|
By Lalitha Sridhar Prosecuting women such as Karuppayee, the first woman in Tamil Nadu to be convicted of female infanticide, is hardly the answer to the problem of female infanticide and foeticide, says P Pavalam, state-level convenor of the Madurai-based coalition NGO Campaign Against Sex Selective Abortion (CASSA). The role of the state and society in perpetuating the secondary status of women is the real issue to be addressed
How has the issue of female infanticide survived, even flourished, in spite of awareness and laws that should serve as a deterrent?
The female infanticide issue is not a new one. Sexual violence is spread over various cultural set-ups. Only the methods differ. It is not peculiar to India, or, within the country, to south India. In Tamil Nadu, it is considered chiefly prevalent in the Madurai, Salem and Dharmapuri districts. But it is spreading -- so are ultrasound clinics -- to Namakkal, Theni, etc. Official mechanisms do not pay any attention to the spread. The socio-economic background to the issue has to be understood. In Madurai district, the practice was mainly prevalent within the Kallar community. It is important, however, not to stereotype people. The Kallar men migrated and the women were employed in agriculture, which catered to all their needs. Marriages usually took place among relatives. The dowry system was not in vogue. Upto the 1950s, the status of women was high. But life in the villages is not the same any more. Agriculture is an inconsistent employer. In many villages, the quality of life for labourers has steadily deteriorated. Anti-women customs, some of them imported from outside, have steadily gained ground. When we conducted a survey in the Usilai area (Usimlampatti taluk), of the 120 girls who participated in our questionnaire, 57 were Kallars, 39 dalits and 24 members of other backward communities. From their responses we were able to assess the impact of new economic policies, marriage customs, dowry, physical and mental violence, migration, even alcoholism, on the status of women in society. Where the women’s position in society is significantly undermined, there is female infanticide. This link is undeniably present. What are the tools available to address the issue, and how well do they work?
We believe that gynaecologists, VHNs (village health nurses), adolescent girls, general physicians, the entire health infrastructure, panchayat presidents, village elders, spiritual and religious leaders, even teachers should speak out against infanticide. As activists, we find their opinions significant. We have tried to engage them in our campaign against infanticide/foeticide. It is very important to understand that in the worst affected districts the killing of girl-children is sanctioned by society. Neighbours and family members are likely to know about the occurrence; they even support such incidents. Some mothers are co-opted willingly. Like I said, this is not a new phenomenon. It has only become bolder, more technology-assisted. Unless young girls are raised to feel confident about their gender, to have self-esteem, we can only firefight, not eliminate the phenomenon. The media too has a role to play. Films and television serials stereotype the role of women in society. Scripts include lines such as: “I am helpless because I am born a woman.” “If only I had not had a daughter.” “Daughters are a burden we must carry till our death.” These only serve to emphasise the fact that there is no escape from the problems of being an Indian woman. The media does not give consistent coverage to the issue. There is a sudden rash of reporting, particularly if the case is sensational or tragic. Take the example of Karuppayee. A case was filed against her and her husband in 1994. Her first-born male child and third-born female child met with natural deaths. She strangled her fifth girl-child the day the baby was born. The Indian Council of Child Welfare lodged a complaint. The police moved with great alacrity. By 1996, she was convicted but her husband was let off because he was not present at the scene of the ‘crime’. Karuppayee made big news because she was the first woman in Tamil Nadu to be convicted of female infanticide. She was interviewed umpteen times and attained the status of a ‘notorious celebrity’. Her case is pending before the high court and she is out on bail. The impact of all this on her life has been terrible. She no longer wishes to meet the media and has become a recluse. She prefers not to interact at all. We have interviewed over 25 women who have been convicted. Many have been badly scarred by their experiences. It is true that, as a strategy to instil fear in the minds of potential perpetrators, the media coverage served a good purpose. Inasmuch as the media is concerned, there is no follow-up, no regular review of the case and the campaign. The issue is too complex to label people either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In another case, where the husband was convicted, the wife herself was the complainant. Although the man is in jail, and there was marital strife from the start, the couple made up and the woman has had another child by him. Women are often completely subservient to male patriarchal values and hierarchies. A woman often has no identity without her husband. When the whole issue is centred around awareness-building and bringing about social change at the fundamental level, sustained and balanced media support can be invaluable. However, it is not forthcoming. We at CASSA have in fact noted that media coverage of our activities has steadily declined in the last two years. It seems female infanticide is not newsworthy anymore. CASSA opposes the conviction of mothers culpable of female infanticide. Please explain.
We believe that treating infanticide as homicide and charging the mother and other members of the family under the Indian Penal Code is inhuman and excessively harsh. The social structure and value system is fiercely patriarchal. Intense family and social pressures drive women to kill their own babies. The woman is helpless and has no power over her own decisions. A woman who participates directly or indirectly in the killing of her own child is actually in the deepest denial of her self-value. She should not be punished and must be treated with sympathy and concern. She herself is a victim. Also, the impact of judicial action has been devastating. Families have been displaced, broken up, older children have dropped out of school, convicted women have shown suicidal tendencies, the event has caused financial indebtedness, and, when both parents are jailed, older children have become destitute. When families are placed in remand, the social ostracism itself becomes a punishment more severe than anything the courts can give. Besides, women in custody do not receive post-natal care. According to government data, there were 2,568 reported cases of female infanticide in Tamil Nadu in 2000. Amongst these, only 16 were brought to book. What can the state do about the rest? The role of the state and society in perpetuating the secondary status of women is the real issue to be addressed. Otherwise, women are simply punished twice over. “If the baby is a girl, don’t come back,” they are told. It is not a threat to be taken lightly when the woman’s survival, and that of her other children, depends on her family. What are the other concerns?
It is our contention that IMR (infant mortality rate) gender differential and sex ratio at birth are the two key direct indicators to understanding female infanticide and foeticide. Our studies have shown that even if there is a slight improvement in IMR differential, it is negated by a decline in the sex ratio at birth. In other words, districts where the practice of infanticide seems to be on the decline show an alarming drop in sex ratio at birth (an indicator of female foeticide). There has been a consistent fall in infanticide between 1996 and 2001 in all the blacklisted districts. It is foeticide that is the real threat now. But this is poorly understood and addressed. We are campaigning for the United Nations and the World Health Organisation to recognise IMR gender differential and sex ratio at birth as standard indicators. Not only India, many countries like China for example have son-preference. No standard official data is available as of now. This is a great drawback. With regard to female infanticide, the government is chiefly concerned with the notorious districts of Salem, Dharmapuri, Madurai, Namakkal and Theni. But we have strong evidence to prove that the practice is not restricted to these districts alone. Keeping IMR gender differential as the indicator, female infanticide is observed in districts like Trichy, Perambalur, Thiruvannamalai, Karur, Villupuram, Vellore, Erode and Dindigul. So, from the core area it is now spreading to the peripherals. But the state is not keeping pace. We are against schemes like the Cradle Baby Scheme. It implies that the government is encouraging parents to dump unwanted girl-babies. Is that a correct message? Cradle Baby centres exist in all 30 districts of Tamil Nadu -- even in areas where there is no infanticide! Think of the implications. Also, the abortion law is liberal and there are no mechanisms to monitor the enforcement of the MTP Act (Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971). The state’s indirect sanction to use the MTP Act as a tool to reduce population size implies that sex selective abortion indirectly enjoys legitimate sanction from the state. The official machinery and the law concern themselves solely with female infanticide, which is actually not as alarming as foeticide now is. Foeticide committed with the assistance of ‘ultrasound’ clinics is spiralling even in hitherto unaffected areas like Perambalur. Scan centres are supposed to be registered but this is not done comprehensively. Laws exist on paper only. We have agitated and provided authorities with lists of unauthorised scan centres. They are pulled up, they pay a fine, get their machines released and go back to business! The PNDT Act (Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques [Regulation and Prevention of Misuse] Act 1994) was inadequate. It never once mentioned ‘sex selection’. The law was concerned only with the foetus from conception to delivery. But sex selection is possible prior to conception, in a laboratory, using genetic means. We filed a case against a doctor in Madurai who openly advertised that he could make male embryos by selecting the required chromosomes. It is two years now, but the case has not yet even come to trial. The judicial process reacts too slowly. Indeed, sex selection is done even in western countries. We are hopeful that the new law, the Pre-Sex Selection and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 2002 will overcome some of these drawbacks. As its name suggests, it is more comprehensive in its coverage. Its impact is still to be analysed. We found in our discussions with doctors and sonologists that prenatal diagnostic techniques are widely used to confirm, monitor and manage pregnancies -- almost all pregnant women resorting to institutional deliveries are subjected to ultrasonograms at least four times during their pregnancy, as directed by doctors. Even registered genetics labs, counselling centres and clinics do not maintain records, as specified in Form G of the rules. Registration of abortions beyond 12 weeks should be universalised, including in private hospitals. The specific cause of termination should be mentioned clearly -- be it congenital malformation, genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders. The definition of ultrasonography should be made more explanatory to include all imagery techniques such as ultrasonograms, Doppler scans, CT scans and MRIs, etc. If the purpose of these prenatal diagnostic techniques is to detect abnormalities, then considering the negligible prevalence of such disorders, this kind of rampant application amounts to abuse of medical practice. It is not only legislation and judicial pronouncements that play a significant role. As I explained earlier, there are overwhelming social ground realities to be reckoned with. The practice of female infanticide has been around for generations. It is a matter of grave concern that modern society, which has emancipated women in so many ways, is yet to come to grips with the issue of female infanticide and foeticide. (Lalitha Sridhar is a Chennai-based freelance journalist) InfoChange News & Features, August 2004
|
