Will We Remember Them?

Two minutes of lost time seemed more than some customers could handle.

Observing a two minutes silence for the war fallen each year seems a logical and traditional manner to commemorate and remember the sacrifice of our countrymen. Two minutes in which to take solace, stock and thank those who gave up their lives so young is, in fact, not very much by way of a remembrance.

Yet, whilst at work on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice customers agitated by the two minute delay to their day. It seemed unthinkable that men who had died in a country not so far away, in a part of the world we are quite accustomed with, could roughly rob them of 120 seconds. Many shuffled around, sighed, and launched forward at the till points once an announcement declared the time 11:02.

Watching people behave with such disregard shocked me. How have the British become so desensitised to the Remembrance Sunday tradition, and unobservant of this most remarkable occasion to honour the dedication and service of veterans, old and new?

Could it be that the idea of war has become synonymous with twenty-first century lifestyle? Internet access and dedicated news channels have ensured that conflicts over the past decades are under constant scrutiny from a plethora of different outlets and sources. The conflict in Syria is believed to be the most reported news item this year. Whether on social media, the radio, television or in newspapers, scenes of warfare have come to dominate from all around the globe: be that in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or countless other territories torn by fighting.

The inundation of information is as confusing as it is unending. In his work, ‘A Tragic Legacy’, Glen Greenwald reasonably argues that “The fact that war is the word we use for almost everything—on terrorism, drugs, even poverty—has certainly helped to desensitize us to its invocation; if we wage wars on everything, how bad can they be?” 

Greenwald’s extension as to how negative war actually is may be a push too far, but it does reflect on an interesting phenomenon. There is increasingly less support for war, and consequently we often try to completely distance ourselves from the events. 

Following the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that have dominated the first decade of the 21^st century, support for intervention in the Syrian conflict has dwindled. While a May Gallup Poll of the US found that 59% and 82% of the population supported those respective wars, only 36% are in favour in the case of Syria, versus 51% against. The sentiment is echoed by Britons, with 56% believing that military intervention in the area is not the answer.

It is difficult to imagine then that the World Wars drummed up so much support – of course, largely through propaganda. The threat to the public in the UK was a very real and very palpable one, with attacks on the country a constant reminder of the ongoing fight for freedom. With such little first-hand interaction into modern warfare in the last 50 years, it would appear that Britons have forgotten how crucial an army is to maintaining freedoms.

David Cameron is calling for some change to that, announcing plans for a larger remembrance on the centenary of World War One. However, Jeremy Paxman branded the PM a “complete idiot” as a result of this suggestion, arguing that “people [will] get the idea that somehow this is going to be celebrated. Well, only a complete idiot would celebrate such a calamity.”

Downing Street have demanded an apology for the comments, and rightly so. Indeed, celebrating war itself would be a calamity, but celebrating the lives of young men and boys who died for their country is nothing short of justified. There is much to be said for the courage and valour of men who, with little knowledge of the war and not wholly in support of the fighting, still went to meet certain death.

Only last week, we have seen the remarkable act of remembrance for unifying a nation under a single emotional banner as hundreds of strangers turned up to mark the funeral of soldier Harold Percival. It demonstrates our resolve to stand up for what is right and to intervene to protect social and cultural liberties. It is our respect for these men that unites us every 11 November as a testament to British resilience under adverse pressure; something that resonates with many nations following a century pocketed with war.

After all, while only a complete idiot would celebrate the calamity, it would be a far greater fool who did not remember history and commemorate its lessons.

Why Should We Continue to Send Aid to India?

Indian Government Spending and Aid contribution figures have been blown sky high.

The launch of an Indian Mars Mission is a giant leap for mankind. It marks another step in a global space age, once the reserve of the US and Soviet Russia.

Not only does it stand as a statement of India intent, but it demonstrates that here is a country slowly building its way out of great economic deprivation.

However, it is slowly. Public perception of India’s Mars Mission has been largely confused, with many claiming it to be a demonstration of wealth from the country. The evidence shows that the country is taking off quite literally and so aid contributions are no longer needed, many have suggested.

In reality this is a gross miscalculation that confuses the difference between growth and wealth in the Indian subcontinent.

Since the 1990s, the area has experienced its greatest period of growth in the country’s history, with many companies tapping into the wealth of resources that India can offer. Whilst it has helped to bring many millions out of poverty, there has not been a significant reduction in the percentage of people who live below the line. Around 40% of children are malnourished, and adults fare little better. The country is still renowned for its slums, with more than 500 million Indians living without electricity.

Here is a tale of two cities, twoIndias.

The growth of skilled labourers, scientists, doctors and other professionals is redefining the landscape of India. The space missions are far from a new project: they date back to the 70s. In fact, China’s space missions are more recent than India’s. Therefore, the willingness to invest in these enterprises shows a keen dedication from the Indian government not to be backfooted once again. Here is a nation that was forced into submission by British and French forces, which made the lands part of their empire and irrevocably damaged development there.

Never again says the space mission.

This is not a declaration that India does not need aid. India still remains home to the world’s largest poor. After all, aid is about poor people and not poor countries.

In Uganda, for example, aid packages from the UK are now not being sent to the government, but instead to agencies that will ensure the people will benefit from the money sent to the country. A similar review of expenditure in India should be brought forward, especially since there have been previous examples of India declaring that they do not need British aid.

Whilst this is a gross underestimation on the part of a country still in need of sufficient sanitation measures for a vast percentage of its population, the space missions do mark a step in the right direction.

Withdrawing from India at this stage would not be right; it would be a fiscal rerun of independence. The support from Britain ensures that India can now be seen not as an economically undeveloped country, but somewhere for companies to invest. Indeed, Pepsi Cola have recently announced a larger investment into the country’s infrastructure.

Aid merely needs readjustment: instead of packages, India now needs business legitimacy amidst its Asian rivals. The space mission is merely a manifestation of this Indian capacity. Providing these economic opportunities will ensure a strengthened British-Indian relationship, profits for both countries, and slowly reduce Indian dependence on aid.

India’s space revolution ushers in a new era of economic strength that needs commercial and corporate support if it is to transform and reform India as the international player that the country craves to be, surrounded by Arabian prominence and China’s technical drive. Acknowledging the injustice of colonial expansion, and supporting the Commonwealth evolution from a business table will launch the country to the stratosphere without much more help.