Re: Colonialism and HIV/AIDS in India

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum,

This is in response to Ms Joya Banerjee's posting on " Colonialism and HIV/AIDS

in India " posted on 5th may 2005 (message No. 4545).

/message/4545

I am really sorry for late reply but I actually felt compelled to reply to this

message, as I believe that any such claim from the west must be challenged at

its very root. I posted the message earlier to this forum, but after a long

waiting period for about 4 days, I withdrew the message. I would like to respond

now to the said posting point by point:

" Since Mr. Kole brought up colonialism, I would like to propose that its effect

is not to subjugate Indians through imposing a Western conspiracy, but rather

that its effect was to make Indians surround sexuality with a dangerous

n shroud of shame and taboo... "

Who decides that Indians should be " made " more comfortable on sexuality issues?

Your use of the word " make " itself reflects a degree of power-relation between

the " maker " and the " made. " You claim this " process of making " as your " moral

responsibility. "

Looking back at world colonialist's history, I can only find that these " lame

excuses " have always been used first to colonise the people and their land, and

later to " justify " and " legitimise " the process of colonialism as a " civilising

mission of the savage. " That is, " colonisers have the right to colonise. " They

have a moral responsibility to " civilise the savages, " who, apparently do not

conform to " their standards, " say in xyz aspects.

Today, your claim to make the Indians more comfortable around sexuality is only

a " colonising mission " that legitimises a coloniser's right to colonise. It is

no different than Mr. Bush claiming a moral responsibility to free the

Iraqi people and oust a sovereign government of a nation.

Till now at least 90 percent of Indians or South Asians including Pakistan,

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan are more comfortable with what they have

--- that is what you label as the " n shroud of shame and taboo. "

My question to you would be, did you ask the South Asians before " baptising "

them into your new world of " uncovered, shameless, and tolerable " limits of

sexuality? (These words areantonym of shroud, shame and taboo that you used).

Looking back at the American history again what I find is that this " uncovered,

shameless and tolerable " limit of sexuality broadly corresponds with an American

legal and constitutional framework that upholds " individual liberty and rights "

-- a by-product of capitalism and economic individualism.

American society had a structural context to promote or protect the " personal

liberty and rights " guaranteed by the Constitution that is deeply entrenched in

its political history of liberalism and economic history of capitalism. The

" uncovered, shameless and tolerable " limits of sexuality in question, took the

advantage of a legal constitutional structure that guaranteed " personal liberty

and rights. "

And what good it has done to your country, in addition to people enjoying their

sexual life in varieties of ways? Here is an example from my earlier posting

(with some addition and modification) in case you have missed it.

American porn industry is the largest in the world producing over 4,000

pornographic films earning over 13 billion dollars per year (, " HIV

Scare Hits US Porn Industry, " The Observer, April 18, 2004, New York). This is

how capitalism commodified sex and sexuality.

In such a capitalistic world, people can choose " porn star " as a career option

without any social stigma. (Check this yourself online: Many of these porn stars

are college students or from well to do families. For example, being a Play Boy

Playmate or a penthouse Pet still remains glamour in American society.

See " American Porn: A Multi Billion Dollar Business - and growing in a wired

world- Can anything stop it? A PBS-Frontline Film,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/). Every year, well over

1,200 'porn stars' enter the adult industry just in LA.

(Only in 2004, 1,231 new female porn stars entered in the adult industry in

California. See Cyberspace Adult Video Review, CAVR List of Newbies 2004,

http://cavr.com/hots2004.htm).

I am trying to estimate whether adult industry from other cities together draws

more " porn stars " than the total number of women entering " sex work " in India.

Sex is such a great business in a capitalist world that sexual products such as

sex-toys, sex shops and live sex shows is a part of urban culture in every city.

(I can not remember any city in US that defines itself " without " the presence of

such things).

This is what good you have brought by making sexuality " uncovered, shameless and

tolerable. " And what is the net effect? Check the adolescent sexual behaviour

data published by NCHS. Sex is so rampant among adolescents- 76% of adolescent

girls experience penetrative vaginal sex before they reach grade tenth. This is

US national survey data, and when you compare this against India you will have

peanuts!

Published studies so far reveal the range between 2-10 percent. In

2000, unmarried teenage pregnancy rate in US was 84 per 1000 women in the age

group of 15-19 compared to Japan (2 per 1000) and India ??? We do not have this

figure available, that is why I have showed the example of an Asian country).

The prevalence of HIV among young men aged 15-24 is nearly equal to our country

prevalence rate or general population (0.8%). And still people from the west

questions that India does not have a sexual and moral culture? What is a sexual

culture other than what I have presented above?

A few days before in a debate Mr Heaviside asserted that westerners never bother

about constructing a sexualised image of India? Check the history yourself.

This is what westerners did with Hawaii just 50 years ago by constructing a

sexualised image of Hawaii in the mainstream American society (Wood, Houston,

" Displacing Natives...Rawman and littlefield, Lanham, 1999); and this is what

MAP Network reported in its 2004 report that " sex is a business culture of

Asia. " These are images that are constructed in the western media that

legitimises colonialism.

" Mr. Kole's response struck me as highly defensive and reactionary; almost

symptomatic of a colonized mind... "

This is a " classical, historical twist " to the interpretation of colonialism and

readers in this forum would readily recognise it! A colonised mind is NOT and

NEVER " reactionary. " A colonised mind is always and necessarily " submissive. " A

colonised mind never questions its colonial masters. If it questions, it is no

longer colonised.

A colonised mind is the mindset of a slave who thinks that masters can never be

wrong. A colonised mind is one that " internalises " colonial values, norms and

principles to govern himself and others in the society using those principles.

A colonised mind is one that perceives and evaluates the social reality from a

coloniser's point of view, or as the colonisers present the social reality to

him.

Since a colonised mind does not possess any individual opinion, it appears that

a colonised mind is one, which thinks that whatever the master says is " the

absolute " or whatever comes from the west is good as God! We can not deny that

the British colonialism had had a great impact on our mindset and it has left us

with a slave mentality.

The mindset of an average Indian is colonised as it considers whatever comes

from the west is good. Since you say that I am " reactionary, " it logically

appears that I do not have a colonised mind.

I would recommend you to read Ashish Nandy or Apfel Marglin on theories of

" decolonisation of mind " in addition to reading " discursive AIDS literature "

(that you always read) if you want to know more on a colonised mindset.

" During colonialism one of the British Raj's tactics was to accuse Indians of

treating our women poorly, the theory that a civilization can be measured by how

it treats its women... "

What becomes a measure of society has been changing historically.

Even 100 years ago, a society was measured by its ability to accumulate

industrial capital and how well it protects the capitalist interest.

During the time of European renaissance, a society was measured by its ability

to think and reason scientifically. During the age of emperor (imperialism) a

society was measured by its ability to successfully colonise other parts of the

globe and establish colonies.

During the age of European feudalism, a society was measured by its ability to

accumulate land, labour, and slave.

Very recently, Salman Rushdie has said that a society is measured by its ability

to accept pornography. And now you are saying that a society is measured by how

well it treats it women.

I am NOT denying your argument, but to me it appears that there are customs,

traditions in many Asian societies where women are treated with much respect and

dignity. Of course women in the west are " empowered " oth socially and

economically, but that does not " ensure " that they would be treated with dignity

and respect.

Crime statistics from most of the western countries reveal that there is same

level of violence against women in the west, if not less than the Asian

societies.

" We spent over 100 years regressing into the stone age, defending indefensible

practices like sati and child marriage. Why? Not because we believed they were

right, but because we believed they were tradition, a tradition that had to be

protected at all costs against Western imperialism and loose morals... "

As far I can remember, these are the most widely cited examples in the western

colonialist discourse. Almost every such literature will have a reference to

these two practices.

These practices as I said earlier are used as " excuses " that justifies

coloniser's " right to colonise " and " civilise the savage. "

I am NOT justifying that these practices were right either, but I am only

criticising that you are citing a " dead example. " Sati has been banned nearly

200 years ago.

Public tolerance to certain practices and traditions changes over

time. Can we think of Sati in recent era and will public tolerate it?

Looking at the history of England and Europe we could also find references to

such inhuman practices albeit a hundred year earlier.

Women were burnt to death with accusation as witchcraft. I quote from the

following webpage http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/witches.shtml.

" Let us first turn our attention to England... It is perhaps idle to

attempt to estimate the number of executions for witchcraft throughout the

country. Various writers have made suggestions some of which are widely

fantastical. On the Continent, where burnings were carried out wholesale, Kurtz

has estimated that subsequent to the bull of Innocent VIII (1484) 300,000

witches were brought to the

stake. Such figures may well be true, but what is to be thought of

Steele's statements in Social England that 70,000 witches were hanged under the

Act of I. One-hundredth part of such a figure would obviously be an over-

estimate. One must hesitate also to accept the same writer's suggestion that in

Scotland 8,000 women ere burnt between the years 1560 and 1600. "

Overall, this website reports that burning witch-women were prevalent in almost

entire Europe - Poland, Switzerland, France, British Isles, Scandinavia,

Hungary, Transylvania, Moldavia, pallachia, Spain and the Italian States. " Among

the feminist writers claiming millions of deaths is Dworkin... claiming,

in europe, women were persecuted as witches for nearly four hundred years,

burned at the stake, perhaps as many as nine million of hetm. Even further off

the mark is the claim by certain German feminists that ten million women were

killed... "

Europe, particularly England took nearly 200 years to accept and believe what

Copernicus and Galileo said, " the earth revolves round the sun! " and went on

transgressing and defending the church. Why do you cite " our " example and a

200-year-old practice? At least we took lesser time defending it than Europeans!

" The post's tone was limited to " we are not promiscuous/ immoral/ savage. "

HIV/AIDS is not a label that one nation pastes on another.... "

I believe you, but when I look back at the history, I find a

systematic attempt to construct a sexualised image of many Asian countries in

the West. This is an important aspect of colonisation well documented throughout

colonialist history -- you can see this has happened with almost every country

wherever Euroamericans wentin Asia, the Pacific, and the far East.

A sexualised construction of Bangkok (Thailand) is one of the most important

examples in the western literature that I can think of immediately. I have also

cited Houston Wood's book that establishes a sexualised construction of Hawaii

when Euroamericans invaded the Hawaiian island (you can check references cited

there for other countries). And I can also find attempts of sexualised

construction of Indian nation.

The example above I gave from the MAP 2004 report is unacceptable: sex may be a

consumerist culture of the west, NOT a business culture of Asia! What Geoffrey

Heaviside reported about young people in MP, according to me, is the same

process that adds on to this construction and legitimises a colonial

interference. If such a construction is undergoing, we have every right to

protest. The tone of the message that you found is justifiable.

" It is not Indian tradition to censor discussion, education, and access to

services on a basic part of humanity- sexuality. It is not

moral to deny people their human right to full and accurate information about

HIV/AIDS, reproductive health, and their own bodies. "

I fully agree with you. But " how much " and " what information " let that be

decided by the people of India. Let us have a national debate with parents,

adolescents, teachers, and every other stakeholders in the society " whether, how

and to what extent " we impart sexuality education to our future generation. " Let

that not be decided by the west and imposed upon us " -- this was my fundamental

contention.

" ...What is best for India is to stop with the politics, egos and the taboos and

to focus on realistic, human-rights based approaches to prevention and

treatment. "

To some extent, I agree with you though NOT fully. To what degree this " Rights

Based Approach " is " suitable " and " effective " in Indian case, that is still a

matter of debate (I do not take any position by saying so. I am just

representing an opinion).

Though, over the years, I have seen that " it worked in developed nations, " after

two decades of activism in the field of HIV/AIDS, people come with questions

that it worsened the epidemic in countries where poverty and illiteracy is

widespread. Let us compare India with US where this " rights based approach "

emerged first in HIV/AIDS.

AIDS was first discovered in the United States in 1980-81. By the time it was

discovered in India, there were already 11,932 deaths reported in USA

(http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/timeline80-

87.html).

Some of these deaths were famous people such as, Cowley, HI-NRG Dance

and Music Composer - 1982; Foucault, Philosopher- 1984; Rock Hudson,

famous Hollywood star- 1985; Lee Riachards - Porn Star -1985; Mike , Social

Commentator and urban theorists 1986; Gia Marie, Fashion Model 1986; Roy Cohn

Lawyer 1986; and three famous porn stars among many others.

Since American society was already tolerant to the issues of sexually minority

groups (gays and homosexuals among whom AIDS was predominant), and " personal

liberty and rights " were guaranteed by the American Constitution, the US

government recognised the " rights " of those infected and at risk, and adopted a

liberal, rights-based policy for HIV prevention.

The rights based approach had a structural context in US: almost 100 percent

people were literate. Other factors such as physical quality of life, standard

of living, health and treatment seeking behaviour, education of parents, all

were in favour of a rights based approach.

This is same can be said about all other countries of Western Europe.

Where 50 percent population of the country was " sheer illiterate, " (this was the

literacy figure for India from 1991 Census) and 40% population lived below the

poverty line, what was the " suitability "

of adopting such an approach is coming as question again and again.

A section of Indian population believe " expecting that illiterate Indians would

behave the same way as Americans, was a bit too much... " and they argue that the

damage to the epidemic continued due to the approaches and strategies of

prevention that we adopted dueto the interference of western institutions and

ideologies.

" ...You may dismiss him as a westerner and you may dismiss me as an

American-born Indian, but please do not reject the Indian-born Indians who are

living with HIV/AIDS or soon will be because the continued denial,

defensiveness, and overwhelming silence and apathy to the exponentially growing

pandemic... "

To correct your statement, we are (I am) not dismissing any individual,

westerners, American born Indians or Indian born Indians.

We are (I am) dismissing an " opinion, " an " ideology " about how best an issue be

tackled. You think that, " the rest of the world should behave the way we are,

because this is what is right for the rest of the world. " This hegemonic

attitude is unacceptable for me.

I am NOT advocating for dismissing anyone: I am advocating for an approach that

best protects both the current and the future generation. Let the approaches and

strategies to prevention be culture and context specific. What people are

objecting today is a western perspective, a western interference in every aspect

of the HIV/AIDS prevention, care and support programme. And that is what I

intended to bring forth!

Sincerely

Subir K. Kole

Research Fellow, East West Center

Director - Research and Training

Development Experts International

Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

E-mail: Subir@...