The writer is a freelance journalist and former Reuters Fellow at Oxford University (2012-2013). She tweets @NuraSharma
However, for the commercial surrogacy industry in India, Shahrukh Khan need not do more. With his announcement that his third child was born of a surrogate mother, he probably did for the industry, what Barack Obama did for BlackBerry in 2009 by declaring his fondness for the smartphone. The US president’s free publicity of the handheld device is said to have been worth millions of dollars to its makers; SRK’s endorsement of surrogacy cannot be said to be insignificant either, keeping in mind his brand value as the undisputed badshah of Bollywood. And SRK is not alone. He is joined by other Khans, Aamir and Sohail (Salman Khan’s brother), both of whom had children through surrogacy in 2011. Together, they have given, wittingly or otherwise, celebrity endorsement to surrogacy that has seen a boom in recent times amidst ethical concerns and the Indian government’s efforts to put in place a regulation (Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Bill).
Whatever may have been the compulsions for SRK (47) and his wife Gauri (42), surrogacy is suddenly ‘cool’ and modern. Indian parents who do not have time to produce babies are looking for wombs on rent. Neither does it have to be a discreet affair, as it used to be in our conservative societies, till recently, despite India having been one of the top fertility tourism destinations of the world for some time now. Rather, it is something to flaunt, something that the rich and famous do. Bollywood’s first couple Shahrukh Khan and Gauri, already parents to Aryan (15) and Suhana (12), have done it. So, why shouldn’t anyone with money? Why take all the trouble when you can get a child with your eyes and hair colour delivered, just like pizza or naan-tadka; when there’s a woman to outsource the morning sickness, shapeless body and labour pains to? Now there is no reason to suppress the desire to have your own baby, the ‘ultimate happiness’ in the world. The Khans have shown how it is more important to have your own child, even if you already have children, than be bothered about ‘non-questions’ on ethics.
Critics of surrogacy are often rubbished as sad people who cannot tolerate the happiness of others, picking holes in something that is such a ‘win-win’ situation for all: the couple gets a baby and the surrogate mother earns a big pot of money? If the woman has made a profession of carrying other people’s babies, she has exercised her choice. She is not a runaway college student or a kid abducted on her way to school. But never have I met a girl who gushed, “Oh, I just cannot wait to become a surrogate mother!” The one picture that I have seen of surrogate mothers is an Associated Press photograph taken at a hospital in Gujarat, a state where unethical clinical trials of yet-to-be-launched drugs is no longer news. There are 12 women in the picture. The only face you can see is that of the doctor, wearing a yellow-and green-sari and a resplendent smile. The rest, surrogate mothers all, are wearing green hospital masks to hide their identities.
Celebrity endorsement has made it cool to overlook the distress of these women, armies of faceless mothers, who do not deserve sympathy because they have ‘exercised a choice’. These women ‘out there to make big money’ — let’s pretend we don’t know their real stories of hardship — are forced to keep their identities a secret to escape the scrutiny of society. That itself puts them in a vulnerable situation. But don’t think twice. The Khans have shown it is all right.
I wonder what they would have missed out on if they had adopted children instead. Indian children lead some of the worst lives on this planet. Bollywood endorsement of adoption could have changed a culture fixated on bloodlines.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 23rd, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (27)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1724054662-0/BeFunky-collage-(67)1724054662-0-165x106.webp "article")
1731464039-0/Megan-and-harry--(1)1731464039-0-165x106.webp "article")
1730959638-0/trump-(19)1730959638-0-270x192.webp "focusing china trump builds hawkish team")
The authors lack of research is shocking. First of all the gender selection issue was raised because a gossip from an unreliable entertainment site claimed that Shahrukh was about to have a surrogate baby boy. The article came in June end. Strangely media and some jobless activist speculated gender speculation when the issue should have been gender scanning which is also illegal in India.
However, the issue become rendundant and unfounded as it was confirmed the child was already born in May 27. The gender was known because the baby was already born. The baby was premature and moved between three hospitals due to complications. Shahrukh had wisely kept this personal matter away from media till the baby recovered health. The author had not read about this and decided to write a nonsensical piece.
The second thing that none of the media guys have talked about is, in Shahrukh-Gauri case, the women who carried the baby in her womb is speculated to be a relative of Gauri Chibber Khan named Namita Chibber... They have chosen a surrogate within the family, so that she will also be a part of the boys life. No question of some unknown poor woman being used for this purpose.
Thirdly, its not like Gauri went for this option due to cosmetic purposes. Its shameful the author a woman herself has accussed this of a mother of two, just because Gauri is good looking. Its a cheapshot. Gauri has had two miscarriages and two c-sections to deliver Aryan and Suhana. She is 42 years old and its not a crime to want another baby...
The whole intention of this article seems to be an attempt to disgrace the Khans as insensitive rich guy buying himself a baby of his bloodline. Not only its badly researched, the points made are irrelevant and misleading.
About adoption, its a personal choice. Just because the author thinks its better to adopt than get a surrogate baby it doesn't mean Shahrukh and Aamir have to follow same.
@gp 65 i think Shahrukh Khan issued an explanation and if its baseless allegations, of course no problem. But it should be investigated. And I agree a lot of things are personal wishes and decisions. But just as the ultrasound cannot be used anymore for finding gender, surrogacy should also be highly regulated. The chances of it being abused are too high in south asian society. I am sure I will not call surrogate mothers just plain simple baby carriers. I am sure its very difficult to protect mental and physical health of surrogate mothers and the possible abuse of them. And it really does not need a mother's heart to figure out how complicated it can get for the babies when they grow up to know they were surrogates. In cases where infertility is the reason, issue is different. But the government should make it highly regulated, enough to deter people making it an industry. Some things should never be for sale unless highly regulated and monitored ( nearly impossible in our countries ). Some things are always scared and should be kept as such.
ETBLOGS1987
@kanwal: No one supports gender selection which is even against the law besides being highly unethical. It is the issue of surrogacy that is being primarily discussed which the author derisively calls outsourcing. Yes, if people choose adoption instead of surrogacy, it is possible that perhaps an orphan will get a home but these are very private decisions and certainly there is nothing unethical or illegal about going the surrogacy route.
There is no evidence that Shah Rukh aborted one child because she was a girl. In fact he does have a biological daughter that he is raising lovingly. Gossip cannot be the basis of serious allegation.
Incidentally, I am a woman.
Completely agree with author for me Shahrukh after this was a hypocrite who would himself preach all the good things to other but won't follow it.It is really a question of ethics and more so of exploitation where a poor women can easily be exploited and as the industry is not regulated hence higher chances are that the current can't protect her
I agree with the writer, adoption would have put things in a better perspective than surrogacy. It would have certainly made a difference to many poor kids.
@Ali tanoli: So what do Pakistani babies do when they Blow up??
Sorry...grow up
You'll regret that mention the name of the Shah in this shitty article!
You write:Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive! But the article you without any sense of guilt insulted and misrepresented lovely family! What hypocrisy!
@Ali tanoli: Hahahahahaha? Go back to kindergarten..... like NOW!
@Ali tanoli: Hahahahahaha? Is this the best you can do by trying to belittle Indians in your kindergarten'ish ways just to satiate your hate mongering? You need help Ali... sooner the better.
Well it depends upon person to person and their choices of whether to go for Surrogacy or Adoption, but when you talk of India we need people to head for Adoption and not Surrogacy (I think I don't have to elaborate on that).
@Mrugesh: Kiran Rao had more than one miscarriage, and was medically advised not to get pregnant again as her uterus wasn't strong enough. She and Aamir have mentioned this in interviews.
Unbeliveable! There was no gender selection done because the child was already done. Get your facts right before writing nonsense. A simple checking news would clarify the status of the case.
I can be almost very sure that majority of people giving angry comments about the author's supposed anit surrogacy stance are men. I cannot even begin to think the implications if a person like Shahrukh Khan goes on to select the gender of his surrogate baby. In a country like India, not that pakistan is too far behind, why can adoption be not an option openpy endorsed by these wealthy celebrity class people? As a way of life i mean. And to the unexplicably insensitive person here in the comments section who managed to compare the house cleaners and cook's work to carrying a surrogate baby, go and get pregnant pls. How in the world can you actually begin to understand the feelings of carrying a baby in your body, feeling its first movements and the first cry? You actually need to know a lot about motherhood, surrogate motherhood and adoption. Very uninformed and insensitive.
powerfully written!!
Indians take outsourcing to literally
Shahrukh's wife is 42. A female cannot have baby at this age. If she does, there is a danger to her and her baby. Surrogacy was THE ONLY OPTION. Aamir's wife on the other hand is much younger and had a baby that way only because she is busy. Gauri is full time mother. Stop talkin nonsense.
The author says that:
"Indian film star Shahrukh Khan (SRK) refuses to discuss his son, AbRam, who was born through surrogacy some months ago. He has maintained that matters concerning surrogacy and sex determination are too serious to be spoken of lightly."
These are the very first sentences of your column. So why did you write an entire article on this issue? It's somebody's personal life so why do we target and torment them? Why rent an alien woman's womb for a child. In certain cases , if a woman can't conceive and the husband gets a child via commercial surrogacy, then his lineage will definitely continue but the wife will always feel neglected, secondary and guilty. And if a husband can't conceive then will he let his wife to have an intercourse with another man on a rent? Aren't you insulting your commitment as a life partner by preferring your lineage and donating your sperm to someone else?
India is becoming a super power of Babies are us hahahahaha
Why you are not talking of Aamir Khan's son. He was born through surrogacy too. I do not understand why the author is targeting SRK. Over 1000's of people use surrogacy option in India and it's not new. Go to Anand in Gujarat state...Anand is a main hub of surrogacy in India for people from all over the world.
The article addresses a complicated ethical issue in a very balanced manner. The standards of Express Tribune continue to climb up.
both Sharukh and Amir Khan are scrutinized about their personal lives be coz of their celebrity status. There are other rich people who are doing these things quietly.
However, the accusation of gender selection is a very serious one. This evil has to be fought urgently. Demanding celebrities to address social evils is a good idea. There may be skeptics, still worth it.
Some people need misery around them to feel happy.
"Bollywood endorsement of adoption could have changed a culture fixated on bloodlines." Sushmita Sen has adopted quite a few number of female kids. Has that changed anything ? there are many others in Bollywood who have adopted kids. Does it really make any difference in a country as large as India ? In India we have almost anything one can imagine. However, nothing of that can be definitive like a brand India. India has the most beautiful, most ugly, most talented, most idiotic, most honest, most corrupt, richest, poorest.. almost from anything to anything. Few adoptions or few surrogacy cases by celebrities won't make much difference. I don't understand, what is so unethical about surrogacy ?
The faces of surrogate mothers are masked to protect their identitities. If they choose to openly talk about it, there is no law against it.
While you may not have met any woman who gushes about becoming a surrogate mother, you probably have not met one that gushes about becoming a jhaado poccha bartan saaf karnewali bai and yet millions of women do perform their tasks to earn their living and there is nothing illegal or unethical about it. In other words just because one is not excited about the manner in which one earns livelihood, does not make it illegal or unethical.
Your allegation that surrogacy industry thrives as the rich try to outsource their labour pains and shapeless bodies to poor women is unsupported by facts. Gauri and Kiran Rao may have been unable to conceive naturally given their ages and if they chose surrogacy, what is unethical?
Yes very likely the women who offer their bodies for surrogacy are poor women. But it is not this industry that has resulted in their poverty is it? If this is how they choose to earn their living, it is entirely upto them, you have not provided one reason why this should be disallowed while the rationale you provided for your detractors I.e. that they consider this a win win situation with parents otherwise able o conceive able to have a child and a poor woman getting a good some of money for services provided.