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.