To save time, we chose, on the spur of the moment, to go to the local park nearby instead of our country club. By we, I mean hubby, baby and I. As we got out of our chauffeur-driven car, assembled our one-touch baby travel system in front of curious eyes and strolled into the park, I could see what a picture we made. Designer shades, sundress, chi-chi baby outfit…it felt incongruous among the many who strolled along people-watching by the sea. As I reached forward to wipe some baby drool, I looked up and met the eyes of a simple, sari-clad lower-middle-class lady, who was resting her feet on a nearby park bench. She had a baby tucked into the crook of her arm.

There would be many differences between the upbringing of that child and mine, largely material in nature – those of opportunities. And yet they looked peaceful. Flashback to a conversation with a few new mothers, who spoke in feverish agony about the sorry state of schools in the city – the horrendous situation of demand and supply, where their kids may not make it to the best schools, may have to do with second tier and even then wheedle their way in. How different is life for a person with means and one without? Both often need to snatch opportunities and push to get in – just to different places. One believes that the best is a basic right, the other hopes that somewhere along the way a better life may appear.

What is a better life? A bigger classroom, a fancy school bus, a posh car, smarter teachers? Life itself is a great teacher and sometimes, we forget the most basic of lessons. We are all born with the right to live. How we choose to live is a complex twist of fate, luck and opportunity. Motherhood can’t be that different across the board – every baby will poop, cry and laugh while learning to crawl. Possibly one will poop in the comfort of Pampers and soft linen and soundless air conditioning. But at the end of the day, each process remains the same. Their self-worth should be independent of the quality of their lives, rather should depend upon their desire to be someone.

Can the two be separated? Aren’t we constantly defining ourselves by our ability to attract wealth and power and the symbols of such derivates? I believe a society’s material image emerges from the “best” that we want to give our children. We believe that a fluffy eiderdown will make a better person or human being when maybe a hard bed is what is required. (I don’t mean that one should make a child suffer the rigours of life when there is no need to.) The fancy trappings are – if we admit it – for ourselves. To make ourselves feel better about being parents. In our desire to provide the best, we often create the worst. A society of weakening self-worth. All children need love, affection and food. The rest is – as the word states – immaterial.

So the latest buzz I’ve been hearing is that people should never be that cruel and have just one child. (I know, all you smart people worried about population control and all associated evils are probably asphyxiating right now, but hold on, it gets worse). So, you should ALWAYS have more than one child – why? – get this: so that your first baby “doesn’t get lonely.” It’s apparently just plain cruel to put your child through that kind of torture. I can’t even begin to start on how many things are just plain wrong about that. First, if you bring your child up right and he/she has enough things to do and hopefully enough friends, why in the frigging world would (s)he get lonely? Being an only child I really don’t recall feeling any moment of regret getting exactly what I wanted, and feeling a sense of responsibility for being the only child.

That brings me to ridiculous reason no. 2: ‘When we have lotsa children, we ensure that they will be around to take care of us in the future.’ Ahem. Red alert – most kids fight over who shouldn’t take care of the parents, and try to steer clear of duty as much as possible. And with more people living all over the world (not in the farm that these thoughts seem to be stuck in), who’s to say any of the 15 kids will be around to man the parent’s problems? In fact, if it’s just one child, (s)he knows that his/her responsibility from day 1 and works towards it.

Hell, it’s a selfish world, but don’t be selfish by killing the world’s resources and taxing everyone by wanting to provide entertainment and fight-club company for your kid. In fact, the more crowded the world is, the less likely your kid is to have a chance to do something or even have a good quality of life – and heck with overpopulation, (s)he gets his pick of company!!

Sure, I don’t deny that having a sibling is special, the bond is special and irreplaceable, but is it worth it in the long run? If every parent in the world thought this way, what in the world would the world’s population look like? Forget the world, just think India. I mean we do have some form of civic responsibility, right? Or should we all stop thinking about the consequences of our actions and just let the world go to rot? Or wait, that’s IS exactly what we’re doing anyway – for everything else!

At the end of the day, it is entirely a parent’s choice, but what bothers me is when they make important choices that affect people around them based on inane reasoning. God help us and the children we seem to be so heartily planning for!