The hypothetical causes of poverty are incredibly diverse; they can be attributed to unemployment or economic instability in the country, but in the vast majority of cases, they can be explained by the inability of the person to adjust oneself to the changing social and economic environment. Such books as Nectar in a Sieve by Kamala Markandaya and Don’t Be Afraid, Gringo by Medea Benjamin explore the efforts of an individual to adapt to the forces of capitalism at its colonial and post-colonial stages. These novels show how colonial and corporate powers integrate their colonies as peripheries using market control, industrial technology, and division of labor, which only aggravates the population’s poverty. Furthermore, these words describe how the ideology of “white man’s burden” is imposed on native people, thus bringing them into submission. Even though the setting in these novels is different, we may argue that both Rukmani and Elvia live in poverty due to the commoditization of rural lands.
Kamala Markandaya does not specify the exact date, but we can deduce Rukmani lived in India when the British presence was influential in this country. India gained independence in the forties, but this country had to overcome the consequences of colonial rule for a long time because some were rather detrimental to peasants. British governance enormously changed the traditional rural lifestyle of Indian villages. Colonial power intrudes in Ruckmani’s town by bringing new forms of industrial production, in particular, tannery. One of the first steps undertaken by newcomers was the disintegration of the community. For instance, Rukmani and her husband, Nathan, object to the construction of a tannery in their neighborhood because they fear that they will be deprived of their land; however, their friend Kunthi says that “the tannery is a boon” for the community (Markandaya, 1954, p 66).
To some extent, this tannery symbolizes an emerging corporation because, on the one hand, it gives jobs to people, but at the same time, it suppresses those who stay in its way. Eventually, Ruckmani and her family are made homeless and left to their own devices. We should speak about such classical strategies of colonial rule as divide and rule. In other words, the British government virtually broke the population into several parts, diminishing their resistance to their dominance.
Medea Benjamin describes a slightly different situation. In this case, we need to speak about corporate capitalism that gave rise to new modes of business and redistribution of private property, and Campesinos could not get used to it. They had no land and had to work for “big landowners” (Benjamin, 1989, p 1). This also exemplifies the commoditization of land that formerly belonged to the peasants. The most challenging problem was that their services were no longer required because many production processes were automated with the help of new technologies, so Campesinos were entirely dependent on their employers.
In this regard, we need to discuss new organizations which emerged at that time in India and Honduras. First and foremost, we need to point out that colonial power contributed to the rapid growth of factories or any other industrial enterprises. Rukman and Nathan begin to work in a quarry because “Stone-breakers earn good wages” (Markandaya, 1954, p 231). Increasing industrialization and urbanization of India compelled many landless and homeless peasants to go to the cities searching for employment opportunities. A similar situation could be observed during corporate capitalism in Honduras: Elvia had to leave her village and go to the town to find at least a job. Yet, speaking about Honduras, we also need to pay attention to military presence. The country was literary teaming with hundreds of military bases (Benjamin, 1989, p 109). They served to support corporate power in Honduras. Unfortunately, military presence did not bring many improvements to the lives of ordinary people.
Another factor contributing to unemployment and subsequent poverty of the population was the introduction of new technologies. They practically decreased the necessity for manual labor, so Campesinos could not find any application for their skills. For instance, Elvia complains that “they use so many machines nowadays that there are hardly any jobs for Campesinos” (p 20). Thus, we can observe a curious paradox: new technologies only harmed native people instead of helping them.
It should be borne in mind that Elvia and Rukmani were used to the so-called subsistent agriculture. In other words, they gathered crops mainly to feed their families. Only a tiny portion of their goods was for sale. But the situation immensely changed with the development of capitalism: large landowners were more interested in large-scale or export production. They could dictate their terms to peasants because of their possessed land. Campesinos and Indian people could only rent it. This is why they were practically powerless and unprotected. So we may say the integration of these countries into the world economy was accompanied by a redistribution of private property and inequality.
At this point, we need to discuss such a concept as a “white man’s burden.”As noted earlier, the development of India and Honduras was strongly impacted by the presence of foreign governments, the United Kingdom and the United States. At that time, the ideology of the “white man’s burden” was extreme. On the whole, this philosophy is based on the belief that Western countries have a right and even obligation to rule over other non-European nations to civilize them and improve their living conditions. Indeed, such idea is mainly based on false assumptions, but this sentiment remains very strong. This ideology was imposed on native people through the church. This institution played an essential part in Elvia’s life.
She even thanks to the church for “opening her eyes” and organizing the women of this village (Benjamin, 1989, p 16). Unfortunately, however, this church abandoned them when they began to struggle for their rights.
The superiority of Western values was also inserted in Ruchmani’s village. They were even blamed for the poverty.
Overall, these novels describe the difficulties people undergo during the colonial and corporate stages of capitalism. These hardships are always associated with the rapid commoditization of land, the evolution of technologies, the substitution of manual labor, and the development of export production. Both protagonists, Elvia and Rukmani, struggle to accommodate themselves to new social conditions. The integration of India and Honduras into the global economy inevitably reduced the host population to poverty. The development of new market relationships virtually marginalized rural people and deprived them of any opportunity for economic growth.
Reference List
Benjamin M (1989). Don’t Be Afraid, Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks From The Heart: The Story of Elvia Alvarado. New York: Harper & Row.
Markandaya, K. (1954). Nectar in a Sieve: A Novel. New-York: John Day.