The timeline of a minor Twitter storm I was caught in on July 11 said it all. It was triggered by my response to a tweet by Shahid Siddiqui, journalist-politician, former parliamentarian, who recently rejoined the Rashtriya Lok Dal after traversing over almost the entire spectrum of non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) forces for over nearly a quarter of a century.
His tweet reflected the quandary of 'secular' politicians, especially Muslims, to the Uttar Pradesh and Assam governments' intent to incentivise people with two or fewer children while simultaneously debarring those with more than two kids from local body polls and various government subsidies.
Siddiqui tweeted his support for the proposed two-child norm. "I demand that it should apply to Assembly and parliamentary polls as well. Anyone with more than two children should not become a minister or chief minister or prime minister. What do you say?" he tweeted. His tweet reflected the understanding that opposing the proposal would result in personal backlash and politically benefit the current regime.
On its face, the proposal, not something new, ostensibly stems from concern at continuing inequality, poverty, and illiteracy in society. UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, while unveiling his government's new population policy 2021-30, a couple of days after the UP State Law Commission released the first draft of the proposed population control Bill, said: "Population explosion can create obstacles in the development of the state and the country."
The 40-page document, Adityanath timed its release on World Population Day, stated a five-fold objective: population control; ending curable maternal mortality and illnesses; ending curable infant mortality and ensuring betterment in their nutrition status; the betterment of sexual and reproductive health-related information and facilities among the youth; and care of elders.
None of these goals can be termed unnecessary, and most remain on the neglected list of governance. But the core intention of this move is to penalise and stigmatise families with more than two children and communities believed to have a higher population growth rate.
The timing of the policy and the proposed law suggests that the move is politically motivated and initiated months before the state goes into Assembly election mode. That this move of the Adityanath government is essentially a classic example of dog-whistle politics in which a coded political message is being sent out to the BJP's core constituency without, on the face of it, offending anyone, was borne out by responses my tweet evoked.
I had tweeted, "I don't (support Siddiqui's stance welcoming the move). The number of children cannot be the basis of inequality and discrimination. Law merely aims to stigmatise a section of society." Although this did not identify those that I think this proposed law aims to vilify, people understood. "Muslims can live in Hindu majority areas. Can you say the same about Hindus living in Muslim majority areas? Be liberal, but not at the cost of turning India into an Islamic state," said one angry response that attracted numerous endorsements. Another was viler, "So you agree that a "section of society" is reproducing like pigs." Note the use of "pigs" (proscribed for consumption in Islam), although the phrase in English is "breed like rabbits", which means to have a lot of children.
Although Adityanath, and before him, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had not used the "M" word, the responders on Twitter got the message right. Why does any proposal to control population and disincentivise people with more than two children automatically enthuse the proponents of the Hindutva idea?
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliates that comprise the Sangh Parivar have long campaigned on the existence of a Muslim "conspiracy" to render the Hindus into a religious minority in "their country". Although scientific data suggests that male opposition to contraceptive practises, vasectomy or use of condoms is uniform across communities; it is suggested that Muslims are principally opposed to birth control.
As recently as 2018, the RSS sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, at the three-day lecture session in New Delhi, for chosen sections of the intelligentsia, called for the common law to ensure "demographic balance". Previously in October 2015, the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakarini Mandal (ABKM), a key decision-making body of the RSS, adopted the resolution titled "Challenge of Imbalance in the Population Growth Rate".
It flagged, "Vast differences in growth rates of different religious groups, infiltration and conversion resulting in a religious imbalance of the population-ratio, especially in border areas may emerge as a threat to the unity, integrity and cultural identity of the country."
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also spoken on the issue linking population control with love for the country. Talking of people who are "responsible", he stated: "By having a small family, he manifests patriotism." In January 2020, Bhagwat demanded a population policy that "will decide how many kids one should have."
Adityanath and Sarma's steps are thereby in tune with the stated objectives of the Sangh Parivar, although the timing chosen by the two chief ministers may be a shade awkward for the leadership of the BJP and RSS.
The RSS chief recently created an illusion of moderation with his address to Muslims saying, that "people who are lynching others are going against Hindutva." His efforts, however, may get undermined by the introduction of the two-child norm since this will resonate as being directed at Muslims.
Likewise, Modi has been engaged in an unstated feud with Adityanath over the latter's insistence to plough the lonely furrow and project himself as a hardline Hindutva leader, unmindful of periodic moderations Modi makes. Consequently, this move may not be the most appropriate when multiple challenges confront Modi nationally and internationally.
Ironically, the Sangh Parivar's campaign on population is being pushed vociferously now even though the "population explosion" theory is not substantiated by national or global data, especially on UP. Sector experts point out that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is consistently decreasing in India. Moreover, the Technical Group on Population Projections for 2011-2036, constituted by the National Commission on Population (NCP), has claimed that UP will achieve the replacement level of TFR by 2025.
Adityanath and Sarma's initiatives are despite China's U-turn on its population policy after sensing that it was facing a demographic disaster. China witnessed a steep decline in birth rates besides the high male-to-female sex ratio and ageing population. For several decades, India has been unable to reverse a declining sex ratio. The two-child norm will likely further push up female foeticide and infanticide as people preferring male children may not want the girl child to live so that their "permissible limit" of children is not reached.
Even before Sarma's initiative, in Assam, a two-child norm already exists for contesting panchayat polls. The state amended its Panchayat Act to this effect in 2018. The Assam government previously debarred those with more than two children from certain government jobs.
Importantly, Assam is not the only state restricting services and rights to people with more than two children. In various forms, similar bars already exist in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Karnataka and Odisha.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court validated several of the state laws. Additionally, proponents of the policy of benefits-for-those-with-two-or-less children and exclusion-for-others gain strength from constitutional flaws and the recommendation of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) headed by Justice MN Venkatachaliah during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime.
The apex court upheld the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, debarring those with two living children from holding specified offices in Panchayats. It implied in this judgement that fundamental rights to equality and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 could not gain precedence over "the lofty ideals of social and economic justice, the advancement of the nation as a whole."
The court needs to be asked to revisit its position and examine if the right of individuals can be undermined for questionable government policies for "progress". The Supreme Court should not permit the government to decide the number of children citizens wish to have. It should remain their personal choice.
(The writer is an NCR-based author and journalist)