|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
| << May27, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Bangla fascism news &BJP'S DIRGE ON 'DEMOCRACY' |
June01, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Communal violence (prevention) Bill >> |
|
"Women's Centre" <womcentr@bom7.vsnl.net.in Re: [India Thinkers Net]AIMPLB President against family planning Response to AIMPLB president against Family Planning: 1)"Since their understanding of religion is purely text-based, they are either unaware of or else deliberately ignore the immensity of the threat of population explosion, in particular the consequences of large families for the poor". 2)"Family planning, for them, comes to be seen as part of a grand 'anti-Islamic' conspiracy allegedly hatched by the 'enemies of Islam' to reduce Muslim numbers and to promote free-sex, licentiousness and prostitution among Muslims, thereby corrupting their morals and leading, inevitably, to their conquest by their non-Muslim 'foes'. This point is tirelessly argued in the writings of both the traditionalist 'ulama as well as Islamist ideologues such as those associated with the Jama'at-i Islami." Though the author has written this as one para, I have separated them out, because they are really two different things. The first parts talks about the Sunni Ulema being unaware of, or deliberately ignoring the 'immensity of the threat of population explosion'. Actually feminists in this country would feel more in tune with Rabe Nadvi on this point than with the author. Elsewhere, he is quoted as saying:"To fear that a large family would lead to poverty, he argued, was not in accordance with Islam". I do not know whether it is in accordance with Quranic text or Hadith or not; but it has been argued time and again by secular reproductive health activists/feminists and also sensible demographers, that it is precisely the poor who seek large families. This is because it makes economic sense to them. Especially in the rural economy, each additional surviving child contributes to survival. Many marginal & marginalized farmers would see it that way. Are they not using their children as labour? Yes, they are. But many such decisions are made by families, for survival. They are not in a position to hire labour; and would tend to go in for large families; all the family is expected to contribute to survival. When the poor do not have enough to eat, is it right to feed them contraceptives? I think not. That would be arguing that large families are causing poverty, which is not the case. As there is greater 'development', family size comes down and population too reduces. How this comes about will decide what new problems society is faced with; as is only too evident today in the West. The West has understood that about 15 years ago, and have ven considered it a 'security problem'; but here people do not seem to have caught on. Again : "Sayyed Jalaluddin Umri, deputy head of the Jama'at-i-Islami Hind, in a piece revealingly titled 'Family Planning: The Product of a Wrong Islamic Interpretation', dismissed the arguments of the advocates of family planning as completely misconceived. 'If the population of any community in the country is increasing, what is the reason for concern?', he naively asked. Rather than seeing this as a 'problem', he said, it should actually be considered as a blessing, for, he claimed, a growing population adds to the country's 'manpower', which would, or so he claimed in his wisdom, be 'useful in the service of the country and the community', working to strengthen both. Obviously, Umri had nothing to say about the plight of the poor labouring under the burden of large families. He conveniently made no reference to the millions of unemployed, poverty-stricken and illiterate Muslims (and others) who are by no stretch of imagination engaged in the sort of 'useful service' that he claimed a mounting population would help promote." Once again, even as one cannot sympathise with the "interpretation of the holy book method" of finding answers to every social issue, the author's perspectives belong to the old, blind 'population control' lobby in India which used to camouflage itself as the 'Family Planning lobby". One of the slogans of us women's liberation activists at that time was, "Family Planning: Our Families ; their Planning". Is a 'large' population a great burden on a country? How large is large? In comparison to what? It all depends. One can see the 'people' as resources for development and not as burdens. Hey, the people are the people; how can they be a burden unto themselves? Can unemployment, poverty and illiteracy be removed by feeding the masses oral contraceptives or injecting women with long-acting hormonal contraceptives? Do tell. Its no wonder that the author uses the term 'family planning' throughout; gives it a nice, familial and familiar sound. Sounds nice and reasonable and civilised. Contrary to the convictions of poplulation- control fanatics, (and of the Maulanas, the Hindutvavaadis and the Pope etc.) some of us would examine things from a women's rights perspective as well. There has been a reproductive rights movement in India for long, as part of the women's liberation movement. It has opposed most of the favourite anti-population devices of the govt of India and the medico-pharmaceutical lobbies, world wide. The women's movement campaigned against the amniocentesis/sex-selection 'pioneers'; especially in the city of Bombay, from 1982-83 onwards. At that time the FP lobby saw every girl foetus eliminated as so many future children unborn and the population reduced by that much. Some of us problematized oral contraceptives, because we found that they have a very varied effect on different women. All of us opposed long-acting and injectable contraceptives. Why? I would say this was because we spontaneously were struggling not only for reproductive rights, but also for reproductive health of women. Especially after administration of injectables and subcutaneous implants etc., return of fertility suffers seriouly. There are other problems for women which are associated with these contraceptives also, because of which the drop out rate has been shown to be very high. But by then, the reproductive capacity of the women of entire towns or villages would have been effectively destroyed. Do women, all women, especially the masses of women see this as them having reached their goal? Do they expect to have their fertility destroyed for good, or for a long time? The answer is no. They accept especially injectables, because they can get them administered secretly; they have so very little control over their own sexuality and reproductive capacity. But they are hardly aware of the consequences. That can hardly be called taking control of one's life or asserting one's rights. It leaves the issue of patriarchy and women's disempowerment unquestioned, and violates their right to information. Besides, do we really want women in India, Muslim or Christian or Hindu or anything else, to reach the stage of the Japanese? Where luxury cruises and other massive incentives are offered to pregnant women? I do not so want. Nor do many others. As a matter of fact, the GoI has agreed recently, not to include injectable contraceptives (long-acting) in the Family Welfare programmes because of the pressure of women's health groups and women's groups. Are we the Republican Party of the US, that we want to ban abortions and then stuff all 3rd world women with fertility destroying pharcaceuticals? This of course does not mean that we are happy with the desparate attempts by religio-political authorities to continue and strengthen their stanglehold on women's sexuality and reproductive capacity. Along with the opposition to hormonal long acting contraceptives, the same women's groups would support women's right to abortion unconditionally. But abortion does not destroy fertility. That is where the religious authorities of all kinds begin to disagree with the women's movement and where the women's movement begins to see red. Though even this does not mean that women are in control of their sexuality. Repeated abortions can be enforced by a selfish or ignorant partner; especially if the couple is unmarried. As for the religious authorities, behind their back, the faithful will take their own decisions in these matters. Many Muslims, especially younger couples access abortion, and even other contraceptives discretely, at least in Mumbai. Same seems to be the case with the Catholic laity, despite exhortations by various popes. And the poor will probably continue to produce large families, unless they are coerced into doing otherwise. That coercion, through physical force, or through incentives without information, must be opposed as violative of human rights. Ammu Abraham ----- Original Message ----- From: India Thinkers Net at Zinester.com [India Thinkers Net]AIMPLB President against family planning Read HTML version online: http://archives.zinester.com/76029/49380.html Muslim Personal Law Board President Opposes Family Planning By Yoginder Sikand In his address to the recently-held eighteenth annual convention of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board at Bhopal the Board's President, Sayyed Muhammad Rabe Hasani Nadvi, issued a controversial statement condemning family planning as unambiguously 'un-Islamic'. This statement appears to have gone ignored in the media. Seen in the context of recent appeals by Hindutva leaders calling upon Hindus to refuse birth control measures, Nadvi's statement threatened to further complicate an already vexed controversy involving competing communal groups. Probably referring to a statement issued late last year by Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, the Board's Shia vice-president, in favour of family planning and the consequent virulent protest that resulted from numerous Sunni 'ulama, Rabe Nadvi used his presidential address to emphatically insist that family planning was not in accordance with Islam. Ignoring Kalbe Sadiq's own opinion, as well as the similar views of numerous other Islamic scholars, both Shia as well as Sunni, that did not see Islam as wholly against family planning, he went so far as to claim that his view had the unanimous support of all the 'ulama. He insisted that Islam does not allow for birth control in normal circumstances, and that only in an extreme case, such as when a woman's life is in danger if the foetus she carries is not aborted, is it allowed for, and that too with the permission of a qualified Islamic scholar or 'alim. To fear that a large family would lead to poverty, he argued, was not in accordance with Islam. Seeking Qur'anic sanction for this claim, he stressed that God, in the |
|
| << May27, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Bangla fascism news &BJP'S DIRGE ON 'DEMOCRACY' |
June01, 2005 - [India Thinkers Net] Communal violence (prevention) Bill >> |
|
India Thinkers Net Archives Index
|
Subscribe
|
|
|
Archives powered by Zinester's Mailing List Service
Details on India Thinkers Net |
Browse for more newsletters at Zinester's Ezine Directory
Managed by Zinester's Mailing List Management |