
From the biography: Why RD Karve's ‘Samaaj-swaasthya' magazine advocated birth control in the 1920s
Raghunathrao Dhondo Karve was already over 44 years of age when he joined the Bombay–Bahrain Company. Prior to that, he had spent 15 months being jobless and would naturally have heaved a sigh of relief at landing a job. With financial support having arrived, he immediately began publishing Samaaj-swaasthya. However, Malatibai's ill-health flared up in 1928 and her medical expenditure increased. Besides, while he was in the company, he was required to visit the Gulf of Iran along with Rosenthal Saheb. Thus, in 1919 he went to Paris; in 1925 to Nairobi on the invitation of his brother Dr Shankarrao, and from 1926 to 1932 he visited the Gulf of Iran along with his boss. During his lifetime, therefore, he travelled to three foreign countries.
Samaaj-swaasthya came out with its first issue on 15 July 1927. Its size was 7' X 5' and remained the same till the last issue of November 1953, which was published after his death. The earliest issues carried the image of a lighthouse on the cover. Later, it carried the sketch of a naked woman, and still later, of a number of naked women. The number of pages would keep fluctuating. For the 26 years and four months of its existence, it would be put into post on the 15th of every month. He was a disciplined person by nature anyway, but also had as his ideal the discipline that was observed by the magazine Kirloskar. In 1944, the Second World War caused the Depression across the world and prices began to soar, causing a shortage of newsprint. This impacted Samaaj-swaasthya too, making the already slim magazine slimmer. The result was that the August– September–October issue was required to be published as a joint issue. Except for this one anomaly, Samaaj-swaasthya was always published on time.
In its inaugural issue, Raghunathrao laid down the objectives and policies of the magazine in the following words:
The objective of this magazine is to hold discussions on the physical and mental health of individuals and of society and what we should do about maintaining it. There are certain subjects which other journalists hesitate or fear to discuss in print, however important they may be. As ordinary readers find it extremely difficult to get information on those subjects, our intention is to remove those difficulties. Our information shall not be of philosophical nature only, but it will be practically useful. The word kaam-shaastra has been misused, but we are compelled to use this word to mean 'a scientific examination of the sexual urge'; there is no reason, therefore, for anybody to take offence on this point.
The path that Raghunathrao had chosen was difficult. He rustled up this magazine with the purpose of educating the masses and for that he was always required to scrape and scrounge for funds. If a magazine has to run, the editor must have an entire team of writers available. Like-minded writers must be brought together so that there is never a shortage of articles. Raghunathrao believed he should have various kinds of writers available to him and all these writers should be compensated for their efforts. He believed that since he was not in a position to pay them, he had no right to ask them to write. In spite of knowing this, Bhaskarrao Jadhav, Madhavrao Bagal, Sahridaya Mahad and a few others would send their articles voluntarily, which Raghunathrao published in Samaaj-swaasthya. Shakuntala Paranjape also offered invaluable help in this matter. Raghunathrao would write most of the matter for the magazine himself. Along with his original writing, there would also be articles translated from French.
To underline the message that truth is always naked, he decided to print pictures of naked women on the cover. But Raghunathrao has written that the managers of many printing presses would refuse to accept such pictures despite being offered money in advance.
Bombay Vaibhav, the printing press of the Servants of India Society established by the late GK Gokhale had agreed to print our magazine (not for free); but when its manager R Dewale saw our manuscript, he said that our opinions were far too revolutionary and refused to print it. As a result, we could not get the print quality we had wanted, and the publication was delayed too. And the members of that Society consider themselves liberal.
The same issue says that 'even a backward magazine like the monthly Manoranjan refused to carry our paid advertisements.' Thus, even during its early period, the managers of printing presses as well as the owners of contemporary magazines refused to cooperate with Raghunathrao. Even after it started getting published regularly, it had to confront many obstacles. It was quite understandable that opposition should come from the ultra-orthodox with their mildewed ideologies; but it doesn't appear that those who considered themselves progressive were much in favour, or that Raghunathrao gained any active support from them.
The fact is that during those times nobody talked much about heterosexual relationships, sexually transmitted diseases, and certainly never wrote on it. There was just one autobiography of Nana Phadnis that talked about his extramarital indulgences, but that was clearly an exception. Our culture had Rama as a paragon of virtue and fidelity to one woman; but that never meant that all men were embodiments of virtue. Our great writers have admonished, 'Never give your books, money or woman to another; if you do, they rarely come back; and even if they ever do, they return in a wrecked and contaminated state.' These great writers would have felt the need for this admonition only because of what they saw in the society around them, surely.
In Mrchchha-katika, the depiction of the courtesan Vasantasena and the married man Charudutt can be taken as representing reality. When Tukaram counselled, 'parviya naari rukmai samaan' (A woman not one's own is sacred), he was talking in the context of prostitutes. Also, when the heroine of a laavani expresses her sexual passion by telling the young, shelter-seeking traveller that her husband is out doing guard duty and her mother-in-law at home suffers from night-blindness, it sounds quite natural. All of this obviously means that heterosexual relationships have always existed in society, but they cannot be expressed openly, resulting in incurable diseases that are suffered in silence. This would happen on quite a large scale. Raghunathrao had himself seen such people in the hostel during his college days. That was when he had realised the extreme need for creating public awareness on the issues of sexually transmitted and other incurable diseases as also on the alarmingly burgeoning population.
Dr Robinson and Margaret Sanger in America and Marie Stopes, Norman Haire, Ellis and others were either pondering over this subject scientifically or had actually opened clinics for dispensing advice and treatment. In our parts, there was nobody either offering scientific guidance or even writing about it. This was the vacuum that Raghunathrao tried to fill by bringing out his magazine Samaaj-swaasthya and by starting a birth-control centre at Parel earlier.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
'Cricketers Aren't Cattle... ': Harish Thawani on the IPL and Business of Indian Cricket
"Cricketers are not cattle to be sold in an auction." 🎙️ In this explosive episode of the Bombay Sport Exchange, K Shriniwas Rao sits down with Harish Thawani — the man behind Nimbus Communications — to explore how cricket broadcasting in India was built, negotiated, and fought over. From billion-dollar deals to bold opinions, this is the untold business story of Indian cricket. Read More


Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Ex-CEO shocked at Rs 13 lakh a year in school fees in India. IITian responds: My fees was...
Think raising a child is expensive? Try doing it in a metro city, with dreams of giving them the 'best' education. A LinkedIn post by Mumbai-based ex-founder Ankur Jhaveri is striking a chord across social media for laying bare what many young Indians are quietly grappling with: education fees of children. In his post, Jhaveri confessed he never truly understood the actual cost of raising kids until he spoke to his cousin, a teacher at an international school. What followed was a no-frills, back-of-the-envelope calculation. However, many did not agree with his calculations and some even called out parents' 'fear of missing out(FOMO)' which needs to be urgently addressed. According to Jhaveri, tuition fees at a typical international school range between ₹7–9 lakh a year. That's just the beginning. Add another ₹2–4 lakh for uniforms, books, private tuitions, and other academic expenses. The yearly education bill already touches ₹12 lakh—and we haven't even factored in the birthday parties, clothes, coaching classes, and extra-curriculars, which bring the total to around ₹13 lakh per year. So, how much do you need to earn to afford this? Jhaveri breaks it down: if you're spending roughly 30% of your income on your child, your net income should be at least ₹44 lakh annually. Factor in taxes (say, a blended 20%), and your gross salary should ideally be around ₹55 lakh to sustain this lifestyle, for one child. "And if you want a second kid?" Jhaveri jokes, 'Picture abhi baaki hai mere dost,' reminding readers that doubling those numbers might well push it into luxury territory. Netizens do not seem to agree with him The post quickly went viral, Some pushed back, arguing that ICSE or state board schools charge far less. But Jhaveri clarified that most urban parents—especially the LinkedIn demographic—aspire to the best for their kids, and legacy ICSE institutions are both tough to get into and, increasingly, not as 'affordable' as assumed. Several users weighed in on Ankur Jhaveri's viral LinkedIn post, offering alternative perspectives and challenging the assumptions around the cost of raising children in India. One user shared that they are raising two children enrolled in an ICSE school, with total annual costs—including books, uniforms, and transport—coming in under Rs 2 lakh. Even after adding hobby classes like piano, Carnatic vocals, and cricket, their total yearly spend remains well under Rs 3 lakh. In their view, anything beyond this figure is more about lifestyle choices than necessity. Girish Chandankar, an IIT-Bombay graduate, pointed out the distinction between genuinely good schools and what he referred to as 'branded' schools. He shared that his own school charged less than Rs 15,000 annually and, even now, hasn't crossed the Rs 1 lakh mark. For him, the key lies in making informed choices rather than simply gravitating toward expensive institutions. Others echoed the sentiment, noting that not all quality schools charge exorbitant fees. Many reputable ICSE, CBSE, and even IGCSE schools offer excellent education within a range of Rs 1–2 lakh per year. This significantly changes the equation laid out in the original post. One user went further, identifying a deeper issue: the fear of missing out (FOMO). They argued that the pressure to choose high-fee schools is often driven by competitive parenting and social comparison, rather than a child's actual needs. If parents are paying Rs 7–9 lakh in tuition and still feel the need for additional tuitions from early grades—long before competitive exams even begin—it raises concerns about both the school's effectiveness and the mounting pressure placed on the child. In the end, they suggested, it's FOMO that's distorting not just financial decisions, but the very essence of parenting itself.


The Wire
3 days ago
- The Wire
A Book Exploring Development Economics Through the Lives of South Asia's Most Consequential Economists
Former Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh (centre) and Amartya Sen (second from left), at an event in New Delhi in December 2008. Photo: Wikimedia Commons Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now Economic historians often tread paths heavily mined with complex, sometimes unsettled ideas and ideological conflicts. When they examine the subject's longue duré e since the Second World War – the slow evolution of development economics, its theories, structures, and processes – the journey can be quite treacherous. Tracing the development of economics and growth across post-colonial nation-states, the debates, the underlying ideas and ideologies, and the personalities of the individuals who shaped them is no easy task. It can leave the historian trapped in preference bias. David C. Engerman, the Leitner International Interdisciplinary Professor of History at Yale University, navigates many of these hazards deftly in his new book, Apostles of Development: Six Economists and the World They Made (India Viking, May 2025). The book offers a compelling description of the field of development economics and its progress over the last 75 years in South Asia. Engerman explores the ideas, debates, and conflicts that shaped development economics through the lives of six of South Asia's most consequential economists: Amartya Sen, Manmohan Singh, Mahbub ul Haq, Jagdish Bhagwati, Rehman Sobhan, and Lal Jayawardena. Apostles of Development: Six Economists and the World They Made, written by David C. Engerman, India Viking, May 2025. Photo: His selection is apt. All were born in pre-independence South Asia. Their early intellectual development was rooted in the transatlantic academic ethos of the 1950s and 1960s – Cambridge, Oxford, or MIT. Yet their willingness to shift from theoretical debates – classical, neo-classical, or Keynesian – to the grounded realities of post-colonial South Asia makes them vital figures in the history of economic thought. While exploring his choice of protagonists, Engerman writes in his introduction, 'Taken individually, each of these six made their mark on development thought over many decades – in their home countries, in South Asia writ large, across the Global South, and indeed around the world… All except Sen served in their governments at some point, each in his own way shaping the economic directions of their respective countries… Taken together, the six apostles show how much the Global South shaped the global enterprise of development.' This examination of the lives, thoughts, and impact of Sen, Singh, Haq, Bhagwati, Sobhan, and Jayawardena is not merely biographical; it offers sharp insights into their careers as highly consequential economists. The approach also serves as a useful narrative device, constructing a broad account of key events and debates in economics over the past 70 years, mainly centred on India and South Asia. A book focusing primarily on South Asia In the book's introduction, Engerman suggests that his work is about the development of economic thought in the Global South. But this claim is only partially borne out since the book focuses primarily on South Asia. It offers little discussion about the impact that experiences from other regions might have had on Engerman's six protagonists, and pays virtually no attention to the influence they may have had on development in Latin America or Africa. Engerman does clarify that the book is centred on post-colonialism, and is therefore more about South Asia than the Global South. Still, the evolution of development economics has been shaped as much by Latin America and Africa as by the post-colonial experiences of South Asia. More could have been done to explore the wider intellectual currents that shaped the six protagonists, particularly the influence of thinkers from other regions. During his tenure at UNCTAD from 1966 to 1969, Manmohan Singh worked closely with the Argentinian economist Raúl Prebisch, whose contributions to structuralist economics – including the Prebisch–Singer hypothesis and dependency theory – were foundational. A much fuller exploration of Prebisch's influence on Singh's later thinking and career would have made for compelling reading. Likewise, a more detailed account of the protagonists' engagement with thinkers such as Gunnar Myrdal, W. Arthur Lewis, Walt Rostow, and Paul Rosenstein-Rodan – and the extent to which these figures shaped their ideas – would have added depth to the book. Myrdal's work with Nicholas Kaldor on circular cumulative causation resonated with Sen's thinking. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, too, offered instructive counterpoints, rooted in their Austrian-British and American traditions, respectively. Nevertheless, the book draws on a rich vein of historical research, making it essential reading for those interested in South Asia's economic and development history. The six protagonists have helped shape not only the contours of development theory, but also the economic trajectories of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Sen's work, which earned him the Nobel Prize, has in many ways defined a distinctive strand of development thought in economics. Bhagwati's contributions to trade theory – and his demonstration of how tariffs and government interventions can distort welfare outcomes – remain relevant in today's conflicted, Trumpian times. Singh and Jayawardena have brought about consequential change as practitioners of the art and craft of economics, while Haq and Sobhan have done much to try and influence the economic trajectories of Pakistan and Bangladesh, respectively. The author demonstrates a solid understanding of the foundations of international economic inequality. However, Engerman excels more as a historian than as an analyst adept at exploring the philosophical influences on economists. In retracing the paths of these six figures through the hallowed halls of Cambridge in the 1950s, Engerman introduces brief but illuminating sketches of British economists such as Joan Robinson, Nicholas Kaldor, Richard Kahn, and P. T. Bauer. His portrayal of Robinson – her rejection of orthodox assumptions and her disdain for the mathematical modelling favoured by Americans – is particularly absorbing. His concise description of Bauer's early work in British Malaya, which laid the foundations for his dissenting critiques and the first development economics monograph, is equally compelling. These thinkers contributed significantly to the foundation of the field, as well as to the intellectual formation of Engerman's six protagonists. Engaging depiction of Indian economic thought in the 1960s Engerman's depiction of Indian economic thought in the 1960s, viewed through the eyes of Bhagwati, Sen, and Singh, is especially engaging and significant. His account of the period offers valuable examples of the persistent tussle between politics and economics in the Global South. One episode in India stands out as particularly illustrative of the era's political economy. It captures both the pressures that shaped the decisions of leaders such as Indira Gandhi and the challenges economists faced in steering policy. In 1966, Indira Gandhi made the politically fraught decision to devalue the Indian rupee – a move in which Bhagwati's influence was evident. The prime minister invited him to a confidential discussion. Engerman neatly sums up Bhagwati's dilemmas and his responses to political pressures. 'Yet as he (Bhagwati) recalled, the Prime Minister's interests were purely political, 'for which my economics training had not prepared me,'' Engerman writes, adding that Bhagwati 'soon enough proposed a range of possible efforts to adjust the effective value of the rupee, without necessarily taking the fraught step of formal devaluation.' Engerman's portrayal of Bhagwati as a counterweight to the more structuralist thinking of Sen and K. N. Raj at the Delhi School of Economics underscores the intellectual and contextual complexities of the time. It also highlights the spirited debates that shaped the ideological divide between the two camps and, in turn, influenced the trajectory of the Indian economy. 'The Raj-Sen model's neglect of foreign trade symbolised a broader Indian tendency to omit foreign trade from policy discussions – a phenomenon that entered the Indian economic lexicon, thanks to Singh, as export pessimism,' Engerman notes. He goes on to outline the long-term effects of India's Third Five Year Plan (1961–66), and how the divergence between the Raj-Sen model and the Bhagwati-Singh approach to trade shaped the trajectory of policy. Engerman writes: '… this strategy also produced perennial foreign exchange shortages, and thus the pressing need for foreign aid… Much as Bhagwati had observed, the Third Plan era saw new forms of domestic market regulation, and the emergence of a dynamic in which failures of regulation led to only more layers of regulation.' He notes that the phrase 'license-permit-quota raj' first emerged during this period. The inequality debates influenced economic policy across South Asia. Engerman's discussion of Bhagwati's reasoning – that inequality was not a lasting economic problem, as it would eventually diminish in line with the Kuznets curve – offers an illuminating perspective on why the argument failed to resonate in India, and how the debates were historically framed and perceived in the region. Sen's work in the 1980s, in which he developed his capabilities approach and alternative formulations of development, is engagingly recounted. As Prime Minister of India, Singh pushed through the Food Security Bill in 2013, his flagship anti-poverty programme. Engerman's account of how the Bill became 'just one skirmish in a broader battle that Bhagwati waged against Sen' – a clash over economic ideology – is compelling. Author's skills as a descriptive historian The author's skills as a descriptive historian are evident throughout the book. His portrayal of Sobhan's role in Bangladesh during the critical decade of the 1980s, and his contribution to the development of concepts such as South-South cooperation, raises interesting questions about the gains that might have accrued from true economic cooperation. Engerman's description of what he terms Sen's 'often-abstruse articles' used to introduce questions of social choice and to offer a new approach to the problems of poverty and inequality – is thought-provoking, and provides one of the few genuine glimpses into the personalities of the book's main protagonists. In the end, one might ask whether Engerman's tendency, as a historian, to focus on the minutiae of South Asia's economic development – though illuminating – distracts at times from deeper insights into the theoretical rifts of the period and the evolution of ideas within development economics, many of which remain contested. Might it have been more fruitful to delve further into the protagonists' intellectual doubts, and the global political cross-currents that shaped them? Do the minutiae of events risk overshadowing the broader evolution of ideas? Events undoubtedly shape individuals, but for the 'apostles' of development, their uncertainties, intellectual shifts, contemporary global political contexts, and evolving frameworks of thought are just as critical. Even with such reservations, the book's meticulous research, vivid narration, careful chronology, and focus on six influential thinkers – Amartya Sen, Manmohan Singh, Mahbub ul Haq, Jagdish Bhagwati, Rehman Sobhan, and Lal Jayawardena – make Apostles of Development a valuable addition to the literature on economics, economic history, and the development of ideas. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.