When politics and capitalism fail to take agency of women into account

Recently, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat called upon women to have three children. Prior to him, the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh called upon people to have more children due to declining work force, while the chief minister of Tamil Nadu appealed to people to have more children to protect the interests of the state in case delimitation undermines representation of Tamil Nadu in Parliament.

The concerns about population are varied in this scenario. However, what everyone misses out is that population is not about mechanically producing children. It is about the economy of the nation, it can impact the environment and, most importantly, these appeals forget that it concerns gender relations.

All for more cradles

Countries across globe have altered policies concerning birth rates in conjunction with their respective economic situation. China got concerned with its rising population and enacted laws in 1980 forcing people to have one child. By 2015, it felt that the population growth rate was plummeting and enacted new policies. In June 2021, it announced three-child policy. One of the reasons cited for the reversal of the 1980 policy was the shrinking labour force; the contribution of the manufacturing sector to Chinese economy is huge.

France has been equally worried about the fertility rate which fell to 1.68 in 2023, much below the benchmark of 2.1. In fact, Emmanuel Macron called for ‘demographic rearmament’. In Japan, the fertility rate has come down to 1.2. Now Tokyo has decided to ‘expand child allowances and parental leave’.

Studies in Europe have revealed that there has been an impact of population growth on environment as urban land growth happens and CO₂ emissions increase. The impact of population growth on climate change is evident in India. That said, there are also reports pointing to the contrary, arguing that growth in population does not drive Greenhouse Gas emissions. It is largely driven by the levels of consumption, wherein fewer people consume much more than the majority of people. A 2015 report pointed to how the poorest 10 per cent contribute least to global carbon emissions. Whichever side one takes, the obvious question is when inequality is such in the world, how far is it justifiable to insist on the need to have a higher fertility rate.

Women have a choice

In these appeals and debates to increase fertility rates the lives of human are conceived as mere machines, irrespective of their socio-economic, political, and cultural groundings. What none of the leaders point out is that the oppressive work environment does not offer equal opportunities to women due to their biological entity. While they want them to participate in the reproductive process, they fail to look at whether women have a choice to participate or not.

Scholars at United Nations deliberations have argued that ‘autonomy’ in context of women’s rights is about ‘the right of a woman to make decisions concerning her fertility and sexuality free of coercion and violence.’ It is noted that the ‘the right to autonomy’ emanates from the fundamental human right to liberty. However, despite the appearance of freedom with reference to women’s control over their body, it does not exist. American scholar Silvia Federici argues that the ‘subordination of our sexuality to the reproduction of labor power has meant that heterosexuality has been imposed on us as the only acceptable sexual behaviour’.

Capitalism and patriarchy

Whenever it desires capitalism enacts policies which works against the equality principle, if any, at the workplace. For instance, it has been widely established that private sector HR policies are doubtful of hiring of married women. Reports have pointed out how managers do not hire married women due to the maternity leave factor.

What capitalism and its mechanical understanding of population does is it does not take the agency of women into account. From corporate capital to political forums women are assumed to be responsible for nurturing the children, thereby impending their participation in economic, social, cultural and political life. The deeply entrenched patriarchy puts all the onus of child rearing on women as one forum recently suggested that women should start teaching sanskar to kids while they are in womb. Even sections of the judiciary in its actions have been seen as being insensitive towards women working as judicial officers which led Justice B V Nagarathna to remark in a case that "I wish men have menstruation”.

The whole system gets nervous if women become active agents in social, economic, and political life, and it starts working out ways to restrict them to the household. The leaders who voice their views on population need to have clarity on the nature of gender relations when it comes to reproductive behaviour/process.

Unfavourable circumstances

Across countries the economic conditions have impacted the birth rate as having more children proved a costly affair with mounting living costs. In fact, the declining birth rate will have serious impacts on the economic growth as countries are left mostly with an old age population.

Capitalism, when felt the need, curtailed the birth rate through legislation and by making living costs difficult for the majority population. However, in its urge to maximise surplus private capital, it not only imposed these policies but also created circumstances compelling people to have fewer children due to its unaffordability.

Then, when it sees workforce shrinking within national boundaries, it wants to encourage people to have more children. On the other hand, capitalism has been fond of wars and killings to ward off crises, which is now generating more demand for higher population. Russia went a step ahead as its president suggested that work breaks could be used for having sex. Financial incentives have been introduced for giving birth as well in parts of Russia.

Not an ideal place

When children are born, are we in a position to provide them food? A recent study says that India has the highest zero-food children in the world. These children grow up and confront a life where caste determines their marriage, and where as a Dalit one has to struggle to have a marriage procession as per their wish, and struggle to get jobs in even in public sector simply because of their caste. These children when grow up they are compelled to rely on wherever agents promising jobs take them.

While there is an obvious concern realised by leaders across the globe about the dipping fertility rate, these leaders do not ground their argument in the context of the economic conditions that humans are located in. There has been a massive increase in joblessness as unemployment among youth in India mounts. Nearly 83 per cent of the unemployed workforce are youth and those with secondary or higher education in the total unemployed youth has moved above from 35.2 per cent in 2000 to 65.7 per cent in 2022.

On the other hand, the experts advising the government have made it clear that the government cannot be expected to solve every social and economic problem like unemployment. Leaders advising women to have more children lay bare their vision of society and the family structure in the process. That vision runs counter to the idea of an egalitarian gendered relations and an egalitarian society.

(Ravi Kumar is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, South Asian University.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.