CONTROL OR SURVEILLANCE: THE BROADER MESSAGE OF ASSAM’S NEXT LAWS

CONTROL OR SURVEILLANCE: THE BROADER MESSAGE OF ASSAM’S NEXT LAWS

1-NOV-ENG 1

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA---------------------The laws have sparked a new debate on individual freedom, secularism, and equal civil rights. Supporters consider them social reforms, while critics call them state interference in private life. Real solutions to population control in India come from education, health, and women's empowerment, not draconian laws. Democracy is strengthened when citizens are empowered, not controlled.

In a diverse and multi-religious country like India, when a state formulates policies on matters of personal life, its impact is far from limited. The marriage and population control laws proposed by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma are sparking a similar national debate. The state government claims the move is aimed at maintaining "social balance" and curbing "illegal population growth," while critics argue that it interferes with civil liberties and religious rights. This contradiction has become the biggest test of today's politics and society.

Assam has long grappled with issues of migration, population inequality, and communal tensions. As a border state, the issue of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh has always been a political issue. Against this backdrop, discussions about a population control law appear to be not just a social but also a political strategy. Chief Minister Sarma states that the state has a very high population growth rate among certain communities, leading to social and economic imbalances. According to him, such drastic measures are necessary to achieve educational and economic equality in the state.

But the question arises: is law the only appropriate solution for population control? Similar efforts have been made in India before—the forced sterilization campaign during the Emergency is an example. That experience demonstrated that population control can be achieved not only through law or punishment, but through education, health, and social awareness. If Assam's proposed law seeks to regulate personal matters such as marriage age, polyandry, or religious conversion, it would challenge individual liberty and equal civil rights.

The Constitution grants citizens the freedom to choose their religion and lifestyle. Marriage and family are part of a person's privacy. The "right to life and personal liberty" under Article 21 also encompasses these matters. If a government begins to dictate who marries whom and how, or how many children a person should have, it blurs the boundaries between the state and the individual. This is why many social activists are calling it a "surveillance policy," not a "reformist measure."

The debate over the Uniform Civil Code is already ongoing in India. This Assam law could further intensify that debate. The government may argue that all citizens, regardless of their religion, should have the same rules. But this concept of equality is meaningful only if it is voluntary and consultative, not based on fear and control. If policies are made targeting a single community, they lead to division rather than improvement.

From a social perspective, population growth is not solely due to religious or cultural reasons. It is also influenced more by lack of education, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and gender inequality. Unless women are given adequate education, employment, and decision-making power, family planning laws will remain only on paper. The example of population stabilization set by India's southern states is the result of investments in education and health, not any stringent laws.

In a state like Assam, where literacy rates remain below the national average and rural health infrastructure is weak, social empowerment is more needed than new laws. If the government invests in areas where women's education and health facilities are lagging, population growth may be automatically controlled. Conversely, if the government resorts to harsh measures in the name of control, it could create an atmosphere of distrust and fear.

At the political level, this issue presents opportunities for both the opposition and the ruling party. The ruling party is calling it a "bold step towards reform," while the opposition considers it an attempt at "political polarization." Electoral equations in Assam have always been based on ethnic and religious identities. Therefore, this policy could become a means of appeasing one class and instigating another. This is why the issue is rapidly spreading nationally.

In the media and public forums, the topic is being linked to controversial terms like "love jihad," "polyandry," and "population explosion." However, it is important to understand that population control is not merely a matter of religious policy, but rather of socio-economic policy. Viewing it through the lens of religion will only deepen the problem rather than resolve it.

The Assam government claims that the law's purpose is not to target any particular community, but to establish social balance. However, in practice, the implementation of such laws remains susceptible to bias. For example, if the administrative decision is made as to who should be punished for "polyandry" or "illegal marriage," the decision will also depend on the official's personal perception. This is the case. This is where democratic governance requires transparency and accountability the most.

Another important aspect is the implementation of laws. India has already enacted several public welfare laws, but their impact has been limited because the political will to implement them has been weak. If the Assam government enacts a new law but its implementation is biased or lax, it will be merely a cosmetic measure. Therefore, any policy should be evaluated not by its purpose but by its implementation.

There is also a psychological aspect to this entire controversy. When citizens in a state feel that the government is interfering in their personal lives, the wall of trust between citizens and the state weakens. This trust is the foundation of democracy. Indian politics is already experiencing a crisis of trust—trust in institutions is declining, and dialogue is being replaced by accusations and counter-accusations. In such a situation, if policies begin to further divide people, instability in democratic societies is natural.

The global context of this topic is also interesting. China followed a "one-child policy" for decades, the adverse effects of which are now evident—an aging population, a shrinking workforce, and a gender imbalance. China was later forced to reverse its policy. This example clearly demonstrates that rigid population control can be detrimental both socially and economically. Such a move is even more sensitive in a democracy like India, where diversity is its greatest strength.

Therefore, it is essential that governments focus on empowerment, not control. The most effective means of population control are education, health, employment, and equal opportunities. When citizens have choice and awareness, they naturally gravitate toward smaller and healthier families. This change comes from consciousness, not law.

To truly transform Assam's proposal, it must be detached from political slogans and integrated with practical plans. The goal of population policy should not be merely to reduce numbers, but to enhance the quality of life. The state must understand that discipline comes not from law, but from trust.

Ultimately, this debate will not be limited to Assam. It points to the path India can take—either toward a state of control, where governments determine every aspect of citizens' lives; or toward a society based on awareness, where citizens are responsible for their own decisions. Democracy is truly realized when the state becomes the guide, not the master.

Assam's initiative may stem from genuine concern, but its form and outcome must be carefully determined. In a sensitive democracy, every policy must be evaluated by its impact, not its slogan. The true test of population control is whether it makes society more free, educated, and empowered—or traps it in a web of suspicion and control. India must choose a path that combines development with respect.