Sex-Selective Abortion in India: An Abject Failure of Governance and Imagination
For a few ephemeral moments in July 2019 the world’s attention turned to the plight of women in India. Media outlets from across Asia, Europe, and North America carried breathless reports declaring that in no less than 132 villages in a single Indian state (Uttarakhand) no girls had been born in the three months between April and June.
It was irrelevant that the veracity of the reports themselves had been called into question by local officials who stated that the media had “cherry-picked” data or that the data, upon which the reports were based, was allegedly incomplete. This is because, just as spontaneously as the furore arose, the world predictably moved on. Just as with the now infamous Kathua, Unnao, and Delhi rape cases, once the initial morbid fascination and indignation had subsided, the challenges faced by women in India were once again largely ignored by the world.
While the reports, whether exaggerated or incomplete, captured the world’s attention due to their perceived novelty, they were all too familiar to many in India who have debated the causes and solutions to the slow burning demographic crisis caused by sex-selective abortion for decades.
This article does not aim to be a comprehensive explanation of the complex cultural, historical, and economic factors that have contributed to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion in India. Instead it aims to situate the debate about sex-selective abortion in India in its factual and historical context and critically examine the responses of successive Indian governments to the issue.
Sex-selective abortion in India: a statistical and legislative history
Although there is no definitive agreement among medical professionals on the precise natural sex ratio for humans at birth, it is generally agreed that the sex ratio is naturally weighted towards males. The World Health Organisation considers a ratio of 105:100 (that is 105 males born for every 100 females) to be the “natural” sex ratio applicable across all societies. Recent medical and sociological studies have indicated that a degree of variance from this natural ratio may be expected and can be explained by genetic, environmental, and societal factors, such as an under registration of female births in certain societies.
According to historical Indian census data, the nationwide sex ratio for children in the 0-6 age range has grown inexorably from 102.4 males per 100 females in 1961, to 104.2 in 1980, 107.5 in 2001, and finally to 108.9 in 2011. The 2011 census revealed that in three northern states (Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, and Punjab) the sex ratio for 0-6 year olds exceeded 115 males per 100 females. Astonishingly, no fewer than 18 Indian states and Union territories had sex ratios of higher than 107 males per 100 females for children aged between 0-6. This figure is of symbolic importance, as 107:100 is seen as the tipping point above which the WHO believe that the most credible explanation for such a skewed gender ratio is deliberate sex-selective abortion and infanticide.
Although useful in understanding the historical statistical shift in the sex ratio in India, the census data recounted above belies the truly staggering scale of sex-selective abortion in India. In 2011, the United Nations Population Fund released a comprehensive report analysing the sex ratio data contained within the 2011 Indian census and concluded that there were between 3.1 million and 6 million sex-selective abortions in India during the 2000s alone. At a minimum, the UN’s analysis translates into 310,000 sex-selective abortions per year or, put another way, almost 850 sex-selective abortions per day in the decade between 2000 and 2010.
In an effort to deter sex-selective abortions, in 1994 the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (“PCPNDT”) was passed criminalising pre-natal sex determination and requiring all venues, such as diagnostic clinics and ultrasound clinics, to register on a centrally managed list. The PCPNDT also criminalised the advertisement of pre-conception sex determination services and those found guilty of advertising such services can face fines or custodial sentences of up to 3 years.
However, from the outset the PCPNDT’s effectiveness has been fatally undermined by numerous factors, such as the advent of the internet which has made relatively cheap portable ultra-sound scanners more widely accessible. However, inconsistent and lackadaisical enforcement by law enforcement authorities has arguably been the single most important reason behind the PCPNDT’s failure to adequately tackle sex-selective abortion. This fact was explicitly acknowledged in the Supreme Court case of Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v Union of India by both Justices K.S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra who concluded that state governments and law enforcement agencies were failing to adequately enforce the law. For example, the Court noted with alarm that convincing evidence had been adduced which indicated that, although ultra-sound machines were often seized, if it could be proven that they were being used for the purposes of aiding in sex-selective abortions they were more often than not subsequently returned to their owners who could then (presumably) resume their activities.
The hopelessly ineffective enforcement of the PCPNDT was underlined further in 2018 by the then Minister for Health and Family Welfare Anupriya Patel, who in response to a question in the Rajya Sabha stated that, since its implementation, only 449 convictions had been secured under the provisions of the PCPNDT. The lack of convictions is even more galling given the scale of the problem of sex-selective abortions in India and indicates, in the author’s opinion, that there is a widespread apathy on the part of law enforcement agencies to the problem.
However, it would be overly simplistic to explain the failure of the PCPNDT in purely quantitative terms. The reality is far more nuanced and it is arguable that the PCPNDT, as a piece of centrally imposed legislation, would never have been able to curtail the prevalence of sex-selective abortion alone due to the deeply ingrained cultural bias in favour of male children. The causes of this bias are myriad and complex, but the author would like to focus on one in particular: dowries.
The Dowry System
A dowry is defined by the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 as an amount of valuable consideration (often in the form of jewellery or cash) that is paid by a prospective bride’s parents or extended family to the groom as a condition to marriage. Although the demanding of a dowry has been illegal in India since 1961, the practice is still widespread. This is not least because the wording of s.3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act expressly permits the payment of dowries if the dowry is not strictly considered to be a “necessary precondition” to marriage. This, alongside sporadic enforcement by law enforcement agencies, has allowed the practice to tacitly continue with devastating results. In 2015 alone, the National Crime Records Bureau estimated more than 7,500 women across India were killed in dowry related violence.
Beyond the vast number of deaths caused by dowry related violence, the prevalence of the practice is arguably one of the principal reasons behind the marked preference for sons that exists in certain Indian cultural groups. In simplistic terms, the practice means that many families may view the birth of a female child as giving rise to a financial “burden” that will potentially impoverish them. This is compounded by the fact that, as India has economically developed, men have disproportionately been able access higher paying careers, leading to a concomitant rise in the dowry prices demanded from the families of potential brides.
It has long been suggested that, for those families already struggling financially, the dowry system leads to an economic calculus which militates in favour of sex-selective abortion. This calculus is often chillingly and ruthlessly exploited, as women have for example, in one now notorious case, been extolled by advertisers to “pay 500 Rupees now (to have an abortion) rather than 50,000 Rupees (in payment of a dowry) later.” The criminalisation of pre-conception sex determination by the PCPNDT has led to the creation of a multi-million rupee underground industry specialising in the provision of cheap, easy to access ultrasound scans and back-street abortions to families who, despite the clear illegality of their actions, view the birth of a female child as an unbearable financial burden due to the dowry system.
When placed against this backdrop, the failure of the PCPNDT ought not to be deemed to be solely as a consequence of inadequate enforcement or technological advancement but also as an inevitability. Legislation, when used in isolation, is a blunt instrument which is ill suited to unseating deeply ingrained cultural practices and prejudices that have existed for centuries, particularly when those tasked with the implementation of that legislation may subscribe to the cultural practices and prejudices in question.
Having sketched the scale of sex-selective abortion in India and explored some of the failures of the existing legislation in tackling the problem, the author will now turn to the much vaunted “Beti Padhao Beti Bachao” (Educate the daughter, save the daughter) policy launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015.
Educate the daughter, save the daughter ("BBBP")
Launched on 22 January 2015, the BBBP is the principal policy of the Modi government rolled out in over 100 districts across India aimed at tackling sex-selective abortion. The policy has three stated aims, to: (i) prevent sex-selective abortion; (ii) ensure the survival and protection of female children; and (iii) ensure the education and continuing participation of girls in society. Eschewing the direct legislative approach of previous governments, Modi’s BBBP aimed to raise awareness about the issue of sex-selective abortion through a nationwide social media and advertising campaign focussing on the “value” of female children and limited interventions in districts where the sex ratio was severely skewed by sex-selective abortion and female infanticide.
At its launch, the BBBP was lauded by celebrities, politicians, and the Indian Medical Association (the largest association of physicians and medical students in India) alike as a game-changing policy that would help redress the deteriorating sex ratio in India. In place of a rigid inflexible legislative approach, it was argued that the BBBP would help to shift attitudes towards female children through generating a societal conversation about the value of female children and in so doing contribute to the end of sex selective abortion in India. However, 4 years after its launch the BBBP has arguably been an abject failure and has suffered from a number of critical shortcomings.
Principal among those shortcomings is the manner in which the BBBP has been implemented. In response to a question raised in January 2019 in the Lok Sabha, Virendra Kumar, the Minister of Women and Child development, revealed that in the 3 years from its inception 56% of the funds allocated to the BBBP were spent on “media activities” such as nationwide social media campaigns and advertisements aimed at raising awareness of the issue of sex-selective abortion and the value of female children. In stark contrast, only 5% of BBBP funds were allocated for the targeted interventions in “at-risk” districts. This skewed allocation of funds has meant that in practice little to nothing is being done on the ground to effect long term positive change.
Furthermore the BBBP, in an effort to avoid the rigidity of centrally promulgated legislation, was designed to be implemented and overseen by the state level counterparts of the Ministries for Women and Child Development, Health, and Human Resources. It was suggested that this approach would allow for a variegated, sensitive, and nuanced implementation of the BBBP. Unfortunately, according to the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) the continual failure of state level monitoring mechanisms has meant that the BBBP’s implementation has been severely stunted. For example, between January 2015 and March 2016, the CAG found that in Haryana no BBBP meetings were held at a district level and only one meeting was held at the State level. Implementation in neighbouring Punjab was so poorly managed that the CAG noted that the BBBP’s implementation was delayed in no fewer than 9 out of 11 districts.
These shortcomings are compounded by the fact that there is an annual divergence between the headline amount of funds allocated to the BBBP in government budgets and the amount actually subsequently released to States for implementing the BBBP. In 2016-17 the CAG found that only 20% of the funds allocated to the BBPP had actually been released and spent at the State level. When taken cumulatively, these shortcomings have essentially blunted the effectiveness of the BBBP and the scheme has produced little more than an intermittent and ineffectual PR blitz on the value of female children.
Conclusion
While there may not be a singular “silver-bullet” to stem the tide of sex-selective abortions in India, it is the author’s opinion that there has been an abject failure of imagination and governance on the part of successive governments when tackling this issue. This is exemplified by the botched and rudderless implementation of the BBBP scheme by the Modi administration. Nonetheless the BBBP scheme is a crucial step in the right direction insofar as it aims to raise awareness of the issues surrounding sex-selective abortion in India, however far more needs to be done.
Legislation prohibiting pre-natal sex determination and campaigns aiming to raise awareness are only two tools in the arsenal that needs to be deployed in order to prevent further sex-selective abortions. A frank and open conversation about the status of women in Indian society and policies aiming to encourage female education, access to adequate sanitary facilities, and economic empowerment are also sorely needed. Unless a holistic approach is adopted, which aims to both combat the cultural and economic causes of sex-selective abortions at their roots and to economically empower women, sex-selective abortion will continue to blight India.
This article aims to situate the debate about sex-selective abortion in India in its factual and historical context and critically examine the responses of successive Indian governments to the issue. Image source: Getty Images
According to historical Indian census data, the nationwide sex ratio for children in the 0-6 age range has grown inexorably from 102.4 males per 100 females in 1961, to 104.2 in 1980, 107.5 in 2001, and finally to 108.9 in 2011. Image source: Alamy
The “Beti Padhao Beti Bachao” (Educate the daughter, save the daughter) campaign.
Narendra Modi launching the BBBP. Image source: Getty Images
Search by Tag
-
While it may be unbeknownst to some, references to Greta Thunberg's U.N. Climate Action Summit address as a "meltdo… https://t.co/5kEEFQELep
Related articles
