent, while the Census 2011 puts the figure at 82.14 per cent. 

The difference in the female literacy rate as reported by the two sources is slightly higher at 3.16 percentage points. The figure reported by NSSO is 62.30 per cent while Census returned a figure of 65.46 per cent.

All the States/UTs in the country are showing increase in literacy rate in the Census 2011 as compared to NSSO except the North Eastern States of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim. Besides these, Daman & Diu is also showing lower literacy rate in Census 2011.

Statement 26 compares the literacy rate by gender as per Census 2011 and the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), 64th round, 2007-2008.

Statement 26

Comparison of literacy rates of Census 2011 with National Sample Survey (64th round) by Gender

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’

ILLITERATES AT STATE/UT LEVEL

The absolute number of illiterates decreased by 31,196,847 during the last decade. The maximum, contribution in this decrease has come from Uttar Pradesh (7,424,572) followed by Bihar (4,250,715). These two States together account for 37.43 per cent of the total decrease in illiterates. The other major States showing sizeable decrease in number of illiterates are West Bengal (9.44 per cent), Gujarat (7.60 per cent), Maharashtra (7.15 per cent), Karnataka (6.37 per cent), Tamil Nadu (5.82 per cent), Orissa (5.80 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (4.87 per cent) and Jharkhand (3.96 per cent).

The States where number of illiterates has increased are Rajasthan (3.18 percent), Chhattisgarh (0.81 per cent) and Madhya Pradesh (0.80 per cent). In absolute terms the number of illiterates in Rajasthan increased by 991,420 followed by Chhattisgarh 252,116 and Madhya Pradesh 248,831.Statement 27 gives the number of illiterates, decadal decrease in illiterates and percentage contribution in its decrease during 2001-2011 at the State/Union Territory level.

MALE ILLITERATES AT STATE/UT LEVEL

The absolute number of male illiterates has decreased by 14,074,650 during the decade 2001-2011. It is encouraging to note that in all the States and Union Territories except Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Daman & Diu, the number of male illiterates has decreased. Even in the States/UTs where the number of male illiterates has increased, the increase is not sizeable in absolute terms. The States which have contribution of more than five percentage points in decadal decrease are Uttar Pradesh (26.22 per cent), Bihar (14.84 per cent), Gujarat (7.39 per cent), West Bengal (6.80 per cent), Maharashtra and Karnataka (5.86 per cent) each. Statement 28 presents State level figures of male illiterates in the 2001 and 2011 Censuses, the decadal decrease in male illiterates and the percentage contribution in their decrease.

FEMALE ILLITERATES AT STATE/UT LEVEL

It is encouraging to note that the number of female illiterates has gone down by 17,122,197 during 2001-2011. However, the number of female illiterates has increased in Rajasthan (929,566), Madhya Pradesh (192,536), Chhattisgarh (173,719) and Mizoram (895). The States which have contributed significantly in decreasing the number of female illiterates are Uttar Pradesh (21.81 per cent), Bihar (12.63 per cent), West Bengal (11.61 per cent), Maharashtra (8.21 per cent), Gujarat (7.77 per cent), Tamil Nadu (7.31 per cent) , Karnataka (6.79 per cent), Orissa (6.76 per cent) and Andhra Pradesh (5.41 per cent). Statement 29 presents the State/ Union Territory level figures of female illiterates in the 2001 and 2011 Censuses, the decadal decrease in female illiterates and the percentage contribution in their decrease.

Statement 27

Number of illiterates, decadal decrease in illiterates and percentage contribution in decrease: 2001, 2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’

Statement 28

Number of male illiterates, decadal decrease in male illiterates and percentage contribution in decrease: 2001-2011

alt

Notes

1. See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

Statement 29

Number of female illiterates, decadal decrease in female illiterates and percentage contribution in decrease: 2001 -2011

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

LITERATES BY RANGE

In Census 2001, only one State had reported literacy rate below fifty per cent and had a share of eight per cent of the country’s total population and 5.55 per cent of country’s total literates. It is really satisfying to note that in Census 2011 none of the State/Union Territory has reported literacy rate below sixty per cent. The number of the States and Union Territories having more than eighty per cent literacy rate in Census 2001 was eight. This has increased to 15 at the Census 2011.

There was only one State having male literacy rate in the range of the fifty-sixty per cent in Census 2001, accounting for 8.13 per cent of the country’s male population. It is heartening to note that in Census 2011, in all the States and Union Territories the male literacy rate is above seventy per cent. The number of States and Union Territories having male literacy of seventy per cent and above was twenty nine in Census 2001 covering seventy one per cent of population. The corresponding number for Census 2011 is thirty five covering cent per cent country’s male population.

There were seven States/ Union Territories having female literacy rate in the range of fifty per cent and below and had a share of thirty three per cent of the country’s total female population whereas in Census 2011, the corresponding number stands at zero. Census 2011 marks the decade when the country achieved more than fifty per cent literacy for females in all States. The number of States and Union Territories having female literacy of seventy per cent and above was only eight in Census 2001 covering around five per cent of population. The corresponding number for Census 2011 is as high as twenty one covering more than thirty seven per cent female population.

Statement 30 presents comparable figures for population and literates in absolute numbers and in percent for 2001 and 2011 Censuses by Range of literacy rates. The state of Literacy in India as per the provisional population totals of Census 2011 presents a highly encouraging picture. The highlights have been the decline of the number of illiterates and the increase in the number of literates across the country. The most encouraging trend has been the narrowing down of the gender gap in literacy. Though a detailed analysis would reveal more contours, a prima facie inference is that a large proportion of the children born after 2001 are becoming literate. A note of caution has however to be struck. A few States have shown a tendency to slip back into illiteracy after having attained a certain level of literacy. This slide back has to be arrested and the momentum to be sustained in order to achieve the cherished goal of universal literacy.

Statement 30

Percent distribution of population and literates by literacy rates: 2001

alt

Notes: See notes behind ‘Figures at a Glance’.

Map 14

Effective Literacy Rate, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

alt

Map 15

Effective Literacy Rate, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

altx

Map 16

Effective Male Literacy Rate, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

alt

Map 17

Effective Male Literacy Rate, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

alt

Map 18

Effective Female Literacy Rate, 2001 (States/Union Territories)

alt

Map 19

Effective Female Literacy Rate, 2011 (States/Union Territories)

alt

 


DENSITY OF POPULATION

“Experience shows that a very populous city can rarely, if ever, be well governed. To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things (plants, animals, implements), for none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.” Aristotle (322 B.C.)

‘Density of Population’ is defined as the number of persons per square kilometre. It is an important index of population which shows concentration of population in a particular area. As per the provisional population totals of Census 2011, the population density of India has gone up to 382 persons per square kilometre from 325 persons per square kilometer in 2001. On an average, 57 more people inhabit every square kilometre in the country as compared to a decade ago.

As is noted in Chapter 3, India accounts for a meagre 2.4 percent of the world surface area of 135.79 million square kms. On the other hand, it supports and sustains 17.5 per cent of the world population. In contrast, the USA accounts for 7.2 per cent of the surface area with only 4.5 per cent of the world population. As such, among the ten most populous countries of the world, only Bangladesh has a higher population density compared to India. ?

The population density of India from 1901 to 2011 is shown in Statement 31. At the beginning of the twentieth century i.e. in 1901 the density of India was as low as 77 persons per sq. km. This steadily increased in each decade to reach 382 persons per sq. km. in 2011. This constitutes a 17.5 per cent increase over 2001.

Statement 31

Density of population, India: 1901-2011

alt

Notes

1. While working out the density of India, Jammu & Kashmir has been excluded as comparable figures of area and Population are not available for that State.

2. The density has been worked out on comparable data.

While the absolute increase is indeed a matter of concern, the positive feature is that the rate of increase has slowed down and has shown a sharp decline in the last decade. High increase in the density of population is a matter of great concern as it puts immense pressure on our natural resources and existing infrastructural facilities and adversely affects the quality of life. “Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth.”

POPULATION DENSITY OF STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES

The States and Union Territories of our country vary widely in terms of their density due to differences in climatic conditions, geo-physical characteristics, availability of resources etc. It is, therefore, essential to analyse the variations across the States/UTs. Statement 32 depicts rankings of States/UTs of India in descending order of their densities in 2011 and corresponding rankings in 2001. The area and population of all the States/UTs are also given in Figure 30.

Statement 32

Ranking of States and Union Territories by density: 2001 and 2011

alt

Note

While working out the density figures for Jammu & Kashmir for 2001 and 2011 censuses, the entire area and population of those portions of Jammu & Kashmir which are under illegal occupation of Pakistan and China have not been taken into account.

Figure 30

Area and population 2011 (States/Union Territories)

alt

RANKING OF STATES

A better analysis would be possible if the States and Union Territories are segregated. The following Statement gives the comparative ranking of States in 2011 and 2001:

Statement 33

Ranking of States by density: 2001 and 2011

alt

The Statement given above reveals that the first two States have interchanged their places. Bihar is at the top pushing West Bengal to second rank. Kerala and Uttar Pradesh have retained their rankings of third and fourth respectively. Haryana on the other hand has advanced by two ranks from Rank 7 to Rank 5 replacing Punjab which has fallen by two ranks from 5 to 7. Jharkhand, similarly has risen by two places from Rank 10 to 8 replacing Goa which has declined from Rank 8 to 10. Karnataka has moved up by one place while Andhra Pradesh has fallen by one place from 13 to 14. Meghalaya has moved up by 2 ranks; Jammu & Kashmir has moved up by 3 ranks; Himachal Pradesh dropped by 1 rank; Nagaland dropped by 4 ranks. Other states namely, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Maharashtra, Tripura, Gujarat, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh have retained their rankings.

RANKING OF UNION TERRITORIES

The following Statement gives the comparative ranking of UTs in 2011 and 2001:

Statement 34

Ranking of Union Territories by density: 2001 and 2011

alt

The ranking of UTs as per Population Density remains by and large the same with the exception of Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep who have exchanged places with each other. NCT of Delhi continues to head the UTs, while Andaman & Nicobar Islands brings up the rear.

POPULATION DENSITY BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS

An attempt has been made to analyse the differentials in population densities across the six regions in the country. Statement 35 gives the States/Uts included in different regions and densities of each of the regions.

Statement 35

Population density in different regions, States and Union Territories: 2001 and 2011

alt

Note: See notes below Statement 31.

It may be seen that the Eastern region has the highest density of 625 persons per sq. Km. and the North Eastern region has the lowest density of 176 persons per sq. Km. Central region occupies the second highest place in density with 417 followed by Southern region (397), Western region (344) and Northern region (267) respectively. Over the period 2001-2011, the density in the Central region (20.31%), Northern region (19.48%) and Eastern region (18.98%) has gone up at a higher pace than that of Western region (17.18%), North-Eastern region (17%) and Southern region (12.58%). ?

This is consistent with what historical demographers have noted, “The Gangetic plain has constituted the sub-continent’s demographic heartland for over two millennia, and will remain so during the foreseeable future. The North-South demographic divide is also of long standing”.

Density of population impacts the environment and ultimately quality of life of the people. Increasing pressures of population has already impacted the way people live and how they are governed. Reducing the load on the natural resources and infrastructure especially in the urban areas would remain a huge challenge for administrators and policy makers.

Map 20

Density of Population, India, States and Union Territories: 2001

alt

Map 21

Density of Population, India, States and Union Territories: 2011

alt


POPULATION PROJECTIONS

It is of interest to examine the variation of the Provisional Population Totals of Census 2011 with the figures projected by the Expert Committee/Technical Group on Population Projections set up by Government of India. This would give data users the confidence level with which the figures can be used.

Projection is an attempt to scientifically predict the future using the data available at present. The projections depend on the accuracy of input data and on the assumptions made in respect of the future trends of various components.

A Technical Group under the Chairmanship of Registrar General, India was constituted by the National Commission on Population (NCP) to work out population projections for India, States and Union Territories up to the year 2026. For projecting the population, the Expert Committee has used two types of methodologies. These are the Component Method and the Mathematical Method.

The Component method was applied for States having population of 1 crore or more during 2001 Census. The exceptions to this were Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. Thus, in the case of 21 States, the component method was used. In 7 States/UTs, the Mathematical Model was used. For the remaining States which comprises the 7 North Eastern States (excluding Assam), a hybrid method was used wherein the projection was made for the 7 States in a combined manner using the component method and then the projected values were assigned to individual States using the Mathematical model. The two methodologies of projection are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.

Component Method: The size of the population can change as a result of the combined effects of the population process-fertility, mortality and migration. These are the basic factors or components of population change in any given area. Procedures which take the components of population change into account individually are known as component method for projecting the population. In such procedures, three inputs are required. These are (i) a base population, (ii) separate assumptions of birth, death and migration during the period covered by the projection and (iii) a tool by which the assumptions are applied to the base population to get the projected population.

Mathematical Method: Unlike the component method, mathematical method simply base the projections of population size on past growth performance. Such methods are usually less reliable than component method. It is generally used in situations when only limited data on population size is available for the past periods.

The assumptions made by the Technical Group to project the population of India, States and Union Territories up to 2026 by component method are briefly indicated here after.

(i) Fertility: Total Fertility Rate (TFR) was considered as the overall indicator of fertility. The Sample Registration System (SRS) data, being available as a time series, was used as base level estimates for India and all the major States. The Technical Group has used the Gompertz model for projecting the future levels of TFR in the major States as well as for the country as a whole. For fitting Gompertz model, three types of upper asymptotes were taken for the States depending upon whether the particular State is a high, medium or low TFR State. The upper asymptote was taken as 6 for Southern States and 7 for the Northern States. For Western and Eastern States, upper asymptote was taken as 6.5. The lowest threshold of TFR was assumed to be 1.8. The TFR obtained through the Gompertz model specifies that the replacement level of fertility, that is, TFR of 2.1 for the country is likely to be achieved by 2021 taking into consideration the weighted TFRs of States. The projected levels of TFRs assumed for India for the initial period 2001-2005 and the terminal period 2021-2025 were 2.9 and 2.0 respectively.

(ii) Sex Ratio at Birth: The Sex Ratios at Birth (SRB) for the years 1998-2000 published in the Report of the Sample Registration System (SRS) 2000 for the country and major States were considered for the present projection exercise. These SRBs were assumed to remain constant during future years.

(iii) Mortality: Starting with the average SRS based Age Specific Death Rates (ASDR) for 1999-2001, which was taken as the base year, separate life tables for males and females for each major State have been constructed. The expectation of life at birth for males and females at the base year has been estimated to be 61.8 years and 64.1 years respectively. It has been assumed that increase in the life expectancy becomes relatively slower as it reaches higher levels. With the help of base years expectation of life at birth for males and females, the expectation of life at birth for each of the five year groups from 2001-2005 to 2021-2025 by sex were projected by interpolation. To decide whether high, medium or low improvement should be assumed for each State, the expectation of life at birth for the periods 1990-94 and 1995-99 obtained from SRS life table were examined for India and States and patterns obtained through these values were assumed to continue in future for India and the States.

(iv) Migration: Based on the migration data of 2001 Census, inter-State net migrants during decade 1991-2001 was assumed to remain constant throughout the projection periods for all major States including Himachal Pradesh. The component of international migration was assumed to be negligible, so it was not considered for projection exercise.

(v) Impact of HIV/AIDS on the projected population: The likely impact of AIDS on death rate was also considered by the Group. It was opined that in the absence of any reliable data on AIDS, making projections for the future was difficult taking into consideration its impact. In the absence of any dependable information pertaining to the effect of AIDS on life expectancy, the Group felt that only at the All-India level, the estimated number of persons affected due to AIDS might be worked out and State level figures need not be presented.

The following Statement provides the fertility and mortality assumptions used for projections and the projected population of India for the period 2001-2025.

Statement 36

Projected values of expectation of life at birth, Total Fertility Rate and corresponding population projections for different periods

alt

Notes

1. Population Projected for particular year is shown in millions

2. Figures in the parentheses indicate the end year for which the corresponding projections have been made.

3. Source: Population Projections for India and States: 2001-2026. National Commission on Population, May 2006

To examine the accuracy of Population Projections made by the Expert Committee/Technical Group during last five decades, the absolute and percentage variations of these projected figures from the respective final/ provisional totals at the National level have been presented in Statement 37. This gives an opportunity to the users like city planners, economists, public agencies, environmentalists, and social scientists to know the confidence with which the projected figures can be used for various purposes.

Statement 37

Projected and Actual/Provisional Population of India, 1971 - 2011 (in ‘000)

alt

Notes

P: Provisional

1. [Column(3) - Column(2)]

2. [Column(3) - Column(2)] * 100 / Column(2)

3-11 See note, at the end of the Chapter

12 Please see notes behind figures at a glance

It is observed from the Statement that except in 1971, the projected populations have been lower than the respective actual populations in all the Census years with variations being less than 2 percent. For the 2011 Census, it is 1.5 percent. Figure 31 shows the projected and corresponding actual/provisional population totals at the country level during last five decades.

Figure 31

Projected and actual/provisional population totals: 1971-2011

alt

An analysis of the Provisional Population Totals of Census 2011 at the State level, as compared to the projections made by the Expert Committee as shown in Statement 38 reveals that in 10 States the figures are within 2 percent of projected population. These States are as follows:

Statement 38

Projected and Provisional Population of States as on 1st March, 2011 with percent difference within (+/-) 2 percent (in’000)

alt

Notes

1. See note 8 at the end of the Chapter

2. Provisional population - Projected population

3. (Provisional population -Projected population) X 100/Projected population

For the following 11 States and Union Territories (Statement 39), the variations are outside the range of (+/-) 2 percent:

Statement 39

Projected and Provisional Population of States and Union Territories as on 1st March, 2011 with percent difference outside (+/-) 2 percent (in ‘000)

alt

Notes

1. See note 8 at the end of the chapter

2. Provisional population -Projected population

3. (Provisional population -Projected population) X 100/Projected population

The variation ranges from -9.20 percent in the NCT of Delhi to 7.09 percent in the case of Jammu & Kashmir. Reasons for the variation will be revealed only when further details on migration and fertility are available.

PROJECTIONS FOR 7 COMBINED NORTH-EASTERN STATES (EXCLUDING ASSAM)

For the first time, an attempt was made by the Technical Group for working out the population projections of the combined north-eastern states excluding Assam by component method for different quinquennial periods upto 2026 and then distributing the projected populations among the respective states by ratio method, the ratio being the population of individual 7 States to the total of these States as per 2001 Census. Based on this methodology the following Statement 40 shows the variation of the provisional population with the respective projected population of the 7 North-Eastern States.

Statement 40

Projected and Provisional Population of North-Eastern States (excluding Assam) as on March 1, 2011 (in ‘000)

alt

Notes

1. See note 8 at the end of the chapter

2. Provisional population -Projected population

3. (Provisional population -Projected population) X 100/Projected population

4. Please see notes behind figures at a glance

It is observed that except for Sikkim and Nagaland, in the remaining 5 States, the provisional population exceeds the respective projected population in the range of 55 thousand to 343 thousand.

In the following States and Union Territories, as figures for TFR and Life expectancy are not available from SRS on account of their small size, Mathematical Method (Urban-Rural Growth Difference method URGD) was used to make projections. Statement 41 is presented below.

It has been observed that in all the States/UTs, provisional population is short of respective projected population ranging from 27 percent to 3 percent. The technique of using URGD method for making population projection of small States and Union Territories (UTs) has the limitation that it does not take into consideration the different components of population change, namely, fertility, mortality and migration separately. In that way, the method is considered to be robust. Only based on the assumption of constant growth rate of population of earlier decades, the population of the future years is projected for small States and UTs. As mentioned earlier, the main reason for using this method is that the data on TFR and expectation of life at birth is not available in time series from any source.

Statement 41

Projected and Provisional Population of Goa and Union Territories (excluding NCT of Delhi) as on March 1, 2011 in which URGD method has been used (in ‘000)

alt

Notes

1. See note 8 at the end of the chapter

2. Provisional population - Projected population

3. (Provisional population - Projected population) X 100/Projected population

Preliminary analysis suggests that there is no single reason for this variation. Each State/Union Territory has particular reasons for the variation. Only a detailed analysis would reveal the reasons. This will be taken up at the appropriate time. Comparable figures showing projected population with actual population at the national, State and Union Territory level in earlier censuses from 1971 to 2001 are presented in Tables 5 to 9.

CHILD POPULATION IN AGE GROUP 0 - 6 YEARS: CENSUS VIS-À-VIS PROJECTIONS

1. It would be interesting to study the difference in the child population in the age group 0-6 as obtained from Census 2011 with that estimated by the Population Projections (2006) for major States. Statement 42 is presented below.

Statement 42

Difference in Population and child population in the age group 0-6 years between projected and census in selected major States: 2011 (in ‘000)

alt

Notes

1. See note 8 at the end of the Chapter

2. Please see notes behind figures at a glance

Statement 42 gives the difference in population in the age group 0-6 from the above two mentioned sources for some more populous States and India.

2. Among the States, both Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand have continued with the trend of adding far less children than projected, with the number of children in the age group 0-6 years recorded in the Census lower than the projections by 4.5 million in Uttar Pradesh and 0.1 million for  Uttarakhand. Some of other more populous States which have added lesser children compared to the projection are Maharashtra (less by 0.96 million), Andhra Pradesh (less by 0.91 million), Madhya Pradesh (less by 0.63 million), Kerala (less by 0.28 million), Punjab (less by 0.27 million) and Tamil Nadu (less by 0.1 million). However, Bihar and Jharkhand together have recorded nearly 4.7 million more children in the age group 0-6 years than projected for this age group. All the north-eastern States, including Assam, have added about 0.8 million more and Rajasthan, West Bengal, Orissa and Gujarat have each added a few hundred thousands more than the levels projected for these States.

Population Projections for India are made by several institutions, National and International, from time to time. Moreover, individual demographers also make projections for India and States/UTs. The assumptions made in respect of the future trends of various components vary from one another depending upon the different scientific perceptions about the happenings likely to take place in future. Based on different assumptions, the population projections made at the National level for 2011 have been considered from the recent available four sources, namely, National Commission on Population, O/o Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Population Division, U.N., US Census Bureau and Book titled ‘ Twenty First Century India’ edited by Tim Dyson et al. It has been observed that these projections vary from 1189.2 million by US Census Bureau to 1230.8 million by the Population Division of U.N. Statement 43 presents the projections made for India by different sources. Table 10 presents the projections for India 2010/2011.

Statement 43

Projected Population of India in 2011 by individuals and organisations

alt

It is thus concluded that at the national level provisional population of Census of India – 2011 is observed to be close to the projected population made by the National Commission on Population of Government of India as well as other agencies and individual demographers mentioned above. The variations are in the range of (+/-) 2 percent. Since the projections are based on assumptions about the future course of events, birth, death and migration, these vary from author to author.

Notes

3 Report of the Expert Committee on Population Projections, General, India, July, 1968.

4 Report of the Expert Committee on Population Projections, General, India, October 1978.

5 Report of the Expert Committee on Population Projections, Registrar General, India, January 1988.

6 Report of the Standing Committee of Experts on Population Projections, Planning Commission, India, New Delhi, 1989

7 Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections for India and States, 1996-2016, Registrar General, India, New Delhi, 1996.

8 Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections for India and States 2001-2026, National Commission on Population (MHFW), New Delhi, 2006.

9 The 1981 Census could not be held owing to disturbed conditions prevailing in Assam. Hence the population figures for 1981 Assam have been worked out by ‘interpolation’.

10 The 1991 Census could not be held owing to disturbed conditions prevailing in Jammu & Kashmir. Hence the population figures for 1991 of Jammu & Kashmir have been worked out by ‘interpolation’.

11 Includes estimated population of Paomata, Mao Maram and Purul subdivisions of Senapati District of Manipur for 2001.

 

 

Follow us

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links