4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST all., it is immeasurably complex. It is the tangled problem of excessive population growth. It is not merely a problem, it is a paradox. It is at one and the same time an issue that is intimately private—and yet inescapably public. It is an issue characterized by reticence and circumspection—and yet in desperate need of realism and candour. It is an issue intolerant of Government pressure—and yet endangered by government procrastination. It is an issue, finally, that is so hypersensitive—giving rise to such diverse opinion—that there is an understandable tendency simply to avoid argument, turn one's attention to less complicated matters, and hope that the problem will somehow disappear. What may disappear is the opportunity to find a solution that is rational and humane. If we wait too long that option will be overtaken by events. We cannot afford that. For if there is anything certain about the population explosion, it is that if it is not dealt with reasonably, it will in fact explode: explode in suffering, explode in violence, explode in inhumanity.2 In the hands of ideologists, like Pillay and Abraham, population growth can be made responsible for everything, for example, the failure of planning in India: Since independence, India has been striving hard to improve the lot of the undernourished, underfed, under-clothed and under-sheltered masses and also to provide better employment opportunities, transportation and other amenities which are now considered basic to civilization. This is being done through a series of Five Year Plans. Striking advances have been made in economic and social fields. Agricultural production has doubled. We are on the threshold of a Green Revolution. There is an all-round development in educational, medical and industrial fields. The national income has risen by 90 percent over a period of 18 years. But our gigantic efforts and impressive gains have not made any improvement in the conditions of the masses. The gains of development have been seriously eroded, however by the rising tide of population.3 Yes, population growth can even be made responsible for the growing disparities between rich and poor countries: Most countries developed and developing are presently maintaining a 3 to 5 per cent increase in national income, which means that the people of the wealthier ones, with a population growth rate of 1 per cent or less, are becoming richer, whereas those of the poor countries with a population growth of 2 per cent or more, are becoming progressively poorer.4 By means of a similar argument population growth can be shown to underlie several of the most important symptoms of underdevelopment: In a democracy every citizen must be provided with not only adequate food, but also shelter, clothing, education, employment, medical care arid other amenities of life. It is not difficult to see how the