Ending gendered brutality in India's sugar fields

Hey there!

I imagine that many people reading this will know what it’s like to have had a painful period – from excruciating cramps to nausea and dizziness. Others may relate to having to work through another form of chronic pain. In this situation maybe you go to the doctor, perhaps you seek pain relief, you may even call in sick.

But would you have a hysterectomy? For many women working in the sugarcane industry in Maharashtra, India, having their wombs removed felt like their only option. One local government survey of 82,000 female sugar-cane workers found that roughly one in five had had the procedure. But why?

Last year, The New York Times and the non-profit newsroom the Fuller Project, came together to investigate the connection between cutting sugarcane and hysterectomies. What they found was an abusive system, where women were convinced a hysterectomy was their only option. The impacts of the investigation reached Wall Street, women farmer groups in India, and the global drinks companies buying the sugar.

And forced hysterectomies were just one part of the story. The team found child marriage, gruelling working conditions, poor labour rights and crippling debt bondage, all in the name of sugar.

Several had their wombs removed on the advice of doctors as a solution to period pain or an extreme form of uterine cancer prevention. A hysterectomy also allows women to keep working, without needing to take time for doctor visits or having to menstruate in a field with no access to toilets, running water, or shelter.

Megha told me: “We went to the field, and we saw how they work. The work itself is staggering to behold – just how much work they put in, in terms of harvesting sugar cane, and then also all the domestic work – building a fire, cooking meals, taking care of children and all of those things.”

Photography was a huge part of telling the story. Accompanying the articles are stunning photos by Saumya Khandelwal. Women in bright saris loading the harvest onto a truck, the industrial mills processing the sugarcane, women carrying water, and young children sleeping in the fields.

There are also interior shots of women in their homes. Some women chose to show the scars of their operations – others felt uncomfortable with it. “We had a whole discussion about it,” Megha said. “When I went in, I was very reluctant, because this is a conservative society. And I think even if it wasn't, for anybody to show that vulnerability, that part of their body, would be really, really difficult.”

Some of the women just weren’t interested in being photographed, Megha said. But others were very forthcoming. “There were a lot of women who really wanted to be part of this and to show their bodies,” she said. “They wanted people to see this, like a marker of what they had been through, this really traumatic experience.”

That said, that level of vulnerability comes with a cost. I also chatted to Seema Kulkarni, an activist for women who’d been working on the issue for years when the NYT story came out. She told me: “Some of us felt discomfort about the use of certain images, particularly those showing women's bodies in ways that didn’t sit well with many women.” It’s a balancing act – I can see why the NYT made the choices they did, and I’m not sure if there was a better way to do it.

Still, Seema said, the “commendable” story was told sensitively. You can read more from Seema later about the work done by her organisation to improve the rights of women working in the fields.

When the first investigations came out, both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo confirmed that they buy sugar from Maharashtra. In the months that followed Megha stayed on the story, reporting on the political ties to labour abuses and how the workers were trapped in debt bondage.

After the stories came out, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund launched their own investigation into one of the companies in its portfolio. And then the New York City comptroller, who oversees hundreds of billions in public pensions, also applied pressure on the sugar buyers. His office worked with labour leaders in India, investor coalitions and unions to push the drinks companies to address these shocking issues in their supply chains.

There’s still progress being made too. Just last month a coalition of human rights and labour groups came together to form the India Sugar Industry Workers Association (ISWA), modelled on the US Fair Food Programme.

“I have been working on the issues of women farmers for over three decades. Makaam’s main objective when it was set up in 2014 was to centre the voice and recognition of women as farmers, because they are not. They’re either unpaid labour, family labour, somebody’s widow, a mother or daughter, and never really farmers in their own rights.

The conventional understanding of farmers is landowners and therefore it’s those who benefit from programs and schemes. Makaam has challenged and countered this. If we look at the most recent data, 76% of women working in the rural economy are engaged in agriculture. If you’re talking about such a large population then we need to recognise them as farmers, irrespective of whether or not they own land.

A 2019 article in the Hindu Business Line about large numbers of women farmers having hysterectomies was a wake up call for me. It was a call to action and we organised with health activists and feminist groups to have a dialogue. Most importantly, we got the legislators to start thinking about this. The issue is very particular to the state, but it raised national interest as well.

The New York Times article elevated the issue to the global level and brought the corporations into the picture. It was an important contribution because our role was asking the state government and the sugar factories to act and be more responsive. This was not just limited to hysterectomy and reproductive health but the overall working conditions. So we were targeting these actors. But what The New York Times did was to bring the focus on the large corporate buyers of sugar: Coke, Pepsi and larger food companies importing sugar from Maharashtra.

That spotlight was very important. There was a global conversation and it also put the state government and sugar factories in a tight spot. I think that global noise was very important.

For us it’s really about how proactive our sugar factories become. We would like them to be accountable and answerable to the workers. One of the factories named in the NYT article actually did start providing potable water to one of the sites, so that’s positive. But there’s a long way to go in the context of women’s health and more specifically reproductive health.

The article came in at a very good time, because we were actively engaged with governments. We already had protest movements and so it all came together and complemented each other well. It certainly did build morale. Right now we are being heard and our issues are being heard.

The typical male-centric movements have also started recognising women’s issues and bringing these onto their agenda. So I would say that a combination of many of these things including the article did build morale and centre the issue.”

This story certainly makes me think about what goes into a fizzy drink. I’m also grateful to not have to labour through such intense pain that a hysterectomy seems like my only option.

In the words of Megha: “I feel like the thing that stayed with me so viscerally is just the loss of bodily autonomy.”

Until next week take care,