This is a test post. Having problems posting / adding comments. Please check this and let me know.
Update: This post works fine, so do all others except the earlier one on the gender ratio. Maybe some setting went wrong in that? In any case, if you have any thoughts on that one, please leave them here. Thanks!
Further update : I started this as a test post since there was some problem with the blog. there are a couple of comments to the earlier post on the declining sex ratio that suggested to me that I had not made myself clear there. So am continuing the post here.
I am not for a minute expressing surprise at the abysmally low sex ratio in the country. I have been writing about this regularly. What I was startled to discover was that rural India as compared to urban India has a better sex ratio – which turns on its head all the logic I have heard about rural poverty and therefore people (poor and living in villages) practise female infanticide more frequently.
Look at this data again :
Sex ratio (no. of females per 1000 males) : Rural 957 compared to Urban 932.
I was wondering about this and not about the skewed sex ratio in general. (Rural as defined by the census report as having a population of less than 5000, and where atleast 70% of male adults are engaged in non agricultural occupations and so on).
Furthest update : I discovered – my server host, i.e. – that the earlier post includes a ‘taboo’ (for my blog’s mean sharp spam filter) word in its title – sex – and therefore the blog was going into paroxysms and refusing to let me edit / comment. All set right now. Glad to know this blog stays clean despite all the temptation out there. Remind me to use ‘gender’ next time.
Also glad that noone can accuse me of such things after reading the post. Noone, not even certain people from certain organizations for whom it is all about shaving the Indian family. Oh, did I say shaving? I mean shaming, of course.
And Aparna follows this up with her own news-limerick
If u can read this, it works.
Thanks Vikrum and Saad! there seems to be some problem with that post alone.
Vikrum, am posting your comment here – will respond to this tomorrow – am dropping off in front of the computer now š
Charu,
I’m glad you are talking about this important, neglected, and utterly depressing topic. You are right that rural India has a more equal sex ratio than urban India in the aggregate. But this statistic does not make note of the differences between states. Please see Please see this article in the UC Atlas of Global Inequality. It states:
India has one of the worst female mortality rates in the world, with a gender ratio of 0.97. That is, there are only 97 women alive for every 100 men, well below the 105 women in North America and
Europe. But these aggregate numbers hide the inequality within India. For example, the southern state of Kerala has a ratio of 1.04. The northern states have extremely low numbers: Utter Pradesh has 0.89 and Punjab’s is 0.87.
The statistics on your blog imply that rural India has higher rates of female infanticide than urban India. This is true — but not so much because of a rural-urban divide but because of differences between states in regards to population. Punjab and Haryana have appalling sex ratios (0.87 and 0.89, respectively). As the map on the UC page shows, states with enormous populations (e.g. Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra) also have disgusting sex ratios. The more equal states (e.g. Kerala, Orissa, Meghalaya) generally have smaller populations.
In other words, if Kerala had the population volume of Uttar Pradesh (and UP or Kerala), Meghalaya of Maharashtra (and vice versa), and Haryana of Nagaland (and vice versa), then the ratios would change quite a bit.
I am not trying to imply that there is no rural-urban divide. I just think we need to look at this problem from different angles.
Thanks again for writing about this.
Charu,
hereare more figures
*70 districts in 16 states and union territories have recorded a more than 50 point decline in the child sex ratio during 1991-2001.
*All India figures as per the the Census report was 993.
*In Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat, the sex ratio has declined to less than 800 girls per 1000 boys.
*The Census report had indicated 861 per thousand boys in Haryana, 876 in Punjab, 821 in Delhi, 968 in Himachal Pradesh and 920 in Gujarat.
*As per UNPF, the ratio stands at a mere 770 in Kurukshetra district of Haryana, 814 in Ahmedabad and 845 in the South West district of Delhi, some of the most prosperous regions of the country.
*Rajkot in Gujarat showed a sudden decline from 914 in 1991 to 844 in 2001.
Vikrum (you dont need to thank me so profusely. I keep writing about female infanticide all the time :)) – I am not sure I understand your point – sure, the larger states also have more appaling gender imbalance and infanticide records – but what I was trying to think through here was the fact that overall, gender ratio seems better in rural India as compared to urban – whereas the common perception is that female infanticide is more in rural (and by extensin, poorer) areas.
yes, we definitely need to look at it from different angles, but I am not sure if the large population states theorty covers this – the large pop states also have proportionately more rural areas (see my post for the way rural has been defined in this context) – and if female infanticide is worse off in rural areas, then why this better ratio at an all India (rural+urban) level.
I am missing something here (with the data as well as your thought) – please do elaborate on this – would love to understand other perspectives…
harini, yes, some of the most prosperous regions of the country have terrible records – it has clearly more to do with socio-cultural factors too – saying that poverty is the cause is just the easy thing to do, i guess… a simplistic sociological explanation…
Well looking at your result, I could conclude:
1) urban populations, having a slightly higher income, have access to better pre-natal technology, thus are better at terminating unwanted girls, and conducting abortions more efficiently than rural populations?
2) BUT, these sex ratios didn’t just spring up in a year. Could it instead be that greater poverty has caused more migration to the cities and those migrants are mostly male, leading to the skew?
3) On the other hand, maybe the view being taken is narrow. Could these differences (in Urban and Rurual) always have been true, with both ratios declining? (I have no access to any kinds of data, just throwing the question out there)
Oh and there’s one more possible result:
It’s just plain wrong, and the data was collected in a bad way with a poor sample. Again, just my two cents.
TTG, I don’t think the data is plain wrong – it is one of the most extensive and credible surveys in India (see my earlier post for source).
about 1. very possible – the choice of abortion as opposed to infanticide… am just wondering, does it mean it is easier for people to kil the foetus than a baby…? uh.
2. hmmm, still thinking about the fact that 70% + of India is still rural, this seems not so right… for every person who moved, many more have stayed behind…?
3. yes, this difference might always have existed – my point was about the common perception that rural India had a terrible record of female infanticide – whereas that hardly ever gets discussed as an urban phenomenon. in fact, in many places, esp in the North, the larger cities are worse off…
Charu……what’s most depressing and scary to me is that female:male ratios today are much worse than they were 50 or 25 years ago. Additionally, the most prosperous states in India have the worst ratios. We seem to be regressing as a society.
hi.
in poorer areas charu, they kill the girl after she is born. in richer reasons they terminate pregnancies which detect a female.
the end result is the same – systematic extermination of 60 million females.
i would think that the UNFPA has been fairly accurate in data collection and interpretation. and this 60 million figure is a pan asian figure – so those who live in a state of denial on these kind of deaths, or who believe that the 60 million figure is justified as the market demands more boys than girls – can take solace in the fact that China is probably an equal contributor to this figure. There the one family norm has seen a huge rise in female mortality.
and it is not appendicitis or hepatitis but lobotomitis -the missing of large chunks of the brain of those who think that 60 million females spontaneously combusted themselves out of existance.
Sunil, true that we seem to be regressing as a society – wonder again about the popular debate on whether cinema / television is responsible for such cultivation of ideas or are they just reflecting trends in society…. thinking of all the parivaar-sanskriti types here.
Harini, was recently reading about the China situation – there the government has actually relaxed the one child norm in poor rural areas for families where the first born is a girl (or is born physcillay handicapped) – they can have one more child – just to make sure the girl is not killed…
The figures are very scary indeed. It’s good to read articles which are written with a neutral mind. It’s a shame that you don’t find many of such kinds anymore.
As for this “Also glad that noone can accuse me of such things after reading the post. Noone, not even certain people from certain organizations for whom it is all about shaving the Indian family. Oh, did I say shaving? I mean shaming, of course.” All i can say that you are LUCKY, but then again you never know when they might attack. Sadly, I have been on the receiving end from the so called ‘SIFs’. š
Sakshi, I have too, in the past. which is why this anticipatory attack š
hey charu
good to see you taking the subject forward,
I’ve said a whole lot already on this and related subjects and don’t know what else to add. these are some of the posts on the gender imbalance issue
http://knownturf.blogspot.com/2005/09/skirts-skin-and-tarnished-images.html
http://knownturf.blogspot.com/2005/09/honourable-rustom-singh-ji-of-morena.html
http://knownturf.blogspot.com/2005/09/other-persuations-and-girl-child.html
http://knownturf.blogspot.com/2005/09/empathy-is-about-imagination.html
i too have posted messeges on this issue in my blog
uma
Hi,
Also within an ‘urban’ area like Delhi, the most affluent part – South Delhi – has a sex ratio at birth of 762 girls/1000 boys. That’s lower than any of the other areas in the capital. Perhaps because affluent areas can afford expensive and certain sex determination treatments?
Annie, have read your posts earlier. we can only keep writing about this and hoping (in vain) that is makes some difference somewhere…
Hi Uma, can you please send links of your posts? have not been able to find this topic on your blog.
Mangs, yes, Delhi and some of the more prosperous areas in the ‘wheat basket’ North have the worst gender ratios. This is clearly more about socio-cultural factors that place a premium on the male child than just economic factors…
Feminists and Media Bias is reponsible for higher rate of foeticide in India.
Media tells the people:
Women are raped.
Women are molested.
Women are murdered.
Women are abused.
Women are driven to suicide.
So a girl is a worry.
So a girl is a burden.
Many unprincipled urban Indian Read this shit and indulge in foeticide.
In reality:
Men commit suicide more. More men are driven to suicide by women than other way round.
Boys have a greater chance of getting injured or hurt.
Men have at least 2 times more chance of getting murdered.
The scientific solutions to stop foeticide are not explored as people indulge in rhetoric.