One became a global icon after being shot in the head for trying to go to school. The other rose to prominence for skipping school to demand change. Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai, the youngest-ever Nobel laureate, and Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg both began their public lives as teenagers challenging power. Now, the internet has pitted them against each other.
Greta has been celebrated for holding power to account, while Malala is criticised for becoming part of it. Her detractors say she spoke too late, or too gently, on Palestine. They accuse her of hedging her words to stay palatable to Western audiences. That anger is loudest in Pakistani spaces online. On r/pakistan, one comment summed up the mood: “Mincing her words enough to make sure she doesn’t offend anyone, but… this is what’s called bothsiding a genocide.” Others argued she “chose to be on the wrong side of history.”
Malala has spoken up, calling for peace and protection of civilians, but detractors say her tone was cautious. For many, it was not enough. Critics point to her collaboration with Hillary Clinton on a Broadway musical as proof she is too close to Western power. Commentators have questioned whether her advocacy can still be called radical if it aligns with colonial interests, going so far to call her activism “performative”.
But that judgement misses something crucial. Malala’s activism is built on negotiation and diplomacy. Her influence depends on working within institutions. Thunberg’s defiance thrives outside them. Both methods matter. The crises we face, whether war, climate collapse or equal education, demand more than one kind of activism.
When the two met at Oxford in 2020, Malala wrote, “She’s the only friend I’d skip school for.” Greta replied: “Today I met my role model.” Two different ways of fighting for justice, both necessary, both valid, and neither woman deserves to be pitted against the other.
aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com
