Another good day in India has passed. I forgot my card in my laptop so I couldn't take any pictures, but no fear, there was still lots of learning involved in my day and more pictures will be taken tomorrow! Today started with another two lectures followed by the National Museum, a talk with a Kashmiri, and a drink at the Imperial Hotel. Overall a successful day.
Our first lecture was great. I found it incredibly intriguing and fortunately, I think most of my peers did as well. I very strongly believe that growth does not lead to development and am interested in how to fix this. Fortunately for me, our lecturer, Dipankar Gupta, spoke to this AND wrote a book on it (which I will be buying and he will be signing!). He talked about democracy, the rich and poor, and growth and development. Gupta commented that the number of poor in India will be different depending on the source, but the bottom line is most people are poor; India is a poor society. Certain sectors such as IT have grown (it now represents 4% GDP and is growing), nonetheless, this sector only employs 3 million people. The organized sector is stuck at 23 million employees which has been the case for the past 30 years. Much of the growth that is happening is in the informal sector (93% of labor is in the informal sector) where people are willing to work a lot for low wages and no benefits. Skilled labor is not needed; factories have plenty of unskilled workers getting the job done cheaply. Gupta said onw way to help with this is through foreign collaboration - foreign companies increase transparency, decrease child labor (even though, according to him this isn't really an issue and child labor is not more economically efficient), and demand minimum wage and over time (though this is rarely enforced). If foreign companies insist on these issues then things may change. He also said we should look to the European model (past 100 years or so) - EU was not always rich, they invested in the social sector. Instead of being costs, education, energy and health were seen as investments. There is money to do this it is just in the wrong places due to corruption. If policy is made for society (not the poor) and everyone can access institutions they become public goods. Today 80% of health expenditures come out of pocket in India. There is growth, but is it bad? Is it detracting attention from where it should be? Gupta believes that when Obama and other American presidents have praised India for it's growth the country takes this as a false sign that they are doing well when they are not.
The second lectures was by an historian, R. Mahalakshmi, whose name is actually the same as the Goddess of wealth. She gave us a lecture on ancient civilization in India. She also told us interesting stories that explain a lot of the architecture and myths in Indian society. When we went to the museum after the lecture she also came with us, which was nice. However, we only had an hour in the museum (which was three floors) so we were pretty rushed.
The best part of the day was talking to the Kashmiri. We met him that day Kishore was buying pashminas and I had been hoping we would be able to return to visit the owner! He asked us not to mention his name ore the name of his shop when we were talking to him (a small group of us went). He said he never talks to journalists but our professor, Kishore, bribed him by saying that one day we will be the policy makers and politicians and perhaps we will be on his side. At the end he said he had told us the truth from his heart and the story the way it really is. Here is what he told us:
He started with a brief history of how Kashmir had its own constitution, prime minister, etc. until 1947. Trouble started with the India/Pakistan partition. The British didn't settle anything when they left. Nehru was originally from Kashmir so when Pakistan came in Kashmir called India for help. Pakistan got half of Kashmir, then the UN came in and it was said that the people were to decide the fate of Kashmir. In 1952 Kashmir would have merged with India because they saw what Pakistan did and how they looted when the entered Kashmir (he was born in 1948 so this is what all of his family says). He said that there was so much poverty in Kashmir that if one brother was to go out he would have to borrow is other brother's pants. They were so poor that both could not go out at the same time. In 1953 there was an argument with Nehru. Until this point no Indian could own property in Kashmir (they could lease but not own bc Kashmiris didn't want them to come in and build large buildings and ruin the land), all positions in government were held by people from the states (except finance, defense, and communication). Then in 1953 India started to abolish things. There were appointments instead of elections and many things in the Kashmiri constitution started to be amended. In the 1960's wars between India and Pakistan started and continued with war over Kashmir. For a long time no large powers came to help, nor did relief agencies. There was no more thinking about joining India and many freedom parties were formed. He said that the Pakistanis don't want the people of Kashmir, just the land and resources. In 2006-7 the two Kashmirs decided to open up trade between each other. he said it was like East and West Germany when they wanted to see their families and everything else on other side. The shopowner said that at this point he was the head of the organization leading this and met with the head on the Pakistan side. He said he showed him the Indian Kashmiri side and his counterpart could not believe what he was seeing. The Indian Kashmir had roads, houses, etc. It was prosperous compared to Pakistan.
In 1989 everything was taken by the Miltons and he moved to India in 1990. India did not trust Kashmiris because they thought they were all Miltons. From 1990-2005 all the boys had to leave college and were without an education. This is a problem being faced now. He said that Kashmiris are an undecided people. An American journalist who came into his shop after spending 6 months in Kashmir told him after he asked what she thought that they were living on hope. He said Kashmir is full of pains and the leaders are also corrupt. The people want to live with dignity and respect; it is everything. Even if this meant they only had one meal a day they would pick dignity and respect over higher living standards. He said that Kashmir would be much better off with India, but on certain conditions, the ones that were held before 1953 with their representatives from their state, etc.
This guy has lived in India for 21 years and has never had a problem; it is like everyone is family. He said it is the politicians that make the problems of Kashmir. Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiris are all good. The best thing that can be done is to force the countries to figure the problem out. Bush 43 pushed away from this and it did not do any help (Clinton, however, was good). The Kashmiris do not want financial help from any organization. If the large powers would stop doing business with India and Pakistan and stop supplying guns, etc to both sides the Kashmir problem could be solved and this is what is wanted. The US stopped everything in Iraq and stopped all business to find weapons there; they should do this here and solve the problem. Kashmir was taken by force. If the British had settle things before they left there would not be a problem today. The Kashmiri people are not free. All of their rights have been taken away. They are not free to talk and there is no democracy. They do not want to join Pakistan. Many argue that there are many Muslims but there are also many Muslims in India. Kashmir was also never part of India. The people are entitled to get their democracy, pride, and independence back.
There was recently a Kashmir conference but there were no Kashmiris there. Nonetheless, it was still concluded that if the problem is not settled soon the problem will not be between three parties anymore, it will have to include four - India, Pakistan, Kashmir, and China. This is a real fear.
The store owner said that no one does anything as a favor, everyone acts in their own interests. The US has intervened in areas where they have interests. If there are none in Kashmir, nothing will happen. Kashmiris love the American people, they just don't like our government.
After a day of learning we headed to the Imerial Hotel. Very nice and very Western. I also bought probably the most expensive drink I will ever buy. $20 and a cultural experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment