January 20th- Sikhism

Our latest class was a basic overview of India's history. It was nice to learn about the history of the area I will be living in all  summer. What it made me realize is I scarcely know anything about India's history. Sure, I've read a few books about India, but all that was recent history, primary British imperialism.  I vaguely remember a fifth grade report I wrote on Inda, but besides that I am woefully ignorant. So, the next few posts will be the results of my attempts to educate myself. I will begin with the religions of India, namely Sikhism. Sikhism is a relatively new monotheistic religion formed in the 15th century. Sikhs are mainly found in the Punjab region (on the border of Pakistan) in India. It is the fifth largest religion with 25 million followers. Its was founded by Guru Nanak Dev and continued by ten successive Gurus. Sikhs view themselves as a saint-soldier. Their basic doctrines are faith and justice. Self control over vices is emphasized as well as pursuing worthy virtues. They must have the courage to defend all those who are persecuted regardless of race, religion or beliefs. I was inspired by the beauty of their beliefs. It seems the more I learn about other religions, the more surprised I am at how similar our teachings really are.

January 18- Contemporary Orientalism and Imperialism

We often feel that the days of imperialism are long over, but in actuality, India has only experienced sixty years of autonomy. We feel these ideas of superiority and ownership are long past, but they endure, more subtle and pervasive than ever. When recently reading Edward Said's book, Orientalism, I was surprised by how prevalent these ideas still are.  Westerners rejoice in their superiority, and bask in the modernity of their ideas compared to the backwards traditions of the locals. They come into another nation and proclaim those people wrong and plan to "fix" the people. If they succeed in their endeavors, it is only be virtue of their superior intellect and planning, if they fail it is the fault of the primitive people.

The book further examines the ideas that the westerner is superior in every way. A particularly memorable paragraph reads "The European is a close reasoner; his statements of fact are devoid of any ambiguity; he is a natural logician, albeit he may not have studied logic; he is by nature skeptical and requires proof before he can accept the truth...The Oriental, on the other hand, like his picturesque streets, is eminently wanting.. incapable of drawing the most obvious conclusions from any simple premises... His explanation will be lengthy and wanting in lucidity. He will probably contradict himself half a dozen times before he has finished his story... and in everything oppose the clarity, directness, and nobility of the Anglo-Saxan race." While these ideas seem ridiculous it is easy to slip into this destructive ideas of thinking.

These horrific ideas felt obvious and natural to these well educated scholars who essentially argued "There are Westerners, and there are Orientals. The former dominate; the latter must be dominated, which usually means having their land occupied, their internal affairs rigidly controlled, their blood and treasure put at the disposal of one or another Western power". This idea may seem a far cry from our own benevolent ideals, but is it really? Are our attempts to impose western medicine and education another form of imperialism. Are we attempting development with the idea that we know what is best for the indigenous people?

A Land of Contradictions

India is filled with incongruities. It is a land of modernity yet unmistakably flavored by the past. Its economy is one of the fastest growing, yet it contains some of the worst poverty in the world. The words from a New York Times article thirty years ago have proven dreadfully prophetic “It is unrealistic to expect any major breakthroughs in dealing with the diets of impoverished Indians”. In the last thirty years, levels of malnutrition have not budged, and according to some have actually worsened. According the latest data, 42% of Indian children under the age of 5 are malnourished. The numbers are astounding. What's worse? This is nothing new. 

A few months ago, Rob Nixon gave a presentation, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, at BYU. He discussed how the rise of modern media has desensitized the public and skewed new coverage to only include the sensational. In the words of David Reiff “Chronic malnutrition is an emergency; it just doesn’t look like one.” Even then, the effects of a natural disaster or starvation (when covered) are boiled down to a thirty second montage of images. The breadth of coverage as well has created a kind apathy, a feeling that there is so much suffering and problems in the world that one person cannot make a difference and should not bother.  This subversive attitude is paraded under the guise of realism. 

These attitudes even find their way into development, often blaming India for its problems. Whether this is right or wrong, foreigners cannot continue in their apathy and non action while simultaneously condemning the Indian government. David Reiff said in a recent New York Times article “Overcoming malnutrition requires not just an end to denial but also a decision that eradicating malnutrition is as much of a priority for India as its recent decision to build a hundred new ships for its navy over the next decade.”. This may be the case, but its validity does not absolve its readers.