The conflating of ‘national interest’ with population control has serious negative consequences. The Two Child Norm and Policy and the disincentives built in it specially have serious negative consequences for women and girls and also on birth and survival of girl child, as also illustrated in a number of studies.
Mahila Chenta Manch an
organization based in Bhopal MP conducted a study in 2000 in five States –
Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh (which included Chhattisgarh), Haryana, Orissa,
and Rajasthan which had introduced the two-child norm in their Panchayat laws.
It was for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and was supported by
UNFPA. The study concluded that “the way the norm is conceptualised and
currently implemented is not without serious unintended
negative consequences”,
deserting pregnant wives, concealment of babies, tampering with birth certificates
and immunisation records in Anganwadis, increasing prenatal sex determination followed
by abortion of female foetuses are other alarming, but not unexpected outcomes
of enforcing of the two child ‘norm’. The stories of women are revealing, a woman
Sarpanch and her husband, a Panchayat member, gave up their third child (a
daughter) for adoption, and in
another instance, a man
denied he was the father, leading to a DNA test being proposed to prove the
paternity of the baby.
More than 50% of those
disqualified under the provisions of the ‘two child’ norm in the study states
were either illiterate or had primary education only. Economically and socially
vulnerable sections suffered the most as 75% of those disqualified belonged to
SC, ST and backward classes. There were cases of denial of parentage,
abortions, infants being abandoned and given up to other family members to beat
the two-child norm. In one case in Himachal Pradesh the husband gave an
affidavit the moment he realized that his wife was pregnant, stating that the woman
and child belong to his brother. This is a very complicated issue in areas like
Sirmour where polyandry is still practiced.
The law has no structured implementation mechanism and works through the
complaint route. Action is initiated if someone complains about the third
child. It was seen that this fuelled local power politics at the village level.
Women face negative consequences of this law directly as candidates as well as
indirectly (as spouse of those disqualified) in the form of desertion, forced abortions,
neglect and death of female infant or female child being given up for adoption.
The law is therefore rightly described as discriminatory and anti-women.
Policies of population control are targeted at women, who have larger number of
children for complex reasons - immediate survival, a necessity, due to high
infant mortality, lack of access to health service and patriarchal control over
sexuality and reproduction. In the absence of state supported social welfare,
children are the only security to the poor in illness and old age and are viewed
as additional working hands and family support, rather than extra consumers who
will drain the family resources.
Bhim Raskar of the Resource and Support Centre for Development, an NGO that
oversees various projects in Maharashtra's villages also, says that those who
wish to tame India’s population growth must address the problems that give rise
to large families. Weak public services, especially health care, give parents
reason to have several children, as an insurance policy against some of them
dying. Poor women’s rights and education spur parents to procreate until they
have at least one son. Mr. Raskar shakes his head at the idea of imposing a
two-child norm from above. “Laws should be the last weapon, but here it is
being used as the first weapon. You need to try to understand [a situation],
and then change will come.”
SAMA a Resource Group for Women and Health conducted a study in 12 districts of
Madhya Pradesh (2003-04) which reflected the ways in which the Two Child Norm
acted as a discriminatory method to disempower the marginalised groups of
dalits, women and adivasis, apart from disengaging the youth from the political
process. Nearly 50% of the disqualified candidates belonged to SC, ST and OBC
categories.
Women have been
rendered more vulnerable and doubly disadvantaged. Increase in violence against
women, forced abortions, desertion, abandonment, divorce, alleging infidelity,
sex selective abortions, giving up children (especially girls) for adoption,
etc., were evident.
Women have no decision-making
power regarding the number of children. They face the consequences of having an
additional child since their husbands holding the office refuse to acknowledge
the new born. When the woman herself is the actual office holder, having a
third child is used as a tool to usurp her authority and in such cases the
mother-in-law or other men replace her.
Intersection of patriarchy, son preference, reluctance for girl child and
access to easy technology, despite law lead to sex selection and abortion.
These are resorted to for contesting, continuing in the local body. Politics,
complaint, influence, official attitude to implementations and under currents
of mind set are reflected in these practices.
In a working paper an economist S. Arukrits from Boston College and Abhisek
Chakravarty of the University of Essex in their study looked at seven States,
namely, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan
& Himachal Pradesh where such laws were in effect between 1992 and 2005.
Using data from various rounds of NFHS and District Level Household Survey
(DLHS), these researchers found that there was a marked decline in the number
of women in the general population reporting third births exactly one year
after the new policy was announced. The first year was a ‘grace’ period in all
of the state laws. The decline was relative to the State’s own history of the
decline in fertility as well as other States which did not enact the law. The
research also shows that the enactment of these laws led to the worsening of
sex ratio in these States. This was particularly true for upper caste families
whose first child was a daughter. The norm for politicians did not affect a
change in the overall population. The effect is not so much from a role model
effect via people emulating local leaders but more from
people’s desire to remain eligible for future elections themselves. The decline
in fertility begins immediately after the grace period ends. A role model
effect would take some time to become visible. There is also evidence that men
were divorcing their wives to remain eligible for elections and that such laws
were putting the third children at a disadvantage. (The Hindu Sept. 7, 2014 –
Rukmini S: 2-child norm for local bodies hurts sex ratio).
There is one view
that the two-child norm seeks to reward, rather than force, family planning and
that it is a far cry from China’s one-child policy or India’s own past but
critics say and justifiably so that the main outcome of its application is to
exclude the poorest Indians—who tend to have more children—from all sorts of
welfare schemes. Leena Uppal, of the National Coalition Against 2CN and
Coercive Population Policies, adds that, in a country where many parents see having
fewer children as having fewer chances to produce a son, discouraging larger
families simply encourages female foeticide.
An empirical study of the perceptions and views of the policy makers, programme
implementers and disqualified elected representatives in four States recorded
the arguments given by some respondents that adoption of the two child norm by
elected representatives in Panchayats should have a “demonstration” effect on
the community. The paper however concluded that “evidence suggests that even at
the village level caste, class and gender politics dominate and those who belong
to the backward communities do not offer any role model to members of higher
castes or
their own kith and kin”. The Two Child Norm is clearly anti women and anti-weaker
segments as is clear from profiles and numbers of those disqualified in
Panchayats on the ground of violation of the Two Child Norm. (Leela Visalia,
Akash Acharya, Francis Raj – Two Child Norm, victimizing the vulnerable? (EPW
January 7, 2006).
