Anti-poor, anti-women laws: expert

September 07, 2014 11:17 pm | Updated September 08, 2014 10:14 am IST - New Delhi:

Laws enacted by 11 State governments in the late 1990s and 2000s restricting political eligibility to candidates with maximum two children has severely affected the sex ratio, a new research has found.

So did the norm for politicians effect a change in the overall population? “We think that 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. This is because the decline in fertility begins immediately after the grace period ends, whereas a role-model effect would take some time to become visible,” Dr. Chakravarty explained to The Hindu.

The research by economists S. Anukriti from Boston College and Abhishek Chakravarty of the University of Essex 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.

There is evidence that men were divorcing their wives to remain eligible for elections, and that such laws were putting the third children at a disadvantage, Poonam Muttreja, Executive Director of Population Foundation of India, told The Hindu. “These laws – which are purely political decisions – are completely unacceptable. They are anti-poor and anti-women,” she said. “In a country with such a vast unmet need for family planning measures, which is unable to guarantee the survival of children, it is unacceptable that such laws are imposed,” Ms. Muttreja said. Across the world, data has shown that when women got educated, they reduced fertility themselves without needing laws, she said. Moreover, such laws disproportionately impact the poor whose children have worse chances of survival, Ms. Muttreja said.

In 2009, Chintaram Sahariya, an adivasi farmer, stood for and won the sarpanch’s seat in his panchayat – or so he thought. The losing candidate appealed against Mr. Chintaram in Rampur Todiya, a panchayat in Rajasthan’s Baran district, and the latter was disqualified. “I have four sons and admitted as much in my affidavit. I had no idea about the law. The man who appealed against me himself had three children,” he told The Hindu over the phone. “You will not find a Sahariya with less than four children,” Mr. Chintaram said. “So should all of us quit politics?”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.