Female Infanticide – Govt is the Culprit – NOT Society

It has been a fashionable for the many vested interests to paint the traditional indian society as a backward one with full of evils.  This article is one such recent example accusing indian society of perpetuating the evil of Female Infanticide.  They have mischievously and maliciously titled this article as “Female Holocaust”.  And they had used the usual tactics of  pitting society against women.

Its time that we have take on this false propoganda, and expose the hidden truths behind this.

Is traditional Bharathiya society, responsible for female infanticide?  Lets analyse

The traditional bharathiya society has the concept of Pancha Maha pathakas, where five cardinal sins doesnt have any Pariharam. These are:

  • Stree Hatya (Killing of women)
  • Go Hatya (Killing of Cow)
  • Bhruna Hatya (killing of fetus)
  • Brama Hatya (Killing of a Brahmin)
  • Shishu Hatya (Killing of a baby)

ref: http://www.eubios.info/india/BII8.HTM

So our society has considered, killing of Fetus, Infants and Women as unpardonable sins.  So the fundamental values system cannot be cited as reason for female infanticide.

Who is the culprit?

It is the government and the global capitalistic forces (& its research agencies) which is the culprit of this evil.  And to be more specific, it is the allopathic medical industry (which itself is controlled by global capitalists) that is directly responsible for this evil. The Rockfeller and Ford foundation was the ones, who funded this crime and even justified it.  But these morons had effectively blamed the society for the crime they committed.

The female infanticide was originally promoted by the Indian government (on insistence & guidance of America), as one of the means of Population Control Initiatives.  They found that in india, people had preference for child, and procreate babies till they get a boy child.  So they devised a plan that if the people could identify the gender of the fetus during pregnancy, they can abort it instead of giving birth to it.

And to implement this idea, they (the allopathic medical industry) started research programs on identifying gender of a child at early stages of pregnancy.  Initially attempts were made to evolve techniques based on Chemical Tests, but that did not give accurate results.

Then they invented this ultra sound scan techniques for accurately predicting the gender of this child.  After this technology was invented, the government sponsored training for many doctors across india on this technology, and started implementing the Female Infanticide Program as part of its population control program.

Most people would say, that the ultrasound scan was mis-used for this wrong purpose.   But the truth is that it was specifically developed for identifying female fetus, for abortion.

Many Hindu Intellectuals and nationalists, push themselves in to guilt feeling, when they face this propoganda of Female Infanticide.  Due to decades of such propoganda, they themselves were convinced that our society has to be blamed.

But now with the truth coming out, we need not push ourselves in to guilt.  We can effectively fight out this false propoganda from the enemies.  The Culrpits are now exposed – the rockfeller & Ford foundation, the indian government, and the entire allopathic industry, who invented the technology, produced the machines, and trained the doctors.  

So when you find some one attacking our traditional bharathiya society for Female Infanticide, please quote these proofs to counter them.

Does Preference for male child led to female infanticide?

Another moronic argument made by urban idiots is that preference for male child is discriminatory, and is the root cause of female infanticide.  That is far from truth.  Our people preferred male child, but never killed the female.  They protected and brought up all the girl childs they begot.  Since girls were married at young, there is no burden on them to raise these children.

—————————

The below article, gives ample proof for the above truths, and explains in detail the history of female infanticide.   I am reproducing the entire article below.

————————————————————————–

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/27/where_have_all_the_girls_gone?page=full

where have all the girl child gone?

How did more than 160 million women go missing from Asia? The simple answer is sex selection — typically, an ultrasound scan followed by an abortion if the fetus turns out to be female — but beyond that, the reasons for a gap half the size of the U.S. population are not widely understood. And when I started researching a book on the topic, I didn’t understand them myself.

I thought I would focus on how gender discrimination has persisted as countries develop. The reasons couples gave for wanting boys varies: Sons stayed in the family and took care of their parents in old age, or they performed ancestor and funeral rites important in some cultures. Or it was that daughters were a burden, made expensive by skyrocketing dowries.

But that didn’t account for why sex selection was spreading across cultural and religious lines. Once found only in East and South Asia, imbalanced sex ratios at birth have recently reached countries as varied as Vietnam, Albania, and Azerbaijan. The problem has fanned out across these countries, moreover, at a time when women are driving many developing economies. In India, where women have achieved political firsts still not reached in the United States, sex selection has become so intense that by 2020 an estimated 15 to 20 percent of men in northwest India will lack female counterparts. I could only explain that epidemic as the cruel sum of technological advances and lingering sexism. I did not think the story of sex selection’s spread would lead, in part, to the United States.

Then I looked into it, and discovered that what I thought were right-wing conspiracy theories about the nexus of Western feminism and population control actually had some, if very distant and entirely historical, basis in truth. As it turns out, Western advisors and researchers, and Western money, were among the forces that contributed to a serious reduction in the number of women and girls in the developing world. And today feminist and reproductive-rights groups are still reeling from that legacy.

The story begins in the mid-20th century, when several factors converged to make Western demographers worried about global population growth. Thanks to advances in public health, people were living longer than ever before. Projections released by the U.N. Population Division in 1951 suggested what the sum of all those extra years of life could be: Rapid population growth was on the horizon, particularly in the developing world. As pundits forecast a global “population explosion,” anxiety mounted in policy circles, and the population control movement that coalesced brought together everyone from environmentalists to McCarthyites. Viewed through a 1960s Beltway lens, mounting numbers of people meant higher rates of poverty, which in turn made countries more vulnerable to communism.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, and the Rockefeller Foundation were among the organizations that poured money into stanching the birth rate abroad, while the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Population Council helped coordinate efforts on the ground. As these organizations backed research into barriers to couples accepting contraception, one of the obstacles quickly identified was that in most parts of the world, but particularly in fast-growing Asia, people continued to have children until they got a boy. As demographer S.N. Agarwala explained in a paper on India he presented at a 1963 IPPF conference in Singapore: “[S]ome religious rites, especially those connected with the death of the parents, can be performed only by the male child…. [T]hose who have only daughters try their best to have at least one male child.” Even in the United States, surveys suggested a preference for sons.

That raised the question: What if couples could be guaranteed a son from the start? Elsewhere, scientists were working to perfect fetal sex determination tests for women carrying sex-linked disorders like hemophilia, which only manifests itself in males. (The first sex-selective abortions, performed in 1955 by Danish doctors in Copenhagen, were actually done on women carrying male fetuses.) But the technology was still incipient and required a late-term abortion. Proponents of population control began talking about nudging sex selection along. In 1967, for example, when Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Alan Guttmacher received a proposal from an Indian scientist interested in finding a way to “control SEX in human reproduction,” he scrawled a note across the top in hasty red pencil, asking the organization’s medical director to consider whether the research was in fact “worth encouraging.”

Planned Parenthood didn’t fund the research in the end, but on the technicality that the U.S. government had recently cut funding for fellowships to foreigners. Six months later Steven Polgar, the organization’s head of research, went public with the notion that sex selection was an effective population control method. Taking the podium before an audience of scholars and policymakers at a conference sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), Polgar “urged,” according to the meeting’s minutes, “that sociologists stimulate biologists to find a method of sex determination, since some parents have additional children in order to get one of specified sex.”

At first the language was gender-neutral. But before long the descriptions grew more blunt, and some proponents talked frankly about selecting for sons. In the years that followed, Population Council President Bernard Berelson endorsed sex selection in the pages of Science, while Paul Ehrlich advocated giving couples the sons they desired in his blockbuster The Population Bomb. “[I]f a simple method could be found to guarantee that first-born children were males,” he wrote, “then population control problems in many areas would be somewhat eased.” In many countries, he wrote, “couples with only female children ‘keep trying’ in hope of a son.” A wide range of population control strategies were on the table at the time, but by the end of the decade, when the NICHD held another workshop on reducing birth rates, sex selection had emerged as an approach that participants deemed “particularly desirable.”

Other spokesmen — for they were mostly men — included Arno G. Motulsky, a geneticist at the University of Washington-Seattle, William D. McElroy, then head of the biology department at Johns Hopkins University, and British microbiologist John Postgate. Postgate was particularly resolute. He extolled sex selection in an article for the New Scientist, explaining that population growth was so great a threat that the drawbacks of a skewed sex ratio would have to be tolerated, grim as they were. “A form of purdah” might be necessary, he predicted, while “Women’s right to work, even to travel alone freely, would probably be forgotten transiently.” A handful of women got on board as well. In 1978, former ambassador and former U.S. Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce wrote an article for the Washington Star in which she clamored for the development of a “manchild pill” — a drug a woman could take before sex to ensure any children that resulted would be male.

Before long, sex selection emerged as a favored solution. In the context of ’60s and ’70s population politics, it had the appeal of being a voluntary strategy that played to individual behavior. In his paper for Science, Berelson ranked sex selection’s ethical value as “high.” Postgate pointed out, “Countless millions of people would leap at the opportunity to breed male.” And other strategies being tried in Asia at the time entailed coercion, not choice.

In South Korea, Western money enabled the creation of a fleet of mobile clinics — reconditioned U.S. Army ambulances donated by USAID and staffed by poorly trained workers and volunteers. Fieldworkers employed by the health ministry’s Bureau of Public Health were paid based on how many people they brought in for sterilizations and intrauterine device insertions, and some allege Korea’s mobile clinics later became the site of abortions as well. By the 1970s, recalls gynecologist Cho Young-youl, who was a medical student at the time, “there were agents going around the countryside to small towns and bringing women into the [mobile] clinics. That counted toward their pay. They brought the women regardless of whether they were pregnant.” Non-pregnant women were sterilized. A pregnant woman met a worse fate, Cho says: “The agent would have her abort and then undergo tubal ligation.” As Korea’s abortion rate skyrocketed, Sung-bong Hong and Christopher Tietze detailed its rise in the Population Council journal Studies in Family Planning. By 1977, they determined, doctors in Seoul were performing 2.75 abortions for every birth — the highest documented abortion rate in human history. Were it not for this history, Korean sociologist Heeran Chun recently told me, “I don’t think sex-selective abortion would have become so popular.”

In India, meanwhile, advisors from the World Bank and other organizations pressured the government into adopting a paradigm, as public-health activist Sabu George put it to me, “where the entire problem was population.” The Rockefeller Foundation granted $1.5 million to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), the country’s top medical school, and the Ford Foundation chipped in $63,563 for “research into reproductive biology.” And sometime in the mid-1960s, Population Council medical director Sheldon Segal showed the institute’s doctors how to test human cells for the sex chromatins that indicated a person was female — a method that was the precursor to fetal sex determination.

Soon after, the technology matured, and second-trimester fetal sex determination became possible using amniocentesis. In 1975, AIIMS doctors inaugurated sex-selective abortion trials at a government hospital, offering amniocentesis to poor women free of charge and then helping them, should they so choose, to abort on the basis of sex. An estimated 1,000 women carrying female fetuses underwent abortions. The doctors touted the study as a population control experiment, and sex-selective abortion spread throughout India. In his autobiography, Segal professed to being shocked to learn that doctors at AIIMS were using a variation on his instructions to perform sex-selective abortions. But he neglected to mention that shortly after his stay in India he stood before an audience at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and described sex selection as a method of population control. (The minutes from the meeting describe “sex determination at conception” — now finally available today through advances in assisted reproductive technology — but in-utero sex determination was the form of sex selection furthest along at that point.)

Sex selection hit China the same year the AIIMS experiments began. The country accepted Western aid belatedly, in 1979. But after years of being kept out of the Middle Kingdom, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and IPPF jumped at the opportunity to play a role in the world’s most populous country, with UNFPA chipping in $50 million for computers, training, and publicity on the eve of the one-child policy’s unveiling. Publicly, officers at both UNFPA and IPPF claimed China’s new policy relied on the Chinese people’s exceptional knack for communalism. But, according to Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly’s account of the population control movement, Fatal Misconception, in January 1980 IPPF information officer Penny Kane privately fretted about local officials’ evident interest in meeting the new birth quotas through forced abortions. Accounts of those eventually leaked out, as did reports of sex-selective abortions. In 1982, Associated Press correspondent Victoria Graham warned that those augured a spreading trend. “These are not isolated cases,” she wrote, adding: “Demographers are warning that if the balance between the sexes is altered by abortion and infanticide, it could have dire consequences.”

Today, some of those dire consequences have become alarmingly apparent. Part of that is the extent to which organizations like UNFPA have found themselves unable to perform legitimate services in the developing world because of their historic connection to population control. For it was news of sex-selective and forced abortions that helped fuel a budding anti-abortion movement in the United States. Protesters showed up at the 1984 World Population Conference in Mexico City, wielding evidence of abuses in China. The next year, President Ronald Reagan unveiled what would become known as the “global gag rule,” cutting off $46 million in funds to UNFPA — money that might have gone toward maternal and child health as well as population control. The struggle to fund reproductive health continued over the next two decades, with subsequent U.S. presidents withdrawing or reinstating the gag rule along partisan lines.

Nowadays, of course, UNFPA and Planned Parenthood are led by a new wave of feminist bureaucrats who are keen on ensuring reproductive rights, and they no longer finance global population control. Thanks to a thriving anti-abortion movement, Planned Parenthood can barely make contraceptives and safe abortion available to the American women who actually want them. But contentious American politics has these and other groups on the left stuck in what Joseph Chamie, former head of the U.N. Population Division, calls “the abortion bind.” The United Nations issued an interagency statement condemning sex selection and outlining recommendations for action last week, and UNFPA was among the agencies that helped draft it. The organization has also funded research on sex selection and sex ratio imbalance at the local level. But its legacy in the developing world continues to haunt its leaders, to the detriment of women worldwide. Lingering anxiety over taking on issues involving abortion, activists and demographers have told me, now has UNFPA reluctant to address sex selection head-on at the international level — a reluctance that has left the organization’s enemies to twist the issue to fit their own agenda. (Anti-abortion groups and pundits have proven all too eager to to take on the issue, though they seem far more interested in driving home restrictions on abortion than they do in increasing the number of women in the world and protecting the rights of women at risk.)

Meanwhile, as American politicians argue over whether to cut Planned Parenthood’s U.S. funding and the Christian right drives through bans on sex-selective abortion at the state level, the effects of three decades of sex selection elsewhere in the world are becoming alarmingly apparent. In China, India, Korea, and Taiwan, the first generation shaped by sex selection has grown up, and men are scrambling to find women, yielding the ugly sideblows of increased sex trafficking and bride buying. In a Chinese boomtown, I watched soap operas with a slight, defeated woman from the poor mountains of the west who had been brought east by a trafficker and sold into marriage. (Her favorite show: Women Don’t Cry.) In the Mekong Delta, I visited an island commune where local women are hawked by their parents for a few thousand dollars to “surplus” Taiwanese men. While the purdah forecasted by John Postgate has not yet come to pass, feminists in Asia worry that as women become scarce, they will be pressured into taking on domestic roles and becoming housewives and mothers rather than scientists and entrepreneurs.

But what happens to women is only part of the story. Demographically speaking, women matter less and less. By 2013, an estimated one in 10 men in China will lack a female counterpart. By the late 2020s, that figure could jump to one in five. There are many possible scenarios for how these men will cope without women — and not all, of course, want women — but several of them involve rising rates of unrest. Already Columbia University economist Lena Edlund and colleagues at Chinese University of Hong Kong have found a link between a large share of males in the young adult population and an increase in crime in China. Doomsday analysts need look no further than America’s history: Murder rates soared in the male-dominated Wild West.

Four decades ago, Western advocacy of sex selection yielded tragic results. But if we continue to ignore that legacy and remain paralyzed by heated U.S. abortion politics, we’re compounding that mistake. Indian public health activist George, indeed, says waiting to act is no longer an option: If the world does “not see ten years ahead to where we’re headed, we’re lost.”

Update: Since this article was posted, UNFPA has added a prominent page on sex selection to its website.

This entry was posted in debate, Hidden Truths, History and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to Female Infanticide – Govt is the Culprit – NOT Society

  1. KP says:

    /* Our people preferred male child, */

    There lies the root cause. Fix it. It made all these illiterate idiots to start killing female babies/fetus. Govt efforts should really be appreciated as they spread the awareness. Thank God.

    As far as the pre-natal scanning goes,it helped to identify growth problems that fetus may have during pregnancy. Try to understand it. It’s not that hard.

    It’s barbaric mentality to blame everyone else for the mistakes you committed. Admit you made mistakes. Learn from it and move on with life. Don’t blame others. It doesn’t have any effect on others but you miss your learning. Being a hypocrite, like you, neither helps you nor the society.
    Hope you understand at least now.

    • swami says:

      /*It’s barbaric mentality to blame everyone else for the mistakes you committed. */

      Who is the “you” here?

      Ultra sound is a technology. It can be used in any way. But If dharmic society had condemned stree hatya, then how come urban indians and others blame hindu society for female infanticiede?

      • senthil says:

        Ultrasonography is a technology invented by these allopathic medical industry, that is specifically designed for killing female infants, for the purpose of population control..

    • senthil says:

      /** /* Our people preferred male child, */

      There lies the root cause. Fix it.
      **/

      I predicted such kind of reply.. Our people preferred male child.. but did not kill female child.. IT is your Medical Industry, which invented the technique of female infanticide, trained doctors, produced Ultrasonography machines, evolved procedures for detecting gender of child..

      Why should you blame the society for a crime, committed by your urban government and capitalistic empire?

      /** It’s barbaric mentality to blame everyone else for the mistakes you committed. **/

      Ofcourse, when others do it, it is barbaric, and when you do it, its NOT.. what kind of logic it is..

      Preferring a male child is NOT a mistake dude.. it is your medical industry which killed the female infants.. who is the barbarian here?

      The urban indians had been living on an artificial moral superirority based on the false propoganda by their capitalistic empire.. pls realise that false propoganda has been broken now.. you cannot abuse our traditional society for the Crimes that you people committed..

      • anon says:

        Senthil, the “preference” is not for a male child, but that Hindus need to have male children. As in China and other similar traditional societies, female children join the in-laws house and enrich their future.

        So a son is not merely one who carries on the family line, but one who will stay in the family and bring in a wife and grandchildren that belong to one’s own family. Furthermore, for some communities of Hindus, death rites tend to be important. Often it is the son who carries them out. Not having a son often meant not having the death rites carried out.

        While a son was necessary, this did not mean that Hindus did not want daughters. It meant they wanted children and that they most especially wanted one or more sons among these children. That is, a son was not he preference but a minimum goal. The daughters were not “worthless”, it’s that having *only* daughters could not generally complete the full need Hindu parents had from the future generation.

        • senthil says:

          Exactly.. while our families preferred male child, it doesnt mean, daughters are worthless.. daughters also had importance..

          /** Not having a son often meant not having the death rites carried out.
          **/
          This is one of the most important reason why our people longed for male child..

    • vyas says:

      What’s your problem if Indian parents prefer boy children? By the way they don’t do it out of partiality. As given in the article Indian families need a male child to perform the rites in the family. Their desire is to have at least one male child that’s all. Once they beget one they don’t have any issues in having any number of girl children.

  2. Zed says:

    The thing about inventing ultrasound and other medical tests make no sense whatsoever. The development of those, the motivation has always been clear and well documented. Any doctor would have told you that. Maybe your own life was saved with those techniques.

    Sometimes I wonder if your goal is to discredit the system from within with such silly arguments. Why else would you take a very pertinent topic like female infanticide and make the worst possible argument from there.

    • senthil says:

      /** Sometimes I wonder if your goal is to discredit the system from within with such silly arguments. **/

      What silly argument? It has been proved, that it is this System, which promoted killing of female infants across the world, and you people brush this fact aside..

      Are you aware of how the present medical industry is about Exploiting people and NOT about curing diseases? The system you hail, even creates new disease for their profitability.. (recent SARS & birdflu propoganda is an example).. pls understand the reality..

      • Zed says:

        You misunderstood me. I meant that you seem to be intent on destroying the varna system from within with such silly and outrageous arguments.
        If that does not work, you stoop to personal level arguments.

        Take this gently, but each post you write here is one nail for varna advocating folks and traditional Bharat folks. You are causing more harm for us than any good.

        You start off with a perfectly logical position about sishu hatya and then go into crazy stuff about rockefeller, western medicine and all.
        You could have easily taken a different, rational route by arguing on the following:
        Does female infanticide exist in India? Yes
        Is it uniform across all India? No
        Is it encouraged by traditions and Jati religious practices? No

        Then how do you explain the male-female imbalance in parts of India? This is because…

        But you don’t do that.

        If I stoop to the personal level, I can argue that your problem is that you lack the vidya to present an argument.
        But I would not. It is you who is taking the trouble to write the essay, not me. So either you have your hear in right place but cannot make a proper case, OR your intent is something else.

        • senthil says:

          /** You start off with a perfectly logical position about sishu hatya and then go into crazy stuff about rockefeller, western medicine and all.
          **/

          I reproduced the article that was published in foreignpolicy portal.. it has been clearly mentioned there, that it is the rockfeller foundation which sponsored the birth control programs across the world.. where is crazyness here?

          /** If I stoop to the personal level, I can argue that your problem is that you lack the vidya to present an argument.
          **/
          I already accepted that i am weak in writing articles.. i dont care about that shortcomings, as long as my point is conveyed..

          The problem here is NOT about the vidya.. but about the opinions that you and me hold over.. you are unable to accept the Freemason & rockfeller foundation argument that i am making, just because it doesnt fit your pre-conceived opinions..

          • anon says:

            The relevant part in foreignpolicy.com article on how ‘Ford Foundation, U.N. Population Fund, etc., funded the “population solution” in both India and China’:

            +++
            In the years that followed, Population Council President Bernard Berelson endorsed sex selection in the pages of Science, while Paul Ehrlich advocated giving couples the sons they desired in his blockbuster The Population Bomb. “[I]f a simple method could be found to guarantee that first-born children were males,” he wrote, “then population control problems in many areas would be somewhat eased.” In many countries, he wrote, “couples with only female children ‘keep trying’ in hope of a son.”
            Before long, sex selection emerged as a favored solution. In the context of ’60s and ’70s population politics, it had the appeal of being a voluntary strategy that played to individual behavior. In his paper for Science, Berelson ranked sex selection’s ethical value as “high.” Postgate pointed out, “Countless millions of people would leap at the opportunity to breed male.” And other strategies being tried in Asia at the time entailed coercion, not choice.

            In South Korea, Western money enabled the creation of a fleet of mobile clinics — reconditioned *U.S. Army ambulances donated by USAID* and staffed by poorly trained workers and volunteers. Fieldworkers employed by the health ministry’s Bureau of Public Health were paid based on how many people they brought in for sterilizations and intrauterine device insertions, and some allege Korea’s mobile clinics later became the site of abortions as well.

            *In India*, meanwhile, advisors from the World Bank and other organizations pressured the government into adopting a paradigm, as public-health activist Sabu George put it to me, “where the entire problem was population.” *The Rockefeller Foundation granted $1.5 million to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)*, the country’s top medical school, and the Ford Foundation chipped in $63,563 for “research into reproductive biology.” And sometime in the mid-1960s, Population Council medical director Sheldon Segal showed the institute’s doctors how to test human cells for the sex chromatins that indicated a person was female — a method that was the precursor to fetal sex determination.

            Soon after, the technology matured, and second-trimester fetal sex determination became possible using amniocentesis. In 1975, AIIMS doctors inaugurated sex-selective abortion trials at a government hospital, offering amniocentesis to poor women free of charge and then helping them, should they so choose, to abort on the basis of sex. An estimated 1,000 women carrying female fetuses underwent abortions. The doctors touted the study as a population control experiment, and sex-selective abortion spread throughout India. In his autobiography, Segal professed to being shocked to learn that doctors at AIIMS were using a variation on his instructions to perform sex-selective abortions. But he neglected to mention that shortly after his stay in India he stood before an audience at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and described sex selection as a method of population control. (The minutes from the meeting describe “sex determination at conception” — now finally available today through advances in assisted reproductive technology — but in-utero sex determination was the form of sex selection furthest along at that point.)

            *Sex selection hit China the same year the AIIMS experiments began.* The country accepted Western aid belatedly, in 1979. But after years of being kept out of the Middle Kingdom, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) and IPPF jumped at the opportunity to play a role in the world’s most populous country, with UNFPA chipping in $50 million for computers, training, and publicity on the eve of the one-child policy’s unveiling. Publicly, officers at both UNFPA and IPPF claimed China’s new policy relied on the Chinese people’s exceptional knack for communalism. But, according to Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly’s account of the population control movement, Fatal Misconception, in January 1980 IPPF information officer Penny Kane privately fretted about local officials’ evident interest in meeting the new birth quotas through forced abortions. Accounts of those eventually leaked out, as did reports of sex-selective abortions. In 1982, Associated Press correspondent Victoria Graham warned that those augured a spreading trend. “These are not isolated cases,” she wrote, adding: “Demographers are warning that if the balance between the sexes is altered by abortion and infanticide, it could have dire consequences.”
            +++
            In the 1960/1970s the west and America especially was incredibly anxious about ideas of “over-population”. This frenzy didn’t just lead to deliberate indirect genocidal policies as above, and direct genocidal racist policies like the ongoing American sterilisation of Native American women, but also in fiction such as Make Room! Make Room! turned into the movie Soylent Green.

            Apparently China too is being fried by the west with “YOU murderers who murder your babies” (despite the west having planned it this way all along and soon the same missionary USAID will descend on them to teach them that gender selection is “bad” and “foeticide” is unchristian, despite USAID having worked to cause this very thing). Further, it’s not the Chinese people, it’s the anti-traditional government of China that’s forced the Chinese to have only one child and then gave them the dangerous “power” to know what the child’s gender was and abort the child (or else leave the child for adoption). The Chinese parents needed male sons also for guaranteeing someone to look after them in old age. Therefore now the fallout is that China has a surplus of males and it’s hard for them to find wives. Also, “westernisation” has meant gradual erosion of filial piety in China so that some sons do *not* want to be “burdened” with looking after their parents.

            Also, why do western articles spewing at Indians and Chinese for socially-engineered gender selection choose to conveniently forget how, until the late 1970s American government policy was to sterilise Native American women? No one socially engineered the US government into doing that. They made that decision to continue their genocide fully consciously and autonomously.

  3. http://books.google.com/books?id=UBJWsbEHmT4C&pg=PA47&dq=%22to+stop+the+multiplication+of+the+unfit.%22+sanger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0CQ1T5abDIrWtgfhuu21Ag&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20stop%20the%20multiplication%20of%20the%20unfit.%22%20sanger&f=false

    Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services.

    The starting point of the abortion movement was to ensure “unfit” races don’t multiply too much.

    Wealthy capitalists who are into population control, want to ensure the third world doesn’t produce too many to challenge their hegemony.

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-ambitions-of-bill-and-melinda-gates-controlling-population-and-public-education

    Nothing has changed between 1916 to 2016. Our own elite has been recruited to ensure their co-ethinics, but poor, don’t produce too many who may overwhelm them..

  4. vyas says:

    Senthil – The fundamental question still remains. Why did our people agree to abort girl children out of pressure? they could have very well denied it right?

    • senthil says:

      This is a silly question.. why are our people looting, raping.. why are our people killing cows? why are our people stealing? WHOM do you mean by “Our People”?

      People at individual level, are bound by their own requirements, limitations and daily survival.. that’s why, our scriptures say, we need a king to establish dharma.. when the present urban government, which replaced our kings, encourages female infanticide, what will ordinary people do?

      Pls understand that there is a public space and private space in a society.. the public space is totally controlled by govt, and people were enslaved and confined to their private space with no control over their public space..

      • vyas says:

        Senthil – Your argument is ridiculous. It’s like justifying crime just because someone urged you to commit it. While I totally agree with you on the evil minds behind this entire thing, that doesn’t mean you would succumb to their pressure in killing female fetuses. The govt and selected political parties are bullying aggressively against caste marriages. Did we succumb to it by inter-marrying? Even today intra-caste marriages dominate the society. Why then did we lose on this issue? There are faults on our side too which we must learn to accept. I’m not putting the entire blame on our people. I’m only saying that they also are partly responsible for it.

        • senthil says:

          @vyas,

          Pls answer, WHO is the “OUR People” you are mentioning? Who is that “WE” you are quoting here?

          Caste is a collective social entity, and as long as it is collective, it did not intermarry.. but once, it starts breaking down, people became isolated and are subjected to the situation and environment, in which he/she lives.. that’s why people intermarry today.. NOT because they accept the propoganda, but because they are isolated & confined in to particular envrionment, to which they dont have any control..

          The Medical industry was totally in the hands of allopathy, and controlled by government.. and you know, the doctors had a high position in the society and anything they say / suggest is received with respect.. It is this high position of doctors, that is being mis-used to influence people.. we cannot just blame the people for the crime the allopathic industry committed with deceit ..

          • poovannan73 says:

            You again miss the facts of how allopathy saved crores of people like never before in history and start blaming it for individual faults.The population has started doubling very fast post pencillin and chloroform and ultrasound is a investigation similar to telephone or planes in other fields,
            Female infanticide is not practised uniformly across the world and the country and its your khap area of haryana /rajasthan and traditional castes which are in the top of practising female infanticide and antihindu areas like kerala/tamilnadu/northeast etc which support late marriages,womens reservations,employment of women etc have a far far better sex ratio and less incidences of female infanticide

          • vyas says:

            //Pls answer, WHO is the “OUR People” you are mentioning? Who is that “WE” you are quoting here?//

            “Our people” refers to everyone who is involved in killing of female fetuses or killing them after birth.

            //The Medical industry was totally in the hands of allopathy, and controlled by government.. and you know, the doctors had a high position in the society and anything they say / suggest is received with respect.. It is this high position of doctors, that is being mis-used to influence people.. we cannot just blame the people for the crime the allopathic industry committed with deceit//

            Are our people so dumb that you can get away so easily by convincing them to kill all female fetuses until they beget a male child. Even if that could be true in certain cases, you simply cannot generalize it by saying that this was the norm back then. Until a few years ago there were several families in villages which forced forced doctors to kill fetuses if they were found to be female. Again this was not the norm either. But you simply cannot ignore it either. What do you say about female babies killed by the village people themselves without involving any allopathy doctor? Remember the usilambatti incident a few years ago?

            Senthil – We should be proud of our society and our past but that doesn’t mean we should defend all evil that happened. We did kill a considerable number of female fetuses and you simply cannot deny that. May be there is a foreign hand that exploited our weakness in this issue, but that doesn’t mean we are not at fault.

          • vyas says:

            //You again miss the facts of how allopathy saved crores of people like never before in history and start blaming it for individual faults//

            Junk argument. Shows your obsession with English medicine. Any form of medicine is practiced only to save millions of people from all ills. Ayurveda, Siddha all did the same.

            //Female infanticide is not practised uniformly across the world and the country and its your khap area of haryana /rajasthan and traditional castes which are in the top of practising female infanticide//

            As usual you are coming up with your own imaginative stories. Female infanticide is a recent phenomenon and has nothing related to being a Hindu. Even other religion families practiced it.

            // and antihindu areas like kerala/tamilnadu/northeast etc which support late marriages,womens reservations,employment of women etc have a far far better sex ratio and less incidences of female infanticide//

            Funny. You completely fail to understand population growth in modern societies. The more the society becomes modern, the more the population diminishes. Your so called working women are no longer interested in getting married leave alone begetting children. They are fast adopting individualistic lifestyle. Europe is one prime example of declining native population. Today Europe is seeing an increase in population only because of Asians and Muslims who have migrated there. Canada is another prime example where population is alarmingly diminishing to such an extent that the Govt is forced to give tax exemptions for families having higher number of children. The irony is that despite all this, people are not interested neither in getting married nor begetting children. Your modern society has completely destroyed femininity. All that a woman in a modern society has is “rights” which is absolutely good for nothing. Women are constantly expected to ape men and compete with them. This is far worse than female infanticide in my opinion. Atleast in the case of female infanticide, it was happening at a very minimal rate and can be easily fixed by strong punitive action but the long term effects of westernization will completely kill families once and for all which is far more dangerous in a society.

  5. poovannan73 says:

    Liberal families have no hesitation in opting for family planning with only girl children unlike conservative families who misuse the scientific advancements in search of their eager for male child.There existed hundreds of quackery practises on how one can get a male child and most conservatives used to follow those rituals/worships/timings of sexual activity religiously to get a male child and when they came into contact with modern science they didnt hesitate a second before discarding those rituals /beleifs/worships./visits to temples for male child inlieu of result based scientific methods of getting a male child
    The Liberals are in the forefront of protection of female child and attempts to make identification of sex in womb as illegal and have been successful in getting positive results in preventing female infanticide except areas under khaps and conservative religious groups.Kindly go thru the sex ratio across various regions/states/castes to understand who are practising female infanticide

    • vyas says:

      //Liberal families have no hesitation in opting for family planning with only girl children unlike conservative families who misuse the scientific advancements in search of their eager for male child//

      That’s because your stupid liberal families don’t have an inch of an idea about their own customs a few decades/centuries ago. This family planning is another stupid thing imposed upon us. The fundamental problem here is that the whole world is seen as one single entity of centralized governance. Why should the developed nations bother about population explosion in countries in the East? Why are they seeing every issue globally? I can challenge and say that even at the current population levels it should not be difficult for us at all to survive provided we change our lifestyle a bit. Hunger in India is purely a food distribution problem. We still produce alarmingly high amount of food crops every year to feed the whole nation 3 times a day. The core problem lies with globalization. The world should immediately resort to localization, else we are sure to head for a collapse.

      //There existed hundreds of quackery practises on how one can get a male child and most conservatives used to follow those rituals/worships/timings of sexual activity religiously to get a male child and when they came into contact with modern science they didnt hesitate a second before discarding those rituals /beleifs/worships./visits to temples for male child inlieu of result based scientific methods of getting a male child//

      Ponvannan – You must use your brain before making your repeated stupid comments. We’ve discussed this specific topic a thousand times in the past in this very same forum. The intent for begetting a male child was not out of partiality. It was only to carry forward the vamsam (lineage). A female child cannot do that since she doesn’t inherit the Y chromosome from her father. In addition to this, the rites of a family can only be carried out by a male child. This is why every family was dying to beget atleast one male child. They never resorted to female infanticide back then. It was only a recent phenomenon. Morons like you may not believe in this and may not want to follow it but that doesn’t mean other shouldn’t. Our society was far more futuristic than any other that I can think of. People like you will never understand this.

      • desicontrarian says:

        ” .. the rites of a family can only be carried out by a male child…”.

        I have a single daughter. Am I (and my wife) now condemned to not have any shastrically correct last rites? Who makes up such rules? Some times intelligent people like you defend the indefensible. What evidence or justification is there for such gender discrimination? Some thing like “pour molten hot liquids into a shudra who hears the vedas”? Women nowadays recite the Gayathri Mantra so well. Would this be bad, according to such pseudo shastras. Some invetsigation into corruption of original Shruthi is needed. More Gargis are needed in our society.

        • senthil says:

          /** I have a single daughter. Am I (and my wife) now condemned to not have any shastrically correct last rites? **/

          Such kind of confusion occurs because uprootedness.. For the above question, even a illiterate villager will answer..

          Kula / gothra is an important aspect of our Hindu Society.. so if a particular couple does not have sons, his next kin of the same gothra, should conduct the last rites.. ie, his brother’s son can do it.. else, his father’s brother’s grandson can do it.. like wise, the succession goes on..

          Its not true that, one is stripped of his rights of last rites, just because of not having a son.. this is a propoganda, which right thinkng urban hindus has to break..

          /**
          Who makes up such rules? Some times intelligent people like you defend the indefensible
          **/

          No one knows who made these rules.. definitely not you or me or any of the people in the present days.. it should have been made by our rishis thousands of year back.. if you dont agree with, you have the right to NOT follow it.. but you dont have any right to abuse these rituals..

          A daughter should not conduct any last rites, and that is our rule.. NO compromise..

          • desicontrarian says:

            Senthil,

            I think you are a creative, new-sociology thinker and writer. I appreciate your insight into caste dynamics, neo-urban neo-colonials, uprooted elite, Anglophilia and so on. But apart from the minor issue typos in a hurry to write, you defend everything which you think is traditional. You should learn to look at evidence, the fact that modernity is here to stay and stop citing own authority :-)

            “…it should have been made by our rishis thousands of year back..”.

            1. Can you prove it?
            2. Even if it is, can you show it has some reason for it?
            3. It is all very well to say that “you need not follow it”, and then “.. that is the rule, no compromise…”. What will you do if my daughter lives next to you, and conducts last rites? Boycott her and her family? Then she is better off moving away from such traditions, find alternative support systems. Such attitudes are precisely why modernity looks better.

            Regards.

    • senthil says:

      @poovannan,

      Dont repeat the same lies again.. this article has unambigously proved that it is the Medical Industry (specifically AIIMS doctors) who developed technology aimed to female infanticide.. it is they who trained the doctors & nurses across india to perform abortion and scanning techniques..

      You are hiding this crime, by projecting as though people mis-used technology.. this is laughable, bcoz, all those technology was NOT with people, but with the medical industry, which controls & regulates all the doctors & nurses..

      Its time for urban people to answer for this crime.. you are checkmated dude :) ..

  6. LakshmanPST says:

    The way I see it, there are two rules here…
    1) Male child is required
    2) Females and fetus shouldn’t be killed…
    Most Hindus do not know that killing a fetus is a sin. If the Hindus knew it, they wouldn’t have got involved in it in the first place.

    So, we can not blame culture here…

    Then why did Indians scumb to these kind of acts…?
    This question is same as why religious conversions happen…
    The answer is bad government…

    It IS the job of the king to allow/not allow something in his kingdom. We can not expect the whole crowd to follow Dharma by their own… That happens only in utopia… King’s authority IS an important factor… Even Manusmriti acknowledges this… Without a Dharmic king who can wield authority, Dharma is bound to fall in the kingdom…

    Having a pro-Dharmic king is an important factor for preserving culture… We should not blame a culture when one of the main pillars of protecting the Neeti within the culture is destroyed…
    —-
    People are always prone to brainwashing…
    If the government allowed these Adharmic practices in the country, it is definitely the mistake of the government…

    • senthil says:

      Exactly.. in a society, the king ensures that bad people are weeded out.. when this weeding process is abrupted, then the number of anti-social elements will rise and bring out negative influence.. the global capitalists exactly did this to all the nations they colonised..

      Just imagine, what happened to tamilnadu, by that one Single Anti-Social element called “E. V. Ramasamy” who started the Dravidar Kalagam ..

  7. Surya Ramachandran says:

    @senthil
    Enough of govt blame. Now my question is how can all jatis do value based work in India? For example, the work demands have increased. So lets talk about 50 years from now.
    Can you please list down all the professions that will be required in a village some 50 years from now. You need to now keep in mind that all villages will have electricity, toilets, internet, cellphone, TRANSPORTATION etc.
    After listing this down it needs to assigned to castes

    • senthil says:

      This is what our problem is.. and by such arguments, we are playing in to enemy’s hands.. Why should we assume that some central authority decide what any jathi should do? Our jathi setup was NOT like that..

      Why do you define how a futuristic society should be? I am vellala, and suppose if i along with my other jathi members, decide to live in huts, and do farming using bulls, will you persecute or ban me?

      Let us give each jathi, and the society of each ethnic dhesam, decide what technology they want and what they dont want, and live their life of freedom.. that’s how our original jathi setup was.. IT is the colonial urban india, which has been preventing the traditional society from living their life..

    • senthil says:

      @surya,

      The anti-caste brigade, has NOT been able to say anything about this heinous crime of their urban allopathic industry.. the proofs has been concrete, and their crime has now been well established.. and they are unable to defend the indefensible..

      Its our time to demand accountability for their assaults on our society so far.. why are you wasting this opportunity? We are NOT blaming them.. we are questioning them..

      Will any liberal morons in future, ever dare to accuse our society of committing female infanticide?

      • dragon says:

        I am NOT talking of female infanticide; in fact I am not talking of what happened in the past at all. I am talking of scope of villages in future. If NO plan is made, there is no direction to progress. I think the following need to be added in villages – doctors with knowldege of diagonisis and treatment be it allopathy or homeopathy or ayurveda.

        You can argue that lets not talk of future, lets only talk of past and focus on the crimes done by urban govt. It is good just for an intellectual dialogue, not something more. I am thinking of something sustainable, like generating employment for all the castes so that they can be equipped with modern times. NOT every caste is vellala caste, where farming is required always.

        I was thinking something more.. Like form new castes in villages which will do programming, computer hardware, mechanical designs of simple products etc. This would reduce corporate and industrial lobby, and give sustainable employment to people. For this I believe an environmnet needs to be facilitated. Are you interested in thinking along these lines also ?

        • Surya says:

          I replied the post as dragon, I used this name in other forums.. Its same as me

        • senthil says:

          /** If NO plan is made, there is no direction to progress. I think the following need to be added in villages – doctors with knowldege of diagonisis and treatment be it allopathy or homeopathy or ayurveda.
          **/

          Restore the autonomy to villages.. Let them build allopathy or ayurvedic hospitals as they want.. why should we set patterns / directions for them?

          /** I am thinking of something sustainable, like generating employment for all the castes so that they can be equipped with modern times.
          **/

          Generating employment itself is a capitalistic propoganda, treating all humans as slaves for their industries..

          Every caste have their own profession, and we have to give them the complete freedom and rights over their historic land, to practice, improve, upon their profession..

          I am repeatedly pointing you the kind of attitude the urban indians are having.. the britishers justified their colonisation by saying that indians are illiterate and dont have capacity to rule.. Arent we displaying the same colonial attitude?

    • swami says:

      /*Can you please list down all the professions that will be required in a village some 50 years from now.*/

      @Senthil,

      Someone has to bell the cat. If someone accuses the bharat, you stand for it. If someone says what about the future, you say look at the past. If someone says lets envision the future model, you evade by saying “who are you to envision something for all jaatis”.

      Even in the past, it is not like some jaati was doing some job and later the king came and governed them.You have repeatedly mentoined, gramas were created by clearing the forest. What did they do next? Who built the houses for all jaathis including houses for brahmins?

      It is a rishi who envisioned the society and the rules rite? So it means he has thought for the sake of common people who would not have long term vision. He has formulated the rules of the society using his futuristic envisioning capabilities as a tool. The king just implemented his ideas. Its the rishi or the Raja guru who is the think tank of a desham.

      You talk a lot about dharma. But you will not endorse any of the living gurus to perform this task in today’s world. So you are contradicting your own thoughts. This is something for you to ponder. In the mean time, like surya asked, let us do that job intellectualy here. We are unenlightened, less visioned compared to gurus, but can still do it. If this is a seperate blog topic, we can park it for that as well but only if you promise to open this topic again. This is more relevant topic for a discussion.

      This is where real ideas will come into picture. It will also project the conflicts present in the minds of the dharmic thinkers as well.

      • senthil says:

        @swamy,

        In the last article, you said that i have to ensure that discussion doesnt deviate from the main theme of this article..

        The main theme of this article is that the urban liberals are abusing our society for female infanticide, the crime which they conceptualised and committed..

        Unfortunately you yourself are deviating now..

        Instead of collectively challenging the liberals to expose their propoganda, you are scuttling the effort by your deviating arguments..

        With your permission, i will delete those comments of yours which are deviating..

        • vyas says:

          Senthil – Nobody (atleast myself and swami) is defending the liberals here. I’m only condemning you when you are defending female infanticide carried out by a few villagers in our country. If you think this is deviating the argument, then I don’t have anything else to say.

          • senthil says:

            I am NOT defending female infanticide.. i am only explaining the situation those people lived in.. i had directly heard those from my own grandfather and relatives, who on those days, struggled hard for their daily survival.. this gave me the insight to understand the plight of those people ..

            Those people who were living in urban centers for generations cannot understand the plights of these rural people..

          • vyas says:

            //I am NOT defending female infanticide.. i am only explaining the situation those people lived in.. i had directly heard those from my own grandfather and relatives, who on those days, struggled hard for their daily survival.. this gave me the insight to understand the plight of those people .. //

            Pls don’t allow emotions to overrule intellect. I very well understand the hardships undergone by village people for generations. Nobody needs to teach me about that. My only question is why should one practice only female infanticide when they are in poverty? Why not male infanticide? Pls answer this question first.

            P.S. Why are you addressing me as swami? This is vyas by the way. Are you seeing my posts as that of swami’s?

          • senthil says:

            @vyas,

            /** My only question is why should one practice only female infanticide when they are in poverty? Why not male infanticide? Pls answer this question first.
            **/

            I have answered this early.. it is the mother who decides to kill her child, because she dont want her girl child to suffer like her.. whereas, the male child dont face the difficulties that a girl faces..

            This “kallippal” incident mostly prevalent among tribal societies of remote villages (For eg, dharmapuri etc).. NOT in varna based society, bcoz of public status and spoil of name .. the govt encouraged female infanticide among this varna society, by offering them a privacy.. ie, the couple can hide the info of getting conceived and also get aborted secretly in hospitals.. if they had allowed the child to develop and born, it would be known to the villagers and they cannot dare to spoil their name by killing it.. also for the reason that varna society was organised and managed to handle the poverty, whereas the tribal society, could not..

            So we have to understand the root cause of the problem.. the liberal urban indians, and westerners dont have to understand it.. their aim is to make allegations.. but those who care for our society, cannot do like that..

          • vyas says:

            //it is the mother who decides to kill her child, because she dont want her girl child to suffer like her//

            What kind of suffering? Explain that first. In my opinion it was related to economics (like dowry). As I mentioned before the villagers should have sat down and should have come up with a plan to either destroy or revamp the dowry system. Killing the girl child with Kalli Paal is not the solution. Also when the mother is killing the girl child what’s the father doing? Why doesn’t he stop that?

            //This “kallippal” incident mostly prevalent among tribal societies of remote villages //

            What do you mean by prevalent? Do you mean to say this practice existed from time immemorial?

  8. http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/autonomous-cars-are-coming/#comment-23324

    autonomous cars & poor people: whats in-store for USA in the future

    We need to start selling long-term birth control to the masses, especially the poor masses. In the future, most low-skilled labor will be automated, so there will be a huge unemployed class of people if we don’t start making changes now. Publicly funded long-term birth control is essential to cutting down on the number of poor people.

  9. senthil says:

    @vyas,

    /** “Our people” refers to everyone who is involved in killing of female fetuses or killing them after birth. **/

    did all those people who killed female fetus, come together, consult with each other and commit that crime? the term “Our” and “WE” is valid only in cases where decision are taken as a collective group.. the urban english media and the anti-social intellectuals, often use the term “WE” to impose a collective guilt on the whole society.. why are you falling for this trap?

    Both you and me are indians.. can you take responsibility for any crime that i commit? and suppose, if i commit a crime and say “WE Did it”, will you accept it?

    Society is a commune setup, and people are influenced by their neighbours.. right and wrong are always relational to the commune environment we live in..

    Suppose some one seduces a girl, and rapes her thru deceit, would you accuse the girl, of getting seduced?

    • vyas says:

      Senthil – Pls don’t twist the argument. The question here is not about who the “we” or “Our” is. If you want you can come up with a separate name or identity for the parents who agreed to female infanticide and I’ll use that name going forward. That’s not the issue here. The basic question is even if the doctors prescribed this method, why did the parents accept it? Whatever said and done, this practice became a cult and created a kind of hatred towards female children for some time in certain areas which cannot be denied. As I said before there may definitely be a hidden agenda by alien culprits behind all this and that needs to be certainly destroyed. At the same time putting the entire blame on them and trying to defend the people who indulge in female infanticide is utter nonsense.

      //often use the term “WE” to impose a collective guilt on the whole society.. why are you falling for this trap?//

      Just because you accept a mistake doesn’t mean that you are falling into a trap. We are/were not as pure as crystal throughout our history. We did make some blunders in the past too and we’ll learn to get past that. I don’t understand why you maintain a fundamentalist attitude in certain things.

      //Society is a commune setup, and people are influenced by their neighbours.. right and wrong are always relational to the commune environment we live in.. //

      What are you trying to convey from the above statement? Just because my neighbor is a thief, should I too indulge in the same?

      //Suppose some one seduces a girl, and rapes her thru deceit, would you accuse the girl, of getting seduced?//

      This argument is silly. Do you mean to say that 100% of the female infanticides happened without the knowledge of the parents? A doctor cannot do such a thing without knowledge of the parents. Not all doctors are corrupt by the way. What are your comments about girl babies that are killed using poisonous milk (kalli paal) after birth without involvement of a doctor? Why are you silent about this? Would you blame the rockfeller family for that one too? If you do then the blame for every crime that was committed can be put on third parties and no one can be made guilty. I believe you are precisely doing that.

      • senthil says:

        /** The question here is not about who the “we” or “Our” is. If you want you can come up with a separate name or identity for the parents who agreed to female infanticide and I’ll use that name going forward. That’s not the issue here. The basic question is even if the doctors prescribed this method, why did the parents accept it?
        **/

        I am surprised that you are speaking the language of the liberals..

        crossing sea is a sin for brahmins.. working for earning is a sin for brahmins.. why are you sitting in US, and working for corporates, against your dharma?

        • vyas says:

          //I am surprised that you are speaking the language of the liberals..

          crossing sea is a sin for brahmins.. working for earning is a sin for brahmins.. why are you sitting in US, and working for corporates, against your dharma?//

          Senthil – You are again diverting the argument. You calling me a Brahmin is an insult to the whole Brahmin community. I’ve several times voluntarily agreed in this forum in the past that I’m not a true Brahmin at all. In fact my parampara lost that credibility for the past 4 generations as we moved out of Vaideeha dharma about a 100 years ago. Even my great grandfather was a businessman.

          P.S. FYI. I returned back from U.S over 2 years ago. I’m currently in India only. I believe I mentioned this too in the forum a while ago :-)

          • senthil says:

            I am not diverting the argument.. if i ask, why did your forefathers moved away from vaideeha dharma, do you have any answer? the situation at that time was like that..

            Similarly, when the whole government machinery was unleashing population control propoganda, and canvassing people to do abortion, is it right to expect an individual to withstand that argument? You are failing to consider the situation at that time..

            One one hand, there was extreme poverty.. the traditional society and administration which supported them was systematically paralysed.. the indian colonial govt was totally hostile.. in such a situation, begetting a girl child will bring more hardships whereas, aborting within 3 months, saves them from life long hardships.. what will an individual family do?

            But still, NOT all families had killed their girl child.. Only small percentage of population succumbed to govt propoganda..

            But look at how the liberals are abusing our society, by extrapolating the gender gap.. Our primary purpose is to fight against this ostracisation of our society, and i request you use this info to fight against them..

      • senthil says:

        Just like brahmins suffered from poverty and have no option but to work for their living, the society were also under extreme stress.. what will an individual family will do under such condition?

        Who colonised India? The capitalistic forces..

        Who plundered India? The same capitalistic forces..

        Who controlled India after independance? the same capitalistic forces..

        Who controls Medical Industry? The same capitalistic forces..

        If you reject the above reality, then there is no point in discussing here..

        • vyas says:

          //Just like brahmins suffered from poverty and have no option but to work for their living, the society were also under extreme stress.. what will an individual family will do under such condition? //

          Then why did you blame the Brahmins for taking up govt jobs all throughout in your forum? You constantly bashed them for all bad happened in the past and why are you now supporting them? Pls don’t play double game.

          //Who colonised India? The capitalistic forces..

          Who plundered India? The same capitalistic forces..

          Who controlled India after independance? the same capitalistic forces..

          Who controls Medical Industry? The same capitalistic forces..

          If you reject the above reality, then there is no point in discussing here..//

          Again you are taking the discussion into a different direction which is worthless. Let’s talk about the facts and not leave any place for speculations.

  10. swami says:

    @Poovannan,

    /*antihindu areas like kerala/tamilnadu/northeast etc which support late marriages,womens reservations,employment of women etc have a far far better sex ratio and less incidences of female infanticide*/

    Thanks for openly adminiting that kerala, tamil nadu and north east have become anti hindu.

    Kudos to KD.

    but the truth is, atleast in tamilnadu, the spirituality is shining bright compared to north.

  11. swami says:

    @Senthil,

    If what you claim is true, then why is ultra sound banned in india? Doctors do not tell the gender of the baby in india. Also Your argument will stand only for urbans and few villagers who utilized the ultra sound technologies.

    What about “Kalli paal” of the villages. Have you seen karuthamma movie?

    Anyhow, in defense of the vedic civilization, it is said that , during Seemandham, the saasthrigal if he chants the mantras properly will be able to identify if the child is male or female. Not sure if current brahmins have this capability or not. But this is a claim not very popular but was shown in enge brahmanan serial. If true, Ultra sound is not required to identify the gende in the past. Also it is made sure that the child cannot be killed in 8th or 9th month (thats when seemandham happens). This could have been a mechanism to prevent stree hatya too.

    • senthil says:

      /** If what you claim is true, then why is ultra sound banned in india? Doctors do not tell the gender of the baby in india. Also Your argument will stand only for urbans and few villagers who utilized the ultra sound technologies.
      **/

      You are typical example of how hindus make self goal even in the areas where they have total advantage.. While i have built a solid case against the liberals abusing indian society, you are scuttling this by your weird arguments? and it is you who accuse the general hindu society of NOT fighting against enemies… its ironical..

      This article itself says that it is the Indian Govt with help of AIIMS, introduced ultra sound scan, trained doctors and carried over this program across country.. and later sensing the devastating effects, it is the govt which banned it.. It is the allopathic industry which provided the services of sex-selection.. why should you accuse the hindu society as a whole?

      Today, this sex-selection had been done in more advanced way, in the form of IVF.. again the technology is provided by the allopathic industry..

    • senthil says:

      This kallipal existed only in pockets and in certain areas and practiced only by few communities.. and in this case, it is NOT because of preference over male child, but because of extreme poverty.. and it was mostly done by the women themselves, who were depressed over the hardships they faced .. will you crimiinalise them?

      Today, so many couples chose to abort the child (whether male of female) simply because of financial reasons.. ie, they abort the child because they dont have money to bring up the child.. right?

      • vyas says:

        Senthil – How could you place such a rubbish argument? Just because I’m frustrated to the core due to various circumstances, can I kill you and get away with the crime? Will your parents forgive me based on my circumstances? The Pakistani soldiers enter our LOC and kill our soldiers frequently. Will you forgive them and condemn Jinnah for partitioning the country which is the root cause of all these incidents? Pls stop your junk arguments.

        Now coming back to the kalli paal incident. Why did the villagers kill the female infants selectively? It’s only because they thought that bringing up a girl child is economically not viable partly due to the corrupted dowry system inherent in our society. A farmer was simply not capable of paying heavy dowries demanded by bridegrooms. Had the affected villagers taken a collective decision by abolishing or revamping the dowry system, I’d have provided a standing ovation to them, but instead they resorted to killing the infants which is unacceptable.

        ////This kallipal existed only in pockets and in certain areas and practiced only by few communities..//

        Completely agree with you on this. I never said this practice is a national phenomenon.

        // and in this case, it is NOT because of preference over male child, but because of extreme poverty.. and it was mostly done by the women themselves, who were depressed over the hardships they faced .. will you crimiinalise them?//

        This is one of the most hilarious arguments I’ve ever heard. Just because you are in poverty and undergo hardships why would you kill girl children alone? Atleast if you kill both I’d accept your point to a certain extent but why girls alone?
        Let’s face it. What a few villagers did in the name of female infanticide is completely unjustifiable. At the same time I completely agree with the facts mentioned in this article too. We need to fix both and there is no second opinion about that.

        • senthil says:

          @vyas,

          /** This is one of the most hilarious arguments I’ve ever heard. Just because you are in poverty and undergo hardships why would you kill girl children alone?
          **/

          You and me can question this sitting comfortably in Air conditioned room.. only those who undergo this suffering can understand the situation.. eventhough i had not faced such hardships, i had seen such situations first hand.. any way, you can continue laughing from your comfortable homes..

          /** It’s only because they thought that bringing up a girl child is economically not viable partly due to the corrupted dowry system inherent in our society.
          **/
          This argument is wrong for following reasons..

          1. the dowry system was existing among upper classes.. not among poors in remote villages.. the main reason for killing female child is the extreme hardships faced by the women themselves.. they did not want their girl child to face a life, that they saw as extremely hard..

          2. The people generally married their daughters to close relatives in villages.. so marriage is NOT a reason for killing girl child.. bcoz till some 30 years back, polygamy was common.. so the real reason for “Kallipal” type of incident was poverty and NOT dowry..

          The reason why male child was not killed was the confidence that a male can face any hardships and can suvive in any harshest conditions..

          /**
          A farmer was simply not capable of paying heavy dowries demanded by bridegrooms. Had the affected villagers taken a collective decision by abolishing or revamping the dowry system, I’d have provided a standing ovation to them, but instead they resorted to killing the infants which is unacceptable.
          **/

          I am sorry, that such moronic arguments come from people like you.. Did your urban india, who are comfortable today, come together and overthrow corruption in india? why did you expect the traditional society to instantly come together and solve all social problems?

          Do you understand the point that the traditional administrative system which bind the society had been collapsed, and people themselves are running for their survival.. its easy to dream about “If it had happened” kind of things..

          • anon says:

            Destitute people in India (and even China) have been known to kill daughters when brought to desperate straits. And in China too, it has at times been women who made that decision. And in China it wasn’t because of “dowry” either.

            Further, many women, especially in poorer countries, do indeed have the perception that male children might be better able to cope with difficult circumstances and have more chance to surive. It’s also true that often women more keenly perceive that a hard life like the one they led may not be worth it for their offspring, if they can’t foresee being able to offer anything better in the future. While often they may not want any children at all for this reason, they may bank on the *hope* that their sons can beat out a new and worthwhile future for themselves despite the harsh circumstances. I don’t see how this immediately implies that “dowry” must be lurking in the background, especially when in other Asian societies the same has happened at different times in the past, and where dowry did not affect women (or among Hindu communities were dowry did not manifest itself).

            “What a few villagers did in the name of female infanticide is completely unjustifiable.”
            People used to first world problems will no doubt moralise about the impossibly difficult decisions that those in impossibly difficult circumstances were forced to make, and apparently the rest of us (sitting pretty, of course) are supposed to condemn such hard choices with equal force and ferocity as we would rich NRIs or city-dwelling Indians who make such easy decisions in aborting daughters left and right and go to prestigious overseas clinics to get the deed done. Yes, of course it’s all the same, I see now. Because destitute people have the same easy options in life as rich people, don’t they? Meaning that poor people who, in better circumstances might not have opted to lose their daughters, are obviously *equally* guilty and downright vile as rich people who could have easily raised daughters but who chose to kill the child anyway.

            The choices they made are regrettable. The circumstances that forced them to make it are unjustifiable. (And Senthil can only verify that the circumstances were poverty, not dowry, which last was an allegation that people not familiar with the particular situation levelled against it.) And there are indeed culprits. But their grandchildren are sleeping well in some rich first world nation, oblivious to foreign policies’ long-term impact on nations far removed from them. It is all very convenient.

            I don’t see Senthil (or any Hindu who has been discussing this matter in parallel with him elsewhere) pretend that female infanticide is not wrong. As far as I can understand, he is saying that beyond the surface issue of foeticide and gender specific foeticide to boot, there are serious factors consciously at work for some time that have directly had a hand in reducing our society to this wretchedness, and that the matter is further *not* traditional, but specifically against Hindu religion. He is arguing that what brought us to this pass is something that the baiters who like to pin Indians with a penchant for female foeticide conveniently overlook. I don’t see him advocate that Hindus do nothing about the matter itself. Actually, it seems to me that he is angry that the current trend of female foeticide is going directly against his ancestral tradition.

          • anon says:

            Sorry corrections:
            [something that people] who like to pin Indians as having a penchant for female foeticide conveniently overlook. I don’t see him advocate that Hindus do nothing about the matter itself. Actually, it seems to me that he is angry that the current trend of female foeticide is going directly against his ancestral tradition, besides being inhumane.

          • senthil says:

            @anon,

            Thanks for your detailed comment.. you had exactly understood the point i tried to convey.. its happy to see you presenting my views with more clarity, than myself..

            No one can support infanticide (whether female or male).. i am only fighting against those who are trying to blame our society for these happenings, when the accusers themselves are the culprit who forced our society (both rich & poor) to kill their own infants..

            The rich were atomised by uprooting from their communes and made to work for big corporates under temptation of high salary.. so they dont find any time or patience or social support system to raise their child..

            The poor were suffering out of extreme poverty that they dont want their daughters to suffer the life-long hardships that they themselves faced.. so they chose to kill their daughters..

  12. senthil says:

    @swamy,

    /** What are your comments about girl babies that are killed using poisonous milk (kalli paal) after birth without involvement of a doctor? Why are you silent about this? Would you blame the rockfeller family for that one too?
    **/

    Today, the rockfeller and rothschild family is the core culprit for all social issues.. you may be skeptical and may not accept this.. but look at the past history and present power structure..

    It is this rothschild group, that controls the world petroleum trade.. it is they who control the entire pharma industry.. it is they who control the american federal bank, and possess the sole right to print dollars.. By rothschild family, i dont mean a single family.. but a large network of jewish groups, controlling more than 70% of world economy..

    why are you sitting in america? it is because of these groups who had subjugated the indian economy and made it subservient to their global capitalist economy ..

    who promoted Dravidar Kalagam.. it is the same family..

    THe control, these capitalistic forces have on the society is invisible.. you have to observe and analyse carefully to understand who controls what..

    but you people are NOT accepting this reality..

    • vyas says:

      //Today, the rockfeller and rothschild family is the core culprit for all social issues.. you may be skeptical and may not accept this.. but look at the past history and present power structure..//

      Why are you diverting the argument again and again? Nobody is celebrating the rockfeller family here (atleast i’m not) and nobody is undermining their poisonous activities too. But that doesn’t mean we can put all the blame on someone and get away with our crimes.

      //why are you sitting in america? it is because of these groups who had subjugated the indian economy and made it subservient to their global capitalist economy .. //

      You’ve gone mad. I’ve told you several times that I’m back to India. If you don’t want to believe it that’s up to you.

      //THe control, these capitalistic forces have on the society is invisible.. you have to observe and analyse carefully to understand who controls what..

      but you people are NOT accepting this reality..//

      I never denied any of these facts. If I had that intention, I’d have joined hands with the likes of ponvannan and blasted you off long ago.

      You’ve been making mindless arguments, especially on this topic. Going by this way, I’ll not be surprised even if you claim one day that your toilet is running out of water because of rockfeller family :-)

      • senthil says:

        @swamy,

        /** Why are you diverting the argument again and again? Nobody is celebrating the rockfeller family here (atleast i’m not) and nobody is undermining their poisonous activities too. But that doesn’t mean we can put all the blame on someone and get away with our crimes.
        **/

        1. You are ignoring the very force that is perpetuating the crime till this date.. why? are you saying, the rockfeller & rothschild families are NOT controlling today’s india? or today’s government policies? I had already conveyed you, that the very same force has advanced this “abortion” technique at the embryo level.. today, you need not wait for the fetus to develop.. the allopathic doctors decide the gender right after fertilisation of eggs..

        2. You are using the term “Our Crimes”.. do you understand the larger impact of this very term? Did our people come together and collectively decide to accept female infanticide?

        /** Going by this way, I’ll not be surprised even if you claim one day that your toilet is running out of water because of rockfeller family
        **/
        If you understand that the entire capitalistic system of today is controlled by global capitalists, you wont talk like this.. the kind of urban system being implemented is their model.. the kind of economy is theirs.. so technically, if your toilet runs out of water, it is they who are culpable, because it is their system and NOT your or my system..

        I am really fed up on seeing such arguments from our own people.. either you should be able to concretely tell, who is the power center today, or debate my points accordingly.. such ridicule is really dis-appointing..

        do you think, i am merely making a random statement, without any analysis?

        • vyas says:

          Senthil – Pls stop the junk arguments for a moment. Answer only one question that I’ve been asking you repeatedly. Do you condemn the female infanticide (using kalli paal) in places like usilambatti or not?

          //You are using the term “Our Crimes”.. do you understand the larger impact of this very term?//

          Okay, I’ll refrain from using this term again, but come up with a new term for that and I’ll start using it.

          //Did our people come together and collectively decide to accept female infanticide?//

          Once again, don’t twist the argument. I never ever said that the whole of India was practicing female infanticide like what many of the liberals are doing. There are a handful of villages which did practice that which cannot be denied. The real question is why should they practice female infanticide alone? Why not male infanticide too? If they did both, then I’m completely with you when you say it’s out of poverty. You seem to cleverly ignore this question completely.

          • senthil says:

            after you called my replies as junk argument, there is nothing to debate further.. If you dont want to understand the larger system in which you are part of, then you cannot understand anything..

      • swami says:

        Senthil & Vyas,

        Confusion. Sentihl replied to my questoin. Vyas thought its for him and replied back to senthil . Senthil replied back to Vyas addressing me.

  13. senthil says:

    @contrarian,

    First you projected a negative stereotype as though parents who do not have son are condemned to forego last rites.. i explained you, that in the kula gothra system, the son of the brother, can do the last rites, in case a couple do not have son..

    You are yet to answer for this..

    /** Then she is better off moving away from such traditions, find alternative support systems. Such attitudes are precisely why modernity looks better.
    **/

    There is certain process within the commune structure.. if you dont have a son, then your brother’s son should do the last rites for you.. if you dont want to follow any of these process, and want to adopt modernity, you have every right to do so.. no one stops you.. but dont disturb those who follow their tradition..

    Those who follow the tradition dont have any obligation to explain reason for their rituals.. you cannot say “If you dont give reason, you cannot follow your tradition”..

  14. poovannan says:

    @senthil- your confidence based on ignorance is very saddening.Allopathy has saved crores of boys and girl children like never before in the history of mankind and few conservatives who are hellbent on getting a male child misused the techniques which had helped reduce death during delivery of both mother and child by hundred times is used as a proof of how technology has killed women.
    The population growth charts of indians or tamilians or vellalas are ther for everyone to see and they have trebled within a very short period courtesy allopathy.

    The clear facts of how societies which have shifted to late marriages,women employment,women education have better sex ratios than the traditional socities which have a defined role for women within homes is conveniently ignored

    • senthil says:

      @poovannan,

      This article explains in detail, on how the allopathic industry, which was part of the global capitalistic empires, had funded the massive population reductions programmes not only in india, but across the world.. The gender selection techniques were invented by your allopathic system, exclusively for the female infanticide.. you cannot shift the blame on society by projecting as though it is society which mis-used.. Details were given on who funded, for what purpose, the brutal outcome across nations, and the rabid justification of their heinous crimes..

      Did you read this article????

      /** techniques which had helped reduce death during delivery of both mother and child by hundred times **/

      where is the proof? Its another propoganda lies.. on ther other hand, the child births handled by traditional mid-wives, had been more effective and cheaper than your allopathic systems.. but again it is your urban india which destroyed these traditional midwives too..

  15. Surya Ramachandran says:

    @senthil
    can you please list down a few positives that India has got by its contact with the west, and the rural people have got because of urban culture. Thanks.

    • senthil says:

      @surya,

      Why should i? I am now focussed on reviving my tradition and culture of my bharath.. India is a colonial entity..

      There is nothing that our country gained by its contact with the west, except for plunder, loot, rape etc.. on the other hand, it is the europe, which stole all knowledge from here, and developed upon it.. Pls read Rajiv Malhotra’s 9 volumes of book on “Indian Science & Technology”.. So Lets stop giving in to the liberal’s moronic idea of “India benefitted by west”..

    • swami says:

      Surya, your question is no different than the below scenario.

      “A girl was raped by a man. IN court the judge asks the girl – May be he raped you. But you tell me, what aspects of him did you like and what are all that you enjoyed through his contact?”

      • senthil says:

        @swami,

        Excellent analogy.. you conveyed my point.. If our people realise, that our country was raped, they would not be asking such questions at all..

        To say, that India benefitted out of british conquest, is like saying a raped girl benefited out of rape, because she begot a child.. Today, India is that Begotten Illegitimate child of Colonial Rape..

  16. “/**
    Who makes up such rules? Some times intelligent people like you defend the indefensible
    **/

    No one knows who made these rules.. definitely not you or me or any of the people in the present days.. it should have been made by our rishis thousands of year back.. if you dont agree with, you have the right to NOT follow it.. but you dont have any right to abuse these rituals..

    A daughter should not conduct any last rites, and that is our rule.. NO compromise..”

    I would be ashamed to make such an idiotic argument. Somebody saying rules without knowing who made it, why it was made or what happens if it’s broken.. But he’s not ready to compromise. If this is what makes one traditionalist, then I’ll be a proud liberal (or whatever the opposite is)..

    • senthil says:

      /** I would be ashamed to make such an idiotic argument. Somebody saying rules without knowing who made it, why it was made or what happens if it’s broken.. But he’s not ready to compromise. If this is what makes one traditionalist, then I’ll be a proud liberal (or whatever the opposite is)..
      **/

      It is you who are making such idiotic argument… if you dont agree with a ritual, you better dont follow it.. or you can create your own ritual and follow it.. why are you hellbent on manipulating an existing rituals followed by certain section of people..

      Infact, you should be ashamed of your Intolerant attitude.. IF this intolerant abusive attitude is something you are proud of, i am much more proud of being traditional, which respects each other tradition as it is, and gives freedom to come out..

  17. The argument here is that just because someone invented a gun or the knife, the killings have increased, not because there were killers trying to use whatever weapon they get.. Killers are the problem, not the tools. So, preference for male child is the problem, which arises from stupid rituals like performing last rites (No one knows why the hell that person should care who performs his last rites after he’s dead!!) by a male, not the advent of technology..

    Stop blaming everyone else for all the ills in our society, which is the most divisive and intolerant today in the whole world, most of which is directly attributed to the Jathis..

    • vyas says:

      //So, preference for male child is the problem//

      First of all I’d defer from using the word preference here. We never say we “like” to eat as we “need” to eat for survival. Preference is associated with choice. But preferring a male child is not out of choice. A male child is required to fulfill the rites of a kula dharma which a female cannot do.

      //which arises from stupid rituals like performing last rites (No one knows why the hell that person should care who performs his last rites after he’s dead!!) by a male, not the advent of technology..//

      This is a stupid urban mentality. Just because you don’t know something doesn’t mean it does not exist. Modern science till this very moment does not know how and why the universe was formed. They are only proposing theory after theory and nothing seems to be satisfying. Have we stopped living just because science couldn’t find the secrets? Now, if you ask why did we kill female babies for want of a male baby, then I’m with you.

      • “Have we stopped living just because science couldn’t find the secrets?”

        No, but if the society is willing to kill babies for a stupid ritual, then we should at least be sure on why we need it.. we are not living in dark ages..

        • vyas says:

          //No, but if the society is willing to kill babies for a stupid ritual, then we should at least be sure on why we need it.. we are not living in dark ages..//

          Just because those rituals doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean they are stupid. Also why we need those rituals have been debated a lot of times in this very same forum. I’d urge you to read them. By the way nobody is supporting the killing of babies by any means.

        • senthil says:

          It is your urban government which killed babies.. you are responsible for the crimes you committed and dont make repeated allegations at the traditional society.. first answer for the crimes you deliberately committed..

    • senthil says:

      /** Killers are the problem, not the tools. So, preference for male child is the problem, which arises from stupid rituals like performing last rites (No one knows why the hell that person should care who performs his last rites after he’s dead!!) by a male, not the advent of technology..
      **/

      The killers here is the allopathic doctors who performed the abortions.. the population control programme is devised by american agencies, and funded by Ford Foundation.. and implemented by Indian Government, who trained its government doctors to do abortions to the people.. the propoganda was funded by the government.. you are trying to hide these crimes of your government by blaming the society.. We have already debated on how preference over male child doesnt MEAN girl child are killed..

      Secondly, you dont have any bloody business to comment on the rites and culture followed by the people.. this is gross inter-ference (& infact abuse) over people’s right to follow their culture..

      /** Stop blaming everyone else for all the ills in our society, which is the most divisive and intolerant today in the whole world, most of which is directly attributed to the Jathis..
      **/

      It is you who are blaming the society, and it is your urban indian government who has propogated the evils by enslaving the society.. its ridiculous that a person part of the rapist urban system is making allegations against the traditional tolerant society.. influence of christianity???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s