When the first figures of the 2001 population statistics began to emerge, the newspaper headlines screamed, “Sex ratio for women is up”. But on closer scrutiny of the census figures, one could clearly see that while the sex ratio is up in the overall population (from 927 females in 1991 to 933/1000 males in 2001), the real indicator of the presence of discrimination against the female child is the sex ratio in the child population (0-6) which has decreased from 945/1000 in 1991 to 927/1000 in 2001.
There has been a steady decline in the sex ratio for women from the 1950s. For the city of Mumbai, which prides itself in high literacy figures, the sex ratio is an abysmal 774 females/1000 male in 2001. This is the lowest for a city in India. While some argue that the presence of a large number of migrant male workers in the city could be responsible for this, one has to also admit that there are also a large number of male workers who have migrated out of the country from the city. If we add the sizable number of migrant women workers who come to the city for domestic work the ratio should balance itself.
So where does the problem lie?
This city has a large working woman population that is subject to the Maharashtra Government's "2 - child norm". Given the cultural preference for the male child in society, this norm will doubtlessly encourage female foeticide in the State. In spite of the amniocentesis test being illegal, it is obvious that its use is widespread. Mere enactment of laws against the use of the test for sex determination will not change the situation of the girl child. The problem lies at the root of social attitudes that govern society.
The decline in the sex ratio seems to go hand in hand with so called ‘progress’. The rise in consumerist attitudes has strengthened the belief that the girl is a financial liability and a drain on the wealth of the family. Discrimination against women continues at all levels in society to reinforce the negative attitudes towards the girl child.
Consider the following:
The traditional practice of dowry is still rampant despite so called stringent laws.
Sexual harassment and assault on women is widespread. Parents are paranoid about protecting their girl from rape or molestation and consider this aspect of the girl as a ‘liability’ as well.
Parents still live with the myth that only boys will provide and care for them in old age even though reality has proven different.
Families continue to be hung up with the idea that boys are needed to “carry on the family name”, which is why having a boy child becomes an obsession. Again, times are changing and many girls are keeping their natal family names. There is no law against this, just tradition.
Families would rather turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the torture of a daughter in her marital home, than have her back in her natal home, they are so worried about what society will say.
Women are severely handicapped when it comes to political and religious leadership. The issue of women’s leadership in politics has constantly been shot down by the men in parliament. Cutting across party lines the men have been unanimous in opposing the 33% reservation for women in parliament.
The fundamentalists in all religious traditions have similar thinking when it comes to women’s participation in religious leadership.
In a society that values traditions rather than the lives of its women, we have to work hard for changing attitudes towards the girl child. Unless we sincerely examine our attitudes towards the female of our species no change can take place. The target for changes in attitudes should be both men and women. We should be careful not to blindly target only the women, who are really the victims in a patriarchal society. The approach should be multi-pronged starting with educational institutions, marriage preparation courses, parenting programmes, family commissions/cells, etc. In short, we have to tackle every area to bring in radical change. Nothing short of gender mainstreaming in all aspects of life will change the reality of the girl child.
(This article was published in The Examiner in September 2002.)
By: Virginia Saldhana