The Two-Child Rule for Population Control

The Two-Child Rule for Population Control

It is true to a certain extent that population does put pressure on limited resources. Employment is just not possible to create for such large numbers. So, to that extent even poverty is an outgrowth of unchecked population growth. At the same time, the tendency to have a large family is also a consequence of poverty.

The problem with the decision to impose the two child norm is that it has not taken into consideration several factors that impinge on the population issue. Why impose it only on prospective members of Panchayati Raj and then only on candidates for political posts?

Children covered in dust, with runny noses and matted hair, begging at street corners or playing and lolling about at construction sites, overcrowded schools, traffic jams, slums, shortage of water, electricity and other amenities, environmental degradation, indeed, any failure of the infrastructure and we attribute it to growing population.

Why do the poor tend to have more children? Expert opinion has it that the poor do not know how many of their children will survive. Nor the poor well aware of the contraception methods or how to avail of them, at the root of our burgeoning population is the indifferent, if not non-existent, health care services, neither material nor child health care has got the importance it deserves in the country.

Besides the health and education infrastructure, the cultural traditions of this country have deep roots and in that culture the son has a place that is very difficult to dislodge.

The son is seen, even in the light of increasing evidence to the contrary in today’s social situation, as the provider for old age. More deep-rooted is the conviction, at least among Hindus, that the last rites must be performed by the son in order that one may gain ‘moksha’.

Deep rooted beliefs may be prejudices, have never been tackled with the reformist zeal they require. The ability to think independently and fearlessly, the spirit of questioning that is basic to positive social change and the courage to act against the mediocre tide are not encouraged; in fact they are suppressed in men and women alike. In the circumstances, the desire for a son is almost universal.

A compulsion to limit the family has resulted, even among the so-called educated middle classes, in female infanticide and foeticide. Technology-the ultrasound facility-is unscrupulously used to identify the gender of the unborn child and kill it off if it is female. This is specially, so if the firstborn is a girl. Two children are ideal, but one, at least must be a son.

It is easily seen that China, besides its totalitarian system, also has a good health care system in place. So, do most developing countries that have achieved a modicum of success in limiting population growth. Nor has education, the other important impetus behind limiting family size, been spread to all sections of the country’s population. It is the combined effect of education and health care security that will make people aware of the benefits of a small family. Changes in population numbers take place over time. The change can be speeded up with better education, widespread and prompt delivery of health care services and constant efforts at building up an awareness of religious superstition which had best be left aside.