China – taking steps

A while back a group of Finnish “anarchists” were about to hold a demonstration as a gesture of solidarity toward Chinese farmers. This was about to happen at the same time with ASEM 6 event in Helsinki, a gathering of East Asian and European nations.

Socialist and “Anarchist” groups oppose Capitalism. What makes the whole thing absurd is that the Chinese farmers are poor precisely because of lack of Capitalism – clear property rights enforced by the rule of law. Chinese farmers don’t rule their property as they would in a Capitalist society.

Another topic concerning China is child labor. A Finnish state owned news channel YLE recently aired a documentary about Chinese teenage girls who work(ed) at a textile factory. The documentary was touching. However, many people get the connection between child labor, industrialism and Capitalism wrong. The proportion of children working as child labor has fallen during the last few decades. This is because of economic growth which has brought in more money and more efficient means of production so that families and states can invest more in education and so that farms and factories can replace people with machines. Policies didn’t end child labor in the West – the Industrial Revolution did. The West didn’t just one day decide to let child labor go – we were able to let it go because of economic growth. If you ban child labor at an early stage of a country’s
development you hurt the whole population – potentially especially the children who may end up working as prostitutes (as UNIFEC studies have indicated) or working for black markets with even worse working conditions.

Liberal (or “Conservative” if you happen to live in the US and are all confused by the distinction between European and American liberalism) economic policies have pulled hundreds of millions of people out of poverty during the past thirty years. The reason why the Chinese countryside lags behind is Socialism. Individuals are ruled by community leaders – an ideal situation for the very “anarchists” who protested against the Chinese government. “Anarchists” don’t believe in property rights – they believe that their utopian community should rule the individual. Instead of protesting against the Chinese
government the “anarchists” should move to China’s countryside which is a step closer to their “anarchist” dream than our relatively Capitalist Finland is.

By no means am I praising China. China is still very far from being a free market economy. However, the markets have done a lot of good and will continue to do so. The Chinese society grows more open and it will become harder (as we are witnessing every day) for the Communisty Party to control the flow of information and new ideas that are spreading through the Chinese society as we speak. The leaders are also becoming more and more open to the idea of implementing a democratic system.

-Mikko Sandt

Earthquake in Pakistan: One Year Later

Exactly one year ago a massive and traggic earthquake hit Northern Pakistan, Kashmir, and parts of India and Afghanistan. This is a moment to simply pause, pray and ponder.

To think back on what has been done and what still needs to be done, I just compiled a quick list of some numbers of where things stand today. They make for a sobering read:

Total dead in Earthquake = 80,000 – 90,000
Estimated proportion of children amongst dead = 80 percent

Early recovery assistance pledged by international donors = US$ 255 Million
Early recovery pledges that have NOT been recieived yet = US$ 94 Million

Original estimate of long-term reconstruction costs = US$ 3.6 Billion
Current (updated) estimate of long-term reconstruction costs = US$ 4.4 Billion
Current estimated shortfall = US$ 800 Million

Total displaced by Earthquake = 3,500,000
Affectees still living in tents in camps = 35,000 – 40,000
At-risk families without permanent shelter = 60,000 – 100,000
Additional people who might need shelter this winter = 30,000 – 60,000

Estimated houses destroyed = 400,000
Estimated houses whose rebuilding has begun = 17%

On my blog – All Things Pakistan – we have been doing a series of posts remembering the tragic earthquake and highlighting all that still needs to be done. These posts also include a number of moving pictures. See: Here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Adil Najam

A Hindu Madonna

One surefire method of amusing yourself is taking a look at the kinds of searches that lead people to your blog. Amongst others, today I saw one that read “ganesha and madonna.” Curiosity took over, and I googled the phrase, frantically thinking that at some point in my foolish youth, I may have had something with Madonna during one of my blackout phases. Alas, no such luck. Not even the blog showed up.

But don’t fret, this post is not a total waste, because I did chance upon something interesting. It was an old 2003 article by Subhamoy Das on the Hinduism page at about.com. In particular, this article was titled ‘Hollywood Hinduism: Art vs. Morality’. And it was about all of the various ways in which Hinduism has been portrayed in pop culture by artists, actors and Hollywood.

For instance, did you know that Mike Myers once posed as a “cartoonish Hindu deity” (the image on the left) in the April 1999 issue of Vanity Fair? I’m not the first to talk about that one. SAJA has done its fair share of hashing and rehashing the issue through articles and online forums here.

Also, Aerosmith, the famed pop-rock (in my opinion) band, had a CD-issue with an image of Krishna on the cover, except that he had a cats face and breasts. After thousands of protests, Sony withdrew the CD.

And, last but not least, Madonna apparently came dressed as Shiva at the 1998 MTV Music Awards after which, India suddenly was hot amongst the fashionistas.

Ok, all of that is well and good, but what Mr. Das says right towards the end is what sparked my interest. He says,

…the entire concept of judging works of art is quite relative. It greatly depends on an individual’s aesthetic tastes, preferences, temperament and forbearance. Many people are of the opinion that art is a free creation of an artist, who has complete license to give art whatever form or sound s/he chooses. But is it morally right to reap creative benefits at the cost of maligning the cultural and religious sentiments of another sect? Therefore, it remains an open debate whether such depictions are OK by any standard. [link]

I agree. I’m still not sure whether I should be offended by these things. Firstly, it might be considered hypocritical since I myself, have taken on the pseudonym of a god. Secondly, having dabbled a little bit in the arts myself (printmaking, photography), I can see how one might feel compelled to use snippets of art from other cultures in their works. But, at the same time, Mike Myers’ photoshoot in Vanity Fair can only very, very loosely be called “art.” And, as for Aerosmith’s album cover, that was just designed to sell albums. Then again, one can argue that art is solely designed to sell itself. So that brings us back to square one.

Many people better than me have argued for as well as against this. And there’s still no consensus. So I guess the debate continues…

Note: This article is cross-posted on my blog.

The Great Ganesha