Geopolitics

Brave New World: Inside India's First Bonafide Baby Factory

Poor women come to this Indian clinic to rent their bellies to wealthy couples from around the world. A practical solution to modern problems or the worst kind of social engineering?

Some of the babies recently born at the clinic in Anand
Some of the babies recently born at the clinic in Anand
Natacha Tatu

ANAND — Maanasi is ready. The 34-year-old is lying on the examination table, her feet in stirrups, waiting for Dr. Patel to arrive. Two nurse’s aides point a lamp at her belly. Maanasi barely lets out a sigh when the doctor implants two embryos inside of her, before leaving without a single word. The operation didn’t even last 10 minutes. The clients, an American couple, had sent six frozen embryos by plane. Another attempt will still be possible, should this one fail.

With her small sack on her shoulder, the young woman will be taken to the “house of surrogates,” a few hundred meters from the clinic, where she will be staying until the baby is born. That is also when Maanasi will meet the clients for the first time, just after the birth. She will then be able to go back home to her village, to her husband and her two children, aged seven and nine. And in her bank account, which will have been opened for the occasion, there will be $4,000 for her trouble.

How could she refuse such a deal, when she normally earns under a dollar a day? The nine months and labor amount to the equivalent of 20 years’ wages.

This is Anand, India, a medium-sized town with 150,000 inhabitants, located 100 kilometers from Ahmedabad, the largest city in the state of Gujarat, in the northwest of the country. Until recently, this typical town with its backfiring rickshaws, its noisy mess of street peddlers, its scrawny cows and stray dogs, was the milk capital of India.

Thanks to the success of the Akanksha Infertility Clinic, it is now the world’s hub for babies: 100 pregnant women here are carrying babies that are not theirs. Many of them are expecting twins. Indeed, to maximize the chances of success, two or even three embryos are often implanted, even if that means later having to proceed to an “embryonic reduction,” if that’s the clients’ wish. And because most of the future parents want to be present on the day of birth, the babies are often delivered through Caesarean section, which can be scheduled in advance.

While competitors are still trying to play catch-up, employing surrogate mothers here and there, Dr. Nayna Patel managed in 10 years to turn her clinic’s work into an almost industrial process.

On Aug. 5, her 500th surrogate mother, a 28-year-old woman whose husband left her with two small children, gave birth to a baby girl for a wealthy couple from the state of Uttar Pradesh, in the country’s north.

Indian people represent about a third of the clinic’s clients. The rest come from all over the world, from Belgium and Australia to Japan, Israel or Botswana. “Thirty-one countries in total,” Patel says. In 10 years, nearly 700 children were born from surrogate mothers in her clinic. And according to the statistics that she gathers with meticulous care, the clinic’s pace is gaining: three babies in 2006, 69 in 2008, and 147 in 2012.

The sector, estimated at several million dollars annually, shows every sign of thriving. It’s estimated that 600 children were born from surrogate mothers last year alone, and this is just the beginning. The reasons for this success are obvious: a global shortage of adoptable children, the rise of gay marriage (although Patel refuses to work with gay couples), and the increasing acceptance of surrogacy, which is now legal in about 15 countries. But most of them outlaw women being paid for it. As a result, the candidates are few.

But that’s not the case in the United States or in India, where this service has become a booming business, with dozens of agencies, intermediaries and specialized clinics. But while having a surrogate mother carrying a baby costs $100,000 in the U.S., it’s just a fraction of that price in India. Everything here is cheaper, from health costs and doctors to legal services, including of course the surrogate mothers. It costs about $30,000, extras not included, to effectively rent the uterus of an American woman, but only $4,000 or $5,000, all included, in India.

Is this progress?

“What is preventing the industry from growing even more is the lack of good surrogates and their price, which a lot of middle-class couples cannot afford,” explains John Weltman, head of Circle Surrogacy, a specialized agency in Boston.

With its 250 million poor people, India has a virtually unlimited pool of potential surrogate mothers. Only Thailand, which just entered the market with the promise of being 20% cheaper than India, can hope to compete. But Patel has a good head start. American agencies have already asked to work with her. She is suspicious, though, and prefers to keep control of the “production.” So she personally does most of the implants and deliveries. “But if I find a serious partner, why not?” she adds.

Is this the ultimate consequence of globalization? A disgraceful exploitation of women’s bodies? A commodification of children? To be sure, it is breathtakingly disturbing to imagine these babies being made to measure thanks to a simple Mastercard and the efficiency of an assembly line: sperm flakes and egg cells bought online, fertilized, frozen, then sent by plane to the four corners of the earth to be implanted in the bellies of these women kept like chickens.

And yet, Patel brushes these criticisms aside. “First of all, the patients can move around. We try whenever possible to work with fresh embryos because they give much better results. Then, at least one of the parents must have a biological link with the baby. People can buy either the sperm or the ovum, but not both. Finally, when an infertile couple has to resort to buying an ovum, they usually get it from a donor who looks like them, not from a model.”

With her regular features and her discreet pearl necklace, this dynamic self-assured woman of 53 defends her small company tooth and nail. All it does, she claims, is try to “make people happy.”

“We help to lift women out of their misery while at the same time offering others the happiness of being a mother. The instinct of procreation and that of survival are the two bases of human beings," she says. "On the one hand, I have desperate parents who despite having tried everything can’t have children. And on the other hand, there are these extremely poor women who really must provide for their families.”

It’s impossible to understand the deal “if we’re not in that situation ourselves,” Patel says. “All these holier-than-thou people should first try and find solutions for these unhappy families. Then, and only then, they can criticize me.”

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

How Thailand's Lèse-Majesté Law Is Used To Stifle All Protest

Once meant to protect the royal family, the century-old law has become a tool for the military-led government in Bangkok to stamp out all dissent. A new report outlines the abuses.

Pro-Democracy protest at The Criminal Court in Bangkok, Thailand

Laura Valentina Cortés Sierra

"We need to reform the institution of the monarchy in Thailand. It is the root of the problem." Those words, from Thai student activist Juthatip Sirikan, are a clear expression of the growing youth-led movement that is challenging the legitimacy of the government and demanding deep political changes in the Southeast Asian nation. Yet those very same words could also send Sirikan to jail.

Thailand's Criminal Code 'Lèse-Majesté' Article 112 imposes jail terms for defaming, insulting, or threatening the monarchy, with sentences of three to 15 years. This law has been present in Thai politics since 1908, though applied sparingly, only when direct verbal or written attacks against members of the royal family.


But after the May 2014 military coup d'état, Thailand experienced the first wave of lèse-majesté arrests, prosecutions, and detentions of at least 127 individuals arrested in a much wider interpretation of the law.

The recent report 'Second Wave: The Return of Lèse-Majesté in Thailand', documents how the Thai government has "used and abused Article 112 of the Criminal Code to target pro-democracy activists and protesters in relation to their online political expression and participation in peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations."

Criticism of any 'royal project'

The investigation shows 124 individuals, including at least eight minors, have been charged with lèse-majesté between November 2020 and August 2021. Nineteen of them served jail time. The new wave of charges is cited as a response to the rising pro-democracy protests across Thailand over the past year.

Juthatip Sirikan explains that the law is now being applied in such a broad way that people are not allowed to question government budgets and expenditure if they have any relationship with the royal family, which stifles criticism of the most basic government decision-making since there are an estimated 5,000 ongoing "royal" projects. "Article 112 of lèse-majesté could be the key (factor) in Thailand's political problems" the young activist argues.

In 2020 the Move Forward opposition party questioned royal spending paid by government departments, including nearly 3 billion baht (89,874,174 USD) from the Defense Ministry and Thai police for royal security, and 7 billion baht budgeted for royal development projects, as well as 38 planes and helicopters for the monarchy. Previously, on June 16, 2018, it was revealed that Thailand's Crown Property Bureau transferred its entire portfolio to the new King Maha Vajiralongkorn.

photo of graffiti of 112 crossed out on sidewalk

Protestors In Bangkok Call For Political Prisoner Release

Peerapon Boonyakiat/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire

Freedom of speech at stake

"Article 112 shuts down all freedom of speech in this country", says Sirikan. "Even the political parties fear to touch the subject, so it blocks most things. This country cannot move anywhere if we still have this law."

The student activist herself was charged with lèse-majesté in September 2020, after simply citing a list of public documents that refer to royal family expenditure. Sirikan comes from a family that has faced the consequences of decades of political repression. Her grandfather, Tiang Sirikhan was a journalist and politician who openly protested against Thailand's involvement in World War II. He was accused of being a Communist and abducted in 1952. According to Sirikhan's family, he was killed by the state.

The new report was conducted by The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Thai Lawyer for Human Rights (TLHR), and Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw). It accuses Thai authorities of an increasingly broad interpretation of Article 112, to the point of "absurdity," including charges against people for criticizing the government's COVID-19 vaccine management, wearing crop tops, insulting the previous monarch, or quoting a United Nations statement about Article 112.

Juthatip Sirikan speaks in front of democracy monument.

Shift to social media

While in the past the Article was only used against people who spoke about the royals, it's now being used as an alibi for more general political repression — which has also spurred more open campaigning to abolish it. Sirikan recounts recent cases of police charging people for spreading paint near the picture of the king during a protest, or even just for having a picture of the king as phone wallpaper.

The more than a century-old law is now largely playing out online, where much of today's protest takes place in Thailand. Sirikan says people are willing to go further on social media to expose information such as how the king intervenes in politics and the monarchy's accumulation of wealth, information the mainstream media rarely reports on them.

Not surprisingly, however, social media is heavily monitored and the military is involved in Intelligence operations and cyber attacks against human rights defenders and critics of any kind. In October 2020, Twitter took down 926 accounts, linked to the army and the government, which promoted themselves and attacked political opposition, and this June, Google removed two Maps with pictures, names, and addresses, of more than 400 people who were accused of insulting the Thai monarchy. "They are trying to control the internet as well," Sirikan says. "They are trying to censor every content that they find a threat".

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS
MOST READ