ABORTING SIKHI

Kamalla Rose Kaur

I am very upset this morning and need to cry.

Statistics today reveal the genocide/abortion of female feotus continues.

1500 amongst British Indian born women over last 15 years or so.

7 Million on the subcontinant. Most highest number ??

Punjab and Gujrati communities

Amongst the most prosperous!! Sikhs and Jain communities

Jaswinder Kaur, Sikh woman posting on Sikh internet forum.

Why are so many Sikhs of Northern India participating in female infanticide/abortions and why can’t Sikhs seem to stop it? Down through humanity, female infanticide is usually linked with hopeless poverty. But Sikhs in India- and not low income, uneducated Sikhs either – are aborting their futures, depriving their o so precious and valued sons of wives. This is especially sad and horrifying because the Sikh religion promotes womens equal rights. Sikh dogma and doctrine specifically forbids female infanticide; also the Hindu practice of sati and the Islamic practice of veiling women. Sikhs have been trying to keep their culture against amazing odds since the very conception of their religion, 500+ years ago. Now in one generation, due to one bad sad sin, there are no longer enough Sikh women being born.

Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
By Sherry Karabin

…In India, where the child sex ratio is calculated as the number of girls per 1,000 boys in the 0-6 years age group, the problem is severe. The 2001 Census shows there are only 927 girls per 1,000 boys, representing a sharp decline from 1961 when that number was 976. In certain parts of the country there are now fewer than 800 girls for every 1,000 boys.

“The problem is more prevalent in the northern and western states, where prosperity, rapid fertility decline and patriarchal (male heads the family) mindsets combine to put girls at risk,” said Ena Singh, the assistant representative at UNFPA.
My intention is to communicate, to the best of my abilities, why Sikhs have this horrible problem, how Sikhs are responding to it and why it is hard for Sikhs to get anything done at this point in their history.

SIKHS VS. SIKHI

Hear my prayer, my Only Master; all beings and creatures were created by You. You preserve the honor of Your Name, O Beloved One, Cause of causes.

Dear Creator/Creation, Beloved, please, make me Your own. Whether good or bad, I am Yours.

(Pause and reflect)

The Almighty heard my prayer; cutting away my bonds, my Beloved has adorned me. The Beloved One has dressed me in robes of honor, and blended this humble servant with the One True Master.

Now Nanak is revealed in glory throughout the world.

The Siri Guru Granth Sahib

Scripture and Only Guide and Guru of the Sikhs

Page 653 Guru Arjan

“Kamalla!” A Western academic confronts me, “North India is one of the most macho places on earth! Sikhi is male dominated from one end to the other.”

“Not Sikhi.” I argue. “Sikhs! Particularly those still living in India. There is hope for Sikhs in the West. The younger generation practices gender equality much better than the older folks.”

“Kamalla, they are losing their younger generation in the West and in India too.” my friend insists. “Hard as it is for you to believe, the fact that Sikhi is so progressive theologically didn’t matter. When we study Sikhs we have to study what they do, not just what they say they ought to be doing.”

“No. Wrong. What you say is true in some obvious Western sense, but I am a Sikh. Academics need to get it through your heads that what a Sikh is and what a Sikh is not is defined by our scripture and Only Guide, by the Siri Guru Granth Sahib. According to the Sikh Guru/scripture, those who practice gender inequality are not True Sikhs. They are phoney.”

“So the majority of Sikhs down through history and in present times are not really Sikhs? Is that what you are saying?”

“That is correct. They are all phoney Sikhs at the level that they do not follow Sikh teachings as set out in the Sikh scripture. But of course, only God and Guru can judge who is a good Sikh – Sikh just means ‘student’ as you well know.” I retort. “Sikhs don’t even believe that you have to be Sikh to be one of the Almighty’s best beloveds either. The Sikh Guru/scripture reminds readers all the time that good honest, loving and humble people everywhere, irregardless of beliefs or culture are better ‘Sikhs’ than people claiming to be Sikhs who fail to follow Sikh teachings.”

Sikhs will argue about all sorts of things but we almost unanimously, across all schisms and sects, agree that it is our scripture, our Holy Book – our Guruji – who defines what it is the be a True Sikh.

For our purposes here I will make a distinction between Sikhs and True Sikhs. True Sikhs follow the teachings of the Sikh Guru/scripture. Sikhs, on the other hand, are simply born into Sikh families.

WHO ARE THE SIKHS?

Here is a very brief history of the Sikhs from the UNITED SIKHS website. UNITED SIKHS is a global Sikh charity organization.

Sri Guru Nanak Sahib Ji founded the Sikh way of life in the fifteenth century as an ideology to reconcile the Human Race. Guru Nanak was a revolutionary teacher- his teachings that women and men were equal, that caste was unimportant, and that there are many paths to the One God- were ahead of their time. The title “Guru,” or enlightener, was passed onwards to 9 more individuals throughout Sikh history, who shared the light of Truth of Sri Guru Nanak Sahib Ji. These 9 Gurus also shaped the legendary Sikh traditions. In 1708 CE, the 10th Guru, Gobind Singh, bestowed the title of Guru upon the holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, which is recognized as the eternal enlightener.

Some Sikh men and women join the Khalsa, the defense only Knighthood established by Guru Gobind Singh (the last embodied Sikh Guru/Teacher) in 1699. They are required to keep the five symbols of the five Khalsa vows on their bodies. The symbols are uncut hair (Kesh), a comb (Kanga) a dagger (Kirpan), a steel bracelet (Kara) and underwear (Kacheras). These symbols remind members of the Khalsa Khighthood of their vows, which include being clean, free of intoxicants, and vowing to fight oppression and abuse, racism, sexism, caste and classism, on behalf of the weak against corruption and tyranny. They must never attack. Again the Khalsa is a defense-only Knighthood. Khalsa men wear turbans and many Khalsa women wear turbans as well.

But only a fraction of all Sikhs join the Khalsa Knighthood.

Confusingly, quite a number of Sikhs, especially Sikh men, who do not belong to the Khalsa, also do not cut their hair and they wear turbans. This is often an indication that a Sikh is “practicing” being Khalsa and plans to take his/her vows in the future. Or often as not, Sikhs feel it is a good thing for Sikhs who have not joined the Khalsa to wear turbans and beards because it supports Sikh cultural identity, which many Sikhs feel is at risk.

The downside, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of Sikhs who wear the “uniform” of the Khalsa Knighthood who are not keeping the Khalsa vows. For instance, it is common to witness Sikh men in turbans drinking alcohol in public or smoking cigarettes. This of course greatly errodes the effectiveness and harms the image and reputation of the Khalsa Knighthood worldwide.

There are 20 million people on earth who call themselves Sikhs. Yet like other religions, many or most Sikhs are secular. They come from Sikh families and visit Gurdwaras for weddings and funerals and as social centers, but they are not devout nor do they claim to be.

Since aborting female foetuses is strictly and heavily banned by the Sikh religion, the middle and professional class Sikhs in India who are choosing sons over daughters are secular Sikhs by definition.

SIKH SCHISMS AND SECTS

Sikhs have always considered themselves to be a separate and distinct religion from Hinduism. Yet from the point of view of most Hindus, Sikhi is just another sect of Hinduism. Hinduism is inclusive like that. Any and all beliefs and practices that have arisen in India are part of the whole brew and called Hinduism.

However, the founder of Sikhi, Guru Nanak, taught a Way that is quite distinct from both Islam and Hinduism, though he was affected deeply by both religions of course. In the West there is no dispute over whether Sikhs are distinct from Hindus. Sikhs are allowed to define themselves just like all the Western religions and sects do.

Approximately half of all Sikhs follow various “leaders” past or present – Sants, Babas, Yogis, Jathedars, Deras.

Another large percentage of Sikhs holds the Siri Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Holy Book, as their one and only Guide and Guru. They do not believe in avatars and they wire direct, as individuals, with “Guruji”, their source of Sikh teachings. This second group, to which I belong, has at times been called “fundamentalists” by Western scholars because we take the SGGS as literal truth. But the SGGS is a very very different scripture from the Bible. There is no history or stories in the SGGS, rather it is the hymns/poetry/teachings of Nanak. Nanak’s approach to religion is distinctly not woo-woo and no faith in miracles is required in Sikhi.

The first and foremost belief of all Sikhs is that “The Creator and the Creation are One”. Sikhs seek to experience nondualistic perception, to experience and rejoice in the One Reality all around them. So called “fundamentalist” Sikhs are more like Humanists or scientically oriented agnostics than they are like Christians, Hindus, or Muslims.

A third large subset of all those who call themselves Sikhs promote the Dasam Granth – the writings of Guru Gobind Singh- as equal canon with the Siri Guru Granth Sahib.

From a Westerner’s perspective these three types of Sikhs are distinct enough in practice and theology to be considered different religions or sects.

For a detailed geneology of Sikh sects: http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/sikhism/index.html

SIKH CENTRAL

For a very short time Sikhs had their own country in Northern India, and then the Brits invaded. The British fought a war against the Sikhs and won, but they fell in love with the Sikhs. Thus the British helped the Sikhs and they also hindered the Sikhs.

Sikh Central is presently in India but Sikhs in diaspora have no representation in the present (British established) Sikh religion administration. Some/many accuse Sikh Central of being infiltrated by nonSikhs or taking bribes, or corporate lobby money. Some/many disagree!

Gyani Jarnail Singh, a Sikh scholar from Malaysia explains:

Yes the SGPC – elected by the million or so eligible “SIKHS” (according to SRM – Sikh Code of Conduct) every five years according to the British Govt sponsored Gurdwara Act 1925..is a sort of Sikh Central.

Its authority is confined to old Punjab – now divided into Punjab/Himachal/Haryana. Efforts are underway to take away Haryana out of its spehre by forming a Haryana SGPC. Delhi already has a DGPC for Delhi gurdawras and the Patna Takhat as well as Hazoor Sahib Deccan are independently controlled by their states.

So not only are the few MILLION Disapora Sikhs not reprsented in the SGPC….so are a few million Sikhs in the rest of INDIA ( those outside Punajb/Haryana/himachal).

So in a way the Sikh Central is a very MINORITY sort of “Sikh central”…similar to if the few citizens of Vatican were to be Christian Central on behalf of the 1 billion or so christians…

The point to note is that the Govt of India holds the “Elections”… so it decides when and when… For example during the tenure of Jathedar GS Tohra…he was defacto President ( together with his assembly) for a total of FIVE TERMS..25 years ++ as the Govt decided to have NO ELECTIONS. Thus it is a Sikh Central over which the SIKHS have absolutley NO CONTROL. GS Tohra was kept in power for a quarter century….for reasons known/unknown ?? and the SIKHS coundnt do a damn thing about it.

Due to the SGPC being a “Financial Powerhouse” Goluck money from all historicl shrines runs into hundreds of millions yearly…anyone in control of it is in POWER. Inspite of the Indian govt using all sorts of “proxies”….newly set up Gurdwar Boards and such…the SGPC has traditionally been won by the Akali DAL…now the personal fiefdom of the BADAL Family/Dynasty…since the 1970’s !!

Thus when “POLITICS” rules the roost..invariably shady chraacters stand and win…through money laundering/vote buying/alcohol flows freely, hoodlums roam freely and drugs etc..every weapon in the arsenal is used to retain the status quo…95% of the SGPC members are TAINTED heavily. The one or two “religious” ones get voted out subsequently or turn over a “old” leaf and join the rascals.
Sikhs in Diaspora

Sikhs in diaspora also have no central unified means of governance or headquarters. Every Gurdwara is independent and control of Gurdwaras by one sect or another is common. Sikhs who follow various Sants and Babas or embrace the teachings of other leaders, and “fundamentalist” Sikhs, who hold the SGGS as our only Guru, often end up worshipping in the same Gurdwaras, as do the more militant Guru Gobind Singh followers. Add to this the generation gap caused by Sikh youth embracing Western culture, and it is not so surprising that Sikh Gurdwaras can at times become political, hot and heavy.

Harmander Singh from the Sikhs in England organization explains some of the problems Sikhs in diaspora have. He believes that the main issue is:

The elders’ die-hard attitude and desire in seeking answers from their peers in the Punjab to problems they face in the West,

Also:

1. Factionalism based on ‘Jathebandis’ , the anti-Sikh practices such as ‘caste’ based groupings, gender discrimination and taking advantage of the deference to age by those who are younger than them.

2. The abject failure in accepting that age alone does not qualify one to be a ‘leader’ but it only helps if some wisdom was gained along the way in getting to their age. It is assumed that competency is automatic and only comes with age. The fact that many who hold positions of ‘power’ within the Sikh community somehow are unable to divorce their personal ego nurturing actions from the responsibility that comes with the positions they hold. As a result, when something good has happened, people who were once thought to be dead suddenly come out of nowhere for the photo opportunity but are nowhere to be seen when things are not so good or very bad – in such instances, it is always someone else’s fault and communication skills are suddenly ‘missing’ – an opportunity lost in promoting links with the media.

A PREFERENCE FOR SONS

As shocking and also self defeating as it is, the reasons Sikhs abort female foetusses is that they want to have sons. It is greed in some sense.

Despite Sikh teachings, Sikhi worldwide is tremendously male dominated. In India sons are thought to be breadwinners while daughters are expensive. Births of sons are celebrated and births of daughters are often greeted with regrets, condolences and silence. In the traditional India family, when a daughter marries she moves into her husband’s family home, under the direction of her mother-in-law. One day, if you have a son, he will marry and his new wife will be under you. This is the height of woman’s power. Being a mother and ultimately the family matriarch is what life offers to women in traditional India families.

The United Nations website on Women and Violence reports::

Son preference affects women in many countries, particularly in Asia. Its consequences can be anything from foetal or female infanticide to neglect of the girl child over her brother in terms of such essential needs as nutrition, basic health care and education.

In China and India, some women choose to terminate their pregnancies when expecting daughters but carry their pregnancies to term when expecting sons.

According to reports from India, genetic testing for sex selection has become a booming business, especially in the country’s northern regions. Indian gender-detection clinics drew protests from women’s groups after the appearance of advertisements suggesting that it was better to spend $38 now to terminate a female foetus than $3,800 later on her dowry.

A study of amniocentesis procedures conducted in a large Bombay hospital found that 95.5 per cent of foetuses identified as female were aborted, compared with a far smaller percentage of male foetuses.

The problem of son preference is present in many other countries as well. Asked how many children he had fathered, the former United States boxing champion Muhammad Ali told an interviewer: “One boy and seven mistakes.”

Though it is only Sikhs in India who are engaged in widespread abortion of female foetuses, studies in the UK also indicate that Sikhs prefer sons and that is that.

From: Demography of immigrants and minority groups in the United Kingdom. London, England, Academic Press, 1982. :169-92.

The data were obtained in a questionaire survey of about 3000 married Asian Sikh women, living in West London. The main reason for the study was to find out whether Asian immigrants had any difficulties in adopting modern methods of birth control. Another reason was an interest in the nature of cultural influences on fertility and birth control practice. Sikhs were chosen because they were the largest of the Indian religious groups in Britain according to a national survey in 1974. The ideal family size for most Sikhs was 2 or 3, and they resembled the general population in the practice of birth control. Most survey respondents maintained their family size by modern methods of birth control, which were adopted early in marriage. Whatever methods used, they seemed to be effective, since fertility among Sikhs and other Asians is declining. Where Sikhs do differ from the general population is in their very strong preference for sons (84%). Some of the evidence on achieved fertility, contraceptive practice, and reasons for having or not having a 3rd child suggests a stronger bias towards a family of 2 children than is revealed by the preference scores. The Sikhs emphatic preference for sons may prompt some parents to produce at least 1 more child than they would have otherwise had.

I asked Harmander Singh from Sikhs in England for his thoughts on the practice of male domination within Sikhi:

An instrumental element of succession of goods/assets in the laws of many countries, where the West has had or continues to have an influence, is along male heirs. Sikhs, as opposed to Sikhi, have fallen prey to these prevalent legal precedences.

The ‘little prince’ syndrome is also linked to the difference of treatment between the genders.

Paradoxically, younger generations are driven away from all religions by the continued outdated and inconsistent application of sexist values – sadly this also has had an influence on the Sikh community which is run by ‘politically’ motivated and backed (mis)leaders. The ultimate effect will be the devaluing of the faith by those who are meant to be preserving it.

The balance of Miri-Piri has swung too far towards Miri under the invisible hand of the anti-Panthic elements. (Sikhi teaches that the mundane or temporal plane – Miri – and the spiritual plane – Piri – are One and need to work together)

Although there is the Christian ethos of ‘blame the sin, not the sinner’ , I feel that time has come to stop the rot, and to blame the sinners too for they should know better and pay for their sins – driving these hypocrites away from positions of power should be the start of the clean up process.

SIKH WOMEN’S RESPONSE

Lacking any direct political way for Sikhs to stop the abortion of Sikh baby girls in India Sikh women activists use the internet. They attempt to use the dogma of the Sikh religion to convert fellow Sikhs away from its male dominated worldview.

“Our Gurus did their utmost to make Sikh women equal partners. Guru Amar Das Ji sent out Sikh women to spread Sikhi. Alas, we have lost trace of those women. The worst situation now is that some of the Sikh women have lost their right to accept Will of the Creator when they are forced to abort female fetuses. The Sikh women need to come forward and express themselves as they did in our Guru’s days and become mentors to the Global women.”

Satnam Kaur, politician, London UK

From Sikh Women.com website:

Sikhism is unique in recognizing unequivocal equality for all human beings and specifically for both men and women. Among equality of all human beings, fundamental aspects of Sikh theology include implicit gender equality and independence for women. The spiritual beliefs of Sikhism (revealed to Guru Nanak in 1469) propose social reform of women’s roles in society. Sikhism advocates active and equal participation in congregation, academics, healthcare, military among other aspects of society. Female subordination, the practice of taking father’s or husband’s last name, practicing rituals that imply dependence or subordination are all alien to the Sikh principles. The universal principles of Sikhism and the spiritual beliefs are to be practiced daily and incorporated in day to day living.

Ideally, if each of us truly incorporated the Guru’s teachings in our daily lives, this would be a perfect world to live in. There would be no bickering over dowry, there would be less excuses to perpetuate violence. Equality of Women in Sikh Ideology and Practice would render moot the issues such as, “What Rights do Sikh Women Have? or What is a Women’s Identity?

The Guru’s defended our freedom and taught us to live free of bondage and tyranny. If Guru Nanak or Guru Gobind Singh were living amongst us, they would be terribly disappointed. Although some outdated traditions are still practiced, they are certainly not a reflection of Sikhi in our lives.

Sikhism equal rights extend to all beings. Acceptance and incorporation of those with special Needs, the disadvantaged, the poor or those without a gender designation are no exception to the rule.

From the Sikhs.org website:

At the time of the Gurus women were considered very low in society. Both Hindus and Muslims regarded women as inferior and a man’s property. Women were treated as mere property whose only value was as a servant or for entertainment. They were considered seducers and distractions from man’s spiritual path. Men were allowed polygamy but widows were not allowed to remarry but encouraged to burn themselves on their husbands funeral pyre (sati). Child marriage and female infanticide were prevalent and purdah (veils) were popular for women. Women were also not allowed to inherit any property. Many Hindu women were captured and sold as slaves in foreign Islamic countries.

In such a climate Guru Nanak Dev, the founder of Sikhism shocked the entire society by preaching that women were worthy of praise and equal to men. Five hundred years later, the rest of mankind is only now waking up to this fundamental truth. The Gurus actively encouraged the participation of women as equals in worship, in society, and on the battlefield. They encouraged freedom of speech and women were allowed to participate in any and all religious activities including reading of the Guru Granth Sahib.

WILL SIKH CONVERT TO SIKHI?

It is both sad and fascinating to watch and hope that Sikhs will be able to convert fellow Sikhs to Sikhi. Still, Sikh men appear much more concerned about the schisms within Sikhi and the politics in India than about fighting for women’s rights. Sikh men, even the “fundamentalist” ones, have not risen up or bankrolled Sikh women’s efforts to establish Sikh gender equality in Sikh families, communities and Gurdwaras. Sikh women activists have few male allies.

On the other hand Sikh women are welcomed into the Khalsa Knighthood and more and more young Sikh women are becoming Khalsa. Khalsa women are theologically encouraged to be leaders who can initiate others into the Khalsa as well, yet no woman in truth has ever done so (except in a couple Sant/Baba groups).

Meanwhile, the Indian government has outlawed the use of technology to discern the gender of unborn children. Here is a PBS video about the gendercide problem in India.

Karabin Sherry. “Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia.” Fox News.June 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html

“About Sikhs.” UNITED SIKHS. http://www.unitedsikhs.org/aboutsikhs.php

Singh, Jarnail “Quick Guide To Sikh Politics” Soulbride’s Kitchen http://kamallarosekaur.wordpress.com/2007/12/27/sikh-politics/

Singh, Harmander, “State of Sikh Relations” Soulbride’s Kitchen http://kamallarosekaur.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/harmander-singhs-state-of-union-address/

“Women and Violence” United Nations Department of Public Information February 1996

http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm

Coleman, D, ed. Demography of immigrants and minority groups in the United Kingdom. London, England, Academic Press, 1982. :169-92.

Sikhtoons.com

“Equality”. Sikh Women.Com

http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/index.htm

“Women in Sikhi” The Sikhism Homepage

http://www.sikhs.org/women.htm

Kincaid implies that the post-colonial experience created a character like Xuela, or maybe that simply having no mothering, no bonding as a baby, creates this starkly simple and complex woman. Trauma and hard times can certainly push people into depression and manic/depression. How much is Xuela “retarded” by her life and at what points?

A Brief Biography of Jamaica Kincaid

David P. Lichtenstein ’99, Brown University, Contributing Editor, Caribbean Web

Jamaica Kincaid’s twisted quest for self began with her May 25, 1949 birth in Antigua. She was then christened Elaine Potter Richardson, but when she fled the island at the age of seventeen, she left her family as well as her name behind and entered North America as Jamaica Kincaid. Her life should seem familiar to those who know her heavily autobiographical work. She worked first in New York City as an au pair, for an upper class family much like the one pictured in Lucy. She left this work to study photography at the New School for Social Research and then went on to Franconia College in New Hampshire (but did not take a degree) before returning to New York. There she became a regular contributor to the New Yorker magazine, writing for nearly twenty years (1976-1995) before the arrival of new management convinced her to leave. She now resides in Bennington Vermont with her husband and children.

Kincaid’s status as an exile informs so much of her writing. It allows (or perhaps forces) her to maintain distance from both her past and her present, as she critically examines the suffocating smallness (and small-mindedness) of her native Antigua, then juxtaposes it against the ignorant opulence of North America. Her narrators too seem alienated from all those around them, seeking both control over and freedom from these human connections known as relationships. But no discussion, no matter how brief, can be complete without mention of the central relationship in Kincaid’s life–that with her mother. Kincaid’s tight, lyrical prose guides the reader through her tortured recollections of her mother, as that relationship takes on the dual gravity of mother-daughter relationships that many readers can relate to as well as of the hegemonic interactions between mother country (here England) and daughter island (Antigua). Stacking these parallel visions on top of each other and infusing them with her own feelings of anger and suffocation, Kincaid draws the reader through the struggle for personal development not only of her narrators but of the writer herself.

References

Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. Edited by D. Jones, and J.D. Jorgenson. Detroit: Gale Publishing, 1998, Volume 59.

Right off she reclaims the archetype of the Mother. She claims that patriarchy has caused the harder images of womanhood, ones held by some feminists, regarding what it means to be a woman.  She views women as caring, as nurturing and as bringing mothering to this planet, to life.

I love hearing about ancient Hindu festivals linked to seed and harvest, and nurturing and abundance. I hear many echos in my own Irish ancestory, before Saint Patrick (and others) conquered us.

Women were very primal to primal humanity, and earth was Mother. V. Shiva clearly believes that our best hope is to return to the Great Mother’s ways.

I have been meaning to start a book and movie section at my personal blog; aimed particularly towards Sikhs of Punjabi descent, who make up over half of my blog’s audience. Over and over Sikhs have had to watch themselves depicted in Western, and also Bollywood, films and this causes a whole lot of uproar. One film, “Bend It Like Beckham” showed what many would say is a typical UK Sikh family in diaspora. Many Sikh men who wear turbans drink cocktails and many Sikh families have pictures of Guru Nanak on their walls, but many other stricter Sikhs do not do these things. They do not drink alcohol or set up idols and altars for Sikh saints. For many Sikhs their scripture is their ONLY guide and guru.

“Brick Lane” therefore hits me as the ideal book and movie for Sikhs to read, watch and discuss because it is about Muslims. It is about Muslims but it covers the same issues faced by all those who immigrate West from India. “Brick Lane” may give enough distance for Sikhs to discuss “assimulation issues” calmly.

Here are trailers for “Bend It For Beckham” – notice how sex is used to sell the movie especially in the second trailer. This also shocks and worries many Sikhs.

Stolen Harvest

An Interview with Vandana Shiva
CorpWatch
March 17th, 2000

Internationally renowned environmentalist and feminist Vandana Shiva is Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy in Delhi. She is a board member of the International Forum on Globalization and the Third World Network. Before becoming an activist, Shiva was one of India’s leading physicists. She is author of 13 books. Her most recent is Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (South End Press) CorpWatch began by asking Shiva what she means by “Stolen Harvest:”

VS: Stolen Harvest is the story of how those who labor, those who grow foods, nature and her amazing creatures, are all literally being stolen by tremendously clever mechanisms being put in place by global corporations trying to find new markets. Mechanisms like genetic engineering which are converting the growing of food from being a peasant, farmer, and women driven activity, to a lab driven, corporate driven activity.

Patents on seed have never existed before. Farmers will be treated as criminals for saving seed. That is a brilliant, new theft of biodiversity that nature has given and farmers have evolved. Global corporations are able to steal the harvest from the producers as well as from consumers and push larger numbers into hunger and poverty.

CW: What has been the role of the WTO, along with corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and others, in stealing this harvest from both producers and consumers?

VS: The Intellectual Property Rights clauses of the GATT — now enshrined in the WTO –are precisely the place where the diversity of nature and the collective innovation of millions of farmers around the world are being defined as the intellectual property of corporations like Monsanto. As they have said repeatedly, ‘If we control seed, we control the food chain’. Monsanto’s spokesman went on record to say they drafted the TRIPS — the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement — and the clauses related to living resources. In drafting TRIPS they achieved something unprecedented in the history of international law.

Similarly the agreement on agriculture — which forces countries to start importing food and destroying local markets, to shift agriculture away from staple food crops to growing luxury crops at low prices for consumption in rich countries–was clearly inspired, crafted by Cargill and the US delegation. They wrote a very, very perverse agricultural agreement which was sold to the world as if it would remove subsidies. But the subsidies for corporations like Cargill have doubled in the US since the closure of the Uruguay round in the last 5 years. Rich countries are subsidizing agribusiness by up to $343 billion a year. While in a country like India, agriculture is negatively subsidized up to minus 23 million dollars a year. This is not about competition. This is about monopolies.

CW: Can you talk about some of the movements, particularly in India, moving from the fringe to the center of the debate, maybe starting with your own group, Navdanya.

VS: Navdanya, which means “Nine Seeds,” was a movement that started in 1987 partly to anticipate genetic engineering and patent monopolies in agriculture. I felt that if we waited until all of this was in place, people would not be able to respond. So we acted ahead of time. We started setting up seed banks, we started shifting to organic agriculture and right now we have thousands of villages in which farmers have basically created what we call “Freedom Zones,” those are agricultures that are free of chemicals, free of corporate inputs, free of hybrid seeds, free in the future of patents and genetically engineered crops.

CW: How have you kept biotech agriculture out?

VS: So far, Monsanto has not been successful in introducing genetically engineered seeds into the Indian market because we blocked them at a trial stage. We did massive public education with farmers organizations. Farmers uprooted the crops they had planted. And we have a Supreme Court case to block the trials and to insist that at least five or six years of ecological assessments are done before these seeds and crops are allowed to enter the market. We do not think genetically engineered seeds of Monsanto or genetically engineered foods can survive the scrutiny of ecological and safety tests.

CW: Let’s talk a little bit more about the level of grassroots resistance by farmers in India. Certainly there has been some attention drawn by the farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka who have actually burned some of the Monsanto trial crops.

VS: The resistance is huge. Like Gandhi told the British, you cannot have salt monopolies, you cannot force us to stop producing our own salt. Nature gave it for free, we have always made it, and we need it for survival, and your laws cannot come in the way of our fundamental rights. We will continue to make salt and violate your laws. And that’s how Gandhi literally triggered the downfall of the British Empire.

Using that as the inspiring model of politics more than 3000 villages have declared that they will never obey laws that create monopolies on seed. They will never adopt genetically engineered seed. In most villages, I can tell you, no matter what Monsanto does, and no matter how much they corrupt the government of India or elements of the government of India to push these laws through, they will not be able to push them on the people of India.

CW: What are the possibilities of some international alliances between small farmers in India, and both farmers and consumers in Europe, the United States and elsewhere?

VS: Well actually, what we’ve seen happen around the world, whether it’s India, Europe or Japan, or now a little late in North America, is a product of international alliances. We would not have been able to do any of this in anyplace if we had not worked strategically with partners.

I started this work in 1987 as a result of a representative of Sandoz stating very clearly that by the turn of the century, there would only be 5 corporations controlling food and health and we will control it through patents and genetic engineering. To me, a statement like that was a dangerous call and I had to do something about it. In the 1980′s we were a handful of people. Today there are thousands. But those thousands have been able to get mobilized because of existing alliances through which we can inform our Northern partners about how agriculture actually functions in India; how biodiversity is critical to the sustainability of our food system. Similarly, groups like RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) can keep us informed about the latest information on “Terminator” technology and “Verminator” technologies. Those alliances exist and they are being strengthened every day.

CW: You talk about “Food Democracy vs. Food Totalitarianism.” Can you explain what you mean?

VS: “Food totalitarianism” for me, is the very simple phenomena that a handful of corporations start controlling the food system from seed, beginning with seed as property. Totalitarianism also in the fact that genetic engineering unleashes hazards. So I might want to be an organic farmer, but next to me is a genetically engineered field which contaminates my crop and denies me the right to produce safe, pure organic food for consumers. It’s an authoritarian system that takes away my freedom to grow quality food.

In the US about two years ago, the organic standards were attempted to be corrupted and genetically engineered crops and food were going to be identified as organic. That was “food totalitarianism.” And fortunately people rebelled, more than 275,000 Americans citizens said, “We will not allow our organic standards to be contaminated by genetic engineering. And today organic is safe.

It is also totalitarian in the way these trade treaties were put into place. They were forced on the world. In India we are being forced to import meat and waste from slaughter houses. We are being forced to import wheat, sorghum and milk, which we produce in abundant quantities. And those imports are destroying our markets, pushing our farmers into suicide. It is a system that is worse than any dictatorship that we are familiar with.

Democracy to me is reclaiming the spaces for farmers to grow food and consumers to have safe food at reasonable prices.

CW: Of course companies like Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, Novartis tell us that genetic engineering is going to help feed the world, that it’s going to eradicate hunger in countries like India. Is that true?

VS: GE foods were never meant to eliminate hunger. The advertisements were about hunger. But, GE has been and will be always, a technology to generate profits for the handful of corporations that call themselves “life-sciences” corporations, which is an insult to life. I would rather call them “death-sciences” corporations. The most popular application, which accounts for about 80% of all genetically engineered crops planted in the world, are herbicide resistant crops. Now, herbicide resistant crops are ecocidal technologies that get rid of the 200-250 crops that are grown in small farms of India. A system which would wipe out the sources of vitamin A in our green vegetables. And then say “It’s okay, we provide vitamin A through genetically engineering rice.”

Herbicide resistant crops reduce food production because they destroy the biodiversity that accounts for most of the food consumed in the Third World. Bt crops, where pesticide production is built into the plant, is a sure way to have total crop failure. It’s not a way to feed the world, because it kills non-target species. We’ve seen that with bees, we’ve seen that with the monarch butterfly. No matter how much Monsanto lies, it is the case that Bt in natural form is very different from the Bt in the plants. And the Bt in the plants starts to affect species that were not affected by the organic spray that farmers across the world have used.

And I know that at least for India in the Bt trials, we went down to the fields ourselves and talked to the farmers and in certain cases, the Bt crop, the genetically engineered crop had 75% less production than the conventional cotton that they were growing.

CW: Why do you think it has taken as long as it has, given that some of these corporations like Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland are based in the United States, for people in this country to become aware of the issues around genetically engineered food?

VS: I think there are three reasons why it took so long to build movements in North America on genetic engineering. The first reason is that North American agriculture been monopolized by agribusiness for so long. Farmers here have been devastated so totally, you only have 2% left on the land. In a way, American citizens have gotten used to having their food hijacked. They have gotten used to having agribusiness control their food system. And therefore, the next step of control was not that dramatic in their lives as it was in the lives of Europeans or in the lives of Indians.

The second issue is the fact that because agribusiness has been contaminating the food system of the US for so long, industrializing food, in a way citizens have lost both the physiology and the culture of food. I know that because when I come to North America, I must tell you I can’t eat food here. We come from a poor country but we have fresh food. The food has a taste. And even my little chapatti, my little dhal, I can eat on a daily basis. I just can’t eat the foods at the restaurants in this place, because it is so contaminated, you have no idea what goes into what to make what anymore.

And finally, the most important issue is related to the fact that the regulatory agencies that should have been controlling Monsanto, that should have been holding Cargill to account, were actually held captive by these corporations. And on behalf of these corporations, the regulatory agencies in the United States have lied to the American public. They have told falsehoods like substantial equivalents: ‘don’t worry genetically engineered food is exactly like non-genetically engineered food.’ Falsehoods like ‘we’ve tested it all out and it’s all safe.’ And I really think, if the citizens of this country have to prove that the US is a democracy, they have to hold their government to account, for having misled them on something as vital as food.

CW: Where do you see the movement headed internationally?

VS: At one level, I think citizens have won the GE issue intellectually and morally. The place where they will undermine the gains made by all of Europe revolting and saying we won’t consume these crops; by Japan is saying we won’t; by the US having a downturn in planting and American citizens now waking up and saying we don’t want to consume this junk, will be to make it look like it is essential to the Third World.

Aid will be the Trojan Horse through which they will try to extend a lease on life for GMO’s when people are saying we don’t need this to feed the world. And that is where the future alliances will need to work together to ensure that genetically engineered soya is not dumped on India, as it is being dumped now through free-trade regimes. And not dumped on the victims of Orissa cyclone, where genetically engineered corn and genetically engineered soya has been sold through aid agencies for $4.5 million under the US AID relief. The Third World is where the citizens of the North will have to become active to hold their governments and their corporations accountable.
]]> http://globalwomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/an-interview-with-vandana-shiva/feed/ 0 kamallarosekaur Dr. Vandana Shiva http://globalwomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/what-is-a-sweatshop/ http://globalwomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/what-is-a-sweatshop/#comments Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:06:40 +0000 kamallarosekaur http://globalwomen.wordpress.com/?p=14 ]]>

Fact sheet prepared by Olivia Given, September 1997

What is a sweatshop?

The Department of Labor defines a work place as a sweatshop if it violates two or more of the most basic labor laws including child labor, minimum wage, overtime and fire safety laws. For many, the word sweatshop conjures up images of dirty, cramped, turn of the century New York tenements where immigrant women worked as seamstresses. High-rise tenement sweatshops still do exist, but, today, even large, brightly-lit factories can be the sites of rampant labor abuses.

Sweatshop workers report horrible working conditions including sub-minimum wages, no benefits, non-payment of wages, forced overtime, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, corporal punishment, and illegal firings. Children can often be found working in sweatshops instead of going to school. Sweatshop operators are notorious for avoiding giving maternity leave by firing pregnant women and forcing women workers to take birth control or to abort their pregnancies.

Sweatshop operators can best control a pool of workers that are ignorant of their rights as workers. Therefore, bosses often refuse to hire unionized workers and intimidate or fire any worker suspected of speaking with union representatives or trying to organize her fellow workers.

I thought sweatshops were a thing of the past. Why are we hearing so much about them again?

The notorious sweatshops of the age of Big Business (the late 19th and early 20th centuries) virtually disappeared after World War II because of increased government regulation of monopolies and the rise of trade unions. Sweatshops began to reappear again, however, during the 1980′s and 1990′s because of economic globalization. Today1s economy is described as global because advancements in technology have made it possible for large corporations that were once confined to a specific geographic location to become large “multi-nationals.”

The popularity of the “free” market following the fall of Communism and a rise in anti-union sentiment, coupled with government programs (like NAFTA and GATT) designed to encourage free trade, have hastened the globalization process. Large corporations are now free to seek out low-wage havens: impoverished countries where corporations benefit from oppressive dictatorial regimes that actively suppress workers’ freedoms of speech and association. Even in North America, where the North American Free Trade Agreement is supposed to enforce a minimum stardard for workers’ rights, corporations concentrate in maquiladoras, “free trade zones” that were created by NAFTA, where the workers’ rights provisions of the Agreement simply do not apply.

Corporations have been fleeing countries with relatively prosperous economies and stable, democracies in droves not only to take advantage of cheap labor, but to escape government scrutiny and criticism from human rights and workers’ rights organizations. Guess? Clothing Co., for example, has always produced the majority of its goods in the U.S. but threatened to move 75% of this manufacturing to Mexico last year in response to Department of Labor citations and highly publicized humanitarian campaigns about Guess?’s California contract sweatshops.

Are there sweatshops in the U.S.?

According to the Department of Labor, over 50% of U.S. garment factories are sweatshops. Many sweatshops are run in this country’s apparel centers: California, New York, Dallas, Miami and Atlanta.Source:Department of Labor

Where are most sweatshops?

There are probably sweatshops in every country in the world – anywhere where there is a pool of desperate, exploitable workers. Logically, the poorer a country is the more exploitable its people are. Labor violations are, therefore, especially widespread in third world countries. Nike has been criticized for unethical labor practices in its Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesian shoe factories, and Haitian garment factories. Non-profit groups have documented the labor violations of retailers like Philips-Van Heusen and the Gap in factories throughout Latin America.

As mentioned above, however, developing countries are not the only ones with sweatshops. Guess? Clothing Corporation, for example, has been cited numerous times by the Department of Labor for the use of contract sweatshops in California.

Who is a typical sweatshop worker?

In the garment industry, the typical sweatshop worker is a woman (90% of all sweatshop workers are women). She is young and, often, missing the chance for an education because she must work long hours to support a family. In America, she is often a recent or undocumented immigrant. She is almost always non-union and usually unaware that, even if she is in this country illegally, she still has rights as a worker.

Which companies are operating sweatshops?

Many of the companies directly running sweatshops are small and don’t have much name recognition. However, virtually every retailer in the U.S. has ties to sweatshops. The U.S. is the biggest market for the garment industry and almost all the garment sales in this country are controlled by 5 corporations: Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Sears, The May Company (owns and operates Lord & Taylor, Hecht1s, Filene1s and others) and Federated Department Stores (owns and operates Bloomingdale1s, Macy1s, Burdine1s, Stern1s and others).

Several industry leaders have been cited for labor abuses by the Department of Labor. Of these Guess? Clothing Co. is one of the worst offenders – Guess? was suspended indefinitely from the Department of Labor’s list of “good guys” because their contractors were cited for so many sweatshop violations.

Other companies contract out their production to overseas manufacturers whose labor rights violations have been exposed by U.S. and international human rights groups. These include Nike, Disney, Wal-Mart, Reebok, Phillips- Van Heusen, the Gap, Liz Claiborne and Ralph Lauren.

Don’t these company officials feel guilty for using sweatshops?

Large corporations almost always use contract manufacturing firms to produce their goods. In this way, corporations separate themselves from the production of their own goods and try to claim that the working conditions under which their goods are produced are not their responsibility.

In fact, it is the corporations that dictate the conditions of their workers. Corporations squeeze their contractors into paying sub-minimum wages. Large retailers and retail chains pressure contract manufacturers by refusing to pay more that a rock-bottom price for manufacturing orders. They also demand that their manufacturing contractors guarantee them a profit by buying back unsold merchandise at the end of each season. Manufacturers deal with this financial squeeze not by cutting their own profits, but by cutting workers’ wages and benefits, and by compromising workers1 physical safety.

Many corporations also refuse to contract to union shops. So, even if a contractor does want to pay their workers a reasonable wage and allow them their freedom of association, he/she will probably be run out of business. In the end, it is the workers who pay for corporate greed.

How do American companies get away with running sweatshops?

Unfortunately the Department of Labor does not have enough personnel to inspect every workplace for labor violations. The Department of Labor only requires companies to have an internal monitoring policy, as opposed to an external monitoring policy where site inspections and evaluations would be unannounced and conducted by impartial parties. With internal monitoring there is no way to know whether companies are telling the truth about the conditions in their own factories. Many companies, like Nike, pay private accounting firms to come into their factories and assess the working conditions as “independent” monitors.

Even when companies are caught violating workers’ rights, the punishment is often nominal. Fines that may seem hefty to us are insignificant to companies reaping multi-million dollar profits.

Why do foreign governments let foreign companies come into their country and exploit their people?

The truth is, business and government are a lot more connected to each other than most people think. Our economy rewards the highest bidder among consumers and the lowest bidder among producers. Foreign governments, desperate for economic gain, often deliberately set their national minimum wage below what it would actually take a worker to support herself and her family. The citizens of a country starve and suffer while the elite class and corrupt government officials reap the benefits of globalization.

What is the U.S. government doing about sweatshops?

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 officially prohibits sweatshops. However, because of understaffing at the Department of Labor and corporations’ strategies for distancing themselves from the production of their goods by contracting production out to many different manufacturers, enforcement is lax. Earlier this year Stop Sweatshops Bills were introduced in Congress that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to hold companies responsible for the labor violations of their contractors.

President Clinton has also created an Apparel Industry Task Force of both labor rights and corporate interests to address the issue of sweatshops. The Task Force’s first resolution, however, failed to address many important issues for workers. The Task Force does not require member-corporations to pay their workers a living wage, instead requiring only the, often substandard, minimum wage set by the government of a corporation’s host country. The resolution allows member-corporations to force their workers to labor as many as 60 hours a week during regular business circumstances, and even more under vaguely defined “extraordinary” business circumstances. The Task Force is due to release its second report this November. However, reports indicate that corporate interests continue to be unyielding to the requests of human and workers’ rights groups.

Can the U.S. government enforce U.S. labor laws on U.S. companies operating abroad?

No, it can’t. This is precisely the reason that many U.S. companies move their production operations overseas. Multi-national corporations actively seek out markets where wages are low, unions are outlawed and desperate people will work for almost any price. Nike, for example, first moved production out of the U.S. to Taiwan and South Korea when American workers organized to demand a reasonable wage. Then, when democracy took hold in Taiwan and South Korea, Nike moved production again, this time to China, Indonesia and Vietnam, all countries run by dictatorial military regimes that violently suppress workers’ rights.

What are relations like between the U.S. government and the governments of countries where U.S. businesses are operating sweatshops?

Ironically, the U.S. gives humanitarian and other types of aid to countries whose poverty is, in part, a result of unscrupulous U.S. business operations. The U.S. government gives lip-service to workers’ and human rights while promoting the business climates most conducive to sweatshops, namely, through NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the U.S.’s “laissez-faire” attitude towards the growing markets in East and Southeast Asia.

What is the alternative to a sweatshop?

Corporations set up sweatshops in the name of “competition”. In reality these corporations are not facing profit loses or bankruptcy, just too little profit! During this century, workers real wages have gone down while CEO’s salaries have skyrocketed. In 1965 the average CEO made 44 times the average factory worker. Today, the average CEO makes 212 times the salary of the average worker.

Source:AFL-CIO

Corporations have skewed priorities. Many are putting expenses like CEO salaries and advertising costs before the well-being of their workers. For example, a Haitian worker sewing children’s pajamas for Disney would have to toil full-time for 14.5 years to earn what Michael Eisner makes in one hour! Here’s another staggering statistic: Nike could pay all its individual workers enough to feed and clothe themselves and their families if it would just devote 1% of its advertising budget to workers’ salaries each year! Corporations falsely claim that they are victims of the global economy when, in fact, corporations help create and maintain this system.

‘Brick Lane’ premieres in London amid controversy

Nov 4, 2007

LONDON (AFP) — “Brick Lane”, the movie based on Monica Ali’s critically-acclaimed novel, has finally premiered in London after controversy surrounding its filming and the cancellation of a royal performance.

The film, which follows the fortunes of Nazneen, a young Muslim Bangladeshi woman who emigrated to London aged 17 after an arranged marriage, was shown for the first time at the London Film Festival on October 26.

But director Sarah Gavron’s portrayal of this slice of immigrant life has divided the critics.

Some of the more violent aspects of Ali’s 2003 novel about the famous east London street have been left out of the film. Instead, the characters are more appealing, which some critics have seen as an attempt to avoid controversy.

The film itself is shot from Nazneen’s point of view, showing her trapped in a cramped flat she shares in a dreary municipal authority-owned block with her ageing, pot-bellied husband and their two daughters.

But her endless days juggling money and marital worries are suddenly brightened when Karim, who brings her work as a seamstress, comes into her life and they embark on a passionate affair.

The film also shows the rise in Islamic radicalism and the tensions caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States when the community suddenly becomes a target.

At the end of the film, Nazneen (Tannishtha Chaterjee), who is seen throughout as a submissive, sari-wearing wife, takes responsibility for her own destiny.

The filming of “Brick Lane” last year caused tensions within certain sections of the Bangladeshi community in east London.

About 100 people demonstrated in July 2006 on Brick Lane itself, a popular destination for curry lovers which is also called Banglatown and is a symbol for the 330,000 Bangladeshis living in the British capital.

The protesters threatened to burn Ali’s book, calling it an “insult” to the community because it portrayed Bangladeshis as ignorant and lacking respect for religion.

Gavron said that view was not representative.

“We had a huge amount of support from the community but there was a little group with a political agenda that got a lot of attention,” she told the audience at the London Film Festival.

As for Prince Charles cancelling a Royal Film Performance scheduled for October 29, “no reason was given”, she added.

Such showings have been held every year since 1946, apart from 1958, with proceeds going to royal charities, including the Cinema and Television Benevolent Fund which helps organise the screening.

A royal offical at Clarence House, Charles’ official London residence, said: “There has been quite a lot of controversy about that film which everyone was aware of.

“The appropriateness of the film chosen is important but so is the date. It is a mixture of both reasons. At the start it had been one of a number of films proposed. None of the films and none of the dates worked.”

Although the prince has offered to reschedule the performance in the new year, there have been suggestions that the royal family was keen to avoid a similar furore that followed the awarding of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie.

Rushdie, author of the “Satanic Verses”, was given the award in Queen Elizabeth II’s birthday honours list earlier this year, prompting outrage from many in the Muslim community who still consider his 1988 work as blasphemous.

“Brick Lane” hits British screens on November 16. It has already won two prizes at the festival of British film in Dinard, France, but a date for its opening in Europe has not yet been set.

Negotiations for its release in Asia have not been concluded, Gavron said.