Bunch of somethings

You know what I don't get? The competitiveness that seems to be out there post-Katrina. In the somewhat perverse exercise of comparing Katrina to Bombay on July 26, there's not just the facts and figures which people think shows Bombay in a "better" light. No, there's also apparent superiority in Indian-ness to be found in this exercise.

So in looking at just a few such comparisons, I've run into:

An article by the BJP ideologue S Gurumurthy (been trying to locate it on the web without success so far, will point to it if I find it) suggesting that Indian society is based on humanity and that's why we deal "better" with such a disaster than the West which is based on ... well, something else.

The reason why USA is most developed countries in the world is ONLY because there are no morals or humanity left in the country. It is bunch of hypocrates.

I think Indians should be proud of there acheivements and rich culture and Human values.

(To be fair, the last two comments also got themselves flak where I found them).

What makes people gloat like this? If you ask me, these comments and comparisons themselves undermine their claims. (Sort of self-referential that way). It's not that there is plenty in our own society to worry about. It's that the business of pointing to somebody else's suffering and saying we're better people than you is odious.

***
Not odious, this. But it left me wanting to pick a small bone with my genial pal Petey. Reacting to Being Poor by John Scalzi, Pete has Being Poor My Arse.

Pete believes Scalzi's list of indicators of poverty shows how little people in the USA know about how the rest of the world lives; and that prompted him to put together his list. Nothing in it to object to, but here's the thing: I find nothing in Scalzi's list to object to either. Nothing in it that says he has no idea how the rest of the world lives. Nor that he necessarily must have such idea, for us to take his list seriously.

Scalzi's list is a pretty good indicator of people living in poverty in the USA -- and that's the critical phrase. In the USA. That poor people in India experience poverty on a different scale doesn't mean that poverty-stricken Americans don't live hard lives. I mean sure, you have ten thousand dollars to spend in India in a year and you can live pretty damned well. But try to live on that much in the States and it's going to be hand-to-mouth the whole year.

A hard life doesn't deserve less empathy (or more) because others live equally, or even harder, lives. Poverty is not competitive. It just is.

***
Postscript: I finally found the Gurumurthy article I mentioned. I wasn't quite fair in my recollection of what it said. Nevertheless, here are some of the phrases from the article that made me mention it here:

Commenting on how people fed the victims of the Bombay deluge, Gurumurthy says: For they were not victims, but "atithis", special people, in the eyes of a traditional Indian. They are entitled to respect, not condescending compassion.

Commenting on the violence in New Orleans, he says: [In contrast] the people of India turn into relief workers instantly. The reason is not difficult to find. India is essentially a tradition and community-run -- and not a system or state run -- nation. ... [S]ociety in India runs on the age-old principle of "dharma".

Gurumurthy's article is here.