For decades, large population and high fertility rates were blamed for all economic and social problems in India. As a result, health policies were disproportionately obsessed with ‘population control’, with a range of incentives and disincentives to have fewer children. Monetary incentives for adopting sterilisation methods, disqualification from a range of benefits as well as contesting elections and even public shaming for having too many children has been seen across the country. Many of us grew up with the ‘Hum Do Hamare Do’ advertisements being a routine feature on national television. India has come a long way since then.The last couple of years have seen a u-turn in these policies, with leaders of southern states calling for people to have more children. The chief minister of Andhra Pradesh has recently announced an incentive payout of Rs 30,000 for a third-born child and Rs 40,000 for a fourth-born (AP now also has a ‘population management’ policy), while also paying lip service to the importance of gender-equality and fathers contributing to childcare. The concern is obviously coming out of the fear that the state will lose out on its share in political representation and central finances because its population is falling relative to most parts of the country. What is striking is that these statements are completely oblivious to people’s right to reproductive choice or women’s bodily autonomy. In this manner, they are in principle similar to the population control policies of the recent past, which have been much maligned for their coercive nature.India’s total fertility rate (TFR) has reduced from 5.2 in 1971 to below the replacement level fertility rate of 2.1, standing now at around 1.9 which based on the latest available data from SRS for 2024 (TFR indicates the average number of children expected to be born per woman). TFR in all South Indian states is now at 1.5 or below (AP is at 1.4). Once the Census is completed, we might find that the TFR is even lower. Only a few states have a TFR above 2.1 (Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh); even these states have been witnessing a steady decline. There is ample evidence from India and across the world to show that a reduction in fertility rates follows an improvement in girls/women’s access to education, increased age at marriage/childbirth and improvements in health services and outcomes. The famous slogan of the 1970s, ‘Development is the best contraceptive’ encompasses such an understanding.Also read: Make No Mistake, a Population Control Policy Will Target the MarginalisedMore recently, there has also been attention drawn to the opportunity costs of having children – with more women in the workforce, the costs of withdrawing from the labour market are high. Further, more women are choosing to have fewer children or no children for a variety of reasons. Countries across the world are grappling with how they should deal with declining populations. Countries like South Korea, which now has a TFR of less than 1, have not succeeded in reversing this trend significantly despite many short-term measures. In India as well, these incentives are likely to fail.Our context is also very different. Most women are in the informal sector and do not have access to maternity leave or wage compensation during pregnancy and childbirth. Out of pocket expenditures on delivery care are high and good quality healthcare is not accessible everywhere. The demand for childcare and education is increasing, and so are the costs in the absence of public services and increasing privatisation. While there is some improvement in outcomes for women, violence against women is still widely prevalent, sex ratios are skewed against girls, women’s say in decision making is low. Unpaid household and care work is predominantly carried out by women to the extent that they restrict education and employment choices that women are able to make. The priority of governments must be to address these basic issues in an equitable manner with universal public services.Population changes and changing demographic structures do affect government policy. However, it would be better for governments to respond to these changing scenarios to ensure that people are not denied basic services and rights, rather than trying to ‘control’ the structure itself. In India, while the population at the national level continues to increase due to population momentum, it is expected to decline in absolute terms from 2060 onwards. Along with the absolute numbers, what is expected to change is the demographic structure with the elderly (60+) comprising around 20% of the population by 2050. This has implications for size of the workforce, number of dependents, care requirements and health services.The Southern states already have a higher share of their population being elderly. While average share of people above 60 years of age is 11% at the all-India level, it is 19% in Kerala, 16% in Tamil Nadu and 14% in AP. In contrast, share of elderly in UP is 9% and 8% in Bihar. With most people having worked in the informal sector, they are left with no pensions or other social security provisions. While the southern states have increased the amounts they give as old-age pensions, these are still inadequate and much more needs to be done for the care of old people as the population ages.These states are also facing a shortage of population of the working age group, which might get worse in the coming years. Migration, within and across states, is already a reality that these demographic imbalances are producing, and it needs to be managed with dignity rather than treated as a problem.Ultimately, the government’s job is to protect people’s rights, invest in their well-being and ensure equitable access to services. Changing demographic trends pose different challenges, each of which must be responded to in a just and democratic manner; rather than attempting to reverse them through short-term, ineffective measures that override people’s choices.Dipa Sinha is a development economist.