NEW DELHI: The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) has suggested changes to be made in the draft Uttar Pradesh Population (Control, Stabilisation and Welfare) Bill, 2021 which has been published by UP Law Commission inviting suggestions for modification. The rightwing organisation has recommended the deletion of three sections “to avoid the contraction of population as also the undesirable social and economic consequences of a one-child policy and also remove the anomaly of rewarding or punishing the child instead of the parents”.
In a letter to the UP Law Commission written on Monday, VHP said the preamble to the bill states that this is a bill inter alia to stabilise the population and promotion of two child norm. The VHP has agreed with both objects.
However, it has expressed reservations about Section 5, 6(2) and 7 of the bill, which incentivise the public servants and others to have only one child in the family on the ground that these would go well beyond the objectives of the bill.
On World Population Day on Sunday, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath unveiled the state’s population policy 2021-2030.
The VHP letter, signed by its working president Alok Kumar, says the Population Policy of Uttar Pradesh has an objective to bring the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) to 1.7 within a certain time limit. “We suggest that sections 5, 6(2) and 7 of the bill as also the object of bringing the TFR to 1.7 need reconsideration,” it said.
It said population in a society stabilises when the average number of children born to a woman in her reproductive life (called TFR) is marginally above two. This happens when the TFR is 2.1. This rate is also defined as the replacement rate. At this level of TFR, on the average, there are two children born to replace the two parents and the additional 0.1 child provides for the possibility of some children dying before reaching the reproductive age and similar other eventualities.
The letter, posted by the VHP on its Twitter handle, said, “Therefore, a two-child policy is considered desirable for achieving population stability. A policy aiming at an average of less than two children per woman leads to a contraction of population over time. Such contraction has several negative social and economic consequences.”
The VHP noted that in a contracting population, the ratio between the working age and dependent population gets disrupted. There is a rise in the number of persons that each working age person has to take care of. “In an extreme case, the one-child policy would lead to a situation where there is only one working-age adult to look after two parents and four grandparents.”
Citing the case of China, the VHP said that country adopted the one-child policy in 1980 and called it the 1-2-4 phenomenon. To get over it, China had to relax its one-child policy for parents who were themselves single children of their parents. “It is said that in China, the one-child policy was never applied to more than half of the prospective parents. Within about three decades, it had to be completely withdrawn.”
The VHP also stated that single children are known to be socially less accommodative. “This is partly because they do not learn to share with siblings, and partly because they are over-indulged and pampered by their parents. This has been referred to as the “Little Emperor” syndrome.”
In the case of Uttar Pradesh, the VHP said, the one-child policy is likely to lead to furthering of the imbalance between different communities because they are known to respond differently to the incentives and disincentives related to family planning and contraception.
“The imbalance has been growing in several states of India. The imbalance is becoming especially alarming in states like Assam and Kerala where the overall growth of population has declined. In both those states, the TFR of Hindus has declined far below the replacement rate of 2.1, but that of Muslims is 3.16 in Assam and 2.33 in Kerala. In these states, one of the communities has thus entered the contraction phase while the other is still expanding,” it said.
The VHP said UP should avoid getting into that situation. The policy needs to be tailored to redress the imbalance otherwise one-child policy may end up doing the opposite, it said.
“Therefore, we suggest the deletion of Section 5, and the consequential sections 6 (2) and 7 to avoid the contraction of population as also the undesirable social and economic consequences of a one-child policy and also remove the anomaly of rewarding or punishing the child instead of the parents,” the letter concluded requesting the Law Commission to consider their suggestions.
In a letter to the UP Law Commission written on Monday, VHP said the preamble to the bill states that this is a bill inter alia to stabilise the population and promotion of two child norm. The VHP has agreed with both objects.
However, it has expressed reservations about Section 5, 6(2) and 7 of the bill, which incentivise the public servants and others to have only one child in the family on the ground that these would go well beyond the objectives of the bill.
On World Population Day on Sunday, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath unveiled the state’s population policy 2021-2030.
The VHP letter, signed by its working president Alok Kumar, says the Population Policy of Uttar Pradesh has an objective to bring the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) to 1.7 within a certain time limit. “We suggest that sections 5, 6(2) and 7 of the bill as also the object of bringing the TFR to 1.7 need reconsideration,” it said.
It said population in a society stabilises when the average number of children born to a woman in her reproductive life (called TFR) is marginally above two. This happens when the TFR is 2.1. This rate is also defined as the replacement rate. At this level of TFR, on the average, there are two children born to replace the two parents and the additional 0.1 child provides for the possibility of some children dying before reaching the reproductive age and similar other eventualities.
The letter, posted by the VHP on its Twitter handle, said, “Therefore, a two-child policy is considered desirable for achieving population stability. A policy aiming at an average of less than two children per woman leads to a contraction of population over time. Such contraction has several negative social and economic consequences.”
The VHP noted that in a contracting population, the ratio between the working age and dependent population gets disrupted. There is a rise in the number of persons that each working age person has to take care of. “In an extreme case, the one-child policy would lead to a situation where there is only one working-age adult to look after two parents and four grandparents.”
Citing the case of China, the VHP said that country adopted the one-child policy in 1980 and called it the 1-2-4 phenomenon. To get over it, China had to relax its one-child policy for parents who were themselves single children of their parents. “It is said that in China, the one-child policy was never applied to more than half of the prospective parents. Within about three decades, it had to be completely withdrawn.”
The VHP also stated that single children are known to be socially less accommodative. “This is partly because they do not learn to share with siblings, and partly because they are over-indulged and pampered by their parents. This has been referred to as the “Little Emperor” syndrome.”
In the case of Uttar Pradesh, the VHP said, the one-child policy is likely to lead to furthering of the imbalance between different communities because they are known to respond differently to the incentives and disincentives related to family planning and contraception.
“The imbalance has been growing in several states of India. The imbalance is becoming especially alarming in states like Assam and Kerala where the overall growth of population has declined. In both those states, the TFR of Hindus has declined far below the replacement rate of 2.1, but that of Muslims is 3.16 in Assam and 2.33 in Kerala. In these states, one of the communities has thus entered the contraction phase while the other is still expanding,” it said.
The VHP said UP should avoid getting into that situation. The policy needs to be tailored to redress the imbalance otherwise one-child policy may end up doing the opposite, it said.
“Therefore, we suggest the deletion of Section 5, and the consequential sections 6 (2) and 7 to avoid the contraction of population as also the undesirable social and economic consequences of a one-child policy and also remove the anomaly of rewarding or punishing the child instead of the parents,” the letter concluded requesting the Law Commission to consider their suggestions.
More News
Why everyone is talking about Pandian in Odisha | India News – Times of India
Internship Alert, Apply For A Chance To Intern At NITI Aayog Before May 10 Deadline!
‘What do you call a person who flees the battleground?’ | India News – Times of India