Our site administrator Paul tips us off to an article over at the BBC today that highlights a unique new program launched by the government of India:
The Indian government is planning to set up a network of cradles around the country where parents can leave unwanted baby girls.
The minister for women and child development, Renuka Chowdhury, told BBC News the cradles would be “everywhere”.
It is the latest initiative to try to wipe out the practice of female foeticide and female infanticide. [Link]
In my opinion anything that will help mitigate the foeticide and infanticide scourge is a good thing, but the imagery of little cradles set up around the country is kind of bittersweet.
“We will have cradles strategically placed all over the place so that people who don’t want their babies can leave them there,” Ms Chowdhury told the BBC News website.
The cradles could be in places as diverse as the local tax collector’s office, or where local councils meet.
Ms Chowdhury said parents would be able to leave their babies secretly. The important thing was to save their lives…
“They will be collected and put into homes,” she said. “There are plenty of existing homes and we will be adding some more also…” [Link]
Apparently there is actually a precedent for this type of program (in Japan):
The drop-off at Jikei Hospital in southern Japan will consist of a small window in an outside wall, which opens on to an incubator bed, officials say.
Once a baby has been placed inside, an alarm bell will alert staff. [Link]
OK Kush — thanks for straightening me out! The conspiracy against India by nefarious angrezi newspapers has been destroyed.
I agree. Death is a foreign concept imposed on India by colonialists. Why, last year, when my uncle died in Delhi, we sniffed at the very thought of it. As for life being sacred also being foreign to India, it is a concept we should struggle to fight against lest we are corrupted with foreign corruption.
Dabba – some of us pledged that years ago.
As for the lack of a debate on abortion, no doubt one of the reasons the right to abortion was legalised earlier in India than in the US (and without a fight that I know if) is that desis are much more into social appearances (not having a daughter give birth out of wedlock, selecting the sex of a child) than the sacredness of life at conception etc etc, but even though the right to abortion may be abused a fair bit, I’m glad we have it.
oh, i forgot to spell it out. debates take place within a framework. that framework (and the attitudes it generates) doesn’t exist in india. but go ahead and consider the indians incapable of moral reflection. anyway, now i’m out before abhi ventures in to do the job.
How exactly is Life “un sacred” in India?
oh, i forgot to spell it out. debates take place within a framework. that framework (and the attitudes it generates) doesn’t exist in india. but go ahead and consider the indians incapable of moral reflection.
What are you basing that on? Is there any polling data reflecting these attitudes or are you relying upon anecdotal evidence? Would the Muslims in India have the same attitude to abortion as shared by Hindus? North versus South? Urban versus Rural?
Good thinking. Next we need to campaign for the government to stop intervening in terrorist conspiracies, the insurgencies in Kashmir etc etc. My brush of contempt sweeps towards them.
Great example! They are EXACTLY the same!
Desi_Guy:
Floridian:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the jist of desi_guy’s argument that one can never be sure about the genetic fitness of an adopted child? Meaning, yeah, the kid might love you, but what if he turns out to be some vile sub-human that doesn’t even have a graduate degree? That’s what made me cringe (sitting in my soft chair, etc…), anyway.
For what it’s worth, my parents have been in the states since the 70s as well, and my grandparents take turns living with us and my uncles and aunts. I plan to do the same. I don’t think this mode of caring for older relatives will die out any time soon — I’ve never met an ABD who thinks it’s a bad idea.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the jist of desi_guy’s argument that one can never be sure about the genetic fitness of an adopted child? Meaning, yeah, the kid might love you, but what if he turns out to be some vile sub-human that doesn’t even have a graduate degree?”
I am at a loss for words. Are you implying that you, FOR EXAMPLE, are genetically more fit than another human just because your parents did not give you up for adoption? What if they were unable to take care of you and did turn you over for adoption? Would that have radically altered your genetic fitness, whatever that term means? Merely being raised by adoptive rather than biological parents, would you then have incurred a greater risk of becoming some vile sub-human without a graduate degree? Finally, is getting a graduate degree genetically controlled? I thought educational attainment was influenced by cultural norms, parental guidance and ultimately one’s own aspirations.
Also, the gist (it’s spelled with a g, not a j) of desi_guy’s point was not what you surmised at all.
Floridian, I think the argument about the “doubtful genes” of an adopted child is rooted in the assumption that those who give up a child for adoption are going to be from a poorer background, lower down the social ladder, and in the desi mindset that suggests they might be genetically primed for failure. I suppose it all depends on whether you think that a) social class reflects the distribution of intelligence more or less, b) genes are more important than education and c) you might resent or not be able to deal with a child who isn’t as bright and perfect as one you could have produced. I don’t share these assumptions, but I can see why they would be a problem for many.
Floridian, I don’t believe that at all. Which is why I found desi_guy’s argument (as I read it) cringe-worthy. That seemed to be where he was going:
That comment definitely links genetic fitness to “being well-off” and providing a good life post-retirement. My reaction to that was about as outraged as your reaction to my comment seems.
And I apologize for the spelling error. Evidence of genetic unfitness, perhaps. 🙂
I think the argument about the “doubtful genes” of an adopted child is rooted in the assumption that those who give up a child for adoption are going to be from a poorer background, lower down the social ladder, and in the desi mindset that suggests they might be genetically primed for failure
Heh. So the word ‘caste’ is the proverbial elephant in the room for this discussion, I guess.
That is, I wonder how much the “doubtful gene” point of view is rooted in the murky caste antecedents of an adopted child.
Now, as a prospective adoptive parent, we have not been too concerned about stuff like that, but we have been asked about our “preferences” on this score a few times, which makes me think other prospective adoptive parents have cared.
Caste assumptions probably enter into it consciously or unconsciously, yes. But it’s prevalent even among those who are otherwise far from caste-ridden, to use the charming desi expression. It’s also not that different from bell-curve type thinking about race in the US….
M Nam,
(I see you’re stuck here after the fiasco on “that other site”; you may remeber me as ‘Mahound’).
The skewed sex ratio has actually to do with the family planning initiated by Chacha. Hindus took it seriously. Muslims, of course, did not. We will see the effects of the resulting muslim demographic bomb within our lifetime. This is the real issue and, yes, the Hindus will get a taste for it very soon (as they have in Pakistan and Bangladesh).
All this family planning stuff was unceremoniously dropped by Manmohan after the elections. No rewards for guessing why.
Welcome Mahound! Your Himalayan sized balls of saffron are needed here. MoorNam demands that you tea bag him with them soon. I too have felt them in the cyber-sphere. Their girth is impressive. The vibrations alone when you slap them on the keyboard strikes fear into the mlecchas and anti-nationals. I quiver with excitement imagining them wobbling with righteous saffron rage.
LeftoFascists! Stop writing things that upset us! This is because of you! All your fault! Mahound and SpoorLam combine now! Are you shitting your pants yet? You should be!
Death to Professor Amardeep Singh! Death to ummmm, Deepa Mehta! Death to Lisa Ray! Death to the Oscar jury for shortlisting our persecution for best foreign film! Death to Canada for submitting it under amended acaedmy of motion picture rules! Therefore, freedom for Quebec!
(all metaphorically speaking though because death is a colonial construct not recognised by Vedic science)
Hail Mogambo!
Well said, MoorNam! (nice to see you back, BTW!)
I think banning female foeticide is not gonna help anything. Nor is trying to address the problem at the level of the girl’s family. To me, trying to convince a child’s parents to not kill the girl baby is analogous to Christian churches in the US arguing that abortion is bad and children should be given love etc. It’s ultimately economic. WHO is gonna PAY the financial cost in both cases?
A large chunk of abortions in the US are for young mothers who cannot afford to have the baby (I’m guessing here). So lecturing them not to have an abortion due to some high-faluting moral issue is stupid. How’s that child gonna get a good upbringing?
Similarly, it’s totally useless to lecture parents not to kill the girl children unless they have a viable financial incentive not to do so. I know I’m cynical, but in a society where parents kill their babies coz of gender, I think a little cynicism is not unwarranted.
In both cases, the issue has to be addressed in the larger social context. Dowry is one primary evil that needs to be attacked. Just because there are fewer and less publicised bride-burnings now does not mean that dowry has disappeared. It’s still well and alive in more insidious ways.
Every other step for women’s independence and respect will help. Independent women who can support their parents and are not seen as financial liabilities, a sexual revolution seeing women as equal, sexual beings and not the property of men, all these will be steps towards a perception of women as valuable human beings.
technophobicgeek what’s wrong with attacking them both at the same time? Since when was it a lazy lethargic fatalistic binary choice between changing the culture and mindset that leads to it (which will take generations) or going for the abortionists and gender selectors like guerilla soldiers to seek them out and prosecute hard? The whole premise of your post is false. Indian society should do both of those things simultaneously.
Red Snapper. I have no problems with attacking the issue from both sides. However, I do feel that most efforts seem to focus on the child’s parents rather than the larger social and women’s issues. People seem to stop discussing issues like dowry unless there are some high-profile crimes related to it.
Oh that’s OK then techophobicgeek. You agree that it needs to be attacked physically through prosecution and on a wider societal level too. So you don’t believe it’s futile banning it or doing things like throwing scumbag gender selective abortionists in jail whilst the wider issues get addressed and that both can be done simultaneously. Then we’re in agreement!
Nobody yet here has said anything about female foeticide among desi’s in the west. Here in Canada it is a major problem in the punjabi community. I know of several families where the wife was forced to have an abortion by her husband or mother-in-law just because she was pregant with a girl.
Does anyone know how/why the dowry system died down in Europe? It used to be quite common there.
When women are allowed to own their own property and manage their own assets, dowry disappears. They cease to become a tradable economic commodity.
Clueless,
That’s really awful (if you’re correct that it’s a widespread phenomenon). I think this is the kind of thing that ABD (or CBD) groups should really be looking at. I know that there are a few different organizations devoted to empowering South Asian women here in Chicago, but coerced gender-specific abortions really deserve their own investigation.
Does anyone know what happened to all those convent-educated injun papooses, mercifully stripped them from their degraded and immoral injun-american mothers.
I think it’s is a big problem with the Punjabi community everywhere. Even in India, Punjab traditionally was one of more prosperous states but has I think one of the more skewed population ratios in the country.
Actually, to backpeddle furiously, diasporic gender issues are things that American and Canadian Desi groups in general should be considering, regardless of where people are born. I added the “B” into the acronyms purely out of habit and was not trying to draw any generational/birthplace distinction. Sorry.
Neal [with no e]. Alot of these women here in Vancouver are looked down at, for the simple reason they have failed to give there familes a boy
I know a women who had 2 daughters and had 3 abortions before she was able to give her family there precious ‘jatt’ son.
We have several indo-canadian mp’s in office in British Columbia. But they won’t say anything cause they don’t want to upset the base.
I have been told that this thing also happens alot in Toronto.
In India punjab has the worst birth ratio at 793/1000.
Several of the local punjabi newpaper in Vancouver have done had adversting for a company just across the border in Washington State which is can help couple very early in the pregancy determine the sex of the baby. I wonder who that ad is a target for.
That reminds me, a long time back DoorDarshan in pre-cable TV days used to run these commercials about how the gender of a boy is dictated by the chromosome type from the male (Y or X) and if someone actually has a girl, it is because the male donated the Y chromosome and not X (not sure if I got my biological facts right, but the gist remains the same) and so it was because of the man that a girl was born. I don’t know why they don’t run such commercials any more so that women wont be discriminated against for giving birth to a girl.
Other way around. Women are two X chromosomes. Come on, you’ll never be a good Indian doctor that way! 😉
It’s amazing that anyone can seriously believe that the gender of a baby is a single person’s “fault” though. I mean I understand a lack of knowledge about biology, but doesn’t everyone know that offspring are a combination of the mother and father?
Noon Ennui at 31
technophobicgeekat 66
I think misogyny is still expressed this way everywhere, but possibly, it is mediated by wealth or lack of wealth, so one might mistake it for a societal characteristic. I also think that so long as mostly Indian families and institutions receive girl-in-cradle babies, then that, combined with banning female foeticide, may go a long way towards preventing this and this and this.
Since a youthful population is one of India’s greatest current assets/strengths and is key to its secure prospects for economic growth, I hope the Chinese experience will make people in India appreciate what women and girls do for humankind before it’s too late.
Lol, guess thats why I did not become one 😉 I did realize my faux pas as soon as I posted it, which shows how effective those commercials were since the last I heard them were maybe 15-20 years back when I was a kid! At that age, I knew nothing about conception of a child but I did think that on growing up if I had a girl and I wanted a boy, it would be my own fault.
Haha, it’s all cool Ardy 🙂 Cool blog, btw
I mean I understand a lack of knowledge about biology, but doesn’t everyone know that offspring are a combination of the mother and father?
True, but in a culture that routinely makes such things the fault of the mother/wife, there’s no harm in putting more of the responsibility of siring a male child on the man. At the very least, it might help create a generation of men who don’t put the onus of bringing a male child into the world on their spouses.
Interestingly, once a man has two female children, the odds that a third child will also be female are extremely high (on the order of 80%, I think). So we need more men to shoot only X’s to alleviate the gender skewing in India! 😉
(Being facetious…don’t everybody jump on me all at once!)
So does anybody know of any part of India that has managed to reverse the statistics and if so, what did they do? There must be some glimmer of light in this.
I am married and have 1 daughter who is 8 years old. But since I’m punjabi, I have been told by many that my life is not complete unless I have a son. One time someone who I met only once in my life before, told me that he was go to the gurudwara and pray for me to have a son.
When I tell that I don’t need a son to make my life complete many in the punjabi community are shocked.
Before I moved to Vancouver a few years ago, I never had to deal with this crap.
Red Snapper, I’m sorry I came across that way. While I’m perfectly OK with prosecution etc, it’s extremely difficult to get it working in practice in India. Some of these attitudes are deeply rooted in society in parts of India.
I think we need to look back a couple of hundred years ago and study how practices like Sati were eliminated in India. AFAIK, It was a combination of legislation by the British and a social reform movement by Indian intellectuals like Rammohan Roy. I haven’t studied that period in detail, but I feel like that could provide us with ideas of how to go about eliminating deep-seated problems like this.
Legally, Indian women are allowed to do so and many of them do. But it’s not enough, I think.
It’s not only about rights, it’s also about the education and confidence to exercise those rights.
Lets offer green cards to all the female babies that have been given away; I would love to see how that scenario plays out. Sorry Mr India, no greencard Luxmi for you!
Red Snapper,
I am breaking my promise to not to comment.
Kerala, in fact stands as an anomaly in Asia***. The link will take you to reasons discussed by Chasin and Amartya Sen.
And I researched more on convictions regarding foeticide since 1994 law. They have been quite a few of them (mostly 1998 onwards) but most of them were poor women…..and lot of people, rightfully thought “it ended up victimizing the victim“. However, in 2006, for the first time, a doctor was charged guilty and sentenced 2 years jail. In actuality, it is very difficult to prove the case unless you field of domain is limited to Starbucks, as also discussed in my Harvard link earlier.
People like Swami Agnivesh, and soap operas probably will reach the hearts and minds more than anyone can. Back to lurking.
*** Kerala has a better average than most of Asia.
The thing that gets me is how this seems to be happening even amongst educated middle class people in the major cities whom you would expect to be more enlightened about these issues.
The first thing I thought of when reading this blog/article is all of the babies who will end up in the global sex trade market.
I was reading recently that toddlers younger than 4 are utilized in that racket.
Thanks Kush.
Thanks Neal. Likewise, cool stuff!
I have had the good fortune of meeting Swami Agnivesh. He had come down for a talk on Indo-Pak peace but ended up talking a lot about saving the girl child. He seemed like a really awesome guy. I was pleasantly surprised because I went in prejudiced by his attire and that he would talk mostly about religion, but instead he talked almost entirely on social issues and briefly as to why they tie in with spirituality.
Those are the people who should be severely punished. A poor uneducated person discriminating based on gender is at least understandable (which does not mean its right or acceptable) based on societal and financial pressures, an educated person who does not have to deal with such issues as much and who still has such an attitude is just a terrible thing.
Are there any laws that specifically get at the people who coerce women into gender-related abortions?
It would be unfortunate if prosecutions of doctors ultimately kept people from being able to access medical abortion providers for unrelated family planning reasons. I found an interesting report which examines the need for abortion providers in India, and the supply is definitely not meeting demand. I know that if this were the United States, any excuse to drive abortion providers out of business would be seized upon by religious organizations (and, indeed, the survey of providers included in the document reveals providers who are not particularly sympathetic to their patients).
Doctors who go out of their way to counsel gender-specific abortion absolutely need to be punished. But I would hope that these laws also cover men and women in the family and community who push women to abort female fetuses.
RE: Comment 49, there are two shruti texts (atleast) which are against Abortion. Kaushitaki Upanishad 3.1 describes abortion as equivalent to killing one’s parents. Atharva Veda 6.113.2 lists the foetus slayer, brunaghni, among the greatest of sinners. The KU belongs to the Rig Veda as I understand it.
RE: Comment 87, this may be off topic, but in India, thanks to the 1st Constitutional amendment by Nehru, no one has a physical right to property, but rather only a legal right.
Cheers, Prasanna
Todays NYT has an article about little bones being dug up in te backyard of an Indian hospital. Shocking!
Some caution is probably advised amidst the usual shrill sentimentality.
In the Indian villages, the orphaned child is usually accepted somewhere in the extended kinship network. This is in stark contrast to Western orphanages which have quite a sordid past; in fact we could probably make a strong case that while muslims subdue a conquered populace through harems and mamelukes, the christans do the same via orphanages. We can all remember corrupt evangelistic teams descending upon Indonesia during the tsunami, looking for orphans. Anyway, here is a small look into the political angle of orphanages:
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/holind.html
With their deep tradition of tribal and kinship ties, Native Americans had lived for centuries with little use for the concept of an unwanted child. But besieged by reservation life and boarding school acculturation, many tribes–with the encouragement of whites–came to accept the need for orphanages.
The first book to focus exclusively on this subject, Marilyn Holt’s study interweaves Indian history, educational history, family history, and child welfare policy to tell the story of Indian orphanages within the larger context of the orphan asylum in America. She relates the history of these orphanages and the cultural factors that produced and sustained them, shows how orphans became a part of native experience after Euro-American contact, and explores the manner in which Indian societies have addressed the issue of child dependency.
Holt examines in depth a number of orphanages from the 1850s to1940s–particularly among the “Five Civilized Tribes” in Oklahoma, as well as among the Seneca in New York and the Ojibway and Sioux in South Dakota. She shows how such factors as disease, federal policies during the Civil War, and economic depression contributed to their establishment and tells how white social workers and educational reformers helped undermine native culture by supporting such institutions. She also explains how orphanages differed from boarding schools by being either tribally supported or funded by religious groups, and how they fit into social welfare programs established by federal and state policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/25SEXTRAFFIC.html?ei=5007&en=43dbe6ef76e45af8&ex=1390366800&pagewanted=all&position=
CR, that’s exactly what we shouldn’t do, or it will be worse than China.
I bet at least half of these girls will end up in the sex trade. This is the kind of news that international pimps in the underground global slave trade are waiting to hear. They will be on India like fleas to a dog, if they are not already.
The article linked above gives some insight into how these rackets work.