Hej,

just some laid back writings.

[ronnblomsgatan]

[ronnblomsgatan]

The Role of Culture in Shaping India’s Development Policy

Under British colonialism, India used to implement the feudal system. The Indian feudal system was renowned as Zamindari,a system where the local kings or zamindars(landlors who were also politically powerful and usually belonged to Kshatriyaor the high caste) controlled the land. The Zamindarisystem covered nearly 40% of India. Those coming from a lower caste, usually employed as peasants should hand over a substantial portion of the harvest to the land controllers. This made one of the biggest source of revenue for the British colonial. Under this system, there was not any incentives for the employed cultivators as they were not given any share.

As soon as India declared its independence back in 1947, India reformed the agrarian policy as a part of planned development programme. The prominent step taken by the then-ruling Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru at that moment was the abolishment of Zamindarisystem through an act. The Zamindari Abolition Acts legalised the transfer of common land or resources ownership. Abandoning the feudal system behind had breed on an alteration to an egalitarian economy in India.

Departing from this point, it can be noticed that one of the ways to interpret development according to the Indian government was the notion of equality through a fairly distribution of the means of production. As one of the means of production, land becomes very crucial in an agricultural society like India. The current agrarian structure is built upon changes derived from the agriculture condition under the British rule.

The abolishment of Zamindarisystem was not solely derived from the loopholes of the system. Emphasize should also be given on the context when this abolition act was enacted. As a newly independent state, India had the desire to establish its identity by having a break with the colonial legacy. The act of abolishing Zamindarisystem exemplifies this need.  

It can be noticed that India possessed a different approach to development in comparison with the British colonial. India incorporated social justice in conceptualizing the national development project while the British colonial gave emphasize and limitation to economic growth. The polarized notion of “us” versus “them” may be at play herein. Through development project, India identifies itself as a newly independent state striving for not only physical growth, but also equality among its people. This conception of development is in a great contrast in comparison with that of British colonial’s. India accentuates that “us” as the people of India does not treat our people in an unequal manner by merely putting forward economic gain. The disadvantage felt by the local people was a result of “their” policy, making “them” constructed as the bad guy. This polarization underlying the abolition act as in order for India to have a break with the colonial legacy is to abandon and produce anything opposite from the perspective of British colonial.

To a wider extent, the development discourse was laden with the conception from the West. India was not given the privilege to define what is development and how does it will actually look alike in the region itself. The British colonialism had silenced the local Indians in designing their own faith on development. To get rid off the colonial legacy means to construct an identity independent from outside interference. The ZamindariAbolition Act can be construed as a counter-movement to the colonial legacy because to still acknowledge the Zamindarisystem is to remain close with the colonial power.

Not only did the abolition pave the way for local identity to strive, but also a change in the power structure to take place. Resources formerly belong only to the zamindarshad been declared as public community following the abolition. Disarming the zamindarsfrom its ability to economic exploitation and dominance had empowered the local through power transfer. As a result, more people is included in the power structure and thus gaining more benefit from the structure.

Nonetheless, it is needed to be bear in mind that the feudal way of thinking may have been rooted in the way India manages its economy. Albeit the abolition acts had formally abolish the feudal system, however the feudal way of thinking apparently seems to persists as of today. This essay does not cover the inconsistency occurs at the field, but rather dragging attention to the determination in formally having a break with the colonial legacy.

Culture does play an essential role in shaping how a development policy would look like, if we were to narrow it down to the experience that India once had. Exemplified by the post-independence identity of a newly independent state, culture had driven India to the path that it should take with regards to development policy. A postcolonial perspective would argue that the urge to establish an identity as a newly independent state had given the push for India to abolish the Zamindari system, which was regarded as the colonial legacy. The development performed under the British colonial did not match the identity that India about to construct where the majority of the locals were mostly silenced. The distribution of land had extended the definition of development to also include social justice and the notion of equality. Thus, development policy was shaped by having a break with colonial legacy as decolonization was rooted in the need to establish a brand new identity.

[ronnblomsgatan]

Pentingnya Merangkul Penyintas Kehilangan Bunuh Diri

Kasus kematian bunuh diri selalu menyita perhatian masyarakat. Belakangan ini, publik berlomba-lomba menyingkap kelamnya industri hiburan Korea yang telah menelan beberapa korban. Dari dalam negeri, publik pun belakangan dikejutkan dengan seorang mantan pilot yang bunuh diri akibat permasalahan ekonomi.  

Setelah menyoroti kasus kematian akibat bunuh diri selama beberapa waktu, kebanyakan masyarakat lantas melupakan kasus tersebut begitu saja. Padahal, pasca kematian bunuh diri, ada kelompok yang juga sama rentannya terhadap keinginan bunuh diri, yakni para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri.

Para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri adalah anggota keluarga atau kerabat dekat yang ditinggalkan oleh orang yang melakukan bunuh diri. Ketika 1 orang melakukan bunuh diri, ternyata banyak orang-orang yang terkena dampaknya. Menurut Suicide Prevention Resource Center, 1 dari 5 orang mengaku bahwa kasus bunuh diri anggota keluarga memberikan dampak buruk bagi kehidupan mereka. Crosby dan Sacks, dalam penelitiannya mengenai ide dan perilaku bunuh diri di Amerika menemukan bahwa orang-orang yang mengenal seseorang yang melakukan bunuh diri memiliki kecenderungan 1.6 kali lebih besar untuk memiliki pemikiran mengenai bunuh diri, 2.9 kali lebih besar untuk merencanakan bunuh diri dan 3.7 kali lebih besar untuk benar-benar melakukan bunuh diri.

Ada rasa kehilangan yang berbeda pada kasus bunuh diri dari kasus kehilangan yang lain seperti meninggal karena penyakit. Para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri tidak hanya merasakan duka dan rasa sepi, tetapi juga sering kali menyalahkan diri sendiri karena tidak mampu mengintervensi kejadian bunuh diri. Karena perasaan bersalah inilah, para penyintas juga bisa memupuk amarra didalam dirinya sendiri.  

Melihat dampak yang berbeda-beda yang bisa dialami oleh para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri, maka kampanye suicide postventionpatut dilakukan. Suicide postventionberfokus pada proses penyembuhan seseorang yang berduka pasca kematian bunuh diri orang terdekat. Bahkan,suicide postventionjuga diperuntukkan bagi para penyedia layanan kesehatan. Suicide postventionbukan hanya merupakan pengobatan pasca kasus bunuh diri, tetapi juga merupakan sebuah langkah pencegahan bunuh diri terhadap para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri itu sendiri.

Di Amerika, kesadaran mengenai rentannya para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri dibuktikan melalui International Survivors of Suicide Loss Day, yakni hari yang didedikasikan untuk para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri. Pada hari itu, para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri akan berkumpul bersama untuk saling memberikan dukungan.

Namun, di Indonesia sendiri belum banyak perhatian yang diberikan pada para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri. Stigma negatif yang melekat pada pelaku bunuh diri membuat penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri menjadi enggan untuk menceritakan perasaannya untuk sekedar meringankan beban, apalagi untuk mendapat bantuan profesional.

Tetapi, bukan berarti para penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri tidak boleh berduka. Berduka adalah respon natural terhadap kehilangan dan mengekspresikan rasa duka itu sehat. Memberikan ruang yang cukup bagi para penyintas untuk mengutarakan perasaannya bisa menjadi teknik suicide postvention yang baik. Namun, berlarut-larut dalam kesedihan hingga menggangggu aktivitas sehari-hari dalam jangka waktu yang lama bukanlah hal yang baik pula.

Hal-hal yang perlu diperhatikan bagi penyintas kehilangan bunuh diri;

Berhenti menyalahkan diri sendiri.  

Ceritakan perasaanmu kepada orang terdekat yang kamu percaya.

Perasaan kamu valid.

Berani untuk mencari bantuan profesional.

[ronnblomsgatan]

HUNGRY!

As of October 26th2019, Front Independent Driver Online, a loose association of Grab drivers, have been practicing hunger strike since October 22nd2019. They are protesting, inter alia, against the discriminative & nontransparent scheme and demanding the Grabcar feature in the airport area. Some people responded on Twitter, wondering why would these drivers starve themselves? Some argued that this hunger strike means nothing but hurting the protesters themselves and does not do anything to the intended target. So, what do the protesters really think when they perform hunger strike? (Link: https://tirto.id/tuntutan-tak-dipenuhi-mogok-makan-driver-grab-yogya-sudah-5-hari-ekoR)

The hunger strike takes us to the 198 Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp. As the name suggests, Gene Sharp came up with 198 different methods of nonviolent action, which is broken down into 3 categories; protest and persuasion, noncooperation and intervention. Hunger strike falls into the last category. The idea behind nonviolent action is to weaken the government by taking the sources of its power. Gene Sharp argued that the source of government’s power is legitimacy and popular support. These two highly dependent on co-operation and obedience of the people. The absence of people’s co-operation and cooperation will deprive the government of power and thus regime will fall. (Link: https://www.brandeis.edu/peace-conflict/pdfs/198-methods-non-violent-action.pdf)

Hunger strike represents a deprivation of people’s basic needs. Hunger strike plays role in the psychological part. The limitation of daily intake varies. It can be water only or accompanied by glucose, salt, vitamin or low-carbs fasts. Those who take more than water have an advantage to fast for longer days which is expected to put more pressure on the party they protest against.

Hunger strike has been used worldwide by activists to bring about changes, for instance by César Chávez the American labor leader, Thomas Ashe the Irish revolutionary, Sharmila the Indian activist (world’s longest hunger strike of 16 years!), American actress Mia Farrow in solidarity with people in Darfur, prisoners in Cuban Guantanamo Bay and recently by the anti-extradition bill activists in Hong Kong. Rolling hunger strike (people take turn on a scheduled time to fast instead of a group of people with individuals respectively having to fast for days/weeks) has also taken place such as in China.

To quote the historian Peter Quinn, hunger strike is “a legitimate tool of the powerless against the powerful.” This speaks a lot about how hunger strike is often times used by the prisoners, like Chávez and Ashe. The prisoners do not have any other power and there is not much that prisoners can do behind bars. But, the livelihood of the prisoners (life and death) is the responsibility of the government. Only in this sense that the prisoners actually have power to put pressure on the government. However, theologians’ take on hunger strike is how it is such a sin to starve ourselves. Basically, any harmful practices to oneself is regarded as a sin. Let alone if people die from starving themselves, which some consider as a suicidal act.

Unfortunately, hunger strike is also related to other issue. Some government focuses on ending the hunger strike instantly. Instead of considering the protesters’ demands, government chooses to force-feed the protesters, be it nasogastric (through the nose) or orogastric (through the mouth). This force-feeding practices have been prohibited by the Declaration on Tokyo on degrading treatment in imprisonment.