Umm, I’m pretty sure all of them are in much better shape than India’s cities. I mean, skid row in LA, arguably one of the worst places in a U.S. city, isn’t even half as bad in terms of decrepitness and lack of infrastructure as Dharavi in Mumbai. The latter of which is the second largest slum in the world, behind only Brazil’s favelas.
But I don’t get this attitude. No one is “telling” India what to do. It’s a news article from a global publication that does similar stuff for cities and countries all over the world.
For example, I bet you will find an order of magnitude more articles on the Economist about the US’s failing infrastructure or homelessness problem etc.
Frankly, it’s just a sign of deep insecurity that whenever anyone posts something about India there will be people popping up with whataboutism and defensiveness.
This attitude is even worse in an article that points to an Indian city that has made great progress and says it can make even more progress if given more autonomy, and then points to quotes about the decrepit ness of a Chinese and an American city which have improved drastically showing a positive path for Indian cities as well.
I don't think most Americans realize how bad they have it. The US is a great place if you're rich. For everyone else, Europe is better because hyper-individualism only works when you have immense resources of your own. There isn't as much extreme poverty in the US (some in Appalachia still don't have sanitary sewers) than India but there is a great deal of borderline poverty where people live paycheck-to-paycheck in the US.
It’s ok to take criticism dude, that’s how things improve. Without acknowledging what’s wrong nothing gets better. This knee jerk reaction doesn’t help. No city started out perfect, proper planning and work had to be done to make it better.
That article really did not stray much from the topic nor was it derisive, seems to highlight an interesting governing issue, which should be fixable by creating a city level accountable government. Really don’t get the need for whataboutism. This kind of though process is counter productive to a promising growing country.
I wasn’t going to get baited but the dissonance in your argument is such that I had to.
Just because some American cities are struggling, has no bearing on the state of Indian cities, the article absolutely was making a case to make things better in no way was it a political jibe. It is ridiculous to compare the state of US and Indian cities, I imagine you have not been here in the US.
Even your argument is wrong Economist is a UK publication why point out US cities, why not cities in UK and Europe?
I truly hope your mentality is in the minority because if this is how the young generation is thinking, things are headed for doom.
No politics is worth sacrificing objectivity. You are hurting the country more than helping, it is ok to call out political jibes but this wasn’t it.
What's with these half-baked and politically motivated opinionated pieces?
According to The Economist:
The good that's happening in India is due to Modi having "turbocharged" what his rival party Congress set out to do. How? By "pouring in" money, as if that alone is ever sufficient for any country's infrastructure.
The bad that's happening in India is due to Modi standing in the way of progress ("Yet Bhubaneswar also illustrates what is holding Indian cities back... Mr. Modi must try to give them more power")
Yes, The Economist can have political opinions, and it can (and does) call out what it dislikes about a party even when it really is not relevant, but if it does not have the courage to lay out facts with an open mind, it should stop pretending to have any measure of truthfulness or objectivity.
The Economist operates from a elitist vantage point and lacks reputation because no individual writer is ever given credit and no one ever puts their name to any opinion piece. So of course they're going to espouse whatever fashionable thought they have today and proclaim themselves international experts of local matters.
The real question is whether we as the public are doing a good enough job at holding these esteemed publications accountable for their mission -- especially as they continue to hold the position of authoritativeness in the public eye. (NYT holds a cachet that no number of Twitter handles or Medium sites combined would come close to.)
The image shows a problem with civic services, very common in poorer countries with less developed civic structure.
At the same time, there is something about Indian cities (and a lot of Asian cities) that America just doesn't seem to have - families living in core city downtown-like areas. Families demand convenient walkable stores and cheap public transportation. And these are available in abundance in even small cities in India.
19 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadBut I don’t get this attitude. No one is “telling” India what to do. It’s a news article from a global publication that does similar stuff for cities and countries all over the world.
For example, I bet you will find an order of magnitude more articles on the Economist about the US’s failing infrastructure or homelessness problem etc.
Frankly, it’s just a sign of deep insecurity that whenever anyone posts something about India there will be people popping up with whataboutism and defensiveness.
Umm, no.
That article really did not stray much from the topic nor was it derisive, seems to highlight an interesting governing issue, which should be fixable by creating a city level accountable government. Really don’t get the need for whataboutism. This kind of though process is counter productive to a promising growing country.
Just because some American cities are struggling, has no bearing on the state of Indian cities, the article absolutely was making a case to make things better in no way was it a political jibe. It is ridiculous to compare the state of US and Indian cities, I imagine you have not been here in the US.
Even your argument is wrong Economist is a UK publication why point out US cities, why not cities in UK and Europe?
I truly hope your mentality is in the minority because if this is how the young generation is thinking, things are headed for doom.
No politics is worth sacrificing objectivity. You are hurting the country more than helping, it is ok to call out political jibes but this wasn’t it.
According to The Economist:
The good that's happening in India is due to Modi having "turbocharged" what his rival party Congress set out to do. How? By "pouring in" money, as if that alone is ever sufficient for any country's infrastructure.
The bad that's happening in India is due to Modi standing in the way of progress ("Yet Bhubaneswar also illustrates what is holding Indian cities back... Mr. Modi must try to give them more power")
Yes, The Economist can have political opinions, and it can (and does) call out what it dislikes about a party even when it really is not relevant, but if it does not have the courage to lay out facts with an open mind, it should stop pretending to have any measure of truthfulness or objectivity.
The real question is whether we as the public are doing a good enough job at holding these esteemed publications accountable for their mission -- especially as they continue to hold the position of authoritativeness in the public eye. (NYT holds a cachet that no number of Twitter handles or Medium sites combined would come close to.)
At the same time, there is something about Indian cities (and a lot of Asian cities) that America just doesn't seem to have - families living in core city downtown-like areas. Families demand convenient walkable stores and cheap public transportation. And these are available in abundance in even small cities in India.