º»
JaCques Véron*
The Demography of South Asia
from the 1950s to the 2000s
A Summary of Changes and
a Statistical Assessment
SouthAsia,forthepurposesofthischronicle,iscomposedofeightcountries,
namelyAfghanistan,Bangladesh,Bhutan,India,theMaldives,Nepal,Pakistan
andSriLanka(1).In2007thepopulationinthisregiontotallednearly1.6billion
inhabitants(UnitedNations,2007a),representingnearly24%oftheworld’stotal
populationspreadoverlessthan4%oftheworld’ssurface(2).Fromademographic
pointofview,SouthAsiaisdominatedbyIndia,whichalonehasapopulation
of1.17billion,buttherearetwootherdenselypopulatedcountriesinthisregion:
PakistanandBangladesh,withpopulationsof164and159millionrespectively
in2007.SouthAsiaalsoincludescountrieswithsmallpopulationssuchas
Bhutan,withonly658,000inhabitantsandtheMaldiveswithjust306,000.
There are sharp contrasts between these countries, be it in terms of
demographicgrowth,populationdensity,mortalityandfertilityrates,urbanization
orliteracy.AndthesituationwithinIndia,thelargestcountryintheregion,
is itself one of major internal contrasts. Its 28 states each have distinct
demographictraits–populationsize,stageofdemographictransition,density
etc.–aswellasdifferenteconomic,socialandreligiouscharacteristics.
ThedemographicchallengesconfrontingSouthAsiaarethoseofdeveloping
countriesfacedwithamajorpopulationincrease.Theyarethechallengesof
educating,housing,caringforandemployingagrowing–sometimesrapidly
growing–population.Thesecountrieshavetofightagainstpovertywhile
ensuringthattheeconomicgrowththeysobadlyneedtoimprovethelivesof
theirpeopledoesnotresultinseriousenvironmentaldamage.Thepopulations
*Institutnationald’étudesdémographiques,Paris.
TranslatedbyKrystynaHorko,RosemaryKneipp,GodfreyRogers.
(1)FortheUnitedNations,SouthAsiaismadeupofthesamecountriesexcludingAfghanistan,
whichisconsideredtobeinCentralAsia.
(2)Thelandsurfaceisthedifference,ineachcountry,betweenthetotalsurfaceareaandtheinland
waters(themainriversandlakes).SeePison(2007).
Population-E, 63 (1), 2008, 9-90
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 9
23/06/2008 14:36:15
J. Véron
ofSouthAsiaareveryvulnerablebotheconomically(especiallythechildren
whostartworkingatanearlyage)andenvironmentally.Forinstance,aportion
oftheBangladeshipopulationlivesatsealevelwithconsiderableexposureto
floodrisk,andseveralcountriesintheregionwereaffectedbythetsunamiin
thewinterof2004.Incertainfragileorexposedareas,demographicgrowth
andtheconsequentincreaseinpopulationdensityexacerbatethevulnerability
ofthepoorestpopulations.
I. South Asia in the world
Withjustunderonequarteroftheworld’spopulationintheearly2000s,
SouthAsia’spopulationgrowthof2.1%overthepastthirtyyearsisfarhigher
thantheworldaverageof1.6%betweentheyears1975-2005(Table1),but
belowthatofsub-SaharanAfrica(2.7%)ortheArabworld(2.6%).SouthAsia
islessadvancedinitsdemographictransitionthantheworldasawhole:the
fertilityratewas3.2childrenperwomanbetween2000-2005comparedwith
aglobalaverageof2.7,whilelifeexpectancyatbirthwas3.6yearsbelowthe
worldaverage.SouthAsiaisquitedistinctfromEastAsiaandthePacificregion,
Map 1. South Asia
n
ista
an
fgh
A
ta
n
Bhutan
kis
Nep
Pa
al
India
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Maldives
10
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 10
23/06/2008 14:36:15
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 11
1,164.8
6,389.2
OECD countries
World total
TFR: total fertility rate.
HDI: Human development index.
PPP: Purchasing power parity.
Source: UNDP (2006).
1,944.0
East Asia and the Pacific
548.3
Latin America and the Caribbean
1,528.1
310.5
North Africa and the Middle East
South Asia
689.6
Sub-Saharan Africa
Population
in 2004
(in millions)
2.7
1.8
1.9
3.2
2.6
3.7
5.5
TFR
in 2000-2005
(children
per woman)
67.3
77.8
70.8
63.7
72.2
67.3
46.1
Life
expectancy
at birth
in 2004
(in years)
1.6
0.8
1.4
2.1
1.9
2.6
2.7
Annual
population
growth
1975-2005 (%)
0.741
0.923
0.760
0.599
0.795
0.680
0.472
HDI
in 2004
8,833
27,571
5,872
3,072
7,964
5,680
1,946
Per capita GNI
in USD (PPP)
in 2004
–
–
90.7
60.9
90.2
69.9
63.3
Adult literacy
rate
in 2004 (%)
Table 1. Selected socio-demographic characteristics of South Asia compared with other world regions
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
11
23/06/2008 14:36:15
J. Véron
wherefertilityisbelowreplacementlevelandlifeexpectancy7yearsabove
thatofSouthAsia.ThehealthsituationinSouthAsiaisworsethaninother
regionsoftheworld,withtheexceptionofsub-SaharanAfrica.
SouthAsiaisalsothesecondleastdevelopedregionintheworldafter
sub-SaharanAfrica.In2004,thehumandevelopmentindex(HDI)(3)was0.60
comparedwithaworldaverageof0.74;percapitaGDP(USD3,072perhead
intermsofpurchasingpowerparity)wasnearlythreetimesbelowtheworld
average, and adult literacy the lowest in the world, even below that of
sub-SaharanAfrica.
II. Abundant demographic data in view of development levels
Overall,withtheexceptionofBhutanandAfghanistanforwhichdemographic
information–apartfromUNdata–isfragmentary,richsourcesofdemographic
dataareavailableforSouthAsiancountriesfrombothcensusesandsurveys
(seeTable2a).Thethreemostdenselypopulatedcountries,India,Pakistan
andBangladesh,havetakenregularcensusessincetheendofthenineteenth
century.Indiahasheldoneeverytenyearssince1871.Thefirstpost-Independence
censuswasconductedin1951,whilethemostrecentwasin2001.Pakistan
tookitsfirstpost-Partitioncensusin1951andintendedtoapplythesame
decennialprinciple.Thesecondcensuswasindeedheldin1961butthethird
waspostponeduntil1972becauseofthewarwithIndia.Thefourthwasheld
in1981butthefifthcensuswasdelayeduntil1998.Afteritsindependence
fromPakistanin1971,Bangladeshheldfourcensusesin1974,1981,1991and
2001respectively.Afghanistanheldapartialcensusin1979,buttheone
plannedfor2004waspostponedandwillprobablytakeplacein2008.Nepal
hasheldtencensusessince1911,themostrecentbeingin2001.Bhutanhas
takenaseriesofcensusesbutthesearereallycitizenshipcensusesforchecking
thenationalityofpopulationsinthewakeofintensemigration.However,the
governmentcarriedoutafullpopulationcensusin2005toobtainreliable
socio-demographicdataforthecountryasawhole.
Infivecountriesoutofeight,censusinformationiscomplementedby
demographicandhealthsurveys.InthepastfifteenyearsIndiahascarried
outthreesuchsurveys,calledNationalFamilyandHealthSurveys,andhas
justpublishedtheresultsofthemostrecentoneheldin2005-2006.Sincethe
early1990s,Bangladeshhascarriedoutsevendemographicandhealthsurveys,
fiveofwhichwerestandard,whileSriLankacarriedoutthree(Table2b).Two
demographicandhealthsurveyswerecarriedoutinPakistan:afirstonein
1990-1991andasecondin2006,buttheresultsofthelatestonearenotyet
(3)ThehumandevelopmentindexwasintroducedbyUNDPin1990.Itisacompositeindexthat
includeslifeexpectancy,adultliteracyratesandschoolenrolmentratio,aswellaspercapitaGDP.
Itrangesfrom0to1.
12
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 12
23/06/2008 14:36:16
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 2a. Number of population censuses and national demographic
surveys carried out since the 1960s in South Asia
1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2007
Total
Census
4
7
6
6
6
29
Demographic and
health surveys (DHS)
–
–
2
8
7
17
Other surveys
–
4*
–
–
4**
Total
4
8
14
11
17
8
54
* 1975-1976 World Fertility Survey.
** 2002-2003 World Health Survey.
Table 2b. Dates of DHS surveys in South Asian countries
Country
Dates
Bangladesh
1993-1994 (standard)
1996-1997 (standard)
1999-2000 (standard)
1999-2000 (MCH SPA)*
2001 (maternal mortality)
2004 (standard)
2007 (standard)
India
1992-1993 (standard)
1998-1999 (standard)
2005-2006 (standard)
Nepal
1987 (in-depth)**
1996 (standard)
2001 (standard)
2006 (standard)
Pakistan
1990-1991 (standard)
2006 (standard)
Sri Lanka
1987 (standard)
1993***
2000***
* Maternal and Child Health, Services Provision Assessment Survey.
** In-depth study to find out why women wanting to space births or limit family size were not using
contraception.
*** Surveys featured on the Sri Lanka Department of Census and Statistics website, but not on the Macro
international site.
Sources: www.measuresdhs.com/countries; www.statistics.gov.lk
available.Theremainingcountriesintheregion(Afghanistan,Bhutanandthe
Maldives)haveneverconductedasurveyofthistype.
Themostdenselypopulatedcountryintheregionisalsotheoneforwhich
wehavethemostdemographicdata,thanksinparttoIndia’sSampleRegistration
System(SRS)whichconstitutesavaluableadditionalsource.Thissystemfor
registeringdemographiceventswassetupbytheRegistrarGeneralbetween
1964-1965,originallyforafewstates,andthenextendedthroughoutIndia
13
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 13
23/06/2008 14:36:16
J. Véron
between1969-1970.Itisbasedonadualsystemofbirthanddeathrecords(4).
TheSRSBulletins,publishedtwiceayear,provideestimatesofcrudebirth
anddeathrates,naturalgrowthratesandinfantmortalityratesforbothurban
andruralareasaswellasbystate.
III. Demographic and socioeconomic heterogeneity
SouthAsiaisadiversifiedgeographiczone,withsharpcontrastsbetween
themountainsofAfghanistanorNepal,forinstance,andthelowlandsofthe
MaldivesIslandsortheGangesDeltainBangladesh.Regionalgeographic
diversityisalsotobefoundwithinIndiaproper:HimachalPradesh,aHimalayan
state,bearsnoresemblancetothecoastalregionsofKeralaorTamilNadu.
Thisgeographicdiversitygoeshandinhandwithdemographic,economicand
socialheteregoneity.
Large demographic disparities
SouthAsiancountriesareofveryunequalsize(Table3).Thepopulation
oftheMaldives(306,000inhabitants)bearsnocomparisonwiththatofIndia
(1,169billioninhabitantsin2007).Threeoftheregion’seightcountriesaccount
for95%ofthetotalpopulation,andnearlythree-quartersoftheregion’s
inhabitantsliveinIndia.SouthAsiancountriesalsodifferintermsofpopulation
density,whichrangesfrommorethan1,100inhabitantspersq.kminBangladesh,
toanaverageofjust14inhabitantspersq.kminBhutan.
Thepopulationofthesecountriesisgrowingatavariablepace.According
toUNestimates,theaveragerateofpopulationgrowthinAfghanistanwas
nearly3.8%fortheperiod2000-2005,comparedwithscarcelymorethan0.4%
forSriLanka.Theprogressofdemographictransitionisalsodifferent.Infant
mortalitywasestimatedat11‰inSriLankaintheearly2000s,butexceeded
160‰inAfghanistan,whereasfertility,whichfelltoonly2childrenper
womaninSriLankaiscloserto7inAfghanistan.
WithinIndiaproper(Map2),thereareconsiderabledemographicdisparities
intermsofpopulationsize,rateofpopulationgrowthandpopulationdensity,
tonamejustthreecriteria.Forexample,inthe2001census,themostdensely
populatedstateinthecountry,UttarPradesh,hadapopulationof166million
–largerthanthatofPakistanorBangladesh–whereastheleastpopulated
state,Sikkim,had populationofscarcely more than540,000. The Union
(4)Thesystemisbasedonadualdatacollectionsystem:acontinuousprocessofbirthanddeath
registrationinasampleofvillagesandurbanenumerationblocks,andanindependentretrospective
survey over a six-month period. Matching the data from these two sources makes it possible to
distinguish events registered by both sources, from those that are partially registered or not
registeredbyoneofthesources.Inthesetwocases,acheckiscarriedoutinthefieldbyavisitto
thehouseholdsconcerned.Thesystemdoesnotprovideameansforestimatingeventsthatmight
havebeenomittedbybothsources(MariBhatetal.,1984).
14
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 14
23/06/2008 14:36:16
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 3. Population, surface area and density in South Asian countries in 2007
Country
Number
of inhabitants
(thousands)
Land area*
(thousand sq.km)
Population density
(inhab. per sq.km)
Maldives
306
0.3
Bhutan
658
47.0
14
Sri Lanka
19,299
66.0
292
Afghanistan
27,145
652.0
42
Nepal
28,196
147.0
192
Bangladesh
158,665
144.0
1,102
Pakistan
163,902
796.0
206
1,169,016
3,287.0
357
India
1,020
* Total surface area minus inland waters.
Sources: United Nations (2007a) and Pison (2007).
territory(5)oftheLakshadweepIslandshasthesmallestpopulation,withjust
over60,000inhabitantsin2001(Table4).Intheperiod1991-2001,thepopulation
inIndia’svariousstatesandterritoriesgrewatvariablerates,withanannual
averageof5%inNagaland,3.8%intheTerritoryofDelhi,1.8%inPunjab
(arateclosetotheIndianaverage,whichis1.93%),1.3%inAndhraPradesh
and1.1%inTamilNadu.Populationdensityalsovariessharplybetweenregions.
In2001itstoodat324inhabitantspersq.km forIndiaasawhole,butjust
13persq.kminArunachalPradesh,astatethatstretchesfromtheHimalayan
mountainstotheBrahmaputraValley,andexceeded900inhabitantspersq.km
inWestBengal,partlybecauseofthecityofCalcutta.Populationdensityis
particularly high in the territories of Delhi and Chandigarh, (9,294 and
7,903inhabitantspersq.kmrespectively)becauseofintenseurbanization.But
urbanizationisnotthesolereasonforhighpopulationdensity.InKerala,a
statewhereonly26%ofthepopulationlivesinurbanareas,densityexceeded
800inhabitantspersq.kmin2001.
Sharp socioeconomic inequalities
Anexaminationofthethreesignificantvariablesforacountry’sdevelopment
consideredtoplayavitalroleinacountry’sdemographictransition,namely
literacy,GDPandurbanization,revealssharpcontrastsbetweenthecountries.
Forexample,whilenearlyallwomenovertheageof15yearsareliteratein
theMaldives(96%)andinSriLanka(nearly90%),theliteracyrateisbelow
50%inIndia,under40%inBangladesh,35%inPakistanandNepal,andas
lowas13%inAfghanistan(Table5).Likewise,thereisathree-folddifference
inpercapitaincomebetweenNepal(USD1,490intermsofpurchasingpower
(5)Indiaiscomposedof28statesand7unionterritories.Delhi,PuducherryandChandigarhare
included among the territories. Each state is administered by a Governor and a prime minister,
whiletheterritoriesaregoverneddirectlyatfederallevel,representedbyaLieutenantGovernor.
15
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 15
23/06/2008 14:36:16
J. Véron
Map 2. Administrative India (states, union territories and neighbouring
countries)
AFGHANISTAN
Jammu &
Kashmir
Himachal
Pradesh
CHINA
BHUTAN
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
Bihar
d
Gujarat
Jharkhan
Madhya Pradesh
Daman & Diu
Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
h
Ch
Maharashtra
Meghalaya
BANGLA
DESH
Manipur
Tripura
Mizoram
h
ar
sg
ti
at
ga
lan
d
an
a
Ha
ry
hal
nac h
Aruades
Pr
a
s
As m
Sikkim
NEP
AL
Delhi
Na
Uttaranchal
Punjab
PAKISTAN
MYANMAR
(BURMA)
West Bengal
Orissa
Andhra Pradesh
BAY OF BENGAL
Goa
ARABIAN SEA
DA
AN
DW
SHA
LAK
AR
OB
ad
lN
Ta
mi
NIC
DS
AN
ISL
EA
a
ral
Ke
S
EEP
EEP
DW
SHA A)
LAK (INDI
Pondicherry
SRI
LANKA
Ined 2008
N&
MA
u
Karnataka
INDIAN
OCEAN
0
400 km
parity)andSriLanka(USD4,390).Andalthoughthecountriesintheregion
arenotyetheavilyurbanized,considerablediscrepanciesexistnonetheless.
Theproportionofcity-dwellersinPakistan,themosturbanizedcountryin
theregion,isthreetimeshigherthaninBhutan(36%versus12%).
Likethedemographicindicators,thesocioeconomicindicatorsvaryfrom
oneregiontoanotherinIndia.Accordingtodatafromthe2001census,with
respecttotheIndianaverageof54%,femaleliteracyratesrangefrombelow
34%inBiharandapproximately88%inKerala.Thewealthofthestatesvaries
16
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 16
23/06/2008 14:36:17
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 4. The 28 states and 7 union territories of India by population in 2001
State or union territory
Population
Lakshadweep Island*
Population density
(Inhabitants per sq.km)
60,650
1,894
Daman & Diu*
158,204
1,411
Dadra & Nagar Haveli*
220,490
449
Andaman & Nicobar Islands*
356,152
43
Sikkim
540,851
76
Mizoram
888,573
42
Chandigarh*
900,635
7,903
974,345
2,029
Puducherry*
Arunachal Pradesh
1,097,968
13
Goa
1,347,668
363
Nagaland
1,990,036
120
Manipur
2,166,788
107
Meghalaya
2,318,822
103
Tripura
3,199,203
304
Himachal Pradesh
6,077,900
109
Uttarakhand
8,489,349
159
Jammu and Kashmir
10,143,700
99
Delhi*
13,850,507
9,294
Chhattisgarh
20,833,803
154
Haryana
21,144,564
477
Punjab
24,358,999
482
Assam
26,655,528
340
Jharkhand
26,945,829
338
Kerala
31,841,374
819
Orissa
36,804,660
236
Gujarat
50,671,017
258
Karnataka
52,850,562
275
Rajasthan
56,507,188
165
Madhya Pradesh
60,348,023
196
Tamil Nadu
62,405,679
478
Andhra Pradesh
76,210,007
275
West Bengal
80,176,197
904
Bihar
82,998,509
880
Maharashtra
96,878,627
314
Uttar Pradesh
166,197,921
689
1,028,610,328
324
India
* Union territories.
Source: Banthia (2001), http://www.censusindia.net
enormouslyasdoestheproportionofcity-dwellers.InGoa,India’smost
urbanizedterritory,theproportionisnearly50%,comparedwiththeother
extremeof10%inHimachalPradesh.
17
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 17
23/06/2008 14:36:17
J. Véron
Table 5. Literacy, standard of living and urbanization in South Asian countries
Literacy rate
of women aged 15
or over
in the 2000s (%)
Per capita GNI
in USD (PPP)
in 2004
Percentage
urbanized in 2005
(%)
Afghanistan
13
–
23
Bangladesh
41
1,870
26
–
1,969
31
India
48
3,139
29
Maldives
96
–
34
Nepal
35
1,490
16
Pakistan
35
2,225
35
Sri Lanka
89
4,390
15
Bhutan
Sources: UNDP (2006), United Nations (2008).
PopulationbreakdownbyreligionisalsohighlydiverseinSouthAsian
countries,asshowninTable6.InBangladeshandPakistan,thevastmajority
ofthepopulationisMuslim.In2001,90%ofBangladeshiswereMuslimand,
in1998,morethan96%ofPakistanis.ThepopulationofNepalismorethan
80%Hindu,whereasBuddhism,thesecondreligioninorderofimportance,
nowonlyaccountsforjustover10%ofthetotalpopulation.Hinduismis
alsothemajorityreligioninIndia(81%).ThereareotherreligionsinIndia
butwiththeexceptionofIslam(13%ofthepopulation),theyareverymuch
aminority.TheproportionofChristiansisjustabove2%andthatofSikhs
isevenlower,whileBuddhistsaccountforlessthan1%ofthetotalIndian
population.
The other countries do not have detailed statistics on their religious
composition.AfghanistanisanIslamicRepublicandapproximatelyfourfifths
Table 6. Population breakdown by religion in five South Asian countries (%)
Country
Bangladesh (2001)
Religion
Hindu
Muslim
Buddhist Christian
Sikh
Jain
Other(a)
9.2
89.6
0.7
0.3
–
–
0.2
India (2001)
80.5
13.4
0.8
2.3
1.9
0.4
0.7
Nepal (2001)
80.6
4.2
10.7
0.5
–
–
4.0(b)
Pakistan (1998)
1.6
96.3
–
1.6
–
–
0.5
Sri Lanka (2001)
7.8
8.5
76.7
7.0
–
–
–
(a)
Other religion or non-specified.
Of which 3.6% Kiranti.
Sources: Census of India, 2001; Census of Pakistan, 1998; Census of Sri Lanka, 2001; Census of Nepal, 2001.
(b)
18
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 18
23/06/2008 14:36:17
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
ofitsinhabitantsareMuslim.InBhutan,MahayanaBuddhism(6)isthestate
religion.ThelawinBhutanguaranteesreligiousfreedom,andHinduismis
practicedincertainareasofthecountry.Thisfreedomissomewhattheoretical,
however,withthegovernmentpreventingtheestablishmentofnon-Buddhist
missionsinthecountryortheconstructionofnon-Buddhistreligiousbuildings.
TheNepaleseconstitutiondescribesthecountryasa“HinduKingdom”but
Hinduismisnotastatereligionandin2006theHouseofRepresentatives
declaredNepaltobea“secularstate”.IslamisthestatereligionintheMaldives,
whereasinSriLankamorethanthree-quartersofthepopulationontheisland
isBuddhist.HeretheMuslim,ChristianandHinducommunitieseachaccount
forjust8%ofthetotalpopulation.
Althoughfour-fifthsofthepopulationofIndiaisHindu,thereligious
compositionvariesbetweenstates,andHinduismisnotthemajorityreligion
everywhere.Theproportionisover94%inOrissa,ChhattisgarhandinHimachal
Pradesh(whereitevenexceeds95%)butHindusonlyrepresent8%ofthe
population in Nagaland and 4% in Mizoram which both have a majority
Christianpopulation.TheproportionofMuslims,whichwasslightlyover13%
inthecountryasawholein2001,isunder2%inPunjab,butcloseto25%in
KeralaandWestBengal,morethan30%inAssam,67%inJammuandKashmir
and95%intheLakshadweepIslands.TherearefewChristiansinIndia;
nationallythefigurestandsat2.3%,butthisrisesto19%inKerala,27%in
Goa,70%inMeghalayaand90%inNagaland.Sikhs,whorepresentlessthan
2%oftheIndianpopulation,constitute16%ofthepopulationinChandigarh
and60%inPunjab.InIndialessthan1%ofthepopulationisBuddhist,but
inSikkimBuddhistsaccountformorethan28%.
IV. A history strongly marked by population movements
Frequent migration waves in the past
MajorpopulationmovementshaveoccurredinthecourseofSouthAsia’s
history,whichexplainsthediversityofthepopulationsinthevariouscountries
oftheregion.Afghanistan,locatedinthemainpathoftheCentralAsian
invasionsofsouthorsouthwestAsia(7),hasaPashtunmajoritybutisalso
peopledbyTajiks,Hazaras,Uzbeks,aswellasbyAimak,TurkmenandBaluch.
(6)MahayanaBuddhism,orthe“GreatVehicle”isaformofBuddhismthatappearedintheearly
ChristianeraandreintroducescertainprinciplesBuddhahaddiscarded,suchassalvationthrough
devotionandritual.
(7)AroundthemiddleofthesecondcenturyBC,Indo-AryanpopulationscrossedAfghanistanon
theirwaytotheIndusValley.In637AfghanistanwasinvadedbyArabs,thenbyGenghisKhanin
theearlythirteenthcenturyandtakenbyTamerlaneinthefourteenthcentury.Forseveralcenturies
itwastheobjectofnumerousdisputesbetweenMongolsandPersians.
19
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 19
23/06/2008 14:36:17
J. Véron
TheNepalesearetheproductofthreemajormigrations(8)fromIndia,Tibet
andCentralAsia,whileBangladeshwassettledbyTurks,Arabs,Pashtunand
Persians.SriLankawasuninhabiteduntilaPrinceofBengalsettledthere
around540BCwithasuiteof700personswhobecametheancestorsofthe
SinghalesepeoplefromwhommostcontemporarySriLankansaredescended
(CICRED,1974b).
Fromancienttimes,manygreatcivilizationsoccupiedthevastterritory
that was India before the partition of West and East Pakistan in 1947(9).
Populationmovementshaveplayedamajorroleintheriseandfallofcivilizations.
InthebeginningofthethirdmillenniumBC,theInduscivilizationflourished
andextendedfromtheIndianPunjabtotheArabianSea.Itderiveditsstrength
fromitsproductiveagriculturebasedontherichalluvialsoilandabundant
watersupplies,whichprovidednumerouscropsincludingcotton.Towns
developedandtherewerenumerousexchangeswithWesterncivilizations,
especiallywithSumerandEgypt.Thiscivilizationdisappearedaround1500BC,
probablybecauseoftheAryaninvasionornaturaldisasters(10)(ESCAP,1982).
Around500BC,theAryancivilizationdevelopedandspreadeastwardstothe
GangesValley.Agriculturealsoflourishedandthepopulationgrew,partlyas
aresultofnewwavesofAryanmigrationfromCentralAsia.TheAryanspushed
theDravidians,whooriginallyinhabitedtheIndusValley,furthersouthand
theDravidiancivilizationsubsequentlyflourishedinsouthernIndia.Fora
longtimesouthernIndiawasdividedintonumerouskingdomsengagedin
incessantwaragainsteachother.
InthenorthofIndia,theMauryaEmpireextendedfromAfghanistanto
BengalviathesouthernHimalayas,andreacheditsapogeeunderAshoka
(273-232BC).Then,fromtheearlyfourthcenturyAD,theGuptaEmpire
extendedfromtheIndustotheBrahmaputraRiverstoincludealargepartof
theIndianpeninsula.Thisregionsubsequentlyenjoyed200yearsofpeace
andpoliticalstabilityuptotheinvasionoftheHunsattheendofthefifth
century.TheMogulEmpirefollowedfromthesixteenthtoseventeenthcentury,
afterwhichthePortuguese,Dutch,BritishandFrenchtradersarrived.The
EastIndiaCompany(11)establishedduringtheMogulperiodgreatlyadvanced
Britain’sdominationofIndia.
(8)Australoid peoples came from the south in the fourth century BC, then Mongols speaking
aTibeto-Burmanlanguageoccupiedtheeastandthecentreofthecountryafewcenturieslater.The
thirdmigrationinthesecondcenturyBCwastheIndo-Aryanpopulationfromthesouthandthe
westintothehillsandvalleysofKathmandu(Bista,1977).
(9)EastPakistanbecameBangladeshin1971.
(10)MajorearthquakesmayhaveledtoadryingoftheIndusvalleybecauseofthewatersbeing
divertedtotheGangesRivercatchment.
(11)TheBritishEastIndiaCompanywasatradingcompanythatobtainedthetradingmonopolyof
theIndianOceanfromQueenElisabethI.
20
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 20
23/06/2008 14:36:18
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
The British influence
AllthecountriesofSouthAsiahavebeensubjectedtostrongBritish
influence.InAfghanistan,theBritishfoughttheRussiansforcontrolofthe
countryfromtheendofthe1830s.Between1838and1842,thefirstAfghan
warendedwiththedefeatoftheBritisharmy,butinthesecondAfghanwar
of1878-1880theBritisharmyconqueredKabulandfreedKandahar.In1919,
athirdAfghanwarresultedinthatcountry’sindependence.Afterawarthat
wasintendedtocontroltheexpansionistaimsoftheGurkhas,Nepalcame
underBritishrulein1815andremainedsountil1923,whenGreatBritain
recognizedNepal’sindependence.TheannexationofAssambytheBritishin
the1820sstirreduptensionsontheBhutaneseborderandconflictsensued
untilatreatywassignedin1910thatmadeBhutanaBritishprotectorate.From
themidtwentiethcentury,BhutanwaslargelyunderIndiandominancewhile
SriLankawasunderBritishrulefrom1815to1948.ItwastheBritishwho
introducedteaplantationstotheislandthatwasthencalledCeylon.The
MaldiveswereaBritishprotectoratefrom1887to1965.
India was almost entirely administered by the British from the mid
nineteenthcenturyuntilindependencein1947(12).TheBritishunifiedthe
country,inparticularbyconstructingarailwaynetwork.Theycarriedout
irrigationwork,setupcommunications networks,developed the mining
industry,cultivatedjuteandtea,etc.Togetaclearerpictureofthepopulation
onitsterritories,theBritishgovernmentconductedafirstcensus,knownas
the1872census,butwhichinfactstretchedovertheperiod1867-1872.The
firstdetailed“instant”censuswasconductedin1881.Fromthattimeuntil
thepresentday,colonialIndiaandlaterindependentIndiahastakenacensus
everydecade,themostrecentin2001.
Population diversity and political tensions
Thepoliticalhistoryofthisregion,likethediversityofitspopulationsin
termsoforiginorreligion,hasgivenrisetonumerousconflicts,someofwhich
continuetothisday.
TheindependenceofIndiaandthepartitionofEastandWestPakistanin
1947,resultedinmajorpopulationmovements,withHindusmigratingfrom
PakistantoIndiaandMuslimssettlinginPakistan(13).In1971,EastPakistan
foughta“liberationwar”withWestPakistan,accusedofpoliticalandeconomic
dominance,resultinginEastPakistan’ssecessionandtheformationofBangladesh
inDecemberofthesameyear.TheproblemofKashmirremainsasourceof
frictionbetweenIndiaandPakistan,whohaveclashedthreetimesonthat
issue.AnychangingorcrossingofbordersbetweenIndianandPakistani
(12)Upuntilthen,India’shistorywasalsothatofPakistanandBangladesh.
(13)Accordingtofiguresthataresometimesquotedbutwhichhaveyettobeverified,10million
peopleweredisplacedduringPartition,and500,000diedintheconflict.
21
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 21
23/06/2008 14:36:18
J. Véron
Kashmiralwaysleadstoconfrontations,particularlysincetheMuslimsonthe
Pakistanisidetendtobeincreasinglyradical.Afghanistanhasalsobeenatthe
heartofaseriesofconflictsoverthepastthirtyyears,withtheSovietinvasion
of1979,thetakeoverbytheTalibanin1996,thetopplingoftheirregimein
the2001war,andincessantguerrillawarfareeversince.SriLankahasseen
violentconfrontationsbetweenthemajoritySinghalesepopulationandthe
Tamils.TheMaldivesbecamearepublicin1968,butenduredacoup20years
laterduringwhichtheMaldiviansobtainedhelpfromtheTamils,themselves
inconflictwiththeSriLankanauthorities.However,withIndianhelp,the
Maldivesgovernmentresistedthecoup.Bhutansufferedfromethnicviolence
between1991-1993andinIndiaviolenceregularlyeruptsbetweenvarious
communities.TheIndiangovernmenthadtocontainseparatistSikhsinthe
1980sandconsiderabletensionshaveexistedbetweenfundamentalistHindus
and Muslims for nearly 20 years. Bangladesh is also subject to Islamist
violence.
V. Population and growth since 1950
Sustained population growth
Intheearly1950s,thedemographicgrowthrateintheSouthAsiancountries
(AppendixTableA.3)wastwiceashighinsomecountriesasinothers,ranging
from1.54%inAfghanistanto3.09%inBhutan.Severalcountrieswereatthe
higherendofthescale–SriLanka,withannualpopulationgrowthof2.8%,
wasnotfarbehindBhutan,andPakistan,thoughgrowingmoreslowly,was
stillabove2%.Duringthefollowingdecades,allthecountriesexceptSriLanka
witnessedanaccelerationoftheirdemographicgrowth.Theannualgrowth
rateinIndiarosefrom1.73%in1950-1955to2.26%thirtyyearslater,in19801985.Duringthesameperiod,thatofBangladeshincreasedfrom1.98%to
2.47%andthatofPakistanfrom2.15%to3.63%.Between1980-1985and
2000-2005,allthecountries,withtheexceptionofAfghanistan,recordeda
slowdowninpopulationgrowth(Figure1).InAfghanistan,overtheperiod
1980-1985,thenaturalgrowthratewaslargelypositive,butthewarwiththe
SovietUnionpromptedmassivemigrationofrefugeestoPakistanandIran
thatledtonegativetotalpopulationgrowth(14).
SriLankahasprovedtobeanexception,withasteadydecreaseinthe
populationgrowthratesincetheearly1950s:from2.8%in1950-1955,it
droppedto2.1%in1970-1975,1.4%in1980-1985,1.1%in1990-1995and
finally0.4%in2000-2005,i.e.adeclinetovirtuallyzeropopulationgrowth
inthespaceoffiftyyears(AppendixTableA.3).
India,whichsetupitsfirstfamilyplanningprogrammeintheearly1950s
hasseenitspopulationgrowthrateslowdownoverthepasttwentyyears,
(14)Figureshavebeenputforwardof2.5to3millionrefugeesinPakistanand1.5millioninIran.
22
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 22
23/06/2008 14:36:18
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
thoughin1990-1995itwasstillabove2%perannum.AlthoughtheIndian
authoritieshavebeentryingtostabilizethepopulationgrowthrateformany
yearsnow,thefigurewasstill1.62%perannumin2000-2005.Duringthe
sameperiod,thepopulationgrowthratesinPakistanandBangladeshremained
above1.8%,whichmeansthatifthereisnochange,thepopulationofthese
countries will double in less than forty years. As a result of these high
demographicgrowthratesoveraperiodofahalfacentury,thepopulationof
SouthAsiatripledbetween1950and2005,climbingfrom478millionto
1,580millioninhabitants.
Figure 1. Population growth rate in South Asia between 1980-1985
and 2000-2005
4
Growth rate in 2000-2005 (%)
Ined 004 08
Afghanistan
3
Bhutan
Nepal
Bangladesh
2
India
Pakistan
Maldives
1
Sri Lanka
0
–3
–2
–1
0
1
2
3
4
Growth rate in 1980-1985 (%)
Source: United Nations (2006a).
South Asia in 2040: a forecast increase of 600 million inhabitants
AccordingtothemediumvariantprojectionsoftheUnitedNations(2006
revision),thepopulationintheregionwillcontinuetogrowduringthenext
fewdecades,reachingatotal2,200millioninhabitantsin2040,i.e.600million
inhabitantsmorethantoday.Itsshareinthetotalworldpopulationwillincrease
slightly,from23.3%in2005to25.3%in2040.Accordingtothesemeanvariant
projections,inthirtyyearstime,Indiawillhaveapopulationof1,600million
inhabitants, Pakistan 268 million, Bangladesh 239 million, Afghanistan
66million,Nepal47million,SriLankaabout20million,Bhutan900,000and
theMaldives476,000.Bythen,IndiawillbemorepopulatedthanChina,with
itsestimated1,450millioninhabitants.
23
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 23
23/06/2008 14:36:19
J. Véron
Projections drawn up in India on the basis of the 2001 census and
revisedin2006leadtoaslightlylowerpopulationin2025thanthefigure
put forward by the United Nations (1,389 million against 1,447 million),
but the difference – nearly 60 million – needs to be put into perspective,
as it only corresponds to slightly more than two years of births in India.
In 2026, the final year of these projections, it is forecast that India will
have about 1,400 million inhabitants (Table7). The most populated state,
UttarPradesh,willhaveapopulationof249millioninhabitants,equivalent
totheentirepopulationofIndiain1911.ThreeotherStateswillhavemore
than100millioninhabitants:Maharashtra(133million),Bihar(114million)
and Western Bengal (101million). Andra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh(15) and
Rajasthan will have 94 million, 88million and 82 million inhabitants in
2026.
Table 7. Population of Indian States of more than 20 million inhabitants
in 2001 (in thousands) projected to 1 March 2026
State
Projected population in 2026 (thousands)
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
94,073
35,602
Western Bengal
100,534
Bihar
113,847
Chhattisgarh
28,591
Gujerat
69,258
Haryana
31,087
Jharkhand
37,356
Karnataka
66,933
Kerala
37,254
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
87,729
133,333
Punjab
31,345
Rajasthan
81,501
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
India
71,857
248,763
1,399,838
Source: Office of Registrar General & Census Commissioner (2006).
http://www.jsk.gov.in/projection_report_december2006.pdf
(15)Three new States were created after the 1991 census, namely Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and
Chhattigarh,bydividingupthehighlypopulousIndianstatesofUttarPradesh,BiharandMadhya
Pradesh.
24
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 24
23/06/2008 14:36:19
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
VI. Diversified demographic transitions
Acomparisonofdemographictransition“models”overhalfacentury
(Figure2)doesnotindicatethatthereisatypeoftransitionspecifictothe
region;neitherdoesitshowanyhighlycontrastedtransitionsbetweenthe
differentcountries.TheonlymodelsthatreallystandoutarethoseofAfghanistan
andSriLanka,thefirstbecauseofitshighbirthrateandthesecondbecause
ofitssharpfertilitydecline.
AccordingtotheUnitedNationsdata–2006revision(2007a)–themortality
ratesvaryconsiderablybetweenthetwomostextremecountries(Appendix
TableA.3).Inthefirsthalfofthe1950s,theoverallmortalityratewasnearly
37‰inAfghanistan,againstalittlemorethan11‰inSriLanka.Intheother
countriesoftheregion,itvariedfrom23‰to28‰atthebeginningofthe
1950s.Ageneraldropinmortalityoccurredandthecrudemortalityratesfor
allcountriesin2000to2005werebetween6.5‰and8.7‰,withtheexception
ofAfghanistan,withanestimatedrateof21.6‰forthesameperiod.
AfghanistanandSriLankaalsorepresentextremesituationsintermsof
birthrates.TherehasbeenlittlechangeinAfghanistanoverthelastfiftyyears,
withagrossestimatedrateof52.1‰in1950-1955and49.7‰in2000-2005.
Ontheotherhand,duringthesameperiod,thebirthratecontinuedtofallin
SriLankaandwasmorethanhalvedbetween1950-1955and2000-2005,
droppingfrom39.9‰to16.3‰.Intheothercountriesintheregion,thebirth
rate,stillveryhighatthebeginningofthe1950s(between43‰and49‰),
alsodroppedbyhalfinfiftyyears,tobetween22‰and30‰in2000-2005,
levelsthatremainwellabovethatofSriLanka.Onlythislastcountry(Figure1)
isintheprocessofcompletingitsdemographictransition.
AlthoughIndiaregisteredadownwardtrendinitsbirthrateoverhalfa
century,itisstillfarshortofthetargetfixedbytheIndiangovernmentineach
five-yearplan,whichmeansthatbirthrateandfertilitytargetsarefrequently
revised(RajanandVéron,2006).ThefactthatIndiahasayoungpopulation
maintainsbirthratesathighlevels:thisagestructureeffect(thenumberof
womenofchild-bearingageishigh)explainswhytheoveralldropinfertility
onlypartiallyleadstoadecreaseinthebirthrate.Butobservedfertilityisalso
higherthantargetedfertility,duetolimitedaccesstocontraception,particularly
inthepoorestareaswherethepopulationislesseducated.
ThedemographictransitionintheSouthAsiancountriesoverthepast
halfcenturycanalsobeanalysedintermsofthedemographicgrowthrates
atthebeginningandendoftheperiod.InAfghanistan,forexample,theannual
populationgrowthrateincreasedfrom1.54%in1950-1955to2.81%in20002005,duetothefairlyregulardecreaseinthedeathrate,whilethebirthrate
remainedpracticallyconstant(Figure2A).Ontheotherhand,inBangladesh
(Figure2B),thegrowthrateremainedpracticallythesame(1.99%atthe
beginningand1.95%attheendoftheperiod).Thedownwardtrendinthe
25
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 25
23/06/2008 14:36:19
J. Véron
Figure 2. The demographic transition in South Asia (changes in birth
and death rates)
Rate (‰)
60
Ined 005 08
Births
n = 52.1
50
n = 49.7
Rate (‰)
60
Births
n = 48.4
50
Ined 006 08
B. Bangladesh
r = 1.54%
40
40
r = 1.99%
r = 2.81%
30 m = 36.7
n = 27.8
30
Deaths
20
m = 21.6
10
m = 28.5
20
A. Afghanistan
r = 1.96%
Deaths
10
m = 8.2
0
0
Rate (‰)
60
Ined 007 08
50 n = 46.7
C. Bhutan
Births
Rate (‰)
60
Ined 008 08
D. India
50
n = 43.3
40
40
r = 1.99%
Births
n = 22.4
30
r = 1.73%
n = 25.1
30
m = 26.8
20
Deaths
20
r = 1.46%
10
m = 26.0
r = 1.64%
Deaths
10
m = 7.8
m = 8.7
0
0
Rate (‰)
Ined 009 08
E. Maldives
50
Births
n = 45.2
40
Ined 010 08
F. Nepal
Births
n = 43.9
40
n = 22.2
r = 1.79%
10
m = 8.7
m = 6.5
0
Rate (‰)
50
Ined 011 08
G. Pakistan
Births
n = 44.5
40
0
Rate (‰)
60
Ined 012 08
H. Sri Lanka
50
n = 27.5
r = 2.14%
30
r = 2.15%
Deaths
r = 1.57%
Deaths
10
60
m = 28.1
20
m = 27.3
n = 39.9
40
Births
30
r = 2.85%
5
90
19
-8
80
-9
5
m = 7.3
5
-6
5
60
5
19
50
-5
5
19
-0
00
20
19
90
-9
5
-8
5
19
80
5
19
70
-7
5
-6
60
19
50
-5
5
0
Deaths
19
m = 11.4
m = 7.7
0
19
r = 0.90%
10
Deaths
-7
10
n = 16.3
20
r = 1.98%
70
m = 23.1
19
20
5
20
30
-0
30
n = 30.2
r = 1.58%
00
50
Rate (‰)
60
20
60
Source: United Nations (2006)
26
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 26
23/06/2008 14:36:20
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
deathandbirthrateswasofthesameorder,althoughthedropinmortality
tookplaceearlier.Thedecreaseinthebirthratewassubsequentlymorerapid,
however.InBhutan(Figure2C),thegrowthratein1950-1955,thesameas
thatofBangladesh(1.99%)atthebeginningoftheperiod,fellsharplyto1.46%
in2000-2005.InBhutan,thebirthratedroppedmorequicklythanthedeath
rate.InIndia(Figure2D),thegrowthrateislessthan0.1pointlowerthanit
wasfiftyyearsago.Duringthelasthalf-century,infact,thepopulationgrowth
ofIndiaincreasedsubstantially,reaching2.3%in1980-1985,butthenslowed
downconsiderably(decreaseofmorethan0.6points).IntheMaldives(Figure2E),
thepopulationgrowthratedropped0.2pointsinthefiftyyearperiod:the
mortalityratedecreasedregularlywhilethebirthrateremainedhighforalong
periodbeforedroppingdrasticallyoverthelasttwentyyears.InNepal(Figure2F),
thepopulationgrowthrateincreasedsharply,from1.58%to2.15%,withthe
deathratedroppingmorequicklythanthebirthrate,evenifthelatterhas
pickedupoverthelasttenyears.InPakistan(Figure2G),thepopulation
growthratedroppedslightly,from2.14%atthebeginningofthe1950sto
1.98%atthestartof2000.ThetransitionhadalreadybeguninSriLanka
(Figure2H)inthe1950s,whichexplainstherapidpopulationgrowthatthat
time(2.85%).Thedeathratewasalreadyonthedecline,whilethebirthrate
wasstillhigh.Today,thetransitionhasbeencompletedandthepopulation
growthrateinSriLankaisbelow1%.
VII. A continuing tradition of early and intense nuptiality
Femalenuptiality,whichwasparticularlyearlyinIndiaattheendofthe
nineteenthcentury,withameanageatfirstmarriageofonly13in1886-1891,
wasstillearlyinthe1950s,despiteamarkedincreaseinage(16intheperiod
from1951-1961)(ESCAP,1982).Menmarriedmuchlater,atameanageof20in
1886-1891and22.3in1951-1961.InBangladeshandPakistan,femalenuptiality
wasstillveryearlyatthebeginningofthe1950s,withameanageatfirstmarriage
of14.4years,differingconsiderablyfromthatofmen,whomarriedatamean
ageof22.4years(ESCAP,1981).Dataconcerningthe1960sinKarachiindicate
muchlaterfemalenuptialityinurbanareas(averageageof19in1962)andlittle
differencebetweensocialgroups(CICRED,1974a).Inthedecadefrom1961to
1971,themeanageatfirstmarriageforwomenwasestimatedat17inIndia(16).
InSriLanka,itwasalreadymuchhigherinthe1960sthanintheothercountries,
withameanageof23in1961(CICRED,1974b).
Thecountrieswhererecentnuptialitydataisavailable(Bangladesh,India
andNepal) arecharacterizedbya continuing tradition of very early and
(16)Withlargeregionalvariationssincethedataestablishedperdistrictfor1971showameanage
atfirstmarriageforwomenrangingfrom13to23yearsofage(Goyal,1988).
27
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 27
23/06/2008 14:36:20
J. Véron
Table 8a. Percentage of married persons by age, and age at first marriage
in Bangladesh, 2004
Women
Age group
(years)
Percentage of women married for
the first time by exact age (years)
15
18
20
22
25
Percentage of
never-married
women
Median age
at first
marriage
15-19
26.7
–
–
–
–
52.1
–
20-24
37.3
68.4
78.6
–
–
15.2
16.0
25-29
50.5
79.7
87.6
91.3
94.4
4.2
15.0
30-34
54.2
83.7
90.5
94.1
97.1
1.2
14.7
35-39
58.7
84.6
93.5
96.3
97.8
0.4
14.5
40-44
61.6
88.7
95.0
97.2
98.3
0.3
14.2
45-49
71.4
91.7
95.8
97.5
99.0
0.0
13.9
20-49
52.4
80.5
88.4
–
–
5.0
14.8
Percentage of
never-married
men
Median age
at first
marriage
–
Men
Age group
(years)
Percentage of men married for
the first time by exact age (years)
15
18
20
22
25
15-19
0.2
–
–
–
–
96.6
20-24
0.4
4.4
15.3
–
–
65.6
–
25-29
1.1
5.3
14.9
30.1
54.0
29.4
24.4
30-34
0.4
5.7
15.9
28.7
52.8
9.5
24.6
35-39
0.3
6.9
14.9
28.1
48.5
4.0
25.1
40-44
0.5
5.1
13.1
29.3
49.7
0.2
25.0
45-49
0.2
5.8
18.0
32.8
56.6
0.3
23.7
50-54
0.8
10.3
29.2
47.6
64.8
0.0
22.3
25-54
0.5
6.1
16.5
31.3
53.5
8.8
24.5
Source: DHS 2004.
practicallyuniversalfemalenuptiality(Tables8a,8band8c).Accordingtothe
2004Bangladeshdemographicandhealthsurvey,themedianageofwomen
atfirstmarriageisbelow15forthe20-49agegroup.Nuptialityonlyappears
tobeslightlylaterinrecentcohorts(womenaged25-29atthetimeofthe
survey)–15yearsofageagainst14–evenifthedataarenotstrictlycomparable
becausefirstmarriageshavenotnecessarilyalltakenplaceinthemostrecent
cohorts(iflatermarriagesarenumerous,themedianageatmarriagewillbe
higher).InIndia,in2005-2006,themedianageatfirstmarriageforwomen
aged20-50atthetimeofthesurveyis17.2,i.e.twoandahalfyearsmorethan
inBangladesh.Onceagain,themedianageishigherforthemostrecentcohorts:
forwomenaged20-24,itisnearlytwoyearshigherthanthatcalculatedfor
28
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 28
23/06/2008 14:36:20
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 8b. Percentage of persons married by age, and age at first marriage
in India, 2005-2006
Women
Age group
(years)
Percentage of women married for
the first time per exact age (years)
15
18
20
21
25
Percentage of
never-married
women
Median age
at first
marriage
15-19
11.9
–
–
–
–
69.6
–
20-24
18.2
47.4
64.4
–
–
24.3
18.3
25-29
25.4
55.4
72.4
78.6
91.3
5.8
17.4
30-34
28.5
61.2
76.5
82.0
93.2
1.8
16.8
35-39
31.0
63.4
79.1
84.3
83.8
1.1
16.6
40-44
32.4
64.6
79.8
85.5
94.6
0.8
16.5
45-49
32.9
64.2
79.1
85.1
94.5
0.6
16.5
20-49
26.9
57.9
74.0
–
–
7.4
17.2
Percentage of
never-married
men
Median age
at first
marriage
–
Men
Age group
(years)
Percentage of men married for
the first time by exact age (years)
15
18
20
21
25
15-19
1.3
–
–
–
–
95.4
20-24
2.8
9.5
18.8
–
–
66.1
–
25-29
4.1
13.3
25.6
32.3
58.5
29.4
23.7
30-34
6.3
18.1
31.0
38.8
63.6
8.7
22.7
35-39
6.2
18.5
31.9
41.0
66.3
3.0
22.3
40-44
8.0
19.9
34.7
43.6
68.2
1.9
22.0
45-49
6.6
18.5
31.9
41.3
67.1
1.1
22.4
50-54
7.1
17.9
31.7
39.9
65.3
1.6
22.5
20-49
5.4
15.7
28.2
–
–
22.0
23.4
Source: NFHS, 2005-2006.
womenaged45-49.InNepal,themedianageatfirstmarriagewasalso17in
2006.InSriLanka,ontheotherhand,thenuptialitymodelisradicallydifferent,
andwomenmarryatamuchlatermeanage–22.9years–in2003.Infact,
thisfigurehadalreadybeenreachedatthebeginningofthe1960s,andsince
then,themeanageatfirstmarriageforwomenhasfluctuatedaround23years
(CICRED,1974b).
Anotherwayofappreciatingtheprevalenceofearlymarriageistoconsider
theproportionofwomenalreadymarriedataspecificage:15,18,20,etc.
(Tables8a,8band8c).InBangladesh,halfofallwomenaged25-29in2004
werealreadymarriedat15,againstonequarterofIndianwomenand13%of
Nepalese women in the same age group. These surveys conducted at the
29
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 29
23/06/2008 14:36:20
J. Véron
Table 8c. Percentage of persons married by age, and age at first marriage
in Nepal, 2006
Women
Age group
(years)
Percentage of women married for
the first time by exact age (years)
15
18
20
22
25
Percentage of
never-married
women
Median age
at first
marriage
15-19
5.5
–
–
–
–
67.7
–
20-24
10.2
51.4
70.9
–
–
17.9
17.9
25-29
13.3
60.2
77.3
87.3
93.6
4.4
17.3
30-34
15.3
59.9
79.0
88.4
94.0
1.6
17.3
35-39
15.4
65.0
81.3
90.2
96.4
1.4
16.9
40-44
19.7
65.0
81.9
90.7
94.9
1.3
16.8
45-49
24.7
69.4
84.7
91.9
95.6
1.2
16.5
20-49
15.3
60.4
78.1
–
–
6.0
17.2
Percentage of
never-married
men
Median age
at first
marriage
–
Men
Age group
(years)
Percentage of men married for
the first time by exact age
15
18
20
22
25
15-19
0.7
–
–
–
–
89.5
20-24
1.8
15.5
32.9
–
–
44.1
–
25-29
4.5
24.5
41.3
56.2
76.7
14.0
21.0
30-34
4.2
26.9
48.2
63.8
80.9
1.1
20.2
35-39
4.1
29.1
50.5
67.2
83.1
0.2
19.9
40-44
2.2
23.8
52.2
70.9
87.3
0.7
19.8
45-49
4.8
29.3
49.6
68.6
81.0
1.0
20.0
20-49
3.5
24.2
44.8
60.9
76.0
12.5
20.6
Source: DHS, 2006.
beginningoftheyear2000showthat80%ofwomenaged25-29werealready
marriedat18inBangladesh,60%inNepaland55%inIndia.Thegeneraltrend
istowardsfemalemarriageatalaterage,withthepercentageofwomenmarried
at15,18,20,etc.decreasingfromonecohorttothenext.Formen,thedecrease
isnotasgeneralized,butacertainincreaseintheageofmalemarriagehas
beenobservedinIndiaandNepal.
Traditionally,menmarrylaterthanwomen,InBangladeshin2004,79%
ofwomenaged20-24werealreadymarriedat20versusonly15%ofmenof
thesameage;30%ofmenaged25-29weremarriedatage22whilethepercentage
ofwomenwasabove90%.The2006surveyinNepalshowsthatthedifference
inmarriagebehaviourbetweenmenandwomenislessmarked:87%ofwomen
aged25-29and56%ofmenwerealreadymarriedatage22.Thenuptiality
30
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 30
23/06/2008 14:36:21
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
modelinIndiaissimilartothatinBangladesh,withmenmarryingmuchlater
thanwomen,althoughthenumberofmenalreadymarriedatage20ishigher
inIndia(26%)thaninBangladesh(15%).Regionaldataonageatfirstmarriage
showabroaddiversityinnuptialitybehaviourinIndia(NFHS,2005-2006).
WhileacrossIndia,46%ofwomenaged18-29werealreadymarriedatage18,
thefigurewasmuchlowerinGoa(12%)andashighas64%inBihar.The
differencesarealsolargeformen:27%ofIndianmenaged21-29werealready
marriedat21,witharangeextendingfromonly2%inKeralatomorethan
49%inRajasthan.
InBangladesh,IndiaandNepal,femalecelibacyremainsextremelyrare:
thehighestproportionofwomenaged45-49whohavenevermarriedisobserved
inNepalwhereitstandsatjust1.2%.Celibacyalsoremainsexceptionalamong
men:theproportionofsinglemenaged45-49isinthesameorderofmagnitude
asthatofwomen.Thesefiguresapplytotheoldergenerations:anincreasein
theageofmarriagemaybeaccompaniedbyanincreaseinpermanentcelibacy
amongthemostrecentcohorts.
VIII. An ongoing fertility transition
The mean number of children per woman varies by a factor of two
FertilityinallthecountriesofSouthAsiawasstillhighintheearly1950s,
ranging from 5.7 childrenperwoman inSriLanka to 7.7in Afghanistan
(AppendixTableA.5).Atthattime,fertilityrateswerecomparableinIndia
andNepal(5.9and6.1childrenperwoman),substantiallyhigherinPakistan,
BangladeshandBhutan(6.6-6.7childrenperwoman),andevenhigherinthe
Maldives(7childrenperwoman)thoughstillbelowthelevelforAfghanistan
(7.7).
Between1950-1955and2000-2005,fertilitydeclinedsharplyinallcountries
of the region, except in Afghanistan where, according to United Nations
estimates,itcontinuedtofluctuatebetween7.5and8childrenperwoman.
Overthisfifty-yearperiod,themeannumberofchildrenperwomanfellby
around40%inNepalandPakistan,by47%inIndia,byover50%inBangladesh
andBhutan,by60%intheMaldivesandby65%inSriLanka.WomeninSri
Lankahadslightlyover2childrenonaveragein2000-2005andthefertility
transitionthereiscomplete,whereasinAfghanistanithasyettostart.Inthe
othercountriesthefertilitytransitionisunderway,thoughtheprocessismore
orlessadvanceddependingonthecountry:today,themeannumberofchildren
perwomanis2.8intheMaldivesand2.9inBhutan,3.1inIndiaand3.2in
Bangladesh,3.7inNepaland4.0inPakistan.Afghanistanisverymuchthe
exception(Figure3).
Inmostofthecountries,womenstillbegintheirreproductivelifevery
early,afactrelatedtoearlymarriageandthenotableabsenceofout-of-wedlock
31
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 31
23/06/2008 14:36:21
J. Véron
Figure 3. Total fertility rates from 19601965 to 2000-2005
8
TFR 2000-2005
Ined 013 08
Afghanistan
6
Nepal
4
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India
Bhutan
2
Maldives
Sri Lanka
0
0
2
4
6
8
TFR 1960-1965
Source: United Nations (2007a).
births(Table9).In2004,median
ageatfirstchildbirthinBangladesh
wasbelow18,bywhichagenearly
33%ofadolescentshavealready
startedchildbearing.InIndia,on
thebasisoftheNFHS-3survey
(2005-2006),medianageatfirst
childbirthis20.Theproportion
ofwomenaged15-19whohave
evergivenbirthrisesrapidlywith
age:1.3%at15years,4.1%at16,
8.6%at17,17.9%at18and29.7%
at19(17).InSriLanka,however,
childbearingbeginsmuchlater
andthisisnotarecentphenomenon:
in1987,meanageatfirstchildbirth
wasalready24years,andin2000
itwas23years.
Table 9. Median age at first birth (women aged 20-49) and proportion of
adolescents (women aged 15-19) who have started childbearing
Median age at first birth (in years)
25-29
Afghanistan
Bangladesh (2004)
Bhutan
India (2005-2006)
Maldives
40-49
Proportion of
adolescents who
have started
childbearing (in %)
–
–
–
17.7
16.9
32.7
–
–
–
19.9
20.2
12.1
–
–
–
Nepal (2006)
19.6
20.1
21.4
Pakistan (1990-1991)*
21.0
22.6
15.7
Sri Lanka (2000)
23.2**
–
* The most recent DHS survey for Pakistan dates from 2006 but the results are not yet available.
** Mean age at first birth.
Sources: DHS and NFHS-3 surveys.
Thepatternsofage-specificfertilityin2000-2005thatemergefromthe
UnitedNationsdatarevealtheprogressofthefertilitytransitionineachcountry
oftheregion(Table10andFigure4).Thetransitionhasnotyetbegunin
(17)Asever,theuseofregionaldatahighlightsthediversityofIndia:theproportionofwomenaged
15-19whohavehadalivebirthis12.1%forIndiaasawhole;itisonly2.1%inHimachalPradesh
andcloseto21%inJharkhand.
32
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 32
23/06/2008 14:36:21
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 10. Age-specific fertility rates in 2000-2005 in the countries
of South Asia (‰)
Country
Age
15-19
Age
20-24
Age
25-29
Age
30-34
Age
35-39
Age
40-44
Age
45-49
Afghanistan
131.9
356.9
378.3
276.9
195.8
101.3
54.7
Bangladesh
149.2
195.0
147.7
90.4
44.1
16.1
2.2
Bhutan
50.9
163.0
157.2
98.8
63.9
37.1
10.6
India
68.9
228.8
177.5
89.5
40.1
12.9
4.9
Maldives
26.2
146.2
162.6
123.7
75.2
22.7
4.8
122.2
231.2
184.0
114.4
63.0
17.2
4.4
Pakistan
22.0
166.3
233.1
193.0
112.0
52.1
20.4
Sri Lanka
28.3
70.2
109.4
100.3
71.7
22.0
2.1
Nepal
Source: United Nations, 2007a.
Figure 4. Age-specific fertility rates in 2000-2005
in the countries of South Asia
400
Age-specific fertility rates (‰)
Ined 014 08
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Age group
Source: United Nations (2007a).
Afghanistan,iscompleteinSriLanka,andisunderwayintheothercountries
ofSouthAsia.Thetrendin age-specificfertilityfollowsasimilarcourseinthe
Maldives,India,Bangladesh,BhutanandNepal,althoughtheratesateachage
maydiffer.Pakistandiffersfromtheothercountriesinhavingasubstantially
higherleveloffertilityfromthe25-29agegrouponwards,reflectinglower
levelsofcontraceptivepractice.
Betweenacountryattheendofthedemographictransition,likeSriLanka,
andonestillengagedinit,likeIndia,thetrendsinage-specificfertilitypresent
33
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 33
23/06/2008 14:36:22
J. Véron
Table 11a. Age-specific fertility rates in Sri Lanka between 1963 and 2000 (‰)
Age groups
1963
1975
1987
1993
2000
15-19
52
31
38
35
20-24
228
146
147
110
27
83
25-29
278
161
161
134
118
30-34
240
158
122
104
98
35-39
157
126
71
54
40
40-44
46
43
23
14
8
45-49
7
6
3
4
1
Sources: World Fertility Survey for 1975; DHS surveys for 1987, 1993 and 2000.
Table 11b. Age-specific fertility rates in India between 1970-1972
and 2005-2006 (‰)
Age groups
1970-1972
1980-1982
1992-1993
1998-1999
2005-2006
15-19
103
89
116
107
90
20-24
254
246
231
210
209
25-29
259
231
170
143
139
30-34
203
165
97
69
62
35-39
134
100
44
28
25
40-44
63
46
15
8
7
45-49
27
21
5
3
3
Sources: SRS for 1970-1972 and 1980-1982; NFHS for 1992-1993, 1998-1999 and 2005-2006.
sharpcontrasts(Tables11aand11b;Figures5aand5b).InSriLanka,afertility
declineatallagesbetween1963and2000wasexplainedbyahighlevelof
contraceptivepractice(70%contraceptiveprevalencein2000),whilerelatively
lowfertilityratesatyoungeragesareduetolatemarriage:thefertilityrateis
below30perthousandatages15-19andslightlyabove80perthousandat
ages20-24.ThemainfeatureofthefertilitytrendinIndiaisadeclineafter
age25.Theage-specificfertilityratestillstandsat90perthousandatages
15-19in2005-2006andexceeds200perthousandatages20-24.TheagespecificfertilitycurveforIndiaischaracteristicofapopulationinwhich
contraceptivepracticeiswellestablishedbutwherelaterentryintochildbearing,
resultingfromincreasedageatmarriageanduseofcontraceptionintheearly
yearsofunion,isnotyetwidespread.Wewillreturntothispointbelow.The
fertilityrateinBangladeshisevenhigherthaninIndiaatages15-19(135per
thousandin2004)butslightlyloweratages20-24(192versus209perthousand)
andsimilaratages25-29.InNepal,thefertilityratein2006islowerthanin
Bangladeshatages15-19(closeto100perthousand)butsubstantiallyhigher,
however,atages20-24(234perthousand).Atages25-29,fertilityistenpoints
higherthaninIndiaandBangladesh.
34
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 34
23/06/2008 14:36:22
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Figure 5a. Age-specific fertility rates in Sri Lanka, 1963-2000 (‰)
300
Rate (‰)
Ined 015 08
1963
1975
1987
1993
2000
250
200
150
100
50
0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Age group
Sources: 1963 census; World Fertility Survey 1975; DHS surveys 1987, 1993 and 2000.
Figure 5b. Age-specific fertility rates in India between 1970-1972
and 2005-2006
300
Rate (‰)
Ined 016 08
SRS 1970-1972
SRS 1980-1982
NFHS 1992-1993
NFHS 1998-1998
NFHS 2005-2006
250
200
150
100
50
0
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
Age group
Sources: Véron, 1997, and NFHS, 2005-2006.
Thesurveysconductedsince2000revealfertilitydifferencesthatvaryby
placeofresidence,butmostmarkedlybywomen’seducationallevel(Table12).
Whiletheurban-ruralfertilitydifferencesarenon-negligible:0.7childrenper
womaninBangladeshin2004,0.9inIndiain2005-2006and1.2inNepalin
35
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 35
23/06/2008 14:36:23
J. Véron
Table 12. Total fertility rate by women’s place of residence and
educational level
Place of
residence
Educational level
Completed
Completed
Incomplete primary or
At least 10 years
Urban Rural Illiterate
secondary
primary intermediate
of education
or higher
level
Bangladesh
1999-2000
2.45
3.54
4.12
3.30
3.42
2.40
–
–
2004
2.50
3.20
3.60
3.30
2.90
2.20
–
–
1993
2.70
3.67
4.03
3.01
2.49
2.15
–
–
1998-1999
2.27
3.07
3.47
2.64
2.26
1.99
–
–
2005-2006
2.06
2.98
3.55
2.45*
2.51**
2.23***
1996
2.85
4.83
5.08
–
3.78
2.51
–
–
2006
2.10
3.30
3.90
2.80
2.30
1.80
–
–
4.90
5.60
5.70
4.90
4.50
3.60
–
–
India
2.08**** 1.8*****
Nepal
Pakistan
1990-1991
* less than 5 years of education, ** 5-7 years of education, ***8-9 years of education, ****10-11 years of
education, *****12 years or more of education.
Sources: DHS and NFHS surveys.
2006,thedifferencesbywomen’seducationallevelareverywideeverywhere.
InBangladesh,womenwithnoeducationhaveonaverage3.6childrenversus
only2.2forthemosteducatedwomen.InIndia,womenwithnoeducation
haveidenticalfertilitytocomparablewomeninBangladeshwhereashighly
educatedwomen–with12yearsormoreofeducation–currentlyhaveonly
1.8children.InNepalin2006,thereisadifferenceoftwochildrenbetween
womenofthelowestandhighesteducationallevels.Inthisregionasinthe
restoftheworld,educationisakeyvariableinthefertilitytransition.
Thechangesinnetreproductionrates(18)summarizethechangesinmortality
andfertility.Withanetreproductionrateof0.96daughtersperwomanin
2000-2005(TableA.5),itappearsthatthepopulationofSriLankaisnotquite
replacingitself.Overthesameperiod,thenetreproductionrateforAfghanistan
remainedhigh,ataround2.3.Fortheothercountries,thenetreproduction
rateisbetween1.2(MaldivesandBhutan)and1.7(Pakistan).
(18)Thenetreproductionrateofabirthcohortistheratioofthenumberofdaughtersborntothe
womenofthiscohorttothenumberofthesewomenatbirth.Theperiodnetreproductionrateisthe
equivalentmeasurecalculatedusingcross-sectionaldata.Anetreproductionrateofonemeansthat
thecohortexactlyreplacesitself(itssizeisconstant).
36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 36
23/06/2008 14:36:23
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Fertility is linked to social and health development
Theinverserelationshipbetweenfertilityanddevelopmentisgenerally
confirmedbyacountry-by-countrycomparisonoftotalfertilityratesforthe
period2000-2005withthehumandevelopmentindexfor2004.Thecountries
wherefertilityishighesttendtobethoseforwhichthedevelopmentindicators
arelowest(Figure6).Forexample,fertilityinNepalandPakistanismuch
higherthaninSriLanka,whilethehumandevelopmentindexismuchlower.
However,thisrelationshipisnotverystrong:thedevelopmentindicatorsfor
BhutanandPakistanarevirtuallyidenticalwhereasthefertilitydifference
betweenthetwocountriesisofonechildperwoman;fertilityinBhutanis
practicallythesameasintheMaldives(2.91and2.81childrenperwomanin
2000-2005, respectively), while the human development index shows a
substantialdifference(0.54inBhutan,0.74intheMaldives).Thecoefficient
ofdeterminationR2forthisrelationshipisslightlyabove0.6.
Thecorrelation–positivethistime–betweenfertilityandinfantmortality
isalsoobservedovertheperiod2000-2005.InSriLanka,lowfertilityis
combinedwithlowinfantmortality,whileinAfghanistanfertilityandinfant
mortalityarebothhigh(Figure7).Thecoefficientofdeterminationiscloseto
0.98,indicatingaparticularlystrongcorrelation.Thispositivecorrelation
betweenfertilityandinfantmortalityisobservedinallworldregions(Tabutin
and Schoumaker, 2004; Tabutin and Schoumaker, 2005; Guzman et al.,
2006).
Figure 6. Relationship between total fertility rate in 2000-2005
and human development index in 2004
4.5
TFR 2000-2005
Ined 017 08
Pakistan
4.0
Nepal
3.5
India
Bangladesh
3.0
Maldives
Bhutan
R2 = 0.6112
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.40
Sri Lanka
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
HDI 2004
Sources: United Nations (2007a) and UNDP (2006).
37
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 37
23/06/2008 14:36:24
J. Véron
Figure 7. Relationship between total fertility rate
and infant mortality rate, 2000-2005
8
TFR 2000-2005
Ined 018 08
Afghanistan
7
6
5
Pakistan
4
3
Sri Lanka
2
Nepal
Bhutan
Bangladesh
India
Maldives
R2 = 0.979
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
Infant mortality rate (‰)
Source: United Nations (2007a).
Fertilitydeclineisrelatedtoeconomicandsocialdevelopmentbutcan
alsoresult,atleastpartially,fromtheimplementationofpopulationpolicies.
ThecaseofIndiaisinterestinginthisrespect.Intheearly1950sitwasthe
firstmajorcountrytoinitiateafamilyplanningprogramme,andthentoattempt
averitablepopulationpolicy(Srinivasan,1995).Thepaceofpopulationgrowth
acceleratedinsubsequentdecades,andthetargets,notablyforthebirthrate,
provedover-ambitiousandhadtoberevisedseveraltimes(RajanandVéron,
2006).Thisdoesnotmeanthatthefamilyplanningprogrammeshadnoeffect
atall,sinceatthistimeIndia’spopulationwasgettingyounger,withthe
consequencethatthebirthratedecreasedlessthanfertility.However,without
“modernization”(19),thefertilitytransitionwouldcertainlyhavebeenmuch
slower(Visaria,1995;VisariaandVisaria,1995).
Wide disparities in fertility still exist in India
Attheregionallevel,thehistoryofthefertilitytransitioninIndiabreaks
downintothreephases:anearlyfertilitydeclineconfinedtoKeralastatein
the1960s;emergenceofadivisionbetweenlowfertilityinthesouthandhigh
fertilityinthenorthinthe1970sand1980s;ageneralizeddeclineinthe
subsequentperiod,thoughwithlargedifferencespersistingin2005.
(19)The term “modernization” generally refers to improvements in the education and general
statusofwomen,andtourbanization,industrializationandthedevelopmentofcommunications
(transportationandmedia).
38
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 38
23/06/2008 14:36:25
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 13. Fertility changes in Kerala and in India
(number of children per woman)
Year
Kerala
India
Censuses
1951-1961
1961-1971
1971-1981
5.60
5.00
3.40
6.30
6.00
5.20
SRS
1981-1985
1994
2.60
1.70
4.50
3.50
NFHS
1990-1992
1996-1998
2005-2006
2.00
1.96
1.93
3.39
2.85
2.68
Sources: Mari Bhat and Rajan (1997), SRS, NFHS, NFHS-2 and NFHS-3.
Inthe1950s,fertilityinIndiaasawholestillstoodat6.3childrenper
woman(20),butitwasalreadyslightlylower–5.6children–inthesouthern
IndianstateofKerala(Table13).Keralaisthestatewherefertilitydeclined
earliest.Thetotalfertilityratefellthereto5intheperiod1961-1971,while
forIndiaasawholeitheldsteadyat6childrenperwoman.Thegapwidened
inthefollowingyears.AccordingtotheNFHS-2,fertilityinKeralawasbelow
2childrenperwomanintheperiod1996-1998.Indeed,for1994theSample
RegistrationSystemgaveavalueforfertilityhalfthatofthenationalvalue:
1.7versus3.5.Themostrecentsurvey(NFHS-3)findsadifferenceof0.75children
perwomanbetweenKeralaandIndiaasawhole.Manystudieshaveattempted
toexplainthereasonsforthesingularcourseoffertilitychangeinKerala
(ZachariahandPatel,1984;MariBhatandRajan,1997).Thehigheducational
levelofwomenandthepoliticalspecificityofKerala–astatethatbecame
communistin1957withtheaimofreducingsocioeconomicinequalitiesand
improvingthehealthofthepopulation–haveoftenbeeninvokedtoaccount
forthisearlierdemographictransition.Inreality,changewasofanextremely
generalnature(RajanandVéron,2006).Improvementswereindeedmadein
theeducationofwomen,butbothageatmarriage(21)andcontraceptiveprevalence
alsoincreasedconsiderably.Programmeswerealsosetuptopromotematernal
andchildhealth, and in 1985thegovernmentlaunched a programme of
universalvaccination,oneresultofwhichwastomakethepopulationmore
familiarwiththehealthservices.Thisprogrammeseemstohavebeenas
importantasspecificfamilyplanninginitiativesinmakingcouplesgivemore
(20)Periodfertilityisestimatedat5.8childrenperwomanfortheyears1881-1891;itthenfluctuates
aroundthisvaluebeforeexceeding6childrenperwomanintheearly1950s(MariBhat,1989).
(21)ForZachariah,30%ofthefertilitydeclineintheperiod1968-1978resultedfromtheincrease
inageatmarriage(Zachariah,1997).
39
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 39
23/06/2008 14:36:25
J. Véron
Table 14. Total fertility rate in the northern and southern states of India
in the 1990s (number of children per woman)
Region and state
1980-1982
1990-1992
1996-1998
Uttar Pradesh
5.8
4.82
3.99
Bihar
5.7
4.00
3.49
Madhya Pradesh
5.2
3.91
3.31
Rajasthan
5.4
3.63
3.78
Andhra Pradesh
3.9
2.59
2.25
Karnataka
3.6
2.85
2.13
Tamil Nadu
3.4
2.48
2.19
Kerala
2.9
2.00
1.96
4.5
3.39
2.85
Northern states
Southern states
India
Sources: Visaria (2004), NFHS and NFHS-2.
thoughttothe“quality”ofchildren,knowntobeafactorinfertilityreduction
(Zachariahetal.,1994).ThestateofKeraladidnothaveaparticularlyadvanced
levelofeconomicdevelopment,norwasithighlyurbanized.Itoffersanexample
ofatransitionlinkednottoeconomicdevelopmentorurbanizationbutto
changesinthesocialsphere,andinthissenseitdidnotfollowthestandard
patternoftransition.Thereafter,Kerala’sdemographicsingularitygaveway
toanorth-southdivisionofIndia.
ThefertilitytransitioninIndiaduringthe1990swascharacterizedby
largefertilitydifferencesbetweenthecountry’snorthernandsouthernstates(22)
(NairandVéron,2002).Atthattime,fertilityinthesouthernstates–Kerala,
TamilNadu,KarnatakaandAndhraPradesh–was2childrenperwoman,
whereaswomeninthenorthernstates–UttarPradesh,Bihar,MadhyaPradesh
andRajasthan–werestillproducing3-4childrenonaverage(Table14).No
singlefactorcanaccountforthesecontrastsinfertility(Véron,2000).Levels
ofinfantmortalityandfertilityarecertainlybothlowerinthesouthernstates,
butthechangingrelationshipovertimebetweenthesetwoindicatorsvaries
fromstatetostate,asthecovariationintheseindicatorsovertheperiod
1981-1994shows.OnFigure8,eachdotrepresentsacombinationoffertility
andinfantmortalityatagivenpointintime,andeachbrokenlineplotsthe
covariationinfertilityandinfantmortalityinonestatebetween1981and
1994.Overthisperiod,thecombinedfertilityandinfantmortalityvaluesare
consistentlylowerinthefoursouthernstatesthaninthenorthernstates,and
(22)The contrast between north and south is widely used, but a more precise classification of
Indianstatesdistinguishesthestatesofthenorth-east,thecentre,thenorth,etc.Referencehereis
tothestandarddistinction.
40
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 40
23/06/2008 14:36:25
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Figure 8. Covariation in infant mortality and fertility in the northern
and southern states of India, 1981-1994
7
Mean number of children per woman
Ined 019 08
6
5
Northern states
4
3
2
Southern states
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Infant mortality rate (‰)
Source: Véron and Naïr, 2000.
thetwodistinctgroupsareidentifiedclearlyinFigure8.Thusthebrokenline
furthesttotheleftonFigure8representsthiscovariationoffertilityand
infantmortalityinKeralabetween1981and1994.Itisseenthatinsomeyears
fertilityhasfallensubstantiallywithoutanyclearreductionininfantmortality.
Generallyspeaking,atstatelevel,nocloserelationshipbetweenfertilityand
infant mortalityisobserved. Variationin oneofthese indicators maybe
accompaniedbynoclearchange,orevenbyanincreaseintheother,thus
producingasomewhaterratictrajectoryovertime.Theothervariablesusually
consideredhaveequallylimitedexplanatorypower.Thoughthestatesinthe
northofIndiaarelessurbanizedthanthoseinthesouth,andfertilityis
invariablylowerinurbanthaninruralareas,thedegreeofurbanizationdoes
notexplainthefertilitylevelinastate:BiharislessurbanizedthanUttar
Pradesh,yetfertilitywaslowerthereintheearly1990s,andKerala,though
lessurbanizedthanTamilNadu,alsohadlowerfertility(Table15).Thescale
offertilitydifferencesbetweenurbanandruralareasvarieswidelywithin
states.Ruralfertilityexceedsurbanfertilityby8%inTamilNaduwhilethe
differenceis45%inUttarPradesh.Arelationshipalsoexistsbetweenfemale
levelofeducationandfertility:moreeducatedwomenhavefewerchildren.
Onitsown,however,theeducationallevelofmothersdoesnotexplainthe
fertilitydifferences:in1991-1992,fertilityamongilliteratewomenranged,for
anationalaverageof4children,from2.31inKeralato5.36inUttarPradesh.
Fertilityalsoriseswiththeproportionofpeoplelivingbelowthepovertyline.
However,comparableproportionslivingbelowthepovertyline(43%inMadhya
41
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 41
23/06/2008 14:36:26
J. Véron
Table 15. Urbanization and fertility in India in the early 1990s
Region
and state
Percentage
urban
Total fertility rate (number
of children per woman)
Urban areas
Rural areas
Ratio of rural
fertility to
urban fertility*
Northern States
Uttar Pradesh
19.9
3.58
5.19
145
Bihar
13.2
3.25
4.15
128
Madhya Pradesh
23.2
3.27
4.11
126
Rajasthan
22.9
2.77
3.87
140
Andhra Pradesh
26.8
2.35
2.67
114
Karnataka
30.9
2.39
3.09
129
Tamil Nadu
34.2
2.36
2.54
108
Kerala
26.4
1.78
2.09
117
25.7
2.70
3.67
136
Southern States
India
* Ratio of mean number of children per woman in rural areas to mean number of children per woman in urban
areas (as a percentage).
Sources: census of 1991; NFHS 1992-1993.
Pradeshand45%inTamilNadu)canbeassociatedwithverydifferentfertility
levels(3.9and2.5childrenperwoman,respectively).Equally,thedifferences
infertilitybetweenstatesarenotexplainedbythereligiouscompositionof
thepopulation,eventhoughatthenationallevelthenumberofchildrenper
womandoesvarybyreligion(withadifferenceofoneadditionalchildfor
MuslimsrelativetoHindusin1990-1992).InTamilNadu,MuslimandHindu
womenproducethesamenumberofchildren,whereasthefertilityofHindus
in1990-1992rangedfrom1.7childrenperwomaninKeralato4.7inUttar
Pradesh(23).
ThemostrecentdataforIndia,takenfromNFHS-3,showpersistently
strongspatialdisparitiesinfertility,rangingfrom1.79childrenperwomanin
GoaandAndhraPradeshto4inBihar(Table16).Replacingthenorth-south
divisionofIndiabyafinergeographicalsubdivision–thatsplitsthecountry
intonorth,centre,east,north-east,westandsouth–doesnotcauseany
homogeneousregionstoappearalthoughthepreviousdemarcationlines
disappear.Thus,underthepartitioningforNFHS-3,whatistermedthenorth
regioncontainsHimachalPradeshwherefertilitywas1.94childrenperwoman
andRajasthanwhereitwas3.21childrenperwoman.Inthenorth-eastregion,
fertilityrangesfrom2.02inSikkimto3.80inMeghalaya.Thesouthernstates,
however,remainrelativelyhomogeneousintermsoffertility,whichiseverywhere
atsub-replacementlevel.
(23)SeeGandotraetal.,1998foradetailedanalysisoftheseregionaldifferences.
42
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 42
23/06/2008 14:36:26
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 16. Total fertility rate (number of children per woman) in the states
of India in 1990-1992, 1996-1998 and 2005-2006
State
1990-1992
1996-1998
2005-2006
North
Delhi
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Punjab
Rajasthan
Uttarakhand
3.02
3.99
2.97
–
2.92
3.63
–
2.40
2.88
2.14
2.71
2.21
3.78
–
2.13
2.69
1.94
2.38
1.99
3.21
2.55
Centre
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
–
3.90
4.82
–
3.31
3.99
2.62
3.12
3.82
East
Bihar
Jharkhand
Orissa
West Bengal
4.00
–
2.92
2.92
3.49
–
2.46
2.29
4.00
3.31
2.37
2.27
North-east
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
Tripura
4.25
3.53
2.76
3.73
2.30
3.26
–
–
2.52
2.31
3.04
4.57
2.89
3.77
2.75
–
3.03
2.42
2.83
3.80
2.86
3.74
2.02
2.22
West
Goa
Gujarat
Maharashtra
1.90
2.99
2.86
1.77
2.72
2.52
1.79
2.42
2.11
South
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
2.59
2.85
2.00
2.48
2.25
2.13
1.96
2.19
1.79
2.07
1.93
1.80
India
3.39
2.85
2.68
Source: NFHS, NFHS-2 and NFHS-3.
Thestagereachedinthefertilitytransitionineachstatedependsonthe
levelofdevelopment,butnosingledominantfactorcanbeidentified.Thus
whilethepooreststatesareindeedthosewherefertilityremainshighest,the
correlationbetweenthemeannumberofchildrenperwomanandtheproportion
ofthepopulationlivingbelowthepovertylineislessthan0.40,andthesame
proportionofpeoplelivingbelowthepovertylinecanbeassociatedwithsharply
contrastedfertilitylevels.Inthemid2000s,fertilityinIndiawasonaverage
43
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 43
23/06/2008 14:36:26
J. Véron
2.68childrenperwomanand21.8%ofthepopulationlivedbelowthepoverty
line,yetforsimilarfertilitylevels,asinGujaratandOrissa(2.42and2.37children
perwoman,respectively)theassociatedproportionsinpovertydivergedwidely:
12.5%ofthepopulationintheformerand39.9%inthelatter.
Thedifficultyofidentifyingsimpledeterminantsoffertilityattheaggregate
levelofstateswasclearlyillustratedseveralyearsagobyamultivariateanalysis
oftherelationshipbetweenfertilityandwomen’seducation,whichalsoconsidered
theindirecteffectsoffemaleeducationviainfantmortalityandageatmarriage
(SharmaandRetherford,1990).Themodel’sexplanatorypowerwasnotimproved
byintroducingthelevelofurbanization.Whentheresidualsweremapped,the
deviationsfromthevalueexplainedbythemodelexhibitedgeographical
contiguitybysize,suggestingtheinfluenceofregionalorlocalfactors(religion,
customs,andsuchlike).Thecomplexityoftheprocessesatworkwashighlighted
inageographical analysisofthefertility transitionin southernIndia by
C.Z.GuilmotoandI.S.Rajan(2005),whichshowedthattheexplanationneeds
toincludefamilyplanningprogrammes,socioeconomictransformations,and
changingreproductiveattitudes,andtakeintoaccountlocalcontextsandthe
changesaffectingthem.Theseauthorsalsoviewedthereductioninfertilityas
theconsequenceofasocialchangethatdiffusedgraduallybetweenneighbouring
populations(GuilmotoandRajan,1998and2001).
IX. Diversity in attitudes and behaviour towards contraception
Varying levels of contraceptive practice
ThedataoncontraceptioninthecountriesofSouthAsia,thoughvariable
inbothquantityandquality(UnitedNations,2005),areadequatetoshowthe
diversityofattitudesandbehaviourtowardscontraception(Figure9).While
contraceptionremainspracticallynon-existentinAfghanistan,wherefewer
than 5% of women aged 15-49 in unions use any method, contraceptive
prevalenceinSriLankaalreadystoodatthehighlevelof70%in2000.The
situationintheothercountriesisalsovaried:theproportionofwomen(24)
usingsomeformofcontraceptionis18.8%inBhutan,27.6%inPakistan,39.3%
inNepal,48.2%inIndiaand58.1%inBangladesh.
Theuseofmoderncontraceptionalsovariesconsiderablybetweencountries.
InBhutan,barely19%ofwomeninaunionandofchildbearingageuseany
meansofcontraception(25),butmodernmethodsareusedexclusively:3%are
protectedbyfemalesterilization,8%bymalesterilization,2%bythepill,4%
byinjectionorimplant,1%byIUD,andfewerthan0.5%byuseofthecondom.
Bycontrast,moderncontraceptionrepresentsonly73%oftotalcontraception
(24)Asbefore,thesearewomenaged15-49,marriedorinaunion.
(25)Thedataarelessrecentthanthosefortheothercountries,anddatefrom1994.
44
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 44
23/06/2008 14:36:27
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Figure 9. Contraceptive prevalence in the countries of
South Asia in the 2000s
80
Prevalence (%)
Ined 020 08
70
Any method
Modern method
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
tan
nis
a
fgh
A
B
esh
lad
g
an
n
uta
Bh
ia
Ind
ves
ldi
Ma
l
pa
Ne
tan
kis
Pa
Sri
ka
Lan
Source: United Nations (2005).
inPakistanand71%inSriLanka.However,theproportionsofwomenusing
moderncontraceptionarehighestinIndia,BangladeshandSriLanka,which
togetheraccountfornearly50%ofallthewomenconcerned.
Thecondomisnotwidelyusedinthisregion.Thehighestproportionof
users(5.5%ofallwomenofchildbearingageinaunion)isobservedinPakistan.
UseoftheIUDisequallylimited,withthehighestproportion(5.1%)observed
inSriLanka.ThepillispopularonlyinBangladesh,whereitisusedby26%
ofallwomeninaunion,representing45%ofwomenusingsomemethodof
contraception.IntheMaldives,wherecontraceptiveprevalenceis42%,itsuse
isonlyhalfasfrequent,andSriLanka,thethirdcountrywherethismethod
isinuse,hasonly6.7%ofusers.Voluntarysterilization,mainlyfemale,is
widelyemployedbycouplesinSouthAsiaforlimitingfamilysize.Among
womenofchildbearingagesintheMaldives,10%areprotectedbyfemale
sterilization,andtheproportionsare15%inNepal,21%inSriLankaand
34.2%inIndia.InSouthAsia,aselsewhereintheworld,thereisaclearinverse
relationshipbetweenfertilityandcontraception(Figure10).
Sterilization is the main birth control method in India
Attitudestowardsfemaleandmalesterilizationareextremelydiversein
thisworldregion.Sterilizationisnon-existentinAfghanistan,andisnotwidely
practisedinBhutan,BangladeshandPakistan(ofthesethemaximumisin
Pakistan,where7%ofwomeninaunionareprotectedbyfemalesterilization).
Asmentioned,theproportionofwomenaged15-49relyingonsterilizationto
45
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 45
23/06/2008 14:36:27
J. Véron
Figure 10. Relationship between the total fertility rate and contraceptive
prevalence (all methods) in the 2000s
8
TFR
Ined 021 08
Afghanistan (2000)
7
6
5
Pakistan (2000-2001)
4
India (2005-2006)
Nepal (2006)
3
Bhutan (1994)
Bangladesh (2004)
Maldives (1999)
Sri Lanka (2000)
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
Contraceptive prevalence (%)
Source: United Nations (2006a).
regulatetheirfertilityissubstantiallyhigherelsewhere,butIndiastandsout
fromtheothercountries,sinceoverathirdofallwomenareconcerned(26).
Malesterilizationforbirthcontrolpurposes,ontheotherhand,iseverywhere
atalowlevel,withtheexceptionofBhutanwhere8%ofwomeninaunion
areprotectedbythesterilizationoftheirspouseorpartnerand3%bytheir
ownsterilization.
Recoursetosterilization,andessentiallyfemalesterilization,hasbeen
widespreadinIndiasincethemid1980s(RajanandVéron,2006).In2005-2006,
66%ofmarriedwomenaged15-49hadbeensterilized,andtheproportionwas
77%amongthoseusingmoderncontraception,whereasonly1%wereprotected
bysterilizationoftheirhusband.Trendsoverthelastfifteenyearsincontraception
andintherelativeimportanceofsterilizationcanbefollowedusingthethree
NFHS surveys conducted in India (Table17). Between 1992-1993 and
2005-2006,contraceptiveprevalenceincreasedby15percentagepoints,taking
tooveronehalftheproportionofwomenofchildbearingageandinaunionwho
nowusecontraception,against41%atthestartofthe1990s.Overalongperiod,
sterilizationandinparticularmalesterilizationwasencouragedinIndia(27),
(26)The prevalence of female sterilization for contraception is slightly higher in India than in
China (34.2% and 33.5% respectively) but lower than in Brazil (40%), Puerto Rico (45.5%) and
theDominicanRepublic(45.8%).ThevalueforCanadais30.6%,makingitthedevelopedcountry
wherecontroloffertilitythroughfemalesterilizationismostcommon.
(27)FormoredetailsonthehistoryofsterilizationinIndia,andinparticulartheapparentshift
awayfromstateprovisionofmalesterilizationtowardsfemalesterilizationsolicitedbycouples,see
RajanandVéron(2006).
46
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 46
23/06/2008 14:36:28
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 17. Contraceptive methods used in India in the 1990s and 2000s
(prevalence in %)
Contraceptive method used
1992-1993
1998-1999
2005-2006
All methods
40.7
48.4
56.3
Modern methods
36.5
42.8
48.5
27.4
34.2
37.3
Male sterilization
3.5
1.9
1.0
Condom
2.4
3.1
5.2
Pill
1.2
2.1
3.1
IUD
1.9
1.6
1.7
4.3
5.6
7.8
Female sterilization
Traditional methods
Population: women aged 15-49 living in union.
Sources: NFHS, NFHS-2 and NFHS-3.
untiltheexcessescommittedduringthestateofemergency(1975-1977)led
thecentralgovernmenttoissuestatementsinfavourofreversiblemethodsof
contraception.Inspiteofthis,femalesterilizationremainsbyfarthemost
commonmeansusedbyIndiancouplesforcontrollingtheirfertility,andeven
increasedbyafurther10percentagepointsbetween1992-1993and2005-2006.
Officialpronouncementsintendedtopromotemaleratherthanfemalesterilization
havehadlittleeffect.Theproportionofcouplesrelyingonmalesterilization
hasremainedsmallandhasactuallydeclinedoverthelastfifteenyears.Allin
all,couplesjudgefemalesterilizationtobethesimplestmeansofcontrolling
theirfertility:77%ofsterilizedwomenhavechosenthisoptiondirectlywithout
previouslyusinganothermethodofbirthcontrol.Ageatsterilizationistending
todecrease:themedianageofwomenatsterilizationfellfrom26.6in1992-1993
to25.5in2005-2006.Of100sterilizedwomeninthemostrecentsurvey,38were
sterilizedatage20-25and35atage25-30.
Country-widedataonsterilizationinIndiaconceallargeregionaldisparities.
Only8%ofcouplesareprotectedbyfemalesterilizationinthestateofManipur
against63%inAndhraPradesh;andwhereaswomen’smedianageatsterilization
is30intheformer,itisalittleover23inthelatter.
X. Overall mortality decline, but widely separated extremes
A general improvement in life expectancy
Asintherestoftheworld,mortalityhasdeclinedinallcountriesofthe
regionsince1950(Figure11andTable18).Theregion’stwoextremesare
Afghanistan,wherelifeexpectancyatbirthisamongthelowestintheworld
(42yearsin2000-2005),andSriLanka,wherethemeanlengthoflife,close
to71yearsin2000-2005,(i.e.nearly30yearslonger)isabovetheworldaverage.
47
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 47
23/06/2008 14:36:28
J. Véron
Figure 11. Life expectancy at birth, 1950-2005 (in years)
75
Life expectancy (years)
Ined 022 08
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
1950-1955
Afghanistan
Maldives
1960-1965
1970-1975
Bangladesh
Nepal
1980-1985
Bhutan
Pakistan
1990-1995
2000-2005
Years
India
Sri Lanka
Source: United Nations (2006).
Theothercountriesareinintermediatepositions.Althoughthemortality
transitionsinthesecountriesdifferinsomerespects,theincreasesinlife
expectancyatbirtharecloselycomparable,andin2000-2005thepopulations
ofBangladesh,Bhutan,India,theMaldives,NepalandPakistanallhadlengths
oflifebetween61and66years.ThesecountriesareclosingthegapwithSri
Lanka,wheretherateofprogressisslowingsomewhat,althoughin2000-2005,
lifeexpectancytherewasstillfiveyearslongerthanintheMaldives,thetoprankingintermediategroupcountry.
Genderdifferencesinmortalityhavealsoevolvedsubstantiallyoverthe
lastfiftyyears.Intheearly1950s,lifeexpectancyatbirthwaslowerforwomen
thanformenineverycountryoftheregionexceptBhutan,asisshownbythe
indexbasedonthefemale/maleratiooflifeexpectanciesatbirth(Figure12).
Thisresultwasindirectcontradictionwiththebiologicalnormsthatare
responsibleformenhavinghighermortalitythanwomenatallagesandthat,
intheabsenceofsexdiscrimination,leadtoashorterlifeexpectancyformales
thanforfemales.In1950-1955,thisindexstoodattheparticularlylowlevel
of94intheMaldivesandinPakistan,indicatingalargefemalemortality
disadvantage.Themaleadvantagehasdisappearedineverycountryoverthe
lastfiftyyears.In2000-2005,thelifeexpectanciesatbirthofmenandwomen
inAfghanistanandtheMaldiveswereidentical.Elsewhere,womenareliving
longerthanmen.ThemostfavourablerelativesituationforwomenisinSri
Lanka,wheretheratiois112(Figure12).Inthepast,thefemalelifeexpectancy
48
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 48
23/06/2008 14:36:29
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table 18. Life expectancy since the 1950s, maternal mortality in 2000
and HIV prevalence in 2005
Life expectancy (in years)
Country
Maternal
HIV
mortality prevalence
rate
rate at
2000in 2000
ages 15-49
2005 (per 100,000 in 2005
births)
(%)
19501955
19601965
19701975
19801985
19901995
Afghanistan
28.8
32.0
36.1
39.9
41.7
42.1
1,900
< 0.1
Bangladesh
37.5
41.2
45.3
50.0
56.0
62.0
380
< 0.1
Bhutan
36.1
37.7
41.8
47.9
54.5
63.5
420
< 0.1
India
37.4
43.6
50.7
56.6
60.2
62.9
540
0.9
Maldives
38.9
45.2
51.4
57.1
61.0
65.6
110
–
Nepal
36.2
39.4
44.0
49.6
55.7
61.3
740
0.5
Pakistan
43.4
47.7
51.9
56.2
60.8
63.6
500
0.1
Sri Lanka
57.6
62.2
65.0
68.8
70.4
70.8
92
< 0.1
Sources: United Nations (2007a), WHO and UNAIDS.
disadvantagewasexplainedinpartbymaternalmortality,butthiswasnot
theonlyfactorinvolved.Lifetablesfortheyears1945-1947inSriLanka,and
for1970-1972inIndia,showanexcessfemalemortalityatallagesfrombirth
uptoaroundage40(ESCAP,1982)duetosexinequalityinlevelsofcare,
attentionandeducation.Discriminationagainstgirlsstillexists,particularly
incertainstatesofIndia.Itoccurschieflybeforebirthand,inthecountries
wherethesituationinthisrespectisleastfavourable,women’slifeexpectancy
isatminimumequaltomen’s.Levelsofmaternalmortalitystilldivergewidely
today:thenumberofmaternaldeathsper100,000birthsis92inSriLanka
andestimatedat1,900inAfghanistan(Table18).
AlthoughthenumbersofHIV-positivepersonscanbelargebecauseof
populationsize–inIndiaespecially(28)–prevalenceratesforHIV/AIDSremain
relativelylowintheregion.ThemaximumisobservedinNepalwheretherate
amongpersonsaged15-49is0.5%comparedwithaworldaverageof0.8%(29).
Theprevalencerateof0.9%initiallygivenforIndiain2005wassubsequently
reviseddownwardsonthebasisoftheresultsfromNFHS-3(30)whichfounda
prevalencerateof0.28%inthe15-49agegroup.Theepidemicaffectsmenmore
thanwomen,andurbanmorethanruralpopulations(Table19).Italsoaffects
(28)ThefirstcasesofAIDSinIndiawererecordedin1986.Serologicaltestsshowedthatamong
102prostitutes tested in Chennai (Madras), 10 were HIV positive. However, the Indian health
authoritiesdidnottakeimmediatestepstocombattheepidemic,believingthathigh-risksexual
behaviourwasexceptionalinIndia(multiplepartners,inparticular,wereuncommon).
(29)TheHIVprevalenceratefortheadultpopulationis5%inSub-SaharanAfrica.
(30)ThisisthefirstsurveyinIndiatoincludeasectiononHIVtesting.
49
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 49
23/06/2008 14:36:29
J. Véron
Figure 12. Differential mortality index in 1950-1955 and 2000-2005
(female/male ratio of life expectancies at birth)
115
Index
Ined 023 08
1950-1955
110
2000-2005
105
100
95
90
85
80
tan
nis
a
fgh
A
sh
de
Ba
la
ng
uta
Bh
n
ia
Ind
ves
ldi
Ma
Ne
l
pa
tan
kis
Pa
ka
Lan
Sri
Interpretation: The value 100 represents equality.
Source: Based on United Nations (2006a) data.
thestatesofIndiaindifferentways,asshownbytheregionalvariationsin
prevalence(menandwomencombined):0.07%inUttarPradesh,0.34%inTamil
Nadu,0.62inMaharahtra,0.69%inKarnataka,0.97%inAndhraPradeshand
1.13%inManipur(prevalenceintheotherstatesis0.13%)(31).Amongwomen,
theprevalencerateislowerforthosewithnoeducationthanforthosewithat
leastfiveyearsofeducation(0.27%and0.49%respectively)butthendeclinesas
educationallevelrises(0.07%forwomenwithatleast12yearsineducation).
Amongmen,therateishighestforthosewithnoeducation(0.5%).Itislower
Table 19. HIV/AIDS prevalence rate in the adult population (aged 15-49)
in India, 2005-2006 (in %)
Women
Men
Overall
Urban areas
0.29
0.41
0.35
Rural areas
0.18
0.32
0.25
Total
0.22
0.36
0.28
Source: NFHS-3 survey.
(31)InManipur,theHIVprevalencerateamongmenaged15-54isdoublethatamongwomenaged
15-49(1.59%against0.79%).ExceptinTamilNaduwhereitislowerthanthatforwomen,themale
prevalencerateeverywhereelseishigherthanthefemalerate,thoughtoalesserdegree.
50
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 50
23/06/2008 14:36:29
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
forthosewithatleastfiveyearsofeducation(0.36%)thenrisesagainforthose
withbetweenfiveandsevenyearsofeducationandsubsequentlyfallswith
lengthofeducation(theprevalencerateis0.16%formenwithmorethan12years
ineducation).Wenotethatthehighestprevalenceratesareobservedforwomen
whohadsexualintercoursewithahigh-riskpartnerinthe12monthsbefore
thesurvey(rate2.23%)andforthosewhodidnotuseacondom(rate2.83%).
Prevalenceratesformeninthesamecategoriesareconsiderablylower.
ForanumberofcountriesinSouthAsia,the2005UnitedNationsreport
onmortalitygivesvaluesformaleandfemalelifeexpectancyatbirthandat
ages15and60attwoseparateperiodsintime(Table20).Thedeclinein
Table 20. Male and female life expectancy at birth, at age 15 and at age 60
(in years)
Country
Years
Men
Women
Years
Men
Women
Afghanistan
–
–
–
–
–
–
Bangladesh
At birth
1974
45.8
46.6
1994
58.7
58.3
Age 15
1974
46.3
46.1
1994
53.0
51.4
Age 60
1974
14.4
14.0
1994
15.1
15.0
–
–
–
–
–
–
At birth
1961-1970
46.4
44.7
1993-1997
60.4
61.8
Age 15
1961-1971
45.0
44.0
1993-1998
53.1
55.8
Age 60
1961-1972
13.6
13.8
1993-1999
15.5
17.5
At birth
1982
53.4
49.5
1999
72.1
73.2
Age 15
1982
48.0
43.4
1999
59.2
60.2
Age 60
1982
9.2
8.2
1999
18.8
19.3
At birth
1981
50.9
48.1
2001
60.1
60.7
Age 15
1981
47.3
46.9
–
–
Age 60
1981
13.8
14.4
–
–
At birth
1976-1978
59.0
59.2
2001
64.5
66.1
Age 15
1976-1979
56.8
56.3
2001
56.9
58.8
Age 60
1976-1980
19.3
19.3
2001
18.8
20.1
At birth
1967
64.8
66.9
1991
68.9
73.6
Age 15
1967
55.8
57.7
1991
–
–
Age 60
1967
17.0
17.8
1991
–
–
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Source: United Nations (2006b).
51
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 51
23/06/2008 14:36:30
J. Véron
mortalityatyoungeragesaccountsforsomeoftheriseinlifeexpectancyat
birthbutisnottheonlyfactorinvolvedsincelifeexpectanciesatage15are
alsorising.Lifeexpectanciesatage60arefollowingamoredisparatecourse
thoughthetrendisupward.
Early-age mortality remains high in most countries
Infantmortalityfellthroughouttheregionbetween1960-1965and20002005(Table21andFigure13).SriLankaandAfghanistanareagaininthe
extremepositions:bythe1960s,infantmortalityinSriLankawasalready
Table 21. Infant mortality since the early 1950s
Infant mortality rate (‰)
Change (%)
1952
1972
1992
2002
1952-1972 1972-1992 1992-2002
Afghanistan
275.3
211.6
171.1
168.1
– 23
– 19
–2
Bangladesh
200.5
148.0
89.0
61.3
– 26
– 40
– 31
Bhutan
184.8
149.2
87.5
52.7
– 19
– 41
– 40
India
165.7
116.8
77.2
62.5
– 30
– 34
– 19
Maldives
185.2
120.6
65.1
45.8
– 35
– 46
– 30
Nepal
210.9
156.1
90.6
64.5
– 26
– 42
– 29
Pakistan
168.6
127.6
87.0
75.4
– 24
– 32
– 13
Sri Lanka
76.6
49.9
17.0
12.4
– 35
– 66
– 27
Source: United Nations (2007a).
Figure 13. Infant mortality between 1960-1965 and 2000-2005
260
Infant mortality 2000-2005 (‰)
Ined 024 08
240
220
200
180
Afghanistan
160
140
120
100
Pakistan
80
India
60
40
Sri Lanka
20
0
0
20
40
60
Bangladesh
Nepal
Maldives
Bhutan
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Infant mortality 1960-2005 (‰)
Source: United Nations (2006).
52
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 52
23/06/2008 14:36:30
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
muchlowerthaninmostcountriesofSouthAsia,whileinAfghanistaninfant
mortality was among the highest in the world. Considerable progress has
beenachievedintheothercountriesoftheregion,thoughinfantmortality
was still relatively high in the early 2000s: 46‰ in the Maldives, 53‰ in
Bhutan, 61‰ in Bangladesh, 63‰ in India, 65‰ in Nepal and 75‰ in
Pakistan.
According to United Nations estimates (2007a), under-five mortality in
Afghanistanhasnotdecreasedoverthelasttenyears:itwas257‰in19901995and252‰in2000-2005.At14‰in2000-2005,under-fivemortality
inSriLankabearsnocomparisonwiththatinAfghanistan(Table22).The
next best level of under-five mortality is in the Maldives, where the rate
declined considerably in the 1990s but still stood at 59‰ in 2000-2005.
Infantandchildmortalitylevelsintheothercountrieswereverysimilarin
1990-1995,withallratessituatedbetween124‰and128‰,buttenyears
laterhadbecomemoredisparate,rangingfrom108‰inPakistanto78‰
inBhutan.
Child health is closely correlated with mother’s level of education
Childmortalitylevelsreflectthepersistentdisparitiesinchildhealthin
SouthAsia.Theproportionsofdeliveriesattendedbyskilledhealthpersonnel,
thepercentageofmalnourishedchildrenandthelevelsofchildvaccination
coverageprovidefurtherproofofthisdiversity(Table22).
Table 22. Child mortality, delivery conditions, malnutrition and vaccination
Mortality rate (‰)
Neonatal
(2004)
Below
1 year
(20002005)
0-5
years
(20002005)
Deliveries
attended
by skilled
health
personnel
(%)
Afghanistan
60
168
252
14 (2003)
53.6 (1997)
Bangladesh
36
61
83
13 (2004)
50.5 (2004)
Bhutan
30
53
78
51(2005)
47.7 (1999)
India
39
62
90
48 (2006)
51.0 (1998/99)
Maldives
24
46
59
70 (2001)
31.9 (2001)
Nepal
32
64
88
19 (2006)
57.1 (2001)
82.8 (2006)
Pakistan
53
75
108
31 (2005)
41.5 (2001)
35.1 (1991)
Sri Lanka
8
12
14
97 (2000)
18.4 (2000)
67.3 (1987)
Country
Children
malnourished
(%)
Children
vaccinated
(%)
–
73.1 (2004)
–
42.0 (1999)
–
(a)
Children receiving the full set of vaccinations (BCG, DPT, polio and measles).
Children under five with stunted growth.
Sources: United Nations, World Health Statistics 2007, DHS surveys and United Nations (2007a).
(b)
53
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 53
23/06/2008 14:36:31
J. Véron
Table 23. Child mortality, delivery conditions and vaccination by area
of residence and educational level of mother, India, 2005-2006
Total
Area of
residence
Urban Rural
Mother’s level of education
(years of shooling)
No
Below
5-7
education 5
8-9
10-11 12+
Infant mortality (‰)
57.0
41.5
62.2
69.7
66.0
49.5
41.5
36.5
Mortality 1-5 years (‰)
18.4
10.6
21.0
29.9
13.8
11.5
5.6
3.6
25.9
3.9
Mortality 0-5 years (‰)
74.3
51.7
82.0
94.7
78.8
60.5
46.9
40.0
29.7
Deliveries attended
by trained personnel (%)
46.6
73.5
37.5
26.1
45.0
56.9
67.1
80.3
91.0
Children aged 1 or 2
receiving the main
vaccinations (%)
43.5
57.6
38.6
26.1
46.1
51.8
59.7
66.1
75.2
Source: NFHS-3.
Theconditionsofbirthvarywidely.InSriLanka,97%ofdeliveriesare
attendedbyskilledhealthpersonnel,against70%intheMaldives,around50%
inBhutanandIndia,14%inAfghanistanand13%inBangladesh.Theproportion
ofchildrenvaccinatedisalsoanindicatorofhealthconditions.Thoughthe
relevantdataarenotavailableforallthecountriesoftheregionandsomeare
outofdate,inthe2000stheproportionofchildrenvaccinatedagainstthe
maindiseasesexceeds70%inBangladeshand80%inNepal(32).
DataforIndiaoninfantmortalityin2005-2006highlighttheimpactof
areaofresidenceandmother’slevelofeducationonchildhealth(Table23).
Infantmortality,whichhasanaveragevalueforIndiaof57‰in2005-2006,
variesby20pointsdependingonwhethertheareaofresidenceisurbanor
rural.Forchildrenunderone,themortalityratevariesby44pointsaccording
towhetherthemothershavereceivednoeducation(70‰)ormorethan12years
ofeducation(26‰).InIndiaaselsewhereintheworld,themortalitydifferentials
areevenlargeratages1-5.Theconditionsofdeliveryaremuchmorefavourable
inurbanareasthaninruralareas,sincewellover70%ofurbanbirthsare
attendedbytrainedhealthpersonnel,comparedwithlessthan40%ofrural
births.Similarly,theconditionsofbirthvaryconsiderablywiththemother’s
educationallevel,rangingfrom26%ofdeliveriesattendedbytrainedpersonnel
forwomenwithnoeducationto91%forwomenwithatleast12yearsof
education.Thepercentageofchildrenreceivingthebasicvaccinationsvaries
byalmost20pointsdependingonwhetherthemotherlivesinanurbanor
ruralarea,andbynearly50pointsbetweentheleastandmosteducated
women.
(32)InNepal,83%ofchildrenaged1-2arefullyimmunizedatthetimeofthesurvey,while93%are
BCGvaccinatedagainsttuberculosis,85%arevaccinatedagainstmeaslesand89%havereceivedthe
firstdoseoftheDPT(diphtheria,pertussis,tetanus)vaccine.
54
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 54
23/06/2008 14:36:31
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
HealthinequalitiesthusremainextremelylargeinSouthAsia,whether
comparisonisbetweencountriesorbetweensocioeconomicstratainthe
populationofasinglecountry.Indiaintroducedanewhealthpolicyin2002(33).
Amongitsclearlystatedobjectives,basedontheprincipleofequity,isthatof
reducingtheinequalitiesinaccesstohealthcareassociatedwithurbanversus
ruralresidenceorwithdifferencesinthedevelopmentlevelofstatesorinthe
economicstatusofpopulations.However,itwillbesomeyearsbeforeitseffects
becomevisible.
XI. Age structures: demographic windows of opportunity
Young populations
Median age, a crude indicator of age structure, reveals three sharply
contrastingsituationsinheritedfrompasttrendsinmortalityandfertility
(Table24).AcontrastisagainobservedbetweenAfghanistan,wherethefertility
transitionhashardlystartedandthepopulationisparticularlyyoung(median
age16.4),andSriLanka,wherethetransitioniscompleteandthepopulation
ismucholder(medianage29.5).Intheothercountries,allofwhichareengaged
inthefertilitytransition,medianagesrangefrom20to24.
In2005,allthecountriesofSouthAsiawiththeexceptionofSriLanka
hadpopulationswithlargeproportionsofyoungpeople.ExceptinSriLanka,
wheretheproportionwas24%,theunder-15smakeupoverathirdofthe
population(Table23).Theproportionofyoungpeopleunder15isaround
40%inNepalandreaches47%inAfghanistan.
Table 24. Indicators of age-sex structure in the countries of South Asia, 2005
Median age
(years)
Under-15s
(%)
Over-60s
(%)
Sex ratio
(%)
Afghanistan
16.4
47.0
3.7
107.5
Bangladesh
22.2
35.2
5.7
104.9
Bhutan
22.3
33.0
6.9
111.1
India
23.8
33.0
7.5
107.5
Maldives
21.3
34.0
5.6
105.3
Nepal
20.1
39.0
5.8
98.2
Pakistan
20.3
37.2
5.9
106.0
Sri Lanka
29.5
24.2
9.7
97.7
Countries
Source: United Nations (2007a).
(33)Thepreviousnationalpolicyonhealthdatedfrom1983.
55
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 55
23/06/2008 14:36:31
J. Véron
Usingtheproportion–nottheabsolutenumber–ofpeopleover60asthe
criterionofpopulationageing,itisclearthattheprocesshasmadelittleimpact
sofarinthecountriesoftheregion.OnlyinSriLankaistheproportionof
over-60scloseto10%,asaconsequenceofthelongstandingfertilitydecline,
whereasitis7.5%inIndiaandbelow7%intheothercountries.
Populationprojectionsto2020showthatSriLankawillseeamarked
ageingofitspopulationintheyearsahead,withtheproportionofover-60s
exceeding17%bythatyear(AppendixTableA.11).Thenext“oldest”country
willbeIndia,with10%ofitspopulationover60.Everywhereelse,theover60swillstillrepresentless–insomecasesmuchless–thanone-tenthofthe
population.Theproportionofpersonsaged60andoveriscurrentlyverylow
inAfghanistan(4%)andisunlikelytochangebetweennowand2020.
ThepopulationsinthecountriesofSouthAsiaarealsodifferentiatedby
theirsexratios.ThelargestmalesurplusesarefoundinBhutan,Afghanistan
andIndia;menareintheminorityinNepalandSriLanka,wheretherewere
98malesfor100femalesin2005.
ThelargeseximbalanceatbirthaffectingseveralEastandSoutheastAsian
countries,amongthemChina,isnotobservedinthisregionexceptinIndia,
andthenonlyinthecountry’snorth-weststates.Wewillreturnlatertothis
seximbalancethatreflectsstrongdiscriminationagainstgirlchildreninthese
states.
Age distributions reflect the progress of the demographic transition
Thestageofdemographictransitionreachedbythecountriesoftheregion
isillustratedbytheiragestructures(Figures14A-14H).Thefertilitydecline
inSriLankabeganmanyyearsago,asshownbythenarrowerbaseofthe
pyramidstartingfromthe35-39agegroup.Despitean“echo”effect(34),cohort
sizehasfallencontinuouslysince1980-1985.ComparedwithSriLanka,the
fertilitytransitionhascomelaterinBhutanandtheMaldives,butcohortsize
hasbeenfallinginbothcountriesforthelasttwentyandtenyearsrespectively.
ThebaseofthepopulationpyramidforPakistanisstartingtocontract,while
thepyramidsforBangladesh,IndiaandNepalareverysimilar,withasyetno
majordecreaseinnumbersatyoungages.Despiteadeclineinfertility,the
numbersofbirthsarenotyetfalling,becausethepopulationofchildbearing
ageisstilllarge.Afghanistan,finally,presentsanagestructurecharacteristic
ofacountrywithhighfertilityandhighmortality.
Between2005and2020,theproportionofpeopleaged15-60,i.e.inthe
working-agepopulation,willincreaseinallthecountries(exceptAfghanistan).
(34)In2005,thelargersizeofthepopulationaged20-24relativetothoseaged25-29or30-34isa
resultofhighbirthratesaroundtwentyyearsearlier,whentherelativelylargecohortsofwomen
reachedchildbearingage.
56
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 56
23/06/2008 14:36:31
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Figure 14. Population pyramids of the countries of South Asia in 2005
A. AFGHANISTAN
B. BANGLADESH
Age
100 +
Men
Age
Ined 025 08
Women
90-94
Men
10
80-84
70-74
70-74
60-64
60-64
50-54
50-54
40-44
40-44
30-34
30-34
20-24
20-24
10-14
10-14
0
0-4
0
10
20
20
10
C. BHUTAN
0
10
Women
Men
80-84
70-74
70-74
60-64
60-64
50-54
50-54
40-44
40-44
30-34
30-34
20-24
20-24
10-14
10-14
0-4
0
10
20
20
10
E. MALDIVES
0
10
Women
Men
80-84
70-74
70-74
60-64
60-64
50-54
50-54
40-44
40-44
30-34
30-34
20-24
20-24
10-14
10-14
0-4
0
10
20
20
10
G. PAKISTAN
0
10
0
20
Ined 032 08
100 +
Women
Men
Women
90-94
80-84
80-84
70-74
70-74
60-64
60-64
50-54
50-54
40-44
40-44
30-34
30-34
20-24
20-24
10-14
10-14
0-4
20
10
Age
Ined 031 08
90-94
0
H. SRI LANKA
Age
100 +
Men
Women
90-94
80-84
0
20
Ined 030 08
100 +
0-4
20
10
Age
Ined 029 08
90-94
0
F. NEPAL
Age
100 +
Men
Women
90-94
80-84
0
20
Ined 028 08
100 +
0-4
20
10
Age
Ined 027 08
90-94
0
D. INDIA
Age
100 +
Men
Women
90-94
80-84
0-4
20
Ined 026 08
100 +
0-4
0
%
10
20
20
%
%
10
0
0
10
20
%
Source: United Nations, 2006a.
57
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 57
23/06/2008 14:36:32
J. Véron
Furtherincreasecanbeexpectedevenincountrieswheretheproportionof
peopleaged15-60wasalreadyhighin2005,likeBhutanandtheMaldives
(60%).Thisrelativeincreaseintheworking-agepopulation,beforethereduction
intheeconomicallyinactiveyoungpopulationiscancelledoutbytheincrease
intheinactiveolderpopulation,constitutesthe“demographicwindow”.At
thispointcountrieshaveanopportunityfordevelopment,sincethedependency
ratioisfavourabletowealthcreation,thankstothereducedpublicburdenof
educationcostsfortheyoungandofhealthandpensioncostsforolderpeople.
InBhutan,peopleaged15-60willrepresent67%ofthepopulationin2020.
Forthecountriesinapositiontobenefit,thedemographicwindowrepresents
anopportunity.Buttheadvantageisapotentialone,andforittoberealized,
theworking-agepopulationmustbeemployedinthefullsenseoftheterm,
withlowunder-employmentorunemployment.SriLankadiffersfromthe
othercountriesinthatitisalreadybenefitingfromthedemographicwindow
(theproportionaged15-60iscurrently66%andwillprobablydescendto62%
by2020).
XII. A relatively low urban-rural ratio
Moderate urbanization but strong urban growth
InSouthAsia,likeelsewhereintheworld,thecriteriausedforclassifying
populationsas“urban”arenotallthesame.ThedefinitionofurbaninIndia
canbeadministrative(localitiespossessingamunicipalcharter,etc.)orbased
on a combination of criteria: number of inhabitants, population density,
proportionofmeninnon-agriculturaloccupations.InneighbouringSriLanka,
onlypopulationsin“municipalzonesandzoneswithanurbancouncil”are
classifiedasurban(Table25).InPakistan,anurbansettlementisalsodefined
Table 25. Criteria for defining urban populations in four countries
of South Asia
Country
Definition of “urban”
India
Towns and cities: localities possessing a municipal charter, a committee for a municipal
zone or designated urban zone or grouped zone (cantonment) or localities with
a population of 5,000 or more inhabitants, a population density of 1,000 or more
inhabitants per square mile or 400 per sq.km, definite urban characteristics,
and with three-quarters of adult males in non-agricultural employment.
Maldives
Male (capital)
Pakistan
Localities possessing a municipal charter or a municipal committee and grouped zones
(cantonments)
Sri Lanka
Urban sector: comprising all the municipal zones and zones possessing an urban council.
Source: United Nations (2007b).
58
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 58
23/06/2008 14:36:32
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
inuniquelyadministrativeterms.InNepal,localitiesneeded5,000inhabitants
tobeclassifiedasurbaninthe1961censusand9,000insubsequentcensuses.
Thecriteriaforpopulationsizeanddensity,continuousbuilt-upareaand
occupationalstructurehaveallchangedovertime,andsince1999thedefinition
basedonpopulationsize,annualincomeandinfrastructurevariesbetween
ecologicalzonesaccordingtocomplexrules(UnitedNations,2008)(35).The
definitionofurbaninBangladeshissimilartothatinIndiabutmorecomplex
sinceitalsoincludespublicamenities,accesstowater,educationallevel,
etc.
ThecountriesofSouthAsiaarestillnotheavilyurbanized(Table26).In
Pakistan,thecountrywiththeregion’shighestpercentageurbanin2005,only
35%ofthepopulationlivedintownsorcities.Thelowestlevelsofurbanization
areobservedinSriLankaandNepal,wherebarely15%oftheinhabitantsare
urbandwellers.InIndia,lessthan30%ofthepopulationtodaylivesintowns
orcities,whichisthreetimesmorethanin1901andtwicethelevelin1941,
butstillasmallproportioncomparedwiththeworldaverage(50%).
Table 26. Percentage urban, 1950-2005, and projections to 2030
Country
1950
1975
2005
2030
Afghanistan
5.8
13.3
22.9
36.2
Bangladesh
4.3
9.8
25.7
41.0
Bhutan
2.1
7.9
31.0
56.2
India
17.0
21.3
28.7
40.6
Maldives
10.6
17.3
33.9
60.7
2.7
4.8
15.8
30.6
Pakistan
17.5
26.3
34.9
49.8
Sri Lanka
15.3
19.5
15.1
21.4
Nepal
Source: United Nations (2008).
Althoughtheproportionofpeoplelivingintownsandcitiesisrisingata
moderatepace,thetotalurbanpopulationinSouthAsiahasgrownsharply
overfiftyyears.Itnumbered73.7millionin1950and433.2millionin2005,
representingnearlyasix-foldincrease(Figure15).Indiaaccountedformuch
ofthisurbangrowth,sinceofthe433.2millionurbandwellersinSouthAsia
in2005,three-quarterslivedinIndia.Thepaceofchangeintheurbanpopulation
differsbetweencountries,andinsomeinstancesvariesgreatlybetweenperiods
withinthesamecountry.InAfghanistan,inparticular,theurbanpopulation
grewatanannualrateof6%intheperiod2000-2005,buttheratewasnegative
intheperiod1980-1985(36)thenreached8.5%intheyears1990-1995.Forthe
(35)http://esa.un.org/wup/source/country.aspx
(36)Asmentioned,thewarwiththeSovietUnionledtolarge-scaleemigration,withmanypeople
takingrefugeinPakistanorIran.
59
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 59
23/06/2008 14:36:32
J. Véron
Figure 15. The urban population of South Asia and India, 1950-2005
500
Urban population (millions)
Ined 033 08
450
400
350
300
250
South Asia
200
India
150
100
50
0
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Year
Source: United Nations (2008).
urbanpopulationofBangladesh,therateiscurrently3.5%,butwasinexcess
of10%between1975and1980.InBhutan,therateofurbanpopulationgrowth
since1950hasfluctuatedaroundanannualaverageof5%.Theurbangrowth
rateinIndiaclimbedfrom2.6%in1950-1955to3.8%in1970-1975thenslowed
toitspresentlevelof2.3%.LikeBangladesh,theMaldivesexperiencedaperiod
ofrapidurbangrowth,witharateof10%in1970-1975.Between1970and
2000,theurbanpopulationinNepalgrewbyover6%ayearonaverage,whereas
inPakistantheratewasbetween4%and4.5%overseveraldecades.Againthe
patternforSriLankaissingular:thegrowthraterosefrom2.8%in1950-1955
to4.3%in1965-1970,thenfellbacktobelow1%andiscurrentlyclosetozero
(0.15%in2000-2005).
AccordingtoUnitedNationsforecasts,Pakistanwillremainthemost
urbanizedcountryintheregionupto2030,withnearlyoneintwoinhabitants
livinginurbanareas.UrbanizationinSriLanka,meanwhile,atslightlyover
20%,willstillberemarkablylow.InBangladeshandIndia,40%ofthepopulation
willbeurban.Althoughthislevelmightbeconsideredmoderatein2030,it
representsatotalof590millionurban-dwellersinIndiaalone.
Five of the world’s thirteen largest cities are in South Asia
ThecountriesofSouthAsiaareverydifferentinsize,andtheircapital
citieslikewise.Delhihad15millioninhabitantsin2005,Katmanduwellbelow
onemillion,andMale,capitaloftheMaldives,only89,000(Table27).
ThecitywiththemostspectaculargrowthoverthelastfiftyyearsisDhaka,
whosepopulationincreasedthirty-foldintheperiod1950-2005.Thecity
60
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 60
23/06/2008 14:36:33
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 61
Islamabad
Pakistan
Colombo
–
400
1,047
36
104
3
572
3,989
107
180
–
7,082
7,888
4,426
8
2,173
674
1975
639
10,020
595
644
–
16,086
13,058
12,441
60
10,159
1,963
2000
* estimate.
Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: the 2005 Revision.
Sri Lanka
Kathmandu
Karachi
Male
2,857
Mumbai
(Bombay)
Nepal
4,513
Kolkata
(Calcutta)
Maldives
1,369
Thimphu
Delhi
Bhutan
India
171
417
Kabul
Dhaka
1950
Afghanistan
Cities
Bangladesh
Country
652*
11,608
736
815
–
18,196
14,277
15,048
85
12,430
2,994
2005
Population (in thousands)
701
15,155
1,008
1,280
–
21,869
16,980
18,604
143
16,842
4,666
2015
1.6
11.1
20.4
7.8
–
6.4
3.2
11.0
29.8
17.5
1.1
2.9
6.9
4.5
–
2.6
1.8
3.4
5.7
4.4
2005/1950 2005/1975
Ratio
3.4
7.4
3.0
–
1.6
1.3
1.4
8.8
10.0
Percentage
of total
population
in 2005
22.5
21.1
19.1
–
5.7
4.5
4.7
35.0
43.8
Percentage
of urban
population
in 2005
Table 27. Population change in selected capital and largest cities between 1950 and 2000 and forecasts for 2015
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
61
23/06/2008 14:36:33
J. Véron
becamethecapitalofthenewlycreatedBangladeshin1971.Between1975and
2005,theseven-foldincreaseinthepopulationofIslamabadwasfasterthan
thatofDhaka,wherepopulationincreasedsix-fold.ThepopulationsofKabul
andKatmandugrewbyafactorof4.4-4.5overthesameperiod.Infiftyyears,
thepopulationofDelhihasgrownmorethanten-fold,increasingfrom1.4million
in1950to15millionin2005.
Thedemographicweightofthecapitalcitiesintheirrespectivecountries
alsovaries.Delhiishometolessthan2%ofthepopulationofIndia,whereas
10%ofthatofAfghanistanlivesinKabul.TheinhabitantsoftheAfghancapital
represent44%ofthatcountry’surbanpopulation,whereasthepopulationof
Kathmandurepresentslessthan20%ofNepal’surbanpopulationandthatof
Delhilessthan5%ofIndia’s.
TheurbanizationprocessissingularinIndiaonaccountofthepopulation
sizeanditsrateofgrowthinthetwentiethcentury.Along-termcomparison
withtheUnitedStateshasshownthatnotonlyisthepercentageurbanlower
inIndiabutitisnotcatchingupwiththeAmericanlevel,eventhoughIndia
hasalargerurbanpopulationthantheUnitedStates(Véron,1987).India
alreadyhadanumberoflargecitiesattheendofthenineteenthcentury:in
1891,744,000peoplelivedinCalcutta,822,000inBombay,453,000inMadras
and415,000inHyderabad(Davis,1951),Inthe2001census,Indiacounted
34urbanagglomerationswithoveronemillioninhabitantsandsixwithover
fivemillioninhabitants:Mumbai(formerlyBombay,16.4million),Kolkata
(Calcutta,13.2million),Delhi(12.9million),Chennai(formerlyMadras,
6.6million),HyderabadandBangalore(eachwith5.7million).
Onagloballevel,of21urbanagglomerationswithover10millioninhabitants
in2005,fiveofthem–notallcapitalcities–wereinSouthAsia:Dhaka,Delhi,
Kolkata,MumbaiandKarachi.Thesefiveurbanagglomerationsareamong
the13largestintheworld.
XIII. A lack of data on international migration
ThecountriesofSouthAsiaareemigrationcountries.Threetypesof
migrationcanbeidentified:migrationleadingtopermanentsettlementin
Europe,AustraliaandNorthAmerica;labourmigrationtocountriesinthe
MiddleEast;andseasonalmigration,mostlylocalizedinborderregions,like
thatintoIndiafromBangladeshandNepal(IOM,2005).Thelargestmigration
flowsaretotheGulfcountries.Whennovisaisrequiredtoenteraneighbouring
country–asisthecasebetweenIndiaandNepal,betweenIndiaandBhutan
andbetweenBhutanandNepal(Khadria,2005)–cross-bordermigrationis
indistinctfrominternalmigration.Whereavisaisrequired,asisthecasefor
BangladeshandIndia,aproportionofthismigrationisillegal.Thislocal
migrationinvolvesprimarilythepoorestpopulations,suchasthefarmersfrom
theNepalvalleyswhogotonorth-eastIndiaatharvesttime.
62
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 62
23/06/2008 14:36:33
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Inthelastfewyears,therangeofdestinationcountriesforSouthAsian
migrantshasbroadened(Khadria,2005).Increasingly,migrantsareattracted
toJapan,HongKong,SouthKorea,Malaysia,SingaporeandTaiwan.Examples
includeplantationworkersinMalaysia(manyBangladeshis),domesticstaff
inSingaporeandconstructionworkersinSouthKorea(Nepaleseinparticular).
Migrantsincludelargenumbersofwomen,mainlyinthedomesticservice
sector.Highlyqualifiedmigrants,meanwhile,leaveforEurope,NorthAmerica
orAustralia.
Afghanistanexperiencedlarge-scalepopulationmovementsduringthe
warwiththeSovietUnionbetween1979and1989.Allthreemaintypesof
migration–correspondingtopermanentsettlementinEurope,NorthAmerica
orAustralia;labourmigrationtotheMiddleEastandcertainSouth-EastAsian
countries;andcross-bordermoves,suchasmigrationtoIndia–occurin
Bangladeshthoughtherespectivescaleoftheseflowsisnotknown.Pakistanis
alsoleavetheircountrytosettleinEurope,NorthAmericaorEastAsia,entering
eitherlegally,orasstudents(someofwhomlaterseektostayon),or,forthe
poorest, illegally. Sri Lanka too is experiencing large-scale international
migration.PoliticalreasonsarecausingTamilstoleavethecountryandseek
politicalrefugeestatusintheWest(Etiemble,2004).TheGulfcountriesremain
amajordestinationformigrantsfromSriLanka.Womenaccountfor70%of
thismigration,reflectingthehighdemandinthesecountriesforfemaledomestic
workers.
MigrationisagrowingphenomenoninIndia,thoughitsin-depthstudy
islimitedessentiallytoKerala.Asurveyfromthelate1990shasbeenusedto
analyse the impact of migration on population age structure, family life
(temporaryseparationofspouses),averageeducationallevel(throughthe
selectivityofmigration),poverty,unemployment,etc.(Zachariahetal.,2003).
Itemerges,forexample,thatwomenwithamigranthusbandinaGulfcountry
havehighstatusbecausetheyreceiveremittancesintheirownnamebutare
weigheddownbyincreasedresponsibilitiesduetotheirhusband’sabsence,
and by loneliness: 60% would like their husband to come home. Return
migrationisbecomingmuchmorecommon,raisingtheissueofreintegrating
migrantsintothesocietyoforigin.Fortypercentofreturnmigrantssetup
theirownbusiness,butaproportionofreturneeshavegreatdifficultyin
reintegratingKeralasocietyand,thoughstillofworkingage,donotfind
employment and use their savings to maintain a high standard of living
(Zachariahetal.,2002;Zachariahetal.,2006).
Theeconomicimportanceofinternationalmigrationforeachcountrycan
bemeasuredfromthefinancialtransfersmadebyitscitizensresidentabroad.
In2004,migration-relatedtransfersrepresentedavaryingbutinsomecases
largeproportionofgrossnationalincomeinthecountriesofSouthAsia:12.1%
inNepal,8%inSriLanka,5.5%inBangladesh,4.2%inPakistan,3.2%inIndia
and0.4%intheMaldives(UnitedNations,2006c).
63
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 63
23/06/2008 14:36:34
J. Véron
Sendingcountriescanalsobereceivingcountries.TheUnitedNations
estimatesthat191millionpeopleworldwidelivedoutsidetheircountryof
birthin2005,representing3%oftheworldpopulation(37)(UnitedNations,
2006c).TheSouthAsiancountrywiththelargestnumberofforeign-born
personsisIndia,wheretheytotal3.7million(38).Thismigrantstockisthe
eighthlargestintheworld,thoughitrepresentsamere0.5%ofIndia’stotal
population(AppendixTableA.12).Pakistancurrentlyhassome3.3million
foreign-bornresidents,equivalentto2.1%ofthetotalpopulation.Themigrant
stockthusdefinedis1millioninBangladesh(0.7%ofthepopulation),819,000in
Nepal(3%),368,000inSriLanka(1.8%),43,000inAfghanistan(0.1%),10,000in
Bhutan(0.5%)and3,000intheMaldives(1%).
XIV. Access to education remains unequal
Accesstoeducationplaysalargeroleinthepopulationdynamicsofall
countries, affecting factors such as the pace of demographic transition,
contraceptivepracticeorchildhealth.
ThecountriesofSouthAsiapresentcontrastingsituationsintermsof
literacy.Intheearly2000s,literacyamongadultsoverage15wasabove90%
inSriLankaand96%intheMaldives(Table28).ThecontrastwithAfghanistan,
whereonly28%oftheadultpopulationisliterate,isparticularlysharp.Literacy
levelsarearound50%inBangladesh,NepalandPakistanandover60%in
India.
Overlayingthesedifferencesinliteracylevelsarevaryingdegreesofgender
inequality(Figure16).ThesituationintheMaldivesandSriLankaisoneof
Table 28. Literacy rates of adults aged 15 and over in the 2000s
Rate (%)
Afghanistan (2000)
28.0
Bangladesh (2001)
47.5
Bhutan
–
India (2001)
61.0
Maldives (2000)
96.3
Nepal (2001)
48.6
Pakistan (2005)
49.9
Sri Lanka (2001)
90.7
Source: Unesco (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/).
(37)In1960,thenumberofpeoplelivingoutsidetheircountryofbirthwasestimatedat75million,
or2.5%oftheworldpopulation.
(38)TheIndiancensusof1991countednearly3.4millionmigrantsoriginatingfromBangladesh,
with2.6millionsettledinWestBengal(Nanda,2005).
64
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 64
23/06/2008 14:36:34
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Figure 16. Literacy rates of men and women aged 15 and over in the 2000s
100
Female literacy rates (%)
Ined 034 08
Maldives
Sri Lanka
80
60
India
40
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Nepal
20
Afghanistan
0
0
20
40
60
80
Male literacy rates (%)
100
Source: Unesco (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco).
highequality,withliteracylevelsataround90%formenandwomenalike.In
NepalandPakistan,ontheotherhand,inequalityismarkedandthefemale
adultliteracyrateislessthan60%ofthemaleadultrate.Thisformofinequality
isgreaterstillinAfghanistanwherefemaleliteracyratesrepresented29%of
themaleratein2000.
ThepopulationofIndiahasahighereducationallevelthanneighbouring
countrieslikeBangladeshandPakistan,butinthisdomain,aselsewhere,the
countryhasextremeregionaldisparities(Banthia,2001).In2001,theaverage
literacyrateofthepopulationaged7andoverwas65%,butstoodatover90%
inKeralaandbelow48%inBihar.Formen,theaverageliteracyrateis76%
andvariesbetweenamaximumof94%inKeralaandaminimumof60%in
Bihar,whileforwomentheaverageis54%withamaximumof88%inKerala
andaminimumof34%inBihar.
XV. Increasing vulnerability
Insomecountriesoftheregion,violentconflictorextremetensionshave
createdaclimateofinsecuritythatisunfavourabletodevelopmentatthe
presenttime.However,increasedvulnerabilityofthepopulationsofSouth
Asiaineconomic,socialandecologicaltermsisalsoalegacyofrapidpopulation
growthinthepast.
Economic and social vulnerability
Several populations are particularly vulnerable today in economic and
social terms. In some regions of India, strong discrimination against girl
65
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 65
23/06/2008 14:36:34
J. Véron
childrenisreflectedinsex-selectiveabortionpractices.Resultsfromthe2001
Indiancensusshowingahighsexratiointheyoungpopulationrevealedthe
extent of discrimination against girl children in the north-west of the
country(39).InthePunjabandinHaryana,whichcountamongIndia’smost
developed states, this discrimination was such that the sex ratio in the
populationaged0-6reached130boysfor100girlsinsomedistrictsandeven
higher levels in the district of Fatehgarh Sahib (Nanda and Véron, 2004).
Women’seducationallevelisrelativelyhighinthePunjab(thefemaleliteracy
ratewas64%in2001),yetfemalefoetusesarenonethelessabortedinlarge
numbers, the result of a traditional boy preference that may have been
rekindledbyfallingbirthrates(40).Inrecentyears,thegovernmenthasmade
efforts to stamp out the practice of sex-selective abortion via information
campaignsandsanctionsagainstpractitionerswhotellcouplesthesexofan
unbornchild,butwithoutmuchapparentsuccess.ForIndiaasawhole,the
sex ratio of the 0-6 age group was 108.9in the 2005-2006 NFHS, against
107.9inthe2001census.Thesexratiohasnotchangedinurbanareasbut
hasriseninruralareas.
Vulnerabilityalsotakesotherforms(41).Vulnerablepopulationsinclude
child workers, unemployed adults, and those, particularly at older ages,
withoutaccesstoasystemofsocialprotection.Althoughthedemographic
weightofolderpeopleremainslimitedinSouthAsia,theirnumberisrising
and,inIndiaforexample,thequestionofpopulationageingisanemerging
concern (Bose and Shankardass, 2004). The country today has more than
80million people over age 60 and by 2016 is likely to have more than
110million.Sincehalfofallmenoverage60,andmorethan70%ofwomen,
areeconomicallydependentonotherpeople,theireconomicsecurityisset
tobecomeacrucialissue.
Anotherformofvulnerabilityislinkedtotheproblemofurbanhousing
amongthepoorestpopulationsasevidencedbythespontaneoussettlements
andshantytownsthatspringuponcityoutskirts.UN-Habitatestimatesthat
over 230 million people lived in shanty towns in South Asia in 2001(42).
Accordingtothesamesource,shantytown-dwellersnumbered30millionin
Bangladesh,36millioninPakistanand158millioninIndia.Inadditionto
economicandsocialvulnerability,thepopulationsmayalsofaceecological
vulnerability.
(39)The district-level map of sex ratios in the population aged 0-6 shows this phenomenon to
be very circumscribed in India (Dyson et al., 2004). For an in-depth analysis, see the article by
Guilmotointhisissue.
(40)The role played by declining fertility in the emergence of this form of discrimination is a
matterfordebate(DasGupta,1987;DasGuptaandBhat,1997;BhatandZavier,2003).Thisformof
discriminationagainstgirlshasnotaccompaniedfertilitydeclineinSouthernIndia.
(41)Theproblemoffoodsecurityalsoarises(forIndia,seeUNFPA,1997).
(42)UN-Habitat,http://ww2.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/statistics.asp
66
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 66
23/06/2008 14:36:35
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Environmental vulnerability
LivingconditionsforalargeproportionofthepopulationofBangladesh
intheGanges-Brahmaputradeltaareparticularlyhazardous.Highpopulation
densitiesmeanthateachepisodeoffloodingproduceslargenumbersofvictims.
ThehistoryofnaturaldisastersinBangladeshoverthelasttwohundredyears
revealsthefullextentofthecountry’sexposuretoecologicalhazards(Table29).
Inlate2007,theagriculturalsectorwasagainbadlyhitbyatropicalcyclone,
withlossestonearly7millionpeople.
Table 29. Major disasters in Bangladesh over two centuries
Years
Event
Losses
1769-1776
Great famine of Bengal
Nearly one-third reduction in the Bengal population,
though impact was lighter in West Bengal
1784-1788
Floods and famine. Brahmaputra
River changed its course
Unknown
1873-1874
Famine
Unknown
Bakerganj cyclone
and tidal wave
Around 400,000 deaths
Famine
Unknown
Chittagong cyclone
Around 175,000 deaths
Spanish influenza
Around 400,000 deaths
1943
Bengal famine
Between 2 and 2.5 million deaths
1947
Partition of India
Unknown. Total deaths in partition numbered
1 million, but most occurred in the West
1970
Cyclone and tidal wave
Between 200,000 and 500,000 deaths
1971
War of Independence
Around 500,000 deaths
1974
Famine
Official death toll 30,000, but some estimates are
much higher (including reference to 500,000 deaths
with 80,000 for the Rangpur district alone).
1876
1884-1885
1897
1918-1919
Source: W. Brian Arthur and Geoffrey McNicoll, “An analytical survey of population and development in
Bangladesh”, Population and Development Review, 4(1), March 1978, p. 29, cited by Escap (1981).
Inothercountriesoftheregion,suchasIndia,theMaldivesorSriLanka,
substantialproportionsofthepopulationareseverelyexposedtorisingwater
levels.Theearlierperiodofrapidpopulationgrowthinthesecountriesbrought
alargeincreaseinpopulationdensities.InIndia,averagepopulationdensity
rosefrom77inhabitantspersq.kmin1901to324in2001;itcurrentlystands
at over 800 inhabitants per sq.km in Kerala and 900in West Bengal. The
resultingpressureonlandhasledtoincreasedsettlementincoastalzones,
whicharebarelyabovesealevel.Theconsequencesofthe2004tsunamiwere
particularlydisastrousinSriLanka,intheIndianstatesofTamilNaduand
Kerala,andintheMaldives,allofwhichhadlargepopulationslivingatsea
level. In India, it left 11,000 persons dead, 5,600 missing and around
7,000injured. The worst affected Indian state, Tamil Nadu, alone counted
67
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 67
23/06/2008 14:36:35
J. Véron
8,000dead(43).InSriLanka,thetsunamicaused40,000deathsanddisplaced
2.5 million persons. Rising water levels due to climate change threaten a
growing number of people in Bangladesh, India, the Maldives and Sri
Lanka.
Conclusion
Todayhometoapopulationofaround1.6billionpeople,SouthAsiaisa
regionofcontrastsinbothitsgeographyanddemography.WhereAfghanistan
iscomposedmainlyofmountainsandincludesnumeroushighpeaks,most
ofSriLankaisoccupiedbyplains.Itisbetweenthesetwocountriesalsothat
thedemographiccontrastsaresharpest.MortalityinAfghanistan,thoughit
hasfallen,isstillextremelyhigh,sincelifeexpectancyatbirthscarcelyexceeds
40 years, whereas in Sri Lanka mean length of life was over 70 years in
2000-2005.AndwhereasdemographictransitionhasnotbeguninAfghanistan,
inSriLankaitiscomplete.Oneconsequenceofthesechangesinmortality
andfertilityisthatthepopulationofAfghanistanisstillextremelyyoung
(medianage16in2005)whilethatofSriLankaismucholder(medianage
closeto30).Theothercountriesoftheregion–Bangladesh,Bhutan,India,
the Maldives, Nepal and Pakistan – are in intermediate positions for all
demographicindicators.Inallofthemthedemographictransitionisunder
way.Mortalityhasfallenappreciablyandlifeexpectancyatbirthis62years
minimum.Fertilityhasfalleneverywherethoughlargedifferencesremain:
womeninBhutanandtheMaldivesproducefewerthanthreechildrenwhereas
thefigureisstillfourinPakistan.
Fromademographicpointofview,SouthAsiaisheavilydominatedby
India,whoseterritorycontainsmorethantwo-thirdsoftheregion’spopulation.
Afterafour-foldincreaseinitspopulationoverahundredyears,Indiasought
tolimitpopulationgrowththroughbirthcontrolprogrammesfromtheearly
1950s,andtodaythecountry’sdemographictransitioniswelladvanced.But
therearelargeregionaldisparities.TheNationalFamilyandHealthSurveyof
2005-2006showsthatinfantmortality–average57‰forthecountryasa
whole–rangesbystatebetween15‰(KeralaandGoa)and71‰(Chhattisgarh).
Onfertility,theaverageforIndiais2.1childrenperwoman,andthevariation
isbetween1.8(AndhraPradeshandGoa)and4(Bihar).
In terms of development, the different countries face broadly the
samechallenges: finding employment for large working-age populations,
reducingpoverty,creatingasystemofsocialprotectionforthepoorandthe
old,andendingthevariousformsofdiscriminationagainstwomen.Other
challengesaremorespecifictoparticularcountries.Bangladesh,Pakistanand
Indiamustfindwaystosustainthegrowthofurbanagglomerationswithover
(43)DatafromtheAsianDevelopmentBank.
68
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 68
23/06/2008 14:36:35
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
10millioninhabitants,Thesameistrueforaccesstoeducation:inSriLanka
andtheMaldivesthisisbarelyanissue–literacylevelsareabove90%–but
thequestionofeducationisimportantinBangladeshandPakistan(where
literacyratesareonly48%and50%)andfundamentalinAfghanistan(where
literacywasonly28%in2000).Thesecountriesalsofacethechallengeof
reducinggenderinequalitiesinaccesstoeducation.
By2040,SouthAsiacanexpecttohave2.2billioninhabitants,representing
anadditional600millioninhabitantswithrespecttoitspresentpopulation.
Immensechallengeswillneedtobeovercomeifthecountriesofthisregion
aretoachieveevenamodestdegreeofsustainabledevelopment.
Acknowledgements TheauthorwouldliketothankCédricYaëlMathieuforhis
valuableandeffectiveassistanceincompilingthedatabase.
69
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 69
23/06/2008 14:36:35
J. Véron
º»
STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Table A.1. Censuses, national fertility and health surveys and other national
demographic household surveys in South Asia from 1960 to 2007
Country
Censuses
DHS
Other demographic
household surveys
Afghanistan
1979
–
2000, 2003, 2005
Bangladesh
1974, 1981, 1991, 2001
1993/94, 1996-1997, 19992000, 2001*, 2004, 2007
1975, 1995, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2006
Bhutan
–
–
2003, 2004
India
1961, 1971, 1981, 1991,
2001
1992-1993, 1998-1999,
2005-2006
2000, 2001, 2002, 2006
Maldives
1977, 1985, 1990, 1995,
2000
–
2001, 2004
Nepal
1961, 1971, 1981, 1991,
2001
1987, 1996, 2001, 2006
1976, 1981, 1986, 2002
Pakistan
1961, 1972, 1981, 1998
1990-1991, 2006
1975, 2002, 2003, 2004
Sri Lanka
1963, 1971, 1981, 2000
1987, 1993**, 2000**
1975, 1985, 1994, 1999,
2000, 2002, 2003
* Bangladesh Maternal Health Services and Maternal Mortality Survey 2001.
** Surveys posted on the website of the Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka, but not on the Macro
International website.
Sources: www.measuredhs.com, http://surveynetwork.org
70
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 70
23/06/2008 14:36:35
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 71
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
1948
1947
1923
1965
1947
1949
1971
1919
Independence
in
66
796
147
0.3
3,287
47
144
652
285
181
166
916
318
12
968
32
2,091
678
1,051
–
652
399
1,725
262
Gross
Land area
Density per
density
(thousand
sq. km of
(inhab. per
sq. km)
arable land
sq.km)
7,339
36,944
8,643
82
371,857
168
43,852
8,151
1950
12,342
59,565
12,155
121
549,312
298
69,817
11,840
1970
559
139,434
20,737
2000
684
166,638
30,389
2010
900
238,600
66,374
2040
17,114
112,991
19,114
216
18,714
144,360
24,419
273
19,576
173,351
29,898
323
19,671
268,506
47,185
476
860,195 1,046,235 1,220,182 1,596,719
547
113,049
12,659
1990
Number of inhabitants (in thousands)
Sources: United Nations Common Database (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdb/) and World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/
wpp2006/wpp2006.htm); FAO Statistical Yearbook, 2005-2006 for arable land; Pison (2007), “The population of the world”, Population & Societies, 436.
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan
Bhutan
United Kingdom
Bangladesh
Colonizing
country
Afghanistan
Country
History
Table A.2. Land area and densities in 2000, and population of the countries of South Asia, 1950-2040
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
71
23/06/2008 14:36:35
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 72
Crude death rate (‰)
Mean annual growth rate (%)
48.4
46.7
43.3
45.2
43.9
44.5
39.9
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
34.3
44.2
43.6
40.9
40.7
47.7
48.6
52.2
Source: United Nations (2007a).
52.1
Bangladesh
30.2
42.9
42.0
40.5
37.3
46.4
43.6
51.5
25.3
44.1
40.1
41.7
34.3
42.3
39.9
51.1
20.4
38.7
38.1
36.6
30.7
35.7
33.6
52.1
16.3
27.5
30.2
22.2
25.1
22.4
27.8
49.7
11.4
23.1
28.1
27.3
26.0
26.8
28.5
36.7
8.9
19.3
24.6
20.8
20.2
25.6
23.5
32.5
7.5
15.6
20.2
15.9
15.1
21.9
18.9
27.8
6.3
12.9
15.9
11.8
11.6
17.1
15.0
24.1
6.5
9.8
12.0
8.9
9.8
12.6
11.1
22.6
7.3
7.7
8.7
6.5
8.7
7.8
8.2
21.6
2.82
2.15
1.49
1.77
1.73
3.09
1.98
1.54
2.46
2.47
1.77
2.01
2.04
2.63
2.50
1.97
2.05
2.74
2.17
2.46
2.22
3.68
2.47
2.37
2.22
7.32
1.39
3.63
2.30
2.99
2.26
1.10
2.46
2.51
2.78
2.08
2.57 – 1.53
2.47
– 2.46
0.43
1.82
2.08
1.57
1.62
2.63
1.89
3.79
1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 20001955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Afghanistan
Country
Crude birth rate (‰)
Table A.3. Birth rate, death rate and total growth rate in the countries of South Asia, 1950-2005
J. Véron
72
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 73
1987
Sri Lanka
* Analysis in progress.
Source: DHS surveys.
1990-1991, 2006*
2006
–
2005-2006
Pakistan
Nepal
Maldives
India
–
Bangladesh
Bhutan
–
2004
Afghanistan
Country
Date of latest
DHS survey
20.6
23.4
24.5
Men
22.4
18.6
17.2
17.2
14.8
Women
Median age at first
marriage (years)
3.4
6.2
9.7
Age
difference
between
spouses
4.5
4.4
age 15-49
4.2
6.2
age 35-44
Percentage of women
in polygamous unions
5.1
0.4
1.2 (age 45-49)
0.6 (age 45-49)
0.2
Percentage of
never-married
women aged
40-49
Table A.4. Median age at first marriage (men and women), prevalence of polygyny and proportion of never-married women
in the countries of South Asia
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
73
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 74
6.70
6.67
5.91
7.00
6.06
6.60
5.70
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
5.12
6.60
6.06
7.00
5.82
6.67
6.85
7.70
19601965
4.12
6.60
5.79
7.00
5.26
6.67
6.15
7.70
19701975
3.16
6.60
5.51
6.80
4.50
6.42
5.25
7.80
19801985
2.48
5.80
5.00
5.55
3.86
5.39
4.12
8.00
19901995
2.02
3.99
3.68
2.81
3.11
2.91
3.22
7.48
20002005
2.22
1.97
1.60
1.90
1.63
1.75
1.86
1.62
19501955
2.15
2.16
1.74
2.19
1.82
1.83
2.07
1.79
19601965
1.80
2.34
1.83
2.45
1.86
2.02
2.01
2.01
19701975
1.45
2.51
1.93
2.64
1.74
2.19
1.87
2.23
19801985
Net reproduction rate(b)
1.17
2.37
1.94
2.28
1.56
2.07
1.63
2.40
19901995
0.96
1.68
1.55
1.24
1.30
1.25
1.38
2.27
20002005
Sum of age-specific fertility rates observed over a given period. The TFR can be interpreted as the average number of children that a woman would bear throughout her reproductive
life if she were to experience the fertility rates of the period at each age. It does not take mortality into account.
(b)
Average number of daughters that a woman would bear throughout her reproductive life if she were to experience the fertility and mortality rates of the period at each age.
Source: United Nations (2007a), World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
(a)
7.70
Bangladesh
19501955
Afghanistan
Country
Total fertility rate(a)
Table A.5. Total fertility rate and net reproduction rate in the countries of South Asia
J. Véron
74
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 75
1987
Sri Lanka
Source: DHS surveys.
1990-1991
2001
–
2005-2006
Pakistan
Nepal
Maldives
India
–
Bangladesh
Bhutan
–
2004
Afghanistan
Country
Date
of
latest
available
DHS survey
2.80
5.40
3.10
2.68
3.00
Total
fertility
rate
5.40
4.00
3.48
4.20
2.9
4.1
2.8
2.4
2.3
Number
Ideal number
of
of
children
children
at age 40-49 at age 25-34
24.0
21.3
19.9
20.0
17.6
Median
age at
first birth
15.7
18.5
32.7
Percentage
of adolescent
women who have
who have begun
childbearing
32.7
29.0
53.0
55.8
54.0
Percentage
of fertility
achieved
before
age 25
29.1
33.6
31.1
39.3
Interval
between
births
(months)
Table A.6. Most recent indices of level, timing and characteristics of fertility in the countries of South Asia
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
75
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 76
1987
Sri Lanka
22.7
19.8
29.5
24.4
28.8
Median
duration
of breastfeeding
(months)
4.2
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.0
Median
duration
of postpartum
abstinence
(months)
70.0
27.6
39.3
42.0
48.2
18.8
58.1
4.8
All methods
49.6
20.2
35.4
33.0
42.8
18.8
47.3
3.6
Modern
methods
3.7
5.5
2.9
6.0
3.1
0.3
4.3
0.0
Condom
Contraceptive prevalence (%)
(women aged 15-49, married or in a union)
Sources: DHS surveys, Statcompiler; United Nations, Statistics Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/databases.htm).
1990-1991
2001
–
2005-2006
Pakistan
Nepal
Maldives
India
–
Bangladesh
Bhutan
–
2004
Afghanistan
Country
Date
of latest
available
DHS survey
2.7
3.4
1.8
2.2
1.5
Percentage
of married
women
aged 40-49
remaining
childless
Table A.7. Breastfeeding, postpartum sexual abstinence and contraception in the countries of south Asia
J. Véron
76
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 77
37.5
36.1
37.4
38.9
36.2
43.4
57.6
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
62.2
47.7
39.4
45.2
43.6
37.7
41.2
32.0
19601965
65.0
51.9
44.0
51.4
50.7
41.8
45.3
36.1
19701975
68.8
56.2
49.6
57.1
56.6
47.9
50.0
39.9
19801985
70.4
60.8
55.7
61.0
60.2
54.5
56.0
41.7
19901995
70.8
63.6
61.3
65.6
62.9
63.5
62.0
42.1
20002005
76.6
168.6
210.9
185.2
165.7
184.8
200.5
275.3
19501955
62.6
147.7
187.0
151.8
140.3
174.1
174.1
245.6
19601965
49.9
127.6
156.1
120.6
116.8
149.2
148.0
211.6
19701975
28.9
108.0
122.9
93.6
94.7
117.1
120.4
183.6
19801985
17.0
87.0
90.6
65.1
77.2
87.5
89.0
171.1
19901995
Infant mortality rate (per thousand)
Source: United Nations (2007a), World Population Prospects: the 2006 Revision, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
28.8
Bangladesh
19501955
Afghanistan
Country
Life expectancy (years)
Table A.8. Life expectancy and infant mortality in the countries of South Asia, 1950-2005
12.4
75.4
64.5
45.8
62.5
52.7
61.3
168.1
20002005
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
77
23/06/2008 14:36:36
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 78
36
30
39
24
32
53
8
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
12
80
56
33
56
65
54
165
Below one year
(2005)
14
100
88
59
74
75
73
257
Age 0-5
(2005)
49 (2001)
98 (2000)
65 (1998-1999)
39 (1999-2000)
52 (2003)
Percentage
of births with at
least one antenatal
examination
(b)
Children who have received all vaccines (BCG, DPT, polio and measles).
Children under 5 with stunted growth.
Sources: United Nations, World Health Statistics 2007, (http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2007) ; DHS surveys.
(a)
60
Bangladesh
Neonatal
Afghanistan
Country
Probability of dying
(‰)
97 (2000)
31 (2005)
19 (2006)
70 (2001)
48 (2006)
51 (2005)
13 (2004)
14 (2003)
Percentage
of deliveries
attended by
skilled health
personnel
67.3 (1987)
35.1 (1991)
82.8 (2006)
42 (1999)
73.1 (2004)
Percentage
of children
vaccinated(a)
18.4 (2000)
41.5 (2001)
57.1 (2001)
31.9 (2001)
51 (1998-1999)
47.7 (1999)
50.5 (2004)
53.6 (1997)
Percentage
of children
malnourished(b)
Table A.9. Conditions of delivery, mortality and health of children in the countries of South Asia
J. Véron
78
23/06/2008 14:36:37
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table A.10. Maternal mortality and HIV prevalence at ages 15-49
in the countries of South Asia
Maternal mortality rate
in 2000
(for 100,000 births)
Prevalence rate of HIV
in 2005 in the population
aged 15-49 (%)
Afghanistan
1,900
< 0.1
Bangladesh
380
< 0.1
Bhutan
420
< 0.1
India
540
0.9
Maldives
110
–
Nepal
740
0.5
Pakistan
500
0.1
Sri Lanka
92
< 0.1
Country
Sources: WHO, World Health Report 2005, p. 245 (http://www.who.int); UNAIDS, 2006 Report on the Global
AIDS Epidemic, (http://www.unaids.org).
79
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 79
23/06/2008 14:36:37
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 80
40.4
43.8
37.5
33.1
38.4
37.9
40.9
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
24.2
37.2
39.0
34.0
33.0
33.0
35.2
47.0
2005
20.5
31.5
32.6
29.0
26.7
24.0
29.2
45.0
2020
5.5
8.2
6.6
8.2
5.4
4.3
6.9
4.5
1950
9.7
5.9
5.8
5.6
7.5
6.9
5.7
3.7
2005
Percentage 60+
17.2
7.6
7.1
7.3
10.2
9.1
8.0
3.7
2020
19.5
21.2
21.1
24.7
21.3
18.0
20.0
18.6
1950
29.5
20.3
20.1
21.3
23.8
22.3
22.2
16.4
2005
Median age
35.5
25.3
23.9
27.5
28.1
29.7
26.4
17.3
2020
44
70
74
61
61
60
63
97
Dependency
ratio in 2005*
(%)
* Ratio of the population aged under 15 and over 65 to the population aged 15-65.
Source: United Nations (2007a), World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/wpp2006.htm
42.6
Bangladesh
1950
Percentage under 15
Afghanistan
Country
97.7
106.0
98.2
104.9
107.5
111.1
104.9
107.5
Sex ratio
in 2005*
(%)
Table A.11. Proportions of the population aged under 15 and over 60, median age, dependency ratio and sex ratio
in the countries of South Asia, 1950-2020
J. Véron
80
23/06/2008 14:36:37
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
Table A.12. International migration, refugees and displaced populations
in the countries of South Asia
Migrant stock(a) in 2005
Country
Number (in
thousands)
Percentage
of total
population
Net
migration
rate(b)
2000-2005
(%)
Population
Number of
under UNHCR
(c)
refugees
mandate(d)
in 2005
in 2005
(thousands)
(thousands)
Afghanistan
43
0.1
16.0
0.0
911.7
Bangladesh
1,032
0.7
– 0.5
21.1
271.2
1.6*
0 to
5,700
0.5
– 0.3
139.3
139.6
3
1.0
0.0
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
10
819
3.0
– 0.8
126.4
538.6
3,254
2.1
– 2.4
1,084.7
1,088.1
368
1.8
– 1.6
0.1
354.8
* Figure corrected in accordance with the population size given by the United Nations (2006a)
(a)
Defined as the number of people born outside the country.
(b)
Defined as the annual number of immigrants minus the annual number of emigrants between 2000 and
2005 divided by the average total population of the country.
(c)
Persons with refugee status under the various international conventions currently in force.
(d)
Total number of foreign refugees, asylum seekers, return refugees and internally displaced individuals under
UNHCR protection.
Sources: United Nations (2006), International Migration 2006; UNHCR (2006), Statistical Yearbook 2005
(http://www.unhcr.fr/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/).
81
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 81
23/06/2008 14:36:37
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 82
29.2
15.3
34.5
15.2
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
4,390
2,225
1,490
–
3,139
1,969
1,870
–
9.3
50.1
51.4
3.7
39.0
–
97
66
78
90
90
–
–
94
–
Net rate
of primary
school
enrolment
in 2004
58.4(g)
GNI per
Percentage
capita
of illiterates
(USD PPP)(b) aged 15 and
in 2004
over in 2004
0.653
0.388
0.336
–
0.439
–
0.366
–
1980
0.755
0.539
0.527
0.739
0.611
0.538
0.530
–
2004
93
134
138
98
126
135
137
–
World
ranking
2004
Human development index(c)
17.7
36.3
38.1
16.9
31.3
39.0
44.2
–
Human
poverty
index
(HPI-1)(d)
0.749
0.513
0.513
–
0.591
–
0.524
–
Genderrelated
development
index(e)
*The United Nations (2008) give a percentage urban of 31.0% for 2005.
(a)
United Nations calculations based on national definitions.
(b)
Per capita gross national income calculated by the World Bank in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).
(c)
Composite index measuring human development, including life expectancy, adult literacy rates, school enrolment ratios and per capita GDP. The closer it is to 1, the better the
situation.
(d)
Not dated. Composite index measuring deprivations in health, education and standard of living.The closer it is to 0, the better the situation.
(e)
Index based on the same criteria and types of measure as the HDI, but reflecting inequalities between men and women.
(f)
UNDP has not calculated indices for this country.
(g)
In 2003.
Sources: UNDP (2006), Human Development Report 2006, (http://hdr.undp.org) ; United Nations, UNstat.
10.8*
28.5
Bhutan
–
24.7
Bangladesh
Country
Afghanistan(f)
Percentage
urban(a)
in 2004
Table A.13. Development indicators in the countries of South Asia
J. Véron
82
23/06/2008 14:36:37
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 83
96
63
63
92
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
89
36
35
96
48
–
33
13
Women
Source: Unesco (2007), EFA Global Monitoring Report.
–
73
India
52
Bhutan
43
Bangladesh
Men
Afghanistan
Country
91
50
49
96
61
–
43
28
Overall
Literacy rate at age 15 and over
(2000-2004)
0.97
0.57
0.56
1.00
0.66
–
0.63
0.30
F/M ratio
–
76
84
89
92
–
93
–
Male
–
56
74
90
87
–
96
–
Female
98
66
79
90
90
–
94
–
Overall
Net primary school enrolment ratio
(school year ending in 2004)
Table A.14. School enrolment and adult literacy by sex in the countries of South Asia
–
0.73
0.87
1.01
0.94
–
1.03
–
F/M (%)
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
83
23/06/2008 14:36:37
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 84
16.9
18.6
18.2
20.0
15.1
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu and Kashmir
Penjab
Rajasthan
15.0
Uttar Pradesh
14.9
17.5
16.8
Bihar
Orissa
West Bengal
East
14.7
Madhya Pradesh
Centre
19.0
Delhi
North
Median
age
at first
marriage
(years)
2.3
2.5
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.8
2.2
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.4
Total
fertility
rate
36.0
36.0
36.0
25.8
36.0
25.5
21.2
29.5
24.1
24.3
22.6
Median
duration
of breastfeeding
(months)
43.8
43.7
11.0
21.2
22.4
17.3
72.1
56.7
83.4
62.7
69.8
Percentage
of children
vaccinated
33.6
32.9
32.3
30.4
30.2
29.5
28.0
32.5
29.4
30.0
33.6
Interval
between
births
(months)
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.2
2.5
2.4
Ideal
number
of children
20.7
37.6
47.9
53.3
42.5
47.5
29.1
38.0
25.9
37.5
23.1
Prefer to
have more
boys than
girls (%)
3.4
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.9
1.3
0.4
2.7
0.6
0.5
2.6
Prefer to
have more
girls than
boys (%)
Table A.15. Indicators of nuptiality, fertility and sex preference in India, 1998-1999
90.0
79.5
36.3
34.6
61.0
47.5
74.0
83.2
86.8
58.1
83.5
Percentage
of births
with at
least one
antenatal
examination
J. Véron
84
23/06/2008 14:36:38
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 85
18.1
21.7
19.1
22.0
20.1
19.8
Assam
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Sikkim
17.6
16.4
Gujarat
Maharashtra
16.8
20.2
18.7
16.4
Karnataka
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
India
Source : NFHS-2, 1998-1999.
15.1
Andhra Pradesh
South
23.2
Goa
West
18.7
Arunachal Pradesh
North-east
Median
age
at first
marriage
(years)
2.9
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
1.8
2.8
3.8
2.9
4.6
3.0
2.3
2.5
Total
fertility
rate
25.4
16.1
24.5
20.0
25.0
23.8
22.0
23.3
27.3
23.1
21.8
22.6
29.3
36.0
30.8
Median
duration
of breastfeeding
(months)
42.0
88.8
79.7
60.0
58.7
78.4
53.0
82.6
47.4
14.1
59.6
14.3
42.3
17.0
20.5
Percentage
of children
vaccinated
30.8
30.5
38.1
29.7
31.1
29.0
29.0
34.8
32.6
27.5
28.4
28.5
31.8
30.6
29.9
Interval
between
births
(months)
2.7
2.0
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.2
4.0
4.0
4.7
3.6
2.9
3.2
Ideal
number
of children
33.2
9.6
14.6
13.0
19.8
27.1
33.2
17.0
22.4
32.7
26.0
20.9
36.5
38.2
41.9
Prefer to
have more
boys than
girls (%)
2.2
1.9
5.2
1.9
2.7
1.9
1.8
5.1
2.1
6.3
19.0
16.9
4.8
2.9
2.5
Prefer to
have more
girls than
boys (%)
Table A.15 (cont’d). Indicators of nuptiality, fertility and sex preference in India, 1998-1999
65.4
98.5
98.8
86.3
92.7
90.4
86.4
99.0
69.9
60.4
91.8
53.6
80.2
60.1
61.6
Percentage
of births
with at
least one
antenatal
examination
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
85
23/06/2008 14:36:38
J. Véron
º»
RefeRences
Banthia J.K., 2001, Census of India 2001, Provisional Population Totals, Paper 1 of 2001, Delhi.
Bista D.B., 1977, “Patterns of Migration in Nepal”, Colloque international du CNRS 268. 1976,
Paris, CNRS, pp. 397-399.
Bose a., shanKarDass M.K., 2004, Growing Old in India, Voices Reveal, Statistics Speak,
B. R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi.
Census of inDia, 2001, Provisional Population Totals, Paper 1 of 2001, Series 1 India, Delhi.
CiCreD, 1974a, The Population of Pakistan, Cicred Series, Paris.
CiCreD, 1974b, The Population of Sri Lanka, Cicred Series, Paris.
Das Gupta M., 1987, “Selective discrimination against females in rural Punjab”, Population and
Development Review, 13(1), pp. 77-100.
Das Gupta M., M ari Bhat, p.n. M, 1997, “Fertility decline and increased manifestation of sex
bias in India”, Population Studies, 51(3), pp. 307-315.
Davis K., 1951, The Population of India and Pakistan, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University
Press.
Dyson t., Cassen r., visaria L., 2004, Twenty-First Century India. Population, Economy, Human
Development, and the Environment, Oxford University Press.
esCap, 1981, Population of Bangladesh, Country Monograph Series No. 8, United Nations,
New York, 1981.
esCap, 1982, Population of India, Country Monograph Series No. 10, United Nations, New York,
1982.
etieMBLe a., 2004, “Les Tamouls du Sri Lanka en France. L’emprise du politique”, Revue française
des Affaires sociales, 2, pp. 145-164.
GanDotra M.M., r etherforD r.D., arwin p., Luther n.y., vinoD K.M., 1998,
“Fertility in India”, National Family Health Survey Subject Reports, 9, May, IIPS Bombay and EastWest Center, Honolulu.
GoyaL r.p., 1988, Marriage Age in India, B.R. Publishing Corporation, Institute of Economic
Growth, Delhi.
GuiLMoto C.Z., r aJan i.s., 1998, “Regional Heterogeneity and fertility Behaviour in India”,
Working Paper no. 290, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.
GuiLMoto C.Z., r aJan i.s., 2001, “Geographic Patterns of fertility Change”, in Srinivasan K.
and Vlassoff M. (eds), Population-Development Nexus in India. Challenges for the New Millennium,
Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, pp. 88-109.
GuiLMoto C.Z., r aJan i.s., (eds), 2005, Fertility Transition in South India, Sage, New Delhi.
GuZMán J.M., roDriGueZ J., M artíneZ J., Contreras J.M., GonZáLeZ, 2006, “La
démographie de l’Amérique latine et de la Caraïbe depuis 1950”, Population, 61(4-5), 623-734.
internationaL institute for popuLation sCienCes (iips), 1995, National Family Health
Survey (MCH and Family Planning). India 1992-93. Bombay: IIPS.
internationaL institute for popuLation sCienCes (iips) anD orC M aCro, 2000,
National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998-99, India, Mumbai, Bombay, IIPS.
internationaL institute for popuLation sCienCes (iips) anD M aCro internationaL.
2007, National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), 2005-06, India, Volume I., Mumbai, IIPS.
ioM, 2005, World Migration. Costs and Benefits of International Migration, IOM, Geneva.
KhaDria B., 2005, “Migration in South and South-West Asia”, Global Commission on
International Migration.
M ari Bhat p.n. M., preston s., Dyson t., 1984, Vital Rates in India, 1961-1981, Committee
on Population and Development. Report No 24, National Academy Press, Washington.
M ari Bhat p.n., 1989, “Mortality and Fertility in India, 1881-1961: A Reassessment”, in India’s
Historical Demography. Studies in Famine, Disease and Society, Dyson T. (ed.), Curzon Press, The
Riverdale Company.
86
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 86
23/06/2008 14:36:38
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
M ari Bhat p.n., r aJan i.s., 1997, “Demographic Transition Since Independence”, in
Kerala’s Demographic Transition, K.C. Zachariah and Rajan I.S., Eds, Sage, New Delhi,
pp. 33-78.
M ari Bhat p.n., Zavier a.J., 2003, “Fertility Decline and Gender Bias in Northern India”,
Demography, 40(4), pp. 637-657.
naïr p.s., véron J., 2002, “L’Inde: un milliard d’habitants en 2001”, in La Population du monde,
Géants démographiques et défis internationaux, Les Cahiers de l’Ined 149, pp. 227-243.
nanDa a.K., véron J., 2004, “Child Sex Ratio Imbalances, Fertility Behaviour and Development
in India: Recent Evidence from Haryana and Punjab”, Indian Social Science Review, Indian Council
of Social Science Research, New Delhi, pp. 101-134.
nanDa a.K., 2005, “Population Movement from Bangladesh to India: What do the Census
Data of 1981 and 1991 Reveal?”, India-Bangladesh. Strengthening the Partnership, CRRID,
Chandigarh, pp. 85-128.
offiCe of reGistrar GeneraL & Census CoMMissioner, 2006, Census of India. Population
Projections for India and States 2001-2026, Revised December 2006, Report of the technical group
on population projections constituted by the National Commission on Population, New Delhi.
pison G., 2007, “The population of the world (2007)”, Population & Societies, 436.
r aJan i.s., véron J., 2006, “La politique de population de l’Inde face à l’inertie des évolutions
démographiques”, in Démographie : analyse et synthèse. Tome VII. Histoire des idées et politiques
de population, Paris, INED, pp. 595-623.
sharMa o.p., r etherforD r.D., 1990, Effect of Female Literacy on Fertility in India, Census of
India 1981, New Delhi.
srinivasan K., 1995, Regulating Reproduction in India’s Population. Efforts. Results and
Recommendations. Sage Publications. New Delhi.
taButin D., sChouMaKer B., 2004, “The demography of sub-Saharan Africa from the 1950s
to the 2000s. A survey of changes and a statistical assessment”, Population, English Edition
59(3-4), 457-556.
taButin D., sChouMaKer B., 2005, “The demography of the Arab world and the Middle East
from the 1950s to the 2000s. A survey of changes and a statistical assessment”, Population,
English Edition, 60(5-6), 505-616.
unaiDs anD who, 2007, 2007, AIDS epidemic update
(http://data.unaids.org/pub/EPISlides/2007/2007_epiupdate_en.pdf)
unfpa, 1997, India. Towards population and Development Goals, Oxford University Press, Delhi.
uniteD nations, 2005, World Contraceptive Use 2005
(http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2005/WCU2005.htm)
uniteD nations, 2006a, World Population Prospects, United Nations, New York.
uniteD nations, 2006b, World Mortality Report 2005, United Nations, New York.
uniteD nations, 2006c, International Migration 2006, United Nations, New York.
uniteD nations, 2007a, World Population Prospects. The 2006 Revision. Highlights. New York,
United Nations. http://esa.un.org/unpp/
uniteD nations, 2007b, Demographic Yearbook 2004, United Nations, New York.
uniteD nations, 2008, World Urbanization Prospects. The 2007 Revision Population Database
(.http://esa.un.org/unpp/)
un-h aBitat. United Nations Human Settlements Programme
http://ww2.unhabitat.org/programmes/guo/documents/Table1.pdf
unDp, 2006, Human Development Report 2006.
véron J., 1987, “L’urbanisation indienne (1901-1981)”, Population 42(3), pp. 485-502.
véron J., 1997, “La transition démographique en Inde”, Espace, Populations, Sociétés, 2-3.
pp. 135-144.
véron J., naïr p.s., 2000, “The demographic transition in India: How to explain the northsouth divide?”, Paper presented at the conference of the Population Association of America (PAA),
Los Angeles, 19 p.
visaria p., 1995, “Demographic transition and policy responses in India”, Demography India.
24(1), pp. 1-12.
87
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 87
23/06/2008 14:36:38
J. Véron
visaria L., visaria p., 1995, “India’s population in transition”, Population Bulletin, PRB, 50(3),
October, Washington.
who, 2007, World Health Statistics 2007, Geneva
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2007.pdf
ZaChariah K.C., suLeKa pateL, 1984, “Determinants of fertility decline in India, an analysis”,
World Bank staff working papers, 699, Population and Development Series, Number 24, The World
Bank, Washington.
ZaChariah K.C., r aJan. i.s., sarMa p.s., navaneethaM K., Gopinathan nair p.s.,
Misra u.s., 1994, Demographic Transition in Kerala in the 1980s, Centre for Development Studies
Monograph Series, Thiruvananthapuram.
ZaChariah K.C., K annan K.p., r aJan i.s., 2002, Kerala’s Gulf Connection. CDS Studies
on International Labour Migration from Kerala State in India, Centre for Development Studies
Thiruvananthapuram.
ZaChariah K.C., M athew r aJan i.s., 2003, Dynamics of Migration in Kerala. Dimensions,
Differentials and Consequences, Orient Longman, New Delhi.
ZaChariah K.C., nair p.r., Gopinathan r aJan i.s., 2006, Return Emigrants in Kerala.
Welfare, Rehabilitation and Development, IDPAD Manohar.
unesCo, http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=210
88
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 88
23/06/2008 14:36:38
the deMograPhy of south a sia froM the 1950s to the 2000s
JaCques Véron • The Demography of SouTh aSia from The 1950S To The 2000S.
a Summary of ChangeS anD a STaTiSTiCal aSSeSSmenT
The countries of South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri
Lanka) cover less than 4% of the Earth’s surface, but their combined population of some 1.6 billion inhabitants
in 2007 represents nearly a quarter of the world total. India, the largest country in the region, alone has
1.17 billion inhabitants. This chronicle charts the main demographic trends since the 1950s, which are explained
in part by the countries’ diverse levels of development. Their demographic transitions also exhibit broad diversity.
There is no single transition model specific to the region, just as there is no single transition in India, as the
comparison of its states makes clear. Except in Sri Lanka, where the process is complete, the fertility transition
is ongoing, and the mortality transition is in general very advanced. The potential for demographic growth
remains high in South Asia, and the United Nations expects the region’s population to grow by 600 million
inhabitants up to 2040. The future course of demographic change has major implications for development,
since most of the countries need to reduce poverty and raise educational levels while at the same time coping
with rapid urban growth and addressing environmental issues.
JaCques Véron • l a Démographie De l’aSie Du SuD DeS annéeS 1950 aux annéeS 2000.
SynThèSe DeS ChangemenTS eT bilan STaTiSTique
Avec quelque 1,6 milliard d’habitants en 2007, l’Asie du Sud (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhoutan, Inde, Maldives,
Népal, Pakistan et Sri Lanka) rassemble sur moins de 4 % de la superficie totale de la terre près du quart de la
population mondiale et l’Inde, plus grand pays de cette région, compte à elle seule 1,17 milliard d’habitants.
Cette chronique présente l’évolution, depuis les années 1950, des principaux indicateurs démographiques, qui
s’explique en partie par le niveau de développement des différents pays. Les transitions démographiques
apparaissent diversifiées : il n’existe pas un modèle de transition qui serait propre à la région, pas plus qu’il
n’existe un modèle indien de transition comme le montrent, pour ce pays, les comparaisons entre États.
À l’exclusion du Sri Lanka où elle est achevée, la transition de la fécondité est toujours en cours alors que celle
de la mortalité est généralement bien avancée. Le potentiel de croissance démographique de l’Asie du Sud
reste très élevé puisque, selon les Nations unies, la population de cette région devrait s’accroître de 600 millions
d’habitants d’ici 2040. Les évolutions démographiques futures constituent un enjeu majeur de développement,
puisque la plupart des pays doivent réduire la pauvreté, améliorer les niveaux d’instruction, gérer une forte
croissance urbaine et mieux protéger l’environnement.
JaCques Véron • l a Demografía De aSia Del Sur De loS añoS 1950 a loS añoS 2000.
SínTeSiS De loS CambioS y balanCe eSTaDíSTiCo
Con cerca de 1 600 millones de habitantes en 2007, Asia del Sur (Afganistán, Bangladesh, Bhután, India,
Maldivas, Nepal, Pakistán y Sri Lanka) reúne en menos del 4% de la superficie total de la tierra cerca de la
cuarta parte de la población mundial y la India, país más grande de esta región, cuenta, éste sólo, con
1 170 millones de habitantes. Esta crónica presenta la evolución, desde los años 1950, de los principales
indicadores demográficos, que se explica en parte por el nivel de desarrollo de los diferentes países. Las
transiciones demográficas aparecen diversificadas. En efecto, no existe un modelo de transición específico de
la región, ni tampoco existe un modelo indio de transición como lo muestran, para este país, las comparaciones
entre Estados. Exceptuando a Sri Lanka en donde se encuentra acabada, la transición de la fecundidad está
siempre en curso mientras que la de la mortalidad está generalmente bien avanzada. El potencial de crecimiento
demográfico de Asia del Sur sigue siendo muy elevado puesto que, según las Naciones unidas, la población de
esta región debería aumentar de 600 millones de habitantes de ahora a 2040. Las evoluciones demográficas
futuras constituyen un reto mayor de desarrollo puesto que la mayoría de países deben reducir la pobreza,
mejorar los niveles de instrucción, manejar un fuerte crecimiento urbano y proteger mejor el medio
ambiente.
Jacques véron, Institut national d’études démographiques, 133 boulevard Davout, 75980 Paris
Cedex20,France,tel:33(0)156062176,e-mail:[email protected]
89
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 89
23/06/2008 14:36:39
02_INE_Pop0108_007_090.indd 90
23/06/2008 14:36:39