In India, the rural poor are not self-sufficient. They rely a lot on the government subsidies for their needs including food, basic education etc. These subsidies come from the tax-paying population. If one such rural guy is asking for an extra 2 kg of subsidized wheat every month for his new kid – the wheat which I, as a tax payer subsidize - don’t I have a say in capping the number of kids that he can produce?
In my humble opinion, beyond all the clamour about “right to reproduce” lies the fact that, in a country like India, a considerably small tax-paying population is subsidizing a substantially large reliant population and hence the former should be allowed to have a say on the latter’s affairs in as much as it affects the former.
3 comments:
I shld run a spell check i know. Imperfection is more intriguing like a crooked teeth make a perfect smile ;)
While your arguments seems fair, but sure is flawed. Well if the government can cap no.of children just because they provide subsidized food - does that mean wealthy people (or upper middle class) who are not really dependent on subsidies are exempt from this rule?
Human rights is a sensitive topic, and infringment of human rights is far more sensitive one. Guess it is only fair to expect little more sensitivity before someone equates no.of children one can have to no. of KGs of rice one can get!
Krishna how do you think that you can have a say in something win such an issue?You can but then..
Post a Comment