A new study published in the medical journal The Lancet (subscription required) exposes the staggering numbers involved in India’s greatest shame. The BBC reports:
More than 10m female births may have been lost to abortion and sex selection in the past 20 years, according to research in The Lancet medical journal.Researchers in India and Canada said prenatal selection and selective abortion was causing the loss of 500,000 girls a year.
Their research was based on a national survey of 1.1m households in 1998.
The researchers said the “girl deficit” was more common among educated women but did not vary according to religion.In most countries, women slightly outnumber men, but separate research for the year 2001 showed that for every 1,000 male babies born in India, there were just 933 girls. [Link]
The one result of the study which really makes me lose hope for the future is that a more educated woman is even MORE likely to pursue sex selection by abortion (although this could be due to pressure from their equally more educated spouse). Also, there is an even larger spike in people selecting the sex of their babies through abortion if there has already been a daughter born into a family.
In cases where the preceding child was a girl, the ratio of girls to boys in the next birth was 759 to 1,000.This fell even further when the two preceding children were both girls. Then the ratio for the third child born was just 719 girls to 1,000 boys.
However, for a child following the birth of a male child, the gender ratio was roughly equal.
<
p>Basically this means that for a female fetus to see the light of day she has to hope that she has an older brother waiting on the other side for her.
Dr [Shirish] Sheth says: “Female infanticide of the past is refined and honed to a fine skill in this modern guise. It is ushered in earlier, more in urban areas and by the more educated … A careful demographic analysis of actual and expected sex ratios shows that about 100 million girls are missing from the world – they are dead…” [Link]
This study is being disputed by:
“A spokesman for the Indian Medical Association acknowledged that prenatal selections used to take place, but said they were not as widespread as before and that the Lancet report was exaggerated.
“This has not been happening for the past four or five years after strict laws were put in place,” the spokesman, Dr Narendra Saini, said.”
“”It is a sensational piece of work,” Sabu George, who campaigns against female foeticide, told the AFP news agency.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4601184.stm
ugh — a lot of people in this thread have said, “oh, in south india it isn’t like this”, etc…. actually this is an all-india problem — every class, every community, every state, period. saying that it is relegated to the north betrays a willingness to accept numbers at face value, when those numbers are being doubted by ngos and aid workers at every turn. someone threw out a 996/1000 sex ratio for the south — where did that come from?
996/1000 would probably mean that MALE foetuses are being aborted. There is a slightly higher chance that any given foetus will be male. 950-960F/1000M would be the approximate sex ratio if all else is equal. India does not have accurate data for sex at birth because of the inadequacies of the registration system. What it has is data for children aged 0-5. Though there may be a difference in the relative mortality rates of boys and girls that contribute to the disparity, one can fairly conclude that sex selective abortion plays a significant role. Witness a place like South Delhi, where there should be no disparate treatment between male and female infants in health care (nor is there any evidence of infanticide) and yet there is a highly skewed sex ratio.
Punjab, Harayana, Delhi, Gujarat have ratios of between 790/1000 to 870/1000, which puts those states in line with or worse off than the East Asian patriarchies–S. Korea and China.
In contrast Bengal, Orissa and all of the South Indian States (with the exception of Tamil Nadu), are in the 960/1000 range or higher, which puts them in line with the West. Even Tamil Nadu currently has a ratio of 930/1000. This is not to say that they cannot emulate the North Indian barbarism any time soon.
This is a recent problem–in 1991 the census data revealed a 945/1000 ratio (which was in line with a place like Germany, which has a 948/1000 ratio. It fell, thanks to Punjab and Gujurat, down to 927/1000 and may be getting worse.
Amartya Sen beleives that there is some evidence that women themselves may be choosing abortion–in other words they have agency, and its not a matter of being coerced by the MIL or husband all of the time.
This is also more an urban problem than a rural problem. I still believe that Hindu sants have a big role to play here. Middle class Hindu families are, on average, deeply religious, and tend to flock to gurus and sadhus. If the evils of sex selection are hammered home enough, they will begin to listen. Its happened before: Ram Mohun Roy spoke out against sati, Vivekananda against untouchability, etc.
No. As I explained above, there is a difference between aborting because a baby has a PATHOLOGICAL (severely disabled) state and a PHYSIOLOGICAL (female) state.
Quite possibly, although “societal disapproval” could also play a huge part in redressing this issue if it happened on a wide enough scale. I think that the reason all these nasty practices are so prevalent is because the people concerned feel that, to some extent or another, there is some kind of cultural sanction for such behaviour. Now, bearing in mind the desi obsession with what “samaaj/other people will think”, if there was sufficiently widespread and unequivocal condemnation of female foeticide/infanticide within the general population, and outright condemnation of the perpetrators, then that can also act as a restraint on people considering indulging in such horrific practices.
The whole “samaaj” mindset plays a big role in Indian culture, remember.
I don’t disregard that. You are right. At the end of the day people should do what is feasible for them. And the financial reasons people perceive to be a huge issue in having girls is a notable one. However shouldn’t society as a whole address this? Isn’t that the least the “thinking/feeling” society can do for it’s people? If I lived in a neighborhood that was starting to get run down, do I just accept my faith and live with it or move away? Do I owe nothing to my neighborhood and it’s people to attempt to fix it?
Men don’t “become” gay. I hope thatÂ’s not what you meant. They are either gay or straight and they’ve been around since the beginning of time so frankly as a woman I’m not at all fazed by the fact that men are gay. They don’t take away from the pool of straight men in any way because who would want a gay man pretending to be straight? There is no shortage of men, just “available” men and that’s a whole other discussion session for another time. 🙂
I will pick it up. Thank you. This is a depressing topic.
If the evils of sex selection are hammered home enough, they will begin to listen. Its happened before: Ram Mohun Roy spoke out against sati, Vivekananda against untouchability, etc. Eddie
You have a very important point there. Arya Samaj played a big role in ending sati, in addition being banned. I read that article carefully again- the authors have a point too- they are seeing different female deficit for different family structure (boy or girl eldest child) – that has to be man-made, some thing like abortion.
Your question about Punjabi families in Delhi – you are right – that there is probably sex selection going on.
Abortion Statistics – Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing. 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby. 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child. 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.) 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career. 7.9% of women want no (more) children. 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
The bolded % shows that most of of the abortions in US happen because of socio-economic problems. The reason seems to be same in India but much more biased towards females. That bias could actually be seen in later parts of their lives when girls are perceived as liabilities.
Does anyone have a similar % wise reasons for abortion in India?
Jane of all trades Of course some are biologically gay, agreed. The point was there may be less men available just as there may be fewer women. Dont care for the demographic argument. Yes, society needs changes, meanwhile the right approach is not to deny someone an abortion / make them feel terrible/ or insist they have a girl they do not want. By the way, sex selection is happening by selecting the ‘right’ sperm. Banks centrifuge it, I am told, to increase the chances of a certain sex. Also certain days, re vaginal acidity, are almost failproof re conceiving a boy. Are these techniques more acceptable?
Still feel if someone wants to abort for ANY reason, let them. Those in favor of contraception should accept abortion is the logical conclusion when it fails. Some cannot/will not look after a female child. If this makes you indignant, organize care for the mother/baby. Not correct to tell the mother what to do and leave her to cope with an unwanted female. Tired! Anyway thx re reply.
Bong Breaker
You have judged me based on couple of comments I made here, adding to that you have lectured me about criticism and Indian traits. 🙁 Its Really boring as I already know the things you have mentioned.
The impression I got after reading your post is that you are trying to patronize me. Its my turn to judge you based on what you have lectured.
BTW do you work for BBC ? 🙂
Prasad, please point out where I “judged” you. No I don’t work for the BBC, I’m a student. And no I wasn’t trying to patronise you, it was a serious post.
I find this statement to be shocking. One should not have the right to have an abortion just because it wouldn’t be financially beneficial to have a child of a certain sex. If you are in a situation where having a child (in this case, a girl) would be detrimental because of money, or whatever reason, don’t take the risk by having sex! When you have sex, one should realize that they may end up having a child, even if they do use contraceptives. And no, abortion is not a logical conclusion! How does that even make sense??
Because once you structure an argument around a woman’s unfettered choice, and her right to control the use of her body, then you don’t judge her choices.