In Robertson’s The Ministry for the Future, the price India has to pay for a wake-up call is unimaginable. They experience a heat wave so drastic that millions suffer and then perish from hyperthermia and dehydration. Robinson describes this hellish landscape as he writes, “People murmured what should have been screams of grief; those who could still move shoved bodies out of the lake,” (12). Humanity is stripped from so many people during those weeks as they fall into zombie-like states, boiling alive in the relentless, torturous heat. Nature showed no mercy to the Indian people in that time, and out of the experience India is so scarred by the tragedy that they are willing to do absolutely anything to prevent a return of that hell. Thus, their motto, “never again,” is born (127). They consider the impacts of climate change on their country and, moving forward, refuse to perpetuate any systems that allowed the massacre to happen in the first place.
India is in a unique position to change in the novel because they experienced such large-scale devastation. In the United States, for example, hurricanes and wildfires happen frequently, but have yet to cause as extreme suffering as was seen in India. Speaking for the people of India, page 125 states: “We remain horrified by the memory of the heat wave, galvanized” (125). The key word is “remain,” because as long as the memory invokes suffering in the hearts of the Indian people, they will be determined to make a change. Other countries move past the incident easily and continue recklessly burning fossil fuels because they have not directly suffered from their recklessness. Even after being held hostage, many of the wealthy CEOs responsible for wide-spread environmental devastation return to their cushy jobs and extravagant lifestyles without batting an eye.
Fueled by a desire to avenge their loved ones, India makes drastic changes to their government, agriculture, and power sources. They send the message that hope for the future is only available if countries are willing to adapt, and India has no interest in waiting to see if other nations will change first. With the BJP political party blamed for environmental destruction, a new party called the Coalition takes control. It is no surprise that such a group comes to power, as unity is a driving force in India since the heat wave. India is hopeful about their future as they transition to more localized agriculture that relies on harnessing solar power and taking advantage of the sheer size of their population for labor (126). With a unified goal, previous divisions such as the caste system are being dismantled and efforts are focused on preserving the environment. This brings even more hope to the nation because they are learning to recognize the value of each citizen and have a desire to preserve that value. A meeting notes page sums India’s new sentiment as it reads, “Aggressive pride. Don’t tread on me. No outsider gets to tell India what to do, not anymore. Never again” (142).
As for the question of whether India should always obey “a treaty written up by developed nations outside of tropics and their dangers,” one should consider the conditions at the time the Paris Agreement was signed (140). Nations were likely weary of future disasters and wanting to band together to prevent devastation, but no one could have anticipated the drastic suffering that the heat wave in India caused. The nations described in the quote were also further removed from the effects of these sorts of extreme natural disasters from the start, and so their policies would likely not be as catered towards countries like India. Thus, when the unimaginable heat wave hit India, India was not willing to jump through hoops and wait for approval to start saving their people. They needed to ensure that the heat wave would not continue, and the Paris Agreement simply could not be at the forefront of their decisions due to its slow processes. While the goal of the Paris Agreement was to have a united front against climate change, Robison makes clear that each country is truly focused on its own interests, and in India’s case the best course of action after the heat wave was to forgo the Agreement’s policies.
You bring up very important points on the creation of the Paris Agreement and India's eventual dismissal of it. It changed my perspective and made me acknowledge that such a complex problem is ever evolving so past agreements don't always match current circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI think another important piece of this is that India also pushes others after the heatwave to create change. They make claims that if the other signers of the agreement don't start to make changes, "then this portion of India was now their enemy" (Robinson 26). Not only were they removing themselves from the horrors of the cheap labor, they were also telling these larger, more high-income countries that they would not accept complicity with carbon emissions. These people were willing to go to war against the countries that caused them such pain.
As you mentioned, it's interesting that India changed not only its use of carbon emissions but also shifted its views on topics such as the caste system. That brings up questions of whether this removal of the system was necessary in creating a less carbon heavy society. It is possible that the inequality caused the need for more carbon since developments in technology could not be utilized by the entire system since many people were given less access to such advancements.
This post explores India’s response to the tragedy at the start of Ministry for the Future, especially in contrast to the lack of action from many other countries not directly affected. One specific point brought up about India dismantling the caste system and recognizing the value of each citizen led me to think about the extent to which India’s change could be possible in our world. While the book and blog post tackle political, economic, and social restructuring, it’s the social element that I believe to be the most far-fetched.
ReplyDeleteThe caste system in India originated thousands of years ago and is deeply ingrained in society. Although Robinson makes the argument that a catastrophe as devastating as the heat wave may be enough to alter our current reality’s bounds of selfishness and materialism, I find it improbable that it could dismantle the class structure in India.
The blog also talks about America and the wealth, who refused to act despite pressure from India and other activists. Their unwillingness to band together and act in a similar fashion to India — instead “waiting for what massive stroke would come next, and how they would manage to ignore that one too” — stems from materialism and an inability to give up privilege (Robinson 227). One of Robinson’s solutions includes rural populations relocating to cities, another action in the book that defies the idea that people are selfish and unwilling to give up what they have, no matter what global disaster they may face.
I like the way you look deeper into the long process that brought India to the unique position it is in. Real life history and the history created in the book play an important role in bringing India to the place of desperation they are in. You do a great job of then relating their position back to the problem at hand and explaining how they move forward and attempt to find a solution. India was truly a unique and important part of the novel and a unique and important part of the actual climate change crisis.
ReplyDeleteYou also did a great job explaining how countries tried to create a common goal, but, ultimately, they put their own interests first. India was a great example of this. When unexpected events happened that led them to a place of desperation, they broke away from their agreement and moved in the direction of their own self-interest.
I like that this post delves deep into the initiatives that India has taken since the heat wave. It addresses how India has come together to change politically, economically, and agriculturally since the natural disaster. The massive heat wave has tremendously affected India in greater ways than natural disasters have affected the US. Indian citizens have reflected on the heat wave, “Never again. This reminds us of the heat wave and the stakes involved . . . never again” (Robinson 127). I also like how this blog post acknowledges how India starts to pressure other countries to take the same initiative as them so that they don’t experience the rude awakening as India. Although the US, which has yet to act despite the condition of their country and pressure from India. For example, during Frank’s trip to Los Angeles he reflects on the continuous cycle that the economy goes through, “Just buy some orange grove and subdivide it and tear out the trees . . . happened in the snap of the fingers and it was never anything but stupid” (Robinson 279). By pointing out the cycle that Los Angeles goes through, he is trying to imply that the US needs to take an actual initiative to improve. For that to happen, the US needs to do something similar to India. Instead of just repeatedly trying to rebuild the land to generate money for the economy, this blog post proves that the US needs to unite under one nation to properly combat this issue.
ReplyDeleteYour take on India's response in "The Ministry for the Future" resonates deeply with me. It's a stark wake-up call for nations grappling with environmental crises and other socioeconomic issues. However, for India specifically, I believe the novel’s depictions are slightly unrealistic, given the massive class systems and corrupt political structure that plague India today.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative, however, acts as a robust guide on how countries could elevate their crisis management. It prompts us to reassess our legal and political systems critically. The resounding "never again" ethos from India in the novel serves as a compelling clarion call to reevaluate and reform our approach to disasters. Suppose massive reforms would occur today, revamping India's slow and corrupt political system. In that case, in the face of future catastrophes, India and other countries could respond more efficiently and more like the novel suggests.
I agree with Advait Patel's statement in how the novel's depiction of India is slightly unrealistic due to the class system and political structure. However, when you further consider the dynamics of its massive population and current economic makeup, it further complicates the ability to implement wide scale change that can be used as a model for other countries.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Carbon Brief (https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-india/#:~:text=India%20is%20the%20world's%20third,after%20China%20and%20the%20US.&text=Coal%20power%20plants%2C%20rice%20paddies,well%20below%20the%20global%20average.), India is the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which stems from the country's coal power plants, rice paddies, and cattle. As the population continues to grow, it must endure additional years of industrialization to become an economy based in the service-industry. This will continue to push the GHG per-capita, while the population continues to grow.
On the other hand, hope can be seen for the citizens of countries like India (namely Pakistan and Bangladesh) as they share similar political structure and corruption because of how impactful climate change is to the economy, which would affect the bottom line of those in power. Rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, and irregular rain patterns threaten nearly 50% of the economic value of these nations that is so heavily reliant on agriculture that although radical change pushed by the people is hard to imagine, radical change implemented by the government for monetary purposes is reasonable.