World Population Day is being observed globally on July 11. Population Day is celebrated as an occasion to discuss various dimensions of population and to bring related issues into the spotlight. The observance of Population Day began in 1989 to address the alarming increase in global population and to mitigate its potential negative consequences. After 1948, the children of the ‘baby boomer’ generation led to an unexpected surge in the world’s population.

Until then, couples around the world considered children not as an investment but as assets, and accordingly, they had many children. However, anticipating the negative aspects of this, China implemented the ‘Single Baby Policy’ as early as 1971. Developed countries were already alert to the ‘side effects’ of population growth. Nevertheless, on July 11, 1987, the world’s population reached 5 billion. The United Nations recognized July 11, known in demographic history as ‘Five Billion Day,’ as a highly sensitive turning point for population issues. For this reason, Population Day began to be observed with the main objective of keeping the population growth rate under control.

The priorities of World Population Day, which began 37 years ago with the main goal of curbing population growth, have now changed. After the Cairo Conference on Population and Development in 1994, the term ‘population control’ was deemed non-human rights-friendly. The term ‘population management’ was introduced as a human rights-friendly alternative. In the meantime, issues such as women’s reproductive rights, youth rights, migration, and food security have emerged as demographic concerns. Now, the debate has shifted from whether the population is too high or too low to focusing on the quality, opportunities, rights, and living standards of the population. This year, the UN has set the global population slogan as ‘Realizing the hopes and aspirations of youth for the future.’

Who is responsible for fulfilling the aspirations of youth?

Who is primarily responsible for youth—the family, the individual, or the state? The Nepali generation raised in joint and patriarchal families is now growing up in nuclear families. Nuclear families are making individuals more isolated. The transfer of indigenous knowledge and skills from the grandfather’s generation to the grandchildren has ceased. In other words, our family structure has deprived grandparents of the opportunity to share indigenous knowledge with their grandchildren, and the younger generation has lost the chance to acquire such knowledge. As a result, today’s youth are receiving a different kind of ‘schooling’ than the previous generation. Their relationship with family and relatives has become merely technical. In the past, a single household would have 10 or 12 members. For an individual, the family was everything. The family was their school, health center, marketplace, club, and entertainment venue. Thus, people were entirely dependent on the family. Over time, the family has been reduced to a mythical unit.

The Nepali generation raised in joint and patriarchal families is now growing up in nuclear families. Nuclear families are making individuals more isolated. The transfer of indigenous knowledge and skills from the grandfather’s generation to the grandchildren has ceased.Various types of social institutions have emerged to fulfill the roles once played by the family. The responsibility of education shifted to schools. Clubs took over the role of entertainment. The care of parents was handed over to old-age homes. The role of singing lullabies to children went not to grandmothers, but to ‘child care centers.’ As a result, the family has now become a refuge only in times of dire need. This unit, once a strong social institution, has now turned into something akin to a dilapidated house—a house with a leaking roof, unplastered for years, weeds growing in the yard, and termites infesting the beams and pillars. When imagining the families we grew up in and describing the current state of families, it is natural for people to become emotional. Despite all this, the profound responsibility of fulfilling the aspirations of today’s and tomorrow’s youth still lies with the structure called the family.

The majority of people spend their childhood and adolescence with their families. Just as the morning indicates the day, the kind of environment a child experiences today determines what kind of citizen they will become in the future. Naturally, due to increased access to technology, today’s children are able to learn and see much more than children of the past. This has made it easier for them to make decisions about their future paths. However, most of what today’s children are learning is through virtual means. Our children and families are becoming increasingly distant from the real world. As a result, families and communities face challenges in fulfilling the aspirations of tomorrow’s youth. One significant factor loosening the nuts and bolts of the family structure is the high mobility of people. The search for opportunities, concerns about the future and security, and the global trend of migration have made people unsettled. Families are unsettled. Family members are unsettled. As a result, people are becoming alienated from the energy, knowledge, and entertainment that families once provided. This has, in some way, impacted individuals’ futures.

Even based on the slogan of Population Day, it is the responsibility of the current family structure to create an environment where youth can build the life, family, and future they desire. It is the state’s role to create the environment for fulfilling that responsibility. For Nepali youth, leaving the family in the present is a necessity in order to build a future family. For the sake of building a family, it is a common compulsion for Nepalis to leave their parents behind. While advocating for families, where are the members of a single household scattered today? Not just within the country, but families are scattered across various countries abroad. As a result, familial bonds are weakening. What is the dream of building a family’s future making Nepalis do in society? The son is in Qatar. The daughter-in-law is in the city.

Grandchildren are in hostels, parents are in the village—this is the fate experienced by about a quarter of families in Nepal. Rural families are now without youth. The elderly are sustaining the families. This is sometimes referred to as ‘youth-less and tooth-less villages.’ The strong role of the family in the past has now gradually weakened. The family, once a shelter of security, is slowly becoming history. When the family’s role towards individuals weakens, the role of the state automatically increases. The responsibility of ensuring the future of youth growing up in weakened family structures now falls on the shoulders of the state.

60 percent of families are nuclear: In four decades, every family has lost two members

Due to aggressive policies officially aimed at reducing the birth rate in Nepal, the number of children per family has decreased over time. The practice of joint families is fading due to migration and necessity. Even though the number of nuclear families has increased significantly, family disputes have prevented this trend from stabilizing. According to this year’s data, 42,000 couples have divorced. This trend is on the rise. According to the 2021 National Census, excluding institutional households (barracks, hostels, guest houses, etc.), 60 percent of all families are nuclear. These 60 percent of nuclear families account for 46.2 percent of the population. Joint families are now limited to only 40 percent. The main reason for this is that families can no longer meet people’s needs as they did in the past. People’s desires and aspirations are now going beyond the family’s capacity. Over the past four decades, each family has lost at least two members. In the 1981 census, a family had six members on average; now it is limited to four. In urban areas and regions with high external migration, this number is even lower. In Gandaki Province, a family has only 3.7 members on average.

For various reasons, Nepali families are in transition. In one out of every four households, at least one member is working abroad. Similarly, in one out of every four households, at least one member, though in the country, lives outside the home. Outwardly, the family appears united, but its members are scattered in various places. Discussions about where to live and what to do have ceased within families. People make decisions using the technology at hand. This very technology has increased the lack of communication within families. The family structure is moving from one phase to another. In other words, Nepali society is undergoing a family transition. American demographer Arland Thornton and sociologist Thomas Fricke have described this as a journey from the ‘family mode of social organization’ to the ‘non-family mode of social organization.’ Around 1990, they studied how the role of the family was changing in some communities in Chitwan. Their study concluded that youth who had contact with institutions outside the family showed significant changes in marriage, gender roles, preference for independent decision-making, and traditional thinking.

The relationship between family and politics

A family member may be a member of a political party, a leader, a minister, or even a prime minister. Therefore, the environment one experiences in the family shapes the roles they will play in the future. As discussed earlier, migration is expanding or narrowing the role of the family. This is also changing the role of politics along with the family. When a family member leaves home, it is not just one less person in the household. It is also one less member in a political party. Not only that, it is one less decisive vote in an election. Similarly, as family members leave, if only senior citizens remain at the place of origin, there will be a predominance of youth in cities or destinations. Where there is a predominance of senior citizens, political party activities are weak. The representation of that area automatically decreases. The political reach and resource potential of that area also become limited. When the role of the family weakens, the role of the state naturally increases. For example, when sons and daughters-in-law leave home or the country for work, the state must increase investment in the care of senior citizens left behind. The state’s presence must also be seen in their health care.