Columns: Kautilya

Columns

India Today, July 5, 1999
July 5, 1999

KAUTILYA
Sex Skews in Haryana

The land of the Lals has made tremendous progress. Or has it?

By Jairam Ramesh

Haryana is very much in the news, what with the BJP betraying its 1996 promise and withdrawing support to Bansi Lal. But spare a thought for Bansi Lal, a man now unfortunately remembered only for his role during the Emergency. In his past incarnation, Lal was a no-nonsense administrator who contributed substantially to building the physical infrastructure of the state. If Haryana has connected its approximately 7,000 villages by all-weather roads, if every village of Haryana has electricity and if tourism has got a boost in the state, Bansi Lal deserves what in north India would quaintly be called "the loin's share of the credit".

But as it so often happens with patriarchs, somehow the second innings is never as good as the first. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was an outstanding chief minister during his tenure in Rajasthan in 1977-79. Sadly, the Shekhawat of the '90s was a pale shadow of his former self. Racked by illness, he allowed himself to fall victim to that dreaded Indian disease called "kin-itis". Muthuvel Karunanidhi is another example.

Bansi Lal too falls in this category, although it should be said he exhibited signs of his old daring and toughness when he started the programme to reform Haryana's power sector in 1996-97. Farmers agitated, politicians protested. But Bansi Lal held firm and today, along with Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and now Uttar Pradesh, Haryana is in the midst of a profound privatisation of its power industry. Its full impact will be evident five to six years from now.

Beyond the Lals and Chautalas, what to make of Haryana itself? It is undoubtedly a puzzle -- India's second richest state but the worst in terms of the sex ratio. It was an economic backwater when it was created in November 1966. Over one-fifth of its land area is arid and semi-arid. But in less than two decades it had become a crucial part of India's grain basket. It had industry in Faridabad to begin with -- started largely by Partition's refugees, of whom Hari Nanda of Escorts was the most prominent. But Maruti's location in Gurgaon and its proximity to Delhi ensured that Haryana's industrial growth took on an added dimension.

However, while Haryana's economy was taking off, while poverty ratios were falling because of rapid farm growth, the sex ratio -- the number of females per 1,000 males -- was also gradually coming down. In the 1991 Census, Haryana's sex ratio was 865, as compared to the national average of 927. Keeping company with Haryana are Uttar Pradesh at 879 and Punjab at 882. Haryana's total fertility rate is a high 3.3 as compared to a national average of about 3.1. There is no religion to blame this on since Muslims are just four per cent of Haryana's population. At this rate it will not reach the replacement level of fertility of 2.1 till the year 2025. What sets Haryana apart from Punjab is its high level of female participation in agriculture, which means the women certainly have economic utility.

Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze debunk the popular misconception that female infanticide has led to low sex ratios. This is because excess female mortality in childhood occurs after the age of one. Could it be that the sex ratio in Haryana, Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh is depressed because this region draws migrant farm labour from other areas?

This explanation, however, breaks down when the data for the past 100 years is examined. This region has consistently had the lowest sex ratios in India ever since the first Census in 1881. And to further counter this argument, remember that male out-migration from Haryana is itself quite substantial, for example, into the army.

The only detailed study of rural Haryana has been by Prem Chowdhry, a historian whose The Veiled Women (1994) is a fascinatingly meticulous analysis of shifting gender equations in Haryana over the past century. In her words, the ghunghat remains the most ubiquitous and potent symbol of male authority and power, which still dominate the Haryanavi woman. Chowdhry's conclusion is that even while women have made progress, Haryana has not experienced any significant democratising movement that may have a positive impact on gender relations.

On the contrary, repeated attempts have been made by the state's political class to nullify any attempt at gender equality, evidenced in the efforts to amend the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that confers equal inheritance rights to daughters, sisters and widows.

Rapid changes may be leading to ambivalence and to what Chowdhry calls the complicity of women themselves in the reconstruction of patriarchy. Translated into simple English this means that women themselves give moral sanctity and legitimacy to male domination and macho social customs and religious traditions.

The historian's conclusion is unambiguous: that the removal of this ghunghat as a symbol may perhaps constitute the first truly revolutionary step for the women of Haryana. Sadly it is clear economic growth alone will not make this happen. These are issues that have to be taken up as part of a sustained campaign of social mobilisation by political parties. Will the Sushma Swarajs take up the challenge?

The author is secretary of the AICC's Economic Affairs Department.
The views expressed here are his own.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions | Syndication