From: bhattach@quip.eecs.umich.edu (sayan bhattacharyya)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: "Our Daughters Must Die" - Infanticide in India
Date: 10 Sep 1992 22:42:01 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <18nnf2INNchg@agate.berkeley.edu> dbailey@cix.clink.co.uk writes:
>
>To Sayan Bhattacharyya I have to respond more fully. Firstly
>by saying that such problems are certainly Women's Issues.  In
>itself that is enough.  They are economic, judicial, human rights
>and other types of issue too, but that does not justify saying
>they are "not just women's issues".
>

I think it is important to explore this question : "What is a 
Women's Issue anyway?"

I think, the difference between my position and Diane's is that 
Diane is classifying issue with regard to its *effects* , while
I am looking at the issue from the point of view of *causes*.

As far as effects go this is certainly a women's issue,  because the
socio-economic structure of present-day Indian society indisputably
results in discrimination against women in India (as Diane eloquently
substantiated with lots of statistics in her last posting). 

However, it seems to me that a more fruitful way of looking at 
it is to ask , "What causes this phenomenon to take place ?" If
we ask this question , we would find that most so-called "women's
issues" (as well as "minority issues" , or in the Indian context,
"caste issues" and many such "xxx's issues") turn out to be of   
wider ramification. In my opinion, most feminist critiques of   
society err by circumscibing their focus to "women's" issues 
and thereby failing to take note of the wider socio-economic 
factors behind these issues.

Thus , it would be fruitless to carry the argument further, for
it is apparent to me that Diane and I have a difference in regard
to the way each of us interprets the word "issue".

>
>I do not see it as appropriate to suggest that broader economic
>problems be solved in order to prevent murder.  I'm sure there
>are economic issues behind many murders in my own country, but no
>one suggests that eliminating the economic issues is the key to
>stopping murder.
>

On the other hand, I think that economic issues *are* indeed 
the key to murder and crime if you look closely. Think of the
homicide rates and the crime rates in the inner cities of the
United States of America. Don't you think that economic 
impoverishment and urban neglect and degradation are among the
major causes behind the high crime rate including murder in 
that country ?

>Your information regarding state variations also seems at
>variance with the official figures.  Although Kerala does seem to
>be somewhat free of the problem West Bengal does not:
>
>SEX RATIO IN STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES OF INDIA
>Females to 1000 Males
>
>State/Union Territory   Total    Rural    Urban
>Kerala                 1032     1034     1021
>West Bengal             911      947      819
>

Note that I was talking about the social status of women,
not about the female/male ratio. 

I admit that there is certainly a correlation between social 
status and the F/M ratio, but sometimes this can be misleading
because the F/M ratio is for the entire population consisting
of several generations. Thus even if the situation improves
it takes time to get reflected in census figures as among older
people there would be much less females because of past neglect.
The land reforms and agrarian reforms in West Bengal have 
been possible only recently , after the Left Front government
came to power in West Bengal in 1977.


>Thus, foreign pressure can often be
>far more effective, and often more constructive, and less
>dangerous for all concerned, than internal pressure.  In evidence
>I point to the campaigns of Amnesty International.
>

I disagree and I think that the analogy with Amnesty International is 
misleading.

Foreign pressure is useful when it is the *government* which is 
to blame. For example, pressure by Amnesty International would 
be effective in restraining the Indian government from committing
atrocities in Punjab or Kashmir. But you have to realize that 
the abuse we are discussing is one committed by private citizens
and not by the government. The only thing you can blame the government
for is lack of vigilance. As you yourself noted, women voluntarily
kill their girl babies because they know that they face a bleak future.
Do you seriously believe that putting pressure on the *government*
by external agencies can force the *people* to change their
practice, particularly when the practice is based on harsh
socio-economic realities, if you don't attempt to change the 
socio-economic reality as well ?


>Now, here is a practical and positive question.  Does anyone know
>anything of the laws against dowries and why they have not been
>effective?

I don't know the exact laws but they do exist. The main reason 
that they aren't as effective as they should be is that in 
many cases there is lack of sufficient evidence that dowry
was involved and guilty parties are often let off because
it is difficult to prove the charges that they demanded dowry. 
This in turn discourages victims from pursuing expensive legal
proceedings because they usually turn out to be fruitless - it
a kind of vicious circle. Also the fact that the legal system 
in India (as in many other countries) is skewed towards the 
(financially and socially) privileged, doesn't help matters.

-Sayan Bhattacharyya
>
>Diane
>

-Sayan Bhattacharyya




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.