This series aims to give readers a basic understanding of the perplexing puzzles that the strange arithmetic of population poses to democratic systems today! In this sixth installment, we’ll explore India’s birth rate dynamics, state-wise variations, interstate migration, urban migration waves, and the resulting challenges...
So far in this series, we’ve examined birth rate trends through examples from various global regions. Before diving into India’s birth rate math, let’s recap the concept briefly: the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) indicates, on average, how many children women in a reproductive age group give birth to in a region. If a population’s TFR is around 2.1, it can sustain itself without external migration. This is called the replacement-level TFR. Above 2.1, the population grows; below it, the population shrinks.
India’s TFR, according to the fifth National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) from 2019-20, was recorded at 2.0. Back when the first NFHS was conducted in 1992-93, it was 3.4. Since then, the TFR has steadily declined. By the fourth survey (2015-16), it had dropped to 2.2, and in the next five years, it slid further to 2.0. So, while India holds the record as the world’s most populous country, our average TFR has now dipped below the replacement level!
 |
| NHFS-4 : trends in fertility |
Looking at the median age at first and last birth sharpens this trend. The average age of Indian women at their first childbirth was 19.4 during the first NFHS in 1992-93. By 2019-20, it had risen to 21.2. Increased women’s education and access to job opportunities have played a big role here. Meanwhile, the average age at which women have their last child dropped from 32.8 to 27.6 in the same period! This means not only is the birth rate falling, but India’s fertility window is also shrinking.
 |
| Source: NFHS rounds 1-5, International Institute for Population Sciences |
However, this is just the national average! When we look at state-wise data, it’s clear that more developed states have seen significant TFR declines. According to NFHS-5 (2019-20), Maharashtra’s TFR is 1.7, Gujarat’s 1.9, Karnataka’s 1.7, Goa’s 1.3, and West Bengal’s 1.6. In contrast, less developed northern states show higher rates: Bihar at 3.0, Uttar Pradesh around 2.4, and Jharkhand at 2.3. This aligns with the global trend we’ve seen in this series—progress correlates with declining birth rates, and India’s state-wise data reflects the same pattern..
 |
| NFHS-5: TFR across states |
The disparity grows even starker when we compare urban and rural areas. For instance, Maharashtra’s urban TFR is around 1.4, while its rural TFR is 1.9. In Uttar Pradesh, rural areas clock in at 2.5, and in rural Bihar, it’s 3.2. So, the gap between urban areas in developed states and rural areas in less developed states is significantly wider than state-level averages suggest!
This data translates into real-world impacts we can see around us. The waves of migrants flocking to India’s major cities reveal the gravity of these numbers. With Mumbai’s TFR less than half of rural Bihar’s, thousands of workers migrate to Mumbai daily for jobs—a pattern we’ve seen for years. Mumbai’s current birth rate can’t meet its labor demands. Meanwhile, rural Bihar’s surplus workforce struggles to find local jobs due to underdevelopment. Just as water flows from high to low ground, these migrant waves from rural Bihar flow steadily to Mumbai!
Just as you can’t fake money, you can’t fake manpower. Regardless of anyone’s regional pride or sentiments, Mumbai or Bangalore’s urban economies will inevitably look to places like rural Bihar for the labor needed to fuel growth—it’s practically a law of nature! With Mumbai’s local birth rate plummeting and modern healthcare extending lifespans, the city faces a future with fewer young people and more elderly—a trend we’ve already seen in Japan and Korea in earlier parts of this series. Mumbai is on track to become India’s Tokyo. Thus, migration is as much a necessity for low-TFR cities like Mumbai (below 1.5) as it is for the migrant workers themselves!
Migration is often viewed through the lens of regional identity or nativism. Yet, the irony is that the same leaders who loudly demand “stop the migrant waves” to score political points often employ those very migrants in their construction businesses. While declining birth rate communities may resent high-birth-rate groups—a trend seen globally—economies in such places rely heavily on migrant labor to survive, both worldwide and in India.
Of course, this creates serious urban challenges: growing slums, urban decay, strain on infrastructure like Mumbai’s local trains, shifting demographics, and changes to city culture. Post-independence, India’s urban population was around 18%. Recent data shows it’s now 35%, and the 2023-24 Economic Survey projects it will exceed 40% by 2030. As cities’ low birth rates pull in more rural populations, this trend will only intensify.
 |
| Share of people living in urban and rural areas, India |
Migration impacts rural areas too. The loss of skilled and unskilled labor leaves villages short-handed. Agriculture suffers the most, with farmers facing a critical shortage of workers and rising labor costs. Meanwhile, educated individuals increasingly settle in cities, causing a brain drain in rural areas. This creates a vicious cycle: labor shortages harm agriculture, brain drain stalls development, slowing growth, and pushing even more people to migrate to cities.
In this part, we’ve unpacked India’s birth rate dynamics, diving into the data and trends. We’ve explored state-wise TFR variations, urban-rural divides, rising migration to cities, and the resulting urban and rural challenges. In the next part, we’ll continue this discussion, delving into the religious, regional, and linguistic identity conflicts tied to India’s birth rate trends. Until then, take care!
Original Marathi Blog Article: लोकशाही आणि लोकसंख्येचा यक्षप्रश्न - भाग ६