(A)-(ii) Pressure on school teachers and office workers during the Emergency → Bureaucratic mobilisation for demographic goals The sterilisation campaign did not rely only on medical personnel. Lower-level government employees such as teachers and office workers were pressured to bring people to sterilisation camps. This illustrates how the administrative machinery of the state was mobilised to achieve demographic objectives, even when the officials involved were not directly connected with healthcare services.

(B)-(i) Suspension of normal parliamentary procedures → Expansion of executive authority during extraordinary political conditions During the Emergency, normal parliamentary and legal procedures were suspended, and the government exercised powers through special laws and ordinances. This concentration of authority in the executive enabled policies to be implemented without the usual democratic scrutiny and legislative debate.

(C)-(iii) Abandonment of the sterilisation programme after the Emergency → Impact of public resistance on policy continuity The coercive sterilisation programme generated widespread opposition among the public. When a new government came to power after the Emergency, the programme was abandoned. This demonstrates how public resistance can influence whether a policy continues or is discontinued, even when the state has previously invested significant effort in its implementation.

(D)-(iv) Shift away from coercive sterilisation → Recognition of voluntary participation in demographic change After the Emergency, coercive methods were abandoned and the programme was reoriented towards welfare, awareness, and voluntary participation. This reflected the understanding that demographic change is more sustainable when individuals make informed choices rather than being compelled by the state.