Things that make you go…uh?
I read the other day that there will be an international 24 hour fast in solidarity with the 1 billion people in the world who are hungry. This will be a high profile event, with the UN Secretary General, Ban-ki Moon, himself taking part. Now, I don’t know about you but this struck me as rather obscene. Lots of people who always have plenty to eat going without for one day to show ’solidarity’ with those who never have enough? How does that go then?
“Yes, is that the Ivy? Great, I’d like to move my booking from Friday to Saturday as I’m fasting in solidarity with the poor. Yes, it will still be a table for six.”
Not that this is the first time those ‘who have’ partake in a ridiculous stunt in an attempt to ‘raise awareness’ of an issue. I recall MPs in the UK sleeping ‘rough’ one night to show solidarity with the homeless. I don’t remember if they were provided with complimentary left over sandwiches from Boots and White Lightning cider though?
Even if you don’t find this all rather objectionable it needs its bumps read from a strategic point of view. Exactly what is the outcome if Mary Bloggs of 34 Putney Road doesn’t eat all day (aside from fainting)? She now knows what it feels like to be really hungry. And then what? Exactly, nothing. After all, feeding the poorest 1 billion has never and will never be high on party manifestos in rich countries and the answer is so politically and economically complex that it will not be addressed by a few more rumbling stomachs. Sad maybe but true.
Next we will be having ‘Wear a blind fold for the day’ in solidarity with the sight impaired, ‘Drink water from muddy puddles’ in solidarity with those who don’t have access to clean drinking water, and ‘Lock yourself in the bathroom’ to know how prisoners of conscience feel. Nonsense.
Moving on, but not too swiftly if these figures are anything to go by.
South Asia, and especially India, is renowned for its dodgy driving and road accidents. A report earlier this year showed that India has more road accidents than China, despite China having a larger population and greater car ownership. South Asia ranks as one of the most dangerous places to take to the road in the world. Actually, that needs qualifying. South Asia is one of the most dangerous places to take to the road on two wheels or as a pedestrian, because two thirds of those killed on the road fall within these two categories.
Here in Nepal, although there are fewer cars than in India, it is no less dangerous. Road traffic accidents are reported in the papers on a daily basis. Earlier in the month there were two separate incidents in Pokhara which killed couples on motor bikes. One incident involved two teenage girls on a scooter and resulted in riot police being deployed on New Road with tear gas being fired to disperse the angry mob. Communities living by roads where trucks and buses regularly plough down people (mainly kids) now take the law into their own hands as a first resort, blockading the road to demand compensation for the death of their loved ones.
A quick bit of maths using the recently published figures shows that nearly as many people died during the last ten years as were killed during the conflict here that spanned the same period. Strangely, this apolitical killing has not gained as many column inches as the conflict or the current peace process. I can’t say I have seen huge amounts of international donor aid pouring in to stem the tide either. Maybe the international contribution is in the form of the ‘white elephants’ (UN and INGO SUVs) ploughing the road, after all at least those inside them are well insulated in case of an accident.
I guess that some types of deaths are more important than others. It probably also depends if the metal doing the killing is in the persons hand or the person is inside the metal object. It seems to make all the difference to the political response. I guess car deaths don’t challenge the legitimacy of your political system though…
