[ This article was published on the op-ed page of the NEW INDIAN EXPRESS on 8.02.2018 ]
As we progressively regress from civilized status notwithstanding ( or because of) our single minded pursuit of the GDP and Nationalism gods, it is becoming clear that it will take us a long time to become a developed nation. And one of the main reasons for our indefinitely postponed tryst with destiny just has to be the way we treat our girls. I am not talking here about sexual molestation, stalking or gender discrimination in the office: though important ( and fashionable enough to monopolise the attention of the page three types) these pale into insignificance beside the real. visceral, seminal issue- our attitude to, and treatment of, the girl child.
To put it bluntly, we as a society kill little girls, usually before they are born and sometimes after. At the risk of making you throw up your breakfast, let me share a few figures with you ( all GOI census data) regarding India's sex ratio for the 0-6 years age group. In 1961 the figure was 976 i.e 976 little girls for every 1000 little boys. Since then these girls have been disappearing at a consistent rate- there were 945 of them in 1991, 927 in 2001 and 919 in 2011. Demographers and statisticians call them India's "Missing girl children"- it is estimated that in the last decade alone 8 million girls have been lost. Actually, they have been murdered- by their own parents- but "missing" is the more politically correct word. And guess which are the states where most of this slaughter has taken place?- the very same ones where so much violence was unleashed recently about "upholding the honour" of a Rajput queen: Haryana ( sex ratio 834), Rajasthan (888), Gujarat (890)- all well below even the dismal national average of 919. It appears that even dead women have their uses. Furthermore, as we all know, the cause of women is very dear to the hearts of our Hindutva brigade- the reason why all the BJP governments in the above states as well at the centre explicitly or implicitly supported the Karni Sena. Really? The census figures tell a different tale: the sex ratio is the most abysmal for the Hindus- it is 910, as compared to 940 for Muslims and 955 for Christians. So guess which community looks after its girls better ?
Here is another interesting statistic, from this year's Economic Survey of the govt.: 65% of the "last child" are males, whereas only 45% of the " non last child" are males. What this tells us is that if the last child of an Indian couple is male then 65% of them will not have any more children, whereas if it is a girl then that figure drops to 45%, or by a staggering one third. In other words, it is mission accomplished if one has a son, whereas if its a girl then the quest for a son continues : the name of the game is to have a male child, and daughters are not welcome: the same report states that there are 29 million " unwanted" girl children. Reason enough, don't you think, for the majoritarians in our society to move away from the manufactured outrage over Triple Talaq and fulminate on the mass female foeticide that is taking place under our noses?
As a father, I am just unable to understand why we kill our daughters. Oh, I'm aware of the three main reasons given by the demographers: that it is sons who carry forward the family/ dynasty; that the sons will look after the parents in their old age, that a son is needed to perform the last rites. But I simply can't wrap my head around these alibis in this day and age. A daughter will have as much of my DNA as a son will; as for dynasty, as the stand-up comic Kunal Grover said, I'm no Chandragupta Maurya that I need to found a dynasty, for that matter I'm no Mukesh Ambami or Mulayam Yadav either. And why can't my lineage run through my daughter, as it does through my son ? Performance of last rites is a joke- the panda and pundits do everything, the son just has to pay them ( if he has any money left after paying the hospital). Nowadays even pandas are not really needed at the electric crematorium: all you have to do is to show them the Aadhar card, and a daughter can do that as well as a son.
As for the " looking after the parents" bit, my own personal ( in the wider family) and anecdotal experience is that daughters do a much better job of it than sons. Sons tend to get involved with their own families, careers and related problems. Daughters, I have noticed, with the famous multi-tasking skills of women, find the time for their parents too, even when they have careers and families of their own. They are more compassionate, provide genuine companionship ( particularly to their mothers) and are more understanding and tolerant of their parents' complaints, grumblings and ailments. They provide the compassion and patience which the sons are short on.
Which brings me back to my original question: why do we kill our daughters in such large numbers?
As we progressively regress from civilized status notwithstanding ( or because of) our single minded pursuit of the GDP and Nationalism gods, it is becoming clear that it will take us a long time to become a developed nation. And one of the main reasons for our indefinitely postponed tryst with destiny just has to be the way we treat our girls. I am not talking here about sexual molestation, stalking or gender discrimination in the office: though important ( and fashionable enough to monopolise the attention of the page three types) these pale into insignificance beside the real. visceral, seminal issue- our attitude to, and treatment of, the girl child.
To put it bluntly, we as a society kill little girls, usually before they are born and sometimes after. At the risk of making you throw up your breakfast, let me share a few figures with you ( all GOI census data) regarding India's sex ratio for the 0-6 years age group. In 1961 the figure was 976 i.e 976 little girls for every 1000 little boys. Since then these girls have been disappearing at a consistent rate- there were 945 of them in 1991, 927 in 2001 and 919 in 2011. Demographers and statisticians call them India's "Missing girl children"- it is estimated that in the last decade alone 8 million girls have been lost. Actually, they have been murdered- by their own parents- but "missing" is the more politically correct word. And guess which are the states where most of this slaughter has taken place?- the very same ones where so much violence was unleashed recently about "upholding the honour" of a Rajput queen: Haryana ( sex ratio 834), Rajasthan (888), Gujarat (890)- all well below even the dismal national average of 919. It appears that even dead women have their uses. Furthermore, as we all know, the cause of women is very dear to the hearts of our Hindutva brigade- the reason why all the BJP governments in the above states as well at the centre explicitly or implicitly supported the Karni Sena. Really? The census figures tell a different tale: the sex ratio is the most abysmal for the Hindus- it is 910, as compared to 940 for Muslims and 955 for Christians. So guess which community looks after its girls better ?
Here is another interesting statistic, from this year's Economic Survey of the govt.: 65% of the "last child" are males, whereas only 45% of the " non last child" are males. What this tells us is that if the last child of an Indian couple is male then 65% of them will not have any more children, whereas if it is a girl then that figure drops to 45%, or by a staggering one third. In other words, it is mission accomplished if one has a son, whereas if its a girl then the quest for a son continues : the name of the game is to have a male child, and daughters are not welcome: the same report states that there are 29 million " unwanted" girl children. Reason enough, don't you think, for the majoritarians in our society to move away from the manufactured outrage over Triple Talaq and fulminate on the mass female foeticide that is taking place under our noses?
As a father, I am just unable to understand why we kill our daughters. Oh, I'm aware of the three main reasons given by the demographers: that it is sons who carry forward the family/ dynasty; that the sons will look after the parents in their old age, that a son is needed to perform the last rites. But I simply can't wrap my head around these alibis in this day and age. A daughter will have as much of my DNA as a son will; as for dynasty, as the stand-up comic Kunal Grover said, I'm no Chandragupta Maurya that I need to found a dynasty, for that matter I'm no Mukesh Ambami or Mulayam Yadav either. And why can't my lineage run through my daughter, as it does through my son ? Performance of last rites is a joke- the panda and pundits do everything, the son just has to pay them ( if he has any money left after paying the hospital). Nowadays even pandas are not really needed at the electric crematorium: all you have to do is to show them the Aadhar card, and a daughter can do that as well as a son.
As for the " looking after the parents" bit, my own personal ( in the wider family) and anecdotal experience is that daughters do a much better job of it than sons. Sons tend to get involved with their own families, careers and related problems. Daughters, I have noticed, with the famous multi-tasking skills of women, find the time for their parents too, even when they have careers and families of their own. They are more compassionate, provide genuine companionship ( particularly to their mothers) and are more understanding and tolerant of their parents' complaints, grumblings and ailments. They provide the compassion and patience which the sons are short on.
Which brings me back to my original question: why do we kill our daughters in such large numbers?
No comments:
Post a Comment