It's time to treat sanitary pads as essentials, not luxury goods

When a young Pakistani lawyer, Mahnoor Omer, walked into the Lahore High Court to appeal against the 40% tax on sanitary pads, she forced her nation to confront an embarrassing question: why should women be fined for a biological function beyond their control?

In her petition, she argues that taxing menstrual hygiene products as luxury goods contradicts constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and basic rights. The case has sparked debate across Pakistan about what it truly means to treat women fairly — not symbolically, but substantively.

The same argument holds true in Bangladesh. Millions of Bangladeshi women cannot afford sanitary pads, particularly those living in low-income households and rural areas. The use of unsafe cloth substitutes remains widespread. 

Despite Bangladesh waiving VAT on raw materials used to produce pads, the effect on retail prices has been negligible. The Pakistani petition highlights a truth we cannot ignore: menstruation is not a luxury, and menstrual health products should not be priced — or taxed — as if they are.

The Constitution of Bangladesh enshrines gender equality as strongly as Pakistan's. Article 27 ensures equality before the law, and Article 28 clearly states that women shall enjoy equal rights with men in all areas of the state and of public life. 

If the constitutional basis for questioning the taxation of menstrual products can be tested in Pakistani courts, it can equally be tested here. The issue is not legal feasibility but political will.

Bangladesh has taken steps forward, but they fall short of justice. The existing VAT exemption on raw materials is a supply-side incentive. It benefits manufacturers economically but not necessarily women. 

Without treating retail menstrual products as essential goods, relief will not reach the consumers who need it most. It is no surprise that pads remain unaffordable for many girls, and that period poverty continues to restrict access to education, mobility and dignity.

This is the logic behind the Pakistani case. When razors, shaving gel and other male-oriented products receive reduced taxation on the grounds that they are essential, extending the same consideration to sanitary pads is hardly radical — it is reasonable. 

Menstruation is monthly, inevitable and a basic health matter. Categorising menstrual products alongside cosmetics sends a subtle yet powerful message about whose needs are prioritised.

Other Global South countries have taken bold steps. In 2018, India abolished its 12% GST on sanitary pads, recognising the harm the tax inflicted on poor women and schoolgirls. In 2019, Rwanda eliminated VAT on menstrual products, explicitly citing the need to reduce school absenteeism among girls. Kenya has gone further: not only abolishing taxes but also providing free pads in schools, recognising that affordability alone does not solve the problem.

These examples show that tax reforms yield measurable results. Lower prices encourage low-income women to replace unhygienic clothes with safer, cleaner products. When girls are no longer afraid of missing school because they lack pads, their educational outcomes improve. Stigma also begins to fade when the state publicly acknowledges menstruation as a normal health issue.

This regional momentum should not be ignored by Bangladesh. Nearly half of Bangladeshi women reportedly lack consistent access to proper menstrual hygiene products. The cost of a monthly pack of pads pushes many to reuse rags washed in contaminated water or dried improperly. 

The resulting health problems — rashes, infections and reproductive complications — are largely preventable. Prevention requires affordability, and affordability requires policy.

It is commendable that the government has reduced import taxes on raw materials, but that alone is insufficient. Retail prices will not fall without consumer-level tax relief. Manufacturers cannot be compelled to pass on savings without oversight. Without formally designating sanitary pads as essential goods, the policy will remain half-implemented and half-effective.

Menstrual health is public health. It affects school attendance, productivity, the workforce, mental well-being and fundamental dignity. In a country aspiring to middle-income status, period poverty should not be allowed to hinder half the population.

Pakistan shows that meaningful change can begin with a single individual demanding that the law uphold its promises. Bangladesh should not wait for a court battle. The government can act now by categorising sanitary pads and other menstrual products as essential health items, eliminating all remaining consumer-level taxes, and ensuring the poorest women benefit through price monitoring and, where necessary, school or community-based distribution programmes.

Women are not asking for special treatment; they are asking not to be penalised for having a uterus. Taxing a biological necessity is not a revenue policy — it is structural inequality. Bangladesh has the constitutional language, policy framework and regional examples needed to take a more rational, humane approach to menstrual health.

This is not a time for symbolic gestures but for practical compassion. If Pakistan can test its assumptions, Bangladesh can strengthen its resolve. It is time we recognise what should always have been obvious: menstrual products are necessities, and treating them otherwise is an injustice.

Sketch: TBS

Naziba Mustabshira is a fourth-year International Relations student and a research intern at the Organization for Identity and Cultural Development (OICD), Japan. She also serves as a Research Intern at the Nepal Institute of International Cooperation and Engagement (NIICE). 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.