There are no female orthodox saints of indian ethnicity.
Why is this, if I may ask?
The simple answer is that, so far, none have been "canonized". But, contrary to what some others have suggested, I don't think it has to do with the "status of women in Indian society". That concept sounds plausible to Westerners used to looking at India with their own ideas, but makes little sense from the inside.
One poster has already mentioned that the canonization of saints is "alien" to the Syriac tradition (in which the Church in India shares). I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it is "alien", but certainly it is done differently. There is no liturgical "rite of canonization" or "glorification", much less a formal process, as there is in Western Churches like the Roman or Byzantine. If an individual has gained a reputation for sanctity among the faithful, the Church investigates the life, writings, and work of the person, hears the testimony of witnesses if any, etc., and if given the "green light", the Synod simply issues a declaration that the person is to be honoured as a saint with a particular date as his feast, etc. When the Malankara Orthodox Church canonized St Dionysius (Vattaseril), a "rite" was created, but I think I like the simple declaration better.
"Local" canonizations are not done anymore, as far as I can tell, but historically they were more prevalent. In the Syriac tradition, multiple calendars particular to regions or monasteries prevailed, with only certain major commemorations (of our Lord, our Lady, and major saints) being common to all the calendars. "Local" saints would be added to the local calendars by local Churches; if they became popular, they were adopted by others, but this was hardly compulsory. To this day, most saints' feasts are "local" (thanks to a calendar reform in the 19th century if I'm not mistaken).
It's been noted here that there aren't that many canonized saints of the Church in India. If you take the combined saints of both factions, it's a low number, and if you consider only those of Indian ethnicity, it's far less. All of these saints have been canonized in the late 20th or 21st centuries. They are all bishops. I'm grateful to God that we've had such a number of holy bishops, but I think there's a cultural thing going on here as well. It seems like the people associate sanctity almost exclusively with the episcopal rank, and so, no matter how holy anyone else is, they don't think that such a person could be canonized unless they were also a bishop, so they aren't "looking" out for the saints (it's part humility and part hero-worship, IMO). Genuinely holy people may die and have their holiness remembered and praised, but they'll never think to suggest them for canonization; bishops who die, however, whether holy or not so holy, are treated as de facto saints in the days after their death in a way I find frankly strange (eventually the enthusiasm dies down, but there are always remnants here and there). How much the canonization of bishops has contributed to this attitude versus the attitude contributing to their canonization, I can't say, but it's just one man's unofficial observation. Needless to say, if this is the latest MO, women need not apply.
There is, however, another factor. The Church in India is as old as Christianity, and yet there's a lot about the first 1,500 years we don't know because of the lack of documentation. This is often blamed on the ecclesioterrorism of the Portuguese colonists and the Roman Catholic hierarchy they introduced into India which destroyed books, records, etc.; I don't know how exaggerated that is, but I haven't heard other than that it is essentially true. Along with all the accumulated liturgical, historical, patristic, etc. documents that did or may have existed from that millenium and a half period, it is likely that "hagiography" disappeared, and so if we had any other saints, be they men or women, their memories would've only survived in oral tradition. That, coupled with "local" saints, may shed some light on reports of "unnamed saints" I've read in the past, whose tombs are known, feasts are kept, etc., but with no idea of names, history, etc. It's sad, really...two thousand years of Christianity and very little to show for it.
I wish the Indian Church would establish an "All Saints of India" feast just to cover the bases. But good luck, we don't even have a proper "All Saints" feast. I'd even take that!
