For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

Here we discussed the two child norm, and the captivity of the norm on Indian Society. Basic major of norm was the population control but it has several other negative impacts on the society. To measure the gravity of negativity in this norm here discussed some basic concept of it. Such as the states are free to adopt the rule or not. In this situation some states adhered it, some not and some abandoned the rule after some year of practicing it. Here it comes in mind that it has some negativity that’s why states are forced to rethink about the norm. Broadly four category of states are in the picture, such as states which never accepted the norm is defined here by term ‘N-No’, states which accepted once but abandoned later defined by ‘R-Revoked’ and states which accepted once and continuing practice it defined by ‘Y-Yes’. Also one more term there is ‘O-Overall’ is dedicated to the overall or India’s status. Later on the two categories ‘R-Revoked’ and ‘Y-Yes’ are sub divided in some factors as on census year 2001 and 2011 because the norm firstly introduce in the year 1992, that’s why it doesn’t have impact on the census 1991 data. Here below described the best possible categories of states can be formed on the basis of these two factors i.e norm and census year. First one is the states where norm was accepted before 2001 census and continuingly practicing till date are termed as ‘Y’ and impact in census year 2001 and 2011. The denotation of these type of states are Y-Y-Y. Secondly consider those states which adopt the rule but after the census year 2001 that’s why the norm’s impact only shown on the census 2011 data, it denoted with ‘Y-N-Y’.

Several researchers from many countries are in the process of gaining some insight into the child restraint policies of governments. However, they all got the same message that yes, this is a one-time solution to the population explosion but it also comes with some significant problems, which the researchers have mentioned. Here are some activities that have been identified to be useful for this process. Discrimination against girls in countries like India, China etc. is a matter of one time. Differences in girls in the prenatal and postnatal periods: Sex-selected female feticide abortion leads to abnormally high SRB (sex ratio at birth), yet girls are neglected in EFCM (excess female infant mortality). rate). "Based on Shanxi Province, Shuzhuo Li and Xi'an Jiaotong (2007) argue that current issues, trends, and regional differences in SRB and EFCM strongly influence Chinese government policies on restraint in children. Furthermore, suggest Let's give." that improving the lives of women and universal education are the bright ways to stop the population explosion. China currently has the highest skewed national sex-to-birth ratio (SRB) in the world. Reproductive policy strongly influences the next reproductive gender (Xiujun Tai, 2013). Fertility intent, independent of fertility policy, has a significant influence on the sex of the next birth. The main difficulty in implementing the one-child policy can be traced to this enduring traditional Confucian preference. Teenage parents cannot accept only one child if the child is female. The reasons are socio-economic, as they have historical and cultural roots in the patriarchal family system of the Confucian tradition.

Here also some states which abandoned the rule after some years of practising. In this category, there are two categories which are based on the time of reverting. First, those states that implied the rule after 2001 and revoked it before 2011, denoted by ‘R-N-S’. Second, those states that implied the rule after 1991 and revoked it after 2001, denoted by ‘R-Y-S’.

All other states which never implied the rule are denoted by ‘N-N-N’ and overall India’s status is shown by ‘O-N-N’.

Here is the table which shows the various type of states as per their Two Child Norm status.

Table 1: Type of state as per their Two Child Norm status.

Symbol	Broad Category	Impact in 2001	Impact in 2011	States Covered
R-N-S	Revoked	No	Yes	Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh
R-Y-S		Yes	No	Haryana
Y-N-Y	Implied	No	Yes	Bihar, Gujrat, Maharashtra
Y-Y-Y		Yes	Yes	Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan
N-N-N	Not Implied	No	No	Remaining 25 States/UTs
O-N-N	Overall	No	No	India

In the category N-N-N 25 states are covered namely Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Delhi, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Puducherry, Punjab, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal.

Sex Ratio

However, the sex ratio of the state is directly given in the data of the census but when it calculates for the group of states whose populations are not same. Then it is found that the method of direct average isn’t working. For the sex ratio of states use the male and female population of the states and make some of them whole for a group and then calculate the sex ratio.

Where n is total number of states and union territories.

The above formula is used to calculate the sex ratio of group of states.

Figure 1: Sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status

Above the graph shows the trend of the sex ratio since the 1951 census of India on the basis of the group of states and their Two Child Norm status wise. It is seen that till 1991 all types of state’s sex ratio decreased but after 1991 it is seen to recover at a different pace in a different groups of states. The states ‘where the norm once accepted and continue practising’ is steeply decreased and continue to decrease after 1991 also. Only the group of states where the sex ratio is not recovering even after 1991. 

There is least sex ratio in the year 1991 in the group of states where the norm was once adopted and after its repeals. It is seen that the sex ratio in these states recovered sharply after the year 2001 and now in 2011 these types of state’s sex ratio improved then the states where the norm continues.

The most interesting thing done in the states where the norm was never introduced. In 1951 this group of states have least sex ratio 937 and steady till 1991 which was 927 in 1991. Recovery of the sex ratio is highest after the year 1991 in these states and the best sex ratio out of all group of states now in 2011. Where overall sex ratio of India is at 943 in 2011, which was 927 in the year 1991.

Further deep analysis for the subgroups of the states in these broad three categories.

Figure 2: Sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status

The graph above shows the pattern of sex ratio of the category of states on the basis of two child norm’s status in the census years 2001 and 2011.

The group N-N-N shows the states that never implied the law and it is seen in the trend that after 1991 these states have the highest growth in sex ratio and the highest in the census year of 2011.

The group of states where the norm is implied after the year 2001 and revoked before the census year 2011 are referred to as R-N-S. There is also seen a growth in the sex ratio after the year 1991.

The group of states where the norm is implied before the year 2001 and revoked before the census year 2011 are referred to as R-Y-S. In this category, only one state exists i.e. Haryana which is also at the lowest position in the sex ratio in India. However, it is seen their improvement in the sex ratio after explicit the two-child norm.

The group Y-Y-Y contains the states which implied the rule before 2001 and continued till 2011. These states have the lowest rate of growth in the sex ratio.

The group Y-N-Y contains the states which implied the rule after the 2001 census. It is unbelievingly shown in the data that these states have the lowest combined sex ratio after Haryana. Also, these states have negative growth after 1991 wherever all other groups have had positive growth rates since 1991.

Child Sex Ratio

Above mentioned all theory shows the trend of the overall sex ratio of states as per their Two Child Norm status. It is also interesting to see the child sex ratio of the population aged between 0 and 6. The child sex ratio of all states since 1991 is considered here.

Figure 3: Child Sex Ratio of states as per their two-child norm status

The above graph shows that the child sex ratio is highest in the group of states where two child norm is never introduced, lowest in the states where the norm is exercised and the states where it once introduced and revoked later is in the middle of them. One more interesting thing is that CSR is continuously decreasing pattern in all three types of states whereas the little bit of improvement in CSR in 2011 in the states where the norm was revoked.

To making this study deeper also the further bifurcation of three types of states as per did in the analysis of the sex ratio in the previous section.

 

Figure 4: Child Sex Ratio of states as per their two-child norm status

Here is a deep view of the child sex ratio the states which never introduce the two-child norm are second highest in the year 2011 whereas the highest child sex ratio is in these states where two child norm was imposed after 2001 and revoked before 2011.  There is also one exception in this type of state where the norm was imposed after 1991 and revoked after 2001, in this category only one state is covered namely Haryana. The CSR of Haryana is the lowest since 1991.

The category of states Y-N-Y covered the states where two child norm is imposed after 2001 and is currently active. In this category the child sex ratio of 1991, 2001 and 2011 are 930, 920 and 913 respectively.

The category of states Y-Y-Y covered the states where two child norm was introduced before 2001 and is currently active. In this category the child sex ratio of 1991, 2001 and 2011 are 919, 924 and 906 respectively. 

Calculation

Sex ratio is a simple mathematical technique which gives the number of girls on each thousand boys in a population. Below is the formula to calculate the sex ratio.

1. Bongaarts, John, & Greenhalg, S. (1985). An Alternative to the One-Child Policy in China. Population and Development Review, 11, 585-617. 2. Census Digital Library, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (n.d.). Retrieved from censusindia.gov.in. 3. Family planning in India. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_India 4. Trussell, J. and Rodríguez, G. (1990). Heterogeneity in demographic research. In: Adams, J., Lam, D., Hermalin, A., and Smouse, P. (eds.). Convergent Issues in Genetics and Demography. New York: Oxford University Press: 111–132. 5. Two-child policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy 6. Winkelmann, R. and Zimmermann, K. (1994). Count data models for demographic data. Mathematical Population Studies 4(3): 205–221.