In most countries in the world, there are approximately 105 female births for every 100 males. In India, there are less than 93 women for every 100 men in the population. The accepted reason for such a disparity is the practice of female infanticide, prompted by the existence of a dowry system which requires the family to pay out a great deal of money when a female child is married. For a poor family, the birth of a girl child can signal the beginning of financial ruin and extreme hardship.
This anti-female bias is by no means limited to poor families. Much of the discrimination is to do with cultural beliefs and social norms. These norms themselves must be challenged if this practice is to stop.
Diagnostic teams with ultrasound scanners which detect the sex of a child advertise with catch lines such as spend 600 rupees now and save 50,000 rupees later. The implication is that by avoiding the birth of a girl, a family will avoid paying a large dowry on the marriage of her daughter.
According to UNICEF, the problem is getting worse as scientific methods of detecting the sex of a baby and of performing abortions are improving. These methods are becoming increasing available in rural areas of India, fuelling fears that the trend towards the abortion of female foetuses is on the increase.
A study of Tamil Nadu by the Community Service Guild of Madras found that "female infanticide is rampant" in the state, though only among Hindu (rather than Moslem or Christian) families. "Of the 1,250 families covered by the study, 740 had only one girl child and 249 agreed directly that they had done away with the unwanted girl child. More than 213 of the families had more than one male child whereas half the respondents had only one daughter."
The bias against females in India is related to the fact that sons are called upon to provide the income; they are the ones who do most of the work in the fields. In this way sons are looked to as a type of insurance. With this perspective, it becomes clearer that the high value given to males decreases the value given to females.
The problem is also intimately tied to the institution of dowry, in which the family of a prospective bride must pay enormous sums of money to the family in which the woman will live after marriage. Though formally outlawed, the institution is still pervasive.
The combination of dowry and wedding expenses usually adds up to more than a million rupees. In India the average civil servant earns about 100,000 rupees a year. Given these figures combined with the low status of women, it seems not so illogical that the poorer Indian families would want only male children. Murders of women whose families are deemed to have paid insufficient dowry have become increasingly common.
India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion. Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 to ascertain birth defects in a sample population but was quickly appropriated by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions followed. Researchers point out that those women who undergo sex determination tests and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls. In many cases, of course, the women are not independent agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based on preference for male children.
According to a medical college study in Jaipur, capital of the western state of Rajasthan, prenatal sex determination tests result in an estimated 3,500 abortions of female fetuses annually. Most strikingly, according to UNICEF, a report from Bombay in 1984 on abortions after prenatal sex, determination stated that 7,999 out of 8,000 of the aborted fetuses were females. Sex determination has become a lucrative business. Deficits in nutrition and health-care also overwhelmingly target female children, according to research.
There is a definite bias in feeding boys milk and milk products and eggs. In Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, it is usual for girls and women to eat less than men and boys and to have their meal after the men and boys had finished eating. Greater mobility outside the home provides boys with the opportunity to eat sweets and fruit from saved up pocket money or from money given to buy articles for food consumption. In case of illness, it is usually boys who have preference in health care; more is spent on clothing for boys than for girls which also affects morbidity.
Another disturbing finding is that despite the increased ability to command essential food and medical resources associated with development, female children in India do not improve their survival chances relative to male children with gains in development. Relatively high levels of agricultural development decrease the life chances of females while leaving males' life chances unaffected; urbanisation increases the life chances of males more than females. Clearly, gender-based discrimination in the allocation of resources persists and even increases, even when availability of resources is not a constraint.
Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. The leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent undergoes sterilisation, the government will give the family $160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in installments as the girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her 20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the expenses of higher education.
It is a challenge today to initiate a vibrant, effective campaign against female foeticide in India. Organisations and individuals with different priorities and ideological beliefs need to rally together to battle powerful patriarchal forces operating within the institutions of the family and civil society.
The country's national law against prenatal diagnostic technique, Act of 1994, is a positive step which has enabled the National Human Rights Commission to direct the Medical Council of India to take action against doctors found abusing prenatal diagnostic techniques. There is a need for sustained campaigning and active monitoring of the act. State governments need to realize the importance and priority of the law and not merely treat it with their usual complacency. Structures for implementation of the 1994 law need to be created and volunteers must be actively mobilised to monitor registration and functioning of sex determination clinics at different districts. Cases must be filed against the violators and social consciousness must be raised against the crime.
ti-female bias is by no means limited to poor families. Much of the discrimination is to do with cultural beliefs and social norms. These norms themselves must be challenged if this practice is to stop.
India is also the heartland of sex-selective abortion. Amniocentesis was introduced in 1974 to ascertain birth defects in a sample population but was quickly appropriated by medical entrepreneurs. A spate of sex-selective abortions followed. Researchers point out that those women who undergo sex determination tests and abort on knowing that the foetus is female are actively taking a decision against equality and the right to life for girls. In many cases, of course, the women are not independent agents but merely victims of a dominant family ideology based on preference for male children.
Indian state governments have sometimes taken measures to diminish the slaughter of infant girls and abortions of female fetuses. The leaders of Tamil Nadu are holding out a tempting carrot to couples in the state with one or two daughters and no sons: if one parent undergoes sterilisation, the government will give the family $160 in aid per child. The money will be paid in installments as the girl goes through school. She will also get a small gold ring and on her 20th birthday, a lump sum of $650 to serve as her dowry or defray the expenses of higher education.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed