KHAN YASIR turns the pages of history to show the presence of female foeticide and infanticide in the various societies, and presents Islam as the panacea.
Have you ever heard that a person getting another one killed is awarded compensation? You haven’t, might be. But, like many odd things, this also happens in India. According to a report (Indian Express, August 5, 2001) Rita Jadhav, a resident of Dhova village in Bhavnagar and mother of three daughters, wanted a male child. So she consulted a gynaecologist Sushma Iyer when she became pregnant for the fourth time in October 1992. Iyer sent the uterine fluid sample to Surat based pathologist Nirmal Vaniwala, who identified the foetus as female. The couple came back to Iyer saying they wanted a second test to confirm the findings but Iyer suggested an abortion going by Vaniwala’s report. The couple could not afford the Iyer’s abortion fees so they went to the local SDVS Ashaktashram hospital and had the much-desired abortion done. The doctor, who conducted the abortion, told them the foetus was male. The distressed couple approached the Jagruk Nagrik, a consumer protection organisation in Vadodara, and filed a case against the Surat based gynaecologist and pathologist with the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. They accused the doctor of negligence and violation of medical ethics. PV Moorjani, Jagruk Nagrik secretary, who had filed the case, claimed a compensation of just over 10 lakh. The commission in its order in July 2001 observed that there was collusion between the gynaecologist and the pathologist which prevented a second test. The two doctors were directed to pay Rs. 25,000 with 10 per cent interest within four weeks of the order to the couple.
Who says humans have been civilized in the 21st century? Man today is as much a beast as he had been in the age when victors used to erect mountains of heads, breasts and other vital organs after indulging in a massive carnage of subjugated civilian population. Or the age when slaves were compelled to ‘fight’ with hungry lions or were simply put to flames for amusement’s sake. The difference lies only in the saga of advanced technology of the modern age. Now instead of organising a ruthless slaughter (though it also happens) powerful nations drop nuclear bombs, cluster bombs, napalm bombs etc. instead of burying alive the girl child (though it also happens) now they are killed in the very womb of mothers.
FROM FEMALE INFANTICIDE TO FEMALE FOETICIDE
According to Anthropologist Laila Williamson, infanticide (and to be more precise female infanticide) has been practised on every continent by people of every culture. “Rather than being an exception, then, it has been a rule.” A very common and extremely torturous method of infanticide was simply to abandon the child, or to ‘expose it’. Thereby letting her die through hunger, thirst, sunrays or animal attack, etc. Tragically, this method was considered ‘humane’. A letter from a Roman citizen to his wife dating from 1 BC, goes, “I am still in Alexandria …. I beg and plead with you to take care of our little child, and as soon as we receive wages, I will send them to you. In the meantime, if (good fortune to you!) you give birth, if it is a boy, let it live; if it is a girl, expose it.”
Chinese philosopher and a member of ruling aristocracy, Han Fei Tzu writes in 3rd century BC, “… when they [parents] produce a boy [they] congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.” In 374 CE though Valentinian-1 has mandated to rear all children, female infanticide was common in the Christian world. The practice of female infanticide was also common in Kutch, Kehtri, Gujarat and Sindh and was widely prevalent among feudatory Rajputs. A man would either tear apart the new born girl with a knife or the parents themselves threw the infant girl in the Ganges as a sacrifice.
The Yukon and Mahlemuit tribes of Alaska exposed the female newborns by first stuffing their mouths with grass before leaving them to die. In arctic Canada the Eskimos used to expose them to ice and leave them to die their ‘natural’ death. New Guinea mothers would eat their ‘delicious’ daughters rakishly. (More details of history of female infanticide can be seen on Wikipedia).
In pagan Arabia we know that the situation was not any better. The Qur’ān describes the pathological psyche of a man of that society when he becomes father of a girl. “When any of them is told about the birth of a female his face turns dark, and he is filled with suppressed anger, and he hides himself from people because of the bad news, thinking: should he keep the child despite disgrace, or should he bury it in dust?” [Al-Nahl: 58-59].
CAUSES
Economic and social reasons are always behind this egregious phenomenon. Even in pre-Islamic Arab societies, the fear was that girl would share the meals and would be a burden on the meagre income. Today also the mentality is same. A girl is considered a burden (bojh) who must be nurtured and then ‘donated’ (kanya daan) to some male – his husband. The money that is spent on her upbringing, on her education is just a useless and unproductive investment – without any return! Dowry is yet another jolt to many a family. On the contrary, boys are the cudgel of the old age. They ‘earn’ dowry during marriage and sustain the parents in their old age. And so investment on their upbringing and education is a profitable venture!
This materialistic mentality is omnipresent behind all the incidents of female infanticide both in the ‘dark’ past and the ‘enlightened’ present. But everyone is not callous enough to bury alive a breathing creature beneath the earth, or to stab her or throw away her in the Ganges. Now modern technology is there for rescue. Now they can part off some money to get to know the sex of the foetus in the womb of the mother and destroy it in case of its being female; without feeling any guilt (of murdering a living being).
For example, Ruth Macklin asks, “Who, if anyone, is harmed or wronged by the practice of SD? Surely not the female child, who will not be born as a result of SD, since this is the child who does not now and will never exist.” But is reality the same?
Dr Jerome LeJeune, Genetics Professor at the University of Descartes, Paris, discloses: “I have learnt from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and any interruption at any point constitutes termination of a human life.” That means female foeticide too is a homicide.
Beware killer parents and killer doctors! You will one day have to stand helpless and the girls buried alive or killed in the womb will prosecute you in the court of your Lord – the omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient (in extreme anger at your heartlessness). God will not even turn to you but will ask the girls themselves: for what offence were you killed?
This was the traditional logic; the modern logic in favour of female foeticide is more ludicrous though it is more philosophically articulated but equally misleading. The utter brazenness with which crimes and sins are committed in the modern age is also a replica of the old pagan period. For example, a bio-ethicist (sic) Jacob M Appel has written, “Mothers who want boys should have boys and mothers who want girls should have girls. Pre-implanting diagnosis offers the promising of increasing the number of children who are loved and wanted. I look forward to the day when every son knows that his parents wanted a son and every daughter knows that her parents wanted a daughter.”
Mohan Rao in his article laments that a plethora of feminists are favouring these ignoble techniques of female foeticide shrouding them under the cloak of “women’s free choice”. Rao went on to pin the balloon of this faulty set of arguments by asserting, “The concept of reproductive rights have been so reified that it is unavoidable in the context of female foeticide also – where it is used to justify the practice. What does ‘empowerment’ or ‘reproductive choice’ mean to women from poor communities who are denied access to all other rights as citizens? These fashionable phrases are intrinsic to the language of coercive population policies. They are also words used by multinational companies wishing to break into India’s potential market of forty million couples with injectable contraceptives and implants. These are precisely the words used by right wing American neo-eugenists to illegally sterilise poor women in our country with quinacrine”.
It is also argued that lack of access to safe abortion is one of the leading causes of the high maternal mortality rate in the country. But the question is: are abortions safe in any circumstances? I bet the answer is a reverberating NO. This is one of the instances in which modernised (read westernised) society thinks with a twisted mind. Instead of prohibiting porn sites, blue films, nudity and co-ed system of education, it was argued that sex education, introduction of contraceptives and condoms is indispensable for the sexual health of youngsters.
Another feminist in a panel discussion found to be arguing in this manner: technology is neutral and value free. We cannot and should not stand between people and their access to technologies; we should not play God. Who are we to tell women what they should want? Overtime a decline in the ‘supply’ of girls might improve the ‘demand’ for girls and thus their status. Hats off to such ‘farsightedness’!
This argument is carried forward by Ruth Macklin, though she begins her article “The Ethics of Sex Selection” by saying, “The thought of women having abortions in order to choose the sex of their future children fills many with revulsion.” Yet in her view, “Legal prohibition of SD will infringe upon the reproductive rights of women.” Hereafter she went on discussing the deplorable life of the girl-child in India, the severity of dowry system, the trauma of poor parents and the girl herself.
Through an incident of a catholic family – that had two girls and was teased for not having a boy, third time when they expected a child and the foetus was girl they aborted it (under societal pressure) – she highlights the economic, social and cultural conditions of a middle class family in India that make abortion of foetus a necessity.
Then quoting some incidents of female infanticides that are common enough in the country, she jumps to the conclusion, “Aborting pre-viable foetus is ethically preferable to killing full-term infants after births.” One can only lament on this logic. No wonders if by the same logic one argues that rape of a stranger is ‘ethically more preferable’ to incest. What conclusion is sought by advancing such an argument?
Then she discuses the life conditions of a girl child, the discrimination that she faces; to quote her actual words, “a second, well-documented consequence for girl children in poor families is their being neglected in favour of their male siblings. Whether SD is legally allowed or legally prohibited, girl children are often denied adequate food and medical treatment in favour of their brothers. So if a family has one or more girl children and then uses SD to produce a male child, it is likely that the girls in that family will be harmed by inadequate food or medical attention. But the same consequences would result if a boy is born in the family without the assistance of SD.
It is difficult to determine whether the practice of SD produces more harm to identifiable girl children than they would suffer in the absence of the practice. Nevertheless it is clear that when SD is practised, the total number of girl children who can be harmed in this way is decreased”. This is yet another logic that could be devastated with a simple question: Is elimination of the poor a legitimate solution to the mounting poverty?
She does not forget to mention that in absence of this ‘facility’ people would go to unauthorised and illegal doctors and will risk their health. She also discusses the consequences of missing women. Saying, “as women become scarcer, their value would increase”. This is reiteration of the same logic of ‘‘supply’ and ‘demand’ of a commodity. I have nothing to say on this logic as Macklin herself raises questions over it. She tends to do justice with the topic in the last part of her article which deals with negative consequences of the female foeticide. She acknowledges that such scarcity of women may result in polyandry and prostitution and increase in crimes like rape, incest and kidnapping. Reproductive burden on the existing women would increase etc.
She quotes Wang Wei, a professor of ethics at the People’s University in Beijing, who noted a series of kidnapping of city women who were abducted by bounty hunters and delivered to rural farmers who were desperate for brides. In a nutshell she urges, “Social reforms rather than prohibition of SD are more likely to achieve desirable effects.” In my view both are necessary. One can notice what impact the warning ‘smoking is injurious to health’ boldly written on every pack of cigarettes does have on a smoker? It is conspicuous if one wants to discourage smoking there is really no option but to ban it besides social education.
As one cannot argue that only social education and not legal prohibition must be there for the crimes of homicide, theft and adultery on the same pedestal, I would say that female foeticide must be legally banned and steps must be taken for making people aware of its ill consequences. Besides educating people, steps must be taken to annihilate bidding of grooms (dowry system). A revolutionary change in the mentality of people is vital to put an end to this practice.
It must be noted however that according to a UNICEF report up to 50 million girls and women are missing in India’s population as a result of systematic sex discrimination. In the region known today as Southern Texas, the Mariame Indians practised infanticide of females on a large scale. Wives had to be obtained from neighbouring groups. It is estimated that by 2020 there could be more than 35 million young “surplus males” in China and 25 million in India. The idea of there being “100 million missing women” largely in Asia, originated with or was popularised by an influential 1990 essay by Amartya Sen. The ill consequences of this phenomenon have already been noticed in China (see the remarks of Professor Wang Wei above)
What’s the way out then?
ISLAM PROSCRIBES FOETICIDE
Needless to say that Islam forbids, proscribes, bans any such thing as female foeticide. I have mentioned that in pre-Islamic pagan Arabia daughters used to be buried alive. Islam not only dispirited the act but also declared it as a crime. Several verses of the Qur’ān and Prophet’s sayings encouraged Muslims to behave with their girls, to nurture them properly, not to discriminate between girls and boys, and have faith that Allah is the Sustainer. The Qur’ān says: “And do not slay your children out of fear of poverty. We provide you and will likewise provide them with sustenance.” [Al-Anam: 151]
“Do not kill your children for fear of want. We will provide for them and for you. Surely killing them is a great sin. [Bani Israel: 31]
Presenting a scene of the Doomsday, the Qur’ān says, ‘And when the girl-child buried alive shall be asked: for what offence was she killed?’ [Al-Takwir: 8-9]
Some traditions of the Prophet are as follows:
Allah shall reward the Muslim with entry to heaven who neither buried his daughter alive, nor meted out ignoble treatment to her, nor treated the son preferentially compared to her. (Abu Dawood)
Whoever is put to test with girls as offspring, and he treats them kindly, they will become a shield protecting him from hell fire. (Bukhari)
One who brings up two girls right from their childhood till their maturity, will appear on the Day of Judgement close to me like two fingers of hand and he joined his two fingers. (Muslim)
A man asked, what is the greatest sin in the sight of Allah? The Prophet replied, polytheism. He asked, “What next?” And the Prophet said, “That you should kill your child for the fear that he may eat along with you.” (Bukhari and Muslim)
In the light of the two verses of Qur’ān quoted above it is clear that family planning with a view of limiting the children to maintain a small and prosperous family could also not be justified.
Female infanticide and foeticide are there because girls are taken as a source of poverty. Islam discourages the thinking articulating that Sustainer is only Allah. You are not the ones who earn; it is Allah who provides you and He shall do the same for her. Girls are buried alive because in their wedding parents had to give dowry. Islam not only proscribes any such practice but reverses it as it is bride and not groom who deserves mehr without which no marriage can take place. Girls are killed because they are looked down upon in society and are considered inferior to their male counterparts. Islam accords them equal status in society. Islam thinks it unjustifiable to judge their abilities as per the male standards. The domain of man and that of woman are separate and with this separation Islam makes her free of any concern of working or earning. The social status that Islam bestows women with is so high that even the western women who are under the illusion of being free, liberal and modern can envy if only they would consider the Islamic teachings in their true perspective and appreciate the wisdom behind these teachings.
In a society based on Islamic injunctions where boys are not considered superior to girls, where girls are not regarded as the source of penury, where dowry’s sword is not severing the marital ties, where women enjoy property rights and equal status with men as human beings, where woman has ‘heaven beneath her foot’ as mother and is means to attain the Prophet’s company in the hereafter as daughter and sister, where the best person is one who is best for his wife and where despite all these if some shameless and insane will still think of killing them could be deterred by the harsh punishment for the crime – will there be a problem of female foeticide in such a society? Never.
Let me claim that in such a society even evils of dowry deaths, prostitution, family break-ups, domestic violence, rape, adultery and all other crimes against women will come to an end. Then female sex would not be ‘triply burdened’ by childcare, domestic and wage labour (as they are according to J Nash and M Fernandez Kelly). Then women will not be, “first to suffer effects of resource depletion and environmental degradation” and there will be no “feminisation of poverty” (as the phenomenon is today according to Jacqui True). Will feminists respond to this call, which in fact is panacea for all their real grievances?