jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (40 posts)

Who wants to see India stay in poverty?

  1. Aiysha17 profile image60
    Aiysha17posted 7 years ago

    Does anyone really want to see any country in poverty? Well some do I guess. Those in power, or it would have been irradicated by now. Let me know your thoughts.

    1. JYOTI KOTHARI profile image74
      JYOTI KOTHARIposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Large number of countries with vested interest tried to do so including the US. However, they are not successful.

      India is growing continually since its independence and now it has the fourth highest GDP (PPP terms) in the world after the US, China and Japan super seeding most of the developed countries.

      India has the second highest growth rate after China among the giant economies. It is to be worth noted that Government of India has not issued any bailout package. India is the only country not to announce any bailout package.
      Even China has to use huge bailout package to save its economy.

      There are lot in the hubpages about all these, you can refer to.
      Thanks,
      Jyoti Kothari

  2. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    Why not ? Here is my take on this topic: Make any country go on poverty level and then increase terrorism and religious issues there or offer conversion. Country will either give up their government or will be taken over by UN. This is what is going to happen to Afghanistan and if people in Pakistan didn't do something then it will happen to them as well.

    India being richest market in asia, it's hard to put it into poverty level. India does have some percentage of poverty but that is not whole india is all about but only some part of india.

    To stay in power or to gain control over people can do anything to disturb market/peace/business and it is quite possible for some giant countries like china/us. But eradicating for the sake of it ? nope. not even staunch enemy countries will do that in 2010,that's quite jobless thinking if any prime minister of country thinks like that.

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You're right. It is not all of India. Just MOST of it.

  3. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago

    The thought of India going poorer itself is a joke. And the thought of China and US as "giant countries" is also a joke. Due to higher population, China can boast of being a giant. But applying the fact that Indian society is a free democratic one, India is far higher than China. Both India and China were interlinked for scores of centuries by religion and trade. But just to put India on a lower score, it is not fair to compare US with India. Because India is all set to become No.1 in the coming years. One Indian may land on the moon in 2013.

    India was very poor when it got independence from Britain. It is all due to their squeesing in India for over two centuries. Before that, muslim invaders squeesed India. Till 16th century, India was richest and that is why it was colonised.

    It is better to stop describing India going poor. Some 700 million people are using cellphones here... equal to the population of America and Europe.

    1. skyfire profile image72
      skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Either you're ignoring economy and technology or simply lack in international observation. Boasting about country strength is good but like it or not US/USSR/China are giant countries in many ways. Call it joke if you have trouble comprehending it.

      1. profile image80
        soumyasrajanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        To me both comments look  strange. First guy implies as if sending a man to  moon means a great progress and that will make a country number one!! (by the way so far even ISRO has not suggested plans to send a man on moon by 2013) and the second guy equates being giant with being strong!!

        In any case India does not really need to be number one. There is no fun in playing useless game of being   number one or other power games.  But having a country in which practically every one is happy and lives a life with minimal decency is actual fun. The  fun is enhanced much more if you also can  ensure  this not just for  your own country but also for  people surrounding your country.

        By no stretch of imagination China,  India, or Russia are just now  involved in creating any such possibility, they have surely achieved a little success in recent years but they have still to do a lot more.   

        India does need a strategy to provide a minimal standard of life to  family of every working person. It has enough resources to achieve it with in a short span of time- less than a decade should be enough. But for that to happen it has to be managed first properly politically, financially and socially. Let us hope we move towards that. Just now signs are there. But just having signs is not enough. One has to work towards it, rather than just living in false slogans and false games of being number one etc.

  4. ledefensetech profile image78
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    I have to say that your government acted without considering the long term during the 1960's and 1970's.  That is why India had such a hard time of things after independence.  Why else did Indians suffer after independence.  Compare that with the US after our independence.  India, at least, was spared years of warfare to win their independence.  It was our Founders' commitment to liberty that made all the difference.

    I am happy to see India become more open and enacting policies that maximize freedom.  That is what is behind the meteoritic rise in the standard of living in India.

    I for one look forward with anticipation, India joining the advanced nations of the world and contributing their take on things for the advancement of humanity.

  5. wychic profile image80
    wychicposted 7 years ago

    If I recall, the US had its share of struggles after independence too...

    That said, every country has a certain poverty element to it, and regardless of the efforts of various charity organizations it is very clear that people living below the poverty line are not a real concern of the government. Yes, there are programs in many countries to make sure people don't starve to death as easily, but for the most part, if you're not a big tax contributor then you're not worth the government's time.

    No one should ever have to go hungry, no one should have to suffer because they can't get out of the elements, yet people live like that in every country in the world and will likely continue to suffer.

  6. ledefensetech profile image78
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    That's a nice sentiment, but you can't be charitable with other people's money.   Charity has to be and individual decision, but that has nothing to do with why there are nations that live under the poverty line.  We live in a world of scarcity and the only way to alleviate that scarcity is to allow people the freedom to improvise and better themselves.  That is an individual decision, no collective can ever make it for you.

    Look at the old Soviet Union.  Their people were just as smart or smarter than those in the West, they had just as much natural resources if not more to utilize than the West, and had a modern infrastructure with which to move goods and services.  So why were they not able to provide for their people?  Simple.  By centralizing power, the Soviet government ceased to look out for the interests of the people and began looking after its own interests.

    Look at the US today.  Our leadership are looking out for their interests (reelection) rather than finding rational solutions to our problems.  Luckily for us, we can vote the bums out and for the first time in a century, the American people seem to be really getting it.

  7. ledefensetech profile image78
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Here today, gone tomorrow skyfire.  A century ago the British rules a quarter of the world.  Today they're an appendage to an increasingly irrelevant Europe.  While I agree with your sentiment that national pride can lead to ones downfall, after all just look how far the US has fallen in little over a year, that doesn't mean we can't be happy for a people when they discover the path to uplifting their people out of poverty.

  8. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    Yes you got my point. I don't know but being part of india i think of whole world without boundaries. I don't like this boasting east and west type of things. Venugopal's post was hinting me towards hatred of some indians towards west. I mean they hate west people in a way that they think indians has to be always right in what  they do and this is the thinking always dropped india into trouble. Poverty is indeed issue but the problem is in india poverty is scattered across some states and cities. My state has very low rate of poverty and lot of people are taking care of many families even in the time of recession. On the other hand some of the politicians in india are purposefully not solving the issues that can remove the poverty and some other regional issues. So it looks like sometimes such boasting of country and resisting progress is what wrong going on in country.

    1. ledefensetech profile image78
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nationalism was and is the curse of the modern era.  Sure Venugopal might feel that the West has a lot to do with the suffering of the Indian people today, but he's not as right as he thinks he is.  There will always be people who think that they should be #1, whatever that means.  It's kind of silly.  Like rooting for a team writ large.

      I also think that you're mistaken in the belief that government can "end" poverty.  Didn't India's government try to do that with socialist programs in the 1970's?  All a government can do is spread the wealth around, thereby impoverishing everyone, well not the politicians, they still get the best of everything.  Its everyone else that suffers.

      I am curious.  Does your state have a high, moderate or low level of taxation and/or regulation?  I have a working theory that the lower the taxes and the fewer the regulations, the less impoverished people you have.  After all if you're free to start a business and keep what you earn, you'll better be able to provide for you and your family, will you not?

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How do you start a business if you live on less than 2 dollars a day

      2. profile image80
        soumyasrajanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi! ledensetech
        I read your comments. Most of your points are exactly same as what I feel. One of your comments is quite untrue. I think practically no body in India blames West for problems in India. I wrote following comments just below one of the comment. I am repeating below them again for you. I quite agree with you that what I say below can be achieved only if all in the country feel  involved   in such goals and also management is not feudal. It is also a fact as you point out that only model which has so far succeed in achieving such a goal is the one followed by countries like USA, Canada  and western Europe.  Not just me but most people in India admire these countries which have achieved, so called socialism of providing a minimal life style to every one. While so called socialist countries like Russia, China etc. only used socialism as a slogan  to color and strengthen the feudal  rule Having less government does help a lot. 
        India  indeed lost a lot by doing the same for decades only shouting slogans of socialism. Fortunately it has at least woken up now. Having less govt. certainly helps. Now there is a joke in India that we get the actual work done when the government sleeps. (this si true not just for business people but also for government employees who enjoy working. (I am myself a scientist working for governments in India USA etc. )

        my comments about two earlier comments....
        To me both comments look  strange. First guy implies as if sending a man to  moon means a great progress and that will make a country number one!! (by the way so far even ISRO has not suggested plans to send a man on moon by 2013) and the second guy equates being giant with being strong!!

        In any case India does not really need to be number one. There is no fun in playing useless game of being   number one or other power games.  But having a country in which practically every one is happy and lives a life with minimal decency is actual fun. The  fun is enhanced much more if you also can  ensure  this not just for  your own country but also for  people surrounding your country.

        By no stretch of imagination China,  India, or Russia are just now  involved in creating any such possibility, they have surely achieved a little success in recent years but they have still to do a lot more.

        India does need a strategy to provide a minimal standard of life to  family of every working person. It has enough resources to achieve it with in a short span of time- less than a decade should be enough. But for that to happen it has to be managed first properly politically, financially and socially. Let us hope we move towards that. Just now signs are there. But just having signs is not enough. One has to work towards it, rather than just living in false slogans and false games of being number one etc.

  9. thirdmillenium profile image60
    thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago

    The people of India WANT India to remain poor. Very small minority pays its due to the government. Black money (including the money that is stashed away by small traders and all others) more than equals the money that is handled by the government. Everybody but everybody  has a black money account. Government employees fleece the public to fatten their bellies. Politicians can and WILL sell the country for a pittance. So an individual is getting rich in India but India remains poor.

  10. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    My state has moderate taxation and i have seen it is among the highest tax payers states in country. Afterall, we have leading film industry here, IT and all. And so do crime rate high, but here in my state poverty is limited to metro cities (namely Mumbai, Nagpur,Pune). Other cities have very low rate to poverty,you'll rarely find poverty in small cities as their people have lesser needs and ignorance toward progress. Also It is quite complicated to discuss the poverty as i have seen that there are some people who fake it so it makes hard for families and people who are Really into poverty. For 1970, i'm not aware of the failure of government i have to read about that cause we have lot of failure years of government so it's hard to keep up with it.

    1. ledefensetech profile image78
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm.  I wonder if the movie and IT businesses get tax breaks to establish themselves there.  I imagine that in some ways India today is somewhat like the US was a century ago.  Parts of our nation then were advanced and firmly in the 20th century while other areas seemed perpetually stuck in the past.

  11. skyfire profile image72
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    Movie & IT biz do get benefits,other than that they created many jobs and that is what made progress faster. I also feel that population of country is somewhat the cause of poverty and people are not ready to talk about it. They think that talking about sex, freedom of speech, population is somewhat against the culture/religious beliefs. They'll bash western tv media for showing sex scenes and porn, but they'll resist to talk about growing population in country. Hypocrisy ? yes,it is. People in this country always think about individual benefit in one hand and boast nationalism when they get chance to pretend that they're into that(we got one example here).

    1. Aiysha17 profile image60
      Aiysha17posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very interesting point and can I also say that I was utterly astounded by the bollywood film I went to see in Jaipur! As india is such a conservative country I was not expecting what I saw in the film 'Blue'. It is an utter outrage to women everywhere in my opinion. I mean we have sex and flesh flash all over our films but they are generally related to the storyline lol whereas in this film it would be for absolutely no purpose. The women didn't really have many lines and just flashed their tits and ass every few seconds while the men in the audience went wild. It was horrible actually to see women being used purely as objects of sex and the only place the public can let out their sexual oppression is in a theatre watching women take their clothes off. One example of many is: Two men racing on motorcycles so the focus of the scene is purely who is the fastest and suddently action cut to girl's skirt blowing up and a full view of her bum. And the shot was only of her bum, you didn't see her face at all. Then snap! Back to the racing. Now this probably sounds quite funny on a once or twice occassion and I was more shocked than anything but as the film went on and this continued in basically every scene I became more and more outraged! Especially when people treated us like whores just because we were western, despite the fact that we were wearing traditional clothes etc to try and fit in. The reason we were given was because this is what western films and programmes portray us as, which I agree with to an extent, however, 'Blue' is far more provocative in nature than ANY western film I have ever seen. So does than reflect the reality in India? No! Far from it. So why would our films reflect that every white woman is up for it whenever and wherever? Just something that really got to me.

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Here is one thing you'll notice in india, women have not much of privilege to voice out opinion(mostly in village and countryside).But metro cities(Mumbai,delhi,pune,bangalore,chennai) and big cities have women in better condition. You'll see how indians react against women during valentines day. Many Indians will oppose me for saying this with culture and belief lecture of theirs. They know how to show west wrong and east right. Such arguments from their side go no where. But that's all about it. Some bollywood movies are utter crap and there you'll find any actress as just for show. (In fact most of the actresses in bollywood are show dolls. It's not that bollywood is full of crap, i can suggest you to watch movies like Wednesday, Blackfriday, Black, Amir etc. There are some good movies but other than that you'll see either copy of hollywood(or some other industry movies copy).

        Let's not just go into dark side, Some good things you'll find is there are some very good writers and people which are really voice out their opinion and that is why india is quite improving, High court in india gave permission for homosexuals, allowed skeptics to critic religion are some of the good decisions. India is improving but very slowly and other than IT and tourism/Metal/energy industry, india didn't faced much recession as well.

        Oh and by the way, If Blue was provocative then i wonder what you'll say about Malika sherawat ? She is close to pamela anderson when it comes to acting/films.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What percentage of women are in these "better conditions" in the cities you list

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Statistically i have no numbers. But based on my observation and the way women participate here and even work/study i can say that. In village/countryside you'll find women are not allowed to study and if allowed not more than 10th or 5th class. And are forced to marry after age 17 or higher..

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So, in a city of 10 million, let's say New Delhi, let's say there are five million females.

              Do you think of those five million women and girls there are four million in these "better conditions"? Three million? Surely you could make a guess. Numbers are important.

              If there are ten thousand billionaires in India, then that makes it seem like India is not bad off economically. But millions of Indians live in terrible poverty despite the growth of certain sectors

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yes i do think 5 million women/gals have much better condition in comparison to some states where women are even allowed to go outside home and are dominated badly (but for new delhi,there is safety issue of women).

                About your point on poverty, i can tell you one thing: In india people deal in a such way that poor remains poor and rich remains rich. Rich will never let anyone rise over him.  Even if we want to rich/politicians will not let us balance the things. You think india can't afford electricity in many states ? they do, but they don't want to give it to some states.

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Sounds right. It is backward economically-speaking not to help the poor regions to develop. It shows they don't give a sh*t about India... just about their own pockets, and the pockets of their friends. India could be a country of a billion CONSUMERS. But the poor can't be consumers when their regions are not developed...
                  ...Anyway, I am not a professional economist, so I shouldn't give my opinion on a public forum like this, because, frankly, what do I know!

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Some great movies have been made by Indian directors. Here's a trilogy directed by Deepa Mehta (now in Canada) which I'm pretty sure you would like: "Earth," "Fire" and "Water." Also you would enjoy the movies of the great Indian director of the 50s and 60s, Satyajit Ray: "Pather Panchali," "Apu Sansar," "The Music Room," and "Charulata."

    2. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Poor people do not have lots of children because they like sex so much. They have lots of children because the child mortality rate is disgustingly high, and because there is no adequate retirement or pension system, so people need to have adult children to support them.

      In addition to this when whole regions do not have any kind of health care clinics, electricity, clean running water, or sewage treatment systems, where do you expect them to get condoms or contraceptive pills?

      In the West our population has been reduced by, among other things, the easy access to condoms and contraceptive pills.

      Most parts of the world do not have drugstores you can just walk into. They don't have any stores at all. Because to run a store you need capital. And poor people cannot raise capital, practically by definition

      1. skyfire profile image72
        skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is not just about poor people, i can show you upper & lower middle class thinking the same when it comes to kids. Most of rich and middle class families never settle for kids less than 3, some are comfortable with 1-2 though. Thanks to economy, today people are not thinking about more than 1-2 kids.

        In Kerala state of india, where head preist of one church asked christian womens to give birth to more than 2 kids just for the sake of religion preaching and count. People over there think that god will take care of resources in this planet and we are not supposed to think about that, just count is important. Amazing...

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Religion or, at least, certainly Catholicism (cannot speak for Hinduism, Islam, etc) does terrible damage to the poor in this sense. For the Pope to insist that contraception is a sin is diabolical, especially in the cases of Africa and Latin America, where there are a lot of Catholics. And, of course, this position on contraception has a terrible effect on the spread of AIDS.

          1. skyfire profile image72
            skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Speaking about islam, i can say they are colonizing particular area and are very aggressive most of the times for their birthrate and religious decisions, government hardly takes action against them as it can disturb nation,same applies to hindus when it comes to aggression. Only thing i have found that hindu people are not caring about birth count for sake of religion.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So some Muslims and Hindus act aggressively (I find it hard to believe that most people, Muslim or Hindu, are aggressive... most people in the world are not aggressive. They're too busy!).

              But the question here is not about that. It is about whether religion discourages contraception, or encourages large families. Do Hindus and Muslims feel these pressures in India, like a family in South America might feel it from their Church?

              1. skyfire profile image72
                skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I'm just 300 km from a city where i have witnessed bloodshed for about 1 week. Clash between hindu and islamic people was there on august-sept 2009(it was also posted on youtube/news). When it comes to religion, they're not busy. They have made business in religion(actually this applies to all religions here).

                If you ask about hindus, i can say there is no preaching about birth count. Same goes for islam. Only christains are preaching here in southern states of india. So most of hindus/islamic people are having no pressure.

  12. ledefensetech profile image78
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Politicians love to use the us vs them thing to distract people.

  13. multifunctions profile image62
    multifunctionsposted 7 years ago

    India is one of the fastest changing country in the world. look at the opportunities that are growing fastest as well. so staying in the poverty is not a right word.
    eg. your dudhwala is now shifted on the bike instead of cycle.
    now the eradication.
    we need to see what are our intrinsic strengths as a vast country with vast population again growing prob'ly the fastest in the world.
    what are intrinsic strenths.
    population can be a strength if utilized properly.
    india lives in villages , so they say. we need to focus on rural economy. why everybody wants to go to metro cities. ask any children of farmer if he wants to continue in his father's shoe.
    and lastly why samosa still sells in Rs. 5 /- while a burger boasts cheaper at Rs. 20/- and pizza still sells in Rs.100/-

  14. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    nobody,

  15. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    in some societies they use children as age old support, so they keep on giving birth, and then when child mortality is high, they just keep on giving birth so that they can maintain number of children they like

    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...right, so ironically, poverty is the *reason* for high child-birth rates. And, of course, this just causes the problem to mushroom.

      1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
        alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        unless and until also that they can advance and go beyond agricultural status, they need capital, although I dont know the data about education in India I firmly believe status of women is related to education and that womens education is very important for the use of contraception and personal advancement, once women realize that an additional child is a big hindrance to her development, then they will stop giving birth

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image70
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There is evidence that if you can raise the education levels of the females in a community merely to a fifth grade level, the effects are so mighty as to transform that community forever (educated females tend to stay in the home community, educated males tend to migrate away)

 
working