ANURADHA SINGH 

BJMC 3rd SEMESTER

Female foeticide in India

Female foeticide is the act of aborting a foetus because it is female. This is a major social problem in India and has cultural connections with the dowry system that is ingrained in Indian culture, despite the fact that it has been prohibited by law since 1961. See Dowry law in India. In India a strong preference for sons over daughters exists, unlike in Western cultures. People realise smaller family sizes with relatively greater number of sons through the use of medical technologies. Pregnancies are planned by resorting to 'differential contraception' — contraception is used based on the number of surviving sons irrespective of family size. Following conception, foetal sex is determined by prenatal diagnostic techniques after which female foetuses are aborted. Foetal sex determination and sex-selective abortion by medical professionals has grown into a 1,000 crore industry (US$244 million). Social discrimination against women and a preference for sons have been promoted. Since 1991, 80% of districts in India have recorded an increasingly masculine sex ratio with the state of Punjab having the most masculine sex ratio. According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001).

Government response

Government response to the problem has been known to not have stopped female foeticide from occurring. Although several acts have been passed to combat the situation, many of them are not enforced strongly enough. This and the existence of several loopholes in the system means the practice of sex-selective abortion continues. An example of one of these loopholes would be on the pretext of checking for genetic disorders in the foetus, who can stop a doctor from examining the sex of the unborn child and informing the parents in secret.
In 2001, the Supreme Court in India gave orders to five multi-national companies — Philips, Siemens, Toshiba, Larsen and Toubro and Wipro GE — to give them the names and addresses of all the clinics and persons in India to whom they have sold ultrasound machines in the last five years to enable the state government to find out if these machines were registered. Unfortunately, not much happened after this directive, although the companies were reported to have supplied all the information that was required. The Statesman, a leading newspaper reported on February 3, 2002 that not a single illegal ultrasound machine has been impounded in Delhi.
Banning pre-conception sex-determination tests calls for new legislation. But the fact is that even the present PNDT Act is full of loopholes and cannot be effectively implemented. Law certainly empowers the government to act but the fundamental question is whether the government or Supreme Court can alone usher in social transformation in Indian society^.
India’s prime minister acknowledges gendercide as a national shame, however, the police and judiciaries do not implement the law because they believe in the same thing. Authorities often let the unlawful parents and doctors off with light punishment. Often, when the mothers disobey the husband’s family decision to abort the female foetus and report it to the authorities, the suits are ignored or given a light sentence: The mother is targeted for bearing girls and disobeying the family’s decision to abort the child. She may even lose her job, be expose to constant death threats, and be left with unresolved cases. In addition, others who give birth to girls are prone to violence. Even if she is able to give birth to the baby girls, the family is likely to not report the births and even murder them.