Thursday, 12 March 2026

Documents of our Times: Remarks of Marco Rubio February 2026

The USA declares a new resolve to Recolonise the World

 

Below we give a transcript of the remarks delivered by Marco Rubio, Secretary of State of the USA, at the Munich Security Conference. In these remarks, Rubio attempts the following:

 

1.              He reclaims the European heritage for himself and for the USA. He goes to the extent of tracing his own far ancestry to the Italian island of Sardinia and to Seville in Spain and asserts that the USA may be just 250 years old but it is part of and perhaps the inheritor of the long civilisational history of the West.

2.              He celebrates the long ages of Western dominance and colonisation of the world and regrets the passing of that sad phase of human history: “For five centuries before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding. Its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers, pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe. But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting.”

3.              He asserts the resolve of the United States to establish again the “West’s age of dominance”, preferably with Europe as a partner, but alone if necessary: “Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.”

4.              This fourth point is curious. He tangentially asserts that India is on board with this project of recolonizing the world. In the question-answer part, he gratuitously brings in India: “In the meantime, everything else continues to happen. …In our conversations with India, we’ve gotten their commitment to stop buying additional Russian oil. …”

 

India seems to be a necessary part of this project of reasserting Western dominance in the modern world. India’s 1.4 billion people are crucial to this enterprise, as Netanyahu often mentions. But India shall be the junior partner. It shall never be allowed to rise like another China, as Christopher Landau, Deputy Secretary of State, has so blatantly said recently on the Indian soil.

 

Let us remember that India was also crucial to the earlier colonization project of the West. India was the “crown jewel” of the British Empire. Even then, like now, many Indian leaders used to express their deep feelings of brotherhood with the West. Now even Bibi thinks, he and the Prime Minister of India are not merely friends, but “brothers”. Is history poised to repeat itself? Putting us Indians, once again, in the position of willing subservience to the West from which the Mahatma had forcefully lifted us out.

 

We hope to discuss different aspects of India’s role in the projected new world order in subsequent articles. Here, we present the complete transcript of Marco Rubio’s remarks that appear to formally inaugurate the new project of western dominance.

 

 

Transcript: Marco Rubio Remarks at Munich Security Conference 2026, February 14, 2026 

 

A Historic Alliance That Saved the World 

 

MARCO RUBIO: Thank you very much. We gather here today as members of a historic alliance, an alliance that saved and changed the world. You know, when this conference began in 1963, it was in a nation, actually it was on a continent, that was divided against itself. The line between communism and freedom ran through the heart of Germany. The first barbed fences of the Berlin Wall had gone up just two years prior. And just months before that first conference, before our predecessors first met here, here in Munich, the Cuban Missile Crisis had brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction. 

 

Even as World War II still burned fresh in the memory of Americans and Europeans alike, we found ourselves staring down the barrel of a new global catastrophe, one with the potential for a new kind of destruction, more apocalyptic and final than anything before in the history of mankind. The time of that first gathering, Soviet communism was on the march. Thousands of years of Western civilization hung in the balance. At that time, victory was far from certain. 

 

But we were driven by a common purpose. We were unified, not just by what we were fighting against. We were unified by what we were fighting for. And together, Europe and America prevailed. And a continent was rebuilt. Our people prospered. In time, the East and West blocs were reunited. A civilization was once again made whole. That infamous wall that had cleaved this nation into two came down, and with it an evil empire. And the East and West became one again. 

 

 

The Dangerous Delusion of the “End of History” 

 

But the euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion. That we had entered, quote, “the end of history.” That every nation would now be a liberal democracy. That the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood. That the rules-based global order, an overused term, would now replace the national interest. And that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world. 

 

This was a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history. And it has cost us dearly. 

 

 

The Cost of Our Mistakes 

 

In this delusion, we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies, to systematically undercut ours, shuttering our plants, resulting in large parts of our societies being de-industrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals. 

 

We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves. This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military build-up in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests. 

 

To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own. And in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people. 

 

 

A Vision of Renewal and Restoration 

 

We made these mistakes together, and now together we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward to rebuild. Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe. For the United States and Europe, we belong together.

 

America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before. The men who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.

 

We are part of one civilization, Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.

 

 

A Call for Seriousness and Reciprocity 

 

And so, this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel. This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe. The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply. We care deeply about your future and ours. 

 

And if at times we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected, not just economically, not just militarily. We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally. We want Europe to be strong. We believe that Europe must survive. 

 

Because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately our destiny is, and will always be, intertwined with yours. Because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own. 

 

 

What Are We Defending? 

 

National security, which this conference is largely about, is not merely a series of technical questions. How much we spend on defence or where, how we deploy it, these are important questions. They are. But they are not the fundamental one. 

 

The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending? Because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people. Armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life. 

 

And that is what we are defending. A great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny. 

 

 

Europe’s Legacy and Promise 

 

It was here, in Europe, where the ideas that planted the seeds of liberty that changed the world were born. It was here, in Europe, where the world, which gave the world the rule of law, the universities, and the scientific revolution.

 

It was this continent that produced the genius of Mozart and Beethoven, of Dante and Shakespeare, of Michelangelo and da Vinci, of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. And this is the place where the vaulted ceilings of the Sistine Chapel and the towering spires of the great cathedral in Cologne, they testify not just to the greatness of our past or to a faith in God that inspired these marvels. They foreshadow the wonders that await us in our future.

 

But only if we are unapologetic in our heritage and proud of this common inheritance can we together begin the work of envisioning and shaping our economic and our political future. 

 

 

Reversing Destructive Policy Choices 

 

Deindustrialization was not inevitable. It was a conscious policy choice, a decades-long economic undertaking that stripped our nations of their wealth, of their productive capacity, and of their independence. 

 

And the loss of our supply chain sovereignty was not a function of a prosperous and healthy system of global trade. It was foolish. It was a foolish but voluntary transformation of our economy that left us dependent on others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis. 

 

Mass migration is not, was not, is some fringe concern of little consequence. It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilizing societies all across the West. 

 

Together we can re-industrialize our economies and rebuild our capacity to defend our people. But the work of this new alliance should not be focused just on military cooperation and reclaiming the industries of the past. It should also be focused on together advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century. 

 

Commercial space travel and cutting-edge artificial intelligence, industrial automation and flex manufacturing, creating a Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers, and a unified effort to compete for market share in the economies of the global South. Together we can not only take back control of our own industries and supply chains, we can prosper in the areas that will define the 21st century. 

 

 

Border Control and National Sovereignty 

 

But we must also gain control of our national borders. Controlling who and how many people enter our countries, this is not an expression of xenophobia, it is not hate, it is a fundamental act of national sovereignty. And the failure to do so is not just an abdication of one of our most basic duties owed to our people. It is an urgent threat to the fabric of our societies and the survival of our civilization itself.

 

 

Reforming the Global Order 

 

And finally, we can no longer place the so-called global order above the vital interests of our people and our nations. We do not need to abandon the system of international cooperation we authored, and we don’t need to dismantle the global institutions of the old order that together we built. But these must be reformed. These must be rebuilt. 

 

For example, the United Nations still has tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world, but we cannot ignore that today on the most pressing matters before us, it has no answers and has played virtually no role. It could not solve the war in Gaza, instead it was American leadership that freed captives from barbarians and brought about a fragile truce. It has not solved the war in Ukraine. It took American leadership in partnership with many of the countries here today just to bring the two sides to the table in search of a still elusive peace. It was powerless to constrain the nuclear program of radical Shia clerics in Tehran. That required 14 bombs dropped with precision from American B-2 bombers. And it was unable to address the threat to our security from a narco-terrorist dictator in Venezuela. Instead, it took American special forces to bring this fugitive to justice. 

 

In a perfect world, all of these problems and more would be solved by diplomats and strongly worded resolutions, but we do not live in a perfect world, and we cannot continue to allow those who blatantly and openly threaten our citizens and endanger our global stability to shield themselves behind abstractions of international law which they themselves routinely violate. 

 

 

Walking Together on a Shared Path 

 

This is the path that President Trump and the United States has embarked upon. It is the path we ask you here in Europe to join us on. It is a path we have walked together before and hope to walk together again. 

 

For five centuries before the end of the Second World War, the West had been expanding. Its missionaries, its pilgrims, its soldiers, its explorers, pouring out from its shores to cross oceans, settle new continents, build vast empires extending out across the globe. But in 1945, for the first time since the age of Columbus, it was contracting. Europe was in ruins. Half of it lived behind an iron curtain and the rest looked like it would soon follow. The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come. 

 

Against that backdrop, then as now, many came to believe that the West’s age of dominance had come to an end and that our future was destined to be a faint and feeble echo of our past. But together, our predecessors recognized that decline was a choice and it was a choice they refused to make. This is what we did together once before and this is what President Trump and the United States want to do again now, together with you. And this is why we do not want our allies to be weak. Because that makes us weaker. 

 

We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength. This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.

 

And this is why we do not want allies to rationalize the broken status quo, rather than reckon with what is necessary to fix it. For we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline. We do not seek to separate, but to revitalize an old friendship and renew the greatest civilization in human history.

 

What we want is a reinvigorated alliance that recognizes that what has ailed our societies is not just a set of bad policies, but a malaise of hopelessness and complacency. An alliance that we want is one that is not paralyzed into inaction by fear. Fear of climate change, fear of war, fear of technology. Instead, we want an alliance that boldly races into the future. And the only fear we have is the fear of the shame of not leaving our nations prouder, stronger, and wealthier for our children. 

 

An alliance ready to defend our people, to safeguard our interests, and to preserve the freedom of action that allows us to shape our own destiny, not one that exists to operate a global welfare state and atone for the purported sins of past generations. An alliance that does not allow its power to be outsourced, constrained, or subordinated to systems beyond its control. One that does not depend on others for the critical necessities of its national life. And one that does not maintain the polite pretence that our way of life is just one among many, and that asks for permission before it acts. 

 

And above all, an alliance based on the recognition that we, the West, have inherited together, what we have inherited together is something that is unique, and distinctive, and irreplaceable. Because this, after all, is the very foundation of the transatlantic bond. 

 

Acting together in this way, we will not just help recover a sane foreign policy. It will restore to us a clear sense of ourselves. It will restore a place in the world. And in so doing, it will rebuke and deter the forces of civilizational erasure that today menace both America and Europe alike. 

 

 

America’s European Heritage 

 

So, in a time of headlines, heralding the end of the transatlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish. Because for us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe. 

 

Our story began with an Italian explorer whose adventure into the great unknown to discover a new world brought Christianity to the Americas and became the legend that defined the imagination of our pioneer nation. Our first colonies were built by English settlers, to whom we owe not just the language we speak, but the whole of our political and legal system. 

 

Our frontiers were shaped by Scots-Irish, that proud, hardy clan from the hills of Ulster that gave us Davy Crockett, and Mark Twain, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Neil Armstrong. Our great Midwestern heartland was built by German farmers and craftsmen who transformed empty plains into a global agricultural powerhouse. And by the way, dramatically upgraded the quality of American beer. 

 

Our expansion into the interior followed the footsteps of French fur traders and explorers whose names, by the way, still adorn the street signs and town names all across the Mississippi Valley. Our horses, our ranches, our rodeos, the entire romance of the cowboy archetype that became synonymous with the American West. These were born in Spain, and our largest and most iconic city was named New Amsterdam before it was named New York. 

 

And you know that in the year that my country was founded, Lorenzo and Catalina Giroldi lived in Casale Monferrato in the kingdom of Piedmont, Sardinia, and Jose and Manuela Reyna lived in Sevilla, Spain. I don’t know what, if anything, they knew about the 13 colonies which had gained their independence from the British Empire, but here’s what I’m certain of. They could have never imagined that 250 years later, one of their direct descendants would be back here today on this continent as the chief diplomat of that infant nation. 

 

And yet here I am, reminded by my own story that both our histories and our fates will always be linked. Together we rebuilt a shattered continent in the wake of two devastating world wars. When we found ourselves divided once again by the Iron Curtain, the Free West linked arms with the courageous dissidents struggling against tyranny in the East to defeat Soviet Communism. We have fought against each other, then reconciled, then fought, then reconciled again. And we have bled and died side by side on battlefields from Kapyong to Kandahar. 

 

And I’m here today to leave it clear that America is charting the path for a new century of prosperity and that once again we want to do it together with you, our cherished allies, and our oldest friends. We want to do it together with you, with a Europe that is proud of its heritage and of its history, with a Europe that has the spirit of creation and liberty that sent ships out into uncharted seas and birthed our civilization, with a Europe that has the means to defend itself and the will to survive. 

 

We should be proud of what we achieved together in the last century, but now we must confront and embrace the opportunities of a new one. Because yesterday is over, the future is inevitable, and our destiny together awaits. Thank you. 

 

 

Q&A Session Begins 

 

INTERVIEWER: Mr. Secretary, I’m not sure you heard the sigh of relief through this hall when we were just listening to what I would interpret as a message of reassurance, of partnership. You spoke of intertwined relations between the United States and Europe. It reminds me of statements made decades ago by your predecessors when the discussion was, is actually America a European power? Is America a power in Europe? 

 

Thank you for offering this message of reassurance about our partnership. This is actually not the first time that Marco Rubio is here at the Munich Security Conference. He’s been here before a couple of times, but it’s the first time he has been and he is the speaker as Secretary of State. So, thank you again. 

 

We have only a couple of minutes now for just a few questions, and if I may, we collected questions from the audience. One of the key issues here yesterday, today, is of course, continues to be the question of how to deal with the war in Ukraine. Many of us in the discussions of the last day, the last 24 hours, have voiced their impression that the Russians, let me put it colloquially, the Russians are playing for time. They’re not really interested in a meaningful settlement. There’s no indication that they’re willing to compromise on any of their maximalist objectives. Offer to us, if you could, your assessment of where we are and where you think we can go. 

 

 

Assessment on Ukraine-Russia Negotiations 

 

MARCO RUBIO: Well, I think where we are at this point is that the issues at play that have to be… here’s the good news. The good news is that the issues that need to be confronted to end this war have been narrowed. That’s the good news. The bad news is they’ve been narrowed to the hardest questions to answer, and work remains to be done in that front. 

 

I hear your point, but the answer is we don’t know. We don’t know if the Russians are serious about ending the war. They say they are, and under what terms they are willing to do it, and whether we can find terms that are acceptable to Ukraine that Russia will always agree to, but we’re going to continue to test it. 

 

In the meantime, everything else continues to happen. The United States has imposed additional sanctions on Russia’s oil. In our conversations with India, we’ve gotten their commitment to stop buying additional Russian oil. Europe has taken its set of steps moving forward. The Pearl Program continues in which American weaponry is being sold for the Ukrainian war effort. So, all these things continue. Nothing has stopped in the interim, so there’s no buying of time here in that regard. 

What we can’t answer, but we’re going to continue to test, is whether there is an outcome that Ukraine can live with and that Russia will accept. And I would say it’s been elusive up to this point. We’ve made progress in the sense that for the first time, I think, in years, at least at the technical level, there were military officials from both sides that met together last week, and there will be meetings again on Tuesday, although it may not be the same group of people. 

 

Look, we’re going to continue to do everything we can to play this role of bringing this war to an end. I don’t think anybody in this room would be against a negotiated settlement to this war, so long as the conditions are just and sustainable. And that’s what we aim to achieve, and we’re going to continue to try to achieve it, even as all these other things continue to happen on the sanctions front and so forth. 

 

 

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much. I’m sure if we had more time, there would be many questions on Ukraine. But let me conclude by asking a question about something entirely different. The next speaker here in just a couple of minutes will be the foreign minister of China. When you served in the Senate, sir, people considered you kind of a China hawk. 

 

MARCO RUBIO: So did they. 

 

INTERVIEWER: So did they. We know that there will be, in about two months’ time, a summit meeting between President Trump and President Xi Jinping. Give us your expectation. Are you optimistic? 

 

Can there be a quote-unquote deal with China? What do you expect? 

 

 

Managing U.S.-China Relations 

 

MARCO RUBIO: Well, I would say this. The two largest economies in the world, two of the big powers on the planet, we have an obligation to communicate with them and talk. And so do many of you on a bilateral basis as well. I mean, it would be geopolitical malpractice to not be in conversations with China. 

 

I would say this. Because we’re two large countries with huge global interests, our national interests will often not align. Their national interests and ours will not align. And we owe it to the world to try to manage those as best we can, obviously avoiding conflict, both economic and worse. And so, it’s important for us to have communications with them in that regard. 

 

On areas in which our interests are aligned, I think we can work together to make positive impact on the world. And we seek opportunities to do that with them. But we have to have a relationship with China. And many of the countries represented here today are going to have to have a relationship with China, always understanding that nothing that we agree to could come at the expense of our national interests. 

 

And, frankly, we expect China to act in their national interests as we expect every nation state to act in their national interests. And the goal of diplomacy is to try to navigate those times in which our national interests come into conflict with one another, always hoping to do it peacefully. 

 

I think we also have a special obligation because whatever happens between the U.S. and China on trade has a global implication. So, there are long-term challenges that we face that we’re going to have to confront that are going to be irritants in our relationship with China. That’s not just true for the United States. That’s true for the broader West. But I do think we need to try to manage those the best we can to avoid, you know, unnecessary friction if it’s possible. But no one is under any illusions. 

 

There are some fundamental challenges between our countries and between the West and China that will continue for the foreseeable future for a variety of reasons. And it’s some of the things we hope to work together with you on. 

 

INTERVIEWER: Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We’ve run out of time. I’m sorry that I can’t take questions from all those who wanted to ask questions. Mr. Secretary of State, thank you for this message of reassurance. I think this is much appreciated here in the hall. Let’s offer a round of applause. Thank you.

Saturday, 14 February 2026

World Population Prospects V: The Demographic Transition of India

 

India has already transitioned to the low or negative growth stage



In the series of articles based on the latest projections of the population of different continents and countries of the world released by the United Nations in its World Population Prospects 2024, we have so far analysed the estimated and projected growth of population from 1950 to 2100 in the World and its Continents, in Africa and its regions, in Asia and its regions and in the five most populous countries of Asia, including India and her neighbours.

 

Before proceeding to present similar data for the remaining continents of the world, we are tempted to explore in some detail the demographic transition that India has passed through since we achieved Independence in 1947. In this note, we present how the crude birth rate (CBR), crude death rate (CDR) and the population of India have progressed till now and their projected trajectory up to 2100.

 

The data indicates that the period of high growth in population is now behind us and India has already entered the fourth stage of demographic transition characterised by low and declining birth rate and death rate beginning to rise again from a very low level. In this phase the population is expected to grow very slowly, if at all. In another about 35 years, the total population is projected to begin declining.

 

This phase of demographic transition is also characterised by rapid aging of the population and quick depletion of the youth dividend that we have enjoyed so far as a result of the high growth that we experienced in the four decades after Independence. We shall describe the aging of Indian population in a subsequent note.

 

This phase of low growth is likely to further exacerbate the religious imbalance in the growth of population that has prevailed throughout the census period. To understand this growing imbalance, we need to improve the collection, publication and analysis of data on births and deaths in different parts of India. We have earlier described the greatly rising imbalance in the growth rates of different communities in Kerala, where reliable and continuous data on births and deaths happens to be available and growth rates are very low. We need similarly reliable and continuous data on births and deaths for other states and union territories, disaggregated according to religious communities, if we are to form a proper assessment of the imbalance in their growth in this phase of demographic transition. This needs urgent national attention.




The Demographic Transition of India

 

 

 

Crude Birth and Death Rates, 1950-2100

 

In Figure 1 below, we have drawn the progression of crude birth rate (CBR), crude death rate (CDR) and the population of India between 1950 and 2100. CBR and CDR are the total number of births and deaths, respectively, per thousand of population in a year. For this purpose, popu­la­tion is generally taken to be the number at mid-year. Therefore, in the figure here we have used population numbers as on July 1 of the year. In other articles in this series, we have been giving numbers for population as on January 1. As in the earlier notes in this series, the numbers for the CBR, CDR and population are taken from the “Compact Estimates and Medium Projection Table” of WPP 2024.[1]

 

     

From the Figure, it is apparent that the Indian population now, in 2025, is in the fourth stage of demographic transition, with birth rate reaching very low levels and death rate begin­ning to rise after touching its lowest level of 6.6 per thousand in 2025. The growth of population at this stage slows down and the numbers begin to stabilise. The population of India is projected to turn negative in the next three or four decades. This stage of demographic transition also implies an aging popula­tion with fewer and fewer people in the younger age-groups and rising numbers of older people of age 60 and above. We shall discuss this sharply changing age profile of Indian population in a subsequent note. In this article, we describe the various stages of demo­graphic transition that we have passed through in the modern times.

 

In 1950, the point where the graphs in Figure 1 begin, the death and birth rates were already on a declining path. This corresponds to what is generally referred to the third stage of demo­graph­ic transition. The first two stages of stable or declining population followed by a slow rise had happened before 1950, in the period of British Rule over India. We begin our narration from that phase and describe how India now has already completed almost the entire cycle of demographic transition and entered the stage of low, stagnating or negative growth.

 

 

The British Period: Stage 1 and 2

 

The period of alien British rule over India was not conducive to the growth of population here. With an unending series of famines, epidemics and wars, population of India remained static, declined or experienced only marginal growth during much of the British period. As seen in Table here, in the 150 years between 1800 and 1951, encompassing the whole period of stable British rule, the population of India (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) just about doubled, while that of the United Kingdom multiplied 5 times in the same period.


Population of Undivided India and United Kingdom (in million), 1801-1951


1801

1871

1881

1891

1901

1911

1921

1931

1941

1943

1951

India

~200

255

257

282

285

303

306

338

389

-

446

UK

10.5

31.5

34.9

37.8

41.5

44.9

43.9

46.1

44.9

48.3

50.3

Note: 1941 figure for UK excludes the population of the armed forces of UK, it is included in 1943. For the same reason, we have taken the figure for 1910 instead of 1911 for UK.

 

Between 1871 and 1921, Population of India barely grew. It rose from 255 million to 306 million in 50 years. In this period, every decade of significant growth was followed by a couple of decades of static population. Population of India began to grow consistently only after 1921. Between 1921 and 1951, it rose from 306 to 446 million, multiplying one and a half times in three decades, notwithstanding the large-scale deaths caused by World War II and the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. This was because of a steady decline in death rates after the devastation caused by the flu epidemic of 1918. Even so, the crude death rate at Independence was above 20 per thousand and infant mortality was extremely high at 180 deaths per 1,000 live births.

 

The period from 1850 to 1920, thus can be taken as the first stage of demographic transition in India, when the birth and death rates were very high and population remained nearly stable. The period from 1920 to 1950 forms the second stage of the transition when the death rates began to decline, but birth rates remained high.

 

 

1950-1985: Early Stage 3

 

Slow decline of CDR and CBR

 

The graphs of CDR and CBR in Figure 1 begin at 1950, soon after Independence. Death rate in India then, accord­ing to the WPP data that we are working with, was still high at 22.7 per thousand persons. In the preceding three decades, it had declined to that level from about 45 deaths per thousand during 1911-1921.  Since 1950, the death rate has been declining continu­ously, except for the two blips of 1965-1967 and 2020-2021 when it registered sudden but brief rises, which we discuss later in this note. Except for these two anomalies, the decline has been steady until now, up to 2025.

 

Unlike in the pre-Independence period, when the birth rate was rising, CBR also began declin­ing soon after 1950. The rate was 44.1 births per thousand in 1950. For the next three years, it rose slightly to reach 44.6 in 1954. After that it began a steady decline, which is continuing till now. Birth rate in 2025 is estimated at 15.8 per thousand.

 

The decline in death and birth rates, though steady and continuous, has been slow, at least in the early decades following 1950. In the 35 years between 1950 and 1985, birth rate in India declined from 44.1 in 1950 to 35.4 in 1985 and the death rate declined from 22.7 to 12.2 per thousand. The birth rate in China in these 35 years declined much more sharply, from 41.0 in 1950 to 22.8 in 1985. More signifi­cantly, death rate there declined drastically from 23.1 in 1950 to as low as 7.1 in 1985. This relative slowness of the decline of CBR and CDR, especially the latter, in India compared to our peer countries, is a significant feature characterising the growth of population in India. In our next note, we present comparative progression of fertility and mortality in India and some of our peer countries.

 

This phase, when both birth and death rates of a population are declining, is referred to as the third stage of demographic transition. In the early part of this phase, populations grow quite rapidly because the gap between the birth and death rates remains wide notwithstanding the declining birth rate. In the 35 years of this phase, Indian population more than doubled, with the estimated mid-year population rising from 346 million in 1950 to 773 million in 1985.

 

 

1985-2025: Late Stage 3

 

After 1985, the decline in CBR became faster, while the CDR continued its slow decline. The gap between births and deaths kept becoming narrower. As a consequence, the rate of growth of population started stabilising and then falling. But the population still kept growing. In these forty years, the population of India fell short of doubling, rising from the mid-year population of 773 million in 1985 to 1,464 million in 2025.

 

 

2025 onwards: Stage 4

 

Now in 2025, we have entered State 4 of the demographic transition, with nearly stable or slowly growing population. Crude Birth Rate has now declined to around 15 per thousand and Crude Death Rate to about 7 percent. From now onwards, CDR is projected to begin rising, indicating significant aging of population, while CBR shall keep declining, leading to shrinking of the younger cohorts.

 

In the next 35 years, the Indian population is projected to increase by only 237 million persons to reach 1,701 million in 2060. Soon after that, from 2064 onwards, the population shall begin declining. As we can see in Figure 1, at that point, total number of deaths shall surpass total number of births in a year.

 

When countries enter this stage of demographic transition, the populations begin aging rapidly and the youth dividend acquired during the expanding phase begins depleting. Median Age of Indian population has been rising since 1985 and the rise is projected to become much faster after 2025. We describe this aging of Indian population in a subsequent note.

 

 

Demographic Transition in Absolute Numbers

 

To better understand the demographic transition that India has passed through since 1950, we have drawn, in Figure 2, the absolute number of births and deaths that have taken place and are projected to happen between 1950 and 2100. The Figure also gives the annual natural accretion, total births minus total deaths in a year, in this period.

 

 



 

Number of Births

The different stages of transition are more clearly discernible in this Figure. As can be seen, the crude number of births began rising rapidly immediately after 1950. It rose from 15 million to 27 million in 1985. After that, the number of births plateaued and remained stable between 27 and 29 million up to 2000. From 2000 onwards, the number of births began declining sharply to reach around 23 million in 2025. From this point, the decline in the number of births has become slower, but the downward trend is projected to continue steadily up to the end of the century.

 

Number of Deaths

The absolute number of deaths rose slowly from 7.8 million in 1950 to 9.5 million in 1975 (ignoring the blip of 1965-1967), and then nearly plateaued, declining very slowly to about 9 million in 2014. At that stage the number of deaths began rising, slowly in the beginning, but the rise has become considerably sharper after 2025 (ignoring again the blip of 2020-21). Incidentally, it may be noted that though the absolute number of deaths between 1975 and 2014 remained nearly unchanged, the number of deaths per thousand of population, the crude death rate declined, as seen in Figure 1, because of the rising population. The decline in the CDR con­tinues up to 2025, when both the absolute number of deaths as also the CDR begins rising.


 

 

Natural Accretion

From 1950 up to 1985, the number of births was rising sharply while the number of deaths rose much more slowly. This led to a sharp rise in natural accretion from less than 8 million annually in 1950 to nearly 18 million in 1985. From then to around 2000, the number of births stabilised between 27 to 29 million, while the number of deaths remained almost unchanged at 9 to 9.5 million. Natural accretion in this period increased very slowly from about 18 to 20 million. After that, the number of births began falling sharply and so did the net natural accretion to population. Now, from 2025 onwards, the number of deaths has started rising, while the number of births is projected to keep falling further. The natural accretion to population in this period is expected to be slow. The process would culminate in the number of deaths overtaking births in 2062, and natural accretion turning negative.

 

 

 

 

The high deaths of 1965-67 and 2020-21

 

Before further describing the demographic evolution that India has gone through in this period, let us discuss the two blips, the two sharp and brief increases, in deaths that are seen in both the CDR in Figure 1 and  in the absolute number of deaths in Figure 2. These blips correspond to two very significant events in our history of the last 75 years.

 


The Food Crisis of 1965-1967

 

Crisis of 1965-67 Deaths in thousands

Year

Deaths

1964

8,871

1965

9,489

1966

9,543

1967

9,610

1968

9,155

During 1965-67, India passed through a scarcity of food that was serious enough to keep the death rates elevated for three years. Number of deaths was below 9 million in 1964. For the next three years, it remained about or above 9.5 million before reverting to around 9 million in 1968. The crisis began with the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. This was followed by the severe drought and famine that occurred in Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh during 1966-1967. That calamity is known to have led to numerous starvation deaths. Food situation in that period had become difficult all over India. Many still remember and perhaps continue to observe the discipline of skipping one meal a week that was widely adopted on the call of the then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri. Many would also remember the American shipments of wheat under PL-480 that had become a crucial source for sustaining supply of food in the country and gave rise to commentators invoking the sad imagery of “ship to mouth existence”.

 

The mid-sixties were a period of food-stress for much of the poorer world. The situation was so bad that two American scholars, William and Paul Paddock, wrote a book postulating that the poor of the world could be saved only by the food donated by the United States of America.[3] But America did not have enough save all of the hungry countries and had to decide which one should be saved and which had to be left to die. India and Egypt, according to them, were among the countries that had to be necessarily abandoned. This was in 1967. The next year, an American biologist, Paul R. Ehrlich, wrote another book titled, The Population Bomb,[4] endorsing and praising the work of the Paddock brothers and making similar predictions about a looming Malthusian catastrophe.

 

These dire predictions did not come true. In India, the crisis of 1965-1967 led to the adoption of policies that facilitated the Green Revolution, almost immediately eliminating the need for any large scale import of food.[5] The persistent talk of India, and much of the poorer world, being grossly overpopulated and the need to control a “population explosion” can be largely traced to the alarmist predictions arising from that crisis of mid-sixties. In hindsight, the growth in the population of India and of much of the so-called Third World has proved to be a great asset. It is this rise in population has helped the poor nations acquire a much larger share and say in economy and geo-politics of the world.

 

 

The Covid Epidemic of 2020-21

 

Covid 2020-21

 Deaths in thousands

Year

Deaths

2019

 9,264

2020

10,118

2021

13,094

2022

  9,373

During this more recent episode of raised CDR, India, along with the rest of the world, had to face the extraordinary virulent and lethal Covid Epidemic. In this period, the number of deaths in India, as in almost all countries of the world, rose significantly. As seen in the Table here, the number of annual deaths in India rose from about 9 million in 2019 to 10 million in 2020 and to as high as 13 million in 2021 before falling back to the normal figure of about 9 million in 2022. The excess death due to Covid in these WPP estimates turns out to be very high, of the order of nearly 5 million. This number is in line with the WHO estimate of about 4.74 million excess deaths in India due to COVID, but is much higher than the estimates of the official Indian agencies. However, the latest report of the Civil Registration System, released in 2025 and incorporating data up to 2021, does show a much higher mortality related to Covid than the earlier official estimates.

 

 

 

Conclusion: Consequences of the Demographic Transition

 

Reverting to the description of the demographic transition, the data graphically depicted in Figure 1 and 2 shows that India has completed the phase of growth and has already transitioned to the phase of low growth of population. The period of high growth of population that has been a matter of great public concern since the sixties is now behind us. The new phase of demographic progression that we have entered now raises new issues and policy responses. The most significant of these are:

 

1. Imbalances in Growth: With the population progressing to the low-birth stage, the total fertility rate (TFR) of India as a whole has fallen below the replacement-level of 2.1. However, there is a considerable differential in the TFR of different states, of different socio-economic groups and of different religious communities. This is likely to give rise to great imbalance between regions, groups and communities requiring appropriate policy response. But, we just do not seem to have the data to properly estimate and quantify these differences. The next census would give us some information of the differential fertility of different regions, groups and communities for a particular year. To get continuous information on these aspects we need to vastly improve our civil registration system so that every birth and death is properly logged and detailed information about the changing fertility and mortality patterns becomes available more or less in real time. Kerala does keeps a fairly reliable record of its vital statistics and publishes the data regularly. We have analysed this data in one of our notes on the changing religious demography of India. The data indeed shows rising religious imbalance in the growth of population in the low fertility regime that prevails across all communities in that state.[6] This analysis for Kerala illustrates the crucial importance of having good, reliable and continuous record of births and deaths in every part of India.

 

2. Aging of the population: The transition implies aging of population, increase in the number of elderly and decline in the numbers of economically active youth. The youth dividend that we have been enjoying for the last 2 to 3 decades is probably behind us. We shall describe the pattern of the aging of Indian population in a subsequent article, where we shall also refer to the consequences of such aging.

 

Before describing the progression of aging in India, we shall, in the next article, explore a little further the characteristics of the transition that we have passed through and compare our experience with some of our peer countries.

 

 

 

 

Appendix:

 

In the Table below, we give an abstract of the data we have used in Figures 1 and 2. We give the estimated and projected numbers for every fifth year. For drawing the figures, annual numbers have been used.

Abstract Table of data on Fertility and Mortality, 1950-2100

Year

TFR

CBR

CDR

Births

Deaths

B-D

1950

5.7

44.1

22.7

15,288

7,852

7,436

1955

5.9

44.4

21.1

17,220

8,169

9,051

1960

5.9

42.9

19.4

18,705

8,467

10,238

1965

5.9

41.7

19.4

20,414

9,489

10,926

1970

5.6

39.8

17.0

21,705

9,287

12,418

1975

5.2

38.4

15.5

23,451

9,493

13,958

1980

4.8

37.1

13.8

25,471

9,453

16,018

1985

4.4

35.4

12.2

27,367

9,399

17,968

1990

4.0

32.6

10.7

28,172

9,278

18,894

1995

3.7

29.8

9.6

28,588

9,192

19,396

2000

3.4

27.5

8.6

29,112

9,127

19,984

2005

3.0

24.3

7.8

28,063

9,028

19,035

2010

2.6

21.6

7.2

26,901

8,909

17,992

2015

2.3

18.9

6.7

25,147

8,936

16,211

2020

2.0

16.7

7.2

23,485

10,118

13,367

2025

1.9

15.8

6.6

23,073

9,717

13,356

2030

1.9

14.8

6.9

22,551

10,596

11,954

2035

1.8

13.8

7.3

21,759

11,566

10,193

2040

1.8

12.8

7.8

20,759

12,613

8,146

2045

1.8

11.9

8.3

19,750

13,703

6,047

2050

1.8

11.3

8.8

18,962

14,785

4,177

2055

1.7

10.8

9.4

18,345

15,872

2,473

2060

1.7

10.5

10.0

17,822

16,939

883

2065

1.7

10.1

10.6

17,210

18,003

-793

2070

1.7

9.8

11.3

16,498

19,004

-2,506

2075

1.7

9.5

11.9

15,795

19,856

-4,061

2080

1.7

9.2

12.5

15,183

20,495

-5,311

2085

1.7

9.1

12.9

14,649

20,894

-6,245

2090

1.7

9.0

13.3

14,200

21,057

-6,857

2095

1.7

8.9

13.5

13,676

20,909

-7,233

2100

1.7

8.7

13.6

13,155

20,545

-7,390

Note: Data for every fifth year. Numbers in last 3 columns are in thousands.




























[1] World Population Prospects 2024, Compact Estimates and Medium Projection Table, available at:
https://population.un.org/wpp/assets/Excel%20Files/1_Indicator%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_General/WPP2024_GEN_F01_DEMOGRAPHIC_INDICATORS_COMPACT.xlsx

[2] In this Table India includes Pakistan and Bangladesh. Figure for India in 1801 is an approximation based on various estimates of the population of Mughal Empire. Figures from 1871 to 1941 are estimates of Kingsley Davis quoted from Joshi, et al, Religious Demography of India, Centre for Policy Studies, 2003. The figure for 1951 is from the same book and is calculated from the Censuses of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The figures for United Kingdom are estimates of the Office of National Statistics of UK available at: 
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/adhocs/004356ukpopulationestimates1851to2014/ukpopulationestimates18512014.xls

[3] Paul and William Paddock, Famine 1975! America's Decision: Who Will Survive?, Little Brown and Company, USA, 1967.

[4] Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantine Books, USA, 1968.

[5] Green Revolution was designed to ensure eliminate the need to import food, not to ensure abundance and sufficiency of food for all of the people and animals in India. For an analysis of this and other issues related to the Green Revolution, see: https://cpsindia.org/articles/e-science-and-technology-in-independent-india/2-green-revolution-a-historical-perspective/

[6]  Rising religious imbalance in the declining fertility regime of Kerala.