By Manasi Nene
In the new post-GST tax rate list, the tax on pads and tampons has been reduced from 14.5 percent to 12 percent, the standard rate on items that will be used by “the common man”.
Which is a good thing, maybe? We’re glad that these basics will be taxed less, but why be taxed at all?
This is in odd contrast to items like sindoor, bindis and bangles — yes, they are essentials in the lives of most Indian women — which will not be taxed. But perhaps not as pressing as menstrual hygiene products? In contrast, some other non-taxable items are drawing books and frozen meat products.
In a country as large as ours, where half the population needs to spend exorbitantly on pads/tampons, or use alternatives like cloth pads or items made out of wood pulp, why shouldn’t hygiene products enter the lowest tax bracket? Or better yet, be untaxed, and be as cheap as possible? No, we’re not ignoring alternatives like menstrual cups, nor are we overlooking the massive mountains of waste created by other products. It’s just unfortunate that the discourse around the drawbacks of pads and tampons only comes around when women are finally asking if it’s really fair to be paying so much for something so fundamental.
Congress MP Sushmita Dev started a campaign asking Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to do away with the tax on sanitary napkins, and she was even joined by the Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi. A tax reduction from 14.5 percent to 12 percent is better than nothing, yeah, but it’s still far from ideal.
What we want to ask is this. If puja items can be made tax-free, why not menstrual products? And if this question isn’t about gender, then why do bindis and sindoor get the treatment that sanitary napkins don’t? Is the idea of an unmarried woman really that scary?
Getting your first period, even if it doesn’t become a full-fledged celebration, is a rite-of-passage and shouldn’t ever have to be accompanied by any shame. This country has more than 355 million menstruating women. So then why should we have to pay extra?
May 24, 2017 at 9:28 pm
Oh absolutely, not only is the idea of a single woman scary, but any woman – married, unmarried, elderly, girl – the “idea” of how someone born of the female sex, as defined by patriarchy as it exists – puts the ‘burden’, the ‘impetus’, the ‘logic’ of hiding as a means of subjugation under the pretext of ‘protection’. Hence the acceptable norms of visible signs of being ‘cultural’ ‘protected’ ‘honorable’ such as bangles, sindoor, bindis etc. are not only accepted but glorified and hence in economic terms out of tax bracket, whereas the ‘honor’ issues associated with a natural bodily ‘problem’ gets hidden, is not talked about and pushed under the carpet, or ‘ghunghat’ in this case! Why bother about something as tangential to the patriarchal norm as menstruation.
May 24, 2017 at 9:28 pm
someone born of the female sex, as defined by patriarchy as it exists – puts the ‘burden’, the ‘impetus’, the ‘logic’ of hiding as a means of subjugation under the pretext of ‘protection’. Hence the acceptable norms of visible signs of being ‘cultural’ ‘protected’ ‘honorable’ such as bangles, sindoor, bindis etc. are not only accepted but glorified and hence in economic terms out of tax bracket, whereas the ‘honor’ issues associated with a natural bodily ‘problem’ gets hidden, is not talked about and pushed under the carpet, or ‘ghunghat’ in this case! Why bother about something as tangential to the patriarchal norm as menstruation.