Thanks for your bold assertion that you are a Republican, when only 20% people today in America, say that they are Republicans,  this withstanding that there are many honorable men in Republican party, starting with the immortal Abe Lincoln. But today’s Republican party is just the opposite of what it was at Lincoln’s time except it’s NAME.  It NOW represents the racist, selfish, greedy, irrational, irresponsible and vocal people, who don’t even believe in rule of law, which has made America great.  That is why there continuous erosion of support for the party and it’s captured by fringe people like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck of Fox News, et el.  I only hope they are not your heros.

But that is besides the point I am going to make today. I will respond to your riddle BPL vs. BPPPPL issue or how or why the tribals produce more children and thus remain poor.  And why your arguing that they are responsible for their own fate, is wrong conclusion.  This week's The Economist, a reputed British magazine, analyses  the issue at length and I want all to be aware of it.  It analyses what inputs, result in what outcome?  Not only your prescription seems wrong but you apply the medicine it seems, to the wrong people:  

Here are the two articles and excerpts to make my point,

1. Falling Fertility  http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915
2.  Go forth and multiply a lot less,  http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14743589

Excerpts:

Scenarios why people tend to produce more children and what stops it:

“To understand why wealthy people differ from well-fed animals, imagine yourself a dirt-poor (male) peasant 50 years ago. Your fields are in the middle of nowhere. Your village has no school, hospital or government services, certainly no pensions. Few goods come into it from outside, though disease is rampant and security fragile. Ploughing and reaping are done by hand. But if the harvest is normal, you usually have enough to go round. In these circumstances, the benefit of an extra pair of hands to gather the harvest outweighs the cost of feeding an extra mouth (which anyway falls on your wife more than you). And when you can no longer work in the fields, your children will be the only ones to look after you. In such a society, all the incentives point to having large families.

The abandoned hamlet

Now imagine you are a bit richer. You may have moved to a town, or your village may have grown. Schools, markets and factories are within reach. And suddenly, the incentives change. A tractor can gather the harvest better than children. Your wife may get a factory job—and now her lost wages must be set against the benefits of another baby. Education, thrift and a stake in the future become more important, and these middle-class virtues go hand in hand with smaller families. Education costs money, so you may not be able to afford a large family. Perhaps the state provides a pension and you no longer need children to look after you. And perhaps your wife is no longer willing to bear endless offspring. Higher living standards, better communications and more education enable you to rely on markets and public services, not just yourself and your family.”

“Macroeconomic research bears out this picture. Fertility starts to drop at an annual income per person of $1,000-2,000 and falls until it hits the replacement level at an income per head of $4,000-10,000 a year (see chart 2). This roughly tracks the passage from poverty to middle-income status and from an agrarian society to a modern one. Thereafter fertility continues at or below replacement until, for some, it turns up again.

The link between living standards and fertility exists within countries, too. India’s poorest state, Bihar, has a fertility rate of 4; richer Tamil Nadu and Kerala have rates below 2. Shanghai has had a fertility rate of less than 1.7 since 1975; in Guizhou, China’s poorest province, the rate is 2.2. So strong is the link between wealth and fertility that the few countries where fertility is not falling are those torn apart by war, such as Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, where living standards have not risen.”

There are other reasons from the articles that I quote:

“What parents want

The link between wealth and fertility does not explain everything. In some countries, poor women have the same number of children as rich ones. This suggests that other factors are at work. The most obvious is that many people in poor countries want fewer children, and family planning helps them get their wish.

A surprising amount is known about how many children parents want, thanks to a series of surveys by the Demographic and Health Surveys programme. The picture it paints is of huge numbers of unplanned pregnancies. In Brazil, for example, the wanted fertility rate in 1996 (the most recent year available) was 1.8; the actual fertility rate then was 2.5. In India the wanted rate in 2006 was 1.9, the actual one, 2.7. In Ghana the figures for 2003 were 3.7 and 4.4. The rule seems to be that women want one child fewer than they are having (except in some rich countries, where they say they want more).

One study in 2002 estimated that as many as a quarter of all pregnancies in developing countries in the 1990s were unintended. Yet another found that more African women say they want to use contraceptives but cannot get them (25m) than actually use them (18m). Unmet demand in turn implies that fertility in some countries could be even lower than it actually is if more family planning were available. The proportion of women using contraception in Latin America and East Asia is four times the African rate.

That points to another big reason why fertility is falling: the spread of female education. Go back to the countries where fertility has fallen fastest and you will find remarkable literacy programmes. As early as 1962, for example, 80% of young women in Mauritius could read and write. In Iran in 1976, only 10% of rural women aged 20 to 24 were literate. Now that share is 91%, and Iran not only has one of the best-educated populations in the Middle East but the one in which men and women have the most equal educational chances. Iranian girls aged 15-19 have roughly the same number of years of schooling as boys do. Educated women are more likely to go out to work, more likely to demand contraception and less likely to want large families.”

It is very clear that what did not happen to the tribal that resulted in current situation:

1.      No upward mobility in life, resulting in primitive instincts continuing after 60 years of development and spending of thousands of Rupees in their name.  Disease: A failure of Governance.

2.      No delivery of the contraceptive supplies as technologies became available, leading to unmet demands and continuation of marginal lifestyle.  Disease: Again a failure of Governance, though crores and crores of Rupees were spent in their name and in the name of family planning programs.

3.      Total failure of Primary and secondary education among tribals and poor, leading to perpetuation of their marginal existence after 60 years of independence.  If these monies were properly spent and managed, not pilfered, things would have changed as is the experience elsewhere in the world.  Disease: Again a result of bad Governance.

Thus in my opinion, your remedy is worse than the disease.  The disease is “Bad Governance of the State”, as a result lack of upward mobility of life of a significant section of population in 60 plus years since independence.  And delivery of substandard primary and secondary education.  And you are recommend administering Army & Air Force action (Green Hunt)?. Which also means raising of special forces for hunting them down, resulting in large continued expenditure for a long time, instead of spending the money on Education and Health care.  It is not only the wrong medicine ( police and army action vs. development and education) but administering it to the wrong person(the tribal, instead of  the corruption ridden Govt at state and center). 

Would you not agree, that it will be irrational to expect that it will result in cure of the disease?  I wish they spent the same money in the same area for Education and people based development (based on their wishes, such as minor irrigation etc.)