And Us...
This Friday, I was eavesdropping on a rather interesting conversation between my boss and a colleague. It was about vacations that North-Americans book in developing countries. One of the biggest reasons, obviously, is the cost. It is much cheaper to book a two-week vacation in India than in Europe. However, that wasn't the interesting part of the conversation. The conversation steered towards the view of naked poverty that comes along with the travel-package to such countries. Even before you land in the country, you get a clear view of great expanses of slum spreading out in all directions from the airport – “Welcome to India.” Stepping out of the airport, you see people living in absolute poverty, and one isn't quite sure how to react to it.
Now this is where the conversation actually became interesting. My colleague said, “I never understand when people look at the poor people and feel sorry for them. I mean, you’re going back to your own country and your own comfortable life soon. What’s the point of feeling sorry for them?” I was trying to let the words sink in and the conversation trailed off towards other non-controversial topics.
I couldn't help but reflect on what I’d heard. On one hand I was listening to two have-it-alls who felt so entitled to their wealth and affluence that they cannot even bear the thought of sparing their sympathy for the poor. On the other hand, I recall the slum-dwellers in India I have had the chance to see who have been denied everything and every basic right from their very childhood, clearly the have-nots. And then there was me, the in-between, looking at the growing gap between the two and standing on thin air unable to reconcile it. Somewhere you feel sympathy for the poor, and somewhere an anger perhaps, at the rich who treat them like dirt. But is that our responsibility to reconcile the two? The rich and the poor, the Bourgeois and the Proletariat - the French Revolution, the rise of communism in Russia and China. It is the middle-class that bears the brunt. The roles get reversed 180 degree leaving the middle-class at the center, as earlier.
What was upsetting about their conversation even more than their clear disdain for the poor was their assumption about the existence of the have-nots in the developing nations. The problems faced by these nations with their limited resources, increasing populations and lack of structure have been commented on by very many people far more educated than me, and are way too many to be included here.
It got me thinking about how well the poverty is masked here in the so-called “developed” nations. The poor live in their areas marked away from the rich and there isn't anywhere you can see a rich and a poor man living on the same street. I suppose that makes it much more difficult to see their existence and compare it to that of the have-it-all. It gives us the false sense of security, the false allure that everything that glitters is indeed gold in Toronto. And I suppose this false allusion lay behind their (i.m.o.) insensitive remarks.
It makes one think that there is lot more than meets the eye. Of course there is. Every big city in North America, indeed in the world, has the polar opposites of have-alls and have-nots. Why should Toronto be any different? Only, the poverty is so well hid behind the glamour of the rich. There are equally poor people here who are suffering for lack of resources, lack of proper support from the government or the agencies. The stubbornness of the govt to ignore the extent of the problem may lead to lack to proper attention to the matter. Then, are we really better than the developing nations where at least it is all out in the open?
The image of the developed nations is very Utopian, the big brother of the world who takes all the developing nations under its wing. Why don’t they realise that just maybe, the developing nations do not wish to be in smelly squished armpits under the wing of somebody with lofty claims.
This Friday, I was eavesdropping on a rather interesting conversation between my boss and a colleague. It was about vacations that North-Americans book in developing countries. One of the biggest reasons, obviously, is the cost. It is much cheaper to book a two-week vacation in India than in Europe. However, that wasn't the interesting part of the conversation. The conversation steered towards the view of naked poverty that comes along with the travel-package to such countries. Even before you land in the country, you get a clear view of great expanses of slum spreading out in all directions from the airport – “Welcome to India.” Stepping out of the airport, you see people living in absolute poverty, and one isn't quite sure how to react to it.
Now this is where the conversation actually became interesting. My colleague said, “I never understand when people look at the poor people and feel sorry for them. I mean, you’re going back to your own country and your own comfortable life soon. What’s the point of feeling sorry for them?” I was trying to let the words sink in and the conversation trailed off towards other non-controversial topics.
I couldn't help but reflect on what I’d heard. On one hand I was listening to two have-it-alls who felt so entitled to their wealth and affluence that they cannot even bear the thought of sparing their sympathy for the poor. On the other hand, I recall the slum-dwellers in India I have had the chance to see who have been denied everything and every basic right from their very childhood, clearly the have-nots. And then there was me, the in-between, looking at the growing gap between the two and standing on thin air unable to reconcile it. Somewhere you feel sympathy for the poor, and somewhere an anger perhaps, at the rich who treat them like dirt. But is that our responsibility to reconcile the two? The rich and the poor, the Bourgeois and the Proletariat - the French Revolution, the rise of communism in Russia and China. It is the middle-class that bears the brunt. The roles get reversed 180 degree leaving the middle-class at the center, as earlier.
What was upsetting about their conversation even more than their clear disdain for the poor was their assumption about the existence of the have-nots in the developing nations. The problems faced by these nations with their limited resources, increasing populations and lack of structure have been commented on by very many people far more educated than me, and are way too many to be included here.
It got me thinking about how well the poverty is masked here in the so-called “developed” nations. The poor live in their areas marked away from the rich and there isn't anywhere you can see a rich and a poor man living on the same street. I suppose that makes it much more difficult to see their existence and compare it to that of the have-it-all. It gives us the false sense of security, the false allure that everything that glitters is indeed gold in Toronto. And I suppose this false allusion lay behind their (i.m.o.) insensitive remarks.
It makes one think that there is lot more than meets the eye. Of course there is. Every big city in North America, indeed in the world, has the polar opposites of have-alls and have-nots. Why should Toronto be any different? Only, the poverty is so well hid behind the glamour of the rich. There are equally poor people here who are suffering for lack of resources, lack of proper support from the government or the agencies. The stubbornness of the govt to ignore the extent of the problem may lead to lack to proper attention to the matter. Then, are we really better than the developing nations where at least it is all out in the open?
The image of the developed nations is very Utopian, the big brother of the world who takes all the developing nations under its wing. Why don’t they realise that just maybe, the developing nations do not wish to be in smelly squished armpits under the wing of somebody with lofty claims.
3 comments:
The middle class is so complacent that they never go out of their comfort zones to do something for the "have-nots". Reminds me of the Parsi household in "1947 Earth".
If only they were more concerned about something other than themselves I suppose they would be the best people to bring about that reconciliation that you speak of. On the issue of developed nations, isn't it obvious that to maintain their status as "developed" they always need some one who is "developing"? otherwise there is no meaning to their self proclaimed supremacy....and well frankly the developing countries are not left with much choice other than accepting the so called help and we all know what happens when they don't
Thank you for being honest.
At any time, the treatment of poor in any country reflects the collective intent/priorities of her citizens through elected representatives.
In countries like India, the policies which benefit poor are either delayed (either in their enactment in parliament or in implementation) or masked by the policies which are not so important for poverty alleviation or protection of rights of poor. Also, government seems to be busy in making happy persons/organizations/companies which fund them during elections.
Further, the funds which come from developed countries or multilateral funding agencies reach the target population so late that the original objectives/assumptions of funding itself changes. Also, generally, the funding of developing countries by developed country is based on certain hidden expectations for the benefit of donors (e.g. there has been loads of question to UK parliamentarians by their own people on need of giving USD 300 million for poverty reduction projects in India if they are not given defense contracts by India(Eurofighter lost contract of USD 15 billion for 126 fighter air-crafts).
sorry it took me this long to respond, I have to agree with both of you. however, I suppose my initial purpose of the entry was somehow masked by the twirling thoughts and ideas. I agree with the lack of proper implementation of laws in the developing nations, and I only wish to point out a similar lack in the more developed nations. As someone else said, my perception of the western world is probably shaped by my preconceived notions. It is a valid point. Of course my perceptions will be tainted, anyone's would. From my perspective, if you were to see the real picture of the western ghettos, it's not that different from the slums in developing nations, differing only in quantity. What is worse is the lawlessness you see in those areas, mostly perpetuated by the actual existence of crime and the bias of the police against the people living there. despite the country having the money and resources, these problems persist much as they like to ignore them.
Post a Comment