Breaking down the question
The question has two parts. First, explain what a differential sex-ratio means — the way the balance of males to females varies across regions, communities and, crucially, age groups. Second, discuss its implications for society. "Differential" signals that the examiner wants more than a single national figure; it invites attention to regional and social variation and to the especially skewed child sex-ratio.
The sociological core is that sex-ratio imbalance is not a demographic accident but a symptom of patriarchy and son preference. Your answer should read the numbers as a mirror of social values and then trace the consequences that follow.
How to approach it
Define the sex-ratio and note India's persistently masculine ratio, especially the falling child sex-ratio. Explain the differential dimension across regions and communities, then turn to causes rooted in son preference and daughter aversion. Amartya Sen's notion of "missing women" frames the scale of the loss, while Barbara Miller's work on the endangered daughter grounds it in cultural preference. Close with the social implications — a marriage squeeze, trafficking and the deepening of patriarchy.
Model answer
The sex-ratio, conventionally the number of females per thousand males, is a sensitive index of the social value placed on women. India's ratio has long been masculine, and while the overall figure has edged upward, the child sex-ratio in the zero-to-six age group has fallen, revealing an active bias against the girl child.
This imbalance is markedly differential. Some north-western states record far lower child sex-ratios than the southern and eastern regions, and the deficit is often sharper among prosperous, land-owning and urban groups than among the poorest — showing that it is culture and technology, not poverty alone, that drive it.
The causes lie in entrenched son preference and daughter aversion. Sons are valued for lineage, ritual duties, old-age support and inheritance, while daughters are seen as an economic burden, intensified by dowry. The spread of prenatal sex-determination technology has allowed this preference to be acted upon through sex-selective abortion, so that the ratio worsens in the very groups with the means to access it. Amartya Sen captured the cumulative human cost in his estimate of India's "missing women", and Barbara Miller's study of the endangered daughter located the problem in cultural preference rather than mere scarcity.
The implications are serious. A shortage of women produces a marriage squeeze, with men in deficit regions unable to find brides, fuelling the trafficking and long-distance purchase of women. Far from raising women's worth through scarcity, the imbalance tends to intensify control over them, deepening patriarchy. It also signals a wider social devaluation of women that shapes their access to nutrition, health and education.
In sum, the differential sex-ratio is both a consequence and a reproducer of gender inequality, making it a demographic problem with profoundly social roots and social effects.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward candidates who read the sex-ratio sociologically — as evidence of patriarchy and son preference — rather than merely reciting statistics. Distinguishing the overall ratio from the more alarming child sex-ratio, and noting the counter-intuitive concentration among richer groups, demonstrates depth.
Citing Sen's "missing women" and Miller's endangered daughter lends authority, and naming concrete implications such as the marriage squeeze and trafficking completes the answer. Weak scripts drift into pure demography; strong ones connect the number to values and consequences in tight, well-organised prose with British spelling.