Sunday, 16 March 2008

PRICING WATER: DENYING LIFE


Three recent events have given me cause to revisit a taken for granted commodity – water. The first is the increase in the cost of our use of water and efforts at trying to conserve our use of the resource. The second is the continuing privatization of water sources/rights in the majority world – mainly by foreign companies and mostly with some government or local entrepreneurial support. And the third, which follows up for the preceding events, relates to my continuing reflections on growing up in Guyana which is referred to as “land of many waters” – a place where water can be plentiful and painfully scarce depending on where you live.

Rivers and waters have always been powerful imageries for me growing up in that land. Hence, conserving water will not have been a thought – in spite of our parents’ regular mantra: “do not waste water”. In the context of rice planting, cane cultivation and other kinds of crop farming water, though plentiful, quickly took on the imagery of a symbol for life. My Hindu and Muslim ancestors and neighbour’s daily ritual of prayers, pouring water on a stone, and ablutions before prayers further affirmed the idea of life.

Indeed, water is a symbol of life (noted in all religions). It is a basic condition for all life on earth and is to used wisely and shared for the benefit of all. Ever since God’s spirit moved on the face of the deep, the presence of water meant life and its absence spelt death. We are born from water and our bodies constitute more water than anything else. In the womb we swim in a watery space of our mother. Further, the earth is a watery planet (70%). In fact, I think of the Caribbean as more water than land mass. The future of the whole earth is tied to water.


In a way, one can reasonably contend that water frames the whole biblical discourse from Genesis to Revelation. And water has been represented in a number of ways in Scriptures: to be feared (the deep); as a source of life; it has been associated with renewal, rebirth, cleansing, saving etc. But it is also waters (rivers) that have shaped and established Empires and the sacred texts highlight this fact as well.


Efforts at privatizing water locates a fundamental human distortion of a basic necessity of life: that of turning water into an economic thing that will mint money. Hence, the right to water or the human right to share in a blessing of the universe (this watery planet for all) has been colonised through that shift in turning water a commodity. Water, the symbol of life and a gift for all, must now be paid for. This is the price that we pay for courting neo-liberal capitalism dressed up in fancy clothing. On its altar lives are daily sacrificed to appease the god of the market.


And, it is not insignificant that the word “privatization” has an interesting etymological history. Among its Latin roots is the word “privare” which means to deprive, rob, bereave, dispossess, and deny. The right to water – a gift of the Divine for all – has now been stolen through privatization and by "privateers"!!!

(copyright jagessar 2008)


Friday, 7 March 2008

Minding the Gap: Bible and Bible Reading


For a change, the Bible made it into Church News a couple of weeks ago. You would be excused for thinking that this ought to be normal in church news papers! Well, the Bible Society in this country decided to check the state of the our familiarity of the bible by carrying out a survey. And, according to the findings of Taking the Pulse: is the Bible Alive and Well in the Church Today? by the Bible Society, there is a widening gap between the clergy and the congregants' perceptions of the place of the bible in their lives and in the society. The Bible may be ranked as a bestseller, but there is a problem when it comes to the constituencies for whom this sacred text is very important. In this case, the churches are the traditional denominations with the Black-Led Churches apparently not on the radar screen of the Bible society.

The findings are very interesting - depending on your reading optics. While
78% of church goers believe the Bible is divinely inspired and 34% that it is free from error, 98% of church leaders believe the Bible is divinely inspired and 47% that it is free from error. This is real scary stuff: I need to check what my colleagues are teaching in their biblical studies modules. The report further noted, as is expected of a Bible Society categorization, Liberal, Catholic, Methodist and URC leaders are the most skeptical when it comes to the Bible’s authority, while at the same time expressing dissatisfaction with the congregations' understanding of the Bible.

It may have been this report that propelled a private member’s motion at the recent Anglican Synod. According to a Church Times report
(Feb 15, 2008), the “Place Bibles in Every Church” was a private member’s motion that expressed dismay that in many churches one could not find a bible even though the legal requirement stipulated the need to have one in every lectern. So if there is an issue about reading or understanding the Bible, a more fundamental problem is that one cannot be located in Churches! The mover went on to argue that all he is concerned about is making “the scriptures available”. No, this is not a scene out of the medieval church history. This is today. I guess the Bible Society missed that about the bestseller. And what was the motion?

“That this Synod, believing in the importance of Scripture, desire that anyone entering a church building or attending a church service should have easy and unfettered access to one of the versions of the Bible referred to in the note by the House of Bishops on Versions of Scripture dated 9 October 2002 or one of the versions of the Bible that may be used by virtue of the Prayer Book Versions of the Bible Measure, and would request all dioceses to take steps to give effect to this desire in their churches.”

And there were not lack of supporters for the motion: from Bishops to lay members, speakers noted among other things: the missed evangelistic opportunities; the need for inclusive versions, for various translations; to nudge people that bibles are available and are there for them to read (not to collect dust and for spiders to spin webs); how the bibles were chained to the lectern” so it was important that a bible be available in churches etc.

Providing bibles in every church will be the easy part: getting people into church will not be so easy; and the more difficult bit will be around how we read the Bible, what we make of what we read and how these are interpreted. After all, divinely inspired texts did not drop out of Cloud 9, nor were the writers and interpreters (past and present) disembodied spirits. The Bible is a produced text - taking sides to generating versions of reality. How will the 98% of Church leaders who believe the bible is divinely inspired and the 47 % who hold the view that it is free from error wrestle with this as they interrogate the sacred text, remains a huge challenge.

In the meantime the gap will continue to widen and come 2020 we may find the i-Bible more accessible and hopefully we will then be better able to understand what is meant by a produced text laced with codes, ideological interests and colonial entanglements.

copyright jagessar 2008


Sunday, 2 March 2008

WINNING POINTS and COUNTER-POINTS


I cannot understand why immigrants are always viewed with suspicion and seen as a problem. I consider myself a transient immigrant (though I would not be labelled one as a holder of a Dutch passport) and in retrospect even if the economic and political circumstances of my place of birth and socialization (Guyana), for the most formative parts of life, would have improved, I would have still travelled “abroad” for adventure (economic and otherwise).

Like other migrants, I bring loads of gifts and contribute to the well-being of the country where I am now a resident. Robert Winder’s volume, Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain (2004) astutely documents the history and contributions of immigrants to Britain. He notes that present discourse on newly arrive migrants can be
characterised by amnesiac habits that totally erase “the long and steady movement of people to these shores before the modern era”. One can be cynical enough to pose the question as to whether Britain could have ever been the economic and cultural power it has become only through the contributions of its “natives” – whether it is here or in some other place (via colonial history). A least the Romans who thought of the Britons of that time as their worst, most uncouth and laziest of slaves, would be quite surprised. We have truly moved on – and thanks to the contributions of waves of immigrants!

Today that “wave” needs to be controlled and so new potential immigrants have to earn points to see the chalky white Cliffs of Dover or land at congested Heathrow. And they will have to acquire points based on abilities (as if they never had those in the 1st place) – with a special body (sounds very mystical) advising how points will be awarded to certain skills. I wonder if I can get a place on that body? Can former migrants apply or would their suitability and place be also determined by points? Or should only native British apply? I should not worry, however, as I suspect that the probability of a pure native (after the migratory waves over donkey years) will be most unlikely. What I will worry about is that how some of these former migrants (now British) conveniently forget their own journey.


More disturbing, however, is about the easy ride through this new system for the more privileged (class in this country has the amazing ability of re-dressing itself in numerous ways): high flying businessmen (as they tend to be only of that sex), entrepreneurs and scientists. Clearly, a certain kind people are intended to be the beneficiaries of this system (gender, ethnicity and class/caste included). This is not to mention the loss their home countries will experience. But who am I to complain, I did the same though a former government (in Guyana) would have said: good riddance!


Mammon, clothed in neo-liberal economies and economics is calling the shots. Let the less qualified lot remain in their country as they will actually put a strain of our social systems: they can provide the cheap labour for our call centres and sweatshops to feed our insatiable desire for more at little cost. We need them over there to fire up and drive the economic locomotive, swelling our margins of profit. Rule Britannia is still possible, but only through waves of highly skilled migrants. The rest we can continue to rule from a distance thorough IMF and the arms industry.


In the meantime we will need to sort out the alarming number our own Queen and Flag natives, many of whom are unskilled and incompetent: some not only unskilled – but loads presently unemployable. Are there countries where they can migrate to? And if not what points system will work for them here?

copyright jagessar 2008