India MP Sakshi Maharaj: Hindus Must Have More Babies
Source: bbc
Analysts say the comments by Sakshi Maharaj, from the governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), are aimed at stirring up tension with Muslims.
Last month, Sakshi Maharaj said the killer of Mahatma Gandhi was a patriot.
"The concept of four wives and 40 children will not work in India," the MP is reported to have told a gathering in an apparent reference to Muslim men, who are legally allowed to have four wives.
"The time has come when a Hindu woman must produce at least four children in order to protect Hindu religion."
The BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi says hard-line Hindus regularly accuse Muslim women of being "breeding machines" who have lots of children in a bid to overtake the Hindu population.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30706431
birth rate has gone down with increase in education for women
Recursion
(56,582 posts)elleng
(130,974 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)India and the planet need it. They should try to half their population in the next two generations.
JI7
(89,252 posts)is rising more compared to hindu so some fanatic hindus are afraid muslims will take over.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)India currently has 1.25 billion people living in it. If every Hindu woman has to produce four children, and all the Muslim women are producing a similar amount, plus the other 50 religions that exist in India...they'll be pushing 2 billion in a generation.
Never mind the logistics of feeding an extra 750 million people, where the hell are they all going to live?
JI7
(89,252 posts)Population from increasing
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)jmowreader
(50,560 posts)Because throwing one at the other - your choice as to which - would have given a better choice than this fool.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Both of these assholes are thinking they need a bigger army.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Been around a long time too. Women always bear the brunt of it, since they are the population bottleneck, the primary production constraint. A normal guy can have as many babies as he can get women to impregnate, so guys are disposable, they make good cannon fodder, just make sure they make some babies first. Women on the other hand, can only have a limited number of babies, and it takes a long time to raise them too, during which time those women must be protected and invested in, so they have to be controlled, and made to produce. They must be cogs in the machine.
Similar issues associate with primogeniture, which also demands radical control of women's lives to ensure that one's property is passed down to one's own (male) offspring, where again, women are an object of control because of their reproductive primacy.
And of course, the vast majority of the male population too must be controlled, but they must be made to work, in agriculture in the old days, in industry more recently, and flipping burgers to sell to each other today.
I well remember from my youth the sense of panic that ensued at the thought of being "pussy whipped" and not being able to "control my woman", etc.; and I also remember how much easier life got and how much more sense it made once I realized what stupid ideas those were. The crap you learn in high school.
But anyway, those ideas are common as dirt, really. It annoys me every time I think about it. Arrogant blowhards.
Monk06
(7,675 posts)children. What they need is for those children to be healthy and have a decent life
hatrack
(59,587 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)The Stranger
(11,297 posts)How can this imbecile intentionally try to exacerbate it?