INSIGHT

Coming Back to Normal?

Census 2011 and Sex Ratios in India
S Irudaya Rajan, Sharada Srinivasan, Arjun S Bedi

An analysis of data from Censuses

2001 and 2011 shows that despite
the increase in overall population
sex ratio in this period, the
06 sex ratio and 01 sex ratio
have continued to decline. This
suggests that there is no let-up
in daughter deficit. However,
one positive factor is that the
north-western states which have
had a long history of high levels
of daughter deficit have shown
an increase in the 01 sex ratio.
The reasons for this need to be
determined. Another positive
aspect is that daughter deficit
seems to be lower amongst the
younger cohort of currently
married women; it will be
interesting to see whether this
persists as the cohort ages.

well-known demographic feature

in many Asian countries, including India, is the lower proportion
of women to men. Indeed, analyses of
Indian census data since 1901 shows a
decline in the female to male population
sex ratio from 972 in 1901 to 940 in 2011
(Table 1, p 34). Notwithstanding this longterm pattern of decline, the increase in
the Indian population sex ratio from 933
in 2001 to 940 in 2011, and an article in
the popular press (Kaur and Bhalla 2011)
that reported on the decline of sex selective abortion, generated optimism that
the decline had been stemmed.
Kaur and Bhalla (2011) relied on data
from the National Sample Survey (NSS)
which covered 1,25,000 households to
show that the 01 sex ratio had increased from 901 in 19992000 to 977
in 200910 against an expected ratio of
952. The recently released Census 2011
data based on about 21 million births
supports a more credible analysis of
female to male 01 sex ratios.1 Using
data on live births which occurred in the
year preceding Census 2011 and Census
2001, this article provides a temporal
and spatial analysis of child (06)
and 01 sex ratios.2 To assess intergenerational changes, we also analyse
the 01 sex ratio by currently married
womens present age. The conclusion
discusses implications for research
and policy.
Spatial and Temporal Patterns

We thank Lini and Sunitha Syam for research

assistance.
S Irudaya Rajan (rajan@cds.ac.in) is with
the Centre for Development Studies,
Thiruvananthapurm, Kerala;
Sharada Srinivasan (sharada@uoguelph.ca)
is with the University of Guelph, Canada; and
Arjun S Bedi (bedi@iss.nl) is with Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

Table 1 presents the 01 sex ratio and the

06 sex ratio for 2001 and 2011 for India
as a whole and for rural and urban parts
of the country. At the all-India level, between 2001 and 2011, the 01 sex ratio
decreased by six points from 905 to 899.
Turning to ruralurban patterns, in 2001,
differences in the 01 sex ratio were
marginal (904 in urban and 906 in rural
vol l no 52

India). Between the two periods the

decline in the sex ratio has been more
pronounced in urban India with the ratio
declining from 904 to 893. The corresponding figures in rural India are 906
to 901.
An analysis of region and state-specific
differences reveals interesting patterns
(Table 2, p 34). The contiguous belt of
north-western states and union territories (UTs) (Himachal Pradesh, Punjab,
Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana,
Delhi, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh)
with a long history of daughter deficit
has witnessed a large increase in the 01
sex ratio between 2001 and 2011.3 The
increase ranges from 16 points in
Uttarakhand to 103 points in Himachal
Pradesh.4 In fact, across the country,
Himachal Pradesh records the highest
increase in the 01 sex ratio from 845 in
2001 to 948 in 2011. Based on the findings of Census 2001, a number of these
north-western states launched interventions to prevent sex selection.5 While
an investigation of the reasons for the
increase in the 01 sex ratio is beyond
the scope of the article, it is tempting to
consider that interventions implemented by the central and state governments,
non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
and other agencies may have played
a role.
In the north-eastern region (Bihar,
Sikkim, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura,
Meghalaya, Assam, West Bengal, Jharkhand and Odisha), that is, traditionally
a region of the country with limited
practice of sex selection, the 01 sex ratio declines between 2001 and 2011.
Eight out of 10 states witness a decline
(by four to 39 points) while two states
record an increase of 20 and 31 points.
Across the country, West Bengal experiences the sharpest decreasea 39-point
decline from 975 to 937 between 2001
and 2011. Among the western states and
UTs (Gujarat, Daman and Diu, Dadra
and Nagar Haveli, Maharashtra and Goa),
the picture is mixed with two states
showing an increase (34 and 49 points)
while in three states the ratio declined
between 2001 and 2011 (by 11 to 15
points). For the most part, the southern
33

INSIGHT
Table 1: Population Sex Ratio, 06 Sex Ratio, 01 Sex Ratio in India, 19012011
Year

1901

1911

1921

(1) Population sex ratio

(2) 06 sex ratio
(3) 06 sex ratio in urban India
(4) 06 sex ratio in rural India
(5) 01 sex ratio
(6) 01 sex ratio in urban India
(7) 01 sex ratio in rural India

972

964 955

1931 1941 1951

1961

950 945 946 941

976

1971 1981

1991

2001

2011

930 934 927 933

964 962 945 927

935 906

948 934

905

904

906

940
919
905
923
899
893
901

Ratios are defined as the number of females per 1,000 males.

Source: All figures are based on census data. Figures in row 1 from 1901 to 1961 are from Visaria (1967). Figures in row 1
from 1981 to 2001 are from the National Human Development Report 2001 (Planning Commission, 2002). Figures in row 1 for
2011 are our calculations based on census data. Figures in row 2 from 1961 to 2001 are from Premi (2001), and for 2011 the
figures are our calculations based on census data. Figures in rows 3 and 4 for 2001 are from Census, IndiaIssue 15 (2003),
Office of the Registrar General, India. Figures in rows 3 and 4 for 2011 are our calculation based on census data. Figures in
rows 5, 6, and 7 for 2001 and 2011 are our calculations based on census data.

region (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,

Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and
Andaman and Nicobar Islands) has also
registered a decline in 01 sex ratio
between 2001 and 2011 (by 1 to 27
points), except Kerala which has seen an
increase of eight points.

Overall, of the 31 states and UTs, 14

have registered an increase of between
5 and 103 points in the 01 sex ratio
between 2001 and 2011, while it has
declined by 1 to 39 points in 17 states
during the same period. More states have
witnessed a decline in the 01 sex ratio

Table 3: Sex Ratio by Age Structure of Currently

Married Women and Place of Residence, India,
2001 and 2011
Area

Total

Year
All ages
Less than 15
1519
2024
2529
3034
3539
4044
4549
50+
<30
30+

2001 2011
905 899
944 881
924 938
898 927
883 896
892 877
917 870
964 856
1003 824
1322 883
894 915
930 865

Rural

2001
906
927
922
896
883
895
919
962
1007
1322
893
932

2011
901
882
939
927
898
882
875
859
827
887
916
869

Urban

2001
904
1043
936
906
882
878
906
972
988
1318
897
920

2011
893
879
935
926
894
865
856
847
819
874
911
854

between 2001 and 2011, and even among

states that have seen an increase, the 01
sex ratio is far from normal. In 2001, 22
out of 31 states and UTs had a 01 sex
ratio which was less than 952 while in

Table 2: 01 and 06 Sex Ratios, India, States and Union Territories, 2001 and 2011
Country /States

India
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Haryana
Delhi
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Sikkim
Arunachal Pradesh
Nagaland
Manipur
Mizoram
Tripura
Meghalaya
Assam
West Bengal
Jharkhand
Odisha
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat
Daman and Diu
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Goa
Lakshadweep
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Puducherry
Andaman and
Nichobar Islands

34

Total

(01)
2011
Rural

Urban

Total

904
966
854
791
844
857
790
855
841
914
917
982
1022
963
1001
1014
960
965
982
1007
918
953
913
888
802
924
823
889
968
948
895
751
962
960
992

899
774
948
843
895
869
824
869
899
890
892
968
935
965
905
966
956
978
930
937
903
910
948
908
868
902
946
862
924
922
908
858
977
934
969

901
776
949
839
865
871
825
798
897
894
894
973
937
965
886
952
964
981
931
942
912
913
958
913
890
971
1005
851
925
924
890
940
979
923
945

893
767
928
849
896
862
824
872
907
872
876
952
928
968
948
982
927
958
918
922
863
888
913
890
835
877
875
877
921
920
919
835
975
947
981

-6
-177
103
56
45
16
39
17
35
-11
-25
31
-62
-18
-71
-28
-17
20
-18
-39
-4
-19
20
5
34
49
-11
-15
-27
-14
-13
-106
8
-1
-21

-4
-172
105
54
-22
19
40
-29
28
-4
-23
39
-55
-24
-82
-25
-11
24
-13
-26
0
-12
27
7
41
152
14
-19
-20
-8
-58
42
8
4
-39

934

964

961

968

-15

-37

Total

2001
Rural

Urban

905
951
845
787
850
853
786
852
864
901
917
937
997
984
976
994
973
958
948
975
907
928
928
903
834
853
957
877
951
936
921
964
969
935
989

906
949
844
786
887
852
785
828
869
899
917
933
991
988
969
978
975
957
945
968
912
925
931
906
848
819
992
871
946
931
948
898
971
919
984

979

998

Change
Rural Urban

Total

(06)
2011
Rural

Urban

Total

906
873
844
796
845
872
808
870
887
890
924
922
980
939
961
963
948
969
943
948
930
933
938
907
837
943
888
908
955
940
924
900
958
955
967

919
862
909
846
880
890
834
871
888
902
935
957
972
943
930
970
957
970
962
956
948
941
969
918
890
904
926
894
939
948
942
911
964
943
967

923
865
912
844
871
899
835
814
892
906
938
964
975
933
923
966
960
972
964
959
957
946
977
923
914
932
970
890
941
950
945
911
965
936
953

905
850
881
852
880
868
832
873
874
886
912
934
957
973
949
974
947
954
944
947
908
913
937
901
852
894
872
899
935
946
940
911
963
952
975

-9
-79
14
48
35
-17
15
3
-20
-13
-7
-6
8
-20
-27
5
-9
-3
-3
-4
-18
-11
-6
-14
7
-22
-54
-19
-22
3
5
-48
4
1
1

-10
-92
12
44
24
-19
12
-36
-22
-15
-6
-2
15
-35
-32
1
-9
-1
-3
-4
-16
-9
-5
-17
8
16
-32
-26
-22
1
-7
-88
4
3
-15

-1
-23
36
55
35
-4
24
3
-14
-5
-12
13
-23
34
-13
11
-1
-16
1
0
-22
-21
-1
-6
15
-50
-17
-9
-20
7
17
11
5
-4
8

936

968

976

954

11

10

18

Total

2001
Rural

Urban

-11
-199
73
58
52
5
34
17
66
-42
-41
-31
-94
4
-53
-32
-33
-8
-64
-85
-55
-65
-1
3
32
-47
52
-12
-47
-27
24
85
13
-13
-11

927
941
896
798
845
908
819
868
909
916
942
963
964
964
957
964
966
973
965
960
965
953
975
932
883
926
979
913
961
946
938
959
960
942
967

934
957
900
799
847
918
823
850
914
921
944
966
960
969
956
965
968
973
967
963
973
955
982
939
906
916
1003
916
963
949
952
999
961
933
967

34

957

966

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Change
Rural Urban

Economic & Political Weekly

INSIGHT

2011, this figure was 23. It is heartening

to see that states with a long history of
daughter deficit record an increase in
the 01 sex ratio and appear to have
arrested further declines. However, this
has been neutralised by declines in the
southern and eastern parts of the country.
While we do not discuss state-specific
ruralurban patterns in detail (Table 3,
p 34) the main message emerging from
our scrutiny of these data is that the
urban parts of the country record a
sharper decline in the 01 sex ratio as
compared to rural areas between 2001
and 2011.
Comparisons between the expected
sex ratio at birth of 952, the 01 sex ratio
and the 06 sex ratio permit identification of the extent of daughter deficit that
takes place before and after birth. In

2011, for India as a whole, the 01 sex

ratio was 899, that is, a gap of 53 points
between the expected and actual ratio
(952899). The 06 ratio at 919 is 20
points higher than the 01 sex ratio. A
similar pattern existed in 2001. The gap
between the expected and 01 sex ratio
was 47 points; while at 927 the 06 ratio
was 22 points higher than the 01 sex
ratio. State-specific analysis shows that
in 2011, 22 states had a 01 sex ratio
which was lower than the 06 sex ratio.
The increase in the 06 sex ratio as compared to the 01 sex ratio indicates that
the bulk of daughter deficit occurs before birth and it tends to decline thereafter.6 To the extent that daughter deficit
is a proxy for daughter elimination,
much of the discrimination against
daughters occurs before birth.

To conclude, our analysis shows that

despite the increase in the population
sex ratio, both the 01 sex ratio and the
06 sex ratio declined between 2001
and 2011. Furthermore, the regional and
state-specific patterns confirm the continued blurring of the so-called diagonal
dividemore masculine sex ratios in the
north-west as compared to the south-east
(Dyson and Moore 1983; Srinivasan and
Bedi 2009). Finally, the higher 06 sex
ratio as compared to the 01 sex ratio
indicates that sex selective abortion is
still widespread.
Older and Younger Currently
Married Women
To delve deeper and to identify the
source of the change in the 01 ratio between 2001 and 2011, Table 4 provides

Table 4: 01 Sex Ratio by Currently Married Women Below 30 and 30+ Years of Age, India, States and UTs, 2001 and 2011
Area

India
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Punjab
Chandigarh
Uttarakhand
Haryana
Delhi
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Sikkim
Arunachal Pradesh
Nagaland
Manipur
Mizoram
Tripura
Meghalaya
Assam
West Bengal
Jharkhand
Odisha
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat
Daman and Diu
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Goa
Lakshadweep
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Puducherry
Andaman and
Nicobar Islands
Economic & Political Weekly

Total

2001
Rural
<30

30+

930
992
851
783
851
851
785
839
881
939
956
952
1037
1015
996
979
1002
972
979
1034
923
935
941
919
832
796
997
876
968
963
923
1139
989
962
1043

906
949
844
786
887
852
785
828
869
899
917
933
991
988
969
978
975
957
945
968
912
925
931
906
848
819
992
871
946
932
948
1136
971
919
984

893
915
841
784
879
854
782
834
860
871
889
925
963
951
942
986
963
951
928
950
899
921
924
898
846
825
969
870
942
921
954
1073
966
913
971

932
986
853
789
923
848
793
810
887
936
956
950
1032
1022
996
962
1005
964
973
1026
934
933
944
924
854
790
1035
873
960
962
937
1252
987
939
1053

909

998

1013

953

Total

Total
<30

30+

905
951
845
787
850
853
786
852
864
901
917
937
997
984
976
994
973
958
948
975
907
929
928
903
834
853
957
877
951
936
921
964
969
935
989

894
915
843
789
849
854
786
858
857
873
889
930
971
953
957
1001
962
947
929
955
897
925
922
896
835
868
938
878
947
927
920
872
962
927
977

979

1000

EPW

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

Total

2011
Rural
<30

30+

Total

Urban
<30

30+

865
764
889
784
828
822
776
822
923
865
863
1031
915
964
873
921
945
986
887
902
861
853
917
872
835
818
890
812
851
855
895
835
987
911
956

901
776
949
839
865
871
825
798
897
894
894
973
937
965
886
952
964
981
931
942
912
913
958
913
890
971
1005
851
925
924
890
940
979
923
945

916
787
970
866
907
886
839
819
888
910
909
947
947
974
911
976
967
974
951
951
932
937
966
926
902
962
1032
869
948
950
902
1000
976
932
948

869
764
891
778
756
827
780
741
918
869
867
1040
922
953
855
908
953
993
891
911
873
862
936
881
862
1000
939
790
842
851
878
873
986
891
935

893
767
928
849
896
862
824
872
907
872
876
952
928
968
948
982
927
958
918
922
863
888
913
890
835
877
875
877
921
920
919
835
975
947
981

911
770
980
879
925
885
849
894
892
888
909
925
950
949
977
1014
930
968
952
941
890
931
937
912
853
915
893
895
939
947
929
846
968
953
989

854
765
840
794
831
813
768
824
940
848
822
1007
886
1001
914
935
919
940
861
883
806
808
850
846
795
754
814
836
866
861
907
826
988
929
965

967

961

943

1012

968

1002 889

Total

Total
<30

30+

904 897 920

966 916 1028
855 864 829
791 802 770
844 844 843
857 854 863
790 800 762
855 860 841
841 839 846
914 883 957
917
892 960
982 990 965
1022 1000 1079
963 956 974
1001 1005 996
1014 1020 1002
960 948 988
965 918 1044
982 946 1053
1007 979 1067
880 892 857
953 952 957
913
910 922
888 885 895
803
811 782
924 968 805
823 834 812
889 892 881
968 962 988
948 941 967
895 887 908
751
633 990
962 950 994
960 949 994
992 981 1038

899
774
948
843
895
869
824
869
899
890
892
968
935
965
905
966
956
978
930
937
903
910
948
908
868
902
946
862
924
922
908
858
977
934
969

915
784
971
871
925
886
842
892
889
906
909
942
948
966
930
993
960
973
951
948
924
936
960
923
883
928
965
879
945
949
919
882
972
942
974

934

964

962

Total

Urban
<30

973

30+

954

35

INSIGHT

information on the 01 sex ratio for India

for different age groups of currently
married women and place of residence.
Focusing on the all-India figures and
comparing age-specific sex ratios shows
that the decline between 2001 and 2011
may be attributed to the decline in sex
ratios amongst women in the age group
30 and older. For all age ranges beyond
30, the 01 sex ratio in 2011 is lower than
in 2001, and for all ranges less than 30
(excluding less than 15 as there are
fewer births), the 01 sex ratio in 2011 is
higher than in 2001. The same pattern
holds for both rural and urban India.
State-specific analysis shows that in 24
out of 31 states and UTs, the total 01 sex
ratio for currently married women below 30 increased between 2001 and 2011
whereas in 23 out of 31 states and UTs,
the total 01 sex ratio for currently married women 30 and above decreased between 2001 and 2011. To summarise, the
younger (below 30) cohort of currently
married women have contributed less to
the decline in the 01 sex ratio between
2001 and 2011 as compared to the older
(30+) cohort of married women.
There may be several reasons for this
pattern. For instance, awareness of
ultrasound and sex-determination technology is likely to be higher in 2011 as
compared to 2001 and the increase in
the 01 sex ratio for older women (30+)
in 2011 may be due to the interaction between increasing access to technology
and son preference. The higher sex ratio
amongst younger currently married
women (< 30) during a time period of
increasing access to technology hints
that perhaps son preference among
younger currently married women may
not be as pronounced as it is among older currently married women. This is perhaps an optimistic conclusion, as it is
possible that with age the younger cohort may also be more likely to use sex
selection technology. A final point is that
the increase in the 01 sex ratio between
2001 and 2011 among currently married
women below 30 has occurred in the
context of fertility decline (Guilmoto
and Rajan 2013), whereas in the past
fertility decline has been identified as
one of the reasons for the rise in daughter deficit (see, for example, Basu 1999).
36

Conclusions
The article examined temporal and spatial patterns emerging from data on 01
sex ratio from Censuses 2001 and 2011.
Despite the increase in overall population sex ratio between 2001 and 2011,
the 06 sex ratio and 01 sex ratio have
continued to decline. This suggests that
there is no let-up in daughter deficit. According to both the 2001 and 2011 census,
much of the deficit occurs before birth or
in the first year after birth (01) while
sex ratios tend to increase after age one.
While ruralurban differences are not
pronounced, in most states the sex ratio
in the 01 age group tends to be lower in
urban compared to rural areas. Lower
01 sex ratios are pan Indian with a
weakening of the well-known northwest/south-east divide. In fact, the
southern and eastern regions experienced the largest decline in the decade
preceding the 2011 Census. A positive
and striking aspect is that the northwestern states which have had a long
history of high levels of daughter deficit
have shown an increase in the 01 sex
ratio between 2001 and 2011. Whether
this is because of the various interventions launched in these states still needs
to be determined. Another positive aspect is that daughter deficit seems to be
lower amongst the younger cohort of
currently married women. It will be interesting to see whether this persists as
the cohort ages.
There are two implications, one for
research and the other for policy. First,
research will need to identify the factors
that have contributed to the observed
patterns and to understand the trajectories through which changes in the 01
sex ratios have occurred. Second, states
that have registered an increase in the
01 sex ratio are those that have witnessed efforts to prevent daughter elimination. Policy efforts to prevent daughter discrimination and elimination will
need to be universal rather than focused
only on states that have a long history of
skewed sex ratios.
Notes
1 While the census contains more data than the
NSS, according to Guilmoto and Rajan (2013),
some of the information on relatively smaller
statesJammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh,

4
5

Manipur and Lakshadweepis suspect. The

discussion focuses on the remaining states and
UTs.
For the 2011 Census, the data covers live births
between April 2010 and March 2011, and for
the 2001 Census, the corresponding period is
April 2000 to March 2001.
Daughter deficit is defined as the gap between
the expected number of daughters and the actual number of daughters. For details, see Srinivasan and Bedi (2008).
It is only in Uttar Pradesh that the 01 sex ratio
declines from 901 in 2001 to 890 in 2011.
For a discussion of various cash incentives and
other efforts, see Sekher (2010) and UNFPA
(2013).
The sex ratio in the age group 06 (child sex
ratio; 06 sex ratio) declined from 927 in 2001
to 919 in 2011 (Table 1). In terms of the distribution of the decline, 27 of the 35 states/UTS exhibit a decline in the ratio (Office of the Registrar General 2012) with a clear increase in the
geographical spread of skewed sex ratios as
compared to the 2001 Census.

References
Basu, A M (1999): Fertility Decline and Increasing
Gender Imbalance in India, Including a Possible South Indian Turnaround, Development
and Change, 30(2): 23763.
Dyson, T and M Moore (1983): On Kinship Structure, Female Autonomy and Demographic Behaviour in India, Population and Development
Review, 9(1): 3560.
Guilmoto, Christophe Z and S Irudaya Rajan
(2013): Fertility at the District Level in India:
Lessons from the 2011 Census, Economic &
Political Weekly, 48(23): 5974.
International Institute for Population Sciences
(IIPS) (2007): National Family Health Survey
(NFHS 3), 200506, India, Volume 1, Mumbai:
IIPS.
Kaur, Ravinder and Surjit Bhalla (2011): No Country for Old Mens Values: Yes, Sex Ratios Are
Coming Back to Normal, and the Middle Class
is Responsible, Indian Express, 12 November,
accessed on 15 November 2011, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/nocountry-for-old-mens-values/#sthash.UGjAYmto.dpuf.
Office of the Registrar General (2012): Census 2011,
Government of India, http://censusindia.gov.
in/2011-prov-results/census2011_PPT_paper1.
html, accessed on 4 April 2011.
Premi, M K (2001): The Missing Girl Child, Economic & Political Weekly, 36 (21): 187580.
Sekher, T V (2010): Special Financial Incentive
Schemes for the Girl Child in India: A Review of
Select Schemes, prepared for the Planning Commission, Government of India in collaboration
with United Nations Population Fund, New
Delhi.
Srinivasan, Sharada and Arjun S Bedi (2009):
Tamil Nadu and the Diagonal Divide in Sex
Ratios, Economic & Political Weekly, 44(3):
5663.
(2008): Daughter Elimination in Tamil Nadu,
India: A Tale of Two Ratios, Journal of Development Studies, 44 (7): 961990.
UNFPA (2013): Lest More Girls Go Missing: Initiatives of UNFPA India to Address Gender-biased
Sex Selection, New Delhi: United Nations Population Fund.
Visaria, P M (1967): The Sex Ratio of the Population of India and Pakistan and Regional Variations during 190161, A Patterns of Population
Change in India, 195161, A Bose (ed), Bombay:
Allied Publishers.

DECEMBER 26, 2015

vol l no 52

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly