|
The
statistical dealt wit in this report cover the whole
of the territory known as the Indian Empire, lying
roughly between longitudes 61o to 101o
E. and
latitudes 18 o
to 37 o N., and embracing (a) the
territories directly controlled by the Government of
India, generally known as British India, and (b) the
Indian states, consisting of areas administered by
Indian chiefs in political relations with the central
Government or with one or other of the provincial
Governments. Surrounding on the northern and eastern
borders by the independent countries of Persia,
Afghanistan, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, China, and Siam the
frontiers of the Empire are, except in the case of
part of the eastern borders of Assam and Burma, well
defined. In the mountainous country on the eastern
confines of these two provinces there lie sparsely
inhabited areas, which have not yet been brought under
regular administrative control, and in only parts of
these could any enumeration of the population be
undertaken or any estimate made. On the western and
southern sides of India the coastline naturally
affords a well-defined border. Of the adjacent islands
Ceylon, though a British colony, lies outside the
Indian Empire; but the small clusters of the Aminidivi
and Laccadive islands on the west and the larger
groups of the Andaman’s and Nicobars in the Bay of
Bengal form part of India, while the Aden Settlement,
which is under the administrative control of the
Bombay Government, forms politically, if not
geographically, a part of the Indian Empire and was
included in the scope of the Indian Census. Within the
boundaries thus described, but outside the Indian
Empire, lie also the French and Portuguese
Settlements, consisting of the colonies of Pondicherry,
Karikal, Chandergore, Mahe and Yanaan (French) and of
Goa, Daman and Diu (Portuguese). A census of these
territories was taken by their own Governments on the
18th March, 1921, in the French
Settlements and in 1920 in the Portuguese Settlements,
and the results of these censuses together with
estimates of the area and population of some of the
independent neighboring states which are politically
most nearly connected with the Indian Empire are
exhibited in the marginal statement.
|
Afghanistan
Nepal
Bhutan
French Possessions
Portuguese Possessions
|
245,000
54,000
20,000
196
1,638
|
6,380,500
5,600,000
250,000
269,579
--
|
2.
The main political divisions of the Indian Empire are
defined in the map, which forms a
frontispiece to this volume. Including the chief
Commissioner of Delhi, Coorg, Ajmer – Merwara and
the Andaman’s, the Indian Empire has fifteen British
Provinces. The last rearrangement of the eastern
Provinces of India came into force on the 1st
April 1912, but statistics of the Provinces of Assam,
Bengal and Bihar and Orissa were separately shown in
the 1st
October 1912. In the main tables the statistics of
Delhi are separately shown, but in some of the less
important tables they have been included contains a
review of census of Delhi. The numerous Indian states
may be divided
into the following groups
-
Single states having separate political
relationships with the Government of India.
-
States growing into agencies in political
relations with the Government of India and,
-
States having political relations with local
Governments.
Among the states which form separate political units
is now included the Gwalior state, which was separated
from the Central India agency with effect from 15th
March, 1921. The Punjab state agency was constituted
With effect from the 1st November 1921,
and includes a number of the larger states which were
formerly attached to the Punjab province. The
statistics of these states are separately exhibited in
the Punjab Report volumes but the agency has not been
treated as a separate unit in this report. The third
main group of states includes the important South
Indian states of Cochin and Tranancore, which are
politically attached to the Madras Presidency. The
statistics of these states are separately shown in
some of the more important tables. The territory of
the Maharaja of Benares was declared an independent
State on the 1st April, 1911, and the
statistics are separately shown in the united
Provinces volume. The combined statistics of the
states attached to each province form independent
units for the purposes of some of the more general
tables of this report but
are otherwise included with the figures of the
provinces to which they are severally attached. The
general effect of this arrangement may e seen in
Imperial Table and in Subsidiary Table III on page 58
of this volume which gives the unit adopted for the
presentation of the statistics of this report. The
main administrative unit in the British Provinces is
the district which varies in size and population. The
Thar and Parkar district of Sind has an area of nearly
14,000 square
miles and two districts of the Central Provinces (Raipur
and Chanda) are between nine and ten thousands square
mi8les in size. All these districts are sparsely
inhabited. On the other hand the Mymensingh district
of Bengal, with an area of Just over 6,000 square
miles, has a population of nearly five million
persons, while the Gorakhpur district of the United
Provinces and the Malabar district of Madras each
have over three million persons. The average
district population in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and
Madras is over one and a half million while in the
North-West Frontier Province and Burma it is less
than half a million.
3.) For the discussion of statistics of density and
movement of population the administrative divisions of
the country, which have been formed on historical and
political considerations, are not always a suitable
basis of classification, and various schemes of
natural divisions, based usually on meteorological and
geological features, have been used in previous census
reports for the presentation of the statistics. In the
report of 1911 Sir Edwards Gait adopted a scheme of
sixteen Natural Divisions based on the distribution of
the rainfall, which forms an important influence in
determining the varying density of the population. The
more general and constant factors, which decide the
topographical grouping of the population in India have
now been fully discussed in the reports of 1901 and
1911, and it is unnecessary to go into the subject in
great detail in the present report, while the movement
of the population during the decade under
consideration is largely the result of an influence
which is not closely related to the principles on
which the natural divisions have hitherto been base. I
have therefore decided that it is unnecessary to
present the statistics of India as a whole in any
scheme of natural divisions, but I shall make use from
time to time of such grouping of the figures as may
appear most suitable for the elucidation of any
particular point that may be discussed. In the case of
the individual units of territory, however, where the
discussion of the figures can be of a more detailed
nature, the matter is somewhat different, and in most
of the reports of the Provinces and States the use of
natural divisions has been continued, the
principles on which they have been determined being
fully explained in the provincial reports. Where it is
necessary in this report to carry the discussion
beyond the figures of the provincial as a whole the
provincial natural division will sometimes be used for
presenting the statistics.
4.) Details of the of the area and population of India and
the Provinces and States are given in Imperial Table
I. The main statistics for the whole of India are
given in the table below. Further details of the area
and population of the Provinces and States will be
found in tables at the end of this chapter. The
diagram opposite shows graphically the statistics of
population for the whole country and the chief
political divisions of it.
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Area in square Miles |
1,805,332 |
1,094,300 |
711,032 |
Total Population
In towns
In Villages |
318,942,480
32,475,276
286,467,204 |
247,003,203
25,044,368
221,958,925 |
71,939,187
7,430,908
64,508,279 |
Number of towns and Villages
(a) Towns
(b) Villages |
687,981
2,316
685,665 |
500,088
1,561
498,527 |
187,893
755
187,138 |
Males
In Towns
In villages |
163,995,554
17,845,248
146,150,306 |
126,872,116
13,971,136
1132,900,980 |
37,123,438
3,874,112
33,249,326 |
Number of Occupied Houses
(a) In towns
(b) In Villages |
65,198,389
6,765,014
58,433,375 |
50,441,636
5,046,820
45,394,816 |
14,756,753
1,718,194
13,038,559 |
Females
In Towns
In Villages |
154,946,926
14,630,028
140,316,898 |
120,131,177
11,073,232
109,057,945 |
34,815,749
3,556,796
31,258,953 |
The
India Empire has an area of 1,805,332 square miles,
the area as calculated in the present census exceeding
that of 1911 by 2,675 square miles. A statement giving
the details of the changes of area will be found at
the end of the chapter. About 3,000 square miles have
been added owing to the enumeration by estimate of
certain tracts in Burma, which had been excluded from
previous censuses. On the other hand there is a small
balance of loss on the figures of the revised survey
of different provinces. A population of about 23,000
persons was enumerated in Assam for the first time in
remote areas on the northeastern frontiers but
unfortunately it has not been found possible to give
any estimate of the area with which this population
corresponds. Of the total area 1,094,300 square miles,
or 61 percent. Lie in British territory, while the
Indian states cover an area of 711,032 square miles,
or 39 percent. The total populations 38,942,480,
British territory containing 247,003,293 persons, or
77 percent., and the Indian States 71,939,187 persons,
or 23 percent., of the whole population. It is usual
to illustrate these figures by comparison with the
countries of Europe and in respect of area and
population the Indian Empire has been frequently
compared to Europe without Russia. The war has
however, considerably altered the national and
political distribution of countries and the new
political map of Europe is perhaps hardly yet
sufficiently familiar to form a graphic contrast.
Turning further west we find that India with an area
about half that of the United States has a population
almost three times as large.
Still more interest is afforded by a comparison
in respect of size and population between the Indian
Empire and some of the other great Empires of the
world's history. Bryce, writing in 1914, observes in
contrasting the Roman and Indian empires": -"The
area of the territories included in the Roman Empire
at its greatest extent (When Dacia and the southern
part of what was then Caledonia and is now Scotland
belonged to it) may have been nearly 2,500,000 square
miles. The population of that area is now, upon a very
rough estimate, about 210 millions. What it was in
ancient times we have no data even for guessing, but
it must evidently have been much smaller, possibly not
100 millions, for although large regions, such as
parts of Asia Minor and Tunisia, now almost deserted,
were then filled by a dense industrial population the
increase in the inhabitants of France and England, for
instance, has far more than compensated this decline.
The Spanish Empire in America as it stood in the
sixteen and seventeenth centuries was still vaster in
area, But the population of Spanish America was
extremely small in comparison with that of the Roman
Empire or that of India, and its organization much
looser and less elaborate.
The total area of the Russian Empire before the
war exceeded 8 million square miles and the population
was about 130 million people. The Chines Empire has an
area estimated at 4,171,000 square miles and a
population of about four hundred millions. The
provinces and states of India, as will be seen from
the diagram, vary in size
and population over a wide range. The largest in
extent, Burma, is in area rather smaller than Germany
and rather larger than France and has a population
equel to that of the latter country. The united Provinces are
about the main size
as Italy has a rather larger population. Bombay
resembles Spain in area and has a population to that
of Spain and Portugal together, while Assam, the
smallest of the major provinces, has an area rather
larger than that of England and Wales and a
population, which compares with that of Switzerland.
Of the larger states Hyderabad and Kashmir have each
an area nearly as large as that of Great Britain
without Ireland though their combined population is
not much mere than one third of that of Great Britain
alone.
-
Over the whole of India the population per square mile
average 177, the mean density i8n the British
Provinces being 226and in the states 100. The
manner in which the population is distributed over
the
|
England and Wales
|
648
|
|
France
|
184
|
|
Germany
|
332
|
|
The Netherlands
|
544
|
|
Austria
|
199
|
|
Spain
|
107
|
|
Japan
|
215
|
|
United States
|
32
|
|
New Zealand
|
118
|
whole
Empire is graphically shown in the map opposite. The
average densities of the individual provinces and
states are shown in the diagram opposite. These
averages are of general rather than scientific
interest and cover an infinite variety of different
conditions. Similar figures of some of the other
countries of the world are given in the margin for
comparison. If we take the districts (and small
states) as a unit and exclude cities, the mean density
ranges between a minimum of 1 and maximum of 1,882 per
square mile. On the basis of provincial natural
divisions we obtain a classification of density shown
the following tables: -
|
1
|
Below
44
|
11
|
462,195
|
26.5
|
8,828,790
|
2
.8
|
|
2
|
44-89
|
4
|
100,146
|
5.8
|
7,217,510
|
2.3
|
|
3
|
89-142
|
18
|
411,738
|
23.6
|
47,924,530
|
15.5
|
|
4
|
142-159
|
8
|
224,857
|
12.9
|
34,191,292
|
11.0
|
|
5
|
159-177
|
1
|
8,533
|
0.5
|
1,407,086
|
0.5
|
|
|
India
177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
177-195
|
4
|
86,122
|
5.0
|
16,005,815
|
5.2
|
|
7
|
195-212
|
4
|
23,350
|
1.3
|
4,712,86
|
1.5
|
|
8
|
212-266
|
3
|
36,269
|
2.1
|
8,129,756
|
2.6
|
|
9
|
266-310
|
4
|
71,965
|
4.1
|
21,145,012
|
6.8
|
|
10
|
310-354
|
1
|
31,526
|
1.8
|
10,866,740
|
3.5
|
|
11
|
354-443
|
6
|
86,080
|
5.0
|
35,001,142
|
11.3
|
|
12
|
443-531
|
4
|
69,806
|
4.0
|
35,636,992
|
11.5
|
|
13
|
531
& over
|
11
|
129,274
|
7.4
|
79,114,156
|
25.5
|
Note:
-(From
1 to 5 is below mean and from 6 to 13 is above mean)
Thus about one third of
the population occupies rather more than two thirds of
the
area at a density below the mean of the
country; while one sixth of the area is occupied by
nearly half the population at a density of over 350.
The center of area is on the boundary line of the
Bhilsa district of the Gwalior State at Lat. 23o
36’ N. and long. 80 o 4' E.
The unequal distribution of the population of
India is due to a variety of causes which have been
fully analyzed in previous census reports and need not
again be discussed in detail. In order to increase and
multiply man climate not fatally unhealthy and
sufficient security of life and property to make it
possible for him to settle and abode. All these
factors interact on one another and the absence of any
one of hem may counteract he influence of the other.
In India where the economic conditions are closely
connected with the cultivation of soil, the physical
configuration of the area must form a primary factor,
as continuous cultivation is impossible in a rocky or
mountainous country. We shall expect to find the
larger aggregation of population in the level tracts
of the country and it is in the northern portion of
India, the valleys of the
Indus, Ganges and Rajputana, that such continuous
tracts of level country chiefly exit. Within such
tracts the principle factor must usually be the
rainfall which supplies the water necessary to
fertilize the soil, and subject to definite
modifications caused by other influences, there is a
distinct general correlation between the density of
the population and the quantity of the rainfall. Thus
the sharp contrast between the extremes of density in
Eastern Bengal on the one hand and the sparsely
inhabited areas in the plains of the Indus valley on
the other are largely due to the difference between
unfailing abundance and permanent deficiency of rain.
In Eastern Bengal, where the density of population
rises as high as over 1,000 persons, per square mile
in certain tracts, every factor favorable to the
growth of an agricultural population reinforces the
dominant influence of an abundant and stable supply of
water fro the heavens. The level tract of country with
its fertile alluvial soil is drained by a system of
large rivers. These carry away the surplus water and
prevent the water logging and consequently unhealthy
conditions, which retard the growth of the population
in Western Bengal,
the rainfall is equally good but the physical
configuration of the country is not so favorable. On
the other hand the complete absence of rain in large
portions of the Indus valley and the plains of
northern Rajputana, render these tracts cultivable and
consequently uninhabitable, except where water is
supplied artificial irrigation.
Between these extremes the density figures
range in very variety of gradation. Between these
extremes the density figures range in every variety of
graduation. In the broad and fertile valleys of the
Ganges and Jumna, as well as in the plains of Gujarat,
the country is level and continuous cultivation is
possible, but here, as well as over the peninsula
generally, the rainfall, while ordinarily sufficient
for cultivation, lacks stability in respect both of
its periodic, seasonal and local incidence. A complete
failure of the monsoon, such as that of 1900 over the
central tracts of India, will produce intense and
widespread famine, which suspends the whole economic
machinery, while badly, distributed rainfall will
cause local scarcity which if continued year after
year, as in parts of the Deccan and Karnataka, will
seriously retard the prosperity of the tract. In the
central tracts south of he Ganges Valley the physical
aspects of the country change and the lower ranges of
density, which prevail in this portion of the
continent, are primarily due to the less favorable
configuration of the surface. The undulation plateaus
of Central India and the central portions of the
peninsula proper are broken by ranges
of mountains, sometimes bare and stony and
sometimes forest clad and are intersected by rivers and streams
which flow for the most part through
deep cut valleys. There is little scope for large
continuous stretches of cultivation, communications
are often difficult, while occasional failure of the
rainfall indirectly checks the growth of the
population even where there is ordinarily room
or it to expend. Nearer the coast the
conditions are more favourable. In the Gujrat plains
the density rises to nearly 300, the Kaira district
having a density 45 person per square
mile. In the coastal tracts of the south, where the
physical features are specially favorable and the
monsoon stable, the standard of aggregation is more
akin to that of the Ganges Valley. The Godavari
district of he East Coast has a population of 58 per
square mile and the Malabar district of the West Coast
a density of 585, while in the small state of Cochin,
where physical and economic conditions are specially
favorable, the density is as high as 662 per square
mile.
Each white diamond represents one percent of the total
Area of India.
Each black diamond represents one percent of the total
population of India.
But though the general distribution of the
population is mainly dependent on physical conditions,
there are other factors which have added their
influence to these. The analysis of the factors of
density made in the report of 1911 shows how the
history of a tract has served to encourage
the expansion of the population, as in the
Ganges Valley which was the principal habitat of the
chief civilizing dynasties of India, or retard it, as
in the case of Burma and Assam, where the absence of
law and order till recent times interfered with the
settled life of the people, or of the Central
Provinces, where
the country has comparatively lately been
opened out by railway and road and colonization is
more recent than in the northern tracts. Mention has
already been made of the influence of climate in
Bengal and the central portion of the continent.
Malaria, epidemic and endemic, is the chief agent of
mortality in India and its normal intensity seems to
depend more on climate than on economic conditions.
Thus besides the western districts of Bengal malaria
is specially prevalent in the submontane tracts of
northern India and in the hilly and forest portions of
the central and southern areas. The influence of
irrigation in supplying deficiencies of the rainfall
is seen in the increasing aggregation of population in
the canal colonies of the Punjab, the irrigated tracts
o the united Provinces and the east of Madras, while
industrial factors are becoming more and more
important as the population moves out of the congested
rural tracts to supply the labour required for
industrial enterprise, for the tea in Assam, the docks
and jute mills of Calcutta, the minerals of Bengal and
Chota Nagpur, the cotton of Bombay and the coffee and
rubber of southern India.
6. According to the census returns of 1921 the population of India has increased by 1.2 percent
during the decade. The figures of previous censuses
with the variations percent are given in the margin.
The average
|
1872
|
206,162,360
|
-----
|
|
1881
|
253,896,330
|
+23.2
|
|
1891
|
28,314,671
|
+13.2
|
|
1901
|
294,361,056
|
+2.5
|
|
1911
|
315,156,396
|
+7.1
|
|
1921
|
318942,480
|
+1.2
|
increases since the census of 1872 falls at a
rate of 5.5 percent., but the real gain is
considerably less than this figure owing to two
factors, (A) the additions of area and population
included at each census and
(B) the progressive increases in the accuracy
of the enumeration from census to census. The effect
of these factors on the past figures has been
discussed in previous census reports and need not be
further dealt with here. It is clear that their
influence must steadily decline as organized
administration extends and the system
and practice of enumeration improve. So far as
the present census is concerned the additional area
and population
included amounts
to 2,675 square miles and 86,533 persons respectively,
while for the present purpose it
may be taken
|
|
Million
|
Million
|
Million
|
Million
|
|
|
1872 - 1881
|
33.0
|
12.0
|
3.0
|
48.0
|
1.5
|
|
1881 – 1891
|
5.7
|
3.5
|
24.3
|
33.5
|
9.6
|
|
1891 – 1901
|
2.7
|
.2
|
4.1
|
7.0
|
1.4
|
|
1901 – 1911
|
1.8
|
…..
|
18.7
|
20.5
|
6.4
|
|
1911 - 1921
|
.1
|
……
|
3.7
|
3.8
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
43.3
|
15.7
|
53.8
|
112.8
|
20.1
|
that the
enumeration of 1921was, as regards numbers, as
accurate than that of 1911. The general result after
allowing for the factors of extension and accuracy is
given in the marginal statement. The real increase in
the population during the last 49 years is thus
estimated at about – four millions 20.1 percent.
The variation in the whole of India
and the main provinces and states are exhibited in the
diagram below and the diagram opposite ; also in the
map which forms a frontispiece to this volume.
It will be noticed that the
increase in the decade was slightly greater in the
British districts than in the increase in the
decade was slightly greater in the British
districts than in the states and that i the large in r
provinces the variation range from an increase of 5.7
% in the Punjab to a decrees of 3.1% in the
United province. The steady rate of expansion in the
provinces of Assam, the Central Provinces and
Burma during the last 50 years was the subject of the following
remark in the report of last census
"Lower Burma has grown by 135% since 1872
and the whole Provinces , including Upper Burma which
was annexed 1886 by 37% since 1891. In Assam including
Manipur the increase since 1872 amounts to 70 and in
the centranel provinces and Berar to 47 %"
Assam and Burma again show
comparatively high rates of increase. Immigration is
an important factor in the rise in Assam but neither
or these two provinces were exposed to and Berar,
Bihar and orissa and Bomabay and substantially
reduced the population in the United Provinces, the
Rajputana and central India Agency and Hyderabad
State. The epidemic was severe in the North West Frontier
areas and in parts of the Kashmir state. The stimulus
given to agricultural prosperity in the Punjab by the
large expansion of canal irrigation has done much to neutralize
the effects of the high death rate in 1918, as is
shown by the rapid recovery of the birth rate after
that year. In the Bengal and Madras unhealthy
conditions were more localised than in the central and
western tracts and development of population was only partially
retarded, the expansion of population in the costal
districts of south India being considerable and
amounting to nearly 17% in the Travancore State.
7.) An
obvious factor influencing the variation
of population in any area is the physical
movement of people in and out of that area. So far as
the whole of India is concerned, this factor is
impossible to estimate exactly and in any case is not
of real importance. The statistics of birth place in
Imperial Table XI give complete figures of those who
were born outside and enumerated within India, but the
numbers of those natives of India who, at the time of
census, were residing in Persis,
Afghanistan, Nepal, China and other Asiatic
Countries in which no census is taken are not known.
It was shown, however, in paragraph 87 of the report
of 1911 that on such figures and estimates as are
available the excess of emigration over immigration in
India might be placed roughly at about 581,000 person
in 1911. The number of immigrants into India from
outside has decreased from 650 thousands in 1911 to
604 thousands at the excess during the decade in the
number of soldiers and students who have left
for foreign countries is probably more than
balanced by a reduction in the emigration of labour,
owing to
restrictions thereon, while there is no reason to
suppose that emigration to other Asiatic countries has
increased. Even if the additional loss to India during
the decade on the balance of emigration amounts to as
much as 150,000 persons, or about double the loss
estimated for the previous decade, he figure is of
little importance compared with the gain or loss due
to natural causes, depending on the health and well
being of the people and shown in the birth and death
rate. Before studying these causes, it will be well to
review briefly the general circumstances of the
decade, which were likely to affect the growth of the
population.
8.) While
many of the factors and conditions set out in the next
paragraph are directly due to the war, the war itself
had little direct effect on the population of India.
Such effect could operate in three ways (1) By death
casualties, (2) By increasing the number of persons
outside India at the census, and (3) By decreasing the
birth rate. The actual number of death casualties
among the officers and ranks of Indian Army units and
labour units at any one time between 1914 and 1919
was, approximately, Indian troops 250,000, labour
corps 230,000 total 480,000; the number about the time
of the census being troops 105,000 labour corps
20,800, total 125,800. A fair proportion of combatants
was draw from the fighting races of the Punjab and
some statistics for that Provinces are given by Mr.
Middleton in his report. He writes as follows: -
"It comes as a shock
to the imagination to compare the mortality directly
caused by the war with that due to natural causes;
though war casualties were amongst the pick of the
population they were numerically insignificant when
contrasted with the death-roll caused by the
slightest of epidemics; indeed it is undoubtedly true,
as observed by Mr. Leigh, that the war saved more
lives in the Punjab owing to the collocation of men in
cantonments where the ravages of influenza in 1918
were met by efficient medical precautions and remedies
than it wasted on the field of battle. It is possible
that the absence of so large a proportion of the able
bodied from their home indirectly affected the
population by lowering the birth rate, but so many of
these men were able to visit their homes on leave that
the effect was not great enough to be discoverable
from statistics. With regard to its effect upon the
numbers of the population the war is an almost
negligible factor in a decade which in itself will
render unique in history as long as civilization
lasts."
Other provinces
contributed their quota to the labour corps which were
sent across the seas and local figures are affected,
especially in the North-West Frontier Province, by
the distribution and movement of troops; but so far as
the larger totals are concerned the war is not a
direct factor of any importance in the census in any
province.
9.) In considering the factors which
determined the movement of the population the decade
may conveniently be divided into two periods, (A) a
fairly normal period from 1911 to 1917 and (B) the
disastrous epidemic year 1918, accompanied by scarcity
and followed by a second crop failure in 1920. As will
be seen the war hardly began to affect the ordinary
life of the people till about the third year after its
outbreak. Agricultural conditions during the earlier
period were on the whole favourable. In 1911-12
and 1912-13 there was a serious shortage of rain
in parts of the Bombay Presidency resulting in
scarcity conditions over certain areas of the East
Deccan, but on the whole insufficient rain fall was to
restricted localities. The year 1913-14 was abnormally
dry. The united Provinces and Central Provinces
suffered from an early cessation of the monsoon rain
of 1913 which caused a fall in the outturn of wheat,
and there was some distress in parts of the former
province. In 1914-15 the rainfall, abundant and
well distributed in the center and north and east of
the country, was unfavourable in the eastern positions
of Bengal and in Madras and Burma and the rice crop
was somewhat below normal. Rainfall in 1915-16
varied considerably over the country, the heavy late
rain causing floods in the Eastern Provinces and parts
of he United Provinces, but on the whole the harvest
of the year was fair and the rice crop was above he
normal. The monsoon of the two following years was
heavy and well distributed and both below the average
in 1913-14 and 1915-16, but in the case of the these
crops the higher prices obtainable in a poor year tend
to recoup the grower in value for what he loses in
quantity. Meanwhile the economic conditions in India
were gradually undergoing a change. The outbreak of
war in 1914 caused an immediate decline in the bulk of
India’s foreign trade by the contraction of
shipping. The influence on prices of foodstuffs from
any considerable movement. In 1917 however the
conditions of India began to respond to the world
disturbance of the war. Men for the fighting and
labour units and food, munitions and war material of
all kinds were demanded. The strain on the railway
organization dislocated the local markets and the
distribution system in the country began to give
trouble, while the rising prices of imported
necessities such as salt, oil and cloth hit the poorer
classes severely. The harvests of 1917 were good but
the year was wet and unhealthy and a virulent outbreak
of plague in the north and west of India caused heavy
mortality. Wages had not yet begun to move with the
upward movement of prices and there was a general
feeling of restlessness among the labouring classes,
which rapidly increased under the influence of
political propaganda. Then followed the disastrous
seasons of 1918-1919. The monsoon of 1918 was
exceptionally feeble and gave practically no rain
after the beginning of September. In the Punjab and
the central and western portions of the continent the
crops failed over considerable areas and scarcity,
aggravated by the high level of prices, was declared
in parts of Punjab, United Provinces, Central
Provinces, Bombay and Bihar and Orissa, while
agricultural conditions were equally bad in parts of
the Hyderabad and Mysore States. The outturn of rice
fell from nearly 40,000 to 24,000 tons while the wheat
harvest in the spring of 1919 was equally poor. The
crop failure was as bad as, if not worse than, that of
1900 and prices of foodstuffs, cloth and other
necessities of life, already high, rose to heights
never previously reached. Famine relief organization
in now so highly perfected in India that scarcity is
not necessarily accompanied by high mortality. But
meanwhile the influenza epidemic, starting in the
latter part of 1918, visited almost every portion of
the country and wiped out in a few months practically
the whole natural increase in the population for the
previous seven years. Emergency measures were taken.
Transport, the export of foodstuffs and the
distribution of the necessities of life were all
placed under Government control, and it was only the
wonderful resisting power of the people, acquired from
years of steady economic improvement, that enabled the
country to tide without absolute disaster over a year
of unprecedented difficulty and strain. These
conditions lasted through the first half of 1919, but
an abundant though not very well distributed monsoon
in that year brought some welcome relief, though
prices remained high and it was necessary to stop all
export of food grains and to reinforce the stocks of
the country by importing wheat from Australia. The
monsoon of 1920 was poor; the autumn rains failed and
the winter rains were in defect. Famine was declared
in one district in Bombay and scarcity in another
districts of those Provinces and in seven districts of
the Central Provinces. Famines conditions in Hyderabad
were pronounced and distress prevailed were in certain
districts of Madras. By the end of 1920 nearly 100,000
persons were on relief and generous remissions of
revenue had to be given. It was not till the end of
1920 and the beginning of 1921 that prices gradually
began to come down.
10.) Apart from the more
normal causes of mortality the distinctive features of
the decade of 1901 to 1911 had been the progress
through India of the plague epidemic and the
mortality, which it caused. The recorded number of
deaths from plague during that period was about 6½
millions. In the recent decade the deaths recorded are
less than half that number. There were however serious
outbreaks of plague in Bombay, the Punjab, the United
Provinces and the Central Provinces in the first two
years of the decade; the mortality was again high in
1915 and higher still in 1917 and 1918, when the
disease was severe in practically every part of
northern and central India. Cholera is normally most
prevalent in the Eastern Provinces. It was especially
virulent in Assam and in parts of Bihar and Orissa and
Bengal, while in several provinces outbreaks of the
disease either accompanied or immediately followed the
influenza epidemic. Cholera in its most severe form
has usually been associated with the deterioration in
physique, which accompanied famine conditions before
famine organization had been perfected. Virulent as
the epidemic can still be when its hold is established
it is now usually of a temporary and local nature, and
the total death rate in British India from the disease
during the decade did not amount to more than 1.5
percent. By far the largest numbers of deaths in India
are entered under the category of "fever" and
allowing for inaccuracy of diagnosis it has usually
been assumed that about two thirds of the deaths so
recorded may be ascribed to malaria.
Recent investigations made in special areas,
however, suggest that this proportion has been
considerably fourth of the number of reported fever
cases, the he remainder being cases of dysentery,
pneumonia, phthisis and other diseases. * Malaria is
endemic in large areas of the continent, both in the
forest clad country which fringes the mountain ranges
and in tracts of Bengal, Assam, and Burma, where the
configuration of the country prevents the drainage of
the flood water after the monsoon. In such areas,
besides raising the average level of the death rate,
it permanently lowers the vitality of the people and
reacts both on the birth rate and on their general
economic condition. In parts of western Bengal the
population has been described as sodden with malaria.
Epidemic malaria was specially fever in the Punjab and
United Provinces in the earlier years of the decade
and again in 1917 when owing to the especially heavy
monsoon, mortality from this disease was high in
almost every province. In the last few years the
prevalence of an affection, which is the cause of
considerable mortality called Relapsing Fever, has
received considerable attention by the Health
Department. This dieses has been diagnosed as common
in most parts of the country, specially in the
northern provinces and in the Central Provinces and
Berar and Bombay, but the extent of the mortality
which can be ascribed to it cannot at present be
estimated. Nor can figures be given of phthisis, which
is undoubtedly responsible for considerable mortality;
especially in the towns of western India, the deaths
from this disease in Ahmedabad amount in 1918 to 5 per
mile of the population. All other factors in the
health of the people have, however, been over shadowed
by the influenza epidemic of 1918 1919 which has
dominated the population figures at the present
census.
11.) The influenza
epidemic of 1918 invaded the continent of India in two
distinct waves. The first infection apparently
radiated from Bombay and progressed eastward from
their, but its origin and foci are uncertain. It may
have been introduced from shipping in Bombay district,
Delhi, and Meerut in the spring; but the existence of
the dieses in epidemic form cannot be established
without doubt before June. The diseases became general
in India in both the military and civil population
during August and infection spread rapidly from place
to place by rail, road and water. The first epidemic
was most prevalent in urban areas, but it was not of
an especially virulent type and, probably for that
reason, it is said to have affected young children and
old people most severely. The morality curve went to a
peak in July and then dropped and there is evidence of
a distinct interval between the first and second waves
but not of any real break of continuity, as sporadic
cases were reported throughout the intervening period.
It is impossible to say where the more virulent virus
of the second invasion came from. There are certain
facts, which suggest that the disease began in the
Poona district in September. It spread from province o
province, lasting in a virulent form generally from
eight to ten weeks, when mortality, usually due to
respiratory disease, reached its highest point. The
rural areas were most severely infected, the reason
probably being that while villages have little
advantage over towns in the matter of overcrowding,
sanitation and ventilation the urban areas have the
benefit of qualified medical aid and organized effort.
Mortality was especially high among adults (20-40),
particularly among adult females, the diseases being
generally fatal to women in pregnancy. It is suggested
that the high mortality was specially high among women
may have been due to the fact that, in addition to the
ordinary tasks of the house, on them fell the duty of
nursing the others even when themselves ill. The
figures show that the excess mortality between the
ages 20 to 40 amounted in some cases to nearly four
times the mean. It is no exaggeration to say that at
the worst period whole villages were put out of action
by the epidemic. To add to the distress the disease
came at a period of widespread failure and reached its
climax in November when the cold weather had set in;
and, as the price of cloth happened at the time to be
at its highest, many were unable to provide themselves
with the warm clothing that was essential in the case
of an illness that so readily attacked the lungs. The
disease lasted in most provinces well into 1919 and
gave a high mortality in that year in Bengal and the
united Provinces even after it had subsided there were
in the year, while local outbreaks continued over the
country during the next two years.
The comparative severity of the epidemic in the
different parts of India is shown in the map on the
opposite page. * It is not possible to explain the
peculiar variations in the local prevalence of the
diseases, which seems to have been entirely capricious
in its incidence. The coastline escaped with a low
mortality while in the hilly country the disease was
usually special fatal, though this was apparently not
always the case in the Punjab. The Eastern Provinces
escaped lightly and Calcutta was not attacked as
severely as other cities. It has been suggested that
the mortality was determined by the comparative
liability of the people to respiratory complications
or, in other words, their susceptibility to pneumonia,
and it looks as if the epidemic was more virulent in a
cold dry climate than where there was comparative
warmth or humidity.
There
is no direct means of ascertaining the mortality from
the epidemic. Influenza was unknown to the
registration staff as a specific form of illness and
the deaths were entered under the heads fever or
respiratory disease. Various estimates have been made
based on the excess mortality over some suitable mean.
The average of these calculations gives a total number
of deaths in the areas under registration of about
7,100,000 in 1918, as shown in the migration table ;
to which must be added, as the results of similar
calculation, another 1-1/3
|
Ajmer –
Merwara
|
29,835
|
59.5
|
|
Assam
|
111,340
|
18.6
|
|
Bengal
|
386,572
|
8.5
|
|
Bihar &
Orissa
|
709,976
|
20.5
|
|
Bombay
|
1,059,497
|
54.9
|
|
Burma
|
137,491
|
13.9
|
|
C.P. &
Berar
|
924,949
|
66.4
|
|
Coorg
|
2,014
|
11.5
|
|
Delhi
|
23,612
|
56.6
|
|
Madras
|
682,169
|
16.7
|
|
N.W.F.
Province
|
89,035
|
43.6
|
|
Punjab
|
898,947
|
45.4
|
|
United
Province
|
2,034,257
|
43.4
|
million deaths in 1919, giving a total
recorded mortality of nearly 8.5 millions in the two
years. Even this, however, must be a substantial
underestimate since, owing to the complete breakdown
of the reporting staff, the registration of vital
statistics was in many cases suspended during the
progress of the epidemic in 1918 and when the time
came to reconstruct the figures the number of
omissions, especially in the case of women, must have
formed a high proportion. In some cases the Census
Superintendents give estimates of deaths considerably
higher than those given in the margin, which are taken
from the Sanitary Commissioner's report and, as we
shall see in paragraph 14 below, there is a difference
of nearly 4 millions between the census figures and
the deduced population, a considerable proportion of
which must be due to omissions of influenza deaths. In
any case the figure given above applies only to the
areas under registration, which contain little more
than three quarters of the population of India. The
epidemic was especially virulent in the Rajputana and
Central India Agencies and in the States of the
Punjab, Central Provinces and Bihar and Orissa, while
the attack was severe in Kashmir and Mysore and acute
in Hyderabad and parts of Baroda. We have no
statistics for these areas, at any rate none that are
trustworthy, but a rough estimate would put the direct
mortality in them, from the disease in 1918 and 1919,
at least in the same proportion as in British
territory. We thus arrive at a total mortality of
between 12 and 13 millions for India. It is
interesting to note that even this conservative
estimate of a mortality, the large part of which
occurred in the space of three or four months, exceeds
by nearly two millions the total estimated deaths from
plague extending over 20 years
(1898-1918), and is a good deal more than
double the death rate directly attributable to the
famines, of the period 1897-1901. The number of
deaths, however, is not, of course, the measure of the
loss of life from the epidemic. The case mortality has
been put roughly at about 10 percent and on this basis
the total number of persons affected by the disease
was about 125 millions or two fifths of the total
population of India. The effect on the general health
of the people is shown by the reaction on the birth
rate, which dropped below the death rate in 1918 and
1919 and only gave a slight excess in India in
1920.
12.)
The cumulative effect of the various health factors on
the vitality of the population is shown in the
variations of the birth and death rates, but before
making a use of the recorded vital statistics it will
be well to form some estimates of the accuracy and
value of the records. The registration of vital
statistics is established throughout British India
except in the more remote and backward tracts. The
system of collection differs in details in different
Provinces. It is usually based on information of
births and deaths recorded in the village (often by
the headman of the village), and passed on
periodically to some local authority, usually the
police by whom registers are maintained. Extracts from
these registers are sent to the local officer who is
responsible for the records of public health, by which
they are complied for the districts and so eventually
for the Province. The information includes particulars
of the births, including stillbirths, and death by sex
and religion and the classification of the deaths
under certain categories of age and of disease. The
records both in the villages and in the local offices
are periodically checked by touring officers of
various departments. In municipal towns the
registration of vital occurrences by the householder
is usually compulsory by law, and the registers are
maintained by the municipal authority. Owing chiefly
to carelessness in administration the standard of
accuracy is probably not as high in the towns as in
the rural areas.
Attempts
have from time to time been made to gauge the extent
of errors by placing certain tracts under a special
staff responsible for watching the reporting, but such
attempts are themselves full of difficulties and their
conclusions have not been accepted as of any final
statistical value. The results of some attempts of
this
|
|
|
Births
|
|
|
Deaths
|
|
|
Bengal
|
46.7
|
37.6
|
9.1
|
40.0
|
32.7
|
7.3
|
|
Bombay
|
41.0
|
33.4
|
7.6
|
35.8
|
34.6
|
1.2
|
|
Burma
|
42.9
|
33.9
|
9.0
|
32.7
|
25.2
|
7.5
|
|
Madras
|
41.9
|
30.8
|
11.1
|
33.4
|
23.2
|
10.2
|
|
Punjab
|
44.3
|
41.2
|
3.1
|
43.3
|
44.0
|
0.7
|
|
United
Province
|
46.5
|
41.4
|
5.1
|
46.0
|
39.3
|
6.7
|
kind
are described in Appendix II to Chapter V of the
Bengal report. The percentage of omissions found varies considerably in different regions
and the samples can hardly be considered altogether
representative because, on the one hand, the
examination of the vital statistics was usually
performed by a staff engaged on fever investigation in
tracts which were specially unhealthy, and on the
other hand, the presence of the enquiring staff
probably stimulated the reporting agency to greater
accuracy. Statistical analyses, based on a comparison
between the recorded birth and death rates and the
population and age distribution according to the
census, also afford a valuable means of check.
Comparing the estimated birth and death rates given by
Mr. Acland in his actuarial report on the 1911 census
figures with the reported rates of the decade ending
with that year, we find that the apparent omissions in
the reported figures vary between 7 and 8
per mille
for births and are slightly less in the case of
deaths. Tests made by Mr. Thompson (Bengal) on the
basis (1) of a comparison between the population
returns and the population
deduced from the vital statistics of the decade with
allowance for migrations, (2) the mean population,(3)
the statistics of infant,
SUBSIDIARY TABLE
I
Area of India and the Provinces
and States
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
INDIA
|
1,805,332
|
1,802,657
|
+2,675
|
|
Provinces
|
1,094,300
|
1,093,074
|
+1,226
|
|
Ajmer
Mewara
|
2,711
|
2,711
|
-
|
|
Anandman
and Nicobar
|
3,143
|
3,143
|
-
|
|
Assam
|
53,015
|
53,015
|
-
|
|
Baluchistan
(districts and administered territory)
|
54,228
|
54,228
|
-
|
|
Bengal
|
76,843
|
78,699
|
-
1,856
|
|
Bihar
and Orissa
|
83,161
|
83,181
|
-
20
|
|
Bombay
|
123,621
|
123,059
|
+562
|
|
Burma
|
233,707
|
230,839
|
+2,868
|
|
Central
provinces and Berar
|
99,876
|
99,823
|
+53
|
|
Coorg
|
1,582
|
1,582
|
-
|
|
Madras
|
142,260
|
142,330
|
-
70
|
|
North
west frontier Provinces (districts and
administered territory)
|
13,419
|
13,418
|
+1
|
|
Punjab
and Delhi
|
100,439
|
99,779
|
+660
|
|
………
Provinces
|
106,295
|
107,267
|
-972
|
STATES AND AGENCIES
|
711,032
|
709,583
|
+1,449
|
|
Assam
State (Manipur)
|
8,456
|
8,456
|
-
|
|
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
States
|
80,410
|
80,410
|
-
|
|
Baroda
State
|
8,127
|
8,182
|
-
55
|
|
Bengal
States
|
5,434
|
5,393
|
+41
|
|
Bihar
and Orissa states
|
28,648
|
28,648
|
-
|
|
Bombay
states
|
63,453
|
63,864
|
-
411
|
|
Central
India (agency) and Gwalior State
|
77,888
|
77,367
|
+521
|
|
Central
provinces states
|
31,176
|
31,174
|
+2
|
|
Hyderabad
State
|
82,698
|
82,698
|
-
|
|
Kashmir
State
|
84,258
|
84,432
|
-
174
|
|
Madras
States
|
10,696
|
10,549
|
+147
|
|
Mysore
State
|
29,475
|
29,475
|
-
|
|
North
West frontier (agencies and Tribal Areas)
|
25,500
|
25,500
|
-
|
|
Punjab
States
|
37,059
|
36,551
|
+508
|
|
Rajputana
(Agency)
|
128,987
|
128,987
|
-
|
|
Sikkim
State
|
2,818
|
2,818
|
-
|
|
United
Provinces States
|
5,949
|
5,079
|
+80
|
NOTE:
- The difference in areas is due to the use of revised
survey figures and to corrections for fluvial action;
in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, the Punjab and the United
Provinces it is also due to inter – provincial
transfers.
SUBSIDIARY
TABLE II
Population of India at Six
censuses
Note:-
The new areas at each census have been detailed in the
title page to imperial table II.
* Sex details of 48,315 persons are not
available
Sex details of 26,129 persons are not available
SUBSIDIARY TABLE III
Population
distributed by Provinces and with variation percent.
In the population and mean density per square mile.
|
|
|
|
1921
|
1911
|
(Increase + Decrease -)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persons
|
Males
|
Females
|
Both Sexes
|
1911-21
|
1901-11
|
1872-1921
|
1921
|
1911
|
1901
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
|
India
|
1,805,332
|
318,942,480
|
163,995,554
|
154,946,926
|
315,156,396
|
+1.2
|
+7.1
|
+54.7
|
177
|
175
|
163
|
|
|
Provinces
|
1,381,977
|
20,950,433
|
139,243,123
|
131,707,310
|
266,462,186
|
+1.6
|
+6.3
|
+38.0
|
196
|
198
|
186
|
|
1
|
Ajmer Merware
|
2,711
|
495,271
|
269,566
|
225,705
|
501,395
|
-1.2
|
+5.1
|
+25.0
|
183
|
185
|
16
|
|
2
|
Andaman and Nicobar
|
3,143
|
27,086
|
20,793
|
6,293
|
26,459
|
+2.4
|
+7.3
|
..
|
9
|
8
|
8
|
|
3
|
Assam
|
61,471
|
7,990,246
|
4,149,228
|
3,841,018
|
7,060,521
|
+13.2
|
+15.2
|
+92.5
|
130
|
115
|
109
|
|
4
|
Baluchistan
|
134,638
|
799,625
|
461,000
|
388,625
|
834,703
|
-4.2
|
+3.0
|
..
|
6
|
6
|
..
|
|
5
|
Bengal
|
82,277
|
47,592,462
|
24,628,365
|
22,964,097
|
46,305,170
|
+2.8
|
+8.0
|
+37.2
|
578
|
551
|
521
|
|
6
|
Bihar & Orissa
|
111,809
|
37,961,858
|
18,710,052
|
19,251,806
|
38,434,753
|
-1.2
|
+5.1
|
+34.6
|
340
|
344
|
327
|
|
7
|
Bombay
|
187,074
|
26,757,648
|
13,946,931
|
12,810,717
|
27,084,317
|
-1.2
|
+6.3
|
+15.8
|
143
|
145
|
135
|
|
8
|
Burma
|
233,707
|
13,212,192
|
6,756,969
|
6,455,223
|
12,115,217
|
+9.1
|
+15.5
|
+380.9
|
57
|
52
|
45
|
|
9
|
C.P & Berar
|
131,052
|
15,970,660
|
7,980,797
|
7,998,863
|
16,033,310
|
-0.3
|
+17.9
|
+46.9
|
122
|
122
|
121
|
|
10
|
Coorg
|
1,582
|
163,838
|
89,501
|
74,337
|
174,976
|
-6.4
|
-3.1
|
-2.7
|
104
|
111
|
114
|
|
11
|
Delhi
|
593
|
488,188
|
281,633
|
206,555
|
413,447
|
+18.1
|
+2.0
|
..
|
823
|
697
|
684
|
|
12
|
Madras
|
143,852
|
42,794,155
|
21,100,158
|
21,693,997
|
41,870,160
|
+2.2
|
+8.3
|
+35.4
|
297
|
291
|
270
|
|
13
|
N.W.F.Province
|
38,919
|
5,076,476
|
2,747,107
|
2,329,369
|
3,819,027
|
+32.9
|
+79.7
|
..
|
130
|
98
|
129
|
|
14
|
Punjab
|
136,905
|
25,101,060
|
13,732,048
|
11,369,012
|
23,791,367
|
+5.5
|
-2.4
|
..
|
183
|
174
|
18
|
|
15
|
United Province
|
112,244
|
46,510,668
|
24,368,975
|
22,141,693
|
47,997,364
|
-3.1
|
-1.0
|
+9.1
|
414
|
427
|
432
|
|
16
|
States & Agencies
|
423,355
|
47,992,047
|
24,752,431
|
23,239,616
|
48,694,210
|
-1.4
|
+11.3
|
+381.5
|
113
|
115
|
|
|
17
|
Baroda State
|
8,127
|
2,126,522
|
1,100,564
|
1,025,958
|
2,032,798
|
+4.6
|
+4.1
|
+6.5
|
262
|
248
|
|
|
18
|
Central India (Agency)
|
51,531
|
5,997,023
|
3,068,962
|
2,928,061
|
8,129,019
|
-2.2
|
+12.8
|
..
|
116
|
121
|
|
|
19
|
Cochin States
|
1,470
|
979,080
|
482,959
|
496,121
|
918,110
|
+6.6
|
+13.1
|
+62.9
|
662
|
675
|
|
|
20
|
Gwalior State
|
26,357
|
3,186,075
|
1,691,700
|
1,494,375
|
3,227,961
|
-1.3
|
+5.3
|
..
|
121
|
123
|
|
|
21
|
Hyderabad State
|
82,698
|
12,471,770
|
6,345,971
|
6,126,699
|
13,374,676
|
-6.8
|
+20.0
|
..
|
151
|
162
|
|
|
22
|
Kashmir State
|
84,258
|
3,320,518
|
1,757,122
|
1,563,396
|
3,158,126
|
+5.1
|
+8.7
|
..
|
39
|
37
|
|
|
23
|
Mysore State
|
29,475
|
5,978,892
|
3,047,117
|
2,931,775
|
5,806,193
|
+3.0
|
+4.8
|
+18.3
|
203
|
197
|
|
|
24
|
Rajputana (agency)
|
128,987
|
9,844,384
|
5,184,891
|
4,659,493
|
10,530,432
|
-6.5
|
+6.9
|
..
|
76
|
82
|
|
|
25
|
Sikkim State
|
2,818
|
81,721
|
41,492
|
40,229
|
87,920
|
-7.1
|
+49.0
|
..
|
29
|
31
|
|
|
26
|
Travancore State
|
7,625
|
4,006,062
|
2,032,553
|
1,973,509
|
3,428,975
|
+16.8
|
+16.2
|
+73.3
|
525
|
452
|
|
Note: The figures for the Provinces are
inclusive of the States attached to them, except in
the case of Madras, where they exclude Cochin and
Travandroom
SUBSIDIARY TABLE-IV
Variation
in natural population 1911-1921
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
INDIA
|
318,885,980
|
603,526
|
1,050,951
|
319,333,405
|
315,110,231
|
625,122
|
1,023,505
|
315,508,614
|
+1.2
|
|
Ajmer Merware
|
495,271
|
109,890
|
42,420
|
427,801
|
501,359
|
96,578
|
84,110
|
488,927
|
-12.5
|
|
Andaman and Nicobars
|
27,086
|
15,120
|
316
|
12,282
|
26,495
|
14,402
|
970
|
13,027
|
-5.7
|
|
Assam
|
7,990,246
|
1,290,157
|
75,978
|
6,776,067
|
7,059,857
|
882,068
|
4,294
|
6,252,083
|
+8.4
|
|
Baluchistan
|
799,625
|
78,387
|
60,421
|
781,659
|
834,703
|
58,500
|
76,23
|
852,476
|
-8.3
|
|
Bengal
|
47,592,462
|
1,929,640
|
697,047
|
46,359,869
|
46,305,642
|
1,970,778
|
584,757
|
44,919,621
|
+3.2
|
|
Bihar & Orissa
|
37,961,858
|
422,244
|
1,955,048
|
39,494,662
|
38,435,293
|
449,712
|
1,916,806
|
39,902,387
|
-1.0
|
|
Bombay
|
26,701,148
|
1,081,649
|
592,009
|
26,211,508
|
27,038,152
|
995,844
|
622,831
|
26,665,139
|
-1.7
|
|
Burma
|
13,212,192
|
706,725
|
20,295
|
12,525,762
|
12,115,217
|
590,965
|
14,166
|
11,538,418
|
+8.6
|
|
C.P & Berar
|
15,979,660
|
609,504
|
407,294
|
15,777,450
|
16,033,310
|
749,985
|
315,233
|
15,598,558
|
+1.1
|
|
Coorg
|
163,838
|
33,937
|
2,852
|
132,753
|
174,96
|
45,535
|
3,862
|
133,303
|
-0.4
|
|
Delhi
|
488,188
|
185,770
|
69,350
|
371,768
|
24,187,750
|
660,219
|
517,485
|
24,045,016
|
|
|
Madras
|
42,794,155
|
209,862
|
1,756,462
|
44,340,755
|
41,870,160
|
253,877
|
1,518,179
|
43,134,462
|
+2.7
|
|
N.W.F.Province
|
5,06,476
|
157,562
|
84,495
|
5,003,409
|
3,519,027
|
135,345
|
67,378
|
3,751,060
|
+33.3
|
|
Punjab
|
25,101,060
|
627,13
|
549,429
|
25,023,352
|
24,187,750
|
660,219
|
517,485
|
24,045,016
|
|
|
United Province
|
46,510,668
|
480,414
|
1,402,541
|
47,432,795
|
48,014,080
|
660,085
|
1,429,310
|
48,783,305
|
|
|
Baroda State
|
2,126,522
|
232,494
|
221,602
|
2,115,630
|
2,032,798
|
222,957
|
235,528
|
2,045,369
|
|
|
Central India (Agency)
|
5,997,023
|
548,094
|
486,643
|
5,935,572
|
9,356,980
|
474,255
|
536,133
|
9,418,858
|
-3.1
|
|
Cochin States
|
979,080
|
39,759
|
28,338
|
967,659
|
918,110
|
47,266
|
23,268
|
894,112
|
+8.2
|
|
Gwalior State
|
3,186,075
|
290,340
|
289,029
|
3,184,764
|
9,356,980
|
474,255
|
536,133
|
9,418,858
|
-3.1
|
|
Hyderabad State
|
12,471,770
|
202,781
|
363,51
|
12,632,740
|
12,374,676
|
260,713
|
306,388
|
13,420,351
|
-5.8
|
|
Kashmir State
|
3,320,518
|
63,420
|
84,291
|
3,341,389
|
3,158,126
|
76,773
|
81,968
|
3,163,321
|
+5.6
|
|
Mysore State
|
5,978,892
|
314,531
|
102,104
|
5,766,465
|
5,806,193
|
312,908
|
139,607
|
5,632,892
|
+2.3
|
|
Rajputana (agency)
|
9,844,384
|
243,002
|
868,117
|
10,469,499
|
10,530,432
|
303,553
|
855,947
|
11,082,826
|
-5.5
|
|
Sikkim State
|
81,721
|
22,978
|
4,133
|
62,876
|
87,920
|
29,835
|
3,445
|
61,530
|
+2.5
|
|
Travancore State
|
61,165
|
3,428,975
|
3,962,721
|
3,428,975
|
61,165
|
33,143
|
33,143
|
3,400,953
|
+10.5
|
Note:-
1.
The figures for the provinces are inclusive of
the states attached to them except in the case of
Madras, where they exclude Cochin and Travancore.
2.
The
actual and Natural population shown in this table is
less by 56,500 persons owing to the exclusive of Aden
where table XI was not completed.
3.
Column 2 and 6 - Persons not enumerated by
birthplace or whose birthplace was not returned have
been included in these columns.
4.
Columns 4 and 8 - The figures against India in
columns 4 and 8 represent emigrants to foreign
countries, details of which for 1921 will be found in
Subsidiary table V of Chapter III.
SUBSIDIARY TABLE-V
Reported
birth rate per mile during the decade 1911-1920 in
the main Provinces.
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
Assam
|
31.8
|
32.2
|
33.1
|
32.9
|
33.6
|
30.5
|
31.4
|
35.0
|
30.5
|
31.5
|
32.3
|
16.7
|
15.6
|
|
Bengal
|
35.0
|
35.3
|
33.8
|
33.9
|
31.8
|
31.9
|
35.9
|
32.9
|
27.5
|
30.0
|
32.8
|
17.0
|
15.8
|
|
Bihar
& Orissa
|
42.9
|
42.5
|
42.1
|
42.3
|
40.4
|
36.6
|
40.4
|
37.5
|
30.4
|
32.2
|
38.8
|
19.9
|
18.9
|
|
Bombay
|
36.0
|
35.0
|
35.0
|
27.4
|
37.1
|
36.0
|
35.3
|
31.6
|
27.9
|
30.3
|
34.2
|
17.8
|
16.4
|
|
Burma
|
32.6
|
32.1
|
32.6
|
35.4
|
35.1
|
33.7
|
30.5
|
33.0
|
29.9
|
33.8
|
33.5
|
17.2
|
16.3
|
|
Central
Provinces and Berar
|
49.5
|
48.2
|
49.3
|
31.4
|
48.0
|
43.9
|
48.1
|
43.2
|
34.3
|
39.2
|
45.5
|
13.3
|
22.2
|
|
Madras
|
30.4
|
30.9
|
3.2
|
33.5
|
31.2
|
32.6
|
33.4
|
28.9
|
25.5
|
28.4
|
30.7
|
15.7
|
15.0
|
|
North
West frontier Province
|
35.1
|
37.1
|
38.2
|
32.
|
31.7
|
33.8
|
32.5
|
30.6
|
28.6
|
29.8
|
32.8
|
18.2
|
14.6
|
|
Punjab
|
43.9
| |