So who killed the baby?
In India, babies disposed of in such a manner (in drains and garbage dumps, thrown out of hospital windows or buried alive), are almost without exception female. Girls in India are still considered a burden. Their value, socially and economically, is far less than that of a boy. An abandoned male baby almost always has an obvious physical deformity.
Since 1992, Jayalalitha's Cradle Baby Scheme, which attempts to ensure that (primarily female) infants that might otherwise have been killed are given for adoption, is estimated to have saved over 3,000 infants in Tamil Nadu. Cradles are placed outside hospitals, primary health care centres, police stations and childrens' homes for parents to place unwanted babies in. These babies are then given up to an adoption agency.
Since then several Indian states have adopted the scheme.
Activists argue that the scheme isn't without its failings. It isn't possible to trace an infant once it enters the system, and so there's no way of knowing when and, in fact, if the child is adopted.
Once the child is given up for adoption the agency isn't required to keep tabs on its welfare.
But this is true of all children who enter the adoption system and isn't an indictment of the scheme as much as it is an indictment of the scheme of things.
It has also been argued that the scheme legitimizes the abandonment of female infants.
If the parents mentioned in the story above had had access to a cradle, would they have chosen to place their baby in it? And would that option, given however little or much we know of the Cradle Baby Scheme, prove to be the better one for the baby?
Share