INDIA'S REAL PROBLEM
nt,—Mr. Barbour has somewhat misunderstood the Indian population oblem. To say that the peak-rise-period is already over is not to eclude the possibility of " a substantial growth " still taking place. In ther words, a point of inflexion has been reached, and the population- urve is flattening out. Professor Hill's graph, in The Times of June 1st, ave exactly the opposite impression. In your issue of June 16th I tried o show (a) that quantitative predictions on the basis of crude death and irth rates are not possible, (b) in certain parts of India the net repro- uction rate is already less than unity, and (c) there are indications t fertility is falling rapidly, due to changing age-composition, rising ge at marriage and other social reasons. " A little-changing but high irth-rate," without reference to the changing age-groupings and falling ertility, has no meaning for our purposes. The notion that the rate of crease of the Indian population is likely to fall rapidly was not gro- unded by me, but by Dr. Raja, who is quoted at length in the Census eport, 1941.
I did not suggest that India's problem was a short-term one, but " the resent. financial disorganisation and the famine " are considered by all onomists to be the effects of inflation, which can be checked, not by pulation control, nor even by " co-operation " or any " new approach," ut by stringent financial measures. In its long-term aspects, India's low ctor of safety was shown to be attributable more to the lack of machines d technological progress than any other factor. As for the " new pproach," Professor Hill himself provides the answer. "Progress in tonal development could be sensibly quicker under a purely Indian overrunent." The avoidance of political recrimination and the setting p of such a Government are, then, our first needs.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
