Save The Girl Child - India's Girl : Boy ratio continues to plummet

[Liberal_in_LA]

Sense Of Census: Save The Girl Child

India's child sex ratio continues to plummet, indicating that female feticide and infanticide remain rampant. Provisional data released by the census office for 2011 shows that the child sex ratio (0-6 years) has further declined to 914 girls for every 1,000 boys as compared to 927 in 2001.

The divide between the north and south has got even starker with J&K's child sex ratio falling precipitously to 859, making it the third worst state after Haryana and Punjab. In 2001, J&K had a better child sex ratio than the Indian average. With the exception of Himachal Pradesh, no state in the north now has a child sex ratio above 900.

----

Overall, the last 30 years have been cruel for India's young girls. There are now 48 fewer girls per 1,000 boys than there were in 1981. J&K, Maharashtra and Haryana have had the worst 30-year decline in child sex ratios.

"Whatever measures that have been put in over the last 40 years have not had any impact on the child sex ratio," Union home secretary G K Pillai conceded. Minister of state for women and child development Krishna Tirath expressed concern over the low child sex ratio in states like Haryana and Punjab and said that she would take up the issue with the state governments.

"It (the decline in child sex ratio) was expected, but it is a warning signal for the nation to wake up," Ranjana Kumari, director of Centre for Social Research, said. She said the law banning sex-based abortion "is not stringently implemented". "The caution should be taken seriously. We are leading to a crisis situation," she said. Social activist Dr Sabu George said the larger cause for concern was the fact that previously unaffected states were also indulging in sex determination because of aggressive promotion of the sex selection tests by doctors.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sense-Of-Census-Save-The-Girl-Child/articleshow/7840356.cms

[johnroshan]

1. This is a dangerous trend... /nt

[jeff47]

8. Not in the long run

Rarity will make girls more valuable.

[SoCalDem]

2. 25 years from now....war n/t

[Tumbulu]

3. I suppose that it is our way as a species to reduce

the population.

I have given up trying to understand why any culture would prefer more males than females. It makes no sense. So perhaps it is a thing a culture does when there are too many people.

[johnroshan]

5. Its only logical.

In any of the developing countries like India,

Sons - Breadwinner, Provides protection, Stays in the family after marriage.

Daughters - Expenditure, Needs protection, Leaves home after marriage, Huge dowry sums to be paid during marriage, Risk to family "honor" during the adolescent years.



As you can see, these things have nothing to do with natural evolution or traits of the species. Its all culture and economy. Even more reason to educate people about the ills of blindly following social norms.

[Tumbulu]

13. not really logical

as the roles are all changing for them as well.

With many animals when food is abundant the male to female ratio in the offspring goes up. This is perhaps to allow the food to be eaten up in a way that does not create an overpopulation problem. When food is more scarce the trend reverses.

[wickerwoman]

4. Anyone who doesn't want a daughter, doesn't deserve one.

Not sure it helps to legislate against this problem... won't it just result in more unwanted kids?

And "feticide"? Really? What's wrong with "selective abortion"- a perfectly serviceable term minus all the anti-abortion hysteria?

[SoCalDem]

6. I so wanted three daughters.. I even had names picked out for them

Katherine, Diane & Susan

and of course I had three sons..

so now I have two daughters-in-law..

Esme Maria, Leslie & a girlfriend of other son...Vicki

[JI7]

7. I heard Southern Parts of India are better educated and more Socialist

these northern parts are often full of ignorant people who look to things like religion, ethnicity etc .

[Lance_Boyle]

9. Dear DU: I told you so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=773195&mesg_id=773195

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Banning sex-based abortion is not justifiable.

It is not the state's place to say what is and isn't an acceptable reason to have an abortion.

[treestar]

11. Who do they think their sons are going to marry?

American?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. My understanding is that much of the problem is dowry traditions.

My understanding is that the problem is that in much of India after marriage the bride goes and lives with the grooms family (and so it's usually the groom's parents and not the bride's who get looked after in old age), and her parents also have to pay a dowrie.

This means that having a daughter is a financial liability, whereas having a son is likely an asset. Having sons rather than daughters really does make sense.

If that's the case then solving the problem will be a matter not just of "educating" people in the fact that having a daughter is not significantly less beneficial than having a son, it will require changing the facts to make that the case.