NATIONAL POPULATION POLICY

NATIONAL POPULATION POLICY

In 1952, India was the first country in the world to launch a National Programme, emphasizing family planning. In 1966, several important developments concerning the family planning programme took place.

Image Curtsey: b.3cdn.net/glaser/0c89cbf87c78a94cd6_mlbrgz2zv.jpg

A full fledged Department of Family Planning was established within the Ministry of Health, which was designated as the ministry of Health and Family Planning, and a Minister of the cabinet rank was placed in its charge. A cabinet committee of Family Planning, initially headed by the Prime Minister and later by the Finance Minister, was constituted at the central level.

In 1976, during emergency, the Government of India announced National Population Policy. Through this:

i. The Government proposed legislation to raise the age of marriage to 18 for girls and 21 for boys;

ii. The Government would take special measures to raise the level of female education in the states;

iii. As the acceptance of Family Planning by the poorer sections of society was significantly related to the use of monetary compensation as from May 1, 1976, to Rs. 150 for sterilization (by men or women) if performed with 2 children, Rs. 100 if performed with three living children and Rs. 70 if performed with four or more children.

The announcement of the National Population Policy 2000, by the NDA government in February 2000 and setting up of a National Population Commission, under the strong and promising leadership of then Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and comprising eminent persons from all walks of life on May 11, 2000 reflected the deep commitment of the government to population stabilization programme.

The National Population Policy 2000 (NPP 2000), affirms the commitment of the government towards voluntary and informed choice and consent of citizens while availing of productive health care services, and continuation of the target free approach in administering family planning services.

The NPP 2000 provides a policy frame work for advancing goals and prioritizing strategies during the next decade, to meet the reproductive and child health needs of the people of India, and to achieve net replacement levels (TFR) by 2010.

It is based upon the need to meet and simultaneously address issues of child survival, maternal health, and contraception, while increasing outreach and coverage of a comprehensive package of reproductive and child health services by government, industry and the voluntary non-government sector working in partnership.

Highlights on National Population Policy, 2000 of India!

The National Population Policy (NPP) 2000 provides a policy framework of achieving goals and prioritizing strategies during the next decade to meet the reproductive and child health needs of the people of India along with the target to achieve the net replacement levels (Total Fertility Rate). It aims at stable population by 2046.

The following national socio-demographic goals were formulated to be achieved by 2010:

1. To address the unmet needs for basic reproduction (contraception), child health services, supplies and infrastructure (health personnel).

2. To make school education up to age 14 free and compulsory and reduce dropouts at primary and secondary school levels to below 20 per cent for both boys and girls.

3. To reduce infant mortality rate to below 30 per 1,000 live births.

4. To reduce maternal mortality rate to below 100 per 100,000 live births.

5. To achieve universal immunization of children against all vaccine preventable diseases.

6. To promote delayed marriages for girls, not earlier than age 18 and preferably after 20 years of age.

7. To achieve universal access to information/counseling, and services for fertility regulation and contraception with a wide basket of choices.

8. To achieve 80 per cent institutional deliveries and 100 per cent deliveries by trained persons.

9. To achieve 100 per cent registration of births, deaths, marriages and pregnancies.

10. To prevent and control communicable diseases, especially AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

11. To promote vigorously the small family norm.

12. To integrate Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM) in the provision of repro­ductive and child health services, and in reaching out to households.

It is to be noted that like China, a coerced population control policy of one child only has not been accepted in India. It has been kept totally voluntary. For achieving the goals of family welfare programme, accredited social health activists have been appointed.

The policy document hoped that if NPP 2000 was fully implemented, India’s population in 2010 would be 1,107 million. In other words, the absolute population would be lower by over 55 million if TFR is brought down to replacement level by 2010.

The document stated a special strategic theme for underserved population—slum population, tribal communities, displaced migrant population and adolescents. Not only this, NPP 2000 had identified a separate strategic theme for the aged persons for their health care and support.

Ironically enough, the family planning (new welfare) programme failed to deliver desired results at least till recently. Much of the failure, as is generally suggested, can be attributed to a deep-rooted attitude of preference for a male child and also ignorance of the rural masses about the birth control techniques. Despite all efforts, there is little evidence of our capacity to arrest population explosion. An estimate suggests that about 8,000 persons are added to it every day.

According to the Human Development Report (2011), India ranks a low 134 position among 187 countries in terms of HDI. The HDI ranking is a combined measure of long and healthy life (expectation of life), education and standard of living.

TRIBAL POLICY IN INDIA

TRIBAL POLICY IN INDIA

Approaches to tribal development in India are based on three models, to conserve, assimilate and integrate.

Image Courtesy : egr.msu.edu/~radcliff/Amazon_Adventure/4-Ceiba/Big/DSC00637.JPG

First, there was a school of thought which favoured isolation. Hutton, who was a Commissioner for Census of 1931, gave a solution to the tribal problems of uncontrolled acculturation. He suggested the creation of self-governing tribal areas with free power of self-determination.

Earlier Verrier Elwin suggested the creation of’ National Parks” where the tribal people could live safely without being victims of what Elwin calls an” “over-hasty and unregulated process of belief and civilization”. But later on Elwin discarded the idea of a national park. Both Hutton and Elwin were severely criticised for recommending this policy of isolation which was looked upon as a proposal to create a museum or zoo, instead of helping the tribal people to utilise the resources of modern knowledge and improve their condition of life.

Second, there is another school which favoured assimilation. According to G.S. Ghurye, the tribals are backward Hindus and they should be completely assimilated into Hindu culture. D.N. Majumdar has put forward a philosophy and programme of tribal welfare. He says that it is not possible to ignore the entire .tribal population and leave them to their own lot. It is not also possible to completely assimilate them in the Hindu culture.

Therefore, a gradual transformation of the tribal population is the best policy. We should try to help them in assimilating in their own way of life the elements of alien culture which they readily accept. This view was also supported by social reformers and voluntary organisations.

The Christian missionaries and some social reformers like Thakkar Bapa have recommended and have worked for the assimilation of these tribal groups either into Christianity or into Hinduism.

The third view, which is followed in the recent years, is that of integration. The policy of integration, as against isolation and assimilation, was laid down in five principles by Nehru in 1957 in forwarding to Verrier Elwin’s the philosophy for NEFA.

The tribal ‘Panchasheel’ as enunciated by him are as follows:

(1) People should develop along the lines of their own genius and we should avoid imposing anything on them. We should try to encourage in every way their traditional art and culture.

(2) Tribal rights in land and forests should be respected.

(3) We should try to train and build up a team of their own people for the work of administration and development. Some technical personnel from outside will, no doubt be needed especially in the beginning. But we should avoid introducing too many outsiders into tribal territory.

(4) We should not over-administer these areas or overwhelm them with a multiplicity of schemes. We should rather work through and not in rivalry to their own social and cultural institutions.

(5) We should judge results not by statistics or the amount of money spent but by the quality of human character that is evolved.

To conclude, the policy of isolation was neither possible nor desirable. Assimilation as advocated by some was not accepted because it would mean imposition. Only therefore, the policy accepted which would make available to the tribes the benefits of modern society and yet retain their separate identity is integration. However, the process of assimilation is bound to continue as some of the tribal groups are adopting Hindu customs because of their association with the village people. Others have been converted to Christianity.

RELIGION VS SPIRITUALITY

RELIGION VS SPIRITUALITY

Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion. Gradually, the word spiritual came to be associated with the private realm of thought and experience while the word religious came to be connected with the public realm of membership in a religious institution with official denominational doctrines.

In the field of psychology, spirituality has emerged as a distinct social construct and focus of research since the 1980s. With the emergence of spirituality as a distinct concept from religion in both academic circles and common language, a tension has arisen between the two constructs. One possible differentiation among the three constructs religion,religiosity, and spirituality, is to view religion as primarily a social phenomenon while understanding spirituality on an individual level. Religiosity is generally viewed as being rooted in religion, whereas this is not necessarily the case for spirituality. A study of the differences between those self-identified as spiritual and those self-identified as religious found that the former have a loving, forgiving, and nonjudgmental view about religion, while those identifying themselves as religious see their god as more judgmental.
    Among other factors, declining membership of organized religions and the growth of secularism in the western world have given rise to this broader view of spirituality. The term "spiritual" is now frequently used in contexts in which the term "religious" was formerly employed.