Residential Schools for Dalit girls in India - Why isn't it the same as the Indian residential schools for Indigenous people in Canada?

The next interview will be posted in a while, but in the meantime I wanted to comment on recent articles in the Globe and Mail about a school set up for Dalit girls in India by a nun, Sudha Varghese. This school is set up as a residential school to help Dalit - or so-called 'Untouchable' - girls break from a cycle of hard labour, poverty, extreme isolation, lack of education and early marriage. The school is meant to empower, educate and give health and opportunities to girls. Sudha Varghese and Stephanie Nolen, the journalist who covered the story, of the school hosted a live chat to answer questions from viewers. Except for one offensive and offended reader from India who felt that 'Untouchables' had 'ruined' India (?), all other readers were suitably impressed by Ms Varghese's initiatives and wanted to contribute in some way. I was struck by several things both in the project itself and the content of the dialogue.

The first thing that occurred to me was the concurrence of media stories about the residential school system set up in Canada for Indigenous people (known as Indian residential schools) and this story. June 11 is the anniversary of the 2008 Indian Residential School Apology delivered by the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, and so there was once again media coverage of the individual and systemic impacts of residential schools on Canada's Indigenous peoples. Many of the abuses perpetrated on children by staff in Indian residential schools were in line with the types of abuses that occur within any total institution, where there are vulnerable residents who are isolated from a broader social matrix, and there is complete control over their daily existence. In this respect, the residential schools set up by Sister Varghese have a similar structure as the Canadian residential schools, as well as many other total institutions where abuses have occurred. Granted, the residential school system in Canada was a tool of forced assimilation which the schools in India don't seem to be. However, I wonder if there are any protections preventing the schools in India from becoming abusive environments when the structure of the school is very similar to Indian residential schools in Canada. What prevents these 'total institutions' in India from becoming places where vulnerable children are taken advantage of, abused and exploited like the children were in residential schools in Canada?

I do not doubt that Sister Varghese herself is an upright individual. But individuals die, they move on, and they cannot be everywhere at once. Over and over again, we have seen that total institutions for children and other vulnerable sectors of our society are structurally designed for control, and control and isolation too often leads to sexual and physical abuse. What happens when the good people running the institution are not there?

I was also struck by the complete lack of analysis and comparison to the Indian residential schools system among readers in Canada. Is it because India is so far away? Is it because the children are perceived to be in some way qualitatively different from the children here? It often seems to me that substandard conditions in other countries are often perceived by Canadians to be on some hugely different scale than substandard conditions here. Thus a remedy that is not suited for us, may be suitable for those who are perceived to be much worse off. I am not sure why we have this myth or delusion. Perhaps it is the self-story about the 'first world' and our views that collectively we are all healthy, wealthy and wise while those in the 'third world' are not. To me, this is a disturbing self-perception and world-view, especially given the level of poverty in many Canadian Indigenous communities.

The third major thing that hit me was that the charitable impulse tends to reinforce this myth. It is somewhat easier to send money to another country and read a story that provides a sense of accomplishment. It may be that readers are tired of, or don't believe that the situation in Canada is the same. People may think that somehow the claims of Indigenous people here are inflated and they would rather put their efforts someplace else. Or, it is too difficult to address the complexity of land claims, treaty claims, clean water, underemployment, lack of housing and other human rights and poverty issues that we face here.

The donor-recipient relationship is not always a good one. As I have mentioned before in this blog, I believe that charity is a very contested practice, or at least it should be. It has obvious positive impacts both on the donor and recipient, but I have mentioned that it can also achieve opposite political results if it removes pressure from the state to provide basic human needs and common goods such as clean water, access to food, personal security and other things. Another negative impact is the tendency to put resources where the story is new and exciting and well-told, as opposed to where there has been an assessment of needs, a good analysis of policy and delivery options, and a decision made by someone who must answer for that decision.  In other words, sympathetic stories of small initiatives result in funds for recipients, whereas 'unsexy' policy and program initiatives that have broader application can be cut with little public attention drawn to them. Less attractive, but perhaps more needy recipients may end up suffering. Needy people in regions where we are not politically sympathetic may also not get much needed assistance. Is this ethical practice? I am not sure....