LOkesh Ghai wrestles with the ethical balance between nature and society.
I had an ethical dilemma while deep down in the research with the heritage shoemakers of Doon Valley. My collaborating film-maker friend, Jaymin, refused to get a pair of leather shoes handcrafted. I got a few made as a part of the research with the intent to support the small-scale artisans, while equally appreciating the opportunity to get the first bespoke pair, and they fit well. However, in the back of my mind, I kept questioning myself…
A decade ago, I made a conscious decision to be a vegetarian. I have friends whose decisions on what to eat vary. A friend advised me to follow in his footsteps. He ate no meat from animals, but fish was fine. Another friend defended that plants too have life. When I moved to Gujarat, I was exposed to the idea of vegetarianism and what it could extend to. I was fascinated by “ahinsa” silk, a non-violence silk cloth sold at Khadi shops. Unlike conventional silk manufacturing, where the silkworms are boiled, for ahinsa silk, the silkworms are allowed to complete their life cycle and emerge as butterflies before the silk is harvested. The animation Happy-Feet worked as a catalyst for me. On an Ahmedabad-Manchester flight in 2012, I had the last non-veg meal. Happy Feet illustrated how humans’ exploitation of the Atlantic resulted in a massive negative impact on the ecosystem, moving towards a point when there would not be enough fish for the penguins to eat.
As a design educator, I discouraged the use of leather. Jaymin’s argument was simple: whatever approach we take, our documentary about the shoemaker will promote animal killing while showcasing the use of leather for shoemaking. And, why should we accept that some animals are more equal than others? We were temporarily relieved of our guilt when craft expert Ashok Chatterjee, based on his years of experience with artisan leather workers in Rajasthan, explained that animals have never been bred for their skin in India.
Today, I saw another film that resonated with the shoemaker’s research. David Attenborough: Ocean illustrated how, in an unprecedented manner, ‘industrial’ fishing is destroying the ocean and the universe at large, taking us towards climate disaster. The documentary showed the devastation of man’s “greed” in exploiting the ocean, the penguins fish to the extent it needs to survive. Thankfully, the documentary travelled to indigenous communities around the world. These communities, with limited means to survive, have been dependent on the ocean for years to provide for their families. The fishing methods are slow and employ a handmade process. These fishermen take little from the ocean, revering it.
In the wake of industrial fishing, little is left for the survival of these local communities.
In the wake of industrial fishing, little is left for the survival of these local communities. Not just fish, industrial fishing techniques also destroy coral and other life forms, unlike heritage methods of fishing that, by default, are more care-based towards nature. Industrial fishing, as depicted in the documentary, is described as a modern-day form of colonialism in the ocean. The fast-food industry continues to grow, waiting for consumers to see beyond the “convenience” of it and the negative impact on their health and the environment, unless consumers make radical decisions. The same logic could be extended to fast fashion. Heritage crafts, on the other hand, have sustained for centuries, upholding the virtue of being in rhythm with the environment with an aspect of care. Colonisation is about power. How ethical is it to take away the agency of ownership from the traditional artisans? Just like industrial fishing is taking away from the indigenous communities.
The craft landscape in India is experiencing an unprecedented phenomenon, with one of the largest corporations jumping at the opportunity to work in crafts. The capitalist model is pushing to scale up production in favour of cheaper goods with the prime goal of profit, a parallel to fast fashion. Making cheaper goods will also result in de-skilling artisans. Additionally, how transparent are the social responsibility claims of such industrial models that have been infiltrating remote villages in India? There is a danger of corporations succeeding in colonising small-scale village artisans.
Kisen is a shoemaker with shoes for consumers with orthopedic needs.
Shoe consumers in India have shifted primarily to brands, with a notable preference for trainers and sneakers. Like an ostrich, one may avoid confronting issues related to the use of leather and the livelihood of shoemakers, believing that sportswear footwear is the way forward, both ethically and in harmony with the environment. Astonishingly, the percentage for footwear specifically within fast fashion landfills is estimated to be 85-90%. Most workers who produce such footwear are likely to be exploited. Capitalism thrives on making workers invisible. What the heritage shoemakers-artisans, such as those in Doon Valley, have is visibility and independence. The visibility of their humble studio shops, where bespoke shoes are crafted. And those craftspeople who do not even have a roof over their head sit on the footpath offering repair services. These leather shoes are designed to last years of usage and fit well for consumers’ feet, a boon for those with varying foot sizes. Leather, according to the shoemakers, is the friendliest material, a by-product of the meat industry. Vegan leather is not yet produced in India, and most so-called vegan leathers are synthetic, typically made from plastic or polyurethane.
Some questions remain unresolved, such as whether Gandhi’s non-violent model can be effectively put into practice when it comes to the sourcing of leather.
The documentary Ocean explicitly presented the difference between greed and need, between the devastating impact of big-scale industry and indigenous fishermen’s communities. This argument could be extended in favour of the value of crafts made by small-scale, independent shoemakers. Heritage craft practice represents the positive spectrum of production, standing in stark contrast to large-scale industry. The making process within heritage crafts is slow and qualitative, with a low carbon footprint and the least negative impact on the environment.
So, when in the market for a new pair of shoes, given the opportunity, would you buy a pair of shoes from the artisan (such as Doon Valley) shoemakers or favour a fast fashion brand?
How do I free myself from being judgmental by consuming veg or non-veg, while still promoting the leather artisans who for generations have practised the craft?
Comments
The article highlights the tussel between hand made and machine made consumer items . As Mahatma Gandhi said- ‘ There shall be no room for machinery that would displace human labour in its hands’.
In today’s scenario, proper balance is required to be maintained between handicrafts and mechanization.