I was travelling the other day
and got hold of Sunday edition of a popular newspaper. Abhijit Banerjee was
right there “making india proud”, and fortunately for me I
also manage to get a seat in the crowded train to settle into getting the
nuances of “making india proud” mission. We are so fortunate that he went to US to study poverty (and ofcourse economics), just like the gandhi fellow
who went all the way to S.Africa (as a lawyer, interesting choice of career in
the circumstance) to know about discrimination and exploitation, and the racist
casteist fellow did come back to india with his mindset intact
despite his experiences. I don’t understand what a freewheeling interview is. The dictionary says it’s “not limited by rules
or accepted ways of doing things” but the interview had nothing to suggest this
definition, so I guess they were just using these as market compulsion to cater
to the brand. Intellectually insincere Amartya Sen was a colossal waste of
time, so I am not too excited about this fellow, and there are compelling
reasons to be extremely wary of cunning Indians where even lawyers pose as
economists. And to start with the fellow carries caste reference, and hence by
simple logic the putrid pit location is least qualified to give insight, least on
poverty. But since I don’t know much about him so got into the freewheeling,
and indeed I had ample time through the two hour journey despite the jostling
crowd (fertility is another of Senbabu’s insightful interventions which we are
so indebted, and this one goes beyond scholastic. When castetva meets hindutva
on weekend they call it karmayogi!). Very soon he sets the tone for the interview
“We try very hard to
be not oracular”. Sure, the blessed in this part of the world are humble about
these skills. They do work very hard to
stay humble. Being humble is biggest achievement, and indeed there is well established
hierarchy for these nuances.
It
is amazing that when he elaborates on poverty he very conveniently misses the
main evidence that surely defines this cannibalistic society and which he is
very much complicit. And anyone studying at the grassroot level will be quite
aware of this menacing presence that defines all dealings that degrades and dehumanizes.
Senbabu too, characteristically and quite cunningly, misses these in his high
end famine study (the mainstream posers conveniently blame it on colonists
while those with specific agenda on Churchill), it is this skill while
exaggerating sanitized indian thoughts that had him besotted by castetva. The “evidence”
that is being purposely sidelined while these are normalized for the
consumption of West is astounding. It’s like ignoring the knife on the chest in
the murder scene and concluding, ofcourse “trying hard not to be oracular”, that
it is a case of drowning!! And when it comes to Indians, inbred in cunning ways,
semantics is the reality. Everything else we are told is illusion. Hence the
arbitrators defines the reality for common people. The ritual of word play is
carefully orchestrated. On being asked about pro-poor policies, the fellow elaborates
“I think China has done one critical
thing which we have fail to do, and that is going for labour-intensive
manufacturing. We did create jobs in real
estate, services but not in manufacturing. And that's one sector that can
absorb millions of people. We missed that bus, and Bangladesh picked it up”. China as a model for labor
intensive manufacturing is quite telling. These thoughts emerge from a framework
that is still stuck in 1930s, that doesn’t value human. So are humans just cogs
to be served for labour intensive meaningless jobs? Is this how we value
humans? Or is it meant to control humans so that they don’t become a threat to
the system that perpetuates meaninglessness? Its amazingly feudal idea, and
coming from a fellow entrenched in caste frame this is quite sinister.
Egalitarian
context talks of automation and removing humans from degradation. Policy makers
really have to think a world devoid of labor intensive occupations. Where humans
are valued for their unique ability. Humans are sentient life forms that need
to be respected. We have reached a stage wherein meaningless repetitive jobs
can be easily be automated. When asked “Is
caste an external constraint that prevents labour mobility in India?” Our man
quite cunningly avoids the pitfall and comes out with gem of an answer which
negates the question itself and indeed the whole concept of caste and discrimination
herein! “When you look at the
data, it doesn't look like people are waiting for that Brahminical job to fall
into their lap”.
He is adeptly playing to the narration that castetva seeks to nurture, unfortunately
for him they are not in power and hindutva is very unlikely to entertain him. They
will ofcourse entertain labor-intensive gandhian thoughts. Since blessing has
to be proportionate to fate. Hard labour is where blessing comes from, if not
in this life atleast in the next where there is a possibility of upgradation,
is how it is drilled in. This society has always valued dehumanizing contexts. So
UBI will not be entertained. It is also not shocking that Banerjeeji doesn’t associate
UBI with isolating from dehumanizing jobs but as some exotic political decision,
and indeed it is. It is hard to expect castetva to see humans as humans. UBI was
a feudal strategy to patronize, positioning “jeneu dhari” as “dhanveer” savior
of dark skinned malnourished people with cringe worthy bollywoodian mediocre tag
line.
Then
a question was asked to Esther Duflo (wife and co-recipient) part of her answer
had this “…and it made me realise that everything I ever thought about how the
poor work and live is completely wrong. These people had a level of
sophistication and smarts that was quite impressive”. Mine, full marks on
sincerity there but it showcase deep seated prejudices. To start with, and since
you are based in US you are expected to be much sensitive, “these people” is
the worst description. And yes poor are humans too, and not to be categorized as
some sort of alien. People respond to circumstances and contexts they face with
ingenuity and creativity they possess to survive. That is natural. There is
nothing unique about being poor. And tomorrow if you don't have money and social network you could be "these people". This patronizing coming from a European white
woman on slum dwellers in Kolkata is distressing and indeed deeply flawed in
its historicity. It is also telling that she didn’t elaborate on her learning
on dehumanizing value system that contributes to misery and poverty, how does
caste works into hellhole kolkota slums should be obvious.
Do
they really study poverty?
