Indian Parliament Rejects Bill that Discriminates Against Parents
The government of India recently defeated a population policy which was so extreme even UNFPA director Nafis Sadik opposed it. The bill would have forbidden Indians with more than two children from holding national public office. The Indian states of Haryana, Orissa, and Rajasthan have similar laws already in force in those regions, but the proposed bill would have applied nationwide. Most major political parties in India opposed the bill, which failed to garner the two-thirds votes necessary to sign it into law. South Asia Today quoted Communications Minister Ram Vilas Paswan who defended his support of the bill, stating, “Population is the demon which will devour all the fruits of economic growth.”
The notion of “family planning” is an emotional one in India, and touches old wounds caused by the abusive campaign Indira Gandhi launched in the 1970s. Millions were forcibly sterilized under the program, which ended with Indira Gandhi’s defeat in the 1977 election. It is unlikely that the Indian Parliament would soon be willing to accept a measure that penalizes its Members if they decide to have children. The drafters of the proposal tried to avoid this negative association with the campaigns of the 70s by couching the bill in terms of “population stabilization” and “controlling fertility.”
Michael Vlassof, head of the UNFPA office on India, stated in December that he “hoped to see a national population program soon.” Population controllers lament the fact that the fertility rate in India is 3.4, still well above replacement level. And although they claim to have seen some “progress,” the Earth Times reports there are “millions who still need to be convinced that having fewer children leads to a better life.” This sort of argumentation didn’t convince the Parliamentarians in India, many of whom are living happily with more than two children. In fact, had the bill passed, only 163 of 543 Parliamentarians would have been eligible for reelection.
Those who argue that India’s growing population — 72,000 babies are born in India each day — is “bad” need only consider the facts. By all measures of living standards — per capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality, and literacy — India is a better place to live than it was when the population was significantly smaller (See Global Monitor, PRI Review, August/September 1999).
No doubt the Indian people are grateful that they still have the ability to defeat coercive population control measures with a vote. The people of China are not so fortunate. South Asia Today points out that China has been successful in employing a population policy because, unlike democratic India, it is not “constrained by the need to win voter support.”
(“Population ‘will devour us’” by Marion Lloyd, South Africa Today 10 January 2000; “Democracy not enough to combat population and poverty in India,” by Reshma Prakash, The Earth Times News Service, 23 December 1999; “Indian Political Parties Reject Move to Impose Two-child Norm,” CWNews.com, 14 December 1999.)
Pro-natal Initiative in Italy
MILAN, ITALY — Officials of the city of Milam recently announced a pro-natal program. Low-income women who decide against abortion will receive one million lire (US $520) monthly from the city treasury for three years. This generous pro-natal measure was introduced in Milan to persuade women not to abort if they believe they lack the money to raise the child. In order to receive the payments, women must have lived in the city of Milan for at least a year and have an income below US $29,000. In a country plagued by the consequences of depopulation, where dropping birthrates have resulted in more deaths than births each year, it remains to be seen what effect it will have. (“Milan, Italy to pay poor women not to abort,” Reuters, 12/23/99.)
