^^^ Hi there ! Listen. I dont want to get into why we are not advanced or that why there are no tools available to Indians.Nor that there is electrification in the Slumps.
well, then neither should we go into why the avg indian earns rs.20 per day. its all connected. u cant turn a blind eye to history and curse the present. in most parts of the world, the avg person earns a salary no different then ours. its only a elite minority in each nation that controls much of the wealth.
No one gives chance to any one in this world.The country and its citizens have to earn it , snatch it ,invent it.
agree. but money cannot be minted from thin air. it takes time for a country to grow. in this aspect we have done considerably well since the beginning of liberalization.
What you are suggesting is, even someone from deep Africans forest who lives close to nature in woods would also be more intelligent if given equipments! Ofcourse given a chance he would be.
i am not suggesting he would more be, intelligent, i am merely suggesting the advanced technology can be used to earn/grow quickly. it was in reference to ur statement that the avg indian earns rs.20/day hence he is inherently lower/less intelligent than the avg american.
But then the point of contention is not about giving chances but rather taking them ,because intelligence demands that opportunities are not given free but are taken and one needs logic and determination to take them.
the british had predicted that after independence india wouldnt survive long and that in few decades most of the country would be underfed/impoverished. we took to genetic engineering of seeds and brought about the green revolution and saved our @sses.
similarly we have used our knowledge of english as well as cheap manpower to capture
most of the outsourcing market.
there are many more such examples.
so we do have positives in this aspect and cant be accused of sitting idle.
First ! A big No. I dont want anyone to move to cities.I want rural to have enough amenities like cities that people dont see the differene between the rural and urban and dont feel the need to do so to enhance their standard of living.I dont think India can provide so in another 15 years.
I know for reason cuz i have lived and seen, England,Germany,Italy,France and Switzerland etc and have also seen Rural villages and contested this Lok Sabha Election 2009 when i couldnt take and see the deplorable state of villages.
the only major inconvenience in the rural areas i have visited (western maharashtra/goa/TN/kerala/karnataka) is the lack of adequate power and also health care. though my college is in a village called Mesra, in Jharkhand, most amenities are present there. So i dont really know the situation of much of the rural areas of India.
So the point of contention is taking and en cashing the chance through intelligence of survival instinct, not through self -peity of if things were so and that we were deprived and such stupidity.
much of the change u (and i) desire has to be carried out by the government. the common man has very little say even with his vote. to cite an example, when i joined my college last year, i was surprised that while Jharkhand was a gold mine in terms of mineral resources, much of the people lived a quaint life. My friends from that state had sort of given up on the government to do any change. this was not so in the case of the city of Jamshedpur (which doesnt have a municipality and is completely run by the TATAs). Though i have not personally visited it, i hear it is clean and has wide roads, huge parks and good water/power supply.
so i guess the only way out, is that more people like U and I should join the govt. and bring the change we want.
Taking Law of averages into account isnt it obvious that US is number one country simply because their citizens had intelligence to do so (On average).Ofcourse there was no mass voting taking place to vote the best country. Nobody gave America a chance.They had to come up with best Military,Nasa , Science, Economics to do so. Yes it takes intelligence and awareness.
at the end of both world wars, America had managed make money selling stuff (munitions, tanks, vehicles) to both parties on both sides of the war, entered the war at a later time, and managed to stay on the winning side. This meant it had met minimal damage and also was richer at the end of the wars (in fact almost no other power could match up it at the end of the wars). Is this to be attributed to intelligence, or is it savvy??
i agree it requires brains for Nasa, science/technology, no doubts there, the best minds of science are in the US.
but military and economics wont agree entirely.
