Bebee Phool Nahin Lo

Many pieces have been written very well, with heartfelt

sincerity. All this discussion certainly shows that we all care and want

to do something....



....But may I please ask if we can try and think beyond the models

presented to us for economic development? As a start, lets ask if we

really want economic development as it is generally defined. Can this

poor, raped, ravaged, depleted, sick earth take the burden of

industrializing China, India, Pakistan and other "third world"

countries?



The industrialized countries are where they are, for the most part,

because they were essentially pirates and robbers. England, the

birthplace of the industrial revolution, bled what had been an

industrialized (for that time) and prosperous India dry, to fuel its

industrialization. The US, the crowned economic king of the new world

dis-order, committed mass genocide of the original inhabitants of North

America, enslaved millions of Africans and continues to impose its

ideology and economic interests on the rest of the world, thereby

retaining its global economic stature. Is that what we want? The cost

of industrialization has been the death, impoverishment and displacement

of millions of people worldwide and the destruction of the earth, its

delicate ecological balance and its diverse life forms.

|

What I am trying to say is that the model of economic development

through industrialization is one that is violent, patriarchal and

eventually, not sustainable. Right now about 20% of the world consumes

about 80% of its resources. (There are similar or worse distributions of

wealth within countries.) Doesn't take a genius to figure out who the

20-80 are! And these resources are fast disappearing as more and more

people are compelled to join the market bandwagon. We may not see that

immediately, but the signs are plenty. Global warming, birth defects,

increasing incidence of cancer, famines, floods, draughts, and masses of

land-less, hungry people are all symptoms of a very sick, depleted

nature. It's not as if there isn't enough food to go around. The

problem is with the distribution and the production of food. What will

the choice be? Grain for a family of 6 in Sahiwal or beef for a Mr.

burger for some over-fed Karachi kid? Corn for the peasant in Colombia

or coffee for the obese banker in New York? And the problem is also

with the production of thousands and thousands of "things" that we do

not NEED. But the production continues because these "things" make

money. Its all about money and its all about power to keep the money

coming in.



Where do we go, we wanting-to-industrialize third world countries? Whom

do we colonize? Which rainforest should we cut down?



Now, now, I am not going to suggest communism as the answer. Those of

you who thought I would, shame on you! You have fallen into the trap of

thinking that there were only two options - communism and capitalism

(and only one remains). I think there are other options that we must

consider if we - all of us who live on this earth - want to lead lives

that are not violent, greedy and unsustainable. The idea is simple:

consume only as much as can be replaced naturally by the earth; produce

only which will eventually become part of the earth; distribute wealth

and power locally, to small communities.



I know, of course, that such choices are extremely difficult to make.

Not because we are all unwilling, but because we literally have to go

out of our way and work at making these choices. The easy way out is to

continue to consume. I am as guilty as the next person. But, a simple,

subsistence lifestyle may be the only choice not too far in the future.