Abstract
The contemporary picture of progressively declining numbers of girls in the age group of 0–6, commonly known as child sex ratio, is reminiscent of the old patterns of patriarchal discrimination toward women and girls. The last two decades, however, have seen a new era of sex discrimination that differs from the ancient regime, not only in terms of practice which was characterized by infanticide and neglect of girl children, but also in terms of methods which are now driven by prenatal sex-determination tests. It is symptomatic of how the ‘modern’ concept of having fewer children—a smaller family—juxtaposes with the ‘traditional’ idea of having sons—the social and geographical spread of which is far beyond the traditionally known pockets of adverse child sex ratio. These issues are complex, to say the least. The author addresses the more contemporary situation regarding child sex ratios and draws extensively on secondary sources of data to map an overview of issues that are implicated in the declining numbers of baby girls in India. She deals with the characteristic gendered regimes in India as a backdrop, followed by a discussion on the changing geographical pattern of child sex ratios in India. Finally, the author concludes by locating the issues in wider socio-cultural realities that continue to engage the nation’s concern.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
It may be noted that most of the discussion on sex ratios in India is confined to the age group 0–6 which is not the ‘child sex ratio’ as the definition of child is not restricted to this particular age cohort. Ironically, the Indian Census had made data separately available for this particular age group for calculating literacy (for the population which would exclude the non-school going children in 0–6 age cohort from the denominator) so as to make literacy rates at par with the international standards (Bose 2001). The readily available data had made most scholars use it to denote child sex ratios.
- 2.
Purewal (2010: 10) sees the emergence of the phenomenon of ‘son preference’ as a construct of a colonial project that privileged one set off information over others neglecting ‘counter-hegemonic voices’ that may negate son preference as clearly an outcome of a ‘gendered society’. Citing Punjab as an example, she questioned as to how activists’ agenda can be linked with historical incidents of female infanticide and foeticide. Likewise, in her exposition, the modernist concern around ‘son preference’ was embedded in the wider development discourses and policies related to women’s uplift. The issue of CSR has thus been explored extensively with widely differing stances and angles.
- 3.
Internationally, sex ratio is expressed as number of males per 100 females. Following the norm, the sex ratio at birth (SRB) is about 105 (generally in the range 103–107). Converted into Indian (South Asian) convention of number of females per 1000 males, 105 M/100 F works out to be 952 F/1000 M (100 × 1000/105 = 952) or rounded to 950 females per 1000 males. This is accepted as the normal sex ratio at birth (SRB). For the ages 0–6, there would be some change if early childhood mortality varies by sex; but if there is no such differential, under normal conditions, the sex ratio in ages 0–6 should also be around 950 girls per 1000 boys. Minor deviations occur as the SRB varies slightly from population to population but a large deviation from 950 implies either that SRB is abnormal (as has happened due to sex selection in India in the past 2–3 decades) or there is large sex differential in infant and childhood mortality, or there is sex selective under reporting (as used to happen in censuses in the past), or a combination of these factors.
- 4.
Converted to international conventions, the 1991 CSR was 105.8; in 2001 it was 107.8. The all India average masks the much higher CSR in the Punjab (126.1 in 2001 up from 114.3 in 1991), Haryana 122.0 in 2001 up from 113.8 in 1991, and Gujarat 113.9 up from 107.8 in 1991) (Arnold, Kishor and Roy 2002).
- 5.
Guilmoto (2007) identified two differentiated regimes to account for the declining number of girls: the old regime which was characterized by neglect and infanticide in some parts of western India covering Rajasthan, parts of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh and the new regime when the sex-discrimination started to increase during the late 1970s. He attributes this shift to methods of prenatal sex determination which made it possible because of amniocentesis and ultrasound technologies. Started as a part of an overall improvement in the reproductive healthcare, these new technologies were an unexpected option offering couples advanced information on the sex of their future children.
- 6.
Das Gupta (1987) found that excess female mortality for second and subsequent parity daughters was 32% higher than their siblings for uneducated mothers and 136% higher if the mothers were educated. Also see, John et al. 2008.
- 7.
The estimated %age of undercount by sex, which can be derived from the post-enumeration surveys of 1951, 1971, 1981, and 1991 Censuses indicate that the male/female differential of undercount had decreased overt time. Moreover, the undercount of girls in the 0–4 and 5–9 age groups was not found to be very different from that of the corresponding male undercount. For example, in the 1991 Census, the net omission rate of girls in the age group 0–4 was 23.5 per 1000 as against 24.0 of boys. In the age group 5–9, girls’ undercount was 17.6 per 1000 against 17.5 for boys (Premi 2001).
- 8.
Kaur (2007) notes how improvements in literacy among Punjabi women seem to have led them toward a small family weighted in favor of boys. Literacy (presumably leading to awareness), coupled with high income are allowing couples to plan their families much more deliberately and ruthlessly than ever before.
- 9.
Although India is presently ranked by the UN as a middle-income country, two recent findings from the World Economic Forum place the country among the lowest ranked nations in terms of gender equity (Human development report 2010; Hausmann R, Tyson L.D. and Zahidi S.2010).
- 10.
The term ‘son preference’ refers to families’ attitudes toward sons as more valuable than toward daughters. The customary marriage rituals and other social practices such as old age support have made Indian parents desire more sons. Daughters in contrasts, are usually perceived as a substantial economic liability. Although, these perceptions are undergoing change, the preferential attitude toward sons continues to dominate.
- 11.
There is yet another issue here. The PNDT Act made it difficult for government hospitals to release information about the sex of the unborn child. However, private hospitals and individual private practitioners indulge in ultrasound malpractices. One of the gynecologists explained her dilemma: if I do not abort the female fetus, the woman would go to some quack or use some home-made potion that may put her life to risk. If I do it, at least that risk is avoided. Sex selection tests have become so lucrative that a nexus of midwives, nurses, and health functionaries has developed—each one getting a ‘monetary cut’. As Unninathan-Kumar (2010) points out, against the western concept of establishing a maternal bond between the mother and the child in a pregnant mother providing the basis for monitoring, the scan in India (Rajasthan) is perceived as alleviating the moral predicament concerning abortion—of not delivering the female child who may not be wanted because of prior daughters or a desire to have a son.
- 12.
Initially a few donor agencies and NGOs tried to rope in some religious leaders to persuade people against sex selective abortions. But given the multi religious composition of the Indian population and the delicate nature of the issue, an imminent danger of fundamentalists’ appropriation of the concern made the attempt unviable.
References
Subramanian SV, Selvaraj S. Social analysis of sex imbalance in India: before and after the implementation of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PNDT) Act. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2009;63(3):245–252. [https://jech.bmj.com/content/63/3/245]
Gupta MD. Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population Dev Rev. 1987;13(1):77–100. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1972121]
Poffenberger T. The endangered sex: Neglect of female children in rural north India, Ithaca, New York: Barbara D. Miller. Cornell University Press;1982. p. 201. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/24113]
Bose A. fighting female foeticide: Growing greed and shrinking child sex ratio. Economic Political Wkly. 2001;36(36):3427–3429. [https://www.epw.in/tags/child-sex-ratio]
Unnithan-Kumar M. Female selective abortion—beyond ‘culture’: family making and gender inequality in a globalising India. Cult Health Sex 2010;12(2):153–166. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784529]
Arnold F, Choe MK, Roy TK. Son preference: sex selection, gender and culture in South Asia. Popul Stud J Demography. 2010;52(3):301–315. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2648099]
Kishor S. May god give sons to all: gender and child mortality in India. Am. Sociol. Rev.1993;58(2):247–265. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095969]
Veena N. Review article: Satish Balram Agnihotri, sex ratio patterns in the Indian population: a fresh exploration, New Delhi: Sage Publications;2000; Raju S, Atkins PJ, Kumar N, Townsend JG. Atlas of Women and Men in India, New Delhi: Kali for Women; 1999. Gender Technology and Development. 2000 Nov 1. [https://doi.org/10.1177/097185240000400307]
Croll E. Endangered daughters: discrimination and development in Asia. Routledge & CRC Press; 2000 Dec. [https://www.routledge.com/Endangered-Daughters-Discrimination-and-Development-in-Asia/Croll/p/book/9780415247658]
Arokiasamy P. Regional patterns of sex bias and excess female child mortality in India. Population English Ed 2002;59(6):833–863. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3654897]
Arokiasamy P. Sex ratio at birth and excess female child mortality in India: Trends, differentials and regional patterns. In: Watering the neighbours’ garden: the growing demographic deficit in Asia. Committee for international cooperation in national research in demography. 2007. p. 49–72. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281404785_Sex_Ratio_at_Birth_and_Excess_Female_Child_Mortality_in_IndiaTrends_Differentials_and_Regional_Patterns]
Guilmoto CZ. The Sex ratio transition in Asia. Population Dev Rev 2009;35(3):519–549. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00295.x]
John ME, Kaur R, Palriwala R, Raju S, Sagar A. Planning families, planning gender: The adverse child sex ratio in selected districts of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab. International Development Research Centre and ActionAid. 2008. [https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/handle/10625/39996]
Premi MK. The missing girl child. Economic and Political Weekly. 2001;36(21). [https://www.epw.in/journal/2001/21/review-industry-and-management-review-issues-specials/missing-girl-child.html]
Bhat PNM & Zavier AJF. Fertility decline and gender bias in Northern India. Demography. 2003;40(4):637–657. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1515201]
Raju S, Rudnick A, Oberhauser A, Gerharz E, Sultana F, Acharya J, Baker K, Lahiri-Dutt K, Erwer M, Backhaus N, Halvorson Sj, Jewitt SL, Aladuwaka S, Thieme S. Gendered Geographies: space and place in South Asia. Oxford University Press. 2011 Jan. [https://philpapers.org/rec/RAJGGS]
Sopher DE. An exploration of India. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. National Science Foundation. 1980. [http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.131926]
Dyson T, Moore M. On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Popul Dev Rev 1983;9(1):35–60. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1972894]
Raju S, Bagchi D. Women and work in South Asia: regional patterns and perspectives. Routledge & CRC Press. 1994 Jan 6. [https://www.routledge.com/Women-and-Work-in-South-Asia-Regional-Patterns-and-Perspectives/Bagchi-Raju/p/book/9780415042499]
Arnold F, Kishor S, Roy TK. Sex-selective abortions in India. Popul Dev Rev. 2004;28(4):759–785. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00759.x]
Malhotra A, Vanneman RD, Kishor S. Fertility dimensions of patriarchy and development in India. Population Dev Rev. 1995. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2137495]
Sundaram K, Tendulkar SD. The Poor in the Indian labour force in the 1990s. No 128, Working papers. Centre for Development Economics, Delhi School of Economics. 2004 Sep. [https://ideas.repec.org/p/cde/cdewps/128.html]
Clark S. Son preference and sex composition of children: Evidence from India. Demography. 2000;37(1):95–108. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2648099]
Krishnaji N. Poverty and sex ratio-some data and speculations. Economic and Political Weekly. 1987;22(23). [https://www.epw.in/journal/1987/23/special-articles/poverty-and-sex-ratio-some-data-and-speculations.html]
Hausman R, Tyson LD, Zahidi S. The global gender gap report: 2010, Geneva. World Economic Forum. 2010. [https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2010.pdf]
Seth S. Skewed sex ratio at birth in India. J Biosoc Sci. 2010;42(1):83–97. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932009990253]
Gupta MD. Explaining Asia’s “missing women”: a new look at the data. Popul Dev Rev. 2005;31(3):529–535. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3401477]
Sekher T, Hatti N. Vulnerable daughters in a modernizing society: from ‘son preference’ to ‘daughter discrimination’ in S India. Department of Economic History, Lund Papers in Economic History. 2006. [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Vulnerable-Daughters-in-a-Modernizing-Society%3A-From-Sekher-Hatti/c9530607c8490c58ad0f2e601765f011ad865064]
Kane P. Review of girls’ schooling, women’s autonomy and fertility change in South Asia by Roger Jeffrey, Alaka M. Basu. Health Trans Rev. 1996;6(2):231–233. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40652222]
Moursund A, Kravdal Ø. Individual and community effects of women’s education and autonomy on contraceptive use in India. Popul Stud. 2003;57(3):285–301. [https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472032000137817]
George SM. Sex selection/determination in India: Contemporary developments. Reprod Health Matter. 2002;10(19):190–192. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(02)00034-4]
Das NP, Mishra VK, Saha PK. Does community access affect the use of health and family welfare services in rural India? National Fam Health Subject Rep No 18. 2001 May. [http://catalog.ihsn.org/citations/5085]
Pathak PK, Singh A, Subramanian SV. Economic inequalities in maternal health care: Prenatal care and skilled birth attendance in India, 1992–2006. Public Libr Sci One. 2010;5(10). [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013593]
University Grants Commission. Higher education in India: issues related to expansion, inclusiveness, quality and finance. University Grants Commission. 2008 Nov. [https://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/pub/report/12.pdf]
Attané I, Guilmoto C. Watering the neighbour’s garden. The growing female deficit in Asia. Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography. 2007 Aug. [http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/BOOK_singapore.pdf]
Anderson S. Why dowry payments declined with modernization in Europe but are rising in India. J Polit Econ. 2003; 111(2):269–310. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3555204]
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raju, S. (2023). Developing India Has an Underbelly: The Tale of Missing Daughters. In: Pachauri, S., Verma, R.K. (eds) Transforming Unequal Gender Relations in India and Beyond. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4086-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4086-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4085-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4086-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)