question_answer

In view of the widespread interest manifested in the population control propaganda by professional and lay persons, it is imperative to present a brief yet laconic review of the policy. The rudimentary contestation of the policy'’s effect on poverty appears shallow and luddite.

The Shiv Sena’'s Rajya Sabha MP Anil Desal has recently moved a private member bill in the upper house proposing to introduce Article 47A into Part IV of the Constitution of India to incentivize people who keep their family limited to two children and seeks to withdraw every concession from people who fall to adhere to the small family norm with a aim of population control. It states - "“47A. The State shall promote small family norms by offering incentives in taxes, employment, education etc. to its people who keep their family limited to two children and shall withdraw every concession from and deprive such incentives to those not adhering to small family norm, to keep the growing population under control.”"

The MP has given the following rationale - “"Population explosion will cause many problems for our future generations... Natural resources like air, water, land woods etc. are subjected to over exploitation because of over population. Today, there is a greater need to keep a strong check on the increase of our population.”"

Perhaps, the-ill-considered logic resonates the philosophy governing the juridical decision of setting two-child norm for contesting local body elections espoused by the states like Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Haryana. However, it is less probable that India is going to enact such a policy at the national level as it is a signatory to the International Conference on population and Development declaration. Signed by India in 1994, the declaration advocates free speech and honors the reproductive rights of couples to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children. Moreover, adding it as Directive Principle won’'t be much effective as DPSPs are non-justiciable.

In wake of this, no assessment would be complete without a reference to China’'s infamous ‘'one-child policy'’, which was introduced in 1979 by the Chinese Government. It thrived on the basic understanding of population containment as essential to lifting China out of severe poverty caused by decades of economic mismanagement. This policy led to a large fall in the total fertility rate from an estimated 5.9 births per woman in 1970, to 2.9 births per woman by 1979. Despite this downward trajectory in fertility, fears of overpopulation persisted, and so the one-child policy was introduced. As one of the most controversial policies in history, debate has raged over the positive and negative effects of the one-child policy. The authorities claim that 400 million births have been prevented, which contributed to increasing per capita GDP. But this assertion is contested by claims that the higher number of prevented births includes the effects of the later-longer-fewer policy. Later-Longer-Fewer policy (1973-1979), also known as wan-xi-shao policy, emphasized delayed marriage, long intervals between births and fewer births overall. In addition, many scholars in fact, believe that rapid economic development alone would have reduced fertility substantially, as has been the case in many other developing countries, such as Thailand where the total fertility rate decreased from 5 6 in 1970, to 2 1 in 1990. This possibility, together with the very rapid fall in fertility during the later-longer-fewer policy raised the obvious question of whether the one-child policy was ever necessary at all. Though, China rid itself of its one-child policy in 2015, and allowed couples to have two children as concerns are growing over an aging population and a dropping birth, rate. Similarly, whether the 2 child-policy in our country in the absence of policy similar to later-longer-fewer would be able to bring any positive result or riot is still not clear.

What was rationale for China’s one child policy?

A) It would contain policy

B) It would lift China out of poverty

C) Both (a) and (b)

D) One child policy would make China a super