Much has been written about the bias against the girl child in India. A cursory glance at the data can be telling. In 1998, of every 1000 girls born in India, 77.2 would die between the ages of one month and five years; whereas for boys the figure was 59.9. This ratio of 1.3 to 1 seems large; but in itself a ratio means very little.

It is too large or too small only when compared against some standard. On 14 May 2002, in Philadelphia, President George Bush is supposed to have remarked (according to a list of ‘Bushisms’ published in Slate.com): ‘For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America.’

One reason why this observation is ambiguous is that it is not clear whether the speaker wishes to emphasize the poor marksmanship of those doing the shooting or the high rate of fatality.

Is India's relatively high girl child mortality rate the symptom of a malaise? By all accounts, it is. Detailed studies, done under controlled circumstances and in developed countries, suggest that if there is no difference in the treatment between girls and boys, a girl is more likely to survive than a boy during the first month of her life. Then, from the age of one month to five years, girls and boys have equal survival chances.