The ‘baby manufacturing industry’ of India may soon become an organised sector if the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill gets passed in Parliament. Its
provisions inter alia regularise surrogacy. Rather than banning the practice of providing wombs on rent, earning livelihood through motherhood is being considered to be made systematic.
Shockingly, some describe surrogacy to be ‘a gold pot’ as it is India’s billion-dollar industry. Others argue that if India’s cheap and trained labour is earning oodles from customer service and BPOs, why not through surrogacy? Well, have we lost our moral compass? If earning money by any means is the idea, why not regularise other unethical practices too?
Surrogacy is largely taken up by women who are illiterate and poor. There are several instances of women being forced into surrogacy by their families. Owing to the lack of power that women have over their lives, regularising the practice may make them prone to exploitation, especially in remote India. On the other hand, if given an option to earn livelihood through decent means, women would most certainly choose to do so. In many cases, even children born through surrogacy are vulnerable to serious abuse.
Though there is no law governing surrogacy in India, commercial surrogacy, that is renting a womb, is considered legitimate. As of now the industry is following guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research. The Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill inter alia refers to surrogacy as well, apart from other artificial procedures, some of which could be a positive and healthy move, especially where there is no third party involved. The draft bill proposes to allow surrogacy to overseas citizens of India, People of Indian Origin, non-resident Indians and even foreigners married to an Indian citizen.
The big question is, should India be focusing on regulating surrogacy or banning it? If the practice is regularised, then owing to poverty and illiteracy, women will be exposed to severe exploitation. Even from the commercial point of view, clinics are earning far more from couples than the women.
Until recently, India has been popular for reproductive tourism and was ‘Cradle Capital’ of the world. Ranks of foreigners have flocked to the country looking for a cheap route to parenthood. Thankfully, in October 2015, the government in an upright move banned foreigners from hiring Indian surrogates.
The Supreme Court in Baby Manji Yamada vs Union Of India in 2008 had the occasion to consider the petition of a Japanese grandmother wanting issuance of a travel document for her divorced son’s daughter brought through surrogacy and the custody was granted. In Jan Balaz vs Union of India, 2009, decided by the Gujarat High Court, twin
German children were held entitled to passports. In 2015, the Supreme Court in a petition asked the government inter alia questions on commercial surrogacy and trading of human embryos. There have also been proposals for altruistic surrogacy, that is when a surrogate gets no financial gain.
The key issue is why an underprivileged woman should be allowed to be exploited for someone else’s happiness, that too when options like adoption are available.
raavibirbal@gmail.com