Make Babies Mandatory Again-Male Politicians & The Eternal Desire For More Babies

Dr Shashikant Bukalsaria

“Women should have at least three children for the survival of Indian society…” said RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat last week at an event in Maharashtra. This isn't the first time the Sangh has promoted the idea of a positive demographic dividend as essential for the continued survival of Indian culture. In 2013, RSS leader DattatreyaHosabale had also reportedly asked Hindus to have three children. So, what has changed? The key difference seems to be that Mr. Bhagwat has replaced “Hindus” with “Indians.” However, it wouldn’t be entirely wrong to say that the Sangh chief’s message still largely targets the Hindu community, given the context and history of the organisation’s statements

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Rules The World

Similarly, in fascist Italy, Mussolini foresaw the need to increase the population in the notorious ‘Battle for Births,’ one of the four major economic battles under his regime. However, this idea of natalism is not confined to demagogic ideologues of yesteryears. In 2020, the then-Australian PM Tony Abbott for middle-class women to have more children. Even French President, Macron, has vouched for more childbirth citing ‘.’

Looking closer to home, this bombardment of natalist ideas has also emerged from down south. In October 2024, Andhra Pradesh's Chief Minister, Chandrababu Naidu, promised to introduce a law with more than two children to contest local elections. This policy, promoting more than two children, stands in stark contrast to the "Hum Do, Humare Do" slogan from yesteryears.

But why is there such a major focus on population growth by our political figureheads? One of the ways to understand this is in MN Srinivas’s idea of ‘dominant caste’ theory. Extrapolating the idea of how numerical strength leads to the dominance of individual caste groups in an area, we can understand the urge of the political figures to push for more babies.

Tamil Nadu’s CM MK Stalin boisterously claimed in October 2024, “,” citing the lowering child birth rates in the state. He reportedly went on to make a rather preposterous remark   The CM’s fear stems from the inevitable delimitation exercise which might probably impact the seat share of the southern state negatively. With the TFR rates of the Southern states well below the TFR rates of states like UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, and Meghalaya, it is not surprising for TN to be apprehensive of delimitation. To some, it might also seem to be a punishment for better social indicators.

Numbers Mean Strength

From Mohan Bhagwat to MK Stalin, the argument of a demographic dividend holds weight when we examine the shifting dynamics across various Indian states. In Assam, Barpeta district provides a clear example of this demographic change. The district, which was predominantly Hindu in the 1970s, has seen a significant decline in its Hindu population, which fell to 22.27% according to the 2011 census.

This demographic shift in Assam has fuelled tensions over the years, from the Assam agitation to the 2012 violence in the BTAD region. These shifts have made several communities apprehensive about their future and that of their children, with growing concerns over cultural and political identity.

While the argument for a demographic dividend holds merit, it also raises significant questions about bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and, most importantly, women’s agency. In the examples discussed earlier, we see men, whether on the left or right of the political spectrum, directing women to have more children.

This is harmful because it strips women of the ability to make decisions about their own bodies. A woman can be groomed into having more children or coerced into doing so by a husband or partner who believes he is fulfilling a righteous duty for his religion, caste, or community.

A useful framework for understanding this obsession among male politicians is Michel Foucault’s concept of "biopolitics." Foucault argued that political powers intersect to control reproductive capacities to further their own political ambitions. For the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, for instance, a larger share of parliamentary seats benefits his political standing. For the RSS supremo, it’s about maintaining a numerical advantage over the ‘other’ to sustain cultural dominance. In both cases, women’s agency is side-lined, and an overwhelming "childbearing" role is imposed upon them, casting them as the supposed saviours of these ideologies.

“The Personal Is Political”

A rallying slogan by Carol Hanisch became a war cry during the second wave of feminism, challenging the long-held maternalistic norms surrounding family values. Childbirth, as a contested political terrain, underscores the universalisation or rather, the commodification of women’s bodies as objects for male desire. This desire may be sexual, political, cultural, spiritual, or simply rooted in plain misogyny.

In The Hindutva Paradigm, Ram Madhav, in his characteristic eloquence, writes: "Family has been made an important institution for pursuing Dharma." He continues, "The institution of family is the one that sustains creation through the continuum of generations." By associating procreation with family, and family with the pursuit of Dharma (or religion), Ram Madhav creates a cultural and religious synergy around childbearing. While not stated explicitly, this implication makes childbearing almost a religious mandate to pursue the said religion/Dharma. Thus, the personal becomes political.

While the men discussed here make some valid points about the importance of a demographic dividend, it is overly simplistic to place the entire burden of maintaining societal conformity on a woman’s womb.

Time and again, we see history repeat itself. From the darbars of Emperor Augustus to the rallies of the Sangh and events attended by Tamil Nadu’s Chief Minister MK Stalin, we witness the convergence of various socio-political indicators. All seem to gravitate toward a single idea - More babies.