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."

3 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cultural Problems by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think your posts pretty much shows that there is a functioning caste system in India, even if it has been greatly overhauled to help out the "lower" castes.

    I mean, look at the language you use. "Backward caste" "Lower caste". I'm not saying that India hasn't made great strides; obviously it has. But just looking at your post gives one a sense of how deeply ingrained it is culturally.

    Similar arguments can be made about race in the U.S. Many deny that racism exists, but from an outsider's point of view (as I am an outsider observing India), clearly there are major remnants of institutionalized racism in the US, despite the great strides that have been made.

    India is changing in the face of thousands of years of culture. Clearly, the change is not going to happen overnight. As in the US, there are forces of resistance to such change, so those who want the culture to change must continue to work for it. The first step is to look within yourself and be aware of those old attitudes you might hold. (It's easier for me to advise you to do this than it is for me to do it myself. However, I think that to bring about the world we both want to live in, it's necessary for both of us to do this.)

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  2. Re:Cultural Problems by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am proud of belonging to the oldest surviving line of philosophers, mystics and poets. Does that make me a casteist?

    Yes, because you're evincing pride in achievements you haven't made, by people you had no way of influencing. You've done nothing to deserve the pride you feel. It's this innate and undeserved feeling of superiority that makes you a casteist.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  3. West chooses dictatorship over democracy by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 5, Insightful
    India is a democratic nation where its citizens enjoy certain unalienable human rights. Its people have full rights to form labour unions. Its political parties must not only appeal to the electorate but they also need to compromise their policies with those of other government parties, follow the rule of law and last but not least perform well enough to earn re-election.


    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?