Bootstrapping India
 Main Page       Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com

Why   is   female/male   ratio   falling   in   India,   and   NOT   in   West?

    Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Reasons why female/male ratio in India is lower that F/M ratio West?
  3. Non issues
  4. How can citizens of India improve female/male ratio to normal i.e. 1000:1000

Introduction

The female/male ratio in India at birth is pathetic 930/1000. In West it is about 1000/1000, which is the normal case. And as fertility rate (FR = number of children a woman bears on an average in her life) decreases, F/M ratio further declines. And as sex-determination techonology such as sonogram etc becomes more available, cheapens and improves, the F/M ratio further declines. This can lead to a highly unstable and crime-prone society.

All Western countries M/F ratio 1000:1000, which is normally the case.

The purpose of this article is to enumerate and discuss ONLY those factors
  1. which retain F/M ratio to normal level of 1000:1000, are present in West, and absent in India
  2. which decrease F/M ratio to 1000:1000, are present in India, and absent in West
The purpose of this article is NOT to enumerate factors that are present/absent in BOTH countries. Hence a large number of factors, such as moral values, greed etc will get dismissed as non-issues. Why? Becuase greed is present in US/West as well as India. And moral values are at same level in India as well as West.


Factors why India F/M ratio is much lower than West.

The West has an aggresive strategy to control population growth. Why? In West, the death rate declined only with increase industrial progress, and industrial progress created career minded men/women who also opted for lesser children. So economic circumstances or govt pressure NEVER forced citizens of West to decrease fertility rate --- the market forces did. In India, due to import of medicines, the death rate drastically declined. So the industrial progress did NOT make very many individuals opt for fewer children. But the economic pie did NOT grow as fast --- so millions of individuals in India had opt for fewer kids, not due to career reasons, but due to economic reasons.

In West also, before 1900, the parents had a liking for male child, just as Indian couples have a preference for male child. This is obvious, as every person wants a support in old age, and though it is NOT guaranteed that male child will necessarily stay with ageing parents, it is guaranteed that female child will NOT. But in West, in early 1900s, there was NO pressure on couples to have fewer children. The wars, and migration to US, Latin America and Australia ensured that West had no reason for reducing birth rate in early 1900s. So couples were free to produce as many children as it wanted. And in early 1900s, there was NO techonology available to determine sex. So there was way they could have aborted female foetuses.

By the time techonology for sex determination became cheap, in 1970s, the couples in West had much much reason to long for a male child ---
  1. The govts had a social security system, which provided basic economic support to ALL elders, and hence lesser reason for a son.

  2. The administration/courts had improved to such an extent, and interface with govt was possible by just paper mails, telephones and now even emails. So the kind of hardships that people in India face, like standing in a queue to pay a phone bill, simply did not exist in US as back as 1950s. So elders have less need for a male child

  3. Due to fast/fair administration and courts, the private sector was also forced to improve access facilities, that would make life of elders etc easier. This further reduced a need for thge male child.

In India, the question of economic support is real. Most couples see themselves helpless if they do not have a male child. Unlike west, govt of India gives no, or very little, doles to elders. Also, the physical hardships one needs to face in day to day life are harsh enough that an elderly person would need a physical support, and so every couple longs for a male child.

The intellectuals in India, as always, are quick to blame "culture" of Indians as a major factor responsible for preference of male child. This is utter-nonsense, just like almost everything that comes fromn common-bashing intellectuals. The preference for male child over female child is due to REAL reasons, economic/physical and has NOTHING to do with culture. In West also, such preference existed when govt was NOT providing any economic support for elders, and physical life was harsh ; its just that in those days no one had equipment for sex-determination and so this bias did NOT result into anything substancial.

Non issues

  1. Lack of education is a non-issue. Even in educated couples the preference for male child is dominating due to physical/economic realities. In fact, it is quite possible that F/M ratio is LOWER in educated couples than illiterate, as educated couples are more familiar with sex determination techniques and they can easily afford it.

  2. Religion is almost a non-issue. Its true that Jains and Sikhs have much lower F/M ratio, followed by Hindus and Muslims have much better F/M ratio. But even in muslims, F/M ratio is MUCH below 1000/1000 and it is decreasing, which shows that more and more muslim couple are also opting for sex determination and selective abortion. And one reason why muslims have better female/male ratio is that relative fewer have opted for 2-child family or 1-child family. As number of muslim couples opting for 2-child and 1-child family increases, the need for male child will result into more and more selective abortion, and would thus worsen female/male ratio.

  3. Economic progress is a non-issue. A cabal of rightist economists, who are hostile to democratizing administration/courts, claim that economic progress will automatically improve female/male ratio. This is non-sense --- as long as physical hardship and economic insecurity for elders persist, the couples will continue to have preference for male child. And we DO NOT need so called progress to reduce economic insecurity and physicial hardships for elders; we ONLY need to democratize the administration.

  4. Everyone with common sense knows that lesser children improves economic well being Basically, individuals who are well off, feel that they will be able to live independently at elderly age tend to have fewer children, and they happen to be educated. So there is MERE correlation between education and having fewer children, there is no strong dependence.

  5. Religion is indeed a factor --- Muslims tend to have higher fertility rate than Hindus, who have higher fertility rate than Christian. But religion has much much minor impact compared to economic incentives that EASs would create. Less than 5% Muslims, for examples, would accept 33% to 66% lesser income to bear 3rd/4th child. Hence despite religious ferver, most muslims would opt for fewer children.

  6. Culture and "bias against women" etc are non-issues. The women also prefer male children over female, and hence the "bias against women" is a non-issue. There is no cultural reason --- the preference for male child is due to harsh economic/physical realities that elders face.

How can citizens of India improve female/male ratio

Trivial.
  1. Steps 1-3: The citizens should force MLAs, MPs and District Panchayat Members to create procedures that would enable citizens to pass laws in District Panchayats, Assemblies and Parliament. Please read LM.01 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in District Panchayats and City Councils. Please read LM.02 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Assembly. And please read LM.03 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Parliament.

  2. Steps 4-17 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact procedures EAS.01-14. These procedures will enable citizens to collect royalty from natural resources and divide it equitably, and have clauses that REDUCE the amount that citizens get if they have more children. IOW, the EASs provide a powerful incentive for having fewer and fewer children. To be specific, all EAS have following clause :

    Section 5B : Procedures to reduce population growth

    5B.1 [Person responsible for this procedure/directive: Registrar; Purpose: Population control] Twelve months after passing this law, after re-approval of over 50% of the Corporators a)the Registrar will reduce 33% Allowances of men and women who have more than 2 children, the last children one must be born 2 years after this law is passed. b)the Registrar will reduce 66% Allowances of men and women who have more than 3 children, the last two children must be born 2 years after this law is passed

    5B.2 [Person responsible for this procedure/directive: Registrar ; Purpose: Reducing female infanticide] The Registrar will count 2 or less female children will count as 1 child in case of the above clause

    5B.3 [Person responsible for this procedure/directive: Registrar; Purpose: Reducing female feticide] Twelve months after passing this law, after re-approval of over 50% of the Corporators, the Registrar will give additional 33% Allowances to each parent with 1 or more female child and 66% additional Allowances to those with 2 or more female children.



    The clauses 5B.2 and 5B.3 will create an economic incetive for couples to prefer female child over make child. In addition, the EASs create an income for every citizen, including elders. Hence economic insecurity for elders will reduce, and their preference for male child will also reduce. Hence female/male ratio will improve.

  3. Steps 18-33 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact procedures CT.01-16. These procedures will improve courts and administration, and would make interface of govts, banks and utility companies simple enough that elderly men can live with minimal hardships that they would NOT need a child to support them. This will reduce the need for a male child.

These TRIVIAL steps will improve courts and administration, and would make interface of govts, banks and utility companies simple enough that elderly men can live with minimal hardships that they would NOT need a male child to support them. This will reduce the need have male children, and this will improve female/male ratio.


If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.