Wow.

I don't know anything about adoption within India - are there really that many families that are looking to adopt these girls? Where will they go if not another family?

Oh, there is a precedent for this within India as well.. in TN, it was called the Thottil Kuzhandhai (cradle baby) plan and I think it was started sometime during the 1991-96 period when Jaya was the CM.

It's very well meant, but I wonder if it will really change anything. Adoption is already an option for those who don't want their girl chidren, but among those who can most easily access it, i.e. urban middle class people, the selective abortion rate is the highest, and sex ratios are really skewed, which means they prefer to abort rather than giving up a baby. It may have an effect at the rural level where sex-selection is harder. But even that is sort of like a statist solution to a grassroots problem, rather like using reservations to make up for a glaring lack of investment in education for the poorest. Mightn't it be better to pay people who have and keep girl children rather than passing them on to awful state orphanages?

Abhi wrote:
there is actually a precedent for this type of program

There actually is a precedent for this program. In New Jersey. And about a dozen other states.

Next time, more research please.

Ikram, I think this is fairly unique in that it caters to girl babies only...

well, as the article mentions, they are assuming that most of the babies will be girls but i'm sure they're not going to be sending any little boys back either.

while there are safe haven programs in many places, i think what makes this program unique is the execution -- can you imagine seeing a bunch of cradles along the jersey turnpike?

It's very well meant, but I wonder if it will really change anything.

Yes, it wont do much for the cases where the child is aborted. However, there are also plenty of cases
(don't have stats on this) where either kids are found abandoned or killed right after birth and this measure would definitely help address.

I don't know anything about adoption within India - are there really that many families that are looking to adopt these girls? Where will they go if not another family?

Unfortunately this is true, adoption as an option is not that common and people need to be made aware. State orphanages suck too. I really wish the Govt. along with this plan also launches a big campaign on promoting adoption and how it is good for our country and for the children, especially targeting the new urban yuppies a lot of who are very socially conscious these days.

I have had many discussions with people I know about adoption and while some people are open to it, usually most women have the point of view that they all want at least one child of their own to go through the experience of having a child. The men (and these got on my nerves) talk crap like a child is something very personal and so they would want one who carries their genes. I guess even if people took the middle ground and adopted one and gave birth to one, it wont be such a bad thing. The only caveat being would they be able to treat both the kids equally without showering more affection on either. This could be easier said than done. Of course, guys talking about gene pools, I hope never think adoption for the sake of the child.

Ardy, you know, as a woman who has always wanted to adopt, I find that men are much less into the idea in general than women. It's always my male relatives who go on about how you have to go through childbirth to really know what it's like to be a mother (ha!). And male significant others have usually been rather more keen on biological reproduction. In any event, adoption is getting more respectability and visibility in India but most people still wouldn't do it - the usual concerns about whether the child will have inherited psychological or physical health problems, what if it isn't too bright, god knows who the parents were, etc etc. People who can't have children of their own will ask a sibling to have a child for them before they'd adopt, which I think is really sad.

It's really nice that they're trying to save lives by doing this, but at the same time I feel that it's as if they're saying that people are ALLOWED to not want girls, that it's normal. Maybe they should set up plans to make it less expensive to raise girls (education grants etc) instead of allowing people to dump their daughters away like this.

you know, as a woman who has always wanted to adopt, I find that men are much less into the idea in general than women.

I would in fact completely agree with you on that based on the people I have talked to :-) I have always found women more open to the idea than men. As for the reasons of experiencing childbirth, I guess my sample space just held that opinion and I am not saying all women say that. I disclaim, my opinions are based on the people I have talked to and the norm may be different (or maybe not)

And male significant others have usually been rather more keen on biological reproduction

Yes, and if you will notice, these are the kind of people I have expressed my frustration with. A women saying she wants to experience childbirth, I can understand, but a guy talking about biological childbirth I have a tougher time understanding.

Yes, its more common to adopt within family for the reason you mentioned, sad though it is.

Abhi I'm really glad you talked about the issue of female foeticide and infanticide in this topic. I think most of us by now have seen the numbers of the female/male ratio in India and how it among the worst in the world, especially in northern india.

Sad to say that this is now a problem in some western desi community, especially in Canada. I can calling seeing stories in the New Section on this website about the problem in the South Asian communties in Vancouver[ I know people who did this] and Toronto due to this problem. I think this is also a problem in England desi community, but for some reason desi's in the United States don't do this as much.

It's always my male relatives who go on about how you have to go through childbirth to really know what it's like to be a mother (ha!). And male significant others have usually been rather more keen on biological reproduction.

That's evolutionary pressure rearing its head. The number one biological imperative of men is to spread their seed as far and wide and as often as possible. Adoption runs counter to that pressure because their offspring won't carry their genetic traits.

It's always my male relatives who go on about how you have to go through childbirth to really know what it's like to be a mother (ha!).

this is why seahorses rock (the male is the one that is preggers)

the usual concerns about whether the child will have inherited psychological or physical health problems, what if it isn't too bright, god knows who the parents were, etc etc.

Although I am quite a few years away from marriage, childbirth etc., I confess I find merit in this argument. For most Indians, the biggest determiner of their quality of life post-retirement, is how well-off their children are. One would not want their kid's genes to be from a set of parents who left the kid in a cradle outside the tax collector's office.

I'm sure this line of argument will make a lot of Sepia readers cringe, but sitting in your comfortable couches and indulging in "thought experiments" is quite far from the ground realities in India.

"I find that men are much less into the idea in general than women."

True! As a male who eventually acquiesced to the wife's demand, we ended up adopting a six-month girl from Kolkata 14 years ago and I must say it has been a completely "natural" parental experience. The word "adopted" never enters our mind. It is something we openly acknowledge without any value judgment as I would openly acknowledge my place of birth, my childhood experiences and the rest. My daughter is fully apprised of it as well and has even revisited the orphanage inside which she spent the first six months of her life. We tell her that she is the only Bengali we know who hates fish. (We are not Bengalis.) We have talked about the fact that she was probably born on the streets of Kolkata and turned over to an orphanage by a very poor mother who obviously did the best she could for her little baby. My daughter accepts all that as a fact of life. If there is any angst, we can't see it in her totally normal teen life.

When we first adopted, we were eager to meet other adoptive parents and share experiences. After a year or so, the urge gradually disappeared for all of us because adoption was not a day-to-day issue in any family. Neither was it some kind of a looming threat in our lives, such as cancer, for which we would need group support. Some of us have remained friends but our relationship is based on the usual things that foster friendships.

My resistance to the idea of "acquiring" a baby was probably rooted in my time-warped Indian values, having left India as a 20-year old in 1972. Even though we have been frequent visitors to India and have many ties, the Indian side of me is probably a little more old fashioned than the values of comparable Indians living in India. I actually have cousins in India who adopted without any coaxing from the spouse or others.

In my case, it was not the fear of non-familial genes but a distaste for forming a parent-child relationship strictly by arrangement, though I can see why the Indian male would have a need for proprietarship over the gene . Our culture inculcates the concept of "vansh."

One of my brothers-in-law, a white American who has studied India very closely, once made a very incisive remark to me and that changed my mind about adoption in a second. He said, "Isn't it strange that in the Indian culture, marriages can be arranged but parenthood cannot be?" I believe - actually, I know - that the parent-child relationship in an adoptive situation takes less than a day to form. I have a dozen other adoptive parents to back me up. How long does it take to form a spousal relationship in an arranged marriage? (Please, no retorts. I am not against arranged marriage.)

Back to the post about cradles, WHAT A FANTASTIC IDEA! If my wife and I weren't in our fifties, with not enough time left to raise a baby for the nest 18 years, we would be on the next plane to India to pick up a couple of babies.

Yes, I know there's more evolutionary pressure on a man, what with not being able to be sure that a child is yours...but I still find it a bit funny that they should presume to tell me what it means to be a mother. In addition to having different evolutionary pressures, men are also probably a bit more likely to be conservative in general.

There certainly is some merit in the argument about inherited traits and intelligence, though several of the people I know who have adopted back home have had wonderful children, which perhaps skews my perspective, and leads me to believe that upbringing and care and a good education can go quite far. Plus there's no guarantee that children born to "good" families will be particularly bright or hardworking either (my family offers some prime examples of that) and you don't kick out your child because s/he doesn't turn out to be a huge success. But spare me the pomposity of your "sitting in your comfortable couches and indulging in "thought experiments" is quite far from the ground realities in India," please, I have spent most of my life in India and the people I know who have adopted are also mostly in India, and I plan to adopt in the near future as well.

I agree with D2 about giving people incentives to keep their girl children rather than communicating "it's OK to want to get rid of your daughters."

Still on the topic of children, there's a really depressing survey reported in the new Outlook about 25% of Indian children being sexually abused. Ugh.

Maybe they should set up plans to make it less expensive to raise girls (education grants etc) instead of allowing people to dump their daughters away like this.

Such schemes actually do exist. Women have lower fees or feesmaaf schemes, not just at primary school levels but even for Govt run institutions of professional degrees. The problem of female infanticide is not due to lack of educational opportunities. It traces its roots more to archaic attitudes of dowry, a son helping the father in the family business/farm, attitude of a girl going away after marriage while the son continues the family name and the chauvinistic attitudes of son being the pride of the house while the girl being the izzat and thus bringing more responsibility and stress.

it was not the fear of non-familial genes but a distaste for forming a parent-child relationship strictly by arrangement,

Pleasant contrast to these retrograde Bachhans....

http://www.rd-india.com/newsite/other/facetoface_mar06.asp

Sushmita Sen: Children only feel what you make them feel. As a mother you know when the child needs you. It is not the time you spend; it is the intensity with which you know your child. The more I would have tried to protect her, the more she would have got used to a very high level of security. I wanted to remain me: I am a workaholic. And I wanted her to enjoy me as I am. If I had biological children, it would be the same.

[At this point, Renée walks in, and Sushmita calls her over and says, “We are going to play opposites, Renée. What is the opposite of shy?”
Renée: Flamboyant.
Sushmita: What is biological?
Renée: Boring. Because everybody’s born from the stomach.
Sushmita: And what is the opposite of biological?
Renée: Adopted. And adopted is special — it’s born from the heart. I am adopted and I am special.]

#14 desi-guy "I'm sure this line of argument will make a lot of Sepia readers cringe, but sitting in your comfortable couches and indulging in "thought experiments" is quite far from the ground realities in India."

You will be surprised how many Indians and non-Indians embrace so-called ground realities to give other humans a chance in life through adoption. My adoptive case is nothing compared to some friends I have. We have white American friends who already had biological children and they still adopted two African American babies, one with severe hearing disorder attributed to the birth mother's crack addiction. What kind of people do that? No, they are not missionaries or do-gooders, just an average American family.

And why would you assume that all these SM readers were merely indulging in idle conversation from their comfortable couches? Wouldn't a certain percentage of SM readers end up adopting - I mean statistically speaking?

It's really nice that they're trying to save lives by doing this, but at the same time I feel that it's as if they're saying that people are ALLOWED to not want girls, that it's normal. Maybe they should set up plans to make it less expensive to raise girls (education grants etc) instead of allowing people to dump their daughters away like this.

Girls' education is already subsidized in most states (up to higher secondary I think). Dowry can get you behind bars. Sex-determination tests have been banned since 1994. In states like Maharashtra, if a woman registers police complaint within first year of marriage, her in-laws and husband can land in deep trouble. Implementing all these measures is tricky and govt. can only do so much. Plus there are always work-arounds.

Have you read about this recent horrible incident ?

Floridian @ 15. Thanks for sharing. Much respect.

This was first done in 90s in a Tamilnadu district in salem. It was met with success. Of all the bad things that Jayalalitha did this was one good thing that she did and it greatly reduced the famle infanticide.

And why would you assume that all these SM readers were merely indulging in idle conversation from their comfortable couches? Wouldn't a certain percentage of SM readers end up adopting - I mean statistically speaking?

Floridian, I think my comment ended up sounding a lot more cynical and bitter than I wanted to. My observation from the few years I have spent in the US is that parents usually assume responsibility of their children's lives for the first 18 years, and children don't really feel obliged to take care of their aging parents (or old people don't feel like making themselves dependent on their kids). In this scenario, adopting has fewer risks attached. That said, I still look up to the "average American family" and hope that the number of such people only rise.

In India, things are slightly different, as you would know yourself, and this is what I was trying to point out.

From a numbers point of view, there aren't enough adopters (Indias and non-Indians put together), as there are orphans. I think a large of number of these "cradle" babies will end up growing in the orphanages themselves, and I am not too thrilled about that.

#24 desi_guy "I think a large of number of these "cradle" babies will end up growing in the orphanages themselves, and I am not too thrilled about that."

First of all, no hard feelings. I have read your posts once in a while and you don't seem to be a cynic.

Regarding your comment above, it is going to be a problem. But an orphanage is better than the streets. Go to your favorite desi store and rent "Salaam Bombay" in case you haven't seen it.

"and children don't really feel obliged to take care of their aging parents (or old people don't feel like making themselves dependent on their kids). In this scenario, adopting has fewer risks attached."

Now, I haven't given any thought to the issue raised in your comment above. Is adoption a riskier poroposition in a culture that almost mandates taking care of aging parents and a less risky proposition in a culture that does not? Since an adopted child does not grow up with any different feelings towards the parents than a biological child, the only difference then would be cultural conditioning. Admittedly, there are plenty of cases of adopted children going on a hunt for their biological parents but that mission, based on my reading on the subject, does not detract from their love and responsibility for their "real-life" parents.

Incidentally, look out for the gradual dissipation of the typical Indian virtue of taking care of old parents. All the social forces of progress are against it. Urbanization, looser familial and social influences, smaller housing, increasing prosperity of Indian retirees along with new services available to them institutionally - hey, India could someday become just as "great" as America, no?

I wanna be adopted by Floridian ;)

Once a baby has been placed inside, an alarm bell will alert staff.

I love to imagine the kind of bell that sounds when this happens. Is it a ting-a-ling? A woot-woot-woot?

A shrill sound would just hurt little ears and make her cry. Ding-ding like a bicycle bell would be good or even maybe a foghorn like on the Addams family.

I think of Pavlov right now.:)

First, thanks to Floridian for sharing your experiences. Your comments were very enlightening. As for this plan, I'm with Abhi in that I'm generally in support of anything designed to limit infanticide and foeticide. However, the comparison with Japan worries me. Indian and Japanese cultures are very different and that which is good for one will not necessarily work with the other. I haven't thought of any specific objections or concerns I have with the plan, but something about it rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's the idea of having "receptacles" (sp?) for babies, I don't know.

However, the comparison with Japan worries me. Indian and Japanese cultures are very different and that which is good for one will not necessarily work with the other.

He is right. In Japan if you abandon a baby they grow up under a Master and are either made into Samurai or into Ninjas depending upon their innate proclivity.

There is no such choice in India from what I know.

This is a good idea.

Although I think any family that participates in infanticide should be executed or imprisoned for life. We need to come up a scheme that will enable the police to arrest these cavemen barbarians. If possible have some spying to see which women and which communities the most dropped off babies come from and target the hell out of them. And since its the middle class that participates in this a lot, just getting a few of them will be enough to send a shockwave across the country.

It breaks my heart when I read about how misogynic Indian continues to be and I find it hard to believe that financial vouchers and waivers will make any difference in how women are valued. The idea that girls are mere burdens and women are mere reproductive accessories to men are much too deeply embedded. Will it always be this way?

I feel numb when I read this kind of stuff. Numb, ashamed (why?) and helpless.

===

1.05: males to every female in India, reversing the world average

600: rupees now, save 50,000 rupees later” is the advertising slogan of diagnostic teams with ultrasound machines that predict the sex of the unborn child

£18,000: can be the price of a wedding and dowry. Girls are killed because of the financial burden they place on their families

9.6m: more boys aged between 0-14 than girls

1949: Year when Indian women were granted full suffrage

54: per cent turnout of women voters in 2004 election, 62 per cent among men

10m: number of female foetuses aborted since ultrasound scanning was first used 20 years ago

1994: Year when scanning to find out gender was made illegal. It is widely ignored

0: the number of cases that have come to court

====

Zero cases brought to court. Can you imagine? Not a single one.

I feel numb when I read this kind of stuff. Numb, ashamed (why?) and helpless.

Red Snapper,

I am against all this, as anyone else and then some. We all are.

However,

Please be careful if you jump on any news. Ratlam might have nothing to with foeticide at all.

Be careful. Unless, you are a fashionable denouncer, smoking a pipe, pontificating over biscuits and tea. Lazy arm waving does no good to any cause. If you care about this, read more rather than be a bandwagon wah, wah.............

Hey Kush, trust me, I'm not a self-flaggelating hair pulling kind of guy, but you have to admit there is a problemo with this issue, and it really gets underneath my skin that this is going on.

but you have to admit there is a problemo with this issue,

i admit it, my father admits it, my grandfather admits it......my mausi ji admits it too.

i know you are sincere, and i just wanted to point you......everything that comes out of india in media is not necessarily well researched news..........there is a lot garbage wah, wah.......look at Sir Pankaj Mishra.....let's follow ratlam what it is carefully..........sensationalism and nonsense is a middle name of every indian.....and western media loves it.

It wasnt the Ratlam news story I was drawing attention to Kush, it was the addendum to the story that this post deals with that I linked to, about the opening of homes for unwanted baby girls, and the statistics I quoted above.

0: the number of cases that have come to court

Red Snapper,

Please forgive me directing all my attention to you. Please do not believe everything hased by someone "lazy" journalist. I have all respect for all you anger but gullibility needs to be addressed to.

That is not all true - Zero cases.

1) From newspaper Hindu, 2002. This news is 5 years old.

This is not reflected in the crime records of the country. Only 87 cases of infanticide and 61 cases of foeticide were reported in 1999. Infanticide and foeticide are a way of life in both urban and rural India and, therefore, the provisions of a progressive law like the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Registration and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 remains a worthless scrap of paper.

Is this tiny, tiny, tiny tip of the iceberg? Yes. Are laws useless? Definitely yes. Is law enforcement useless, no doubt about it?

But still, a few Punjabi doctors were recently held guilty last year, I am not sure about the guilty part or were only charged in courts. There was also a sting operation by Sahara TV/ Star News on foeticide last year.

2) Harvard study on female foeticide within historical context. As early as 1901, they were guilty cases.

RS, my issue is not with your outrage but with you nearly devotional belief in vilayati angrezi newspaper.

This is my last comment on this thread. Let's do something about it rather than parroting.

The only discussion of abortion in India I ever read is about female foeticide. I've noticed some commenters here don't distinguish between abortion and infanticide - is this accounting typical of Indians? Is abortion ever discussed in terms of women's rights? Sex selection aside, do women with unwanted pregnancies have access to safe legal abortion in India? Is there any irony in decrying Indians' overall bias toward males, while simultaneously condemning women who terminate unwanted pregnancies as murderers?

do women with unwanted pregnancies have access to safe legal abortion in India?

Is there any irony in decrying Indians' overall bias toward males, while simultaneously condemning women who terminate unwanted pregnancies as murderers?

Nina, what you are talking about is two separate but related issues. One talks about female foeticide when it's not usually an unwanted pregnancy, and after determining the sex of the child as female, the fetus is aborted. Similarly, once a child is born, if it is discarded not because it was not wanted only only because it was female, then we again have female infanticide. Both of these can and in many cases do occur with the permission of the mother also (though not always) and so it is less of a womens rights issue than one of cold blooded murder. The issue you mention is more about choice in the case a woman becomes pregnant without planning for it is not the same as female foeticide /infanticide. In that sense I am not sure why Indians (or anyone else) would account it differently.

Coming back to your questions about abortion rights. Abortion rights come into the public consciousness only when women (and men too) get the required sexual freedom socially. While this has changed in Urban India, in rural areas sexual freedom is still taboo. So if you think of womens rights as it would be in the US, you would be on the wrong track. What does exist is a lot of secret abortions where it is done discreetly - and these are usually for cases where a pregnancy occurs without a marriage. However,in such cases because of the secret nature of the whole thing, ill trained quacks can also get away with aborting babies while using unsafe procedures. So depending on where a woman goes for getting aborted, it could be safe or unsafe. The legalities don't come much into play since everyone wants it under wraps.

Of course, nothing is ever simple or straight forward in South Asia. A very Hindu Nepal has blanket ban on abortion. The laws are quite messed up.

Yep. Never heard of the abortion 'debate' in India. However, abortion is definitely correlated to female infanticide (foeticide?) there. But due to overpopulation as an issue, not many people think of abortion as a bad thing overall.

Very unlikely to ever be a debate. For one thing, NGOs leftists groups and usual suspects will be caught in a bind, whether to support abortion ("women's rights) or to end knowing it is correlated with foeticide (against women's rights.

After the whole Indira Gandhi sterilization thing I dont think the Indian public is probably suspicious of government planning schemes (rightfully so) and it might be difficult to get them to understand the sort of barbarism they are engaging in.

My personal preference is to prosecute feoticide practicers to the full extent of the law, imprison for life or hang doctors performing sonograms. Also I bet its probably the same family that kills of its daughters over and over again, so throwing them in jail to rot away would be a good thing.

One more thing, it surprises me that in India there is such a cavalier attitude toward abortion. We will engage in some very conservative practices unncessarily but in this case Indians completely ignore religious teaching. Every religion in the country condemns the practice.

The so-called abortion debate has a lot of theological underpinnings specific to christianity and it makes sense only in an environment transformed by such a theology. To my pagan eyes, it seems quite a monstrous little biatch fight with no nuance for the diversity of human situations and an excessive hankering for precise and unforgiving definitions.

Probably, this debate fails to take root in India for the same reasons that other unnatural problematizations fail to capture the indian imagination, including 90% of the crap that is endlessly feted by our so called progressives. Are Indians immoral and "fallen" for not 'getting' the abortion debate or are they just able to struggle with these issues without the crap of commandments from above. Let me assure you that no one in india cares about "laws". You have only to take a ride in an indian rickshaw to realize this.

Since we at SEPIA are so enlightened, can't we make a pledge to ourselves (does not have to include others) to adopt children in general and adopt female children in speciific?

Since we at SEPIA are so enlightened

Touche.

Banned Hindu:

Are Indians immoral and "fallen" for not 'getting' the abortion debate or are they just able to struggle with these issues without the crap of commandments from above. Let me assure you that no one in india cares about "laws". You have only to take a ride in an indian rickshaw to realize this.

No, this is not just about Christian underpinnings. It is explicitly looked at as murder in Hindu texts. The soul enters upon conception, not birth in our teachings. This is not arguable. It is explicitly looked at as murder in Islam. I don't know about Jainism, but this is a religion that teaches us not to harm any life form, probably very protective of fetus as well. Sikhism is the same. Buddhism who knows. Those religions cover 95% of the population. Its not about a failure to be moral, or a failure of understanding, its because abortion has been introduced to India like the rickshaw, as if its some sort of everyday device that can be used with second thought.

Metric system writes: >>It is explicitly looked at as murder in Hindu texts. The soul enters upon conception, not birth in our teachings.

First, the phrase "Hindu texts" is incomplete. One needs to understand that texts could be either Shruti or Smriti. There is no Shruti(to the best of my knowledge) that speaks about abortion (in any manner). There are Smritis that tell us that abortion is immoral, and there are also smritis that talk about conditions under which abortion is permissible (inter-caste/illicit pregnancies, where the girl is too weak to bear a baby etc). Ayurveda talks about herbs and roots that could be used to abort a baby. There are yoga positions that can kill a foetus.

Second: Hindu texts are not binding on Hindus unlike those from other religions. We would like to be free to pick and choose as we please according to the situation, thank you very much.

>>Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Registration and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 remains a worthless scrap of paper

Good! Thanks to the individualism of Hindus all efforts to restrict freedom of individuals by overzealous politicians has been thwarted. Any attempt to cure a societal problem by the dictat and force of State should be brushed aside with contempt. What are they going to do next: ban some yoga postures?

As for those who are (fairly) well off financially and yet abort foetuses because they are female: What goes around comes around. You'll get your day of reckoning, and it will be as painful to you as it was to the foetus.

M. Nam

It is the easiest thing in the world to get an abortion in India (can’t speak for the villages, but abortions are generally an urban thing, imo. I could be wrong). Neither is abortion regarded as a moral issue. Nor do women over-emotionalize the issue. I’d say all three points are a step up from the scenario in the West.

Abortion can be considered a moral issue only if you accept the following two facts from Christian theology: (a) Life is sacred, and (b) Life begins and ends at a particular point. Both of these notions are foreign to India. In fact Asian cultures in general considered duty and honor to be way more important than anything else and therefore death was never sentimentalized the way it is in the west.

RS, my issue is not with your outrage but with you nearly devotional belief in vilayati angrezi newspaper.

OK Kush --- thanks for straightening me out! The conspiracy against India by nefarious angrezi newspapers has been destroyed.

(a) Life is sacred, and (b) Life begins and ends at a particular point. Both of these notions are foreign to India.

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.

Abortion can be considered a moral issue only if you accept the following two facts from Christian theology: (a) Life is sacred, and (b) Life begins and ends at a particular point. Both of these notions are foreign to India. In fact Asian cultures in general considered duty and honor to be way more important than anything else and therefore death was never sentimentalized the way it is in the west.

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?

Any attempt to cure a societal problem by the dictat and force of State should be brushed aside with contempt.

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.

What are they going to do next: ban some yoga postures?

Great example! They are EXACTLY the same!

Desi_Guy:

. For most Indians, the biggest determiner of their quality of life post-retirement, is how well-off their children are. One would not want their kid's genes to be from a set of parents who left the kid in a cradle outside the tax collector's office.

Floridian:

Now, I haven't given any thought to the issue raised in your comment above. Is adoption a riskier poroposition in a culture that almost mandates taking care of aging parents and a less risky proposition in a culture that does not? Since an adopted child does not grow up with any different feelings towards the parents than a biological child, the only difference then would be cultural conditioning. Admittedly, there are plenty of cases of adopted children going on a hunt for their biological parents but that mission, based on my reading on the subject, does not detract from their love and responsibility for their "real-life" parents.

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.

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?

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:

For most Indians, the biggest determiner of their quality of life post-retirement, is how well-off their children are. One would not want their kid's genes to be from a set of parents who left the kid in a cradle outside the tax collector's office.

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.

(I see you're stuck here after the fiasco on "that other site"; you may remeber me as 'Mahound').

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.

Here in Canada it is a major problem in the punjabi community.

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.

Alot of these women here in Vancouver are looked down at, for the simple reason they have failed to give there familes a boy

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.

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

It breaks my heart when I read about how misogynic Indian continues to be and I find it hard to believe that financial vouchers and waivers will make any difference in how women are valued. The idea that girls are mere burdens and women are mere reproductive accessories to men are much too deeply embedded. Will it always be this way?

technophobicgeekat 66

I think banning female foeticide is not gonna help anything.

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.

Other way around. Women are two X chromosomes. Come on, you'll never be a good Indian doctor that way!

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.

When women are allowed to own their own property and manage their own assets, dowry disappears. They cease to become a tradable economic commodity.

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.

One notable exception to this bleak picture in Asia, as he notes, is Kerala state located in the extreme southwestern corner of India. There the ratio of females to males is 1.03 to 1.0, and the life expectancy of women is 68, compared to 64 for males. Females are more highly educated than their counterparts in the rest of India, with an adult literacy rate of 66 percent versus the Kerala male rate of 75 percent.

2. 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.

3. 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.

From a numbers point of view, there aren't enough adopters (Indias and non-Indians put together), as there are orphans. I think a large of number of these "cradle" babies will end up growing in the orphanages themselves, and I am not too thrilled about that.

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!

People like Swami Agnivesh, and soap operas probably will reach the hearts and minds more than anyone can.

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.

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.

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=

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!

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.

#49 MoorNam

As for those who are (fairly) well off financially and yet abort foetuses because they are female: What goes around comes around. You'll get your day of reckoning, and it will be as painful to you as it was to the foetus.

Perhaps when all those sons are marrying outside the lines of caste and creed, things will have come around.

I wonder what the final consequence will be on the Indian population and social structure when the gender ratio becomes dire. I also wonder if the girls "rescued" via these cradle depots will be able to find their place in society. It seems likely that a large number will end up as commodities in some sort of human trafficking. I wonder what it will take for the society as a whole to see the long term importance of a balanced gender ratio.

Death to Professor Amardeep Singh!

Can we get some moderation here please.