People's Democracy

 Planning Versus Population Control

                                                             Brinda Karat

THE Supreme Court judgement that upholds as constitutional and in the national interest the Haryana government’s law on the two-child norm is disturbing. The law, that is in operation in some other states too, prohibits a person from contesting panchayat elections or holding the post of sarpanch if he or she has more than two children within a year of the law being passed. The judgement paves the way for a reversal of the National Population Policy adopted in 2000 that advocates a non-coercive target-free approach. It is of particular concern because this national policy has already been undermined by several state governments, whether led by the NDA or the Congress, like in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat. In these states population control measures disqualify those with more than two children from getting a government job or benefiting from any government schemes including those for poverty alleviation. Even ration cards for subsidised food grains can be cancelled. This is punishing the poor for their poverty. Even while the National Human Rights Commission has issued notice to these state governments on the complaint of women’s organisations and health activists of human rights violations in the name of population policies, the Supreme Court judgement provides the highest judicial approval for such policies.

Unlike the National Population Policy, the Supreme Court judgement is based on Malthusian reasoning that the increasing size of India’s population is the main cause for underdevelopment and poverty. The arguments advanced are reminiscent of those that justified the coercive sterilisation programmes during the emergency. Shockingly, the judgement states that democracy is too heavy a price when it comes to measures for population control. Complacence in controlling population in the name of democracy is too heavy a price to pay, allowing the nation to drift towards disaster. This is a license for the most draconian measures.

The disjuncture between judicial perception and social reality is striking. According to the judgement, because of the rising awareness of Indian women they are (not) so helpless to be compelled to bear a third child even though they do not wish to do so. In contrast, recognising the lack of women’s independent agency, parliament only a few months ago adopted amendments to the anti-sex determination legislation that holds the husband, not the wife, responsible for sex-determination tests, because in most cases she has little choice.

A recent survey conducted by a women’s group has shown that the majority of those who have been disqualified for having a third child after being elected to the panchayats were poor and belonged to the socially oppressed castes. The Family Health Survey conducted by the government has also shown that, typically, it is the poor who have larger families. Thus the disqualification clause means the extension of prevailing economic and social inequalities to the political sphere.

Such measures, without tackling the cultures of son-preference and the criminal practice of sex-determination, lead to a further skewed sex-ratio. Ironically, at present, the poor who are the targets of population control policies resort less to sex-determination tests than the more well-off, and there is a high differential between classes. As analysts have shown that in Haryana, for example, the differences in sex ratios between the more well-off and the poor is as high as 500. The well-off abort female fetuses and keep the family small, the poor produce more children till they have sons and are punished for it. Disincentives, a euphemism for coercive methods for population control, may prove to be an incentive to the poor also to practice sex-determination.

There is sufficient evidence globally and in our own country that family size and population decreases are directly related to factors such as control of infant mortality rates, increase in literacy, particularly female literacy, access to health services, easy access to cheap and safe contraception. Indeed it is women who suffer most because of multiple child births and historically it is women who first demanded access to safe contraception. Yet, even today, the unmet need for contraception is as high as 45 per cent. When governments, as in Kerala, have followed policies that focus on universal health care and education, when there is less inequality in wages and income between men and women, the results are positive. With infant mortality rates of 13 per 1000 births compared to the national average of 72, with almost 90 per cent female literacy, Kerala’s fertility rate (average number of children born to a women in the reproductive age) of 1.8 is less even than that of China and also most developed countries. It has been estimated that if all of India were to follow the Kerala example, then there would be 10 million fewer births and 1.5 million fewer infant deaths in India. States like Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra that have, relative to their own records, improved on social indicators have halved the fertility rates in the last two decades to around 2.2 in Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu to 2.6 in Karnataka and Maharashtra. Significantly, the decrease in fertility rates has taken place prior to the disincentive policies that Andhra Pradesh has now adopted. It is the states with the worst social indicators like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh that have failed to bring down fertility rates. Logically, then, to bring down family size, these states would have to invest more in the areas of social development.

But this is precisely where the problem lies. Neo-liberal economic policies mean a retreat of the state from its minimum responsibilities in the provision of public welfare, and cutbacks in investments in the social sector. The plan expenditure of the centre on the major social service schemes and infrastructure is still low. In comparison, China spends much more on these sectors. Whereas China’s one-child norm has been mentioned in the SC judgement, no attention has been paid to the impact that China’s social policies may have had on reducing family size. Privatisation of essential services, the introduction of user charges making it ever more difficult for the poor to access health and educational needs are core features of current government policies. Women’s autonomy can hardly develop when avenues of economic advance get curtailed, as is happening through shrinkage of employment, work and income generating opportunities for women. In other words, government policies are in a direction that is contrary to those required for any significant impact to be made on population increase.

The Supreme Court judgement provides a convenient pretext for governments to revert to Malthusian theory and coercive practice. The consequences, far from reducing the population, will prove counter-productive both for population planning as well as for democratic processes.  It should be opposed by all those committed to a democratic and egalitarian India. Family planning based on informed choice should not be replaced with coercive methods of population control.