By Bhogtoram Mawroh
Some years ago, during an international conference organized in North Eastern Hill University the then Governor of the state was invited as the Chief Guest. During his speech he regaled the audience with a story which according to him reveals the typical nature of the people of Assam (and by extension of the people of North East India). There was an Assamese man who would catch fish every day to take them back home to his family. He would catch just enough fish for his family and then return home. One day a foreigner arrived and saw the fisherman engrossed in his daily activity. The foreigner approached the fisherman and suggested to him that by using a bigger net the fisherman would be able to catch more fish. On being asked by the fisherman as to what would he do with the extra fish, the foreigner replied that he could sell them. Then the fisherman could use the money to buy a bigger net and catch some more fish. Then what, the fisherman asked. Then, in a satisfactory tone the foreigner explained, the fisherman can use the profit from the sale and lead a comfortable life instead of catching fish every day. The fisherman replied that he was already living a comfortable life. By catching only what he requires he gets a lot of free time which he uses by relaxing with friends, family and doing what he likes. The foreigner got frustrated and left bemoaning the lack of initiative and fatalism of the fisherman. This attitude of the fisherman was termed as lahe lahe (laidback attitude) by the Governor which according to him is typical nature of the Assamese people and by extension the people of North East.
Some time ago, I was in a conference which was attended by some of the prominent people of the State. During the discussion one of the participants explained to the host about the un-enterprising attitude of the local people and dependence on handouts as the reason for the lack of the state’s economic development. Changing this attitude was touted as the main obstacle for improving the status of the people. This perspective is similar to the one expressed above by the former Governor, i.e., people are basically lazy and do not want to put any effort to improve their lot. What it also means is that people are poor because of their own laziness; it is their fatalistic attitude of depending on the government which keeps them in their wretched condition. To summarize, the poor people are their own enemies. However, my recent experience tells me otherwise.
Poor people do not enjoy being poor and they make every effort to improve their conditions. One such group in the State are the street vendors and hawkers especially from the rural areas. Braving sunshine, rain or cold they come out every day to sell their goods on the footpaths. The money that they earn is used to send their children to schools and provide for the daily needs. Some vendors come every day from their village carrying the fruits and vegetables that they grow in their farm. Some come barefoot while many are shabbily dressed. In their villages there is a lack of proper school, medical facilities or even decent road connection. In spite of all this, they would toil hard in their fields with whatever they have and travel to the city to sell their produce. The vehicles (buses/sumo) in which they make the journey is always overloaded and the mass of people cramped in a small space makes the journey very uncomfortable. Few years ago, I remember going to one such village in a bus which was full of supplies. I had to sit on top of a rice sack till I reached the destination. Another time I sat with 20 people in a sumo meant for 10-12 people. Life for these poor people is not easy and they work very hard for maintain their meager existence. If they were lazy, they would have starved to death a long time ago.
The urban poor also come into the street vending business because like the rural poor they have to make a living for themselves and their family. During the meeting in which the street hawkers/vendors of Shillong decided to organize themselves to fight for their rights, I met one young man who, like the others had been chased by the police from doing his business on the roadside. He told us that after he was chased away he was working in a job which provided only ₹ 3000 per month which was not enough to meet the daily needs. By previously selling men’s inner-wear he had been able to send his younger brother to college. He wanted to return to his old business as the current pay was meager. People have since returned to their old spots and I am sure he must be selling his goods somewhere along the footpaths at this moment. His story is shared by many of the urban poor as well, and he was definitely not lazy!
Then why make the argument for laziness. The answer lies in the colonial history of India. During the colonial period the British households kept a lot of Indian servants. These were derived from different castes and religious backgrounds, and a single British household would have many of them working together. Nupur Chaudhuri in her paper, ‘Memsahibs and their servants in the 19th Century India’ did a very interesting study regarding the attitude of the British women especially the wives of the British officials, military officers, missionaries, and merchants towards the native servants and how this created a perception about all Indians as well. According to the British women, the Indian servants were superstitious, unintelligent, dirty, lazy, and dishonest. These women then wrote advice manuals for instruction purpose where they “reiterated the physical, moral, sexual, and intellectual inferiority of the Indian servant”. This negative attitude about Indian servants naturally spilled to other classes of Indians as well. One British woman wrote that “a great majority of Indian merchants have arms, legs, and body bare, and squat upon their shop boards or their doorsteps in attitudes strongly reminding one of the monkey tribes”. Was this characterization of Indian people true? Of course not!
These negative descriptions were aimed at perpetuating the British supremacy in terms of wider political and scientific discourse on race and the legitimacy of imperialism. This story was repeated in all the places that the colonials went; Africa, Asia, Americas and Australia. Treating the natives as sub-human and not worthy of having a dignified life, they were taken away as slaves and dispossessed of their community land. Below is an excerpt from the American State Relations, Foreign Relations part III, pp. 719-721, “The United States while intending never to acquire lands from the Indians otherwise other than peaceably, and with their free consent… (however).They will not suppose that the Government will avow, as the basis of the policy towards the United States a system of arresting their natural growth within their own territories, for the sake of preserving a perpetual desert for the savages”. This attitude became the cornerstone of European expansion into North America that brought immense misery to the native Indians. Even at the present time, the plight of these native people displaced by colonialism is highly deplorable. Particularly in Australia, the aborigines suffer from many social problems and have a high level of poverty. This has resulted in a very high rate of crime and incarceration among the aborigines compared to the general population in Australia.
The argument of laziness performs two functions. It allows the government to abdicate its responsibility and also prepares the ground for dispossession of the masses. This is how the Indian caste system worked – one is born into a lower caste because of wrongdoings in the past. Therefore, in order to be happy in the next lifetime (possibility be born into a higher caste), the lower castes should accept the authority of the higher castes and serve them. Apart from neglecting the needs of the common people, if one also instills the belief that they are at fault, e.g., laziness, then they can be exploited as well. Once this is done the common people will always be dependent on the political class and those unscrupulous groups who want to exploit them for their benefit.