Print Page | Close Window

Female Infanticide's Effect on Race

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18942
Printed Date: 08-Jun-2024 at 08:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Female Infanticide's Effect on Race
Posted By: Rajputana
Subject: Female Infanticide's Effect on Race
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 09:14
Dowry has been part of Indian culture since long and for this reason most of the rural/urban Indian society has valued men more than women.  Birth of a girl meant the family would have to come up with dowry in order for her to be married within the same caste/race/tribe whereas the birth of a boy meant that dowry would be received by the family.
 
The practice of female infanticide led to men acquiring wives from different castes in most instances those of lower castes or tribes hailing from distant areas that were not genetically of the same makeup.  In my opinion, throughout India, from the North to the South, female infanticide has played a major role in castes intermixing and interbreeding. 
 
 
Originally posted by British Gazetteer (Muzaffarnagar U.P.)

Under the provision of Act VIII of 1870 inquiries were instituted regarding the practice of female infanticide in this district. In July 1870 the Magistrate reported that 230 villages were suspected and that 36 were particularly guilty, but the report was so incorrectly drawn up, that no action could be taken, and the matter was ailowed to lie over till the census of 1872. A fresh report was made in March 1873, with a detailed list of all the villages proposed for proclamation. In the first place, those parganas were selected in which the percentage of female minors fell bebw 40 per cent, of the total minor popula­tion. Then those villages were taken which had a reasonably large minor population, and in which the percentage fell below 35. The entire number of villages coming under repression, according to this standard, was 130, inhabited by Rajputs, Jats, Tagas and Gujars. Among the Rajputs the Kachhwahas, Jhoti-janas, Pundirs and Chauhaus wore the worst offenders. Ten Pundir villages, seven Jhotiyana, two Chauhan and two Kachhwaha villages came within the rule. Further, 48 Jat, 43 Gujars, and 18 Taga villages were proclaimed from the 1st of April 1873. At the end of the year a further revision took place which resulted in the exemption of 36 villages, leaving 94 on the register in May 1874. Since that date the number of Proclaimed villages has been gradually reduced as the people show signs of improvement. No cases of infanticide have been reported in the district for several years, and in 1901 there were only six villages proclaimed under the Act. Nor is it considered necessary to keep these any longer on the list, and Government has been recommended to withdraw them from the operations of the Act.



Replies:
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 10:09
If you quote from the British period document, there there is two sides of the issue dealt with.
 
You cannot say that dowry has been part of Indian society, as it is there in other societies also.
 
Take the question of widow-burning and witch- burning, etc., it was dealt with the British differently in the same period.
 
Female infracticide has been the extremity of anti-woman crime perpetuated by the vested groups in every society.
 
The difference is how a bullet is fired at a woman or a stove bursts - the victims is the same with the reasons behind.


-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: Rajputana
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 15:21
Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

If you quote from the British period document, there there is two sides of the issue dealt with.You cannot say that dowry has been part of Indian society, as it is there in other societies also. Take the question of widow-burning and witch- burning, etc., it was dealt with the British differently in the same period.Female infracticide has been the extremity of anti-woman crime perpetuated by the vested groups in every society.The difference is how a bullet is fired at a woman or a stove bursts - the victims is the same with the reasons behind.
 
Mr. Rao I'm not saying Dowry is exclusive to India, nor is for that matter infanticide.  I am, however, leaning towards the theory that due to this system many tribes started to practice female infanticide because they were not able to pay dowry hence putting greatly out of proportion the male to female ration in the country HENCE not being able to acquire brides from the same race or tribe AND EVEN having to SHARE BRIDES amongst brothers (prominent amongst many people of India and also folk songs of Jats).
 
Trust me as a person of Indian origin I have no personal vendetta against the nation, just think that the truth should be told.
 
 


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 17:50
Good thread, and interesting hypothesis you have there Rajputana.
 
Could be right.
 
 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 19:49
Among the tribals of any any society such contigency would be forced upon because of external circumstances, as otherwise, the so-called mother-loving Indians or any group would not have succumbed to such acts.
 
So give details, why one tribe or a particular tribe resorted to such practice?


-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: Rajputana
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 20:53
Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

Among the tribals of any any society such contigency would be forced upon because of external circumstances, as otherwise, the so-called mother-loving Indians or any group would not have succumbed to such acts.
 So give details, why one tribe or a particular tribe resorted to such practice?
 
http://www.censusindia.net/results/provindia2.html - LINK TO 2001 SEX RATIO CENSUS (INDIA)
 
Mr. Rao as to your query with regards to the reason for resorting to this act:
 
  • Too much dependency on an Agricultural economy: Most important for farming society, as India has been in the past, the fact that a boy is able to lend a hand in farming whereas a girl would not be able to do all these tasks.
  • Excess taxes by overlords to finance wars etc.
  • Lack of rain caused droughts in turn causing poverty where a family could not pay dowry.

India has one of the lowest female to male ratios in the world with Punjab (Agricultural Economy) leading the count with 793 girls being born per every 1000 boys.  The farmers of Punjab are practicing this even to this day and suicide rates are also at a high in many states including Punjab.

Mr. Rao forget the effect from the race mixing perspective, this is a serious problem for the whole of India!  I was reading of some methods which were used by various communities and found them to be quite 'advanced' for their times. 


Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 10:25
Don't you think that the analysis of pre-Independence period (under the British) and thereafter would matter much?
 
Can you say that sex ration had been better earlier than now?


-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: Rajputana
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 12:24

Mr. Rao what are you trying to ask or prove, why dont you just clearly state your points?  Intermixing of castes has nothing to do with post-independence and that is why that article posted is from pre-independence British journals which shows the nature of various tribes of the area. 

I'm sure the situation was far worst during the times of the mughals.


Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 20:06
It is only a question of interpretation. I have already mentioned earlier:
 

Take the question of widow-burning and witch- burning, etc., it was dealt with the British differently in the same period.

 

Female infracticide has been the extremity of anti-woman crime perpetuated by the vested groups in every society.

 

The difference is how a bullet is fired at a woman or a stove bursts - the victims is the same with the reasons behind.

 
Historically, certain social proceeses have thrusted or forced impact on members of society, when they were subjected to forced compulsion or external influencial factors.
 
Even today, in the day of secularism and modernity, if such acts are going on, they have to be analyzed critically.


-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 01:55
one of my friends from UP once said that this is the exact reason why a lot north indian poor people and villagers are dark skinned today, because thier man married lower cast women who are usally darker skinned then the upper casts, i dont know if this is true or not but it could an interesting point. 


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 07:16
Originally posted by Rajputana

Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao

If you quote from the British period document, there there is two sides of the issue dealt with.You cannot say that dowry has been part of Indian society, as it is there in other societies also. Take the question of widow-burning and witch- burning, etc., it was dealt with the British differently in the same period.Female infracticide has been the extremity of anti-woman crime perpetuated by the vested groups in every society.The difference is how a bullet is fired at a woman or a stove bursts - the victims is the same with the reasons behind.
 
Mr. Rao I'm not saying Dowry is exclusive to India, nor is for that matter infanticide.  I am, however, leaning towards the theory that due to this system many tribes started to practice female infanticide because they were not able to pay dowry hence putting greatly out of proportion the male to female ration in the country HENCE not being able to acquire brides from the same race or tribe AND EVEN having to SHARE BRIDES amongst brothers (prominent amongst many people of India and also folk songs of Jats).
 
Trust me as a person of Indian origin I have no personal vendetta against the nation, just think that the truth should be told.
 
 
 
Wife sharing was done to get favours also and not due to infactide . There is one such  historical records available that the Rajput Rai Singh rathore sent his wife to the palace of Akbar and she returned with lot of gifts and new jagirs for her husband. Here the difference was that Rajput rai singh rathore shared his wife with Akbar and not with his own brother which you have mentined about Jats. Hence please see your own face in the mirror before writing bad about others.
 
There were many such incidents occured during Mughal period but only few surfaced and documented. Others were hidden by the bards by wrting the false stories of these warriors who got promoted by sharing their wives.
 
Rai Singh Rathor was one of largest servant in the army of akbar commanding 4000 soldiers under him. Now it is to be seen that who became white by colour and who became black by doing such acts.
 
 
 


Posted By: Rajputana
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 12:25

AP Singh Gujjar, lol what does this have to do with female infanticide? Better yet lets have a reference for this claim you have purported;  Its a known fact that Mughal kings took daughters from Pathans, Iranians, Afghans and Rajputs during time of nauroz women were sent from as far as Herat and Khorasan -- so are all these people not warrior clans???



Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 19:57

yup mughals did take a lot of afghan and persian wives, and a lot of them acutally settled in present day kashmir, kashmir was where rich mughals and their families settled and also summer home for them.



Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 22:36

Again and again, the discussion about race is going on in spite of its pseudo-scientific nature enjoying the nuances of colour of skin, eyes, nasal index, cranial index and so on, however, miscegenation is forgotten conveniently. Many times, the genetic evidences are relied upon nowadays as if it could prove and settle everything in historical interpretation. The genetic experts many times trace the origin to Africa and then shift to Asia. The moment they confront with “monogenous” or “heterogeneous” complications, they twist the results either way or any way to please their rulers (invariably religious affiliated or controlled).

 

A. P. Singh has mentioned about “Rajaputs sharing their wives with the Moghuls”. I am perplexed as to why such “sharing” was not mutual and reciprocating? Why the Rajaputs should have been “so generous”? Why such thing should happen?

 

In ancient Tamil studies, we find, the Romans giving away their women to Tamils along with wine and gold in getting Indian goods (c.300 BCE-100 CE). Later, we find, even the Greeks had been amorous in getting their daughters married to Indian Emperors (c.200 BCE)! Here, the position is that the Indian Kings and rulers were at their commanding position. But, the “one way amorous diplomacy” or “political compulsion” of the Rajaputs is intriguing. Incidentally, at the same time, the South Indian Kings had been very diplomatic in marrying off their daughters and sons to maintain stability.

 

Endogamous and exogamous interpretation in historical processes cannot give any definite results.



-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 01:47
lolLOL KV Ramakrishna you make me laugh sometimes, there is no evidence to your outrages claim that Romans gave away their women to tamils hahaha lolLOL that is one of the funniest things i have heard. i doubt Romans even met tamils because tamils are all the way in south indiaLOL and there is no evidence of roman ships going all the way to south india. i dont really know what history books you have studied Confused it all seems someone has made up everything you have read.


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 10:43
actually, kashmiri, if anything, any direct roman trade with india would probably have been by sea, and the tamils are at the southern tip. they have the most access to the sea, and is why during the chola period, they were such a great sea power.

and the Romans did meet the tamils, for there have been several roman coins found in archaeological digs all around the southern part of india.


Posted By: Rajputana
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 10:49

Originally posted by K.V. Ramakrishna Rao

]A. P. Singh has mentioned about “Rajaputs sharing their wives with the Moghuls”. I am perplexed as to why such “sharing” was not mutual and reciprocating? Why the Rajaputs should have been “so generous”? Why such thing should happen?

 
Najaf Khan was related to the Persian Kings and came with his sister to the court of Muhammad Shah. He later served Shah 'Alam III.
  • Religion was a factor but more importantly for the same reasons why the afghans, pathans, jats and marathas were not offered the same reciprocating 'generosity', Mughals were stronger. Mughals had a far superior force (light canons etc.) and even though the Mughals hated battles in the desert, the Rajputs knew they would not be able to hold out thus forming alliances initially with Lodhi then Akbar and so on. Yet even in the face of such odds many Rajputs kept fighting such as the Sisodiya Ranas of Mewar who never compromised.  Rajputs of East India also fought and once defeated, many were forced to convert to Islam under the reign of Aurungzeb so Mr. Rao it had been a battle being fought by Rajputs against Rajputs for 200-300 years BUT, they revolted whenever a chance came along.
 


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 11:06

until u guys fully provide evidence that romans met tamils and traded their women to tamil, (which is impossible) i wont beleive a thing u guys say. It seems a lot of just make things up and its truly a sad thing because a person with little knowledge would beleive your out rages claims.

 
and PS. do you want to open a thread in the European section of this forum to ask them if romans gave their women away to tamilsLOL i bet they would laugh thier a** off.LOL


Posted By: AlokaParyetra
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 11:10
ok, forget the women thing for a second. you do atleast understand that there was trade between rome and southern india?


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 12:29
trade with  ofcourse is possible because i know the romans did go far as the persian gulf, after that i dont know if they went to india but yes trade was happening between india and rome, but this trade was mostly done through the traders of persian gulf which came to india often for gold and other goods.
 
but trade is what i am not arguing about. i am saying that guys like KV rama often just make up stuff that has no realstic basis (romans gave away their women to tamils) i simply dont understand who wrote these history books that KV is reading.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 05-Apr-2007 at 22:05
One persons fabled story is another persons true fact.

Intermarriage between Romans and Tamils is quite likely though, there was a significant amount of trade going on between the two and it would be naieve to assume that the occasional Roman sailor didn't marry a tamil girl. In addition it is quite possible that the Romans sold slaves to the Tamils - including girl slaves.


-------------


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 01:25
anythings possible in this world, but just because its possible doesn't mean it happend, you guys say things without giving any proof. i today talked to my history professer who is a expert of roman studies about this exact same thing and he said yes there was trade between india and rome but he said other then trade there was limited contact for a cultural exchange between the two people. So it is highly unlikely that romans would give away there women to people who they knew little about and also there is no proof of such things happening.


Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 02:56
Hi Rajputana,
 
You can not justify that if others from persia shared their wives with Mughals the Rajput also had to follow the in the same manner. In Hindu religion only once instance of sharing the wives among brothers in pandavas is mentioned and that was not due to infacticide. Also please note that it was you who brought the issue of wives sharing among the brothers in this thread. I have quoted your words so that you can refuse later.
 
Please also note that no hindu ever shared their wives with Mughals other than rajputs (a name given to Military slaves during Muslim rule in India and this should not be confused with Imerials like Mauryas, Guptas, Gujjars, Mughals since these slave may share amny surnames with them due to their origin of Imperial fathers and unwed slave women) and you should make a clarification in this regard to your statement that no Hindu other than rajputs ( a term used for military slave and labourers) shared their wives otherwise the respect loving hindus will never forget you for your false postings.


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 08:55

Many times, some of the ASE members accused me for supporting Tamils and so on.

They even used strong language disparaging as "south Indians" and so on.

Any way, here, why can't our member stick to the topic and have a healthy dialogue to feel every body comfortable, instead of indulging in such unbecoming activities.

We should keep some decorum, as rightly pointed out by Mr. A. P. Singh.



Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 13:12
all i am saying is that you guys should provide evidence before making certian claims, if you have evidence then it is beleivable. Making assumptions on certian historical events is not fact you gotta have evidence.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 03:29
Due to a number of personal attacks in this thread, I'll be contacting a few members by PM.

In addition, if this thread does not return to its subject matter after this post it will be locked.


-------------


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 06:10
Originally posted by M. Nachiappan

Many times, some of the ASE members accused me for supporting Tamils and so on.

They even used strong language disparaging as "south Indians" and so on.

Any way, here, why can't our member stick to the topic and have a healthy dialogue to feel every body comfortable, instead of indulging in such unbecoming activities.

We should keep some decorum, as rightly pointed out by Mr. A. P. Singh.

 
Approve


-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 09:48
Is South Indian disparaging AP really?
 
 
 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Kashmiri
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 20:25
what do u mean?


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2007 at 04:32
Polite discussion appears to be in short supply nowadays. This thread is locked as well, and one post is hidden.


Later: After a request this thread has been re-opened, but I have hidden a number of posts and ask that the thread remain on topic.


-------------


Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 08:29

Tamilnadu Numismatic Society and Oriental Numismatic Society conducted the third Annual conference cum workshop on Numismatics held at Madras on April 16th 1989 in which Dr. Parameswari Lal Gupta, the Indian numismatist presented his paper, “South Indian Numismatics – Problems and Prospects”, in which he pointed out about the “marketing of girls by Romans as follows:

 

“In them such coins have been found that are not the genuine coins imported from Rome; they are the copies of the Roman coins, prepared locally by the casting technique. It appears that when the Romans had realised that they had something of their own, such as girls that could be marketed in India, they suspended or minimized the export of their coins. To replenish the Roman coins, that had gained popularity by now, the traders began to imitate them. These Roman imitations may well be dated upto fourth-fifth centuries A. D. This façade of South Indian numismatics needs to be thoroughly investigated.”

Parameswari Lal Gupta, South Indian Numismatics – Problems and Prospects, Proceedings, p.15.



-------------
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 03-May-2007 at 09:55
In a lighter vein, I should point out that the Present Chief Minister of Tamilnadu has written a novel "Romapuri Pandian" in which, he has dealt with the subject matter mainly depending upon literary (both Tamil and Gree-Roman) ans as well as other evidences.


Posted By: northpakistani
Date Posted: 05-May-2007 at 14:48

Female infanticide is world's highest in India, China, and some regions of Pakistan. This was recently shown in a 3 hour BBC documentary, on "The Passionate Eye". The ratio is 3 : 1 (3 males for every 1 female). They stated that alot of Asian men have extremely high competition for wives, and marriage between other races (predominantly the West) is taking place.

Fraternal polyandry is a socially accepted practice in places like Tibet and Nepal, where female infanticide reached its peak during historical times.
 


-------------
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

-- Albert Einstein


Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 08-May-2007 at 06:29
In Kerala, there has been matriarchial social norms.
 
Is there such system in China and Pakistan?
 



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com