The chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, Chandrababu Naidu and MK Stalin, have triggered widespread consternation with their recent, ill-considered remarks. Going completely against a long-espoused national consensus on the two-child norm, the two chief ministers have actually advocated larger families and more children. At a mass wedding function in Chennai, Stalin said: “...A situation has arisen where we have to say, let us also have 16 children.” This was soon after Naidu advocated legislation that would make candidates eligible for local body elections only if they have more than two children. At the outset, such statements are outrageous and reflect a narrow, provincial mindset in a country which is still struggling with balancing its development goals with the needs of a growing population.

While the overall decline in Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is encouraging, some States, especially Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, have a TFR much above the desired replacement level of 2.1. These States should be equipped with the resources to step up their public health, education and nutrition levels which, in turn, will help stabilise population. That brings us to the actual motivations behind these pronouncements. There are three broad reasons for anxiety among the southern States. The first is the higher share of northern States in the devolution of central transfers, on account of their population. The second is the prospect of southern States being allocated proportionately fewer seats in Parliament during delimitation, which is expected to happen after the Census. The third is the imbalance vis-a-vis the northern States in terms of ageing population.

The apprehensions about a politically dominant north are, at best, misplaced. In the last 77 years, the south has advanced far more rapidly than the north despite the latter being better represented in Parliament. The southern States have much to thank the north Indian migrant labour for their prosperity. Indeed, the answer to the South’s anxiety about an ageing population lies not in producing more children, but in accommodating migrants.

Yet, there is a need to address southern concerns. The 16th Finance Commission (its formula will come into force from April 2026), is in the process of seeking States’ views on devolution. While the current (15th finance panel) formula includes a weightage of 12.5 per cent for demographic performance, the weights for population and area are 15 per cent each, while income distance (from the highest per capita income) carries a weight of 45 per cent. The emphasis on population, area and income distance cuts against the southern States, when seen against the fact that tax and fiscal performance bears a weight of just 2.5 per cent. This is neither an incentive for the laggard States, nor does it reward fiscally performing southern States. The 16th finance panel needs to address these imbalances. That would go a long way in addressing latent southern anxieties — and reining in any perverse discourse.