The increasing trend of having a single child, or at most two children per couple, is on the rise in India today. Though Indian society is pronatalist and having children is widely viewed as an obligatory rite of passage for married couples, why do they want fewer children?
The perspective towards children has shifted over time. At the time of India’s independence, the total fertility rate (TFR)—meaning the number of children a woman is expected to bear by the end of her fertile period (15 to 45 years of age)—was about six children.
India became the first country to launch the Family Planning Programme to reduce its population growth by reducing its fertility rate. Between 1951 and 1981, the TFR declined to below five children, and by 1991 it declined further to 3.6 children per woman. At present, the TFR is nearly 1.9 to 2, which is below replacement level (a TFR of 2.1 is the benchmark to replace one generation by the next without migration). Population growth is on the decline.
These averages should not imply a uniform TFR for the country as a whole. There are variations between rural and urban TFR. Class, education, occupation, residence, religion, rural-urban differences and socio-cultural contexts reveal differential fertility outcomes.
For instance, rural TFR is higher by 0.5 to 1 child than that of urban India. An average of 1.5 children is borne by urban couples and two children by rural couples at present. But the TFR variations are only marginal and are rapidly moving towards the lower figure.
Of the five erstwhile BIMARU states, UP and Bihar are the only ones with higher fertility than the rest of India. Meghalaya’s fertility decline is fast catching up with the rest of the country.
Recent research shows that the mindset towards the number of children is shifting, with an increasing preference for a single child—a scenario very different from that of 1951, with six children per couple.
Parents are confident that the children born to them have high chances of survival. The massive decline in the infant mortality rate as well as the under-five mortality rate in India since independence has been critical for parents in planning smaller families.
From 186 infant deaths per 1,000 babies born in one year in 1951, the infant mortality rate in 1991 declined to 80 and has further reduced to 24 in 2026.
Contraception and misuse of new reproductive technologies (NRTs) have enabled parents to further fine-tune the family of their choice. Abortion had begun to lose its element of sin by the end of the 1970s.
Birth-order and sex-ratio studies point out that continuing to have children until a son is born was no longer common. The declining juvenile sex ratios since 1981 point to the adoption of NRTs and sex-selective abortion—a manifestation of strong son preference and daughter aversion.
The sex ratio was estimated at 918 in 2022 and 919 in 2011. Many couples stop having a second baby after their first-born happens to be a son.
A sprinkling of couples are showing a preference for no children, known by the acronym DINKs (Double Income, No Kids).
It is common to find many professionally well-placed young couples prioritizing professional growth over being chained to the rigmarole of bearing and raising a child. The old theory of wealth flows is in reverse mode.
Children are no longer viewed as social and cultural capital, nor as economic and political assets or old-age support, by many highly placed professionals. Often, they are seen as a burden, a responsibility that interferes with career advancement, especially for women.
At the same time, most professional couples do not wish to remain childless. People prefer to postpone having a baby until they have attained a desirable professional stature.
Enabled by ARTs (assisted reproductive technologies), such as freezing reproductive resources like eggs, sperm and fertilized embryos, many professional couples can bear a child using their own genetic and biological material.
Parallelly, ARTs are also increasingly sought by couples who are unable to have a baby in the normal course after a few years of marriage, across age, economic, socio-cultural and professional categories.
 |
| Tulsi Patel |
The population decline is a matter of national concern. States such as Sikkim and, more recently, Andhra Pradesh have introduced measures, including cash payments to couples for bearing an additional second and third child, with a monthly nutrition allowance for the third child.
Some ART services are being provided at a few public hospitals. But what stands out is the early age of 27 years when women get themselves sterilized. Some women have resorted to tubectomy sterilization at the age of 25 years.
Indians clearly prefer to have fewer children. Despite government plans promoting fertility, couples view childbirth as a major long-term social, economic and emotional responsibility.
Parenting demands, including rising costs of healthcare, education and grooming towards overall competence in children, are increasingly demanding. Rising unemployment and the more recent educated youth unemployment stare in the face of parents when deciding against having more than one or two children.
Fertility-policy incentives are no match for family life and parenting, which is a round-the-clock, lifelong commitment. Faced with increasing uncertainties in Indian society, the perception among parents strengthens that having fewer children prevents them from courting disaster for the household.
Once fertility decline sets in, the policy incentives to reverse it are not easy. Japan, South Korea and Sweden, each having different socio-cultural contexts, are illustrative cases.
---
*Former Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, University of Delhi
Comments