India the Superpower? Think again

[Yamaraj]

Source: - *money.cnn.com/2007/02/08/news/international/pluggedin_murphy_india.fortune/index.htm

India the Superpower? Think again
India should put aside pride about its growing economy and concentrate on improving the lives of average citizens, argues Fortune's Cait Murphy.
By Cait Murphy, Fortune assistant managing editor
February 9 2007: 12:29 PM EST


NEW YORK (Fortune) -- Plug in the words "India" and "superpower" into an Internet search engine and it's happy to oblige - with 1.3 million hits. I confess that I did not check each one, but I suspect that almost all of these entries date from the last couple of years.

This is understandable. For the first time ever, India has posted four straight years of 8 percent growth; since it cracked open its economy in 1991, it has averaged growth of 6 percent a year - not in the same league as China, but twice the derisory "Hindu rate of growth" that had marked the first 45 years of independence.

India has gone nuclear, and even gotten the United States to accept that status. Its movies are crossing over to become international hits. The recent $11.3 billion takeover of Corus by Mumbai-based Tata Steel was the biggest acquisition ever by an Indian firm.

No wonder the idea of India as the next superpower is fast becoming conventional wisdom. "Our Time is Now," asserts The Times of India. And in an October survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs, Indians said they saw their country as the second most influential in the world.

Sorry: India is not a superpower, and in fact, that is probably the wrong ambition for it, anyway. Why? Let me answer in the form of some statistics.

47 percent of Indian children under the age of five are either malnourished or stunted.
The adult literacy rate is 61 percent (behind Rwanda and barely ahead of Sudan). Even this is probably overstated, as people are deemed literate who can do little more than sign their name.
Only 10 percent of the entire Indian labor force works in the formal economy; of these fewer than half are in the private sector.
The enrollment of six-to-15-year-olds in school has actually declined in the last year. About 40 million children who are supposed to be in school are not.
About a fifth of the population is chronically hungry; about half of the world's hungry live in India.
More than a quarter of the India population lives on less than a dollar a day.
India has more people with HIV than any other country.

(Sources: UNDP, Unicef, World Food Program; Edward Luce)

You get the idea.

The 2006 UN Human Development Report, which ranks countries according to a variety of measures of human health and welfare, placed India 126th out of 177 countries. India was only a few places ahead of rival Pakistan (134th) and hapless Cambodia (129) and behind such not-about-to-be-superpowers as Equatorial Guinea (120), and Tajikistan (122).

As these and other numbers suggest, Indian triumphalism (a notable 126,000 hits on Google) is not only premature, it is misguided. Yes, growth has been brisk, and of course growth is necessary to make a dent in poverty. But as Edward Luce, author of the excellent, "In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India," noted in a recent talk, poverty in India is not falling nearly as fast as its brisk rate of growth might anticipate.

The reason for this is that Indian growth has been capital-intensive, driven by the growth in high-value services such as IT. This is a good thing, but what it does not do is create stable and reasonably paid employment for not particularly skilled people - and this matters a lot, considering eight to 10 million Indians enter the labor force every year. Luce estimates that there are 7 million Indians working in the formal manufacturing sector in India - and 100 million in China.

To look at it another way, the 1 million Indians working in IT account for less than one-half of one percent of the entire working population. This helps build reserves (and national confidence, and tax revenues) but is not the poverty buster that labor-intensive development is. As Prime Minister Singh told Luce, "Our biggest single problem is the lack of jobs for ordinary people."

The problem with India's self-proclaimed (and wildly premature) declaration of superpower status is that it reflects a complacency about both its present - which for many people is dire - and its future. Eight percent growth for four years is wonderful, but as the saying goes, past performance is no guarantee of future results. And India is not doing what it needs to in order to sustain this momentum.

Consider the postwar history of East and Southeast Asia. The comparison is appropriate because India started at about the same point, and has watched just about every country in the region get ahead of it on the economic curve. All these places developed by being relatively open to trade; by investing in primary and secondary education; and by building pretty decent infrastructure (not only roads and ports, but health clinics and water supplies). India has begun to embrace one leg of this triangle - freer trade.

Even here, though, many of the worst features of the swadeshi ("self-reliance") era remain intact, including an unreformed state banking sector; labor regulations that actively discourage hiring; abstruse land laws (and consequent lack of land titles); misshapen subsidies that hurt the poor; and corruption that is broad, deep and ubiquitous. Nothing useful is being done about any of this.

As for the other two legs of this development triangle - education and infrastructure - these are still badly broken. About a third of teachers fail to show up on any given day (and, of course, are unsackable); the supply of both water and power is expensive and unreliable.

These facts of life too often go unremarked in the current euphoria about the state of the nation. "We no longer discuss the future of India," Commerce Minister Kamal Nath told the Financial Times in a typical comment. "The future is India."

Hubris, of course, is the stuff of politics everywhere. But the future will not belong to India unless it takes action to embrace it, and that means more than high-profile vanity projects like putting a man on the moon or building the world¹s tallest tower. It means showing that the world's largest democracy can deliver real progress to the hundreds of millions who have never used the phone, much less the Internet. And in important ways, that just isn't happening.

India has many reasons to be proud, but considering it remains a world leader in hunger, stunting and HIV, its waxing self-satisfaction seems sadly beside the point.

Discuss!

 

[mail2and]

*indianeconomy.org/2007/02/10/the-indian-elephant/

The Indian economy must be an elephant. At least that’s what it feels like when you read the stuff that observers are saying about it. Blind people describing what they perceive the elephant to be through their sense of touch comes closest to characterizing the quite varied descriptions of the Indian economy. Here’s Cait Murphy of Fortune advising us “India the Superpower? Think Again” (Feb 9th, 2007) and there’s Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley telling us that “India [is] on the Move” (Feb 9th, 2007), while Niranjan Rajadhyaksha of Mint holds forth in his new book on “The Rise of India.”

To get a better understanding of an elephant we have to walk around the elephant, of course, and integrate the various localized partial descriptions in our mind’s eye. Murphy is right of course that the myopic hubris which declares India to be an economic superpower is a load of nonsense. Surely, an economy that cannot even feed half its below-five children or one where around 20 percent of the people are chronically hungry is a pretty dismal one, never mind all the hot air about 8 percent GDP growth rates. He points to the 2006 Human Development Report’s ranking of countries according to health and human welfare measures, where India ranks 126th out of 177 countries. “India was only a few places ahead of rival Pakistan (134th) and hapless Cambodia (129) and behind such not-about-to-be-superpowers as Equatorial Guinea (120), and Tajikistan (122).” India failed according to that report card at least.

But that is not in fundamental conflict with Roach’s position that India is making progress. One can be quite sick and still be on the road to recovery. It’s the positive trend that should give some hope. Roach’s vantage point is the Indian corporate sector, which of late has been hitting the headlines. He says of his recent visit to India: “What blew me away were the corporate and entrepreneurial stories. For all the buzz over China, one of the great paradoxes of the world’s greatest development story is that it only has a handful of truly world-class companies. By contrast, India has a much deeper and broader stable of very powerful businesses. Moreover, it’s not just IT services - it’s also telecom, pharmaceuticals, energy, steel, and auto components.” You can not expect the chief economist of an investment bank and a global financial services company to not be a cheerleader in the game of international takeovers.

India is sick but on the road to recovery, seems to be a reasonable position. In the excerpt (linked above) of Rajadhyaksha’s book, I read that, “India will have to deal with myriad challenges in the years ahead if it is to ensure that it remains on its current growth trajectory and also if it is to help more and more of its citizens become active participants in the global economy. Five issues stand out: poverty trends, income inequality, energy, employment, and infrastructure.”

Poverty trends are positive, he notes, but he is worried about rising income inequality. It is somewhat puzzling that within a discussion of growing income inequality he cites irrelevant[1] figures on how many Indians are US dollar millionaires (~70,000) and billionaires (23). Be that as it may, he does note that more than income inequality, changes in consumption patterns matter.

I intend to read Rajadhyaksha’s book at the earliest opportunity and until then I will reserve my comments on his position. But I am disappointed that he did not include education in the list of the main challenges that India faces. Sure, both Murphy and Rajadhyaksha note the lack of adequate physical infrastructure. But Murphy mentions education also.

Like everyone else, I too have my biases. Whenever I read an analysis of India’s economy, I keep a keen eye out for the word “employment.” It is red flag to me and I feel like screaming “It’s not employment, stupid, it’s production that matters.” I can argue (and will do so at length one of these days, be warned) that it’s precisely that obsession with employment at the detriment of production that has been the primary cause of India’s dismal economy. Production is king, and the rest of the bunch of concerns including employment are at best minor functionaries.

On that note as we continue to walk around the elephant, I will conclude with the immortal words of Inspector Clouseau, “Until we meet again, and the case is sol-ved.”

Notes: [1] It would appear that the wealth of these 70,000 US dollar millionaires and 23 billionaires (lower bound around US$ 100 billion) is being implicitly compared with India’s annual GDP (around US$700 billion.) That is like comparing apples to horses. The wealth of these super-rich 70,000-odd people has to be compared (if at all) not with the income of 1 billion Indians, but rather with the wealth of 1 billion which I guess will be around US$ 20 trillion.

Sorry, but what's in that article that we do not know? My 12th standard Economics text book mentioned India's Human Developmental Index ranking in more detail than this article did. What this article does not mention is that India has pulled 20 crore people out of poverty in the last two decades.

I can't locate that BBC discussion link where Gurcharan Das literally blasted this article. I'll summarize what he said in that discussion.

What the US and UK want India is to continue in that socialist mould of development. Why should Infosys not grow if 40% children in India are mal-nourished? It's a time when we can eradicate poverty. Yes, India's HDI ranking is probably very bad. But, as other CNN and Fortune crap, even this article ignores the micro factors.

I find it very ironic, Yamraj, that you lambast Indian media, but at the same time quote stories written by two media organizations that are literally puppets of the US government. It's very clear what the writer wants to prove in his article. He is just quoting facts to prove what he wants to say. It's also pretty clear that despite being at Fortune, he is not an economist. Just compare the article I quoted and the one you quoted. Mr. Murphy has an agenda, doesn't he?

Four states in India contribute majorly to the poverty figure. These very four states lack behind in almost every developmental indicator. Now, to develop these states, it is important that industries be set up, employment be provided, educational institutions be reformed. This won't happen as long as we stay in the socialist mould. It simply won't.

What India needs is a government regulated free market economy system. You can compare the growth till 1990 and after that to get an idea of what a free market economy can do for the country.

Just compare the pre-1997 position with today. In 1997, there were just 30 lakh phone connections in the whole of India. This was when there was tight government control over tariffs(crap about national secuirty and private players' monopoly). The National Telecom Policy, 1999 and Communications Convergence Bill, 2001 made a sort of a history. Today we have 19 crore mobile phones in the country, growing at the rate of 6 crore per year. The tariffs are the lowest in the world.

We need a similar revolution in education. The government dominance of rural education needs to be removed. We need private players to enter the rural education market, and transform it forever.

We can explain the problem of infrastructure, which obviously Mr. Murray won't know. He probably would have searched UNDP's site and a couple of reports before posting the crap that he did.

In 1991, when we opened our economy, we had excess capacity in almost all infrastructure areas. At that time, infrastructure development was not a priority as the govt. had to prioritize export promotion and other such areas, which were vital to improve our BoP position, and to increase our foreign exchange reserves.

The need for infra. development was really felt in the early 2000s, and since then, infra. development has being going at a steady pace. We can't develop our infra. like China. They do not have to face oppositions from slum dwellers, shop keepers, villagers etc. Simply put, Nandigram wouldn't have happened in China.

What wil brings jobs to the country is manufacturing, and that is what the people need to realize. Nandigram and Singur represent a big opportunity for the development of the area as these SEZs will bring jobs, schools, hospitals etc. Basically, the farmers who don't earn a steady income, will come under organized employment. They will get hospital facilities, schools for their children and other such facilities. However, it is for the cheap politicians and the people of those places to realize. If Punjab, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, TN and Karnataka can develop, then so can Bihar, WB, UP, Orissa and MP.

Anyways, I've written all that I have to say in previous posts. I don't want to debate on another useless article, all over again.

 

[Yamaraj]

Blatant optimism is not my cup of tea. I can't see someone comparing Indian corporate sector with that of China, and still be able to find something to praise India. Telecom? Sure, ask any member of this very forum what he/she thinks of telecom in India.

Unfortunately, India is not on the road to recovery. It's on the road to more than a few partitions this time. The divide between the rich and poor, metros and rural, government and citizens is greater than ever. The in-charge are practically effeminate and incapable of leading the country to any specific direction.

I would like to hear your person opinion on the issue, though.

 

[mail2and]

Blatant optimism is not my cup of tea. I can't see someone comparing Indian corporate sector with that of China, and still be able to find something to praise India. Telecom? Sure, ask any member of this very forum what he/she thinks of telecom in India.

I'm sorry but you know nothing about the Indian corporate sector. The guy who compared the Indian and Chinese corporate sectors is not some columnist with a puppet media organization; he is the MD and the chief economist at Morgan Stanley. He has no personal agendas. He is no sadak-chap columnist who just says anything. He is the MD of one of the world's largest investment banks, and what he says is backed by years and years of research.

Do you want me to reiterate the Gartner and Goldman Sachs example again? Remember the last time?

The guy won't say anything to make his article look good.

Unfortunately, India is not on the road to recovery. It's on the road to more than a few partitions this time. The divide between the rich and poor, metros and rural, government and citizens is greater than ever. The in-charge are practically effeminate and incapable of leading the country to any specific direction.

Your personal opinion.

As I said, I don't want to say the same things that I said a couple of months ago. What you and I feel doesn't matter a bit.

I won't want to get into a debate on your personal opinions, which are not backed by any research.

 

[cynosure]

^^^ This is another article which can lead to timeless debate. I am into one right now and dont have the power and time to jump into the other one.

Best Luck to Yammi and mail2and. Keep debating and yeah, make the articles more intresting. Just jokin

 

[Yamaraj]

What this article does not mention is that India has pulled 20 crore people out of poverty in the last two decades.

What the US and UK want India is to continue in that socialist mould of development. Why should Infosys not grow if 40% children in India are mal-nourished? It's a time when we can eradicate poverty. Yes, India's HDI ranking is probably very bad. But, as other CNN and Fortune crap, even this article ignores the micro factors.

I find it very ironic, Yamraj, that you lambast Indian media, but at the same time quote stories written by two media organizations that are literally puppets of the US government.

Four states in India contribute majorly to the poverty figure. These very four states lack behind in almost every developmental indicator. Now, to develop these states, it is important that industries be set up, employment be provided, educational institutions be reformed. This won't happen as long as we stay in the socialist mould. It simply won't.

What India needs is a government regulated free market economy system. You can compare the growth till 1990 and after that to get an idea of what a free market economy can do for the country.

Today we have 19 crore mobile phones in the country, growing at the rate of 6 crore per year. The tariffs are the lowest in the world.

We need a similar revolution in education. The government dominance of rural education needs to be removed. We need private players to enter the rural education market, and transform it forever.

We can explain the problem of infrastructure, which obviously Mr. Murray won't know. He probably would have searched UNDP's site and a couple of reports before posting the crap that he did.

The need for infra. development was really felt in the early 2000s, and since then, infra. development has being going at a steady pace. We can't develop our infra. like China. They do not have to face oppositions from slum dwellers, shop keepers, villagers etc. Simply put, Nandigram wouldn't have happened in China.

What wil brings jobs to the country is manufacturing, and that is what the people need to realize. Nandigram and Singur represent a big opportunity for the development of the area as these SEZs will bring jobs, schools, hospitals etc. Basically, the farmers who don't earn a steady income, will come under organized employment. They will get hospital facilities, schools for their children and other such facilities. However, it is for the cheap politicians and the people of those places to realize. If Punjab, Gujarat, Haryana, Kerala, TN and Karnataka can develop, then so can Bihar, WB, UP, Orissa and MP.

Anyways, I've written all that I have to say in previous posts. I don't want to debate on another useless article, all over again.

What makes us different is the fact that I'm not an economist, and I'm not pretending to be one, either. But, if you ask me, economy is not the most important thing about a nation. Sure, money matters and everyone seems to agree with this fact. But what matters more is the way society is heading to. I don't want industries at the cost of our jungles and animals. I don't want fancy cellphones at the cost of morality of our people. I don't want expensive vehicles at the cost or our environment and health. But to you, as an economist, these things are like a barometer or a benchmark so you can do your research and rank the countries. "Third World", yeah!

Call me a socialist if you have to. I'm an idealist and won't confront your allegations. To me, a nation's development is not all about its economy. How do you justify it when pharma companies charge 200x for life-saving medicine, knowing that the poor cannot afford it? "Economists" like you don't give a $hite when the government practically takes away a farmer's land with force, or even when innocent civilians are slaughtered by the police in the due course.

SEZ, sure! We really need another small car, as if the existing ones aren't damaging our environment enough already. Whether you like it or not, but most governments are more "corporate friendly" than they ought to be. Governments are responsible to the people, not business tycoons. Corporations don't have a heart, and businessmen are as cold blooded as a snake.

 

[mail2and]

What makes us different is the fact that I'm not an economist, and I'm not pretending to be one, either. But, if you ask me, economy is not the most important thing about a nation. Sure, money matters and everyone seems to agree with this fact. But what matters more is the way society is heading to. I don't want industries at the cost of our jungles and animals. I don't want fancy cellphones at the cost of morality of our people. I don't want expensive vehicles at the cost or our environment and health. But to you, as an economist, these things are like a barometer or a benchmark so you can do your research and rank the countries. "Third World", yeah!

Me an economist? OMG. I'm a bean counter.

Well you are making the same mistake that India's politicians did till 1990. Go and look at Singapore as an example of development. Industries are not being built at the cost of jungles and animals. In fact, the forest cover in our country has increased since 1991. What do cell phones have to do with morality? The carpernter and the vegetable guy whom I know have been greatly benefited by their cell phones. They haven't lost whatever morality they had.

The economic development alone has pulled out 20 crore people out of poverty. The social model of development is just not suitable for large countries like India. You just CAN NOT manage 100 crore people without economic development. Why should industries suffer if the government is incompetent to provide basic facilities to the people?

To me, a nation's development is not all about its economy. How do you justify it when pharma companies charge 200x for life-saving medicine, knowing that the poor cannot afford it?

For your kind information, medicines in India are the cheapest in the world. Go and look what the situation is in Bangladesh and Africa. Indian pharma companies do quite a lot to provide medicines at cheap rates.

"Economists" like you don't give a $hite when the government practically takes away a farmer's land with force, or even when innocent civilians are slaughtered by the police in the due course.

It were the socialists who killed the people. Remember communism is all about socialism, isn't it? The farmers you talk about are misguided by politicial parties for their own gain. This my-land-is-my-pride thing doesn't earn a farmer 30,000 per year. You sit with your fancy laptops and talk about socialism. Have you ever faced poverty? Do you know what it is like sleeping hungry? Do you know what it is like travelling in jam packed trains, not knowing whether you'll survive the next moment? Have you ever travelled in a train for that matter? Come down the ladder, come and see what economic development has bought to India's lower middle class. Today I can go and study in the UK. 10 years ago, my father won't have dreamt about it.

What factories in such areas do is that they bring stable salaries, schools, hospitals to people, who have never got these facilities. This brings them up the social ladder. This is the only way that India will move up the Human Developmental Index ranking that your Mr.Murray talks about.

Laissez-faire capitalism can never be the solution to any problem. The only solution to India's problem is a free market economy with governmental control. That's the only way India will move up the social ladder. That's the only way China moved up the ladder, that's the only way Singapore moved up the ladder.

 

[Yamaraj]

Me an economist? OMG. I'm a bean counter.

Well you are making the same mistake that India's politicians did till 1990. Go and look at Singapore as an example of development. Industries are not being built at the cost of jungles and animals. In fact, the forest cover in our country has increased since 1991. What do cell phones have to do with morality? The carpernter and the vegetable guy whom I know have been greatly benefited by their cell phones. They haven't lost whatever morality they had.

What else there is to Singapore, other than being a rather big supermarket? I wouldn't like to compare a country like India against a capitalist-bazaar like Singapore. And you're clearly misguided if you think that industries aren't hurting environment and health. "Global warming is a lie" - is yet another capitalist propaganda. What's wrong with cellphones? Nothing, except that companies want you to talk, talk and talk 24*7. And to aid all this talking, they're practically inventing a whole new sub-culture. We already know what mobile-phone cameras are being mostly used for. I'm not against technology, but there is no harm in keeping it low-profile.

The economic development alone has pulled out 20 crore people out of poverty. The social model of development is just not suitable for large countries like India. You just CAN NOT manage 100 crore people without economic development. Why should industries suffer if the government is incompetent to provide basic facilities to the people?

I'm not against economic development and industries. But there's something more important to a nation than economy - foresight and ideals. We're developing only for the sake of development. Do we have any idea which way we are heading to? I doubt if anyone does! And you've only recited what I've been saying all along. Our government is incompetent and incapable, and this ought to be changed. We can't keep expecting forever.

For your kind information, medicines in India are the cheapest in the world. Go and look what the situation is in Bangladesh and Africa. Indian pharma companies do quite a lot to provide medicines at cheap rates.

What about Afrika? What about drugs being tested on unsuspecting people in developing nations? What about Union Carbide? Morality and ethics - nowhere to be found in corporatism.

It were the socialists who killed the people. Remember communism is all about socialism, isn't it? The farmers you talk about are misguided by politicial parties for their own gain. This my-land-is-my-pride thing doesn't earn a farmer 30,000 per year. You sit with your fancy laptops and talk about socialism. Have you ever faced poverty? Do you know what it is like sleeping hungry? Do you know what it is like travelling in jam packed trains, not knowing whether you'll survive the next moment? Have you ever travelled in a train for that matter? Come down the ladder, come and see what economic development has bought to India's lower middle class. Today I can go and study in the UK. 10 years ago, my father won't have dreamt about it.

Acquiring a farmer's lands at "sarkari rates", and then building 5-stars hotels and erecting multi-storey apartments for the elite-class is surely going to make our country a "superpower". In next two decades, everyone will feel the heat when a kilogram of potato will cost more than a litre of gasoline.

And if didn't know, even 2000 years ago, students used to travel thousands of miles to get in universities of China and India.

What factories in such areas do is that they bring stable salaries, schools, hospitals to people, who have never got these facilities. This brings them up the social ladder. This is the only way that India will move up the Human Developmental Index ranking that your Mr.Murray talks about.

I agree. But why should people rely on industries for public health and education? Why the goverment isn't there for them?

Laissez-faire capitalism can never be the solution to any problem. The only solution to India's problem is a free market economy with governmental control. That's the only way India will move up the social ladder. That's the only way China moved up the ladder, that's the only way Singapore moved up the ladder.

Beware of the snakes, for there are as many as the ladders themselves.

 

[mail2and]

"Global warming is a lie" - is yet another capitalist propaganda.

Comes from the people of the country your dear columnist belongs to.

What's wrong with cellphones? Nothing, except that companies want you to talk, talk and talk 24*7. And to aid all this talking, they're practically inventing a whole new sub-culture. We already know what mobile-phone cameras are being mostly used for. I'm not against technology, but there is no harm in keeping it low-profile.

Very very strange point. it's for you to decide if you want to talk. No one is forcing you to talk. Besides, I think you're debating just for the sake of it.

What about Afrika? What about drugs being tested on unsuspecting people in developing nations? What about Union Carbide? Morality and ethics - nowhere to be found in corporatism.

Which government has morality and ethics? USA? India? Iran? Saddam? UK? Russia?

Acquiring a farmer's lands at "sarkari rates", and then building 5-stars hotels and erecting multi-storey apartments for the elite-class is surely going to make our country a "superpower". In next two decades, everyone will feel the heat when a kilogram of potato will cost more than a litre of gasoline.

Very strange point again. If you bothered to check the details, the Reliance Maha mumbai project is acquiring lands at market rates.

And if didn't know, even 2000 years ago, students used to travel thousands of miles to get in universities of China and India.

How is this even related to the discussion at hand? Weren't you the one who said on this forum that there was no glorious past? Strange.

Beware of the snakes, for there are as many as the ladders themselves.

Just proves my point that you do not represent me and others like me i.e. people who have risen from a lower middle class background to a middle class background. When was the last time you travelled in a train?

I shouldn't be posting anymore. I've said what I wanted to say.

 

[Yamaraj]

Comes from the people of the country your dear columnist belongs to.

Very very strange point. it's for you to decide if you want to talk. No one is forcing you to talk. Besides, I think you're debating just for the sake of it.

Which government has morality and ethics? USA? India? Iran? Saddam? UK? Russia?

Very strange point again. If you bothered to check the details, the Reliance Maha mumbai project is acquiring lands at market rates.

How is this even related to the discussion at hand? Weren't you the one who said on this forum that there was no glorious past? Strange.

Just proves my point that you do not represent me and others like me i.e. people who have risen from a lower middle class background to a middle class background. When was the last time you travelled in a train?

I shouldn't be posting anymore. I've said what I wanted to say.

1. Amrikaans are almost as dumb as they come.

2. Shouldn't it also be up to the people to decide whatever they want to do? I wonder how would an underage's parents react if they found out a video of her in email. Note that I'm against "freedom without responsibility".

3. Then why do they always want to play "Moral Police"? Just because my neighbour beats his wife, doesn't mean I have to follow him.

4. I thought you were talking about Nandigram, hm? Do you really don't know what's the difference between real rates and sarkari "market rates"?

5. See below

Today I can go and study in the UK. 10 years ago, my father won't have dreamt about it.

6. You're mistaking me for our respected "dummy" PM. I don't have a private Air "Farce" One jet for myself. Last time I checked, I was almost always travelling by trains.

7. Doesn't surprise me! Our last debate ended abruptly too.

 

[Goten]

LOL.

What are u doing for ur country that matters.

Debating wont help.

So do something gud for ur country.

Peace~~~!

 

[freshseasons]

1)We cannot take out the economics from the living. Infact whatever there is to living there is economics.There is a vast difference between people who see people as infest who needs to be fed and who is always exploited and people who respect economics and want them to compete and make them self reliable and earn their living.The corporate Economics and the competition is the truth and it is Economics which takes people out of the misery.
2)Big Corporations dont exploit people.Their competative natures makes them look so but infact they help the countries. Else Developed countries ( Read essentially Economic) Countries have the least starvation and health issues.Why? Not because Big Corporations are exploiting them but because fairly large amount of jobs and work is created.Just to write that they are not socially developed is wrong.
3) We think that we are suffering but the truth is the suffering to no where than what it was before or rather before there was this huge change in India
You know the farmers are committing suicides and you write that India is not Glorious. Did you know how many people died in the famines and how many scummed to plagues ,polios and TB ? That few farmers commit suicides is known and comes to high light only because of Ever Alert News Channels and News Papers, the media.
What was Media in India 10 years back.Look at the new face of Indian Media.Just because there are few issues some where doesnt mean india is Rubbish.Look at the changes there are .
4) Medicines are cheap and are available abundantly ( Fairly than before) because they know the profits there. If not for the economics of it there would be no efficient break through in labs and there would be no new medicines.
5) The faster PC the best Operating system, the faster cars , the best hospitals and best medical facilities ,are all the boon of Economic competition.
Dont tell me you dont want faster PC, or Cars or a better standard of life.Ask the people who are poor and competing and taking themselves out from the present economic bracket.
People dont want to be fed and seen as poor victims.People want to earn the living and compete with the best out there in the world.
Theres no Stopping India and the change is already there,i dont think any politicians are going to stop it. whether we accept it or not, this India is changing for better.If there are small issues you can compare them to those that there were before the advent of development. The answer is there !

 

[Yamaraj]

1. I'm not against economic development. But, materialism-sans-humanity troubles me.

2. Enron, DOW/Union Carbide. I don't even want to get into the details of Pepsi/Cola companies and their exploit of humans and natural resources.

3. The point is not that we're not developing as we should be. It is that farmers are being ignored in favor of big corporations, just as the lower class is being ignored in favor of all the development and richness that is coming to the people in Metros. This kind of development is designed to suit only a few.

4. Medicines are not cheap. At least, not for all social classes. Besides, I don't know of any Apollo or Tata in a remote village. Medical services are non existant.

5. No, I don't want cars, computers and ACs at the cost of this planet. I don't need to have all these things only because the businesses want me to own them. I'm not dictated by social norms or market values. I'm an idealist and would rather prefer a hut in a mountain valley than a posh apartment in the jungle of concrete.

Sure, we're changing. Individualism is eating away social values. People are getting meaner than ever. Lifestyle is robotic at best. Technology has only brought with itself alienation and depression. Do we really need all these things being sold to us? There is no happiness in materialism - only artificial manners and fake smiling faces.

We're changing, but I don't like the way it is.

 

[NucleusKore]

We will only become a superpower once we get our runaway population under control. People should listen less to their religious leaders and more to their common sense on this issue. A brake on population growth will go a long way in relieving pressure on all resources

 

[zyberboy]

1)We cannot take out the economics from the living. Infact whatever there is to living there is economics.There is a vast difference between people who see people as infest who needs to be fed and who is always exploited and people who respect economics and want them to compete and make them self reliable and earn their living.The corporate Economics and the competition is the truth and it is Economics which takes people out of the misery.
2)Big Corporations dont exploit people.Their competative natures makes them look so but infact they help the countries. Else Developed countries ( Read essentially Economic) Countries have the least starvation and health issues.Why? Not because Big Corporations are exploiting them but because fairly large amount of jobs and work is created.Just to write that they are not socially developed is wrong.
3) We think that we are suffering but the truth is the suffering to no where than what it was before or rather before there was this huge change in India
You know the farmers are committing suicides and you write that India is not Glorious. Did you know how many people died in the famines and how many scummed to plagues ,polios and TB ? That few farmers commit suicides is known and comes to high light only because of Ever Alert News Channels and News Papers, the media.
What was Media in India 10 years back.Look at the new face of Indian Media.Just because there are few issues some where doesnt mean india is Rubbish.Look at the changes there are .
4) Medicines are cheap and are available abundantly ( Fairly than before) because they know the profits there. If not for the economics of it there would be no efficient break through in labs and there would be no new medicines.
5) The faster PC the best Operating system, the faster cars , the best hospitals and best medical facilities ,are all the boon of Economic competition.
Dont tell me you dont want faster PC, or Cars or a better standard of life.Ask the people who are poor and competing and taking themselves out from the present economic bracket.
People dont want to be fed and seen as poor victims.People want to earn the living and compete with the best out there in the world.
Theres no Stopping India and the change is already there,i dont think any politicians are going to stop it. whether we accept it or not, this India is changing for better.If there are small issues you can compare them to those that there were before the advent of development. The answer is there !

Really a good post ,especially points 2,3,4

Lifestyle is robotic at best

When was Life at its best.

We're changing, but I don't like the way it is.

Look wt our Mother Nature hav taught us, "Learn to adapt",evolution is a must.everything will change only thing tat does't change is "change",one day even this planet will not be here.