May 09, 2006
'Slumming' Takes on a Whole New MeaningNon-profits
Via Albert Krishna Ali at The Other India, a Guardian article about a new tourism phenomenon in India: slum tours. It’s apparently a common enough practice in places like Soweto and Rio, but new to India. For 200 Rupees, tourists get a guided tour of the areas around Delhi’s railway station, where a few thousand homeless children live:
The tour guide instructs visitors not to take pictures (although he makes an exception for the newspaper photographer). ‘Sometimes the children don’t like having cameras pointed at them, but mostly they are glad that people are interested in them,’ Javed claims, adding that the friendly smiles of the tourists are more welcome than the railway policemen’s wooden sticks and the revulsion of the train travellers. He hopes the trip will get a listing in the Lonely Planet guides. Nevertheless there is something a little uncomfortable about the experience — cheerful visitors in bright holiday T-shirts gazing at profound misery. (link)Really, what could possibly be uncomfortable about well-fed tourists paying to gawk at desperately poor children?
The author of the Guardian article is definitely skeptical about the whole thing too:
By the end of the walk, the group is beginning to feel overwhelmed by the smells of hot tar, urine and train oil. Have they found it interesting, Javed asks? One person admits to feeling a little disappointed that they weren’t able to see more children in action — picking up bottles, moving around in gangs. ‘It’s not like we want to peer at them in the zoo, like animals, but the point of the tour is to experience their lives,’ she says. Javed says he will take the suggestion on board for future tours… . Babloo, who thinks he is 10, has been living here for maybe three years. His hands are splashed white from the correction fluid that he’s breathing in through his clenched left fist, and he pulls a dirty bag filled with bottles with his other hand. His life is unrelentingly bleak and he recognises this.’I don’t know why people come and look at us,’ he says. (link)
The tours are run by Salaam Baalak Trust, which is a small charity organization focused on caring for homeless children in Delhi. They administer first aid as well as more serious health care help for children who have AIDS or serious drug addiction problems. They also give them basic education and vocational training, and help their families where possible. In short, SBT is in general a good organization narrowly focused on helping a group of children living in desperate straits. This program makes money for them, but clearly the money and publicity come at the potential cost of the children’s dignity.
According to Give World, Salaam Baalak Trust was founded by Mira Nair in 1988 to rehabilitate the slum children she used as actors in Salaam Bombay (hence the name, “Salaam Baalak”). I haven’t quite been able to figure out how the organization got from Bombay to Delhi, but as far as I can tell they are now based entirely in Delhi. [CORRECTION: They are based in Delhi as well as Bombay.]
The story of the group’s founding provides a second layer of irony: this is an organization that was founded using funds generated by western voyeurism of Indian poverty (Nair’s film), which is now pioneering the effort to reproduce that voyeurism in a brand new format.
I wouldn’t go on the tour in its present form, but perhaps I would try and volunteer to help out with this organization in some way instead. And if tourists want to do more than just take pictures of the Taj Mahal or dance on the beach at Goa, I don’t see why that should be frowned upon (especially if the money is put to good use). Is there a way to do it that doesn’t involve mere voyeurism?
amardeep on May 9, 2006 10:12 AM in Non-profits · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I've got tours of Brownsville, Cabrini Green, and Compton, for all the tourists to the US this summer. "Think America is the Richest Land? Think again!"
See real Crack! Bulletproof not included.
DD, I was thinking about America's own homeless while writing this.
At the end of the Guardian article there are actually links to organizations in different cities that have these slum tours, including Soweto, Rio, and Belfast. They link to a group in New York called The Point. But it's a little different from what Salaam Baalak Trust is doing -- more of a "cultural tour of Harlem" than "check out the homeless kids sniffing glue living under the train platform."
a side-effect of the detachment between one's individual work and the impact it has on society at large - ergo - angst and ennui - and the market responding to the need for the masses to feel like they're adding value to the world - social services are a major business in canada at least - ballpark 20% of the population gets employment with government bodies, ngo's, npo's - the motivations sound different but the desire for professional growth is just the same - so - how to prove oneself as different and beyond the person in the next cubicle - well, off we go to india - step into the belly of the beast - come back and write about those amazing resilient people - such tenacity in the face of such hardship - we dont know how lucky we are to live in canada, etc. - oh.. i need to sleep.
the problem to me is this (in principle) - if you are trying to sell 'profound misery' and using some (or most) of the proceeds to eradicate the very same thing, isnt there a conflict of interest?
You wouldnt want to run out of that which you are trying to sell, since thats what causes you to stay in business. Wouldnt that affect the effectiveness of your organizaton's strategy to remove that same thing??
Of course, practically speaking they do end up helping deserving persons. but thats why my objection to it is *in principle*.
Good to know that direct "marketing" of "India's poverty" is started by 'Mira Nair'. Till now these folks, Satyajit Ray, Mira Nair, Deepa Mehta made money in the west by showcasing Indian poverty / superstitions through movies. Now they have started real life shows.. Nothing wrong really..
Adding to my earlier post, this sounds like a really nice idea.. We can arrange tourist buses for
route A - Child labor
route B - Dalit discrimination
route C - Widows in Banaras..
etc.. etc..
See real Crack! Bulletproof not included.
In the 80s Japanese tours to NYC included a rather voyeuristic foray into (pre-gentrification) Harlem. The tourists often rated this the most fascinating aspect of the trip.
just like those storm-chaser holiday tours that are so popular in the midwest, we could arrange for an interactive ghetto experience. For a modest up-charge, your tour guide will walk you through a drug or prostitution transaction, complete with personalized photos...Touch *real* food stamps! Buy a 40 oz! Eat government cheese while you warm your hands on a trashcan fire.
sick, I tell you.
while I would probably find it more interesting than the bleeding Sex & The City tour and a $20 Magnolia Bakery cupcake, I think Amardeep put it pretty well-- something about the infringement on one's dignity when ogling them like an animal in the zoo doesn't set well with me.
I don't have a huge problem with this if it's raising needed funds.... BUT I do wonder a little:
Is this just voyeurism? Just one step beyond turning on the evening news and watching tragedies unfold?
We had a discussion about this over here yesterday and I was not as ready to condemn this as most here seem to. I don't agree with you DesiCynic, the same objection could be made of any charity - whether it be using kids with kwashiorkor to raise money for famines in Niger or using street kids for the Delhi railway station slums. If things improve, the charity's income will go down. But it's a meaningless argument as things don't improve overnight.
The government is doing bugger all to help these kids. So a charity is trying to do what it can to help, yet we're all saying "oh how disgusting, gawking at those poor people!" Yes, far more disgusting than staying in a five star hotel around the corner from the slums. Amardeep, I would not like to go on these tours as they are now either, but it's a start. In my PP piece I mentioned how I had toured Soweto. Now that it is a well-established tour which takes in a museum, nobody voices the same voyeuristic concerns as for this scheme. Yet we did the very same thing, walked around shitty parts of the townships and shook our head at the poverty. Thus this Delhi idea could develop, a rudimentary museum could be made, some of the older children could gain employment as tour guides.
We are mostly Indian here and hopefully more aware of the poor in India (not sure about that), but the majority of people going on this tour aren't. They might not give another thought to street kids without something like this. If they gasp and stare at poor kids - BUT GIVE MONEY AS WELL - isn't it a more preferable situation than keeping them out of sight and out of mind? An ideal situation would be people giving cash without having to ogle poor kids, but that won't happen. You have to understand how motivating seeing something for yourself is, seeing how people live. At the end of our Soweto tour, several of the fat Americans decided to write a cheque and send over school supplies from the US. Would they have done the same if they sat in their Jo'burg Holiday Inn? I'm more aware of the Cape Flats and Soweto than most visitors to S.Africa, who don't venture into the townships. Nobody donated to Live Aid until they saw Martin Buerk's horrifying film from Ethiopia.
I'm not entirely sure whether you're being sarcastic about Ray/Mehta/Nair Ponniyin, but if you aren't - yes, making honest films is a terrible thing to do. We should gloss over the poverty and DANCE! God those selfish filmmakers, always out to make India look bad and line their pockets.
I think the right word is "embarrassing". I'm a little disgusted to say the least.
Yes it's called general blind charity. That makes it run of the mill charity like 900 others. The purpose of this particular tour/charity seems to shock someone into doing something but it sounds more like people are shocking themselves for the shock value so they can feel they got their "money's worth" from a trip to India and didn't come back thinking there wasn't any oppression!!!
Metric,
Is this just voyeurism? Just one step beyond turning on the evening news and watching tragedies unfold?
I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Do you mean that these folks seem like they're a step above the usual voyeurism? If we heard more from them about their thoughts on the tour we might be in a better position to judge.
But the point isn't to condemn people who would go on the tour -- after all, folks might just be going out of blind curiosity and hating it. In my view, he question is whether or not the tour should be offered to begin with.
please.
everyone knows that "slumming tour" is just a crafty euphemism for ATHLETIC RECRUITING which is how Alloy Entertainment was able to successfully partner with Judo/Hindu Ninja-Sensei Biranchi Das and formulate the smashing success of pre-teen phenom Bhudia "Can't Touch This" Singh.
i'm so tired of the stifling negativity promoted by SM authors that surround these otherwise uplifting newsbites.
haters.
this is just the URBAN poor. a tour is also needed for the RURAL poor.
I'm not entirely sure whether you're being sarcastic about Ray/Mehta/Nair Ponniyin, but if you aren't - yes, making honest films is a terrible thing to do. We should gloss over the poverty and DANCE! God those selfish filmmakers, always out to make India look bad and line their pockets.
Well.. I am not against the directors, afterall they are not lying.. I am just coming up with newer(maybe??) ideas.. I am tired of hearing/reading the interviews of such directors.. It is like you hear the umpteenth time from a participant in a beauty contest that she wants to be "Mother Teresa" and change the society / from a "topper" of a board exam who wants to become a doctor to serve the society.. Yeah right..
I havent quite been able to figure out how the organization got from Bombay to Delhi, but as far as I can tell they are now based entirely in Delhi.
I know at least one person heavily involved in the organization is still in Bombay.
Also, on a side note, wouldn't, say, a Shantaram-style immersion "tour" of a week or so - living, working and surviving in the slum, rather than just peeking at it - be more meaningful?
Bong Breaker, I agree with what you're saying about the immediacy of the experience making a difference.
Amardeep, I would not like to go on these tours as they are now either, but it's a start. In my PP piece I mentioned how I had toured Soweto. Now that it is a well-established tour which takes in a museum, nobody voices the same voyeuristic concerns as for this scheme. . . Thus this Delhi idea could develop, a rudimentary museum could be made, some of the older children could gain employment as tour guides.
I suppose it could happen that way if it picks up steam. But I do think they ought to brainstorm ways to rethink this so people are actually doing some kind of contributing work as part of their "experience." It might not really be possible because of the language gap, but it would qualitatively change it from "poorism" to a volunteer opportunity.
I also appreciate that they aren't allowing tourists to take pictures.
Jason, you took the words outta my mouth bro. Even hinting at immersion might seperate the mindless gawkers from those who really do want to learn a thing or two. Rather than just a "here we go 'round the tire fire" tour it would be really neat if the organization used some of the admission $$ to do something useful for the slum residents with the help of the tourists. Alternately they could use the people who signed up to help them with their vocational training or addiction therapy programs. Might take more organizing than a walking tour but would be beneficial in the end to all parties concerned.
Ponniyin, I still don't get your point. You're bored of these movies, fine. But how can you criticise directors who try to put these issues on screen? Beauty pageant contestants, sure - a lot of the time they sound like airheads who think they can change the world - but directors are at least doing something about it. This mentality was later ridiculed when applied to Ray. Other directors didn't want India painted in a bad light. However I can understand the view back then more than now. India was a nation the world didn't know well, a newly independent nation. Now India is in every magazine and newspaper around the world, we have enough self esteem to say yes we're excelling, but we also have myriad problems.
Of course not all directors need to make serious films, we need fun too. But criticising those who make hard-hitting films for doing the 'same-old' stories is daft. As long as these negative aspects of Indian society exist, conscientious filmmakers will talk about them. Otherwise why not criticise Hotel Rwanda, The Constant Gardener and Citade de Deus?
Again I agree with Amardeep - I would like to hear from those who have taken the tour and find out more about it in general. I find the reaction of the majority of people here quite fascinating actually. It's an almost visceral embarrassment. The world needs people to shake things up to effect change, perhaps this idea needs tweaking - it would be good to see the kids involved themselves (the tour does include a free school for them), but let's not all rush to condemn an attempt to improve the situation of these children.
Like BB, I've also done a Soweto tour, but I think I did one of the smaller ones that came recommended - the owner had started the tours many years ago, and still lived in Soweto.
The experience was mixed. On the one hand, it was fascinating to go through Soweto (which has both rich and poor areas now), learning about its history and experiences. It was much like any other urban tour in that way. On the other, I was very unfortable when some of the tourists took photos inside the poorest homes (although the people we visited got paid for opening up their homes to us).
Overall, a net positive I'd say, although it wasn't a slum tour as much as a history and neighborhood tour. I don't know how I'd feel about a tour whose sole purpose was to put the poor in a fishbowl.
Right. So those who only want to spend a day are mindless gawkers? Not everyone can devote a week for 'immersion' in the environment they wish to help. The vast majority of visitors to India are tourists there on leisure, not volunteers. Hence if they have a free day or even a morning and wish to donate some money to a good cause and see who they are helping, why is this so worthy of ridicule?
I'm not sure how many of you have worked for a charity. If we only took money from those who were not 'mindless gawkers' and insisted each person thoroughly understand the plight of the needy, we wouldn't get a great deal. I'm not sure how many of you have participated in this 'immersion' either, but I have. It's no small undertaking and many schemes in India already do exist, where you can spend a week helping build a well or even a hospital. Why should we limit giving/helping to the ultra-motivated?
After the tsunami, many tourism-driven places were set to fold. But then a new phenomenon appeared - tsunami tourism. I spent a month working on the coast and I'll freely admit part of the reason I went was to see the sheer destruction. Isn't this voyeurism? But ask any of the locals and they said the same thing - they didn't care if people were gawking, as long as they brought the money in.
Yes, I think it is voyeurism. I'm not exempt from this (voyeuristic tendency) either, and I don't mean to judge the tourists. All I'm saying is let's not deny what it is - benefits aside, it is voyeuristic.... a la Fight Club. If we just admit this, then maybe we can make some improvements to the current system. I do like the immersion suggestions that some of you mentioned.
Shoot, there's a market for this? For
a nominal feean outrageous fee, you can sleep on my porch at my house in North Compton, (Bloods territory) and I will let you walk around our neighborhood where you can visit the meth clinic around the corner and interact with transexual prostitutes at the other corner. We will even have a map of all the shoes thrown over powerlines and take you tagging. I love my neighborhood.Like Habitat for Humanity? Can you imagine? I think these tours are lame though- there are plenty of volunteer opportunities out there especially in India, that doesn't exotify the slums -- you could spend time volunteering at the Ghandi Ashram w/ Manav Sadhna kids.
As far as the debate over directors- I think it's great that as a director they choose to make movies that touch on social issues versus Bollywood affairs. All the same, you have to realize there is a disconnect between directors and people that work on "real" issues. Directors make movies. If we want them to make better movies, we need to educate them with issues that we think are more important. I don't know if this makes sense, but I've been thinking a lot about the disconnect between activism and movie making and how it leads to this.
BB- i appreciate your emotion and respect that you went to tsunami affected areas. I will not dispute there is money added to an impoverished stratum of society. That being said, I am not in favor of slumming tours. Here's why. we are all animals - I know I am - have priorities and motivations - respond favorably and supportively to positive stimuli - on the one hand i risk being called a heartless brute for not paying out to the beggar with the caked hair and baby to the hip - on the other i think am i providing that positive stimulus that creates the professional beggars - to me ... the slumming tour has the potential of creating the slumming industry with ringmasters (pimps), stage managers (people who break baby bones) etc- and that's where i balk - thinking - hmm.. - where am i going with this - i dont know - time to load up my marimba and juice up.
Bong breaker,
Ponniyin, I still don't get your point. You're bored of these movies, fine. But how can you criticise directors who try to put these issues on screen? Beauty pageant contestants, sure - a lot of the time they sound like airheads who think they can change the world - but directors are at least doing something about it. This mentality was later ridiculed when applied to Ray. Other directors didn't want India painted in a bad light.
My point is that, I don't accept these "directors" are doing "something" about it. If you think their films raise awareness, then the question is whose awarenes?. And surely you don't think the Indians in India are not aware of the "poverty" around..
I actually like the other "routine movies" where the heroes and heroines are suddenly taken to the "clean streets" of Switzerland/US/Newzealand for "dream songs". They could probably raise the awareness level amongst the Indians of their pathetic situation compared to the rest of the developed world and can atleast induce them to come out of their slumber..
See also: New Orleans disaster tours
Taz:
We're getting tourists and volunteers muddled up. How many people do you know who have volunteered in a foreign country? A minority, right? How many do you know who have gone on holiday to a country with poor people? Almost all. Opportunities like volunteering in ashrams etc are great and should be encouraged, everyone benefits. But a scheme to encourage giving with no real effort on the part of the giver is surely a good thing? As I said, this particular scheme may need tweaking.
Whatever you say Ponniyin.
Whose awareness? Whoever. Whether it's some chap in Connecticut who decides he's going to go work in Delhi or whether it's a housewife in Tollygunj who gives some money to a local charity. As you can see above, Mira Nair founded a charity, so you can hardly claim she's not doing anything.
Yup. Well - they're AWARE - but many don't do anything. I don't expect everyone to split their income with the poor. You work hard, you earn - fine. But I'm objecting to your criticism of auteurs who wish to remind people that others live in a worse predicament than them. India's treatment of the poor is woeful. Taz's point about activists ensuring filmmakers cover topics accurately and appropriately is valid.
Sure, I like fun movies too Ponniyin. But it doesn't mean serious ones should be criticised. However if you think that poor people watching Swiss and Kiwi streets makes them realise their life is shit, you're deluded. They know their life is shit, they always knew. But what can they do about it? Oh right - they're in a "slumber".
Amardeep,
South Africa has similar high-end tours where they take you to the shanty towns in J'berg/ Cape town. When I was in SA, I did not do it. However, they do tell that typically, the tour guide is from the area, he/ she is one of them and is not condescending.
The real immersion is Shantaram style and some do it.
This seems like a very good business model -
First you make movies about slums in India exclusively for westerners. Then you start a "slum tour" for the same, raising funds. Only enough funds reach the "being visited" poor to keep them that way. Rest of the money is reinvested to expand the business for making sequels and attracting more visitors. The next film is Salaam Delhi, sequel of Salaam Bombay (the reason for moving the businees operations to Delhi!).
But I'm objecting to your criticism of auteurs who wish to remind people that others live in a worse predicament than them.
Bong Breaker,
Ok, it all boils down to this. You think these "directors" have noble intentions and I think they don't and they are like any other "shrewd" business people.. Maybe we can agree to disagree.. :-)
I am not sure why they need tours to see the homeless children in Delhi. At every traffic stop in Delhi, homeless children swarm the car begging for money with a toddler by their side.
Giving guided tours of poverty sounds like a sick idea. However it seems to me that some people here are more upset about the image of India in the eyes of the West than in the plight of these children. You wonder what good comes out of making movies about the poverty in India. I would imagine that making movies about the poverty in India and creating awareness is better than pretending that poverty does not exist in India or doing nothing about it.
I personally see nothing wrong in the tours provided (this is a very strict) some % of the revenue is put back in the area. The revenue could act as a catalyst for better things, and some respect for their struggles.
Be it any country (maybe not Switzerland) - shanty towns are fact of life and they are not going away.
Hey..!! No fair.. I had submitted the story to the News section here at SM yesterday. It's been at BoingBoing for a couple of days now, I think.
Meh, I give up. Kick back and enjoy your broadband, sanitised movies and Tropicana.
I never said poorism was a good idea, I just said the intentions were. Somebody is trying to help. But I feel very confident all those who have felt disgusted by this have gone out of their way to help those in need, in between the times you're condemning those who offend your sensibilities.
(PS Ponniyin - If you think any director's in it for the money, you've clearly never pursued a career as a director. Do you also criticise authors who write about poverty? Are they selfish middle class posers doing it for the money? Is Arundhati Roy just a shrewd businesswoman? Satyajit Ray can't possibly have had good intentions, can he?)
Kush,
So you would be OK if I started bringing in a bunch of foreigns regularly to your colony,apartment complex or whatever while intruding into your home to show them how you live etc? Of course, a part of the revenue would be given back to you.
oh come ON.
that's like paying 10 bucks to watch a movie trailer. zZZzZZZzzz
i just hope my car's GPS system can be modded to incorporate the currently nameless slum-dwelled topography that i don't believe has yet been exposed to satellite rendering. i mean, i'd hate to crush the leprotic legs of a budha baba while slummin' in my Humvee.
PS
I think you have a very good point here. The only thing missing in the movies unfortunately is the 'how to get there' part.
Sidebar question - Is your handle/nickname from Kalki's novel? Any particular reason for choosing that.
Masale.Wallah,
So you would be OK if I started bringing in a bunch of foreigns regularly to your colony,apartment complex or whatever while intruding into your home to show them how you live etc? Of course, a part of the revenue would be given back to you.
If I get a real cut ($$$) in the tour, I would not mind. It all boils down if the shanty town people are real part of the business model and you do not leave footprint. I am not averse to revenue. How else you break the cycle - bucks are needed, no matter.
In fact, I went to family dinner in Muslim Malayan quarter (very ethnic, not poor though) in Capetown in late 2004. Trust me it was not cheap at all. It was more expensive than high-end hotel and the host family kept the whole money.
I personally see nothing wrong in the tours provided (this is a very strict) some % of the revenue is put back in the area. The revenue could act as a catalyst for better things, and some respect for their struggles.
If the poorest American actually gets to see how the majority of people live in India or any 3rd world nation, even the ones on welfare will share their checks with the 3rd world poor.
I think if the tours are meant to create awareness about the homeless in India where the tourists then donate money based on what they saw, I think it would make more sense. Some people might like to get personal knowledge of a problem, before they can make a donation. However the tours here look more voyeuristic than anything else which is creepy at all levels.
BB,
I understood your points. I think you have provided good justification for poorism.
One suggestion though, try to accept the other side of this issue too. Good intentions are not enough to justify any venture in this world. Always remember, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions!"
One example, Calcutta is still trying to recover from its image of the blackhole created and perpetuated effectively by Mother Teresa and her ilk. Few days back, I met a nice American lady who inquired about my state of origin in India. She seemed to be aware of the geographical and political map of India. I have a complicated background, having been raised in five different states of India. To keep things simple, I told her that my ethnic origins are from West Bengal. She asked me quite innocuously whether things have improved in those parts of India. I was a bit confused for a second. Finally, I figured out that she was referring to the perceived poverty of the people living in Calcutta.
As far as I am concerned, I hardly consider Calcutta to be more poor than any other part of India that I have been to. Yes, the city has abysmal scenes of poverty but so do the other cities of India. If a normal business person, trying to find a suitable business partner in India, gets a proposal from a business located in Calcutta, what would be his/her initial reactions? He/she might shell out the money for the poor becuase of charity. But will he/she take his/her business to the city? I doubt it.
Regards,
Anindo
BTW, I do consider Ms. Roy to be a shrewd businesswoman. However, I do not think there is anything wrong in being a shrewd businesswoman.
The Salaam Balak trust is apparently run by Mira Nair's 71 year old mother Pravin Nair-
Taz,
Hold up, you live in LA and you really think educating directors is going to convince them to make better movies? You should start your own nonprofit! I think you had it right here:
Absolutely. Hollywood and the Bollywood song-and-dance scene is a popularity contest based on glamour and ca$h.
As far as the topic at hand, it freaks me out that there's an organized effort to do slum tours but at the same time, I can see why. I myself probably wouldn't go unless I had a guide. [*the disconnect of conscience and desire*]
At the same time, I agree with those who suggest that the tourists should be a little more proactive during their tour. Maybe the organizers should watch the Amazing Race. They always come up with cutesy cultural activities for the contestants.
If the poorest American actually gets to see how the majority of people live in India or any 3rd world nation, even the ones on welfare will share their checks with the 3rd world poor.
Not really. I recall seeing a documentary of a Bangladeshi woman who made clothes for Wal Mart. A lower middle class American was informed about just how low a wage the Bangladeshi made, and given that, whether she would be willing to accept a higher price for a pair of pants (the difference going to the Bangladeshi woman - emblematic of the Third World poor. She was like, Not really, I gotz my own problems. And I'm sure she did.
In India and elsewhere, Katrina has dramatically changed the perception of how Americans live. Many Indians I visited recently have been robbed of their comfortable perceptions of America, and realized "Tis distance lends enchantment to the view, and robes the mountain in its azure hue, and all that glitters is not gold.
And by DirtyDancer Patrick Swayze.
For the record, I am in no position to ridicule, it is ultimately $$ for a good cause. The idea could however be expanded to include people who might want to donate not only their $ but also a few hours of their time doing something to help the programs that the Trust already has in place.
HIC,
Sidebar question - Is your handle/nickname from Kalki's novel? Any particular reason for choosing that.
Yes, I like that novel very much. It is one of my favorites. (probably the first longish novel I read as a kid, and got stuck in my dreams)
Ultimately, I don't think the tour is the problem as much as the purpose that it's being used for and to whom it's providing resources and credibility it's providing. I went to Bangladesh on the dime of an anti-sweatshop outfit and met with union officials, garment workers, export processing zone officials, even the minister of planning--in order that they could produce a report about working conditions in Bangladesh. In hindsight, I think it was grossly exploitative--because the organization's approach is grossly exploitative in an American worker rights, imperalist kind of way (look at the terrible conditions abroad, look at our pictures).
On the other hand there are "tours" like the ones estacion libre puts on to Chiapas, which I would like to learn more about.
And then there are the famous tours to Harlem that Eddie referenced (which were, in fact, the same kind of voyeurism that Amardeep is implying went on here). Ultimately, there's always going to be some aspect of voyeurism, some aspect of learning, and some aspect of exploitation going on with all these things, and the question is how much of each and what benefits that provides people.
I wouldn't condemn it out of hand without knowing more, though Amardeep's description does make it sound sketchy. One man's safari tour is another man's solidarity struggle..and vice versa :)
I see one obvious flaw in the model - if this program becomes very successful, they will have a lot of money, which if they spend on the children, the children won't be in misery anymore and this will kill tourist interest. Either the trust needs a constant "supply" of needy children who "graduate" after a while, or if they are lazy, they can just do a lousy job with handling the money, thus ensuring the slums never improve and retain their tourist value.
This whole scheme is much worse than prostitution. But then, I didn't expect a socialite film-maker to have a grasp on reality !
Oops.. an actress (correction).
Weird. It's a valid point that it helps give money to charities, but I really hope the admissions fees for these "tours" as high as the sky, because that's the only way it can be a millimeter closer to "justifiable." I don't really feel paying money (even a lot of it) to gawk and see how the other half lives will ever be fully justifiable. There is such a thing as human dignity, which has no price. Maybe next time the tourists should bring it upon themselves to pass out some food to children they see?
hammer sickel : No, you were right the first time.
I read an english translation.I do not know what to make of it, cause i dont know the real history. I am interested in learning more about that era, do tell me if you guys no more sources about chola dynasty?
There is a wiki page on chola history.. I have not read the translations, and don't know how good they are.. But the "original" is too good, and it takes you to the dreamlands especially if you are a little kid/teen..
i kind of agree with Ponniyin about how Mira Nair and Satyajit ray exploited indian poverty in movies. In average indian school, 98% of students have never seen Ray or Nair film. Except maybe Monsoon Wedding. About movies like Citade de Deus, director Fernando Meirelles made this movie only for Rio. He didnt expect this movie to do so well. And in an interview, he said jokingly, "My ideal career would be to do what Pedro Almodovar does. I'd like to make Brazilian films for international audiences that are not big-budget."
well, he sort of did and then he sort of didn't. He directed The Constant Gardener which was not Brazilian, but Kenyan. And not exactly MI:III budget but still sizeable.
BUT, he did an amazing job and captured Kenya, the slums and street kids, energy and misery, the point of the story far better than I would expect of a standard Hollywood thriller director.
Much like everyone else on this thread, I have mixed feelings about these tours. I think they are a good idea in the sense that, hopefully, people who want a sense of the whole country and not just the glossy tourist spots will come. And donate lots of money. Of course the jerks who whine about getting a bigger bang for their tourist buck will come too, but you can't exactly make people fill out a questionnaire before hand...can you? (hmmm)
As part of a proposed article on Baile funk music I visited some favelas around Sao Paulo. The people who were showing us the place could not have been more dignified and took us to see all the great hopeful things being done... the radio station run and operated by the residents of the favela, day care centers so mothers could find work, the afterschool programs, the sports center where kids could play basketball instead of joining gangs.
Perhaps if that's the tour itinerary - to show visitors what the money is being used for - this Delhi program would be less gawker-like? The poverty and misery is all around, no way to miss it. But if the focus is on the positive, the improvements, the results of the tourist dollars...it would be more respectful?
yeah, I know what you mean DD. My problem with gentrification isn't that people move in, it's what happens to the people who get evicted to make room for the second and third waves of newcomers when rents start rising. It's also with the people who move in and snicker, like "gawd! Just check out those tacky jesus candles!" or look at me like I smell bad when I'm running errands my hair in a bandana.
The problem is that you can't assume what motivates people until they've already made themselves unpleasant.
Sigh.... India and its poverty.
Interesting debate taking place here....
To be honest, I don't know what position to take. Personally, I would recoil from such a "tour". And if someone suggested that we go, I'd give that person a piece of my mind (and never travel with him/her again).
I hate to say this, for fear of sounding racist, but it doesn't suprise me that white tourists (who generally come from wealthy countries) would do such a thing. But I have to say that I've seen quite a few NRI's who watch India's poverty as "priveleged spectators" as well. One NRI, who was showing me pictures of her trip to Rajasthan was recounting how a single file line of poor Rajasthani women-- walking barefoot under the scorching sun and on baked earth with water lotas on their heads-- was passing by. NRI took a picture of them,and the women got offended and demanded a couple of rupees. I asked her, "Didn't you feel bad taking pictures of them?" The NRI looked suprised and asked why should they. I said, "Well, it's obvious you're coming from abroad, and it's kind of like you're objectifying them". She replied, "Oh, come on". "Did you give them a couple of rupees?" She responded, "Oh nooo... are you kidding?" Affluent, upper middle class NRI wanted to take pictures of poor women who had walked miles in the sun to get water, but didn't want to give any rupees because "It's was the principle of it".
Sorry, I am returning to say one last thing: I don't think any of us can accurately judge this either way on the merit of one solitary article.
The debate about film directors like Ray (?!) exploiting poverty is another bizarre one, but for another day.
To second what BB said above, to say that Satyajit Ray "exploited" poverty is to completely miss the point of his movies-and I doubt people saying such things have watched many Ray movies- I mean how obtuse can one possibly be?!!! Now Mira nair, maybe...
He directed The Constant Gardener which was not Brazilian, but Kenyan. And not exactly MI:III budget but still sizeable.
Here is what he said on why he directed this film.
"First, when I started to work on the script, I just did not get much. John Le Carré was kind enough to teach me and to explain. But I still did not understand a lot and I was not very interested, neither. What made me decide to do this film was the possibility of shooting in Africa, especially in Kenya, so I just took all this out, in order that I could create more scenes in the streets."
But, yea, even i am confused about this issue.
hmm..what gets me is they're paying to just gawk at these people, and not do anything to truly help them? that what it sounds like...i duno...just kinda exploitation, like a freak show. hmm....
India is one place which does not hide its warts. Even outside the new airport in Bomaby you are most likely going to be approached by a beggar. Any visitor to India will encounter poverty and, if that moves them, let them donate to a charity of choice. How will going on a "tour" move them any different? By showing a more heightened poverty? In fact I think, given our innate Indian guile :-), i am sure there will be a surge in pretend beggars - to work on shifts.
BTW - I would love to hear more FOBs on this topic....
Neale
Isn't it also disrespectful to ignore the poverty in a country, looking only at the most glamorous aspects of a country while averting your gaze from anything that makes you uncomfortable? I find that sort of willful blindness just as distasteful.
But doesn't it also dehumanize people to ignore them and pretend that they're not there? People who fly to Africa for Safari but who never once go to see the people who also live there? People who go to lavish resorts that are bordered by slums, but who don't want to disturb their fantasy of island paradise? Look - I don't want to harsh on people on vacation. At the same time, I don't want to harsh on those who want to take a day and see a bit of the other part of the picture. I guess I respect that impulse. Isn't there a respectful way it can be done? Yes, tourists are gawkers, but they're gawkers at the Taj too - more interested in snapping their own picture than looking at the monument. Why can't there be a form of cultural tourism that shows the lives of everyday people from all walks of lives?
Deepa Mehta? Mira Nair? Satyajit Ray? Exploiting poverty?
That's just nuts, Ponniyin Selvan. Between them, those three have done more for the dignity of the poor in India than many dozens of internet pundits (and commenters) ever will. Not to mention their unforgetable contributions to human creativity (Ray incontestably of the first rank, and the other also two doing very fine work). What on earth are you talking about?
But as the Breaker says, that's a shitstorm for another day.
Ennis, I feel exactly the same when I visit back to India - most people dont care about people who lack even basic human rights to food, clothing and shelter. Moreover, they add disrepect by ignoring them - especially India's upper middle and rich class.
But I dont think everyone's inactive. There are tons and tons of NGO's doing excellent social services. Of course, a sustainable model is still a challenge and the problem at hand is enormous.
I dont agree with how some approach it (flamboyant, superficial & for profit movies) but never the less, there are hopes for good intention. To me, anyone who is as driven to address the problems caused by poverty, as to make movies about it, should take it to the extent of Mahatma Gandhi. He didnt go yelling around the world about problems in India - he took self corrective actions. He didnt indulge in a lavish lifestyle (like many so-called activists today do) while fighting for rights for his fellow citizens - he became one of them. Until these gaps are filled, it is hard to believe people who brag about their concerns and egotistically broadcast the actions taken.
Papal Mehta
Wow, I didn't know that. Can you let us poor folks know how they were able to contribute to the dignity of the poor in India?
No.
we may be poor monetarily, but not in dignity and pride - dont need some babus contibuting to our 'dignity' coffers also; thanks but no thanks.
Reminds me of a scene in MunnaBhai MBBS. A foreign visitor started taking picture of the poor people bathing instead of good buildings and other such tourist stuff. When asked why, he said, why, this is the real India. I clapped at the priceless expression the protogonist friend had at that comment. I love Munna Bhai.
Somehow the idea of charging visitors for these tours is a bit disturbing to me. I'd rather the tours be free and tour operators ask vistors for donaticns etc after the tours.
I'd rather that these "tourists" actually live in the slums for a period of 2 weeks. Just to see how "slum life" really is. It's too easy to keep your distance by "just looking". They should call the tour "Slum Life Immersion: The Intensive Tour".
Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification, Guru Gulab Khatri.
I am most curious about the name "Albert Krishna Ali". It seems like a pseudonym made up by a "progressive" who either does not realize or maybe secretly hopes that the Ali and the Albert part would love to kill the Krishna part. Or am I wrong?
JM:
I am most curious about the name "Albert Krishna Ali". It seems like a pseudonym made up by a "progressive" who either does not realize or maybe secretly hopes that the Ali and the Albert part would love to kill the Krishna part. Or am I wrong?
Yes, that name caught my eye too. I think he is trying to be eclectic in the true Gandhian fashion. He is hoping, I am assuming, to mesh some of India's glories into one. He should go even further and incorporate Sikhism, though. Like: "Guru Albert Krishna Ali Singh". He's going to have one pretty long ass name if he adds on a Jain name, Buddhist name, Parsi name and Jewish name in an attempt comprehensively cover all of India.
I hear you, Cheap Ass Desi. This reminds me of a family trip we had taken to Kenya in the mid nineties. There was a man selling those stylised, elongated ebony statuettes that are so popular with tourists in East Africa. My mother was looking at them and asked if they were supposed to represent the much-discussed tallness of Masai - one of those "facts" that got exploited to the max by Tourism Kenya at any given chance. The man didn't blink. "No," he said "it's showing very thin people in Ethiopia - you know, because they are always starving." That moment ruined the rest of our trip. Man, were we ever total jerks. Even though the artwork probably had nothing to do with famine in Ethiopia, the man was a total charmer and clearly knew how to cater to the desires of the hordes of non-African tourists that came streaming through his country. It was awful to think that this was a marketable strategy and that the added misery to the narrative only helped sell more statues to the tourists. "Africa" and India are supposed to be full of poor people right? Show us some really skinny poor people!
As sympathetic as I am to organisations trying to come up with immediate sources of funding to benefit the desperately poor, I think this kind of voyerism/tourism is totally misguided. As Taz mentioned, if people truly want to help, there are plenty of less disgusting ways to do so.
And a shout-out to Bihari Babu. It's true. The rural poor truly do get the brunt of it. And there is a clear lack of affluent kurta-wearing foreigners to travel all the way out there to throw some rupees at them for the pleasure of gawking at their incredible survival skills.
Ennis,
I think that if people want to really spend the time to expose themselves to more of a place than just its fun safaris and national monuments, that's a really great thing. The more respectful way of doing it, I think, is, as a tourist, to stick your neck out a bit. Go visit slums - but don't do it through a touring agency. Take a trip out to a village - with an NGO that's not making a profit off of your presence, even if it is to give back to the inhabitants of the village. Donate your time or money outside of organised gawking. And if a place is too dangerous or inaccessible for a tourist to get to - well... maybe tourists need to learn to respect that. Sign up with an organisation that will give you more legitimacy to be in those places/situations as support (i.e. work/volunteering), not as a consumer who wants more "experiences".
So yeah... maybe bottom line is... if you're going to just be a tourist - show some 'nads or... don't.
Alomodovar doesn't make Brazilian films and neither did he direct The Constant Gardener. Perhaps you are thinkin of Meirelles who also directed City of God.
OK, I got the thread. Previous post retracted
brownfrown #81:
Yes, your episode sounds awful.
My story had to do with an NRI. A person who is going to India and is simultaneously connected and disconnected from India and Indians. Isn't that mean-- you are a wealthy expatriate and now you are looking at your own people as inferior objects that came be photographed as a "tourist photo-op"? Maybe I am too sensitive, but I definately have never done that in all of my travels.
Shama #83
Look for post #57
My desi prof said next time I go to India, first go to the slums. See how the 2/3 live and figure out why.
if you'e interested about urban poverty this New Left Review article is good.
Capitalism and Good Taste don't always go hand in hand. At the end of the day, however, Good Taste doesn't feed as many folks as Capitalism does.
i have been fascinated by this post. i work in delhi for an ngo and am very familiar with salaam balak trust, they do excellent work with streetchildren all over the capital.
"Take a trip out to a village - with an NGO that's not making a profit off of your presence, even if it is to give back to the inhabitants of the village."
actually, that is a worse idea. if you want an ngo to take you on a tour the least you can do is pay them to offset the cost and time of your visit. everytime we entertain a foreign visitor at our agency and give them a tour, allow them to interact with the children we have living on-site, etc. it is not easy.
i think it's rude to want a "free" trip, i find it quite honorable that people are paying to take such trips, these agencies get by on meager donations and grants, and to take a few hours to show you around their work means less time with their clients, use of their limited resources, etc. not to mention that whenever we have visitors we do hope that they will be inspired by our work to help us in a way that they can.
believe me, salaam balak trust is not making a "profit" off of these trips, i don't think that trust, or any other agency working with orphaned and vulnerable children in delhi even knows what a profit looks like. we are all too busy trying to make the money stretch another day.
there are so many good-hearted people in the world who do not always know the best way to express that, i give anyone credit for being willing to do any small action that leads to a better life for others.
supply and demand. they wouldn't be doing this if people didn't want an experience of the slum to take back with them and were willing to pay for them. i'm sure there are ways to do this without exploitation and so far we don't have any proof that salaam balaak is doing any. not even hearsay. only speculation on the motives of the tourists.
my real problem with this comes from my indian nationalism, which wants to show firangis the things in india we're proud of, and not drag them through our country's suffering. I don't want the image they take back of India to be one of kids sniffing glue and public latrines. We've had the stereotype of third world india propagated long enough. I suppose I'm sensitive because that gets so much coverage.
Forget tours, how about working with a real social worker - who tries to make a difference. "It is not the way I intended to live my life...but someone's got to do it. It'd be nice if society did not need people like me but while it does... I will be right there." And this is what Manoj Night Shyamalan - he too makes movies right? - did when he saw deprivation
It's a bit inconsistent - it's OK for tourists to turn a blind eye, but if they're going to be interested in poverty then they have to live in the slums for weeks and work as a social worker? If it's OK to turn a blind eye, then why isn't it OK to pay an NGO for a tour? The money all goes back into the community, and the tourists are being educated.
I think sometimes we're more comfortable with offenses of ommission than those of commission, but every action has its costs. I'd rather some tourist money found its way to the people who needed it most.
I'm not worried about preserving India's "reputation" nor do I feel that the only face of India that should be shown is the teched up luxe side. Many more people live in the slums than live the IT life, so why do we object when people say this is the "Real India"? It's certainly more statistically representative of the average Indian.
One of my favorite comments evah! And you can freely replace 'Good Taste' with a lot of other ideals.
As for all the discussions regarding filmmakers' intentions: Intentions mean NOTHING, efforts mean something, and results mean everything. Yeah, I intend to remove world hunger etc etc, but I'm just spending my life doing my job etc. And that's supposed to make me feel good? If someone makes money/fame whatever by making movies which have the unintended consequence of helping a few underprivileged people, more power to them! A much more valuable contribution to the world than all my 'good intentions'.
Ignorance also means nothing and success means something as here Wonder why film-makers (Shyamalan apart) never make movies about these people. Won't draw the intentioned crowd maybe?
And when are this man and his colleagues going to be awarded the Nobel?
my real problem with this comes from my indian nationalism, which wants to show firangis the things in india we're proud of, and not drag them through our country's suffering.
Yeah, its the debate between the privileged defenders of Brand India and the equally privileged who believe economic and social good can come from this. Whats missing from the debate is the subaltern herself. What are her thoughts about being gazed at? Can we quantify the rewards she will receive for being the tantalizing subject of a largely Western gaze? Have the slum leaders been consulted? Slums have a somewhat stable -though contested - social order, with their own interlocking support networks. Some, like Dharavi are remarkably productive and may have per capita GDPs higher than most of the rest of India. There is plenty of wealth and talent lurking in the favellas and shantytowns of the world. Perhaps white tourism isn't necessarily what the subaltern wants, nor is it necessarily the best way forward. Let her speak.
Heres the link on Dharavi. Sorry for the bad link above.
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3599622
C.K. Prahalad is already working at it.
Being a scholar he steers clear of psycho/socio-babble such as this.
Subalterns don't have time for this nonsense and are not misty eyed either about the glorious struggle of the proletariat, and hate to be patronised. And they see nothing wrong about Brand India and would love to get a piece of it, and detest being used to run down "Brand India".And as Vidyakar says in a different context, It'd be nice if society did not need people like me...
Where's Vinod(-at-large) when you need him?
Subalterns don't have time for this nonsense and are not misty eyed either about the glorious struggle of the proletariat, and hate to be patronised. And they see nothing wrong about Brand India and would love to get a piece of it, and detest being used to run down "Brand India".
Yeah right bubba, speaking for the subaltern yet again. :-)
Shabbash, so you too can smirk! Same old empowerers! What's new?
Shabbash, so you too can smirk! Same old empowerers! What's new?
Dude, why are you blathering at me? :) Look what I wrote in the part of my paragraph you chose not to quote and tell me how it would contradict Prahalad:
I said:
Some, like Dharavi are remarkably productive and may have per capita GDPs higher than most of the rest of India. There is plenty of wealth and talent lurking in the favellas and shantytowns of the world. Perhaps white tourism isn't necessarily what the subaltern wants, nor is it necessarily the best way forward. Let her speak.
It's a bit inconsistent - it's OK for tourists to turn a blind eye, but if they're going to be interested in poverty then they have to live in the slums for weeks and work as a social worker? If it's OK to turn a blind eye, then why isn't it OK to pay an NGO for a tour? The money all goes back into the community, and the tourists are being educated.
The argument here depends on the quality of the NGO and what it does. You could find a tourist-fleecing poverty-pimping group