My nine-year-old daughter often asks me whether she is British or Indian. Being born in the UK and growing up here, her national identity centres around this country, but often she is reminded about her Indian/ Bengali roots, as was done on 26 January - India's Republic Day. To arrive at an argumentative equilibrium my daughter is told that she is British of Indian origin.
Going by the diplomatic jargon, I too hold the same status so does my wife. But when it comes to description we define ourselves as Indians.
I was born in India and spent three decades of my life there before moving to the UK. So technicalities apart, I consider myself only as an Indian and nothing else. Lord Norman Tebbit, famed or ill famed for Tebbit Test, might not be pleased but that is the reality.
But when my daughter comes up with the same argument, we settle only after attaching an adage i.e. British Indian and not only British.
The moot question though is whether a national identity is important in a globalised set up.
For the sake of argument, we often say that the current phase of globalisation, which is more technological, has produced a global village and being world citizens do we really need a national identity.
Sociological analysts see the ideological demise of nation state with the advent of globalisation. Keynesianism which was the hallmark of nation state in the post war era, has taken a back seat and despite a flurry of crises caused by the selfish behaviour of the proponents of Neoliberalism, the state has taken a supplementary role, through quantitative easing etc., rather than positioning itself as the leader as was the case during the post-war reconstruction.
When statism was the dominant discourse one could understand the rationale behind the significance of national identities. However, when state as an intellectual idea has taken a back seat and the market force has taken over, even then national identities are quite predominant. Imagine the rise of the Neo-Nazis in Germany or the British National Party in the UK.
Technology they say is a great leveler and it has often obscured national boundaries and geographical contours and yet it couldn't get away with national, ethnic and other identities. When it comes to 15 August or 26 January, I am a proud Indian. I keep on telling my daughter how freedom fighters made India free from the clutches of the British. Similarly, during Durga Puja my Bengaliness takes precedence. Undoubtedly, they all are part of my identity.
Do these forms of identity come into conflict with one another or do they co-exist?
Or is identity too complex a phenomenon and it is not easy to decipher all its shades!
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Sunday
Suchitra Sen redefined stardom
In a school exam we were once asked to write an essay
on our favourite movie. I had written about Satyajit Ray’s ‘Pather Panchali’. I
hadn’t seen Ray’s landmark movie then, nor did I have a chance to read the epic
novel by Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay. The essay book at hand bailed me out
then.
Many years later, I had to write the same essay again. This
time, however, I was in the look-out for a job. By that time I had watched ‘Sat
Paake Bandha’ - a film on a dignified
lady’s love for a modest earning professor against the wishes of her ambitious
mother - several times. Each time I watched the movie, I wished the marriage
between Archana (the role played by Suchitra Sen) and Sukhendu (Soumitra
Chatterjee) had survived.
Ray’s ‘Pather Panchali’ may have ushered in a new era in the
history of Indian films, yet I, as a middle class semi-urban Bengali, couldn’t relate to it. On the other hand, Suchitra Sen’s ‘Sat Pake Bandha’, which
fetched her the award of the best actress at the Moscow Film Festival – first
by an Indian actress in any foreign film fest, portrayed the emotions and
aspirations of the middle class. What made Suchitra Sen unique in the film was
the multi-shaded dilemma between the emotions she had for her husband and the
aspirations of her mother. And it is this uniqueness which won the
hearts and minds of thousands of cine-goers and made her an epitome of
romanticism.
It is a well-known fact that Ray wanted to direct ‘Devi
Chaudhurani’ – a novel by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee where a charismatic lady
led the struggle against the oppression of the British – with Suchitra Sen in
the lead role. However, it didn’t materialise as Suchitra Sen didn’t have dates
which matched Ray’s schedule. Ray also wanted Suchitra Sen to act exclusively for him (i.e. she wouldn’t act in any other film till the shooting of
Devi Chaudhurani’ was over). Suchitra Sen, however, refused the offer, stating
that she couldn’t overlook those directors who made her the star that she
was. This only proves that her path to
stardom was not guided by intellectual fame alone, and she knew how to pull the
right chord to sway popular imagination.
Such was her glamorous screen presence and influence on
people’s mind that every young male lover in the 1960s and 1970s desired to see Suchitra Sen in their fiancée. Obviously, the socio-historic context was
important. India was a young nation, mired with numerous problems, including
poverty, unemployment and the toiling middle class looked at her as a respite
in the midst of the struggle that they had to undergo. Her fans thronged the matinee shows in large
numbers only for a rendezvous with their favourite screen idol.
With Uttam Kumar, Suchitra Sen formed one of the formidable
on-screen pairs in the history of Indian cinema. Their on screen presence was epitomised by films like ‘Sare Chuattor’, ‘Harano Sur’ ‘Pathe Holo Deri’ and
‘Saptopadi’, only to name a few of the 30 films they acted together. Yet some
believe that Suchitra Sen performed even better in those movies where she wasn’t opposite the thespian.
Apart from ‘Sat Pake Bandha’, ‘Uttar
Falguni’, where she acted in a double role of a courtesan mother and a lawyer daughter,
‘Dwep Jele Jai’, where she played the role of a nurse hired by a psychiatrist to develop
personal relationships with male patients, ‘Bhagaban Shree Krishna
Chaitanya’ are some of the films where Suchitra Sen was sophistication and
dignity personified. And this sophistication and dignity were also her off-screen
hallmarks. In a way, Suchitra Sen changed the way the female actors were seen
in the cinema industry, especially in Bengal.
Bharati Devi, Chaya Devi, Kanan Devi, Sandhya Rani, Sumitra Devi - veterans to Suchitra
Sen in the film industry, were undoubtedly gifted actors. However, they were
submissive in their personalities and their on screen presence was subdued by
playing second fiddle to the heroes. This male domination was in a way
challenged by Suchitra Sen, when she shared the screen with Uttam Kumar as
equal partners.
In some of the films which she did with Uttam Kumar, her name got precedence in the title cards, posters and banners. And in films like ‘Uttar Falguni’ and
‘Dwip Jele Jai’ it was Suchitra Sen who led the show. It was the same
with Gulzar’s ‘Aandhi’, where Suchitra Sen was cast in a character, believed
to be profoundly influenced by the persona of Indira Gandhi.
‘Aandhi’ was banned during the emergency, later on when the
ban was lifted and the film was screened at Kolkata’s Nandan, we were college
students. I remember many of us had thronged to watch ‘Aandhi’, not expecting anything
else but only to watch Suchitra Sen on the silver screen.
Her Hindi accent in the film was pathetic to
say the least and that she was aging when the film was shot was evident, yet
people thronged to have a feel as to how Suchitra Sen looked like. By that time
she had already retired into recluse, which made the cine-goers all the more
curious.
Her feminine charm and emotive force definitely strengthened
the idea of feminism, but such was her grace that Suchitra Sen never had to
shout out loud to make herself heard. She challenged the patriarchy by her on
and off screen presence but probably never defied it. Even after separating from her husband Dibanath Sen, Suchitra Sen took up the responsibility of bringing the body to Kolkata and carrying out his last rites after he died abroad.
No one knows why she retired into recluse after her last
film in 1978, yet it is widely believed that she took to spiritualism. While
her illusive retirement retained her image as a star in the hearts and minds of
thousands of cine-lovers, it also redefined the idea of stardom and demonstrated that it was not only confined
to the screen.
(A version of this write up was first published in DNA)
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Thursday
Sen-Bhagwati Debate: When Social Contract is Imperative
The recent war of words involving two leading luminaries of modern day economics - Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen - reminds me of a story we were told during the very first lecture on Economics. The story goes like this: A physicist, an engineer and an economist were taken to an empty island and shown a sealed container. They were asked to open the container but no tools or devices were available.
The physicist said he would apply heat but no source was available to generate it. The engineer suggested that he would use a lever but there were no tools in the island. With no chances of opening the sealed container, the economist retorted, "Let us assume that the container is open."
It might seem like a warming up joke, but assumptions are very important in Economics. Unlike natural sciences controlled experiments are rarely possible in social sciences and hence the importance of assumptions. The much talked about book written by arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, is considered a seminal work because the author's assumptions regarding the traits of human behaviour turned out to be very close to reality. Similar is the case with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. How one analyses and interprets an issue depends on the inherent assumptions being made.
Whatever I have understood from the verbal duel, apart from the personal acrimony, is that Bhagwati is all for higher growth with the basic assumption that the increased income will then be utilised, among many other things also for the social sector (Trickle Down Hypothesis). Sen on the other hand argues, as he has been doing for quite some time, that growth in itself is not enough, and countries like India should also focus on areas like health and education.
Those who understand the arithmetical terminology of 'average' will very well recognise the inadequacy of growth (change in national income and also per capita income) as an indicator of social well being as it doesn't ensure equitable distribution of resources and stops short of identifying people's entitlements. Here the significance of allocating resources for social areas like health and education becomes important. Sen has been harping this issue ever since he formulated "Sen's Poverty Index P (also referred to as the Poverty Gap Index)", in place of the usual "Head-Count Ratio" used for measuring the intensity and extent of poverty.
The responsibility of allocating resources for the social sectors lies mostly with the government of the day. The inherent argument behind such redistribution, as I understand, is that it will work towards creation of a more egalitarian society and restrain social instability. However, such redistribution can only take place when a certain level of growth is achieved, which justifies Bhagwati's argument. At the same time Sen is also correct in saying that one should not be complacent only with the growth figures. So I am not surprised when one of Sen's many students Dr Kaushik Basu argues (Dr Basu is quoted in the attached link) that both the scholars are actually saying the same thing but from different points of views, which I think are guided by their underlying assumptions and political philosophies.
So the bottom line is that growth is necessary but in a country like India it is not sufficient for balanced and equitable social development. If read between the lines and beyond the egotist rhetoric one will find that both Bhagwati and Sen are arguing the same thing but from their own standpoints. The irony is that the Indian media is making a big fuss out of it, by linking it with the real politics of the day, and the reason being that social issues are less 'sexy', if I may borrow the word from Manu Joseph of the OPEN magazine, than the animosity between the BJP and the Congress and its unsophisticated manifestation. The other reason being that it is much easier to get away from the intellectual aspect of the debate by linking it with the worldly politics.
However, this over simplification by (half-baked) journalists overlooks a much bigger issue which poses an equally bigger threat to India as a nation, and that is the failure of the government in redistributing resources in an equitable way. Some would blame it on Neoliberalism, while others would put the onus on failed governance, lack of accountability of the politicians and others at the helm, and indifference of the middle class towards social and economic menace gripping India. One would argue that rising social tension and increase in heinous crimes like rape, murder, gender violence are a fall out of the deficits in equitable redistribution and the failure in making the people aware (and also ensuirng) of their entitlements.
While the media and its consumers are talking with much interest about the Bhagwati-Sen tussle, they are totally indifferent on this issue and it points towards a dangerous trend as far as social sensibility is concerned. One could argue that a social contract is essential to get the Indian society out of this mess. By social contract I mean that the relatively well off in the society will take collective responsibility for the social and economic betterment of the impoverished. After all, one has to accept that even if the middle class confines itself within the walled and guarded compounds they can't remain totally insulated from the outside world.
One can expect that the social contract will have multiple benefits. Firstly, it will relieve the government from the arduous task of redistributing resources, and hopefully this will act as a detriment to rampant corruption in public life. Secondly, the relatively well off will realise for themselves the danger of unilateral concentration of wealth, and thirdly, it will develop a sense of belonging for the impoverished.
If we consider the classical definition of civil society as the intermediary between the state and the individual, then they can play an effective role in introducing the social contract and sustaining it. However, a majority of the current breed of civil society activists are so partisan, following favours dished out by the powerful, and here I don not refer to only the politicians, that they often fail to distinguish between the good, bad and the ugly. So the members of the civil society should be made aware of their pivotal role at a time of serious political, economic and social predicaments.
Without a viable social contract, neither Sen's nor Bhagwati's prescription will be effective in bringing about any positive change in a complex society like India.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
The physicist said he would apply heat but no source was available to generate it. The engineer suggested that he would use a lever but there were no tools in the island. With no chances of opening the sealed container, the economist retorted, "Let us assume that the container is open."
It might seem like a warming up joke, but assumptions are very important in Economics. Unlike natural sciences controlled experiments are rarely possible in social sciences and hence the importance of assumptions. The much talked about book written by arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, is considered a seminal work because the author's assumptions regarding the traits of human behaviour turned out to be very close to reality. Similar is the case with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. How one analyses and interprets an issue depends on the inherent assumptions being made.
Whatever I have understood from the verbal duel, apart from the personal acrimony, is that Bhagwati is all for higher growth with the basic assumption that the increased income will then be utilised, among many other things also for the social sector (Trickle Down Hypothesis). Sen on the other hand argues, as he has been doing for quite some time, that growth in itself is not enough, and countries like India should also focus on areas like health and education.
Those who understand the arithmetical terminology of 'average' will very well recognise the inadequacy of growth (change in national income and also per capita income) as an indicator of social well being as it doesn't ensure equitable distribution of resources and stops short of identifying people's entitlements. Here the significance of allocating resources for social areas like health and education becomes important. Sen has been harping this issue ever since he formulated "Sen's Poverty Index P (also referred to as the Poverty Gap Index)", in place of the usual "Head-Count Ratio" used for measuring the intensity and extent of poverty.
The responsibility of allocating resources for the social sectors lies mostly with the government of the day. The inherent argument behind such redistribution, as I understand, is that it will work towards creation of a more egalitarian society and restrain social instability. However, such redistribution can only take place when a certain level of growth is achieved, which justifies Bhagwati's argument. At the same time Sen is also correct in saying that one should not be complacent only with the growth figures. So I am not surprised when one of Sen's many students Dr Kaushik Basu argues (Dr Basu is quoted in the attached link) that both the scholars are actually saying the same thing but from different points of views, which I think are guided by their underlying assumptions and political philosophies.
So the bottom line is that growth is necessary but in a country like India it is not sufficient for balanced and equitable social development. If read between the lines and beyond the egotist rhetoric one will find that both Bhagwati and Sen are arguing the same thing but from their own standpoints. The irony is that the Indian media is making a big fuss out of it, by linking it with the real politics of the day, and the reason being that social issues are less 'sexy', if I may borrow the word from Manu Joseph of the OPEN magazine, than the animosity between the BJP and the Congress and its unsophisticated manifestation. The other reason being that it is much easier to get away from the intellectual aspect of the debate by linking it with the worldly politics.
However, this over simplification by (half-baked) journalists overlooks a much bigger issue which poses an equally bigger threat to India as a nation, and that is the failure of the government in redistributing resources in an equitable way. Some would blame it on Neoliberalism, while others would put the onus on failed governance, lack of accountability of the politicians and others at the helm, and indifference of the middle class towards social and economic menace gripping India. One would argue that rising social tension and increase in heinous crimes like rape, murder, gender violence are a fall out of the deficits in equitable redistribution and the failure in making the people aware (and also ensuirng) of their entitlements.
While the media and its consumers are talking with much interest about the Bhagwati-Sen tussle, they are totally indifferent on this issue and it points towards a dangerous trend as far as social sensibility is concerned. One could argue that a social contract is essential to get the Indian society out of this mess. By social contract I mean that the relatively well off in the society will take collective responsibility for the social and economic betterment of the impoverished. After all, one has to accept that even if the middle class confines itself within the walled and guarded compounds they can't remain totally insulated from the outside world.
One can expect that the social contract will have multiple benefits. Firstly, it will relieve the government from the arduous task of redistributing resources, and hopefully this will act as a detriment to rampant corruption in public life. Secondly, the relatively well off will realise for themselves the danger of unilateral concentration of wealth, and thirdly, it will develop a sense of belonging for the impoverished.
If we consider the classical definition of civil society as the intermediary between the state and the individual, then they can play an effective role in introducing the social contract and sustaining it. However, a majority of the current breed of civil society activists are so partisan, following favours dished out by the powerful, and here I don not refer to only the politicians, that they often fail to distinguish between the good, bad and the ugly. So the members of the civil society should be made aware of their pivotal role at a time of serious political, economic and social predicaments.
Without a viable social contract, neither Sen's nor Bhagwati's prescription will be effective in bringing about any positive change in a complex society like India.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Tuesday
Humanising History
It was a fascinating experience to engage in a conversation with Romila Thapar, one of the celebrated historians of Ancient and Pre-Modern India. I could literally see the organic link between reading History in schools and what she conversed over a span of nearly two hours - as if it started from that very moment where it ended in classrooms.
Over the past two years, the King's India Institute, under the leadership of Dr Sunil Khilnani and with support from other members of the faculty, has been quite successful in engaging some of the finest thinkers of and on Modern India with the students. Thapar was more of an exception to that long list of esteemed scholars as her work mostly related to Ancient India. However, even at this age, it never seemed that she was talking on something which was not part of a dialogue on Modern India.
Compartmentalising Indian history between the Ancient, Medieval and Modern was only for the purpose of working out the syllabus and holding examinations, she said and "we should never forget the roots" for a better understanding of the "contemporary". In fact, some of the questions raised by her during the course of the conversation transcends beyond the realm of History as an academic discipline. Even an anthropologist or a sociologist or an archaeologist could have come up with similar questions during the course of their research, assuring many among her audience that inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking were also taking shape in India.
Thapar, through erudition, situated her thinking on Ancient Indian History at the very heart of what was contemporary, when she said "simply stating that Mohenjo Daro was a big urban settlement is not good enough, we want to know how big it was." These are some of the queries which come to our mind when we deal with anything contemporary, but such questions never raked our brains when we studied Indus Valley Civilisation in schools. Now out of sheer inquisitiveness we want to know more about the lifestyle of the ordinary people living in urban settlements like Mahenjo Daro and Harappa. We want to know many more things about the life world of those living in the ancient urban settlements.
When we studied Indus Valley Civilisation, it seemed as if Mahenjo Daro and Harappa were like two islands in the middle of nothing. Today, however, we want to know what was beyond those urban spaces, were there villages - if so how fertile was the land in those villages - what was produced in those fertile land - what was the mode of irrigation - did farmers use fertilisers?
Given my long association with journalism, Thapar asked "Was there any form of media during that period - if so what was the mode of communication?"
Many such questions come to our mind now but never did when we studied school textbooks on History. I am not sure whether we were encouraged to do so. For us, history, especially ancient history, was more of a static concept and without any organic element.
I asked if the change in attitude, approach and perception was an outcome of enhanced intellectual thinking?
For Thapar it was going beyond what she termed as "romantic History" - that is talking only about kings and queens, battles and kingdoms.
As I walked out of the room having gothic structures it seemed that it could be humanising history. After all history is the story of humankind. My curiosity now is not only confined to the monarchy and their empires but I also want to know more about the life world of the warrior who goes to the battlefield to defend the king. What was crossing his wife's mind or those of his children when he left for war? Did he make enough arrangements for his family to survive in case he never returned from the battlefield?
My father always says that history is the connection between the past and the present. His intention though was not to inculcate historical thinking but to encourage me to read more and develop my reading habits. I never listened to his advice then but now the 'pain of disconnect' - failing to situate the past in the present - makes me feel uncomfortable.
Our conversation with Romila Thapar in one of the historic rooms of King's College at least provided me with some temporary respite.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Over the past two years, the King's India Institute, under the leadership of Dr Sunil Khilnani and with support from other members of the faculty, has been quite successful in engaging some of the finest thinkers of and on Modern India with the students. Thapar was more of an exception to that long list of esteemed scholars as her work mostly related to Ancient India. However, even at this age, it never seemed that she was talking on something which was not part of a dialogue on Modern India.
Compartmentalising Indian history between the Ancient, Medieval and Modern was only for the purpose of working out the syllabus and holding examinations, she said and "we should never forget the roots" for a better understanding of the "contemporary". In fact, some of the questions raised by her during the course of the conversation transcends beyond the realm of History as an academic discipline. Even an anthropologist or a sociologist or an archaeologist could have come up with similar questions during the course of their research, assuring many among her audience that inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary thinking were also taking shape in India.
Thapar, through erudition, situated her thinking on Ancient Indian History at the very heart of what was contemporary, when she said "simply stating that Mohenjo Daro was a big urban settlement is not good enough, we want to know how big it was." These are some of the queries which come to our mind when we deal with anything contemporary, but such questions never raked our brains when we studied Indus Valley Civilisation in schools. Now out of sheer inquisitiveness we want to know more about the lifestyle of the ordinary people living in urban settlements like Mahenjo Daro and Harappa. We want to know many more things about the life world of those living in the ancient urban settlements.
When we studied Indus Valley Civilisation, it seemed as if Mahenjo Daro and Harappa were like two islands in the middle of nothing. Today, however, we want to know what was beyond those urban spaces, were there villages - if so how fertile was the land in those villages - what was produced in those fertile land - what was the mode of irrigation - did farmers use fertilisers?
Given my long association with journalism, Thapar asked "Was there any form of media during that period - if so what was the mode of communication?"
Many such questions come to our mind now but never did when we studied school textbooks on History. I am not sure whether we were encouraged to do so. For us, history, especially ancient history, was more of a static concept and without any organic element.
I asked if the change in attitude, approach and perception was an outcome of enhanced intellectual thinking?
For Thapar it was going beyond what she termed as "romantic History" - that is talking only about kings and queens, battles and kingdoms.
As I walked out of the room having gothic structures it seemed that it could be humanising history. After all history is the story of humankind. My curiosity now is not only confined to the monarchy and their empires but I also want to know more about the life world of the warrior who goes to the battlefield to defend the king. What was crossing his wife's mind or those of his children when he left for war? Did he make enough arrangements for his family to survive in case he never returned from the battlefield?
My father always says that history is the connection between the past and the present. His intention though was not to inculcate historical thinking but to encourage me to read more and develop my reading habits. I never listened to his advice then but now the 'pain of disconnect' - failing to situate the past in the present - makes me feel uncomfortable.
Our conversation with Romila Thapar in one of the historic rooms of King's College at least provided me with some temporary respite.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Thursday
From Savar with love
Everytime I make my way into Primark, H&M, Tesco, Asda and Matalan the helpless faces of those who lost their loved ones in numerous tragedies involving the readymade garment factories in Bangladesh come to my mind. Yet I regularly visit these and many other retail outlets for the simple reason that they sell cheap clothes imported from countries like Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. Such products manifest some of the tangible benefits of globalisation available mainly to the people in the western countries. For me though they are no less than the labour of love of the garment workers who work under inhumane conditions but do everything necessary to provide us with cheap yet high quality products.
Once I bought a shirt from Primark and it cost me as little as £5. Just to clear my doubts, I took it to Kolkata, showed the shirt to many retailers and wholesalers of clothes, yet failed to get one of such quality at such a modest price. Undoubtedly, globalisation has changed the dynamics of trade fetching even more benefits to the consumers in the first world.
When Neoliberalism - a politico-economic doctrine that decimated the nation state - and trade liberalisation were introduced, capital flowed easily and swiftly from the North to the labour abundant countries of the South. Jobs and services were outsourced to places where cost of living was much less and factors of production had to be paid a fraction of the remuneration in the western economies. Large scale retrenchment and factory closures that followed caused huge resentment, yet the policy-makers assured the ordinary men saying that things like clothing, food etc. would be available at a much cheaper price bringing the cost of living down. The real ploy, one can now make out, was to keep the wages low so as to mop up even more profit for the corporate class.
On the other side of the world, sweatshops engaged in industrial production of readymade garments became the hallmark of national pride and identity. Mushrooming of readymade garment factories ensured fast buck for the traders, which also paid for the comfortable living of their political patrons. Unhindered wealth creation in Bangladesh benefited the rich and the influential but the misery of those who toiled hard to earn foreign exchanges and pride for the nation continued. The garment workers were literally locked up in dingy buildings so that their masters could deliver orders on time. They were left to die from suffocation as the country's foreign exchange reserve touched new highs. And finally, they were literally pushed to the throes of death as a building in Savar, housing at least five garment factories, caved in following a crack which was evident well ahead of the worst industrial disaster Bangladesh has ever seen.
As I sport the cheap yet high quality, trendy yet comfortable clothes exported from countries like Bangladesh, I often indulge in a cost-benefit analysis for the poor workers who work in inhumane conditions only to add to the forex reserve of the national economy so that Bangladesh could upgrade to a developing country, and to make Neoliberalism palatable for the westerners.
The readymade garment sector accounts for more than 70 per cent of Bangladesh's export earnings, yet the inhumane condition of the hapless workers in this sector and their deaths in tragic circumstances have failed to stir the nation's moral imagination. Everytime a tragedy strikes the readymade garments sector, political parties of all hues make a beeline to offer nothing more than lip service only to ensure that the perpetrators go scot free.
One tragedy after another have failed to awaken the political class from the opportunistic slumber. Awami League claims to have situated the country on a higher trajectory of growth and prosperity, but what have they done for the garment workers who lost their lives and their families. BNP is more interested in bringing back the caretaker regime before the general elections but have very little to offer to the poor workers. Jamaat-i-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam vow in the name of Islamic morality and norms, yet they are silent over the tragic killing of innocent and poor garment workers at Savar.
The ill-fated workers are neither compensated enough for the hard work they do in inhumane conditions nor are they sure to survive another day to witness a new dawn. The surplus generated through their economic and social exploitation pays for the comfortable living of the rich and the influential, yet the garment workers carry on with their labour of love - what else can one call it - day in and day out.
It is no surprise though that the international community, which speaks so highly on human rights and values, also become muted when it comes to the sufferings of the poor garment workers in Bangladesh. After all, the cheap products produced by the hard work of the poor workers in Bangladesh contribute to a lower cost of living in the West.
The dresses that I wear everyday are drenched in sweat and blood of those very people who, along with many others, lost their lives under tragic circumstances in places like Savar. It seems they are caught in a quagmire of high stakes from various quarters both within and outside Bangladesh.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Once I bought a shirt from Primark and it cost me as little as £5. Just to clear my doubts, I took it to Kolkata, showed the shirt to many retailers and wholesalers of clothes, yet failed to get one of such quality at such a modest price. Undoubtedly, globalisation has changed the dynamics of trade fetching even more benefits to the consumers in the first world.
When Neoliberalism - a politico-economic doctrine that decimated the nation state - and trade liberalisation were introduced, capital flowed easily and swiftly from the North to the labour abundant countries of the South. Jobs and services were outsourced to places where cost of living was much less and factors of production had to be paid a fraction of the remuneration in the western economies. Large scale retrenchment and factory closures that followed caused huge resentment, yet the policy-makers assured the ordinary men saying that things like clothing, food etc. would be available at a much cheaper price bringing the cost of living down. The real ploy, one can now make out, was to keep the wages low so as to mop up even more profit for the corporate class.
On the other side of the world, sweatshops engaged in industrial production of readymade garments became the hallmark of national pride and identity. Mushrooming of readymade garment factories ensured fast buck for the traders, which also paid for the comfortable living of their political patrons. Unhindered wealth creation in Bangladesh benefited the rich and the influential but the misery of those who toiled hard to earn foreign exchanges and pride for the nation continued. The garment workers were literally locked up in dingy buildings so that their masters could deliver orders on time. They were left to die from suffocation as the country's foreign exchange reserve touched new highs. And finally, they were literally pushed to the throes of death as a building in Savar, housing at least five garment factories, caved in following a crack which was evident well ahead of the worst industrial disaster Bangladesh has ever seen.
As I sport the cheap yet high quality, trendy yet comfortable clothes exported from countries like Bangladesh, I often indulge in a cost-benefit analysis for the poor workers who work in inhumane conditions only to add to the forex reserve of the national economy so that Bangladesh could upgrade to a developing country, and to make Neoliberalism palatable for the westerners.
The readymade garment sector accounts for more than 70 per cent of Bangladesh's export earnings, yet the inhumane condition of the hapless workers in this sector and their deaths in tragic circumstances have failed to stir the nation's moral imagination. Everytime a tragedy strikes the readymade garments sector, political parties of all hues make a beeline to offer nothing more than lip service only to ensure that the perpetrators go scot free.
One tragedy after another have failed to awaken the political class from the opportunistic slumber. Awami League claims to have situated the country on a higher trajectory of growth and prosperity, but what have they done for the garment workers who lost their lives and their families. BNP is more interested in bringing back the caretaker regime before the general elections but have very little to offer to the poor workers. Jamaat-i-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam vow in the name of Islamic morality and norms, yet they are silent over the tragic killing of innocent and poor garment workers at Savar.
The ill-fated workers are neither compensated enough for the hard work they do in inhumane conditions nor are they sure to survive another day to witness a new dawn. The surplus generated through their economic and social exploitation pays for the comfortable living of the rich and the influential, yet the garment workers carry on with their labour of love - what else can one call it - day in and day out.
It is no surprise though that the international community, which speaks so highly on human rights and values, also become muted when it comes to the sufferings of the poor garment workers in Bangladesh. After all, the cheap products produced by the hard work of the poor workers in Bangladesh contribute to a lower cost of living in the West.
The dresses that I wear everyday are drenched in sweat and blood of those very people who, along with many others, lost their lives under tragic circumstances in places like Savar. It seems they are caught in a quagmire of high stakes from various quarters both within and outside Bangladesh.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)