Slashdot Mirror
The Myth of the New India
theodp writes "An NYT op-ed on The Myth of the New India reports that only 1.3M Indians are participating in the so-called new economy of BPO, leaving 400M have-nots without a piece of the pie. Despite recent gains, nearly 380M Indians still live on less $1 a day, setting the stage for rural and urban conflict." From the article: "No labor-intensive manufacturing boom of the kind that powered the economic growth of almost every developed and developing country in the world has yet occurred in India. Unlike China, India still imports more than it exports. This means that as 70 million more people enter the work force in the next five years, most of them without the skills required for the new economy, unemployment and inequality could provoke even more social instability than they have already."
Seems like scaremongering to me. It is true that a large poor population will probably result in increased social problems, such a crime. However this doesn't mean necessarily that there will be a revolt. Generally the poor are too busy trying to just get by to take up arms. Secondly the cost of living in India is much lower than in America, so while the Indians are poorer than Americans, imagining someone here living on $1 a day doesn't tell you how an Indian living on $1 a day is doing.
Philosophy.
Does India have its problems? Yes.
Does India's growth isolate a large portion of it's village dwelling population? Yes
Does it have internal stability issues? Yes.
But is it's growth, and the new wealth a step in the right direction? Absolutely Yes.
The problems go beyong economic to cultural. The problems stem from thousand years old caste systems, people being born into a status and being unable to leave, thereby restricting upward mobility in the most powerful sense. For any nation to really rise to what it can potentially be (The US included) we need to abandon our primitive thought processes (and we all have them, every country on this flying rock)
Note: This isn't racist, or culturist, or any thing else -ist. And if you think it is, I no longer care.
Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
1.3M may not be much, but it is more than before, and these people spend money and so that money reaches more people than just them.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
USA
Exports:
$927.5 billion f.o.b. (2005 est.)
Imports:
$1.727 trillion f.o.b. (2005 est.)
From:
I agree with the article that while India and China have been twin rising stars in the tales of ideological globalists like NYT's Thomas Friedman, there is a huge difference between the two : while China will be a superpower by the end of this century, at that time India will still be a third world country by far. With its caste structure, its irremediable lack of infrastructure and ressources to support its population, its relative submissiveness to western political pressure, the tendency of its educated elite to go live and work abroad the second they have a chance to, the best that can happen to India in the mid term is to nurture a developped sub-economy that will give it the global importance of, say, Italy, the UK or France.
USSR was a "superpower" for decades. Life in it sucked big time. Living in Italy, the UK, France, or even India, would've been much better — if only for the possibility to leave, if you wanted.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Being an Indian American and having been to the region often I agree with this article. The many wealthy which reside mostly in the cities are extremely snobby and will go to great lengths to show off their wealth all alongside with children who beg in the streets struggling to find clothes and food to simply stay alive (oh but then i'd be getting into the whole thing about the rich not caring about the poor yada yada yada...its still sickening). The Chinese have dealt with the issue of painful hunger and the Indian government must tackle this issue as well. I do believe that it will be a rough route to go even if the government goes through with such a plan simply because of the diversity that exists in India. Despite the general pride that the country shows, at some level it is undeniable that there is fragmentation with the many cultures that India encapsulates. Some parts of the country, as stated in the article, have also elected communist governments which undoubtedly impede progress as they threated to break a very delicate coalition every time their demands are not met. I believe progress will be slow, but there will be progress as a new highway system that is sweeping the nation will bring economic opportunities to the regions which are not so "software proficient." At least there will be a shiny new road, one that is not made of cheap construction substitutes, to economic opportunity.
This is a terrible analogy. There are so many differnces between India today and the Iran of the Shah. Firstly, there's no massive Islamist movement. There was a hugely successful Hindu nationalist movement but again, most of the truly extreme "hopes" that might have led to a "theocracy" have been rightly tempered by moderates. Secondly, India is a pretty vibrant democracy, which many Indians bemoan as "too successful" with a huge number of political parties, and high voter turnout - leading more often than not to a coalition government. Finally, India has such a myriad of different cultures, peoples, languages and religions that such pan-Indian movements are not often successful. Cricket is probably the biggest unifier the country has got. :) Anyway, I just had to say something as the parent is an idiot.
You can't take hundreds of millions of people from a state of impoverishment to the land of overflowing McDonalds (and bellies) overnight.
The more you know, the less you understand.
India and China are doing much the same thing-- trying to concentrate really hard on whom they perceive to be the best and brightest and cordon them off from everyone else, trying to make little anti-ghettos of first world nation inside a huge, uncontrollable nation of peasants.
You think the different classes live different lives in America? In India or China the difference between classes might as well be entirely different nations.
I have been to India recently. A dollar a day is really more than you would think; it's about 43 Rupees. With this many Rupees, you can easily buy a day's worth of meals. You have to understand the culture before you can start throwing out your ideas about how to fix their economy. In the minds of many in India, change is just not important. Money is not important even, like in our part of the world, but rather things family, friends, and morality. I'm not saying there isn't problems; but before you go working on the masterplan to save India, you might want to talk to them.
Just my $.02.
American century was made not by the people of USA imitating any other country but defining their own principles and working on it. Every other nation wants to become what USA is today - rich, powerful and dictating to the world.
If that is the way New India is going to emerge, it is not going to be. We have a saying, a cat should not brand itself to become a leoperd. India can not mindlessly follow the American success story and carry all the Indians along. We need a unique Indian way which is not capitalist, not communist, not socialist but Indian.
We have a rich tradition and had tall leaders leading us. We try to substitute everything with western values as in China. There is a better way. India can show to the world how to solve the problems of consumption driven economies of the west. We can evolve systems, practices to build a new type of economic development and social order. That would be the contribution of India to the world, not trying to be another China or USA.
yAthum UrE yAvarum kELir All the places are our place, everybody is our kin. (A Tamil Poet - 2000 years ago)
With the various world trade agreements, I care less and less about other countries. If it's not outsourcing, it's them coming to us. We should begin to care about our own economy and fix it than other's one. We have our own problems, our own jobless, underpaid, overworked, etc.
You are forgetting something.
The executives making the decisions are making
lots on inflated stock prices.
See? It is OK. And those executives will need
lots of servants around the house, and those cant
be outsourced.
Never mind in 10 or 20 years, the companies in the
countries being outsourced to will have all the
expertise they need, and the American partners will
be told to pound sand. And the weakened American
middle class will not have what it take to float
things along.
emt 377 emt 4
We saved you in World War II, so go to hell! If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking German now!
But I *am* speaking german?!?
The facts that the author of the article presents are absolutely true. There can be no question that life in India is miserable for a vast number of people, in cities, towns, and villages. Communal and caste-based tensions do exist in many places.
There is also no easy way out. Every $ or Rs. that is spent in India helps. Every cent of Investment or export by India helps. Much of it trickles down to the poorest in the cities and villages.
What's needed is an increase in literacy and increase in jobs. Neither of these are short-term, easily achievable goals.
Manufacturing must increase - providing opportunities to semi-skilled workers. Efficiency must increase, allowing for cheaper goods and trickling down to more profits for the millions of small businesses. Farm efficiencies must increase - through better processes or crops. Farmers must get a bigger share of the final price.
While all these are very important issues, the sheer size of India prevents easy action on any of them. We will get out of this mess, it will take time and money.
The author seems to know a lot of Indians who have settled abroad. I know a lot of Indians who've come back or are planning to do so very soon. They're bringing investment with them, they're bringing the contacts and business knowledge that will help them serve customers in the US or Europe. And they will each bring jobs for a few more people.
If the only way we can earn the money is through taking the high-tech jobs of Western countries we're not going to say no. If we can earn money by designing and launching satellites for small developing countries, we're going to do that too. If we can earn money by taking every service job in the US or Europe that's up for grabs, well, we're going to do that too.
India may become the back-office for the rest of the world, we'll still have people left to do other things. India may end up doing most of the unwanted service jobs for the rest of the world. India may do very high-technology services for other countries. That's fine too, because a billion people need a billion different things to do.
The West has drained an incredible amount of wealth from India/China/Africa/America and used it to kick-start their own economies. Two hundred years of plundering cannot be undone in a few dozen years. We're on our way back up, and we'll get there.
All of us have not fallen to the myth of Western superiority in economics due to any inherent advantages. We know what the Western economies owe the rest of world. We don't have the option of plundering other countries' natural resources or enslaving millions of Africans, Indians or Chinese people. We have to get out of this hole with only our own resources. And if it's going to take a century, then we're going to take a century. You can either help us, or hinder us.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
Some facts that the author seems to have completely overlooked:
1. India is the world's largest democracy and has been for some time. Successful elections for 60 years - not once has it had a militaristic regime or religious zealots threatening to take over the country. India has also never invaded another country.
2. Perhaps the most secular country in the world - It has a sikh (minority community) Prime Minister, Muslim President and Italian ruling party chieftan! Put in power by a 70% Hindu nation that is illetrate and poor. Which other Western nation has a similar track record? When will we see an african american President, voted to power by a rich, educated populous?
3. India has the second largest Islamic population in the world after Indonesia. All living harmoniously. The insurgency in Kashmir is primarily brought on by cross-border infiltration of mis-guided, Pakistani trained, mujahideen - same variety as Al Qaeda. And hey, India has had its people slaughtered since 1989 with the West continuing to ignore "state sponsopred terrorism". Why? Cause India chose to align with Russia, not in ideaology but for transfer of technology on MiGs and other hardware that the US was unwilling to do. Instead, America backed Pakistan and rebels in Afghanistan (read Al Qaeda) and we all know how that turned out... misguided beliefs of rich western nations against an impoverished India? Back in 1947, India had just been raped by the British for some 300 years and left to fend for itself.
4. A non polarized world - India pioneered the non-aligned movement to promote a healthy co-operation of nations, back when the cold war had pushed educated, rich, western nations to stock pile nukes and guarantee anhilation for the world. Who was thinking about the rest of the world - the billions living in impoverished nations? How effective is the UN? More than 2/3 of the global population is not even on the security council.
5. True India has many impoverished people. But look at the scale of the problem - 1 billion people! Not something you can change overnight. India has done well to maintain democracy, create robust internal industries and excel in the services sector. And so what if they claim Lakshmi Mittal as one of their own - he does still own an Indian passport. Things are changing and its in the right direction. More money is flowing in to the country, more jobs, more prosperity. India's liberalized economy is some 15 years old... given time who knows, its still a damn decent shot at success.
6. India's manufacturing sector is the next big thing - just check out their Automotive, Pharmaceuticals, Heavy Engineering & Aerospace industries. The government's focus like China is industrial growth. Recent announcements of Special Economic Zones is akin to what China did 15 years ago. Results will flow given time. And remember, the Chinese had a strong, communist government forcing change down people's throats... India needs to deal with democratic politics - the process of change is obviously slower.
I could go on, but the message is clear... The Indians are coming, not to fight or takeover the world, just to be respected as global citizens, at par with Americans, Europeans, Japanes, Chinese and the rest of the world.
I'm sorry, but that was a pretty stupid comment. Of course jobs help the Indians a lot. They help the people with the jobs and they help some more Indians that those people buy goods and services from. The gist of the article was just that there are lots MORE people to be helped than seem likely to be reached in the near future by merely the growth engines that are already going strong.
If you look at not just those 1.3 million workers and their families, but the top 100 or 200 million people in India, you have a relatively healthy country. The problem is the other billion or so who desperately need to be dragged along. Or so I understand; I've never actually been to India myself.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
Official National Language: Hindi Other National Languages: 25 Religions: Everything religion ever practised on Earth because even a minority here is in millions. Ofcourse Hinduism is the dominant religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_lang uages_of_India
English is a language used only in cities and in some parts of the government. To my European colleagues I explain it thus: Think of the EU as a single country with all your languages, cultures, religions(though they are all based on Christianity), etc. Now mulptiply that problem by 100 and the population by 9 or 10 and that is India.
And its almost funny when you say that a nation with over 5000 years of _written_ history would be eager as a puppy to 'absorb' a 300 year old country's culture and stored-up 'ideas'. Sure, the US media has managed to reach global audiences and create a homogeneous MTV generation. And some of that can be seen in Indian cities. But that is probably India has assimilated foreign influences over the millenia, not just by copying them, but by choosing what they like in them. That is the only way to survive as a people if you don't want revolution every few hundred years. But the western world may disagree...
There is no patch for stupidity
Visit my blog
In China the ruling Communist Party (CCP; with policies closer to a capitalist fasist party) does exactly what it wants in order for China to become the greatest power on earth under their rule. Sacrificing their people and even swallowing up neighbouring nations to reach that aim doesn't bother the CCP dictatorship one bit.
Case in point: The CCP recently finished the building of the massive Three Gorges Dam. Millions of locals had to be relocated with much if not most of the meager compensation stolen by opportunistic party officials. People attempting to report facts about it face arrest, suspicious muggings or worse.
In India far smaller dam projects face long delays or even cancellation because the locals have various means of defending their rights.
In China, business people with the right guanxi (political connections) can take over anyone's land and if the locals riot as their last recourse, the Party's paramilitary police will quickly take care of it.
If democracy and basic human rights meant anything to Western business people and Western politicians who are responsible for the "rules of engagement", the West would choose to invest in and trade with democratic developing nations (like India) instead of expansionist totalitarian regimes (like China).
As long as democracy and basic human rights are only paid superficial lip-service by the West, free countries will lag behind the dictatorships. Beside the West losing (selling out) its fundamental moral foundations, such policies will also encourage developing countries to adopt the more dictatorial forms of government since they are proving to be more beneficial in terms of foreign investment. In fact China is increasingly channeling its own foreign investments into Central Asia, Africa and South America, further undermining the West's half-assed efforts at encouraging democracy and human rights in those countries.
Democracy and human rights certainly incur some financial costs but are we surrendering it all up just to help global corporations rake in short-term profits? It wasn't the corporations who suffered when the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos and Hirohitos went on a rampage; no, it was people who took the bullets in the name of their continued freedom.
If today's people still value those ideals, then global trade could easily be harnessed as a force for good. If countries like India were to be given preferential trade treatment over expansionist dictatorships like China, it would force the Chinese people to rethink their system and policies instead of giving them an edge over free societies.
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
I read quite a few posts talking about what a dollar can buy in India, with most examples talking about a meal at a restaurant or a road side shack. That seems to be from the perspective of a "college student/single guy" outlook.
Another way of looking at what a dollar can buy is by looking at what the corresponding monthly expenses would be like. Eating out is sort of a luxury/uncommon in many places in India (let alone, gasp, everyday!). People cook at home -- and that gets the costs down significantly. In fact, I remember reading somewhere on how one can have a healthy meal for dollar a day per person in the US (something about buying things that are in season, etc.)
A dollar a day is very low for one person even in India. The picture may appear more depressing if we look at that money from the perspective of western eating habits.
S
Hey fatman, unlike the Pahlavi dynasts, India's democratic polity has mastered the art of populism, which is unfortunately why India has been poor for 60 years. Because while populism may get you votes, it doesn't necessarily produce economic growth -- quite often the contrary, actually.
India needs industrialization, because the fact is that most people can't become programmers or even call-center workers overnight. No country can skip the necessary step of creating a blue-collar working class.