By exhorting its members to increase their population to fight the straw man of a potential ethnic cleansing, the church is indulging in unnecessary rhetoric and forgetting the consequences of such a policy if followed by all communities.
One of the recommendations of the Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer Commission (on the Rights and Welfare of Women and Child) to the government of Kerala is to impose a fine of Rs.10,000 or imprisonment up to three months on those who exceed the two-child norm. This has come in for criticism from many quarters, based on secular arguments in defence of basic individual rights. But even those who oppose this recommendation cannot deny the fact that uncontrolled population explosion is a problem and that we are stretching the carrying capacity of the global ecosystem to the limit.
While the aims of the Commission cannot be faulted, some of the methods advocated should cause worry to all those who are concerned about personal freedom. Besides, it is debatable whether some of the proposed measures are the best means to achieve such an end. The horrible memory of the forced sterilisation programmes during the Emergency of 1975 should be a reminder of the counter-productive consequences of such coercive methods.
Easy access to safe and free birth-control methods, improved level of female education and a general increase in welfare have shown to lead to a reduction in population in many countries — Kerala being a good example. By using such nuanced incentives and disincentives like reducing subsidies after two children, the state can achieve the desired level of population growth without tampering with basic freedoms.
But the stance of the Kerala hierarchy of the Catholic Church in this debate is self-indulgent, divisive and parochial. It has not just limited its criticism to the harsh methods suggested by the Commission, but goes on to encourage its members to increase the number of their children. And it is even awarding prizes to parents with the maximum number of children and also raised a false alarm about its survival if the number of its members does not multiply fast.
And by exhorting them to increase their population to fight the straw man of a potential ethnic cleansing, the church is indulging in unnecessary rhetoric and forgetting the consequences of such a policy if followed by all communities. If the teaching of the church is based on a Kantian notion of a categorical imperative — “acting only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” — it could be held responsible for the resulting Malthusian conundrum of massive population growth with all its dire consequences.
But the Church need not unnecessarily burden itself with such conundrums. The teachings of the Church have progressed from the days of Augustinian asceticism as enunciated in the encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) to the encyclical Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI (1968), which allows birth control by the natural rhythm method as acceptable since it takes advantage of a faculty provided by nature. Humanae Vitae states: “If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier [20].”
Even though it reversed the normal priorities of moral reasoning by putting the sacrosanct mechanics of sex above the motive of the actors, Humanae Vitae allowed some space for birth control by natural methods. The Catholic hierarchy could have just objected to the proposed draconian measures and kept a dignified silence on the final aim of regulating birth which is allowed by Humanae Vitae. It need not have exhorted its members to multiply like the sands on the beach and the stars in the sky by giving prizes to those with maximum children, thus mocking at a national agenda which is almost universally desired. But it may be pertinent to note that the non-procreational pleasures of the sexual act have not escaped the attention of Catholic couples in Kerala and they indulge in them just like other couples all over the world, despite the feigned ignorance of their superiors.
(The writer's email ID is dralexmathew@gmail.com)
Keywords: birth control, Krishna Iyer Commission, Rights and Welfare of Women and Child, two-child norm, church
The right to religious freedom is circumscribed by the national interest in the Constitution. The primary allegiance of a national should be to the Nation, religion is personal and comes next. Although religious communities can lobby in the democratic process, they cannot and should not hold or abet any views that directly militate against the State, the State should not pardon such attempts or initiatives. To ask people to multiply, and even propose a threat if they don't is incitement to violence and anti-national. It is a call for ecological disaster. Let all right thinking people condemn this action of the Catholic Church.
If someone has two boys and wants a girl or vice versa then what does one do with this two-child law? All catholics receive excellent education as most of the best educational institutions are run by Catholic priests and nuns. Given the case, obviously no educated person in this day of high prices and congested living will opt for more than two kids. Out of six brothers most of my nephews and niece are unmarried even though they are moving out of their twenties. Kids today are married to their computers. Add to this the large increase in babies dying all over the country due to fallout of radiation from Fukushima or from starvation, India does not need to fear great increase in population. For miles and miles in the countryside there is hardly any person visible. Foolishly the Central government funds amenities only in large congested cities instead of encouraging migration/jobs to the countryside where anyone can have a happy and interesting existence thanks to Internet today.
In my view what is the need of this futile hues and cries over this issue.It is a factor that the reasources on the earth is depleting at an alarming pace.So definitely there should be some control in population.I request the poeple who oppose this proposals to have a look the distraught poeple of somalia and other parts of africa.Excess population is one of the key issue that has driven them into extreme poverty.do we like to see our children suffering due to lack of food and other amenities.Nobody will follow rules if there is no follow ups .so I strongly support the proposals but the punishments can never be accepted instead ecnomic benefits to the families who produe more children should be axed.
Let people have as many children as they please. We have already past the tipping point! Do we expect more food grain by pumping more fertilizers and pesticides? Will the oil flow to eternity? Will the forest cover increase? Will we overcome our fear? The Titanic is sinking, kids or no kid? Will we go down screaming or smiling or with equanimity? Thats is the question.
It would have been great if the author has shown some statistics on popultion growth in all the states in India. Biggest contributors in population growth to India are in UP, MP, WB, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. They make about 60% of the increase in Population. Till this date, nothing effective has been done there to reduce this. Kerala has not seen big surge. This has to be addressed nationwide not statewise. Public attitude towards unmarried humans and childless families should change. Encouraging people to adopt children and educated class humans can do more to educate the illiterates why and how to have 2 childrens will help. Every child in high school should know -what is the population in India? which state has highest and which state contributes highest in each year. And also they should be debating about this and discuss about the steps to avoid it.
Mr. Krishna Iyar had the responsibility before the preparation of the report to take the Kerala community and its ethos in consideration. His suggestions seems apriori prejudiced and without the genuine 'locus standi' (Kerala) in the background. He superimposed his ideals into the communities in Kerala, which have their own principles and values, taking these into consideration is the basic responsibility of any state bodies. The social and educational achievements in Kerala has already affected in population control, which Mr. Krishna Iyar failed to consider - a failure of situational analysis within his report. If the communities in Kerala felt intimidated with such a failure in the report, then the detracted intelligence behind the report must be blamed. Any report which has its direct impact on the communities cannot be exclusively dictated by Krishna Iyar.
Of course, rise in population is not the only problem. Per capita consumption and carbon foot-print will be equally important. If everyone in the world lives like a poor Indian farmer, the needs and ecological impact will be minimal. But if everyone wants to live a comfortable life like the people in the developed industrialized countries - which is a legitimate desire - then what would be the effect? Either the quality of life or the number of people has to give in, unless one believes in and supports the natural means of famine and war to reduce the population. As long as one does not believe in such a natural solution to the problem, there may be no other option than reducing the total population if one wants to raise the standard of living of most people. Of course one can differ on the means to achieve it. One wise thing will be not to follow the profligacy and the wastefulness of industrialized societies. Gandhiji may have something to offer in that matter.
Whether the Government does it or not but every family thinks twice before having a child due to steep rise in the cost of medicare and education.
I agree that there is a carrying capacity of the global ecosystem. But to say that the increasing population is the sole contributor to the growing ecological imbalance and other natural crises is not fair. For this I would like to cite an example: in the cities a rich family is usually small but the extent to which it uses the natural resources is grossly disproportionate to their need (a family of three having three cars or a household having facilities which affect the environment adversely or using excess water just because they can afford to pay exorbitant bills). All these amenities which are at the disposal of the rich,in some way or the other, reduce their their availability for those who are not so fortunate.Though population will reduce the availability but not to the extent to which our greed will. So,in principle,what is required is that we balance our needs with our use. In words of Gandhi "earth has enough fro everyone's need but not fro anyone's greed".
From the economic point of view, the numbers have to be controlled but the economic disincentives may not be palatable to many. In common experience, couples tend to follow family planning when they are economically well off. To dissuade the poor from proliferating the children, their economic status has to be improved. The moral objections of the religious people are genuine but have to be countered by moral argument only such as the future of humanity in the face of endless rise in numbers but not through economic disincentives. If humans alone go on increasing their numbers, the ecological balance may also suffer.
Please Email the Editor