Surrogacy has always been contested and much debated in India since its legalisation in 2002, and the recent Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, has led to a renewed engagement with it. The advent of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) provided an opportunity for the medical establishment, market and infertile couples to come together in a mutually beneficial arrangement, which is made possible by a surrogate. ART, while medicalising the reproductive capacity of women, also calls for a redefining of the concepts of ‘motherhood’, family and reproductive choice. This article primarily documents the experiences of surrogates through their narratives about the continuous struggle with themselves, their families and the medical establishment. In this matrix of unequal power relations that surrogacy epitomises, the surrogate has a precarious voice. The article argues that while surrogacy extracts a physiological and emotional price that the surrogates pay, it is empowering in a limited way. It offers women economic opportunities of a scale otherwise denied to them, enabling them to fight a life of poverty.
BanerjeeAmrita. 2010. ‘Reorienting the Ethics of Transnational Surrogacy as a Feminist Pragmatist.’ The Pluralist5 (3): 107–27.
2.
BanerjeeAnanya.2013. ‘Dubious Surrogacy Clinics Thriving in Hyderabad.’ The Times of India, 16July2013.
3.
Centre for Social Research. 2010. Surrogate Motherhood – Ethical or Commercial. New Delhi: Centre for Social Research.
4.
ColenShellee. 1995. ‘“Like a Mother to Them”: Stratified Reproduction and West Indian Childcare Workers and Employers in New York.’ In Conceiving the New World Order, edited by GinsbergFaye D.RappRayna, 78–102. Berkley: University of California Press.
5.
DeomampoDaisy. 2013. ‘Transnational Surrogacy in India: Interrogating Power and Women’s Agency.’ Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies34 (3): 167–88.
6.
DeySushmi.2017. ‘Only 20% IVF Clinics, 2% ART Units Registered with ICMR.’ Times of India, 21August2017.
7.
GuptaAnu. 2016. ‘Mapping Surrogacy in India: A Case Study of Hyderabad.’ M.Phil. diss., University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad.
8.
GuptaJyotsna Agnihotri. 2000. New Reproductive Technologies, Women’s Health and Autonomy. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
9.
GuptaJyotsna Agnihotri. 2006. ‘Towards Transnational Feminisms: Some Reflections and Concerns in Relation to the Globalization of Reproductive Technologies.’ European Journal of Women’s Studies13 (1): 23–38.
10.
GuptaJyotsna Agnihotri. 2012. ‘Reproductive Biocrossings: Indian Egg Donors and Surrogates in the Globalized Fertility Market.’ International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics5 (1): 25–51.
11.
HochschildArlie Russell. 2012. The Outsourced Self: Intimate Life in Market Times. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
12.
NairShalini.2015. ‘The Issues around Surrogacy.’ The Indian Express, 2November2015 (p. 12, Delhi edition).
13.
PandeAmrita. 2009. ‘Not an “Angel”, Not a “Whore”: Surrogates as “Dirty” Workers in India.’ Indian Journal of Gender Studies16 (2): 141–73.
14.
PandeAmrita. 2010. ‘Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker.’ Signs35 (4): 969–92.
15.
PandeAmrita. 2014. ‘This Birth and That: Surrogacy and Stratified Motherhood in India.’ PhiloSophia4 (1): 50–64.
16.
ParreñasRhacel Salazar. 2001. ‘Mothering from a Distance: Emotions, Gender, and Intergenerational Relations in Filipino Transnational Families.’ Feminist Studies27 (2): 361–90.
17.
PatemanCarole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
18.
RagoneHelena. 1994. Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19.
RappRayna. 2001. ‘Gender, Body, Biomedicine: How Some Feminist Concerns Dragged Reproduction to the Center of Social Theory.’ Medical Anthropology Quarterly15 (4): 466–77.
20.
RowlandRobyn. 1992. Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technology. Sydney: Pan MacMillan Publishers.
21.
RoyModhumita. 2011. ‘Foreign Babies/Indian Make: Outsourcing Reproduction in the Age of Globalization.’ In Locating Cultural Change: Theory, Method, Process, edited by BasuPartha PratimChandaIpshita, 54–72. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
RudrappaSharmila. 2016. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
24.
RudrappaSharmilaCollinsCaitlyn. 2015. ‘Altruistic Agencies and Compassionate Consumers: Moral Framing of Transnational Surrogacy.’ Gender and Society29 (6): 937–59.
25.
Sama (Sama-Resource Group for Women and Health). 2006. ARTs and Women: Assistance in Reproduction or Subjugation?New Delhi: Sama.
26.
SatzDebra. 1992. Markets in Women’s Reproductive Labor. Philosophy and Public Affairs21 (2): 107–31.
27.
ScottElizabeth. 2009. ‘Surrogacy and the Politics of Commodification.’ Law and Contemporary Problems72 (3): 109–46.
28.
ShahChayanika. 2009. ‘Regulate Technology, Not Lives: A Critique of the Draft ART (Regulation) Bill.’ Indian Journal of Medical Ethics6 (1): 32–5.
29.
SparDebora. 2006. The Baby Business. How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
VohraKalindi. 2011. ‘Medicine, Markets and the Pregnant Body: Indian Commercial Surrogacy and Reproductive Labor in a Transnational Frame.’ The Scholar and Feminist Online9 (1): 1–7.
31.
VohraKalindi. 2014. ‘Experimental Sociality and Gestational Surrogacy in the Indian ART Clinic.’ Ethnos: Journal of Anthropology79 (1): 63–83.
