When welfare met demographic concerns

A scholarly dissection of a contentious chapter in India’s legislative historical past has revealed how maternity profit insurance policies had been deeply intertwined with inhabitants management concerns within the Sixties.

The study, by Prarthana Dutta and Mithilesh Kumar Jha of the Indian Institute of Technology-Guwahati’s Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, is critical given the discussions over the proposed Population Regulation Bill of 2019, in search of incentives for two-child households and disincentives for these with extra youngsters.

The duo’s analysis paper was revealed within the newest difficulty of Modern Asian Studies, a peer-reviewed educational journal revealed by the Cambridge University Press.

What the research discovered

The research revisits debates surrounding the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 and discussions on the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill of 1956. The researchers observe that selling maternal and toddler well being was the most important rationale for the 65-year-old Act. “However, maternity benefits also came to be increasingly questioned in the mid-1960s for allegedly leading to more births and ‘derailing’ the national family planning programme. Limiting maternity benefits as a disincentive strategy for population control was proposed through various platforms,” the research says.

Examining the discussions on the 1965 Bill in Parliament, the researchers underline the arguments of Shakuntala Paranjpye, an advocate of contraception, who sought so as to add a restrictive clause limiting maternity advantages to the primary two deliveries.

“Based on neo-Malthusian and eugenic logic, Paranjpye’s amendment sought to regulate the reproductive behaviour of the working class. It was argued that the amendment would help curb population growth and ensure economic needs are met, as well as that public services are available,” the research notes.

The researchers discover that the discourse on maternity advantages turned equally burdened with the priority for “overpopulation”. The inhabitants belonging to the “lower social strata”, such because the working class, was marked as a prolific reproducer and the most important defaulter of the household planning programme.

“Indiscriminate reproduction”

“They (people in the lower social strata) were portrayed as a symbol of fecundity, whose only pleasure rested on indiscriminate reproduction. Maternity benefits were then viewed as a further inducement to these practices. Remedial measures were sought in introducing limits on the availability of maternity benefits,” the research notes.

“Despite leading to an intense debate among the legislators, the amendment, which was advocated as a measure leading towards a limited and quality population, was voted down. Nevertheless, the debates are worth exploring to understand the prevailing notions about reproductive behaviour, differential fertility, and alleged ignorance of the working-class women,” the research says.

Shift in direction of reproductive well being

The researchers say that there was a gradual shift in direction of reproductive well being in household planning programmes because the late twentieth century. Simultaneously, problems with maternal and toddler well being have gained prominence within the debates on maternity advantages.

“A major rationale for the 2017 amendment to the (Maternity Benefit) Act, which extended the maternity leave period up to 26 weeks, was the emphasis on exclusive breastfeeding and its long-term significance for the child’s health. In the legislative debates on maternity benefits, population control no longer received the same level of attention it had in the mid-1960s,” they observe.

“When a restrictive clause was added to the Act limiting the maximum permissible leave period to 12 weeks for women with two or more surviving children, it largely went unnoticed,” they conclude.