The statement by West Java Governor Dedi Mulyadi (popularly known as Kang Dedi Mulyadi or KDM) concerning the plan to make vasectomy, or male sterilization, a prerequisite for social aid recipients has sparked widespread controversy among the public (Falevi, 2025). This proposed policy has led to a polarization of views: supporters see it as a solution to the welfare issues of impoverished children, while opponents argue it violates the bodily autonomy of civil society and indicates eugenic practices. Unfortunately, the dynamics of this debate suggest a diminishment of human rights (HR), as the policy is perceived as an inadequate solution to Indonesia’s poverty. In response to this issue, this article will focus on two main arguments: 1) a lack of collective understanding within society regarding human rights and the root causes of poverty, and 2) the state, as the duty-bearer, has failed to comprehend the essential needs of its citizens.
The “Vasectomy and Social Aid Prerequisite” Combo as a Human Rights Violation
In reality, social aid, in any form, should not come with additional conditions. This is because the provision of social assistance is part of the state’s obligation to guarantee the right of its citizens to a decent life, as stipulated in Article 34 of Chapter XIV of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This action also violates Article 8 of Law No. 12 of 2022 on Sexual Violence Crimes, which categorizes the forced use of contraception through the exercise of power and exploitation of a vulnerable condition (in this case, poverty) as a criminal offense.
Nevertheless, many argue that this discourse presents a solution to poverty and gender discrimination. In this context, some criticize couples who have many children in circumstances where they cannot provide a decent life for them. They believe this policy would prevent the suffering of “potential impoverished children” who might be born to such couples. Yet, as stipulated in Article 10 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, everyone, without exception, has the right to form a family and continue their lineage.
Support for this policy also stems from the view that vasectomy would promote gender equality by not solely placing the burden of contraception on women. Indeed, the practice of vasectomy can challenge masculine hegemony, which has historically contributed to male resistance to contraception due to perceptions of it threatening their virility (Chomsatun, 2013). However, this effort, claimed as a solution against gender discrimination, paradoxically strengthens class discrimination against the poor, a group already marginalized by the system.
Class Consciousness, Gender, and Biopolitics
From the perspective of the Protest School, the absence of collective awareness regarding this issue poses a challenge to the fulfillment of human rights for marginalized groups. Here, society does not yet understand the struggles faced by the poor; that their poverty is a structural problem, not merely caused by individual laziness. In the discourse on platform X, groups supporting this narrative assume that poor people are stubborn and lack self-awareness regarding their capabilities. Yet, as quoted by (Sultan, 2018), WHO fact sheets indicate that limited access, resources, unmet needs, religious beliefs, poor facility availability, lack of education, and family planning services are factors hindering the desire of 225 million women in developing countries to limit their number of children. This implies that the limited ability of the poor to control family size is not based on mere preference, but on complex structural issues.
Society needs to realize that the limited access of impoverished communities to education and information potentially restricts their understanding, including information related to health and the erroneous belief that children are an investment for the future. In this case, the poor are not unwilling, but unable, whether due to knowledge gaps or socio-cultural issues like patriarchy. However, the absence of class consciousness within society leads to a mindset that normalizes the reduction of human rights for a group of people deemed undeserving.
Through this discourse, the state, as the duty-bearer, also demonstrates a biopolitical logic, a concept introduced by Michel Foucault regarding power that controls an individual’s biological life to support the growth of that power’s economy (Hou, 2021). This mindset not only violates legal regulations but also evidences a lazy government. This policy reflects the state’s attempt to find a shortcut to replace its obligation to address structural poverty, which is the root of the problem. Instead of producing violence through power relations, the state should adopt an education-based approach to vasectomy. Debates regarding vasectomy, from both health and religious perspectives, continue to this day. Therefore, the state should provide a fundamental understanding to the public regarding vasectomy and other health services. This very approach was applied during family planning campaigns several years ago.
Lessons Learned and the Path Forward
Learning from India, a policy forcing men to undergo vasectomy was implemented in 1976. As a result, this policy created new social problems instead of reducing population growth in India, namely a 22% increase in rape cases across average regions (Singh & Vincent, 2024). This reflects that policies not based on individual awareness and willingness to undergo vasectomy have the potential to create new social problems, leading to further human rights violations.
After a long debate, KDM eventually clarified that the idea of making vasectomy a requirement for social aid would not be implemented. However, the problem doesn’t end there. The societal debate on understanding that one’s bodily autonomy, regardless of status, cannot be stripped away, has yet to be universally acknowledged. As believed by the Protest School, it is crucial for society to build a critical and collective awareness that coercive and restrictive policies on vulnerable groups’ rights, as proven damaging in India, are unwise actions that injure the human rights struggle. Fundamentally, human rights require effort to claim them. Through collective class consciousness, society can unite to demand the fulfillment of these rights from the duty-bearers.
