:dateline:Observing sharp reaction over statement of producing at least four children to overcome Sikh population degradation, appointed Jathedar Giani Gurbachan Singh has clarified that he didn�t mean to order or instruct anyone.
He clarified that it was just a suggestion to Sikh couples.
It is notable that statement of appointed Jathedar to produce at least four children initiated new debate in Sikh circles. Jathedar had to face sharp criticism for his statement and some Panthik leaders strongly condemned passing such mandates.
Jathedar also clarified that he suggested this about four years ago as well, but media has presented it giving negative touch. He said that the media is giving unnecessary promotion to his old statement.
The suggestion by the Jathedar is correct.
Mathematically, any population requires 2.2 children from each couple for the population to be stable.
Any less than 2.2 children per couple will eventually lead to population decline and collapse.
Look at Europe. The population growth rate in many counties is negative. The only way they are sustaining their populations is through the immigration Ponzi scheme.
Look at Japan. They have the highest negative population growth rate in the world and their population is declining year after year.
More than 2.2 children will lead to population growth and is required for Sikhism to survive.
Sikhism has always suffered from low numbers. In this day in age, greater numbers means greater political power.
Sikhs account for less than 2 percent of India’s population. If Sikhs were 10
percent of India’s population, then the Sikh Freedom Movement in 1984 would have been successful.
In democracy, political power is basically a war of attrition.
Hence, 4 children per couple is a good recommendation and I encourage all young couples who strongly believe in the well-being of Sikhism to follow it (including myself).
The people mainly objecting to such recommendations are self-serving so called “liberal” Sikhs who can’t see the long-term big picture and have done absolutely nothing for the Panth.
agreed with u .. but the main problem of having four children is not a good idea .. ATLEAST FINANCIALLY
Dear H.J Singh Ji,
I agree with you that parents should only have as much children as they can reasonably financially afford.
At the same time, having 3 children is not that much more expensive than having 2 children due to decreasing costs to scale.
Much of the expenses are shared between the children. For example, children share most of their clothing when they are young. The first child, once grown up, gives much of his baby clothing to second child and second child to third, and so on.
Another example is school textbooks, toys, etc. Having more children also teaches them how to share and how to co-operate.
Only 25 years ago, having large families with 6 children, 8 children, etc. was very common.
Peoples lives were much simpler and parents didn’t unnecessarily burden themselves with large, uncontrollable debt.
Weddings were small and simple compared to the large Indo-Western melas we have now days in wedding banquet halls.
Having more than 2 children is only as expensive as you want to make it.
At the same time, people should only have as many children as they can afford.
Better to have 3 children in decent family rather than 6 children in poverty.