UP's sex ratio conundrum: among worst overall, amid the best in urban areas

The state has defied general belief that adverse sex ratio gets accentuated in urban areas, where access to sex tests and abortions is easier

It would require some explaining to figure out why Uttar Pradesh, which has one of the worst sex ratios in the country—the number of females to males at birth—has one of the best ratios in urban areas, nationwide. 

The Sample Registration System Statistical Report 2017 (SRS) released by the Census office last week shows that in the urban areas of India’s largest state, the sex ratio is 938 females for 1,000 males, at birth. As expected, in rural areas it is an abysmal 862. The general understanding of the adverse sex ratio is that it gets accentuated in urban areas as families get easier access to sex tests and abortions, despite laws prohibiting them. It becomes easier for families to select a boy at birth instead of a girl. The national SRS data shows the sex ratio has worsened to 896 from 898 in the latest three-year period, making India’s demographics more skewed. 

To get a sense of how discordant this is, one needs to just look at adjacent Bihar, where this metric for girls in rural areas is 904 and plummets to 865 in urban areas. This is how it plays out nationally, even for states with impressive health outcomes, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The Uttar Pradesh number is not a typo. It is visible in the previous SRS 2016 too. In fact, the number for urban areas (urban population: 22.28 per cent) has improved handsomely from 923 in SRS 2016 to 938 the following year. 

It is interesting that the trend of better sex ratio in urban areas is playing out in three more states among the 22 largest domains in India. These are Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab. (see table). The differences are large for Madhya Pradesh (urban population: 27.6 per cent) and even Punjab. Since these states also account for some of the worst sex ratios in India, the reversal of the trend for urban areas is significant. 

Suresh Sharma, professor at the Population Research Centre of the Delhi-based Institute of Economic Growth, agrees that the numbers for the state are “striking”. According to him the explanation for the unusual sex ratio for the three states could be because of declining fertility. “The rural-urban fertility differentials are significant in all of these states. However, with urban regions reporting lower fertility, the sex ratio tends to become more balanced,” Sharma explains. He says stricter enforcement of laws around PNDT enable the sex ratio to move away from being male-biased and the genetic tendency of sex ratio being predominantly female asserts itself.

If so, it could indicate a partial departure from the established trend that sex selection is being practised with greater frequency among affluent Indians who have the wherewithal to use technology (illegal, legal, or semi-legal) to ensure the delivery of a male child, as a Business Standard edit put it (Click here to read it).

While it might be difficult to claim this is the end of a long tunnel, the SRS 2017 has other supporting data to show it might be part of a longer trend. The report notes that the gap between male and female is higher in the 0-15 age groups for all states than for 0-4 years. What this might indicate, say experts, is that while India is going to see an anomalous bulge for the next few years, it could be tapering down as the “sex differences in the share of child population at the national level are negligible both in rural and urban areas for the 0-4 age group”. The sex ratio is most adverse—about one per cent higher—in rural areas of Uttarakhand. 

Professor Amitabh Kundu, distinguished fellow at RIS, has a different take on the rural urban differences in female population in the North Indian states like Uttar Pradesh. He says the lower percentage of females in the 0-4 years age group in the urban areas of these states show that there may be a problem of enumeration. He, however, concedes that the difference was indeed substantial. Sharma says in any case the overall sex ratio for Uttar Pradesh has been recorded to be particularly male-dominant due to the rural-to-urban migration stream of males. 

The changes reveal that the Indian population story has got fragmented at the state level and even more so at the district level. Last week, the United Nations released the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) 2018, which shows that for India the landscape of the poorest has “improved dramatically”. It notes: “The poorest groups – across states, castes, religions, and ages – had the biggest reductions in MPI 2005-06 to 2015-16, showing that they have been “catching up,” though they still experience much higher rates of poverty. This marks a “dramatic reversal” from the period 1998-99 to 2005-06 when the opposite trend prevailed with “India’s poorest groups had the slowest progress. They were being left behind”. 

One of the most surprising findings is that in 19 districts of India, less than one per cent of the people are poor, and in 42 districts, poverty rates hover between two and five per cent (India has 725 districts). One would assume that it is impossible, but a look at the measurement indices show why it isn't. The report also says that the largest contributor to poverty in India is poor nutrition (responsible for 28.3 per cent of India’s MPI) and not having a household member with at least six years of education (16 per cent). Any state that scores encouraging results in nutrition and sends its children to school, is on the way to sharp improvement in poverty reduction numbers. 

N R Bhanumurthy, professor at Delhi’s National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), said the numbers prove why poverty needs to be addressed district wise rather than through national programmes. “Our work in Madhya Pradesh in 2017 showed wide variations among districts, which reflected on the efficiency of the local delivery mechanism,” he said. 

The MDPI report notes the dubious honour for the poorest district in India is held by Alirajpur in Madhya Pradesh, where 76.5 per cent of the people are poor– “the same as Sierra Leone in Sub-Saharan Africa…In four districts more than 70 per cent of people are poor; these are located in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh”. Bhanumurthy says, “There is a high correlation between poverty amelioration measures and the quality of district administration”. It is also one of the reasons why the Centre has begun the aspirational districts programme for 125 districts, of which Alirajpur is one. It is the district with the worst literacy rate in the country at 37.22 per cent. This is a number that could easily be corrected by the district administration by focusing on school outcomes.

Sex ratio at birth by residence: 2015-2017
.	Total	Rural	Urban
India	896	898	890
Andhra Pradesh	916	928	885
Bihar	900	904	865
Delhi	850	926	848
Kerala	948	965	931
Uttar Pradesh	878	862	938
Madhya Pradesh	916	908	950
Punjab	886	874	905
Tamil Nadu	907	919	896
Figures denote number of females per 1,000 males