Skip to main content

Questions raised over govt’s high-level committee on demographic change

By A Representative 
The All India Feminist Alliance (ALIFA), a constituent of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), has urged the Union government to undertake a comprehensive review of the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the recently constituted High-Level Committee on Demographic Change, alleging that its mandate risks promoting social polarization rather than advancing an evidence-based understanding of India's demographic challenges.
In a statement, ALIFA expressed concern over the committee notified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on May 26, 2026, following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's announcement of a "High-Powered Demography Mission" during his Independence Day address on August 15, 2025. The alliance argued that the committee's mandate appears to be disproportionately focused on issues of "illegal immigration" and demographic changes among religious and social communities, rather than addressing the broader spectrum of demographic transformations taking place across the country.
The committee is chaired by Prakash Prabhakar Navlekar and includes former bureaucrats Durga Shankar Mishra and Balaji Srivastava, economist Shamika Ravi, and the Census Commissioner as members.
According to ALIFA, seven of the committee's eight action points make reference to "illegal immigration" or "illegal migrants," while the remaining point calls for an analysis of structural population changes among religious and social communities. The alliance contends that such a framework effectively narrows the scope of demographic inquiry and predetermines the direction of the committee's findings.
The feminist collective argued that demography encompasses a much wider range of issues, including fertility and mortality trends, ageing populations, gender ratios, internal and external migration, urbanization, changing family structures, regional disparities, and the social consequences of economic development. It maintained that any serious demographic study should examine these factors comprehensively and assess their social, economic, cultural and political implications at national, state and local levels.
ALIFA stated that an independent demographic review should be based on rigorous evidence and constitutional principles rather than assumptions linking population changes primarily to immigration and demographic imbalance. The organization expressed concern that the committee's current mandate emphasizes border management, identification systems, detention and deportation mechanisms, potentially framing demographic change through a security lens.
The alliance further argued that demographic anxieties have historically been used to justify interventions in reproductive choices and heightened surveillance of marginalized communities. It warned that portraying demographic change as a threat associated with specific religious or social groups could deepen social divisions and reinforce discriminatory practices.
Referring to recent electoral verification exercises, ALIFA claimed that approaches centered on identifying alleged illegal immigrants have had disproportionate impacts on women and Muslim communities. The organization cautioned that similar assumptions embedded within demographic policymaking could contribute to exclusionary outcomes.
The alliance also questioned the timing of the committee's work, noting that India is currently undertaking the Census process. It called on the government to defer the committee's activities until the Census is completed, arguing that a comprehensive and transparent enumeration exercise would provide a more reliable demographic baseline for policymaking.
ALIFA maintained that policies addressing demographic challenges should emerge from robust Census data and objective analysis rather than from pre-existing assumptions. Proceeding without such a foundation, it said, risks producing predetermined conclusions and policy recommendations that may not accurately reflect demographic realities.
Concluding its statement, the alliance urged the government to ensure that any assessment of demographic change is methodologically transparent, federally coordinated, independent in character, and guided by constitutional values and human rights principles. India's demographic future, it said, should be approached through the lenses of justice, equality and human development rather than narratives rooted in suspicion and fear.

Comments

TRENDING

The “Dr” debate masks a larger crisis in allied-health education

By Dr P K Gupta*  India’s allied-health professions have long operated in a fragmented landscape of universities, hospitals, State authorities and private institutions, each with its own nomenclature, curriculum and standards. The National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021 was meant to correct this by creating a unified national framework for education, professional regulation and institutional recognition. Few dispute the need for such oversight. The real question is whether standardisation is quietly becoming synonymous with longer courses, additional internships and new professional titles—changes that risk masking deeper gaps in clinical training, institutional capacity and affordability.

Tibetan activist’s self-immolation sparks fresh concerns over cultural rights

By Kumar Krishnan*  The question of Tibet has once again entered international discourse, raising difficult questions about human rights, religious freedom, cultural identity, language, and the relationship between political power and the rights of indigenous communities. On 20 August 2026, the Kashag and the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile jointly organised a solidarity prayer service and peace march to mark the 49th day since the death of Lobga Rangzen, a Tibetan activist who died after self-immolating on 2 July in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

IMF's policies 'stabilise' external creditors' balance sheets, 'generate' crisis in Africa

By Grieve Chelwa, Vijay Prashad   Across Africa, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) presents itself as the custodian of macroeconomic stability. Its latest Article IV staff reports on Ethiopia . Malawi , Nigeria , South Africa , and Zambia are written for economies with very different histories and institutions. Yet they converge on a familiar prescription: fiscal consolidation, tighter monetary policy, market-determined exchange rates, subsidy reform, deregulation and ‘private-sector-led growth’. No serious economist can dismiss macroeconomic stability.