美国和印度的生育政治利害关系

让我们从生育的角度来审视两次重要的全国选举：一场选举最近于今年夏天在印度结束，另一场选举进入了一个新的、更有希望的阶段，该选举将于今年冬天在美国举行。

The upcoming US presidential election and the recently concluded Indian national elections both feature a focus on reproduction in right-wing discourses. This highlights feminists' argument that all politics is reproductive politics.

即将到来的美国总统大选和刚刚结束的印度全国大选，都是右翼话语再现的焦点。这凸显了女权主义者的论点，即所有政治都是生殖政治。

In the US, Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance labels childfree individuals as “the childless cat ladies,” while Indian Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi pillories the Muslim community in his speeches for their fecundity, marking them collectively as “zyadha bacche paida karne waale log (people who produce too many children)”. Both Vance and Modi focus on women’s reproductive bodies.

在美国，共和党副总统候选人 JD 万斯将没有孩子的人称为“没有孩子的猫女士”，而印度印度教民族主义总理纳伦德拉·莫迪在演讲中嘲笑穆斯林社区的生育能力，将他们统称为“zyadha bacche paya karne waale” log（生育过多孩子的人）”。万斯和莫迪都关注女性的生殖身体。

Despite their seemingly contradictory visions, pro-natalist Vance and anti-natalist Modi both draw from a shared political understanding of reproduction, population, and national wellbeing. In caricaturing both child-free choices and that of birthing more than one child, Vance and Modi pull from a politics of reproductive futurism whereby the absent child and too many children (of a particular sort) endanger their respective nations. Both men lean into competing anti-choice positions, as they mark Black, brown, and Muslim reproductive bodies as selfish, irresponsible, and anti-national

尽管支持生育的万斯和反生育的莫迪的愿景看似矛盾，但他们都对生殖、人口和国家福祉有着共同的政治理解。在讽刺无孩子选择和生育多个孩子的选择时，万斯和莫迪脱离了生育未来主义的政治，即缺席的孩子和太多的孩子（特定类型）危及各自的国家。两人都倾向于相互竞争的反选择立场，因为他们将黑人、棕色人和穆斯林的生殖身体标记为自私、不负责任和反民族的。

For Vance, it is the feminist/queer reproductive subject who, in abandoning their procreative responsibilities towards the nation, demonstrate their lack of sustained, long-term investment and commitment to national wellbeing. For being reproductively derelict, Vance is proposing to disenfranchise these individuals and rewarding those with more children with additional votes. In refusing to produce future citizens for the nation, child free individuals automatically forfeit any legitimate claims to citizenship and hence, he is proposing they be denied their right to the ballot. On the flip side, those who have responsibly reproduced should be rewarded with more than one vote, voting on their children’s behalf. Citizen’s worthiness is unequivocally tied to their commitment to producing the next generation of Americans. In Vance’s national vision, reproductive choices qualify and disqualify American citizens to vote. His extrajudicial definitions impose reproductive worthiness as a litmus test for citizenship as he regards childfree women as “parasitic” freeloaders who, in refusing to reproduce, are not “productive” citizens.

对于万斯来说，女权主义者/酷儿生殖主体放弃了对国家的生育责任，这表明她们缺乏持续、长期的投资和对国家福祉的承诺。由于生育能力被忽视，万斯提议剥夺这些人的选举权，并奖励那些拥有更多孩子的人额外的选票。在拒绝为国家培养未来公民的过程中，无子女的个人自动放弃任何合法的公民身份要求，因此，他建议剥夺他们的投票权。另一方面，那些负责任地繁殖的人应该获得不止一票的奖励，代表他们的孩子投票。公民的价值明确地与他们对培养下一代美国人的承诺联系在一起。在万斯的国家愿景中，生育选择决定着美国公民是否有投票资格。他的法外定义将生育价值作为公民身份的试金石，因为他将无子女的妇女视为“寄生”贪图便宜的人，拒绝生育，就不是“有生产力的”公民。

While Vance’s attacks are aimed widely at child-free Americans, they are also laser focused on the Democratic nominee Vice-President Kamala Harris. Through his tortured logic, Vance seeks to ridicule her for both being a woman of colour and what he considers to be her reproductive unworthiness. In choosing to be child-free, Harris, he argues, should automatically be disqualified from the possibility of leading the nation and becoming the next commander-in-chief. Harris’ reproductive body is marked as nationally suspect even as she has two stepchildren from her marriage. What we are witnessing in the current moment is a conservative push-back against impressive feminist success in divorcing definitions of womanhood from biology. In the face of this feminist rewriting of gendered scripts, we are encountering a fierce resurrection of the idea of biological motherhood as the mark of “true” womanhood from various right wing constituencies.

虽然万斯的攻击主要针对没有孩子的美国人，但他们也把矛头集中在民主党候选人副总统卡马拉·哈里斯身上。万斯试图通过他痛苦的逻辑来嘲笑她既是一个有色人种女性，又认为她不配生育。他认为，哈里斯选择不生孩子，就应该自动失去领导国家和成为下一任总司令的资格。哈里斯的生殖身体在全国范围内都受到怀疑，尽管她在婚姻中育有两个继子女。我们目前所看到的是，保守派对女权主义在将女性定义与生物学的定义分离方面所取得的成功进行了反击。面对女权主义对性别脚本的重写，我们正面临着作为“真正”女性标志的生物母性观念在各个右翼选民中的猛烈复活。

On a lighter note, Vance’s imagination is flawed by his overly masculine and anthropomorphic bias. This imagination is also bankrupt in its failure to recognise that not all child-free humans are singularly feline lovers and that many extend their affections to all sentient beings, including household canines, farm cattle, and/or botanical marvels. Nor are their families solely determined by bloodlines perpetuated through conjugal sex located strictly within monogamous heterosexual matrimony. They forge close and loving bonds with fellow humans and our young ones through exploratory familial and community partnerships. Therefore, what Vance fails to recognise is that child-free individuals can, and many are, deeply committed to kin-making that is expansively interspecies and planetary rather than being strictly tied to human children and man-made national borders.

更轻松地说，万斯的想象力因过于男性化和拟人化的偏见而存在缺陷。这种想象力也因为未能认识到，并非所有没有孩子的人类都是独特的猫科动物爱好者，并且许多人将他们的感情延伸到所有有情众生，包括家犬、农场牛和/或植物奇迹，这种想象力也破产了。他们的家庭也不仅仅由严格在一夫一妻制异性婚姻中通过夫妻性行为延续的血统决定。他们通过探索性的家庭和社区伙伴关系与人类同胞和我们的年轻人建立了密切而充满爱心的联系。因此，万斯没有认识到的是，没有孩子的个人可以而且许多人都坚定地致力于广泛的跨物种和全球性的亲缘关系，而不是严格与人类儿童和人造国家边界联系在一起。

Shifting our gaze to India, Modi is proposing the opposite argument of overly fecund Muslim reproductive bodies as nationally suspect. Muslim bodies in India are seen as differently derelict from childfree Americans. Historically, the trope of over-population has dogged elite public discourses and sensibilities about India since the early 20th century. Paul Ehrlich’s infamous doomsday book, The Population Bomb, which opens with a dehumanising description of Delhi streets, played an important role in generating alarm about hyper-fecundity and planetary destruction. Even as his was not a new argument, either for Indians or for the global community of eugenicists and neo-Malthusians, the hold of over-population as the principal, if not the singular cause of India’s “under-development,” has been impossible to shake off even in the face of declining national fertility rates across the board, including among the Muslim community.

将我们的目光转向印度，莫迪提出了相反的论点，即穆斯林生殖系统的生育能力在全国范围内受到怀疑。印度的穆斯林尸体被视为与没有孩子的美国人不同的被遗弃者。从历史上看，自 20 世纪初以来，人口过剩的比喻一直困扰着精英公众关于印度的言论和情感。保罗·埃利希（Paul Ehrlich）臭名昭著的世界末日书《人口炸弹》以对德里街道的非人性描述开始，在引起人们对过度生育和地球毁灭的警报方面发挥了重要作用。尽管他的论点对于印度人或全球优生学家和新马尔萨斯主义者来说并不是一个新论点，但将人口过剩视为印度“欠发达”的主要原因（即使不是单一原因）也是不可能的。即使面对全国生育率全面下降（包括穆斯林社区）的情况，也能摆脱困境。

Mapping the political trajectory of India’s reproductive history illuminates the workings of power across intersecting axes of gender, class, community, and caste. Within modern Indian history, a differential reproductive worth was assigned to subaltern subjects, carrying with it a special burden to prove loyalty to the nation

绘制印度生育史的政治轨迹，揭示了权力在性别、阶级、社区和种姓等交叉轴上的运作。在现代印度历史中，底层臣民被赋予了不同的生殖价值，并承担着证明对国家忠诚的特殊责任