When Old Age Depends on a Daughter: Why India must address a silent policy deficit
Dr. Kumud Das
India has long regarded caring for ageing parents as both a moral duty and a social responsibility. Yet, a significant gap in the welfare policies of many Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) continues to leave thousands of elderly parents without institutional medical support simply because they depend on a daughter rather than a son.
Indian families have changed considerably. Smaller families, migration and changing social realities mean that many elderly parents today are cared for by their daughters and sons-in-law. In many households, they are the only caregivers. However, several Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) have not updated their medical welfare policies to reflect this reality.
The Central Government addressed this issue in 2023 by allowing both male and female employees to choose either their dependent parents or parents-in-law for medical benefits under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), subject to prescribed dependency and residence conditions. This reform recognised that caregiving responsibilities are no longer determined by gender alone.
Many PSUs, however, continue to follow older rules. While female employees are generally permitted to include either their parents or parents-in-law under medical benefits, male employees often do not enjoy the same flexibility. As a result, a son-in-law who is solely responsible for his wife’s ageing parents may be unable to extend institutional medical support to them despite their complete dependency.
The gap becomes even more pronounced when the daughter is a homemaker. If she is employed in a PSU, she may be able to include her dependent parents under the welfare scheme. But if her husband is the family’s only earning member working in a PSU, her parents are frequently left outside the coverage. Thus, two elderly couples in identical circumstances receive different treatment simply because one daughter is employed while the other manages the household.
Some argue that extending this flexibility to male employees would increase financial liability. That concern appears overstated. The proposal does not seek to expand the number of dependents eligible for benefits. It merely allows employees to choose between dependent parents and dependent parents-in-law, subject to the same dependency and residence conditions. The overall financial exposure therefore remains largely unchanged.
Behind this policy gap are real families. Elderly parents who depend entirely on their daughter and son-in-law often postpone treatment or avoid hospitalisation because of financial constraints. Caregivers shoulder the emotional and financial burden without institutional support, placing avoidable strain on family relationships.
More importantly, such policies send an unintended social message—that support provided through sons deserves greater recognition than support provided through daughters. This runs contrary to India’s commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment.
As family structures evolve, welfare policies must evolve as well. Public Sector Undertakings should adopt the same gender-neutral approach already implemented by the Central Government, allowing every employee to choose either dependent parents or dependent parents-in-law based on actual caregiving responsibilities.
In old age, dignity should depend on dependency and care—not on whether support comes from a son or a daughter. A progressive welfare policy must recognise this reality and ensure that no elderly parent is denied support simply because their greatest strength happens to be a daughter.
(The author is a senior journalist and Associate Professor, School of Media and Communication Studies, DY Patil International University, Akurdi, Pune.)
