India Faces Its Population Problems

  • Oscar Harkavy
Part of the The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE)


Throughout much of this century India has captured the public imagination as the quintessentially overpopulated country. The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich’s overheated tract of the 1960s, sets the tone in the first chapter:

I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time. I came to understand it emotionally one stinking hot night in Delhi a couple of years ago.... The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people...1


Family Planning Family Planning Service Family Planning Program Ford Foundation Population Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968), p. 15. Ehrlich notes that he borrowed the title from a pamphlet first published by the Hugh Moore Fund in 1954.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ronald Freedman, The Fertility Transition in Asia: 1965–1990, unpublished ms., July 1994, p. 18.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    John Caldwell and Pat Caldwell, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution (London: Frances Pinter, 1986), p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibid., pp. 40-41.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Francis X. Sutton, Ford Foundation History Project Report (Overseas Development), Part II (draft ms.), August 1984, p. 67, Ford Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    “The beads used were those sold in Jan Path, New Delhi, by Nepalese vendors, reported to be favourites (considered dainty) by European and American women” (B. L. Raina, “A Quest for a Small Family,” unpublished ms., 1988, pp. 64-65).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Douglas Ensminger, “The Ford Foundation’s Relations with the Planning Commission,” Oral History, October 21, 1971, p. 11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ibid., p. 13.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Douglas Ensminger, “A Self-Examination of the Ford Foundation’s Involvement in Family Planning in India,” memorandum to himself, August 18, 1967, p. 1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, May 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicholas J. Demerath, Birth Control and Foreign Policy (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 64).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    The initial grant of $330,000 was supplemented by $603,000 in 1961, but little of the supplementary grant was used for the FPCAR program and all but $55,414 was transferred to other population projects in 1966 (Kathleen D. McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1959–1981,” endnote 13, p. 97, 1985, Ford Foundation Archive Report #011011).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raina, “A Quest for a Small Family,” p. 24.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, May 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A “block” in India has about 100,000 inhabitants. Gandhigram is located within Athoor block.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs,” p. 8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibid., p. 74.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, May 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Demerath, Birth Control and Foreign Policy, pp. 66-67.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, April 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Ronald Freedman, “The Contribution of Social Science Research to Population Policy and Family Planning Program Effectiveness,” Studies in Family Planning 18, no. 2 (March/April 1987):63.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frank Wilder and T. K. Tyagi, “India’s New Departures in Mass Motivation for Fertility Control,” Demography 5, no. 2 (1968):773-779.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raina, “A Quest for a Small Family,” pp. 205-206.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ensminger, “The Ford Foundation’s Relations,” p. 24.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, May 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Officially, this was a report of a committee headed by K. T. Chandy, director of the Calcutta Institute of Management, to which King served as a consultant. The report is summarized in Studies in Family Planning 1, no. 6 (March 1965):7-12.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    “Introduction to the Reproductive Biology Grants, Their General Background and Objectives,” The Ford Foundation in India and Nepal, Status Report, October 1, 1966, p. 49, Ford Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Interview with Sheldon Segal, March 17, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Letter to Roy Hill, December 9, 1967.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meredith Minkler, “Consultants or Colleagues: The Role of U.S. Population Advisors in India,” Population and Development Review 3, no. 4 (December 1977):411.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs,” p. 21.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Minkler, “Consultants or Colleagues,” p. 409.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ensminger, “A Self-Examination,” p. 4.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid., pp. 5-9.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Minkler, “Consultants or Colleagues,” p. 403.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    John P. Lewis, “Population Control in India,” in Harrison Brown and Edward Hutchings, Jr., eds., Are Our Descendants Doomed? (New York: Viking Press, 1972), pp. 243-244.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ibid., p. 222.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    R. T. Ravenholt, “The A.I.D. Population and Family Planning Program—Goals, Scope, and Progress,” Demography 5, no. 2 (1968):569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Phyllis Piotrow, World Population Crisis: The United States Response (New York: Praeger, 1973), p. 179.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meredith Minkler, “Role Conflict and Role Shock: American and Indian Perspectives on the Role of U.S. Family Planning Advisors in India,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California (Berkeley). 1975, p. 245.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ibid., p. 228.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    David E. Bell and Frank Sutton, “Population in Relation to the Foundation’s Purposes and Programs,” Ford Foundation internal memorandum, April 1968, Ford Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ozzie G. Simmons, “Survey of Social Sciences Relevant to Population Problems: India,” Ford Foundation internal memorandum, April 2, 1971, pp. 3-4, Ford Foundation Archives.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs,” p. 53.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    W. Henry Mosley and Lincoln C. Chen, “An Analytic Framework for the Study of Child Survival in Developing Countries,” in Child Survival: Strategies for Research (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 25–48.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    UNFPA, Global Assistance Report, 1982–1988 (New York: UNFPA, 1989), p. 42.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs,” p. 15.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Interview with Moye Freymann, May 4, 1990.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    McCarthy, “The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs,” p. 15.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ronald Freedman, personal communication, August 1994.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    S. Krishnakumar, The Story of the Ernakulum Experiment in Family Planning (Government of Kerala, 1971).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ibid., p. 149.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Freedman, “The Contribution of Social Science Research,” p. 61.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Davidson R. Gwatkin, “Political Will and Family Planning: The Implications of India’s Emergency Experience,” Population and Development Review 5, no. 1 (March 1979):32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ibid., pp. 44-45.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    John Kantner, Population in India’s Development (New Delhi: USAID, 1986), pp. 70–71.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Calculation from contraceptive prevalence data compiled by W. Parker Mauldin, 1990.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Anrudh Jain, “Issues in Population Program in India,” Population Council, March 1989, p. 6; S. I. Rajan, U.S. Mishia, and Mala Ramanathan, “The Two-Child Family in India: Is it Realistic?” International Family Planning Perspectives 18, no. 4 (December 1993):125.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    According to an empirical formula, crude birthrate = 48.4 − 0.44 (contraceptive prevalence), See Jain, “Issues in Population Programs in India,” p. 6.Google Scholar

Selected Bibliography

  1. Back, Kurt W., Family Planning and Population Control, Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. Bardin, C. Wayne, Public Sector Contraceptive Development: History, Problems, and Prospects for the Future, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4) 1987, 289–306.Google Scholar
  3. Baulieu, E.-E. RU-486 as an Antiprogesterone Steroid, Journal of the American Medical Association, 262 1989, 1808–1814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berelson, Bernard, Richmond K. Anderson, Oscar Harkavy, John Maier, W. Parker Mauldin, and Sheldon J. Segal, eds., Family Planning and Population Programs, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  5. Berelson, Bernard, The Present State of Family Planning Programs, First Population Conference, Bellagio, Lake Como, April 6–8, 1970, Rockefeller Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berelson, Bernard, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, November 21, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard, Where Are We Going?: An Outline. Bellagio IV Population Conference, June 7–9, 1977, Rockefeller Foundation Working Papers, November 1977.Google Scholar
  8. Bongaarts, John, W. Parker Mauldin, and James F. Phillips, The Demographic Impact of Family Planning Programs, Studies in Family Planning, 21 (6), 1990, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bongaarts, John, Population Growth and Global Warming, Population and Development Review, 18, (2), 1992, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caldwell, John, and Pat Caldwell, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution, London: Frances Pinter, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. Callahan, Sidney, and Daniel Callahan, eds., Abortion: Understanding Differences, New York: Plenum Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. Carter, Stephen L., Strife’s Dominion, The New Yorker, August 9, 1993, 86-92.Google Scholar
  13. Cleland, John, Marital Fertility Decline in Developing Countries: Theories and Evidence, in John Cleland and John Hobcraft, eds., Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Coale, Ansley J., and Edgar M. Hoover, Population Growth in Low Income Countries: A Case Study of India’s Prospects, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  15. Coale, Ansley J., and Susan C. Watkins, eds., The Decline of Fertility in Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Population and the American Future, The Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
  17. Demeny, Paul, Social Science and Population Policy, Population Council Center for Policy Studies Working Paper, no. 138, May 1988.Google Scholar
  18. Demerath, Nicholas J., Birth Control and Foreign Policy, New York: Harper and Row, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. Djerassi, Carl, Birth Control after 1984, Science, 169, no. 949, 1970, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donaldson, Peter J. Nature Against Us, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. Ehrlich, Paul R., The Population Bomb, New York: Ballantine Books, 1968.Google Scholar
  22. Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. Ensminger, Douglas, Oral History, Ford Foundation Archives, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Finkle, Jason L., and Barbara B. Crane, The Politics of Bucharest: Population, Development, and the New International Economic Order, Population and Development Review, 1, (1), 1975, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ford Foundation, Report of the Study for the Ford Foundation on Policy and Programs, New York: Ford Foundation, 1950.Google Scholar
  26. Ford Foundation, Trustees’ Docket, July 15–16, 1952.Google Scholar
  27. Ford Foundation, The Ford Foundation’s Work on Population, New York: Ford Foundation, 1985.Google Scholar
  28. Freedman, Ronald, Social Research and Programs for Reducing Birth Rates, reprinted in Social Science Research on Population and Development, Ford Foundation Conference, New York City, October 29–30, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Freedman, Ronald, The Contribution of Social Science Research to Population Policy and Family Planning Program Effectiveness, Studies in Family Planning, 18 (2), 1987, 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greep, Roy O., Marjorie A. Koblinsky, and Frederick A. Jaffe, eds., Reproduction and Human Welfare: A Challenge to Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  31. Harkavy, Oscar, Funding Contraceptive Development, Technology in Society, 9 (3/4), 1987, 307–321.Google Scholar
  32. Harkavy, Oscar, Frederick Jaffe, and Samuel Wishik, Implementing DHEW Policy on Family Planning and Population, 1967, reprinted in Hearings before the Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. Senate, 1967–68, Part 1, 163-180.Google Scholar
  33. Hertz, Roy, A Quest for Better Contraception: The Ford Foundation’s Contribution to Reproductive Science and Contraceptive Development, 1959–83, New York: Ford Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
  34. Hodgson, Dennis, Demography as Social Science and Policy Science. Population and Development Review, 9 (1), 1983, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jain, Anrudh, Issues in Population Program in India, Population Council, March 1989.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, Stanley, World Population and the United Nations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, E. F., J. D. Forrest, N. Goldman, S. K. Henshaw, K. Lincoln, J. I. Rosoff, C. F. Westoff, and D. Wolff, Teenage Pregnancy in Developed Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  38. Keyfitz, Nathan, Thirty Years of Demography and Demography. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirby, Douglas, Cynthia Waszik, and Julie Ziegler, Six School-Based Clinics: Their Reproductive Health Services and Impact on Sexual Behavior, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (1), 1991, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kirby, Douglas, Richard P. Barth, Nancy Leland, and Joyce V. Fetro, Reducing the Risk: Impact of a New Curriculum on Sexual Risk-Taking, Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (6), 1991, 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kiser, Clyde, The Work of the Milbank Memorial Fund in Population Since 1928, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 15–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krishnakumar, S., The Story of the Ernakulum Experiment in Family Planning, Government of Kerala, 1971.Google Scholar
  43. Kritz, Mary M., The Rockefeller Foundation’s Activities in Population, Rockefeller Foundation, April 1982.Google Scholar
  44. Mauldin, W. Parker, Nazli Choucri, Frank W. Notestein, and Michael Teitelbaum, A Report on Bucharest. Studies in Family Planning, 5 (12), 1974.Google Scholar
  45. McCarthy, Kathleen D., The Ford Foundation’s Population Programs in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 1959–1981, Ford Foundation Archives, Report #011011.Google Scholar
  46. Menken, Jane, ed., World Population and U.S. Policy, New York and London: W.W. Norton, 1986.Google Scholar
  47. Minkler, Meredith, Consultants or Colleagues: The Role of U.S. Population Advisors in India, Population and Development Review, 3 (4), 1977, 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mosley, W. Henry, and Lincoln C. Chen, An Analytical Framework for the Study of Child Survival in Developing Countries, in W. Henry Mosley and Lincoln C. Chen, eds., Child Survival: Strategies for Research, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council, Population Growth and Economic Development: Policy Questions, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  50. Notestein, Frank W., Reminiscences, The Milbank Fund Quarterly, 49 (4), part 2, 1971, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Notestein, Frank W., Demography in the United States: A Partial Account of the Development of the Field, Population and Development Review, 8 (4), 1982, 651–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osborn, Fairfield, Our Plundered Planet, Boston: Little, Brown, 1948.Google Scholar
  53. Piotrow, Phyllis, World Population Crisis, New York: Praeger, 1973.Google Scholar
  54. Population Council, A Chronicle of the First Twenty-Five Years, New York: The Population Council, 1978.Google Scholar
  55. Preston, Samuel H., The Contours of Demography: Estimates and Projections. Demography, 30 (4), 1993, 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pritchett, Lant H., Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies. Population and Development Review, 20 (1), 1994, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reed, James, From Private Vice to Public Virtue, New York: Basic Books, 1978.Google Scholar
  58. Rockefeller, John D., 3rd, Population Growth: The Role of the Developed World, Bucharest: IUSSP, 1974.Google Scholar
  59. Ross, John A., and W. Parker Mauldin, eds., Berelson on Population, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. Sadik, Nafis, Safeguarding the Future, New York: UNFPA, n.d.Google Scholar
  61. Schorr, Lisbeth, Within Our Reach, New York: Anchor Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  62. Shaplen, Robert, Toward the Well-Being of Mankind: Fifty Years of the Rockefeller Foundation, New York: Doubleday, 1964.Google Scholar
  63. Sheehan, Robert, and Elizabeth Weil-Fisher, The Birth Control “Pill,” Fortune, April 1958.Google Scholar
  64. Simon, Julian L., The Ultimate Resource, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  65. Smil, Vaclav, Planetary Warming: Realities and Response, Population and Development Review, 16 (1), 1990, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steiner, Gilbert Y, ed., The Abortion Dispute and the American System, Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1983.Google Scholar
  67. Strickland, Stephen P., ed., Population Crisis, Hearings before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Aid Expenditures, Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C.: Socio-Dynamics Publications, 1970.Google Scholar
  68. Symonds, Richard, and Michael Carder, The United Nations and the Population Question, 1945–1970, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.Google Scholar
  69. Thompson, Warren, Population, American Journal of Sociology, 34, 959-75.Google Scholar
  70. Trussell, James, Jane Menken, Barbara L. Lindheim, and Barbara Vaughan, The Impact of Restricting Medicaid Financing for Abortion, Family Planning Perspectives, 12 (2), 1989, 120–130.Google Scholar
  71. United Nations Population Fund, Global Assistance Report, 1982–1991, New York: UNFPA, 1992.Google Scholar
  72. Vogt, William, Road to Survival, New York: W. Sloane Associates, 1948.Google Scholar
  73. Ward, Martha C., Poor Women, Powerful Men: America’s Great Experiment in Family Planning, Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  74. World Health Organization, Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Reproductive Health: A Key to a Brighter Future, Geneva: WHO, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Harkavy
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ford FoundationNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations