From: sirosh@cs.utexas.edu (Joseph Sirosh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: Sex Ratio, Population growth
Date: 15 Aug 1992 01:04:00 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: sahara.cs.utexas.edu

Sumitro Samaddar writes:

>How did Kerala end up with the highest population density? Maybe you
>had your spell of lack of family planning. Now it is the turn of
>north Indians.

These are narrow minded views. Population growth does not have anything to
do with the area of a place or a state. Would you say next that because there
are more people of a particular race, the rest of the races should go forth
and multiply? Or discriminate against the more populous race? (Politically/
racially/economically?). 

The answer to your question is that Kerala has always been a very fertile 
state, with a very conducive climate. It was natural for people to prosper
there. Your question is similar to asking how Bombay or Calcutta ended up being
the most populous cities.

What do you mean by "it is the turn of north Indians"?  Is this some kind
of balancing act - if the south is heavier, put some more weight in the north?
And how did you, being from Madhya Pradesh, suddenly become a North Indian?
Can I become one? Where does North India start?

>Does it bother you that Madhya Pradesh (my state), with maybe 10 times
>the area of Kerala has about 4 times the seats?

The states are political divisions - since family planning was being pushed
as a government incentive, one needed to devolve responsibilities to states.
It absolutely is not right to penalize the people if a local government does
not achieve its political objectives, or vice versa. Representation should
always be by the number of people, and not by the area of a place, or any
other considerations.

>> I seriously think that India is too big and diverse to be one country.

It definitely is not too big and diverse to be 23 or 25 countries. In fact,
had it not been for linguistic divisions coinciding with political, this
question might not have popped up.

>Maybe so. But remember that with such a high population density, Keralites
>have migrated to all sorts of lands (including north India) to earn their
>livelihood there. So the rest of India (and World) has borne the brunt of
>population explosion in Kerala in the past. It was high time you reduced
>your population growth. Should have done so earlier. Then, Kerala would
>have started with 4 seats and increase it's share later so that you could
>feel good.

>Sumitro
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's generalize your statements a little bit. Wouldn't you scream bloody
murder if a country like U.S. said that the rest of the world has borne
the brunt of the population explosion in India, that India had better reduce
its growth drastically, or else, its political representation in world 
bodies will be cut and so on? So why apply the same argument to a state?

Hell, aren't we all Indians? I hate this north vs. south, rest of India
vs. tamils, Hindi vs. Tamil, India vs. Pakistan,  Hindu vs. Moslem,
arguments. Why in heavens name are we so concerned with the differences 
and not the unity? Why don't I ever see a discussion of how similar 
India and Pakistan is, or how similar people think in the north and south,
or how much of common linguistic terms (Sanskrit?) exist between Hindi
and Tamil, or how human values are the same among religions? Why not a
discussion of shared history, shared customs, shared culture, shared ambitions,
shared problems, shared challenges? For a change?

Concerned,

Joseph Sirosh

PS: And why are you people in the sidelines, who I know have more broader