POVERTY IN INDIA IS NOT THE RESULT OF COLONIALISM AS NAIPAUL SAYS IN HIS NOVEL "AN AREA OF DARKNESS"
I. Background
An Area of Darkness is a travel genre written by V.S. Naipaul. It tells about poverty, caste system and colonialism condition in India. He thinks that the poverty in India is because of British colonialism. Let us see other countries which were British colonies: Singapore and Hong Kong, they are wealthy countries. Why can not it happen in India? Is it colonialism that creates poverty in India? What actually creates poverty in India?
II. Theoretical Reviews
Post-colonialism refers to the period following the decline of colonialism. Post-colonialism deals with many issues for societies that have undergone colonialism: the dilemmas of developing a national identity in the wake of colonial rule. After got its independence from Britain, India remains as a poor country. The author thinks that colonialism is the reason. India tries to build their own identity, although according to Naipaul, it is not harmonious with their weak condition. Although now the poverty is declining in India, India is still trying to reduce the poverty.
Poverty in India considered as the result of colonialism, but actually it is because the caste system which divides the society into classes. Marxists believe that in its pure form capitalist society is divided into two powerful social classes: the working class or proletariat and the bourgeoisie.
III. Analysis
India was one of British colonies. Britain used its colonies for new markets and resources. Here are some countries that are colonies of England beside India: Bermuda, British Solomon Islands, Brunei, Canada, Egypt, Fiji, Gold Coast (Ghana), Hong Kong, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kuwait, and New Zealand.
According to the author, the poverty was caused by the British colonialism. He mentions in the novel in Chapter 8 Fantasy and Ruins: “The England of India was totally different. It remained incongruous imposition”. He also mentions some building that according to him have become ”… alien ruins” in India. It means that colonialism in India left something not harmony with the condition in India: buildings were too grand, too big for the small and weak people in India. It is different from England in Trinidad, where ”It was therefore important to be British”. He also writes that ”… England a country of Blenheims, continually built, destroyed and rebuilt…, each a gift of a nation and seldom for services rendered, all adding up to nothing, leaving at the end no vigorous or even created nation”. It means that Britain left darkness in India. Poverty in India is because of colonialism.
After got their independence for more than fifty years from almost two centuries of British rules, poverty in India is still great. In India, it is estimated that about 350-400 million are below the poverty line, 75 per cent of them in the rural areas. More than 40 per cent of the population is illiterate. Women, tribal and scheduled castes particularly affected. See this data below:
Population below $1 a day (%): 34.7 (2001)
Prevalence of child malnutrition (% of children under 5): 53.2 (1995)
Ratio of young literate females to males (% ages 15-24): 82.7 (2002)
Population: 1.0 billion (2002)
Here I find something strange. Singapore and Hong Kong were British colonies. Singapore has a highly developed market-based economy in which the state plays a major role. It has one of the highest per capita gross domestic products in the world and is considered one of the "East Asian Tigers". The economy depends heavily on exports. While Hong Kong has one of the least restricted economies in world and is basically duty-free. It is the world's 10th largest trading entity and 11th largest banking centre. The dominant presence of international trade is reflected in the number of consulates located in the territory: As of June 2005, Hong Kong had 107 consulates and consulates-general, more than any other city in the world. Even New York City, host of the United Nations, only has 93 consulates. Why this happens?
Let us see culture and religious beliefs in India. Most of them are Hindus. In Hinduism there is a pattern of social classes called the caste system. From the beginning, India’s caste system was a curse on its society. It has generally been regarded as an absurd, unhealthy social phenomenon. Basic caste is called varna, or colour. The Bhagavad Gita says this about the varnas:
[41] The works of Brahmins, Ksatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature.
[42] The works of a Brahmin are peace; self-harmony, austerity, and purity; loving-forgiveness and righteousness; vision and wisdom and faith.
[43] These are the works of a Ksatriya: a heroic mind, inner fire, constancy, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and noble leadership.
[44] Trade, agriculture and the rearing of cattle is the work of a Vaishya. And the work of the Shudra is service.
[Chapter 18, Juan Mascaró translation, Penguin Books, 1962]
Or in easy division, we can divide the caste in India as:
a. The Brahmins is the rightful possessor of the Veda and is the chief of the whole creation. Priests and teachers are in this caste. They are to provide the intellectual and spiritual needs of the community.
b. The Kshatriyas is described as the dispenser of justice, particularly as the one whose duty it is to punish law-breakers. They were needed to rule and to protect the others. Kings, princes and warriors are categorized in this caste.
c. The Vaishyas contains the landowners, merchants, the agriculturists, and the keeper of cattle. His chief work is deal with trade and agriculture.
d. The Shudras has been created to serve the upper three castes. Workers and farmers are in this caste. They have to do all the manual work.
e. The Untouchables (Dalit/Pariah) is to perform the most unpleasant tasks, involve too much pollution to be performed by caste Hindus: cleaning lavatories, carrying night soil, dealing with the bodies of dead animals or unclaimed dead humans, skinning carcasses or tanning leather from such dead animals, manufacturing leather goods, and cleaning up the human and animal waste. They are literally outcastes.
The status of an individual in the society is determined by the caste in which he is born. The social, economic and other aspects of life are controlled by the caste regulation. Caste differences influence marriages, intermarriage between castes are not allowed. For rural Indians, castes shape almost every aspect of their lives: the food they eat and who can cook it, how they bathe, the colour of their clothes, the length of a sari (cloth worn by a woman), how the dhoti (cloth worn by a Hindu man) is tied, etc. Everything is determined by caste and nothing is left to chance. Even punishment and water to drink are determined by caste. Therefore, the poor remains poor, even poorer, they can not jump to be upper classes. The richer remains rich but can be poor. That is why poverty in India still remains, even greater.
IV. Conclusion
Poverty in India is not because of British colonialism. It is their culture and religious beliefs, which have a pattern of social classes called the caste system, that create poverty in their population.
V. Sources
Please contact me if you need sources used in this paper.
No Colonialism without Long Bad Effect
I think, you are 'too fast' in concluding that poverty in India is because of caste system, and it has nothing to do with colonialism.
Why?
First, because you forgot to put the colonialism's effect toward people's mentality. How the syndrome of postcolonial people influence the culture-movement. How, then, for example, the peasants in India behaved formerly and behaving now after the coming of 'coca-cola' and other franchises?
Second, you did not post the latest datum-sources of caste-system in India. how the changes have been done, how the struggle against it, and how the result, how the Indian government see it.
Third, by concluding that, you, directly, do not let India, or any other Third Word Countries create their own culture, their own ways to solve their problems. You'll then say, "the West is the best".
Fourth, you did not put the 'traditional' ways ever done by some Indians to solve the poverty but, for example, challenged by big transnational cooperations owned and controlled by West.
The analysis, then, to me, seems become sadomasochistic since my country is included in The Third World Country. How can we say "the poverty of my country have nothing to do with colonialism" if we are now under attack of new imperialism? Are we going to forget the history and its effects?
We are not going to be back to 'old pure tradition', indeed. but to forget the history of colonialism is to give our body and soul to the other.
"Europe is the creation of the Third World Countries" (The Wretched of the Earth, Fanon)
The first thing came to my
The first thing came to my mind when I wrote this article is that: Almost all British Commonwealth nations are prosperous, well-developed. Let us see Hong Kong, or Singapore. But, how about India? Well, although it is not the answer, I was just trying to see from one point of view, no intention to consider that Westerners are better than us. India has the right to have their own culture. It is not related to being colonized, but rather to people's mind how to change themselves to be better. Whether we are 'colonized' by our mind/culture/socio-cultural/historical or not???
Post new comment