One of the biggest propaganda carried out by the Indian government and the global leftist elites is that overpopulation or high population growth is bad for the economy and that only by reducing population can the society become prosperous and become strong economically. This lie served very well to cover up the massive incompetence of the previous governments and their failed economic model of License Raj and also to serve the white supremacists of the west, who feared being overtaken by non-whites in political and economic power. The example for the latter is the “Planned Parenthood” movement in the USA, which was introduced by white supremacist leftists and progressives, who wanted to control the black population growth by reducing the number of children they have. The idea of planned parenthood was sold under the guise of “liberalism, family planning, resource management”, while the actual intent was to reduce the growth of black population so that they don’t challenge the white supremacist narrative. This is a fact unknown to the wider Indian audience (and indeed western audience today outside of a select few who do their research in this issue rather than consume the mainstream political propaganda they hear from leftist media). Lesser known to even pro-Hindu Indians is the fact that one of the pioneers for normalising and pushing for foeticide and abortion in India were the leftist reform rats of Ford Foundation. But even when confronted with this fact, many Indians, particularly the Liberal types and even some pro-Hindus take this as a case of Ford Foundation being beneficial to Indian society, by pushing for family planning and population reduction.
Why deconstructing the myth of Overpopulation of India is important
The misconception about population does not end with liberals alone as one would expect, but even many pro-Hindus fall for it. The latter have by now grown to distrust the mainstream narrative on socialism, secularism, and other -isms but they are still deceived into believing the myth that having children is bad for the Hindu society. This problem is so bad that even grounded Hindus, who understand the reality of India and its demographic crisis vis-a-vis the Muslim population genuinely think that having kids is bad for the Hindu Dharma. They are caught between the economic benefits of having less kids per family and cursing future Hindu society to servitude/Dhimmitude under eventual Muslim majority vs social benefits for Hindu society by having more kids while supposedly reducing the economic benefits for the Hindu society. The choice is thus shown to restricted between over-population and weak economy vs low population, high economic prosperity but future servitude. This is perhaps the most important reason to de-construct this myth that overpopulation is bad for the country or even the notion that India is currently over populated. After all, the future of Hindu Dharma is not resting in the hand of wannabe whites who are Hindus in name only (HINO), but rather in the hands of Dharmics/real Hindus, many of whom have been successfully brainwashed by the secular incompetent state to blame their dire economic conditions on population than on actual reasons like pathetic socialist policies like License Raj, import substitution model of industrialisation, curtailing of private enterprises etc. For example- the labour laws are meant to ensure nobody in their right mind opens a factory to provide employment in the first place and hence these laws protect labour from exploitation by preventing labour from occurring in the first place etc.
Myth 1: India has a high population density
Previously on Yugaparivartan, we wrote an article on the lie that India is uniquely overpopulated and that is the reason for all economic ills of the country. Summary of the article is that India’s real population density, i.e. the density of population per area of useful/arable/cultivable land is actually very low compared to world wide median. For example, out of the 180 countries in the world, India ranks roughly 110 in the population density. So there are more countries in the world which have more population density than India than countries with lower population density. Many of these high population density countries have developed economies and no body in their right mind (except the earth hugging hippies, who think that the very human existence on the planet is bad for the planet) would call them as being over populated. For example- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc have a population density which is almost three times of India. Yet, India is 20 times poorer than these countries on a per capita basis. Of course, inferiority complex ridden Indians might think that Japanese can work efficiently around their “population problem” but not Indians. Even if we give them that, there are a lot of other countries other than Japan like Netherlands, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Morocco, Belgium etc which have real population density higher than India and are doing exceptionally well.
Also, almost all of these countries rely on active immigration to meet their labour demand since their native population is not having enough kids and have very low TFR. Not only these countries are more densely populated, they also have a active policy to encourage their population to have more children with active welfare measures to have kids, while at the same time encouraging more immigration to have more working hands. So, if the claim that India has a very high population density and that population density is keeping India down is true, then the countries with higher population density than India like UK, Netherlands, Italy, South Korea, Japan etc will not be having such thriving economies unlike India nor will they actively encourage child birth for their citizens, much less call for population planning or halt immigration.
Myth 2: India has a very high population per se
This is a much easier myth to debunk. High population per se is not a bad thing as most of the powerful countries of the world have always been very highly populated. United States of America is the third most populous country in the country and still has one of the best, if not the best economy in the world. In fact, there are many countries in the world which have higher per capita income than USA. But USA has the advantage of having a large per capita income on top of having a very high population which is why it is now the world’s only superpower. If not for its population, USA will not be any more of a super power just like a non-power Switzerland. It can try to be a humanitarian super power like Sweden though, which shows its humanitarian superpowerdom by letting its women raped by Muslim immigrants, but in real world humanitarian super power counts for nothing. Much closer to home is the example of China. China has a per capita income double of India despite having much higher population than India. Some argue that this is because of China’s one child policy but they could not be more mistaken. China’s one child policy is actually turning into a disaster since it resulted in skewed sex ratio and made China age too fast before becoming completely productive. This has forced China to actually reverse its one child policy, which it recently did. Also consider the example of BRICS. The reason BRICS is even considered to be phenomenon is partly because of their growth potential and partly because of their populations. BRICS will replace the West as the de-facto world leaders through brute force of population numbers with moderately good economic prosperity. Even in 2050, when BRICS overtake G7 as the principle economic bloc, per capita income of BRICS will only be 1/3rd of the G7 nations. So the argument that huge population per se is bad for the economy is complete fiction devoid of reality. At the end of day economic muscle of a country is determined by its total GDP which depends on both its per capita income and total population. If only per capita income had counted for world supremacy, then India would be doing worse than most African nations!
Having busted the two common myths, the next articles in this series will evaluate the impact of humans on nature and the Malthusian argument of earth’s inability in supporting more population.