It's nice to have pieces of Canadiana in my vacation from my vacation. The Quebecer fellow staying in my guesthouse popped over to me in the TV lounge with the greeting of, "so how about those flames yesterday, eh?". I'm not sure how he knew about the slaughter before I did, but for those of you who aren't following the playoffs, we lost 3-1. That would be understandable as a random act of hockey, were it not that we were outshot 51-15. Sometimes shots go in, sometimes they don't - but if you're outshot nearly 4 to 1, then you're simply not playing hard enough, you're playing little league hockey. I mean we took three goals against detroit's one and still had the better goaltender, save-percentage-wise. I
I'm trapped in Delhi still, for an unknown amount of time ("come back Thursday and 99% I can help you then"). My guesthouse has a good atmosphere - there's usually someone interesting enough to chat with in the lounge - but it's hard to be upbeat when my heart is climbing up and down mountains in Nepal as the ideal season slips further and further away. And I'm getting a paunch sitting around in Delhi all day! That's probably the most depressing bit, as shallow as it is. Indian men all have paunches from withering away in the heat, it's almost a sign of status among the middle-aged.
One thing I've had time to think about is the question of India's poverty - I've fielded a few questions from people about how it is to travel in a third world country, how the images of poverty affect me. First, let me be rational. If you take the total amount of food India produces, divide it by the number of people - there's more than enough to go around for every person. It's not like Darfur or other parts of Africa where the lack of total food periodically causes devastating epidemics and famines. In an Indian town - even an Indian village, there are TVs everywhere, a very large number of people have motorcycles for transport. I would say there are more people in the TV and motorcycle bracket than the worried-about-next-meal bracket. With that said, in a society still as poor as India's, the people at the fringes are in serious danger of malnutrition and disease, and there are alot of gainfully employed people (like cycle rickshaw drivers) who barely make enough to cover food expenses for their family. It's absolutely heartbreaking to see the beggars in the street.. I have become too familar, too jaded to the tugging at the pantleg or hand by little children who say "food.. chapati... rupee". And you know that sometimes the beggars, particularly the women with children, have perfectly legitimate reasons for being beggars - in a poor community (unlike increasingly well-protected educated, middle-class women,) poor women have little recourse in the case of being abused or thrown out by their husbands. On the other hand, there are beggars who have learned the begging trade from their parents, who have learned from their parents in turn. There are even parents who mutilate their children in the hopes of providing them with a means to earn more money begging, whether for selfish reasons or not. So I truly am torn in whether or not to give to beggars. But one thing is for sure - when I return home I feel compelled to make a big, juicy donation to an NGO like Oxfam or the Red Cross.
It's funny, there was a big scandal in the news (on all the TV channels, actually) about Richard Gere holding this Indian actress at an AIDS fundraiser and kissing her in some display of elation or joy. She didn't mind, either, but the conservative media in India grilled both of them and there were letters supporting opening a criminal investigation into the "loosening of her morals" or something like that. Now, I don't mind conservativism. Even if I don't subscribe to it, it's still still a valid viewpoint on alot of issues on how to run a country - and I believe that brief turns to conservatism can provide government with much needed discipline. (Hopefully our's will be over soon, still!)
I find, however, that conservatives are more prone to sensationalism than their centrist or liberal counterparts. They make mountains out of anthills - like how the Lewinsky scandal in the US eclipsed any of George Bush's menacing assaults against the constitutional rights of Americans. Even if their positions are sometimes quite reasonable, they often appeal to the baser qualities in voters - like nationalism, or religious moralism. For example, it's a very common criticism by Republicans towards Democrats that they aren't being patriotic if they don't support the war of the present moment. It's a real shame, and something that's been more true in the past fifty years, because there truly have been golden eras in world politics. Indian politics shortly prior and shortly after Independence were filled with astonishingly intelligent, nuianced positions about issues - and eloquent personalities, like Nehru, that could rightfully be called visionaries.
I can think of a couple readers that that last comment will rile, so I wait eagerly for examples of liberal sensationalism to appear on my comment board ;)