The sex ratio at birth — the number of girls born alive per 1,000 boys — is a critical demographic indicator that conveys prevailing gender biases and gender equity in society. The natural SRB ranges between 943 and 952 females per 1,000 males; any persistent deviation from this range signals possible sex-selective practices. In India, such distortions have been evident since the 1970s, following the introduction of reproductive technology like sonography and ultrasound. Amidst fertility decline and entrenched son preference, the SRB became increasingly skewed, peaking around 2010 with widespread access to sex-detection technologies — despite the legal prohibitions of the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act of 1994, later amended to Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act of 2003, which explicitly seeks to prohibit gender-biased sex selection.
Encouragingly, the recent National Family Health Survey data show a marginal improvement in India’s SRB — from 919 in 2015-16 to 929 in 2019-21 — seemingly reflecting the impact of targeted interventions. Yet, this improvement is uneven, with states such as Rajasthan (887 to 891), Punjab (860 to 904), Haryana (836 to 893), Uttar Pradesh (903 to 941), and Delhi (812 to 923) registering gains, while states like Maharashtra (924 to 917), Bihar (934 to 908), Jharkhand (919 to 899), Tamil Nadu (954 to 878), and Odisha (932 to 894) registering declines. Moreover, the Sample Registration System data reports an increase in the national SRB from 896 during 2015-2017 to 914 during 2020-2022.
In contrast to India’s national SRB, the trend in Odisha tells a starkly different story. Odisha remains the only state to have experienced a consistent decline in the sex ratio at birth between 2015 and 2022. According to NFHS-5, Odisha’s SRB declined sharply from 966 in 2005-06 to 932 in 2015-16 and a further slide to 894 in 2019-21, a level well below the natural biological range. This troubling trend persists across multiple data sets, including the Civil Registration System (948 in 2014-15, 943 in 2015-16, 940 in 2019-20 and 933 in 2020-21) and the Sample Registration System (953 in 2012-14, 950 in 2013-15, 948 in 2014-16, and 919 in 2020-22), pointing toward a systemic and deepening crisis. Irrespective of the data source, there has been a consistent downward trend in the SRB in Odisha, which is a matter of concern and indicative of programmatic failure in reversing this trend. With declining fertility levels, the downward trend in SRB can well be owing to sex-selective abortions.
The Odisha experience hints at a failure in the implementation of the PCPNDT Act that seeks to prohibit gender-biased sex selection as well as of two major girl-child-centric schemes, namely the national Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and Odisha’s Biju Kanya Ratna Yojana. Both schemes are aimed at reversing masculine sex ratios at birth and ensuring betterment of girl children. But there is no visible impact observed in outcomes like SRB. The BBBP scheme, launched in January 2015, promised a tri-pronged approach: prevent gender-biased sex selection, ensure survival and protection of the girl child, and promote education among girl children. On auditing the scheme’s expenditure, the Comptroller and Auditor General found that nearly 80% of funds were spent on media publicity — posters, advertisements, and slogans — while actual service delivery and community-level interventions received scant attention. The Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women (2021-22), in its fifth report, observed that 25.13% of the funds, that is Rs 156.46 crore, was spent by the states out of the total amount released, which was Rs 622.48 crore, whereas the total budgetary allocation was Rs 848 crore since the inception of the scheme in 2014-15 until 2019-20.
In many states and districts, implementation was weak, with low funds utilisation, minimal monitoring and little accountability. For instance, parliamentary records reveal that the total funds available for Odisha were Rs 375 lakh during 2019-20, of which only Rs 11.99 lakh was utilised, leaving an unused surplus of Rs 363.01 lakh for 2020-21. Such underutilisation of funds indicates a lack of institutional infrastructure to facilitate such schemes and BBBP remains more of a slogan rather than being operational on the ground.
Odisha’s own BKRY, launched in 2016 in three selected districts — Angul, Dhenkanal, and Ganjam — shows similar failures. Health Management Information System data indicate a decline in the SRB in all three districts over the programme period: in Angul, from 948 in 2014-15 to 927 in 2019-20; in Dhenkanal, from 907 to 898; and in Ganjam, from 943 to 934. Limited in scale and lacking a robust evaluation mechanism, BKRY could not be scaled up to other districts or evolve into a comprehensive gender equity programme. It operated in silos, disconnected from health, education, and law enforcement systems, and lacked grassroots mobilisation to counter prevailing son-preference norms. More importantly, both BBBP and BKRY have failed to realise their intended objectives with no visible changes in patriarchal mindsets and societal undervaluation of daughters. The consistent decline of SRB in Odisha is thus not merely a demographic reality but a policy failure. It conveys the inadequacy of reliance on a top-down approach, ignoring the social and cultural drivers of son preference. While schemes may provide a framework, their success depends on effective implementation, community participation, and strong monitoring, which remain overlooked in the state of Odisha.
To reverse this troubling trend of masculine sex ratios in the state, there is a pressing need for sustained community engagement, ensuring strict enforcement of existing laws, and building accountability into every scheme. While schemes and programmes may have impressive messaging with an ideal intent, the resultant success involves systemic change rooted in equality and justice. It demands a renewed commitment to gender justice — from policy to practice, and from affirmation to action.
Amresh Senapati is a PhD candidate in Economics at the Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram. Udaya Shankar Mishra is Professor, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai