A Selectable Boy

"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Bangkok where the local time is just after 8 am. Please remain seated while the plane is still moving and take care while opening the overhead bins. Remember to fill out the immigration arrival cards. For the Indian women who are here to have a son, we wish you luck and thank you for spending your valuable money here in Thailand"

As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, it's disheartening to see that some old traditions continue unchanged! The stereotype that started with Sravana Kumar looking after his blind parents and continually reinforced through Bollywood films time and again has now taken a decidedly "modern" twist with the concept of sperm selection. Some Indian mothers, or so we are told, can think of nothing more in life than to have that son who will take care of them in their old age and be a support for his sisters. As is the case with every law, there is bound to be a loophole, and this one is thanks to modern medicine that allows a prospective parent to choose the gender of their child before the moment of conception. So while the government's ban on ultrasound as a way to check the sex of the foetus is technically still in place, it is virtually meaningless to anyone who can afford a round trip ticket to a country where modern medicine can circumvent such laws.

What this tells us is that the quest for a male heir is no longer just for the uneducated or poor amongst us - if anything, it is the richer class that is leading the way. And while it at least avoids the problems related to unwanted pregnancies and abortions, it begs the question - is it conceivable (pun unintended) that an entire generation of male children can be unleashed upon this planet in a manner that is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the law, and society as well?

The fundamental flaw in this entire line of thinking is the belief that somehow the son is going to fulfill his duty to his parents and be the foundation that the family will turn to in the future. The reality is that a son is probably more likely to abandon his parents or put them through significant hardship than a daughter - inspite of the age old belief that a daughter is a "paraya dhan" who goes off to her husband's household, a related myth that needs to be quickly overturned. In addition to science having proven that men are a "weaker" sex (the Y chromosome actually being a damaged version of the X chromosome that women possess), social science is fast making us realize that men are more prone to violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling and other impressive vices - none of which are really conducive to long term stability of the family. The world of microfinance has shown that money given to the mother will end up in education for her children, while the father (like most males in the animal kingdom) will invariably spend it on himself.

Well off folks might scoff at this, and say "Yeh to sirf garibon mein hota hai, we're different". But human behavior transcends economic boundaries, especially characteristics that are so deeply ingrained as to be the defining traits of our species. Western societies for the most part have managed to get past the bias that their forefathers were no doubt confronted with, when it came time to finding an heir to the dynasty, since a girl child was often not even an option to take the throne. But in the East, the desire to sire a male is likely to be around for a while longer.

Of water and toilets

One of the most commonly heard words during the run up to the 2008 US election was "socialism" - as in, the US was in danger of turning into a socialist heaven thanks to the policies that Barack Obama would likely unleash upon the unsuspecting American people. And if that happened, what would the US look like? Well, it would most definitely become like Europe, that bastion of socialism, that has for years granted it's citizens almost free healthcare, and where social benefits for the weaker sections are as enshrined in the public mindset as "The land of the free and the home of the brave" into every American's heart.

Having lived in the UK now for almost a year, with frequent travels to many European countries, the above stereotypes are for the most part true. But there are some interesting aspects of Europe that suggest they are capable of being anything but socialists. I refer to how Europeans view drinking water and public toilets - two amenities that are usually taken for granted in the US as being provided for "free". Yes, Europeans get outstanding health care and employment benefits funded primarily from tax revenues. But when it comes to quenching one's thirst, or relieving one's bladder, they are capable of being the most ruthless capitalists!

Before going into the details, we first need to look at the way capitalism and socialism work in terms of services provided to people. A simple analogy is to consider the choice at a restaurant between ordering from the a la carte menu vs eating from the buffet line. In capitalism, you are offered a choice of different goods and services, each at a specific price, and you have the freedom to pick and choose what you want and pay the corresponding price - hence the a la carte menu. In socialism, however, the cost of providing the goods and services are taken beforehand (through taxes), and the entire gamut of options is given to you, whether you necessarily want a particular item or not. Hence, the buffet - for $15, you can eat as much or as little as you want, but you still pay the same price.

In both cases described above, the provider of the goods/services needs to at least break even to avoid going out of business. We often regard socialism as a "non-profit" venture, because the thought of the government making money off the people seems somewhat immoral, whereas it would be perfectly ok in capitalism, because the company would then be able to return dividends to the shareholder. But it should not be acceptable for a government to lose money in providing goods/services - such as when electricity is given away for free to Indian farmers, or the US subsidizes its farmers to the tune of billions of dollars to avoid them competing against lower cost farmers in the developing world.

Anyway, getting back to the main issue - so Europe takes a decidedly socialistic view of healthcare - it wants to provide the widest range of services to its citizens whether they need it or not. And Europeans for the most part actually end up living longer than Americans who receive privatized healthcare (which, by the way, has nothing to do with it - the diet and lifestyle of Europeans, and the fact that most dinners last well over 3 hours, makes them less prone to heart attacks and other rich nation afflictions). But when it comes to providing its citizens drinking water or a toilet in a public location such as a train station, airport or even a shopping center, you are suddenly confronted with having to dig through your wallet!

Now I don't know about you, but the last time I checked, people drink water or use the restroom far more often than they need to go to a hospital. And public utilities were one of the first areas where governments started to exert their authority to ensure that everyone had access to clean water, which led to dramatic improvements in public health. And it is fairly well known now that most bottled water is about the same quality as tap water, and in some cases is even worse! So to be charged 2 pounds or 3 euros for a tiny bottle of water at a restaurant is capitalism going totally out of control! Given that the need to drink water or eliminate bodily waste is biological, something over which we have no control. But we do have control over whether we need to go the hospital - prudent measures can ensure that we don't fall ill or sustain injuries and live healthy lives.

Put simply - I would much rather have my taxes go into setting up a water fountain every few hundred yards, which taps into a water line that is already in place, or a toilet that is setup and maintained using money that I am already pouring into the local economy, then to paying for curing someone of an illness that most likely is self inflicted. Accidents and emergencies are different, and long term illnesses like cancer etc are also unavoidable. But to provide free aspirin and other drugs at the expense of giving me a free drink of water - no thanks!