On April 13 in Washington DC I talked to a 1st grade class about why we were preparing to oppose the upcoming World Bank & IMF meeting. It was an unexpected assignment. Someone found me among the puppetmakers at the A16 convergence center and asked if I wanted to visit the elementary school around the corner.
"Imagine," I told a hundred children in this inner-DC school, "living in a place without any money." Oohs and aahs rippled through them, their eyes brightened in wonder. "How would it be?" I asked. Splendid, they thought. Why? "Because everything would be free!" "Because then we could have all the treasures."
What are some of those treasures? I prompted them. If we all lived in a village, we would have trees, fresh air, pure water from a nearby stream, we would grow flowers and food ... all this and more they imagined.
"What if someone wanted to give you money and buy these things, but you would have to leave the place?"
They puzzled over this complex scenario. I then took a gamble: "Which would you rather have, your home in the village, or the money?"
"Home! village!" they replied, and then went a-goggle as the large puppets of IMF, World Bank and WTO arrived. I had to move fast. "Whose village is it?" "Our village!" "Whose forest? whose land? whose river?" I asked them. "Are we going to sell it to these people?" They had no doubt: "No!" "What do we say to these people?" "Go away, go back!" they all shouted.
I later repeated this exercise with my niece and nephew in the suburbs. The thought of living without money induced fear and dread. My 12 year old nephew said, "We would starve. We would have to steal." Step by step I convinced them that we could grow food, and my nephew was still worried about fencing in the garden, selling food to get money. What took me 5 minutes in the city took much longer here, but they too finally came to the conclusion that their village was not for sale. My niece went a step further and said that it is not actually our land but gods.
That is also what the indigenous communities say. In the 21st century few indigenous communities are living entirely without money, but it is a recent and minor part of the economy. That there are things that money cannot buy is all but forgotten in the first world (aka free market) today. Those of us in the first world (which is there within the third world countries also) live as if what happens in the world cannot directly affect us. Even if we were in DC on A16, we are uneasily aware that deals are signed every day. When US based Ogden corporation, during Clinton s India visit, signed a deal to finance the controversial Maheshwar dam, we are infuriated. Shortly after the Clinton visit, U.S. based UNOCAL sends surveyors, backed by police to the lands it plans to acquire for a port on the Gujarat coast. These acts outrage us, but are there effects of globalization that hit us where we stand, so that we learn to connect, without mediation via intellectual and abstract principles, our own every day circumstances and decisions to the forces of global capitalism?
Recognize forms of exploitation and imperialism when they happen to you or near you or even by you.
Recently I read an article in the paper about the new subway (underground walkway) coming out of CST, a major station on the local rail in Mumbai. The article said that plans for a subway had been suggested 10 years ago but were rejected by the citizens as it would deface the beauty of CST. Now, the paper reported, the advantages of the subway were more clear, as it would allow vehicle traffic to flow more freely and also, one could simply walk out of the subway into the McDonalds without having to cross the street.
This news disturbed me for a number of reasons. What is happening to our public spaces, which are getting fewer by the day? Clearly the people of Mumbai had expressed their opinion on one occasion that they valued the look-and-feel of CST. It is part of the culture of Mumbai that people mill around that area. The old and grand cinema halls are there (though the films they show are neither), the Khadi shop is there, small, old cafes are there,] numerous carts peddling bhel puri, chopped fruit, fresh juice, roasted corn, peanuts, stamp pads, light-up yo-yos, faux Armani ... all are there.
So what has changed to bring on this subway? Were people really clamoring to get off the streets? Who wanted to push the people underground? What is all this vehicular traffic that needs to take precedence in claiming the space of the city? It is the same traffic that is giving rise to so many ports, airports, express highways etc. It is GLOBAL TRADE. Get out of the way, we have to ship kiwi from New Zealand and appliances from China and orange juice from America to the elite that so disarmingly calls itself the "middle class."
And in case any of this elite happens to be in CST, we have to keep them away from all the street vendors and give them direct access to McDonalds. Ah, you look rich enough (or fair enough), the security guars will let you in. Ah, look how clean this place is! Let's pay high prices for junk food and throw away all the plastic & styrofoam just like they do in the first world.
Then what happens -- McDonalds buys the space to dispose its trash and passes off as "clean" while they are contributing most to pollution. Then its customers start wanting disposables in order to be "clean" and stop going to the bhel puri or fruit juice stand which is washing its plates and glasses and reusing them all in the same spot.
Now what has happened? Where rich and poor alike were frequenting the sidewalk vendors, now the rich have been siphoned off to McDonalds, and only the poor take the snacks on the street. Meanwhile McDonalds' demands for resources like clean water will increase and the needs of the sidewalk vendors will be ignored. Since only the poor go there, their access not only to clean water but to clean space on the street will decrease in priority.
The same will happen with all these multistory shopping complexes coming up. Whereas before the posh shops were on the same street as the regular ones and all were topped by flats so that people of different classes at least shared the same street, now it will be possible to isolate the rich and create spaces where the poor never enter.
When I first came to India I was alarmed to see the number of security guards everywhere. But the US is like one huge gated community with an army to ensure not only that people do not enter but that its inhabitants have access to the natural resources and unfair labour of the rest of the world. And now the first world not only exploits the rest of the world, but creates first world pockets in places like India so that the exploitation can be replicated there.
So what happens after people are displaced for all this transportation infrastructure, for example? Not only do they end up dealing with all the increased pollution from all these vehicles, not only do they face the prejudices of the mainstream society and media and laws, being considered "dirty" or "encraochers" or "lazy" – they don't even get access to the facilities they "sacrificed" for. New bus service on this road? Oh, it is privatised. New port -- oh you can't trade here we sold the licenses already. Airport? Don't make me laugh.
Recently we visited the Kumaon Range in the Central Himalayas and the people there were showing us a waterworks program which had been sponsored by the World Bank. I asked one of the people "in your opinion, what is the world bank?" He said, "what our government could not do in 50 years of independence they have done in one year." I asked, "who is going to repay this loan?" He said, the government will.
Well, I left him to his logic-defying leaps of faith. There are so many ways all this globalisation kills local life, not only by taking resources out of local control and all that, but it actually propogates a lack of accountability and intellectual laziness at the local level. For example an architect no longer needs to understand the specifics of any given local community or design low-cost low-maintenance structures based on available resources and needs .... because if all spaces become spaces of the rich, then limitations on resources go out the window. Newly trained architects don't even know how to design buildings that are comfortable without a/c.
Recently I was bitten by a dog. It was just a scratch, but I went to the doctor. He hardly looked at my leg ... he just started writing the prescription for the rabies vaccine. We tried to ask him if it was really required, since it was a household dog. He said, "look if you want to take the risk, don’t come to me. When you tell me you were bitten by a dog, I have to give you the shot. There is no cure for rabies." We called a friend who was also an allopathic doctor, by phone and he said, "why take the risk, definitely take the shot."
I had my own reservations and finally I decided not to take the vaccine. I did see a homeopathic doctor who recommended that I take echinacea. Next morning on the internet I found from a number of sources that if the dog is available for 10 days' observation, then the person should not take the rabies shot until the dog shows symptoms of rabies (unless the bite was near the head).
Now why didn't the doctor tell me this? We spoke to another MD who works for an NGO called Community Health Cell in Bangalore. "I learned about rabies only in my third year and never touched it again. The only information I get on the drug is from the medical representative." The vaccine costs Rs. 1300.
We have seen the poor take shots for fevers though we know better. Similarly in US people may know better than to take the rabies shot when it is not necessary, but the medical representatives still push it in India. We go to doctors because we think they have the knowledge to help us make these decisions, but instead everyone operates by fear. Doctors are afraid of malpractice, patient is afraid of death.
So all this which is passed off as "development" of the "third world" is actually increasing the profits of the first world, profits which are dependent on exploitation of natural resources and human labour of other parts of the world. First world profits are increased by creating demand for first world lifestyle in the "third world" -- to increase market for first world and to make the third world exploit the fourth world. Deceive people, hide the conflicts and tensions of 3rd and 4th world by invoking the rhetoric of nationalism.
In a funny way, globalization abets individual isolation. We can also counter globalization by spending our money on things not so much oriented to our individual, temporary use, but things of lasting value to the community. Did I buy one more dress rather than a ticket to a play? One ride in a taxi rather than 10 rides in the bus? Two mass produced plastic hair clips rather than one made of bamboo by a village artisan? What is the long term effect of such decisions?
When we understand the problem in this way we have to flip over conventional ideas about the wealth and poverty of those around us. When a beggar approaches me on a train, I feel guilty, whether I give a rupee or not. Why? Is it because I think I have not done my share to end poverty? But why when I see a rich person do I not feel guilty? It is also because of me that that person is rich. I am responsible for making him or her rich by consuming so many commodities and being part of the culture that makes capitalists rich. We may think, how can I spend my money on so many things when there are poor people in the world, if I were not so greedy then I would not contribute to poverty. Actually we should be thinking, how can I spend my money on these things whose profits go to the rich and which do nothing to replenish the natural resources which went into making them and do not give a fair livelihood to those who produced them. If we could purchase such products that met these conditions, then our social relations would be balanced. Today these goods are hard to find and then they are tend to be "expensive" either because they are not made at a large scale or because they reflect the true price of making the product while the mass produced and globally traded products around us are artificially subsidized.
Aravinda Pillalamarri
Aravinda@unforgettable.com
*Footnote: Infect Dis Clin Practice 1998;7:274-230. "Rabies postexposure prophylaxis: noncompliance with official recommendations"
This article is based on a study of 1,151 persons who had taken the rabies vaccine:
In close to one third of the cases, rabies prophylaxis was started despite the availability of the animal for quarantine. This finding "...demonstrates that there exists a lack of knowledge or a lack of interest in locating an animal and a perception of great risk associated with exposure," the researchers explain.