Is fertility becoming the latest battleground in politics? One aspect often overlooked in the debate is the burden of childbearing, which primarily falls on women.
In both 2022 and 2023, over 300,000 babies were born in Delhi. It is estimated that 1.5 million women in the city will be pregnant over the next five years. In an effort to win the upcoming elections on February 5, the BJP has promised ₹21,000 to each pregnant woman, totaling ₹3,150 crore, if they unseat Chief Minister Kejriwal. This move, following Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s controversial proposal to make having three children a requirement for local government candidates, points to fertility becoming a key issue in Indian elections. While having children is a personal choice, the state should encourage, not force, it. Naidu’s proposal raises serious concerns about its democratic implications. He is not alone in advocating for larger families, however. RSS leader Mohan Bhagwat has called for couples to have at least three children. In Madhya Pradesh, a group is offering ₹1 lakh to Brahmin families with four children. Similarly, U.S. Vice President-elect JD Vance caused a stir with his comments on “childless cat ladies” last year. Pope Francis has criticized those who choose pets over children as selfish, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni views the country’s declining birth rate as a national crisis.
In October, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin also supported Naidu’s views, possibly influenced by the upcoming delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies, which could disadvantage southern states if population size is the main factor. However, as former RBI governor Subbarao suggested (More Migrants, Not Kids, Oct 29), it’s better to address population decline through migration than by encouraging higher birth rates.
To those advocating for larger families—such as the Pope, Stalin, and others who have proposed policies encouraging more children—we must ask: Shouldn’t women be the ones to decide? Childbearing comes with heavy costs, especially for women. Raising 16 children, for instance, would mean 16 years of disrupted education or work during prime years. Furthermore, what will all these children do in the future when job opportunities are already scarce? Childbirth is also inherently risky. History remembers a queen who spent her life producing heirs, but died giving birth to her 14th child. Was the Taj Mahal worth the price she paid?
As fertility becomes more central to political agendas, we must remember that the decision to have children should remain with the women who bear the true costs of childbearing.
Related topics:
