Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Day Fourteen: Mumbai
Ooh look – I’ve been here exactly 2 weeks now! It seems a lot longer than 14 days, but in a good way. Having said that, I won’t really be sad to be coming home – it feels like it’s time. I don’t belong here. Ah, the old end-of-adventure conundrum.
So yes, I’m back in Mumbai for a couple of days, in the same hotel as on my first night. I’m going to refine my previous statement about disliking Mumbai. In the context of India in general, it’s just a very big, crowded city – but a city of very defined extremes. Everywhere I’ve been has had big posh houses (and sometimes palaces) with people living under tarpaulins on the same street, but in Mumbai there are huge slums literally (I can’t use this word anymore without thinking of "Thierry Henry is quite literally on fire!" etc, but I really do mean 'literally') across the street from international banking headquarters. Yesterday evening we went for a bit of sightseeing, and went to see the biggest, swankiest, most venerable 5-star hotel in town, the "Taj Mahal" on the seafront. We went in and had a look around, open-mouthed. Eventually, as we were wandering around the corridors where the rooms are (chandeliers, wooden balconies etc) we were inevitably challenged and asked to leave; but my gosh is it opulent.
Earlier that day we had again gone out into the field, to 'community centres' underneath flyovers and down tiny narrow alleys with shambling 2-storey houses either side, but what struck me was not so much the desperate poverty as the fact that everyone was busy – sweeping and scrubbing their homes, preparing food, sewing blankets or cutting wood. They were making the best of things. Having said that, they are very much in need of decent sanitation and clean water.
Back at the hotel having dinner, Inga and me were discussing these inequalities, and also the gender inequalities that exist here. She was quite horrified at how lowly women’s status is – and having spoken to various Indian people about it I must agree with her. To start with, female children are thought of as a burden since they will inevitably leave the family and cannot then support them; there is also a large dowry to be paid when she gets married. And get married she will: marriages are arranged, mostly by matching on social class and comparing horoscopes, and can happen in the space of a few weeks. The mean age of marriage for women is around 20ish (I forget exactly); they then face not being able to have a career or get an education, and generally being subservient (depending on the nature of the husband, of course!). It seems like women are brought up to have lower self esteem (and possibly poorer health, since if food is scarce the best is often given to the sons), and are married off before they have a chance to realise what’s happening, thus perpetuating the whole thing. BUT: am I just being an arrogant whitey by looking at things this way (especially as we don't exactly have an equal society ourselves!)? Where’s the line between promoting a fair and equal society and eroding a whole culture and replacing it with free-market capitalism and Jerry Springer? Clearly there is a line, but it’s possibly one that international development bodies fail to spot in time, if indeed they’re looking in the first place.
Anyway, discuss. Liam in particular I expect will have some interesting things to say here!
So yes, I’m back in Mumbai for a couple of days, in the same hotel as on my first night. I’m going to refine my previous statement about disliking Mumbai. In the context of India in general, it’s just a very big, crowded city – but a city of very defined extremes. Everywhere I’ve been has had big posh houses (and sometimes palaces) with people living under tarpaulins on the same street, but in Mumbai there are huge slums literally (I can’t use this word anymore without thinking of "Thierry Henry is quite literally on fire!" etc, but I really do mean 'literally') across the street from international banking headquarters. Yesterday evening we went for a bit of sightseeing, and went to see the biggest, swankiest, most venerable 5-star hotel in town, the "Taj Mahal" on the seafront. We went in and had a look around, open-mouthed. Eventually, as we were wandering around the corridors where the rooms are (chandeliers, wooden balconies etc) we were inevitably challenged and asked to leave; but my gosh is it opulent.
Earlier that day we had again gone out into the field, to 'community centres' underneath flyovers and down tiny narrow alleys with shambling 2-storey houses either side, but what struck me was not so much the desperate poverty as the fact that everyone was busy – sweeping and scrubbing their homes, preparing food, sewing blankets or cutting wood. They were making the best of things. Having said that, they are very much in need of decent sanitation and clean water.
Back at the hotel having dinner, Inga and me were discussing these inequalities, and also the gender inequalities that exist here. She was quite horrified at how lowly women’s status is – and having spoken to various Indian people about it I must agree with her. To start with, female children are thought of as a burden since they will inevitably leave the family and cannot then support them; there is also a large dowry to be paid when she gets married. And get married she will: marriages are arranged, mostly by matching on social class and comparing horoscopes, and can happen in the space of a few weeks. The mean age of marriage for women is around 20ish (I forget exactly); they then face not being able to have a career or get an education, and generally being subservient (depending on the nature of the husband, of course!). It seems like women are brought up to have lower self esteem (and possibly poorer health, since if food is scarce the best is often given to the sons), and are married off before they have a chance to realise what’s happening, thus perpetuating the whole thing. BUT: am I just being an arrogant whitey by looking at things this way (especially as we don't exactly have an equal society ourselves!)? Where’s the line between promoting a fair and equal society and eroding a whole culture and replacing it with free-market capitalism and Jerry Springer? Clearly there is a line, but it’s possibly one that international development bodies fail to spot in time, if indeed they’re looking in the first place.
Anyway, discuss. Liam in particular I expect will have some interesting things to say here!
# posted by Pgd @ 5:44 am 
Comments:
<< Home
Ah, yes. This old chestnut.
Had a big argument with Mary about this once, as I recall.
My argument boils down to "Who are we to say what is right?" We always assume (as you point out in your blog) that our way of doing things is best. Unfortunately everyone thinks that. Do Indian women feel oppressed? I guess that is the question that really needs answering.
Of course I believe that everyone should have equal rights, and all the usual liberal stuff. But also, if that's the way people want to live their lives, who are we to argue?
Arranged marriages have a much lower divorce rate, too (although I do realise that there are massively different views on divorce in different cultures).
Had a big argument with Mary about this once, as I recall.
My argument boils down to "Who are we to say what is right?" We always assume (as you point out in your blog) that our way of doing things is best. Unfortunately everyone thinks that. Do Indian women feel oppressed? I guess that is the question that really needs answering.
Of course I believe that everyone should have equal rights, and all the usual liberal stuff. But also, if that's the way people want to live their lives, who are we to argue?
Arranged marriages have a much lower divorce rate, too (although I do realise that there are massively different views on divorce in different cultures).
Wow. That was a whole pound's worth, at least :)
Yeah, of course you're right about equality not being equivalent to commercialism. But "belief in a god is replaced by a belief in money" was never my argument... it just seems to me that the West, and the US in particular, encourage developing countries to "develop" by becoming culturally as well as economically more like the West.
Having said that, you are right about India working on its inequalities itself. Attitudes do seem to be changing independently of external influences - for instance, a large proportion of the scientists and researchers I worked with were women, even the senior ones. And yeah, things do have to change slowly, and hopefully they are.
Finally, I reckon the developed world is just so convinced of its superiority and sophistication that slums can't be allowed to spoil the illusion.
Thanks muchly for your reply!
Post a Comment
Yeah, of course you're right about equality not being equivalent to commercialism. But "belief in a god is replaced by a belief in money" was never my argument... it just seems to me that the West, and the US in particular, encourage developing countries to "develop" by becoming culturally as well as economically more like the West.
Having said that, you are right about India working on its inequalities itself. Attitudes do seem to be changing independently of external influences - for instance, a large proportion of the scientists and researchers I worked with were women, even the senior ones. And yeah, things do have to change slowly, and hopefully they are.
Finally, I reckon the developed world is just so convinced of its superiority and sophistication that slums can't be allowed to spoil the illusion.
Thanks muchly for your reply!
<< Home
