This post has been self-published on Youth Ki Awaaz by Youth Ki Awaaz. Just like them, anyone can publish on Youth Ki Awaaz.

The Doctor You Didn”t Show And The Saint You Didn”t See: A Reply To Arundhati Roy

More from Youth Ki Awaaz

By Abir Misra:

There is no absolute ‘objective’ scientific analysis…of ‘social phenomenon’ independent of special and ‘one sided’ viewpoints according to which — expressly or tacitly, consciously or unconsciously — they are selected, analysed and organised for expository purposes…All the analysis of infinite reality which the finite mind can conduct rests on the tacit assumption that only a small portion of this reality constitutes the object of this reality and that only it is ‘important’ in the sense of being ‘worthy of being known’”— Max Weber.


Reading the excerpts from ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ published in the Caravan Magazine almost instinctively reminded me of the words of Max Weber. Since the writer of the article claims the analytical points she made are the results of a ‘research’, it becomes imperative to investigate what led her to the conclusions that she has presented. She has clearly quoted and presented those views of Gandhi which she personally thought were ‘worth of being known’ while at the same time trying to neutralise the effects of her undoubted and popular bias against him by cunningly confessing that he said everything and its opposite as well. I hereby intend to somewhat show the side she didn’t see or deliberately chose to ignore for reasons purely and surely political. I intend to tackle only certain views put forward in the introduction and not analyse the introduction as a whole. The publisher of The Annihilation of Caste and the writer of the introduction to the book seem to be having different ideologies and viewpoints. But what is common to those two viewpoints and also to both the individuals in person is their well known dislike for Gandhi. Identifying a common enemy always makes professional fusion seem more beautiful.

The first issue I would like to take up is the issue of Gandhi’s Mahatmahood. The writer saw Gandhi’s claim to be the representative of the untouchables as a sign of him actually believing in his Mahatmahood. For her, a Bania can never represent or speak for the Dalits. Ambedkar and only Ambedkar could be the rightful leader of the untouchables by virtue of his own caste origins. Going by that logic one fails to understand how she can herself claim to speak for Ambedkar, Dalits and of course tribals. She clearly does not look at herself from the same lens with which she looks at Gandhi. Even with respect to Ambedkar’s claims of representing all untouchables, she tends to ignore uncomfortable questions like those related to the subsequent failure of Ambedkar’s own political party even among dalits. By virtue of being introduced to Ambedkar only recently, she may have judged the past in lieu of the present popularity of Ambedkar among the dalits which is the result of strong rhetorical anti Gandhian politics over the years. In all historical fairness, there were a huge number of Gandhian Harijans (who were later on sidelined and rendered invisible by the radical dalits in the post independence era) in those days and neither Gandhi’s nor Ambedkar’s claims of being the leader of all untouchables at that time were devoid of egoism. As for the Mahatmahood, it is a tag Gandhi fought all his life. Rabindranath Tagore had once commented ‘Perhaps he will fail as the Buddha failed and Christ failed to wean men of their iniquities but he will always be remembered as the one who made his life a lesson for all ages to come’. During Gandhi’s lifetime, Romain Rolland had already tagged him as the ‘Second Christ’. Many years later Martin Luther King was to say ‘Christ gave us the goal, and Gandhi gave us the methods’. Even the writer of the essay herself refers to Gandhi as the saint in the title. However, one voice that is absent here is Gandhi’s Himself. He had said —

I deny being a visionary. I do not accept the claim of saintliness. I am of the earth, earthy….. I am prone to as many weaknesses as you are. But I have seen the world. I have lived in the world with my eyes open. (1920)

On another instance he had commented ‘I can give no guarantee that I will do or believe tomorrow what I do or hold to be true today. God alone is omniscient. Man in the flesh is essentially imperfect’. He clearly made no claims of knowing everything and treated his changing views as a sign of his imperfection.

The writer may have not seen these comments or maybe she chose to ignore them. Nevertheless they do give an alternative insight into the man who she claims was drowned in his own Mahatmahood. And at the same time, the writer seems to have totally ignored the representation of Ambedkar as a godlike figure among the Dalits who love to place him alongside Gautama Buddha. In a speech in the constituent assembly dated 25th November, 1949, Dr. Ambedkar (While quoting John Stuart Mill) had warned all those who are interested in the maintenance of Democracy not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with power which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This statement supposedly aimed at Gandhi at that time can well be ironically used as a warning today for Ambedkarites themselves.

gandhi-ambedkarThe second issue I would like to take up is the issue of Gandhi’s views about the natives whom he referred to as Kaffirs. The writer of the article takes Gandhi’s views about the native community as his views on race as a whole and tags his efforts to distinguish Indians from the natives as a sign of his racism. It is again part of a larger politico-rhetorical argument which tries to present Gandhi as someone who spoke only for the privileged and not for the oppressed. In the writer’s argument there seems to be an assumption that Gandhi trying to differentiate Indians (coolies) from Natives (Kaffirs) was a sure shot indicator of him seeing the two as ‘unequal’ rather than simply as ‘different’. The lines dividing difference with inequality are not always clear and it is easy for the former to give way to the latter via prejudices. The writer has made good use of this ambiguity to present Gandhi as racist rather than someone who saw natives or Kaffirs as merely ‘different’ from the Indians. However, it must be kept in mind that her views are purely interpretive and can never be seen in isolation from her ideological biases. She presents a quotation as evidence of Gandhi’s arguably racist views. However I would like to present another quotation here —

“The only matter of satisfaction during the discussion on the resolution was that Messers, Mackie Neven, Quinn, Rockey, and Pim did not forget that the Kaffirs, too, were human beings and raised their voice [of protest] against their unwarranted humiliation. But theirs was a cry in the wilderness. Nevertheless, they deserve our respect for giving expression to their true thoughts unmindful of popular sentiment”.

Talking here about ‘Attack on the Kaffirs’ his views appear to be rather sympathetic towards the natives and supportive of their cause. He may not have taken up their cause but was with them in spirit. Moreover, the author also ignored other facts like the role Gandhi played in voluntarily tending to native victims during the Zulu War although it was clearly not within the scope of his duties in the Ambulance corps. He volunteered for active service during the wars for the simple reason that he saw the Indian’s claims of rights as empty without a commitment to duties as British citizens. If Indians were to ask for rights as British citizens, they were to necessarily perform their duties as citizens of the empire too. But working for the British did not make him lose sight of the miseries of the native soldiers and he tended to them with equal sincerity. Even if his views can be interpreted as racist, his actual practices suggest on the contrary. The writer clearly chose to judge Gandhi based what he ‘said’ and not on what he actually ‘practised’. In addition, the writer ignores the fact that the story of Gandhi is also the story of a man who, by virtue of being aware of his imperfections, constantly tried to overcome his weaknesses and constantly fought against his own prejudices. Moreover, while he called the Kaffirs unhygienic, he was equally disgusted by the unhygienic ways of the Indians themselves. Why Gandhi tried to differentiate Indians from Natives was purely for the purpose of his politics and not for reasons racist. He saw himself as the leaders of the Indians alone and not the natives. He resisted the idea of Indians and Natives being tagged under the common category of ‘Coloured’ people for the simple reason that he recognised a divergence of interest between the original inhabitants of the land and the Indians who migrated to South Africa for purposes of trade and other activities. He refused to club Indians and natives together simply because they both faced racial discrimination. Clubbing the two together would have led to ignoring of differences among them by the whites. There were innumerable cultural differences and prejudices among the two communities and Gandhi did not intend to bridge the gap between the two as it would have taken years to accomplish it. His task in South Africa was a relatively hurried one. He instead focused his attention on securing rights for the Indians and then quickly returning back home. However, before going back he did leave behind the legacy of his methods which were used by the natives to gain their freedom and fight apartheid.

On reflection, one fails to understand how Gandhi’s views about natives have a bearing on the Gandhi – Ambedkar debate. Elaborating on Gandhi’s views on caste would have been sufficient. It’s a game of perceptions that is being played here. However, while the writer criticises Gandhi for his supposedly racist views about the Blacks, she makes no mention of Ambedkar’s views about Blacks even for the sake of pretended fairness in comparing the two. In addition also she goes totally silent on Ambedkar’s views about the Tribals which, in a recent interview, she herself confessed were rather ‘patronising’.

Now finally coming to the question of caste. The writer mentions Ambedkar’s critique of the nationalist movement as tending only to the interests of the higher castes. His concerns were not without merit. However, unlike what the author tries to portray, it was not something that Gandhi failed to notice or was not worried about. Both Gandhi and Ambedkar were equally interested in removal of untouchability. Gandhi had said —

As in the matter of Hindu-Muslim unity so has there been misrepresentation in the matter of untouchability. It has been stated that I am sacrificing the interest of the untouchables for the sake of swaraj. I know that the lacks of untouchables will not believe any such thing of me. For me just as there is no swaraj without communal unity, so is there no swaraj without the removal of untouchability. But what I do feel is that without swaraj there will be neither communal unity nor removal of untouchability. He who runs may see that it is to the interest of the ruling caste to keep up the divisions among us. That caste (ruling caste) is no more interested in Hindus and Mussalmans coming together than in the removal of untouchability”

This brings me to the conclusion that the essay ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ is part of the unfortunate but continuing tendency to see Gandhi and Ambedkar as two sides of a see-saw. So for one to go up, the other has to be pulled down. This is what the writer is trying to do here. True she tries to balance things a bit by praising Gandhi’s views about modernity and industrialisation. But the inherent bias in her choice of quotations and events used to criticise Gandhi cannot be missed at all. I agree that history has been relatively unfair on Ambedkar. But to undo that, we can’t start being unfair to Gandhi. They probably unknowingly agreed on many issues as is apparent from the quotation above. The existence of a middle ground between the two has been pointed out my many scholars. Instead of seeing them as two sides of a see-saw we must visualise a plateau that both have to climb. Gandhi climbed it earlier which perhaps gave the impression of him actually occupying a saintly peak. But now is the time for Ambedkar to rise and stand with Gandhi side by side on top of the plateau. There is enough to learn from both of them. This game of pitching the two against one another is played for petty political satisfaction serves no real purpose as such. The writer of the introduction fails to raise herself above considerations of petty ideological and political satisfaction and is found wanting in trying keep up the pretention of supra-political objectivity.

All history is history from particular points of view. The essay ‘The Doctor and the Saint’ must be seen as ‘one’ history and not ‘the’ History. The reader must remain conscious of the subjective biases and prejudices of the writer and publisher that are in play here. The same applies to my own article as well. I am a novice as compared to the academic credentials of the writer I have here tried to criticise. I am no match to her in terms of writing skills and intellectual depth. But still I felt a grave need to present a response to an article that seemed horrifyingly biased. It’s my effort in trying to restore some kind of balance.

Additional Sources:
1. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi
2. Lelyveld, J. (2011) Great Soul – Mahatma Gandhi and his struggle with India. New York: Alfred A Knopf
3. Ebine, K. (2011). Gandhi – A Manga Biography. New Delhi: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd.

You must be to comment.
  1. Samyak

    Hope this website will publish response from Dalit’s side too. They also have youth, being voice of youth is not monopoly of few.

    1. abiraud

      The introduction by Roy has been been severely criticised by dalits also. Checking the page of roundtable india would expose you to a lot of debates. This ofcourse is a critique from gandhian perpective which was somewhat missing in the larger debates this introduction has ignited.

  2. Sanith Sriram Menon

    Sir, this is a commendable effort from your part to correct the mis inrepreted facts.. It is a truth that the gandhian ideologies are purposefully misinterpreted for political reason.. Such a biased intoduction by such a renowned author is disappointing..

    1. Harbans Lal Badhan

      Indian Caste system is more dangerous and harmful than chemical weapons. It (Indian Caste system) divides the society and state. It (Indian Caste system)
      It (Indian Caste system) kills the democratic institutions and secular character of state and society. It (Indian Caste system) is also an enemy of social justice, equality, liberty and fraternity.
      Indian Caste system slaughters the fundamental rights and human rights of an individual. It (Indian Caste system) is also a great threat and challenge to world peace and unity. Indian Caste system is more dangerous, hard, rigid, violent and worst than any kind of racial discrimination or slavery system.

  3. Kento Tanyi Tamuk

    Kudos to you @Abir…. Perhaps i can add some points.The subjective biased in her writings is very much evident and i think she is well aware of it.Her writings reflects a commonsensical objectivity necessitated by her style. And therefore, they appeal more to common people than to the so-called intellectual. Her writings necessarily negates the ideology of the saint by bringing in her own subjectivity and perhaps answer in many ways why Gandhi is not the Mahatma of the Dalits (or herself maybe) and also why contemporary Dalits are ‘anti- Gandian’ as you said. Regarding your view on history, it’s true, but the idea of history is not to be ‘the history’, rather to see how far can we reconstruct history using those evidences or viewpoints(as you have called it). and also one will be drawn into the same subjective bias if they choose to ignore those viewpoints.(a point you have admitted in your concluding remarks). Other than this, i must say a well written piece of Reply.

  4. guneetnarula

    When have the privileged, upper castes & classes ever criticized Gandhi. He has been shoved down the throats of every child in school since independence to make him/her “educated.” And when someone does dare to pick on the parts of his life that have been kept away from public view, we hear cries of “subjective bias and prejudice.” Not surprisingly. The politics of privilege are hard to acknowledge anyway.

    The debate on who gets to represent who is a long and complex one and has been well listened to and also well responded to. It will rightfully continue in the future as well, whereas your critique ignores the politics of that completely by saying ‘someone’s got to take Gandhi’s side.’ Well the State takes his side very staunchly and very violently to build a semblance of a nation that we live in. Each of your points is based on a shaky premise and that’s why they fall apart. A recent article in the Hindu did a wonderful job to understand the position of the book, the essay and the urgent need for the Doctor in present times.

    1. abiraud

      The high castes have never really liked Gandhi. when he admitted harijans in his ashrams they said he is challenging the authority of hindu sacred texts. when he went about stopping communal riots during partition, they said he was pro muslims and got him assasinated. The Indian state also is extremely hypocritical in its representation of gandhi. The sate never followed any of his principles. He is seen on parliaments, currency notes etc which are things he never liked. A reading of his works would reveal that Gandhi was as anti state as for example Mao was. In gandhi’s name the state does all kinds of shitty things.
      Gandhi has been criticised for long by many scholars and rightfully so. But Roy i believe was not the right person to write this introduction because her understanding of both gandhi and ambedkar is shaky. The best writing on the Gandhi-ambedkar debate is D.R. Nagraj’s Flaming Feet. its a must read.

  5. Gaurav Somwanshi

    I agree with some of your points, while disagree with most of them. When you say that ‘both Gandhi and Ambedkar wanted to remove untouchability’ then that shows your grave misunderstanding of Ambedkar, and it’s a serious flaw. Because Gandhi, like you, believed that caste system is all about untouchability, while Ambedkar wanted the ‘annihilation of the concept of caste’.

    I’ve tried to bring in Gandhian Hindu Reformism and Ambedkar’s view of reform, in my following article:

    1. abiraud

      I think i did not make my point on untouchability very clear. I am aware of ambedkar’s views on caste as a ‘division of labourers’ marked by both reverence and contempt. And he clearly said that each layer, except the lowest, is interested in keeping the system intact. So then we must ask what is it that makes the system undesirable for the lowest layer? the answer is untouchabiity. while dalits are subjected to immense misery, the system works pretty well for the rest. So when i say both ambedkar and gandhi were interested in removal of untouchability I aim to point out an issue on which they were in agreement. They both wanted untouchability to go. neither of them wanted it to stay. Nowhere have i said that ambedkar was ‘only’ interested in removing untouchability. he clearly went beyond it. His larger philosophy was that there will be outcastes as long as there were castes.

    2. Gaurav Somwanshi

      Again, please do read Annihiliation of caste and don’t just stop at Arundhati Roy’s introduction of it (that too just an excerpt?).

      When you said “the system works pretty well for the rest.” then that goes dead against Ambedkar’s views. Ambedkar was against the very “labelling” done on the basis of birth, because he believed that such labelling inhibits Indians from having a common identity. As I explain in my aforementioned article, this is what Amebdkar has to say:

      “Caste is a notion; it is a state of the mind”, writes Ambedkar, which prevents us from having a “consciousness of kind”8. By “consciousness of kind”, Ambedkar was invoking the phrase coined by American sociologist Franklin Giddings, who defined it as, “a state of consciousness in which any being, whether low or high in the scale of life, recognises another conscious being as of like kind with itself.”

      Also, the very practice of “untouchability” is such a irrelevant issue because the notion of “disgust/being different” can manifest itself in a hundred forms. And it won’t go away unless you do away with the labelling of caste. Ambedkar spends a good 10 pages explaining what is wrong with just the “labelling”, even for upper castes!

      Also, I think you said in the comment that “it works best for everyone else”. No, it doesn’t my dear, the varnasharama doesn’t work well for anyone. Because then the females of the upper caste are subject to patriarchy, as caste can exist (even for upper ones) by controlling the sexuality of the women, another point I explain in my article.

      I urge you to read ‘Annihilation of caste’, then the entire essay by Arundhati Roy. If you want to read Gandhian Hindu Reformism in detail (and its critique) then you can refer to this article along with the notes provided below for further reading.:

      Otherwise what you are doing is only beating straw man arguments. You erect your views about people’s goals, then falsify those goals, and shout victory. Instead, please learn the “actual” goals of people were, and then deal with those”actual” goals.

  6. Prashant Kaushik

    Dear Abir Misra..
    after reading this article I am your Fan !!! Respect!!

  7. Harbans Lal Badhan

    Mahatma Gandhi was an orthodox, fundamentalist Sanatni Hindu. He (Mahatma Gandhi) was also a staunch supporter of Varna system and Caste system. Both Varna and Caste are the father and mother of Untouchability. To believe in Untouchability and Caste is not only a crime against humanity, but also a violation of human rights and fundamental rights of an individual. Up to his (Mahatma Gandhi) last day, he ( Mahatma Gandhi ) strongly opposed the peaceful and democratic movement of Dr. Ambedkar. As every one knows that Dr. Ambedkar was fighting for equality and liberty and also for the Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of the Untouchables (Dalits) of India. Mahatma Gandhi took Fast till death, on September 20, 1932 at Pune, to crush and kill the Political Rights, Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of the Untouchables (Dailts) of India. Every one knows that Varna and Caste in Hinduism, are the enemies of Unity of society, nation and state and also the enemies of liberty, equality and fraternity. Varna and Caste divides the society and state. Mahatma Gandhi was not only Casteist but also a Racist. Please note it “Dr. Ambedkar, the great son of the universe is not only the father of the Indian Constitution but also an architect of New India” He (Dr, Ambedkar) was a great genius of the world. He ( Dr Ambedkar ) wanted to Annihilate Caste system, for the economic, social and scientific development and progress of Nation and Society.

    “Arundhati Roy deserves congratulations.”

    1. Harbans Lal Badhan

      ” The whole world knows that Dr. Ambedkar is the heart and the brain of the Untouchables (Dalits ) of India.'
      (Harbans Lal Badhan)

  8. Gaurav

    indians / hindus had fallen for the biggest trick, the nationalist element is not fooled by this article or any other piece of propoganda. we know that gandhi was a muslim package meant to eliminate hindus and so obviously he did not hit caste as hard as ambedkar. his job is done, partition is done. thank god(se) for ensuring that he could not do any more damage

  9. Gaurav

    Abir is a good writer, but even he has made a mistake. in the second para writer writes – — Ambedkar could be the rightful leader of the untouchables by virtue of his own caste origins — clearly shows that Abir himself believes in caste system. all that effort and in the end writer confirms that he does not believe in merit, because only an individual who believes in merit can forgo caste completely

  10. Harbans Lal Badhan

    “The Untouchables (Dalits) of India, want economic, social, political, religious and educational equality in Society, not in the eyes of God”
    (Harbans Lal Badhan)

More from Youth Ki Awaaz

Similar Posts

By Zen

By Khushbu Gupta

By Amisha Das

Wondering what to write about?

Here are some topics to get you started

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

An ambassador and trained facilitator under Eco Femme (a social enterprise working towards menstrual health in south India), Sanjina is also an active member of the MHM Collective- India and Menstrual Health Alliance- India. She has conducted Menstrual Health sessions in multiple government schools adopted by Rotary District 3240 as part of their WinS project in rural Bengal. She has also delivered training of trainers on SRHR, gender, sexuality and Menstruation for Tomorrow’s Foundation, Vikramshila Education Resource Society, Nirdhan trust and Micro Finance, Tollygunj Women In Need, Paint It Red in Kolkata.

Now as an MH Fellow with YKA, she’s expanding her impressive scope of work further by launching a campaign to facilitate the process of ensuring better menstrual health and SRH services for women residing in correctional homes in West Bengal. The campaign will entail an independent study to take stalk of the present conditions of MHM in correctional homes across the state and use its findings to build public support and political will to take the necessary action.

Saurabh has been associated with YKA as a user and has consistently been writing on the issue MHM and its intersectionality with other issues in the society. Now as an MHM Fellow with YKA, he’s launched the Right to Period campaign, which aims to ensure proper execution of MHM guidelines in Delhi’s schools.

The long-term aim of the campaign is to develop an open culture where menstruation is not treated as a taboo. The campaign also seeks to hold the schools accountable for their responsibilities as an important component in the implementation of MHM policies by making adequate sanitation infrastructure and knowledge of MHM available in school premises.

Read more about his campaign.

Harshita is a psychologist and works to support people with mental health issues, particularly adolescents who are survivors of violence. Associated with the Azadi Foundation in UP, Harshita became an MHM Fellow with YKA, with the aim of promoting better menstrual health.

Her campaign #MeriMarzi aims to promote menstrual health and wellness, hygiene and facilities for female sex workers in UP. She says, “Knowledge about natural body processes is a very basic human right. And for individuals whose occupation is providing sexual services, it becomes even more important.”

Meri Marzi aims to ensure sensitised, non-discriminatory health workers for the needs of female sex workers in the Suraksha Clinics under the UPSACS (Uttar Pradesh State AIDS Control Society) program by creating more dialogues and garnering public support for the cause of sex workers’ menstrual rights. The campaign will also ensure interventions with sex workers to clear misconceptions around overall hygiene management to ensure that results flow both ways.

Read more about her campaign.

MH Fellow Sabna comes with significant experience working with a range of development issues. A co-founder of Project Sakhi Saheli, which aims to combat period poverty and break menstrual taboos, Sabna has, in the past, worked on the issue of menstruation in urban slums of Delhi with women and adolescent girls. She and her team also released MenstraBook, with menstrastories and organised Menstra Tlk in the Delhi School of Social Work to create more conversations on menstruation.

With YKA MHM Fellow Vineet, Sabna launched Menstratalk, a campaign that aims to put an end to period poverty and smash menstrual taboos in society. As a start, the campaign aims to begin conversations on menstrual health with five hundred adolescents and youth in Delhi through offline platforms, and through this community mobilise support to create Period Friendly Institutions out of educational institutes in the city.

Read more about her campaign. 

A student from Delhi School of Social work, Vineet is a part of Project Sakhi Saheli, an initiative by the students of Delhi school of Social Work to create awareness on Menstrual Health and combat Period Poverty. Along with MHM Action Fellow Sabna, Vineet launched Menstratalk, a campaign that aims to put an end to period poverty and smash menstrual taboos in society.

As a start, the campaign aims to begin conversations on menstrual health with five hundred adolescents and youth in Delhi through offline platforms, and through this community mobilise support to create Period Friendly Institutions out of educational institutes in the city.

Find out more about the campaign here.

A native of Bhagalpur district – Bihar, Shalini Jha believes in equal rights for all genders and wants to work for a gender-equal and just society. In the past she’s had a year-long association as a community leader with Haiyya: Organise for Action’s Health Over Stigma campaign. She’s pursuing a Master’s in Literature with Ambedkar University, Delhi and as an MHM Fellow with YKA, recently launched ‘Project अल्हड़ (Alharh)’.

She says, “Bihar is ranked the lowest in India’s SDG Index 2019 for India. Hygienic and comfortable menstruation is a basic human right and sustainable development cannot be ensured if menstruators are deprived of their basic rights.” Project अल्हड़ (Alharh) aims to create a robust sensitised community in Bhagalpur to collectively spread awareness, break the taboo, debunk myths and initiate fearless conversations around menstruation. The campaign aims to reach at least 6000 adolescent girls from government and private schools in Baghalpur district in 2020.

Read more about the campaign here.

A psychologist and co-founder of a mental health NGO called Customize Cognition, Ritika forayed into the space of menstrual health and hygiene, sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights and gender equality as an MHM Fellow with YKA. She says, “The experience of working on MHM/SRHR and gender equality has been an enriching and eye-opening experience. I have learned what’s beneath the surface of the issue, be it awareness, lack of resources or disregard for trans men, who also menstruate.”

The Transmen-ses campaign aims to tackle the issue of silence and disregard for trans men’s menstruation needs, by mobilising gender sensitive health professionals and gender neutral restrooms in Lucknow.

Read more about the campaign here.

A Computer Science engineer by education, Nitisha started her career in the corporate sector, before realising she wanted to work in the development and social justice space. Since then, she has worked with Teach For India and Care India and is from the founding batch of Indian School of Development Management (ISDM), a one of its kind organisation creating leaders for the development sector through its experiential learning post graduate program.

As a Youth Ki Awaaz Menstrual Health Fellow, Nitisha has started Let’s Talk Period, a campaign to mobilise young people to switch to sustainable period products. She says, “80 lakh women in Delhi use non-biodegradable sanitary products, generate 3000 tonnes of menstrual waste, that takes 500-800 years to decompose; which in turn contributes to the health issues of all menstruators, increased burden of waste management on the city and harmful living environment for all citizens.

Let’s Talk Period aims to change this by

Find out more about her campaign here.

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

A former Assistant Secretary with the Ministry of Women and Child Development in West Bengal for three months, Lakshmi Bhavya has been championing the cause of menstrual hygiene in her district. By associating herself with the Lalana Campaign, a holistic menstrual hygiene awareness campaign which is conducted by the Anahat NGO, Lakshmi has been slowly breaking taboos when it comes to periods and menstrual hygiene.

A Gender Rights Activist working with the tribal and marginalized communities in india, Srilekha is a PhD scholar working on understanding body and sexuality among tribal girls, to fill the gaps in research around indigenous women and their stories. Srilekha has worked extensively at the grassroots level with community based organisations, through several advocacy initiatives around Gender, Mental Health, Menstrual Hygiene and Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) for the indigenous in Jharkhand, over the last 6 years.

Srilekha has also contributed to sustainable livelihood projects and legal aid programs for survivors of sex trafficking. She has been conducting research based programs on maternal health, mental health, gender based violence, sex and sexuality. Her interest lies in conducting workshops for young people on life skills, feminism, gender and sexuality, trauma, resilience and interpersonal relationships.

A Guwahati-based college student pursuing her Masters in Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bidisha started the #BleedwithDignity campaign on the technology platform, demanding that the Government of Assam install
biodegradable sanitary pad vending machines in all government schools across the state. Her petition on has already gathered support from over 90000 people and continues to grow.

Bidisha was selected in’s flagship program ‘She Creates Change’ having run successful online advocacy
campaigns, which were widely recognised. Through the #BleedwithDignity campaign; she organised and celebrated World Menstrual Hygiene Day, 2019 in Guwahati, Assam by hosting a wall mural by collaborating with local organisations. The initiative was widely covered by national and local media, and the mural was later inaugurated by the event’s chief guest Commissioner of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) Debeswar Malakar, IAS.

Sign up for the Youth Ki Awaaz Prime Ministerial Brief below