Last month, a hardcore pseudo-secular Brinda Karat termed the UP Population (Control, Stabilization and Welfare) Bill 2021 “the most draconian assault on the rights of citizens”. Such heavy words from a Communist leader is nothing but hypocrisy. It’s funny how someone from a political party which supported the invasion of India by the Communist government of China in 1962 is talking about draconian assault. Her logic gets absurd when she looks more concerned about the rights of Muslims to populate the country. Here's her article link. In her words:
So far, most critics of the Bill see it as 'anti-minority' and an 'election ploy' to divide the people. This may certainly be the intention and agenda of the Adityanath Government.
By calling the Bill anti-minority Karat reveals her true colours. For people like Karat, minority only refers to Muslims. According to her, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis do not fall under the category of minorities. Jains are the minority community with a fertility rate of 1.2, the lowest fertility rate in India. This was followed by Sikhs (1.6), Buddhists or Neo Buddhists (1.7) and Christians (2). India’s overall TFR was 2.2. The fertility rate of Hindu households fell from 2.6 in the year 2005-06 to 2.1 in 2015-16. On the other hand, the fertility rate of Muslims despite witnessing a 0.79 decline from 2005-06 to 2015-16 stood at 2.61, highest in India. It is evident that minority communities except Muslims are already below replacement level.
In such circumstances, when Karat calls it anti-minority, she should be aware that minority doesn’t mean only Muslims. This hints at her submission to the fact that Muslims are the prime factors behind the population explosion for the last many decades. Although the bill is not specifically aimed at Muslims, it certainly aims to curb the population which is mostly affected by the TFR of 2.61 by Muslims.
She comes up with yet another absurd logic and calls it an 'election ploy' to divide the people. Not only this, she calls it anti-poor, anti-women and anti-children. So, she wants Muslims women to continue as a baby making machine. And how having less kids makes you poorer is beyond any sense. She believes women like to produce more and more children as if it’s their only duty as a woman. Any sane person would understand the fact that population is indirectly proportional to resources. It is the need of the hour to put a break on the population explosion. Topping the list of most populous countries won’t be a good idea at all. Before 2027, we are set to overtake China as the world’s most populous country.
She continues:
The Bill seeks to deprive citizens of constitutionally and legally-guaranteed rights, and in effect creates two sets of citizens based on fertility. It is well-established that fertility rates are linked to social and economic indicators like poverty, health, literacy, infant mortality. In India, as NFHS data shows, social communities which have higher fertility rates are Scheduled Tribes, Dalits, Muslims, followed by OBCs. Further, women in sections of the population with the lowest income had the highest fertility rate. In other words, they are both poor and socially-oppressed. This Bill punishes the poor and oppressed for their poverty.
Going by her logic, one who is poor and socially-oppressed is entitled to produce more and more babies as if it's their favourite pastime. According to her logic, just because someone belongs to a particular community, a person should be given the rights to suck away the already limited resources available. So, letting them continue to snatch away the rights of other sections of the society won’t punish the poor and oppressed. Well, this is what she intends to say.
She argues that the bill violates labour laws as it debar all benefits from government - sponsored welfare schemes to those who break the two-child norm; they provide for denial of government jobs and even promotions. What she means to say is that no matter what the government has to keep providing benefits irrespective of the limited resources available. She should think of a hypothetical situation wherein she is to share her bungalow with thousands of people. Would she come up with the same logic?
She says, “This is in clear violation of the Food Security Act that has no such conditions. To circumvent this and other similar issues, the Bill has an obnoxious clause that it "overrides any other law in force." According to her, this is because a specific sub-clause states that subsidized rations will be given to only four units. Again, as discussed, she completely ignores the fact that it is practically impossible to provide amenities to every single household due to diminishing resources. In that case, controlling the population is the only way to go.
She moves one step further and questions the ‘silence’ of the Central Government. She says, “Can a state government deprive citizens of the benefits of a national law adopted by parliament? Only recently in Delhi, when the Kejriwal Government proposed a scheme to provide doorstep delivery of rations, the Central Government held it was against the Food Security Act. Now, why is it silent on this proposal which deprives a child of rations guaranteed by the same Act? It hardly needs to be stated that such policies will increase hunger, malnutrition and worsen child mortality rates, apart from constituting a gross assault on rights of children. To punish a child for being born - this is what the UP Government proposes".
As far as the action on Delhi Government is concerned regarding the Food Security Act, the Central government flagged several concerns saying it could result in ration card holders buying grains and other necessities at a higher rate than what is fixed under a central law. Also, going by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, the doorstep delivery scheme of rations could also make it tough for recipients of the subsidies to relocate and stall a shift towards biometric verification of beneficiaries. In the long run, such policies will help to tackle hunger, malnutrition because of the probable improvement in resources. How it will worsen child mortality rates can only be explained better by a child specialist Brinda Karat.
This is ludicrous of expecting to keep producing kids and expecting freebies for them. Now, we have to seriously reconsider our perceptions.
Next, she brings in Communist’s darling - patriarchy. A Communist’s intellectualism is incomplete without blaming patriarchy for all the problems in the universe. Continuing the rhetoric, she says, “All population control policies are centred on control over a woman's body and are premised on a denial of a woman's reproductive rights. In India, this patriarchal framework is further strengthened by a culture of son-preference, accompanied by sex selective tests and abortions of female feotuses.”
She fails to understand that in the 21st century, things have changed a lot and the culture of son-preference has almost diminished. This is evident from the proud fathers of women sportspersons in villages of Haryana, a state which used to be notorious for poor sex ratio. The state has given many female medallists in the last many years, notably Phogat sisters. Saina Nehwal (2008 Olympic Bronze medallist), Sakshi Malik (2012 Olympic Bronze medallist), Rani Rampal (Captain of women’s Hockey team), Seema Punia, Savita Punia (Goalkeeper of women’s Hockey team). The list is endless. This could not have been possible without the support of people with so-called patriarchal mindset. The state has improved a lot in terms of sex ratio. The state, ruled by BJP for the last seven years, has seen remarkable improvements from 871 in 2014 to 922 in 2020.
After this, she even went on to criticise the Supreme Court for its “grave disservice to democratic processes”.
She says, “A 2009 report supported by the Panchayati Raj Ministry quoted a study which showed that from "21 districts in five states where the two child norm was operational: 54% of the disqualified candidates were either illiterate or had only primary education; 78% of disqualified candidates belonged to SCs/STs/OBCs which are socially weaker sections of population; nearly half the respondents had annual income of less than ₹ 20,000." At the time, the Supreme Court had done a grave disservice to democratic processes by upholding such laws when they were challenged by women's organisations and affected women candidates. The UP Bill includes the two-child norm disqualification clause in local bodies, ignoring past experiences which show its detrimental impact on the democratic rights of the poor, particularly on Dalits, Adivasis and women.”
She repeats her absurd logic that being poor, Dalit or Adivasi entitles one to produce more and more babies.
She terms the bill anti-women as it compels women to get sterilized after two children.
“In the Bill, even the so-called incentive clauses from Clauses 4-7 will go against women. Several incentives such as promotions for a government employee, interest-free loans, etc. are conditional on "the employee or spouse" getting sterilized after two children; the incentive goes up if the sterilization is done after one child. It is clear that it is the woman who will be pressurized into getting sterilized”.
She draws a conclusion that the woman will be pressurized into getting sterilized. However, her preconceived notions are based on past records devoid of anything to do with the bill. Chances are that the UP government will take into consideration the issue raised by Karat. Probably we would be seeing sterilization of males too in case a woman doesn’t agree to sterilisation due to health concerns.
What’s funny is that the decline of fertility rates has also become a matter of secularism for her. She conspicuously avoids talking about 12 states where probably the TFR is on a rise. Probably talking about the rise in population doesn’t suit her agenda so she deliberately avoids talking about them.
NFHS-5 shows a remarkable secular decline of fertility rates. Of the 17 states analysed, all states except Bihar, Manipur and Meghalaya have a TFR of 2.1 or less, which implies that most states have attained replacement-level fertility.
She says that “fertility rates are declining in many states to below replacement-level at 2.1 without the use of coercive laws.” However, she fails to talk about the states where TFR is above 2.1. Also, she is quick to call it “a communally-motivated propaganda against Muslims regarding family planning”. She needs to come out of her secular fabric and visit Muslim slum areas and she can see their population, how 8-10 family members are living under one roof. They say, “Kids are the blessings of Allah '' and this is believed by so-called educated class Muslims too. It’s not only about poverty but it’s a plan that makes them produce more and more babies and prepare an army of Mujahids, fight Kafirs and convert the land of the non-believers (non-Muslims) into believers (Muslims).
She talks about RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat who said in 2016 at a meeting in Agra, "Which law prevents Hindus from having more children? When their population is increasing, why can't yours." According to her, “Hindutva leaders have exhorted Hindu women to produce more children as their patriotic duty”.
Unlike Muslims, Hindus never considered women a baby producing machines. But when Muslims have been seen increasing their population with a sinister plan of Ghazwa-e-Hind, eminent Hindu leaders such as Mohan Bhagwat had to come out and speak against this devilish philosophy of Muslim world.
Comments