WHY GLOBAL WARMING TALKS WILL FAIL IN PARIS THIS YEAR

Compromises Make Global Climate Deal More Possible

New draft shows breakthrough on emissions cuts, but developing countries remain at odds with major powers on other issues

A key disagreement involves the overall target of the deal: keep warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Above: People at a demonstration inside the World Climate Change Conference in France on Wednesday. Photo: Reuters

Nations moved closer to a global climate deal that has eluded them for more than 20 years, as compromise emerged on some of the most controversial issues facing negotiators at a summit here, even as other problems remain unresolved.

A new draft unveiled on Thursday showed that an agreement is in sight, after 11 days of talks did little to bridge differences that have bedeviled negotiators since nations first agreed to pursue an international climate-change deal in 1992.

“They are obviously much closer to the finishing line,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.

On Friday morning, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius confirmed what many had long expected: The climate conference will be extended beyond its planned Friday ending, with the final text of the agreement now expected on Saturday morning. Translation and legal verification of that text it necessary before it can be approved by the 195 nations participating in the Paris talks.

Perhaps the biggest breakthrough came in the overall target guiding the cuts in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that nations would enact under the proposed agreement. The draft says nations will limit the increase in average surface temperatures to “well below” two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since the dawn of the industrial era, and “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

Still, other issues remain, such as financing for the developing world and how the burden of fighting climate change should be divided between rich and poor nations, with little time left in the talks to find solutions. Hopes now rest on whether Europe, the U.S. and some of the world’s poorest nations can compromise with a group of developing countries that are resisting calls to shoulder more of the burden in the fight to limit global warming.

The developing-nation group, known as Like-Minded Developing Countries, represents the hard core of opposition to the U.S., the EU and other developed nations. It includes developing-nation giants such as China and India, oil-producing states such as Saudi Arabia and staunch critics of the West such as Iran, Venezuela and Bolivia. 

Members of the Like-Minded group didn’t comment on the new draft as talks moved behind closed doors on Thursday evening.

European officials voiced cautious praise of the new text. The new draft is “looking better, bolder,” said one official, but cautioning that more work needed to be done on ensuring all governments accurately measure and report their emissions.

Countries most vulnerable to climate change insist on the 1.5-degree target, arguing that any more warming would result in catastrophic damage from rising sea levels and increased storm intensity. The United Nations says the globe has warmed about 0.9 degree since the late 19th century.

Tony La Vina, a senior negotiator for the Philippines, which represents a group of countries most at risk from climate change, said the proposed language on 1.5 degrees appears broadly acceptable.“We will still seek to strengthen it, but it is within the range of acceptable language,” Mr. La Vina said.

Mr Fabius, who is leading the negotiations, and other French officials put together the draft based on hours of nonstop negotiations among the 195 nations gathered at the Paris climate summit. It is still uncertain if the compromises drafted by Mr. Fabius will be acceptable.

Thursday’s draft also sets greenhouse-gas neutrality as a goal for the second half of this century. That means nations have agreed to commit to cut their fossil-fuel emissions to such a low level that the Earth’s natural mechanisms for absorbing these gases—through plants and other means—can offset man-made emissions.

While the EU and the U.S. have narrowed differences with some of the poorest nations in recent days, much of the Like-Minded group opposes committing to more ambitious emissions-reduction targets or to provide financing for poor nations to respond to climate change. Their priority must remain fighting poverty within their own borders, they say, not cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions.

Thursday’s draft wouldn’t require developing countries to provide financing for climate-change projects in the poorest nations, a provision that may draw objections from developed nations, the U.S. in particular. This is what actually happened in early June this year.

Mr. Fabius gave ministers 2½ hours to examine the text before deciding whether the French proposals are acceptable, but talks were expected to continue long into the night.

Both the developed countries and the Like-Minded group criticized a draft agreement released by France on Wednesday afternoon; “Perhaps your text is indeed balanced—everybody seems unhappy,” Gurdial Singh Nijar, the lead climate negotiator for Malaysia and spokesman for the Like-Minded Group, told Mr. Fabius on Wednesday evening.


The Paris summit represents the best chance to reach a global agreement to limit climate change since nations began negotiating more than two decades ago. The divide between developed and developing nations has always been the main obstacle to reaching an accord.

The EU and the U.S. have has been working to break up a larger group of more than 100 developing countries, called the Group of 77, by offering money and concessions to small island states and some of the least-developed countries. Miguel Arias Canete, the EU’s climate-change commissioner, said the alliance between wealthiest and poorest is holding for now, despite public statements made by the poorest nations in support of the Group of 77.

“The speeches in [public] are one thing, and when you go to the negotiating table it’s another,” Mr. Canete said.

The Like-Minded group includes some of the most outspoken climate negotiators, such as Claudia Salerno, the Venezuelan ambassador to the EU. In a famous incident at climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, Ms. Salerno held up her bloodied hand, which she claimed had been cut after slamming it on the table to object to the proceedings, and said: “This hand, which is bleeding now, wants to speak, and it has the same right of any of those which you call a representative group of leaders.”

On Wednesday evening, Ms. Salerno criticised the text, adding at the end: “I want to go home, look my daughters in the eye and tell them, ‘You are going to be fine, it’s going to be fine.’

Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris climate change agreement. The decision was condemned immediately by environmental campaigners and by the president’s political opponents who said it heralded the death of America’s position as a global leader. However, Trump held out the hope of a compromise saying he would immediately start a process to develop a fairer deal that would protect American workers.

Environmental campaigners said US absence will make it considerable harder for the remaining 190 or so countries to reach their agreed goals, given that the US is responsible for about 15 percent of global emissions of carbon and promised $3 billion to help other nations.

What Trump conveniently forgets is that global warming was caused in the first place by the rapacious US companies. Having raped the world, he now leaves scraps for others to fight over.  

 

THE INDO-CHINESEWAR OF 1962: INDIA'S GREATEST SHAME

Why Mao Attacked India in 1962 

At the beginning of 1962, as tension was increasing on the Indian border, did Nehru realise that China was a starving nation? Very few knew that, by the end of 1961 Mao was practically out of power.

At the beginning of 1962, as tension was increasing on the Indian border, did Nehru realize that China was a starving nation? Very few knew that, by the end of 1961 Mao was practically out of power.

There is an angle of the 1962 Sino-Indian that conflict has been insufficiently studied. What were Beijing’s motivations to go to war? Who decided to inflict the worst possible humiliation on India?

Historical sources are still sparse, but going through some available documents, one can get a fairly good idea of the Chinese motivations or more exactly the ‘political’ compulsions which pushed the Great Helmsman into this venture.

There is an angle of the 1962 Sino-Indian that conflict has been insufficiently studied. What were Beijing’s motivations to go to war? Who decided to inflict the worst possible humiliation on India?

Historical sources are still sparse, but going through some available documents, one can get a fairly good idea of the Chinese motivations or more exactly the ‘political’ compulsions which pushed the Great Helmsman into this venture.

Mao Temporarily Leaves the Stage

It is fashionable to speak of crimes against humanity. One of the greatest, known as the ‘Great Leap Forward’, began in China in February 1958 and resulted in the largest man-made starvation period in human history. By initiating his Leap Forward, Mao Zedong’s objective was to surpass Great Britain in industrial production within 15 years. For the purpose, every Chinese had to start producing steel at home, with a backyard furnace. In agriculture, Mao thought that very large communes would achieve manifold increase in the cereal production, turning China into a heaven of abundance. Introduced and managed with frantic fanaticism, it was not long before the program collapsed.

One man tried to raise his voice against the general madness and sycophancy. This was Peng Denhai, the Defence Minister and old companion of Mao during the Long March. Marshal Peng, who was a simple, honest and straightforward soldier, wrote a long personal letter to Mao on what he had seen in the countryside and the misery of the people. Mao immediately ‘purged’ old Peng; the Great Leap Forward however continued till 1961/1962. Today it is estimated that between 40 and 50 million people died of hunger in China during these three years.

Dr Zhisui Li, Mao’s personal physician recounts how in 1961 Mao was: “…depressed over the agricultural crisis and angry with the party elite, upon whom he was less able now to work his will, Mao was in temporary eclipse, spending most of his time in bed.”

At the beginning of the fateful year 1962, Mao’s situation had not improved. Dr Li noted: “1962 was a political turning point for Mao. In January, when he convened another expanded Central Committee work conference to discuss the continuing disaster, his support within the party was at its lowest.”

During the Conference, known as the 7,000 Cadres’ Conference, Lui Shaoqi declared: “…man-made disasters strike the whole country.” He was targeting Mao. After a month, as the meeting could not conclude, Mao decided that it was enough: he would temporarily ‘retire’.

The conflict with India is closely linked to his comeback.

The Three Reconciliations and One Reduction

In the early 1960’s, Wang Jiaxiang was still one of the senior-most leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Two decades earlier, he had attended Sun Yat-sen University in Moscow, a Soviet institution which trained young revolutionary leaders. After the founding of the PRC in 1949, Wang was appointed first as the People’s Republic of China’s Ambassador to Soviet Union, and then returned to Beijing to work in the Foreign Ministry.

Wang’s grand idea was to reconstruct China. For this, it was necessary for the People’s Republic to have a ‘softer’ foreign policy line towards the United States, the Soviet Union, and India. Wang also thought that China should spend less on ‘foreign aid’, at a time China itself was going through such difficult times. Wang believed that peaceful coexistence needed to be stressed.

His theory became known as the ‘Three Reconciliations and the One Reduction’. The three reconciliations were with the US, the Soviet Union and India and the reduction referred to unnecessary foreign expenditures.
 
Wang Jiaxiang spoke with President Liu Shaoqi who apparently agreed with him. On 27 February 1962, Wang put his thoughts in a letter to Zhou Enlai and other senior leaders. The letter was not sent to Mao who had ‘withdrawn’ after the Seven Thousand Cadres’ Conference.

Wang’s policies however became visible at the World Peace Congress held in Moscow from 9 to 14 July; according to the US scholar MacFarquhar in his Origin of the Cultural Revolution1: “[China and Soviet Union] acted with restraint. Though both sides maintained their positions some agreements were reached.”


Regarding India, the same scholar explained: “Wang Jiaxiang seemed to be seeking at least a partial revival of the ‘Bandung line’ of the mid-1950s, according to which non-communist independent nations of the Third World were regarded as allies in the overarching struggle against imperialism.

In his argument with Khrushchev, Mao had rejected the possibility of ‘peaceful transition’ from bourgeois regimes like Nehru’s India to proletarian dictatorship and insisted that they would have to be overthrown by revolution.

On June 3, The People’s Daily published a rather moderate editorial on Sino-Indian relations; it was one more sign of the softer line in Beijing’s foreign policy.

This policy unfortunately did not last long, mainly due to the internal power struggle and the return of the Great Helmsman, as we shall see. However, it seems obvious that the Sino-Indian conflict would have not degenerated the way it did, if Wang Jiaxiang’s policies had been followed.

Armed Coexistence, Jigsaw Pattern

The policy of the Chinese government in the initial months of 1962 followed the motto Armed Coexistence, Jigsaw Pattern. Practically, it meant that while both Armies were building their positions in the Western and Eastern sectors, the governments of China and India continued to ‘coexist’, exchanging voluminous correspondence, sometimes bitter, sometimes more conciliatory. ..

Read more at:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/maos-return-to-power-passed-through-india/0/

 

 

 

INDIA INTOLERANT OF MUSLIMS? RUBBISH

    EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST ARE MOST   

INTOLERANT OF INDIAN MUSLIMS

Amidst a fake atmosphere of Intolerance of Muslims being created in India in the last one month, I must pen my own version of what I, a Muslim lady, living and working in India feel like. This has been due from me since sometime. Now, I feel the water has gone above the head and I too need to share my views. So, here it is.

I am a Muslim lady, a practicing dermatologist by profession and I run my

own high- end laser skin clinic, in Bangalore. I was brought up in Kuwait

and at the age of 18, came to India to pursue medical education. I decided

to stay back in India while almost all my friends left India for greener

pastures. Not even once did I consider that being a Muslim could create a

problem for me, as my sense of nationalism held me back to my roots and so

here I am, serving my country since the last 20 years.

I studied in Manipal, Karnataka. I lived alone like all students do. While I

was in college, all my professors were Hindus and almost all the people who

I would interact with were Hindus as well. There is not a single incident

when anyone showed partiality towards me based on my gender or religion.

Every single one of them was kind and in fact sometimes, I felt as though

they made an extra effort to make feel like I was one of them. I am ever so

grateful to all of them for making my life in Manipal as comfortable as it

could get.

After leaving Manipal, I relocated to Bangalore with my husband. By then I

had been married and so we decided to make our life in Bangalore. There is a

reason, why we chose Bangalore and here is where I will talk about my

husband. He is a Muslim too, with a very typical first name, Iqbal. He is an

aerospace engineer with MTech from IIT-Chennai and PhD from Germany. His

profession takes him to the most highly secured organizations of India, like

DRDO, NAL, HAL, GTRE, ISRO, IISc, BHEL; you name it and be assured that he

has visited all of them without any hassles. Not even once he has been

stripped off or asked for special security clearance or any such bias has

been shown towards him. And NO, things have not changed even after Modi govt came into power. 

Things are in fact more disciplined and streamlined even at government organizations, from what I hear from my husband. As a matter of fact, Iqbal has been completely stripped each time he traveled to US and was

under secret surveillance while he was doing his PhD in Germany, after the

9/11 attacks on US. We literally received a letter from the German

government that he has been cleared and is not anymore under suspicion. Talk

about Muslim paranoia! Its very understandable too due to the current

situations in the world. My husband is highly respected and loved by the

people he works with, and all of them happen to be Hindus. None of this has

changed even in recent times, so Intolerance is just a word for us on a

practical basis.

I opened my clinic last year, just before Modi govt came into power. I am a

law-abiding citizen and I file my taxes like service tax on a monthly basis.

I have never indulged in any activities, which could put me into any kind of

trouble. I am comfortably running my clinic, which is doing very well,

thanks to all my patients and clients, who all happen to be Hindus. A

handful of my patients are from other communities. My entire staff is Hindu,

and believe me when I say that they take better care of my clinic than I

could any day! I interact with bankers, government officers and with so many

people on a daily basis. Not even once in the last 20 years, did I have the

need to even think of leaving India! My entire family lives abroad and all

that I need to do is just decide that I don’t want to stay here. I have open

offers of opening clinic in Kuwait, which would fetch me huge amount of

revenue and yet why should I stay in India, if I am not happy and if I am

facing any kind of bias?

In Kuwait, we are considered as NOBODY. Yes, despite being in Kuwait for the

last 40 years or so, my family is still considered as expatriates, with no

rights. We need to renew our resident permit periodically and the laws there

constantly keep changing, making the life of expatriates only harder. We

have to strictly comply with their rules and laws, which is fine but we are

openly discriminated. They consider Asians as third grade people, while

giving preference to their citizens, Arabs and Whites. We are not unhappy

there but we have no sense of belonging either. At least, I never had and

never have even when I visit Kuwait now. We are Muslims in a Muslim country,

and yet we are considered as Indians with no special regards. 

I figured long ago, that India is the only country, where I will have a sense of

belonging. You are an Indian-American in US, Indian-Canadian in Canada,

Indian-British in UK and so on but only in India you are an Indian. Period.

Rest can say whatever they want and defend their choices but this is a fact.

You can only feel at home, in your own home. I have lived in different

places and everywhere I stand out but in India. Nobody in India asks me,

 ‘Are you an Indian?’, and this is what makes all the difference.

So, what are these celebrities ranting about? An ordinary citizen like my

husband and I are not facing any such issues, then what have they faced? Why is Amir Khan’s wife, Kiran Rao feeling so afraid? They are prominent people,living in posh localities, their children study in the best of schools and

they have personal security escorting them at all times. 

I travel alone everyday and yet don’t feel afraid. I want to know as a responsible citizen, from Amir Khan and Shahrukh Khan as well, why did they make such irresponsible statements and spoil the image of the 13 crores of Muslims in India? Who the hell are they to make public statements based on their personal perception? Who gave them the liberty to tarnish the image of my country on an International level, that Muslims are not safe in India? How

dare Pakistan invites them to stay in Pakistan? I feel hurt when I read the

statements of my Hindu friends on Muslims. I feel afraid that they are being

pushed to the limit and the tolerance and acceptance that I have enjoyed all

these years, might just vanish! I feel afraid that my own people might shun

me and I may get alienated in my own country, because of a handful of

ungrateful bunch of fools! How long can I expect majority of Hindus to

tolerate this nuisance? It’s high time that Muslims understand the value of

the freedom and acceptance that we enjoy in India and if not, I pray that my

Hindu fellow citizens continue to keep their patience.

Abida Hasan
Bengaluru
 

 

Why India Doesn’t Need The Sanitary Napkin Revolution

DELIBERATE DISTORTION OF FACTS TO PORTRAY
INDIA AS A HELLHOLE FOR RURAL WOMEN

Foreign organizations are promoting the need to introduce sanitary napkins in India by saying that 88 percent of Indian women are using cloth. But in their own country they are promoting reusable cloth pads and menstrual cups, citing environmental reasons.

Open any write-up on menstruation in India, and you will find horror stories of how only 12% of Indian women are using Sanitary Napkins and that the others are almost dying from lack of access to such products. You will read about the poor Indian girl in a village who is dropping out of school because she suddenly started her period. And you will read about how India is full of superstitions and menstrual taboos that are coming in the way of us breaking free and embracing our body….and Sanitary Napkins. Yes, these are horror stories; because most of what is written about India and menstruation is not true. And it is on the basis of this false information, that decisions are being made for India.

Interaction with huge masses of women and girls across rural India reveals a disconnect between the reality of the situation and what is projected in the media, by developmental organizations and even by international organizations such as UNICEF and UK’s Water Aid and WASH.

I initially thought, rather naively, that it must be their lack of understanding of the ground reality. Recently, I had the unfortunate privilege to find out why such organizations talk of India as they do. I was invited as one of the key speakers at . It was during the course of the International Conference on Menstrual Health and Reproductive Justice, held in Boston in June 2015, that I discovered what is really going on and the intentions of those who decide for India.

Celebration of Menstrual Hygiene Day in Amra Padatik, India

As I presented the contradictions that exist between the reality in India and what is spoken of, I was welcomed with applause by the audience of feminists and researchers, and avoided by the representatives from organizations who have built their identity (and finances) out of portraying India in poor light. One of the representatives of the large organizations asked me to “modulate” what I speak so that I can build allies! But before I go into that, let me explain the glaring gaps in the menstrual hygiene management initiatives.

Cooking up statistics to create a false need

The most often quoted statistic, is of a study done by A.C Nielson and Plan India, which states “Only 12 percent of India’s 355 million menstruating women use sanitary napkins (Sns). Over 88 percent of women resort to shocking alternatives like unsanitised cloth, ashes and husk sand.” Here is why this study and others like it are incorrect in representing Indian women:

• The lesser known fact about this study is that it only interviewed 1033 women, i.e. < 0.00029 percent of India’s menstruating women! How this sample size is representative of a country as diverse as India is really questionable.

• Even if 88 percent of women might be using cloth, it is absolutely incorrect to club the usage of sand, ash husk in the same percentage bracket. The usage of sand, ash husk or dried leaves for menstrual absorption happen in extreme conditions (less than 01percent), such as in Rajasthan where some women have been using fine sand for ages since water is scarce. In these cases, we need to further investigate if indeed such usage has been detrimental to their health, since such practices have prevailed for hundreds of years. Obviously if such practices were harmful, people would have let it go a long time ago

• On what basis are they calling the cloth ‘unsanitized’? Are the cloth pads being sold by foreign NGOs sanitized? In fact, if we look at the stitched cloth being sold by NGOs, it is more difficult to dry and sanitize it in sunlight because the inner layers are never exposed to sunlight; whereas the loose cloth used by rural Indian women can be opened and dried with complete exposure to sunlight. It is foolish to take a traditional practice such as using cloth, and package it to give it the look of a modern pad, and in the process missing out on the point of maintaining hygiene using cloth!

Pads for India, Reusables for the West

The hypocrisy is such that while foreign organizations are promoting the need to introduce sanitary napkins in India by saying that 88% of Indian women are using cloth, in their own country they are promoting reusable cloth pads and menstrual cups, citing environmental reasons. If that is the case, then India is far ahead of the rest of the world in being environment friendly.

In the light of the latest wave of western feminism, movements (such as the Free Blood Movement) which promote women’s right to bleed without using any product are being applauded and encouraged. At the same time, international organizations look down upon indigenous women who for generations have bled naturally without using any product.

But what took the cake was when, at the conference, an excited American activist told me that I should tie up with one of these cloth-pad making NGOs (which I’d rather not name) to start distributing cloth pads to rural Indian women because it is environment friendly and a safer alternative to sanitary napkins! Imagine the drama of telling our rural women to throw away their piece of menstrual cloth and instead use my packaged version of it, which by the way will also cost them. Imagine teaching her about being environment friendly as a new concept, when all along she has not used a single bit of environmentally damaging menstrual product. Imagine trying to educate her about cloth being healthy, when she and all generations before her have been quietly following natural methods of managing menstruation.

This ridiculous suggestion made me both laugh and seethe with anger.

Are the boys also dropping out due to menstruation, then?

I had the unfortunate opportunity to make my 5 minute presentation at the conference, just after the UNICEF representative, who of course spoke of bringing girls back to school thanks to the toilets they are building and so on. UNICEF’s intervention in Indian schools has been about building toilets, providing Sanitary Napkins and Incinerators, in the name of bringing the girl child back to school.

For the record, let me be clear – I think functional toilets are a necessity in any environment. But the link between the absence of sanitary napkins to menstrual hygiene and therefore school drop-outs is really like a poorly written movie script. Why would a girl stop going to school because she doesn’t use a Sanitary Pad? And if school dropouts are due to menstruation, then what about the boys? In most States of India, we have more boys dropping out of school than girls (according to the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan survey of 2007). So are we going to distribute Sanitary Napkins to boys then?

Yes, sometimes girls take a few days off when they get their period. And so do we adults, if we could afford it. Taking a few days off due to menstrual pain and discomfort is not the same as dropping out of school. Increasingly, doctors recommend that menstruating girls and women honor their period and take the needed rest to avoid menstrual problems. Movements such as the Red Tent movement are built around the idea of getting women to honor their period and take time off.

Modern reusable cloth pads in differing sizes

If and when girls do drop out, the reasons have to do with parents fearing teenage pregnancy, or requiring another hand at home to work. And let’s not forget the really out-dated education system in government schools which does nothing to retain the interest of anyone with the tiniest capacity to think. So no matter how many toilets you build or Sanitary Napkins you distribute, it will not address the problem of bringing the dropouts (boys or girls) back to school.

After I spoke of this disconnect, the UNICEF representative diplomatically clarified, albeit a little later, that they don’t really build toilets to reduce dropouts due to menstruation. And that, it is just a way of bringing children to school in general.

Perhaps, UNICEF would also want to make that correction in all their material on menstruation in India.

Menstrual huts are patriarchal, while Red Tents honor womanhood

Water Aid’s project WASH had put up a “World Taboo Map” at the conference. The idea was to list all menstrual taboos across the world. The Menstrual Hygiene day, an initiative of WASH focused on breaking the taboos such as menstrual seclusion. Menstrual practices are often spoken of as the result of a patriarchal society in India which is deliberately attempting to suppress women. However, our interactions with women of the Golla Community in Karnataka, revealed that women chose these practices inspite of men telling them that they have a choice. (Link to our work with Gollas – Voice of the Gollas)

The glaring contradiction at the same conference was the screening of a film on the new concept of Red Tents, which was applauded and embraced. What is a Red Tent? It is a movement which raises up a Red Tent in local villages, cities and towns (in U.S) to honor blood cycles and womanhood journeys. Here are women from the U.S choosing to take time off during their period and stay in exclusive Red Tents, rather than at home!

So, how different is the Red Tent from the age old practice of seclusion through menstrual huts practiced in rural India? Mind you, even the Bible avers that a menstruating woman is temporarily not clean!

The traditional practices of menstrual seclusion came into being to address practical issues of maintaining hygiene and having privacy and comfort during menstruation, since indigenous women lived in small homes with large joint families. Whereas, the Red Tent and similar new movements have evolved from a somewhat pretentious attempt to honor one’s period. I call it pretentious because there was no sense in why the American women in Red Tents wear Bindis and dance around with Duppattas to native music, trying to imitate practices of ancient societies like India and Africa! (Click here to view the Trailer of the Red Tent)

The manufactured need

Most movements begin with a need. Either a real need or a manufactured one. In the case of the newly emerging space of menstrual hygiene management, the need is a manufactured one; specifically, for sanitary product manufacturing companies to enter the untapped market of India, especially rural India.

Organizations working on menstruation and even Sanitary Napkin companies (Whisper’s ‘Don’t touch the pickle’ ad) have started talking about cultural practices around menstruation by demeaning them as Menstrual Taboos. These institutions, in their attempt to create a market for sanitary products and infrastructure in India, have chosen the path of dismissing all cultural practices around menstruation as regressive taboos, and emphasising that Sanitary Napkins are the progressive expression of the modern woman. Happily joining hands with such organizations are the sold out Indian NGOs, who have made menstruation their means of sustenance.

One can, at best, express their views or disagreement of their own personal belief system. Imposing upon another’s belief system and forcing women to “break the taboo” is unnecessary social engineering. The intent behind such intervention is to uproot the very foundation upon which Indian women have been menstrually independent, by ridiculing traditional practices around menstruation.

India does not need the Sanitary Napkin revolution.

What we do need is a simple solution of providing information in schools and communities on maintaining menstrual hygiene, be it with cloth or pads. And leave it to women to decide what they wish to use.

There is something wrong about everyone deciding for the rural Indian woman, except for herself.

Sinu Joseph