Governmental efforts towards fertility reduction often face a dilemma: babies who are planners' worry are also a parent's hope and joy (Mandelbaum 1974:110). The beliefs of the people on this subject and what planners believe ought to be done may on occasion diverge substantially.

Once effective methods of fertility limitation become widely available within a population, the impact of fertility intentions on subsequent fertility becomes a matter of both theoretical and practical importance.

Though fertility is a biological phenomenon there are a number of other factors influencing the levels and differentials of fertility among tribals.

Though fertility is a biological phenomenon there are a number of other factors influencing the levels and differentials of fertility among tribals.

Squinting against the glare of the harsh fluorescent lights, a balding, middle aged man wearing a checked shirt and a worried look sat at the edge of the plastic chair in the white-tiled corridor of Bombay's Jaslok Hospital, tapping his foot on the floor with increasing nervousness.

Fertility behaviour includes not only biological but also social reproduction, involving a complex network of institutions.

Population projections help in the formulation of policies directed towards meeting desired goals. Such projections cannot be considered as a one time event as new directions for policies and programs can emerge when the exercise is repeated.

Modem means of fertility control have made inroads into Mogra in recent times. Since these means were introduced mainly under the national Family Planning Programme (FPP), this chapter focuses on people's response to it. How did FPP find its way into the village? What do people think about it?

In most demographic surveys, respondents are asked to state their desired family size and whether they intend to have additional children. However, the predictive accuracy of their statements about future fertility has been the subject of considerable controversy.

Demographic literature is replete with observations of an inverse relation between certain attributes of modernity and family size (Thompson 1929; Notestein 1945; Coale and Hoover 1958; Leiberman 1980, Srinivasan 1986).