Am I alone?
Posted by Aashish on October 16, 2010
Am I the only one who finds this appalling?
Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif Thursday said that floods unleashed large-scale devastation across the province but along with misery and pain it also open up new opportunities.
During his meeting with British Deputy High Commissioner Dr. Peter Tibber here, Shahbaz Sharif said that model villages are being constructed with the financial assistance of philanthropists.
The British Deputy High Commissioner said that his country will continue support for the rehabilitation of the flood-affectees.
Apart from the ludicrous headline “Floods open new opportunities” (opportunties for whom, sir?), compare the concerns of the British Deputy High Commissioner and the Cheif Minister of Pakistan. The DHC supports rehabilitation of the flood affectees, while all the CM is interested is building Model Villages.
Anyone who has any background in rural development understands what “model villages” mean: One village in a very large area (say, a district) which has all the facilities (school, primary health centre, rehabilitation and housing here) while all other villages are left on their own! I thought only NGOs do this kind of work.
Like this:
This entry was posted on October 16, 2010 at 1:21 am and is filed under DS (Deep Shit), Governance, Social Policy. Tagged: Floods, Governance, Pakistan. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Althaf said
aashi..
but is it not something better than nothing correct here..
opportunities could be of bettering international relationships in worst situations.
Aashish said
About something is better than nothing, perhaps. How would you react, if Kerala was flooded, and the village next to you was a model village, and yours not?
And yes, opportunities could be bettering international relations. But again, opportunities for whom?
Karthik Rao-Cavale said
Generally, the aftermath of a major disaster is seen as an opportunity to rebuild society/economy/space in a way that is seen to be more desirable than what existed before. So, for instance, Milton Friedman is supposed to have believed that the first few months after a major crisis (could be a change in government) was the best time to introduce capitalist principles that did not have popular support, and is therefore blamed for Chile’s suffering under the Pinochet regime. (I am quoting Monbiot here, and he himself takes ideas from Naomi Klein).
Similarly, major environmental disasters may seen as good opportunities to rebuild villages that were seen to be “ugly” or “dirty” into “model” villages, concentrating more on the aesthetics than the usefulness of these new villages.
Aashish said
Hmm. I have read the Shock Doctrine, and this was one of the reason I was apalled. To sum it up, Klien’s thesis is that shocks: disasters, crises and shocks of a systemic nature can be used to push things (policies, programmes, interests) that would not have made any headway otherwise. This has been done in the past, and continues to be done now: e.g school vouchers after Katrina, five star resorts on the beach after the tsunami, and of course, Friedman.
While I do not know the form these model villages will take, it is deplorable that by design only a random few would get these benefits. Shouldn’t the reconstruction programme and the safety net be much wider?
Before I leave, A video from the guardian: As Althaf suggested, Floods did open some opportunites. Check http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/11/pakistan-floods-indus-river-delta-video, for instance. Though again, we shouldnt forget that 7 million are still without houses.