I saw your reply only now. My answer would be this: To think of the implications of a certain situation (in this case, the sex ratio) and then abhor a certain practice is a completely differently kind of logic than the one that was used earlier (the one that I was objecting to as well) on this blog.

One would then (if implications were the focus) not accuse someone else of being barbaric etc. But would simply point to the larger implications (statistical data of which kind is very recent in history) of a certain set of practices.

In most cases, such a logic has resulted in changes in Indian society and the most traditional of people/communities have not resisted the change. However, appealing to ‘rationality’, as if it was evident that the practice in itself was an irrational one, or calling a practice ‘barbaric’, doesn’t yield much, not even a conversation, leave alone protection of women!

I have been blogging on the issue of female-feticide in Punjab and the more I read and learn about it, the more I am troubled by what’s happening in my community. I agree with you that banning sex-selective abortion is not a solution by itself. However, although I totally support women’s right to abortion, I am beginning to believe that in the current circumstances of Indian society, such a legal ban – if implemented with a strong will and when used in conjunction with other approaches such as education and empowerment – can play an important role.

Setting aside the question for now about who decides what a ‘productive citizen’ is, I find myself walking away from this blog with the question: “how do we bring up our girls to be productive citizens when they are rarely allowed to get here in the first place?”

http://mistersingh.wordpress.com

These are not some reliigons, you could wish away. They are part of highly scientific and well-worked out indigenous system of knowledge. Not dogma. But, products of keen observation.

By the way, whats medieval attitude? How come you have bought into the narrtive of modernity so easily?

How does one show objectively that Karma could be rid in a different way, or whatever the insight may actually be…is a valid question witha valid answer. The phiolosphers of the Indian tradiiton were doing just this. They were discussing enlightenment, suffering, karma and could differ from each other and hold debates. We need to reconstruct these debates for our own general good.

I am not saying the politically correct thing here. It is intellectually honest thing.

Secondly, while it might be politically correct to say so – I don’t believe that “I think it is arrogant on the part of us feminists to conclude very quickly that people need some enlightening” – people who are aborting foetuses for the reason of their gender DO need enlightening, and I have no qualms about saying it. If highly educated, well-off people in a city like Mumbai, think that only sons will carry on their line etc, isn’t that a medieval attitude? What is so wrong in condemning it upfront? I don’t care if they justify it as amsa or karma or anything else. Just because something has a religious angle is no need to tip-toe around it. It simply means they attach more importance to what religion says than to the worth of living women.

I would agree with Nivi when she says, “So, I take umbrage at her statement: “We do not know enough to conclude as to what criteria we must use to deem these practices right or wrong”. I think we do” Of course, if you are saying that it will be easier to get people to change if we use certain arguments, I agree – but it’s not clear to me what those arguments may be.

Thanks for the reply.

I dont know what you mean when you say biological impetus or biological impulse. I did not say anything like that at all. So I do not know what you are saying in that entire paragraph.

I said that there were well-worked out forms of indigenous knowledge systems, which we fail to understand. If not for the modern discourse about human rights and the preciousness of the human life, there are few tools with us to confront the indigenous knowledge systems. And these tools seem to fall to short, for, they come from a different context and are not responding to these knowledge systems at all. So, actually we have no argument or have very feeble attempts to convince people not to kill the female fetus.

It is one thing to worry about the effects or the social implications of something, and another to actually provide arguments against a practice. Unless we see the people who are committed to these practices as superstitous, barbaric, dumb etc etc, we would not ask them to stop their practices on the basis of the implications of their practice alone. If we truly respect them, we should provide intellectual arguments as to why they should give up a practice.

We are not able to do that as of now, it is our failure. Ideally, we should be able to show to them that semen does not contain the amsa of parents or that there are other ways to get rid of Karma. The task though difficult is not impossible, but feminists have not bothered to try even. An intellectual description of what enlightenment is, could clarify a lot of things and convince the members committed to the practise that alternative practices should be tried etc. To know, and say that semen is not amsa is the task ahead, that is the decent answer they deserve. Unfortunately, we never walk on the path of tradition to test it!

The issue here is not the anxiety-ridden situation of someone abou to be kill someone. It is an intellectual one. You are reflecting on the situation, on the various possiblities and aiming at a justification process for what you say. And moral or ethical complexity is not free of justification either.

Maybe women are valued for different things in our society. Are we not the ones that changed!