Interview: Rani Bang on Healthcare for Impoverished Women in Rural India

The Padma Shri recipient discusses problems faced in rural reproductive health care and how they have changed with time.

Dr. Rani Bang with a patient in Gadchiroli. Credit: (L) Abhijeet Safai/Wikimedia Commons and (R) Rachita Vora

Rani Bang was along with her husband recently awarded the Padma Shri for her immense contribution to medicine. Dr Bang is known for her stellar work in the rural and tribal belt of Gadchiroli, one of the most impoverished districts of India. As co-founders of Society for Education, Action and Research in Community Health (SEARCH), the doctor couple have changed the face of healthcare in this part of Maharashtra. In this interview with IDR, Dr Rani Bang speaks about the state of women’s health and how women continue to suffer under poorly-informed policies.

You started working with the tribal and rural women of Gadchiroli over three decades ago. What was your experience back then of the main health concerns faced by women in these areas?

When I started working in Gadchiroli, I was the only gynaecologist in the district. I did the first caesarean in the area. I found that very little was known about the issues faced by women here. I did a computerised literature search at the National Library of Medicine (in the US) and, to my surprise, there was not a single community-based study to show the prevalence of gynaecological morbidity; all existing studies were clinic- and hospital-based. I thought it was important to get a deeper understanding of what was happening to the health of women in these communities. So, I decided to do the first-ever research on this.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Dr. Rani Bang. Credit: Rachita Vora/IDR
But I wanted to first understand what the women themselves felt. I talked to several women from different villages in the district. When I asked them what their common health problems were, they listed many; so, I asked them to list these problems in the order of seriousness. To my surprise, all of them put obstructed labour and infertility in the most serious category.

I was surprised, because I always believed that only a life-threatening condition could be seen as a serious disease. Thus, while listing obstructed labour as a serious issue was understandable, I was taken aback to see infertility as a top concern because nobody dies of infertility.

I asked the women why they put infertility as a serious disease, and they said, ‘A woman can die of obstructed labour only once, but if she has infertility, she dies every day because everybody blames her.’ This set me thinking and I realised how deep the problem ran: come to think of it, Marathi has a word for an infertile woman, but no equivalent for an infertile man!

My study in the region revealed that nearly 92% of the women had gynaecological problems – and these were not just related to pregnancy and childbirth; there were menstrual problems, reproductive tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and so on. Criminal abortions by quacks were rampant, despite India having one of the most progressive laws for medical termination of pregnancy.

A deeper investigation helped me identify the missing links as far as healthcare services for women were concerned: the absence of care for gynaecological problems, reproductive tract infections and STDs; absence of adolescent sex-education; lack of access to safe,  low-cost and easily available abortion services; lack of access to contraception products.

I took the results of the study to global platforms, including the UN, and argued that we should not be limiting our view of women’s health to just maternal and child health (MCH) as was the case then. From the age of menarche up to death, women have so many other problems that need to be considered. Even the ante-natal care, post-natal care and intra-natal care was so poor. I said that we should be concerned with women and child health (WCH) rather than MCH.

How was the study received globally? Did it have an impact on the contemporary discussion on women’s health?

After the study was published by The Lancet in 1989, it was taken up by many women’s groups around the world. I was invited to conferences and meetings to present the findings.

In 1992, I was invited to the World Health Assembly, which was attended by ministers from various countries and governmental health staff. I was the only non-government worker there. I presented my study and received the appreciation of representatives from all over the world. I also spoke at the UN Assembly in Nairobi, where I said that family planning should be a way to improve the health of women and children, rather than just being linked to population control targets. And the speakers agreed with me.

In 1994, at a UN meeting in Cairo, there was a consensus on adopting WCH in place of MCH. Thus, a study conducted in two small villages in a remote district of India changed the level of discussion internationally and that gave me a great sense of satisfaction.

Do you think that the public healthcare system continues to have a fractured view of women’s healthcare needs?

Women’s reproductive health is the most neglected thing in our society.  When I started working with the communities, women’s health was equated with only childbirth and family planning, which was an important agenda of the national health programme at that time. The situation is not very different even today.


Also read