Poor families send daughters to work, sons to school

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala

NEW DELHI (JP): Most countries in the Southern Hemishpere are criticized for their record on oppressing women. The harangue is so shrill that very often their own people start accepting that they have abetted in "centuries of oppression".

This criticism and sense of guilt brings forth efforts to improve the conditions of girls by providing them with a formal education in schools. Public money spent on such schemes are heralded as revolutionary.

Little do the liberal thinkers who praise such programs realize that the improvement in the conditions of the people, women included, can be attained only by economic growth alone.

By spending public money on such schemes, they actually distract attention from burning economic problems, abet poverty and actually deprive women from reaping the gains that are within their reach.

People in developing countries love their daughters as much as their sons. If they had been "oppressing" one-half of their population, their civilizations would have perished long ago.

The fact that the civilizations of India and China have existed for more than five millennia -- while the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome have perished -- establishes that these civilizations are not oppressive.

If a family decides to put their daughter to work and to send their son to school, that may have been the best thing for both children -- the daughter included -- in the then prevailing circumstances.

Let us try to understand a developing society's predicament. Let us think of two families. The parents of both families can send only one child to school. They do not have the money to send both. This too is possible only if they put the other child to work.

The first family sends their daughter to work on the loom to weave carpets and sends their son to school with the income that she brings home. Obvious discrimination. But does it mean that the family does not desire a good life for their daughter?

Not at all. They send their daughter to work because it may be the best way to secure a good future for her considering the circumstances. Let us understand this.

The daughter from this family works and sends her brother to school. Likewise the daughter from a second family sends her brother to school in a similar fashion. Both the sons from each family receive a formal education and are able to earn a good income upon graduating from school. Now, if the daughters from each family get married to the sons of the other respective family, the daughters can benefit from their husbands' income.

In this way, each wife becomes the beneficiary of the sacrifice and work from her husband's sister.

If the parents wanted to ensure gender equality, they might try to send both their son and daughter to school for only part of the time. The result would be that neither would be able to earn a substantial income.

It would be equally sub-optimal if they sent their daughter to school and the boy to work. The educated girl would be doubly burdened with the task of childbearing and earning an income. The son would be left a vegetable. He would not have the satisfaction of childbearing, nor that of a good income.

The best way, therefore, for securing the good of the daughter in the prevailing circumstances of poverty is to send her to the loom. That alone would entitle her a chance to get married to an educated boy and obtain a better standard of living.

It is this reality that creates a social consensus that the girl must be put to work. The root cause, of course, is that the parents cannot afford to send both to school.

Then there is the doubtful matter of the returns from a formal education. Literacy is a necessary tool today but education may not be so. It is no longer a guarantee that education will beget better incomes.

In small towns throughout India, the salaries of graduates have actually declined from 1600 rupees (US$44) per month to about 1000 rupees during the last few years. In that same period, the wages of unskilled manual workers have increased from 1000 rupees to 1500 rupees per month. With this growing trend, it is uncertain whether the daughter would actually benefit from a formal education.

The point is that Indian society loves its daughters as much as its sons. But in the prevailing circumstances of poverty, both cannot be sent to school. Progress can be achieved only if one of the couple-to-be sacrifices and the other repays that sacrifice.

The presumption is that the boy will share the benefits with his uneducated wife. Of course, this give and take works only as long as there is permanence in a given marriage which, fortunately, is a characteristic of marriages in developing countries to a large extent.

Pseudo-intellectuals cannot understand the simple fact that the problem is not a lack of love for the daughter. The problem is the hard reality of poverty which prevents the loving parents from sending both of their children to school. It is the grinding wheel of poverty that sends the girl to the loom, not the so- called centuries of oppression.

It is time for all of us to understand why families are forced to send their daughters to work -- financial incentives will do nothing to solve that problem.

If we want to do something, then we must promote literacy, not a potentially useless school education. We must develop a national infrastructure as well by building enough dams, canals and roads to support a growing economy. That is what will remove poverty and give relief to the daughters of developing countries.

The writer is a New Delhi-based columnist.