The majority of maternal health interventions in India focus on increasing institutional deliveries to reduce maternal mortality, typically by incentivising village health workers to register births and making conditional cash transfers to mothers for hospital births. Based on over 15 months of ethnographically informed fieldwork conducted between 2015 and 2017 in rural Assam, the Indian state with the highest recorded rate of maternal deaths, we find that while there has been an expansion in institutional deliveries, the experience of childbirth in government facilities is characterised by obstetric violence. Poor and indigenous women who disproportionately use state facilities report both tangible and symbolic violence including iatrogenic procedures such as episiotomies, in some instances done without anaesthesia, improper pelvic examinations, beating and verbal abuse during labour, with sometimes the shouting directed at accompanying relatives. While the expansion of institutional deliveries and access to emergency obstetric care is likely to reduce maternal mortality, in the absence of humane care during labour, institutional deliveries will continue to be characterised by the paradox of "safe" births (defined as simply reducing maternal deaths) and the deployment of violent practices during labour, underscoring the unequal and complex relationship between the bodies of the poor and reproductive governance.

No abstract

This paper addresses a critical concern in realizing sexual and reproductive health and rights through policies and programsthe relationship between power and accountability. We examine accountability strategies for sexual and reproductive health and rights through the lens of power so that we might better understand and assess their actual working. Power often derives from deep structural inequalities, but also seeps into norms and beliefs, into what we 'know' as truth, and what we believe about the world and about ourselves within it. Power legitimizes hierarchy and authority, and manufactures consent. Its capillary action causes it to spread into every corner and social extremity, but also sets up the possibility of challenge and contestation. Using illustrative examples, we show that in some contexts accountability strategies may confront and transform adverse power relationships. In other contexts, power relations may be more resistant to change, giving rise to contestation, accommodation, negotiation or even subversion of the goals of accountability strategies. This raises an important question about measurement. How is one to assess the achievements of accountability strategies, given the shifting sands on which they are implemented? We argue that power-focused realist evaluations are needed that address four sets of questions about: i) the dimensions and sources of power that an accountability strategy confronts; ii) how power is built into the artefacts of the strategyits objectives, rules, procedures, financing methods inter alia; iii) what incentives, disincentives and norms for behavior are set up by the interplay of the above; and iv) their consequences for the outcomes of the accountability strategy. We illustrate this approach through examples of performance, social and legal accountability strategies.

No abstract